Post Reply
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Land of discrimination not opportunity?
3 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 10:43PM #11
Father_Oblivion
Posts: 11,900

There is far more descrimination going on in this country, and there has been for quite some time.



www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205901...


'After all those stories about Hitler and his snub, I came back to my native country and I couldn't ride in the front of the bus,' Owens recalled. 'I had to go to the back door. I couldn't live where I wanted. Now what's the difference?' 


Owens was given a tickertape parade in New York. But when he arrived at the Waldorf Astoria hotel for a reception in his honour, he was instructed to take the service lift rather than the normal guest lift, which was reserved for whites.


President Franklin Roosevelt never congratulated Owens or invited him to the White House. 'Hitler didn't snub me - it was FDR who snubbed me,' Owens said. 


And Owens had his own memories of Berlin which differed starkly from the propaganda version. While the Nazis vilified the black American athletes, the German people cheered on Owens and his team-mates, clamouring for photos and autographs. 


Owens later said that his greatest memory of the Games was not the races, the medal ceremonies or the politics. It was of his German rival in the long jump, Luz Long. On the surface, Long was the embodiment of the Aryan dream: tall, blue-eyed and blond. 


The American was struggling in the early rounds of the long jump contest and risked going out before the final. Long introduced himself. He said he had been watching Owens's jumps and made a mark a few inches before the take-off board and suggested Owens jump from there, to ensure he qualified. 



Owens took his advice and made it to the finals, which he won. The first person to congratulate him was Long. 



The two men exchanged letters after the Games. 'It took a lot of courage for him to befriend me in front of Hitler,' Owens said. 'You can melt down all the medals and cups I have and they wouldn't be a plating on the 24-carat friendship I felt for Luz Long at that moment. 


'Hitler must have gone crazy watching us embrace. The sad part of the story is I never saw Long again. He was killed in World War II.' 


Owens was also witness to the U.S. Olympic team's decision to replace two Jews on its relay squad with two African-American runners. The Americans were accused of acquiescing to Nazi demands not to humiliate them by letting Jews beat them as well as blacks.




Few seem to be aware of, or able to comrpehend this in the context of today because so many are too busy telling themselves and each other myths about yesterday, rather than facts.

The important thing to remember about American history is that it is fictional, a charcoal-sketched simplicity for the children or the easily bored. For the most part it is uninspected, unimagined, unthought, a representative of the thing and not the thing itself. It is a fine fiction...
Neil Gaiman
'American Gods'

‎"Ignorance of ignorance, then, is that self-satisfied state of unawareness in which man, knowing nothing outside the limited area of his physical senses, bumptiously declares there is nothing more to know! He who knows no life save the physical is merely ignorant; but he who declares physical life to be all-important and elevates it to the position of supreme reality--such a one is ignorant of his own ignorance."
- Manly Palmer Hall
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 13, 2012 - 10:44PM #12
Find1Answer
Posts: 7,350

Apr 12, 2012 -- 7:21PM, aarroottoonn wrote:

Apr 12, 2012 -- 6:18AM, Kwinters wrote:


How can women consider America a land of equal opportunity if we cannot be assured that we have recourse if we are not treated equally?


'Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker did nothing to refute the idea that Republicans are waging a "war on women" late last week when he quietly signed three controversial bills that limit access to abortion services and sex education and repealed the state's Equal Pay Enforcement Act, on the eve of the holiday weekend.

'...In what was perhaps his most surprising move, Walker signed a bill repealing the state's 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court.


The law allowed individuals to plead their discrimination cases in the less costly state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court, a provision the newest legislation rolled back. Jeff Hynes, the president of the Wisconsin Employment Lawyers Association, told the Journal Sentinel the changes sends a signal to employers that mistreat their workers that they "can get away with it every time."


"The governor and the Republican leadership in Wisconsin have effectuated a one-two punch with respect to employees' rights to get any meaningful remedy" in discrimination cases, Hynes told the newspaper.


The law approved by Walker removes the ability for victims of wage discrimination to go to court for compensatory and punitive damages, although they still have the ability to seek back pay. Hynes noted that Walker previously signed legislation that puts a limit on the amount of attorney's fees victims can recover in lawsuits, making it even less likely that wronged employees will take their cases to court.


Under the new law, there will be no remedy for justice under state employment law for women who are sexually harassed in the workplace, or for minorities who are subjected to racial epithets and other signs of discrimination...


'...The ratio of women's to men's earnings in the state reached its highest point in 2010 -- 82.8 percent -- after the passage of the 2009 equal pay law, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. '


www.ibtimes.com/articles/325705/20120409...



