“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#16867 Dec 29, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what Mitt said. He said that when he was elected governor, he didn't know any women that he thought were qualified to be in his cabinet and women's groups and democrats had to provide him with binders of resumes of women because he couldn't manage to find any qualified women himself. Being a Mormon, no one should be that surprised.
I also know that he said in the debate that he created a female friendly workplace by allowing women to leave work at 5 so they could go home and make dinner.
I'm sure you have some sort of alternate reality created by Rush or Glenn that you ascribe to, though.
The man acted in an open-minded and bipartisan manner and you people still twisted it into an attack. Yet never a mention of the discrimination in Obama's White House salary structure that leaves women at a disadvantage.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#16868 Dec 29, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
I watched every one of the debates in their entirety.
I got all of the "context" that the messenger intended to deliver during the debate he delivered it in.
It was an idiotic statement, and it damaged his credibility, just like his "47%" statement delivered on secret camera.
But go ahead...defend it. It should be fun.
woof
See my response to Che. And then let's hear your take on Obama's White House pay for women.
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

#16869 Dec 29, 2012
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>See my response to Che. And then let's hear your take on Obama's White House pay for women.
I didn't "twist" anything. I said it was an idiotic statement that hurt his credibility.

As for your other assertion, that's all I see.

woof
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#16871 Dec 29, 2012
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>The man acted in an open-minded and bipartisan manner and you people still twisted it into an attack. Yet never a mention of the discrimination in Obama's White House salary structure that leaves women at a disadvantage.
Archie Bunker has become a champion of women's rights? And just a few hours ago he was writing this,
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>Really? They wouldn't let women or those under 21 vote. That was pretty sensible; look what's happened since.
Thomas Scutillo

Brunswick, OH

#16872 Dec 29, 2012
after obamas term he is going to take all the white girls home and put them in the kitchen.... they dont need pay
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#16873 Dec 29, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Archie Bunker has become a champion of women's rights? And just a few hours ago he was writing this,
<quoted text>
Well, I think he has a point. Women are less secure than men in general. They like having problems solved for them instead of running head on into solving problems themselves. DumBama had great strength in single women voters. People who don't want the complications of problem solving will vote for the person that promises to solve their problems: healthcare, gun restrictions, government bankruptcy aid, government child care, school lunches, free cell phones, food stamps and so on.

Men (white men in particular) are more confident with solving their own problems. Romney had a good percentage of married women voters because those women already have the security they desire.

In my opinion, it boils down to this: responsible people generally vote Republican while irresponsible people generally vote Democrat. Secure people generally vote Republican while insecure people generally vote Democrat. If you remove the irresponsible and insecure voters, liberalism would take it's proper place in history books and not in our politics today.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#16874 Dec 29, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I think he has a point. Women are less secure than men in general. They like having problems solved for them instead of running head on into solving problems themselves. DumBama had great strength in single women voters. People who don't want the complications of problem solving will vote for the person that promises to solve their problems: healthcare, gun restrictions, government bankruptcy aid, government child care, school lunches, free cell phones, food stamps and so on.
Men (white men in particular) are more confident with solving their own problems. Romney had a good percentage of married women voters because those women already have the security they desire.
In my opinion, it boils down to this: responsible people generally vote Republican while irresponsible people generally vote Democrat. Secure people generally vote Republican while insecure people generally vote Democrat. If you remove the irresponsible and insecure voters, liberalism would take it's proper place in history books and not in our politics today.
Wow. You and I, thankfully, know much different types of women. That is probably because I respect women and you are a misogynistic ass.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#16875 Dec 29, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You and I, thankfully, know much different types of women. That is probably because I respect women and you are a misogynistic ass.
No, it's because you are a liberal, and as such, refuse to acknowledge truth. Instead, you wear those rose-colored glasses and pretend stereotypes don't exist. I know conservative women and minorities too. What I'm saying though is they are not the majority of their race or gender. Democrats rely on government dependent people. So what they do when in power is try to create more of such people. Lower standards for Obama Phones, lower standards for SS disability, lower standards for food stamps and so on. Now half of the people in our country rely on government assistance in one form or another, and it's making us broke.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#16876 Dec 30, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what Mitt said. He said that when he was elected governor, he didn't know any women that he thought were qualified to be in his cabinet and women's groups and democrats had to provide him with binders of resumes of women because he couldn't manage to find any qualified women himself. Being a Mormon, no one should be that surprised.
I also know that he said in the debate that he created a female friendly workplace by allowing women to leave work at 5 so they could go home and make dinner.
I'm sure you have some sort of alternate reality created by Rush or Glenn that you ascribe to, though.
I see you guys are still arguing ab out stuff that dosent even fing matter.
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#16877 Dec 30, 2012
titonton divaunte pants

United States

#16878 Dec 30, 2012
" Civil rights campaigners voiced dismay on Friday over the US Senate's re-authorization of the government's warrantless surveillance program, and the defeat of two amendments that would have provided for basic oversight of the eavesdropping.

The Senate voted 73-23 to extend the law, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act, for five years. The House of Representatives has already passed the measure, which President Obama has said he will sign."
Much more important tan when you're allowed to make/eat dinner che.
Why is everything obama signs the fault of republicans?
woo-boy

Waverly, OH

#16879 Dec 30, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's because you are a liberal, and as such, refuse to acknowledge truth. Instead, you wear those rose-colored glasses and pretend stereotypes don't exist. I know conservative women and minorities too. What I'm saying though is they are not the majority of their race or gender. Democrats rely on government dependent people. So what they do when in power is try to create more of such people. Lower standards for Obama Phones, lower standards for SS disability, lower standards for food stamps and so on. Now half of the people in our country rely on government assistance in one form or another, and it's making us broke.
There is no such thing as a Obama phone,

www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#16880 Dec 30, 2012
titonton divaunte pants wrote:
" Civil rights campaigners voiced dismay on Friday over the US Senate's re-authorization of the government's warrantless surveillance program, and the defeat of two amendments that would have provided for basic oversight of the eavesdropping.
The Senate voted 73-23 to extend the law, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act, for five years. The House of Representatives has already passed the measure, which President Obama has said he will sign."
Much more important tan when you're allowed to make/eat dinner che.
Why is everything obama signs the fault of republicans?
That's unconstitutional. That's un-American. Now Obama is going to be able to listen to my pizza orders on Friday night or me talking with my mother. LOL.

Isn't it funny how the liberals stop screaming when it's one of their own???
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#16881 Dec 30, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's because you are a liberal, and as such, refuse to acknowledge truth. Instead, you wear those rose-colored glasses and pretend stereotypes don't exist. I know conservative women and minorities too. What I'm saying though is they are not the majority of their race or gender. Democrats rely on government dependent people. So what they do when in power is try to create more of such people. Lower standards for Obama Phones, lower standards for SS disability, lower standards for food stamps and so on. Now half of the people in our country rely on government assistance in one form or another, and it's making us broke.
That is an entirely fales premise and not what I was basing my opinion on the quality of the women you know versus the women I know.

The women I know would fight your redneck ass if you ever said to them, "women are less secure than men and need to have their problems solved for them." That is a ridiculous statement and perfect evidence of why the GOP is bleeding out.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#16882 Dec 30, 2012
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>There is no such thing as a Obama phone,
www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/
He doesn't care about facts. He saw a black woman on a cell phone. In his mind, there is no possible way a black woman could have a phone unless the government (or her pimp) gave it to her.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16883 Dec 30, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That's unconstitutional. That's un-American. Now Obama is going to be able to listen to my pizza orders on Friday night or me talking with my mother. LOL.
Isn't it funny how the liberals stop screaming when it's one of their own???
I said once Bush signed the Patriot Act into law we were heading toward Stalinism and there would be no end to it and it would become the normal.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#16884 Dec 30, 2012
I'm not sure I really understand the logic behind the statement. Were women looking to have someone take care of their problems, it seems rather unusual to have the trends we're seeing today. Fewer women marrying, women graduating higher education at higher rates than men, women having children alone...it would rather seem that women are reducing their traditional dependence on male partners to help them achieve their goals and instead working to directly address their own needs.

The incredible and rapid growth of unmarried women as a demographic and their divergence to vote as a block on issues important to them seems to point to a development of agency, rather than the lack of it.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#16885 Dec 30, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That's unconstitutional. That's un-American. Now Obama is going to be able to listen to my pizza orders on Friday night or me talking with my mother. LOL.
Isn't it funny how the liberals stop screaming when it's one of their own???
You got that backwards. I said it was wrong the first time W. signed FISA. I still think it is. You were applauding W.'s War on Terror when he signed it. You've just decided it was wrong in the last 4 years.

The funny thing is, you don't seem to have any idea what just happened in the Senate. If you did, you would see that the Senate failed to pass restrictions on law enforcement that Obama said he would sign. It would seem if you are upset about this your anger is more well place toward the individual Senators who defeated the proposed amendments. President Obama, once again, had nothing to do with what you are blaming him for.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#16886 Dec 30, 2012
tranpsosition wrote:
I'm not sure I really understand the logic behind the statement. Were women looking to have someone take care of their problems, it seems rather unusual to have the trends we're seeing today. Fewer women marrying, women graduating higher education at higher rates than men, women having children alone...it would rather seem that women are reducing their traditional dependence on male partners to help them achieve their goals and instead working to directly address their own needs.
The incredible and rapid growth of unmarried women as a demographic and their divergence to vote as a block on issues important to them seems to point to a development of agency, rather than the lack of it.
XXX thinks that the increase in single women is because single women are fatter than they used to be and therefore no man will marry them. As a result, he believes all single women are on government assistance.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#16887 Dec 30, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
XXX thinks that the increase in single women is because single women are fatter than they used to be and therefore no man will marry them. As a result, he believes all single women are on government assistance.
I've never heard this take before. A lot of folks are talking about the delay in women marrying as part of the achievement gap. With more women than men getting uni degrees, some people think that traditional views on appropriate achievement levels (that women want men who have a higher level of education and etc than themselves) are keeping women single.

I don't think either make too much sense, personally. Looking at census data, women aren't single as in alone but single as in unmarried. You've got more and more people cohabitating or living in long term partnerships without marrying. It seems less an inability to find a partner than a move to redefine partnerships in a way that fits more cleanly in with emerging goals.

Though, who knows, maybe men have just collectively decided that they deserve better than heavy (or educated) women and have decided to collectively boycott marriage as well!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Censoring Male. 36 min Male 35
End of Life on Earth 45 min Reality Speaks 11
COPS lives MATTER 46 min Male 1
CIA Torture Report Comes Out Tomorrow 56 min Reality Speaks 341
Eric Garner died over cigarette tax enforcement. 1 hr Male 79
BLACK lives MATTER 1 hr Neutral Party 47
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 1 hr Neutral Party 4,824
Merry Christmas! What's your favorite memory? 1 hr Reality Speaks 301
Columbus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:01 am PST

NFL 9:01AM
Browns place safety Tashaun Gipson on injured reserve
ESPN 9:39 AM
Setback-free Newton to start against Browns
NBC Sports10:00 AM
Browns put Tashaun Gipson on IR
NBC Sports11:17 AM
Peyton Manning officially questionable for Monday night
CBS Sports 5:01 AM
Signs of Johnny Manziel's struggles evident in poor practice outings