Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Woman claims the GOP's "War on Women" is directly responsible for her earning $20,000 less than her male predecessor in the same position. Fark: That position is Chairwoman of the Washington state Republican Party   (rawstory.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, GOP, male predecessor, executive board  
•       •       •

2734 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2013 at 7:00 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-22 03:48:51 PM  
schadenfreude, how does it work?
 
2013-11-22 04:05:04 PM  
Ain't karma a biatch?
 
2013-11-22 04:11:58 PM  
Perfectly perfect. Seeing the GOP in action, it's almost as if the wicked witch threw the bucket of water on herself.
 
2013-11-22 04:17:47 PM  
She must be a demon in the sack.
 
2013-11-22 04:19:26 PM  
For the "a little too late" Files:
"Please, for the sake of the Party, put this issue to rest and don't let it fester going forward," she wrote. "I particularly don't want persons outside the party to hear about the quibbling as it will undermine our fundraising efforts among major donors."

I also like their response, "There is no War on Women."
 
2013-11-22 04:19:56 PM  
She presumably joined the Republican party voluntarily?
 
2013-11-22 05:18:53 PM  

Lord_Baull: She must be a demon in the sack.


seriously. That woman has fire in her bones.


/takes one to know one
 
2013-11-22 05:30:39 PM  

Tigger: She presumably joined the Republican party voluntarily?


And only becomes upset at the results of Republican leadership after she is personally affected.
 
2013-11-22 05:36:08 PM  
In before the wage gap deniers
 
2013-11-22 05:41:07 PM  

Tigger: She presumably joined the Republican party voluntarily?


No, her man told her to join. Duh.
 
2013-11-22 05:50:29 PM  

impaler: Tigger: She presumably joined the Republican party voluntarily?

And only becomes upset at the results of Republican leadership after she is personally affected.


Central deficit of republicans revealed. They can only understand a point of view if personally affected.

See also McCain on torture, Cheney on gays, Allen West on war crimes. Oh wait not that last one.
 
2013-11-22 05:55:58 PM  
ELL. OH. ELL.
 
2013-11-22 06:07:44 PM  
If she doesn't like it she could go work in the White House.

It is a little better.
 
2013-11-22 06:08:30 PM  
Well, this lady doesn't sound that bright.  The original article has some real great stuff, and really sheds some light on why she deserved to have her salary cut.

The pay for the Republican chairman's position had been cut by GOP leaders - citing budget issues - at a meeting just prior to Hutchison's election in August.

So they knew she was going to win, or something?  Sounds to me like they would have lowered it regardless.

She added she'd personally raised $22,000 from 18 non-Republican Party donors from her personal list of contacts - "which more than covers" the $20,000 pay raise.

I don't think it works that way.  You don't raise money for your organization under the impression that you'll get all the money yourself.  Just ask your non-Republican Party friends to give you the money directly next time?
Hell, maybe your predecessor raised $40,000 from his personal list of contacts?

Since I declined nearly $11,000 in medical benefits, the true dispute involves less than $10k to the WSRP! That is not worth all the time and effort - and ill-will it has engendered

Again with the math.  You don't just get to trade in your medical benefits for cash.  Does not work that way, lady.  Maybe she should accept the $11,000 in medical benefits just to spite them.
 
2013-11-22 06:11:27 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: If she doesn't like it she could go work in the White House.

It is a little better.


Meh, that there's your standard flaw of taking the median salary across all employees in an office without accounting for similarity of job responsibilities.
 
2013-11-22 06:12:09 PM  

serial_crusher: I don't think it works that way.  You don't raise money for your organization under the impression that you'll get all the money yourself.


What's the incentive to raise money if you don't get to keep it?
 
2013-11-22 06:16:07 PM  
I don't know how to respond to this thread.
 
2013-11-22 06:32:03 PM  

serial_crusher: Again with the math.


rainbowreveriedotnet.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-22 07:03:36 PM  
 
2013-11-22 07:06:21 PM  
Just go away, Susan Hutchison. Nobody likes you.
 
2013-11-22 07:06:27 PM  
God, I loathe Susan Hutchinson. Always have, back when she recited the news on TV. She's not wrong on this one, though.
 
2013-11-22 07:07:47 PM  
As a fellow woman, I would like to tell her that, perhaps, supporting a party that pays a woman $20k/year less than her male predecessor is a sign that she is supporting the wrong party.
 
2013-11-22 07:08:07 PM  

Lord_Baull: For the "a little too late" Files:
"Please, for the sake of the Party, put this issue to rest and don't let it fester going forward," she wrote. "I particularly don't want persons outside the party to hear about the quibbling as it will undermine our fundraising efforts among major donors."

I also like their response, "There is no War on Women."


Of course that's what they're going to say.
 
2013-11-22 07:08:07 PM  

fusillade762: In sorta related news.

Limbaugh sees rape, nuclear option parallel


I really... REALLY... wish I hadn't read that.

Damn it.
 
2013-11-22 07:09:09 PM  
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times.


Well, there it is then. No GOP war on women, ever since source told the Times so.
 
2013-11-22 07:11:58 PM  
Woman claims the GOP's "War on Women" is directly responsible for her earning $20,000 less than her male predecessor in the same position.

And what she ACTUALLY said was that it looks bad by "playing into" that Democratic propaganda trope. Like the world would ever notice that her pay got cut unless she started complaining about it.
 
2013-11-22 07:12:53 PM  
So unfortunate are the blind. The path here is clear: Cut taxes for the wealthy and increase military spending and eventually the wealth it generates will trickle down to her.
 
2013-11-22 07:13:24 PM  

Koalaesq: fusillade762: In sorta related news.

Limbaugh sees rape, nuclear option parallel

I really... REALLY... wish I hadn't read that.

Damn it.


The dumbest part is that in his first example, he says the group needs 6 people to let the 4 women be raped, but the women always get 2 men to vote no. Then one guy changes the rule so you only need five votes - but if the women still keep getting 2 guys to vote no, the vote will still be the same. The argument is not only intentionally inflammatory but makes no mathematical or logical sense. So it's perfect for his listeners to bob their heads at while they get blowjobs from their cousins.
 
2013-11-22 07:15:45 PM  

jjorsett: Woman claims the GOP's "War on Women" is directly responsible for her earning $20,000 less than her male predecessor in the same position.

And what she ACTUALLY said was that it looks bad by "playing into" that Democratic propaganda trope. Like the world would ever notice that her pay got cut unless she started complaining about it.


Damned facts, paying into the opposition's rhetoric.
 
2013-11-22 07:15:54 PM  
But she has great hair!
 
2013-11-22 07:16:14 PM  
Look out, Fark.  jj bringing the logic bombs.
 
2013-11-22 07:18:22 PM  
FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?
 
2013-11-22 07:21:18 PM  
This reminds me of when Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign was shocked by the sexism displayed by religious Conservatives in Iowa. Surprise, a lot of Conservatives see women as nothing more than helpmates and do not see them as worthy of holding positions of power.
 
2013-11-22 07:21:45 PM  

fusillade762: In sorta related news.

Limbaugh sees rape, nuclear option parallel


I'm not going to read that article and assume since the nuclear option was unavoidable, the Republican Senate should just lay back and enjoy it.
 
