Just to be sure, keep a 3% safety margin between you and that threshold.
Exactly. The need to have someone (regardless of whom) provide him with “binders full of women” because he hardly knew of any qualified women himself, would have been understandable in 1974, but in two-thousand-fucking-two? Good Lord almighty.
And yeah, it isn’t so much outrage as just shaking one’s head, going “I just can’t believe this.” What alternate reality has this guy been living in?
I think it’s even deeper than that. They’re trying to paint a picture of America as worse off than it actually is - of millions of people in such desperate, desperate straits that they don’t have the time, energy, or inclination to think about such things. They’re starving, after all!
Like this unsourced graphic I have seen going around Facebook. It provides no sources, the prices are not even close to being true (just go to the BLS website and check it out) and it is insulting in the sense that it perceives women as only caring about how to feed the family.
Also true. But then again it was a presidential debate and there were more than a few non-responsive answers. Neither of them answered the very first question of the debate, which was from a college student who wanted to know if he’ll be able to get a job when he graduates. Apparently the only professional options for a Long Island college kid are jobs in manufacturing or coal mining.
We call it America.
Well, you should give it a new name, because that one is already in use.
Anyway, I’m with those who have said that I’m not really outraged so much as amused. It’s a funny turn of phrase and lends itself well to ridiculous photoshopped images. That said, if people didn’t already feel that Romney pretty much sucked on women’s issues, and if the statement hadn’t come in the middle of a lot of condescending tripe about women, it probably wouldn’t have taken off as much as it has.
Is anyone in his little black book still hot to trot? The youngest has to be pushing 70 by now.
Maybe I should take that as a slam against men. You trust a guy with child care and housework and half the time he’ll come back with beer and tacos.
As an American, I call that slander!
Yeah, I’m a man who does about 95% of the grocery shopping for the household and I’m insulted that the graphic implies women are supposed to care about such things and where in the hell are these people shopping that milk is $4.59 a gallon and “beef” is $7.98 a pound? What the hell does “beef” on its own mean, anyway? And a buck thirty a pound for potatoes? What kind of potatoes? At my local grocery, you can get a 10lb bag of Idahos for $2-$3, and I live in Chicago, not the cheapest (but not exactly unaffordable, either) city in the US.
Ooh, that graphic with the list of prices is great. Every family has at least one member who goes grocery shopping, and anyone who’s been inside of a grocery store for any reason in the past year can tell at a glance that those numbers are absurd lies. If they’re going to lie that blatantly, they’re going to get crushed.
Bullshit
Your pithy and succinct reply has totally exposed everyone here as pathetic and empty human beings. And I mean this most sincerely. I am not currently smirking. Not at all.
No, he’s right. People are outraged that Romney used the word “binders,” there is nothing amusing or odd about the phrase “binders full of women” and the image that conjures up, and there is no possible way to critique the accuracy of Romney’s representation of events in Massachusetts, his views on women in the workplace, or his answer to the question about equal pay.
The phrase was offensive. What the fuck Williard you don’t associate with qualified women? You have them neatly filed away for use when you deem it necessary? It reminded me of the scene in Mad Men when a bunch of Negroes came to apply for a job because Cooper Sterling Draper and Pryce put an add in the paper that they were equal opportunity when they found out the competition dropped water bombs on civil right’s protestors.
Unprepared they pretended to take their resumes, then they had to hire the “token” so the charade looked legit.
Yeah, that definitely doesn’t have much to do with what Romney said. It did suggest he didn’t know qualified women on his own, but there was nothing about filing anyone away.
Come on, the idea of Binders is all about filing. You have resumes in a file, don’t call us, we’ll call you…especially when Romney was approached with the idea, he never initated it.
I think “don’t call us, we’ll call you” is how it works with cabinet-level positions. You don’t walk into the governor’s mansion and say you saw the ad about the secretary of labor job and would like to interview.
The value of this Romneyism reminds me of what I heard a writer say when interviewed, that they are always taught in creative writing to not tell readers something about a character but to show it to them. Telling people about Romney’s piss poor stance on “women’s issues” (I quote because I am male but I care about these issues too, and obviously not all women are of the same cloth on the subjects) is not anywhere near as effective as this one statement in this one context is in showing it with a very mockable and humorous visual image.
Please proceed, Governor.
Perhaps this helpful venn diagram will explain the situation for sleestak and his comrades:
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4144/12681101512719553811831.jpg