Women's Rights in the U.S. in Jeopardy

He didn't say it was God's will that she was raped

He said it was God's will that the child be allowed to live.

Liberals have a problem with allowing children to live.??

That's disgusting



A woman is raped.

Liberal solution . . .?

Murder a baby.

Born_Lucky

He didn't say it was God's will that she was raped

He said it was God's will that the child be allowed to live.

Liberals have a problem with allowing children to live.??

That's disgusting



A woman is raped.

Liberal solution . . .?

Murder a baby.

Born_Lucky

a distortion of idea, allowing the woman to make the decision, more likely than not, the woman would not want to keep the baby, and respecting their decision not stomping all over their personal rights, that has nothing to do with murdering babies. Had the women decided to keep the baby, I don't think anyone would be against it, so you're getting the wrong idea. And this has nothing to do with being "Liberal", in most sane nations, respecting other's choice is not a liberal view, but a common view.

[QUOTE="Born_Lucky"]

He didn't say it was God's will that she was raped

He said it was God's will that the child be allowed to live.

Liberals have a problem with allowing children to live.??

That's disgusting



A woman is raped.

Liberal solution . . .?

Murder a baby.

br0kenrabbit

pro lifers believe life starts at conception.....so abortion is murder in their eyes. Just because they want the kid to have a chance at life does not mean they want to supply it with welfare. i dont understand this argument.

mingmao3046

So, worry about its welfare before birth but not after? Great logic.

[QUOTE="Born_Lucky"]

He didn't say it was God's will that she was raped

He said it was God's will that the child be allowed to live.

Liberals have a problem with allowing children to live.??

That's disgusting



A woman is raped.

Liberal solution . . .?

Murder a baby.

br0kenrabbit

Where did you find that cartoon?Fantasy721

In my inbox.

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]pro lifers believe life starts at conception.....so abortion is murder in their eyes. Just because they want the kid to have a chance at life does not mean they want to supply it with welfare. i dont understand this argument.

br0kenrabbit

So, worry about its welfare before birth but not after? Great logic.

The kid should have a chance at life like everyone else does, but that doesn't mean it should get free handouts...mingmao3046

You expect kids to work for their living? Really?

:|

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]

The kid should have a chance at life like everyone else does, but that doesn't mean it should get free handouts...br0kenrabbit

You expect kids to work for their living? Really?

:|

i meant welfare in general such as foodstamps or living on unemployment. i wasnt talking about right away when they are bornmingmao3046

I am talking about right when they are born. And FYI, most people on government assistance HAVE jobs.

Take away food stamps and you're going to have a lot of hungry people. Even 40 hours a week doesn't cover much when you make less than 10 an hour and you have mouths to feed.

Haven't you heard the saying: the whole world is three meals away from anarchy? Yeah, I really don't want to deal with throngs of hungry, angry people with nothing left to lose.

You want people to be able to support themselves? Then pay people what their work is worth instead of trying to squeeze every penny out of the workforce to fatten the coffers of those who already have most of what there is to have.

Haven't you heard the saying: the whole world is three meals away from anarchy?

br0kenrabbit

I haven't before now, and I'm going to have to remember it.

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]i meant welfare in general such as foodstamps or living on unemployment. i wasnt talking about right away when they are bornbr0kenrabbit

I am talking about right when they are born. And FYI, most people on government assistance HAVE jobs.

Take away food stamps and you're going to have a lot of hungry people. Even 40 hours a week doesn't cover much when you make less than 10 an hour and you have mouths to feed.

Haven't you heard the saying: the whole world is three meals away from anarchy? Yeah, I really don't want to deal with throngs of hungry, angry people with nothing left to lose.

You want people to be able to support themselves? Then pay people what their work is worth instead of trying to squeeze every penny out of the workforce to fatten the coffers of those who already have most of what there is to have.

i never said i wanted to take away food stamps all together. "pay people what their work is worth", do you mean increasing the minimum wage or something? that would not be goodmingmao3046

I mean more drastic than that. I think exec pay should be tied to a multiple of the average pay a 5-year employee of the company makes.

So let's say the average 5-year employee of Stans Widgets makes $50,000. A tier 1 exec may make three time that, for instance. Tier 2 exec perhaps five times, and so on.

Exec pay is out of control, and worker pay has not only not kept up with increased worker productivity, it has fallen (in terms of real wages) as worker productivity has gone up.

