92 Percent of the people that lost their jobs since 09 were women

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Team Romney Charges Obama Is Bad for Working Women - The Ballot 2012 (usnews.com)

Personally, I'm annoyed how Obama has pandered to his phony women narrative; pretending that the GOP is against them. But since he is pulling those dirty tricks, I'm glad that Romney fired back.

Oh Oh Oh that means that democrats and Obama hate women....at least according to democrat and obama standards for republicans to hate women

 

[drsmith1072]

Oh and gatsby, you also "missed" this post that calls you out for your spin.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5115557-post80.html

Those numbers are laughably absurd, and wrong.

This the Karl Rove strategy at work again...

...try to accuse your opponent of something your own side is getting hammered on, no matter how absurd the accusation is.

They all happened on Obama's watch. The left's weak argument is that you can't start from day 1 of Obama's presidency. When can you start? No matter how you slice it, women have been the ones losing way more jobs during Obama's presidency. That's highly ironic for a guy that has tried to demonize the GOP as woman haters while painting himself as a women's rights crusader as he panders for votes. I hope women see this and they realize now that he's been playing games all along. He's the hit it then quit it president. That's all there is to it.

You do realize that the romney campaign's argument is that obama's policies have been the reason for the numbers don't you?? So how could job losses that occured before any of his policies were enacted be the cause of those job losses??

This is the claim from your own article.

"Nearly 1 million [women] have become unemployed as a result of Obama's policies," she said during a conference call with reporters. "That's 92 percent of the jobs lost while Barack Obama has been president are jobs that women have lost."
Team Romney Charges Obama Is Bad for Working Women - The Ballot 2012 (usnews.com)

 

[edthecynic]

Team Romney Charges Obama Is Bad for Working Women - The Ballot 2012 (usnews.com)

Personally, I'm annoyed how Obama has pandered to his phony women narrative; pretending that the GOP is against them. But since he is pulling those dirty tricks, I'm glad that Romney fired back.

Oh Oh Oh that means that democrats and Obama hate women....at least according to democrat and obama standards for republicans to hate women

So let me get this straight. Obama sends stimulus money to the states to support public sector jobs for workers like teachers and the GOP Governors use the money to cover their budget shortfalls from their tax cuts to millionaires instead because they hate public sector unions and then they cut teacher and social worker, etc., jobs which are mostly women and that's Obama's fault.

 

[BluePhantom]

PolitiFact | Romney campaign says women were hit hard by job losses under Obama

Rated...

Yep!

Yeah I love how that "unbiased" source, Politifact, which is run by "unbiased" journalists from that "unbiased" Tampa Bay Times says "the numbers are accurate, but we're rating it mostly false anyhow."

Liberals. Just because there is .com at the end of it they think it's gospel.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Team Romney Charges Obama Is Bad for Working Women - The Ballot 2012 (usnews.com)

Personally, I'm annoyed how Obama has pandered to his phony women narrative; pretending that the GOP is against them. But since he is pulling those dirty tricks, I'm glad that Romney fired back.

Oh Oh Oh that means that democrats and Obama hate women....at least according to democrat and obama standards for republicans to hate women

So let me get this straight. Obama sends stimulus money to the states to support public sector jobs for workers like teachers and the GOP Governors use the money to cover their budget shortfalls from their tax cuts to millionaires instead because they hate public sector unions and then they cut teacher and social worker, etc., jobs which are mostly women and that's Obama's fault.

Let me help you get it straight, I was using sarcasm in the first half when I said "Oh Oh oh that means that democrats and Obama hate women" because, as I stated in the 2nd half according to their own standards this means they hate women.

Get what I was doing now? Making fun of the Admins position by a non serious response which mimicked the way his administration and many liberals act.


You might be interested in this also..... http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/218155-the-hillary-rosen-standard.html#post5119016

 

[hortysir]

And the GOP wants to make it legal to discriminate against women, and deny them preventative health care I'm sure that will make it easier for them to get jobs..

Care to compare men-v-women salaries within the White House, Lily?

Is this comparison based on position held or is it comparing all women in the white house to all men in the whitehouse?? Does thta include the president's own salary? What is the ratio of men to women and is that taken into account or are we just basing it on total amount earned? What are we compariing??

