Just in case you were wondering why McCain defenders lack credibility on gender issues

Dave in SoCal: Yeah, and Obama told a female reporter “Hold on one second, sweetie“.

Can you really never come up with an other way to respond? Someone points out something your side did that was wrong, and you can respond by
a) being an adult and acknowledging it was a bad move (”Yeah, I wish he hadn’t done that.”)
b) being a zealot and denying/defending it (”Hey, there’s nothing wrong with that!”)
c) being a child and pointing out something the other side did (”Yeah? Well, you’re as bad as I am!”)

Why is it always “c”?

(Which, you’ll note, is also an acknowledgment that your guy did do something wrong.)

Do you really think there’s an equivalence between calling someone a “bitch” and calling someone a “sweetie”?

Yeah, and Obama told a female reporter “Hold on one second, sweetie“.

See, Obama didn’t just laugh at someone else’s sexist comment, he made it himself.

That didn’t turn out quite the way you expected, did it?

The bill, which the House Education and Labor Committee is expected to vote on today, remedies a key part of the Supreme Court’s recent crushing decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., which held that employees only have 180 days under Title VII to challenge a discriminatory decision on their compensation – even if the discriminatory pay persists or becomes worse over months and years. Title VII is the law that outlaws workplace discrimination based on race, sex, religion and national origin. The bill establishes that the statutory limitations period begins anew each time an employee receives a discriminatory paycheck.

No formula. No bureaucracy.

You may now resume your pie fight.

Got any more like that in your tiny little clown car? No government mandated formula. That’s all in your head.

Don’t you ever get tired of hollering, “But Clinton!!” If any of Mr. Obama’s employees need to take action against him, maybe they can rely on a whole raft of new right wing friends to foot their legal bills.

Because if a company must pay men and women a certain salary based on a government mandated formula, then that’s exactly what Obama supports.

You’re right, it’s McCain’s opposition to the bill.

You’re wrong, the bill does not call for any bureaucracy to govern wages.

Is it too much to expect you people to know even the most elementary facts under discussion? Apparently it is.

It’s about ensuring there are effective means to enforce existing laws.

The full ERA constitutional amendment we can discuss separately. You know they are different.

And still no comment about McCain and ‘Bitch’

If the salary gap has been decreasing without government intervention into salary scales, why do you think it is necessary for the government to intervene now? Do you need the government to take another dictatorial role in our society before the opportunity disappears?

No one, not Obama, not anyone else in this campaign has said they support that.

Well then — I’ll be waiting for Quaker to provide the quote from McCain saying he doesn’t support equal pay for women.

Oh, what’s that you say? McCain’s actions in not supporting a specific bill mean he doesn’t support equal pay? Well, then Obama’s actions in support of a specific bill mean he supports all the bureaucracy that goes with it.

Because if a company must pay men and women a certain salary based on a government mandated formula, then that’s exactly what Obama supports.

Is there someone who doesn’t agree with the concept of equal pay for equal work?

There’s the real straw man.

There are several questions with answers that separate the opposing views:
1) How will the government define “equal work”?
2) Why do you look to the government to define “appropriate” pay scales for private sector employees?
3) Do you expect women’s pay, once the government determines it is not “equal,” to go up, or do you think men’s pay will go down? (Think Title IX)
4) How will a government mandated salary structure affect the economic productivity of companies that will spend additional time determining the equality of certain job descriptions and proving they are providing equal pay or defending unequal pay?

Oh, that’s right, Congress will most likely exempt itself from that law, like they do so many other times, so any potentially disgruntled Obama employees will have even less of a chance to get justice than Paula Jones did.

J.

Uh, no.

Just entirely wrong, that’s all. No one, not Obama, not anyone else in this campaign has said they support that.

You made it up.

Mr. Obama supports the Ledbetter bill. Put down your seltzer bottles and look it up.

I would imagine it was because women make up a smaller portion of the labor force. Also if you (in both a collective and you personally) were to hell bent on profit margins, you would hire illegal immigrants anyhow.

Maybe people like Obama need the government to tell them to do the right things. But I neither want nor need it.

Can’t let the government tell you not to beat up those durn fags, now can you?

b) equal pay has been the law since 1960. With all the hungry lawyers out there, if there was such a broad 20-30 cent pay gap for discrimination, we’d hear a lot more lawsuits than we do.

Do you know how much your colleagues/co-workers are paid? They don’t know this is happening because they don’t have a measuring stick to compare it to, and they don’t ask because it’s rude.

Oddly enough, in Obama’s Senate office, the average woman is paid $6,000 less than the average man.

Dear God, are you a fucking moron? Wait, don’t answer that. There’s several definitions of “average” (mean, median, mode), and without job descriptions, we don’t know if they’re receiving fair payment or not.

In John McCain’s office, the women average about $2,500 more than the men.

Well, that’s pretty easy when you hire illegal immigrants to run your campaign.

Obama has 33 men on his staff, 31 women. McCain has 30 women, 16 men.

Conclusion: McCain doesn’t like to have a whole lot of men getting in the way of his harem.

like George W. Bush does.

No he doesn’t.

1. We’ve never heard him speak Spanish.
2. He doesn’t even speak English.

while McCain has gone as high as 28.6%.

Hate to bring this up, but the IRA “widows and orphans fund” isn’t a charity.

Jay (Tea), why do you hate America so much?

Oh, and nice strawman for the salary thing – You can’t just take the average of the salaries straight. You need to match positions, experience, tenure, so on. Jay is suggesting we do salary comparisons exactly the way he thinks is wrong.

Continuing on the “professional athlete” labor theme, since male sports are so much more popular, and thus pay more, than female sports, is the Obama administration going to require a salary cap on the NBA at the level of the WNBA, or will it require the WNBA to have a salary minimum equal to the NBA?

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32005

Note that they cite official congressional figures for their story.

It’s the latest in a long string of Obama saying that we ought to do things that he doesn’t — but Republicans do. “Who will save the orphan in Bangladesh?” Why, John and Cindy McCain. “We need to teach our children to speak Spanish” — like George W. Bush does. We need to be more environmentally conscious and have greener homes — like Bush has in Crawford. Obama says Americans should be more charitable — but has never given more than 6.1% of his income to charity, while McCain has gone as high as 28.6%.

Maybe people like Obama need the government to tell them to do the right things. But I neither want nor need it.

If so, please explain.