|
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Mar 6, 2014, 07:58 AM
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 11, 2014, 06:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 11, 2014, 09:52 AM
|
|
Just reading the source proves that your headline is wrong.
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 11, 2014, 10:48 AM
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 11, 2014, 03:21 PM
|
|
it's cultural get used to it
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 15, 2014, 09:52 AM
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 15, 2014, 10:27 AM
|
|
It's the same exact source Weekly Standard used. You would have known that had you checked, in the first paragraph.
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 15, 2014, 10:38 AM
|
|
Stop relying on other people to do your thinking for you. Look at the data, it doesn't support their conclusion.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 15, 2014, 11:33 AM
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Expert
|
|
Jul 15, 2014, 12:47 PM
|
|
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/
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 15, 2014, 01:14 PM
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 16, 2014, 01:59 PM
|
|
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.
“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.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 16, 2014, 02:17 PM
|
|
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 !
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Jul 16, 2014, 02:21 PM
|
|
I think the emperor calls that “leading from behind”.
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 16, 2014, 02:30 PM
|
|
I think the emperor likes "getting it" from behind.
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 16, 2014, 03:59 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by smoothy
I think the emperor likes "getting it" from behind.
I bet you do. ;-)
|
|
|
Uber Member
|
|
Jul 16, 2014, 04:49 PM
|
|
I'd wager a bet that I would like it significantly less than you would.
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
The war on women
[ 1516 Answers ]
Hello:
We've had post after post about this alleged war on women. The right wing says, what war? There's nothing going on here. Look over there. Then they accuse the Democrats of pitting women against men. They just want to talk about jobs...
But, even after those discussion, the war on...
The war on women round II
[ 20 Answers ]
U.S. drops the ball on women's rights - CNN.com
It seems the US is indeed conducting a war on women which places it in the same league as the restrictive society of Iran, and why, because instead of acknowledging gains endorsed by most of the world, it is a hold out for some utopian view, what...
Obama's war on women
[ 18 Answers ]
Why does Obama hate women?
Add to that the fact that Obama doesn't care about real life issues women are facing such as gas and grocery prices instead of $9.00 contraceptives, and I'd say Obama is the one waging a war on women, not Republicans.
View more questions
Search
|