Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "GOP Blocks Equal Pay For Women... Again" video.

There has been a study that after eliminating factors women are paid 98 cents to the dollar compared to men. There are several factors that play a role in why someone in general is not paid as much as another person, it isn't just the about work. Years experience, skills, time of day when working and so on can play a role. The violence against women act is a joke. What about violence against men? What about violence against anyone? The violence against women act specifically favors women and it can lead to other groups which is unconstitutional. Laws that discriminate against sex is unconstitutional. Why should we be focused on just violence on women? Why not violence on men? I always ask name one right the men have and women don't? There is no war on women. I can name a situation where men are oppressed, selective service. Women should be forced to sign up for that. Instead men sign up for that and women get a special bill to prevent violence against them. No talks about the war on men though. What Kyle just pulled was something liberals love to pull. They say one opposes violence against women when they oppose a bill that is titled that. In reality republicans oppose violence against anyone. Why focus on women? It is a game that liberals love to play that anyone with intelligence won't fall for.
43
Sean Green There is a gap because there is a glass ceiling. What is stopping women from starting their own business and hiring just women or pay them more? Nothing really. Maybe we should push women to be more innovative and create businesses. The problem with passing this bill at the federal level is that it does open the flood gates more oppressive laws. Passing a law that forces businesses to give a reason why they pay someone they do would be acceptable at the state level but should never be supported at the federal level. If you were a true libertarian you would see that in connections to state rights. It doesn't matter who commits more domestic violence. More men are more likely to be in car accidents. We don't fine them more if they break the law. By the 14th amendment no law should discriminate against sex. If a man hits a woman or a woman hits a man then the punishment should be equal by law. The Ray Rice video was a poor example, that is an NFL athlete against a women. Plus Lisa Lopes burned down Andre Rison's house during a domestic dispute so to say it can't go both way is a lie. She was jailed for it and rightfully so. Domestic violence can happen both ways, we shouldn't have laws discriminating against any particular sex or race. If we do then we must admit that particular sex or race, in this case women, are inferior and they should be treated as such. But if they want to be treated as equals then my law they should be. On reproductive rights no one is forcing women to have a baby. You will probably cry abortion but one, no one forced them to have sex. Another is that abortion is a touch issue that can be seen as murder on both a baby or society. Plus where is the man's involvement in abortion? Biologically half of that child is his. It takes two to tango and it is funny how a women has the right to a man's wallet but the man has little to no say at all in an abortion or the financial part of custody. The reality is that there is not war on women. If women want to keep drumming one up and create laws to cater to them then they need to first admit they are inferior. I am all for treating them as equals and support treating them as equals but as soon as they cry "war on women" and push for laws to cater to them then I want them to admit they are inferior. I will then have the right to look down on them and not be called a sexist. When a woman messes up I should have the right to say that they messed up because they are a woman and not be label as a sexist. If you want to be inferior in by all means support those laws. If you want to be treated as equal then don't support those laws and support the 14 amendment and I will respect women just like everyone else.
5
sharper68 The name is a problem as well. It is a political tactic so when someone doesn't vote for the Violence Against Women Act then they claim they hate women and won't get women's votes. It shouldn't be written like that. It should be written Domestic Violence Act and not allude to being gender specific. When you don't know what you are talking about and only mouth talking points for the ignorant you are being consistently conservative/liberal.
4
michael glacken There is data to show that men work longer hours. Men also work more dangerous jobs and higher skilled jobs. Men are more likely to get a degree in engineering or computer science. Those were in the top 10 most popular majors for men. They didn't make the list for women. What did was elementary ed. If you look at the top 10 highest earning degrees 6 were engineering and another was computers science. In all men, due to their skill set and jobs they do, earn more. It is unconstitutional to have a law that caters one group to another. The violence against women act does that. We should be focused on all violence, not just ones against women. A bill like that can be a way for opportunist politicians to by votes with other laws as in violence against gays and so on. We already have a laws like that, they are called hate crimes. We are suppose to treat everyone by law. It shouldn't matter if men are more likely to commit crimes, if a man commits a crime or a woman then they should face the same punishment. Everything that Kyle was preaching is not equality, it is favoritism towards women.
4
Sean Green Not everyone wants to start a business. There are women who start businesses. One is right up the street from where I live and she hires nothing but women at her business. It is possible and it can be done. I have told you that if you allow the federal government to cater to one group that opens the door for politicians to buy votes by catering to other groups. We see it with hate crimes. There shouldn't be a law that discriminates to caters to any particular group of people. You are starting to put words in my mouth. I have said that men tend to pursue careers that are higher in demand and pay more. They also tend to develop skills that pay more as in engineering. Physical strength has little to do with it. I am against all violence. There are women out there stronger than me. So if a woman like that hits me should she get punished more? No, it shouldn't matter. Violence is violence. How about if the woman has a baseball bat? Now what? Violence is violence. It goes back to if you feel that women are inferior then just admit it and I will agree with everything you are saying. Until then I want to treat them as equals, not inferiors. Where in the constitution does it mention abortion? And having sex and not taking precautions to avoid pregnancy is lack of personal responsibilities. That is what this is all about. Us as a society is starting to treat life as a video game with a reset button. The man should have a say in what happens to the child. If they want to keep it they should be forced to pay for it in every way. It is unequal to give the choice to the woman plus force the man to pay. The simple fact is that you think women and other races are inferior. I have worked with very successful women and minorities. With hard work they can be successful. To you they can't so you feel they need the government to help them. I want to treat them as equals where you want to treat them as inferiors. Just admit that in your eyes they are inferior and I will respect your ideas. I won't agree with them but I can respect them in that you realize the true reason why you support those ideas. Until then I can't because you are mistaking what equality really means.
