Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Women's Rights

Recommended Posts

^^ I'd be more on board with that if their choices about how to live their lives didn't lead directly to higher tax bills and poorer quality cities for the rest of us.

 

Also, I'm not even going to rehash all the different ways that you absolutely and unequivocally support using the government to tell other people how to live their lives, but suffice it to say that a libertarian you are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be curious where you're drawing your information since I can count on one hand how many times I've gotten involved in political discussions here, but that's not what this topic is about.

 

This topic also isn't about your personal beliefs about what "family" is. And sociological evidence doesn't support your claims. The definition of "delusional" is continuing to believe something despite evidence to the contrary. Evidence that single mothers destroy communities doesn't exist in any peer reviewed manner. Ergo, delusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure, but either way, where are you going with that?  Just a general societal interest in ensuring that accurate records of family ancestry are maintained, analogous to preserving the integrity of census records?  I'd still think there ought to be an easier way of going about that.

But just because a father is named doesn't mean they can afford to pay child support. The most likely scenario for someone who doesn't name the father (in my guess) is that the mother knows the father can't pay child support and doesn't want the father involved in the child's life. The only result out of naming the person is that the mother has to interact with this person (that they clearly don't want to interact with) and the father goes to prison for failing to pay child support, thus costing the state more money incarcerating someone at the going rate of jailing something (something like $40,000/year?).

 

That may be true.  But first, it shouldn't be presumptively the mother's sole decision to exclude the father from involvement in the child's life, even if the father may have contact with the justice system for reasons well beyond paying child support.  And second, while what you describe would certainly sometimes be the case (it might even be the most common single fact pattern), I don't think it's fair to generalize that to the entire population of all single mothers/unwed fathers.  Granted, I understand that that leaves a lot of wiggle room between 1% and 99% and I'm not even comfortable ballparking what the actual numbers would be.  But I guess my point was that denying the birth certificate doesn't seem like the right solution regardless of the scale of that problem; there is nothing inconsistent about issuing birth certificates and denying welfare benefits.  I would think that the recordkeeping function of birth certificates is important enough on its own that they'd not want to mess with it, even if there were some actual anti-fraud or anti-illegitimacy outcomes--connections which, again, I'm having trouble seeing.

 

No, please do. I'd love to see it. Especially since I can count on one hand the number of times I've posted in political topics so I'd be curious where you're drawing your information from.

 

Unless you think me disagreeing with businesses of public accommodation restricting customers because of who they are means I support government restriction. Which is another topic but more or less the only political topic I have ever gotten involved on these boards with.

 

Both on the customer side (forcing people to provide services that contradict their core beliefs) and the employer side (forcing businesses to provide benefits that contradict the core beliefs of their owners).  You were very outspoken on both.

 

This topic isn't about your personal beliefs about what "family" is. And sociological evidence doesn't support your claims. The definition of "delusional" is continuing to believe something despite evidence to the contrary. Evidence that single mothers destroy communities doesn't exist in any peer reviewed manner. Ergo, delusion.

 

Really?  There is no sociological evidence that cities and neighborhoods with significant amounts of single mothers experience higher rates of crime, welfare dependency, and economic immobility?  Daniel Patrick Moynihan was delusional when sounding the alarm about the breakdown of the black family and the increase of out-of-wedlock births there, and scholars like Charles Murray are delusional to continue that warning and apply it almost across the board to the lower end of the American income spectrum now?

 

The sociological evidence is overwhelming that strong families make strong communities and widespread weak families cause all manner of community-level problems.  This goes well beyond my "personal beliefs."  This is as scientifically grounded as anything can be in the social sciences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with the latter is that there is no such thing as "aid to the child." 

 

Sure there is.  Costs to cover food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, early education, etc. is all "aid to the child."  In a vacuum and under the right (but certainly not all) situations, it can be termed, as you put it, "money to the mother to cover the consequences of her own irresponsibility."  So are prison meals and mattresses.

 

If you want to ramp up investigations and prosecutions of mothers or fathers who misdirect or misuse that aid, you won't find any opposition here.  Nor would I oppose more direct payment methods to the vendors of those services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there is.  Costs to cover food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, early education, etc. is all "aid to the child."  In a vacuum and under the right (but certainly not all) situations, it can be termed, as you put it, "money to the mother to cover the consequences of her own irresponsibility."  So are prison meals and mattresses.

