1 - 10 Next
The problem with you, Daune, is that you understand things like personal responsibility and living with the consequences of your choices. I congratulate you, but your way of thinking apparently is alien to those advocating "equal pay for women."
What substantive issue is Obama NOT ignorant about?
"The Labor Department also said that the remaining gap could be explained by choices that men and women make." Many other studies have looked at that remaining gap and have found that it indeed is explained by choices men and women make. The male-female average pay gap is explained by readily observable differences in male and female behavior. Men and women choose to distribute themselves differently across types of professions and across types of jobs within professions, with men disproportionately working in professions and jobs within professions that pay more than the jobs that women choose. Men disproportionately take dangerous jobs, take jobs at night, and take outdoor jobs, all characteristics that most people consider undesirable and that therefore require increased pay to compensate the less pleasant job characteristics. Even within professions and jobs, men and women make different choices. Men work more hours per week. Men have fewer breaks in their careers. Men disproportionately work overtime. Result: average pay for men is higher than average pay for women. By the way, another correction is that wages or salaries are not the right measure of earnings. The correct measure is total compensation, which includes all job benefits, such as health insurance. Those are virtually identical for men and women, so adding them to wages or salaries tends to equalize earnings.
In response to:

Hanging Rudy Out to Dry

Macroman Wrote: Feb 24, 2015 7:30 AM
"The consultant class' advice was near unanimous: Cut Rudy loose...Sensing retreat, the left pursued." That is precisely what is wrong with the Republican party. It collectively cannot bring itself to stand for anything. It cannot call a spade a spade or an arrogant, ignorant, anti-American communist who also happens to be the President of the United States what he is. It will not support those like Giuliani with the guts to do so. Now the boobs in the Senate have decided to go back to the old procedural rules that prevailed before Harry Reid, and they are getting their butts beat in a chamber that *they control*. The right thing to do is retain the Democrats perverted rules and use them to shove conservative bills down the Democrats' throats. Cut off all amendments by the Democrats and cut off all debate and then pass the bills. The Republicans should run the Senate as if they are in charge - which they are! What a bunch of idiots.
In response to:

Giuliani Versus Obama

Macroman Wrote: Feb 24, 2015 7:12 AM
"It is not clear what the basis was for so much outrage at Mayor Giuliani's opinion about President Obama. Was it that what Giuliani said was demonstrably false?" No. The problem is that what Giuliani said is demonstrably TRUE, as the rest of Dr. Sowell's column documents.
In response to:

Giuliani Versus Obama

Macroman Wrote: Feb 24, 2015 7:11 AM
Yeah, but Obama isn't a patriot, either.
This guy is a Democrat, so many TownHall readers immediately conclude he is wrong, is a fool, perhaps is evil, and respond by heaping opprobrium on him. Pat Buchanan is a regular TownHall columnist. He is a Republican and a pretty conservative one at that. He also is a fierce patriot. Nonetheless, he also pretty much agrees with what this guy has to say. Could it be that the views expressed by this guy are neither foolish nor evil? Maybe they are not even wrong. When someone as informed and level-headed as Pat Buchanan makes the same argument, we should pause before dismissing the argument just because it is a Democrat making it.
Come on. Let's cut to the chase. The title of this essay really should be "America's First Anit-*American* President."
In response to:

The Unemployment Figure Is A 'Big Lie'

Macroman Wrote: Feb 10, 2015 10:25 AM
Economic commentary on TownHall has really gone to the dogs. Sowell, Williams, and Mitchell still write good stuff, but Lambro joins with Shedlock, Schiff, Ramsom, Morici, and Tatro in writing screeds that reveal only that they are pathetically ignorant of even the most basic concepts. The US government has a precise definition of unemployment. It has used that definition for decades. As far as I know, the Obama administration has done nothing - repeat, NOTHING - to change it or manipulate it. It has been known (and discussed) for many decades that the official measure does not include people who drop out of the labor force (Why should it? Should it also include those who never dropped in? Why not?) or people who don't make a minimal effort to find a job or who work some amount of hours. None of that is political, and none is manipulation. It is a consequence of having to write down a definition. Neither Lambro nor anyone else could write down a definition of unemployment that did not have some controversial element to it. Am I unemployed if I want to work 40 hours a week at $50 an hour but can find work only at $10 an hour and so choose to stay home? A job is there if I want it. I just don't want it. Am I unemployed? Why or why not? Am I "underemployed" if I once had a job as a farrier at $20 an hour but lost that job with the spread of automobiles and now can find work only as a stockboy earning $15 an hour? Why or why not? How is that different from someone who never had the now-outmoded skills of a farrier in the first place? That is undergraduate-level stuff. We've known it for many decades, though Lambro knows none of it. Should we say that Lambro is overemployed as a columnist?
"Americans are in greater danger now than we have been in decades because we have a leader who..." No. Wrong. Obama is not a leader. He is the President and as such occupies a leadership position, but he leads no one, not even his own party. Instead, he imposes his will arbitrarily, unilaterally, autocratically, unconstitutionally.
1 - 10 Next