Boehner blocks democracy again
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Mr. Speaker, Let me explain the goverment of the US. 1) We choose people to represent us in the legislative branch. Senators and Congressmen. 2) These representatives vote on laws, budgets, and defense issues on our behalf. This is a representative democracy.
It is not supposed to be up to you to decide which issues are worthy of a vote. Please stop blocking votes and let the will of the people be done. How does one impeach the Speaker? Edited by pga_mike 2013-11-07 9:25 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by pga_mike Mr. Speaker, Let me explain the goverment of the US. 1) We choose people to represent us in the legislative branch. Senators and Congressmen. 2) These representatives vote on laws, budgets, and defense issues on our behalf. This is a representative democracy.
It is not supposed to be up to you to decide which issues are worthy of a vote. Please stop blocking votes and let the will of the people be done. How does one impeach the Speaker? you vote him out ever 2 years or basically ask your congressman not to support him to be speaker if its the same party. Other than that you have to commit a crime. Being an obstructionist is not a crime. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I do disagree with the hastard rule. I understand why they have it I just do not agree with it. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. Well I care because it is an issue. Although I'm pretty sure I know where you're coming from on this one. It shouldn't be an issue. I sure hope that is the case with kids, it will make it much easier for the gay youth. It was a struggle when I was that age and that was only like 10-13 years ago (a lot has happened in the past 10 years). I cant imagine what it was like for people before me. He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Passage of this is more of a formality then anything, but it is important (which again for the life of me I can't understand why this would be blocked in the house). What Boehner pretty much said is that I am a second class citizen not granted equal protection under the law. That's the way it feels anyways, and it hurts. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() http://jezebel.com/kids-reacting-to-same-sex-marriage-might-make-yo... link gives you hope that kids are accepting of the concept. I love the green shirt girl who goes from "that's just crazy" to "I don't know -this is new to me"to "I don't know why anyone would be mad about this" to The correlary with racism. She encountered something new and processed it through. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by Left Brain Well I care because it is an issue. Although I'm pretty sure I know where you're coming from on this one. It shouldn't be an issue. I sure hope that is the case with kids, it will make it much easier for the gay youth. It was a struggle when I was that age and that was only like 10-13 years ago (a lot has happened in the past 10 years). I cant imagine what it was like for people before me. He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Passage of this is more of a formality then anything, but it is important (which again for the life of me I can't understand why this would be blocked in the house). What Boehner pretty much said is that I am a second class citizen not granted equal protection under the law. That's the way it feels anyways, and it hurts. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. Of course you care.....why wouldn't you? What I meant is that it should be a non-issue for everyone. As for the kids......there are openly gay kids where my children go to school....my son says that it's no big deal and that nobody messes with them about it. He also says that there are plenty of kids who would rain hell on anyone who tried to. It may take a few generations but, from what I see and hear from young people, there are much easier days ahead for GLT folks. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by bootygirl http://jezebel.com/kids-reacting-to-same-sex-marriage-might-make-yo... link gives you hope that kids are accepting of the concept. I love the green shirt girl who goes from "that's just crazy" to "I don't know -this is new to me"to "I don't know why anyone would be mad about this" to The correlary with racism. She encountered something new and processed it through. Link didn't work. Curious to see it. Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by Left Brain Well I care because it is an issue. Although I'm pretty sure I know where you're coming from on this one. It shouldn't be an issue. I sure hope that is the case with kids, it will make it much easier for the gay youth. It was a struggle when I was that age and that was only like 10-13 years ago (a lot has happened in the past 10 years). I cant imagine what it was like for people before me. He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Passage of this is more of a formality then anything, but it is important (which again for the life of me I can't understand why this would be blocked in the house). What Boehner pretty much said is that I am a second class citizen not granted equal protection under the law. That's the way it feels anyways, and it hurts. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. Of course you care.....why wouldn't you? What I meant is that it should be a non-issue for everyone. As for the kids......there are openly gay kids where my children go to school....my son says that it's no big deal and that nobody messes with them about it. He also says that there are plenty of kids who would rain hell on anyone who tried to. It may take a few generations but, from what I see and hear from young people, there are much easier days ahead for GLT folks. Yes I figured that is what you meant. That is good to hear. Made my day a bit better thanks. |