 

If you want to ramp up investigations and prosecutions of mothers or fathers who misdirect or misuse that aid, you won't find any opposition here.  Nor would I oppose more direct payment methods to the vendors of those services.

 

The point of this proposal is to make sure that those "Costs to cover food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, early education, etc." really do need to be paid by the state. Oftentimes they don't because there's a father avoiding child support entirely, or there's a father in cahoots with a mother to stay off the birth certificate in order to receive benefits that aren't really needed. Without a risk of punishment, there's no deterrent. The question is just how to ensure that the punishment doesn't affect those who aren't doing anything wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe there is no risk of punishment for welfare fraud?  It already is codified as a crime.  How does this proposal fix that?  Seems to me that it only further encourages fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is single motherhood the CAUSE of those things. There's a huge difference between causation and correlation that you're missing with regards to those topics. The things you listed are almost unanimously regarded as a direct result of poverty which is also quite often the cause of single motherhood, not the other way around.

 

But we'll never see eye to eye since you truly believe your definition of family is "best and right" based on a traditional ideology that hasn't ever actually existed so this won't ever go anywhere worthwhile to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe there is no risk of punishment for welfare fraud?  It already is codified as a crime.  How does this proposal fix that?  Seems to me that it only further encourages fraud.

 

As far as I know it isn't a crime to not name a father, even if the mother knows who the father is. It also wouldn't be a crime for them to be in a relationship while receiving public assistance and tax deductions for being a single parent, so long as they aren't married.

 

But is single motherhood the CAUSE of those things. There's a huge difference between causation and correlation that you're missing with regards to those topics. The things you listed are almost unanimously regarded as a direct result of poverty which is also often also a result of that poverty, not the cause of it.

 

But we'll never see eye to eye since you truly believe your definition of family is "best and right" so this won't ever go anywhere worthwhile to anyone.

 

Is this directed at me? I don't have a definition of family, I just don't want people getting public support if they shouldn't be. My only moral opinion on the subject is that it’s irresponsible to have a child you can’t financially support on your own, whether you’re a single parent or a married couple. Aside from that I couldn’t care less about anyone’s family matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Nope, sorry, towards Gramarye's response to me upthread. Got distracted while replying and several other posts occurred between his response and mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a crime to claim single mother status when you're not a single mother. It's a crime to complete welfare paperwork which can properly inquire as to the identity of the father and not fully disclose your knowledge of who the father is. It's not a crime, nor should it be, to not know who the father is and it shouldn't be crime to not list the father on the birth certificate, thereby entitling that person to parental rights, when that person has no interest in being a "dad"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's mind-blowing is these conservative morons are swatting at flies but ignoring the corporate welfare elephants who are whoring this nation's tax dollars so they can water ski behind more yachts. When the revolution comes, they're going to wish they had rescinded the right to bear arms. It's not the government that should fear an armed citizenry, but the oligarchs who dine on the people's flesh. I hate guns, but I love the laws of unintended consequences when they come to bite.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a crime to claim single mother status when you're not a single mother. It's a crime to complete welfare paperwork which can properly inquire as to the identity of the father and not fully disclose your knowledge of who the father is. It's not a crime, nor should it be, to not know who the father is and it shouldn't be crime to not list the father on the birth certificate, thereby entitling that person to parental rights, when that person has no interest in being a "dad"

 

You can file as a single mother so long as you aren't married. The state can't prove that a mother knows who the father is, and thus any requirements to disclose won't necessarily hold up. Further, I think your last sentence is sexist. A father is entitled to parental rights whether he wants them or not. If he doesn't want them, he's still obligated to financially support the child under current law. The state should strive to have both biological parents listed on every birth certificate for a myriad of reasons, and the one I'm most concerned about is wasted tax dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wildly confusing a few things.  Parental rights and parental obligations are not the same thing.  Also, what the government should strive for and what the government should force to happen call for vastly different considerations.

 

As for the single mother status, I speaking to the hypothetical situation in which the mother claims that the father is not in the child's life in order to receive welfare when the father is indeed in the child's life.  Tax filings are a different issue and I won't pretend to understand that other than, in the case of unmarried parents, only one can claim the child as a dependent.... so I'm not sure I see the harm there.

 

I appreciate your concern for wasted tax payer dollars.  I just would hope we could more effectively target the same.  This type of thinly veiled legislation is not going to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's mind-blowing is these conservative morons are swatting at flies but ignoring the corporate welfare elephants who are whoring this nation's tax dollars so they can water ski behind more yachts. When the revolution comes, they're going to wish they had rescinded the right to bear arms. It's not the government that should fear an armed citizenry, but the oligarchs who dine on the people's flesh. I hate guns, but I love the laws of unintended consequences when they come to bite.

