Eva Longoria Gets Smacked Down - What a shame :lol:

[FJO]

Well, you always have ad hominem attacks, the go-to retort from just about every Lefty on this board. Well done!

Pay equity. Focus: America's gender wage gap | The Economist
abortion. Romney Reiterates: 'I'm A Pro-Life Candidate' (and he's vacilated between hard line and more moderate. A bunch of rethuglicans even include incest and rape as unacceptable reasons.)


But please go ahead and do your usual right wing thing of deny deny deny. I don't give a flying fuck if you agree with me.

You can post a link, wonderful. Doesn't support your argument in any way and it's a far cry from listing the denied rights you're bitching about, but hey, it's a start.

Now tell us exactly how you would have the government determine how much an employer pays his people. But first, show us two people that perform their jobs EXACTLY the same. While you ponder, consider this: If women by and large performed exactly as their male counterparts but worked for less, why would any employer every hire a man?

Now let's turn to Romney. He's pro life. Okay. And? Use that crystal ball of yours and tell us exactly what rights a Romney presidency is going to deny.

Equal pay for equal work is a perfectly sound concept, when that pay is HOURLY.

However, on monthly or yearly salary an employer must deal with a woman going off for heaven knows how long to have a baby and pay her for the duration.

 

[eflatminor]

This is my point. It doesn't matter if it's in front of you, you'll deny, deny deny.

I am NOT going to waste my time trying to help you get past your stupidity. It is a waste.

I deny nothing. I'm still waiting for you to list a specific denied right and to tell us exactly why it's a problem. You have not stepped up there pal.

Geez, for as much bitching as you're doing, one would think you could articulate your complaints. You whine that rights are or somehow will be denied, but you can't provide a single example or even list these so called "women's rights".

It's as though you're just looking for something to bitch about but don't want anyone to actually question the specifics. That's just sad for you but frankly, entertaining for the rest of us. Again, good luck with all that.

I think your mindless misogyny speaks for itself. I have nothing further to add.

You have yet to add anything. We're still waiting for you to tell what you're bitching about!

But hey, that fourth ad hominem attack...now THAT was devastating!

 

[eflatminor]

Equal pay for equal work is a perfectly sound concept, when that pay is HOURLY.

I disagree. First, who should get to mandate this? The federal government? Were do we find 'equal pay' in the Constitution? If it's state and local governments, who gets to determine what constitutes "equal work".

Secondly, are you able to point to an example of two employees that perform exactly the same over time? Same record of attendance/tardiness, same productivity, same interaction with colleagues and customers...same EVERYTHING. It's pretty clear that no two people work at exactly the same level.

Third, if you dumb it down so that everyone working the same job description gets the same compensation, there would remain little reason for any employee to excel in their job. After all, if there is no chance and getting a raise or bonus, why try? You good with this? How do you think such a scheme would effect our performance in world markets?

 

[francoHFW]

At one point or another, the giant twat Romney has said he would screw with every woman's right there is LOL. His smooth doubletalk is falling apart as we speak. Obama was stunned by his hypocrisy in the first debate, and the lamestream media are cowards, the Pub media a disgrace...

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Equal pay for equal work is a perfectly sound concept, when that pay is HOURLY.

I disagree. First, who should get to mandate this? The federal government? Were do we find 'equal pay' in the Constitution? If it's state and local governments, who gets to determine what constitutes "equal work".

Secondly, are you able to point to an example of two employees that perform exactly the same over time? Same record of attendance/tardiness, same productivity, same interaction with colleagues and customers...same EVERYTHING. It's pretty clear that no two people work at exactly the same level.

Third, if you dumb it down so that everyone working the same job description gets the same compensation, there would remain little reason for any employee to excel in their job. After all, if there is no chance and getting a raise or bonus, why try? You good with this? How do you think such a scheme would effect our performance in world markets?

And logicially, in all jobs, the better performer will always be the one with testicles instead of the one with tits, right? How patently absurd.

the numbers are staring you in the face.

 

[eflatminor]

Equal pay for equal work is a perfectly sound concept, when that pay is HOURLY.

I disagree. First, who should get to mandate this? The federal government? Were do we find 'equal pay' in the Constitution? If it's state and local governments, who gets to determine what constitutes "equal work".

Secondly, are you able to point to an example of two employees that perform exactly the same over time? Same record of attendance/tardiness, same productivity, same interaction with colleagues and customers...same EVERYTHING. It's pretty clear that no two people work at exactly the same level.