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Justin86 I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. Originally posted by Left Brain He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. I'm sorry, but it has been my experience that GLT people are pretty far down the list of people who file discrimination lawsuits against employers. While I agree that the fear exists, it's irrational. Like Justin said, this is all a formality anyway.....we all work with GLT people.....I don't see any problems as a result, because there aren't any. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() http://jezebel.com/kids-reacting-to-same-sex-marriage-might-make-yo... should work. But it doesn't. Why? Check out this video on YouTube:http://youtu.be/8TJxnYgP6D8. Does that work? . I gotta go to work. Goggle "Kids reacting to gay marriage" |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() There are people. A co worker of mine said at the gym when they showed Anthony Weiner case on tv. He said He is a sick man for talking dirty to women and he will not be around people like that nor will he let his family be around people like that. I was surprised how angry he got at this. He manages several people and chance all if we has to let someone go he will let go the person who has this behavior. While something like that might be an unprovable form of discrimination it can happen. It also helps prevents companies like Hobby Lobby from having open policies. I am not saying they do but they seem to be a company that would if they could. |
![]() ![]() |
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Justin86 I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. Originally posted by Left Brain He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. I'm sorry, but it has been my experience that GLT people are pretty far down the list of people who file discrimination lawsuits against employers. While I agree that the fear exists, it's irrational. Like Justin said, this is all a formality anyway.....we all work with GLT people.....I don't see any problems as a result, because there aren't any. A component of risk is perceived risk whether it is rational or not. Again, if two investments will generate equal future returns the one with the lower risk is always the best choice. Tagging LBGT as an additional risk puts the community at a disadvantage at the hiring table. I live in a very gay city our city and state already have these laws. The business I own has had policies in place even before it was state law. Not because I was forced to, but because it was good business to do so. So a far as I'm concern it is just an unneeded expansion of government. I am not a huge fan on federal government creep in the name of "formality". |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Left Brain A component of risk is perceived risk whether it is rational or not. Again, if two investments will generate equal future returns the one with the lower risk is always the best choice. Tagging LBGT as an additional risk puts the community at a disadvantage at the hiring table. I live in a very gay city our city and state already have these laws. The business I own has had policies in place even before it was state law. Not because I was forced to, but because it was good business to do so. So a far as I'm concern it is just an unneeded expansion of government. I am not a huge fan on federal government creep in the name of "formality". Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Justin86 I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. Originally posted by Left Brain He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. I'm sorry, but it has been my experience that GLT people are pretty far down the list of people who file discrimination lawsuits against employers. While I agree that the fear exists, it's irrational. Like Justin said, this is all a formality anyway.....we all work with GLT people.....I don't see any problems as a result, because there aren't any. OK, I see your point there. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Left Brain A component of risk is perceived risk whether it is rational or not. Again, if two investments will generate equal future returns the one with the lower risk is always the best choice. Tagging LBGT as an additional risk puts the community at a disadvantage at the hiring table. I live in a very gay city our city and state already have these laws. The business I own has had policies in place even before it was state law. Not because I was forced to, but because it was good business to do so. So a far as I'm concern it is just an unneeded expansion of government. I am not a huge fan on federal government creep in the name of "formality". Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Justin86 I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. Originally posted by Left Brain He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. I'm sorry, but it has been my experience that GLT people are pretty far down the list of people who file discrimination lawsuits against employers. While I agree that the fear exists, it's irrational. Like Justin said, this is all a formality anyway.....we all work with GLT people.....I don't see any problems as a result, because there aren't any. Well put Jackemy.
