Archive

Impressed by Trump administration

  • gut
    sleeper;1847697 wrote:Except you don't get money for abortions. It is illegal for federal tax dollars to pay for an abortion.

    Sorry you are so ignorant.
    LOL, I thought you were supposed to be smart. Can't even look up a definition of fungible, huh?
  • sleeper
    gut;1847701 wrote:LOL, I thought you were supposed to be smart. Can't even look up a definition of fungible, huh?
    Google how Medicaid works. I know that takes reading and you have to think for yourself because Fox News won't do it for you, but you can do it!
  • sleeper
    like_that;1847700 wrote:Based on your posting history, you sure as hell don't. You're not fooling anyone with your troll trash act.

    Good thing your girlfriend never sees your posts.
    I won't derail this important conversation with your troll attempt.

    Enjoy!
  • sleeper
  • QuakerOats
    sleeper;1847661 wrote:He would have spent it on something of value like Planned Parenthood, who provides health services for women, particularly low income women. $20B buys a lot of pap smears and prevents a lot of a abortions via birth control.

    $20 billion buys $20 billion worth of irresponsibility.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/14/fear-of-trump-makes-migrants-disappear-from-mexican-border.html


    Winning, without hardly trying yet. Thanks Donny.
  • like_that
    sleeper;1847676 wrote: But who cares about helping women?
    sleeper;1847760 wrote:I won't derail this important conversation with your troll attempt.

    Enjoy!
    sleeper;1847762 wrote:
    I posted this before, but here is a recap of troll trash sleeper's thoughts on women that he doesn't want anybody to see. It doesn't mesh with his troll trash act. So, to answer sleeper's question "who cares about helping women," we all know it sure as hell isn't sleeper. Enjoy!
    sleeper;1707453 wrote:Women also tend not to negotiate, are less educated, work less hours and have higher gaps in work experience. The reality is, if you are being underpaid compared to someone else, that's your own fault. There isn't anyone I know that sits in a room and goes "Oh a woman, let's pay her less". Sorry, but that's not how reality works and that's also highly illegal.

    From my own experience, the women I tend to work with take a lot of time off work, show up late, never stay late, complain about everything and shirk any additional responsibility. It's no surprise they get less wage increases then some of their colleagues who just happen to be male also but in REALITY its because men on average just outright WORK HARDER than their female counterparts. I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule but again I live in REALITY, not some mythical gender gap designed to create a false dichotomy to exploit people into voting for a certain party.
    sleeper;1707526 wrote:Ah, right, because conservatives are all about restricting pay for women. Grow up.
    sleeper;1707456 wrote:Again, in REALITY, the business world, no one gives a fuck about what gender you are. Think you are paid less because you are a woman? Sue the company. There's a reason women rarely win these lawsuits and that's because its a myth; when companies are sued for this, they merely present REALITY and win the case easily.

    Does discrimination happen? Sure. I'm not ignorant. However, anyone who buys into the wage gap is a moron and clearly out for political gain only.
    sleeper;1707556 wrote:So conservative women want to restrict votes of other women? LOL. Again, you are being manipulated by the media because you are ignorant. I agree with Coulter though, if women weren't allowed to vote we wouldn't see another Democrat in office. Facts are facts.
    sleeper;1707560 wrote:Liberals love the narrative of a "war on women" because it gives them easy talking points to manipulate ignorant voters. Intelligent women can see through the bullshit, but the reality is we have a a lot of stupid people in this country who eat this shit up and the media piles on by calling anyone who tries to have a conversation about REALITY a racist/sexist, etc. Grow up.
    sleeper;1707596 wrote:Considering the department of labor is the one that publishes the 23 cent wage gap nonsense, which compares apples and oranges, I think we can go ahead and throw out this as trash. And you're right, conservatives actively push women from studying STEM fields. Grow up.
    sleeper;1728694 wrote:Thanks for the comment.

    The reality is, this is what is being taught in universities across the country in sociology and humanitarian classes. They are no different than the male bashing the occurs in Women's studies, which is blaming all problems for women on white males(or males in general).

    Another story: From the UK:

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/goldsmiths-university-diversity-officer-in-racism-row-i-cant-be-racist-because-im-an-ethnic-minority-woman-10243202.html



    lulz.
    sleeper;1728703 wrote:Only women are experts on men and women!
    sleeper;1729893 wrote:Less than zero.

    Should be more than 2 women if all goes right. 2 at minimum but I get bored with those 2 so its good to get someone different from time to time. How's marriage?
    sleeper;1732173 wrote:Are you seriously retarded? There is a big difference in male sexuality and female sexuality in reality; just look at how male teachers are treated in statutory rape cases and female teachers.
    sleeper;1736404 wrote:Happy Father's Day.

    Also seems like the feminist/SJW movement is trying to make this also a single mother's day and how some women have to play Dad too. Fuck them.
    sleeper;1737790 wrote:It'll never end actually. We still can't get the feminist movement to stop the BS about women get paid less than a man for the same work. This has been proven incorrect multiple times yet its still a popular narrative mostly because the feminist non-profit groups still want to remain relevant(and paid).

