The GOP and Paycheck Equity

A poll by Crossroads GPS and American Action Network report on how the GOP polls among women purports to raise alarm bells among Republicans. Support for the GOP among American women trails women’s support fro the Democratic Party by a noticeable margin. Married women, however, tend to lean Republican in a fairly convincing manner. Strategists like Katie Packer Gage insist that the party needs to fine tune its message to female voters, especially if Hillary does win the nomination, as expected.


The problem starts when drilling down into the details of the so-called gender gap. Abortion is an obvious point of conflict and is also obviously non-negotiable for those who believe strongly in the rights of a fetus. Most strategists state that an honest disagreement and then moving on is the best policy. Another point is equal pay legislation. Republicans have opposed the Paycheck Fairness Act and Democrats, like Chuck Schumer, like to state loud and clear that this is one of the main reasons why women support their party. So should Republicans have a sudden change of heart about pay equity and bring additional female votes over to the GOP?

The first step would be to agree to what extent there is a deliberate problem of wage discrimination based on gender. Raw data does show a clear difference but critics like Christina Sommers at the American Enterprise Institute have shown that a good part of the difference can be explained by choices women tend to make concerning their careers: for example choosing jobs that offer more flexibility to allow them to raise children or take care of parents rather than those that offer higher wages. Of course, that's a blanket generalization. But that's exactly what any legislation - like the Paycheck Fairness Act - will attempt to remedy, generalizations based on gender. And that means companies getting caught in the crossfire of lawsuits and having to comply with an added layer of bureaucracy on gender rights in the workplace.

Maybe a solution could be to allow full and free disclosure of wages among any worker that wishes to ask or tell with no retaliation allowed from employers; while at the same time strictly limiting lawsuits based on complaints about unequal pay for work that is "substantially" the same. Unfortunately, such a solution would be likely to anger employers as much as employees. But it would create a more transparent labor market that, at the same time, is not run by the courts. Pay equity is an issue that will not go away, and offering creative solutions, whether they feel the problem is anywhere as severe as stated or not, is something the GOP will have to think about. You can be sure women already are.

Posted by AllardK at September 8, 2014 11:51 AM
Comments
Comment #382937
So should Republicans have a sudden change of heart about pay equity and bring additional female votes over to the GOP?
If you want the Republican party to be a less effective replica of the Democratic party then, by all means, pander to the latest group.

But, if you think the Republican party is the last bastion of small government and personal liberty then they should stick to their principals and convictions and not let petty group pandering politics determine their course.

I was working in an auto parts assembly plant in my formative years. One of the machines made the upper part of the door that meets the roof, and what the window rolled up into. The machine made two of these parts at the same time, one left and one right. A man was expected to load and unload both parts on each cycle. A woman couldn’t/wouldn’t do the same work and needed another woman to unload each part. Two woman did the work that one man could do, yet the two women received the same pay as the one man.

I’ve also worked along side women in a kitchen. I did the same work as the woman, she did the same work as I. We both received the same pay because we were paid for working the position, not because of the personal anatomy of those doing the job.

I think that if a man said he needed a few days off a month for personal reasons, needed 6 months off because he had “another job” taking care of his new child, couldn’t make it in because he didn’t have a sitter, or had to leave early to pick up the kids from school every day, he wouldn’t have a job at all!

Contrary to what politicians think, you cannot fit enough words on a piece of paper and call it a law, and expect it to solve the problems of every woman in America. Politicians need to quit pandering because for every person they help, they hurt many more.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2014 1:43 PM
Comment #382941
if you think the Republican party is the last bastion of small government and personal liberty then they should stick to their principals and convictions and not let petty group pandering politics determine their course.

I don’t think anyone with any examination of the Republican platform would call the Republican party a bastion of small government and personal liberty, let alone the ‘last one’.

Republicans violate small government and personal liberty principles all of the time, which is why they are dying and losing more and more people to the libertarian party, who really ARE for small government and personal liberty, than ever before.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 9, 2014 7:07 PM
Comment #382942
I think that if a man said he needed a few days off a month for personal reasons, needed 6 months off because he had “another job” taking care of his new child, couldn’t make it in because he didn’t have a sitter, or had to leave early to pick up the kids from school every day, he wouldn’t have a job at all!

