There are not words in our language to describe the contempt I have for Obama. Nothing is ever, ever his fault. And he always looks to blame someone else, preferably someone like Bush, who Obama knows won't fire back.

If Bush didn't invade Iraq, there might not be an ISIS, since ISIS is a derivative of "Al Queda in Iraq", which didn't exist before the invasion.

Here is what Obama fails to mention. When Obama took office, thanks to the Surge, AL Queda in Iraq was defeated. We have the intercepts of the few remaining leaders of Al Queda in Iraq telling other groups to stop sending fighters, that it was lost in Iraq, that we had won. Obama was urged by many to secure a Status Of Forces agreement with Iraq to leave behind a peacekeeping force so that we didn't give back what we sacrificed so dearly to achieve. Obama was warned that if we left to early, in the vacuum that was left, a terrible force could fill that void.

Obama the Wise ignored all that advice He also ignored the early warnings of ISIS, calling them the JV.

He inherited a stable Iraq. He did nothing to stop the rise of ISIS. Not only does he want no part in stopping them (he's more than happy to leave that mess for his successor), God knows he isn't going to take responsibility for yet another complete failure on his watch.

The Obama stimulus was going to keep unemployment below 8 percent, and create all these shovel ready jobs.

Obama said the days of gas under $2.50 a gallon were gone forever.

Obama makes fun of Romney for suggesting that Putin was a threat (the 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back, haw haw haw)

Obamacare was going to save the average family $2500 a year.

If you like your doctor/plan, you can keep it.

"I don't know what happened at Harvard, but it's fair to say the police acted stupidly". That's the way to bring the country together.

He told ISIS exactly when we were leaving Iraq, they waited, and then started killing and raping. He brushed them off as the JV. And it's all Bush's fault.

That's a hell of a list of failures.

Jerk.

How long, O Lord?

A nice summary of the things you've gotten wrong over the years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A nice summary of the things you've gotten wrong over the years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you could, specifically, correct me...I could benefit from your superior knowledge of events during Obama's tenure.

Easy to insult me Spence. A bit harder to point out the specific inaccuracies in my list, I think...

Everything good that happens, he takes credit for. Like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. Everything bad that happens, is someone else's doing.

Do you disagree with the fact that if we didn't invade Iraq, that Isis wouldn't exist?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you disagree with the fact that if we didn't invade Iraq, that Isis wouldn't exist?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Three years ago ISIS didn't even exist . They rose to power in Syria because the world , including the United States sat by and watched the genocide that was going on there. They then moved into a void in Iraq that was left when the United States troops pulled out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you disagree with the fact that if we didn't invade Iraq, that Isis wouldn't exist?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe you didn't read my post, because here's what I posted...

"If Bush didn't invade Iraq, there might not be an ISIS, since ISIS is a derivative of "Al Queda in Iraq", which didn't exist before the invasion."

The fact is, we invaded. Obama sought the office of POTUS, and a big part o fthat job is managing foreign policy in the Middle East. What did Iraq look like when Obama took office? It was stable and promising. Al Queda in Iraq was absolutely decimated, thanks to the Surge (which Obama opposed, and refused to admit was a success until he had no choice). The genesis if ISIS happened entirely on his watch.

If Obama wants to say he inherited a lousy economy (and take credit for the improvement since his inauguration), then using that same logic, we must also admit he inherited a stable Iraq, and deserves some blame for how terribly that has deteriorated on his watch. He cannot have it both ways. He can't take credit for all the improvements and dodge guilt for all the thing sthat got worse.

He's an unbelievable egomaniac, and he's mind-boggingly unfit for the job he's in. .

They then moved into a void in Iraq that was left when the United States troops pulled out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right on, if O HAD aimed and fired at the time Isis was coming into Iraq from Syria during the void, he would have prevented their infiltration and not have given us the problems we have today.

Obama ran on the premise that he promised to get our troops out of the mess that bush got us into. Seems like he should be able to take credit for that, no? Isis will be waswas in a couple of years.... Watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama ran on the premise that he promised to get our troops out of the mess that bush got us into. Seems like he should be able to take credit for that, no? Isis will be waswas in a couple of years.... Watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually Bush signed the orders to get the troops out.
I think you're wrong but I hope you're right about Isis
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Time will tell.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama ran on the premise that he promised to get our troops out of the mess that bush got us into. Seems like he should be able to take credit for that, no? Isis will be waswas in a couple of years.... Watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, he can take credit for getting us completely out of Iraq. If he gets credit for the benefits involved with pulling us completely out of Iraq (fewer Americans killed, less money spent, etc), does he therefore not deserve responsibility for the negative consequences of pulling us completely out of Iraq, such as the birth of ISIS? Again, you (like he himself) give him credit for all th egood things, but ignore the bad things. Unbelievable.

Nebe, I have news for you. We are going back into Iraq in a big way. Not before this idiot is out of office, but sometime after. And every single drop of blood that is spilled in the campaign to rid the world of ISIS, is on his hands, because there was no ability for ISIS to take root in Iraq when Obama took office. They were decimated. Obama created the vaccuum that allowed them to get going, and then he completely blew the analysis of their potential threat when he called them the JV and did nothing to stop them.

When Obama took office, Iraq was stable, and had free, successful elections, in which the candidates representing the most extreme factoins of Islam were defeated. That's what he inherited. Now it's a disaster.

