patrick.net

P N Dr Lo R says

The communists of the 30's, David Horowitz's parents and their associates, adopted the name "Progressives" to disguise their purpose which was world domination by the Soviet Union and it remains so today even though the system has been thorougly discredited.

No sane person today thinks progressivism has anything to do with communism or the Soviet Union. The meaning of progressivism and the progressive movement is taught in every fifth grade history class. If you are confused, that's on you.

David Horowitz is just another asshole Trotskyite who shifted from one ridiculous ideology to another.

Trotskyites have given the West almost a century of assholery, they have all become either Neocons or SJW Identitarians.

As a Jew I can say that Jewish Trotskyites are particularly embarrassing. Please keep in mind they are a fraction of 1%, however.

Dan8267 says

We could always amend the Constitution to revoke the protection of religion. In any case, the Constitution does not have to mention homosexuality. It does not mention heterosexual marriage, but the case of Loving V. Virginia stated unequivocally that all laws prohibiting a white man and a black woman from marrying each other were unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. You have not and cannot address this fact.

Loving V. Virginia is not the same thing as two dudes getting married. With your reasoning of anyone can do anything you can justify a 13 year old marrying a 65 year old. It's not acceptable in this society simply.

And about amending constitution to remove religious protection, good luck with that one Dan, you are in a wrong country. Try North Korea, it's everything you love, other than the gay and drugs thing.

Dan8267 says

The meaning of progressivism and the progressive movement is taught in every fifth grade history class. If you are confused, that's on you.

The only thing you people talk about is equality of outcomes and government deciding on who is the special one, regardless of once ability. That's not progressive, that's just naive child like mentality, not even new, just childish and as old as human race.

FortWayne says

he only thing you people talk about is equality of outcomes

What smart people want is equality in opportunities. Republicans want opportunities dictated by family wealth.

FortWayne says

Loving v. Virginia is not the same thing as two dudes getting married.

No two things are identical, but the principle that the court stated is the same. The state has no right to deny people equality under the law.

Cornell Law Department opinion of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

It is so ordered.

Replace the word "racial " with the word "gender" and no principle or logic is changed.

tatupu70 says

What smart people want is equality in opportunities. Republicans want opportunities dictated by family wealth.

What liberals want is equality of outcomes, it's where all the constant pandering comes out from based on faulty statistics about race, gender, or whatever other bullshit they can think of. And if you are a white male or asian, somehow they pretend that you can never be poor or down on your luck, government only cares about you if you are black or single mother of a "minority".

Dan, the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Without normal families society falls apart and relies on cheap labor from overseas and immigration to keep itself going, losing it's culture and it's identity, eventually falling apart as a nation when too few care for better outcomes.

Homosexuality or promiscuity is not a "fundamental group unit of society", no one cares to protect or support irresponsible and stupid behavior. It's that simple.

FortWayne says

What liberals want is equality of outcomes

I'm the hardest core liberal you'll ever met. I do not want equality of outcomes. I want equality of the playing field. How do you reconcile your Bizzaro World view of liberals with the living breath example contradicting that view right now?

FortWayne says

Dan, the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

1. Gay Couples are a family and they are successfully raising children. See exhibit A.

2. There is nothing about same-sex marriage that even remotely threatens opposing-sex marriage. How exactly do you think two men who have been lovers for 40 years getting married is going to damage your marriage?

No one has ever called for the state to arrest heterosexual married couples. The argument that legally recognized same-sex marriages is an attack on opposite-sex marriage is as ridiculous and bigoted as the argument that legally recognized interracial marriages are an attack on same-race marriages.

FortWayne says

Homosexuality or promiscuity is not a "fundamental group unit of society", no one cares to protect or support irresponsible and stupid behavior. It's that simple.

Any real American cares about equality under law. That principle is the foundation of our society. Without it, we would have been better under British rule.

Way for you to piss on the graves of every soldier who died protecting the Constitution including the 14th Amendment.

FortWayne says

What liberals want is equality of outcomes, it's where all the constant pandering comes out from based on faulty statistics about race, gender, or whatever other bullshit they can think of. And if you are a white male or asian, somehow they pretend that you can never be poor or down on your luck, government only cares about you if you are black or single mother of a "minority".

Wow, it's amazing that you know what liberals want better than they do. How did you come by this amazing ability??

That's a really bad exhibit Dan, had to borrow from a TV show huh? In reality it looks very different.

FortWayne says

Who talks about equality all the time, and complains that wealthy have more? Democrats.

Who has all the feminists screaming that outcomes are not equal and equal salaries are required? Democrats.

Need more?

These are big points, esp. the 2nd one. We all know that administrations (and governments in general) are corrupt on both sides, always have been to some extent and will be (seems it has gotten worse but who knows), but the 2nd point is basically about codifying corruption and abolishing the meritocracy. Much worse than positive, i.e. crony corruption which is already bad enough by itself.

FortWayne says

That's a really bad exhibit Dan, had to borrow from a TV show huh? In reality it looks very different.