Does that mean the White House hires more men than women?
Why?

 

[edthecynic]

Oh Oh Oh that means that democrats and Obama hate women....at least according to democrat and obama standards for republicans to hate women

So let me get this straight. Obama sends stimulus money to the states to support public sector jobs for workers like teachers and the GOP Governors use the money to cover their budget shortfalls from their tax cuts to millionaires instead because they hate public sector unions and then they cut teacher and social worker, etc., jobs which are mostly women and that's Obama's fault.

Let me help you get it straight, I was using sarcasm in the first half when I said "Oh Oh oh that means that democrats and Obama hate women" because, as I stated in the 2nd half according to their own standards this means they hate women.

Get what I was doing now? Making fun of the Admins position by a non serious response which mimicked the way his administration and many liberals act.


You might be interested in this also..... http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/218155-the-hillary-rosen-standard.html#post5119016

Bullshit!
Your "sarcasm" started with the false assumption that the claim that Obama pays women less than men, therefore it was sarcastic AFFIRMATION of a lie and therefore a lie in and of itself. Being sarcastic does not make it any less of a lie.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So let me get this straight. Obama sends stimulus money to the states to support public sector jobs for workers like teachers and the GOP Governors use the money to cover their budget shortfalls from their tax cuts to millionaires instead because they hate public sector unions and then they cut teacher and social worker, etc., jobs which are mostly women and that's Obama's fault.

Let me help you get it straight, I was using sarcasm in the first half when I said "Oh Oh oh that means that democrats and Obama hate women" because, as I stated in the 2nd half according to their own standards this means they hate women.

Get what I was doing now? Making fun of the Admins position by a non serious response which mimicked the way his administration and many liberals act.


You might be interested in this also..... http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/218155-the-hillary-rosen-standard.html#post5119016

Bullshit!
Your "sarcasm" started with the false assumption that the claim that Obama pays women less than men, therefore it was sarcastic AFFIRMATION of a lie and therefore a lie in and of itself. Being sarcastic does not make it any less of a lie.

You're cute when you are desperate to not look foolish ed

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

I think the numbers speak for thesmelves. Obama rails against corporations with male/female position/pay discrepancies and yet Obama has them. Obama rails about equal opportunity for women yet women are losing their jobs in his economy.

Sure, we can look for realistic answers why that may be so. But here's the deal; it's Obama and Dems that traditionally have taken it upon themselves to harp against Republicans for those types of numbers. Now he's in office so it's put up or shut up and he most certainly has not put up so now it's time for the voters to tell him to shut up.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

^^^

I think the numbers speak for thesmelves. Obama rails against corporations with male/female position/pay discrepancies and yet Obama has them. Obama rails about equal opportunity for women yet women are losing their jobs in his economy.

You should look up the phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Sure, we can look for realistic answers why that may be so.

But we wouldn't be able to use those "realistic answers" to nonsensically bash the President, so we won't.

But here's the deal; it's Obama and Dems that traditionally have taken it upon themselves to harp against Republicans for those types of numbers.

Nonsense.

Now he's in office so it's put up or shut up and he most certainly has not put up so now it's time for the voters to tell him to shut up.

Huh?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

I think the numbers speak for thesmelves. Obama rails against corporations with male/female position/pay discrepancies and yet Obama has them. Obama rails about equal opportunity for women yet women are losing their jobs in his economy.

You should look up the phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Sure, we can look for realistic answers why that may be so.

But we wouldn't be able to use those "realistic answers" to nonsensically bash the President, so we won't.

But here's the deal; it's Obama and Dems that traditionally have taken it upon themselves to harp against Republicans for those types of numbers.

Nonsense.

Now he's in office so it's put up or shut up and he most certainly has not put up so now it's time for the voters to tell him to shut up.

Huh?

The point is we're going to hold you accountable by your own standards. You don't get to have double standards. And I'm not going to look-up latin garble. If you got something to say; say it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

^^^

I think the numbers speak for thesmelves. Obama rails against corporations with male/female position/pay discrepancies and yet Obama has them. Obama rails about equal opportunity for women yet women are losing their jobs in his economy.

You should look up the phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc.