Isis will be waswas in a couple of years.... Watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boy I'd love to know what you're basing that on, and how you think that comes about without huge numbers of American boots back on the ground.

Actually Bush signed the orders to get the troops out.
I think you're wrong but I hope you're right about Isis
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, Bush originally came up with the timetable for withdrawal that Obama ultimately followed. But the assumption was that at the time, if it was necessary, we would sign another status of forces agreement to leave behind a residual peacekeeping force. When the time came, many military advisors warned Obama about the dangers that were involved with leaving the void that was created by our withdrawal, but being the military expert he is, he did what he wanted.

Don't you guys call that "being a maverick"?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama ran on the premise that he promised to get our troops out of the mess that bush got us into. Seems like he should be able to take credit for that, no? Isis will be waswas in a couple of years.... Watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First, even though I have rebutted attacks on Bush and his policies previously, I did so not to support Bush, but to demonstrate that the attacks on him were not as absolutely true and accurate as they were so confidently stated. I was, personally, never so confident neither about the invasion of Afghanistan nor of Iraq. I understood the stated and unstated rationale for both, and whatever "defending" I did for them was purely on those rationales versus the largely political and slanted attacks on Bush. My personal preference, from the start, was to forthrightly demand that the Taliban government give us Bin Laden, or we would reduce them to rubble.

That said, even realizing, given the world we live in, that could not happen, let me amend what you said. I don't recall exactly how Obama's promise was phrased regarding the troops, but what he got them out of (almost), was Iraq, not the mess Bush got us into. The "mess" was the war. Wars are always messy. The aftermath of the war was a reversion to some order, one in which there was "hope" (one of Obama's favorite words) for the citizens to lead a freer life. But that was contingent on our continued military presence there. What Obama did was to get the troops needed for that to happen out of Iraq. What he did was squash the possibility of the "hope."

What that also did was to squander the lives, limbs, and treasure spent on securing the hope. Even if we grant that we should not have gone there in the first place, and that is not satisfactorily granted by all, what's done is done. And it is arguably unreasonable to throw out whatever good came of it, just to belittle the premise for it--to waste the loss of life in order to fulfill a political promise.

Obama "should be able to take credit for that".

As far as ISIS becoming a "waswas" in a couple of years, that, hopefully, will be true. All things, good or bad, come to an end. In the meantime, ISIS has been a setback to the "hope" for Iraq. And that hope is even further being diminished by the rise of Iran's influence there. And we seem to be going in the direction of letting Iran have its way. And, in my opinion, Iran, and, Turkey and, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinians, and other Middle East countries aren't going to immediately destroy ISIS, but let it continue a little while to eradicate Christian influence there. THEN, that being done, the Middle Eastern powers will make ISIS a "waswas."

Don't you guys call that "being a maverick"?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What Obama did is not cale\led "being a maverick", it's called "being an idiot who completely ignores the empirical evidence that is staring him in the face."

Iraq was stable, though the stability was still fresh and fragile, when Obama took office. Every single rational person would agree that the sole reason for the new-found stability was the overwhelming military presence provided by the Surge. Iraq qas a godawful mess before the surge.

I didn't hear too many military advisors tell Obama that there was little/no downside to withdrawing the way we did. But he is motivated by radical left-wing ideology, not facts and empirical evidence.

If you could, specifically, correct me...I could benefit from your superior knowledge of events during Obama's tenure.

Easy to insult me Spence. A bit harder to point out the specific inaccuracies in my list, I think...

Use the search, it's all there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He won't
All he hears are the voices in his head
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He won't
All he hears are the voices in his head
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, I asked Spence to point out my specific errors, and he didn't, because he couldn't. So I'll ask you to do the same?

Well, I asked Spence to point out my specific errors, and he didn't, because he couldn't. So I'll ask you to do the same?

He won't 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He won't ��
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because he can't, either. I don't believe the failures I listed in my first post, are subject to interpretation. Obama was way off on his estiated benefit of the stimulus, he was way off on his estimate of savings that Obamacare would provide, he was way off when he said we could keep our plan/doctor, he was way off when he concluded that there was no reason to leeave behind a peacekeeping force in Iraq, and he was way off when he dismissed ISIS as the JV, and he was way off when he insulted Romney for speculating that Putin represented a challenge to world peace.

Spence,Dangles, please correct any specific errors I made?

All I said is you won't use the search. As in a previous discussion when you also insisted there was only one side of the coin. You are extremely black and white which is why you have one dimensional knowledge. This has obviously limited your ability to think but you seem fine with that so good luck sport.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't want to get in the middle of, or even take sides in, a personal pissing match. But why is it assumed that Jim did not "use the search"?

All I said is you won't use the search. As in a previous discussion when you also insisted there was only one side of the coin. You are extremely black and white which is why you have one dimensional knowledge. This has obviously limited your ability to think but you seem fine with that so good luck sport.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm pretty certain you made references to my hearing voices as well, but I guess I'm making that up too.

Sea Dangles, do you disagree that Obama inherited a stable Iraq, thanks to the Surge? Do you disagree that Obama claimed the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8% or that he said we could keep our doctors/plans, or that he said the average family would save $2500 a year thanks to Obamacare?

Those things all happened...

All I said is you won't use the search. As in a previous discussion when you also insisted there was only one side of the coin. You are extremely black and white which is why you have one dimensional knowledge. This has obviously limited your ability to think but you seem fine with that so good luck sport.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have to disagree. I think Jim is more than fair in his assessments. He has criticized a right on many occasions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Two peas in a pod
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But why is it assumed that Jim did not "use the search"?
Because the questions he asks have been answered sufficiently multiple times in this forum yet he just keeps asking and asking.

