‘Sexism Will Be The New Racism’

[daveman]

Don't be sexist and/or racist and you won't have to worry about it.

Oh, I never worry about progressives making spurious claims about me because they can't handle disagreement and are unable to defend their points of view with logic and reason.

I know it's going to happen. It's like the sun rising. It's a natural law. Nothing to worry about.

 

[daveman]

I don't have to read minds when this type of stuff is allowed and excused

I'm sure you'll find some way to say why this COULD POSSIBLY MIGHT be ANYTHING other than racism but all your talk isn't fooling anyone

You can't be this naive. Are you too young to remember all the 'cute' pictures of the previous president depicted as a monkey or hitler or whatever? That's empty political spitefulness - much like what you have displayed here - and it's as old as the Republic.

There are real racists to be found on points of the political spectrum. Your biased generalizations are partisan nonsense at best; race-baiting, vituperative divisiveness at worst.

Perfect! You dodged just like I said you would and excused just like I said you would.

Basically you just said "Hey, thats bad BUT we did it because...."

I post a pic that Republicans created and YOU accuse ME of playing the race card Thats like me calling you a shit head then complaining about you calling me a shit head

Now are you still wondering why people consider repubs racist after giving those excuses of why this is ok? If so, I really cant help you.

This sign was created by liberals.

Therefore, YOU agree with it.

Dood, that's just wrong. Why do you want our troops to shoot their officers?

 

[HenryBHough]

Well, The so-called "Commander-in-Chief" IS an officer.......

 

[ClosedCaption]

Perfect! You dodged just like I said you would and excused just like I said you would.

.

No, I did not. I addressed your comments fully and directly.

I know by saying "you did it too!" But that doesn't make you any less unracist just because someone was once mean to you

 

[ClosedCaption]

Now are you still wondering why people consider repubs racist after giving those excuses of why this is ok? .

I gave no "excuses"

Then what reason did you say this:

You can't be this naive. Are you too young to remember all the 'cute' pictures of the previous president depicted as a monkey or hitler or whatever?

If it wasn't an excuse. Were you just informing me about the history of political pictures?

 

[ClosedCaption]

That race thing is YOUR problem. To those on the left, everything is about race. if it isn't, it can be made about race.
There tons of liberal policies which are incompatible with liberty and the pursuit of one's personal goals that are steeped in race. For libs, race is a political profit center.

Explain another reason besides race why there was an email floating around about Watermelons growing on the white house lawn. Make it really really good

I'm routing for you

I can't explain it. I only agree with those who find this kind of thing abhorrent.

So if you cant explain it or refuse to attempt to explain don't give me shit about my explanation while you hide behind constant "I don't knows"

However, that's not the issue.

Actually it is the issue...Racism....Racist picture...Racism....Got it?

Your side accuses our side of sexism.
Your side insists women are treated differently based solely on matters of gender.
Your side claims women are oppressed.
Now, i posted a partial list of names, all women, who are CEO's of Fortune 500 firms.
Not one of you would touch it.

True
True
Are they treated equally? I bet this is another one of those "I don't know" moments
A list of women CEO's means what Einstein? A list of Black CEO's means what? And how does that list have anything to do with being treated differently or being oppressed?

You're trying to conflate two diff things to make a point

Why should I care if some idiot posts an obscene likeness of the President on some political blog or forum?

You don't have to care.

Ignore these punks and they go away. Sadly , you people cannot seem to grasp that idea. No. You have to go off half cocked and first everyone HAS to know about it. Then you give yourself the job of silencing them. Meanwhile, the attention you give them, the better for them. That's stupid.
The best way to silence a nutjob is to marginalize them. Ignore them and they have no audience. No audience, they disappear.

Ignoring something has never gotten rid of anything. You're a funny guy thinking that.

I agree so why does the GOP REFUSE to marginalize any of these racist? Why do you say leave them alone? They are at your rallies yet its everyone elses fault for seeing the sign?

Well golly gee, Come to find out that its everyone elses fault that racists exist! Because people see them! By seeing them they exist!

This is ground breaking stuff

 

[ClosedCaption]

You can't be this naive. Are you too young to remember all the 'cute' pictures of the previous president depicted as a monkey or hitler or whatever? That's empty political spitefulness - much like what you have displayed here - and it's as old as the Republic.

There are real racists to be found on points of the political spectrum. Your biased generalizations are partisan nonsense at best; race-baiting, vituperative divisiveness at worst.

