‘Binder Derangement Syndrome’: How the Democratic Party Exploits Women
Both sides also erroneously assume that the state could do a good or even decent job of legislating private morality. It never has and it never will. Abortions will still occur no matter what happens to Roe v. Wade, and gay marriages (or their equivalent) have existed all over America for decades, probably more than that, and are not about to disappear.
The solution of course is to leave these issues, again as much as possible, in the hands of voluntary private institutions — churches, synagogues, community groups, societies of atheists, deists, or whatever.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the number of abortions is going down, reflecting public disapproval as well as, I would imagine, more effective use of birth control. The family may be in trouble, but those worried about its decline would be much better served and be more successful promoting it through those same local religious and community-based organizations.
The Democratic Party will not and cannot let that happen. They need their version of values as a national wedge issue to hold onto that crucial woman’s vote. So look for them to seize on any bogus opportunity in this election season, as in the ginned-up “binders full of women” controversy from Tuesday night’s debate replete with its gonzo Twittersphere reaction.
Could anything have been more ridiculous?
What we are really witnessing here is the reverse of what it appears. It is a conscious/unconscious attempt to keep women down by Democrats, camouflaged as on attack on Republicans who, in Democratic eyes, regard women as 1950s Leave-It-To-Beaver homemakers all sitting in their laundry rooms waiting for the next sewing bee.
That’s again absurd to anyone familiar with the makeup of today’s Republican Party. But what these Democrats and so-called liberals really want to do is convince women they are oppressed so the poor, shivering females will vote for the Democratic Party.
Not surprisingly, these Dems convince themselves this is true in the process. It’s a form of self-hypnosis. Or as Pirandello famously wrote, “It is so if you think so.” This same attitude, and its consequent behaviors, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, making matters worse and indeed oppressing women.
This is exactly the same vicious cycle the Dems use with blacks and Latinos, which has been truly reactionary and destructive to the people involved for decades. Little has improved in their communities from it. This strategy is a little more complex with women since they are so numerous and, as Mao reminded us, “they hold up half the sky”… And they would, maybe more than half, if the Democrats would only let them.
Mitt Romney’s ideological view of women’s involvement in his plutocratic world is by looking for a binder full of them. What if Mitt Romney never had the binder full of women? What if that binder was nowhere to be found? Would women then have any involvement in his world? Does it take a binder full of women to allow for their involvement into the business or political world?
For women, this should be a very concerning issue. Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 to allow women equal pay for an equal day’s work. The next president will have the opportunity to nominate one or two justices to the Supreme Court. There is another legislation hanging in the balance. The Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion that was decided on January 22, 1973. This landmark legislation has stood for 39 years. The Supreme Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women’s health. This landmark legislation is hanging in the balance depending on who the president will be in the next four years. It’s the difference between upholding it and repealing it, depending on who the one to two new justices will be in the Supreme Court.
It would be nice if your hero would abide by the law he signed.
http://times247.com/articles/white-house-pays-women-less
But then again, he shafted the women who worked for him in the Senate, so why would his promotion change his behavior, right?
Holy smoke Batman-
From the 50′s thru to the real digital age, executives got a binder prepared for him on a specific decision topic – such as the candidates for a given position. In it would be a summary at the beginning with some recommendation, then tabs with the resume and supporting info on each candidate. Similarly, a decision to purchase software or a subcontractor would be constructed. Besides for the exec, the committee working on the selection process would also get a binder.
I understood exactly what Romney said, he was perusing the binder and seeing that the candidates presented was not the best group. He asked for a broader search, and that search should include qualified women.
He selected and maintained a staff in MA that was a higher percentage woman than is typical, and the selections appear to be made on merit not to fill a quota.
The Lilly Leadbetter BS is mostly where we need qoutas and boxes to check with multiplier points if the candidate is a 1/32 Cherokee with high cheekbones, that also once dated a gay guy, and was photographed marching against the war. Where the real question is – can she actually teach.
Every executive – whether in the public or private sector – has somebody do a search for qualified upper level candidates. They either use an internal executive search team or contract with headhunters, and the result is invariably – you guessed it – a binder of qualified candidates. Most of the criticism is claiming Romney is so out of touch that he couldn’t come up with some names on his own. Of course he could have, but he was smart enough, or not arrogant enough to realize that he’d get a much better pool by delegating the search and evaluation. The last high profile case of an executive going with his first gut hunch and picking somebody he knew was Dubya nominating Harriet Meyers for SCOTUS.
Didn’t turn out well, nor should it have.
I suspect most of the people denouncing Romney (OMG!!! Binders!!!!) know this and are being typically disingenuous.
On the other hand, Napoleon said never interrupt your opponent when he’s making a mistake. If Obama and his team are pinning reelection hopes on Big Bird and binders, go to it guys, knock yourselves out.
Ledbetter act has nothing tondo with equal pay ( well established long ago) but the ability to sue over past violations using a much longer statute of lilitations. Most people just dont know that this mainly the the Ledbetter Act To Enrich Trial Lawyers.
I assume that what the act will rerally do is cause men to be underpaid in real terms, and to make employers less likely to hire women.
Considering the whole thing is based on a fraud.
How long did Plessy versus Ferguson stand?
mzk1
How long did Plessy versus Ferguson stand?
1896 – 1954 58 years. How long a decision has stood has little bearing on whether or not it is constitutionally correct or not.
Typical lefty useful idiot, you’re wrong on every point. The so-called Equal Pay Act didn’t change a thing about the substantive right to equal pay for equal work; it merely extended the amount of time one has to file a complaint, presumably because the communists, er, Democrats, think women are too stupid to file timely under the law that has been in place for decades.
Roe is fabricated, twisted legal reasoning based on Douglas’ finding that the “penumbras and emanations” of other rights actually expressed in the Constitution worked together to create right of privacy not expressed in the Constitution, “reasoning” first expressed in Griswold v. Connecticut. Many of us think the best explanation for Douglas’ “reasoning” is that the old horndog had just married yet another very young and presumably fertile wife and he wanted to make sure she had a Constitutional right to birth control pills. The question of the availability of abortions is NOT a federal question, but then few of the things that lefties hold dear are actually.
And finally, Romney specifically tasked his Lt. Gov., a woman, to generate a list of female potential candidates for appointment to his MA administration. In typical communist, er, excuse me, Democrat fashion, you’re and all the other people working this talking point have turned what he did on its head because as Mr. Simon articulates, you communists, excuse me, I keep doing that, Democrats, have to keep the stupid women on your plantation along with the Blacks and Latinos, otherwise, there aren’t enough people who are stupid enough to vote for Democrats.
Roe was written by Justice Blackmun not Douglas. Blackmun had once been the legal counsel for the Mayo Clinic and consulted with physician friends while drafting Roe. Large parts of it attempted to enshrine medical science circa 1970 into the constitution. To slog through the entire trimester analysis in the age of DNA testing, ultrasound, fetal microsurgery and neo-natal intensive care units without laughing out loud about the outdated concepts takes real effort. This is what happens when judges legislate from the bench instead of letting the political process take its course.
Douglas wrote Griswold, the “logical” predicate of Roe.
The major effect of laws restricting abortion mostly affects low income women. High or higher income women can easily travel somewhere “else” to obtain an abortion. Additionally, the undesired and unwanted children end up at greater risk of child abuse, are likely to do less well in school, are more likely to drop out, and are more likely to become criminals. The cost of keeping someone in prison is about $35,000 a year (depending upon the state), along with creating a more “risky” society where innocent people are more likely to be victims of crime. All in all, restricting abortion isn’t a productive policy. Just as for the same reason most government restrictions on freedom tend to be harmful to society in general. This is why Libertarians such as myself believe that “freedom” is the most important aspect of a society as opposed to the statist philosophy now advocated by the two major political parties.
Very true. it is always more efficient to proactively murder children who are undesired and unwanted, and hence are likely to do less well in school, are more likely to drop out, and are more likely to become criminals.
I do find it curious, though, that Libertarians such as yourself would be in favor of such a policy. I can think of no person less free than one who can be murdered out of hand.
Nicely put.
You hit the nail right on the head. Well said.
Thank you, D. Smith. I was fuming at Jerome Bigge’s libertarian? “logic,” until I read your comments.
It’s a huge presumption, to assess another individual’s worth, before they are even born, and whether or not they deserve the right to breathe air, to exist. The rights of an individual come either from the State (and can be altered, manipulated, or even cancelled), or from God Almighty, in which they are irrevocable. Exercise of freedom (to have children) is one thing. Depriving another (innocent human) of all of their freedom (taking their life from them) is quite another.
Perhaps the problem for libertarians is that single moms, if they purely vote their economic interests like all good Democrats tell them to, are going to vote for the welfare state. The problem, for libertarians, with the current abortion regime, is the moral hazard. The ideal society of libertarian ideology requires a citizen who acts responsibly and accepts responsibility for his or her choices. Encouraging irresponsible behavior produces people who do not want to be responsible for themselves, i.e., who prefer security and license rather than self-reliance and liberty. Therefore, ironically, social conservatism is a necessary precondition for libertarian reforms. I’m for both. As Romney said about Obama’s proposal to balance the budget by increasing taxes, you can’t get there from here.
“All in all, restricting abortion isn’t a productive policy”
Freeing the slaves want very “productive” either. Much better productivity is obtained working people day and night for no pay, under the threat of the whip.
Ask any SlaveHOLDER which was more “productive” for him, slaves or free men.
” This is why Libertarians such as myself believe that “freedom” is the most important aspect of a society”
This is why Libertarians care only about themselves.
got any more straw men to toss out? Good grief. This notion of abortion restrictions harming the poor ignores reality — the baby mamas and the white trash aren’t having abortions; they realize that kids = checks. And the guy claiming to speak for libertarians does not understand what he’s talking about; libertarians run the spectrum on abortion. Might do you some good, too, to read up on them.
“This notion of abortion restrictions harming the poor ignores reality”
Who’s reality?
The one who says “awww shit, I’m knocked up?” after engaging in an act they know (or ought to) know is DESIGNED for just that occurrence?
Or the innocent soul who never gets to be born?
Who gets KILLED.
“with rights come responsibilities” and killing off the inconvenient is a shitty way to go no matter how you try to justify it.
“why do you deserve exactly that which you deny to another?”
“Additionally, the undesired and unwanted children end up at greater risk of child abuse, are likely to do less well in school, are more likely to drop out, and are more likely to become criminals.”