It's like the same Benghazi questions, answered multiple times by several investigations, being asked again, again and again.

Because the questions he asks have been answered sufficiently multiple times in this forum yet he just keeps asking and asking.

It's like the same Benghazi questions, answered multiple times by several investigations, being asked again, again and again.

I think he just likes hearing you repeat the same lies and distortions over and over...I thought he was just a glutton for punishment but maybe he's just clever :fishslap:

I don't want to get in the middle of, or even take sides in, a personal pissing match. But why is it assumed that Jim did not "use the search"?

Because, as is the case in most instances,a simple search will provide evidence of more than one opinion. It doesn't necessarily demonstrate a need to agree with a differing opinion,and certainly two people can read the same story and come to different interpretations. Kind of like the bible. An open mind is necessary to digest any such text.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because, as is the case in most instances,a simple search will provide evidence of more than one opinion. It doesn't necessarily demonstrate a need to agree with a differing opinion,and certainly two people can read the same story and come to different interpretations. Kind of like the bible. An open mind is necessary to digest any such text.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The substance of what you say ("It doesn't necessarily demonstrate a need to agree with a differing opinion,") is what provokes my question. Even if the search provides differing opinions, it doesn't mean that someone who has made the search must remain in a quandary. Nor that one, after making the search, cannot have strong opinions. Some of the most biased people have studied a vast array of opinions. What's the point of making the search if not to form an opinion? That Jim is so assertive and explicit in his opinion does not mean he has not considered other opinions.

Nor does it mean that those who constantly qualify their opinions with vague, noncommittal, contingencies such as "perhaps, possibly, seems" or other hedging ambiguities have made "the search."

I don't think many of us, if any, have made an exhaustive, even a large, "search." And when Spence said "Because the questions he asks have been answered sufficiently multiple times in this forum yet he just keeps asking and asking" it doesn't mean that Spence has "used the search."

There may be a lot of searching that Spence hasn't done. He doesn't cite a lot of the sources which disagree with him. And Jim may be using sources that Spence has not "searched." It is obvious that Jim has searched sources that belie Spence's assertion that his questions have been answered "sufficiently". Or, as you say, he only hears voices in his head. And, it may be, that both Jim and Spence suffer the same malady of insufficient "search_--as you say, two peas in a pod. Though, I don't think
Spence would want to be in that pod. And, I think, Jim would be willing to survive in it. I think ScottW had a good retort.

Because, as is the case in most instances,a simple search will provide evidence of more than one opinion. It doesn't necessarily demonstrate a need to agree with a differing opinion,and certainly two people can read the same story and come to different interpretations. Kind of like the bible. An open mind is necessary to digest any such text.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Because, as is the case in most instances,a simple search will provide evidence of more than one opinion."

More than one opinion?

Is there more than one valid opinion on whether or not Obama promised that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%? Is there more than one valid opinion on whether o rnot he said we could keep our pland and doctors? Is there more than one valid opinion on whether or not he made fun of Romney for describing Putin as a threat to world peace? I also don't believe there is more than one opinion on whether or not Iraq de-stabilized under El Deuce's watch.

I don't need to search for differing opinions on any of these, any more than I need to search for opposing points of view on whether or not gravity exists.

Some things are open to interpretation, like the benefits of raising minimum wage. But the things I listed are not refutable, as evidenced by the fact that neither you nor Spence posted one syllable to refute them. But you can't admit I'm right, because those facts, and they are facts, make Obama look incompetent.

Because the questions he asks have been answered sufficiently multiple times in this forum yet he just keeps asking and asking.

It's like the same Benghazi questions, answered multiple times by several investigations, being asked again, again and again.

OK, I did a search on "how Spence can prove that Obama in fact, did NOT promise that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%, when it subsequently rose above 10%", and guess what? it didn't return anything.

So, one last time, please tell me why I'm wrong when I say that Obama blew that prediction. Because that was one of the items in my list, which you said was "a nice summary of things I've gotten wrong".

If I'm wrong, show me. Why is that so hard?

An open mind is necessary to digest any such text.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ptray tell, what kind of "mind is necessary", to deny that Obama was incorrect about the benefits of the stimulus, or to deny that he was incorrect when he said we could keep our plans/doctors, or to deny that he was wrong for mocking Romney's idea that Putin was trouble?

Not everything is open to interpretation. Some things are irrefutable facts. I can concede all of them, even the ones that don't happen to support my agenda.

Again,don't interpret this as me being sympathetic to Obama or Spence. I have nothing but contempt for O, but I am not eating the vomit of Fox News like some...my reference to using the search was more in regards to our previous discussion regarding equal pay where you posted many articles supporting your stance,yet pretended none exist to the contrary,not that I expected you to but a search would prove they exist. I think it is great you have a Detbutch in your life to pick you up and hug you in these instances. I would do the same if I were to meet you,a man hug of course. You also seem to have a different view of a stable Iraq than some, but that is also your prerogative. I respect the fact you have an informed opinion although we do not always agree.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it is great you have a Detbutch in your life to pick you up and hug you in these instances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks for reminding me that I should stay out of little pissing matches.

BTW, Jim doesn't need me to pick him up. If anything, he ignores anything I say that might be considered by others to pick him up, and he goes about explaining and defending his position in his own way. We have, you'll notice if you do "the search," disagreed, at length several times.

