ISNA Thugs
Umbreen Shah September 8, 2005
#212 Posted by stuka on September 13, 2005 1:21:49 pm
``...we can only HOPE that IF Roberts is confirmed that he is competant enough to detach himself from making sober judgements of the constitution...``
If he is not, another Bush appointee will. After all, how long can Congress keep on denying confirmation?
``but shouldnt we put an end to this mediocrity of spirit?``
How? By thwarting the democratic will of the people? The Republicans did win the congressional as well as the Presidential elections.
``Why are we always ``damaging controlling`` the fundo tendencies of the rep party? Is it not clear where the rep party has mired us? ``
Fundo tendencies are your perception. The fact is that these United States are founded on Jedeo Christian principles which consitute the bedrock of the nation. Why should the will of the majority of the people be ``damage controlled`` by a few who do not even believe in the American constitution in spirit?
If he is not, another Bush appointee will. After all, how long can Congress keep on denying confirmation?
``but shouldnt we put an end to this mediocrity of spirit?``
How? By thwarting the democratic will of the people? The Republicans did win the congressional as well as the Presidential elections.
``Why are we always ``damaging controlling`` the fundo tendencies of the rep party? Is it not clear where the rep party has mired us? ``
Fundo tendencies are your perception. The fact is that these United States are founded on Jedeo Christian principles which consitute the bedrock of the nation. Why should the will of the majority of the people be ``damage controlled`` by a few who do not even believe in the American constitution in spirit?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#211 Posted by Saminasha on September 13, 2005 1:19:30 pm
Re: # 210
And why have you not had the decency to acknowledge that your info has been incorrect?
And why have you not had the decency to acknowledge that your info has been incorrect?
#210 Posted by Saminasha on September 13, 2005 1:18:05 pm
Stuka,
As you seem to suffer from the delusion that some lives are more valuable than others, I dont expect you to understand the concept of equal pay for equal labor. Now, I`ve had enough of you.
As you seem to suffer from the delusion that some lives are more valuable than others, I dont expect you to understand the concept of equal pay for equal labor. Now, I`ve had enough of you.
#209 Posted by stuka on September 13, 2005 1:15:26 pm
Saminasha:
``“Their slogan may as well be, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.’”
Lady, there is a difference between advocating the lack of gender as a defining role in attributing salary structure versus mandating euality of pay on the basis of gender alone. Why should a man and a woman be paid the same if they bring two different levels of qualifications to the job.
A reali life example: I make more than a woman who holds the same position simply because I negotiated a better salary coming in. That situation was influenced by factors as myriad as my having a job when I applied for this one and her being laid off and without a job. OTOH, I earn less than another man who happens to have an MBA from a better school. So what????
If men and women were to have mandatory euality of pay based on gender alone, then it would logically extend to all men and all women earning the same. What about ability? What about the flexibility for employers to negotiate salaries? That scenario would bring us startlingly close, as Roberts puts it, to Marxism.
``“Their slogan may as well be, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.’”
Lady, there is a difference between advocating the lack of gender as a defining role in attributing salary structure versus mandating euality of pay on the basis of gender alone. Why should a man and a woman be paid the same if they bring two different levels of qualifications to the job.
A reali life example: I make more than a woman who holds the same position simply because I negotiated a better salary coming in. That situation was influenced by factors as myriad as my having a job when I applied for this one and her being laid off and without a job. OTOH, I earn less than another man who happens to have an MBA from a better school. So what????
If men and women were to have mandatory euality of pay based on gender alone, then it would logically extend to all men and all women earning the same. What about ability? What about the flexibility for employers to negotiate salaries? That scenario would bring us startlingly close, as Roberts puts it, to Marxism.
#208 Posted by Saminasha on September 13, 2005 1:14:14 pm
Yassir,
You know as well as I do that the Reps have been creating policy that violates our civil rights...our current administration apparently no longer is required to provide the burden of proof before invading and gutting a country at the expense of tens of thousands of lives...it no longer has to provide legimately functioning institutions like FEMA...and now we are being asked to stack our Supreme Court with people whose personal biases are predicated on their notions of inequality.
This political situation is insanity....the fundamentalists in the Muslim and Jewish world are mirrored by Christians here....because none of these seriously, seriously incompetant people have any NOR do they have want any knowledge of what life was like during the American 1950s and before. This self congratulatory ignorance is a dangerous thing.
You may be satisfied with checks and balances...we can only HOPE that IF Roberts is confirmed that he is competant enough to detach himself from making sober judgements of the constitution...but shouldnt we put an end to this mediocrity of spirit? Why are we always ``damaging controlling`` the fundo tendencies of the rep party? Is it not clear where the rep party has mired us?
