49 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
davek7 says:
Republican'ts

http://x2t.com/2/rep
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TimeToEvolve says:
Since you Republicons think you are entitled to your own facts let me point out to you pinheads what article you are trying to spin your propaganda.

Senate GOP blocks Democrats' equal pay bill.
reply
PayNoTaxes__GetNoVote replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Hey "Evolved", who's the "Under the bill, the federal government would be exempt from punitive damages." Typical Democrat law. Exempting THEMSELVES from a law they pass for everyone ELSE.

Here is some more reading for closed minded liberal:
"But data from the Obama White House's 2011 annual report show that female staffers there earn a median salary 18 percent lower than that of men.

And nearly four years ago, at the height of the 2008 election season, Scripps Howard syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock wrote that female staffers in Obama's U.S. Senate office, too, were shortchanged."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/05/democrats-focus-on-equal-pay-issue-while-obama-white-house-pays-women-less/#ixzz25knTUPGN
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TimeToEvolve says:
Hey Joke, is this Joke: Do you have any specific examples of how republicans have not supported women?

Did you read the title of this article? Did you also miss the birth control Republiclown debacle a couple months ago?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TimeToEvolve says:
The Republiclown War on Women continues. But hey they have a War on the Poor, War on the Middle Class, War on American Workers and War on Gays.

Does anyone else get the impression that Republicons LOVE war?
reply
MaleMatters replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
About 55 percent of voters are women. Women are a majority of the population because as a group they outlive men*, who die sooner of the 12 leading causes of death. (They die sooner largely because the government funds more health research for the group that is healthier and longer-living than it does for men — which would be like taking most of the funding for the sexes' economic improvement and using it for the economic improvement of men, already the higher-earning group). And because men as a group are penalized by having an earlier death, they are a minority that is also penalized by having less political importance as voters: in 2008, 10 million more women voted than men.

Thus, Democrats, seeing women as more important to elections than men, are as a matter of strategy waging a war on Republicans by accusing them of waging a war on women.

But Democrats are waging a war on women, too, of an insidious kind. They are recklessly pandering to women. They continually promise them something for "nothing" — and no doubt anger more than a few men, especially black men, whom Democrats and President Obama have discriminatorily ignored — and disregard the costs to business of their something-for-nothing legislation, costs that are passed on to customers and/or employees, hurting women as much as men. (Read former CNN host Campbell Brown's May 21, 2012, complaint in The New York Times about President Obama's pandering to women.)

A business owner tells how strict equal-pay laws can hurt women more than men:

Have you ever thought that this could backfire on women? Lets take a look for a second. I own a company and need to hire a new employee. I have a man who got hired when the economy was booming and he is paid 60K for his position. Now, the economy is not so good and the supply of labor has increased, lowering the price of employees (i.e wages). Because of these equality laws, I am forbidden from hiring a woman. If I do, I will get sued when she finds out that her colleague is paid more. I could hire a man for the same job and no one would complain, but a woman is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Hence, the laws backfire on women and they do not get hired. Is it any surprise that unemployment is higher among women? Not to me. -HuffingtonPost commenter "hudi42," October 24, 2012

More at Male Matters USA: malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/is-there-a-war-on-women/
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Fox_Rush_Zombie says:
Did someone forget to tell these republican clowns that women get to vote now?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
harv823 says:
Why are the Republicans against women rights ??
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
RDriftwood says:
Could the gop possibly do anything more to alienate women voters? How could any woman vote for a gop candidate considering the gop's views?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
baileycccc says:
This proves it, republicans are trying to keep women down. If you needed a reason to vote the gop out of office, this is it.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gep1955 says:
This wasn't a defeat for women as much as it is a defeat for the attorneys lobby that funnel campaign money to Mikulski and the dems.
Besides, Obama is providing equal pay to men and women through food stamp and welfare programs.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gep1955 says:
Hellooooo, News Flash. There are more dems in the senate than repubs. It didn't pass because the dems voted against it too.

News Flash...wealthy people got wealthy by not working 40 hour weeks. They got wealthy working 60-80 hour weeks investing savings into things that would earn them more income, not blowing every dime on non-essentials like TVs, rims, jewelry, until AFTER the wealth is earned.
reply
freeamerica31 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I've worked that much and my savings never added up to that...that's right...I don't work on Wall Street. A real worker!
AOCGUY replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
gep, no dems voted against the bill. It failed because it required 60 votes and there are NOT 60 dems in the Senate. Try reading the article next time before posting stupid comments.
thinkharder- replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Only one dem, reid voted against it, and that was purely procedural so he could bring the measure up again. You are dumb as a a bag of rocks.
1/3