Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

State of the Union Thread


sacase

Recommended Posts

The heck it ain't settled.

The only people who think this is still in dispute are the people who don't understand the science and then believe that because they don't understand it then no one can. The rest who argue against it are doing so for political or monetary reasons.

 

Sorry, was going to ignore this whole thing until I saw this stupidity.

 

If you have any understanding of science, you would know that there is NO science that is 100% 'settled'.

 

Any good scientist proposes a hypothesis, testes that, and then when he/she succeeds, spends many hours still trying to dis-prove or concretely back up their hypothesis.

 

So called Man-Made Global Warming has been shown to be a flawed idea at best, and a religion with harsh repercussions to the 'non-believers' at worst.

 

The majority of the money, by a LONG Shot, is in the GMGW backing, not the ones who actually look at real science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just caught the end. Seems like it was a good speech sorry I missed it

I expected a lot worse. Nothing to dramatic, he made a lot of points I could get with and many I could not. I just wish people would stop pushing the idea of college for everyone. Stop selling that pipe dream to everyone, how about careers for everyone. Be it careers via college or via trade school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expected a lot worse. Nothing to dramatic, he made a lot of points I could get with and many I could not. I just wish people would stop pushing the idea of college for everyone. Stop selling that pipe dream to everyone, how about careers for everyone. Be it careers via college or via trade school.

I would prefer we put more energy into making our high schools and middle schools better institutionsrather than making college for everyone. Seeing as how high school IS for everyone.

Also, I don't like blanket statements about energy policy. That is such an unbelievably complex business from production to market, I think saying you're just going to do away with $4 billion in order to promote other energy sources is irresponsible

I like his call to action on income inequality and our war footing. Both need this country's focus and both will need the buy in of conservatives because, quite frankly, liberals get it wrong on how to attain these two goals more often than not

However getting conservative buy in on anything that's not bashing and ****ing is tough nowadays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice representation of where we are as a country and why though.

 

Yea because people are too busy fighting some imaginary ideological war instead of actually putting aside differences and getting EVERYONE in power out of power via voting. If Egyptians can overthrow a government with rocks then surely Americans can overthrow EVERYONE with a voting booth. But no lets keep blaming each others abomination political party and be willing to die and say the most crazy **** for your side. Throw them gang signs up and get your party tatted across your chest. Die for your set. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green lighting infrastructure permits I think

 

There is tons of money to be made in green lighting 

 

As for the speech I missed it. This President is fairly irrelevant to me now, as is this Congress. 

 

One more thought: How is this country so addicted to war that we send a soldier overseas *10* times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any reason why women don't get equal pay as men? Was playing Candy Crush during most of the speech but when he pointed that out that couldn't be more logical. No reason women should be paid less then men for working just as hard. That's criminal.[/size]

Actually they're paid more. Studies show that females are paid more than men in similar jobs when they have the same amount of time in that job. Those who say men are paid more like to lump all women, men and jobs together. Male dominated jobs are higher paying but women in those jobs make as much (statistically actually more than the men). Men also work longer (Don't leave to raise kids as often) which also reduces the female average.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually they're paid more. Studies show that females are paid more than men in similar jobs when they have the same amount of time in that job. Those who say men are paid more like to lump all women, men and jobs together. Male dominated jobs are higher paying but women in those jobs make as much (statistically actually more than the men). Men also work longer (Don't leave to raise kids as often) which also reduces the female average.

 

Got any evidence of that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually they're paid more. Studies show that females are paid more than men in similar jobs when they have the same amount of time in that job. Those who say men are paid more like to lump all women, men and jobs together. Male dominated jobs are higher paying but women in those jobs make as much (statistically actually more than the men). Men also work longer (Don't leave to raise kids as often) which also reduces the female average.

Some of the things you've posted here, are things I've read elsewhere, and seem pretty reliable. But I think your final sentence, while I understand it's based on some valid points, may have made an invalid assertion.

Consider two workers, Harry and Sally. Let's assume that they both seek the same career path, at the same age, for the same money. (Probably a lot of invalid assumptions, in there. But we're pretending).