Question: How do you know this? How can you know this? In a nation where unwanted children can be aborted, how can there be any children who weren’t wanted prior to birth? And if there are, how do you collect statistics for the “wantedness” of children vs the degree to which they are “…at greater risk of child abuse, are likely to do less well in school, are more likely to drop out, and are more likely to become criminals.”?
This is just a lot of fact-free guessing and rationalizing for the purpose of justifying abortion.
What you describe are children raised without responsible fathers in their lives, not unwanted children.
Furthermore, many women who think they don’t want children, but get pregnant by accident, and who are repelled by the notion of abortion find themselves completely in love with their “mistake” once born. It’s called the maternal instinct. If not for that, the human race wouldn’t exist.
Jerome;
Undesired and unwanted also apply to plenty of people at the other end of the spectrum and while there are not prison costs, there are indeed nursing home costs.
“The Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion that was decided on January 22, 1973. This landmark legislation has stood for 39 years. ”
Ah, the unintended insights into the leftist mind… Roe v. Wade was a court decision. It was not legislation. Only the legislature can enact legislation. (Well, at least before Obama came along with his executive orders.)
It’s not nice to pick on the mentally handicapped.
That’s why lefties get so upset when you try to debate them!
Who can debate them? I have to admit I’ve given up.
If you try to debate a liberal, he’ll just twist around the meanings of words so that no argument makes sense any more.
Twisting the English language to the left
So when conservatives complain about judges “legislating from the bench,” we’re right after all.
“What if Mitt Romney never had the binder full of women? What if that binder was nowhere to be found? Would women then have any involvement in his world?”
So…your position is:
“well, he COULD have been a typical dick and never hired any women, except for that Binder that fell from the sky, and it could have landed on ANYONE, so he gets no credit”
Here’s a Clue:
HE TOLD THEM TO ASSEMBLE IT.
Thats how it got “found”.
He asked his staff to put those Binders together because he wanted to have high caliber smart and effective women “involved in his world”
DUH.
You are either incredibly ignorant or just a really BAD troll….
Try commenting about his wifes horse, or his maybe dog, and work your way up from there.
His legacy of effective management is a little over you head right now.
C’mon, you still have 3 weeks.
Good people can disagree about abortion, and whether Roe v Wade was a good decision, or an unconstitutional trampling of the laws of the various states.
However, Romney’s comment about “binders of wamen” was about one thing, his experience in evaluating resumes. Any other interpretation is just plain straw man bullcrap.
Good people can disagree about abortion, and whether Roe v Wade was a good decision, or an unconstitutional trampling of the laws of the various states.
No, good people can disagree about abortion. Roe v Wade is unconstitutional. Even if a “good person” approves of abortion, he has to condemn the courts for usurping the powers accorded to the legislative branch.
Lily Ledbetter’s main thrust is to allow women who legitimate claims on workplace discrimination to sue, even after the statute of limitations has lapsed. Just like Ryan voted aginst Simpson-Bowles because Obamacare was required to stay, voting for Lily Ledbetter had more to do with a giveaway to the plaintiff bar, a reliable Democratic supporter, than providing for equal pay for women. Only 35 lawsuits have been filed in 4 years. And the POTUS’ use of “72% of a man’s pay” comes forom an apples to oranges study. He lies. Repeatedly. The fact is that the Democratic Party only cares about a woman’s reproductive organs. Not her brain. Not her value as a mother. Not as an income-earner. And they’re going to lose the election because of it.
Exactly right. This was a three-fer for obozo – payoff to the lawyers, sop to the feminazis, and yet another sharp stick in the eye of everyone else.
I loathe that man.
I’m sure women will fair much better as Obama opens the door for Shariah to be incorporated into our legal system.
“Mitt Romney’s ideological view of women’s involvement in his plutocratic world is by looking for a binder full of them. What if Mitt Romney never had the binder full of women? What if that binder was nowhere to be found? Would women then have any involvement in his world? Does it take a binder full of women to allow for their involvement into the business or political world?”
Who knows what the demon is capable of? What if he had a manila folder full of them? Would that mean he keeps his Filipino maid chained in the closet? What if paper had never been invented?
What if you had a brain in your head and were smart enough to research and discover that Mitt Romney and his wife have never had domestic help! Amazing are those who never engage the thinking part of their bodies …
It was a dark and stormy night at one of Romney’s mutual fund mines. As one would expect, unicorns were forced to dig mutual funds from Gaias flesh. Then one unicorn found something new. “Look, it’s a Binder Full of Women!”,said the unicorn. “Don’t be silly those are Playhouse magazines.”,said the shop steward unicorn. “No, over there!”,said the first unicorn. All of a sudden a black helicopter landed and men in black suits got out. They grabbed the Binder Full of Women and rushed it to Romney.
It was a dark and stormy night at one of Romney’s mutual fund mines. As one would expect, unicorns were forced to dig mutual funds from Gaias flesh. Then one unicorn found something new. “Look, it’s a Binder Full of Women!”,said the unicorn. “Don’t be silly those are Playboy magazines.”,said the shop steward unicorn. “No, over there!”,said the first unicorn. All of a sudden a black helicopter landed and men in black suits got out. They grabbed the Binder Full of Women and rushed it to Romney.
The Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion that was decided on January 22, 1973. This landmark legislation has stood for 39 years.
Landmark legislation! Ha ha. Behold the mind of a leftist.
Ah; the paid trolls stopped by. Please stop by the gift shop on your way out.
The Lily Ledbeter Act does NOT guarantee equal pay for equal work — it extends the time period for people to file wage discrimination lawsuits. The *lawyers* are the real beneficiaries of Lily Ledbetter but both men & women can file such lawsuits if they believe they have a claim because the EEOC ruled a long time ago that people of both sexes (of same seniority) had to receive equal pay for equal work.
This is Obama’s base — the completely ignorant, low-information voter such as Rob. But, of course, Rob would believe whatever Obama tells him on the Ledbetter Act because Rob probably believes that the US Tax Code *actually* provides “tax breaks” to companies for shipping jobs overseas (it doesn’t) and that the reason gas was $1.89/gallon in January 2009 was because the “economy was on the verge of collapse” (that wasn’t it, either).
The false idea that women are paid less is based on the fallacy that companies want to pay men more for the same amount of work. Only economically illiterate people believe it. If you and your sisters do the same work for less money, then what are you waiting for? Go form all-women companies and conquer the world. The less-productive companies, overpaying men, could not possibly compete.
Oh, and you take a number of logical leaps and make false assumptions to indict Mitt Romney–for what? Having more women in his administration than any other governor. Apparently it is Mitt Romney’s fault that mostly men applied for the job openings. In how many industries and fields, including college admissions, are most of the applicants women? So by your logic all of those industries and the women in decision-making roles are biased against men. This binder issue is beyond idiotic but apparently for some insecure, victimized women it is pure catnip.
I am so tempted to start this reply with “Rob, you ignorant slut,” but half the readers would miss the reference and the other half would deliberately interpret it as a misogynous statement.
For those who really need it explained: Romney said “I want to find qualified women to staff my administration”; his people identified qualified women and, presumably, placed their resumes into binders; hence, Romney had “binders of women.” It really isn’t any more complicated than that.
WRT Roe v Wade, contrary to your statement this “legislation” hasn’t stood for 39 years, because it is NOT legislation. It was a judicial ruling. That you either fail to understand the difference or are seemingly willing to assign the power and authority of legislation enacted by hundreds of elected representatives to a decision made by nine appointees (as long as, presumably, the decision matches your sentiment) speaks volumes.
You’re right that no Federal legislation exists that legalizes abortion and stipulates the how, when, where and who of it. What the SCOTUS did was set the parameters and limits for abortion, but allowed individual states to establish their own laws regulating it according to those parameters and limits. That’s why you will find superficial differences in abortion laws from state to state.
The Lily Ledbetter Act was not about whether women should get equal pay for equal work, it was about whether the statute of limitations deadlines for such cases should be delayed indefinitely until the woman in question leaves her job. In other words, under the Lily Ledbetter Act, a woman could retire after 50 years and later sue her employer for her claimed underpayment for the entire 50 years. In one sense that might be justice if we could definitively learn whether she was discriminated against so long ago, but in the real world it’s impossible to have a meaningful interpretation of the limited to nonexistent evidence that would exist for those decades-old pay periods. There are reasons we have statutes of limitations even for all criminal matters (except for murder), and one of the more important ones has been tossed aside in the Democrats’ search for an effective “war on women” meme.
Ahhh the Binder Retort. How cliche and disappointing. The only thing the dems offer up now is that all women will be contained in binders for the remainder of our lifetimes. You must really think we are stupid.
Second you must really think we are stupid to NOT know that there are already laws in palce conerning equal pay. Anyone with any intelligence would have voted against Ledbtter. It allows women to use 6 years of stats. Why not men? Why not correct existing laws and make if fair and equal shot for everyone?
All told, the article is correct and you are an example of it. Pure and simple.
The really insiduous part, and I’m sure the aim of the plaintiffs’ bar, is that the principal authority, the Fair Labor Standards Act, only requires time records to be maintained for three years. So, now, Ms. Whatever can claim she was being underpaid six years ago and since her naked assertion creates the rebuttable presumption, the employer has no way to rebut because it has no records for three of the six years. This is the way unions and lawyers got rich on the FLSA suits after Garcia put public employees under it. Since public employees weren’t subject to the FLSA, the employers kept no records of hours worked for all the employees thought to be salaried. When the USDOL concluded, as it always did under Clinton, that the employees should have been hourly and OT eligible, the employees naked claims could not be rebutted. That fact bought a lot of Lexuses and Bimbos and they’d like another please.
Do you, by any chance, keep your applicant resumes by wadding them into the world’s biggest paper ball and rolling it down the hallway?
You see so surprised that someone keeps them in binders.
This is such a non-issue. My husband has a hand in hiring and firing for his own tiny area. He keeps a “binder” with the resumes of qualified applicants from past interviews in it. This is no more or less what Romney was asking. If this bi-partisan women’s group was grousing about there not being enough women in high political positions, he assumed, rightly it would seem, there they would have the resources to provide him with enough qualified potential applicants to fill out his pool. And yet, this is somehow insulting that he took the suggestion of a women’s group?
Rob, that was WEAK! Let me help you by making it real simple.
