Ten oz

Jeb Bush's campaign in many ways is a reflection of the fact that conservatives know the Bush admin was terrible for this country. They know it enough to not even give his brother a serious consideration. Meanwhile they still defend the Bush years and policies. Too prideful to just admit they were wrong and their ideas didn't work. Jeb is a former govenor of a large state, brother or a president, son of a president, spent more than anyone on his campaign, and he can't get any traction. Conservative will still defend the Bush's for the sake of argument so not to have to admit any error but they sure don't seem to be willing to elect another Bush.

Just so we are all clear please state what would have been the common sense outcome? .

Conservatives (those who self identify) create their own definition for words. For them separation of church and state is translated so that "seperation" equals "freedom" and "state" equals "people". So to them it reads freedom of church and people. They double down on that concept by insisting this country was founded on christian values. Of course even that phrase gets redefined. "founded on" equals "established for" and "values" equals "people". Conservatives do this with everywhere it suits them. In the 2nd admendment "Militia" becomes "individual persons" and "Arms" becomes "gun". Just look at what conservatives did with the first admendment. "speech" became "money" and "people" bcame "corporations". So while I agree with your post (+1) I also understand that it is not one that will put a scratch a conservatives world view.

The Commander in Chief doesn't order the execution of captured combatants. Your example of what you view as a contradiction by Sanders makes ZERO sense. EXECUTING combat vs active combatants and EXECUTING people detained and in your care are very, very, very ,very different things.

Cool, can we discuss actually policy now?

Zero actual policy in this post! Believe it or not TAR the politicians we elect do things. They allocate trillions of dollars, enforce law, write law, invade countries, sign treaties, and etc, etc, etc. It isn't enough for you to vaguely make comparisons between your behavior in this thread and some comment Rick Santorum recently made. From the Republican platform on energy - https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources/ -open the outer continental shelf to energy exploration -opening the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for exploration and production of oil and natural gas -approving the Keystone XL Pipeline -build new nuclear power plants - NO tax dollars spent on renewable enegry Do you support those policies? If so why or why not? I started with energy because each of the above is real policy. No hidden code or framing. Easy to define and isolate policy. Nothing ambigious.

@ TAR, why is it so difficult for you say which policies of the Republican Party you support? You are saying they are more aligned with you and the people you know but then can not provide examples of anything done by the party over the years that is consistant with what you believe. You have been provided ample clarification so it can't be that you do not understand the question. Rather you are not intellectually honest enough to speak to the truth. Republican economic policy has fail, they have flip flop nurmerous times on healthcre issues, their foriegn policy efforts literally aided AlQuada and Osama Bin Landin, their stance toward science are an affront to sanity, and so on. What seems aligns you with the Republican party is their cynical, race baiting, us vs them rhetoric. No actual policies align you with them. You view yourself as an "us" and not as a "them" making you more authentic somehow. You just like Republican talking points. You enjoy hearing about welfare queens and feeling justified in not wanting muslims in your neighborhood. You have been provided many chances to dispell such an assumption on my part and just tell me which policy based reasons you support the Republican party but has refused to. You just like their gamesmanship. You just like the idea that you are more the inheriter of our history than "them". Here is the actual Republican political platform of 2016: https://www.gop.com/platform/ Here is the actual Democratic political platform of 2012: "What follows is our 2012 platform — a declaration of how we plan to move America forward during President Obama’s second term. Our next platform will be released in the summer of 2016." https://www.democrats.org/party-platform How about you review what each party is look to do and we talk about that? Enough with stories about your wife and neighbors dog. Enough with you claiming every equal and some Democrats this and some Republcans that. Just review the platforms and see what the actual positions are.

TAR, you where clearly asked the below questioned by Willie71 You responded with a list. You noted that it was tough but provided a list that you felt Republicans stand for. WHAT?! Stop it. You were asked a direct question, answered, were responded to, and now you are playing catch me if you can. Shall we start over? Back to square one; Can you post a list, say 10 points, outlining what you think the Republican Party stands for?