2
Bob Snieger I don't cry war on men, I am just saying there is no war on women, it is a made up slogan by democrats to buy votes. Any law that caters to any particular sex is unconstitutional for that very reason.
2
Sean Green Reading your comment I can deduce a couple of things. One is that you don't know what is in the constitution. The right to be judge by a jury of their peers and voting and freedom of expression are protected by the constitution. Immigration is a federal policy that the federal government deals with. The country is set up to have the federal government deal with foreign affairs, the states deal with domestic affairs and the constitution protects individuals' rights and places limitations on all governments. Noticed how none of those rights gave power to the federal government? We can't allow the federal government to gain in power because then we centralized all our power and it grows unchecked. The idea of state rights was about checks and balances. If a state wants to pass laws such as transparency in pay then they can as long as they don't discriminate by sex or race. The Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional in just the name alone. You come on here thinking I support republicans when I don't. I am critical of them especially when it comes to the LGBT individuals. But voting against domestic violence is a lie. Every state has laws against domestic violence. If you want a law that forces equal pay then do it at the state level and don't discriminate against sex. To answer your question yes a woman slapping a man in the face is the same as a man slapping a woman in the face. A man punching a woman is the same as a woman punching a man. A woman slapping a man is not the same as a man punching a woman. You are trying to bait me here to make me look like a bigot or a fool. Fact is that it isn't going to work. We can't let all of the power of the government grow unchecked in one area. You have no problem allowing that to happen. You feel that allowing the federal government to create a law preventing discrimination that somehow exists is good but you fail to realize now you create a government that has the power to be bought. You have created a government that can be corrupted and create laws that over power the states and the citizens for their gain. Something like the violence against women act is a law that is being strictly used to buy votes. We have domestic violence laws in all 50 states. The law is frivolous and is just there to grow the power of the federal government. Remember this, when the federal government, with it's power you allow it to have, becomes corrupt and do things you don't like just remember you are to blame. It is what you wanted and it is what you are getting.
2
sharper68 A bad name is a reason to object to the law. The name alone is being used for political gain.
1
Sean Green Discrimination by the states is not allowed according to the constitution by the 14th amendment. Slavery is not allowed as well. So no, you don't know what is in the constitution. We can't have laws that discriminate because we feel that a particular group is vulnerable. If we do than we must admit that they are inferior and that group must be force to admit they are inferior by law. With state rights we still have limitations on them by the constitution. We have to treat everyone equal by law. Your argument is not valid. Women still have the ability to commit domestic violence. I have seen it. What if we do a case of a young fit woman against an older male who isn't as strong? Do you change the law than? Your argument falls apart right there. A punch is a punch and should be punished equally by the sexes. When we allow laws to be created that do discriminate that is when we see oppression. Yes we have laws that are created by votes but there are limitations on them and they are limited by the constitution.
1
Sean Green Amendment 15 Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Amendment 19 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Amendment 1 is freedmen of expression through speech and press and religion. Amendment 6 In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. It doesn't say a jury of their peers but it does say an impartial jury. A part of the 14 amendment nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. There must be equal protection of the laws. A state can't develop a law that gives more protection to one group of people but not another. If you create a law catering to a specific group of people according to their race and sex than you are saying that group is inferior and the only way they care able to succeed in life is if they have protection or help from the government. We have all this talk about equality and how we should treat everyone as equals and than we create laws that say women are inferior because they are unable to pursue higher pay on their own or they are weak and are unable to defend themselves. But yet when we see domestic violence caused by women or we see women business owners who hire nothing but women than no one cries foul. Basically what you are supporting by looking at each case individually is setting up government at all levels with no standards. You can get some sexist or racist prick in an office and then have them give punishments out based simply on someone's race. You could get a racist judge in office that would give black individuals more jail time and his justification would be that blacks are statistically more likely to commit a violent crime. We need to treat everyone equal according to law. The second you don't do that is when you do create an oppressive and opportunistic government. It doesn't matter to me that men are overall stronger than women. To me they are both citizens in this country and both must follow the same laws. As I said, if we develop a law that gave harsher punishments to men on domestic violence compared to women than I want women to be forced to by law admit they are weak and inferior compared to men. I want that because there is a law that says they are. I am all for treating everyone as equals but if a particular group is going to use the government to their advantage than to me they are inferior.
1