2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[homeofmew]

it's homeofmew not houseofmew.
all lower case letters, as traditional.

- Tina

kurai:

Trying to prove inequality is hard because this means legal action, (AKA $, and a lot of it, aka Lawyers ect)
also the company litigated against is going to use any reasons not racial or per the persons sex on why they didn't consider them
for a job or position.

If I remember there are some companies like Abercrombie and Fitch that have legal actions taken against this for these desputes.

[Roy Karrde]

i'm not trying to trick you here

Never said you were.

the point is that addressing the problem of "providing proof they are actually being discriminated against" can only be done legitimately through an impartial judicial system (on which i'm sure we can agree)

ledbetter extends the period in which these lawsuits can be filed, thus providing access to this judicial system

And of course the problem is that for every say one actual claim with that, you will have hundreds, if not thousands of people who abuse the system in the misbegotten belief that a misogynist has not hired them. Our court system is already overloaded to the point of breaking, do we really need to pile on even more frivolous lawsuits?

therefore, if you find that inequality does need to be addressed in some cases, and the judicial process is the only legitimate means for it to be addressed (through an adequate standard of proof), is extending access to this judicial process not a good thing?
do you think this this is good or bad?
that is what was asked of romney's campaign, and they did not have an answer!

Why does the court system have to be the only legitimate means to oversee it? Why should we burden our court system even more for the very few if any that exist out there? We honestly cannot have another alphabet soup Government office that investigates claims of pay inequality? Do we really need to hurt our courts even more?

[kurai]

as a former top level candidate associated with RNC politicians on a national scale, whatever sarahpac does is definitionally related republican messaging in general. to demonstrate otherwise, the republican party would have needed to disavow her actions at some point. palin is personally a republican strategist as a consequence of being deeply embedded in the very core of republican strategy! that's the entirety of her remaining political presence.

and where do you get the idea that being a 'DNC advisor' is something special? this means that the DNC hired her firm for campaign operations. do you mean to suggest she is on obama's campaign staff? i don't see any evidence of this

they're both just media talking-heads connected to campaign firms

[Roy Karrde]

as a former top level candidate associated with RNC politicians on a national scale, whatever sarahpac does is definitionally related republican messaging in general. to demonstrate otherwise, the republican party would have needed to disavow her actions at some point. palin is personally a republican strategist as a consequence of being deeply embedded in the very core of republican strategy! that's the entirety of her remaining political presence.

Sorry try again, you are going to need actual connection between SarahPAC and the RNC Politicians since it's founding, and not SarahPAC just representing Palin's belief and endorsing and messaging around that belief as a independent political player.

and where do you get the idea that being a 'DNC advisor' is something special? this means that the DNC hired her firm for campaign operations. do you mean to suggest she is on obama's campaign staff? i don't see any evidence of this

they're both just media talking-heads connected to campaign firms

Well one is connected to a Campaign Firm atleast, a PAC is not necessarily a campaign firm but a mouthpiece of what ever the PAC's beliefs represent.

[homeofmew]

I see no evidence of Palin doing much at all Kurai, she was on TV and that's all, she supported Romney (i think)

BTW I found this:
Here's the RNC 2012 Page http://www.p2012.org/parties/committees/rnc11.html

[kurai]

there already is a government office to investigate and ensure pay equity in the civil service, it is called the office of personnel management. you seemed to suggest above that they were not doing their job, so the remaining outlet is through a discrimination suit.

what solution do you have for potential cases of discrimination other than via impartial judicial ruling if such existing systems are not working properly? you talk about "[hurting] our courts", but this is their purpose; to provide impartial judgement.

we are talking about the lawsuits that are not frivolous. you concede above that "we need to addressing pay inequality in the limited and few places where it actually exists." how would this be done?

- quotas/AA aren't possible
- you are rejecting lawsuits for some reason

what else is there to provide impartial enforcement of anti-discrimination law?

but you have set aside the other aspect of this line of questioning: are you unhappy with the romney campaign's unwillingness to also reject the increased availability of lawsuits?

[Roy Karrde]

there already is a government office to investigate and ensure pay equity in the civil service, it is called the office of personnel management. you seemed to suggest above that they were not doing their job, so the remaining outlet is through a discrimination suit.

Well if we are to believe that the wage gap is defined by the median wage as so many Democrats suggest, then obviously they are not doing their job.

what solution do you have for potential cases of discrimination other than via impartial judicial ruling if such existing systems are not working properly? you talk about "[hurting] our courts", but this is their purpose; to provide impartial judgement.