2013-11-22 07:22:01 PM  

Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?


The Courtesan Conflict
 
2013-11-22 07:22:12 PM  
It seems to be a trend with republican women that they only see how destructive their party is when it affects them personally.
 
Ant
2013-11-22 07:23:13 PM  

impaler: And only becomes upset at the results of Republican leadership after she is personally affected.


This is expected behavior. Your conservative appears to be operating normally.
 
2013-11-22 07:23:23 PM  
My initial reaction: well, that sucks, but she kind of had to know that Republicans do that kind of thing.

"I particularly don't want persons outside the party to hear about the quibbling as it will undermine our fundraising efforts among major donors."

My new reaction: Oh, it's okay if women get paid less than men as long as no one find out?  Well then, all I have to say now is to bid you a hale and hearty go fark yourself.
 
2013-11-22 07:24:09 PM  
Her predecessor as chairwoman was a guy?

(Did not RTFA)
 
2013-11-22 07:27:28 PM  
Fellow Republicans told The Seattle Times that many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.

What she actually said: Hutchison argued that the vote to reduce her salary had violated party bylaws, but more importantly, would seem "discriminatory and vindictive," especially given the party's recent problems with female voters.

The first step to fixing your problems is admitting that you have them.  Unfortunately for the Republican party, it appears to now be verboten to do so.
 
2013-11-22 07:28:09 PM  
Stop supporting the GOP, then?
 
Ant
2013-11-22 07:28:57 PM  

BMulligan: God, I loathe Susan Hutchinson. Always have, back when she recited the news on TV. She's not wrong on this one, though.


Now I remember her! What channel was she on?
 
2013-11-22 07:30:22 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Look out, Fark.  jj bringing the logic bombs.


Are you sure it's logic?  It doesn't smell like logic.
 
2013-11-22 07:35:21 PM  

Tigger: impaler: Tigger: She presumably joined the Republican party voluntarily?

And only becomes upset at the results of Republican leadership after she is personally affected.

Central deficit of republicans revealed. They can only understand a point of view if personally affected.

See also McCain on torture, Cheney on gays, Allen West on war crimes. Oh wait not that last one.


Reagan on Alzheimers research.
 
2013-11-22 07:35:25 PM  
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times.

Well that's settled then.
 
2013-11-22 07:38:13 PM  

Ant: Now I remember her! What channel was she on?


Before KIRO-TV fired her in 2002, King County executive candidate Susan Hutchison badmouthed the station to an intern's mother, confronted its general manager about his offsite meetings with a female coworker, and called in sick so she could go canoeing in Oregon, according to court documents unsealed Friday.
 
2013-11-22 07:38:20 PM  
•  As chairwoman of the GOP, she's okay when they do it to OTHER women?  But now that they're doing it to her it's outrageous?
•  This lady makes $75,000 a year and is upset about it because the person before her made more?
•  She doesn't want this case of the GOP treating women as a lesser getting out because... people might start to think the GOP doesn't think women are equal?

This one is precious too: "I left the meeting demoralized, and so did my hardworking staff."

• Her hardworking staff got demoralized because their boss didn't get a raise?

What a biatch.
 
2013-11-22 07:38:36 PM  
Waaaahhh I work with Satan and its too hot down here and he always pokes me in the bum with his pointy pitchfork!
 
2013-11-22 07:42:06 PM  

fusillade762: In sorta related news.

Limbaugh sees rape, nuclear option parallel


Did he tell his listeners that the GOP should just lay back and enjoy it?
 
2013-11-22 07:42:26 PM  

sugardave: Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?

The Courtesan Conflict


And there's my Steampunk adventure novel title. Cheers!
 
2013-11-22 07:45:26 PM  
I don't think a bad fiction writer could pen something as tone deaf as the modern Republican Party.
 
2013-11-22 07:46:11 PM  

serial_crusher: Since I declined nearly $11,000 in medical benefits, the true dispute involves less than $10k to the WSRP! That is not worth all the time and effort - and ill-will it has engendered

Again with the math. You don't just get to trade in your medical benefits for cash. Does not work that way, lady. Maybe she should accept the $11,000 in medical benefits just to spite them.


Actually, I have to agree with her on that one. I feel that if you choose not to take advantage of medical benefits (maybe your spouse has a better plan through his/her work), you should at least half that amount back as salary, since you're saving the company money. If you enroll at some point, then you lose that salary boost. But health insurance is part of an employee's compensation, and so they should be completely compensated.
 
2013-11-22 07:47:19 PM  
In an interview Wednesday, Hutchison said she considered the matter closed. "I'm sure that as time goes on and as people become more confident in our ability to raise money and so forth, we'll all take a look at it again," she said.

You bet they will all look at it again. Next time they vote a man into the position. Now get me a sammich.
 
2013-11-22 07:47:41 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-22 07:52:32 PM  

Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?


The War of Feminine Aggression.
 
2013-11-22 07:55:42 PM  

Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?


An Occupation.

?because everyone knows women's occupation should be: Woman. What with teh sandwiches and the pregnants. Besides, I'd sure like to occupy a few ladies.
 
2013-11-22 07:57:21 PM  
"Pay me more or I'll reference Democratic tropes in an internal memo which I can plausibly deny that I leaked."
 
2013-11-22 07:57:26 PM  
i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2013-11-22 07:58:31 PM  

fusillade762: In sorta related news.

Limbaugh sees rape, nuclear option parallel


Well, as long as the Nuclear option wasn't rape rape. I mean, look at the Tea Party, they had it coming.
 
2013-11-22 07:59:29 PM  

BMulligan: Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?

The War of Feminine Aggression.


i1126.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-22 08:01:43 PM  

Mike_LowELL: I don't know how to respond to this thread.


We broke him guys! We finally broke him!
 
2013-11-22 08:05:05 PM  

impaler: Tigger: She presumably joined the Republican party voluntarily?

And only becomes upset at the results of Republican leadership after she is personally affected.


So......she is a normal Republican?
 
2013-11-22 08:08:20 PM  
I don't understand why any woman or minority would be a republican.  Or any poor person.  Or anybody who puts the good of the country above their own.  Or really, anybody but the few people who are uber uber wealthy and have much to gain from republicans remaining in power.

I'm glad I live in Washington State, though, where republicans don't have as much control as they do in other states... but damn, if Eastern Washington isn't too conservative for my liking.  It's gotten better over the last decade or so, but they're still too derpy over here for me.
 
2013-11-22 08:11:49 PM  

Captain Dan: "Pay me more

equally to my immediate predecessor or I'll reference Democratic tropes in an internal memo which I can plausibly deny that I leaked point out we really are as bad as the other side claims."
 
2013-11-22 08:14:15 PM  

Lord_Baull: For the "a little too late" Files:
"Please, for the sake of the Party, put this issue to rest and don't let it fester going forward," she wrote. "I particularly don't want persons outside the party to hear about the quibbling as it will undermine our fundraising efforts among major donors."

I also like their response, "There is no War on Women."


You mean BESIDES the Democrats' one, right?
 
2013-11-22 08:14:23 PM  
I've been poking around but I can't find anything that indicates why they thought she should be paid less than her male predecessor.  Anyone else?
 