Jesus Fucking Christ, you're an idiot. That's not a TV show. That's the actor Neil Patrick Harris with his real life husband and their two real life adopted children.

So honey, it is fucking reality. What you just demonstrated is that your perverted sense of reality looks very different from actual reality.

Here are a few dozen more real life pictures of the Harris family that you can pretend are from a sitcom, you bigoted moron.

Yes, this is reality.

Not a promo picture.

Look how much gay marriage has fucked up children. This kid is miserable and would be much happier as a parentless ward of the state.

/>
Real people don't love like this. It has to be staged like the moon landing.

/>
Gays, destroying the family unit.

Fort Wayne, you are the biggest asshole in the world.

OK, I'll admit that this one is a bit gay.

Most awesome picture.

mell says

FortWayne says

Who talks about equality all the time, and complains that wealthy have more? Democrats.


Who has all the feminists screaming that outcomes are not equal and equal salaries are required? Democrats.

Need more?

These are big points, esp. the 2nd one.

Except it's bullshit. It's amazing that conservatives have to lie to make any points. Is your platform and your policies that bad that you cannot simply state them? Instead you have to lie and misrepresent what the other guys want?

FortWayne says

And Dan still obsessed with an actor who is on television all day long, trying hard to ignore that reality for most Americans does not involve glamor and polished image of hollywood actors.

The example is a well-documented one because Harris is an actor. If I showed you 500 examples of non-famous people it would not persuade you anyway. Plus I'd have to break into 500 Shutterfly accounts.

But what does Harris being an actor have to do with those personal family pictures? They aren't part of a TV show and Harris's spouse and children are not actors. So you're pulling bullshit out of your ass.

The fact is that this gay couple has a better relationship with their children then you have with your son. And maybe that's why your so jealous. But honey, that's one you. You have no one but yourself to blame for you poor relationship with your son. If you made the effort to reconcile with him then you'd have a better relationship, but your stupid pride won't let you. Don't go blaming gays for that.

Here's some ordinary gay families who are also happy, healthy, and wonderful. Not that any of this will matter to a bigot like you.

No, it's equal pay regardless of who works harder or better. Warming chair = working hard. 2 people can do same job different, but must be paid same. Welcome to communism where they pull you down instead of letting you achieve

tatupu70 says

Except that's a completely bogus argument even if you agree. The argument is equal pay for equal work. Not equal pay for everyone regardless of what they do.

Anyone who believes that people should be paid according to the wealth they produce must believe that executives are parasites as they are paid hundreds of times what the wealth producing employees are paid and executives are, at best, overhead. They produce nothing. Even more so for owners.

In fact, if we accept that a person's income should be directly proportional to their wealth production, no one should be allowed to have rental income of any sort as such income is inherently non-productive. Rent seeking must be banned.

FortWayne says

No, it's equal pay regardless of who works harder or better. Warming chair = working hard. 2 people can do same job different, but must be paid same. Welcome to communism where they pull you down instead of letting you achieve

Yes, that is your bogus argument.

Let me know if you want to have a real discussion.

Honestly, please show me ANYONE who has argued this point. Even one person. I bet you can't do it.

PCGyver says

Dan I think you got it wrong cause this guy isn't saying "LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you LA LA LA LA LA"

Well, Fort Wayne has completely ignored the examples of gay couples successfully raising healthy, happy, normal children including the "commoners" he requested. It takes a big man to admit he was wrong. Fort Wayne is not a big man.

Ironman says

What do you think Bernie and the liberals are trying to achieve in this country?

Ever hear of Redistribution of Wealth?

Yep, it's been redistributing from the people who work to the 1% who sit on their ass for about 40 years now.

The ONLY way to end welfare is to end the exploitation of the working (wealth-producing) class by the owner class. Nothing else can end the welfare state.

You pay welfare because McDonalds and Walmart do not pay living wages or even half the wealth generated by their employees as compensation. So you, the tax payer, must make up the difference.

Ironman says

We should just TAKE it from those evil rich people, who used hard work, innovation, personal investment, took risks and worked 80+ hours a week to earn their money and GIVE it to all those lazy slobs sitting on their asses who refuse to work!

Yep, that will solve everything!!

You make several incorrect assumptions to further your emotional point.

1. There is no evidence that people in the 1% work(ed) any harder or longer hours than those in the 99%.
2. The vast majority of poor/lower middle class work. The guys who sit on their ass are in the 1% being driven around in limos or flown on their private jet.
3. Nobody is calling rich people evil. It's not about good and evil. It's about promoting a healthy economy.

Ironman says

Talk about incorrect assumptions, from someone who never started or ran a business, but thinks he knows everything about the business world.

Do you think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, etc. just sat around working their 40 hours a week, then went home to drink cocktails?

I don't know everything--but I know a helluva lot more than you. I think the gentlemen you list worked very hard. Just like a LOT of Americans that aren't in the 1%. What's your point? How hard do the 3rd, 4th or 5th generation kids of wealth work?