Courts do not have unlimited time, availability, and space, already the court system is overloaded and you suggest that we place even more burden on them. As suggested I would rather have a office that investigates claims of Pay Inequality than to shove it off into the court system, in which there is a good chance that the actual cases are drowned out by the numerous faulty ones.

we are talking about the lawsuits that are not frivolous. you concede above that "we need to addressing pay inequality in the limited and few places where it actually exists." how would this be done?

- quotas/AA aren't possible
- you are rejecting lawsuits for some reason

what else is there to provide impartial enforcement of anti-discrimination law?

We may be talking about the lawsuits that are not frivolous but your solution unleashes the flood gates for lawsuits that are frivolous, or do you honestly believe the only lawsuits to be filed are the ones that have merit? Saying I am rejecting it "for some reason" tells me that you do not understand the gravity of the weight that has already been placed on our court system. As for how it is to be done I have already explained how I see a better example being, both in this post and the last.

but you have set aside the other aspect of this line of questioning: are you unhappy with the romney campaign's unwillingness to also reject the increased availability of lawsuits?

I do wish Romney would have messaged it better as it is a thorny issue.

Now I ask you, are you unhappy with the Obama Administration's inability to address the pay gap inside it's own house?

[kurai]

your argument on the subject of sarah palin now hinges on the vice presidential nominee from the last election being an inadequate representative of republican messaging and strategy

okay

you say that "a PAC is not necessarily a campaign firm but a mouthpiece of what ever the PAC's beliefs represent"

sarahpac's "beliefs" are explicitly stated as a belief that "the Republican Party is at the threshold of an historic renaissance that will build a better future for all"

it is obviously a republican associated pac

by the nature of a PAC, she isn't hired for any particular purpose, but sarah palin is one of the most prominent voices of the republican party outside the official campaigns - a defining element of the overall strategy

i do not know why we are arguing about whether or not this qualifies as enough to call her a strategist

[homeofmew]

I wish Quotas and Affirmative Action wasn't possible.
But companies feel like they have to higher someone of X race not Y race so they don't LOOK Racist, if they are not the best candidate. (yes I am suggesting there is "reverse racism")

lawsuits are possible, but most people can't afford them.
they are also a waste of time of you are trying to sue walmart or a fast food chain when you are a younger teen, even if you are 26 like I am trying to sue X company won't hire me because of my gender (if that is/ or was the case) is/ or would be difficult.

Not saying I have that problem because I don't. But I know someone who is smart as I am but can't get a job, and it's probably due his race or weight.

Strategist to me is someone directly affiliated with x candidate. Which Palin is not, she said one thing i think about Romney that's it.
She's an advocate or the tea party, but that's one part of the far right winged people.

[Roy Karrde]

your argument on the subject of sarah palin now hinges on the vice presidential nominee from the last election being an inadequate representative of republican messaging and strategy

okay

It hinges on the belief that she is not directly communicating and coordinating messaging with Republicans, do you have proof she is doing so with her PAC?

you say that "a PAC is not necessarily a campaign firm but a mouthpiece of what ever the PAC's beliefs represent"

sarahpac's "beliefs" are explicitly stated as a belief that "the Republican Party is at the threshold of an historic renaissance that will build a better future for all"

it is obviously a republican associated pac

So obviously you have proof the PAC has built up some actual association with the Republican party beyond a belief about the party. Maybe she has been trading emails with the party? Some kind of mutual messaging? Some kind of coordination? Anything?

by the nature of a PAC, she isn't hired for any particular purpose, but sarah palin is one of the most prominent voices of the republican party outside the official campaigns - a defining element of the overall strategy

i do not know why we are arguing about whether or not this qualifies as enough to call her a strategist

Because a strategist usually provides strategies for the party, you have not met the bar that she has done that, and not "Gone Rogue" as Sarah Palin likes to call herself.

[kurai]

there is already a method for bypassing lawsuits without merit. they get dismissed.

you really want to create a new executive department to oversee employment discrimination, even though one already exists (that perhaps does not work)? how does this solve the problem in the private sector? can you tell me on what constitutional basis would the findings of this department be 'final'?

it would definitionally still be open to judicial review.

[Roy Karrde]

there is already a method for bypassing lawsuits without merit. they get dismissed.