2013-11-22 08:14:59 PM  
FTFA:"There is no war on women," once[sic] (Republican) source told the Times.

The GOP isn't having a "war on women". They just don't want anyone to infringe on their "god given" right to discriminate against women (or blacks, hispanics, islamics, liberals, homosexuals, or atheists).

/If I left out a group of people that you happen to belong to that Republicans discriminate against, it was unintentional and I'm sorry.
//I'm a little pressed for time.
///cooking dinner.
 
2013-11-22 08:21:27 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: I've been poking around but I can't find anything that indicates why they thought she should be paid less than her male predecessor.  Anyone else?


The linked article in TFA says "budget reasons."
And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.
 
2013-11-22 08:21:49 PM  

DeaH: As a fellow woman, I would like to tell her that, perhaps, supporting a party that pays a woman $20k/year less than her male predecessor is a sign that she is supporting the wrong party.


As a dude, I'ma just gonna to point to your comment and say... THIS!

Jaws_Victim: Waaaahhh I work with Satan and its too hot down here and he always pokes me in the bum with his pointy pitchfork!


That one got Funny'd. Cos I did LOL.
 
2013-11-22 08:22:55 PM  

Witty_Retort: And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.


So... after they found out it was going to be a woman...
 
2013-11-22 08:24:27 PM  

Mike_LowELL: I don't know how to respond to this thread.


"Farking shark week"?
 
2013-11-22 08:24:52 PM  

Witty_Retort: Captain Dan: "Pay me more equally to my immediate predecessor or I'll reference Democratic tropes in an internal memo which I can plausibly deny that I leaked point out we really are as bad as the other side claims."


Her job's pay cut was implemented before she was elected.  It would apply to a man or woman equally.

Please proceed with your War on Logic.
 
2013-11-22 08:27:21 PM  

crab66: It seems to be a trend with republican women that they only see how destructive their party is when it affects them personally.


Not just the women.
 
2013-11-22 08:27:22 PM  

Republican Catchphrase Cargo Cult: So unfortunate are the blind. The path here is clear: Cut taxes for the wealthy and increase military spending and eventually the wealth it generates will trickle down to her.


Well of course. Since she's a woman, she should be on the bottom anyway.
 
2013-11-22 08:27:33 PM  

Witty_Retort: And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.


That's not what the article says.  Quote: "The pay for the Republican chairman's position had been cut by GOP leaders - citing budget issues - at a meeting just prior to Hutchison's election in August."
 
2013-11-22 08:30:59 PM  

Arctic Phoenix: I don't understand why any woman or minority would be a republican.  Or any poor person.  Or anybody who puts the good of the country above their own.  Or really, anybody but the few people who are uber uber wealthy and have much to gain from republicans remaining in power.

I'm glad I live in Washington State, though, where republicans don't have as much control as they do in other states... but damn, if Eastern Washington isn't too conservative for my liking.  It's gotten better over the last decade or so, but they're still too derpy over here for me.


I find it so very bizzare how the Gay Republicans get denied entry to the convention each time, complain, finally get a spot in the back so everyone can give them the stinkeye while the speaker rails about how all gays should be executed, hiding behind their gay republican signs and looking charigned the whole time, before going off to vote for him EVERY SINGLE TIME?!

I still do not understand how you can vote for someone whose stated primary goal if elected is your genocide.
 
2013-11-22 08:34:25 PM  
The WA State GOP had a vote to lower the salary before Hutchinson was given the job.
 
2013-11-22 08:34:42 PM  

Sim Tree: I still do not understand how you can vote for someone whose stated primary goal if elected is your genocide.


Opposing gay marriage =/= genocide

To answer your other stupid question, they vote Republican because they make more money than you do.
 
2013-11-22 08:36:18 PM  
First you want people to cut the pay of top executives than you biatch when they do.
 
2013-11-22 08:37:15 PM  

Captain Dan: To answer your other stupid question, they vote Republican because they make more money than you do.


No they don't.
 
2013-11-22 08:38:03 PM  
Shouldn't they count her um red days as unpaid vacation?

Runs away
 
2013-11-22 08:41:27 PM  

impaler: Captain Dan: To answer your other stupid question, they vote Republican because they make more money than you do.

No they don't.


Yes, they do, and you aren't in a position to contradict me.  I've worked in the Republican Party and have more experience with Republicans than you do.  The vast majority of gay Republicans are fiscal conservatives, i.e. "keep my taxes low" Republicans.
 
2013-11-22 08:43:03 PM  
I am completely baffled as to why any woman would be a Republican. Unless they just really like the idea of the government sticking things in their vaginas. Maybe they're into it. I guess.
 
2013-11-22 08:43:56 PM  

JohnnyC: Witty_Retort: And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.

So... after they found out it was going to be a woman...


Captain Dan:
That's not what the article says.  Quote: "The pay for the Republican chairman's position had been cut by GOP leaders - citing budget issues - at a meeting just prior to Hutchison's election in August."

Cpt. Duh is correct in this one instance on this one point. I did misread the quote and formally apologize for that.
How he can rationalize that a woman should be paid 20% less than a man for the same job, I leave to him.
 
2013-11-22 08:47:15 PM  

Captain Dan: impaler: Captain Dan: To answer your other stupid question, they vote Republican because they make more money than you do.

No they don't.

Yes, they do, and you aren't in a position to contradict me.  I've worked in the Republican Party and have more experience with Republicans than you do.  The vast majority of gay Republicans are fiscal conservatives, i.e. "keep my taxes low" Republicans.


You mean they're economically illiterate. Also, you're in no position to tell me these idiots that can't figure out basic economic facts make more money than I do. They're just short-sighted and selfish idiots.
 
2013-11-22 08:48:27 PM  
So it turns out she was way overpaid?
 
2013-11-22 08:58:13 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: serial_crusher: Since I declined nearly $11,000 in medical benefits, the true dispute involves less than $10k to the WSRP! That is not worth all the time and effort - and ill-will it has engendered

Again with the math. You don't just get to trade in your medical benefits for cash. Does not work that way, lady. Maybe she should accept the $11,000 in medical benefits just to spite them.

Actually, I have to agree with her on that one. I feel that if you choose not to take advantage of medical benefits (maybe your spouse has a better plan through his/her work), you should at least half that amount back as salary, since you're saving the company money. If you enroll at some point, then you lose that salary boost. But health insurance is part of an employee's compensation, and so they should be completely compensated.


It is an offered part of the compensation package. If I don't accept tuition reimbursement I don't expect my company to give me a check.
 
2013-11-22 08:59:37 PM  

Witty_Retort: JohnnyC: Witty_Retort: And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.

So... after they found out it was going to be a woman...

Captain Dan:
That's not what the article says.  Quote: "The pay for the Republican chairman's position had been cut by GOP leaders - citing budget issues - at a meeting just prior to Hutchison's election in August."

Cpt. Duh is correct in this one instance on this one point. I did misread the quote and formally apologize for that.
How he can rationalize that a woman should be paid 20% less than a man for the same job, I leave to him.


They knew the winner was going to be a woman. The other serious contender was Luanne Van Werven, also a woman. So regardless of who won, a woman was taking the position. Two other candidates (both male) were nominated for the position but they were not considered serious contenders and were quickly eliminated from the running by the two female candidates.
 
