Statistics show that 18% of American men are subject to phallocranialism. Strangely, 38% of married women report being married to one. Scientists are baffled.
I think there is a separate birther nonsense thread around here somewhere, but:
And everyone’s favorite Attorney General Kris Kobach has taken time off from his busy schedule of immigrant bashing to help determine (yet again) that Obama was born in the US.
What an asshole. In the middle of charging that Obama lies, he cites a study that is contrary to his own assertion and then acknowledges that he hasn’t read it.
Then he defines middle income as between $200,000 to $250,000 per year? That’s not even close. That’s not even in the realm of reality. Median income is approximately $50,020.
This guy is a major league douchebag who can’t even give the impression of being able to relate to the average person.
“Literature being handed out at the Values Voter Summit on Friday attacks women for being “immodest” and extolled them to “go home and put some clothes on!””
- From the “Modesty: It’s nothing to be ashamed of” pamphlet:“Since men are particularly visual, immodesty in church can trigger lustful thoughts.”
“My men’s bible study group talks frequently about controlling our lust, thoughts, and eyes. Yes the problem and responsibility are ours, but is it really reasonable for the women of the church to make it THIS difficult for us?”
- From the “True Woman Manifesto”: “All women, whether married of single, are to model femininity in their various relationships, by exhibiting a distinctive modesty, responsiveness, and gentleness of spirit.”"
So, are Republicans trying to lose the male vote along with the female vote?
Hentor, i agree with your politics in general, and i also agree that Romney is an out-of-touch douchebag. But we liberals and leftists shouldn’t sink to Republican and conservative levels of dishonesty in order to make our point.
In your last post, you quoted the article linked by jsc1953, and in your quoted material you included the following:
This is, i believe, a dishonest representation of what the article says, which is:
Those last two words, in my opinion, change quite substantially the thrust of Romney’s point. I still agree that it’s unreflective of reality to include people making a quarter of a million dollars in the definition of “middle income,” but we wasn’t saying that the $200-250K group was in the middle by themselves; he was including people below them as well.
Hardly the point. I have the same criticisms of Romney as most people in this thread, but i think that what he says is bad enough without distorting it to make it appear even worse. We’re better than they are. That’s one of the reasons for this thread, and we should try to maintain the standard.
I agree with you, mhendo, up to a point. Hentor did not completely quote Romney’s definition of “middle income”, and it was unfair to the candidate to do so. But Romney’s definition was, itself, incomplete. So middle income starts at $200,000 (to use his own lower figure, in the spirit of fairness) and lower. How much lower, Mr. Romney? Give us a lower bound, in you please; without it, the statement doesn’t mean much.
If we’re going to hold message board posters to a standard in how they quote people, let’s hold presidential candidates to a standard for their rhetoric.
While awaiting mhendo’s apology for his attack on my character, I thought it would be informative to consider the revised statement of Romney’s estimate of middle income starts at approximately the top 4% of US household incomes:
I should add that i agree with this completely, as i suggested in my earlier post.
The term “middle income” becomes either completely meaningless or, in Romney’s case, nothing more than a dishonest rhetorical device, if it is defined to encompass people in the richest twentieth or twenty-fifth of the population.