And yet that still takes time for filing, time for the docket, time for pleading the case, time for lawyers to argue that their client should be heard. It is not as if a Judge has a rubber stamp and runs through court cases factory style going a million a minute.

you really want to create a new executive department to oversee employment discrimination, even though one already exists (that perhaps does not work)? how does this solve the problem in the private sector? can you tell me on what constitutional basis would the findings of this department be 'final'?

it would definitionally still be open to judicial review.

I believe I have already made it clear the department would be for the private sector, working much in the way of a Whistle Blower or HR system in which anonymously a person can submit a complaint. Could it be open for judicial review? Sure but after already being investigated and turned down by a independent arbiter it would be much harder for a lawyer to make their case, and thus less likely some one would pursue a lawsuit.

[kurai]

'strategist' is just a label, it isn't an official title which has to meet any particular standard which you are defining on the fly here

similarly, you are setting up an arbitrary standard for 'the party' - i'm not the one making the claim that she has to be directly associated with the RNC in order to qualify as a republican strategist, because that is ridiculous

the point is that saying that sarah palin's actions are not an aspect of overall republican strategy is totally divorced from reality

just ask yourself: is sarah palin a republican? is sarah palin acting for republican interests? is she doing so, perhaps, strategically?

hooray she is a republican strategist

the opening premise was only that "they're both media consultants with loose party ties, lacking official connection" - as far as we can tell, rosen is not officially connected to the DNC, palin is not officially connected to the RNC, both are media consultants with obvious partisan preference

so what's the problem

[Roy Karrde]

'strategist' is just a label, it isn't an official title which has to meet any particular standard which you are defining on the fly here

similarly, you are setting up an arbitrary standard for 'the party' - i'm not the one making the claim that she has to be directly associated with the RNC in order to qualify as a republican strategist, because that is ridiculous

Strategist usually involves some degree of strategising with the party, with out that she wouldn't be a strategist now would she?

the point is that saying that sarah palin's actions are not an aspect of overall republican strategy is totally divorced from reality

So obviously you have a connection in which Sarah Palin works with the RNC correct?

just ask yourself: is sarah palin a republican? is sarah palin acting for republican interests? is she doing so, perhaps, strategically?

hooray she is a republican strategist

Try again, you suggest she is working with a overall Republican Strategy, such a strategy is maintained by the a National Republican office, such as the RNC. Having Conservative interests and being a registered Republican does not automatically place her as strategising with the National Republican party, to believe so is pretty freaking delusional.

the opening premise was only that "they're both media consultants with loose party ties, lacking official connection" - as far as we can tell, rosen is not officially connected to the DNC, palin is not officially connected to the RNC, both are media consultants with obvious partisan preference

so what's the problem

Except Rosen is connected with the DNC or more specifically the Obama Campaign through her business above all else. Got proof that SarahPAC is connected directly with the RNC or Romney? So far you have shown none.

[kurai]

I believe I have already made it clear the department would be for the private sector, working much in the way of a Whistle Blower or HR system in which anonymously a person can submit a complaint. Could it be open for judicial review? Sure but after already being investigated and turned down by a independent arbiter it would be much harder for a lawyer to make their case, and thus less likely some one would pursue a lawsuit.

well, we will ignore the fact that the federal executive almost certainly doesn't have the constitutional ability to decide private sector matters of this sort.

if you have judicial review on one side, you also have it on the other. both negative and positive outcomes from this adjudication process would retain the ability for judicial review. both employer and employee would have the ability for appeal.

so yes, let us ensure that people are less likely to pursue discrimination complaints, even if we accept the premise that "we need to [address] pay inequality in the limited and few places where it actually exists", and even in the cases which our new agency agrees are discriminatory

that sounds like justice to me

(what you are suggesting is both unconstitutional and impractical and does not solve the issue of discrimination)

[Roy Karrde]

well, we will ignore the fact that the federal executive almost certainly doesn't have the constitutional ability to decide private sector matters of this sort.

Seeing how we have expanded the power of Congress to cover non commerce, I doubt it would be too hard to find a way here.

if you have judicial review on one side, you also have it on the other. both negative and positive outcomes from this adjudication process would retain the ability for judicial review. both employer and employee would have the ability for appeal.

so yes, let us ensure that people are less likely to pursue discrimination complaints, even if we accept the premise that "we need to [address] pay inequality in the limited and few places where it actually exists", and even in the cases which our new agency agrees are discriminatory

that sounds like justice to me

And do you honestly believe that every single case would move on to Judicial Review? They already would have a strike against them already through this office, which in and of itself is expected to be impartial. I doubt many lawyers will want to not only be forced to plead their client's case to a judge, but also have to defend the fact that a independent agency has found it frivolous.