I don’t know, I work for a fortune 500 company and have had to take a LOT of time off over the past couple of years to take care of my wife who is battling stage 4 ovarian cancer and their only response to me so far is ‘are we being flexible enough for you?’

Is that random or lucky? Or is it because I chose to work at this company, making a little less money than I could have elsewhere, precisely for that reason?

People are individuals, I’m so tired of the generalizations, the groupings, the inane attempts by both parties to herd people into groups and wedge us for votes. It’s disgusting.

If the company you work for doesn’t treat it’s employees right, go work somewhere else! If you continue to work there, what you make and how you are treated is ON YOU. If we did that, those companies that treated people badly wouldn’t have good employees and would lose out and shut down, simple as that.

Instead, people get jobs and THEN demand that someone else come in and make their jobs better. Someone else who has a gun to put to their boss’ heads. Lovely society we have built there, isn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 9, 2014 7:13 PM
Comment #382952

Remember when they said the Republican party is going to have to cater to the hispanic vote to ever be a viable party again?

How about when they decided the Republicans are waging a war on women?

The media bombarded us with good hispanics/bad republicans. Now they bombard us with good working women/bad republicans.

Now we see how the media, et al, is telling us the republicans have to “come around” to see the women’s view so they can remain a viable party.

Over and over, one crisis after another, good democratic/bad republican. Good cop/bad cop, but they’re both cops! They’re both going for the same objective. They’re only posturing with each other as to who claims the moral high ground when the objective is achieved.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2014 8:08 PM
Comment #382960

Willie,

“They’re only posturing with each other as to who claims the moral high ground when the objective is achieved.”

There’s your problem.

In politics the “moral high ground” doesn’t exist. It’s all about the power and who has it. Those who have it are bad and those who don’t are good.
There isn’t a hair’s breath of difference between the two parties except for their priorities. They both spend on their pet projects when they are in power.

Frankly it doesn’t really matter who is in power, they both spend about the same.
Neither is any more fiscally responsible than the other.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 9, 2014 9:39 PM
Comment #382961

That’s why I say our two party system has turned from D and R to G and P.

Samual Adams wanted a revolution. He wanted people to resist. He would be a fervent supporter and promoter of The Patriot Fast.

Starve the Beast!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2014 11:06 PM
Comment #382962

Rocky,
“Frankly it doesn’t really matter who is in power, they both spend about the same.
Neither is any more fiscally responsible than the other.”

That is simply not true.

Until the Obama administration, about 90% of the $10 trillion in national debt was accumulated by three administrations: Reagan, Bush #41, and Bush #43. Most of this debt was piled up through tax cuts and military/TSA spending.

The Obama administration accumulated its debt national debt through spending to keep us from going into a Great Depression.

The Clinton and Obama administrations reduced the national deficits, unlike Republican ones.

Since 1961, Democratic presidents have added 42 million jobs, and Republican ones 24 million. The GDP has averaged 4.35% for Democrats, and 2.54 for Republicans. On a state level, 97/100 of the poorest counties are red, and 9/10 of the poorest states. The richest state in terms of per capita income is blue CT, which has been that way for decades, and poorest one, MS, which has been red for the same.

I understand how third party advocates want to promote a ‘pox upon both of their houses’ by suggesting Democrats and Republicans are the same, because they want to pump up their own interests, but that is not true- not for economics, not on Climate Change, not on foreign policy, not on the Debt Ceiling, not on government shutdowns… I could go on and on…

Posted by: phx8 at September 9, 2014 11:25 PM
Comment #382963

Phx8 just made my point for me. I said:

Over and over, one crisis after another, good democratic/bad republican.

and then he lists the latest and greatest partisan issues of our time.

not for economics, not on Climate Change, not on foreign policy, not on the Debt Ceiling, not on government shutdowns… I could go on and on…


and they do go on and on… They never give up.

Anyone objecting to their philosophy is supposed to give up or face the onslaught of the MSM, but the good democrat never gives up.

What difference would government make on economics if they weren’t trying to control it? The government gives away the control of our money to a private corporation and then uses the commerce clause to regulate every grain of wheat produced in every state? Do you call that free enterprise?

Climate change? That’s an excuse to levy the acid rain tax onto CO2. Acid rain went away and the tax was not needed. CO2 won’t go away. It’s a permanent excuse to levy a tax on CO2 by treating it the same as acid rain.