So this isn't the list of 10 reasons why you support Replicans you listed previous but it is a start. 1 - Facts are facts, I agree. So lets stick to facts and dispense with all the analogies and stories. You say these reasons are why you support Republicans so lets stick to the facts about what Republicans have done. 2 - Which Republican administraion scaled back the size of the Government? Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush all grew the size of government to my understanding. How is this honestly a Republican vs Democrat issue? Please stick to facts. 3 - How is this a Republican owned position? Eisenhower and Nixon both pushed universal healthcare, the GOP during the Clinton years came up with the mandate idea that is the bassis for Obamacare (ACA) and Bush spent 1.2 trillion dollars on an unfunded prescription drug plan. Again, just facts. No wordy explanations about how much you dislake Obamacare and the healthcare system in Greece. 4 - Can you show me by way of our nations budget where Republcans admins have been less intermingled with business. Less involved in picking winners and losers? If what you mean is de-regulation than you should say so. As for being involved in business; who built the highway systems, the internet, put satelites in space, invested the money in jet enigines and nuclear tech? There has always been a huge role played by gov't. Calling for "less"is vague and neither side Democrat or Republcan is interested in "less". 5 - Is either major party looking to stop you from owning a gun? 6 - Republican administrations sold arms to Iran, gave arms to the taliban, and trained Al Quada members. 9/11, worse terror attack ever, happened while a Republcan was in office. Do you believe the Republicans have a better history on the issue of terrorism? Please stick to facts and not should've, could've, would've. Lets focus on what is and has actually been.

I gave TAR a +1 for bothering to acknowledge the questions at all. It is a big first step.

@ TAR, then produce numbers to support consideration. Without data to reflect an impact it is pointless to discuss.

@ Physica, you are little all over the place. Hundreds of factors influence pay. You previously mentioned location as factor. Other factors include: Beauty - https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3043406/mobius_beauty.pdf?s.. Ethnic name - http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html Economic mobility - http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2015/07/economic-mobility-in-the-united-states So when you start looking at factors free from isolation like men choosing certian careers it become very hard to quantify the impact. More factors than career choice matter. Even looking at career choice in isolation studies have shown Females are less likely to receive mentorship - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2063742 As for the overtime; time spent at work and quality of work at not one in the same. I telecommute the majority of the time. From from this gender discussion there are many debates being had about the usefulness of structured work days and whether face time on the office is equal to working getting done. So the overtime thing varies industry by industry. Not only that but U am less likely to volunteer to work late with peers who mistreat me or a boss I don't like.

It is fair to expect proof. However I think you are being a little ambigious about what you would like proof of. Men do statistically make more than women. That is a fact we all come into this knowing. So the thread is about why. I have not made a hypothesis as to why. Rather I merely stated that the argument that it is because women take maternity leave is a weak one. Clearly in all cases men do not make more. In the military for example pay is based on rank. A male and female of the same rank would make the exact same amount of money. The issue is not universal. So the challenge is to prove that there is bias, meaningful enough to broadly impact women, in our job market. Here is the actually study my previous link referenced. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf

@ Willie71, TAR has managed to shift discussion away from policy and facts towards a philosophical dicussion about partisan ideology. That is the name of his game. When he doesn't have facts he just derails discussion while claiming ignorance. You managed to get a list of things that he felt the Republican party represented out of him but since ALL attempts to follow up have be obfuscated. TAR listed 10 things to which you responded with 10 questions; he has address ZERO of those questions. Such a clear duck of the issues at hand can not be confused merely as being a misunderstanding. TAR simply doesn't have the answers so he is changing the topic. @ TAR, you list things you felt mattered to Republicans. Can we get back to discussioning these items? After all it is your list.

You were asked for a link to support your claim that "according to studies women are actually getting paid more than men per hour" and instead produce a video of Christina Hoff Summers (an American author and former philosophy professor) sharing her opinions? Nothing is provided in your video other than more claims about more studies. No actual studies are even cited. The overall theme of the video is borderline insulting. The agrument opens with basically saying that women have come a long way so they should be thankful and not complain. Such an attitude grades equality on a curve. Compared to slavery black people had it good during segregation. The video then dimisses any number of ways women are treated unequally in society by merely claiming that some study (not cited) says so. Can we deal with actual studies and not merely the claim of studies: - Blind resume study. Identical STEM field resumes but on one reads Jennifer and the other reads John. Jennifer was offered less money and her resumes, though identical, was evaluated as less. http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer - male and female expected wages upon graduation differ greatly: while young male college grads earn an average hourly wage of $19.64 early in their careers, their female counterparts earn an average hourly wage of just $16.56, or 18.6 percent less than men. http://www.epi.org/publication/same-education-different-pay/

^^^^ A lot of the lies pushed out by conservative pundits are understood to be allegories. Provided something could be truth it is okay to treat it as true. When Carly Fiorina claims to have watched a video that doesnt exist her follwers don't bat an eye because they believe under the right circimstances such a video would exist. If it could be than that is equal to it being. This view plays itself out in conservative politics constantly. Saddam could have had WMD's so Bush wasn't lying when he claimed to know for a fact that Saddam had WMDs. Whether or not there were WMDs gets lost in the potentiality. Another example: refugees could be terrorists, which is equal to them actually being terrorists, so Obama has already made our country less safe and we are all presently in danger.

