Geeps, the Ladies Room is not even on the same floor, but a different floor altogether, necessitating female members of Congress to walk quite a bit farther than their male counterparts to use the restroom. Now, I know you must be a man, because you would never presume to call such an expenditure "a waste" if you were a woman.
I guess it depends how far it is away...I don't agree with remolding the house on our dime because of a slight inconvenience. Again, I would feel the same if the men's room was further away.
Geeps, the Ladies Room is not even on the same floor, but a different floor altogether, necessitating female members of Congress to walk quite a bit farther than their male counterparts to use the restroom. Now, I know you must be a man, because you would never presume to call such an expenditure "a waste" if you were a woman.
the big deal is the it would be a waste of money if the lady's room was close, just not as close as the men's room. You don't go remolding just because the lady's room is further away unless it is very far away. I would feel the same if the lady's room was closer.
Remember, like a horse, a man can relieve himself where he stands with little to no effort; the "homeless" prove this by the day in every major city in America.
This is not, of course, intended as a threat. Just a fact. --this could escalate.
Easy fix. Convert the men's room into a ladies room and make the men hike to take a leak.
Seriously, this building was built at a time when there weren't any women in congress (heck, they weren't even allowed to vote at that time), so naturally there wasn't a need for a ladies room off the House floor. Now there is....all they're doing is updating the building to fit the current circumstances. What's the big deal?
Yes, let's forget that it is the government that gives any value to those pieces of cotton fiber paper, and needs contributions from members of its society to continue to do so.
This is incorrect..
First of all, you are absolutely, unequivocally wrong that the government provides value to money, first, because value is subjective (the government can't magically "give" something value), and second, because money's birth is the product of the marketplace: individuals acting with one another on a voluntary basis; quite the opposite of government action.
Second, even if the government did provide useful services, which to an extent it does, it does not then follow that it is justified in violently expropriating funds from its subjects. That's not a voluntary transaction, and you wouldn't tolerate it if a private entity were doing it. If Walmart forced you to buy its products, would it really matter all that much if the products were useful or not? If they were, you'd buy them on your own, no?
I wonder if the real issue is that the restroom needed to be built but that a female speaker could not have it done because it would have become a political issue.
If there was not a women's restroom close enough for comfort, then this is appropriate. I suppose that the discussion would be better informed with specifics of the closest women's restroom. However, I don't think that this is a matter of national concern.
the funds they've violently expropriated from me (a more descriptive, albeit accurate, description of taxation) Yes, let's forget that it is the government that gives any value to those pieces of cotton fiber paper, and needs contributions from members of its society to continue to do so.
Does it even matter what I think of this? They've proved many times over that they can do what they prefer with the funds they've violently expropriated from me (a more descriptive, albeit accurate, description of taxation), and there's not much I can do about it.
are you suggesting that is it is a waste of money to provide women with a bathroom similar to a bathroom already provided to men? I would say this is tax dollars being spent wisely.