Foreign policy has been a disaster since the Korean war era. It’s a bi-partisan issue. Constant war seems to be a prerequisite to governing effectively.

The debt ceiling fiasco is nothing but blackmail.

Give us more money or the market will crash and you will all die!

Government shutdowns are an obvious laughing stock! An obvious ploy used on an ignorant people using an outdated, one way medium.

To expect me to believe the excuses used to raise the debt ceiling is insulting.

No, phx8! You can’t go on and on! Because, sooner or later that philosophy is going to run out of money.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2014 12:17 AM
Comment #382964
Until the Obama administration, about 90% of the $10 trillion in national debt was accumulated by three administrations: Reagan, Bush #41, and Bush #43. Most of this debt was piled up through tax cuts and military/TSA spending.

It’s too bad that the power to determine how much money the country would spend wasn’t given to the Congress to limit the abuses that would occur if it were given to the President instead…

Oh wait, they did!

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This tired rhetoric doesn’t match the knock down drag out fights between Republican presidents and Democratic congresses, and Democratic presidents and Republican congresses, both instances having the Democrats be on the side of wanting to spend more money.

And borrowing money from the SS trust fund is not balancing anything, btw… This is just not knowing how the money is accounted for in the reporting to even suggest such a thing. While the ‘operating’ budget dipped down into surplus areas under Clinton (because of the FIERCE fights with Gingrich that led to shutdowns, btw) the TOTAL debt, which we talk about now and never did then, always increased by a large margin under Clinton because of this borrowing against the SS trust fund (and other trust funds) to make it happen.

http://dailysignal.com/2011/05/13/liberal-think-tank-fails-statistics/

http://simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50:revisiting-the-bush-deficits&catid=31:general&Itemid=50

The worst times are usually when both the house and senate and the presidency are all three controlled by the same party… But hey, apparently divided government is bad. :/

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 10, 2014 1:55 AM
Comment #382969

Willie,

I am going to point out some facts here so don’t take it personal.

Since your resurection on this site your partisanshp has been, shall we say, blatent.
It’s always good repuplicans//bad democratics. As a point of fact it appears you lothe the Dems so much you can’t even bother to spell it right. If you’re trying to make a point, the point was made years ago.

To deride phx8 for his partisanship is a bit hypocritical, IMHO.

Fact 2;
Before Obama took office the “debt ceiling” was never an issue. It was raised like clock work every year, and everybody went on about their business.

Apparently it’s now a big deal.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 10, 2014 3:59 PM
Comment #382970
Before Obama took office the “debt ceiling” was never an issue.

Yes and no. Yes, it did get raised (and it got raised recently too). But it was a big deal, in fact many Democrats voted against raising it in recent pact, including our current President.

Also, remember that during that time you are talking about our debt was never this high as a percentage of GDP. That makes a big difference to many, willing to go so high but more than that means it’s time to perhaps look at what we are doing here…

However, what I find as the real issue is that congress is fighting over the debt ceiling when THEY are the ones who write the spending bills and are responsible for them in the first place. Kind of like going to the store and buying a new XboxOne and then complaining that you don’t have any money left… THEY were the ones who spent it. Fight the fight at the budget process, not after the fact.

Of course, part of what plays into the issue now is the fact that the budget process has been effectively broken since 2009 because the Democrats and Republicans want to control the process more than either can without the other…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 10, 2014 4:23 PM
Comment #382971
that’s exactly what any legislation - like the Paycheck Fairness Act - will attempt to remedy, generalizations based on gender.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act did not seek to address gender discrimination in the aggregate (ie the possibly dubious generalization that employers conspire to discriminate wages according to gender). Instead, the act sought to address the specific problem faced by Lilly Ledbetter, who had evidence demonstrating that her particular employer discriminated according to gender when compensating its employees. The issue at hand was whether it was fair to implement time constraints on filing a claim when the discrimination can easily be obscured for a very long time. I honestly see no reason for there to be a statute of limitations in this instance and I am confident that the women the GOP seeks to attract share my sentiment.

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 10, 2014 7:28 PM
Comment #382985

Rhinehold,

“Of course, part of what plays into the issue now is the fact that the budget process has been effectively broken since 2009 because the Democrats and Republicans want to control the process more than either can without the other…”

That is exactly the point.