2013-11-22 09:05:03 PM  

impaler: You mean they're economically illiterate.


No I don't.  I wrote what I meant.

Also, you're in no position to tell me these idiots that can't figure out basic economic facts make more money than I do.  They're just short-sighted and selfish idiots.

This isn't even an argument, just a sputtering ad hominem.  Based on the weakness of your written thoughts, I feel well-positioned to correct you.

Gay Republicans are, on average, affluent.  Even more so than straight Republicans, because the average straight Republican is more likely to be a social conservative/evangelical than a gay Republican is.
 
2013-11-22 09:10:50 PM  

Arachnophobe: sugardave: Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?

The Courtesan Conflict

And there's my Steampunk adventure novel title. Cheers!


I'm a fair man.  I only ask for 1% in royalties.
 
2013-11-22 09:16:50 PM  

Captain Dan: This isn't even an argument, just a sputtering ad hominem.  Based on the weakness of your written thoughts, I feel well-positioned to correct you.

Gay Republicans are, on average, affluent.  Even more so than straight Republicans, because the average straight Republican is more likely to be a social conservative/evangelical than a gay Republican is


If you vote for Republicans because you think their fiscally responsible, you're an idiot.

If you vote against your own personal rights, because you think Republicans are fiscally responsible, you're doubly stupid.
 
2013-11-22 09:17:39 PM  

JohnnyC: They knew the winner was going to be a woman. The other serious contender was Luanne Van Werven, also a woman. So regardless of who won, a woman was taking the position.


I didn't know this.  Do you live in Washington, or did you read this online?  If the latter, a link?

If the state GOP cut the salary only after they knew who the two finalists were, that would change the story.  I'd need to know if they cut the salaries of other positions before I formed any conclusions.
 
2013-11-22 09:19:47 PM  
Stockholm Syndrome.

So, so sad...
 
2013-11-22 09:20:00 PM  
I like people who speak with such strength in their convictions when they are making generalizations.
 
2013-11-22 09:24:42 PM  

Captain Dan: Gay Republicans are, on average, affluent.


I think a lot of gay Republicans are gay people from Republican families who found out that they could be gay *or* profess to be a Democrat but not both without losing most of their family's support.

Easier to fake being a Republican than to fake being straight.
 
2013-11-22 09:25:20 PM  

impaler: If you vote for Republicans because you think their fiscally responsible, you're an idiot.


Most affluent people vote Republican for pocketbook reasons, despite the risk of being subjected to misspelled insults on Fark.


If you vote against your own personal rights, because you think Republicans are fiscally responsible, you're doubly stupid.

IOW: You think that you know better than these gay Republicans how they should vote, because they're "stupid" and you're not.
 
2013-11-22 09:27:05 PM  

Captain Dan: impaler: If you vote for Republicans because you think their fiscally responsible, you're an idiot.

Most affluent people vote Republican for pocketbook reasons, despite the risk of being subjected to misspelled insults on Fark.


If you vote against your own personal rights, because you think Republicans are fiscally responsible, you're doubly stupid.

IOW: You think that you know better than these gay Republicans how they should vote, because they're "stupid" and you're not.


I think it's that the GOP-holes have proved beyond any shred of reasonable doubt that they are in no way fiscally responsible.  On any level.
 
2013-11-22 09:27:31 PM  
STOP THE PRESSES!  She knew months in advance that the position through freely available means would be cut in salary...never mind, I can't take this complaint seriously...
 
2013-11-22 09:32:46 PM  
Being a woman and working for the GOP is about as close as "she was asking for it" as it gets.
 
2013-11-22 09:33:07 PM  

quatchi: I think a lot of gay Republicans are gay people from Republican families who found out that they could be gay *or* profess to be a Democrat but not both without losing most of their family's support.

Easier to fake being a Republican than to fake being straight.


It's simpler than that.  Most gay Republicans are upper-middle-class professionals who like the GOP for various reasons (e.g. tax policies, deregulation, national defense) even though they support gay marriage.  The party's position on gay marriage is a stumbling block, but not a deal breaker.

Since it appears likely that the Supreme Court will take the gay marriage issue off the table next year, I'd expect relatively more gays to vote Republican in the future.
 
2013-11-22 09:33:47 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: In before the wage gap deniers


When counting pesky things like hours worked.....there is no wage gap.
 
2013-11-22 09:35:07 PM  

Captain Dan: JohnnyC: They knew the winner was going to be a woman. The other serious contender was Luanne Van Werven, also a woman. So regardless of who won, a woman was taking the position.

I didn't know this.  Do you live in Washington, or did you read this online?  If the latter, a link?

If the state GOP cut the salary only after they knew who the two finalists were, that would change the story.  I'd need to know if they cut the salaries of other positions before I formed any conclusions.


Some from the web: here and here, and some from a friend of mine who lives in Washington via facebook chat who told me that the two guys weren't serious contenders. The numbers they pulled in the election back up what my friend said, but neither of the articles mention a foreknowledge of who the top contenders were. My friend said the two women were on top (har har) in the race because one was already the interim chair holder (Van Werven) and the other was a well known TV anchor woman (Hutchison). I don't know if they cut other salaries or not. Hutchison herself was quoted as saying the Republican party in Washington was nearly broke... so maybe.
 
2013-11-22 09:39:52 PM  

Jaws_Victim: Waaaahhh I work with Satan and its too hot down here and he always pokes me in the bum with his pointy pitchfork!


I lol'd, would lol again
 
2013-11-22 09:40:24 PM  

sugardave: I think it's that the GOP-holes have proved beyond any shred of reasonable doubt that they are in no way fiscally responsible.  On any level.


"GOP-holes"?  I'm not opposed to using 5th grade humor, but how does this insult even work?  GOP doesn't sound remotely similar to any word that might prefix "-hole" in an insult.  There's no reason to go with "GOP-holes" instead of using any other swear word.

You do realize that "Fartbama" is satirical, right?
 
2013-11-22 09:44:11 PM  
Wait a second.  Was it a pun on "pee-holes"?  That's my best guess at this moment, although I've never heard "pee-hole" used as an insult, or as anything else.
 
2013-11-22 09:44:14 PM  

Captain Dan: sugardave: I think it's that the GOP-holes have proved beyond any shred of reasonable doubt that they are in no way fiscally responsible.  On any level.

"GOP-holes"?  I'm not opposed to using 5th grade humor, but how does this insult even work?  GOP doesn't sound remotely similar to any word that might prefix "-hole" in an insult.  There's no reason to go with "GOP-holes" instead of using any other swear word.

You do realize that "Fartbama" is satirical, right?


They are holes.  Empty.  Simple as that.  It's good that you focused on that part and not the fact that they aren't even close to "fiscally responsible."
 
2013-11-22 09:48:58 PM  
Captain Dan: It's simpler than that.  Most gay Republicans are upper-middle-class professionals who like the GOP for various reasons (e.g. tax policies, deregulation, national defense) even though they support gay marriage.

"I got mine and fark you" *is* a pretty simplistic mindset, I'll grant you that.
 