 

Unintended consequences is a gun culture buzzword, BTW.  It's the title of an influential book.

 

There's not going to be a "revolution", but if there was it would go very, very badly for the left.  It would still be one of the worst things that could happen to America.  But the side that hates the idea of gun owning citizens and has a history of disrespecting the military doesn't have good prospects.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not going to be a "revolution", but if there was it would go very, very badly for the left.  color]

 

EDITED to remove snarky comment about the Right's lack of testicular fortitude

 

Sorry mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The birth certificate issue is one of kids' rights, not women's.  I'm guessing this bill's author advocates for children right up until the moment they're born. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much about women's rights but more so about women's accomplishments... 20 years before Sally Ride, this lady broke to the space barrier for women. You probably would have heard of her if you lived in a less insular country than America:

 

The First Woman In Space Turns 80, And You Probably Never Heard Of Her

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/06/the-first-woman-in-space-turns-80-and-you-probably-never-heard-of-her/#373d1d46ae5e


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much about women's rights but more so about women's accomplishments... 20 years before Sally Ride, this lady broke to the space barrier for women. You probably would have heard of her if you lived in a less insular country than America:

 

The First Woman In Space Turns 80, And You Probably Never Heard Of Her

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/06/the-first-woman-in-space-turns-80-and-you-probably-never-heard-of-her/#373d1d46ae5e

 

Not to diminish her courage, but this was dismissed as propaganda during the height of the Cold War. In retrospect, there’s some good reasons.  There’s not much evidence Tereshkovna did much in space beyond keeping records and taking pictures (also the case with some male cosmonaut missions).  More to the point, it was nearly twenty years before a second female cosmonaut went into space, unless one believes the rumors that a second woman, launched a few months later, did not survive.  There have only been four (officially), and 45 American women.

 

The Soviet space program was as much a propaganda tool as a program of exploration, that’s a big part of why they lost the race to the moon despite being way more willing to risk personnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOP Lawmaker Just Got Outed As The Founder Of Popular Pro-Rape Group

http://politicaldig.com/gop-lawmaker-just-got-outed-as-the-founder-of-popular-pro-rape-group/


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW. Wisconsin Rep. Scott Allen thinks women should be forced to procreate for the sake of the labor market.

 

Women are PEOPLE, not incubators. ? https://t.co/I189JGSoqp


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ if you are trying to paint Damore's "struggle" as being equivalent to the struggles of the white working class then it is you that is peddling in utter BS.

 

I am responding specifically to the statement that was made about "demographics" (specifically defined by the poster I was responding to as divided along race, gender, and creed lines) being powerful.  But it is also clear that Damore's race and gender at least did not work for him, and I don't honestly think it's crazy to think they worked against him in the PC-infested culture of Silicon Valley.  If he had been an Asian woman making identical statements, I think it's likely he would have been treated differently, though obviously still not exactly embraced.

 

At every economic level, white people have more opportunities for advancement and success than any other demographic, especially white, heterosexual men.  This is just not debatable.  Maybe Damore should’ve appreciated his position more instead of putting his foot in his mouth and then becoming a whiny victim.

 

It's obviously debatable.  We're debating it.  Not that either of us are likely to change our minds on it.

 

As for Damore, he wouldn't have become a victim if the PC police hadn't victimized him.  But this topic is bigger than Damore.

 

The thing I find frustrating is amongst the progressive side is they are quick to latch onto a statistic that they think supports their claim without digging to understand that actual methodology around the statistic and the trumpet blares for a misleading figure and the lemmings go marching off trumpeting their misleading statistic.  Such examples of this are the gender pay gap women make $.77 cents on the dollar for the same job, or that 70% of all corporations pay no income tax. 

 

Gramaye you point out very legitimate points and I applaud you for your willingness to pull back the curtain to examine the why behind the statistic. Too many times, our friends on the progressive side manufacture problems that don't exist by using misleading statistics.

 

Oh man, the irony is thick here.  The side of "alternative facts" is pontificating about others being manipulative and selective with information.  Why do so many of your arguments originate from a glass house? 