You know as well as I do that the Reps have been creating policy that violates our civil rights...our current administration apparently no longer is required to provide the burden of proof before invading and gutting a country at the expense of tens of thousands of lives...it no longer has to provide legimately functioning institutions like FEMA...and now we are being asked to stack our Supreme Court with people whose personal biases are predicated on their notions of inequality.
This political situation is insanity....the fundamentalists in the Muslim and Jewish world are mirrored by Christians here....because none of these seriously, seriously incompetant people have any NOR do they have want any knowledge of what life was like during the American 1950s and before. This self congratulatory ignorance is a dangerous thing.
You may be satisfied with checks and balances...we can only HOPE that IF Roberts is confirmed that he is competant enough to detach himself from making sober judgements of the constitution...but shouldnt we put an end to this mediocrity of spirit? Why are we always ``damaging controlling`` the fundo tendencies of the rep party? Is it not clear where the rep party has mired us?
#207 Posted by MantoLives on September 13, 2005 1:03:48 pm
Saminasha,
I`ve been listening to Judge Roberts very carefuly... at the hearings earlier today and I find prima facie nothing wrong with the guy that might make him unfit to be the Chief Justice of the United States as long as he does what he claims he will.. rule according to the Constitution of the United States with all its amendments.
We know he is a conservative.. we know he will not be an activist .... but the criterion is whether he would be far right.
I`ve been listening to Judge Roberts very carefuly... at the hearings earlier today and I find prima facie nothing wrong with the guy that might make him unfit to be the Chief Justice of the United States as long as he does what he claims he will.. rule according to the Constitution of the United States with all its amendments.
We know he is a conservative.. we know he will not be an activist .... but the criterion is whether he would be far right.
#205 Posted by Saminasha on September 13, 2005 12:50:02 pm
Re: # 193
fundo angst...
schadenfundo...
fundofunk...
fundophrenia...
fundo angst...
schadenfundo...
fundofunk...
fundophrenia...
#203 Posted by Saminasha on September 13, 2005 12:36:19 pm
Re: # 196
Beeyatch, your time is over....blow yourself silly....you dont exist....
Beeyatch, your time is over....blow yourself silly....you dont exist....
#202 Posted by Saminasha on September 13, 2005 12:34:25 pm
Stuka ``sahib``,
WHY do you WASTE my time?
1.
Original article is at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/1718553.php Print comments.
Roberts hostile to equal pay, memo shows
by Tim Wheeler/People`s Weekly World Friday, Aug. 19, 2005 at 7:47 AM
WASHINGTON — A newly released legal memo by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts calling pay equity for women a “pernicious” legal doctrine touched off demands by women’s organizations that he be quizzed closely on the issue in Senate confirmation hearings next month.
The memo was one of 5,400 pages of documents dating from late 1982 to mid-1986 when Roberts was serving in the Reagan White House. Held in the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., the papers were released by the National Archives Aug.15 at the request of Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The White House has refused to release another 50,000 pages covering Roberts’ later service as deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department.
“That memo does cause us much concern,” Llenda Jackson-Leslie, president of the National Women’s Political Caucus, told the World. “That’s one of the reasons we have joined with other organizations in asking the Senate to demand that these papers be released. We want a full, open, honest disclosure of all these papers, particularly the documents created when Roberts was at the Justice Department.”
In the memo, addressed to then-White House counsel Fred Fielding, Roberts reacted to a 1984 ruling by a federal district judge in Tacoma, Wash. The judge had upheld Washington State’s revised pay scales to close the yawning female-male wage gap in job categories where 70 percent or more of the workers were women.
Roberts’ memo denounced three women members of Congress, all Republicans, who endorsed the Washington State pay equity law. “I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept,” Roberts wrote in the memo. “Their slogan may as well be, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.’”
Roberts was paraphrasing Karl Marx’s famous definition of socialism, “From each according to his [her] ability, to each according to his [her] work.” With this choice of language, Roberts revealed his readiness to use redbaiting against a simple measure to close the male-female income gap.
The Tacoma judge’s ruling was overturned the next year in an opinion written by Anthony M. Kennedy, then an appeals court judge. A year later, Reagan named him to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jackson-Leslie said pay equity “is an extremely urgent issue. Right now, Michigan and Alabama are tied for last place with women earning 67 cents for every dollar a man earns. It’s a major problem.”
The National Committee on Pay Equity estimates that working families lose more than $200 billion annually in income due to the male-female wage differential. That money flows into the profit coffers of corporate America. The gender wage gap is even wider for African American women who earn only 66 cents and for Hispanic women who earn only 55 cents for every dollar men earn. A 25-year-old woman can expect to lose between $250,000 and $500,000 over her lifetime due to this gap.
The most recent figures on the gender wage gap presented a misleading picture of women earning 81 cents for every dollar earned by the average male. Analysts say this apparent narrowing of the gap is the result of men earning less, not women earning more.