2013-11-22 09:49:01 PM  

sugardave: They are holes.  Empty.  Simple as that.  It's good that you focused on that part and not the fact that they aren't even close to "fiscally responsible."


It's pragmatism.  Arguing over which party is more fiscally responsible is unproductive; nobody ever changes their mind.  (For the record, I think that the GOP is very fiscally irresponsible.)  I'm more interested in learning about the psychology of someone who earnestly types "GOP-holes."
 
2013-11-22 09:49:10 PM  

DeaH: As a fellow woman, I would like to tell her that, perhaps, supporting a party that pays a woman $20k/year less than her male predecessor is a sign that she is supporting the wrong party.


could there be other factors at play?

a shortfall in funding?
poor performance in elections/party goals as compared to her male counterpart?

Thankfully the article answers none of these questions.

Arctic Phoenix: I don't understand why any woman or minority would be a republican.


it probably has something to do with democrats who feel that by sole virtue of their anatomy or skin color, a person should think, act or vote a certain way.
 
2013-11-22 09:54:12 PM  

Captain Dan: impaler: Captain Dan: To answer your other stupid question, they vote Republican because they make more money than you do.

No they don't.

Yes, they do, and you aren't in a position to contradict me.  I've worked in the Republican Party and have more experience with Republicans than you do.  The vast majority of gay Republicans are fiscal conservatives, i.e. "keep my taxes low" Republicans.


Captain Dan: sugardave: They are holes.  Empty.  Simple as that.  It's good that you focused on that part and not the fact that they aren't even close to "fiscally responsible."

It's pragmatism.  Arguing over which party is more fiscally responsible is unproductive; nobody ever changes their mind.  (For the record, I think that the GOP is very fiscally irresponsible.)  I'm more interested in learning about the psychology of someone who earnestly types "GOP-holes."


So, which is it?  Do you think gay Republicans are idiots, or are you a liar?
 
2013-11-22 09:55:45 PM  

Captain Dan: sugardave: They are holes.  Empty.  Simple as that.  It's good that you focused on that part and not the fact that they aren't even close to "fiscally responsible."

It's pragmatism.  Arguing over which party is more fiscally responsible is unproductive; nobody ever changes their mind.  (For the record, I think that the GOP is very fiscally irresponsible.)  I'm more interested in learning about the psychology of someone who earnestly types "GOP-holes."


Oh, I see.  You are concerned about my mental state?  How sweet of you.  fark off.
 
2013-11-22 10:04:13 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Ant: Now I remember her! What channel was she on?

Before KIRO-TV fired her in 2002, King County executive candidate Susan Hutchison badmouthed the station to an intern's mother, confronted its general manager about his offsite meetings with a female coworker, and called in sick so she could go canoeing in Oregon, according to court documents unsealed Friday.


Hey there is nothing wrong with mental health sick days.
 
2013-11-22 10:12:13 PM  

Captain Dan: Witty_Retort: And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.

That's not what the article says.  Quote: "The pay for the Republican chairman's position had been cut by GOP leaders - citing budget issues - at a meeting just prior to Hutchison's election in August."


I am sure a bunch of pols have no idea who was going to win an internal position like that.
 
2013-11-22 10:17:12 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: serial_crusher: Since I declined nearly $11,000 in medical benefits, the true dispute involves less than $10k to the WSRP! That is not worth all the time and effort - and ill-will it has engendered

Again with the math. You don't just get to trade in your medical benefits for cash. Does not work that way, lady. Maybe she should accept the $11,000 in medical benefits just to spite them.

Actually, I have to agree with her on that one. I feel that if you choose not to take advantage of medical benefits (maybe your spouse has a better plan through his/her work), you should at least half that amount back as salary, since you're saving the company money. If you enroll at some point, then you lose that salary boost. But health insurance is part of an employee's compensation, and so they should be completely compensated.


I see sympathize a little with that argument, but following to its natural conclusion you'd basically have to say that employers should stop providing any perks, and just give employees enough money that they could buy all the perks out of pocket instead.  I'm ok with that, but lots of business owners probably wouldn't be.  The usual idea behind employment perks is that they spend less that way by tricking you into thinking you're getting something good.  I think I'd be a lot less happy at my company if they took away the free junk food and sodas; not because I'd personally miss them, but because my coworkers would get butthurt about it and I'd have to put up with them.  I probably use about $100/year worth of stuff, but they'd have to pay me $5,000 more to put up with the situation that would ensue.

/ Health insurance, well that's a whole other clusterfark, shouldn't even be managed as an employment perk, but we're talking about Republicans, so let's just ignore that point for the sake of the argument.  Not like they're ever going to agree on it.
 
2013-11-22 10:21:09 PM  
Elaborate trolling, or money grab?
 
2013-11-22 10:33:55 PM  

BMFPitt: Elaborate trolling, or money grab?


Or she's sincere and has facts on her side.  What could be more threatening to the GOP?
 
2013-11-22 10:36:59 PM  
Republican women are willing to use Democratic talking points in an effort to get themselves more money regardless of the legitimacy of the claim in this particular case.  Yeah, that could totally happen.  Republican politicians are willing to use pretty much any kind of manipulation to get what they want so why not this?

Now that it is leaked and the damage is done, they'll probably just find a way to fire her now and replace her with a man for $95,000 a year, just to drive the point home for anyone else who may come later.  Republicans have no problems taking prisoners but don't try to hold prisoners against them 'cause they'll just tell you to kill the hostages and then yourself.

What job that doesn't involve direct threat to your life or health could possibly be worth more than $75,000 anyway? fark these people are jaded to money.
 
2013-11-22 10:40:48 PM  

sugardave: So, which is it?  Do you think gay Republicans are idiots, or are you a liar?


Neither, of course.  Affluent gay Republicans can benefit from a low-tax party, even if that party is fiscally irresponsible (e.g. if the party doesn't pass spending cuts to correspond with their low taxes, resulting in budget deficits).  To the extent that Republicans have given this trade-off thought, most have concluded that debt is preferable to higher income tax rates.
 
2013-11-22 11:05:13 PM  

Captain Dan: Witty_Retort: And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.

That's not what the article says.  Quote: "The pay for the Republican chairman's position had been cut by GOP leaders - citing budget issues - at a meeting just prior to Hutchison's election in August."


Translation: Crap! The rubes are getting wise to us. Budget cutting time.
 
2013-11-22 11:22:36 PM  

Captain Dan: I'd expect relatively more gays to vote Republican in the future.


replygif.net
 
2013-11-22 11:31:11 PM  

Captain Dan: sugardave: So, which is it?  Do you think gay Republicans are idiots, or are you a liar?

Neither, of course.  Affluent gay Republicans can benefit from a low-tax party, even if that party is fiscally irresponsible (e.g. if the party doesn't pass spending cuts to correspond with their low taxes, resulting in budget deficits).  To the extent that Republicans have given this trade-off thought, most have concluded that debt is preferable to higher income tax rates.


fark y'all I got mine.
 
2013-11-22 11:38:14 PM  

Captain Dan: It's pragmatism.  Arguing over which party is more fiscally responsible is unproductive; nobody ever changes their mind.  (For the record, I think that the GOP is very fiscally irresponsible.)