In this instance, I thought it was peculiar to assert or imply that Jim had not done a search to help form or back up his opinions. I certainly didn't think he was merely hearing voices in his own head. Oh crap . . . there I go . . . I'll shut up now.

Well said
Shake and Bake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks for reminding me that I should stay out of little pissing matches.

BTW, Jim doesn't need me to pick him up. If anything, he ignores anything I say that might be considered by others to pick him up, and he goes about explaining and defending his position in his own way. We have, you'll notice if you do "the search," disagreed, at length several times.

In this instance, I thought it was peculiar to assert or imply that Jim had not done a search to help form or back up his opinions. I certainly didn't think he was merely hearing voices in his own head. Oh crap . . . there I go . . . I'll shut up now.
Please refer to the above where I explained my reference to the search. I thought I had made myself clear but obviously you interpreted it differently.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again,don't interpret this as me being sympathetic to Obama or Spence. I have nothing but contempt for O, but I am not eating the vomit of Fox News like some...my reference to using the search was more in regards to our previous discussion regarding equal pay where you posted many articles supporting your stance,yet pretended none exist to the contrary,not that I expected you to but a search would prove they exist. I think it is great you have a Detbutch in your life to pick you up and hug you in these instances. I would do the same if I were to meet you,a man hug of course. You also seem to have a different view of a stable Iraq than some, but that is also your prerogative. I respect the fact you have an informed opinion although we do not always agree.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Due respect...every single study I have seen that shows a gender pay gap, simply compares average male salary to average female salary.

Every single study I have seen which normalizes for experience and hours worked (men typically work longer hours and have more experience, because they don't usually take time off for childbirth), shows no gender pay gap.

Thus, the pay gap is not a function of gender, it's a function of hours worked and experience.

I concede that articles to the contrary exist. But every single one that I have ever seen, is flawed, in that it doesn't make it an apples to apples comparison, because it doesn't compare equivalent males and females. I asked you to post a study which (1) had that necessary adjustment, and (2) still showed a gender pay gap. You didn't, presumably because you couldn't. Yet I bet you still believe there is a gender pay gap, and it's that refusal to concede mathematical facts, that I will never understand. That's not a matter of opinion, it's high school math.

I don't need Detbuch, though it's nice that we usually agree. And it's nice having him here because I learn fom him, even when we disagree.

Man hug back at you, have a good weekend.

Thus, the pay gap is not a function of gender, it's a function of hours worked and experience.


You might want to add the difference that men and women predominantly make in the type of jobs they choose to work in. "Studies" that I have bumped into when doing "the search" bit have noted that there are far more men employed in the higher paying jobs then women. When those numbers are indiscriminately added to the overall mix, it falsely skews the comparison of men's to women's average pay. And, even though less women than men work in those higher paying jobs, the women who do, and, as you say, work the same amount of time with equal experience in those jobs, at least in the vast majority of cases, get equal pay.

Not true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, OK, since you put it that way.

[QUOTE=spence;1068290]Because the questions he asks have been answered sufficiently multiple times in this forum yet he just keeps asking and asking.

Spence every political blog is disected 40 times and U R just as guilty....over and over....:)

Not true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seriously...can you please pot SOMETHING to support your position? Last time I asked, you posted a link to the same de-bunked study that showed, on average (without adjusting for differences in careers chosen or hours worked), women make less than men.

Sea Dangles, do you think everyone in the US should make the same exact salary? A teenage girl working part-time at Starbucks should make the same salary as a corporate lawyer working 12 hours a day?

We all get that you don't what Detbuch and I are saying to be true. But every study I have seen, including the only one I ever saw you post, clearly shows that the "gender pay gap" only exists if you fail to normalize for critical differences.

If the "Liberal Narrative" claimed that gravity wasn't true, would you believe that as well?

Well, OK, since you put it that way.

LMFAO...

You might want to add the difference that men and women predominantly make in the type of jobs they choose to work in. "Studies" that I have bumped into when doing "the search" bit have noted that there are far more men employed in the higher paying jobs then women. When those numbers are indiscriminately added to the overall mix, it falsely skews the comparison of men's to women's average pay. And, even though less women than men work in those higher paying jobs, the women who do, and, as you say, work the same amount of time with equal experience in those jobs, at least in the vast majority of cases, get equal pay.

Very true, another huge difference is the increased likelihood for men to choose the most lucrative careers.

"even though less women than men work in those higher paying jobs, the women who do, and, as you say, work the same amount of time with equal experience in those jobs, at least in the vast majority of cases, get equal pay"

And the inescapable conclusion from your statement, is that there is no gender pay gap. There IS a pay gap between people who work more hours versus less hours. There is a gap between those who choose the most lucrative careers and those who do not. And that does not seem the least unfair to me.

If we want to increase opportunities for more Americans to be qualifies for more lucrative careers, that's an idea we should all endorse. But it's not about gender. Except maybe in Hollywood, but anyone who chooses that career path, knows exactly what they are getting into...

LMFAO...

actually, i think he's right...if you do a little googling you'll find out that women are and have been underrepresented and paid less than their male counterparts in both the Clinton and Obama administrations as well as Hillary's various staffs and on and on....if true there, it must be true everywhere...we are fortunate to have people like the Clintons and Obama to point out these travesties while campaigning and to correct them once in power :smash:

Very true, another huge difference is the increased likelihood for men to choose the most lucrative careers.