Your Point:
“Mitt Romney’s ideological view of women’s involvement in his plutocratic world is by looking for a binder full of them.”
My Counterpoint:
His ideological view was to ask women’s groups to suggest qualified women that he could appoint to positions in his administration. The women’s groups put together the binders and gave them to him.
Your list of questions:
Q) “What if Mitt Romney never had the binder full of women?”
A) He would ask women’s groups to suggest qualified women he could appoint. Oh wait, he did.
Q) “What if that binder was nowhere to be found?”
A) The women’s groups he asked to suggest qualified women would create binders to give to him. Oh wait, they did.
Q) “Would women then have any involvement in his world?”
A) Yes, his wife, for starters, then the women’s groups that he asked to suggest qualified women. Of course, lest we forget, the women he actually appointed to his administration.
Q) “Does it take a binder full of women to allow for their involvement into the business or political world?”
A) Having a binder full of women organized by qualifications sure makes it easier to appoint women to various positions in both the business and political worlds. Do you have something against binders? Perhaps you favor folders or maybe some other form of document organizing system? Don’t answer Rob, those are really just rhetorical questions.
Rob, the rest of your post has been torn to shreds so thoroughly by others that I have nothing left to add.
Oh, for Pete’s sake. I’m sick of people using the Lilly Ledbetter Act (i.e. Romney/Ryan’s initial refusal to sign it) as proof that Republicans hate women and want to see them make less than men. Do you even know what the Ledbetter Act is? Go look it up on Wikipedia. It is an attachment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that deals with the statute of limitations on filing a discrimination lawsuit.
That’s right. It’s not about women, it’s about the statute of limitations. Romney/Ryan’s hesitation was over its potential anti-business consequences which would only benefit trial lawyers.
Seriously. Speaking as a woman in the business world, men may notice gender incidentally, but if you are in a successful business, everybody is working too dam& hard to worry about keeping other people down.
Contraception and “women’s health” (aka killing babies) issues are methods by which the left try to supress women. That’s the real War on Women.
A Supreme Court decision is not, of course, legislation. The Lilly Ledbetter Act, which is legislation, is violated on a daily basis by the Obama regime.
Remember, you can’t spell “liberal” without “lie”!
Akatsushi, how is Roe v. Wade not a legislation? Is it a law which had been promulgated by the Supreme Court in January 22, 1973? Is there another Supreme Court in your alternate reality? I hope you know that not all legislation in this country goes through our Legislative and Judicial branches.
Legislation is law which has been promulgated or enacted by a legislature or other governing body (such as the Supreme Court), or the process of making it. Another source of law is judge-made law or case law which is what Roe v. Wade is.
Legislation can have many purposes: to regulate, to authorize, to proscribe, to provide (funds), to sanction, to grant, to declare or to restrict.
Does this makes any sense to a conservative living in his own bubble now?
Dude, you should have gone to your political science class instead of the Occupooper rally.
It ISN’T “a legislation”. It is a Supreme Court decision.
As for the rest of what you wrote…..well, time for a remedial studies course!
I guess you are the one that doesn’t know your political science very well.
Legislation is law which has been promulgated or enacted by a legislature or other governing body (such as the Supreme Court), or the process of making it. Another source of law is judge-made law or case law which is what Roe v. Wade is.
Legislation can have many purposes: to regulate, to authorize, to proscribe, to provide (funds), to sanction, to grant, to declare or to restrict.
You are confusing judicial activism with crafting legislation. It is a judicial decision. (I would think that the whole “XXXX v YYYY” would have tipped you off, since laws generally are along the lines of “The XXXX Act of 2012″)
Check your Constitution…..the Supreme Court does not have the authority to create legislation in this country. They do have the authority to create a decision that torks people off, will be argued over for decades, is irrational and satisfies no one, and that is pretty much what they have done here.
I understand that the Judicial branch does not have the power to legislate but the fact of the matter is that Roe v. Wade was one of those few exceptions that were judge-made laws. Even though it was a Supreme Court decision, it does not make it any less of a law than any other laws that come out of the Legislative branch. This is what I’m trying to get at.
As another poster pointed out, Plessy v. Ferguson was another decision by the Supreme Court that stood between 1896 – 1954. It was the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of “separate but equal”. This was considered legislation and it stood for 58 years.
What a moron. There have been more Republicans and more Supremes nominated by Republicans than Dumbocrats since the Roe v. Wade decision. Have you seen anyone introduce legislation to overturn it? Furthermore, the decision itself was, constitutionally speaking, self evidently wrong.
Wrong system of governemnt. That’s the UK unwritten constitution.
I hope you know that SCOTUS is part of “our Judicial branch”. Or at least that you know something, as unlikely as that seems.
Remember, you can’t spell “liberal” without “lie”!
When I said that not all legislation in this country goes through our Legislative and Judicial branches, I meant the House and Senate. I know the Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch. For someone that doesn’t know that Roe v. Wade is a legislation, you pretend to act so smart.
Let me make this even clearer, when I said that not all legislation in this country goes through our Legislative (House and Senate) and Judicial (Supreme Court) branches, what I meant was that Roe v. Wade was one of the few legislation that bypassed the Legislative branch and was enacted solely by the Judicial branch (Supreme Court). It was one of the few judge-made laws in this country.
Take a look –
http://www.tetonvalleyteaparty.com/freedom/sep-of-powers.html
Rob, Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court decision. It is a law. It is not legislation, because it was not passed by a legislature. You’ve confused laws and legislation.
Wow, just wow. This is what we are facing. The problem is that liberals DO believe that courts should “legislate from the bench” (despite the constitutional protections and “separation of powers” to the contrary).
@ Rob, Dude, take a look at the root of the words legislation and legislature. Might there be a connection? Hmmm?
Are you so dumb as to think that every legislation has come out of the House and Senate? Roe v. Wade was passed by the Supreme Court and became one of the few judge-made laws (legislation) in this country. Conservatives really live in their own bubble, don’t they? I was a conservative previously but I broke out of that close-minded bubble.
go back to Reddit, moron.
Typical product of modern lefty education; stupid and feeling really good about himself.
Words really do have meaning no matter what your teachers told you about things having meaning for you and a court decision isn’t legislation.
Roe v. Wade was one of the few legislation that bypassed the Legislative branch and enacted by the Supreme Court. Take a look –
http://www.tetonvalleyteaparty.com/freedom/sep-of-powers.html
Rob, if you have arrived at adulthood and still don’t know the difference between “legislation” and “law”, well, then… *sigh* I really can’t help you.
Here you go, Mary. This will prove to you that not every legislation came out of the Legislative branch. Roe v. Wade was one of the few legislation that made the exception and was enacted by the Supreme Court. It was one of the few judge-made laws. Take a look –
http://www.tetonvalleyteaparty.com/freedom/sep-of-powers.html
Ron, the Supreme Court doesn’t promulgate laws, nor is it a governing body. Take a remedial civics class.
“I hope you know that not all legislation in this country goes through our Legislative and Judicial branches.”
legislation goes through the Legislative branch – that’s why it’s called the legislative branch. Duh.
Take a look and this might bring you out of your bubble –
http://www.tetonvalleyteaparty.com/freedom/sep-of-powers.html
*yawn* Yes, yes, Rob. We all know that the courts have made up laws out of whole cloth. What we’re asying is that, despite their appropriation of a role not given to them by the foundational law of this nation, the legislative branch is the branch that writes and passes the laws while the judicial branch is only to weigh in on the constitutional leglaity of the laws.
Just because they’ve done it doesn’t make it right or legal.
Rob, what a silly question: when is Supreme Court decision not legislation. Of course, its not legislation when a Liberal admin decides a SC decision is inconvenient and writes a rule to step around it.
Most importantly, the so called ‘liberal’ left are anything but liberal, especially towards women. For if this was the case, then exploiting them for political fodder would be a no-no.They are mental bullies, physical ones too.
Moreover,how many women from the left actually respect a woman’s right to choose her life’s course? In other words, which set of folks will not abide choices; the choice to choose life; to stay home with the kids; to not fall in line with radical thought police, and on the on.
The issue is clear – if one does not toe the dogmatic line of the left, then all hell breaks loose. So if the so called liberal set want to make fun of Romney and his ‘binders’, then so be it.
This woman would rather be really free to choose ( and not everything revolves around abortion ‘rights’), then be bullied by the leftist, indoctrinating thought police – femi-Nazis included.
Leftists, are the same world over – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/01/leftist-dogma-the-same-world-over-freedom-loving-people-beware-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki-32-2/
Good points.
The last thing any self-respecting woman would want to do is submit to the version of herself offered up by today’s democrat establishment.
Become Julia. Or even Sandra Fluke.
That’s a death sentence.
And you can’t spell Democrat without ‘RAT’.
The crudest left propaganda is grounded in the belief that in women feeling trumps thought. Often true, but men are rarely different — anything to avoid the hard work that goes with paying attention.
“Well, I’m a wannabee single mother with a diploma, so here comes a slew of stupid non-sequiturs that will make you want to gnaw your wrist”. For every pampered elderly schoolgirl à la Sandra Fluke there are ten thousand struggling working-class waitress moms who are perfectly well grounded, self-reliant and immune to BS.
They need help and encouragement to survive and protect their kids in the face of the catastrophic mess our ‘elites’ have created. Romney would do well to concentrate on the waitresses and their sisters, and leave the horses asses to fend for themselves. I am not holding my breath. We see ample evidence daily that the Stupid Party is alive and well, forehead-slapping as ever.
Waitresses rely on the TIPS of people who still have enough money to eat out for pleasure.
Or Truck Drivers (delivering goods to markets?) and Other Workmen (plumbers contractors, etc?) who earn their living OUTSIDE a fixed office, and dont brown-bag it every single day.
Best way to help “the Waitress” is to keep her tip jar full,
so she can cover her expenses and still have some extra to work on her next “plan”….
Invest? Save?
Maybe a little extra child care, or a summer camp, so she can hit the books more often?
And, you keep the waitresses Tip Jar full, by keeping business growing. Keeping her “employed customers” coming, and creating MORE of them, all with some extra bucks to toss her way as “thanks” for her spendid service.
The way you connect to the working class, is to worry yourself about business.
Just like that Evil Rich Business Man, Mitt Romney.
Thats how it works.
The only “head slapping” going on is among the folks too dumb get that.
