>> ^bobknight33:

There is a difference between fear, hate and what one believes what is wrong. If one believes that being gay is wrong then it is wrong.

The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?


I believe 2+2=5, Belief doesn't make you correct. You should be listening to evidence, not belief.

@PostalBlowfish is absolutely right, you can believe homosexuality is wrong all you want. There are still lots of people who believe blacks are of inferior genetic stock, women shouldn't vote and that the earth is really flat and that we didn't go to the moon either.

Public policy, however, has a higher standard of evidence than what makes @bobknight33 and the other bible thumpers uncomfortable. Doesn't matter if there were only two homosexuals in the entire world or 200 billion, you still treat people with basic dignity and respect and they have a right to their pursuit of happiness as you do. Civil rights is not a popularity contest.

If homosexuality is so horrible and detrimental to society as you would have us believe, you shouldn't have any problem proving it without using the bible. I eagerly await your mountains of evidence.

Run away bob, run away to your next sift-trolling

I need to change my sexual orientation.
Thanks for helping me come out of the closet.

I'm going Alien.

Group alien sex sounds sweet. let me put that on my bucket list.


>> ^KnivesOut:

But bob, I believe that being gay is fine. So it's fine.
Can't argue with that logic, right?>> ^bobknight33:
There is a difference between fear, hate and what one believes what is wrong. If one believes that being gay is wrong then it is wrong.

The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?

But bob, I believe that being gay is fine. So it's fine.

Can't argue with that logic, right?>> ^bobknight33:

There is a difference between fear, hate and what one believes what is wrong. If one believes that being gay is wrong then it is wrong.

The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?

There is a difference between fear, hate and what one believes what is wrong. If one believes that being gay is wrong then it is wrong.



The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. So who's right -- what percentage of the population is homosexual?

I'm not denying the existence of misogyny, but I do wonder why, if men are paid more then women, anyone would hire a man? Why not hire a woman in a man's place, pay them 80 cents on the dollar, and make a killing?

I don't understand what you mean by accusing someone of misandry as a form of misogyny. You'll have to explain that to me.

Personally, I found Warren Farrell's book, Why Men Earn More to be fairly illuminating with regards to these issues.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men's "value" or "worth" is based on their income, and are therefore willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example), for a greater number hours per week and/or days per week, and/or more years over the course of their lives than women. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.
I'm not seeing any data. In any case, we're talking about different pay for equal work. We're not talking about average male salary vs. average female salary in aggregate, we're talking about men and women with the same position, same education,working the same hours, producing equivalent work, under the same working conditions...and they're being paid less.
>> ^Trancecoach:

The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.
The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.
A fair point, but we're not talking about the "myth of male power", we're saying "misogyny exists, and we have data that proves it, but Republicans say it's a fairytale."
From where I sit, the a big part of misogyny is the rank dismissal of all claims that misogyny is real, or failing that, that misogyny is bad. To accuse someone, even lightheartedly, of engaging in misandry by presenting hard data saying "misogyny exists, and is widespread", is itself misogyny.
Just like the whole bit where Republicans accuse people of being racist against white people for pointing out that white people discriminate against black people, and that by talking about it we're just perpetuating the problem we're trying to solve...

>> ^Trancecoach:

Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men's "value" or "worth" is based on their income, and are therefore willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example), for a greater number hours per week and/or days per week, and/or more years over the course of their lives than women. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.

I'm not seeing any data. In any case, we're talking about different pay for equal work. We're not talking about average male salary vs. average female salary in aggregate, we're talking about men and women with the same position, same education,working the same hours, producing equivalent work, under the same working conditions...and they're being paid less.

>> ^Trancecoach:


The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.
The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.

A fair point, but we're not talking about the "myth of male power", we're saying "misogyny exists, and we have data that proves it, but Republicans say it's a fairytale."

From where I sit, the a big part of misogyny is the rank dismissal of all claims that misogyny is real, or failing that, that misogyny is bad. To accuse someone, even lightheartedly, of engaging in misandry by presenting hard data saying "misogyny exists, and is widespread", is itself misogyny.

Just like the whole bit where Republicans accuse people of being racist against white people for pointing out that white people discriminate against black people, and that by talking about it we're just perpetuating the problem we're trying to solve...

