good research EX it seems the right was hoisted on their own pitard, if you read the speech Tom you would have seen where he said he would do it within existing legislation, given the amount of verbage you guys churn out that is a lot of wriggle room

tell me what legislation was passed that permits him to set up a new retirement instrument . This MyRA plan has to be created from the taxing authority , which the constitution empowers to Congress.

How Obama's 'myRA' retirement accounts will work - Jan. 29, 2014 (http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/29/retirement/myra-accounts/index.html)


Obama's annual budget will again include a separate proposal to automatically enroll workers in IRA accounts, a long-touted plan which would require Congressional approval. "This is a start," John said. "Without the actions of Congress, there is a limit on what can be done." http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif (http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/29/retirement/myra-accounts/index.html?iid=EL#TOP)

Tom there is probably some obscure clause somewhere, challenge it in the court and you will find out

I don't have " standing " ...the biggest obstruction to challenging the law in court is that the person bringing the action has got to be harmed by the law.


Obama's annual budget will again include a separate proposal to automatically enroll workers in IRA accounts, a long-touted plan which would require Congressional approval. "This is a start," John said. "Without the actions of Congress, there is a limit on what can be done." http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif (http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/29/retirement/myra-accounts/index.html?iid=EL#TOP)

So why issue an EO ? Just for the show ? I don't think he would have any issue asking Congress to create myRA's if that is what he wants .
Personally I think this is the precursor to the long time Dem plan of confiscating private retirement accounts and converting them to govt managed accounts.

Makes perfect sense for the third of lower income Americans who watched the 401K plans lose money Tom. More so to the people who have no 401k at the job to begin with. Not only do you not lose your investment to"market" conditions, you actually make a habit of saving, and can get actual payroll deductions as small as 5 bucks and 25 to get you started with an option to rollover into a regular IRA later.

Why wait for congress to figure it out?

McDonald’s Supersized 401(k) Match - Planning to Retire (usnews.com) (http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2009/01/07/mcdonalds-supersized-401k-match)


“You can put away a nice nest egg for you and your family, depending on how long you stay at this company," Kenny Sanders, a human resources manager for McDonald's overseeing 76 company-owned stores, told BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_02/b4115038758645.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily).


Government bonds are the best investment in the world. No matter what Wall Street does.

converting them to govt managed accounts.Wow, even socialist Canada doesn't do that.

it may or may not make sense. I haven't offered an opinion on the merits .

In our country Congress passes law and has the power to levy taxes NOT the Presidency . Clearly this myRA would have to be administered in part by the IRS because of the deferals( while the money stays in the fund, it won't be taxed )

But since you asked .... I think it is a sneaky way to get the poor to finance the gvt debt. The so called safe investment option is purchasing Federal Bonds that yield less than the rate of inflation.

The minimum wage yield is less than the rate of inflation, and Wall Street is subject to market conditions. I would think servicing the debt and guaranteeing principle return would a capitalist dream. Just because a rich guy can't make a few bucks on the poor guy doesn't make it a bad idea.

Have you forgotten the global meltdown? More options and opportunity for the less than rich may make TR Price and Fidelity fix their broken capitalist business model.

yawn ... what is the emperor going to do next ,compel workers to invest in these instruments ? ....oh yeah ,that's already been established as one of his goals .


Wow, even socialist Canada doesn't do that.
The Dems have had the Teresa Ghilarducci plan on the back burner since 2008 .

what is the emperor going to do next ,compel workers to invest in these instrumentsI don't know. You're the one that sets up these red herrings then tears them down. A pointless exercise in my opinion.

Trust me .... the idea of making them mandatory participation was being floated within hrs of the SOTU address.

This is just one example :

In part because participation in the accounts is voluntary, it isn't clear whether they will catch on with employees, who must opt in to the program.
Alicia H. Munnell, who directs the Boston CollegeCenter for Retirement Research, said access to retirement savings plans "is the most serious problem we have, and a proposal like this sheds light on the problem, which is a good thing." But unless participants are automatically enrolled in the accounts, she adds, "you are not going to solve the coverage problem."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303553204579349792616592648
(http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303553204579349792616592648Why)Why would you put it past him ? They made participation in Obamacare mandatory even though there is no constitutional authority to do so .(despite the pretzel logic of Chief Justice Roberts ).
The Chinese don't want to buy our debt so the next best thing is to force workers to finance the debt by buying low yield bonds .