I would add to that, not just worry about business, but appreciate ANYONE who does a good job, no matter their pay level or the prestige of their job. I see so many people being rude to fast food workers, which I find utterly foolish. In the first place, you really want to insult somebody who’s making food that you plan to ingest? REALLY? And second, it’s difficult, unpleasant work conducted under intense time pressure with little appreciation from the world. It may be my fat man’s perspective, but I am grateful for their hard work, and admire the dedication they display. And so while it’s not kosher to tip people at fast food joints, I am always as pleasant and friendly as possible; it’s the least I can do.
Good points…
And talk to any fast Food Manager….training, people management, cleanliness, regulations, safety (broilers and hot oil?) money handling, facilities maintenance and customer relations, all happening “live” on your feet in real time…
Got news for ya, lots of comfortable lazy “office sitters” arent CAPABLE of work in the Fast Food World
The only “head slapping” going on is among the folks too dumb get that.
Hmm…If you can’t recognize an easy way to win votes when you see it, doing well by doing good, what does that make you?
“Romney would do well to concentrate on the waitresses and their sisters”
He is, in the best and most efficient way possible.
If they cant see that, its their own fault they are blind and lost, and I expect them to STAY lost.
Free-people…in a Republic…voting….
Its kinda like Opera.
You have to bring something to it, to understand it.
If someone requires political information in the equivalent depth of message as any You-Tube “kicked-in-the-balls” video snippet, all because they cant/wont/have never read a BOOK and never had a single critical thought in their life, thats WHO’S fault?
You can only pander so far down the food chain.
The bottom feeders belong to the Dems, we’re better off not attracting them..
So what, do you believe the state should be dissolved completely and that religious institutions should take it upon themselves to engage in law enforcement and criminal justice? Because when you advocate leaving abortion in the realm of religion, you either intend to do that or else you fail to comprehend the situation. Abortion is nothing like blasphemy or even fornication; rather, it is premeditated murder, and we demand it be treated as such by our government.
The error both you and Simon make is that faith-based people want the state to determine issues that does conflict with our faith. The actaul issue is that we are trying to turn back the clock to a time BEFORE democrats actually DID involve the state in these decisions.
For instance, we don’t believe that our taxes should be used to kill babies – especially to a multi-million dollar for-profit company like planned parenthood. We also don’t like our tax dollars being used to teach kids as young as four that they should be gay.
What we want is all these laws overturned and then turned back to the state to allow the people who live in them to determine themselves what sort of society they wish to live in and then those who disagree can vote with their feet to a state that agrees with their moral compass. Do this and we might actually live and let live as a society – unlike libs who find a friendly judge to overturn the will of the people in order to socially engineer society to reflect what THEY think.
Right? I couldn’t have said it better myself. Even Palin, a pro-lifer if ever there was one, said that it’s a state’s rights issue.
“and then those who disagree can vote with their feet to a state that agrees with their moral compass.”
Correct. Or, they can even talk to their neighbors…try to convince them (civily) of the better wisdom of their ideas…of “what sort of society they wish to live in”… and if they are sucessful, their neighbors will slowly agree and things will change to reflect what the majority of people want it to be.
Rather than a Top-down, Federal Education Mandate to force 11 year old school girls to hold an artificial penis (bananna) in their hands and apply a condom to it.
You know, little stuff like that, that LOCAL parents ought to have a say on the appropriateness of.
I’m with you that abortion is murder. So — what are some ways we can stop murder? Murder of already-born people is illegal in every state in the Union. Violating that law carries a penalty of death in 33 states and long prison sentences in the other 17 plus D.C. And yet, we have a national murder rate of 4.2 per 100,000, or about 13,000 murdered already-born people per year, if I did my math right.
The mistake here, I think, is to confuse government with society. Social conservatives despair at the corruption all around and try to take a “shortcut” to remove it by appealing not to God, but to government, to stem the tide of evil. I understand that. God’s time is infinitely large, and our time on earth infinitesimally small. It’s easy to grow impatient. “How long, O Lord, how long?”
But a society that accepts a certain amount of death by murder as being “normal” hasn’t been roused out of its apathy by the fact that murder is illegal, nor will it be by making abortion illegal. The remedy is to change human hearts. Difficult, but it can be done, one heart at a time.
We have an ally in medical science. As NC Mountain Girl pointed out above, medical technology has made huge leaps in the last 40 years. We can save premature babies as young as 22 weeks, who would have certainly died back in the ’70s. We’ll surely get better at that, perhaps by further development of incubators to the point where they can provide a complete environment for a baby to grow to term and be adopted by one of the millions of couples who are longing to adopt.
At that point, “abortion” as we understand it (killing of an unborn baby) will become not merely immoral (when were people, in the aggregate, ever deterred from doing an immoral thing just because it was immoral, if doing it suited their convenience better?), but passé.
Forgot to add, this is a fine piece of work by Lord Simon — can’t think of a better way to skewer the ‘values voters’ of the goofy R right. Hypocrites indeed, and a (possibly election-losing) luxury the country can’t afford.
“But they are open to charges of hypocrisy as well because these values voters very often advocate the state staying as far as possible from their economic, but not their social, lives, thus trying to have it both ways.”
This is what is known as a Conservative, as opposed to a Libertarian. (This from libertarian literature.) Our founders were conservatives. I would love you to quote a Founder (Tom Paine was not one) who objected to, say, the anti-sodomy laws. I’m sorry you and Roger don’t like the thinking of the founders; maybe you (not Roger – we need him) should find a country more suited to your liking. (Don’t bring up slavery, because they did have problems with it.)
Don’t think you’ll find many takers. Who made you gatekeeper? The Founders were not brain dead, nor were they stuck immutably in the past like the unfortunate fly in amber.
There are many ways to slice conservatism: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives, well-to-the-right-of-Genghis-Khan-bloodthirsty-brigand conservatives (me, probably) and many more. You sound like you view the world as a binary thing, doomed for all eternity to grapple with endless choices between A and B. That works with flow charts (sometimes) but not with people. I wish you well (in the main) and hope (perhaps fancifully) that your New Year’s resolution (if you’ll permit a secular reference) (possibly pagan) will include a vow to control (or at least dial back) the (somewhat) excessive tendency to reach for (in truth, overuse) parentheses.
Meanwhile, a rose remains a rose and a hypocrite remains a hypocrite. [Good luck. In brackets]
Federalism, look it up.
It may interest you to know that, like “racist” and “bigot”, the epithet “hypocrite” has lost its sting. Incessant leftie name-calling has pretty much desensitized conservatives (this conservative, for sure!) to the point where we don’t care what you call us any more, because the words have lost their individual meaning and now all translate to “person I don’t like.” *shrug*
Escape: You might do worse than read ‘lolly’ on aisle 4 above. Most of us have an idea of what federalism is (or was that just ‘amusing’ sarcasm?). The question is what you do with it.
Sad Mary: Self-knowledge remains the key to wisdom, even for those as gifted and insensitive as yourself, so shrug on — the earth will still spin on its orbit. Why aren’t you out on the streets yelling at Obama supporters?
I’m not sad — you’re just frivolous.
That said, I may have pegged you incorrectly as a leftie. Perhaps you are a Libertarian.
I described myself as gifted when a child, but gifts don’t matter if they’re not developed. I learned that the hard way once I grew up. As King Lear said, “They told me I was everything — but ’tis a lie; I am not ague-proof.” As an adult, I acknowledge that I am merely average, having no more particular ambition than to earn an honest living, not take what I haven’t earned, and do what I can to help others. If this makes you sneer, so be it.
You’re doubtless much smarter than I am, as evidenced by your facility with using snark to win arguments, a skill I lack. But that doesn’t give you or anyone else the right to boss me around. Before the law, we are equal. My vote is as good as yours, and I have as much right to it as you. And if you try to enslave me as your intellectual inferior because you “know better”, I will stand on this principle. I will not make it easy for you.
If you wish to live in a geniocracy, go find one, or found one. This is still the land of the free, not the land of the philosopher-king. And if I have learned one thing on my journey through gifted-and-talented-land, it is this: Though the two may coexist in one person, smartness is not virtue.
Well, self-pity and faux humility aren’t virtues either.
Proud Mary Rising: Nobody’s bossing you around; nobody’s enslaving you, nobody’s talking about a ‘geniocracy’. I’m glad you like Lear, but let’s remember he knew life cuts many ways, certainly on both sides of the fence –
The weight of this sad time we must obey;
Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.
And nobody has a monopoly, especially not pious bigots who use faith as a figleaf (no, I don’t mean you; you’ll find them elsewhere on this site, though).
As for the rest, others can decide for themselves about your need to categorize everyone and everything.
I’m a Libertarian? No, though I understand well where they’re coming from, I’ve never bought the argument that if you want a lamp post outside your house you should build it or buy it and then paint it and fix it yourself. And I believe Ron Paul is gifted but dangerously wrong about various important matters.
That said, I’d guess you have more sympathy for the plight of the single waitress mom — a sympathy I share — than do many here.
This thread was about women, before it got hijacked.
———-
PS — this posting may look weird, since the screen’s displaying lots of misplaced italic script. It ain’t personal.
“You sound like you view the world as a binary thing, doomed for all eternity to grapple with endless choices between A and B”
Yeah, pretty much:
Wealth
A) All belongs to the State, to distribute as it sees fit.
B) All belongs to the People who earned it, and is sent to the Government as voluntarily taxes by a fairly elected representative government that serves peoples will.
Private Property
A) Exists without question.
B) Is “allowed” by The State, and can be reclaimed at the States will.
Individual Rights
A) Naturally pre-exist the Founding of (any) State and cannot be taken away.
B) Do NOT exist prior to being Conceived and Granted BY The State, which can take them away at will and without explanation
Human Life
A) Is at Conception, as without a pre-meditated human intervention to end it, it will naturally become indistinguishable from you or I, who are clearly possess Human Lives.
B) Can be arbitrarily and imprecisely “declared” at any other day, hour, or minute or second, depending on our (local) squeamishness about killing a full term child, millimeters away, on the other of the “Meat Curtain”
Lots of “A verses B” decisions have to be made about what your world view is, and what kind of Government you expect.
All the big stuff is “A” or “B”, and I don’t see any problem with it.
Mr Root:
All the big stuff is “A” or “B”, and I don’t see any problem with it.