Not all of the studies and census statistics are as clear cut as Rachel makes it seem in this clip. For one thing, statistically speaking, more men are willing (or are socially coerced) to work in particular kinds of jobs that women are not (such as physically riskier jobs, longer commutes, more frequent travel, longer hours, for example) than are women. This is likely due to the the implicit societal norms which consider men's "value" or "worth" as being based on their income. By contrast, women's worth or value is based less on their income and they are therefore more willing (or socially allowed) to work in jobs that have a greater range of flexibility in terms of experience, time, and physical impact.

The question we should be asking is what is lost by the income disparity? If the society is complicit in a gender bias as evidenced by an income disparity, it is just as complicit in the social pressures that are imposed on what is valued on the basis of gender and why.

The confrontation with misandry is a third rail, politically speaking, but, the myth of male power only serves to further propagate both the misogyny and the misandry that are both rampant throughout the society.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Trancecoach:
Men also have more expenses, more liability in divorces, more financial responsibilities, less free time, and more time away from home.

Kinda weird to see you taking up the contrary side of the argument. Having "expenses" and "financial responsibilities" are functions of lifestyle choices, not something intrinsic to your gender. Likewise, having less free time or more time traveling are functions of your job, not your gender. Having more liability in divorces is a result of the man having the higher income, not because men are being discriminated against as a group.
In any case, none of that justifies paying a women less than a man for an equivalent quantity & quality of work, which studies show is what's happening.

>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^longde:
Doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman was white. Yeah, anyone can be racist, but the dynamics in this case aren't colorblind. Zimmerman's racial status in his own eyes and in the eyes of the local police had no small role in his actions and the (lack of) police response.

Eh..... I dunno dude. Could you define what you would consider as 'White'? Because for me, this dude would be considered Latino. Their skin may be 'light', but they ain't white.


In the US census, hispanic is considered an ethnicity, not a race. You can be a black hispanic, a white hispanic, or an american indian hispanic.

Irish O'bama is ignorant of Tea Party ideals. One cannot expect a Eurosocialist to understand a healthy fear of government power, the sole reason our American government is divided in TREES.


"It is said by the proponents of government-run health care that 47 million people go without health care in the United States. For example, during the so-called Cover the Uninsured Week event in 2008, Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement declaring that this is the “time to reaffirm our commitment to access to quality, affordable health care for every American, including the 47 million who live in fear of even a minor illness because they lack health insurance…In the wealthiest nation on earth, it is scandalous that a single working American or a young child must face life without the economic security of health coverage.” This is more deceit.

"In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance.

About 9.5 million were not United States citizens.

Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage.

Eighteen million of the 46.6 million uninsured were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it.

Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months.

The 47 million “uninsured” figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate."

--Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny

@longde

Cool. Societies need more immigrants that raise the average, and less immigrants that lower the average.


I don't see a link to those stats, but the following stats seem more accurate:

The US Bureau of the Census, 2009, finds that East Asian immigrants score the highest in bachelor's degree attainment: 66%. The numbers skew even more in the 2nd generation (the first generation born here): 72%. Additionally, the numbers likely skew even more for advanced degrees, rather than just bachelor's degrees.


Regarding general populations, we can make confident predictions about the future trajectory of nations based on the high average educational performance of poor areas in East Asia relative to the lower average educational performance of wealthier areas in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Europe. Anyway, it's good to see the stories of the young scholars in that video.

It has nothing to do with their Asian heritage, and everything to do with immigrant characteristics and culture. African immigrants are actually the highest achieving group in the States:




According to America's national Census Bureau, close to 44% of Africans living in the US have a college degree, compared to 23% of the US population, making them the community with the highest rate of academic achievement in the States. A Reuters Africa Journal report by Marie Lora.

>> ^chilaxe:

@Porksandwich
I'm talking about north-east Asians (Chinese/Hongkongese/Chinese-Singaporeans, Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese). Other Asians don't have the same significantly consistent high performance.
Increases in school spending don't significantly correlate with increases in student performance. You can't change someone's nature to make them like to read, and bad teachers & old textbooks can't turn a driven person with a good attitude into someone who doesn't like to read.

You should be glad the focus is on this card, and not Obama's record.

