WakeWorld

WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Non-Wakeboarding Discussion (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4387)
-   -   Binders full of women! (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=795936)

pesos 10-16-2012 11:07 PM

Binders full of women!
 
1 Attachment(s)
Lol

wakeboardingdad 10-17-2012 4:03 AM

He did speak up for women's rights the other day... :)

mjfan23 10-17-2012 9:35 AM

For both candidates who sat there and argued about womens rights... maybe, they should have started by respecting the women running the debate.

calexan 10-18-2012 9:54 AM

Oh come on.... nobody respect Heifers! Especially when you have a binder full of women


http://cloudfront2.bostinno.com/wp-c...10/crowley.jpg

diamonddad 10-18-2012 6:43 PM

"binders of women" vs "binders of female candates" or "many women" and this gets the libbys excited.

colorider 10-19-2012 9:37 AM

I'm with ya gd. Absurd how the libtards have made this such a big deal.

digg311 10-19-2012 10:04 AM

If you think those terms are what have people upset, GD, you're missing the point.
"Binders full of women" just makes for good Clinton jokes... although the real punchline is the fact that Romney pretty much made the whole story up. And in doing so, at the very least made himself look sexist... or at the very worst, proved that he is.

ord27 10-19-2012 10:09 AM

I don't get this at all. Romney said that when approached with resumes of people to fill his cabinet spots with, he requested more from qualified women. How is that negative or sexist?

to me, this shows just how desperate the Obam campaign is, and how biased the media is.
The bigger story about women, is the pay scale of the women who work in the White House under Obama...


ready for this to be over....

digg311 10-19-2012 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ord27 (Post 1790353)
I don't get this at all. Romney said that when approached with resumes of people to fill his cabinet spots with, he requested more from qualified women. How is that negative or sexist?

Except that's not what happened. At all. That's my whole point.

http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/tal...he-binder.aspx

What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

I have written about this before, in various contexts; tonight I've checked with several people directly involved in the MassGAP effort who confirm that this history as I've just presented it is correct -- and that Romney's claim tonight, that he asked for such a study, is false.

I will write more about this later, but for tonight let me just make a few quick additional points. First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn't care about -- and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about -- budget, business development, etc. -- went to women.

Secondly, a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006. (It then began rapidly rising when Deval Patrick took office.)

Third, note that in Romney's story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn't know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?

ord27 10-19-2012 2:03 PM

it says that Romney appointed 42% to women.

digg311 10-19-2012 2:28 PM

Good for him. If everyone he appointed was qualified, I'm glad it worked out to be so fair. But it's interesting to me that you'd key on that rather than my specific point, which was that he lied to make it look like it was his idea.

snyder 10-19-2012 2:46 PM

know how I know Romney's going to win?







This thread.

ord27 10-19-2012 3:42 PM

I keyed on that because the Obama camp and the media (same thing really) are trying to portray Romney as a woman hater. They have said that he will take the women's movement back 50+ years.

No one made him hire those women. If the issue is who is lying the most....Romney won this thing months ago, Nobody lies like Obama

deltahoosier 10-19-2012 9:43 PM

I thought your point that he appointed 42% women and then inferred on your own that you knew what value Romney placed on the positions these women served.

diamonddad 10-19-2012 9:47 PM

Honestly, all the "binder" or "47%" talk is noise for me.

I am content voting for Romney because I favor the guy who thinks "pursuit of happiness" is a job in the private sector vs a job with the UAW or US post office.

wake77 10-20-2012 7:05 AM

"I am content voting for Romney because I favor the guy who thinks "pursuit of happiness" is a job in the private sector vs a job with the UAW or US post office."

What about a job as a policeman or a fireman? What about a job in the US military? What a convoluted way of thinking that because a person has a public sector job that they are any less capable of living the American dream. I teach high school in a public school system and I am just as happy as my friends that work in the private sector. The pay isn't great, but I don't equate being happy with having more money (I made more way money when I worked in the logistics field).

joeshmoe 10-20-2012 10:59 AM

"know how I know Romney's going to win?"
You went to one of his "victory" rallies?

ord27 10-20-2012 11:14 AM

as opposed to Obama's stand up comedy routine where he talked about Romnesia?

bg__dereks_mom 10-20-2012 1:02 PM

I just don't see why this is such an issue. Obama has his own book /binder.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ns-white-house

pesos 10-23-2012 7:37 AM

http://www.amazon.com/Avery-Durable-...owViewpoints=1

Lolol

LYNRDSKYNRD 10-23-2012 7:46 AM

Go back and listen to exactly what Romney said don't take anything out of context and tell us where he lied.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

digg311 10-23-2012 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LYNRDSKYNRD (Post 1790841)
Go back and listen to exactly what Romney said don't take anything out of context and tell us where he lied.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

The phrase was part of Romney's answer to a question from an audience member at the second presidential debate about how he would "rectify the inequalities in the workplace." Referring to when he took over as Massachusetts governor, he said, "I had the chance to pull together a Cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men," he said. "I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Not true. The "binder" of women's résumés was prepared before the election by the Massachusetts Government Appointments Project, a coalition of nonpartisan women's groups. When Romney won, they gave him the résumés.

Not to mention the fact that he didn't actually answer the question.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:26 AM.