Hmmm…
A. [you say] The way you connect to the working class is to worry yourself about business.
B. [you say] You can only pander so far down the food chain.
C. [you say] We’re better off not attracting them. (them!!)
That’s hardly binary, merely monotonous. Is the missing bit:
D. Who needs a moral compass?
When you come to a tricky fork in the road, you take it, is that it? In your world, the land of opportunity now shuns decency as if in some weird iteration of Darwin or the quality of mercy. Most pitiful of all, you claim to believe the best way to help needy people is to tip them.
Difficult decisions are almost always complex, and always will be. In your world — mine too — states’ rights are critical, but how exactly does that work under the Tenth Amendment (“to the states *or* the people”)? Or how about a constitutional convention? And isn’t assassination easier if you believe the end justifies the means?
All simple stuff to you, maybe, but not to the rest of us, including Palin. As for you, maybe time to wind up the propeller in the hat, plug in new batteries and head back to your flow charts.
Compass?
Again, Big stuff first.
Little stuff next.
Thats how a “compass” works.
Major direction are established first (like “North” or “West”) THEN *we* worry about which SPECIFIC trail wiggles and winds slightly this way or that, and might be a better choice between several, to get us where we KNOW we need to go.
See?
Social/Political Example A:
Slavery. It wrong. Period.
Not arguing any subtle “nuances” about it until *we* agree its wrong and must be abolished. Otherwise we have to shrug our shoulders and admit we’re just scumbags who dont deserve our own freedom.
AFTER its abolished we can decide MORE EASILY what specific things to do next.
See?
Social/Political Example B:
Gun Control.
The Second Amendment exists to ensure the Citizenry can physically overthrow a corrupt regime by Force of Arms if necessary, because that is our RIGHT.
Period. Not arguing any subtle “nuances” about it.
Once *we* agree on that point, THEN *we* can decide what to do with the criminals who misuse them.
Only a Power Mad Dictator and his toadies sell the notion that THEIR Apparatus (of course) needs “weapons of war” but the People cant be trusted. Sara Brady and the rest simply enable tyranny under the cover of “concern”, and I will not argue any “finer points” with them as we are at odds on the “major direction” and ONLY one can prevail.
North OR South. Go OR stay.
See?
Major choices. Bold Colors. Red Verses Blue. Black verses White.
Pick one. Argue you reason that justify it. We can agree on the shade AFTER we’ve agreed on the COLOR
Liberals and whiny do-gooder nut-bars lack the stones to make commitment decisions like that. They vasilate. Wobble. Vote “independent” or “undecided” because they never ask hard questions.
Or, they LIE about their “real” position/opinion/intentions, because they are 180 degrees the other way and are trying to CONCEAL THAT FACT, by burying you with persistent appeals for never ending “details”.
So again, MOST life choices, political philosophies and ideologies involve MAJOR “A” verses “B” categorical differences.
Some are and will always be, absolutely incompatible with each other.
Its pretty simple, unless youre dumb…or devious.
So which is it?
Oh My God! This is terrible, what were these Republican Neanderthals thinking, to use a binder to hold resumes or some other form of documentation to focus on what a person has done or list of qualifications is despicable, to go against the long standing program of having each woman come in and stand for inspection, perhaps speak to select the right person. Don’t they know it’s how they look that’s important and not the skills they bring to the table. If Mitt Romney is going to go off on some crazy merit based hiring system, this could destroy the last 100 years of progress. If this crazy idea should spread across the country just imagine how damaging this could be to the educational system of our country or our labor unions. If we were to just start promoting our best and brightest, just stop and think that could make some of us feel. Just because we did not apply our selves and did not get an education is no reason to think that one day I could have that job. I tell you one thing, with attitudes like that I know who I am voting for!
For those confused, GO ROMNEY. If you happen to live in Chicago vote Romney Early and Often.
“to go against the long standing program of having each woman come in and stand for inspection”
That’s how the Kennedy’s did it! Sometimes they’d take them for a drive, too!
QUESTION: Why did Gov Romney go to women’s groups and ask for resumes of talented educated women?
ANSWER: Because he noticed that women were under-represented in Massachusetts employment.
QUESTION: How did the women’s groups react? Did they say, “Get Lost” or did they say “Wonderful, we’ll ask in our newsletters if any of our members would like their resumes forwarded.”
ANSWER: Newsletter
QUESTION: How were the names and resumes presented to the governor?
ANSWER: In binders.
Sounds like a win-win for Massachusetts women.
massachusetts women are too stupid to know it
I watched the debate so I heard the “binders of women” comment and understood Romney to mean that there were many qualified women who should be considered in the candidate pool. As a female of a certain age, I was delighted to hear that he made such an effort to balance his team.
What sounded odd to me at the debate the other night was Obama talking about contraception as something that levels the playing field and increases opportunities for women. Huh?? I’m pretty sure that education and jobs play a role too. Another thought on this, when I was campaigning for Hillary in 2008, I met a lot of women who were turned off by the other candidate treating us like we were single-issue voters. It was also true that many of us who felt this way “got” Sarah Palin in a way that we never did a man so enthusiatically supportive of partial-birth abortions and wanting options for his daughters if they were “punished with a baby”.
Women (and men) are going to take a good look at Mitt’s economic plans and be impressed. In 2008 Obama talked about people who vote against their economic interests. With such a clear choice in 2012, I don’t think that’s going to happen in large enough numbers for him to keep the house and the jet.
“What sounded odd to me at the debate the other night was Obama talking about contraception as something that levels the playing field and increases opportunities for women.”
Straight from Marx, apparently. Karl, not Groucho. Apparently he considered the ability of women to bear children to be oppressive, and in one of his less lucid moments railed against it and everything related to sexuality.
I’m not surprised. That was the same guy who didn’t want his daughters to be “punished with a baby”, remember?
For me, the most appalling thing about that casual dismissive phrase was that he was talking about his own future grandchildren and apparently didn’t give a damn about them.
One of the stated premises behind substituting the logical, rational mind that our K-12 schools and colleges and universities used to seek to develop and strengthen with feelings and emotions and instinct and intuition is that “it is more compatible with how women think.” Now how condescending is that?
The truth is that an emotionally driven mind is easy to predict and exploit but then acknowledging that might interfere with that needed female electoral coalition.
So They just want women to feel deprived or manipulated is true but it is just the tippy top of how much the Dems are gaming women and minorities in order to get the power to exploit all of us. Take our money and use education to try and keep us outraged sheeple ready to act on prompt for anything asserted as the Common Good.
Roger, making women fearful and insecure has two benefits for Democratic party power. It sweeps in more womens’ votes. Also, it makes them more prone to believe arguments from union organizers.
My RN sister said her hospital voted down the SEIU union, but the neighboring hospital voted them in. Will this be good for patients? My sister thinks not. Why? She says at her hospital, patient care is uppermost in evaluating the performance of hospital workers. Workers who disrespect patients or neglect them don’t last long at her hospital. She thinks the SEIU hospital will put protection of workers before patient care. Time will tell.
I read the Daily Mail, DM, of London several times a week. It’s gossippy, but has compelling human interest stories. I read all the NHS stories, out of curiosity of what will happen to US medical care if we go to single pay.
Here’s my observation. Apparently NHS has people salted in their bureaucracy and hospitals who do not follow the Hippocratic oath, do not keep the hospitals sanitary, everyone knows it, it’s documented over and over, but the workers keep their jobs. Is this pervasive? Who can say? But will it become pervasive if slackers and incompetents are allowed to flourish?
Let’s get one thing straight: women are smart. They do think rationally and do carefully consider what is best for them, their children/family, and their world. The only reason they seem to cry more easily or be more emotional than men is that they aren’t browbeaten from early childhood to “buck-up, don’t cry, etc.”
Our society is changing both the acceptable and expected role(s) for women. Running a company/office and having babies are no longer incompatible. All women should have the right to decide when, if, and how they run their own lives. If that includes children, marriage, job, etc., well and good. They should not be forced either by the government or a religious rabble to made a decision against their conscience. On the other hand, if they decide to join or remain in a religious group that believes in a specific way of life, fine, that is their choice.
And precisely what did Roger say that contradicts this? What year are you writing from?
It is about time that men were treated equally to women. It is about time their diseases were given as much funding, private and public, and a crash program be started to bring male longevity up to that of women. How about quotas for men in universities and professions?
There are a lot of stupid men out there. They’re the ones who passed all of the feminist legislation.
By the way, did it occur to you that child care and pregnancy benefits are inherently disciminatory? (I don’t oppose them, I am just pointing out the discrepancy in logic.) If women want to make it on their own, let them not have special benefits.
[i]Let’s get one thing straight: women are smart.[/i]
Some are. Some aren’t. If you believe they all are…you aren’t.
Women are individual human beings. Stop lumping them all together as if they’re all alike.
To create italicized words, phrases etc., use the brackets to enclose your “i” commands, using the / as usual for the closing tag.
The “arrow” brackets “”
like this test?
Like this: <i> your text here </i>
I hate when people get hysterical over a simple slip of the lip, when the meaning is perfectly clear. It’s childish and stupid to manufacture this kind of outrage, and as phoney as a three dollar bill.
Now, can we please make binders full of former Obama Administration officials, by electing Mitt Romney?
you didn’t build that
“you didn’t build that” wasn’t a slip of the lip.
It was a full blown, overly candid (un-telepromptered) expression of life philosophy, i.e., nothing happens without government.
so then the stuff Obama said from “The point is…” is so disagreeable to all y’all that the Republican Convention was built around that theme? PULL YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND.
Barack Obama is a pure, straight up unaccomplished ideologue.
His dissembling and avoidance on every single topic Tuesday night should make you curl up in a ball and shudder that he is in the position he is in, that he has the power he has.
Making an allusion to “terror” in his September 12 Rose Garden remarks in no way affects the fact that he and his surrogates insisted for 2 solid weeks after the Benghazi attacks that it was a spontaneous demonstration as a function of a video, although he tried in the debate to claim that it did.
You should shudder at being so blatantly lied to by a US President.
His pretense to supporting “our values” is a lie and offered merely in support of gaining another 4 years to continue to undo that litany of “negative liberties” (his description), the United States Constitution.
If I had to guess, I’d say you, Lonnie, are relatively young as well as a classic example of the kind of brainwashing that has dominated American public education for 3 decades and brought us the 53 million Americans who voted for the charlatan in 2008.