Lots of assumption there Tom, and completely disregarding the settled law of the mandates. You may not agree but that doesn't make it illegal, or unconstitutional.

But a lot of this can be solved by congressional action, and the president could sign or veto, and let congress over ride if they chose to. The whole circumstance starts with is NO ACTION by congress.

you all act like this is the first time a President has had an opposition majority in Congress. That of course is not the case . The difference is that this emperor can't even bother to consult with his own party on legislation. Look at the stink he's making over some Dem Sen opposition to the easing of Iran sanctions . Harry Reid is opposing him on fast track trade . He is throwing his majority in the Senate under the bus with his energy policy .Look at all the Dems that decided this would be a good year to retire .. Waxman ;Bill Owens ,Jim Moran ,George Miller,Mike McIntyre ,Jim Matheson .Baucus ,Harkin ,Carl Levin ,Jay Rockefeller .... More coming as the elections get closer and they learn that they can't win because of Obamacare .

I said nothing or alluded in any way the reasons or blame the specific parties. Inaction of the congress is my assertion. Repubs are retiring too. Good luck hoping Obamacare gets repubs the senate, or keeps the house.

all I'm saying is that he has done none of the work required to get his legislative agenda passed. I'm not talking about endless campaign stops .. I'm talking about sitting down and or working the phones with members of Congress and forging deals to get it done .( a couple of golf rounds with Bonehead don't count) . Even with Obamacare he stayed in the White House and let Pelosi and Reid do all the work .
Face the facts .He loves the pomp and ceremony of being the Head of State ;but he is not really interested in doing the work required to get it done.

Tom it seems you think the primary goal of politicians is for their party to be in power, what happened to the ethic of trying to make a difference, of providing local representation, these too are motivations before the corruption begins. If you are licked before you begin there is no point running, just let the opposition take the seats. no it is good that politicians retire and give someone fresh a chance. This is a time when your nation needs a fresh perspective, the old one isn't providing results

After 5 years Tom, you can't blame one guy for getting nothing done. Some have more blame than others but the polls say Americans believe repubs have more of it.

yawn .. polls are meaningless . Yes I can blame one guy . He's the leader ;but he doesn't lead . Reagan took all the barbs from the Dems ,but knew that if he wanted to get anything done ,he'd have to roll up his sleeves and negotiate . He had nothing in common with Tip O'Neil and yet sat with him for hours crafting legislation . This is the stuff the emperor is not interested in doing . Clintoon did it and his Presidency is perceived as a success . Carter wouldn't /couldn't and his Presidency was a disaster . The emperor is on the Carter side of the ledger .

Tom it seems you think
the primary goal of politicians is for their party to be in power, what happened to the ethic of trying to make a difference, of providing local representation, these too are motivations before the corruption begins. If you are licked before you begin there is no point running, just let the opposition take the seats. no it is good that politicians retire and give someone fresh a chance. This is a time when your nation needs a fresh perspective, the old one isn't providing results

oh I get it . You think Waxman ,who is in line to be a powerful committee chair if the Dems took power is retiring to let some young gun get a chance ? lol Of course it's about power . Almost all of these clowns 'serve ' too long . That's why I favor term limiting their a$$es .

Tom you know you can't work with negative people, when there is deliberate attempt to undermine a legislative program as there has been what do you expect? You alleged that Obama had made use of executive orders to "rule" but in fact it was shown he has made less use of this measure than others, so all your opposition is just crap, sour grapes or just plain gripes

Bonehead had little choice but let his right wing inexperienced colleagues get burned with their shutdown/hostage position. Before then he couldn't be seen crafting legislation or a grand bargain by those same colleagues. Big difference between Bonehead and Tip, since Reagan had a willing partner, and Bonehead though he was willing cannot take any executive input back to his TParty colleagues.