At least you're self aware enough to realize that what you support is wrong but you still do it anyways.
 
2013-11-23 12:09:23 AM  

CorporatePerson: At least you're self aware enough to realize that what you support is wrong but you still do it anyways.


There are large parts of the Republican agenda I disagree with (including economic, social, and military).  It's possible to support a party without endorsing its entire platform.
 
2013-11-23 12:12:12 AM  

CorporatePerson: Fark y'all I got mine.


Nobody really thinks that.  It's more like: if I vote for a Democrat, my taxes will go up, and the money will be wasted on stupid bullshiat that I don't support.  If I vote for a Republican, money will still be wasted on stupid bullshiat that I don't support, but my taxes will stay lower, and the resultant debt will be paid off in ways that don't lean as heavily on income tax increases.
 
2013-11-23 12:15:58 AM  

Captain Dan: CorporatePerson: At least you're self aware enough to realize that what you support is wrong but you still do it anyways.

There are large parts of the Republican agenda I disagree with (including economic, social, and military).  It's possible to support a party without endorsing its entire platform.


Oh do tell. After those three, wtf is left that you like about republicans, captain?
 
2013-11-23 12:18:49 AM  

BMulligan: Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?

The War of Feminine Aggression.


My God, it's......brilliant.

And will likely be a talking point on Fox News within the week.
 
2013-11-23 12:41:16 AM  
Don't care enough to research, did the previous guy have more experience, skill, or education than her? Sexism exists (and its name is practically GOP) but I don't expect, as a noob, to get paid the same as the guy I replaced if he got raises over years or whatnot. Am I doing it wrong?
 
2013-11-23 12:42:28 AM  

Captain Dan: CorporatePerson: At least you're self aware enough to realize that what you support is wrong but you still do it anyways.

There are large parts of the Republican agenda I disagree with (including economic, social, and military).  It's possible to support a party without endorsing its entire platform.


Other than that, how did you like Dallas tonight, Mrs. Kennedy?
 
2013-11-23 12:45:04 AM  

Smackledorfer: Captain Dan: There are large parts of the Republican agenda I disagree with (including economic, social, and military).  It's possible to support a party without endorsing its entire platform.

Oh do tell. After those three, wtf is left that you like about republicans, captain?


I meant that within all three major spheres of politics, there are large portions of the Republican agenda that I disagree with, while there are other portions of them that I agree with (some strongly).

All in all, I favor about 25-50% of the Republican agenda, and about 25-50% of the Democratic agenda, but the parts where I'm aligned with the GOP are much more important to me.
 
2013-11-23 12:45:57 AM  
One could also point out that a large number of gay Republicans live in blue-dominate areas. I live in Washington, DC and there are large groups of Log Cabin Republicans. They are more than happy to take advantage of the rights the Democrats of the city have extended to them, while simultaneously being able to push for Republican policies otherwise, secure in the knowledge that their rights aren't going to be taken away anytime soon.

I find fewer of them in red areas than I do in blue.
 
2013-11-23 12:51:16 AM  
howgoodisthat.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-23 01:02:53 AM  

Tigger: She presumably joined the Republican party voluntarily?


fark her. She is stupid enough to be a republican she is stupid enough to deserve the raping that she is getting.

the JOKE-RAPE .... I would never suggest that everyone in the republican party deserves to be rape-raped. ....
 
2013-11-23 01:08:33 AM  

Captain Dan: Since it appears likely that the Supreme Court will take the gay marriage issue off the table next year, I'd expect relatively more gays to vote Republican in the future.


Sure. It is not like the Republicans have a documented history of doubling down on the derp when they lose or anything.
 
2013-11-23 01:13:31 AM  

Captain Dan: Smackledorfer: Captain Dan: There are large parts of the Republican agenda I disagree with (including economic, social, and military).  It's possible to support a party without endorsing its entire platform.

Oh do tell. After those three, wtf is left that you like about republicans, captain?

I meant that within all three major spheres of politics, there are large portions of the Republican agenda that I disagree with, while there are other portions of them that I agree with (some strongly).

All in all, I favor about 25-50% of the Republican agenda, and about 25-50% of the Democratic agenda, but the parts where I'm aligned with the GOP are much more important to me.


So no details?
You farking tease.
 
2013-11-23 01:15:23 AM  

Smackledorfer: Captain Dan: Smackledorfer: Captain Dan: There are large parts of the Republican agenda I disagree with (including economic, social, and military).  It's possible to support a party without endorsing its entire platform.

Oh do tell. After those three, wtf is left that you like about republicans, captain?

I meant that within all three major spheres of politics, there are large portions of the Republican agenda that I disagree with, while there are other portions of them that I agree with (some strongly).

All in all, I favor about 25-50% of the Republican agenda, and about 25-50% of the Democratic agenda, but the parts where I'm aligned with the GOP are much more important to me.

So no details?
You farking tease.


It's obvious.  No taxes on anyone/anything ever.  That way, we can slowly spiral into 3rd (or maybe all the way to 4th!) world status.  Just as long as no more taxes are ever collected for anything ever it will all be worth it.
 
2013-11-23 01:29:57 AM  
Maybe her head's not as good as her predecessor's.
 
2013-11-23 01:36:25 AM  

namatad: I would never suggest that everyone in the republican party deserves to be rape-raped.


I would.
 
2013-11-23 01:39:09 AM  

Captain Dan: All in all, I favor about 25-50% of the Republican agenda, and about 25-50% of the Democratic agenda


So vote Republican.
 
2013-11-23 02:45:53 AM  

sugardave: Just as long as no more taxes are ever collected for anything ever it will all be worth it.


That's because taxes are theft because of coercion and individual sovereignty and furthermore. Government jackboots! And reasons.
 
2013-11-23 03:18:21 AM  

Captain Dan:
There are large parts of the Republican agenda I disagree with (including economic, social, and military).  It's possible to support a party without endorsing its entire platform.


WTF? If you disagree with the GOP's stance on economic, social, and military positions, what's left? How often a flag pin should be displayed?
 
2013-11-23 03:33:45 AM  
Here is a mirror so you can watch yourself cry...
 
2013-11-23 04:06:02 AM  

Captain Dan: impaler: Captain Dan: To answer your other stupid question, they vote Republican because they make more money than you do.

No they don't.

Yes, they do, and you aren't in a position to contradict me.  I've worked in the Republican Party and have more experience with Republicans than you do.  The vast majority of gay Republicans are fiscal conservatives, i.e. "keep my taxes low" Republicans.


Ahhhh. so you're a paid shill and liar.
 
2013-11-23 04:09:07 AM  

Captain Dan: There are large parts of the Republican agenda I disagree with (including economic, social, and military).


That is the entire platform.
 
2013-11-23 04:27:11 AM  

Smackledorfer: So no details?  You farking tease.