I would just add, that we all like to rant and rave about government intrusion and the need for less government, until it comes to our specific pet project and then we are all about "formality" laws being passed. We don't need a law for every little detail and formality. Although it seems like we already do have 2 laws for every situation and a bunch of people in DC with nothing better to do than pump out more and more. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Thought of something else to add more in response to the OP. You have described the way things are supposed to work, unfortunately that is not how things are currently working nor have worked for a while now. Unfortunately between the media spin machine and low-no information voters, we don't vote for the person who represents our values or beliefs, we vote for the most popular candidate. We don't check facts, we just eat up whatever we are fed by both sides of the media and vote accordingly. So let's say I am a Libertarian Congressman and I don't believe in passing laws that are a "formality" or perhaps I believe it should be up to the state to pass certain laws and the feds should stick to the areas they were granted in the Constitution. Perhaps this belief drives me to a no vote on a piece of legislation such as this. I vote no, and I post on my website why I voted no. How many people do you think will see my vote and my reasons vs. my vote and the reason assigned to it by MSNBC, CNN or FOX? All of a sudden my Libertarian value of leaving social issues up to the State are now transformed into hateful bigotry against gay individuals and I am deemed "anti-gay" and I see them as "second class citizens". None of this is true, but that doesn't matter to the media or the average voter. Another example, perhaps I made a pledge to vote no on bills that are filled with pork barrel spending, perhaps this bill has tons of it so I vote no. Same situation as above. We all know that as soon as a vote went through the House on this every yes vote would be a champion for individual rights and a hero of the gay community. While every no vote regardless the reason would be satan incarnate and no better than a nazi. None of which is likely true. So yes, due to the current political climate, the media, and the low information voting base, it is better for Boehner to block the chance for the media to have it's fun. Don't you find it interesting that during the abysmal rollout of Ocare, and just after a 16 day government shutdown, with another debt crisis just a few months away and still no budget proposal from the Senate, that all of a sudden it is so important for the Senate to focus on gay rights? The Senate bill is a PR move, nothing more and Boehner is refusing to participate. I don't like the guy any more than anyone else but he is playing the game correctly. What we all need to do is work to change the game, otherwise we will continue to end up with the same results. |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I've got nothing substantial to add here, except that when I saw the title of this thread all I could think was cockblock. That is all :) |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Aarondb4 Thought of something else to add more in response to the OP. You have described the way things are supposed to work, unfortunately that is not how things are currently working nor have worked for a while now. Unfortunately between the media spin machine and low-no information voters, we don't vote for the person who represents our values or beliefs, we vote for the most popular candidate. We don't check facts, we just eat up whatever we are fed by both sides of the media and vote accordingly. So let's say I am a Libertarian Congressman and I don't believe in passing laws that are a "formality" or perhaps I believe it should be up to the state to pass certain laws and the feds should stick to the areas they were granted in the Constitution. Perhaps this belief drives me to a no vote on a piece of legislation such as this. I vote no, and I post on my website why I voted no. How many people do you think will see my vote and my reasons vs. my vote and the reason assigned to it by MSNBC, CNN or FOX? All of a sudden my Libertarian value of leaving social issues up to the State are now transformed into hateful bigotry against gay individuals and I am deemed "anti-gay" and I see them as "second class citizens". None of this is true, but that doesn't matter to the media or the average voter. Another example, perhaps I made a pledge to vote no on bills that are filled with pork barrel spending, perhaps this bill has tons of it so I vote no. Same situation as above. We all know that as soon as a vote went through the House on this every yes vote would be a champion for individual rights and a hero of the gay community. While every no vote regardless the reason would be satan incarnate and no better than a nazi. None of which is likely true. So yes, due to the current political climate, the media, and the low information voting base, it is better for Boehner to block the chance for the media to have it's fun. Don't you find it interesting that during the abysmal rollout of Ocare, and just after a 16 day government shutdown, with another debt crisis just a few months away and still no budget proposal from the Senate, that all of a sudden it is so important for the Senate to focus on gay rights? The Senate bill is a PR move, nothing more and Boehner is refusing to participate. I don't like the guy any more than anyone else but he is playing the game correctly. What we all need to do is work to change the game, otherwise we will continue to end up with the same results. I agree with some of this.......HOWEVER, you use the word "VOTE" over and over again. BOEHNER isn't allowing the VOTE! This is only a PR move, because it highlights the problem with the Republican party in Washington...they're being funded by old, white, rich biggots.
|
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Aarondb4 Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Left Brain A component of risk is perceived risk whether it is rational or not. Again, if two investments will generate equal future returns the one with the lower risk is always the best choice. Tagging LBGT as an additional risk puts the community at a disadvantage at the hiring table. I live in a very gay city our city and state already have these laws. The business I own has had policies in place even before it was state law. Not because I was forced to, but because it was good business to do so. So a far as I'm concern it is just an unneeded expansion of government. I am not a huge fan on federal government creep in the name of "formality". Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Justin86 I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. Originally posted by Left Brain He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. I'm sorry, but it has been my experience that GLT people are pretty far down the list of people who file discrimination lawsuits against employers. While I agree that the fear exists, it's irrational. Like Justin said, this is all a formality anyway.....we all work with GLT people.....I don't see any problems as a result, because there aren't any. Well put Jackemy.