Progressives and liberals often criticize Obama for even talking to repubs and you can't blame them given the amount of cooperation he has received over the last 5 years. Matter of fact we see obstruction of everything by the opposition party. I define obstruction as stopping any legislation with no reasonable alternatives. Yes I have read what repubs consider as alternatives, and have provided many links to adopted amendments which of course get voted down despite repub input.

Talking to repubs to get legislation has been a waste of time and money, and the polls you dismiss bear that out. The whole plan was to blame the president for right wing obstruction in the first place. Just ask Mitch, that was his plan from day one.

How you can keep repeating that with a straight face knowing you have 2/3 of the government including Reid's do nothing, block everything Senate.

It's the third that you guys control that's the problem.

You think Republicans are to blame for everything, take some responsibility.

you see ,the thing is what the Dems mean by compromise is for the Repubics to surrender to the will of the emperor . last year the House passed over 160 bills;including dozens of jobs bills , many of which passed with broad bipartisan support ,that sat on Reid's shelf collecting dust ...never to even get sent to committee. Even when the emperor sends Reid a budget it sits on his shelf .

Exactly right, same with tolerance, race, women, diversity... compromise is walking in lockstep to the left.

I know about the 43 bills to repeal Obama Care. What were the other good ideas the House wants passed but Reid sits on it?

Eric Cantor || Majority Leader || Jobs Legislation Tracker (http://majorityleader.gov/JobsTracker/)

Some of the bills you cited in Cantors link show the prez signed the house bill and its stuck in the senate. You do know a bill has to be approved by the House and senate BEFORE its signed so what's up with that?

you are misreading the status chart . Only the parts in green have been completed .

The lady at the center of the alleged GOP war on women has filed to replace Henry Waxman. That's right the women who couldn't find her $9.00 prescription at the Target down the street, the genius that gave us the contraception mandate, the one, the only Sandra Fluke could be the next representative from Kalifornia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/04/sandra-fluke-files-in-california-for-congressional-bid/?wprss=rss_politics&clsrd). Good luck, Ms. Fluke.

What do you have against women entering public service? Wow, you're nasty today.

What do you have against women entering public service? Wow, you're nasty today.

What the hell is your problem? Nothing in that can be construed to mean I have something against women entering public service. It's called sarcasm, learn it and keep your nasty personal comments to yourself, bucko.

Hello again, Creationists:

If sex is the design of an intelligent creator, can we look to its intended purpose to know whether or now we've wrongly employed it?

In other words, having sex for FUN is it wrong. Using a contraceptive is CLEARLY wrong..

excon

Hello again, Creationists:

If sex is the design of an intelligent creator, can we look to its intended purpose to know whether or now we've wrongly employed it?

In other words, having sex for FUN is it wrong. Using a contraceptive is CLEARLY wrong..

excon







What's your point?

Hello again, Steve:

I'm an evolutionist. I screw for fun.. You're a creationist, I'm just wondering if YOU do too.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I'm an evolutionist. I screw for fun.. You're a creationist, I'm just wondering if YOU do too.

excon

You don't think Christians have fun?

Hello again, Creationists:

If sex is the design of an intelligent creator, can we look to its intended purpose to know whether or now we've wrongly employed it?

In other words, having sex for FUN is it wrong. Using a contraceptive is CLEARLY wrong..

excon






You must be familiar with the Song of Solomon . There is nothing in the bible that prohibits sex for pleasure between husband and wife. In fact 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 tells us to not abstaining from sex in marriage and to not deny conjugal rights of the spouse.

Then Oklahoma is in trouble if the "Christians" get their way.