(emphasis added)




Women have recourse, just as they have had in the past. All this does is make the woman file a federal claim. Somehow the idea that these often frivilous claims should be made in the "cheap" state system, rather the more expensive federal system, is reducing a woman's ability to claim she was treated unfairly.


When the republican bill passed and the republican governor signed the legislation of suing in state court for equal  pay an arbitration board was set up with rather stringent qualifications.     This arbitration board has weeded out the frivoulous suits.    The law was working.   State suits are more accessible and less costly.   Due to the qualifiers set up by the previous legislation it was working quite well.   Walker justifications for repealing the law were ridiculous.   He claimed that women do not focus on wages so much.     If there were no grievances and there was equal pay for equal work then these laws would not have to be enacted.    Walker is regressive.      

Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 11:02AM #13
Father_Oblivion
Posts: 11,900

Apr 13, 2012 -- 10:20PM, Find1Answer wrote:


Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Bodean wrote:


Here are the issues without the partisan hyperbole.


1) The first bill requires doctors to speak with a woman seeking an abortion alone to ensure no one is forcing her into the procedureSO .. what's wrong with that??




She just has to convince the doctor she came alone ,  maybe on her bike.   no one drove her and no one came along to lend support.   The doctor is liable under law to ascertain the patient made the decision alone under penalty of law.        I do not know if Wisconsin has a spousal consent law or not or a parental consent or not but if they do the patient will still need to convince her doc that she came alone on her bike.      It is a stupid restricting law.    Just another hoop to jump through.   What is up with all these restrictions on a legal abortion.    




She does not have to show no one drove her or came to show her moral support. She merely has to speak alone in the doctor's office, as in any other medical procedure where privacy is important, including keeping an abusive controlling husband who may be insisting (or opposing) from being present.


Why do you oppose that? Do you oppose secret balloting as well? Or do you oppose any law regarding abortion that anyone not of your particular political party proposes regardless of how it may benefit women?

The important thing to remember about American history is that it is fictional, a charcoal-sketched simplicity for the children or the easily bored. For the most part it is uninspected, unimagined, unthought, a representative of the thing and not the thing itself. It is a fine fiction...
Neil Gaiman
'American Gods'

‎"Ignorance of ignorance, then, is that self-satisfied state of unawareness in which man, knowing nothing outside the limited area of his physical senses, bumptiously declares there is nothing more to know! He who knows no life save the physical is merely ignorant; but he who declares physical life to be all-important and elevates it to the position of supreme reality--such a one is ignorant of his own ignorance."
- Manly Palmer Hall
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 12:22PM #14
Find1Answer
Posts: 7,350

Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:02AM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

Apr 13, 2012 -- 10:20PM, Find1Answer wrote:


Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Bodean wrote:


Here are the issues without the partisan hyperbole.


1) The first bill requires doctors to speak with a woman seeking an abortion alone to ensure no one is forcing her into the procedureSO .. what's wrong with that??




She just has to convince the doctor she came alone ,  maybe on her bike.   no one drove her and no one came along to lend support.   The doctor is liable under law to ascertain the patient made the decision alone under penalty of law.        I do not know if Wisconsin has a spousal consent law or not or a parental consent or not but if they do the patient will still need to convince her doc that she came alone on her bike.      It is a stupid restricting law.    Just another hoop to jump through.   What is up with all these restrictions on a legal abortion.    




She does not have to show no one drove her or came to show her moral support. She merely has to speak alone in the doctor's office, as in any other medical procedure where privacy is important, including keeping an abusive controlling husband who may be insisting (or opposing) from being present.


Why do you oppose that? Do you oppose secret balloting as well? Or do you oppose any law regarding abortion that anyone not of your particular political party proposes regardless of how it may benefit women?


How bout we just cut to the chase and have the father to be sign a consent form before any woman can obtain an abortion.    He is just as involved or should be.      one fell swoop,    he has his rights,  he is held just as responsible, it is his problem just as much, takes this full on attack of women's reproductive rights off of the woman.


I do not appreciate you implying that my objections to this targetting of  women's reproductive issues that seems to be the rage,  laying all this legislation directly on the female and not addressing that the male was equally involved is a Partisan issue with me.     I consider this Protection of Conscience legislating to be a huge overreach of what these legislators used as a platform to be elected in the first place.    which was the economy.     What you the big bad libertarian switchs sides on personal whims.     Why are you so concerned with legislating the little woman,    police yourself and your gender and your own ideological bent.


What does secret balloting have to do with the subject at hand.


How does one more regulation, one more hoop to jump through regulating the legal right to obtain an abortion in this country benefit women?   How does all these waiting periods and unnecessary medical procedures like ultra sounds and vaginal probes benefit women?     How does making a women feel worse about her legal consent benefit women?    