I would just add, that we all like to rant and rave about government intrusion and the need for less government, until it comes to our specific pet project and then we are all about "formality" laws being passed. We don't need a law for every little detail and formality.Although it seems like we already do have 2 laws for every situation and a bunch of people in DC with nothing better to do than pump out more and more. Not everywhere. There are places where you could still be fired for being LBGT. Does it happen? Probably not, but I have a problem with it being potentially allowed. |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Aarondb4 Thought of something else to add more in response to the OP. You have described the way things are supposed to work, unfortunately that is not how things are currently working nor have worked for a while now. Unfortunately between the media spin machine and low-no information voters, we don't vote for the person who represents our values or beliefs, we vote for the most popular candidate. We don't check facts, we just eat up whatever we are fed by both sides of the media and vote accordingly. So let's say I am a Libertarian Congressman and I don't believe in passing laws that are a "formality" or perhaps I believe it should be up to the state to pass certain laws and the feds should stick to the areas they were granted in the Constitution. Perhaps this belief drives me to a no vote on a piece of legislation such as this. I vote no, and I post on my website why I voted no. How many people do you think will see my vote and my reasons vs. my vote and the reason assigned to it by MSNBC, CNN or FOX? All of a sudden my Libertarian value of leaving social issues up to the State are now transformed into hateful bigotry against gay individuals and I am deemed "anti-gay" and I see them as "second class citizens". None of this is true, but that doesn't matter to the media or the average voter. Another example, perhaps I made a pledge to vote no on bills that are filled with pork barrel spending, perhaps this bill has tons of it so I vote no. Same situation as above. We all know that as soon as a vote went through the House on this every yes vote would be a champion for individual rights and a hero of the gay community. While every no vote regardless the reason would be satan incarnate and no better than a nazi. None of which is likely true. So yes, due to the current political climate, the media, and the low information voting base, it is better for Boehner to block the chance for the media to have it's fun. Don't you find it interesting that during the abysmal rollout of Ocare, and just after a 16 day government shutdown, with another debt crisis just a few months away and still no budget proposal from the Senate, that all of a sudden it is so important for the Senate to focus on gay rights? The Senate bill is a PR move, nothing more and Boehner is refusing to participate. I don't like the guy any more than anyone else but he is playing the game correctly. What we all need to do is work to change the game, otherwise we will continue to end up with the same results. You do bring up some great points about the ill informed voters of this country. I would not judge someone based solely on their vote. I understand that bills are often full of additional measures/pork. I would read why you did something in your hypothetical scenario. But I would and will always disagree with allowing issues like this to be left to the states. This is where we seem to have a fundamental difference on beliefs. I don't agree with yours, and I think they are wrong for the country. Civil rights issues should not be allowed to be left to the states. This by no means is not to say I don't respect your views, which I do, but I can't and probably never will agree with them. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. So are you OK with removing all anti-discrimination laws from the books? Edited by sbreaux 2013-11-08 11:37 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by Aarondb4 You do bring up some great points about the ill informed voters of this country. I would not judge someone based solely on their vote. I understand that bills are often full of additional measures/pork. I would read why you did something in your hypothetical scenario. But I would and will always disagree with allowing issues like this to be left to the states. This is where we seem to have a fundamental difference on beliefs. I don't agree with yours, and I think they are wrong for the country. Civil rights issues should not be allowed to be left to the states. This by no means is not to say I don't respect your views, which I do, but I can't and probably never will agree with them. Thought of something else to add more in response to the OP. You have described the way things are supposed to work, unfortunately that is not how things are currently working nor have worked for a while now. Unfortunately between the media spin machine and low-no information voters, we don't vote for the person who represents our values or beliefs, we vote for the most popular candidate. We don't check facts, we just eat up whatever we are fed by both sides of the media and vote accordingly. So let's say I am a Libertarian Congressman and I don't believe in passing laws that are a "formality" or perhaps I believe it should be up to the state to pass certain laws and the feds should stick to the areas they were granted in the Constitution. Perhaps this belief drives me to a no vote on a piece of legislation such as this. I vote no, and I post on my website why I voted no. How many people do you think will see my vote and my reasons vs. my vote and the reason assigned to it by MSNBC, CNN or FOX? All of a sudden my Libertarian value of leaving social issues up to the State are now transformed into hateful bigotry against gay individuals and I am deemed "anti-gay" and I see them as "second class citizens". None of this is true, but that doesn't matter to the media or the average voter. Another example, perhaps I made a pledge to vote no on bills that are filled with pork barrel spending, perhaps this bill has tons of it so I vote no. Same situation as above. We all know that as soon as a vote went through the House on this every yes vote would be a champion for individual rights and a hero of the gay community. While every no vote regardless