Oklahoma State Rep. Wants To Ban All Marriages | WebProNews (http://www.webpronews.com/oklahoma-state-rep-wants-to-ban-all-marriages-2014-02)


“[My constituents are] willing to have that discussion about whether marriage needs to be regulated by the state at all,” Turner told News 9 (http://m.news9.com/story.aspx?story=24543033&catId=112032).
Nicole Flatow of Think Progressive (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/25/3205541/oklahoma-lawmaker-ban-marriages-revival-jim-crow-tactic/) mentioned how Turner's move draws parallels to the tactics used during Jim Crow south where the U.S. Supreme Court ordered states to desegregate schools in Brown v. Board of Education. Virginia Senator Harry F. Byrd contributed to a “massive resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_resistance)” campaign in which “Virginia legislature ordered the closure of schools (http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/xslt/servlet/XSLTServlet?xml=/xml_docs/solguide/Essays/essay13a.xml&xsl=/xml_docs/solguide/sol_new.xsl&section=essay) subject to a desegregation order.”
“When that tactic was invalidated by courts, one county went so far as to shut down its public school system entirely from 1959 until 1964.” Flatow wrote.
Turner knows that his idea has made a few people uncomfortable, but says “I accept that.”

Tal

I think the state should but out of marriage. Marriage should imply a contract beyond that there is no place for the state in marriage

Marriage should imply a contractContract = law.

yes common law not statute law

Hello again,

Right wingers HATE so much, that if everybody can't swim in the pool, they'll just close the damn pool. Don't they realize that they UNDERMINE their own argument by simply making it?

excon

Hello again,

Right wingers HATE so much, that if everybody can't swim in the pool, they'll just close the damn pool. Don't they realize that they UNDERMINE their own argument by simply making it?

excon

Don't believe I've ever made that argument.

Then Oklahoma is in trouble if the "Christians" get their way.
Why ? nothing says the 'state ' has to sanction marriage. Let the state deal with the legal contract aspects of the relationship ,but there is nothing that says religion has to sanction it just because the state says so.

Hello again,

Right wingers HATE so much, that if everybody can't swim in the pool, they'll just close the damn pool. Don't they realize that they UNDERMINE their own argument by simply making it?

excon

it's not a new idea that the state should get out of the marriage business. Like I said ;let the state deal with the legal contract and call it whatever it wants to call it . Just so you know that just because the state calls it a 'marriage ' doesn't make it so.

Why ? nothing says the 'state ' has to sanction marriage. Let the state deal with the legal contract aspects of the relationship ,but there is nothing that says religion has to sanction it just because the state says so.Agreed! :-)

Hello again:

If they're OUT of the marriage business, then they're OUT of the marriage BENEFIT business too. So, I don't think there's too many married people in Ok who are gonna be fine with LOOSING those benefits.

I'll change the HATE word I used above, to STUPID. Do they really THINK they're going to do this, or are they just trying to SOUND STUPID???

excon

Why ? nothing says the 'state ' has to sanction marriage. Let the state deal with the legal contract aspects of the relationship ,but there is nothing that says religion has to sanction it just because the state says so.

That will be the left's next demand if states go the way Oklahoma might go.

When it comes down to filing federal tax returns married couples have a distinct advantage, and also good luck telling a couple already married and for many years they are room mates and file separately. Good luck telling couples that their church wedding has been voided by your state legislature.

All because they cannot discriminate any longer.

Who said anything about voiding marriages?

Hello again, Steve:

Don't believe I've ever made that argument.Then you DON'T support the end of marriage, as we know it, in the great state of Oklahoma... But, I can't tell..

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Who said anything about voiding marriages?

Go see post #790. You'll see that your neighbor, Oklahoma, is going to get RID of marriage if they have to share it with gay people...

excon

Yes I know that, but the question is whether or not the state will regulate marriage, not dissolve them.

If the governor of Oklahoma signs the legislation to dissolve marriage for everybody, the citizens will sue and back to court they go. An expensive exercise in futility. They will need more than luck.

Again, where does this proposal "dissolve" current marriages? The word Turner used was "regulate," not ban, not dissolve, not void. The question is whether or not Oklahoma will stop regulating marriage, not dissolve them.

We will see when the courts rule on Oklahoma's gay marriage ban. Turner's Plan B will then be put in play.

why is it that you have to take everything to extremes, joint tax filings has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with politics, what part of the government givith and the government takith away don't you understand?

marriage is a simple concept that has nothing to do with taxation but because the government has attached certain perks to marriage others want in on the act

Wouldn't YOU?