How many people need to notice the behavior before you are willing to step back and considers it? Perhaps this is part of your problem in here; you are to concerned with who we are rather than what we post. You seem to be running What is said by posters through a filter of black, white, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, socialist, young, old, and etc. How about excersizing some reading comprehension at its most basic level and not treating our words as postmodernist art that requires philisophical interperitation. It someone posts the Bush admin lying to get us into the Iraq war you responding with a story about finding an hurt bird walking home from school when you were a child is not an oppropriate response. No one is mischaracterizing your posts. Pointing out that you have misrepresented our words not not equal to misrepresenting yours. You are outlining a major false equivalency here. You don't think it is not safe to walk around major cities in the United States at night. That is what I read. The questions you added here require speculation. So in answering them I would not be misrepresenting you because the questions are rhetorically asking for the readers thoughts: "would you figure I was", "are you preparing to construct".

I thought that for awhile but now believe that he simply doesn't care. Perhaps this is all sport. Refusing to address what posters say is a means of avoiding being pinned down and counted out.

I said you may like their crap and then continued to say how their political views for better or worse aren't the issue. You then proceeded to make them the central issue off every response on the topic. By doing so you have yet to address anything, in context, I posted on the subject. So please go back, read my posts without your projected assumptions and respond to what I actually said rather than cherry picking and mischaracterizing my posts.

Your assumptions about what people mean disrespect those who are taking time to bother explaining themselves to you. You have been doing it to me as well. You have yet to respond in context to a single one of my posts regarding the Federalist Society. Instead you just qoute political positions they stand for. Now you are project nonsense into other posts that simply isn't there. Phi for All clearly wrote that they use their critical thinking skills for profit. That is very different than saying they have no critical thinking skills at all. I can read that plainly and I didn't major in philosophy. @ TAR, I apologize for my tone. It is not polite or useful. I am just fustrated that you choose to ignore posters words and instead respond to what you assume they must really mean.

@ TAR That is not what Phi for All said!!!!! You are not merely misunderstanding what posters are writing you are are right making #%*! up.

A lot of companies do provide time off for to fathers too and I agree that it is a terrific thing. I personally find the whole argument about women having children as a both silly and supportive of negative parenting stereotype that says fathers are not emotionally available to their children.

@ TAR, there is a HUGE difference between using views on a specific couple issues as a litmus test and being part of a organization with a long term political agenda that incentuosly seeks to plant individuals to the bench. It does not matter how intelligent they are. Courts are not suppose to be political and judges should not have pre-slated agendas. It is morally bankrupt for you to turn a blind eye to it simply because on the surface you assume it benefits your worldview. And to that point you assume incorrectly. Making money speech and corporations people does not help you. It doesn't help your family. You keep falling back to this B.S. and it is very fustrating. You are drawing equivalents that are not real. As though though politics are just competing opinions and our system is not manipulated. I am not attacking the values of common voters who lean left or right. I am attacking specific organizations who are seeking influence and power within our government! Who circumvent our process and oppress the vioce of average people. You and I are a peons to them. You think your support of their facade (you have no idea what their true agendas are) gives you seat at their table? You think the no bid contractors who made billions off the Iraq war honestly care about your safety? Stop falling back to your views about typical American voters when presented with specific arguments about individual groups.

TAR, because of the way districts are drawn out and gerrymandered the GOP has been winning larger shares of seats than percentages of actual votes. This is one of the reason so many in here are complaining about the system being broken. " The House is shockingly skewed toward the Republican Party. It’s always hard to oust incumbents—some 96 percent just won re-election—but now it extends to control of the chamber. In 2012, Republicans won a lopsided majority of seats despite securing only 48 percent of the vote, about the same vote share as Democrats this year. To keep the House in 2014, Republican needed only 45 percent of votes. Putting it another way: control of the House comes from winning 218 races or more. The 218th biggest Republican margin was fully 14 percentage points." http://www.thenation.com/article/republicans-only-got-52-percent-vote-house-races/ Okay, so you agree with some of their crap. What does that have to do with anything? You think it is acceptable for a politically partisan group to plant judges in our system to change law to their liking from the bench? They complain about liberals however there is not a liberal equivalent to the Federalist Society TAR. They are the only organized group doing this and it is wrong!!! Our courts are not suppose to be political!!!! That is one of the reason supreme court appointments are for life. To seperate judges from the political atomesohere of the day. The Federal Society is a pn affront to that. This is no small issue. Do you remember when Conservatives through a fit over Bush nomination Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court? She was a life long Republican but was not a participating member of the Federalist Society. That is what the beef was about. They (Federalist Society and Conservatives) have created a political litmus test for bench seats. That is wrong. That is not the way our system is designed to work. And on this issue the door does not swing both ways. Democrats do not have an political action commitee they pull all their court appointments from.

The Federalist Society is an organization. They have chapters all over the country.they operate in plain view and few people notice. Form their website: "The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community." http://www.fed-soc.org