"Because, as is the case in most instances,a simple search will provide evidence of more than one opinion."

More than one opinion?

Is there more than one valid opinion on whether or not Obama promised that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%? Is there more than one valid opinion on whether o rnot he said we could keep our pland and doctors? Is there more than one valid opinion on whether or not he made fun of Romney for describing Putin as a threat to world peace? I also don't believe there is more than one opinion on whether or not Iraq de-stabilized under El Deuce's watch.

I don't need to search for differing opinions on any of these, any more than I need to search for opposing points of view on whether or not gravity exists.

Some things are open to interpretation, like the benefits of raising minimum wage. But the things I listed are not refutable, as evidenced by the fact that neither you nor Spence posted one syllable to refute them. But you can't admit I'm right, because those facts, and they are facts, make Obama look incompetent.

OK, I did a search on "how Spence can prove that Obama in fact, did NOT promise that the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%, when it subsequently rose above 10%", and guess what? it didn't return anything.

So, one last time, please tell me why I'm wrong when I say that Obama blew that prediction. Because that was one of the items in my list, which you said was "a nice summary of things I've gotten wrong".

If I'm wrong, show me. Why is that so hard?

Ptray tell, what kind of "mind is necessary", to deny that Obama was incorrect about the benefits of the stimulus, or to deny that he was incorrect when he said we could keep our plans/doctors, or to deny that he was wrong for mocking Romney's idea that Putin was trouble?

Not everything is open to interpretation. Some things are irrefutable facts. I can concede all of them, even the ones that don't happen to support my agenda.

Again,don't interpret this as me being sympathetic to Obama or Spence. I have nothing but contempt for O, but I am not eating the vomit of Fox News like some...my reference to using the search was more in regards to our previous discussion regarding equal pay where you posted many articles supporting your stance,yet pretended none exist to the contrary,not that I expected you to but a search would prove they exist. I think it is great you have a Detbutch in your life to pick you up and hug you in these instances. I would do the same if I were to meet you,a man hug of course. You also seem to have a different view of a stable Iraq than some, but that is also your prerogative. I respect the fact you have an informed opinion although we do not always agree.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks for reminding me that I should stay out of little pissing matches.

BTW, Jim doesn't need me to pick him up. If anything, he ignores anything I say that might be considered by others to pick him up, and he goes about explaining and defending his position in his own way. We have, you'll notice if you do "the search," disagreed, at length several times.

In this instance, I thought it was peculiar to assert or imply that Jim had not done a search to help form or back up his opinions. I certainly didn't think he was merely hearing voices in his own head. Oh crap . . . there I go . . . I'll shut up now.

Well said
Shake and Bake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please refer to the above where I explained my reference to the search. I thought I had made myself clear but obviously you interpreted it differently.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Due respect...every single study I have seen that shows a gender pay gap, simply compares average male salary to average female salary.

Every single study I have seen which normalizes for experience and hours worked (men typically work longer hours and have more experience, because they don't usually take time off for childbirth), shows no gender pay gap.

Thus, the pay gap is not a function of gender, it's a function of hours worked and experience.

I concede that articles to the contrary exist. But every single one that I have ever seen, is flawed, in that it doesn't make it an apples to apples comparison, because it doesn't compare equivalent males and females. I asked you to post a study which (1) had that necessary adjustment, and (2) still showed a gender pay gap. You didn't, presumably because you couldn't. Yet I bet you still believe there is a gender pay gap, and it's that refusal to concede mathematical facts, that I will never understand. That's not a matter of opinion, it's high school math.

I don't need Detbuch, though it's nice that we usually agree. And it's nice having him here because I learn fom him, even when we disagree.

Man hug back at you, have a good weekend.

You might want to add the difference that men and women predominantly make in the type of jobs they choose to work in. "Studies" that I have bumped into when doing "the search" bit have noted that there are far more men employed in the higher paying jobs then women. When those numbers are indiscriminately added to the overall mix, it falsely skews the comparison of men's to women's average pay. And, even though less women than men work in those higher paying jobs, the women who do, and, as you say, work the same amount of time with equal experience in those jobs, at least in the vast majority of cases, get equal pay.

Not true
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, OK, since you put it that way.

[QUOTE=spence;1068290]Because the questions he asks have been answered sufficiently multiple times in this forum yet he just keeps asking and asking.

Spence every political blog is disected 40 times and U R just as guilty....over and over....:)

Seriously...can you please pot SOMETHING to support your position? Last time I asked, you posted a link to the same de-bunked study that showed, on average (without adjusting for differences in careers chosen or hours worked), women make less than men.

Sea Dangles, do you think everyone in the US should make the same exact salary? A teenage girl working part-time at Starbucks should make the same salary as a corporate lawyer working 12 hours a day?

We all get that you don't what Detbuch and I are saying to be true. But every study I have seen, including the only one I ever saw you post, clearly shows that the "gender pay gap" only exists if you fail to normalize for critical differences.

If the "Liberal Narrative" claimed that gravity wasn't true, would you believe that as well?

LMFAO...