Regardless of the rancor that has been injected into the process, both “sides” do actually need each other to govern.

Frankly both sides need a healthy dose of STFU, and do what we pay you to do.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 10, 2014 8:27 PM
Comment #383005

Rocky,

The main problem here though is that we expect them to do too much, especially so many things that they aren’t supposed to be doing or being involved in at all.

The constitution limited the congress to specific powers that they shouldn’t be straying out of. But we have somehow forgotten that and expect them to fix every single ill, injustice, hard choice, problem, etc that we come across.

If we were keeping them on point for the things that they are supposed to be doing (providing a budget, authorizing or not authorizing wars, etc) then it would be easier to hold them accountable for not doing those things.

The federal congress and entire federal government was supposed to operate the federal government, ensure that the states didn’t screw each other over and deal with foreign entities. Not make sure that everything is “fair” for everyone at all times, that no one has to make hard choices, that no one has to actually take care of each other when others need help, tell us what we can put into our own bodies, tell us how to think, how to live, what kind of life we want to live.

Unfortunately, because we have tasked them with all of these other things that they aren’t supposed to be doing, we lose focus on the things that they ARE supposed to be doing.

Ultimately, its our fault, collectively.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2014 12:28 AM
Comment #383006

This is a primary example of what we have been reduced to, from the words of Uncle Joe himself:

http://adam.curry.com/enc/20140907155530_joefillsinfortheprezmiddleclassamericandream.mp3

Apparently the American Dream is now ‘mediocrity’. And his is going to restore us to that mediocrity instead of allowing us to choose what the dream means to us, allowing us to strive for more than our parents had, more than what everyone else is settling for, etc.

The American Dream was being able to choose for yourself what you wanted the Dream to be and being able to achieve it if you so choose…

Those days are long gone. :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2014 12:37 AM
Comment #383007

Rocky Marks,

Fact 2;

Fact 2 ? ! Where was fact 1?

Referring to your opinion as fact is what’s most infuriating about the Democratic’s mindset.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2014 3:16 AM
Comment #383011

Willie,

“Referring to your opinion as fact is what’s most infuriating about the Democratic’s mindset.”

I don’t care who you are that’s funny.

Pot meet kettle.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 11, 2014 2:36 PM
Comment #383013

A nice writeup on the ‘female voting block’:

The #CosmoVotes guide—in which the magazine “is endorsing candidates for the first time ever”—kind of makes me want to puke, and my gag reflex got going right from the title: “How We Decided Which Midterm Candidates Are the Best for Women.” Call me crazy, but I assume that what’s “best for” women will vary greatly based on their individual values, viewpoints, and circumstances. Cosmo’s editors, however, seem to believe some sisterhood of the magical vagina makes women into a political monolith.

This is what’s ultimately so disappointing/infuriating about Cosmo’s efforts. If the magazine was really serious about re-branding as a somewhat-less-fluffy, somewhat-more-feminist publication, why not tell the truth about candidates’ positions and let women position themselves as voters? Why not trust women to decide for themselves what candidates and policies are “best for” them? As it stands, Cosmo merely parrots a bunch of mainstream Democratic talking points

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2014 4:33 PM
Comment #383041

Rhinehold,

“The main problem here though is that we expect them to do too much, especially so many things that they aren’t supposed to be doing or being involved in at all.”

Perhaps this remark is due to the sense that all of this is media driven. Personally as someone that has seen more than 10 Presidents come and go I truly don’t expect much from Congress.

The problem I have with money being free speech for instance is that if money talks, lots of money screams at the top of its lungs, and I feel that no corporation is more important than even the poorest citizen of this country.
The problem I have is that I see a lot of yelling and not much actually being done for this country. I fear we spend far too much time on party affiliation, and not enough time on actually being citizens.

I long for the day when we describe ourselves not as hyphenated Americans, but merely Americans.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 11, 2014 10:19 PM
Comment #383044
no corporation is more important than even the poorest citizen of this country. The problem I have is that I see a lot of yelling and not much actually being done for this country.

You mean you don’t think the NAACP has done any good for the country? (they are a corporation you know…)

The issue is not corporations, but the fact that corporations are just a collection of individuals. How do you feel about limiting all of those individual’s free speech just because they got their money together to raise their voice up to be heard?