Social issues:

- Support gay marriage + ENDA
- Support Equal Rights Amendment
- Support legal but restricted abortion (legal in 1st trimester w/ 3-day wait period, illegal afterwards except for life of mother)
- Support sex ed
- Oppose teaching creationism
- Support naturalization for illegal immigrants contingent on construction of border fence
- Support more skilled immigration + less unskilled immigration
- Oppose affirmative action
- Support teacher evaluation based partially on metrics (taking into account student demographics)
- Support stop and frisk as long as % of minority stops doesn't exceed % of crimes committed by minority
- Support mandatory filming of all police interactions
- Decriminalize marijuana
- Send hard drug users into rehab programs, not jail
- Support death penalty
- Spend more money on prisons to prevent overcrowding
- Eradicate prison rapes & assaults
- Support bans on public smoking
- Support individual right to gun ownership; however, right can be restricted

Defense policy:

- Support high level of defense spending, national defense as foremost priority
- Nationalistic: foreign policy should advance American interests
- Value American lives more than non-American lives
- Support stronger cyber-warfare defense
- Opposed war in Iraq, oppose military involvement in Syria & Iran
- Support sabotage/sanctions against Iranian nuclear program
- Support expanded use of drones
- Support expansive use of surveillance overseas
- Support inclusion of public interest/privacy advocate at FISA hearings
- Support most of Patriot Act
- More sympathetic to Israel than to its detractors
- Support foreign aid to advance American interests
- Support national ID card

Economic policy:

- Support free trade w/ exception only if national security is compromised
- Support Janet Yellen for Fed, supported Ben Bernanke's tenure
- Oppose Fed audit
- Oppose gold standard
- Oppose ability of public unions to negotiate compensation
- Support private unions, oppose card check, support anonymous alternative to card check that prevents coercion/retribution
- Support lowering corporate tax rates
- Support introduction of VAT
- Support individual mandate, guaranteed issue, exchanges
- Oppose funding mechanisms for ACA: too dependent on redistributive taxes, too likely to lead to cost inflation
- Support "death panels"
- Support increased role for nurse practitioners
- Support tighter capital requirements for banks, breaking up TBTF
- Much higher threshold for business regulation than Democrats have
- Support gentrification/upzoning/urban development
- Oppose bullet trains - expensive boondoggles
- Cut farm subsidies
- Favor 2nd round of stimulus now while borrowing costs are low; unlike 1st stimulus, not just spending $ on Democratic wish list
- Support fracking
- Support offshore drilling
- Support carbon tax
- Support alternative energy development, oppose government picking winners (Solyndra!)
- Oppose mortgage interest deduction
- Replace employee health care deduction with flat, universal deduction for coverage
- Expand ERISA standards to all state/municipal pensions
- Support higher OOP costs for Medicare beneficiaries
- Support tort reform + health courts
- Untroubled by inequality as long as absolute living standards of poor/middle class are increasing
- Support tightening eligibility for student loans, linking amount of aid to choice of major
- Expand child tax credit
- Loosen restriction for welfare programs during times of high unemployment
- Support higher estate tax rates, use revenue to offset income tax cuts

Various:

- Support term limits for congressmen & judges
- Support two-part constitutional amendment: first part caps an individual's cumulative tax exposure at no more than 50%, second part reclassifies money as non-speech and sets strict limits on political spending
- Support constitutional amendment granting D.C. one congressional representative + 2 senators
- Abolish debt ceiling
- Support law requiring that all congressmen place investments into blind trust
- Support 5-year wait period between congress + lobbying

... Dozens more, but I'm getting tired.
 
2013-11-23 04:44:58 AM  

Captain Dan: - Value American lives more than non-American lives


That's not really a morally defensible position to take.

Support high level of defense spending, national defense as foremost priority

Stop being afraid, the world isn't out to get us.
 
2013-11-23 05:58:37 AM  

Giltric: First you want people to cut the pay of top executives than you biatch when they do.


And by "you" you mean Republican Party leaders?
 
2013-11-23 06:30:43 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: In before the wage gap deniers


The wage gap exists, but in 99% of cases, it's nothing to do with being a woman, and everything to do with being a parent who has taken years out of work and no longer does insane hours.

Compare fathers who have taken the main child-carer role vs single childless women and you see a similar life-time wage ratio.


(of course, there are still instances of classic classic sex discrimination in remuneration in the workplace, but they're at the very edge of the statistics)
 
2013-11-23 07:32:55 AM  

Captain Dan: Smackledorfer: So no details?  You farking tease.

Social issues:

- Support gay marriage + ENDA
- Support Equal Rights Amendment
- Support legal but restricted abortion (legal in 1st trimester w/ 3-day wait period, illegal afterwards except for life of mother)
- Support sex ed
- Oppose teaching creationism
- Support naturalization for illegal immigrants contingent on construction of border fence
- Support more skilled immigration + less unskilled immigration
- Oppose affirmative action
- Support teacher evaluation based partially on metrics (taking into account student demographics)
- Support stop and frisk as long as % of minority stops doesn't exceed % of crimes committed by minority
- Support mandatory filming of all police interactions
- Decriminalize marijuana
- Send hard drug users into rehab programs, not jail
- Support death penalty
- Spend more money on prisons to prevent overcrowding
- Eradicate prison rapes & assaults
- Support bans on public smoking
- Support individual right to gun ownership; however, right can be restricted

Defense policy:

- Support high level of defense spending, national defense as foremost priority
- Nationalistic: foreign policy should advance American interests
- Value American lives more than non-American lives
- Support stronger cyber-warfare defense
- Opposed war in Iraq, oppose military involvement in Syria & Iran
- Support sabotage/sanctions against Iranian nuclear program
- Support expanded use of drones
- Support expansive use of surveillance overseas
- Support inclusion of public interest/privacy advocate at FISA hearings
- Support most of Patriot Act
- More sympathetic to Israel than to its detractors
- Support foreign aid to advance American interests
- Support national ID card

Economic policy:

- Support free trade w/ exception only if national security is compromised
- Support Janet Yellen for Fed, supported Ben Bernanke's tenure
- Oppose Fed audit
- Oppose gold standard
- Oppose ability of public unions to negotia ...



So you are a democrat. Good to know.
 
2013-11-23 07:35:28 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Mike_LowELL: I don't know how to respond to this thread.

We broke him guys! We finally broke him!


Oh contrail! Perhaps his best work ever.
 
2013-11-23 07:40:55 AM  

2wolves: BMFPitt: Elaborate trolling, or money grab?

Or she's sincere and has facts on her side.  What could be more threatening to the GOP?


I'll take that as a vote for money grab.
 
2013-11-23 07:41:49 AM  

Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?


You see that is the thing, they do not see it as a "war on women" and infringements on women's rights.  The Conservatives view the whole thing from a different perspective.  They see it as them being "defenders" fighting against those waging a "war on men".  To them the loss of white male privilege is a war on "men's rights".  As the playing field has leveled, the white male has started facing some of the same adversity as female and minority workers have faced historically.  The problem is with the conservative male is they blame the minority/female worker and "liberals" when they should be blaming the "job creator" class; who on average have record cash reserves, record productivity from workers, and yet pay low stagnant wages.

So rather than joining the women and minorities in requesting better wages and benefits, they politically fight against the rights gained by women and minorities; in order to get back the unfair "privilege" they feel is their "right" based on being a white Christian male.
 
2013-11-23 08:04:01 AM  
I'd almost feel sorry for republicans for being so ignorant if they weren't so damn despicable and rotten.
 
2013-11-23 08:18:43 AM  

BMFPitt: Elaborate trolling, or money grab?