But we wouldn't be able to use those "realistic answers" to nonsensically bash the President, so we won't.

Nonsense.

Now he's in office so it's put up or shut up and he most certainly has not put up so now it's time for the voters to tell him to shut up.

Huh?

The point is we're going to hold you accountable by your own standards. You don't get to have double standards. And I'm not going to look-up latin garble. If you got something to say; say it.

It translates to "with this, therefore because of this". It's a logically fallacy also known as "Correlation does not imply causation".

What exactly do you think "my" standards are?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You should look up the phrase cum hoc ergo propter hoc.


But we wouldn't be able to use those "realistic answers" to nonsensically bash the President, so we won't.

Nonsense.

Huh?

The point is we're going to hold you accountable by your own standards. You don't get to have double standards. And I'm not going to look-up latin garble. If you got something to say; say it.

It translates to "with this, therefore because of this". It's a logically fallacy also known as "Correlation does not imply causation".

What exactly do you think "my" standards are?

I don't care what your standards are if you are not in line with the Democrats. I'm holding the Democrats to their own standards and Obama to his own standard. That was a nice try to deflect btw.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The point is we're going to hold you accountable by your own standards. You don't get to have double standards. And I'm not going to look-up latin garble. If you got something to say; say it.

It translates to "with this, therefore because of this". It's a logically fallacy also known as "Correlation does not imply causation".

What exactly do you think "my" standards are?

I don't care what your standards are if you are not in line with the Democrats. I'm holding the Democrats to their own standards and Obama to his own standard. That was a nice try to deflect btw.

31% of Americans are registered Democrats. Do you think they all have the same "standards"?

 

[Lakhota]

Even The Daily Caller Debunks Romney’s Attack On Obama About Women

As we’ve already noted, the Mitt Romney campaign’s claim that 92 percent of job losses under the Obama administration were from women is highly misleading. It’s the central data point in their new narrative that the Obama administration has been bad for women, but it blames Obama for job losses that occurred before he was sworn in, among other problems. The claim is so misleading, in fact, that even the rabidly conservative and factually-challenged Daily Caller debunked it.

Even The Daily Caller Debunks Romney's Attack On Obama About Women

Women | 92.3 Percent Of Jobs Lost | Romney Campaign | The Daily Caller

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It translates to "with this, therefore because of this". It's a logically fallacy also known as "Correlation does not imply causation".

What exactly do you think "my" standards are?

I don't care what your standards are if you are not in line with the Democrats. I'm holding the Democrats to their own standards and Obama to his own standard. That was a nice try to deflect btw.

31% of Americans are registered Democrats. Do you think they all have the same "standards"?

Dude come on. Are you going to pretend that Dems don't have a party platform? Are you going to pretend that they don't have a substantial narrative? Stop playing games.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Even The Daily Caller Debunks Romney’s Attack On Obama About Women

As we’ve already noted, the Mitt Romney campaign’s claim that 92 percent of job losses under the Obama administration were from women is highly misleading. It’s the central data point in their new narrative that the Obama administration has been bad for women, but it blames Obama for job losses that occurred before he was sworn in, among other problems. The claim is so misleading, in fact, that even the rabidly conservative and factually-challenged Daily Caller debunked it.

Even The Daily Caller Debunks Romney's Attack On Obama About Women

Women | 92.3 Percent Of Jobs Lost | Romney Campaign | The Daily Caller

Did you notice the part about the ratio of women who hold jobs going from 49.5 down to 49.3 percent? I'm sure that .2 percent is significant to thousands of women. If I had my choice between free birth control (a cost that is passed on to the consumer) and a job; I'd take the freaking job. Women have a right to be pissed about Obama talking a big game and demonizing the GOP while their status in society goes slightly down.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't care what your standards are if you are not in line with the Democrats. I'm holding the Democrats to their own standards and Obama to his own standard. That was a nice try to deflect btw.

31% of Americans are registered Democrats. Do you think they all have the same "standards"?

Dude come on. Are you going to pretend that Dems don't have a party platform? Are you going to pretend that they don't have a substantial narrative? Stop playing games.

I think you might be misinterpreting my comments.

I'm not talking about the Democratic Party's platform, or it's "narrative".