They both start out at entry level positions and salary. They both, over time, receive pay increases.

Then Sally decides to leave her job, to raise a kid. Say she's gone for four years.

Now, the instant she leaves the work force, she no longer counts for the "the average woman makes $X " calculation. She doesn't pull the average down, by a bit.

For the next four years, Harry's salary continues to go up. Sally doesn't count as a statistic, at all. But the "other Sally's", the knees who kept working? Their salary keeps going up. So the "woman's" statistic jeeps going up, just without Sally.

After four years, though, Sally goes back to work.

But, when she does, she's been out of work for four years. Employers prefer employees who have nice, neat, resumes, with no gaps or openings. It's really hard for her to even get a job, at all. Odds are very good that, when she finally gets one, it will be for less money than what she was making, when she left.

Sally is now making 10% less than she was making four years ago, (when she and Harry were tied), while Harry is making 15% more than four years ago.

Sally NOW pulls the average down, now that she's working, again.

Further, most jobs basically base future pay on how much the worker is making right now. (The guy who snaking more than he's worth, and the guy who's underpaid, both get 4% raises! because the company has learned that if you hand out smaller raises, people tend to leave, but bigger raises aren't needed, to retain people). Therefore, as Harry and Sally continue their careers, Bith of them will receive identical (percentage) raises.

Sally's salary will go up, as she continues working. But it will NEVER get to what it would have been, if she hadn't taken that time off. She will never catch Harry.

---------

So, at least as I understand it, yes, a big part of the lower pay for women is due to women taking time off. But it's not because the ones who are off, are pulling down the average. It's because they make less, when they come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Bush is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Clinton is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Reagan is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Carter is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Hoover is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Fillmore is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Jackson is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

 

Jefferson is an embarrassment and complete empty suit. He is easily one of least effective and worst presidents in our history by a very large margin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

college tuition is too expensive. Desperately needs to be lowered. 

 

As a dad who has 2 kids in college, I know all too much this statement is 100% true.

 

A big part of the problem is the college loan situation.  The loans were supposed to make it easier for folks to afford college, but when the institutions saw all that money flooding in (and these loans can ONLY be used for college), they responded by upping their tuition and fees.  Now, we are caught in a catch 22 - can't pull the loans back or folks won't be able to go to school, but keeping them going just means higher costs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, was going to ignore this whole thing until I saw this stupidity.

 

If you have any understanding of science, you would know that there is NO science that is 100% 'settled'.

 

Any good scientist proposes a hypothesis, testes that, and then when he/she succeeds, spends many hours still trying to dis-prove or concretely back up their hypothesis.

 

So called Man-Made Global Warming has been shown to be a flawed idea at best, and a religion with harsh repercussions to the 'non-believers' at worst.

 

The majority of the money, by a LONG Shot, is in the GMGW backing, not the ones who actually look at real science.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

 

 

Please enlighten us, because apparently our experts on this topic don't have an understanding on this topic either (according to you).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched it, and didn't feel it was as powerful as last years speech. That's fine, though, because I was really looking forward to hearing how he planned to maximize he's limited effectiveness via excutive order.

He seems like he's giving up trying to change Washington (bout damn time), and is going to just focus on doing his job the best he can. That's about all you can ask for after a year congress couldn't even agree on what color the sky was from one day to the next.

I don't know how I feel about this myIRA thing, but before he leaves office, I want to hear him get serious about hydrogen powered vehicles (since he's obsessed with green energy). Read a Washington Post article about how the energy secretary gave up on it right before it blew up and left us madly behind Europe and Asia in just the last couple years. Only station in DC actually closed not too long ago, and it will be 3-4 years before we can get a reliable network here on the east coast now.

If he can get immigration reform done this year, that's a win, and I can live with just that (while expecting him to continue to tinker and fix his ACA baby). Post also has fact checker up (of course he maximized his numbers and republican response minimized there's). But there was interesting comment about how the labor participation is going to drop no matter what because of the aging baby booms retiring. We've actually been on a decline since Clinton's last year in office 14 years ago, and is going to continue to decline into the 2020s no matter what we do.

Raising minimum wage before he leaves office to $10.10 would be amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...