Money grab. This is one strange chick with quite a history. She's quite wealthy already, hubby is a Boeing exec and she was pulling down good money as a newscaster.
 
2013-11-23 08:39:59 AM  

Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?


Preemptive wage-cut.
 
2013-11-23 08:40:38 AM  

Moodybastard: FTFA
"many within the party were upset that Hutchison even mentioned "the 'war on women' meme" in her memo.
"There is no war on women," once source told the Times."

Ok, so what is it then?
A Police Action on women?
A Counter-Insurgency on women?
A Riot Suppression on women?

Whatcha calling it?


The Blue Team version of the "War on Christmas". With a few tiny grains of truth, but not too far off.
 
2013-11-23 09:33:21 AM  

Musikslayer: BMFPitt: Elaborate trolling, or money grab?

Money grab. This is one strange chick with quite a history. She's quite wealthy already, hubby is a Boeing exec and she was pulling down good money as a newscaster.


Seems like a wealthy woman with a high-paying job taking a job with an immediate $20K pay cut to complain and get  back to the rate the last person was paid is a circuitous way to perform a "money grab".
 
2013-11-23 10:02:39 AM  

Dansker: Giltric: First you want people to cut the pay of top executives than you biatch when they do.

And by "you" you mean Republican Party leaders?


No by "you" I mean the knuckle draggers who despise anyone making more than them.


People who complain about too much wealth at the top...income disparity...people who white knight unskilled labor at McDonalds....

Probably some overlap there.
 
2013-11-23 10:34:45 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Seems like a wealthy woman with a high-paying job taking a job with an immediate $20K pay cut to complain and get  back to the rate the last person was paid is a circuitous way to perform a "money grab".


Yeah, she definitely didn't think her cunning plan all the way through.

Her pay cut was probably more than $20k if she was a big market newscaster, too.  $20k was the pay cut that was made to her position before she was elected to it.

So I guess attention whoring is also a possibility, but there were probably much easier ways to do that in her previous job.
 
2013-11-23 10:46:21 AM  

Smackledorfer: Captain Dan: Witty_Retort: And that her new salary was passed after she was elected (appointed? volunteered?) but before she took office.

That's not what the article says.  Quote: "The pay for the Republican chairman's position had been cut by GOP leaders - citing budget issues - at a meeting just prior to Hutchison's election in August."

I am sure a bunch of pols have no idea who was going to win an internal position like that.


OTOH we are talking about  Republican pols...
 
2013-11-23 10:54:12 AM  

Giltric: Dansker: Giltric: First you want people to cut the pay of top executives than you biatch when they do.

And by "you" you mean Republican Party leaders?

No by "you" I mean the knuckle draggers who despise anyone making more than them.

People who complain about too much wealth at the top...income disparity...people who white knight unskilled labor at McDonalds....


But the only person biatching in this story is a Republican Party leader.
 
2013-11-23 11:11:37 AM  

WhyteRaven74: "Value American lives more than non-American lives

"

That's not really a morally defensible position to take.

In my view of foreign policy, morality is one of many competing factors.  It's not always the primary one.

what_now: So you are a democrat. Good to know.


I'm a moderate Republican.  Republicans consider me a RINO and Democrats would consider me a DINO.
 
2013-11-23 11:18:28 AM  
Giltric:

What you meant to say was: "First people, who complain about too much wealth at the top and income disparity, want people to cut the pay of top executives, then the top executives biatch when their pay is cut."

See? It makes perfect sense.
 
2013-11-23 11:32:13 AM  

Captain Dan: what_now: So you are a democrat. Good to know.

I'm a moderate Republican.


Today that means you are a Democrat. I honestly don't see how you can align yourself more with the GoP than the Democrats. I am not a Dem, but I am strongly opposed to many of the things that are the essence of the GoP platform and so are you. If you really feel as strongly about the issues as you claim there is no way you could vote R with a clean concious. It is more likely that you "support" some things that are popular or gaining popularity up to the point where it comes time to vote for it.
 
2013-11-23 11:51:12 AM  

jst3p: Today that means you are a Democrat. I honestly don't see how you can align yourself more with the GoP than the Democrats. I am not a Dem, but I am strongly opposed to many of the things that are the essence of the GoP platform and so are you. If you really feel as strongly about the issues as you claim there is no way you could vote R with a clean concious.


He's already said it. He wants his taxes low, so the Republicans can do whatever and he will be ok with it.
 
2013-11-23 11:53:25 AM  

jst3p: Captain Dan: what_now: So you are a democrat. Good to know.

I'm a moderate Republican.

Today that means you are a Democrat. I honestly don't see how you can align yourself more with the GoP than the Democrats. I am not a Dem, but I am strongly opposed to many of the things that are the essence of the GoP platform and so are you. If you really feel as strongly about the issues as you claim there is no way you could vote R with a clean concious. It is more likely that you "support" some things that are popular or gaining popularity up to the point where it comes time to vote for it.


Or, he's hiding the real reason: Democrats are godless heathens, and GOP-holes (that's GOP, it rhymes with flop) are really angels in disguise.

It's okay, don't hide your light under a shrub!  Let us all know the REAL reason you're a GOP-hole licker.
 
2013-11-23 12:03:14 PM  
I support inequality.  That alone is enough to anathematize me in Democratic ranks.
 
2013-11-23 01:09:28 PM  

CorporatePerson: jst3p: Today that means you are a Democrat. I honestly don't see how you can align yourself more with the GoP than the Democrats. I am not a Dem, but I am strongly opposed to many of the things that are the essence of the GoP platform and so are you. If you really feel as strongly about the issues as you claim there is no way you could vote R with a clean concious.

He's already said it. He wants his taxes low, so the Republicans can do whatever and he will be ok with it.


Got it. "I got mine, fark you!" trumps all other concerns for some.
 
2013-11-23 01:39:15 PM  

jst3p: He's already said it. He wants his taxes low, so the Republicans can do whatever and he will be ok with it.

Got it. "I got mine, fark you!" trumps all other concerns for some.


I haven't said that, and if you actually read what I've written, I favor policies that will raise my effective tax burden.  That's the opposite of your takeaway.
 
2013-11-23 03:54:41 PM  
Full audit of finances and hours worked.
 
2013-11-23 03:59:08 PM  

mrshowrules: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 850x751]


Look at how much she's enjoying it though! I'll bet you Bonnie intentionally buys shiat for coffee just for the spankings from daddy there.

Where was humanity before online dating ads?
 
2013-11-23 04:39:43 PM  

o5iiawah: DeaH: As a fellow woman, I would like to tell her that, perhaps, supporting a party that pays a woman $20k/year less than her male predecessor is a sign that she is supporting the wrong party.

could there be other factors at play?

a shortfall in funding?
poor performance in elections/party goals as compared to her male counterpart?

Thankfully the article answers none of these questions.


Since the salary was set after her appointment but before she started the job, the only factor the only difference they knew of between her and her predecessor was her gender.
 
2013-11-23 08:11:00 PM  
GOPers are afraid of strong women.
 
2013-11-23 08:14:11 PM  

2wolves: But she has great hair!


She is a lovely woman, but that's sort of beside the point.
 
Displayed 173 of 173 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report