Perfect! You dodged just like I said you would and excused just like I said you would.

Basically you just said "Hey, thats bad BUT we did it because...."

I post a pic that Republicans created and YOU accuse ME of playing the race card Thats like me calling you a shit head then complaining about you calling me a shit head

Now are you still wondering why people consider repubs racist after giving those excuses of why this is ok? If so, I really cant help you.

This sign was created by liberals.

Therefore, YOU agree with it.

Dood, that's just wrong. Why do you want our troops to shoot their officers?

I don't. See that answer? Straight to the point. No excuse making...now heres the difference between me and you.

Now why do you support that sign of Obama? Is it racist?

 

[ShawnChris13]

Explain another reason besides race why there was an email floating around about Watermelons growing on the white house lawn. Make it really really good



I'm routing for you

I can't explain it. I only agree with those who find this kind of thing abhorrent.

So if you cant explain it or refuse to attempt to explain don't give me shit about my explanation while you hide behind constant "I don't knows"







Actually it is the issue...Racism....Racist picture...Racism....Got it?









True

True

Are they treated equally? I bet this is another one of those "I don't know" moments

A list of women CEO's means what Einstein? A list of Black CEO's means what? And how does that list have anything to do with being treated differently or being oppressed?



You're trying to conflate two diff things to make a point

Why should I care if some idiot posts an obscene likeness of the President on some political blog or forum?

You don't have to care.

Ignore these punks and they go away. Sadly , you people cannot seem to grasp that idea. No. You have to go off half cocked and first everyone HAS to know about it. Then you give yourself the job of silencing them. Meanwhile, the attention you give them, the better for them. That's stupid.

The best way to silence a nutjob is to marginalize them. Ignore them and they have no audience. No audience, they disappear.

Ignoring something has never gotten rid of anything. You're a funny guy thinking that.



I agree so why does the GOP REFUSE to marginalize any of these racist? Why do you say leave them alone? They are at your rallies yet its everyone elses fault for seeing the sign?



Well golly gee, Come to find out that its everyone elses fault that racists exist! Because people see them! By seeing them they exist!



This is ground breaking stuff

Are you saying that his list of women CEOs is just as meaningless as any list of oppressed people thrown out by others? Or is one list just more important because it makes a point? Does your question about them being treated fairly (CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? Really?) show some kind of biased argument you're making?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Are you saying that his list of women CEOs is just as meaningless as any list of oppressed people thrown out by others? Or is one list just more important because it makes a point? Does your question about them being treated fairly (CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? Really?) show some kind of biased argument you're making?

See? You answer a question with a question because you don't want to give an answer.

I'm asking what does a list of female CEO's mean? What is the point?

Here is where you dodge again and refuse to answer, suddenly become unable to think about answers or start calling names. Annd go!

 

[ShawnChris13]

Are you saying that his list of women CEOs is just as meaningless as any list of oppressed people thrown out by others? Or is one list just more important because it makes a point? Does your question about them being treated fairly (CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? Really?) show some kind of biased argument you're making?

See? You answer a question with a question because you don't want to give an answer.



I'm asking what does a list of female CEO's mean? What is the point?



Here is where you dodge again and refuse to answer, suddenly become unable to think about answers or start calling names. Annd go!

I try to stray from the juvenile tactics that run amuck here. I am sometimes drawn in such silly spats, though. I'm human.

The list of women CEOs shows that the opportunities do exist for qualified individuals.

I pose that the numbers that are shown to prove women have lower wages don't account for the different jobs held by different sexes. A blanket is thrown over the jobs held without accounting for what those jobs are, but merely what they pay.

There are by far more women working in day cares then there are men. I think this can be easily agreed upon. When those wages are compared with the construction industry, heavily populated by men, the salaries are very different.

I'm not saying it's fair or unfair, only that to compare different industries like that example is not helping anyone. If we were to compare all similar positions and were to find less wages based on gender with the same experience, then there would be an issue. I have not seen these numbers, only the blankets that cry foul for large populations of different genders.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Are you saying that his list of women CEOs is just as meaningless as any list of oppressed people thrown out by others? Or is one list just more important because it makes a point? Does your question about them being treated fairly (CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? Really?) show some kind of biased argument you're making?

See? You answer a question with a question because you don't want to give an answer.



I'm asking what does a list of female CEO's mean? What is the point?