(what you are suggesting is both unconstitutional and impractical and does not solve the issue of discrimination)

You will always have the issue of discrimination, however while you are criticizing my idea, I have not seen you suggest anything in turn. Infact all you seem to have done is endorse a system that will create even more burden ( by stringing out the length of filing ) onto a already overburdened Justice System.

[kurai]

the DNC is not the obama campaign

nothing says that to be a 'strategy' it must be formally connected to any other organization or person - she is a representative of some aspect of republican ideals, and she conducts an open and organized political strategy to that end

i have not said that palin or sarahpac is officially connected to the RNC - why would i? the RNC is not the Sole Arbiter of Republican Strategy. i actually explicitly made the opposite claim.

yes, being the former vice presidential nominee of the republican party and since then being a continual media representative of explicitly stated republican interests places her firmly in the camp of 'republican strategy'

i do not know why you are arguing semantics over this issue

[kurai]

discrimination is an issue of essential justice only able to be solved through impartial judgement

the justice system has to be able to provide justice

if it can't then fix that

adding things underneath it only provides for an artificial barrier. this is wasteful and ineffective - it is only an extra step blocking the route to the actual place in which such judgements can be decided

[Roy Karrde]

the DNC is not the obama campaign

So we are assuming that the Democratic National Committee does not have heavy coordination with the Reelection of their party's candidate for President?

nothing says that to be a 'strategy' it must be formally connected to any other organization or person - she is a representative of some aspect of republican ideals, and she conducts an open and organized political strategy to that end

And yet to actually be a Republican Strategist, or as you put it, be connected to "overall republican strategy" she will need some degree of coordination or connection. Or are we to assume that she is a mind reader now?

i have not said that palin or sarahpac is officially connected to the RNC - why would i? the RNC is not the Sole Arbiter of Republican Strategy. i actually explicitly made the opposite claim.

You claim and I quote: "sarah palin's actions are not an aspect of overall republican strategy is totally divorced from reality"

So if Sarah Palin is not connected with the RNC, which I would assume we would both agree regulates and plans overall Republican Strategy as they are the national level of the party. How are her actions a aspect of said strategy if she is not connected to it? Again is she a mind reader?

yes, being the former vice presidential nominee of the republican party and since then being a continual media representative of explicitly stated republican interests places her firmly in the camp of 'republican strategy'

And again I state, you cannot be in the camp of Republican Strategy if you are not privy to that strategy in the first place.

discrimination is an issue of essential justice only able to be solved through impartial judgement

the justice system has to be able to provide justice

if it can't then fix that

adding things underneath it only provides for an artificial barrier. this is wasteful and ineffective - it is only an extra step blocking the route to the actual place in which such judgements can be decided

"Fix that" cute, so in other words you have no idea as to how to deal with this and would rather add even more burden to a already overburden court system with it.

Edit: And just another note on "fact that the federal executive almost certainly doesn't have the constitutional ability to decide private sector matters of this sort."

If so, then why do we have the EEOC otherwise known as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which does and I quote "The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

....

The EEOC has the authority to investigate charges of discrimination against employers who are covered by the law. Our role in an investigation is to fairly and accurately assess the allegations in the charge and then make a finding. If we find that discrimination has occurred, we will try to settle the charge. If we aren't successful, we have the authority to file a lawsuit to protect the rights of individuals and the interests of the public. We do not, however, file lawsuits in all cases where we find discrimination."

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/

So we have a agency that enforces laws governing job applicant discrimination ( Of which I doubt you would argue that considering a Job Application is any less a private sector business practice than Paying a employee ) but also to prevent the workplace from discriminating against a employee for being a Whistle blower, while amazingly enough at the same time reviews those laws and files a lawsuit on behalf of the individual if they find those laws have been broken.

So I am curious as how you believe it is a "Fact" that a agency looking into and reviewing pay discrimination is considered unconstitutional, but a agency that looks into and reviews job applicant and whistle blower discrimination is not?