1,000 DAYS OF OBAMA

DEBT: Total Public Debt Outstanding has increased by $4.2 trillion [source: Treasury Dept]

MORE DEBT: America accumulated as much debt over the past 1,000 days as it had in the country’s first 79,135 days (July 4, 1776 through March 3, 1993) [source: Treasury Dept]

DEBT PER DAY: America’s debt has increased by about an average of $4.2 billion per day [source: Treasury Dept]

INTEREST ON U.S. DEBT: $1.2 trillion has been spent servicing U.S. debt—that by itself would be the world’s 15th largest economy
[source: Treasury Dept]

JOBS: 2.22 million jobs lost [source: BLS]

POVERTY: Nearly 3 million more Americans in poverty—poverty rate has gone from 13.2% to 15.1% [source: Census]
FOOD STAMPS: 12 million more Americans living off of food stamps [source: Dept of Agriculture // Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]
GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Spent more than $9.6 trillion – 60% more than the federal government has taken in [source: OMB and CBO]

MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Under Obama, the govt has spent an average of $6.6 million every minute and $111,111 every second [source: OMB and CBO]

CHINA: Owns $1.17 trillion of our debt (as of July) – a 58% increase from January 2009 [source: Treasury Dept]
GOVERNMENT JOBS: Excluding the U.S. Post Office, Federal Government has added 140,000 jobs [source: BLS]

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: Has averaged 9.4% under Obama [source: BLS]

MORE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: Has been at or above 9% for 840 of the 1000 days [source: BLS]
UNDEREMPLOYED: Nearly 5 million more Americans are underemployed [source: BLS]

REGULATIONS – NEW RULES: 7,076 new final regulatory rules issued [source: Federal Register]

REGULATIONS – FEDERAL REGISTER: 45,696 pages of new regulatory rules were added to the Federal Register
[source: National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, various years]

AVERAGE WEEKS UNEMPLOYED: Unemployed out of work for an average of 40.5 weeks – that’s more than double since Jan 2009 [source: BLS]

JOB APPROVAL RATING: Dropped nearly 30 percentage points [source: Gallup Tracking]

SPEECHES AND PUBLIC REMARKS: Roughly 806 speeches/public remarks made – once every 1.24 days.

SPEECHES — JOBS: Has said the word “jobs” 4,718 times in 591 speeches

SPEECHES — ECONOMY: Has said the word “economy” 4,541 times in 605 speeches

CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE: Has decreased by 168,000 [source: BLS]

MANUFACTURING: 818,000 manufacturing jobs lost — a -6.5% drop since Jan. 2009 [source: BLS]

BANK FAILURES: 371 Banks have failed [source: FDIC]

STATES: 37 States have higher unemployment rates [source: BLS]

GOLF: 82 rounds of golf — average of one round every 12 days [source: Mark Knoller, CBS –Fox News Tracking]

REPOSSESSIONS: More than 2.4 million homes have been repossessed for failure to pay their mortgage [source: RealtyTrac]

BANKRUPTCIES: Some 4 million total (business and non-business) bankruptcies [source: American Bankruptcy Institute]

GAS PRICES: Up more than 80% and has been over $3/gallon every day in 2011 [source: AAA/OPIS]

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: Almost $380 billion spent by federal government on unemployment benefits [source: Treasury Dept and CBO]

ECONOMIC TEAM: 7 key members of Obama’s Economic team have resigned [Summers, Romer, Bernstein, Orszag, Goolsbee Volker and Rouse] [source: News Reports/Tracking]

HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS: Health insurance premiums (family coverage) up 9% this year and 12.7% from 2009
[source: Kaiser Family Foundation]

MEDIAN INCOME: Real median household income in the U.S. in 2010 was $49,445, a -2.3% decline from 2009 [source: Census Dept]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: Spent more than $26 billion on the EPA – FY2011’s spending will be about 40% more than FY2009 [source: Treasury and OMB]

1,000 DAYS OF OBAMA

DEBT: Total Public Debt Outstanding has increased by $4.2 trillion [source: Treasury Dept]

MORE DEBT: America accumulated as much debt over the past 1,000 days as it had in the country’s first 79,135 days (July 4, 1776 through March 3, 1993) [source: Treasury Dept]