I wouldn't want other laws altered so I could, I think all the tax allowances have gone too far so that noone is paying their fair share but they are still expecting handouts and exemptions. you fellows have a minimum tax rate over there so you should ditch all the bull and just make the minimum to tax rate without, exemptions, deductions and incentives. Simplify the whole system and take the complexity out, then the gays have no need to have the definition of marriage altered to include them in the whorting of the tax system

Laws are altered, changed, or whatever all the time. Some are thrown out as being outdated and irrelevant. Time changes everything, or we would still be hiding in caves. And you would be a penal colony.

yes we had our unfortunate past as did you, but we learned a lesson that is lost on you, everyone has a right to a certain basic standard of living and that standard is not subsistence. What we endeavour to do is bring everyone up to a standard rather than reducing everyone down to a minimum.

Many of those who suffered in those penal colonoies were there because the society they lived in took no responsibility for them, it was a capitalist society of the type that some here laud and would like to see the return of. The ethos of this land taught them something and therefore we have a society far removed from yours, a place where we don't have a shutdown of government over providing basic health care, where the hard yards are taken in our stride, and we find a way to get past our differences which are afterall only differences of opinion, and don't assume undue proportions

no it wasn't a capitalist system . They were escaping a mercantile system( government intervention is important in allocating goods and resources and determining prices) such as the statists here are trying to replicate.

Government intervention, price controls, etc.?


At markets, Chavez successor falls short - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/at-markets-chavez-successor-falls-short/2014/01/31/ac85c62a-8518-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html)

CARACAS, Venezuela — On aisle seven, among the diapers and fabric softener, the socialist dreams of the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez looked as ragged as the toilet paper display.


Employees at the Excelsior Gama supermarket had set out a load of extra-soft six-roll packs so large that it nearly blocked the aisle. To stock the shelves with it would have been pointless. Soon word spread that the long-awaited rolls had arrived, and despite a government-imposed limit of one package per person, the checkout lines stretched all the way to the decimated dairy case in the back of the store.


“This is so depressing,” said Maria Plaza, 30, a lawyer, an hour and a half into her wait. “Pathetic.”


Depressing, in an otherwise bright, modern supermarket that sells $100 bottles of Spanish wine, Jack Daniel’s whiskey and organic rice puffs.
Pathetic, in a country with the world’s largest petroleum reserves and oil prices at nearly $95 a barrel, yet unable to supply basic goods because of its crumbling local currency and a shortage of U.S. dollars.


“Soon we’ll be using newspaper, just like they do in Cuba!” said an elderly man nearby, inching forward in line. “Yeah! Like Cuba!” others shouted.
The fate of Venezuela’s revolution, it seems, will be decided at the supermarket.


Nearly a year after Chávez’s death (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/a-day-after-death-venezuela-pays-homage-to-hugo-chavez/2013/03/06/af81b02e-867b-11e2-a80b-3edc779b676f_story.html)of complications from cancer at age 58, his hand­picked successor, Nicolás Maduro, is struggling to contain food shortages, spiraling inflation and rampant crime.


The arrival of basic staples such as cooking oil, chicken, flour or milk brings Venezuelans running to supermarkets and touches off surreal mob scenes, even as the government imposes price caps and rationing to prevent hoarding.


Maduro squeaked past opposition candidate Henrique Capriles in April’s presidential election, and Maduro’s United Socialist Party won enough races in Dec. 8 local elections to push back against perceptions that Chávez loyalists were deserting him. Just before the vote, with television cameras rolling, he sent soldiers into an appliance store (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24883849) accused of price gouging and ordered huge markdowns on televisions and microwaves. Apparently it gave his party a final boost at the polls.


Only the shortages and overall sense of unraveling seemed to have worsened since then.


Each day the arrival of a new item at Excelsior Gama brought Venezuelans flooding into the store: for flour, beef, sugar. Store employees and security guards helped themselves to the goods first, clogging the checkout lines, and then had to barricade the doors to hold back the surge at the entrance.


