Obama/Romney Debate: ROUND II

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Am I missing something or is the focus on whether Obama immediately called it terrorism or delayed calling it terrorism meaningless? Right after the fact, it seemed like the focus should be on the loss of a good man. From everything I read, he was a great American and a great friend to Libya...and his death was/is a big loss.

Even if Obama didn't immediately call it terrorism, I don't see what meaning you can ascribe to that. Because he didn't immediately scream "terrorism", that means he is soft? He DID immediately say that we'd go after the killers and that seems like the most important part to me.
 
I wonder if you'd say that if you were paid less.

In my company we pay based on performance. I couldn't give a gerbil's shit if that person is black, white, male, female, straight, gay, what have you. Why is it the business of the government to ensure people are paid equally? It's in the interest of companies to find the best employees possible and then to pay to keep them.
 
Why have laws for minimum wage and kids working . . . kids are cheaper and can be as productive if not more productive given thier pay.

I am now in a dog eat dog mode. Check your sympathy at the door.

:D
 
Am I missing something or is the focus on whether Obama immediately called it terrorism or delayed calling it terrorism meaningless? Right after the fact, it seemed like the focus should be on the loss of a good man. From everything I read, he was a great American and a great friend to Libya...and his death was/is a big loss.

Even if Obama didn't immediately call it terrorism, I don't see what meaning you can ascribe to that. Because he didn't immediately scream "terrorism", that means he is soft? He DID immediately say that we'd go after the killers and that seems like the most important part to me.

First, four people died. Not just one. However, focusing on Ambassador Stevens, why didn't we protect him after he repeatedly asked for more security? Why was he in Benghazi on September 11th? It's a big deal because the Obama Administration screwed the pooch on this one and then tried to cover it up. In Washington, it's always the cover up that gets you.
 
In my company we pay based on performance. I couldn't give a gerbil's shit if that person is black, white, male, female, straight, gay, what have you. Why is it the business of the government to ensure people are paid equally? It's in the interest of companies to find the best employees possible and then to pay to keep them.

You are assuming all companies act like this when the idea of good old boys club and getting promoted for who you know and associate with still goes on to this day. Being gay will hurt you in certain business as not everybody is blind to these things.
 
Am I missing something or is the focus on whether Obama immediately called it terrorism or delayed calling it terrorism meaningless? Right after the fact, it seemed like the focus should be on the loss of a good man. From everything I read, he was a great American and a great friend to Libya...and his death was/is a big loss.

Even if Obama didn't immediately call it terrorism, I don't see what meaning you can ascribe to that. Because he didn't immediately scream "terrorism", that means he is soft? He DID immediately say that we'd go after the killers and that seems like the most important part to me.

he went after the American's freedom of expression.
 
Why have laws for minimum wage and kids working . . . kids are cheaper and can be as productive if not more productive given thier pay.

I am now in a dog eat dog mode. Check your sympathy at the door.

:D

I'm not particularly in favor of minimum wage laws. As for child labor laws, I think we should help people that can't help themselves. I don't see women as being unable to protect themselves. In fact, I think it's insulting to imply.
 
You are assuming all companies act like this when the idea of good old boys club and getting promoted for who you know and associate with still goes on to this day. Being gay will hurt you in certain business as not everybody is blind to these things.

It'll also help you in certain businesses. what's your point.
 
You are assuming all companies act like this when the idea of good old boys club and getting promoted for who you know and associate with still goes on to this day. Being gay will hurt you in certain business as not everybody is blind to these things.

Why would somebody want to work for a racist or sexist even if the government is forcing them to pretend like they aren't?
 
You are assuming all companies act like this when the idea of good old boys club and getting promoted for who you know and associate with still goes on to this day. Being gay will hurt you in certain business as not everybody is blind to these things.

If women weren't fairly compensated, I could maximize the profits of my company by hiring only one gender. There's a reason they make less.
 
Why would somebody want to work for a racist or sexist even if the government is forcing them to pretend like they aren't?

Good question.

I would like to work at a place where there is peace and tranquility . . . why the hell am I working where I am? I would reevaluate life and my job, but with the potential of Romney being president my free advise is to keep the job you ahve until a better one comes, no matter the conditions.
 
If women weren't fairly compensated, I could maximize the profits of my company by hiring only one gender. There's a reason they make less.

well played. fact is that the people that make more in the same position work more. Studies have proven that.
 
I'm not particularly in favor of minimum wage laws. As for child labor laws, I think we should help people that can't help themselves. I don't see women as being unable to protect themselves. In fact, I think it's insulting to imply.

Nothing insulting about not being able to change the establishment. I wish I could but have no problem getting assitance from gov't if there are inequites that I can't change.