    The gay movement will be no different. I texted one of my gay friends after the decision and he was obviously really excited about the ruling. He also said "but we still have a long way to go before all gays are treated equally". Notice the subjective goal; it'll never end.
    sleeper;1737807 wrote:Remember only women are experts on hardships faced by both women and men.
    sleeper;1737810 wrote:Also maternity leave. LOL.

    We just had a woman who had a baby and my company offers 2 months paid maternity leave; she took the entire leave PAID, and then came back and quit the next day to stay at home and raise the baby. I don't blame managers for not wanting to hire women and not because they are sexist pigs but because only women can pull shit like that. It pissed off all of her co-workers because we had to carry her weight while she was gone and then another couple weeks while we hired and trained her replacement.

    Let's not even talk about the entire lack of paternity leave; apparently only women should be entitled to extra time off to take care of their child.
    sleeper;1737828 wrote:And managers have the right to not hire employees who have the potential to interrupt their business operations.
    sleeper;1738975 wrote:Sounds boring as fuck.

    The women I date don't care about my manly skills, they care about how many zero's are after the 1 in my bank account.
    sleeper;1739634 wrote:(title ix) is garbage at best and fraud at worst.
    sleeper;1765801 wrote:I haven't banged anything less than a 6 since I graduated college. Even then, the 6's are highly successful women which bumps them up substantially in value.
    sleeper;1770236 wrote:There is no gender pay gap when accounting for reality.

    Signed,
    Reality
    sleeper;1776673 wrote:Well no one cares about a man's sexual health but god forbid it takes 2 months for a woman to get a gynecologist appointment for BC, the SJW will be out in full force saying Republicans hate women. Single payer will only make it worse with the wait times and how our media caters to the lowest denominator.
    sleeper;1785802 wrote:Feminists triggered.
    sleeper;1786031 wrote:You could say similar things about women. Where are the real women?
    sleeper;1815637 wrote:She will certainly keep saying "Equal pay for equal work" regardless of its validity and the ever increasing amount of women in college(I believe college is now 60% women and trending upward).

    Kasich might be the only one that can beat Hillary in 2020 if he wants to run but I doubt he gets the nomination.
    sleeper;1830241 wrote:No. This isn't the 1950's and maybe women should sack up and start proposing to men.

    Equality, but only when it benefits me.
    FRAUD!
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1847764 wrote:$20 billion buys $20 billion worth of irresponsibility.
    Yes it would be irresponsible to deny women preventative health care because they also provide legal and safe services that you disagree with but never pay for.
  • QuakerOats
    No one is denying them anything; they are perfectly free to purchase whatever they want.


    Have a blessed Easter.
  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1847783 wrote:No one is denying them anything; they are perfectly free to purchase whatever they want.


    Have a blessed Easter.
    Well considering most of PP's federal money comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursements, you can assume these women are not able to afford healthcare. I guess the Republican plan is for them to wait until they have ovarian cancer and cost 10,000x what it costs for preventative care. It makes no sense if care either about women or reducing overall medical costs.
  • sleeper
    like_that;1847767 wrote:I posted this before, but here is a recap of troll trash sleeper's thoughts on women that he doesn't want anybody to see. It doesn't mesh with his troll trash act. So, to answer sleeper's question "who cares about helping women," we all know it sure as hell isn't sleeper. Enjoy!


    FRAUD!
    I'll respond only because you put a lot of effort into it. Some of the above are still my views but the reality is, as I talk to more people and perform more research, I start to see the world a bit differently.

    I'm not sure what you think this is fraudulent behavior. I update my world view and opinions based on reality. I don't really care if my views lean R or D, but right now it's very difficult to justify the R viewpoint as being rooted in reality.
  • gut
    sleeper;1847759 wrote:Google how Medicaid works. I know that takes reading and you have to think for yourself because Fox News won't do it for you, but you can do it!
    LOL, I understand how Medicaid works.

    Google fungible. You seem to be avoiding it, either that or you did and realized I'm right and now are just trying to duck and dodge. You can't buy cigarettes or alcohol with food stamps, either, and we all know how that works...
  • sleeper
    gut;1847794 wrote:LOL, I understand how Medicaid works.

    Google fungible. You seem to be avoiding it, either that or you did and realized I'm right and now are just trying to duck and dodge.
    I know what fungible means however it is meaningless in this case. They aren't getting reimbursements for Medicaid for abortions. The rates for the other services provided are set by the US government so they don't get to price in overhead for abortion services.

    I think you are just embarrassed to admit you were wrong. It's okay, I was wrong earlier this week when it comes to NBA playoff tie breaker scenarios. It happens.
  • superman
    sleeper;1847787 wrote:Well considering most of PP's federal money comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursements, you can assume these women are not able to afford healthcare. I guess the Republican plan is for them to wait until they have ovarian cancer and cost 10,000x what it costs for preventative care. It makes no sense if care either about women or reducing overall medical costs.
    If they are on Medicaid then PP isn't providing anything that they can't get for free elsewhere.
  • gut
    sleeper;1847795 wrote:I know what fungible means however it is meaningless in this case. They aren't getting reimbursements for Medicaid for abortions. The rates for the other services provided are set by the US government so they don't get to price in overhead for abortion services.
    That's actually not correct. There are a few different ways to allocate overhead, one of which allocates based on the number of services. Nationally, PP claims only 3% of services are for abortion....while revenue estimates are 22% from abortions (which would be something around $300M).

