I can read, I disagree with the ruling.

Quote:

---

"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

Even when women were promoted ,they received smaller raises.

Michelle Obama Employs Only 2 Men; Pays Men 46% More Than Women On Staff

Quote:

---

Michelle Obama Employs Only 2 Men; Pays Men 46% More Than Women On Staff

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

Attachment 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:

Quote:

---

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/2013/0...n_3038806.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-0...rs-ago/4931996

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghanca...ings-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 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 or something.

Quote:

---

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

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.