[kurai]

the division between the DNC and the actual campaign is pretty important. they are explicitly not the same thing.

like with sarah palin and sarahpac, campaigning is separate from the monolithic "strategy" concept you seem to be defining - but no single source of "coordination or connection" is actually needed. rosen is as equally disconnected from the DNC as palin is from the RNC.

the RNC strategy is not the republican strategy. it's the RNC strategy. i have repeatedly said that the RNC does not act as the arbiter of republican strategy. you are effectively excluding all kinds of independent political organizations from their actual partisan purposes - the term 'republican strategy' refers to a wide spectrum of things, not merely operations at the highest level.

there isn't One Republican Purpose - lots of action groups and political organizations come together with the single partisan purpose. sarah palin is a particularly important aspect of this, being a highly public and highly vocal former top tier candidate.

you insist on arguing against a claim that she is officially and explicitly connected to the RNC, but i did not make this claim.

-

look at what you are quoting. they have no ability to decide private civil matters.

because they have no legal authority to do so. they can not "prevent the workplace from discriminating against [an] employee" - they can convince two parties to settle through arbitration and then optionally file a lawsuit which goes back to judicial oversight.

but i did not mean that your entire plan was unconstitutional - only that in order for it to actually be effective in practice, it would have to be able to make final decisions, which certainly would be. agencies like the eeoc and opm already exist to serve the non-binding review and advocacy purpose you propose - this is not unconstitutional because it is not the final stage.

as a result, your issues with referring such discrimination resolution to "a already overburden court system" [sic] remains.

[Roy Karrde]

the division between the DNC and the actual campaign is pretty important. they are explicitly not the same thing.

like with sarah palin and sarahpac, campaigning is separate from the monolithic "strategy" concept you seem to be defining - but no single source of "coordination or connection" is actually needed. rosen is as equally disconnected from the DNC as palin is from the RNC.

Are you suggesting that the information that the Obama Campaign is given by their advisers they do not share with the DNC? Mind you it doesn't matter from Politico to CNN she is identified as working with the DNC, and her website shows she works with the Obama Campaign. I cannot see why you deny that.

By the way, lets look at a few of Hilary's past connections since you seem to believe she has relatively no connections to the DNC.

“Obama advisers have occasionally told her to ‘tone it down’ and ‘back off a smidgen,’ Ms. Wasserman Schultz says. She agreed with them to enlist two seasoned Democratic female pros, Anita Dunn and Hilary Rosen, to begin giving her occasional political advice and media training, advisers say.”(Monica Langley, “Combative Top Democrat Gains Clout In Campaign,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/16/12)

That would be Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC Chair.

During The 2012 Election Cycle, SKDKnickerbocker ( Hilery Rosen's company ) Has Been Paid At Least $120,864 By The DNC For Media Consulting, Communications Consulting, And Media Production. (CQ MoneyLine Website, politicalmoneyline.cq.com, Accessed 4/12/12)

the RNC strategy is not the republican strategy. it's the RNC strategy. i have repeatedly said that the RNC does not act as the arbiter of republican strategy. you are effectively excluding all kinds of independent political organizations from their actual partisan purposes - the term 'republican strategy' refers to a wide spectrum of things, not merely operations at the highest level.

The RNC creates the national strategy for Republican Candidates, they dole out funds, work on message coordination, etc etc, they are in essence responsible for the "Overall Republican Strategy" you have been looking for.

you insist on arguing against a claim that she is officially and explicitly connected to the RNC, but i did not make this claim.

No you claim that she is part of a overall Republican Strategy, I have said for that to be so she will need to be connected with the National Committee as it is their job with formulating and coordinating that overall strategy. So far you have done nothing to back up that claim.

look at what you are quoting. they have no ability to decide private civil matters.

because they have no legal authority to do so. they can not "prevent the workplace from discriminating against [an] employee" - they can convince two parties to settle through arbitration and then optionally file a lawsuit which goes back to judicial oversight.

And by doing so they act as a gate keeper, preventing many unnecessary lawsuits.

but i did not mean that your entire plan was unconstitutional - only that in order for it to actually be effective in practice, it would have to be able to make final decisions, which certainly would be. agencies like the eeoc and opm already exist to serve the non-binding review and advocacy purpose you propose - this is not unconstitutional because it is not the final stage.

Note I never said it would be the final stage, that Judicial Review is still available however that for a company or person to go against the final decision would place a even higher burden on them when they enter the court system and thus prevent even more lawsuits.

as a result, your issues with referring such discrimination resolution to "a already overburden court system" [sic] remains.

No, as with the EEOC and my own idea, you have a gatekeeper who acts to resolve the issues before they go to court, and takes the ones needed to court. This takes what is a flood of lawsuits, and condenses them down to a trickle, this relieves the burden on the court system to have to shift through the frivolous lawsuits to find the ones that actually need attention.

