The government already had pay equality rules. Men and women in a given job classification were making the same wage.Vrede wrote:How many women got raises because they WERE NOT getting equal pay to men?
There were never consulted. It was never put to a vote, never an election issue.Vrede wrote:No support among non-civil servant women? How did it pass?
One more time: The existing pay equality rules ensured that men and women doing the same job received the same pay. So when new pay equity rules dictated that women should make the same wages as men doing a different job, the pay equality rules meant that men - doing the same job for the same pay - got the same raises.Vrede wrote:Okay, but you're the one that said 30K men got raises because of the law. I'm guessing lots of (more?) women did, too, and that you're now diverting from your own statement and my question about it to an irrelevancy.
I don't recall politicians ever voting for it. It was an administrative policy. The minister in charge probably approved it, but not parliament as a whole.Vrede wrote:I didn't mean a popular vote, I meant why did the pols vote for it if support was as slim as you imply? The number of articles about it demonstrate that there was controversy and if it was "never an election issue" doesn't that mean that opposition among "mere taxpayers" is not as solid as you claim?
Following your example. Argue with you later. Florida awaits.Vrede wrote:Dang you're stupid, homerfobe. I have not argued with rstrong on this issue - he's the knowledgeable one. Rather, I've asked questions because it doesn't make sense to me yet. How did you get to be such a whiner?
How did that work out?
Throw up......You'll choke on those words that are worth at least 5 bucks apiece; too rich for my blood!k9nanny wrote:"How did that work out?
It's a double whammy. I don't know which is worse, the religious, patriarchal misogyny, or the increasing anthropomorphism of corporations."
"Don't know whether to weep or throw up."
rstrong wrote:'An illustrated guide to American personhood'
Idiots like this can vote. Scary.Bowhntr:
I've got a plan that would provide birth control to every woman in American for 1 cent each....that's right just a single penny. How does it work you ask? Give each woman a penny and tell her to hold it between her knees!
At last....! A liberal admission that an unborn fetus IS A PERSON!rstrong wrote:'An illustrated guide to American personhood'
Wow. That went right over your head.Mr.B wrote:You do see that, don't you Vrede? Can you also see the outline of the baby's body? Huh? Huh? Huh?
Who's really the idiot here? You vote, don't you? :?:bannination wrote:"Idiots like this can vote. Scary."Bowhntr:
"I've got a plan that would provide birth control to every woman in American for 1 cent each....that's right just a single penny.
How does it work you ask? Give each woman a penny and tell her to hold it between her knees!"
My point was made, and that went right over your head."rstrong wrote: "Wow. That went right over your head."
Mr.B wrote:At last....! A liberal admission that an unborn fetus IS A PERSON!
I don't know, or care, who made the original quip; one of the columns is where I read it.....you probably have no clue what it means anyway, idiot.Vrede wrote:"Why does it make Bowhntr any less of an idiot that he's also unoriginal, idiot? A guess: Generally rational and woman-supportive Ann Landers or Dear Abby aren't the source of the quip, either. Still way over your head. It's a description of the women-hating con view, I'm not a liberal, there's no admission, an unborn fetus (redundant) is a potential person, you made no point and it's not even my post."
So killing one in the womb is legalized murder, right?Vrede wrote:"....an unborn fetus (redundant) is a potential person....."
Vrede wrote:Mr.B wrote:...Vrede has argued before that a fetus is not human until it's born
That's the law and the view of science and medicine, your misogynistic wishful thinking doesn't change that.
(zygote, I believe Vrede said).
Zygote > embryo > fetus > child. Maybe you should stick to topics other than the biology that you're so ignorant about.
I know the names, Ding-Dong....I was quoting what you said.....duh!
...I don't know, or care, who made the original quip; one of the columns is where I read it.....
You said it was Ann Landers or Dear Abby, which it may be but I highly doubt. Your not knowing if you're truthful or caring if you aren't speaks volumes.
Lets try this again, maybe you'll understand what I said without twisting words..."Either Ann Landers or Dear Abby was quoted saying that".
I was truthful where I read it, don't recall which one said it...as far as who it was that made the original quip was never mentioned....satisfied?
you probably have no clue what it means anyway, idiot.
Sure I do, you and Bowhntr hate women.
<snicker> Yeah right...I married a woman (1) Because I don't believe a man was intended to marry another man and I wasn't 'in love' with one
(2) I needed someone I could boss around, force to do the household chores, and wait on me hand and foot....
You're not a liberal...?? Bullsnot! You're as liberal as Hilton Perez is "gay".....
Yes, I get that both your mind and your political awareness are so limited that you only know two descriptors, lib and con, and that after years it still hasn't sunk in that I am more economically left, tactically radical and socially libertarian than most liberals. Sad.
Yeah, we know...it is sad you're so misaligned and limited in your "political awareness" as well. Confused much?
you just won't man up and admit it.
That's so stupid. Why would I be afraid to admit it if it was accurate?
Beats me. You're the misaligned one...
That reminds me, though, when you claimed to be nonpartisan we asked you several times which team you more often vote for. You ran away.
I didn't run away. I plainly stated, in so many words, I gave up voting for idiots...Obama was my last mistake.Mr.B wrote:So killing one in the womb is legalized murder, right?Vrede wrote:....an unborn fetus (redundant) is a potential person.....
No, that's not an accurate interpretation of my post. You are sinfully bearing false witness, again.
Maybe not an "accurate interpretation", but definitely an accurate description. Your reply in itself is redundant.
But, let's examine your "reasoning": Nature - God to you - and polluters cause far more spontaneous abortions than there are therapeutic ones. Your God and the pols you support are the far more prolific "baby murderers".
How can you justify the reasoning in that remark? I'm not a Democrat or a liberal.
(Can't you even take a vacation without eating, drinking, or sleeping with this forum on your brain?)
Now you're judging how I spend a small part of my vacation? You Christian fascists are too much!
Judging....? You're the one who said you were leaving for 3 weeks and may not visit here much, but it appears that "not much" was in itself a "false witness"; so are you in Barcelona and your heart is in BRD? Your addiction is too much!
Quite frankly, I'm not really interested in how you sleep or when you're having your period, nor do I obssess about your life; it's just that you're so obssessed with this forum, that you're like these Facebook freakies, they can't put their smartphones down long enough to know what's going on around them, and you are afraid of losing contact or getting the chance to run someone into the ground..... that's the sad part. I'm also aware of the time difference of 6 hours.Vrede wrote: "Do "much" and "may" have too many syllables for you? I've got more energy than my family and sleep less, so there are some periods when I have time for BRD while waiting for them to be ready for the next activity. It's adorable that you care so much about my life - just like your obsession with the sex that gays have."
I can handle that. I'm hoping to retire for good before too long....just gotta get my ducks in a row.Vrede wrote:"Enjoy your semi-retirement while you, also, spend some of it here. Don't worry, I won't be using the fact that you make the same exact choice that I do against you as a way of dodging the issues at hand with irrelevant personal attack."
That set that "Women's Lib" thingy back a few years, huh?Vrede wrote:"bring it down to a woman’s level"?“Men do tend to talk about things on a much higher level,” Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC2) said. “Many of my male colleagues, when they go to the House floor, you know, they’ve got some pie chart or graph behind them and they’re talking about trillions of dollars and how, you know, the debt is awful and, you know, we all agree with that. We need our male colleagues to understand that if you can bring it down to a woman’s level...that’s the way to go.”
Maybe hers.