I know, I know . . . I'm one of the 47%.
 
Good question.

I would like to work at a place where there is peace and tranquility . . . why the hell am I working where I am? I would reevaluate life and my job, but with the potential of Romney being president my free advise is to keep the job you ahve until a better one comes, no matter the conditions.

that is good advise. some places will not consider a resume that does not show that the person submitting it is employed
 
Good god I hate being for Romeny because I so don't beleive in alot of the talking points that Romeny supporters believe in.

Between Romeny and the Blazers, I need to take up some yoga or something. So best i feel good about my decision and let you all talk in black and white.

Go Romney . . . I'm out.
 
Good god I hate being for Romeny because I so don't beleive in alot of the talking points that Romeny supporters believe in.

Between Romeny and the Blazers, I need to take up some yoga or something. So best i feel good about my decision and let you all talk in black and white.

Go Romney . . . I'm out.

Its just a reflection on how under-qualified and terrible Obama has been as president. You see through the smoke and mirrors of his viral marketing campaign and what's left is you see an apologist in chief who is unable to unify the parties and has gridlocked this country.
 
As a psudo Harvard grad, I'd be upset if someone who claims they were from Brown was on my pay level.
 
First, four people died. Not just one. However, focusing on Ambassador Stevens, why didn't we protect him after he repeatedly asked for more security? Why was he in Benghazi on September 11th? It's a big deal because the Obama Administration screwed the pooch on this one and then tried to cover it up. In Washington, it's always the cover up that gets you.

So it's about cover up? If that's the case, then that's where the focus should be. The cover up allegation has nothing to do with what day Obama did or didn't call it terrorism.

That said, even the cover up issue is a stretch and it wouldn't have seen any real air time if we were out of election time. But that's a whole other topic (and I can guess what all the usual posters on either side of the fence will have to say about it lol.)
 
So it's about cover up? If that's the case, then that's where the focus should be. The cover up allegation has nothing to do with what day Obama did or didn't call it terrorism.

That said, even the cover up issue is a stretch and it wouldn't have seen any real air time if we were out of election time. But that's a whole other topic (and I can guess what all the usual posters on either side of the fence will have to say about it lol.)

mobes23,

I'm curious why you think they sent the ambassador to the UN out to every Sunday news show to tell everyone that the attack on the embassy in Libya was spontaneous.

[video=youtube;6oOxAyU8QwM]

I think it's because Obama and Biden were out spiking Bin Laden's head in the end zone and this significant failure in our foreign policy arose to mess things up for them.

It's an election year. Obama isn't proud of his domestic agenda and if the foreign agenda is also a mess, what else is there?
 
Is it fact that if you work more you will be in the "same postion" as someone who got their job through connections?

Hmm, the three studies that I read had no reference to your question. They were dirrected at the truth or fiction of race, sex and sexual preference bieng a factor over all in what X workers made.

I do believe , as you may also, that there are and always has been favoritism in the work place, cant really fight that. Good employer or bad, it is Our chioce to work for them. fact is there have been jobs that I hated but stuck with because the pay was so good.
 
Hmm, the three studies that I read had no reference to your question. They were dirrected at the truth or fiction of race, sex and sexual preference bieng a factor over all in what X workers made.

I do believe , as you may also, that there are and always has been favoritism in the work place, cant really fight that. Good employer or bad, it is Our chioce to work for them. fact is there have been jobs that I hated but stuck with because the pay was so good.

In today's world, I agree with what you earlier wrote, two people in the same position, the harder working person makes more money.

The study I would like to see is how many minority or women are CEO's in Portland vs. white men. What is the ratio in upper management positions, ratio of partners at large accounting or law firms, ect. Portland use to be terrible in these numbers but hear it is slowly improving.
 
In today's world, I agree with what you earlier wrote, two people in the same position, the harder working person makes more money.

The study I would like to see is how many minority or women are CEO's in Portland vs. white men. What is the ratio in upper management positions, ratio of partners at large accounting or law firms, ect. Portland use to be terrible in these numbers but hear it is slowly improving.

What I came away with after digesting all the information was that there was about a ten hour a week difference. The thing that held females back was the demands of raising children. There was very little difference in race, more was based upon education.

Believe me I understand that, I was a single father. I hadto take jobs that allowed my schedule to be more flexiable. Income was no where as good what I could hae made. BUT, it was a choice I made for my daughter.
 
Gallup has actually shown a widening of polls in favor of Romney after the debate. Gallup is now 52%-45%. The day of the debate it was Gallup 50%-46%. Rasmussen has remained steady at 49%-47%.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top