Third, if you dumb it down so that everyone working the same job description gets the same compensation, there would remain little reason for any employee to excel in their job. After all, if there is no chance and getting a raise or bonus, why try? You good with this? How do you think such a scheme would effect our performance in world markets?

And logicially, in all jobs, the better performer will always be the one with testicles instead of the one with tits, right? How patently absurd.

the numbers are staring you in the face.

Wait, I thought you had nothing further to add.

Okay then...

Your "logic" is flawed. The better performer is to be determined by the person that makes the payroll. What logic would that individual have to choose the better performer based on sex and not actual performance? Why in the world would a business owner pay more to someone performing less well than their fellow employee? You think business owners act against their own financial interests out of some deep seeded sense of chauvinism? Really?

Or, look at the flip side. If women and men performed exactly the same but women were willing to work for less, why would any business owner ever hire a man?

 

[Listening]

Pay equity. Focus: America's gender wage gap | The Economist
abortion. Romney Reiterates: 'I'm A Pro-Life Candidate' (and he's vacilated between hard line and more moderate. A bunch of rethuglicans even include incest and rape as unacceptable reasons.)


But please go ahead and do your usual right wing thing of deny deny deny. I don't give a flying fuck if you agree with me.

You can post a link, wonderful. Doesn't support your argument in any way and it's a far cry from listing the denied rights you're bitching about, but hey, it's a start.

Now tell us exactly how you would have the government determine how much an employer pays his people. But first, show us two people that perform their jobs EXACTLY the same. While you ponder, consider this: If women by and large performed exactly as their male counterparts but worked for less, why would any employer every hire a man?

Now let's turn to Romney. He's pro life. Okay. And? Use that crystal ball of yours and tell us exactly what rights a Romney presidency is going to deny.

Equal pay for equal work is a perfectly sound concept, when that pay is HOURLY.

However, on monthly or yearly salary an employer must deal with a woman going off for heaven knows how long to have a baby and pay her for the duration.

This issue has existed for 50 years and has been the target of numerous campaigns.

I wonder how come it hasn't been fixed ?

Now.....it's Romney's issue ?

The left must be using campaign donations to buy pot for their schills.

BTW: I recall trying to get a job right out of college and being told by recruiters that they had 1, 2, or 3 job openings and that those jobs were going to females....regardless.

I don't remember blaming females because companies were trying to comply with some stupid quota.

 

[Listening]

At one point or another, the giant twat Romney has said he would screw with every woman's right there is LOL. His smooth doubletalk is falling apart as we speak. Obama was stunned by his hypocrisy in the first debate, and the lamestream media are cowards, the Pub media a disgrace...

Obama didn't show up for the first debate and decided that being a prick was what he needed to do for the second. If the first two are any indication...the third debate will be a waste of time as Obama will still not say anything of substance. He will:

Blame Bush
Blame Bush
Blame Bush

Romney has gained in favorability. Women and young people are dropping Obama like a dirty diaper.

The media is in the tank for Obama, but it does not seem to be helping him much.

Now...this thread was about Eva Longoria, a co-chair of the Obama campaign....tweeting "You have to be stupid to vote for such a racist/misogynistic tw*t." It was so funny to see a woman use the word twat to describe (what she thinks is a) misogynisistic candidate. If someone had posted that about say....Hillary Clinton.....the left would be wetting their collective drawers.

Frankie...or should I say Fakie.....STFU...you've got nothing on anyone when it comes to being tolerant.

You are as racist as they come.

And Eva Longoria can ESAD.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

I disagree. First, who should get to mandate this? The federal government? Were do we find 'equal pay' in the Constitution? If it's state and local governments, who gets to determine what constitutes "equal work".

Secondly, are you able to point to an example of two employees that perform exactly the same over time? Same record of attendance/tardiness, same productivity, same interaction with colleagues and customers...same EVERYTHING. It's pretty clear that no two people work at exactly the same level.

Third, if you dumb it down so that everyone working the same job description gets the same compensation, there would remain little reason for any employee to excel in their job. After all, if there is no chance and getting a raise or bonus, why try? You good with this? How do you think such a scheme would effect our performance in world markets?

And logicially, in all jobs, the better performer will always be the one with testicles instead of the one with tits, right? How patently absurd.

the numbers are staring you in the face.

Wait, I thought you had nothing further to add.

Okay then...

Your "logic" is flawed. The better performer is to be determined by the person that makes the payroll. What logic would that individual have to choose the better performer based on sex and not actual performance? Why in the world would a business owner pay more to someone performing less well than their fellow employee? You think business owners act against their own financial interests out of some deep seeded sense of chauvinism? Really?

