Republican WAR on women

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
As a private business owner, I'd like to be able to legally defend my decision-making when hedging against losses (and going out of business) when I take business risks. If I can't say "I won't award a contract to this company because they have a horrible track record" because they happen to be minority owned and have the right to sue me for discrimination, you've basically killed incentives for profit making behaviors. We're looking at just a different flavor of Soviet Russia in its heyday.

Of course you can legally defend your decision, and nothing stops you from pointing out that the other company has a horrible track record. If that is in fact the case, you should win any lawsuit.

Furthermore, the problem is self-correcting. Over time, fewer and fewer of such frivolous cases would gain any traction, and only the most egregious examples of discrimination would make it to trial.

The alternative would leave you and other owners free to discriminate against a company *solely* because it was minority owned. And that, as history shows, is a situation that does *not* correct itself over time.

(What any of the above has to do with Soviet Russia is beyond me.)
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Of course you can legally defend your decision, and nothing stops you from pointing out that the other company has a horrible track record. If that is in fact the case, you should win any lawsuit.

You'd think. But that's not necessarily a given, especially in the case of hiring contractors on 1099 contracts and EEOC laws.

Furthermore, the problem is self-correcting. Over time, fewer and fewer of such frivolous cases would gain any traction, and only the most egregious examples of discrimination would make it to trial.

In that case, we would see fewer and fewer lawyers. Reality doesn't reflect that. And from the court system's perspective, it's in their incentive to see a certain volume of cases as the court fees are used to generate revenue.


The alternative would leave you and other owners free to discriminate against a company *solely* because it was minority owned. And that, as history shows, is a situation that does *not* correct itself over time.

Actually it does. Filters like criminal background checks have been shown to actually increase the hiring rate for minority groups (JSTOR: Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 49, No. 2 (October 2006), pp. 451-480) because instead of stereotyped assumptions about behaviors, there is actual evidence to go off of.

(What any of the above has to do with Soviet Russia is beyond me.)

If you kill incentives for private businesses, you are left with state-run companies to generate all economic activities (as well as the black market). Like Soviet Russia in its heyday.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,638
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
You'd think. But that's not necessarily a given, especially in the case of hiring contractors on 1099 contracts and EEOC laws.

Any attempt at reform has unintended consequences, and there may be some excesses and over compensation in the fight against discrimination. That's the regrettable price you pay when you try to redress centuries of systemic injustice. Such problems need to be addressed and a balance attained.

That's still not a reason to ignore the injustice and let it go on unopposed.

In that case, we would see fewer and fewer lawyers. Reality doesn't reflect that. And from the court system's perspective, it's in their incentive to see a certain volume of cases as the court fees are used to generate revenue.

Maybe not fewer lawyers or court cases, but different ones. You don't see many Irish or Germans suing for discrimination these days. Some day, though not soon enough, the same will be true for other minorities.

Actually it does. Filters like criminal background checks have been shown to actually increase the hiring rate for minority groups (JSTOR: Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 49, No. 2 (October 2006), pp. 451-480) because instead of stereotyped assumptions about behaviors, there is actual evidence to go off of.

Criminal background checks do not prevent employers from making stereotyped assumptions; it's often quite the opposite. And since, as the article itself points out, black men are disproportionately more likely to have prison records, it's unclear how such a requirement helps them. If anything, such checks can feed into existing racial preconceptions rather than dispel them.

If you kill incentives for private businesses, you are left with state-run companies to generate all economic activities (as well as the black market). Like Soviet Russia in its heyday.

Well, yes, if everything happens just as you say and our entire economy turns on its head, then OK, I guess you will have Soviet Russia.

Talk about your slippery slope argument. :biggrin1:
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Freed the slaves - Republican
Women's rights - Republican
Civil rights movement - Republican
Food stamps/government cheese - Republican

Yeah this is ancient history. No way in hell that would happen today. States rights you know which is just dog whistling. The Republican Party of today has lost it's mind and soul.

And this from a lifelong Republican:


America desperately needs a responsible and compassionate alternative to the Obama administration’s path of bigger government at higher cost. And yet: This past summer, the GOP nearly forced America to the verge of default just to score a point in a budget debate. In the throes of the worst economic crisis since the Depression, Republican politicians demand massive budget cuts and shrug off the concerns of the unemployed. In the face of evidence of dwindling upward mobility and long-stagnating middle-class wages, my party’s economic ideas sometimes seem to have shrunk to just one: more tax cuts for the very highest earners. When I entered Republican politics, during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions—crime, inflation, the Cold War—right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong.