Pull your head out of Obama’s keister.
“You didn’t build that” was an expression of a belief I’ve heard from lefties for decades — that society as a collective is the source and sole owner of all wealth, and that anyone who claims to have earned what they have is delusional at best. As others pointed out, Elizabeth Warren said the same thing in nearly the same terms; neither was a “slip” except in the sense they said what they normally would not admit to the public.
I agree that we should look at the totality of the candidates (indeed, we should consider each party’s coalition as well) when judging sound bites, and how they influence us when choosing which direction we want to indicate with our vote.
When you look at the totality of Obama’s view of private enterprise and capitalism, he’s clearly more hostile to it than is Mitt Romney. He continually rails against “fat cats,” “corporate jet owners,” and the like; he sides with the spoiled churlish adolescents that occupy things and demand cancellation of their student loans; his policy goals are more collectivist than individualist; he’s clearly stated his desire to more highly tax successful businesses; he’s clearly willing to redistribute one person’s success to those who’ve done nothing to merit those fruits via a more expansive social saftety net, which, if he wins, is soon to include “free” birth control and abortions. When we examine his coalition of Democrats, we see the beneficiaries of all this social redistribution, the victim interest groups, who clamor endlessly for more unearned largess, while taking completely for granted the efforts which make the private economy into a place where it has excess capacity capable of paying for government services. If anyone stands for divorcing merit from rewards, it is the socialist-minded Obama. The “You didn’t build that” comment is almost a perfect catch phrase for this confiscatory attitude. Thanks for pointing out that when we zoom all the way out to look at the WHOLE picture, Obama’s attitudes toward private enterprise is much worse than the sound bite.
Please tell us what Obama meant by that comment then, and how ironically the feckless and UBER HYPOCRITICAL Elizabeth Warren made “the same slip” almost verbatim not one month before.
When it comes to nobody accomplishing anything on their own without getting a leg up from “government”, the lying 1/32 Cherokee woman and Barack are on the same page.
Barack is mainly devious.
Lizzie is full blown nuts.
Listen to the speech – he sums it up very nicely. Look for the phrase “The point is….” then listen very carefully and try to disagree – bet you can’t.
The democrat party exploits everybody, women, blacks, ethnic groups, older people, you name it.
That’s the primary technique, play on the fears (real or imagined) of (fill in the blank). It is demeaning and insulting, not to mention puerile, but there it is.
That’s what you do to “win” when you lack substance. Divide and conquer.
Women in Barack’s admin. reportedly earn something like 17% less than men in comparable positions. So much for putting your money where your mouth is, but typical of today’s blindingly hypocritical democrats.
When Barack got into Columbia (on, we can assume, lousy academic standing) and Harvard (ditto), both those schools had binders full of minorities/women/hispanics etc. to fulfill their stupid quotas, college admissions having become more about some brain dead perception of group balance than academic excellence.
As for roe v. wade, the argument is valid (to me, anyway) that looking to/relying on some SCOTUS ruling for your personal body “rights” is a pretty lame position.
Barack’s category for college admission might have been “foreign student” status.
“Born in Kenya” stood out there, uncorrected, on his publisher’s brief descriptive bio of Obama for something like 7 years.
Foreign born was a ploy used by Anwar al-Awlaki to get into the University of Colorado (some college in Colo. anyway). That dude was born in Las Cruces NM.
The designation “foreign student” also opened up some categories of scholarship money.
Liberals would exploit heaven and hell for power, lying is a virtue.
The argument really boils down to which better represents your view:
- My future depends on President Obama/Romney
- My future depends on me
If you pick the first then you’re really saying “My future is in the hands of those citizens with enough gumption to leave the couch, or graveyard, to vote”. Now, take a look around… do you really want to put your future into the hands of your fellow citizens (or zombies)? Voting is not limited to the best and brightest, else no Democrat would ever get elected. Do you really want the least and dimmest deciding your future? As inept as you might be, you’re still the best expert on you. Own your future, don’t let the least and dimmest decide it for you.
Point of concern here in your otherwise well-written piece You said above:
“…the female population in our colleges and graduate schools (notably law and medicine) has already outstripped or will soon outstrip the male in almost every area save engineering and science, and they are gaining in those. They are also invading the boardrooms and the political arena as never before. (emphasis mine)
A bit later you say: “Extrapolating even slightly, our society seems headed for a quasi-matriarchy. Leaving aside whether this is good or bad — I don’t think it’s necessarily either — it’s a reality.” (emphasis mine)
I am not so sure women’s growing dominance doesn’t bother you just a little bit.
I bothers me. I’ve been harshly criticized by some here for expressing my preference for hiring women in my professional positions. In my observation, young male culture is extraordinarily destructive; far too many have adopted the “gangsta” culture and affect and come across as crude, boorish, and ignorant. Those who have perservered through college, now a shrinking minority, come out with an outsized ego and sense of entitlement. I attribute this to three things; first, the dramatically lessening male role in parenting, the hostility of the increasingly leftist education system towards males, at least males who act like traditional heterosexual males, and, as I discussed above, the popular “gangsta” culture of tough guys surrounded by bitches and hos.
I’ve had to fight it every step of the way with my stepsons, aged 26 and 30; priviledged, well connected white kids who did everything in their power to look and act like black gangstas. The older one would do just enough academically to remain eligible to travel for athletics, resisted any learning for the sake of learning, and he and his friends had an unbridled contempt for women, all of whom they viewed as someone to make a bed or mess one up. The youngest one has an unerring sense for the shallow end of the gene pool, which he didn’t get from his somewhat snobby and stand-offish parents. He simply wants to hang with the losers. They used to like to hang with him because he had money. We don’t give him money, he blew all his savings from being in the Army, and can’t make enough in the sorts of jobs he can keep to even move out of our house, so his circle of friends has become limited to those few who’ll put up with him – a circle that isn’t going to include his parents much longer.
The sad part is that they are both typical of their peers and have actually done better than many of them; the younger on has a HS diploma, the older one a BA, but neither has ever been able to find a decent job without our help. Those of their peers who seem to be doing well either have well-off wives or girlfriends, wealthy, well-connected parents, or can use some preference to get jobs and promotions. My oldest followed his wife to her new job as a pharmacist far from our friends and connections; she’s working for just under six figures – right out of school – and he, with actually considerably more work history in pretty good jobs is struggling to find anything above entry-level wage jobs. Frankly, I would advise any young man these days to go into the trades rather than go to college unless they are prepared and committed enough to go for a STEM degree; anything you can get with a general degree is going to be dominated by women and men, even those with good skills and attitude, just aren’t going to fit in very well.
I have seen a lot of that. I’ve also seen some tremendously responsible young men who were excellent workers. Intact families and private or home schooling seemed to have a lot to do with the positive outcome. Many of our grade and high schools have become quite hostile places for boys.
he, with actually considerably more work history in pretty good jobs is struggling to find anything above entry-level wage jobs.
Given your stepson’s circumstances, he should take one (or more) of those entry-level jobs and work up from there. He has moved to an area where no one knows him so he’s an unknown quantity. He needs to get into the local workforce and prove what he can do. If he as any drive and talent, he won’t stay at entry-level for long.
That’s what I told him: Take. a. Job. Any job; Helluva lot easier to get another one when you’re working. To a lot of hiring managers unemployed and loser are synonyms even if that isn’t fair in today’s economy.
I’ve been harshly criticized by some here for expressing my preference for hiring women in my professional positions.
Well, yeah, that’s going to happen when you admit you’re a bigot.
Go look up bigot, idiot. I will admit to being bigotted against idiots.
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
That’s you, Jack.
I formed an opinion based on experience and observation that young women were much more likely to be effective and productive employees than young men of similar background and experience. There were exceptions and I recognized them. An opinion based on experience and observation is neither bigotry nor prejudice.
I have also formed an opinion based on experience and observation that you have some real issues with women and that you are a blowhard and an idiot. Likewise, those opinions are not bigotry or prejudice, merely the result of observation.
When liberals talk about women’s issues they always sound like the car salesman with a female customer who keeps pointing out the lighted vanity mirror and the convenient cup holders.
These zinger one liners and negative attacks from these guys are getting tiresome.
Megyn Kelly (fox news) remarked immediately following the debate that women don’t like the confrontational, aggressive behaviors just exhibited by the 2 men.
Krauthammer came on a few minutes later and said his wife loved it
Tuesday’s debate was the closet I have ever come to a boxing match.
There I was yelling “below the belt”, “home run”, and “kill the
ref”.
There was my guy throwing solid punches and I loved it.
I was hoping they’d get down on the carpet for some fisticuffs.
It would have been so…cathartic…as we drown in a sea of verbiage.
On the question that interested me most, Benghazi and the state dept., off Barack went into some foray on our diplomats abroad. On a few other highly specific questions, off he went again into the realm of pure, unadulterated BS.
You really have to be stupid (Andrew Sullivan is back) to go for this guy.
I agree. I was about to go through the screen to punch Bathhouse Barry if Mitt didn’t.
mzk1-in an earlier version of my life I was General Counsel of an NYSE company that had started much smaller. We doubled in size about the time I had my second child. Had paid maternity leave but No One knew what was in my head and the company really needed access to that info during the 8 weeks. So a courier brought what I had to look at early in morning and I looked at while kids napped and it got picked up in afternoon. Did what needed to be done but I was horrified by the people who thought I should simply have said see you.
That was my anecdotal experience and the execs trusted that I was a mom but also savvy about the business needs. Later discovered that in Scandinavia where such benefits are mandated and long term and rich, there is a real reluctance to promote women of child bearing age. So all of them lose out on opportunities some are fully capable of performing and would be good at.
We are monolithic on these issues at our peril.
I read your essay.
Here is…
Another dimension of the infestation of K-12 and the perversion of money in colleges and universities
Brigitte Gabriel is a blessing to the truth of the Islamist agenda for North America.
Thanks. I had not heard Brigitte but someone sent me a link today on the incident in the Chesapeake Va public schools where the 10 year old’s hand was injured when she was not adopting Islamic hand signs. With the US having rejected individual thinking as the focus for K-12 and adopting the Soviet socio-cultural model instead, the classrooms are wide open for this type of activity.
In an earlier essay I explained the Cultural Proficiency and Change Agent push coming out of California http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/self-efficacy-cultural-proficiency-training-critical-reflection-and-change-agency-development/.