Or, look at the flip side. If women and men performed exactly the same but women were willing to work for less, why would any business owner ever hire a man?

mindnumbing. Next you'll be saying the sky is cherry red.

 

[eflatminor]

And logicially, in all jobs, the better performer will always be the one with testicles instead of the one with tits, right? How patently absurd.

the numbers are staring you in the face.

Wait, I thought you had nothing further to add.

Okay then...

Your "logic" is flawed. The better performer is to be determined by the person that makes the payroll. What logic would that individual have to choose the better performer based on sex and not actual performance? Why in the world would a business owner pay more to someone performing less well than their fellow employee? You think business owners act against their own financial interests out of some deep seeded sense of chauvinism? Really?

Or, look at the flip side. If women and men performed exactly the same but women were willing to work for less, why would any business owner ever hire a man?

mindnumbing. Next you'll be saying the sky is cherry red.

Trouble answering the questions I see.

Typical.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

I disagree. First, who should get to mandate this? The federal government? Were do we find 'equal pay' in the Constitution? If it's state and local governments, who gets to determine what constitutes "equal work".

Secondly, are you able to point to an example of two employees that perform exactly the same over time? Same record of attendance/tardiness, same productivity, same interaction with colleagues and customers...same EVERYTHING. It's pretty clear that no two people work at exactly the same level.

Third, if you dumb it down so that everyone working the same job description gets the same compensation, there would remain little reason for any employee to excel in their job. After all, if there is no chance and getting a raise or bonus, why try? You good with this? How do you think such a scheme would effect our performance in world markets?

And logicially, in all jobs, the better performer will always be the one with testicles instead of the one with tits, right? How patently absurd.

the numbers are staring you in the face.

Wait, I thought you had nothing further to add.

Okay then...

Your "logic" is flawed. The better performer is to be determined by the person that makes the payroll. What logic would that individual have to choose the better performer based on sex and not actual performance? Why in the world would a business owner pay more to someone performing less well than their fellow employee? You think business owners act against their own financial interests out of some deep seeded sense of chauvinism? Really?

Or, look at the flip side. If women and men performed exactly the same but women were willing to work for less, why would any business owner ever hire a man?

Wait, I thought you had nothing further to add.

Okay then...

Your "logic" is flawed. The better performer is to be determined by the person that makes the payroll. What logic would that individual have to choose the better performer based on sex and not actual performance? Why in the world would a business owner pay more to someone performing less well than their fellow employee? You think business owners act against their own financial interests out of some deep seeded sense of chauvinism? Really?

Or, look at the flip side. If women and men performed exactly the same but women were willing to work for less, why would any business owner ever hire a man?

mindnumbing. Next you'll be saying the sky is cherry red.

Trouble answering the questions I see.

Typical.

I have no trouble answering questions. I have trouble thinking that anyone would ACTUALLY believe that the disparity between female income and male income has anything to do with what you are saying. It's completely asinine.

 

[Listening]

And logicially, in all jobs, the better performer will always be the one with testicles instead of the one with tits, right? How patently absurd.

the numbers are staring you in the face.

Wait, I thought you had nothing further to add.

Okay then...

Your "logic" is flawed. The better performer is to be determined by the person that makes the payroll. What logic would that individual have to choose the better performer based on sex and not actual performance? Why in the world would a business owner pay more to someone performing less well than their fellow employee? You think business owners act against their own financial interests out of some deep seeded sense of chauvinism? Really?

Or, look at the flip side. If women and men performed exactly the same but women were willing to work for less, why would any business owner ever hire a man?

mindnumbing. Next you'll be saying the sky is cherry red.

Trouble answering the questions I see.

Typical.

I have no trouble answering questions. I have trouble thinking that anyone would ACTUALLY believe that the disparity between female income and male income has anything to do with what you are saying. It's completely asinine.

Why don't you start your own thread on this topic ?

And if you don't mind answering questions.....How long has unequal pay been an issue ?

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Wait, I thought you had nothing further to add.

Okay then...

Your "logic" is flawed. The better performer is to be determined by the person that makes the payroll. What logic would that individual have to choose the better performer based on sex and not actual performance? Why in the world would a business owner pay more to someone performing less well than their fellow employee? You think business owners act against their own financial interests out of some deep seeded sense of chauvinism? Really?

Or, look at the flip side. If women and men performed exactly the same but women were willing to work for less, why would any business owner ever hire a man?

Trouble answering the questions I see.

Typical.

I have no trouble answering questions. I have trouble thinking that anyone would ACTUALLY believe that the disparity between female income and male income has anything to do with what you are saying. It's completely asinine.