Are you aware that the thousands of  regulations passed in the last few years regarding legal abortion are an attempt to limit the legal rights of women in this country.   What is your libertarian opinion of all that?   and how does that all fit in with the concept of small government?

Bush's "de-Bathification program" eliminated all vestiges of Sunni power in Iraqi society and set the stage for the Sunni insurrection against American occupation and the new Shiite-led government. Bush disbanded the entire Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army and bureaucracy. He didn't change it. He didn't make it more inclusive of Shiites and Kurds. He just disbanded it. It is no accident that two of the top commanders of today's ISIL are former commanders in the Saddam-era Iraqi military.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 8:24PM #15
Bodean
Posts: 9,703

Apr 13, 2012 -- 10:20PM, Find1Answer wrote:


1) The first bill requires doctors to speak with a woman seeking an abortion alone to ensure no one is forcing her into the procedure
.  SO .. what's wrong with that??


She just has to convince the doctor she came alone ,  maybe on her bike.   no one drove her and no one came along to lend support.   The doctor is liable under law to ascertain the patient made the decision alone under penalty of law.        I do not know if Wisconsin has a spousal consent law or not or a parental consent or not but if they do the patient will still need to convince her doc that she came alone on her bike.      It is a stupid restricting law.    Just another hoop to jump through.   What is up with all these restrictions on a legal abortion.    


If there is no War on Women then why are all these legislators writing legislation concerning women and why are they all piling on?    I think these bills are political propaganda,    I thought they were suppose to be all about the economy.    I do not think that legislators need to be meddling in women's reproductive issues,  what are they? experts?    Why don't they legislate the genesis of the perceived problems concerning women reproductive systems.    The male part of it.    





That's not what the bill says at all Find.  It says the doctyor has to consult with her alone, not that she much come to the clinic alone.  Really, this bill is a PROTECTION for women.  Think of all the women who are coerced into getting an abortion, or even forced to get an abortion, because someone else says so.


Restictions on legal abortions????  What restrictions??  The bill signed deals with PAYING for abotion ... not the abortion itself.  And given that the "exchanges" are tax subsidized policies, it is entirely iwithin the rights of the Government and tax payers to have a say in what is payed for.


OK .. I agree, I don't think legislators need to be meddling wiht a woman's repro system either .. but I also don't think legislators should be meddling in peoples pocket books.  This is not about a woman's choice ..it's about who pays for it.


I challenge you to point out ONE aspect of either of the bills that interferes with a woman's decision, other than her desire to have someone else pay for it .. which has nothing to do with her reproductive system.


Every Single Issue that has been put up as some example of this phantom war on women, has been a money grab.


- Free of Charge B.C. pills ...


- This bill to limit subsidized exchange insurance in paying for unecessary abortions. [but retaining the necessary ones].


- and the equal pay thingy .. which I'm still trying to figure out how the DNC is making this a women's only issue, when it clearly affects both sexes equally.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2012 - 6:19AM #16
Kwinters
Posts: 22,591

Apr 12, 2012 -- 7:21PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Women have recourse, just as they have had in the past. All this does is make the woman file a federal claim. Somehow the idea that these often frivilous claims should be made in the "cheap" state system, rather the more expensive federal system, is reducing a woman's ability to claim she was treated unfairly.




The fact that you assume the claims are frivolous shows you are part of the problem.  How old are you?  I hope you're at least collecting a pension.

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2012 - 6:27AM #17
Kwinters
Posts: 22,591

For all the sexist backward thinking men and co-opted women who think that sex discrimination does not happen:




Anti-Discrimination Board


Examples of sex discrimination complaints we have handled

A woman who had acted as the manager at a club complained that she was removed from the position when the club directors decided to fill it permanently, as they wanted a man for the job.

A woman who worked at a plant nursery made a complaint of sex discrimination and sexual harassment after a male co-worker made a number of comments including “you’re butch, you can lift that up”. She said she was told by her manager that he was like that with everyone and there weren’t enough grounds for a complaint of sexual harassment.

A woman who worked for a mortgage broker complained that when her section was closed down while she was on maternity leave she was not given a chance to transfer to other positions as other staff were, and was dismissed.

A woman complained that she was told not to breastfeed her baby while visiting a government-run institution.

A woman complained that a contractor working for her employer sexually harassed her by frequently invading her personal space, blocking her exit from confined spaces and behaving in a sleazy manner towards her and the other women working in the office.

A woman was refused an interview for a driver’s position with a minibus company — they “didn’t think she’d fit in” because she was female.