 

So there is no pay gap?  I haven't actually seen the claim that 70% of corporations pay no income tax, so this is the first time I'm hearing it.  Whether that's true, I have no doubt that corporations do everything they can to pay as little taxes as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ if you are trying to paint Damore's "struggle" as being equivalent to the struggles of the white working class then it is you that is peddling in utter BS.

 

I am responding specifically to the statement that was made about "demographics" (specifically defined by the poster I was responding to as divided along race, gender, and creed lines) being powerful.  But it is also clear that Damore's race and gender at least did not work for him, and I don't honestly think it's crazy to think they worked against him in the PC-infested culture of Silicon Valley.  If he had been an Asian woman making identical statements, I think it's likely he would have been treated differently, though obviously still not exactly embraced.

 

At every economic level, white people have more opportunities for advancement and success than any other demographic, especially white, heterosexual men.  This is just not debatable.  Maybe Damore shouldve appreciated his position more instead of putting his foot in his mouth and then becoming a whiny victim.

 

It's obviously debatable.  We're debating it.  Not that either of us are likely to change our minds on it.

 

As for Damore, he wouldn't have become a victim if the PC police hadn't victimized him.  But this topic is bigger than Damore.

 

The thing I find frustrating is amongst the progressive side is they are quick to latch onto a statistic that they think supports their claim without digging to understand that actual methodology around the statistic and the trumpet blares for a misleading figure and the lemmings go marching off trumpeting their misleading statistic.  Such examples of this are the gender pay gap women make $.77 cents on the dollar for the same job, or that 70% of all corporations pay no income tax. 

 

Gramaye you point out very legitimate points and I applaud you for your willingness to pull back the curtain to examine the why behind the statistic. Too many times, our friends on the progressive side manufacture problems that don't exist by using misleading statistics.

 

Oh man, the irony is thick here.  The side of "alternative facts" is pontificating about others being manipulative and selective with information.  Why do so many of your arguments originate from a glass house? 

 

So there is no pay gap?  I haven't actually seen the claim that 70% of corporations pay no income tax, so this is the first time I'm hearing it.  Whether that's true, I have no doubt that corporations do everything they can to pay as little taxes as possible. 

 

Relying on these statistics as face value shows intellectual ineptness by the people who use them to promote their point.

 

I am not saying that the statistics do not show the pay gap at .77 but that true statistic is very misleading. The actual pay gap Is really about 2-3 cents. Put in that perspective it is not as dire as the progressive left wants you to believe.

 

the 70% of corporations paying no income tax is also a common misleading quote. Yes, it is true, but again it is highly misleading and an "alternative facts" designed to manipulate the intellectually malgined. I will let you see if you can figure out why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pay gap of .77 is accurate in that the average wage for all women is 77% of those for men.  What this statistic tells us is that women tend to be professions that pay less.  However, the reason they are in those professions is more akin to the "why" question.  It is here where progressives and conservatives actually disagree.  Conservatives either don;t understand that or the like to create a strawman that is easier to defeat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying that the statistics do not show the pay gap at .77 but that true statistic is very misleading. The actual pay gap Is really about 2-3 cents.

 

Citation?


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pay gap of .77 is accurate in that the average wage for all women is 77% of those for men.  What this statistic tells us is that women tend to be professions that pay less.  However, the reason they are in those professions is more akin to the "why" question.  It is here where progressives and conservatives actually disagree.  Conservatives either don;t understand that or the like to create a strawman that is easier to defeat. 

 

Women don't set as many appointments in commissioned sales positions as men do. Women do this to achieve work-life balance. Men will run themselves ragged over that extra money. The women are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pay gap of .77 is accurate in that the average wage for all women is 77% of those for men.  What this statistic tells us is that women tend to be professions that pay less.  However, the reason they are in those professions is more akin to the "why" question.  It is here where progressives and conservatives actually disagree.  Conservatives either don;t understand that or the like to create a strawman that is easier to defeat. 

 

I've heard that it should be called the "gender earnings gap" - but as you mentioned, whether it's because women just don't want those higher paying jobs or they take the lower(ish) paying jobs because of something like genetics is where the disagreements come in usually.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The disagreement is about whether people with an attitude like Damore are pervasive which makes it more difficult to get into higher paid professions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pay gap of .77 is accurate in that the average wage for all women is 77% of those for men.  What this statistic tells us is that women tend to be professions that pay less.  However, the reason they are in those professions is more akin to the "why" question.  It is here where progressives and conservatives actually disagree.  Conservatives either don;t understand that or the like to create a strawman that is easier to defeat. 