“The store owners are doing this on purpose, to increase sales,” said Marjorie Urdaneta, a government supporter who said she believes Maduro when he accuses businesses of colluding with foreign powers to wage “economic war” against him.


“He should tell the stores: Make these items available — or else,” she said.
But store managers said they are putting scarce, price-capped supplies out on the floor as soon as they arrive from government-run distribution centers.



Yeah, he should just tell the stores to put out more toilet paper or else!

obviously never heard of just allowing business to compete, he should open government stores, that would bring down prices

More classy Democrats...


Ex-Rep. Joe Baca Calls Congresswoman Who Beat Him 'Some Bimbo' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/joe-baca-bimbo-gloria-negrete-mcleod_n_4810660.html)

Former Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.), who is seeking to return to Congress this year, referred to Rep. Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Calif.) as "some bimbo" on Tuesday in an interview with The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/198607-ex-rep-joe-baca-rules-out-run-for-negrete-mcleods-seat#ixzz2thnCG8xd).


McLeod, who beat Baca in 2012 with the backing of then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, announced this week that she would be retiring after only one term. Baca told The Hill that he is running in a different district this year, but that Bloomberg and the DCCC made a mistake in campaigning against him.


"Look at what we wound up with: Some bimbo who decided not to run again," he said.


McLeod's office did not immediately respond to calls for comment.


Baca apologized later on Tuesday (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/198647-baca-apologizes-for-calling-negrete-mcleod-a-bimbo#ixzz2tiWFF96z)


“I wanted to apologize for my poor choice of words," he told The Hill. "I was just upset the district lost a representative in a short period of time. To me, that's a disservice to the area. I do apologize for my poor choice of words."
Baca has a history of making offensive comments about female members of Congress. In 2007, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) quit the Congressional Hispanic Caucus after Baca, then the caucus' chairman, allegedly called her a "whore."

(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2572.html)

"I'm not going to be a part of the CHC as long as Mr. Baca illegally holds the chair… I told them no," she told Politico at the time. "There's a big rift here. You treat the women like sh*t. I have no use for him."


Baca is currently running in a Democratic primary against Eloise Gomez Reyes and Pete Aguilar in California's 31st district. Reyes, an attorney, has raised $302,000 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/03/the-fixs-fourth-quarter-fundraising-winners-and-losers/) so far, and Aguilar, the mayor of Redlands, Calif., has raised $147,000. Baca, meanwhile, has raised only $20,000.


"Congressman Baca's continued disrespect for women is outrageous," said Aguilar, who is backed by the DCCC. "We might expect this type of behavior from House Republicans, but not from a Democrat seeking to represent Inland Empire families. Joe Baca should be ashamed of himself."



Not to be outdone...


HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) — Just over a year ago, former U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds tried to shed past disgrace with a potent campaign slogan: "Redemption."


It didn't work then and now Reynolds, once a rising star in the Democratic Party (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/former-us-congressman-arrested-zimbabwe) whose career collapsed when he was convicted of rape two decades ago, is under arrest again, this time for allegedly possessing pornography and violating immigration laws in Zimbabwe.


Reynolds, who had won some prominence in Zimbabwe for helping draw investment to hotel and office projects, was being held in custody and was expected to appear in court soon, immigration official Ario Mabika said Tuesday.
The ex-politician, who lost his seat in Congress almost two decades ago because of the statutory rape conviction, was arrested Monday by police and immigration officials at a Harare hotel, according to the state-controlled newspaper, The Herald. He allegedly brought several Zimbabwean models and other women to his hotel room where he took photographs and videos.

More (http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/02/18/former-congressman-mel-reynolds-arrested-in-zimbabwe/) from CBS Chicago. Oops, did I say Chicago?


Another source told the paper Reynolds had filmed more than 100 videos, and shot 2,000 nude pictures of at least 10 different women on various occasions. The paper also said he owes more than $24,000 in unpaid hotel bills.

