U.S. Presidential Election 2008

John McCain's abysmal voting record AGAINST our troops

Ha. I pay over $4 for a half gallon of local organic milk. Maybe you can get twice as much for the same price if you don't mind a little BGH with your calcium.


Conquistador, that's just silly. A law about equal opportunity (in hiring and pay) in the work place is just window dressing if it doesn't have any teeth. If conservatives think the "courts would be clogged" with women's claims against their employers, there must be a problem that should be addressed, or else where would all these cases come from? Or maybe you feel that women would invent these complaints. Either way, it's a misogynist attitude.

BTW, idiots are a significant Republican special interest group.

... on the US Economy, AP newswire


You decide.

As usual, we have an example of someone left-of-center seeing what one wants to and tossing out unsubstantiated rubbish. It must be mysogynistic just because some leftist says so. The courts would very well get clogged if the burden of proof is on the employer to prove "equal pay" is being paid. How many employers, in addition to running a business in a competitive environment want to have to defend against lawsuits from employees that assume the employer is guilty? That's where these cases would come from, cinzia. Not everyone who sues has a valid case- sometimes it is done merely to extract a settlement which in many, if not most cases, is simpler than fighting it and leaving it to the vagaries of a jury. Do you really think all employers are colluding with each other to pay women less et ceteris paribus, e.g., same job responsibilities, same amount of experience and skills, etc? Ask yourself if it is OK, in a workplace full of men, for men to be paid varying amounts for doing the same work (I once worked somewhere where this was the case)? Should the lawsuits be flying left, right and center from the aggrieved men?


And we're supposed to believe you would help people who want to register as other than Democrats get registered to vote? Please.

I seem to recall that it was Democrats confused by the ballot in Florida in 2000, not Republicans.

KK, it's rather interesting that you cite poll results that show more people saying Obama is better on economic issues, yet when a poll citing a greater than 2-to-1 advantage for McCain on the issue of who would be better qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, you falsely claimed that the poll result was not true (I am referring to a recent NBC/WSJ poll which also asked many more questions).

For those who think polls are the be-all and end-all:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2...l_mccain_4.html

Note also that Bush's approval rating is 11% higher than that of Congress.

You know when you have that brief second where you do a double/triple take because maybe your mind was on other things and you were not completely sure of what someone had just typed? (happens in real life as well, with speaking of course.) I just had one. You could've been talking about Bush and I had to re-read it again and realize you weren't.

Turning to a matter of undoubtedly real substance, it seems neither candidate has a realistic view of their future fiscal policy:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

this is actually the legal position in both scotland and the UK since the equal pay act 1970. It has never "clogged up" the courts though it applies to every single employer and not just the state.

I don't think that you need to be reminded that the US is a different society than England and Scotland, and (additionally) that there are no EU directives or any other body of law in effect in the US, which is not the case in either England or Scotland and make an apples-to-apples comparison even more opaque. At any rate, the law you reference above was actually influenced by the US Equal Pay Act, passed in 1963.

Except in very rare circumstances, the US does not have loser pays, which obviously has a large effect on the incentives to file a suit. We also have more jury trials in civil cases.

I was just pointing out that it is possible to have equal pay legislation ( most of the developed world does) without courts systems breaking down under the level of litigation. In most cases in the UK the legislation made HR directors ensure they were compliant - litigation only ensued where that was not the case which was only a relatively small number of cases.

Understood, but think about how a lack of "loser pays" can affect things, especially when an employer doesn't have "unlimited" resources to fight a legal battle. Juries can also be unpredictable (ask Martha Stewart- "victory for the little guy").

hmm in the UK, trade unions often pay for the litigation or even government and NGOs who see value in bringing the case to advance case law, set a precident or challenge a persistently recalcitrant employer. Does that not happen in the USA?

Yes, they do, BTC. That's what organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union are for (I can feel the chills going up Conquistador's back now.)

If men in the workplace can prove they are being paid differently for doing the same work because they are shorter or not white or not straight, yes, Conquistador, I think they should be able to litigate if they can't resolve the situation otherwise. Responsible companies already have their human resources departments documenting everything in case of disputes; it's not like there would be some kind of extra burden for record-keeping than they already have. My husband is a manager who wanted to fire an under-performing (male) member of his engineering team, but he was told by HR he would have to take all kinds of meticulous steps to get rid of the guy, all documented.