 

The numbers show that at the beginning of a career new college graduates do not have a gender pay gap. The gap appears in the mid-management and upper management levels. The cause of this as Ivanka Trump correctly points out is the pregnancy wage issue where many women stop or step back in their careers to raise a family. They do not take advancements that would require heavy travel or even go part time which essentially sets their career progression back when they decide to fully return to full time or fully engaged at some later point in their career. THis is the cause of the pay gap and continuing to quote the .77 statistic is disingenuous because it does nothing to address the true reason why it exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are incorrect.  wage gap only narrows when comparing the same job.  And a gap still exists albeit smaller.  77% represents the average for all workers and wages.  The solution is to encourage women to go into higher paying fields the way that Google is trying with their outreach.  Not surprisingly conservative here, Damore, is not in favor of such things because women are inferior when it comes to engineering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying that the statistics do not show the pay gap at .77 but that true statistic is very misleading. The actual pay gap Is really about 2-3 cents.

 

Citation?

There are variations. Some places cite around 2-3 cents is the actual others say it is about 5-7 cents. Bottom line the .77 figure is intended to mislead and quoting it shows you don't understand the issue.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/14/here-are-the-facts-behind-that-79-cent-pay-gap-factoid/?utm_term=.e3fe87eedc4f

 

http://time.com/3222543/wage-pay-gap-myth-feminism/

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/15/politifact-sheet-gender-pay-gap/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line the .77 figure is intended to mislead and quoting it shows you don't understand the issue.

 

h

 

Wrong.  Quoting the 77% figure is only misleading those that don;t actually listen to what people are saying.  See my previous comments on this. And then I am done since a mod said to take this else where. Not understanding why 77% is important shows that you don't understand the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The figure is misleading when you use it to state that men are paid more than women for the same job which is often what it is used for or using the slight of hand to imply such. That is not what this statistic says.  The problem is people use it to show women are vastly underpaid for the same job or that society is sexist and does not pay women what they are worth. 

 

My point has always been that the statistic is true but used in the wrong way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presidents (ever): 100% Men

House of Rep (ever): 97.1% Men

Senators (ever): 96.1% Men

Justices on SCOTUS (ever): 96.5% Men

CEOS of S&P 500 Corps: 95.4% Men

Nobel Prize Winners (ever): 94.6% Men

Top 500 Billionaires: 88% Men

 

Conservatives: THIS CRUEL WORLD HAS NO SPACE FOR MEN!

 

https://t.co/uXPLNLRTm8


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-met-equal-rights-amendment-illinois-20180530-story.html

 

The Illinois House voted Wednesday night to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment more than 45 years after it was approved by Congress, putting it one state away from possible enshrinement in the U.S. Constitution amid potential legal questions.

 

From my understanding, if one more state passes the ERA it'll set up a legal showdown re: amendments in the Constitution.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for us men to do what's right and treat women as equals. This thread is devoted to that mission.

 

It starts by making sure men answer for their abuses of women, not this BS.....

 

Man gets ‘pass’ after pleading guilty in strangulation, sex assault of woman

POSTED 8:22 AM, SEPTEMBER 23, 2018, BY TRIBUNE MEDIA WIRE

 

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – A man in Anchorage, Alaska, pleaded guilty to assaulting a woman who said he strangled her unconscious and sexually assaulted her. The man then walked out of court with no prison sentence.

 

“But I would like the gentleman to be on notice that this is his one pass,” prosecutor Andrew Grannik said in court Wednesday, CNN affiliate KTVA reported. “It’s not really a pass, but given the conduct, one might consider that it is.”

 

MORE:

https://wgntv.com/2018/09/23/man-gets-pass-after-pleading-guilty-in-strangulation-sex-assault-of-woman/


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No prison for grandson of ex-Republican Virginia governor in rape case

https://wjla.com/news/crime/no-prison-grandson-republican-virginia-governor-rape


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a graphic we apparently need to post every goddamn day.

IMG_20180930_185910.jpg.f71d79e7181a6577d6dad82bb454506a.jpg


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion: Bill Clinton is the practical embodiment of everything the #MeToo movement was designed to reject: abuse of power, privilege, double standards, harassment, sexual abuse and trauma.

https://www.cbc.ca/1.4857995?cmp=FB_Post_News


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dp5WZfJWwAAdFXV.jpg:large


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 1

"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Case example #1 of men in decline is right there on your TV screens, FoxZombies...

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...