"even though less women than men work in those higher paying jobs, the women who do, and, as you say, work the same amount of time with equal experience in those jobs, at least in the vast majority of cases, get equal pay"

And the inescapable conclusion from your statement, is that there is no gender pay gap. There IS a pay gap between people who work more hours versus less hours. There is a gap between those who choose the most lucrative careers and those who do not. And that does not seem the least unfair to me.

If we want to increase opportunities for more Americans to be qualifies for more lucrative careers, that's an idea we should all endorse. But it's not about gender. Except maybe in Hollywood, but anyone who chooses that career path, knows exactly what they are getting into...

You are misinformed Jimmy,I think you know that too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are misinformed Jimmy,I think you know that too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did a pitifully quick internet "search" on types of work men and women do and these are the first and only two I read:

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/07/27/where-women-work/

and:

http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/index.php/2007/05/29/traditional-jobs-for-men-and-women-the-gender-divide/

The second article goes into more detail and has some very interesting links within the article. There are occupations in which the women make more than the men, some way more.

In general, these support the idea that the types of work that mostly women do and the types that mostly men do are a huge contributing factor in the so-called gender wage gap.

Of course, if I were to do "the search" in a more exhaustive way, I should be able to find something to dispute these. Just too tired and disinterested to do it. Maybe you can.

Anyway, my opinion is that too much is made of the issue, and I think it is politics that drives it. There is already a federal law against discriminatory hiring. Not a whole lot more can be done by government other than commie, gestapo tactics. Or, more likely, some bill with the right sounding title, Fair and Equal Pay for Women, or some such thing, which doesn't really do anything more to "fix" the phony gap except to put more regulatory burdens on business with the accompanying costly paper work--all just raising the cost of doing business and maybe even result in trimming the number of jobs. But it can sure be a rather phony campaign issue in an attempt to influence the female vote.

I still think the market best decides these things. And, indeed, according to the two articles, the market at this time favors women in some good to high wage sectors. And, as some pundits have said, if you could hire women to do the same work as men for less money, it would be foolish of businesses not to do so.

You are misinformed Jimmy,I think you know that too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then educate me. Please post some kind of link or study which shows a gender pay gap, which makes an apples to apples comparison between men and women, in terms of chosen career, experience, and hours worked.

Why is it, I keep asking for that, and you won't do it?

And since we all know the answer to that question, here's the follow up...why do you still cling to the phony gender pay gap, when you can't support it, and in defiance of all the studies I posted showing there is no gap?

It is there,I see it every day.you just don't want to admit it because it defeats your agenda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is there,I see it every day.you just don't want to admit it because it defeats your agenda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, he's just trying to make you repeat your same request over and over. He is not interested in documenting his opinion with some citation from "the search." He only wants to make you look like a desperate blathering fool. My opinion is if you leave it alone you'll come away with discretion being the better part of valor, and his vacuous attempt to bate you will be seen for what it is.

But if you want, as ScottW said, to be a glutton for punishment . . . go for it . . . in your persistent, admirable, never give up, always a marine . . . way.

An insightful evaluation from a wingman who exited the pissing contest long ago.Please include yourself in the blathering representation. From here on out,I will allow you both to continue your online dating bullseye together.
Semper fi
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

An insightful evaluation from a wingman who exited the pissing contest long ago.Please include yourself in the blathering representation. From here on out,I will allow you both to continue your online dating bullseye together.
Semper fi
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What you see or not ,is not a credible sample of what's out there.

Last time ever...I posted multiple studies that show there is no gender pay gap when you make rudimentary adjustments to the data, which anyone who ever took statistics 101, knows is necessary. You have posted precisely nothing to support your claim.

My agenda is to react to the facts. Every fact I have ever seen on this topic, shows unequivocally, that there is no gender pay gap. You refuse to concede any of that, but you cannot provide a shred of supporting data. That's what an ideologue does. My conviction on this topic is a direct result of demonstrable facts. All you have is what you desperately wish were true.

Even if there happened to be a genuine gender pay gap where you happen to work, that's not indicative of a wide problem. There is plenty of federal law prohibiting such pay gaps, and plenty of lawyers willing to sue, therefore, businesses have every reason to comply with the law.

If you can support your position with something, anything, we can continue.

If you can support your position with something, anything, we can continue.

Hey, Jim . . . no need to continue. The enemy has left the field. It has been vanquished.

I am really not your enemy Detbutch,simply a contrarian.However,I feel like the third wheel on a date with two love struck friends. Thoughtful of you to hold and caress in such a manner. I am simply trying to allow you 2 some private time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am really not your enemy Detbutch,simply a contrarian.However,I feel like the third wheel on a date with two love struck friends. Thoughtful of you to hold and caress in such a manner. I am simply trying to allow you 2 some private time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're "allowing" me? With such snarky friends, who needs enemies?

You're "allowing" me? With such snarky friends, who needs enemies?

Ignore him . It's a pattern
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ignore him . It's a pattern
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hope, for his sake and everybody else, it doesn't develop into what Spence likes to call a "systemic pattern." That's one of those nearly incurable conditions which require Holder's DOJ to intervene and mess up even more.

I believe it has already spread virus like into the forum and hijacked several threads.

You're "allowing" me? With such snarky friends, who needs enemies?