This approach would also be quite amenable to what Brigitte is describing.
The appreciation that culture is the weak point to be attacked via education goes back to Julian Huxley and the founding of UNESCO. Aldous’ brother for those who think the name sounds familiar.
Thanks again for the link.
Brigitte Gabriel is a blessing to the truth of the Islamist agenda for North America.
Right on, tanstaafl.
She is an indefatigable patriot. I hope Romney reads or has read her, “Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America” and “They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It.”
Binders? Binders full of women?
All the single women
All the single women
All the single women
If you liked ‘em then you should have put three rings on them
If you liked ‘em then you should have put three rings on them
If you liked ‘em then you should have put three rings on them
If you liked ‘em then you should have put three rings on them
If you liked ‘em then you should have put three rings on them
If you liked ‘em then you should have put three rings on them
If you liked ‘em then you should have put three rings on them
Oh, oh, oh
Oh, oh, oh
Oh, oh, oh…
Roger writes: “It’s beyond anything the women’s movement ever conceived and is happening naturally.”
I worked for many, many years in the HR field in a large, well-known American Corporation. The promotions and size of pay increases of women in the corporate world then was a result of so-called Affirmative Action. Believe me it did not happen naturally, though we seem to have become inured to it by now. This is exactly what Romney has just described as the former executive head of Massachusetts.
One can love it, be indifferent, or hate it, but it was government-driven (EEOC),
corporation policy to save legal costs and enhance public relations. People may feel it has contributed to damaging some families or improving some families or both.
I agree that it was driven by Affirmative Action and having had the misfortune of working for some AA-hire women and minorities in the ’70s it wasn’t a good thing for either the AA hire or the people around them who often had to do their job and the AA-hire’s job or put up with being supervised by someone who couldn’t pour pee out of a boot but felt really good about themselves.
My recollection of female supervisors/managers of those days is that they were astoundingly vicious and unmodulated; everything was binary, sweetness and light or they were going for your nuts, nothing in between. I think I had my last liberal thought about employment (and about working for corporations) when I was working for a large corporation and denied a promotion to a manager’s slot for which I was the only one really qualified unless they brought in someone from another region. They hired a black guy off the street with no experience so they could fill their quota. I disappointed them in their expectation that I’d stay around and do his job for him. I spent my two-weeks notice making a Godawful mess for him that I knew he wouldn’t even know was a mess until it was too late, and of course, they couldn’t fire him for the mess. It was petty revenge, but all revenge is sweet.
These days, though, AA has done its job as regards women; they often are the most qualified and I’ve worked with and for some women in my demographic peer group who worked their way up rather than being handed the job who became superb production employees or supervisors and managers. I don’t think I’ve ever worked for or with a token or AA hire who was worth a damn. Some of them know they really aren’t doing the job and aren’t capable of doing it either; those can be nasty, but many are just sad. The really awful one is the one who thinks s/he is entitled to the position and its perks just because of the block s/he checked on the AA form. Most of those will lie, cheat, and steal and all too often get away with it because of their “protected class.” We have one of those as President these days, but hopefully not much longer.
Roger, I will call BS on the apologia you wrote. It’s absurdly wrong.
In the elections of 2010, we were told that the Tea Party candidates arriving on the scene would eliminate the deficit and shrink the government, somehow. Other issues were set aside. Abortion, gay rights, religion in politics—those were all part of the old religious right, now supplanted by the deficit purists. But in a great bait and switch, the first thing the new people in Congress, the state houses, and state legislatures did was introduce a flood of bills to limit, stigmatize, or eliminate abortions, and the flood has not abated—944 provisions on abortion or contraception were still being introduced into state legislatures during the first three months of 2012. The mass of voters did not choose that. There was no way it could.
The right wing is the instigator here, not the left. In reality if the right wing drops the culture warrior idiocy then the left will have to invent it and your article would make contextual sense. Until then, the culture warriors are still the problem and will continue to be so. Face it, there’s a class of people out there who are statists who would use the government to enforce their values, and they belong to the republicans.
In the elections of 2010, we were told that the Tea Party candidates arriving on the scene would eliminate the deficit and shrink the government, somehow.
In the election of 2008, we were told by the democrat candidate that he would cut the deficit in half and, if he didn’t, he didn’t deserve another 4 years. (his words)
We were told that he would go through the federal budget “line by line”, striking down every egregious misspent dime.
After 4 years, we’ve seen an increase in the federal debt of $6 trillion, approaching accumulated debt of previous presidents combined.
We’ve seen an ideologue absolutely obsessed with the 10% of taxpayers who already pay 70% of ALL federal taxes paying even more, while, all the while, taxpayer billions have been tossed down the drain on “stimulus”, on not ready for prime time boondoggles like Solyndra & Abound Solar and, day before yesterday, the lithium battery manufacturer that got around $250 million in energy dept. “loan guarantees” laid off 300+ and is itself on the verge of bankruptcy.
As for the 2010 election, the House has begun to assert itself on “pursestrings”, for example, putting on hold the $450+ million Obama and Hillary want to give Egypt’s corrupt Muslim Brotherhood.
I hope this information helps you, random.
I’m not holding my breath.
And how is a deteriorating culture not intrinsically connected to the financial mess we are in? The millions who were aborted can’t pay into your Social Security. The millions of single mothers struggling to make a go of it demand more in government services. There isn’t a gender gap in politics. It’s a marriage gap. Uncle Sam ends up becoming the husband of a huge percentage of single women. It’s also been shown in study after the study that children from broken families are often far less productive as adults than those raised in intact families.
Random is the Ellen Barkin of PJMedia – vile and not terribly bright.
An obvious garden variety religious bigot and ham-handed critic, completely out of touch with the vast majority of the Republican Party. If the party were like Random believes, the Republican Party would rate right there with the Green Party candidates – kind of a Ralph Nader lite.
Personally, I wish the shill would move his vote to the Democratic Party where he belongs with the Hollywood bubbleheads, the tyrants and fascists, jackboots of group think, and the pinkos.
And how is a deteriorating culture not intrinsically connected to the financial mess we are in?
English. DO YOU SPEAK IT?
The point is that bills re abortion and contraception are viewed as attacks on women’s rights, which is what Roger said wasn’t happening or was minimal. I was speaking to his assertions. Try to stay on topic.
But in a great bait and switch, the first thing the new people in Congress, the state houses, and state legislatures did was introduce a flood of bills to limit, stigmatize, or eliminate abortions, and the flood has not abated—944 provisions on abortion or contraception were still being introduced into state legislatures during the first three months of 2012.
Name the “new people” in Congress that did that. Which bills, by number.
Be specific.
It’s my job to do your homework? Nice try. Hint: google.
I see.
You copped those talking points at a liberal blog (having no clue as to their truthfulness) and are too lazy to back them up, assuming they even can be backed up.
Typical.
“In the elections of 2010, we were told that the Tea Party candidates arriving on the scene would eliminate the deficit and shrink the government, somehow.”
They tried. The Senate blocked them. It’s called “news” — try to pay attention to it.
Hackgineer writes: “The right wing is the instigator here, not the left.”
If the Left had its way, there would be “abortions” after, as well as before, birth. Who are you trying to kid, my dear friend?
You don’t quite grasp the notion of cause and effect. Idealogues like you never do. I’ll use a crayon — if there were no teabaggers trying to overturn existing decisions (cause) the left wouldn’t have much to say anything about women’s rights (effect.)
If you like I can make the letters bigger and write S..L..O..W..L..Y just for you.
Why tanks, Amanda. So your “logic” goes like this?
“You don’t quite grasp the notion of cause and effect. Idealogues like you never do. I’ll use a crayon — if there were no teabaggers trying to overturn existing decisions (cause) the left wouldn’t have much to say anything about women’s rights (effect.)”
Soooooooooo:
“…if there were no teabaggers[real teabaggers are certain homosexuals] trying to overturn existing decisions[the at least 3000 year old institution of marriage} (cause) the left wouldn’t have much to say about the alleged “civil rights” of homosexuals to marry so that the Leftists could buy their votes (effect.)”
Did I get that about right?
The Democrat led Senate has refused to pass a budget since April 2009. I wish somebody who understands the numbers would figure out how much this refusal to do their jobs has cost taxpayers. When contractors are unsure of budgets, work is put on hold.
Common sense tells me the money Reid and Co. have squandered by refusing to do their job is substantial.
There is absolutely nothing to this “binders full of women” thing. It’s an awkward phrase and image, and gave the left something, anything, to grasp – they are better at phrases than ideas, apparently.
The (modern, actually un-liberal) left lives on the hysterical edge, they breath sanctimony, and gibber uncontrollably at anything that doesn’t fit their assumptions. That’s all this is.
… or maybe “binders full of women” is a reminder of Mormon polygamy? If so, well, only shows that Romney ought to love women all the more, hey?
the female population in our colleges and graduate schools (notably law and medicine) has already outstripped or will soon outstrip the male in almost every area save engineering and science, and they are gaining in those. They are also invading the boardrooms and the political arena as never before.
That’s great. So, can we stop discriminating in favor of women yet? If not now, when?
“One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.”
I, for one, would love to have my resume in the binder of a man who obviously respects women looking to hire a woman. And, at this point in the Obama administration, I think a LOT of women (and men) would love a chance to find a job.
“… constant appeals are made to the lowest common female dominator…”
That’s a very interesting typo. In fact it comes close to the truth when you contemplate exactly who the Democrats are appealing to. But if we really sketched out that denominator it might seem obese and racist.
At Seneca Falls, the first femininist convention- it was before 1900- the theoreticians received a group of plural Morman wives. They didn’t know what to make of these women. They told them they were oppressed for being in plural marriages. These women had the vote, the owned companies, they ran towns, they were internationally travelled medical doctors. They were also mothers. One of them ran against her husband, and won.
Mind you, this convention is in New York state, which housed several Oneida communities- the whole community was in a group marriage- all the women slept with all the men, according to the whims of the cult leader. They didn’t get to choose who they slept with. They tried to practice informal birth control. So no babies while they were swinging for their cult-leader.
The Mormon wives had enormous numbers of children. They had sister-wives. They set up factories and companies together. They were one complete town council, before any Eastern seaboard woman ever even had the right to vote.
There’s power, and there’s “empowered.” Which would you rather have? Mitt Romney, by virtue of being a Mormon, knows competent, powerful women.