Here is where you dodge again and refuse to answer, suddenly become unable to think about answers or start calling names. Annd go!

I try to stray from the juvenile tactics that run amuck here. I am sometimes drawn in such silly spats, though. I'm human.

The list of women CEOs shows that the opportunities do exist for qualified individuals.

It sure does and who said opportunities don't exist? No one...that's who

I pose that the numbers that are shown to prove women have lower wages don't account for the different jobs held by different sexes. A blanket is thrown over the jobs held without accounting for what those jobs are, but merely what they pay.

There have been several studies, stories etc that show women and men doing the same job receive unequal pay. If you are denying this then maybe you aren't aware of those stories

There are by far more women working in day cares then there are men. I think this can be easily agreed upon. When those wages are compared with the construction industry, heavily populated by men, the salaries are very different.

No one is doing that comparison

I'm not saying it's fair or unfair, only that to compare different industries like that example is not helping anyone. If we were to compare all similar positions and were to find less wages based on gender with the same experience, then there would be an issue. I have not seen these numbers, only the blankets that cry foul for large populations of different genders.

Working women: Still struggling | The Economist

Women have made huge progress in the workplace, but still get lower pay and fewer top jobs than men

And despite sheaves of equal-pay legislation, women still get paid less than men for comparable work. This week's special report explores the reasons why progress seems to have stalled and what can be done about it.

Shortchanged: Why Women Get Paid Less Than Men - Businessweek

Yet nearly half a century later, in the first three months of 2012, women still earned only 82.2 percent of what men earned. That’s comparing the “usual median weekly earnings” of full-time employees. Comparing annual pay of full-time, year-round workers, women earned only 77 percent of what men earned in 2010.

The latest hope for closing the gap died on June 5, when Senate Republicans filibustered a bill to make it easier for employees to share information about their pay.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Annnnnd Now you see why he posted a list of Female CEO's without commentary. Because that list of CEO's have shit to do with discrimination against women.

The same is done when talking about ANY GROUP being discriminated against. If its about women they'll post a pic of Hillary. If its about blacks they'll post a pic of Oprah while not saying anything because its bullshit

 

[ShawnChris13]

See? You answer a question with a question because you don't want to give an answer.







I'm asking what does a list of female CEO's mean? What is the point?







Here is where you dodge again and refuse to answer, suddenly become unable to think about answers or start calling names. Annd go!

I try to stray from the juvenile tactics that run amuck here. I am sometimes drawn in such silly spats, though. I'm human.



The list of women CEOs shows that the opportunities do exist for qualified individuals.

It sure does and who said opportunities don't exist? No one...that's who







There have been several studies, stories etc that show women and men doing the same job receive unequal pay. If you are denying this then maybe you aren't aware of those stories







No one is doing that comparison







Working women: Still struggling | The Economist

And despite sheaves of equal-pay legislation, women still get paid less than men for comparable work. This week's special report explores the reasons why progress seems to have stalled and what can be done about it.

Shortchanged: Why Women Get Paid Less Than Men - Businessweek

Yet nearly half a century later, in the first three months of 2012, women still earned only 82.2 percent of what men earned. That’s comparing the “usual median weekly earnings” of full-time employees. Comparing annual pay of full-time, year-round workers, women earned only 77 percent of what men earned in 2010.



The latest hope for closing the gap died on June 5, when Senate Republicans filibustered a bill to make it easier for employees to share information about their pay.

My only response to these articles, while enlightening (thank you) is that they placed most of their statistics on full time employment. This only covers people working full time. The problem was pointed out that not enough data exists due to "paperwork nightmares".

In order to prove statistically that there is a large portion of businesses discriminating I would like to see that paperwork done. But as of now statistics on full time employment lead me back to the example I had set earlier. Even the second article noted the differences in professions between men and women and how that would affect the statistical analysis of making such claims.

It does happen, as all discrimination does happen, provable by their specific stories. I would only like to see more data in order to prove such a wide spread claim of rampant sexism.

 

[HenryBHough]

TWO endangered species the Great Messianic Obama Regime isn't interested in "protecting":

1. Full time jobs

2. Small businesses which should expand but won't go above a head-count of 49

 

[daveman]

I don't. See that answer? Straight to the point. No excuse making...now heres the difference between me and you.

Now why do you support that sign of Obama? Is it racist?

I don't support it, and it is racist.

But it doesn't matter what I say. You've already decided I'm racist -- based solely on your bigotry against conservatives.