And what is wrong with being heard? Someone yelling ‘The End Is Near’ at their top of their lungs does not compel ANYONE to believe them, not matter how loud they are yelling.

Free speech is good. MORE free speech is better. That is what the founding fathers wanted. They knew that corporations and business and parties (which are more of an issue in the ‘loud voice’ than corporations btw) were going to have their speech and that those that they disagreed with would have their speech too, but in the end it is better to hear from everyone and let people decide on their own.

IMO, corporate speech (and by that I am assuming you are only having the problem with for profit speech) is a drop in the bucket compared to special interest and party speech. But it is ok, because I, as an individual, still have the power and right to simple ignore them.

That’s the problem with trying to limit free speech by those we don’t want to hear from, we limit our own free speech in the end. That is what Citizens United was all about, please remember that. A group of people got their money together and created a documentary about Hilary Clinton. They wanted to air it. They were told that airing that documentary was ILLEGAL. When we are making that speech illegal, we are doing something wrong.

The solution offered by the recent attempt by Democrats to limit speech with the Constitutional Amendment that thankfully (and expectedly) died, was that it was rife with all kinds of limitations that were just fascist in their implementation. That anyone voted for it is despicable.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/09/al-franken-misrepresents-the-censorship

The amendment would allow Congress and state legislatures to “regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.” That means it would overturn Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision in which the Supreme Court upheld limits on donations to candidates but rejected limits on spending by candidates, reasoning that such caps amount to restrictions on speech, since communicating with a mass audience requires money.

The amendment that Franken and at least 48 of his colleagues favor also would allow legislators to impose limits on independent spending by individuals, which the Court has never upheld. Section 2 says legislators “may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law,” but there is no requirement that they do so. Congress might decide, in the interest of “political equality,” that opinionated billionaires such as George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Sheldon Adelson, and the Koch Brothers should shut the hell up and let other people have a turn. It could even ban political ads featuring celebrities, on the theory that they have an unwarranted influence on voters.

Given the breadth of this authority, the examples of possible censorship listed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece—including bans on the distribution of voter guides by the National Rifle Association, on pro-life or pro-choice advocacy close to an election, on get-out-the-vote efforts by churches or unions, and on documentaries critical of politicians running for office—are not at all fanciful. In fact, that last example is exactly what Citizens United involved. Under this amendment, such a documentary could be squelched even if it were the work of an independent filmmaker unaffiliated with any group organized as a corporation.

The only limits on the censorship allowed by this amendment are that it apply to speech that could influence an election, that the restriction be “reasonable,” and that it not “abridge the freedom of the press.” If “the press” is understood as the Framers understood it, to mean a technology of mass communication, that last condition would make it difficult for legislators to limit any messages that require significant spending (along with some, such as blogging, that don’t). But if “the press” is understood as SJR 19’s supporters presumably intend, to mean professional journalists, respecting “the freedom of the press” would be consistent with all manner of restrictions on speech by people who do not work for officially recognized news organizations. That distinction would create a legally privileged class of speakers who are allowed to freely debate political issues while their fellow citizens are hemmed in by “reasonable limits.” But remember: It’s all about political equality.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 11, 2014 11:02 PM
Comment #383088

Rhinehold,

“Free speech is good. MORE free speech is better. That is what the founding fathers wanted.”

Actually what the founding fathers did was to kick the can down the road and lay the right to vote up to the states to decide. As it was for the most part white property owners got first dibs on that right until decades later.

“You mean you don’t think the NAACP has done any good for the country?”

I guess this begs the question just how much has the NAACP done for all people of color?

“But it is ok, because I, as an individual, still have the power and right to simple ignore them.”

Cool, you reserve the right to ignore those people that, by their resources, have a greater voice in how we are ruled in this country than you or I have.

Shall we be so naive as to think there is no such thing as quid pro quo?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 12, 2014 4:24 PM
Comment #383146
Actually what the founding fathers did was to kick the can down the road and lay the right to vote up to the states to decide.

What does voting have to do with freedom of speech? Freedom of speech was NOT kicked down the road, it was stated quite clearly that the right to speak your mind could NOT be infringed upon. Period. End of Story.

Cool, you reserve the right to ignore those people that, by their resources, have a greater voice in how we are ruled in this country than you or I have.

