• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama unveils 'My Brother's Keeper,' opens up about his dad, drugs and race

"The notion that no matter who you are, or where you came from, or the circumstances into which you are born, if you work hard, if you take responsibility, then you can make it in this country," the President said.

"But you've got responsibilities too. And I know you can meet the challenge, many of you already are, if you make the effort."

Really struggling to see what's so terrible about the message President Obama is sending there. Isn't that the American Dream?
 
Really struggling to see what's so terrible about the message President Obama is sending there. Isn't that the American Dream?
There are two major problems, and it's not these particular statements. The first problem is he is shifting monies towards racially preferential programs, not okay, either we are a merit society or we are an entitlement society, he is arguing from a position of building up "them", "but not them".

The second major problem is that these words conflict absolutely with "You didn't build that". At one speech he is denigrating the accomplishments of the currently successful, and like a double talker telling a different audience "you can be anything through your actions".
 
The second major problem is that these words conflict absolutely with "You didn't build that". At one speech he is denigrating the accomplishments of the currently successful, and like a double talker telling a different audience "you can be anything through your actions".

Is this an example of Libertarian-Right reasoning? I thought Libertarians were smarter than the average bear...
 
101113507_1552709123_young_obama_smoking_marijuana_xlarge_xlarge.jpeg
Oh ****! A picture of him smoking weed? That must mean he was an addict! Look, he's an alcoholic too!

barack-obama-drinking-beer.jpg
 
So at some point do you plan to make an actual argument, or just continue to post nonsensical pictures?

That just means you missed the point.
You must look deeper, my child.
Look for the implications.
The point is his deception ... the point is his pretense ... the point is his manipulation.
 
Man, stories like this are crack for partisan hacks. They'e the easiest things in the world to use to humanize your guy while the other side demonizes him, only for everyobody to completely switch places when the story is about someone else.
 
Yet he trumpets womens rights as if they are the suppressed people. .

Don't let facts ruin a good lie.

[h=1]Equal Pay[/h]When the Equal Pay Act was signed into law by President Kennedy in 1963, women were earning an average of 59 cents on the dollar compared to men. While women hold nearly half of today's jobs, and their earnings account for a significant portion of the household income that sustains the financial well-being of their families, they are still experiencing a gap in pay compared to men's wages for similar work. Today, women earn about 81 cents on the dollar compared to men — a gap that results in hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost wages. For African-American women and Latinas, the pay gap is even greater.
Each year, National Equal Pay Day reflects how far into the current year women must work to match what men earned in the previous year. On National Equal Pay Day, we rededicate ourselves to carrying forward the fight for true economic equality for all.
For more on Equal Pay, including tools, resources and recently announced Apps, see below

http://www.dol.gov/equalpay/
 
Don't let facts ruin a good lie.



http://www.dol.gov/equalpay/


The wage gap is a popular myth that simply wont go away. I won't type out an entire explanation as to why it is a myth, but you can check out this article which explains it quite well.
Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists | Christina Hoff Sommers
If you believe women suffer systemic wage discrimination, read the new American Association of University Women (AAUW) study Graduating to a Pay Gap. Bypass the verbal sleights of hand and take a hard look at the numbers. Women are close to achieving the goal of equal pay for equal work. They may be there already.

How many times have you heard that, for the same work, women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns? This alleged unfairness is the basis for the annual Equal Pay Day observed each year about mid-April to symbolize how far into the current year women have to work to catch up with men's earnings from the previous year. If the AAUW is right, Equal Pay Day will now have to be moved to early January.

The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed "full time." What is important is the "adjusted" wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.

The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."

One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings.

"In fact," says the National Women's Law Center, "authoritative studies show that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant, unexplained gap in men's and women's earnings." Not quite. What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The new AAUW study is consistent with these findings. But isn't the unexplained gap, albeit far less than the endlessly publicized 23 cents, still a serious injustice? Shouldn't we look for ways to compel employers to pay women the extra 5-7 cents? Not before we figure out the cause. The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women's supposedly inferior negotiating skills -- not unscrupulous employers. Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.

Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.

Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However, with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination. And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage.

Women's groups will counter that even if most of the wage gap can be explained by women's choices, those choices are not truly free. Women who major in sociology rather than economics, or who choose family-friendly jobs over those that pay better but offer less flexibility, may be compelled by cultural stereotypes. According to the National Organization for Women (NOW), powerful sexist stereotypes "steer" women and men "toward different education, training, and career paths" and family roles. But are American women really as much in thrall to stereotypes as their feminist protectors claim? Aren't women capable of understanding their real preferences and making decisions for themselves? NOW needs to show, not dogmatically assert, that women's choices are not free. And it needs to explain why, by contrast, the life choices it promotes are the authentic ones -- what women truly want, and what will make them happier and more fulfilled.

It will not be not easy for the AAUW and its allies to abandon the idea of systemic gender injustice. AAUW officials are trying mightily to sustain the bad-news-for-women narrative. According to "Graduating to a Pay Gap" publicity materials, "The AAUW today released a new study showing that just one year out of college, millennial women are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to their male peers. Women are paid less than men even when they do the same work and major in the same field." Many journalists seem to have read and reported on the AAUW's press releases rather than its research.

That is the hype. Look at the numbers.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of Who Stole Feminism and the War Against Boys. Her new book, Freedom Feminism -- Its Surprising History and Why It Matters, will be published in 2013 by AEI press.
 
Really struggling to see what's so terrible about the message President Obama is sending there. Isn't that the American Dream?

I highlighted what's so terrible about it for you.
 
Oh ****! A picture of him smoking weed? That must mean he was an addict! Look, he's an alcoholic too!

barack-obama-drinking-beer.jpg

Hey, at least we know from that picture he's not a Muslim!
 
Really struggling to see what's so terrible about the message President Obama is sending there. Isn't that the American Dream?

And, the other side of that coin: people think it's a stroke of genius and, have absolutely no clue how it's going to be implemented.
 
Way to strawman. His point wasn't that he wouldn't do it if give the chance, his point was that suggesting Obama lived a life "a lot closer to the average American" was a bit questionable of a statement.

I think the fact that both he and Michelle were paying off their student loans as late as 2004 is pretty good evidence that he lived a lot closer to SN average American than most Presidential candidates.
 
I think the fact that both he and Michelle were paying off their student loans as late as 2004 is pretty good evidence that he lived a lot closer to SN average American than most Presidential candidates.

They probably missed a buncha payments and didn't catch up until 2004.
 
I doubt it, but I guess you need to make stuff up like that to live with yourself.

Actually, I could give a crap about Obama's student loans. But, one must ask one's self, why a multi-millionaire would take so long to pay off his student loans.
 
Actually, I could give a crap about Obama's student loans. But, one must ask one's self, why a multi-millionaire would take so long to pay off his student loans.

Right. The point was...he wasn't a multimillionaire before he paid them off.
 
Back
Top Bottom