[kurai]

there is no substance to the claim that you have to be directly connected to the national committee in order to be considered a part of republican strategic discourse - this exists beyond party structure and beyond the RNC.

the overall republican strategy is absolutely not just the RNC.

the life and essence of the party relies on so much more action and support than just that, i have no idea why you are claiming it has some exclusive domain on republicanness or republican strategy. it only oversees official RNC strategy, there are obviously other aspects to republican strategy than merely this. consider that the RNC has a very minimal role outside of election time, and yet the goal of party success is nonetheless advanced - this is done through a different kind of independent republican strategy, as embodied in the example of sarah palin.

you are just providing a semantic argument which makes no difference to the importance of sarah palin (or any other prominent republican media figure), and has no bearing on anything i've said about her role and purpose. the RNC is not the embodiment of the only republican platform, and not the only source of republican strategy.

-

yes, if your system requires that a body acts as a "gatekeeper" to "prevent even more lawsuits", it is a bad system. you are standing on the assumption that a mass influx of frivolous lawsuits stands to cripple the justice system.

discrimination claims can only legitimately and ultimately be found to be frivolous through the justice system - through judicial review. you assume that stopping lawsuits is the ideal goal, but perhaps the opposite is true...? let people seek justice openly.

if this is the goal, and we accept that "a flood of lawsuits" was possible, the demand would necessitate a new inferior judicial court - simply provide it with original jurisdiction over civil discrimination cases. there is no need to throttle the access to legal proceedings, this only serves to throttle the access to justice.

[Roy Karrde]

there is no substance to the claim that you have to be directly connected to the national committee in order to be considered a part of republican strategic discourse - this exists beyond party structure and beyond the RNC.

the overall republican strategy is absolutely not just the RNC.

And yet it is the RNC who places people on television to get overall Republican messaging out. It is the RNC that files press releases to get the Republican messaging out. It is the RNC that creates videos both for commercials and for youtube to craft a overall message and theme. It is the RNC that holds events revolving around a single overall national message. To put it simply the RNC is responsible for framing the national debate toward what they see as the Republican message.

the life and essence of the party relies on so much more action and support than just that, i have no idea why you are claiming it has some exclusive domain on republicanness or republican strategy. it only oversees official RNC strategy, there are obviously other aspects to republican strategy than merely this. consider that the RNC has a very minimal role outside of election time, and yet the goal of party success is nonetheless advanced - this is done through a different kind of independent republican strategy, as embodied in the example of sarah palin.

Minimal Role outside of election time? That is news, considering that the RNC plays a heavy role and coordinating and presenting a national message against Democratic Agenda items, especially the role they played against Obamacare.

you are just providing a semantic argument which makes no difference to the importance of sarah palin (or any other prominent republican media figure), and has no bearing on anything i've said about her role and purpose. the RNC is not the embodiment of the only republican platform, and not the only source of republican strategy.

Seeing how you completely and utterly ignored the addition to my post showing the very real and substantive things that this woman has done for the DNC, I believe we can both agree upon that she provides more duties than what Sarah Palin has done. Thus making your original point null and void.

yes, if your system requires that a body acts as a "gatekeeper" to "prevent even more lawsuits", it is a bad system. you are standing on the assumption that a mass influx of frivolous lawsuits stands to cripple the justice system.

It would be ignorant not to stand by that assumption, our court system is not a entity of unlimited resources and power, the more frivolous lawsuits you add into the system, the more time it takes away from lawsuits that actually have merit, and thus weakens the system as a whole.

discrimination claims can only legitimately and ultimately be found to be frivolous through the justice system - through judicial review. you assume that stopping lawsuits is the ideal goal, but perhaps the opposite is true...? let people seek justice openly.

And crowd out the voices that have a right to seek justice? I notice you have not objected to the EEOC, which does exactly what I have suggested to do with these sort of lawsuits. Do you believe that hiring and whistleblowing discrimination is less worthy of court time than pay discrimination? Even though the first two could be considered FAR more rampant in this day and age?

It is also interesting that you rely on the court system for this, as noted by others companies tend to have teams of lawyers, while many people are unable to afford the services of a single lawyer. Having a independent government office to investigate claims allows for a more even playing field that does not require for those looking to sue the company to set aside what little money they are making to sue their company.

if this is the goal, and we accept that "a flood of lawsuits" was possible, the demand would necessitate a new inferior judicial court - simply provide it with original jurisdiction over civil discrimination cases. there is no need to throttle the access to legal proceedings, this only serves to throttle the access to justice.