Noting that Roberts wrote the memo 21 years ago, Sherry Saunders, communications director of Business and Professional Women/USA, told the World, “I would hope he has had time to reconsider his opinion and I hope the Senate Judiciary Committee would ask him his opinions on this question today.”
“I was concerned that he was dismissive of a policy that provided women equal pay for work of comparable worth. We will be listening closely to these hearings,” she said.
Jackson-Leslie said pay equity “is only one of the issues we are concerned about.” Others include Roberts’ views on privacy, voting rights and affirmative action.
Jeremy Lemming, a spokes-man for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, pointed out that in one of the released documents, Roberts vehemently denounced the Supreme Court for overturning Alabama’s “moment of silence” prayer in school law.
Clearly, he said, Roberts is hostile to the First Amendment’s principle of separation of church and state. “Roberts was a high-ranking political appointee pushing legal doctrines that are as radical as those expressed by Robert Bork,” Lemming said, referring to the far-right Nixon Justice Department official whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate.
“Bush is seeking to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate swing vote on the high court, with a foot soldier of the extreme right,” Lemming continued.
“Bush won a second term by a very narrow margin. We don’t think the country has given him a mandate to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing extremists. We’ve already come out in opposition to this nominee and we hope others join us. There is enough evidence, now, that we have another Scalia or Thomas on our hands. We think the Senate should reject him.”
www.pww.org
2. WHO thinks minimum wage for reconstructing construction workers in New Orleans and Miss is overpaying them?
3. WHAT civil rights history book/ course have you studied?
WHY do you WASTE my time?
1.
Original article is at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/08/1718553.php Print comments.
Roberts hostile to equal pay, memo shows
by Tim Wheeler/People`s Weekly World Friday, Aug. 19, 2005 at 7:47 AM
WASHINGTON — A newly released legal memo by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts calling pay equity for women a “pernicious” legal doctrine touched off demands by women’s organizations that he be quizzed closely on the issue in Senate confirmation hearings next month.
The memo was one of 5,400 pages of documents dating from late 1982 to mid-1986 when Roberts was serving in the Reagan White House. Held in the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., the papers were released by the National Archives Aug.15 at the request of Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The White House has refused to release another 50,000 pages covering Roberts’ later service as deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department.
“That memo does cause us much concern,” Llenda Jackson-Leslie, president of the National Women’s Political Caucus, told the World. “That’s one of the reasons we have joined with other organizations in asking the Senate to demand that these papers be released. We want a full, open, honest disclosure of all these papers, particularly the documents created when Roberts was at the Justice Department.”
In the memo, addressed to then-White House counsel Fred Fielding, Roberts reacted to a 1984 ruling by a federal district judge in Tacoma, Wash. The judge had upheld Washington State’s revised pay scales to close the yawning female-male wage gap in job categories where 70 percent or more of the workers were women.
Roberts’ memo denounced three women members of Congress, all Republicans, who endorsed the Washington State pay equity law. “I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept,” Roberts wrote in the memo. “Their slogan may as well be, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.’”
Roberts was paraphrasing Karl Marx’s famous definition of socialism, “From each according to his [her] ability, to each according to his [her] work.” With this choice of language, Roberts revealed his readiness to use redbaiting against a simple measure to close the male-female income gap.
The Tacoma judge’s ruling was overturned the next year in an opinion written by Anthony M. Kennedy, then an appeals court judge. A year later, Reagan named him to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jackson-Leslie said pay equity “is an extremely urgent issue. Right now, Michigan and Alabama are tied for last place with women earning 67 cents for every dollar a man earns. It’s a major problem.”
The National Committee on Pay Equity estimates that working families lose more than $200 billion annually in income due to the male-female wage differential. That money flows into the profit coffers of corporate America. The gender wage gap is even wider for African American women who earn only 66 cents and for Hispanic women who earn only 55 cents for every dollar men earn. A 25-year-old woman can expect to lose between $250,000 and $500,000 over her lifetime due to this gap.
The most recent figures on the gender wage gap presented a misleading picture of women earning 81 cents for every dollar earned by the average male. Analysts say this apparent narrowing of the gap is the result of men earning less, not women earning more.
Noting that Roberts wrote the memo 21 years ago, Sherry Saunders, communications director of Business and Professional Women/USA, told the World, “I would hope he has had time to reconsider his opinion and I hope the Senate Judiciary Committee would ask him his opinions on this question today.”
“I was concerned that he was dismissive of a policy that provided women equal pay for work of comparable worth. We will be listening closely to these hearings,” she said.
Jackson-Leslie said pay equity “is only one of the issues we are concerned about.” Others include Roberts’ views on privacy, voting rights and affirmative action.
Jeremy Lemming, a spokes-man for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, pointed out that in one of the released documents, Roberts vehemently denounced the Supreme Court for overturning Alabama’s “moment of silence” prayer in school law.
