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 173
    More: Asinine, GOP, male predecessor, executive board  
•       •       •

2728 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Nov 2013 at 7:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 23 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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