And again I say, you seem to live in a fantasy world in which a court has unlimited resources to take on these things. Unlimited space to build court houses, unlimited judges to manage cases, unlimited clerks and staff to file paperwork and review for the judges, the list goes on and on and on.

[Dark Sage]

In other news...

Wealthy GOP Super PAC donator Foster Friess, who once supported Santorum and has now officially put his support behind Romney, is now in hot water.

In an interview on Fox Business News in which he said he is now putting his support behind Romney, he said, and I quote:

"There are a lot of things that haven't been hammered at because Rick and Mitt have been going at each other. Now that they have trained their barrels on President Obama, I hope his teleprompters are bulletproof."

He later apologized for his failed attempt at a "joke". However, I doubt that the Secret Service was amused.

[Roy Karrde]

In other news...

Wealthy GOP Super PAC donator Foster Friess, who once supported Santorum and has now officially put his support behind Romney, is now in hot water.

In an interview on Fox Business News in which he said he is now putting his support behind Romney, he said, and I quote:

"There are a lot of things that haven't been hammered at because Rick and Mitt have been going at each other. Now that they have trained their barrels on President Obama, I hope his teleprompters are bulletproof."

He later apologized for his failed attempt at a "joke". However, I doubt that the Secret Service was amused.

Ugh I hate how we have gotten so ass tightened over the use of gun metaphors in the political arena. Yeah Gifford's shooting was horrible but it was not spurred on by rhetoric. Can't we unclinch for a minute and allow both sides to use it?

[Dark Sage]

Roy, this isn't the first time Friess has said something dumb. It seems that every time he opens his mouth, he helps the Democrats.

And by the way, making a threat against the President, even in jest, is serious.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, this isn't the first time Friess has said something dumb. It seems that every time he opens his mouth, he helps the Democrats.

And by the way, making a threat against the President, even in jest, is serious.

I am not so sure it would be considered making a threat against the President, I have no doubt the Secret Service will investigate it, but a threat would seem to require the chance that Romney or Santorum would actually attempt to assassinate Obama, which I believe we can both agree is ludicrous.

[Dark Sage]

I am not so sure it would be considered making a threat against the President, I have no doubt the Secret Service will investigate it, but a threat would seem to require the chance that Romney or Santorum would actually attempt to assassinate Obama, which I believe we can both agree is ludicrous.

I agree, but surely YOU must agree that what he said was inappropriate and done with incredible bad taste. Much like this other statement he made in February when he spoke with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on the contraception debate.

"This contraceptive thing, my gosh it's such [sic] inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly."

He tried to apologize later for the "joke", but no-one, least of all Mitchell, thought it was funny.

[homeofmew]

I know strategist isn't an official title. But they are active with in the party, which palin really isn't yes she's on TV sometimes, but not a lot.

Again don't confuse the Tea party Movement with the Republican Party, they all may be Republicans, but not all Republicans are part of the Tea Party Movement.

[Dark Sage]

The Tea Party is a non-entity. Anyone who wants to call himself a member of the Tea Party is a member. They are no more an official organized group than the OWS movement.

They have no real charter, no real leader, no central headquarters, and and I'm willing to bet that if you asked a two members in two states what their ultimate goals were, their answers would vary vastly.

[Roy Karrde]

I agree, but surely YOU must agree that what he said was inappropriate and done with incredible bad taste. Much like this other statement he made in February when he spoke with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on the contraception debate.

"This contraceptive thing, my gosh it's such [sic] inexpensive. Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly."

He tried to apologize later for the "joke", but no-one, least of all Mitchell, thought it was funny.

Oh I believe it was inappropriate and in bad taste, that we agree. I also believe it is a non story right now, because all the oxygen has been sucked out by that "Twitter Gossip Story" that kurai put it, as every one in the Democratic Party seems to be racing to throw Hilary under the bus, including the President.

[Blademaster]

But companies feel like they have to higher someone of X race not Y race so they don't LOOK Racist, if they are not the best candidate.

higher

...Ugh...

And by the way, making a threat against the President, even in jest, is serious.

For once I gotta agree with Roy. People are too fucking sensitive nowadays. Just because someone feels like something is in bad taste doesn't mean they have the right to use it as their instant self-beneficial strawman for the rest of time.