Clearly, he said, Roberts is hostile to the First Amendment’s principle of separation of church and state. “Roberts was a high-ranking political appointee pushing legal doctrines that are as radical as those expressed by Robert Bork,” Lemming said, referring to the far-right Nixon Justice Department official whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate.
“Bush is seeking to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate swing vote on the high court, with a foot soldier of the extreme right,” Lemming continued.
“Bush won a second term by a very narrow margin. We don’t think the country has given him a mandate to pack the Supreme Court with right-wing extremists. We’ve already come out in opposition to this nominee and we hope others join us. There is enough evidence, now, that we have another Scalia or Thomas on our hands. We think the Senate should reject him.”
www.pww.org
2. WHO thinks minimum wage for reconstructing construction workers in New Orleans and Miss is overpaying them?
3. WHAT civil rights history book/ course have you studied?
#201 Posted by ntsyed on September 13, 2005 12:33:08 pm
Re: # 152 by Urstruly
``How the hell burning a bra can make women free. What chutyapa``
The operative word: chut-ya-pa
`nuff said
:-)~~
``How the hell burning a bra can make women free. What chutyapa``
The operative word: chut-ya-pa
`nuff said
:-)~~
#200 Posted by ntsyed on September 13, 2005 12:11:34 pm
Re: # 121 by rozaiba
``A secular state is the best way to resolve and recognize irreconcilable religious differences. Differences that have lead to more deaths than any other cause or disaster.``
WOW!
I suppose the shining example to prove that claim would be the latest Iraq war with more than 500,000 children killed with economic, food, medicine sanctions, and 100,000 obliterated by cluster bombs and depleted uranium. All in the name of religion and by religious nuts!
Right Miss Rozaiba?
Sharam bhi nahi aati in ehmaqon ko! But then again, sharam or sharam-gah do not have a tangible value in secularism. Hai na Saminasha?
:-)~~
``A secular state is the best way to resolve and recognize irreconcilable religious differences. Differences that have lead to more deaths than any other cause or disaster.``
WOW!
I suppose the shining example to prove that claim would be the latest Iraq war with more than 500,000 children killed with economic, food, medicine sanctions, and 100,000 obliterated by cluster bombs and depleted uranium. All in the name of religion and by religious nuts!
Right Miss Rozaiba?
Sharam bhi nahi aati in ehmaqon ko! But then again, sharam or sharam-gah do not have a tangible value in secularism. Hai na Saminasha?
:-)~~
#199 Posted by ntsyed on September 13, 2005 12:11:24 pm
Re: # 120 by Ana
Yawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnn!
Aced the topic in 8th grade without reading the crap in the textbook. Hint: newspapers and TV during Black History Month suffice
:-)~~
Yawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnn!
Aced the topic in 8th grade without reading the crap in the textbook. Hint: newspapers and TV during Black History Month suffice
:-)~~
#198 Posted by ntsyed on September 13, 2005 12:11:16 pm
Re: # 119 by hamidm
No hamidm sahib, I don`t like their moving the lips without saying anything.
:-)~~
No hamidm sahib, I don`t like their moving the lips without saying anything.
:-)~~
#197 Posted by ntsyed on September 13, 2005 11:52:51 am
Re: # 116 By Saminasha
wah wah, kya ghazal yaad dilaii tu ne zalim:
a jazba-e-dil gar mein chahun
her cheez muqabil aa jaye
manzil k liye do-gaam chaloun,
aur samnay manzil aa jaye
.
.
.
.
haan yaad mujhey tum ker lena,
awaaz mujhay tum de lena
is rah-e-mohabbat mein koi,
darpesh jo mushkil aa jaye
Let see how she has to jump to catch that one...LOL
:-)~~
wah wah, kya ghazal yaad dilaii tu ne zalim:
a jazba-e-dil gar mein chahun
her cheez muqabil aa jaye
manzil k liye do-gaam chaloun,
aur samnay manzil aa jaye
.
.
.
.
haan yaad mujhey tum ker lena,
awaaz mujhay tum de lena
is rah-e-mohabbat mein koi,
darpesh jo mushkil aa jaye
Let see how she has to jump to catch that one...LOL
:-)~~
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- blumfeld: Nanga...why dont both india... Who is Maqbool Bhat?
- RiazHaq: Re: # 10: "for... A Very Costly Bill
- BJ2: It is the U.S.... A Very Costly Bill
- jang: "anti defection bill" for a... A Very Costly Bill
- NangaPir: This is the lowest... Who is Maqbool Bhat?
- dasghar: #18 Hussaini Veer Jee,... A Ward of the
- teshah: Re: # 133 Ranger98860 A good... Understanding Islamic Revival In
- sadna: Well argued, Shoaib.... A Very Costly Bill