By their resources you mean that they collectively pool their money and speak in a unified voice? Yeah, that’s right. And it’s a good thing. If you don’t allow people to collect their funds and speak out as a group, you then give more power to speak to those who have the money. Isn’t that what you are against?

Shall we be so naive as to think there is no such thing as quid pro quo?

Quid Pro Quo is illegal and punishable through the courts. But you have to prove it. Going on the assumption that it exists without proof is against another one of our basic beliefs, that people are innocent until proven guilty.

What it sounds like to me is that people are saying things you don’t like and you want to shut them the hell up. Too bad, that’s how freedom works. Try one of the myriad of other countries that do limit speech if that is what you are after…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2014 4:41 PM
Comment #383152

Rhinehold,

“What it sounds like to me is that people are saying things you don’t like and you want to shut them the hell up. Too bad, that’s how freedom works. Try one of the myriad of other countries that do limit speech if that is what you are after…”

Wow, no snark there…right?

I could give a rat’s ass what people say. I am appalled with the whole political correctness thing, and having to watch what I say or write lest I might, OMG, offend someone.
I do believe however, people should be responsible for what they say, and talk radio, for instance has made us a more contentious society

Isn’t voting the ultimate freedom of speech? Were’t the original voters in this country white property owners?
Why was their freedom of speech more important than the rest of the citizens of this country?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 13, 2014 5:59 PM
Comment #383157
talk radio, for instance has made us a more contentious society

Oh please, they just provide an avenue for the contentiousness that has always been there. Google Nasty Presidential Election of 1800 for an example.

http://www.livescience.com/5194-presidential-elections-nastier.html

Why was their freedom of speech more important than the rest of the citizens of this country?

Because, unfortunately, the society can change quickly, but not that quickly. Please remember what Jefferson’s ORIGINAL Declaration of Independence said.

Congress removed Jefferson’s assertion that Britain had forced slavery on the colonies, in order to moderate the document and appease persons in Britain who supported the Revolution.

Original text: “he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

But even with his railing against slavery in that original document, most white people of the day just didn’t believe that black people were or could be as intelligent as white people. Look at Abraham Lincoln’s comments on the matter:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

-Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)

It takes time for people to change their views and society to progress. It usually takes generations. The fools who think it can be done overnight are just asking for heartache. But it does and we are better for it now, coupled with the fact that the ideals that they espoused still hold true as society advances and progresses.

And remember, even though only white male landholders could vote at the start of our country, NO ONE could be denied the right to free speech, even free black women. And it has never been attempted to be amended in any way until now, by the Democrats, for political gain.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 13, 2014 10:12 PM
Comment #383160

Rhinehold,

I am well aware of the contentious nature of this country’s past.
I am also aware of people like Joe Pyne that have helped bring us to where we are today.
If you have ever listened to any of these talk radio hosts you would understand that while they bitch and moan about free sppech, the only free speech allowed on their shows is their own.

Change is glacial. People are stuck in their comfort zone, and rarely can be jarred from it, because the truth makes people uncomfortable.

They don’t want to hear it because they don’t want to admit they might be wrong.

We already have the government we deserve.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 14, 2014 1:13 AM
Comment #383161

A privately owned and run radio program is not ‘free speech’, it’s private speech. They have a right to stop anyone from saying anything they want. They aren’t the government. It’s like saying that someone can come into your house and call you names and you can’t tell them to shut up and leave.

The Government can’t stop free speech. Any attempt to do so is fascist…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 14, 2014 2:36 AM
Comment #383165

Rhinehold,

“A privately owned and run radio program is not ‘free speech’, it’s private speech.”

Private speech?

It’s listened to by millions of people every day, and it’s broadcast on my airwaves, on a station that must meet the criteria to stay on the air.

“The Government can’t stop free speech. Any attempt to do so is fascist…”

And what…?

Exactly where have I advocated to have these charlatans silenced?
Please feel free to point out where I have done that. Here’s a hint, you’re not going to find it anywhere, because I have never done so.
I don’t want them silenced, I want them to be exposed for the frauds they are, and I want them to keep on talking, and I don’t think the government should step in because that would only validate their fraud.

You’ve made some vast assumptions about how I think, and you couldn’t be more wrong on this subject.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 14, 2014 12:41 PM
Post a comment