Very true, another huge difference is the increased likelihood for men to choose the most lucrative careers.

"even though less women than men work in those higher paying jobs, the women who do, and, as you say, work the same amount of time with equal experience in those jobs, at least in the vast majority of cases, get equal pay"

And the inescapable conclusion from your statement, is that there is no gender pay gap. There IS a pay gap between people who work more hours versus less hours. There is a gap between those who choose the most lucrative careers and those who do not. And that does not seem the least unfair to me.

If we want to increase opportunities for more Americans to be qualifies for more lucrative careers, that's an idea we should all endorse. But it's not about gender. Except maybe in Hollywood, but anyone who chooses that career path, knows exactly what they are getting into...

actually, i think he's right...if you do a little googling you'll find out that women are and have been underrepresented and paid less than their male counterparts in both the Clinton and Obama administrations as well as Hillary's various staffs and on and on....if true there, it must be true everywhere...we are fortunate to have people like the Clintons and Obama to point out these travesties while campaigning and to correct them once in power :smash:

You are misinformed Jimmy,I think you know that too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did a pitifully quick internet "search" on types of work men and women do and these are the first and only two I read:

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/07...re-women-work/

and:

http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/...gender-divide/

The second article goes into more detail and has some very interesting links within the article. There are occupations in which the women make more than the men, some way more.

In general, these support the idea that the types of work that mostly women do and the types that mostly men do are a huge contributing factor in the so-called gender wage gap.

Of course, if I were to do "the search" in a more exhaustive way, I should be able to find something to dispute these. Just too tired and disinterested to do it. Maybe you can.

Anyway, my opinion is that too much is made of the issue, and I think it is politics that drives it. There is already a federal law against discriminatory hiring. Not a whole lot more can be done by government other than commie, gestapo tactics. Or, more likely, some bill with the right sounding title, Fair and Equal Pay for Women, or some such thing, which doesn't really do anything more to "fix" the phony gap except to put more regulatory burdens on business with the accompanying costly paper work--all just raising the cost of doing business and maybe even result in trimming the number of jobs. But it can sure be a rather phony campaign issue in an attempt to influence the female vote.

I still think the market best decides these things. And, indeed, according to the two articles, the market at this time favors women in some good to high wage sectors. And, as some pundits have said, if you could hire women to do the same work as men for less money, it would be foolish of businesses not to do so.

Then educate me. Please post some kind of link or study which shows a gender pay gap, which makes an apples to apples comparison between men and women, in terms of chosen career, experience, and hours worked.

Why is it, I keep asking for that, and you won't do it?

And since we all know the answer to that question, here's the follow up...why do you still cling to the phony gender pay gap, when you can't support it, and in defiance of all the studies I posted showing there is no gap?

It is there,I see it every day.you just don't want to admit it because it defeats your agenda.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, he's just trying to make you repeat your same request over and over. He is not interested in documenting his opinion with some citation from "the search." He only wants to make you look like a desperate blathering fool. My opinion is if you leave it alone you'll come away with discretion being the better part of valor, and his vacuous attempt to bate you will be seen for what it is.

But if you want, as ScottW said, to be a glutton for punishment . . . go for it . . . in your persistent, admirable, never give up, always a marine . . . way.

An insightful evaluation from a wingman who exited the pissing contest long ago.Please include yourself in the blathering representation. From here on out,I will allow you both to continue your online dating bullseye together.
Semper fi
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What you see or not ,is not a credible sample of what's out there.

Last time ever...I posted multiple studies that show there is no gender pay gap when you make rudimentary adjustments to the data, which anyone who ever took statistics 101, knows is necessary. You have posted precisely nothing to support your claim.

My agenda is to react to the facts. Every fact I have ever seen on this topic, shows unequivocally, that there is no gender pay gap. You refuse to concede any of that, but you cannot provide a shred of supporting data. That's what an ideologue does. My conviction on this topic is a direct result of demonstrable facts. All you have is what you desperately wish were true.

Even if there happened to be a genuine gender pay gap where you happen to work, that's not indicative of a wide problem. There is plenty of federal law prohibiting such pay gaps, and plenty of lawyers willing to sue, therefore, businesses have every reason to comply with the law.

If you can support your position with something, anything, we can continue.

Hey, Jim . . . no need to continue. The enemy has left the field. It has been vanquished.

I am really not your enemy Detbutch,simply a contrarian.However,I feel like the third wheel on a date with two love struck friends. Thoughtful of you to hold and caress in such a manner. I am simply trying to allow you 2 some private time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're "allowing" me? With such snarky friends, who needs enemies?

Ignore him . It's a pattern
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hope, for his sake and everybody else, it doesn't develop into what Spence likes to call a "systemic pattern." That's one of those nearly incurable conditions which require Holder's DOJ to intervene and mess up even more.

I believe it has already spread virus like into the forum and hijacked several threads.

Don't take it out of context

Just because we may not see eye to eye it does not have to be defined as either friends or enemies. There is a grey area that you have demonstrated an inability to recognize on many fronts...
We are all brothers in a biblical sense,right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought those scars had healed.
Too soon?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device