When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Well, yes, if everything happens just as you say and our entire economy turns on its head, then OK, I guess you will have Soviet Russia.

Talk about your slippery slope argument. :biggrin1:

That's why I prefer living in warmer places. Far far away from any ice...or Siberia...
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
if the GOP gets any more power, Siberia will soon be the new tropics. :frown1:

They're developing the technology to tilt the globe on its axis? When the hell did they start on that?
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male

Thirdlegproduction

Formerly WhiteMonst3r
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Posts
1,496
Media
13
Likes
2,519
Points
368
Location
Amsterdam (North Holland, Netherlands)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I believe about a month ago a democrat woman was badmouthing romneys wife for complaining how hard it is to be a woman, but all she ever did was stay home and take care of the romney offspring.

Coming from a democrat, the republicans went apeshit over this remark and defended stay at home moms for the rest of the week.

Hmm now that I think about it, it was just FOX news but they're all republic right?

Guess all I'm saying is that they'll fight for women as long as it serves their needs.
 

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You really missed the point of the arguments. The democrat who made the initial comments implied very strongly that being a stay at home mom is a cop-out, escaping any "real" responsibility, and adopting a "weaker" position.

In case you missed it, a majority of other democrats quickly distanced themselves or chastised her for saying such a thing.

The republican backlash was simply to defend a woman's (mother's) right to choose to be a full time mother AND to have people recognize the sacrifices she must make in order to do so. Besides, isn't choice something democrats like?
 

Thirdlegproduction

Formerly WhiteMonst3r
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Posts
1,496
Media
13
Likes
2,519
Points
368
Location
Amsterdam (North Holland, Netherlands)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yeah I only saw flashes of it coming by on the daily show and colbert report.

Im not that well informed on US events, but my point was valid.
Republicans will defend women and their rights if it suits their needs (bashing democrats?) despite of their war on women.
 

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Yeah I only saw flashes of it coming by on the daily show and colbert report.
Those shows are explicitly entertainment news, not impartial at all. While many real news organizations are partisan or partial to one cause or another, they are not universally so and their programs are not designed to entertain, but to inform.

Im not that well informed on US events, but my point was valid.
Republicans will defend women and their rights if it suits their needs (bashing democrats?) despite of their war on women.
Actually, the validity of your point remains to be seen because you seem to be implying that republicans would not defend women if it does not suit their needs. And to tell the difference between the two we would need to define what suits their needs.
 

luvbigcock1

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
118
Media
1
Likes
33
Points
53
Location
Texas
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Luv listening to the liberals. Especially from California. That would be the BROKE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I bow to you SMART PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:
 

wispandex_bulge

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Posts
371
Media
1
Likes
15
Points
238
Location
Wisconsin
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
uhm yeah, a war on women while defending them?
The "war on women" is just a liberal talking point. Republicans are not waging war on women or women rights at all. They are trying to protect the rights of individuals and organizations that have a different moral code than our president. Even if certain organizations were able to deny certain services on religious or other moral grounds, it does not limit a woman's rights when there are other providers she could choose.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
The "war on women" is just a liberal talking point. Republicans are not waging war on women or women rights at all. They are trying to protect the rights of individuals and organizations that have a different moral code than our president. Even if certain organizations were able to deny certain services on religious or other moral grounds, it does not limit a woman's rights when there are other providers she could choose.

Beautifully said.
 

sbat

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Posts
2,295
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
73
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
So I guess that concludes this thread. Good talk, everyone :biggrin:
 

TheBestYouCan

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Posts
827
Media
203
Likes
2,291
Points
263
Location
U.S.
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday condemned companies that pay women less than men, but was unwilling to condemn Senate Democrats who pay their female staffers less than male staffers, saying that the Senate is “another world.” "

Let's welcome Pelosi to the Republicans War on Women! It's another world!!
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday condemned companies that pay women less than men, but was unwilling to condemn Senate Democrats who pay their female staffers less than male staffers, saying that the Senate is “another world.” "

Let's welcome Pelosi to the Republicans War on Women! It's another world!!

Do you mind sharing with us where that quote came from?