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2012 - 6:30AM #18
Kwinters
Posts: 22,591

Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:02AM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 10:20PM, Find1Answer wrote:


Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Bodean wrote:


Here are the issues without the partisan hyperbole.


1) The first bill requires doctors to speak with a woman seeking an abortion alone to ensure no one is forcing her into the procedureSO .. what's wrong with that??




She just has to convince the doctor she came alone ,  maybe on her bike.   no one drove her and no one came along to lend support.   The doctor is liable under law to ascertain the patient made the decision alone under penalty of law.        I do not know if Wisconsin has a spousal consent law or not or a parental consent or not but if they do the patient will still need to convince her doc that she came alone on her bike.      It is a stupid restricting law.    Just another hoop to jump through.   What is up with all these restrictions on a legal abortion.    




She does not have to show no one drove her or came to show her moral support. She merely has to speak alone in the doctor's office, as in any other medical procedure where privacy is important, including keeping an abusive controlling husband who may be insisting (or opposing) from being present.


Why do you oppose that? Do you oppose secret balloting as well? Or do you oppose any law regarding abortion that anyone not of your particular political party proposes regardless of how it may benefit women?





The presumption is that women are idiots who cannot make up their own minds, cannot judge when they want someone with them or not.


Should we have such restrictions for ALL surgeries? Surely there are many other instances where people can feel pressure.


Republicans treat women as if they were mentally incompetent and the result is that they are driving women to support Dem candidates.

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2012 - 9:35AM #19
Bodean
Posts: 9,703

Apr 16, 2012 -- 6:30AM, Kwinters wrote:


 


The presumption is that women are idiots who cannot make up their own minds, cannot judge when they want someone with them or not.


Should we have such restrictions for ALL surgeries? Surely there are many other instances where people can feel pressure.


Republicans treat women as if they were mentally incompetent and the result is that they are driving women to support Dem candidates.





No .. .that's your presumption. Who's the real sexists here .. you or the congress??


 


As for ALL SURGERIES ... that has to be one of the dumbest things I've read on this site.  You don't "choose" to have your apendix out ... you don't "choose" to have stint surgery, or to have your Gallbladder removed, etc etc .....


Abortion is no "surgery" in the context of medically necessary surgeries, UNLESS ..it is the doctors decision inolving treatment for a presented MEDICAL condition [which in that case ... it completely exits the "my body my choice" realm].


This whole "War on Women" B.S. is a propaganda piece ... and it's failing miserably.  Doesn't matter how many times idiots in the media, or leftists repeat it .... it's not getting any traction.  It all goes back to the other thread about "controlling information" .. the left doesn't have the lock on the info anymore ... and people are making up their own minds based on better data.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 16, 2012 - 10:07AM #20
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,553

Apr 16, 2012 -- 6:30AM, Kwinters wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 11:02AM, Father_Oblivion wrote:


Apr 13, 2012 -- 10:20PM, Find1Answer wrote:


Apr 12, 2012 -- 8:39PM, Bodean wrote:


Here are the issues without the partisan hyperbole.


1) The first bill requires doctors to speak with a woman seeking an abortion alone to ensure no one is forcing her into the procedureSO .. what's wrong with that??




She just has to convince the doctor she came alone ,  maybe on her bike.   no one drove her and no one came along to lend support.   The doctor is liable under law to ascertain the patient made the decision alone under penalty of law.        I do not know if Wisconsin has a spousal consent law or not or a parental consent or not but if they do the patient will still need to convince her doc that she came alone on her bike.      It is a stupid restricting law.    Just another hoop to jump through.   What is up with all these restrictions on a legal abortion.    




She does not have to show no one drove her or came to show her moral support. She merely has to speak alone in the doctor's office, as in any other medical procedure where privacy is important, including keeping an abusive controlling husband who may be insisting (or opposing) from being present.


Why do you oppose that? Do you oppose secret balloting as well? Or do you oppose any law regarding abortion that anyone not of your particular political party proposes regardless of how it may benefit women?





The presumption is that women are idiots who cannot make up their own minds, cannot judge when they want someone with them or not.


Should we have such restrictions for ALL surgeries? Surely there are many other instances where people can feel pressure.


Republicans treat women as if they were mentally incompetent and the result is that they are driving women to support Dem candidates.






FO is right about this, it's for the protection of the woman. A lot of women are forced into abortion by a controlling and abusive boyfriend, husband, or parent and if that person is there with them then they can't tell the doctor that they don't want the abortion. The moment of privacy with the doctor allows her one last opportunity to say "I don't want to to do this someone is making me." I'm flabbergasted that ANY woman that claims to care about women's rights wouldn't support this.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook