A couple of things that you may not have known...

[OCinBuffalo]

Stay on point. You're rambling and incoherent.

 

I am not playing against Romney, so I'm not losing anything. Keep on trying to pin the tail on the strawman, you're awesome at it.

Speaking of big words....I guess you need to look up segue?

 

The moral high ground, and you, became incompatible the day you supported Clinton, but, want to keep telling us you "care about women". That made most Democrats into phonies. Either you never cared about "women's issues"(in the parlance of that time yes! lebowski reference), or, you decided to ignore them for convenience. You don't get to talk about other people's shifting values, until your aren't shifting.

 

There was a time when Democrats had an advantage with sound, moral arguments to make, on many issues. Those days are over. It's like everything else with you guys: living in the past. The Republicans are now making sound, moral arguments, like the debt being immoral.

[dayman]

I applaud Romney for what he did, make no mistake about that. I'm not attempting to bash him for hiring qualified women, nor am I trying to bash him for going against a core conservative value. What I am trying to poke is the notion that it's okay for him to do this to the dyed in the wool conservatives on the board simply because he's running on the GOP ticket.

 

Well, that and the fact that Romney has reinvented history a tiny bit with this story. I wish he would be a bit braver about it, but I understand how the game is played.

 

Nixon was allowed to go to China. It's the way of the world.

[Taro T]

...

 

 

The difference is that Romeny did not seek them out. A lobbying group (several) came to him and pointed out that his staff was lacking in women. To appease them, and so he'd be able to make this exact point during his White House bid, he took their advice to heart.

 

That's pandering. That's affirmative action. That's playing politics with his staff -- everything the right bashes the left for (and visa versa). Stop spinning and recognize that politics is politics. Both sides play it. Some do it better than others. But Mitt is as crafty as they come in the political game.

 

 

...

But, if that's as far as you're going with affirmative action, I don't have issues with it. It makes a lot of sense to go out and find the best available candidates and then choose the top ones from that pool. Not going back and reading all the details of how many women were interviewed, what %age of the revised applicant pool was now women, and what %age of the hirees were women; this looks, on the surface, an awful lot like women were provided equality of OPPORTUNITY but not equality of OUTCOMES. If one provides equality of opportunity then they'll end up a lot closer with the outcome that they should end up with - the top people getting the jobs.

 

If there were, in fact, no women applicants then there was something wrong with the process. Regardless of who called attention to it, when it was brought to his attention, the Governor did something about it.

 

I won't speak for any other conservatives, but I don't take issue with providing equal opportunity; I do take issue with providing equal outcomes.

[CosmicBills]

Speaking of big words....I guess you need to look up segue?

 

The moral high ground, and you, became incompatible the day you supported Clinton, but, want to keep telling us you "care about women". That made most Democrats into phonies. Either you never cared about "women's issues"(in the parlance of that time yes! lebowski reference), or, you decided to ignore them for convenience. You don't get to talk about other people's shifting values, until your aren't shifting.

 

There was a time when Democrats had an advantage with sound, moral arguments to make, on many issues. Those days are over. It's like everything else with you guys: living in the past. The Republicans are now making sound, moral arguments, like the debt being immoral.

I never voted for Clinton.

[Doc]

I'd say it's indicative that he (your associate) knew what was going on internally. But bringing-up the bailout was a major mistake. First of all, I don't know how many people for whom the bailout is a big deal would have tuned-into a debate that was supposed to be about foreign policy. Second of all, bringing it up gave Romney a chance to explain Barry's distortions about what Romney actually said. An attack ad doesn't allow for a rebuttal like "And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not" and "[t]hat's the height of silliness."

Romney’s ‘Let Detroit Go Bankrupt’ op-ed jumps to top of NYT’s ‘Most Viewed’ list

 

Like I said, not a smart move on Barry's part.

[OCinBuffalo]

I never voted for Clinton.

Why I said "most".

 

And, I said it, because just like apparently there were 600k Bills fans at the Bills/Oilers comeback game...there are millions of Democrats who didn't vote for Clinton, or support him during his idiocy. Yes, and MoveOn.org wasn't created based on supporting Clinton during that either.

 

How hysterical is it when they talk about "the war on women" on that site?

Edited October 24, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Juror#8]

Speaking of big words....I guess you need to look up segue?

 

The moral high ground, and you, became incompatible the day you supported Clinton, but, want to keep telling us you "care about women". That made most Democrats into phonies. Either you never cared about "women's issues"(in the parlance of that time yes! lebowski reference), or, you decided to ignore them for convenience. You don't get to talk about other people's shifting values, until your aren't shifting.

 

There was a time when Democrats had an advantage with sound, moral arguments to make, on many issues. Those days are over. It's like everything else with you guys: living in the past. The Republicans are now making sound, moral arguments, like the debt being immoral.

 

I'll play along. I voted for Clinton in 96. First year I was eligible to vote.

 

So because some woman was 'speaking directly into the microphone' in the oval office, anyone who may have voted for the recipient cannot be sincere about their commitment to women's issues? Because someone was bobbing for apples in the Lincoln suite, anyone who voted for the recipient cannot be sincere about their commitment to women's issues?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Lewinsky mess circa early 1998, a year plus after the erection. It I recall correctly, Lewinsky came forcefully in March of that year. "I can't believe this rumor about Clinton," I ejaculated at the time. But that was almost 2 years after the the vote was cast.

 

And wasn't the Paula Jones matter dismissed in court but eventually settled prior to appeal in like 2000? What would that have to do with anyone who voted for Clinton in 1996? Do you think that folks should be beholden to rumor and accusation?

 

Gennifer Flowers? Didn't he admit in his autobiography in 2004 that he had a sexual relationship with her? What would that have to do with voters in 1996. Or do you feel that folks should be beholden to rumor and accusation?

 

Can those who voted for John McCain "care about women" because he had an affair and his ALLEGED exploits of slangin' rooster after his wife was involved in a disfiguring accident are legendary?

 

What about Newt Gingrich? Arnold Schwarzzenegger? John Edwards? Elliot Spitzer?

 

What about women who voted for Clinton, McCain, or Schwarzzenegger? Are they self-loathing? Do they care about themselves?

Edited October 24, 2012 by Juror#8

[CosmicBills]

Why I said "most".

 

And, I said it, because just like apparently there were 600k Bills fans at the Bills/Oilers comeback game...there are millions of Democrats who didn't vote for Clinton, or support him during his idiocy. Yes, and MoveOn.org wasn't created based on supporting Clinton during that either.

 

How hysterical is it when they talk about "the war on women" on that site?

You never once said "most". Not once. Care to keep digging?

 

"Speaking of big words....I guess you need to look up segue?

 

The moral high ground, and you, became incompatible the day you supported Clinton, but, want to keep telling us you "care about women". That made most Democrats into phonies. Either you never cared about "women's issues"(in the parlance of that time yes! lebowski reference), or, you decided to ignore them for convenience. You don't get to talk about other people's shifting values, until your aren't shifting.

 

There was a time when Democrats had an advantage with sound, moral arguments to make, on many issues. Those days are over. It's like everything else with you guys: living in the past. The Republicans are now making sound, moral arguments, like the debt being immoral."

[OCinBuffalo]

You never once said "most". Not once. Care to keep digging?

 

"Speaking of big words....I guess you need to look up segue?

 

The moral high ground, and you, became incompatible the day you supported Clinton, but, want to keep telling us you "care about women". That made most Democrats into phonies. Either you never cared about "women's issues"(in the parlance of that time yes! lebowski reference), or, you decided to ignore them for convenience. You don't get to talk about other people's shifting values, until your aren't shifting.

 

There was a time when Democrats had an advantage with sound, moral arguments to make, on many issues. Those days are over. It's like everything else with you guys: living in the past. The Republicans are now making sound, moral arguments, like the debt being immoral."

 

Unmitigated moron. I was specifically using it to modify "Democrats", and even explained why in the post above.

 

Care to learn how to read? Look...don't try to be acute with me, that's not a game you are going to win.

 

Much better for you to stick to your light humor, don't really know WTF you are talking about thing....

Edited October 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

I'll play along. I voted for Clinton in 96. First year I was eligible to vote.

 

So because some woman was 'speaking directly into the microphone' in the oval office, anyone who may have voted for the recipient cannot be sincere about their commitment to women's issues? Because someone was bobbing for apples in the Lincoln suite, anyone who voted for the recipient cannot be sincere about their commitment to women's issues?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Lewinsky mess circa early 1998, a year plus after the erection. It I recall correctly, Lewinsky came forcefully in March of that year. "I can't believe this rumor about Clinton," I ejaculated at the time. But that was almost 2 years after the the vote was cast.

 

And wasn't the Paula Jones matter dismissed in court but eventually settled prior to appeal in like 2000? What would that have to do with anyone who voted for Clinton in 1996? Do you think that folks should be beholden to rumor and accusation?

 

Gennifer Flowers? Didn't he admit in his autobiography in 2004 that he had a sexual relationship with her? What would that have to do with voters in 1996. Or do you feel that folks should be beholden to rumor and accusation?

 

Can those who voted for John McCain "care about women" because he had an affair and his ALLEGED exploits of slangin' rooster after his wife was involved in a disfiguring accident are legendary?

 

What about Newt Gingrich? Arnold Schwarzzenegger? John Edwards? Elliot Spitzer?

 

What about women who voted for Clinton, McCain, or Schwarzzenegger? Are they self-loathing? Do they care about themselves?

I don't even have to read this to know it's going to be:

"you can care about women's issues, and still support Clinton, because Clinton got results, for millions of women, and the Lewinsky thing was minor by comparison" and whatevertheF.

so I won't read it until after I'm done.(we'll see how close I was at the bottom) I think I can pretty much do your posts blind at this point.

 

The problem is: unwillingness to stand by your values when it gets tough to do so. Values are not principles. We all have the same principles(10 commandments, etc). Where we differ is values. As soon as NOW, etc. decided that Clinton = it doesn't matter, after preaching over and over about workplace sexual harassment, the plight of women who work for powerful men, etc: 2 things happened.

 

1. Since their values were a matter of convenience, the rest of us listening to them also became a matter of convenience. NOW, Emily's List, all of it has nowhere near the power they had prior to the Clinton fiasco. Proof in the pudding: look at how they've been unable to stop Romney gains with women this fall. Look how poorly the "war on women" went. Proof in the pudding #2: how come they couldn't get Hillary elected?

 

2. Not only were values broken...but, even worse, principles were as well. That is why this is so bad. "Thou shalt not bear false witness"...yeah, yet night after night, on show after show, that's precisely what Democrats did.

 

Like I said, it wasn't ALL. It was MOST.

 

Ever since that fiasco, the Democratic party has been unable to claim morality over anyone else, when that used to be easy for them. Value breakers like Global Warming scandal after scandal have made it worse. So has one story after the next about Obama pay-offs to unions(see: GM)...and there's a new one now, crony capitalism and all the rest.

 

The first thing Democrats need to do after this election is STFU, go spend 2 months doing some introspection. All of these events are related. They all form a pattern. Clinton was so...good, and they just didn't want to let it get away.

 

But, they compromised values and then principles, to keep him, and no one is worth that. Once they were willing to act without principle, it's been far too easy to keep repeating that mistake ever since.

 

They got on McCain, for a divorce, but not Clinton for sex in the office with a junior employee?

 

(Accuracy Check: I missed the angle of attack, but still captured the meaning. My response is still on target regardless)

Edited October 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[RkFast]

Love getting lectured about how much I "hate women" by the same people who called Sarah Palin a "c-nt", a "waitress" and put her on covers of magazines in uncompromising positions. Then did the same to Bachmann and most recently, called Mia Love a House !@#$.

[erynthered]

Love getting lectured about how much I "hate women" by the same people who called Sarah Palin a "c-nt", a "waitress" and put her on covers of magazines in uncompromising positions. Then did the same to Bachmann and most recently, called Mia Love a House !@#$.

+ 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00

[Juror#8]

I don't even have to read this to know it's going to be:

"you can care about women's issues, and still support Clinton, because Clinton got results, for millions of women, and the Lewinsky thing was minor by comparison" and whatevertheF.

so I won't read it until after I'm done.(we'll see how close I was at the bottom) I think I can pretty much do your posts blind at this point.

 

The problem is: unwillingness to stand by your values when it gets tough to do so. Values are not principles. We all have the same principles(10 commandments, etc). Where we differ is values. As soon as NOW, etc. decided that Clinton = it doesn't matter, after preaching over and over about workplace sexual harassment, the plight of women who work for powerful men, etc: 2 things happened.

 

1. Since their values were a matter of convenience, the rest of us listening to them also became a matter of convenience. NOW, Emily's List, all of it has nowhere near the power they had prior to the Clinton fiasco. Proof in the pudding: look at how they've been unable to stop Romney gains with women this fall. Look how poorly the "war on women" went. Proof in the pudding #2: how come they couldn't get Hillary elected?

 

2. Not only were values broken...but, even worse, principles were as well. That is why this is so bad. "Thou shalt not bear false witness"...yeah, yet night after night, on show after show, that's precisely what Democrats did.

 

Like I said, it wasn't ALL. It was MOST.

 

Ever since that fiasco, the Democratic party has been unable to claim morality over anyone else, when that used to be easy for them. Value breakers like Global Warming scandal after scandal have made it worse. So has one story after the next about Obama pay-offs to unions(see: GM)...and there's a new one now, crony capitalism and all the rest.

 

The first thing Democrats need to do after this election is STFU, go spend 2 months doing some introspection. All of these events are related. They all form a pattern. Clinton was so...good, and they just didn't want to let it get away.

 

But, they compromised values and then principles, to keep him, and no one is worth that. Once they were willing to act without principle, it's been far too easy to keep repeating that mistake ever since.

 

They got on McCain, for a divorce, but not Clinton for sex in the office with a junior employee?

 

(Accuracy Check: I missed the angle of attack, but still captured the meaning. My response is still on target regardless)

 

I'm not attcking you. And I'm not sure you understood my question entirely. I just want to know how you can say that an individual may not be committed to women's issues because they voted for an individual - when the substantive details and true extent of any indictment against the individual for whom they voted was not known until after the election.

 

Is that any different than saying that if you voluntarily took a Commutative Mathematics class specifically to be taught by Ted Kaczinski (spelling?) in the late 60s, that you have no cause to advocate for Human Rights now?

[B-Man]

Love getting lectured about how much I "hate women" by the same people who called Sarah Palin a "c-nt", a "waitress" and put her on covers of magazines in uncompromising positions. Then did the same to Bachmann and most recently, called Mia Love a House !@#$.

 

So, just to recap: Women are supposed to vote with their “lady parts.” But when CNN runs a piece citing a study that hypothesizes that they could actually do just that, it’s so offensive that it needs to be removed. Jezebel, which has jumped on the “war on women” story with almost unmatched abandon, was particularly offended.

 

Meanwhile, affirmative action is a Good Thing. But when Romney answers a town hall question explaining that he actively looked for women to fill roles in Massachusetts’s government, he’s patronizing and misogynistic and unmeritocratic and deserves to be mocked by a widespread “binders full of women” meme that doesn’t even make sense.

 

 

I see.

 

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331633/double-standard-women-charles-c-w-cooke

[OCinBuffalo]

Love getting lectured about how much I "hate women" by the same people who called Sarah Palin a "c-nt", a "waitress" and put her on covers of magazines in uncompromising positions. Then did the same to Bachmann and most recently, called Mia Love a House !@#$.

Precisely. Ever since the "rules" changed...with Clinton/Lewinsky and then the Bush/Gore stuff...the Democrats have lost their way. Instead of keeping the far-left visceral people in check, they have been overrun by them, and now they are in charge.

 

Now its a competition for who can be the most banal, and propaganda has taken the place of insight and intellectual excellence. It's striking, for me, to see the "thinking" now coming from Michael Moore, or Barack Obama, and no longer people like Daniel Moynihan.

 

In contrast, look at this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/24/paul_ryan_delivers_speech_on_poverty_in_this_war_on_poverty_poverty_is_winning.html

 

That is perhaps the finest policy speech I've ever seen. Reagan/Clinton have nothing on him at their relative ages/positions.

 

For the fist time in my lifetime, ALL of the REAL intellect is coming from the Republicans.

[CosmicBills]

Unmitigated moron. I was specifically using it to modify "Democrats", and even explained why in the post above.

 

Care to learn how to read? Look...don't try to be acute with me, that's not a game you are going to win.

 

Much better for you to stick to your light humor, don't really know WTF you are talking about thing....

Yup.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm not attcking you. And I'm not sure you understood my question entirely. I just want to know how you can say that an individual may not be committed to women's issues because they voted for an individual - when the substantive details and true extent of any indictment against the individual for whom they voted was not known until after the election.

 

Is that any different than saying that if you voluntarily took a Commutative Mathematics class specifically to be taught by Ted Kaczinski (spelling?) in the late 60s, that you have no cause to advocate for Human Rights now?

Voting '= going on TV and "bearing false witness". Neither is starting a website and making money off saying one thing then saying another. You can vote however you want. Then, you can go home and play tiddly winks for all I care. A vote is a point in time activity.

 

But, if you are taking people's money, specifically for the purpose of advocating for women, and/or running your mouth on message boards and/or running around the bars in Philly/Cleveland/Columbia SC(where I was at the time...literally 50 political consultants/activists in various bars talking smack) telling everyone that men are problematic in the workplace, which are all done over time....

 

....and then, all of a sudden, acting like there's nothing wrong with what Clinton did, and refusing to back up your mouth with action, then don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

Yup.

"No Reply...There's no reply at all."

[CosmicBills]

"No Reply...There's no reply at all."

There was a reply.

[OCinBuffalo]

There was a reply.

This...is also a reply

[B-Man]

I usually don't like to drift off topic, but hey, its your thread,

 

 

Hey O.C.............................."Johnny Bench called"