Don't take it out of context

Just because we may not see eye to eye it does not have to be defined as either friends or enemies. There is a grey area that you have demonstrated an inability to recognize on many fronts...
We are all brothers in a biblical sense,right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ignore him . It's a pattern
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought those scars had healed.
Too soon?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK, I did a search on "how Spence can prove that Obama in fact, did NOT promise that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%, when it subsequently rose above 10%", and guess what? it didn't return anything.

So, one last time, please tell me why I'm wrong when I say that Obama blew that prediction. Because that was one of the items in my list, which you said was "a nice summary of things I've gotten wrong".

If I'm wrong, show me. Why is that so hard?
Jim, if you'd make even the slightest attempt to form a reasoned opinion you'd answer this and most all of your questions.

Obama never "promised" an 8% unemployment cap. He cited an economic study that "projected" 8% given the current understanding of the recession and which came with heavy disclaimers. All the data the CBO and other groups were using was later found to have underestimated the severity of the economic downturn.

As for it not returning anything, a few seconds with the google will let you know that the CBO and vast majority of economists refute your opinion.

Don't take it out of context

Just because we may not see eye to eye it does not have to be defined as either friends or enemies. There is a grey area that you have demonstrated an inability to recognize on many fronts...
We are all brothers in a biblical sense,right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mea culpa. Mea culpa. I have not recognized the grey area. Father forgive me.

I thought those scars had healed.
Too soon?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no scars my friend . Just calling them they way I see them .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a genuine Dangles type of thread. I would like to thank all of my friends for their participation. I hope it never ends. Honorable mention to DB for blathering long after he bowed out!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no scars my friend . Just calling them they way I see them .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hahaha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a genuine Dangles type of thread. I would like to thank all of my friends for their participation. I hope it never ends. Honorable mention to DB for blathering long after he bowed out!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, I enjoyed it. I would have liked better than honorable mention but blathering probably doesn't even deserve that much.

Jim, if you'd make even the slightest attempt to form a reasoned opinion you'd answer this and most all of your questions.

Obama never "promised" an 8% unemployment cap. He cited an economic study that "projected" 8% given the current understanding of the recession and which came with heavy disclaimers. All the data the CBO and other groups were using was later found to have underestimated the severity of the economic downturn.

As for it not returning anything, a few seconds with the google will let you know that the CBO and vast majority of economists refute your opinion.
chugging the Kool Aid.

Does Obama deserve no blame for underestimating the severity of the downturn, or for overestimating his ability to lead us out of it. or overestimating his ability to come up with a plan that lets us keep our doctors, or overestimate his plan's ability to save us all 2500/year, or the fact that he underestimated the risk in pulling out of Iraq, or the he underestimated the depravity of ISIS, and underestimated the ability of the Surge to do exactly what the military suggested it would do?

You're making my case for me. The way Obama read the tea leaves, he could spend a trillion and keep unemployment below 8%. He failed miserably. You give him a pass. Shocker...

"As for it not returning anything"...woah...who said it didn't return anything?

The CBO refutes my opinion? That would be the same CBO that in your previous sentence, you said was way off base about the severity of the downturn? So you throw them under the bus to save Obama, but two seconds later, you are citing them to refute me?

Obama sold his stimulus on the fact that he agreed with those who said it would keep unemployment below 8%. Does he bear any responsibility for the complete failure to deliver on his statement?

"As for it not returning anything"...woah...who said it didn't return anything?
You did. Aren't you reading your own posts as you write them?

You did. Aren't you reading your own posts as you write them?

Mybe I'm tired. If you can show me on this thread, where I said any such thing, it would be appreciated.

I'm sure some people at Solyndra got rich as a resukt of the stimulus, that's something...

Mybe I'm tired. If you can show me on this thread, where I said any such thing, it would be appreciated.

I'm sure some people at Solyndra got rich as a resukt of the stimulus, that's something...
Scroll up.

Solyndra? http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-02-17/why-solyndra-wont-go-away

Scroll up.

Solyndra? http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-02-17/why-solyndra-wont-go-away

You got me, I said it!
It returned something, obviously. It did not do, what Obama said it was going to do.

Scroll up.

Solyndra? http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-02-17/why-solyndra-wont-go-away

And from your link...

"But it’s embarrassing to President Obama, not least because he personally touted Solyndra as a beacon of “American ingenuity and dynamism” at a 2010 campaign stop, and a few of his big donors had financial stakes in the company..."

Well done, Mr Obama. Why not just give that money to his political benefactors, and eliminate the appearance of laundering it through a company?

And from your link...

"But it’s embarrassing to President Obama, not least because he personally touted Solyndra as a beacon of “American ingenuity and dynamism” at a 2010 campaign stop, and a few of his big donors had financial stakes in the company..."

Well done, Mr Obama. Why not just give that money to his political benefactors, and eliminate the appearance of laundering it through a company?
I assume you also read the part about countless investigation turning up no scandal right?

I assume you also read the part about countless investigation turning up no scandal right?

i don't think Obama's actions were illegal, just grossly incompetent. he said the program would keep unemployment below 8%, and he was off by millions of jobs. He pointed to Solyndra as a model of American greatness, and then - poof - it's gone.

Obama was wrong on the Iraq surge, wrong on the impact of his stimulus, wrong about the qualiyty of Solyndra, wrong about Putin not being a serious threat, wrong about the risks involved with pulling out of Iraq, wrong about the threat posed by ISIS, wrong about Obamacare saving us 2500 a year, wrong about us being able to keep our doctors. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. It's amazing.