the reason would be satan incarnate and no better than a nazi. None of which is likely true. So yes, due to the current political climate, the media, and the low information voting base, it is better for Boehner to block the chance for the media to have it's fun. Don't you find it interesting that during the abysmal rollout of Ocare, and just after a 16 day government shutdown, with another debt crisis just a few months away and still no budget proposal from the Senate, that all of a sudden it is so important for the Senate to focus on gay rights? The Senate bill is a PR move, nothing more and Boehner is refusing to participate. I don't like the guy any more than anyone else but he is playing the game correctly. What we all need to do is work to change the game, otherwise we will continue to end up with the same results. That was all posted as a hypothetical. I have not done any research on the bill itself or the situation so I don't have much of an opinion on it. I was just addressing the point in the OP about how things are supposed to work vs. how they actually work. There could be any number of reasons to vote yes or no on any bill, unfortunately we almost never get the real reason we get whatever either side wants us to get to make themselves look better. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by sbreaux Originally posted by Jackemy1 So are you OK with removing all anti-discrimination laws from the books? Originally posted by Justin86 I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. Originally posted by Left Brain He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. I think as a country we've moved past most of the need for discrimination laws, but I wouldn't necessarily say we should remove "all" discrimination laws from the books. Take African American's as an example. Many years ago there was no question that they were being discriminated against purely because they were a different race. The discrimination laws were needed to give them protection. However, today there's no question the law protecting African Americans are not "as needed" as they were 50 years ago, due in part to the success of the law but also due to our cultural changes. So, if 100 years from now race discrimination is completely tamped out, which is the true goal, then it's not unheard of to say discrimination laws can be removed at some point in time. The big question is when should they be removed, and I don't know the answer. I had a personal experience at my last job, prior to starting my own company. I had a manager who worked for me remotely out of Texas. I found out that he was playing hooky and only showing up for work one day a week. This went on for a period of about 4 weeks and simply for the fact that he was black I had to document the heck out of everything. I spent upwards of 8 hours in various meetings with HR and legal personnel to make sure we had all our ducks in a row and then I terminated his employment. Guess what, about 6 weeks later, I (and my company) get filed a lawsuit for discriminating against his civil rights and firing him because he was black. /facepalm. Now here's the crappy part, after lord knows how much money spent in legal fees and about 2 years of litigation, he ultimately wins the case because we didn't go through a performance improvement notification process to give him multiple chances to correct his behavior. Seriously, the guy was getting paid $120k a year and only showed up for work one day a week and even had a second job, but he still won the case. We had to pay him over $500k as a result of the litigation. So, now I own my own business and I have to make the decisions on who to hire. If I have two equally qualified candidates and one of them is a protected class that gives them a big giant club to hit me over the head with in the event of me terminating them. I feel that I'm almost forced to hire the lower risk candidate, which I think this is similar to what Jackemy1 is talking about. I had one applicant last year who looked really good on paper and when I did a google search on him I found three separate civil rights cases in his name where he was suing former employers. One of them he accepted the job and never showed up for a single day of work, but still sued them when they terminated him. He fortunately didn't win any of the cases, but each company had to pay for lawyers and defend themselves and that's the kind of stuff that can put a small business like mine out of business. So, I'm of the opinion that at some point the laws meant to protect a class ultimately evolve into something that hurts the class. When does it cross that threshold? I'm not really sure. Maybe it has already and maybe it hasn't. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by sbreaux Originally posted by Jackemy1 So are you OK with removing all anti-discrimination laws from the books? Originally posted by Justin86 I'll try. Employers are risk adverse. So with all things being equal, they will always make their investment in the one with the lowest risk. This is no different when employers are investing in human resources. If there are two candidates equal in talent but one carries a higher risk, such a a potential discrimination lawsuit, the candidate with the lower risk will always get hire. It is an unintended consequence of legislating special and protected classes. Originally posted by Left Brain He claimed it would cause people to lose their jobs. I'm sorry this is complete BS. You will never convince me of this. Ever. Originally posted by Justin86 I assume you are referring to ENDA (His latest amongst many). This is like a punch in the face to me. I don't see an issue with this one. One step forward this week, one step back. For the life of me, I can't figure out why gay/lesbian/transgender issues are even debated anymore. Who cares? There is quite a bit of hope on the horizon if my teenage kids and their friends are any indication....they don't care at all about someone's sexual orientation. I consider myself a Republican........Boehner is on my last nerve. I think as a country we've moved past most of the need for discrimination laws.... Says the affluent, majority-religion-practicing white guy... ![]() |
|
![]() | Religion in schools again Pages: 1 2 | ||
![]() | |||
![]() | |||
![]() | |||
![]() | Texas cheerleaders win in court again over Bible banners Pages: 1 2 3 |
|