In case anyone thinks this is a non-issue these days, here's a letter to the editor published yesterday in the NYT (bold mine):
New York Times Letter to the Editor

As the law sees it, there is a different process for civil rights complaints and "pay discrimination"- under the Equal Pay Act and other federal law you can sue in cases of pay discrimination without first filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency. In all other labor-related matters, including civil rights, you must file an EEOC complaint. If you have a valid pay discrimination case, I would think that you would want to file an EEOC complaint anyway unless for some reason the EEOC's finding would not be admissible (and I cannot imagine why that would be the case).

cinzia, the quote from a NYT article does not say that the earnings of Latina women are 52% of Caucasian males for the same work. This is a very crucial distinction, and one that makes your inclusion of the quote irrelevant in any discussion of pay discrimination. Furthermore, in the case of the all-male workforce I mentioned above, the pay differentials were the result of the negotiating acumen of the employees, and the lowest-paid of the bunch were Caucasian (I certainly hope you would not want to prevent straight male Caucasians who are discriminated against from being able to seek redress as your above post hints). Some of us would probably not have been hired if we had to be paid at the same rate as the highest-paid colleague. I can also imagine that someone hired during a recession will often not get the same salary as a person hired at the peak of the economic cycle.

As far as I am concerned, it looks as long as the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff and "loser pays" most, if not all, cases of an employer being unfairly targeted would be prevented while the rights of the truly aggrieved for redress would be protected. Interestingly, under the current Equal Pay Act, there are caps to the amount of damages that cannot be paid and punitive damages cannot be awarded, which is another reason why I support "loser pays".

now it may just be a coincidence but has anyone else noticed that Conquistador is using arguments based on legislative and legal process difficulties to strike down an issue pertaining to civil liberties AGAIN?

Has anyone noticed that BTC, once again, doesn't seem to care too much for respecting the rule of law in the US? Gosh, BTC, do you think it's possible that a sovereign nation can have a legal framework of its own, rather than simply adopting your own interpretation of English or Scottish law?

Thing is, it is surely fair and right that men and women should earn the same wage for the same work irrespective of gender. If that does not happen, then it is surely appropriate for the state to legislate and regulate to ensure that it does.

But once again you take up the argument that the structures, laws and culture of the USA is so arcane that to do so would be utterly impossible.

Now either I take your word for it that the USA is in such a parlous legislative and cultural state that it cannot find any way to sort out a manner in which it can simply defend civil rights . . .

OR, I can assume that you are hiding your own prejudices behind these arcane legal arguments . . .

I wonder which.

I don't know whether or not you are too lazy to actually try to understand my points (might mean you would have to consider we are talking about US law here, a place which previous topics have shown your understanding of to be poor at best) or if you are deliberately trodding on your well-worn path of misrepresentation and its corollary- ritual and reflexive slander in accusing those who do not march in lockstep with your own views.

Before you start making assumptions, learn more about the US, the background of the issue at hand, and then read my comments with an open mind rather than resorting to your usual empty accusations. That's probably too difficult for you, though.

oh I understood your points just wondered why you were maintaining the ´abandon hope all ye who enter here´ line rather than the "what would be a way we could overcome these obstacles to achieve this desirable outcome"

That's just it, BTC, if you had actually understood my points you would have realized that I want to preserve the right to redress for those who have been injured while preventing a shakedown of innocent employers.

What is your own, personal, interpretation of "equal pay"?

I should add that though I am not well versed in US law and Conquistador may very well be, I am nevertheless familiar with the legalistic obstructions that were repeatedly put in the way of any progressive legislation in the UK (largely but not exclusively by the rightwing) when it came to any legislation on equal pay, anti-discrimination or hate crimes. And yet every time these obstructions were overcome and the fears presented by the opponents shown to be groundless and just a figleaf for their own prejudices.

that individuals with the same experience and qualifications doing the same job for the same employer, should be paid the same wage. And if they are not and the criteria for that difference is gender, race or some other arbitrary measure, that the employer should be liable for prosecution and the employee entitled to redress.