Atta boy, Columbo...

I haven't read all the posts in this thread.

Stubborn Pay Gap Is Found in Nursing
By Catherine Saint Louis March 24, 2015 11:01 am March 24, 2015 11:01 am

Male nurses make $5,100 more on average per year than female colleagues in similar positions, researchers reported on Tuesday.
The new analysis, which included data on more than 290,000 registered nurses, also found that the pay gap had not narrowed within workplace settings and specialties from 1988 to 2013. The new study is the first to have measured gender disparities in pay among nurses over time.
“We now have pretty compelling evidence that there are pay inequalities between men and women in nursing over the past 25 years,” said Debra J. Barksdale, the director of the doctor of nursing practice program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was not involved with the new study.
Because most nurses are women, “you may think women have caught up or even might be ahead of men, but we find that’s not the case,” said Ulrike Muench, the lead author of the new study, which was published in JAMA, and an assistant professor of social behavioral sciences at the School of Nursing of the University of California, San Francisco.
The research team, which also included experts at the Yale School of Public Health and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, used data from two surveys. One provided a trove of employment information, like whether nurses worked in hospital or ambulatory settings and the number of years since graduation. But the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses was discontinued in 2008.
The researchers also relied on census data for information on earnings, finding that the gap “exists and persists in a second nationally representative data set,” Dr. Muench said.
The gap varied across specialties, Dr. Muench and her colleagues found. Male cardiology nurses were paid more per year than female colleagues by roughly $6,000 on average. By contrast, male nurses in chronic care — focused on managing conditions like diabetes or asthma — made roughly $3,800 more than women in those specialties.
This new analysis found the pay disparity greatest among nurse anesthetists. About 40 percent are men, and they were paid $17,290 more on average per year than female nurse anesthetists.
The study did not address reasons underpinning the persistent gap. There could be several reasons, Dr. Muench said: Men may be better negotiators, for instance, or perhaps women more often leave the work force to raise children. Women may have a tougher time getting promoted, she said.
“A workplace may offer a bit more to the men in order to diversify,” said Diana Mason, a professor of nursing at Hunter College of The City University of New York and former editor of The American Journal of Nursing.
Still, it is possible that women earn less because of a “lingering bias that a man is more of an expert because he’s a man,” she said.
Dr. Mason said the new analysis was an opportunity for chief nurse officers to ask their employers for wage data by gender for employees in equal positions with comparable experience in order to root out bias in pay.
Peter McMenamin, a health economist and a spokesman for the American Nurses Association, commended the study. “The folks who did the study are well qualified and they have lots of data,” he said. “But my main hesitance in terms of statistics is they have fewer men.”
Only 7 to 10 percent of nurses are male, he acknowledged. But with a smaller sample, he said, “the reliability of the answers is less robust.”
“You can’t say this is all a statistical fluke,” he added. “It’s not. But there are different things that could explain some of this challenge.”
Next, the researchers aim to focus on explanations for earning gaps in nursing.

I haven't read all the posts in this thread.

Stubborn Pay Gap Is Found in Nursing
By Catherine Saint Louis March 24, 2015 11:01 am March 24, 2015 11:01 am

Male nurses make $5,100 more on average per year than female colleagues in similar positions, researchers reported on Tuesday.
The new analysis, which included data on more than 290,000 registered nurses, also found that the pay gap had not narrowed within workplace settings and specialties from 1988 to 2013. The new study is the first to have measured gender disparities in pay among nurses over time.
“We now have pretty compelling evidence that there are pay inequalities between men and women in nursing over the past 25 years,” said Debra J. Barksdale, the director of the doctor of nursing practice program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was not involved with the new study.
Because most nurses are women, “you may think women have caught up or even might be ahead of men, but we find that’s not the case,” said Ulrike Muench, the lead author of the new study, which was published in JAMA, and an assistant professor of social behavioral sciences at the School of Nursing of the University of California, San Francisco.
The research team, which also included experts at the Yale School of Public Health and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, used data from two surveys. One provided a trove of employment information, like whether nurses worked in hospital or ambulatory settings and the number of years since graduation. But the National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses was discontinued in 2008.
The researchers also relied on census data for information on earnings, finding that the gap “exists and persists in a second nationally representative data set,” Dr. Muench said.
The gap varied across specialties, Dr. Muench and her colleagues found. Male cardiology nurses were paid more per year than female colleagues by roughly $6,000 on average. By contrast, male nurses in chronic care — focused on managing conditions like diabetes or asthma — made roughly $3,800 more than women in those specialties.
This new analysis found the pay disparity greatest among nurse anesthetists. About 40 percent are men, and they were paid $17,290 more on average per year than female nurse anesthetists.
The study did not address reasons underpinning the persistent gap. There could be several reasons, Dr. Muench said: Men may be better negotiators, for instance, or perhaps women more often leave the work force to raise children. Women may have a tougher time getting promoted, she said.
“A workplace may offer a bit more to the men in order to diversify,” said Diana Mason, a professor of nursing at Hunter College of The City University of New York and former editor of The American Journal of Nursing.
Still, it is possible that women earn less because of a “lingering bias that a man is more of an expert because he’s a man,” she said.
Dr. Mason said the new analysis was an opportunity for chief nurse officers to ask their employers for wage data by gender for employees in equal positions with comparable experience in order to root out bias in pay.
Peter McMenamin, a health economist and a spokesman for the American Nurses Association, commended the study. “The folks who did the study are well qualified and they have lots of data,” he said. “But my main hesitance in terms of statistics is they have fewer men.”
Only 7 to 10 percent of nurses are male, he acknowledged. But with a smaller sample, he said, “the reliability of the answers is less robust.”
“You can’t say this is all a statistical fluke,” he added. “It’s not. But there are different things that could explain some of this challenge.”
Next, the researchers aim to focus on explanations for earning gaps in nursing.