[Dark Sage]

Obama made a comment about Hilary Rosen's attack on Ann Romney: he actually defended Mrs. Romney.

As he told Bruce Aune of ABC's Cedar Rapids affiliate KCRG, "There's no tougher job than being a mom. Anybody who would argue otherwise, I think, probably needs to rethink their statement."

I have to agree with him on that.

And if Obama can keep this up and stay away from the mudslinging that the GOP engaged in for the past few months, he's going to end up a lot better off.

[Roy Karrde]

Obama made a comment about Hilary Rosen's attack on Ann Romney: he actually defended Mrs. Romney.

As he told Bruce Aune of ABC's Cedar Rapids affiliate KCRG, "There's no tougher job than being a mom. Anybody who would argue otherwise, I think, probably needs to rethink their statement."

I have to agree with him on that.

And if Obama can keep this up and stay away from the mudslinging that the GOP engaged in for the past few months, he's going to end up a lot better off.

Dude did you actually think he would be stupid enough to agree with Hilary Rosen? I mean even Downer Debbie disagreed with her and she is one of the biggest blowhards on the Democratic Party. Romney's wife is a incredible asset on the campaign trail, and the Democratic Party knows that she has just been placed front and center by some one that has deep ties to them. That not only help galvanizes Republicans around Romney, but its really putting a dagger on this "War on Women" crap.

Mind you however, that Obama actually has echoed just this last week what Rosen said, that Michelle did not have the "luxury" to not work.



To imply that being a stay at home parent is necessarily a luxury, rather than a partnership between two parents who both work hard to achieve shared goals, is a really good way to insult a hell of a lot of average Americans.

If campaign ads come from this, I would expect this clip to be matched with Rosen's

[Dark Sage]

Roy, I doubt that Ann Romney needs to work. Her husband is a gazillionaire.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, I doubt that Ann Romney needs to work. Her husband is a gazillionaire.

Obama was also quite rich at the time that he was speaking of, but Michelle Obama still worked. Some people don't just work for money. But you know it would be kind of hard for Ann Romney to, considering she has battled MS, Breast Cancer, and dealing withe 5 kids.

[homeofmew]

The Tea Party is a non-entity. Anyone who wants to call himself a member of the Tea Party is a member. They are no more an official organized group than the OWS movement.

They have no real charter, no real leader, no central headquarters, and and I'm willing to bet that if you asked a two members in two states what their ultimate goals were, their answers would vary vastly.

Hence why i called the tea party the tea party MOVEMENT.

Anyway back to discrimination, anyway you look at it some people are going to feel discriminated against, even if there is no discrimination (or dislike to that group).

[Dark Sage]

But you know it would be kind of hard for Ann Romney to, considering she has battled MS, Breast Cancer, and dealing withe 5 kids.

O-kay... I can honestly say I did not know about the first two problems... And let me say, I am very sympathetic towards cancer patients, seeing as my grandfather died of lung cancer...

Maybe if she'd be a little more public...

[Dark Sage]

Me again.

I just listened to Ann Romney's response to Rosen's comment again, and while it made sense, I have to wonder...

She talked about the choices women make, how we must accept the choices women make, how we must be compassionate towards women who make such choices... Heck, she used the word "choice" five times in twenty-one seconds...

This woman certainly doesn't sound like she belongs with a party that would deny people affordable health insurance, or a group that would be fond of laying off workers, as her husband seems to be so proud of...

In fact, it seems to me that Mrs. Romney and Mrs. Obama would be quite comfortable campaigning together if the situation were different. Lol.

[Roy Karrde]

Me again.

I just listened to Ann Romney's response to Rosen's comment again, and while it made sense, I have to wonder...

She talked about the choices women make, how we must accept the choices women make, how we must be compassionate towards women who make such choices... Heck, she used the word "choice" five times in twenty-one seconds...

This woman certainly doesn't sound like she belongs with a party that would deny people affordable health insurance, or a group that would be fond of laying off workers, as her husband seems to be so proud of...

In fact, it seems to me that Mrs. Romney and Mrs. Obama would be quite comfortable campaigning together if the situation were different. Lol.

Well lets think about this, has anyone in the Republican party been wanting to deny people affordable health care? Remember, Obamacare not only does not reduce prices of health care, but may have raised it.

No one is "fond" of laying off workers, her husband was more than happy to fire workers who failed to produce, that is logical. I mean honestly why should anyone continue to pay someone who's work fails to meet the expectations?