“It’s beyond anything the women’s movement ever conceived and is happening naturally.”
I’d give ‘women’s’ movement some credit for this progress. But looking back at how women were treated in the 60s and how much progress has been made in many ways still helps your argument. They had really big problems to fight in the past. Having that perspective makes their current fights seem even more silly.
So the Democrats are the Party of “Loose Leaf” Women?
You’d think they’d support Romney’s binder system… it’s organized labor.
Haha! Well put!
good one
Binders on women vs. Blinders on women.
The binders on women non-issue, is yet another (and another, and another, and another) distortion trick by the leftists and their propaganda machine media.
A women’s group came to BOTH CANDIDATES in the Mass. race and said that they were promoting more involvement of women in government in the state. They felt women were statistically under represented.
So Mitt Romney said…assemble your best and brightest and bring me their info so I can take steps to implement a system and process to address this issue. They not only gave him a few names…they gave him binders and binders of qualified women. He then went about the business of doing precisely what he said he would do. Anything else you hear is BS.
As for leftists treating women (blacks, hispanics, gays, young, old) as “victims” of a whole cloth invented “oppression”…the tactics remain nearly identical. Leftism is a protest society.
It is the polar opposite approach to the Dalai Lama. Leftists believe mankind is violent, oppressive, and inherently evil. The Dalai Lama believes that mankind is inherently kind and generous. He fights off leftist tyranny with serenity.
The leftists are like an abusive spouse. They rule via passive aggression to hyper-aggression. They are angry, rabidly self-absorbed, they blame anyone and everyone for their shortcomings and failures, and they put you down in front of everyone in order to exercise dominion and control. Then…they criticize you for having a mind of your own. They are seeped in betrayal and soaked in venom.
But let a “women’s issue” happen to a non-leftist woman. You will quickly see that it is NOT the “women’s issue” that predominates. They will quickly abandon all semblance of championing the “issue”, if it crops up in the life of a non-leftist. Same with religion. Same with a conservative Black or Hispanic.
They abandon the “principles behind the issue” and revert to passive aggressive or hyperaggressive behavior. Tyranny by mental abuse is taking being an as…ole to an art form. Principles of convenience are the hallmark. Lying and distortion are fundamental elements. Betrayal is maher’s milk.
“Betrayal is maher’s milk”
I see what you did there!
The Donkey Lamo
“He fights off leftist tyranny with serenity”
And he will serenely live in Exile of his Homeland, an international celebrity,
while His People live with a Commie Boot on their Throat.
Maybe we should have sang serenely at the Concord Bridge, it was such a beautiful day in April.
Such a pity we spoiled it with strife?
Yeah, The Lama Pisses me off…sorry to snipe at CF.
So I must ackowledge the ABSOLUTE brilliance of this:
“The leftists are like an abusive spouse. They rule via passive aggression to hyper-aggression. They are angry, rabidly self-absorbed, they blame anyone and everyone for their shortcomings and failures, and they put you down in front of everyone in order to exercise dominion and control. Then…they criticize you for having a mind of your own. They are seeped in betrayal and soaked in venom”
CF has X-Freaking-Ray-Vision into who they are.
That there is an MRI of the twisted soft tissue between their ears.
Awesome!
the role of wimmin in the Demokrats’ ideology is the same as the role of blacks, Mexicans, the yuts, the masses, union members, gubamint workers, homosexuals, criminals, child molestors, and lawyers…
voting units
The only campaign Obama has is “distraction”. His Executive accomplishments are non-existant or a disaster. This is a “Look! – Squirrel! moment. Sadly this works for Obama voters, and happily it doesn’t work for rational voters. The so called independents will not fall for it either.
Don’t worry.
Utah was the second state in the Union to have womens suffrage. It’s written into the state’s constitution- no rights shall be abridged for reason of sex.
If they’ve got power, do they need femininist “empowerment”?
And this has been going on for some years. Soon enough, as more women matriculate, they will dominate many fields of endeavor in our country and salary inequalities that remain will vanish or be rationalized through maternity or childcare leave. It’s beyond anything the women’s movement ever conceived and is happening naturally.
It’s happening because of widespread government mandated discrimination in favor of women.
I wrote last March that the Democrat party views women merely as sex objects, though for statist rather than fleshly purposes.
It seems to me that a woman “voting with her lady parts” is pretty much the same as a man “thinking with the little head.”
Isn’t that generally thought to be a bad thing?
Yep, and about as insulting as it gets.
They really do think women vote with the parts between our legs instead of the parts between our ears.
As for binders, when Obama needed a woman to blame for Libya, maybe he didn’t need to look through binders. He knew Mrs. Clinton would do as told.
A serious question; what portion of those female graduates are in “hard” degrees, and what portion in ma up degrees where,they are not useful for anything, where either a hard degree or,even a vocational degree would,be much more,useful.
I almost fell out laughing when Obama declared that R’s want the govt to control women’s health- Hell Obamacare wants the govt in charge of all things about everyone’s health??
none of them see the irony in this either- truly astounding-
I agree. That’s about the time my migraine kicked in from the thick fog of cognitive dissonance Barry was spewing.
Coming from a family full of strong and intelligent women, I have never doubted for a second that women are capable of doing whatever they want to do. Sometimes it is running a department of state, sometimes it is raising children. It is the Democratic party line that says women are so weak that they can’t do anything without the coercive power of the state behind them. The women in my family find the Democratic approach to be demeaning to them.
We need to start laughing, long and loud so to speak, at the inconsequential issues that consume the Obamacrats.
Four Americans killed on American soil in Libya? A month-plus of lies from the WH? Economy in the tank? Gas prices escalating? Need a loan to buy groceries? Non-issues to the BObots.
Resumes of qualified female candidates organized in a binder? An all-consuming issue to the same BObots.
The talking points about how Romney insulted women were probably prepared before the debate. Anything Romney might have said would have been latched on to as “proof” that he is a sexist.
Yes some the dems women would be offended.They are not used to betreated with respect.I understand the insult,they prefer to be treated a la Kennedy (Teddy in particular) Bill Clinton,John Edwards etc etc.The “apply on site” method.
Of course this “binder” issue is all the White House has these days.
With no record on which to run, Obama and his MSM coterie of sychophants
want to talk about ‘binders’. Any citizen, especialy women are offended.
It is an insult to their intelligence.
God help this once great nation if Barack Hussein Obama is re-elected.
As a woman – Romney’s most significant line from the last debate was his comments about being pro small business. I know many women, mostly moms, who are struggling to grow small businesses to supplement family income.
Women need a strong pro-small-business president.
The reason why this latest pathetic attempt at creating some controversy will fail is because it does not involve abortion. I don’t know why liberals love killing babies so much but if there’s one thing that rallies them out to vote it’s protecting the “right” to kill babies. Obama’s so good at that he even wants to make sure abortion survivors get no treatment. That’s some lean mean baby killing machine.
The main difference between a liberal woman and a conservative woman is this -
One has a job while the other has a man with a good paying job.
One is independent while the other constantly depend on her man.
One is strong-minded while the other takes order from her man.
One has her own voice while the other let’s her man do her talking for her.
One will compete with every man while the other will submit to every man.
One is the breadwinner while the other is comfortable with her man being the breadwinner.
One has seen the world over while the other never leaves her man’s sight.
One believes that every woman is as good as any man while the other believes that every woman is only as good as the man she stands behind.
One believes in women’s rights while the other believes her man is always right.
One sees the world with a full view while the other sees the world from her man’s view.
One has her own convictions while the other only takes her man’s convictions.
I hope this pretty much sums it up!!!!!
@Roger
My fellow JewBoy. The stars are aligning for our Mormon redeemer. Yes I did see “Enemies a Love Story”. My step mother (Democrat) didn’t like Alan King because he would show up in court all the time to get his kids off the hook. This was in Great Neck NY and she was steno there. But I thought Alan King did great in your movie
There are only 14 million Jews in this world and the same number of Mormons. I am looking to be delivered January 20th 2013 when Mitt Romney gets inaugurated and the Obamas get evicted, sent packing to sunny, lazy Hawaii where there are numerous golf courses for him to cheat and lie on
Italics, begone! (I hope?)
Sadly, no. Okay, who broke the blog? (Wasn’t me — it was like this when I got here…)
What matters is not what is in the binder but the decision of Romney to include more women in his administration with identical salary for identical jobs. The rest is BS.
Assuming that the first statement is the truth.
The folks still getting any of their news from traditional outlets are doing themselves a disservice. The list of media misdeeds on behalf of this president can fill volumes, the list of impeachable offenses is ridiculous.
Thank you for this thoughtful piece and I couldn’t agree with you more in that the Democratic party, and Obama in particular, are appealing to the lowest common denominator among women: our reproductive systems.
Never mind that there is pretty much no way Romney will even attempt to overturn Roe V. Wade(Bush is just as pro-life and never went there), let alone do it successfully. Never mind that Planned Parenthood is but one of many outlets available to women for free or sliding scale priced birth control (ie. county health clinics all over the country).
Even when asked point blank in the debate about equal pay for women, Obama turned the answer into a diatribe on birth control. He has nothing to say about equal pay because he doesn’t provide it to his own staff. Yet he takes Governor Romney’s outreach to women and turns it into a joke. I don’t find it funny at all that two of the governor’s top positions went to women, and neither do they. And, I might add, these two women didn’t come from the “binders” of resumes he received. He actively sought them out.
I am tired. . .bone tired. . .of being demoted to nothing more than a breeder by this president. I am horrified that young actresses are promoting this idea, as if it’s all we “little women” can hold in our “little brains.” They are systematically setting women’s rights back three decades. All that my sisters and I fought for. . .all that we dreamed. . .only to find ourselves now, again, reduced to pink vagina costumes and the utter denial that we have brains big enough to care about the things men care about.
I am NOT a uterus. I am NOT consumed with reproducing or not reproducing. I want equal pay. I want job security. I want a better future for my children, which will only happen if this country turns around.
Mitt Romney appeals to my intellect, not my “lady parts.”
It is very clear to me now that the “binders of women” remark is being touted not by women but by binder manufacturers. I love binders myself, so I am with them all the way. If the binders are full of women, so much the better. I hope the binder industry makes a come back due to the aid of feminists, who otherwise apparently have little to do and who, I am willing to bet, use binders by the box full to file all their complaints.