I know, I know, it's ok if Democrats behave badly because it's Republicans waging the real war on women. Carry on.

Everything is about Obama, even Women's History Month.

It's come to this...

Massachusetts Court Rules It's Legal To Take Upskirt Photos On Public Transit


(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/massachusetts-court-legal-upskirt-photos-transit)

Hello again, Steve:

I see your right wing knee jerked... Well, that's why I'm here..

The issue appears to be a law that hasn't kept up with technology. The ruling was correct.. The legislature simply needs to update the law, and upskirting will be illegal once again..

You can relax.. Judges aren't saying that creepy behavior is good.

excon

I can read, I disagree with the ruling.


"In sum, we interpret the phrase, 'a person who is ... partially nude' in the same way that the defendant does, namely, to mean a person who is partially clothed but who has one or more of the private parts of body exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her," the high court ruled.

An upskirt by definition is generally not "in plain view." Any woman should have a reasonable expectation of privacy up her skirt unless she sits legs spread, but then I would think you "war on women" experts would agree with that.

The White House war on women continues.
Female White House Staffers Got Smaller Raises Than Men - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/female-white-house-staffers-got-smaller-raises-than-men-2014-7)

Even when women were promoted ,they received smaller raises.

Michelle Obama Employs Only 2 Men; Pays Men 46% More Than Women On Staff (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-obama-employs-only-2-men-pays-men-46-more-women-staff_796130.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed)

Michelle Obama Employs Only 2 Men; Pays Men 46% More Than Women On Staff (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-obama-employs-only-2-men-pays-men-46-more-women-staff_796130.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed)
Just reading the source proves that your headline is wrong.

the question really is if the information is accurate . But if the source makes a difference ,then here is the Compost article linked in the story
Male-female pay gap remains entrenched at White House - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/male-female-pay-gap-remains-entrenched-at-white-house/2014/07/01/dbc6c088-0155-11e4-8fd0-3a663dfa68ac_story.html)

Nobody can accuse the Washington comPost as being hostile to anything liberal. I don't think they have found fault with anything Obama has ever done more than 2 or three times... and even then they went easy on him.

Yes it's a local paper to me, one of two... yes I see it every day... I am qualified to make that statement.

it's cultural get used to it

Just reading the source proves that your headline is wrong.

You didn't even check the source. It linked the White House's numbers and WaPo's analysis. If you had an ounce of intellectual integrity you'd dispute the facts, but you can't.

You didn't even check the source.Of course I did or else I wouldn't have posted. This is the source:
2014 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2014)

What are you using to base your judgement?

It's the same exact source Weekly Standard used. You would have known that had you checked, in the first paragraph.

46280

Stop relying on other people to do your thinking for you. Look at the data, it doesn't support their conclusion.

At least I think, as opposed to this:


Just reading the source proves that your headline is wrong.

P.S. I fail to see hos the data doesn't support the conclusion. Perhaps you can spell it out for us. Show us your math.

The data is inconclusive at best because even though the WH has more men working in total the salaries by position are equal for men and women and even better than figures for the general population. Also in reviewing data one snapshot is not enough to show a trend or reach a conclusion since staffers experience a higher turnover ratio than the private sector or general population.

In addition there was no account for the available pool of applicants to chose from which would be a major factor in any final hiring choice by position, so the data is too narrow for anything but conjecture and the math is incomplete. Biased? One could certainly think it possible.

The weekly standard never compared this WH to previous WHs so then what's the point? 13% difference is better than the average for white women, and certainly is better than the 27% for non white women. Cristol's data is to narrow to be empirical.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/09/women-and-equal-pay-wage-gap_n_3038806.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/pay-gap-between-men-and-women-wider-now-than-20-years-ago/4931996

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2013/09/19/the-geography-of-the-gender-pay-gap-womens-earnings-by-state/

What’s the difference? Hypocrisy, and it isn’t Kristol’s data, it’s the regime’s own data and it’s been consistently hypocritical. Had this been Bush you’d be all over him.

