So, while Obama was talking about the Libyan attack, he just kinda accidentally talked about acts of terror for absolutely no reason at all? That’s the talking point now?
And when Romney gets asked about equal pay for women, he makes a point of saying that it’s really super hard to employ women because they are so needy for flexible schedules?
I keep wavering between things being more hilarious or more pathetic. I CAN’T DECIDE.
This act-of-terror vs. terrorist-attack is the same sort of out-of-context grammar nitpicking that went on with “you didn’t build that”. I think the conservatives need to spend a class or two in reading comprehension.
That’s ridiculous! Only married parents deserve flexible hours, and the wife gets first dibs on them so she can be home to care for the kids and be sure her husband has a good hot meal when he arrives home, as is her duty. Unmarried parents have clearly made unacceptable life choices, and are deserving of nothing but scorn. Why, they’re lucky we even give them jobs at all, let alone expecting perks like comparable wages.
Not exactly that it’s super hard, just that the men in charge will have to let them go home when it’s time to make dinner. If you accept that you’re going to have women in the workplace.
Really?
:rolleyes:
Has the claim that his dad was born in Mexico grown any legs yet? Because that has SNL written all over it.
Which is, of course, why you need to pay them less.
Managed 17 pages before posting Truly undecided. Romey horked me off for stepping all over the moderator, and failing to actually answer the questions before going back to older l questions/points.
But re the Libya “act of terror” is not terrorism. It did take too long for that confirmation. And, as an outsider, it did seem the moderator took a side, applied her interpretation, and inappropriately interjected. Not that the Libya deal meant a hill of beans as to who would be a better pres.
I wasn’t swayed either way, but the NBC commentator who said both were trying to appeal to female voters and ended up circling each other like alpha male lions made a damned good point.
So I guess we should let women go home any time they are in a bind?
Flex time is a huge issue be you a republican, democrat, male, or female. Many of my clients require me to allow it just to have the option of i
obtaining work from said clients.
I think it’s amusing that the process Romney claims he followed in filling government positions with more women–he reviewed the “qualified” applicants, saw that they were all men, and then made a “concerted effort” to go and find more women–is the textbook definition of Affirmative Action, something his party has strongly opposed for decades.
“Binders of women” aside, he actually makes a good case for AA here (if he’s telling the truth, which I doubt).
I don’t think that’s quite right. He implied that they got female applicants who weren’t as qualified, and was surprised they didn’t get more qualified female applicants, so he went out and sought them. (That’s a false narrative of what happened, but that’s par for the Romney course.)
As an endorsement of affirmative action though, it’s pretty mild, since he wasn’t suggesting that a less-qualified woman should be hired.
He isn’t. Central to that story - which was a diversion from the question in any event - was the idea that Romney made an effort to identify female candidates. In fact the “binders” were prepared by an advocacy group before Romney was elected and were not made at his request or by his people. He did have a decent record at appointing women as governor of Massachusetts.
He has so many different stories that just by chance he has to be telling the truth sometimes.
But never as Bain partners.
Doubt is prudent. It turns out that he was presented with a proposed list of women from an outside group that had it ready to go whether he or the other candidate had won the election. Trying to take credit for “reaching out” is both dishonest and pathetic. I swear, it’s like these people think we all have the memory and attention spans of ferrets on sugar-frosted crack and lack the technology to record events for future review.
This thread is much too long for me to go back and identify all the relevant examples, but I am reminding everybody about the rules on personal insults in this forum. You can attack the arguments as you please, but criticizing the intelligence, reading comprehension, and other personal characteristics of other posters is not appropriate.
They like to boast that their church has the same structure as the one established by Jesus in the 1st century. Thus they have all of the same positions listed in Ephesians 4:11 - apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Problem is, they don’t actually have any clergy with the official title of “evangelist” or “pastor”, so they claim that a couple of their lay titles are equivalent to the ones listed in KJV: “evangelist” = “stake patriarch” is the one that I remember. I don’t remember what they claim is the equivalent of “pastor”. I’m guessing bishop, but it could be stake president. Romney has been both.
Which makes you wonder why he had to lie about it. They had to anticipate a question on this topic and he could have said, “I stand by my record as Governor, where I had x% female appointments. And I will do the same as President.” Or something to that effect. What I suspect happened is that his advisers, or maybe Romney the Candidate, figured people like anecdotes better that emotionless facts so he decided to go with this story, even though it wasn’t true.
How can you be undecided? Aren’t at least one of these issues a determining factor?
That’s basically what it comes down to.