DEBT PER DAY: America’s debt has increased by about an average of $4.2 billion per day [source: Treasury Dept]

INTEREST ON U.S. DEBT: $1.2 trillion has been spent servicing U.S. debt—that by itself would be the world’s 15th largest economy
[source: Treasury Dept]

JOBS: 2.22 million jobs lost [source: BLS]

POVERTY: Nearly 3 million more Americans in poverty—poverty rate has gone from 13.2% to 15.1% [source: Census]
FOOD STAMPS: 12 million more Americans living off of food stamps [source: Dept of Agriculture // Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]
GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Spent more than $9.6 trillion – 60% more than the federal government has taken in [source: OMB and CBO]

MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Under Obama, the govt has spent an average of $6.6 million every minute and $111,111 every second [source: OMB and CBO]

CHINA: Owns $1.17 trillion of our debt (as of July) – a 58% increase from January 2009 [source: Treasury Dept]
GOVERNMENT JOBS: Excluding the U.S. Post Office, Federal Government has added 140,000 jobs [source: BLS]

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: Has averaged 9.4% under Obama [source: BLS]

MORE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE: Has been at or above 9% for 840 of the 1000 days [source: BLS]
UNDEREMPLOYED: Nearly 5 million more Americans are underemployed [source: BLS]

REGULATIONS – NEW RULES: 7,076 new final regulatory rules issued [source: Federal Register]

REGULATIONS – FEDERAL REGISTER: 45,696 pages of new regulatory rules were added to the Federal Register
[source: National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, various years]

AVERAGE WEEKS UNEMPLOYED: Unemployed out of work for an average of 40.5 weeks – that’s more than double since Jan 2009 [source: BLS]

JOB APPROVAL RATING: Dropped nearly 30 percentage points [source: Gallup Tracking]

SPEECHES AND PUBLIC REMARKS: Roughly 806 speeches/public remarks made – once every 1.24 days.

SPEECHES — JOBS: Has said the word “jobs” 4,718 times in 591 speeches

SPEECHES — ECONOMY: Has said the word “economy” 4,541 times in 605 speeches

CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE: Has decreased by 168,000 [source: BLS]

MANUFACTURING: 818,000 manufacturing jobs lost — a -6.5% drop since Jan. 2009 [source: BLS]

BANK FAILURES: 371 Banks have failed [source: FDIC]

STATES: 37 States have higher unemployment rates [source: BLS]

GOLF: 82 rounds of golf — average of one round every 12 days [source: Mark Knoller, CBS –Fox News Tracking]

REPOSSESSIONS: More than 2.4 million homes have been repossessed for failure to pay their mortgage [source: RealtyTrac]

BANKRUPTCIES: Some 4 million total (business and non-business) bankruptcies [source: American Bankruptcy Institute]

GAS PRICES: Up more than 80% and has been over $3/gallon every day in 2011 [source: AAA/OPIS]

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS: Almost $380 billion spent by federal government on unemployment benefits [source: Treasury Dept and CBO]

ECONOMIC TEAM: 7 key members of Obama’s Economic team have resigned [Summers, Romer, Bernstein, Orszag, Goolsbee Volker and Rouse] [source: News Reports/Tracking]

HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS: Health insurance premiums (family coverage) up 9% this year and 12.7% from 2009
[source: Kaiser Family Foundation]

MEDIAN INCOME: Real median household income in the U.S. in 2010 was $49,445, a -2.3% decline from 2009 [source: Census Dept]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: Spent more than $26 billion on the EPA – FY2011’s spending will be about 40% more than FY2009 [source: Treasury and OMB]

Wales, Alaska

Wales is a town in the Nome Census Area, Alaska, United States. At the 2000 census the population was 152. It is the westernmost town (or settlement of any sort) on the American mainland.

According to the U.S. census bureau, 49 percent of Americans currently live in a household where someone is receiving federal benefits of some sort...

Read more:

http://www.care2.com/causes/almost-half-of-all-americans-get-a-check-from-the-government.html#ixzz1dXy4CDlA

QM adds: And 50% pay no federal taxes either.

>> ^bmacs27:

"We live in a country where over half of the people get some kind of a check from the government every month without working for it … and they vote."
I'd like to see where your source got those numbers.