You're engaging in projection, BTC. None of the UK debate has anything to do with me- simply keep your eye on the ball here and don't get distracted.

What you have described, BTC, is, generally speaking, the existing law as it stands in the US. See? Not so bad, after all, is it? I am curious, however, as to what it was I posted that led you to assume that would be opposed to this?

this:

Now I finally understand why Obama is so popular with many Germans. It became clear just now while watching the Brisant television show on ARD.

Obama has German roots!

No kidding... they've traced back his family tree, and found records on his mother's side that his great-great-... grandparents were married in 1646 in a church in Germany. Some village near Leingarten, west of Heilbronn.

One wonders just how many jaws just dropped. This man is America personified in a way, a mix of eithnicities and cultural heritage. I have yet to see this news heavily circulated, in the German or American news. Or have I missed it?

It seems true: Die Zeit: Der deutsche Obama

Obama has German roots?!!! God help us, we are all doomed.

BTC, the comment about McCain's perspective was made with the assumption of negative changes in some aspects of the law, e.g., placing the original burden of proof on the employer, assuming any pay disparity was discriminatory, and/or allowing punitive damages, while retaining "American rules", i.e., no "loser pays". Surely you would agree that having a court system clogged with bad lawsuits is not the way any nation wants to go.

AP, July 29


So he does plan to raise taxes afterall. Source

AP, July 30


Amazing what some pressure from high profile special interests will do, and still no one's quite sure what he plans to do. Flipping, of course, JMO. Source

*Both candidates have said Social Security's funding formula needs to be changed to ensure the program's long-term viability. Obama has called for imposing a new payroll tax on incomes above $250,000. Currently, only incomes up to $102,000 are subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax, which employers and employees split evenly.

give it up for obama!german root,african tree,asian bud and american branches.what else can one expect?the fruit.and that is the white house come november

I'm sure you're kidding, but in that article it also stated that probably 1/3 of all Americans have some traces of german origin. Come on, people have been living on that continent for over 300 years!

quite, statistically I wouldn´t be surprised if he was a teeny wee bit scottish too

EDIT: looks like they already addressed that and both Obama and McCain are descended from King William I of Scotland

Well considering Obama's African ancestry has been given a lot of focus, it is any wonder why, people would want to find out more about his European ancestry. Yea, some people would be fascinated to know.

Family tree was printed in last weeks weekly paper Die Zeit Magazin. (or the week before, cannot remember now).

Cool. I knew about his African ancestry, but since that is not a site/paper I read, the info is nice.

So no different from Bush, then...


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A96E948260

Wasn't Bill Clinton supposed to be descended from royalty too and Hillary related to Camilla, or something? No doubt even the dust mites in the White House carpets are descended from the finest stock.

Honestly, when will they get over the fact that they don't have a royal family...

From the article from Lorelei. True, can can never be too helpful.


Very different thou, considering the British and the French have/had absolutely no confidence in him whatsoever. They have even less confidence in McCain.

North America? Try 10s if not 100s of thousands of years...

Why does it matter who Europeans favor in the US Election? I mean who in the US cares? It matters to Americans living and travelling abroad because it simplifies meeting people. If the Europeans like our President we don't have to answer their questions about unpopular policies, or made to feel personally responsible for everything bad in the world (despite the prvailing opinion in Europe I dn't think Bush or America is responsible for Gingivitis).

Have you ever noticed that people are only asked if they believe America is a force for good or evil in the world? Why never any other countries?

and anyway, if by some mmiracle those anti-American feelings are reserved, what benefit is there in it for America? Wouild Germany send more troops to Afghanistan? Will the French stand by us in the UN? Will Russia embrace the missile defense plan? Somehow I don't think so.

Loved or hated abroad, doesn't matter much to America, people still dream of going to America, and American culture will always be embraced all around the world.

it matters because whoever is going to be in the White House will need to build a broad international coalition of partners to guarantee world security and peace. That is something Bush has found difficult to do effectively because he has rendered the US a reviled state in only two terms for most of Europe. And like it or not, European states are democracies that need to take notice of the wishes of their electorates which is why France, Germany and Spain have all previously not stood by the USA. This was most certainly NOT the case under Clinton, Bush Snr, Reagan or Carter who all benefited from widespread approval in Europe and the support of our governments.