Ironman says

tatupu70 says

2. The vast majority of poor/lower middle class work.

Do you think this furthers your point? As people age, they work less. This has been and will always be the case. So, the more people that are 50-80 years old, the more people will be out of the labor force.

Ironman says

and TAKING from one group and GIVING to another group is "healthy"?

Want to continue with your "incorrect assumptions"?

I didn't say anything about giving to anyone. But, yes--reducing inequality should be the #1 goal right now. It is the one single thing that can have the most dramatic effect on the US economy.

tatupu70 says

Honestly, please show me ANYONE who has argued this point. Even one person. I bet you can't do it.

That's a bogus argument? That's the proposed law pinhead.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2199

States that the bona fide factor defense shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor: (1) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, (2) is job-related with respect to the position in question, and (3) is consistent with business necessity. Makes such defense inapplicable where the employee demonstrates that: (1) an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential, and (2) the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.

FortWayne says

That's a bogus argument? That's the proposed law pinhead.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2199

States that the bona fide factor defense shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor: (1) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, (2) is job-related with respect to the position in question, and (3) is consistent with business necessity. Makes such defense inapplicable where the employee demonstrates that: (1) an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential, and (2) the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.

Did you miss where I said this?

tatupu70 says

Except that's a completely bogus argument even if you agree. The argument is equal pay for equal work. Not equal pay for everyone regardless of what they do

That's what this law is--same pay for same work. I don't agree with it, but that's beside the point.

So--can you show me ANYONE who is arguing for same pay for everyone?

Ironman says

I didn't reference the 50-80 years old group. How about these people below, did they retire too?

Of course you didn't. You're too dim to understand what is happening now with demographics. A population with a high percentage of 30-49 yr olds will have a much higher participation rate than one with a higher percentage of 50-60 yr olds. So, as the boomers age, it's natural that the participation rate will decline.

Ironman says

Why do you ALWAYS go off the rails and pick such a MINORITY group to try and make a point? You're such a clueless joke!

Is it a minority group? What percentage of the top 1% made their own money?

Ironman says

Nice try, but if what you say is true, the participation rate for the 55+ should be dropping as they retire, but the rate has INCREASED since the recession.

Nope--that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the participation rate for 55+ is LOWER than for 30-49. Which it is as you show above. As more people move from 30-49 to 50-60, even if the participation rates of both categories stays the same, the participation rate of the general population with go down. I think that logic is probably over your head, but I had to try.

tatupu70 says

That's what this law is--same pay for same work. I don't agree with it, but that's beside the point.

So--can you show me ANYONE who is arguing for same pay for everyone?

That is not beside the point, those who support the law support whats in it.

FortWayne says

That is not beside the point, those who support the law support whats in it.

My feeling on the bill is beside the point.

So, do you understand now that NOBODY is asking for equal pay for everyone?

Ironman says

So, tell me, since the population count is roughly the same in the 55 age area and the 25 age area, why has the trend in LFPR (in my charts above) gone up for the 55+ group by approx. 10% but dropped in the 25 age group by approx. 10%?

Sure--that's easy. PCGuyer already answered it.

PCGyver says

Tells me older people aren't retiring opening up the jobs for a younger generation. Why because they are unable to live off savings rate of .08% APY and they fear not having enough for retirement.

PCGyver says

I'd like to know what is wrong with this law? All it is saying is that if person a and person b have same skills education and experience they should be paid the same. Basicly you can't pay a minority or women less for the same job.

If you don't like this law FortWayne then you are saying it is ok to pay a woman or minority less for the exact same job a white male does. This is not communism. It is equal pay for equal work.

Here's my problem--it's anti-PC to say it, but women have babies. They are MUCH more likely to miss time due to family obligations. That does affect their productivity at work. Pretending it doesn't is naïve. So, I think it's OK for companies to pay slightly less knowing that statistics show that women are slightly less productive then men.

tatupu70 says

So, do you understand now that NOBODY is asking for equal pay for everyone?

If it's in the bill someone is asking for it. They don't just randomly write words until bill comes out. I get it, that you are having hard time admitting that you were wrong about socialistic bill, and it is very amusing.

PCGyver says

What if that woman can't have babies, should they still be paid less?

What if 2 men have same job title, but one works hard and other one does bare minimum. Why should they both be paid the same?

tatupu70 says

it's anti-PC to say it, but women have babies. They are MUCH more likely to miss time due to family obligations. That does affect their productivity at work. Pretending it doesn't is naïve

It also doesn't seem to enter the equation when allowing women into combat either. One of the most disruptive things in the military today is the time lost investigating scandals and the inevitability of pregnancies due to the intimate proximity of the opposite sex. There's something wrong with a society that forgets that women give and nurture life, not take it--men are supposed to be the protectors. Can you imagine the public's reaction to seeing Doris Day or Peggy Lee in combat in 1943? At most they could have bored the enemy to death with their singing.

FortWayne says

What if 2 men have same job title, but one works hard and other one does bare minimum. Why should they both be paid the same?

They shouldn't. And nobody--liberal, conservative, independent--is arguing they should.

I honestly don't know where you come up with this nonsense.