    The answer should be obvious - if the taxpayer is not indirectly subsidizing PP abortions, then why the extreme resistance to carve out those family planning services? PP received $350M in private (tax-deductible!) donations in 2014 or 2015. They received $550M in Medicaid payments. Abortion services costs around $300M. Now, tell me again that you understand what fungible means.

    If the taxpayer isn't keeping the lights on at the abortion clinic, then let the abortion clinic stand alone. Why are advocates so violently opposed to this idea if they truly believe the taxpayer isn't funding abortion?
  • sleeper
    superman;1847797 wrote:If they are on Medicaid then PP isn't providing anything that they can't get for free elsewhere.
    Except most of PP locations are in undeserved sections of the city. A lot of doctors don't accept Medicaid patients especially gynecologists so this provides an option for low income to get services that they need.
  • sleeper
    gut;1847799 wrote:That's actually not correct. There are a few different ways to allocate overhead, one of which allocates based on the number of services. Nationally, PP claims only 3% of services are for abortion....while revenue estimates are 22% from abortions (which would be something around $300M).

    The answer should be obvious - if the taxpayer is not indirectly subsidizing PP abortions, then why the extreme resistance to carve out those family planning services? PP received $350M in private (tax-deductible!) donations in 2014 or 2015. They received $550M in Medicaid payments. Abortion services costs around $300M. Now, tell me again that you understand what fungible means.
    They resistance is because their mission is to provide comprehensive healthcare for women regardless of income. Yes, that includes abortions and the ability for women to control the destiny of their own lives.

    They aren't going to stop providing healthcare services to low income women because of conservatives hell bent campaign to circumvent Roe vs. Wade by going after the providers of abortion services. It's really quite sickening the extent that which Republicans will go to maintain their 1800's belief that women should be regulated to child birth and taking care of children at home. Without PP, the quality of health for low income women would be in jeopardy.

    Continue your war against women though. I hope you don't have daughters who are ever in need of medical care. I'd love for you to go and talk to people outside of your privileged bubble and see what reality looks like for a significant portion of our population. Fox News doesn't count.
  • sleeper
    And remember, PP and similar providers are highly correlated with a DECREASE in abortions, safe or not. Denying the ability to receive reimbursement for health services provided is advocating for an increase in abortion services!

    The irony is real.
  • sleeper
    https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2114/5089/0863/2014-2015_PPFA_Annual_Report_.pdf

    Here's the PP 2015 Annual Report. Please educate yourself. Page 29 may be of interest to you.
  • gut
    sleeper;1847802 wrote:They resistance is because their mission is to provide comprehensive healthcare for women regardless of income. Yes, that includes abortions and the ability for women to control the destiny of their own lives..
    They don't have to stop providing "comprehensive" healthcare (which doesn't include mammograms), just split the business into two entities. Abortion is profitable, right? So what's the problem?

    If abortion really is profitable (i.e. not being subsidized by the taxpayer), then where are all the for-profit abortion clinics? You could be rich!

    Or it's simply the case that medicaid keeps the lights on, and donations pay for abortion services. Fungible.
  • gut
    sleeper;1847806 wrote:https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/2114/5089/0863/2014-2015_PPFA_Annual_Report_.pdf

    Here's the PP 2015 Annual Report. Please educate yourself. Page 29 may be of interest to you.
    LMFAO. I read that. What did you think I needed educated on, or do you not actually understand the issue you've pretended to research?
  • superman
    sleeper;1847801 wrote:Except most of PP locations are in undeserved sections of the city. A lot of doctors don't accept Medicaid patients especially gynecologists so this provides an option for low income to get services that they need.
    Do you have any proof whatsoever or is this another #sleeperlie?
  • sleeper
    gut;1847811 wrote:They don't have to stop providing "comprehensive" healthcare (which doesn't include mammograms), just split the business into two entities. Abortion is profitable, right? So what's the problem?

    If abortion really is profitable (i.e. not being subsidized by the taxpayer), then where are all the for-profit abortion clinics? You could be rich!

    Or it's simply the case that medicaid keeps the lights on, and donations pay for abortion services. Fungible.
    Abortion isn't inherently profitable and it makes no sense to split the organization. It makes zero sense to split the organization the organization as PP is often the only choice for low income women to get the healthcare they need, including legal and safe abortions.
  • sleeper
    superman;1847814 wrote:Do you have any proof whatsoever or is this another #sleeperlie?
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/24/carolyn-maloney/ny-rep-maloney-most-planned-parenthood-clinics-are/
  • gut
    sleeper;1847815 wrote:Abortion isn't inherently profitable and it makes no sense to split the organization.
    So finally we get around to you agreeing that Medicaid does, in fact, subsidize abortion.