I'm talking about the OP using faulty logic to pin this on Obama, then excusing it because they're just holding Democrats "to their own standards".

The fact of the matter is that Democrats and Republicans, as well as independants and members of all political parties, don't have any collective "standards". Everyone lies, takes things out of context, and uses logically faulty arguments to provoke emotional responses, it's not a partisan thing.

And everyone should have learned in kindergarten, you shouldn't do something just because someone else did it first.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

31% of Americans are registered Democrats. Do you think they all have the same "standards"?

Dude come on. Are you going to pretend that Dems don't have a party platform? Are you going to pretend that they don't have a substantial narrative? Stop playing games.

I think you might be misinterpreting my comments.

I'm not talking about the Democratic Party's platform, or it's "narrative".

I'm talking about the OP using faulty logic to pin this on Obama, then excusing it because they're just holding Democrats "to their own standards".

The fact of the matter is that Democrats and Republicans, as well as independants and members of all political parties, don't have any collective "standards". Everyone lies, takes things out of context, and uses logically faulty arguments to provoke emotional responses. It's not a partisan thing.

I get it. We're all individuals. We don't all buy all of a party's beliefs. But it's impractical deny that the Dems/Obama have a certain narrative/platform. That is the reality and it is not an unreality b/c some Dems don't share their p.o.v.

Dems do have collective standards or rather philosophies whether you choose to recognize that reality or not. Again, that doesn't mean 100 percent of Dems are on board and I'm finding your argument to be trite.

Here's the OP:

Personally, I'm annoyed how Obama has pandered to his phony women narrative; pretending that the GOP is against them. But since he is pulling those dirty tricks, I'm glad that Romney fired back.

My point was that Obama was selling a phony narrative so I was glad that Romney fired back. I didn't outright defend his argument. That was not at all my point.

My point was that Obama didn't care about the substance of his charges, he just wanted headlines b/c that's what a significant segment of stupid Americans fall for. Romney would be an idiot to not fight for that segment of idiots. You might wish the presidential races regarded higher means but that's just not reality.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Dude come on. Are you going to pretend that Dems don't have a party platform? Are you going to pretend that they don't have a substantial narrative? Stop playing games.

I think you might be misinterpreting my comments.

I'm not talking about the Democratic Party's platform, or it's "narrative".

I'm talking about the OP using faulty logic to pin this on Obama, then excusing it because they're just holding Democrats "to their own standards".

The fact of the matter is that Democrats and Republicans, as well as independants and members of all political parties, don't have any collective "standards". Everyone lies, takes things out of context, and uses logically faulty arguments to provoke emotional responses. It's not a partisan thing.

I get it. We're all individuals. We don't all buy all of a party's beliefs. But it's impractical deny that the Dems/Obama have a certain narrative/platform. That is the reality and it is not an unreality b/c some Dems don't share their p.o.v.

You're confusing the Democratic Party line with the beliefs of it's individual members.

Dems do have collective standards or rather philosophies whether you choose to recognize that reality or not. Again, that doesn't mean 100 percent of Dems are on board and I'm finding your argument to be trite.

Once again, you're confusing "philosophies" of individual Democrats to the official party line.

Here's the OP:

Personally, I'm annoyed how Obama has pandered to his phony women narrative; pretending that the GOP is against them. But since he is pulling those dirty tricks, I'm glad that Romney fired back.

My point was that Obama was selling a phony narrative so I was glad that Romney fired back. I didn't outright defend his argument. That was not at all my point.

Actually, you're right about this, and I apologize. You were not making the argument that I was accusing you of.

My point was that Obama didn't care about the substance of his charges, he just wanted headlines b/c that's what a significant segment of stupid Americans fall for. Romney would be an idiot to not fight for that segment of idiots. You might wish the presidential races regarded higher means but that's just not reality.

On this I agree as well.

I have no more of a problem with Romney's camp using this as a campaign tactic than I do with any of a million shady political things that both sides do on a consistant basis.

I work in election politics, I'm fully aware of the lows that both sides go to.

The point that I was making is that it's silly to claim that it's "ok" for Romney to be shady, just because the Dems are too - to me, either be "outraged" at both sides, or be ambivalent to both sides.