The nags from NOW are demanding Obama issue an EO (http://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/16/pro-abortion-now-calls-on-obama-to-sign-executive-order-to-respond-to-hobby-lobby-ruling/) to enforce the contraception mandate, while a clueless Barbara Boxer says SCOTUS is waging a war on women because they didn't allow companies to opt out of Viagra coverage (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/07/15/barbara-boxer-says-supreme-court-is-discriminating-against-women-because-it-has-not-banned-viagra/) or something.


“I do not know of any employer that is dropping coverage for Viagra,” Boxer said on the Senate floor. “I don’t. I’ve asked around, I’ve been on TV, I’ve invited folks to let me know. Oh no, Viagra’s fine. Birth control is not fine.

Um, Viagra is not an abortifacient, coverage wasn't mandated, religious people have sex (and other conditions Viagra treats like pulmonary hypertension), and the president is not a dictator. Get over yourselves people, it isn't all about you.

as you see ;the Dems have nothing left ;so they are relying on their old playbook ... stoking up a phony "war on women" and the race card . Meanwhile here in NY there is about to be a major rail strike. So Jr Cuomo smugly says "NYers have survived worse ;and DiBlassio ...head of the Sandanista wing of the Dems .... decides to go on a 10 day vacation to Italy in the middle of the strike . Now there's competent leadership !

I think the emperor calls that “leading from behind”.

I think the emperor likes "getting it" from behind.

I think the emperor likes "getting it" from behind.I bet you do. ;-)

I'd wager a bet that I would like it significantly less than you would.

get a room you two

#WomenAgainstFeminism goes viral as people explain why they don't need feminism anymore | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/womenagainstfeminism-goes-viral-as-people-explain-why-they-dont-need-feminism-anymore/story-fnixwvgh-1227010590106)

So some sensible women have finally revolted and decided they want to be women

The jews could learn a lesson from that first photo.

Some of reason are idiotic though:
"I think women who are asking for the same rights as men are lacking of fantasy and ambition."
Really?
"Feminism destroys families."
No hyperbole there, nope, none at all.

What, I'm making a list?

Are you checking it twice? Seeing who's naughty and nice?

So a working woman isn't sensible? BS!!

I would have loved to be a stay-at-home if we could afford it.

So a working woman isn't sensible? BS!!

Depends on the definition of "working woman." What's not sensible is disrespecting women for rejecting feminism. You libs whine about not putting people in a box and then you put them in a box.


Some of reason are idiotic though:

Don't judge them.

Don't judge them.Sure I can.
BTW their whole "campaign" is about judging others, better tell them that too.

Yep, that's what the Democrats do, judge everyone put them all in boxes and try to divide the boxes.

You mean like the Republican "us vs them" mentality? The false patriotism?

Obama will be known as "the great divider." among other derogatory things.

among other derogatory things.I know, that's all you have to say is that.

It's the truth... he's a racist.. his wife is a bigot too, Neither of them have done ANYTHING to improve life here for anyone that's productive. THe middle class has seen a household income drop of 20-30% under his watch which is HIS fault. He's the most incompetent boob in history to ever hold an elected office anywhere.

Amazing how you can take the wrong message from that and make it political

THe Democrats taught us everything is political.

Abbott government making it tough for women: Plibersek (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-government-making-it-tough-for-women-plibersek-20140802-zzsm5.html)

When ever the opportunity beckons we hear of the inequilites in our society but we fail to assign blame where it lies. If women are not represented in government it is because they don't present as candidates, no they hang back and wait for some sort of quota to be imposed. If women statistically earn less than men it is because a greater percentage of them take positions which have a lower pay outcome, we don't often hear about the woman who heads one of the largest banks in Australia or the woman who heads the US Federal Reserve. Shush! We mustn't speak about that lest we undermine the debate.

I'm a little fed up with this "poor little me" beatup, If a woman is in deprived circumstances we need to ask whether her actions are at least partly contributing to the situation, not automatically assume she is a victim or as Plibersek has done assume an outcome that hasn't happened for political advantage

Sure I can.

You sure aren't much for irony are you?

Website error.