And using your bigotry as proof of a claim proves only that you're a bigot.

I say you're a bigot. You say I'm a racist.

Only one of us is right. And it's not you.

 

[Vox]

We all know republicans love women, in the kitchen.

we all see leftards love women in the labor camp, barefoot and after unsafe abortion

 

[thereisnospoon]

Explain another reason besides race why there was an email floating around about Watermelons growing on the white house lawn. Make it really really good

I'm routing for you

I can't explain it. I only agree with those who find this kind of thing abhorrent.

So if you cant explain it or refuse to attempt to explain don't give me shit about my explanation while you hide behind constant "I don't knows"



Actually it is the issue...Racism....Racist picture...Racism....Got it?




True
True
Are they treated equally? I bet this is another one of those "I don't know" moments
A list of women CEO's means what Einstein? A list of Black CEO's means what? And how does that list have anything to do with being treated differently or being oppressed?

You're trying to conflate two diff things to make a point

Why should I care if some idiot posts an obscene likeness of the President on some political blog or forum?

You don't have to care.

Ignore these punks and they go away. Sadly , you people cannot seem to grasp that idea. No. You have to go off half cocked and first everyone HAS to know about it. Then you give yourself the job of silencing them. Meanwhile, the attention you give them, the better for them. That's stupid.
The best way to silence a nutjob is to marginalize them. Ignore them and they have no audience. No audience, they disappear.

Ignoring something has never gotten rid of anything. You're a funny guy thinking that.

I agree so why does the GOP REFUSE to marginalize any of these racist? Why do you say leave them alone? They are at your rallies yet its everyone elses fault for seeing the sign?

Well golly gee, Come to find out that its everyone elses fault that racists exist! Because people see them! By seeing them they exist!

This is ground breaking stuff

You are truly an unreasonable and far left partisan.
I don't have to explain anything to you. Draw your own conclusion. But be warned, any attempt to throw a blanket over the entirety of conservatives leaves you with zero credibility and a healthy dose of double standard.
OWS was largely ignored. it went away. There's your proof.
Your problem is you use race for political gain. It's very easy for you to play the race card. You go to (name the minority group) them and point your finger and say "See! What did I tell you. Now, if you vote for us, we will eliminate this in your lifetime. I promise."....
Like that has worked.
We're done.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I don't. See that answer? Straight to the point. No excuse making...now heres the difference between me and you.

Now why do you support that sign of Obama? Is it racist?

I don't support it, and it is racist.

But it doesn't matter what I say. You've already decided I'm racist -- based solely on your bigotry against conservatives.

And using your bigotry as proof of a claim proves only that you're a bigot.

I say you're a bigot. You say I'm a racist.

Only one of us is right. And it's not you.

White self hating liberals who fear minorities capitulate and placate them. They pretend to love them. TO embrace them. They use words like "tolerance" and "diversity" as code terms for political gain.
They claim "I have (name minority group) friends".....Meanwhile, they live no where near the ones they claim to embrace. They pay lip service to minority issues. They claim they will support those politicians that support their causes. Other than political gain, what else is there? Nothing. Nothing except a growing dependency class. A class ready and only to willing to vote for the very same people who keep them dependent.

 

[bayoubill]

Liberal Cartoonist: If Hillary Is Nominee in 2016 ‘Sexism Will Be The New Racism’

Just as anyone that criticized Obama the past six-plus years was accused of racism, in the coming years, anyone that criticizes Hillary if she runs will be depicted as sexist.

The so-called "Republican War on Women" will be dusted off again, and every utterance by an opponent or commentator that isn't flattering will be due to Clinton's lack of a Y-chromosome and not because of her views.

Read more and listen: Liberal Cartoonist: If Hillary Is Nominee in 2016 ?Sexism Will Be The New Racism? | NewsBusters




------------------------------------------------------------------

and here I've been led to believe that fatpeopleism is the new racism...

 

[ClosedCaption]

I don't. See that answer? Straight to the point. No excuse making...now heres the difference between me and you.

Now why do you support that sign of Obama? Is it racist?

I don't support it, and it is racist.

But it doesn't matter what I say. You've already decided I'm racist -- based solely on your bigotry against conservatives.

Well I'll be dammed you finally answered a question..

I haven't decided anything...People who feel like victims always feel victimized. That what you do.

Want a hanky or a shoulder to cry on about how people are mean to you?