Why don't you start your own thread on this topic ?

And if you don't mind answering questions.....How long has unequal pay been an issue ?

Do you mean how long has it been a pressing issue, or how long has it existed?

 

[eflatminor]

And logicially, in all jobs, the better performer will always be the one with testicles instead of the one with tits, right? How patently absurd.

the numbers are staring you in the face.

Wait, I thought you had nothing further to add.

Okay then...

Your "logic" is flawed. The better performer is to be determined by the person that makes the payroll. What logic would that individual have to choose the better performer based on sex and not actual performance? Why in the world would a business owner pay more to someone performing less well than their fellow employee? You think business owners act against their own financial interests out of some deep seeded sense of chauvinism? Really?

Or, look at the flip side. If women and men performed exactly the same but women were willing to work for less, why would any business owner ever hire a man?

mindnumbing. Next you'll be saying the sky is cherry red.

Trouble answering the questions I see.

Typical.

I have no trouble answering questions. I have trouble thinking that anyone would ACTUALLY believe that the disparity between female income and male income has anything to do with what you are saying. It's completely asinine.

If it's so asinine, one ought to be able to retort with specificity, logic and reason. Answer the damn questions or please, go back to having 'nothing further to add'. THAT you're good at!

 

[Listening]

I have no trouble answering questions. I have trouble thinking that anyone would ACTUALLY believe that the disparity between female income and male income has anything to do with what you are saying. It's completely asinine.

Why don't you start your own thread on this topic ?

And if you don't mind answering questions.....How long has unequal pay been an issue ?

Do you mean how long has it been a pressing issue, or how long has it existed?

Why don't you start with the latter....and work your way forward from there.

As for pressing issue ? What does that mean ? It has not always been a pressing issue ?

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Wait, I thought you had nothing further to add.

Okay then...

Your "logic" is flawed. The better performer is to be determined by the person that makes the payroll. What logic would that individual have to choose the better performer based on sex and not actual performance? Why in the world would a business owner pay more to someone performing less well than their fellow employee? You think business owners act against their own financial interests out of some deep seeded sense of chauvinism? Really?

Or, look at the flip side. If women and men performed exactly the same but women were willing to work for less, why would any business owner ever hire a man?

Trouble answering the questions I see.

Typical.

I have no trouble answering questions. I have trouble thinking that anyone would ACTUALLY believe that the disparity between female income and male income has anything to do with what you are saying. It's completely asinine.

If it's so asinine, one ought to be able to retort with specificity, logic and reason. Answer the damn questions or please, go back to having 'nothing further to add'. THAT you're good at!

I AM answering your questions. I believe the assertion that the disparity in pay between women and men is merit based.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Why don't you start your own thread on this topic ?

And if you don't mind answering questions.....How long has unequal pay been an issue ?

Do you mean how long has it been a pressing issue, or how long has it existed?

Why don't you start with the latter....and work your way forward from there.

As for pressing issue ? What does that mean ? It has not always been a pressing issue ?

Go back far enough, nobody cared. But then if you go back far enough, killing blacks was just fine too. Or owning them. or whatever you wanted to do to them.

It's called progression. As for how long has pay been inequitable? Since women started workng for a living.

 

[eflatminor]

I have no trouble answering questions. I have trouble thinking that anyone would ACTUALLY believe that the disparity between female income and male income has anything to do with what you are saying. It's completely asinine.

If it's so asinine, one ought to be able to retort with specificity, logic and reason. Answer the damn questions or please, go back to having 'nothing further to add'. THAT you're good at!

I AM answering your questions. I believe the assertion that the disparity in pay between women and men is merit based.

?

Then what are you bitching about? What are you suggesting, specifically.

 

[Listening]

Do you mean how long has it been a pressing issue, or how long has it existed?

Why don't you start with the latter....and work your way forward from there.

As for pressing issue ? What does that mean ? It has not always been a pressing issue ?

Go back far enough, nobody cared. But then if you go back far enough, killing blacks was just fine too. Or owning them. or whatever you wanted to do to them.

It's called progression. As for how long has pay been inequitable? Since women started workng for a living.

And why hasn't it been fixed ?

 

[Cheddarmelon]

If it's so asinine, one ought to be able to retort with specificity, logic and reason. Answer the damn questions or please, go back to having 'nothing further to add'. THAT you're good at!

I AM answering your questions. I believe the assertion that the disparity in pay between women and men is merit based.

?

Then what are you bitching about? What are you suggesting, specifically.

I left out a word at the end. the word was laughable.