"perhaps women more often leave the work force to raise children."

Perhaps?

First time seeingthis, good that it limits to one profession. But it also needs to normalize for years worked, which i snot nearly the same thing as the number of years since college graduation. Why? Women are far mor elikely to take time off, menaing they have less experience than a man who graduated the same year.

Paul, we have laws preventing this kind of discrimination, and God knows we have lawyers who like to file class action suits. If this study had realk merit, why aren't the women suing? Where is Gloria Allred, why isn't she getting all worked up by this?

Jim, I just posted an article that I saw this morning.

There are lots of statements you can use to back your arguement. I even highlighted the last statement.

"or perhaps women more often leave the work force to raise children. "


ding...ding....ding...ding

it'll be funny when they discover the greatest disparity is among unionized and government workers where longevity is the determining factor for wage scale rather than talent, ability and performance and patronage, discrimination and the old boy network are alive and well...insulated even...


these researchers completed another study recently where they, after several years of extensive research, determined that the sun actually rises in the east.....nice job!....they plan a follow-up study to try to determine why the sun shows bias toward the east when rising and west when setting and document the obvious discrimination displayed toward both the north and south

"or perhaps women more often leave the work force to raise children. "


ding...ding....ding...ding

it'll be funny when they discover the greatest disparity is among unionized and government workers where longevity is the determining factor for wage scale rather than talent, ability and performance and patronage, discrimination and the old boy network are alive and well...insulated even...


these researchers completed another study recently where they, after several years of extensive research, determined that the sun actually rises in the east.....nice job!....they plan a follow-up study to try to determine why the sun shows bias toward the east when rising and west when setting and document the obvious discrimination displayed toward both the north and south

At least PaulS actually did a searchy thingy. Unlike others who wanted to simply claim Jim was wrong because his questions had already been "satisfactorily" answered. So they, apparently, did not require a "search" be done by themselves. Although it somehow supposedly required Jim to do the search in order to recover those reputed satisfactory answers. Very convenient, or lazy, to say the least. There is no possibility, of course, that there were no such "satisfactory" answers which actually disproved the "searched" conclusions which inspire Jim's over and over questions? Jim has already demonstrated, in this thread and others, that he is willing to accept a satisfactory answer. Others, apparently, either never do, or they just go away only to return another day with their same, over and over opinions, sometimes bolstered by a newfound "search" which is argued, debunked, requiring the same going away, only to return another day with a new AHA!

But, even the report that Paul posted, was not so much an answer to Jim's question, but more of a "well, maybe, possibility," needing some actual investigation of the "why." And, as admitted, the why might well support Jim's opinion.

So far, the searching on the topic that has been done in this thread supports Jim's contention, or hints that it may or may not be true. Or, that if it is not true, that is only so in the nursing field. Which may, or may not just be a counter balance to another field, as has been pointed out in this thread, where women are paid more on average than men, sometimes much more.

The most discouraging aspect of all this indeterminate back and forth, if indeed there really is a question, is that it can be used as a campaign talking point to divide and influence votes. No matter that the federal government has already answered the problem by prohibiting that which is supposed to be the problem. No doubt it was a talking point back when the legislation was passed, and will continue to be a talking point, after it was already solved, so long as it can be milked. Along with other questionable perennial talking points such as minimum wage.

No matter, also, that the federal government, at least in the prescribed manner by which it is supposed to act, is intruding in areas that should not be its business. It should not be regulating the nation's entire economy.

But, by creating evil straw men to knock down, it cunningly captures the peoples soft spots acting as the knight in shining armor who will slay the propped up bad guys. How can we resist? What good is a Constitution if it allows us to be trampled?

No matter, of course, that it's the Constitution which is being trampled, thus making us vulnerable to evils far beyond those which we already have the power to fight without central power intervention.

But that is the point of intervention. The federal government, by feeding us crumbs from the loaf we already own, takes possession of the whole loaf. It becomes the Constitution. And, as such, it becomes the supreme law of the land. And, assuming all powers, it, in actuality, becomes the only law. Things like the economy, are no longer the people's business. It becomes the governments business, to direct and regulate towards its ends rather than the ends of business owners, who, now, will only "own" what is allowed after central power regulation.

Sure, We the People will ostensibly still have many freedoms, and local governments will still function in different ways. But, as in all centralized governments, those freedoms can be trumped by the kingpin when it wants to. As in most dictatorships, the people must be given crumbs. But, when the Federal Government becomes the Constitution, there are no longer any guarantees of freedom. Only those which are allowed.

It is not even humorous that various "rights" will be touted as reasons to vote for candidates in the coming election if someone like Ted Cruz is the Republican nominee. Either vote for rights which are inalienable, or only those allowed by government.

At least PaulS actually did a searchy thingy. I like Paul, he's passionate

It is not even humorous that various "rights" will be touted as reasons to vote for candidates in the coming election if someone like Ted Cruz is the Republican nominee. Either vote for rights which are inalienable, or only those allowed by government.

great article
yesterday

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/415932/print