So the more productive workers have become, the less they are being paid. The more productive workers have become, the more execs get paid.

See the problem?

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]i never said i wanted to take away food stamps all together. "pay people what their work is worth", do you mean increasing the minimum wage or something? that would not be goodbr0kenrabbit

I mean more drastic than that. I think exec pay should be tied to a multiple of the average pay a 5-year employee of the company makes.

So let's say the average 5-year employee of Stans Widgets makes $50,000. A tier 1 exec may make three time that, for instance. Tier 2 exec perhaps five times, and so on.

Exec pay is out of control, and worker pay has not only not kept up with increased worker productivity, it has fallen (in terms of real wages) as worker productivity has gone up.

So the more productive workers have become, the less they are being paid. The more productive workers have become, the more execs get paid.

See the problem?

And why should the government be putting a limit on how much money people can make? that is limiting growth of a company. The whole idea of running a business is to make as much money as possible. Not to provide your workers with a charity level salarymingmao3046

A governments job is first and foremost to make sure society continues to operate. Take a look at that graph I posted in another thread:

See at the very top, where it says 40%? That's 40% of the population, and that little bitty slice is how much wealth nearly half the population owns in total. What you see here is a system that isn't working. What you see is a revolution that nobody wants about to be forced upon us.

If the people at the top would spread just a little bit of their wealth to those who produce that wealth in the first place, all would be well and society can continue to function. As it stands, we're about to enter some very bad times, and it's all due to the fact that workers are being asked to produce more for less pay.

Companies squeeze their workers, and then squeeze again and again. All the while, the fat cats at the top of the chain keep seeing their incomes rise.

It's no longer about what's fair, but rather what will keep society functioning.

If you want fair, you're going to need executives with an understanding that a well-paid workforce is good for the company and society, you know, like ole Henry Ford said.

You and I both know that isn't going to happen.

So the options are:

1. Status-quo. Worker wages continue to fall, exec wages continue to rise, and soon we have civil unrest and possibly even civil war.

2. Change $hit so that people who are willing to work 40 hours a week don't have to worry about making basic ends meet.

It really is that simple of a choice.

Look at Rome: There were many causes for its decline, but chief among them was the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. The old saying goes: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

So let me get this straight, if we elect romney, each gamespot user gets a hot female slave?

MY GOD, HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!

So let me get this straight, if we elect romney, each gamespot user gets a hot female slave?

C_Glass

Yes. In a binder.

[QUOTE="C_Glass"]

So let me get this straight, if we elect romney, each gamespot user gets a hot female slave?

br0kenrabbit

Yes. In a binder.

I want a clown with pigtails and huge ta tas.

Romney better deliver.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="C_Glass"]

So let me get this straight, if we elect romney, each gamespot user gets a hot female slave?

leviathan91

Yes. In a binder.

I want a clown with pigtails and huge ta tas.

Romney better deliver.

You can't always get what you want.

But if you try, sometimes, you might find you get what you need.

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]And why should the government be putting a limit on how much money people can make? that is limiting growth of a company. The whole idea of running a business is to make as much money as possible. Not to provide your workers with a charity level salarybr0kenrabbit

A governments job is first and foremost to make sure society continues to operate. Take a look at that graph I posted in another thread:

See at the very top, where it says 40%? That's 40% of the population, and that little bitty slice is how much wealth nearly half the population owns in total. What you see here is a system that isn't working. What you see is a revolution that nobody wants about to be forced upon us.

If the people at the top would spread just a little bit of their wealth to those who produce that wealth in the first place, all would be well and society can continue to function. As it stands, we're about to enter some very bad times, and it's all due to the fact that workers are being asked to produce more for less pay.

Companies squeeze their workers, and then squeeze again and again. All the while, the fat cats at the top of the chain keep seeing their incomes rise.

It's no longer about what's fair, but rather what will keep society functioning.

If you want fair, you're going to need executives with an understanding that a well-paid workforce is good for the company and society, you know, like ole Henry Ford said.

You and I both know that isn't going to happen.

So the options are:

1. Status-quo. Worker wages continue to fall, exec wages continue to rise, and soon we have civil unrest and possibly even civil war.

2. Change $hit so that people who are willing to work 40 hours a week don't have to worry about making basic ends meet.

It really is that simple of a choice.

