And you still haven't bothered to answer my question about his being a 'net plus'.

lol are you kidding me, Putin. Your upset because he forgot to normalize to population in his speech? He didn't have the MOST women, he had the most women PER CAPITA? I am unimpressed and it definitely doesn't make him a liar in my book (not that he wasn't one already, but that's besides the point)



I don't think we're connecting on what the original article is "about." Your own copypasta says "new appointments." Let me be clear what it is I'm asking (maybe you answered me and I just don't understand)...

The article claims 30% of senior level positions were held by women.

Romney, from 2002-2004, filled 42% of NEWLY available slots (yes, I'm ignoring how prestigious or important they are, the article doesn't give enough info for me to make that distinction) with women.

Romney, from 2004-2006, filled 25% of NEWLY available slots with women.



The problem is that they never say whether the original 30% increased or decreased. I'm not saying I know the answer, it just isn't clear from this article - and knowing the Huff (yes, I'm sure they cite well) that is because the answer isn't what they want it to be, and they are more than happy to leave the impression that it decreased without ever actually saying so. Don't get me wrong, I'd be DELIGHTED if you could show me otherwise.


You're going too fast for me to answer "net plus" and "latterwhatever" right now... one thing at a time.

Haaaaa ha ha ha ha!! Huffington Post as a source....good god, that's just too much hilarity. Skewed facts and figures can be cited by anyone. As YJ points out,% of NEW appointees went down...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/18/womens-pay-level-in-gov-romneys-staff/

Different perspective...he DOUBLED the number of women in the top-paid positions by the end of his tenure. i.e. his IMMEDIATE staff went from 2 women to 4 women. As for the number of women in lower levels of government, do you *seriously* think the Governor is hiring and firing all the women?

You fucking retarded biased jackass, Putin.

Bad Putin...go to your room, you blithering FUCKTARD!

Too fast? I asked this question at the beginning of your effort to CNN-ize the binder meme with obfuscation.

And they're talking about the same number. 30% of newly appointed staff prior to Romney, 25% of newly appointed staff by the time he left. They aren't talking about different things.

And you're just not bothering to read anything at this point. He *lied* because he made the claim that he went out of his way to appoint women. This is false. 100% false. No amount of trying to equate an award winning blog with Fox News changes this fact. Nor does it change the fact that Romney refused to answer the question, and continues to lie about his policies on women's rights.

I don't really want to pick sides or anything, and I honestly think it matter about zero percent, but surely percent of newly appointed staff would be the number that one would care about? Who retires or gets fired because they are bad at their job isn't relevant.

"30% of newly appointed staff prior to Romney."

You are the only source I've heard say that. The article does not. Maybe that's what they MEANT but I'm pretty skeptical (you did, after all, challenge me to be more critical). Far more likely that's what they meant to IMPLY, and maybe you just fell for it. However I feel about Huff tactics, these are excellent journalists, they don't make mistakes like that very often. Again, I hope I am wrong, but now its just your word I'm supposed to take...

I don't see how you can say I'm not reading when I'm pointing out pretty clear issues with the texts your are citing, and trying to reconcile them with the viewpoints you are presenting.

Now, to answer your other question, of course I think Romney is a liar who dodges questions and doesn't really have a good plan in place. This should not surprise you. However, that's why it annoys me that we still feel it necessary to spin the things that, hey maybe he didn't do so bad on.

right, uclabb, but the way the article was worded it implied that both:

1) his percentage of newly appointed female staff overall was below the 30% starting point
2) the final percentage of women when he left office was below the 30% starting point

But the article doesn't actually SAY these things, it just leaves you with the strong feeling they are the case, and I'm taking issue with Putin for stating them as fact when I don't feel anybody has yet shown they are.

Here's your answer.

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/10/17/how-mitt-romney-had-whole-binders-women-for-staff-positions-governor/Fyb4PQrpegAYzSTJd1d8iK/story.html

About midway through Romney’s four-year term, 42 percent of his 33 new appointments were women, according to a study done by the UMass Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy using some of the data collected by MassGAP.

But over the next two years, women made up only 25 percent of the 64 new appointments Romney made. By the end of his term, women made up 27.6 percent of those in high-ranking positions overall, which was slightly lower than it was before Romney took office.

But the overall point, which you still fail to acknowledge, is he lied about going out of his way to get these "binders full of women". The binders were brought to him, and he didn't even meet with the group. He's lying about this, period.

Thanks, Putin. I'm actually encouraged by this.

I don't remember exactly what he said, and I really don't care whether he went after them or they went after him - so you can consider the rest acknowledged.

I'm far more interested in the numbers you gave me and on whether his words there reflect truth (you've now convinced me they don't).

is that a collectible card game with witch you can fill 9 per page?

The Putin card:
http://trevorsays.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/manly-essence.jpg?w=350

Gotta catch 'em all!

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00241/F_200610_October10s_241692a.jpg

I'm that guy with no shirt on.

I figured.

Putin must be the second guy with no shirt on

@YJ, student/alumnus of GA Tech?

Why do we care about anyone's gaffes or not? Sometimes people say funny shit, like "I assure you, Michelle goes all the way down." It doesn't really matter.

Apparently being a craven serial liar doesn't either.

hold on a moment, I don't know what craven means.

Ahh, I am referring to binders full of women specifically. It was funny.

Apparently, Putin has no sense of humor. It's his weak point.

Obama supporters : political world :: 9GAG : meme world - trying entirely too hard to force not-funny memes out of nowhere.

There's also two craven serial liars on stage, so... it counts against Romney of course, but also counts against Obama too. Mass media doing a good job of manufacturing a difference between the two on this front by calling out Romney and not Obama.

Fozzie Bear thought he was funny too.

Yeah, we know, until you fucked him in the ass, Putin.

What the hell are you talking about, Eden? The media is propping up Romney despite being completely disrespectful and obnoxious in both of his debates and despite lying about every position he has taken.

How is Obama a serial liar? You're libertarian shtick got old a long time ago. Your high horse you're riding on must be tired.

*Your

I like Obama a little less now that Putin supports him.

>you're libertarian
>lecturing me about political shtick getting old