All the complete left-wing wackos who held up signs saying "Bush = Hitler" were dead on when it comes to Germany. I'll bet even unreformed Nazis hiding out in South America were actually glad when people finally stopped immediately assuming "German = Nazi".

Interesting how over the past few years here bringing up Hitler's legacies when trying to prove a point has become verboten, but the Germans haven't even stopped giving americans endless crap for Nixon, Reagan, Bush^2. Guess you have to leave your country in ruins and kill a few million people in order for it to be taboo for foreigners to point out that it might have had just the teensiest influence on world opinion on whether you're a positive or negative inluence on the world I actually had a german guy this weekend give me a 15-minute diatribe on how Reagan dragged all those pesky nuclear weapons into western europe,and then ended by telling me that it was Reagan's fault that they were "forced" to reunify Germany. Goddamn, pick one line of argument and stick with it! Sigh. He also said "americans have no culture", and I asked him why if Germany is such a hotbed of culture still has variety shows on TV and exactly two popular songs to chart worldwide in the last 30 years?

As Jon Stewart said the other night in response to some super-sharp Fox News commmentator who noticed that the Victory Column had been used by Hitler <paraphrasing> "you know how people in the US play that game where they can connect everything to Kevin bacon? Well, in Germany, it's Hitler... Obama was picked up at the airport in a VW, which can be connected to Hitler." Funny stuff.

You haven't convinced me that it matters. France, Germany and Spain did not contribute to the force that went into Iraq but they did provide support for the US effort. They are standing with America in other ongoing security operations designed to support Security and peace around the world.

These European democracies do amswer to their electorate (although you thought in the case of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon the government should ignore the electorate). They also understand the need for coalitions and security that go beyond popular opinion (that's the difference between a national leader and a politician) and make decisions based on the security needs of their country, just as America does. WWe don't need European approval to pursue a course of action.

I imagine that if Bush (or the next President) were to advocate a coalition to respond to whatever pet crisis the Europeans feel needs action, the EU governments will be climbing all over each other to get involved. America is not evil because it doesn't pursue the causes that appeal to Europeans.

and how long would that last with 10 more years of the same? Britain's support for the USA in Iraq utterly finished Blair as a leader and left his successor Brown damaged.

Yep, global warming sure is a pet crisis. Those pesky Europeans, always making noise. Don't they understand we're deaf?

LOL, okay ... Put it this way, it matters if you see the office of the President as a kind of Global office that requires global support. ex. It's like the international Ecosystem and the environment, accomplishing either even somewhat sucessfully isn't possible without. The opinions of Leaders from other Countries is needed, and does carry equal footing to opinions in the US. That the perceptions Europeans have of the US are more positive than negative, can help in social situations sure, but also during times of political strife, don'tcha think? A better and clearer understanding of our political allies is always a major plus. And that goes both ways.


I've noticed only from the perspective of an American. You certainly don't hear about France or Germany waving around the kind of executive power our current government has. I have yet to form an opinion as an American living in Europe (as that has been an eye opening experience itself). And you ask what benefits to America ...

Can't comment there, I don't really follow politics in Britain. I know who the Prime minister is and how the parliamentary system works, but not much more than that. Truth be told I'm not that interested in British politics, but it's nice to know we're important enough that so many people care.

The real problem is that most anti-american feelings go way beyond Bush and Iraq (You have admitted to having bad feelings about the US in the '80s as you protested the stationing of missiles in Scotland). It was always there, those two just gave it a focus point. It allowed people from around the world to point at America and say" See, despite all their arrogance they' re just as fucked up as we are".

And that is the key, people in Europe don't really care about Iraq or the Iraqi people, they enjoy seeing America fail, and it bothers me that to get that small satisfaction in hteir lives, others have to pay.

* Exactly. It was a US led aggression on extreme terrorists. Not a France led, or Germany led, even though terrorism is a worldwide threat and just right next door.

Edit: okay, just out of pure curiosity, forget specific countries, just terrorism in general.