Look at Rome: There were many causes for its decline, but chief among them was the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. The old saying goes: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

This is how it's been for quite some time. I dont see any communist revolutions happening because people are angry that the wages are "unfair". In this country you work for your way up the ladder to make more and more money. Those at the bottom of the corporate ladder are typically easily replaceable....which means their demand is not very high, which means they dont end up getting paid as much as the higher ups. Good luck getting the higher ups to continue working their ass off in many cases, only to be making pennies on the dollar due to ridiculous taxes. That will most certainly not promote growth for companies when the executives salary is capped off mingmao3046

So where do you suggest this money comes from? Taxes are a necessary evil, but you can't tax what doesn't exist.

What does communism have to do with this? You do realize that in a communist state there is NO government, right?

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]This is how it's been for quite some time. I dont see any communist revolutions happening because people are angry that the wages are "unfair". In this country you work for your way up the ladder to make more and more money. Those at the bottom of the corporate ladder are typically easily replaceable....which means their demand is not very high, which means they dont end up getting paid as much as the higher ups. Good luck getting the higher ups to continue working their ass off in many cases, only to be making pennies on the dollar due to ridiculous taxes. That will most certainly not promote growth for companies when the executives salary is capped off br0kenrabbit

So where do you suggest this money comes from? Taxes are a necessary evil, but you can't tax what doesn't exist.

What does communism have to do with this? You do realize that in a communist state there is NO government, right?

communists for more fair pay? i dont know. Taxes are already too high. the government is too big and is spending too much. I suggest they cut spending instead of punishing people for working their ass off mingmao3046

Punishing people for working their asses off. Hey, let me share a quick little news clip with you.

Despite earning a record $4.9 billion profit last year and projecting even better results for 2012, the company is insisting on a six-year wage freeze and a pension freeze for most of the 780 production workers at its factory here... Caterpillar, which has significantly raised its executives' compensation because of its strong profits, defended its demands, saying many unionized workers were paid well above market rates.

Yeah so..."Hey guys, we know you're working your asses off, but don't expect a raise for SIX YEARS and stuff, because all of us up here in the suits are going to Europe to buy a bunch of $hit. So get back to work!"

The difference between today and years past is that with social media and such, people can organize rather easily. OWS was a precursor, a glimpse of what awaits.

It only gets worse from here.

Election Update:

Mourdock AND Akin were voted out!!! That's what happens when you piss off female and medical voters!!!

Romney stated he does not oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest or when the mother's life is in danger. As for birth control, I dont think they are passing any laws to restrict that.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]This is how it's been for quite some time. I dont see any communist revolutions happening because people are angry that the wages are "unfair". In this country you work for your way up the ladder to make more and more money. Those at the bottom of the corporate ladder are typically easily replaceable....which means their demand is not very high, which means they dont end up getting paid as much as the higher ups. Good luck getting the higher ups to continue working their ass off in many cases, only to be making pennies on the dollar due to ridiculous taxes. That will most certainly not promote growth for companies when the executives salary is capped off mingmao3046

So where do you suggest this money comes from? Taxes are a necessary evil, but you can't tax what doesn't exist.

What does communism have to do with this? You do realize that in a communist state there is NO government, right?

Please tell us what "too high" means.. We have the lowest tax rate as of right now since before Eisenhaur.. Wealth in the top 3% has exploded.. Can't take seriously some one who has their head so far up their asses.. High corporate taxes choking industry? Yeah thats why we have seen some of the largest record profits passing these past few years by major corporations.. The rich pay too much? No actually majority of their wealth often times are from capital gains in which they pay a % far lower than most people.. This kind of perception needs to fvcking die.. The fact this kind of sh!t even gets voiced and taken seriously is ridiculous.. Especially when we have the crying of the very same people that over 40% don't pay any taxes.. That 40% is trying to get BY, things as trivial as sales tax is having a higher impact on them then anything else.. Whilst the people who are complaining about too high taxes are the very fvcking same that have geometrically gained in wealth these past two decades and all live extravagent lifestyles in which they are not living pay check to pay check.. Furthermore if taxes are too high and you think this chokes innovation, than the fvcking 50's through 90's must have never existed for you because we had much higher tax rates and the largest growth in American history which led them to their super power status.. Whats it feel like to be dillusional?