Elizabeth Warren, can she go away?

LOL....again....lots of blather but no factual refutation.

Wow, really getting after the women today.

Does this account for different pay scales for different job titles? Does it account for experience or differences in education levels? Here is the answer: no. I know you love the headline, but it took me five minutes to uncover that this was some seriously flawed work on behalf the good and honest people at Free Beacon.

This appears to be based off the Free Beacon's previously shoddy work on pay at Warren's office. For example, in their last looksy at staff pay at the Senator's office, they decided not to include the pay of her former COS and current COS from their "analysis." Why? Because the former COS was female and her replacement was male...and...wait for it...wait...here it comes...they got paid the same salary. There were some decisions about who would be included and who would not be included in the "study" that suggest they were attempting to stack the deck.

The sage of Mio keeps acting like an uber patriot intellectual who belittles everyone with whom he disagrees.

The people of MA will decide if Warren leaves the Senate. Until then she'll be a favorite target of convienient conservative retirees living in poor rural counties with internet service to whine about.

I, too, get really upset at smart, successful, independent women who feel as though they can have an opinion on something.

tGreenWay wrote:And let's not forget that Warren was spot on when it came to the chaos and disorganization of the Trump WH. It must really piss off some folks to learn she was right all along.

exactly.. and it's these very insecurities with regard to her that makes her a target for their vitriol.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I, too, get really upset at smart, successful, independent women who feel as though they can have an opinion on something.

agreed. Smart enough to work the system to lie about being a Native American. The smarts to cheat, admired by all libs.

...guys, maybe Warren wears skirts and has all of this coming.

Turtleneck wrote:...guys, maybe Warren wears skirts and has all of this coming.

Lose on the facts, start with the smears.

Typical loser.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:...guys, maybe Warren wears skirts and has all of this coming.

Lose on the facts, start with the smears.

Typical loser.

Typical winners lose on the facts then just don't click on the thread ever again so they've don't have to admit how impossibly wrong they are.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:...guys, maybe Warren wears skirts and has all of this coming.

Lose on the facts, start with the smears.

Typical loser.

1) I think I have already pointed out how your post was indeed loose on facts, which might actually be an understatement. I am sorry you are lazy and/or have no motivation to spend an extra five minutes looking into a headline that makes you all tingly inside.

2) My "smears" are based on you comparing sexual assault victims to people that "Dance in black clothing at Midnight in the middle of I96," or "Wear a deerskin and antlers, run around the woods on the morning of November 15th." However, even though these are your own words, I will do better by not bringing them into future conversations, particularly where they are not relevant.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Lose on the facts, start with the smears.

Typical loser.

1) I think I have already pointed out how your post was indeed loose on facts, which might actually be an understatement. I am sorry you are lazy and/or have no motivation to spend an extra five minutes looking into a headline that makes you all tingly inside.

2) My "smears" are based on you comparing sexual assault victims to people that "Dance in black clothing at Midnight in the middle of I96," or "Wear a deerskin and antlers, run around the woods on the morning of November 15th." However, even though these are your own words, I will do better by not bringing them into future conversations, particularly where they are not relevant.

I noticed how you called your longtime ally GRR out for this one.....does he get a pass because he's a lib??

GRR Spartan wrote:The accuser is still looking for a big payday but she needs a conviction for an easier civil suit.

Turtleneck wrote:2) My "smears" are based on you comparing sexual assault victims to people that "Dance in black clothing at Midnight in the middle of I96," or "Wear a deerskin and antlers, run around the woods on the morning of November 15th." However, even though these are your own words, I will do better by not bringing them into future conversations, particularly where they are not relevant.

And that's taking those words completely out of context and thus a lie. But it's ok, I understand that's how you operate.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:2) My "smears" are based on you comparing sexual assault victims to people that "Dance in black clothing at Midnight in the middle of I96," or "Wear a deerskin and antlers, run around the woods on the morning of November 15th." However, even though these are your own words, I will do better by not bringing them into future conversations, particularly where they are not relevant.

And that's taking those words completely out of context and thus a lie.   But it's ok, I understand that's how you operate.

1) I understood those words in a different context.
2) When a person dresses up in black and plays in traffic at midnight, or dresses like a deer and runs around the woods on opening day, the expectation of being hit by a car or shot should not be far from their thoughts. In other words, they should not be surprised if they are hit or shot.
3) When they are hit or shot, the driver or the hunter is not at fault. It is an accident.
4) Therefore, it sounded to me like you were saying that A) women who do not adhere to your dress code should not be surprised when they are victimized, and B) anything the perpetrator did was purely accidental.
5) I apologize if I incorrectly understood your poor analogies.

Why is the resident pit stirrer so accusatory in so many responses?

No one here is saying Elizabeth Warren is perfect. But she's not my US Senator and I don't plan on moving to vote for her next election cycle.

I'm disappointed she never raised red flags on automotive assembly companies like BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai and even Tesla shipping in foreign labor from Eastern Europe, coaching them to claim they were supervisors to get into the US on a visa then work for 75% less than what a US laborer would earn.

quick reminder that republicans will always whine about a smart, independent, successful female.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:quick reminder that republicans will always whine about a smart, independent, successful female.

That's not fair they love smart and successful republican senators like Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:quick reminder that republicans will always whine about a smart, independent, successful female.

That's not fair they love smart and successful republican senators like Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:2) My "smears" are based on you comparing sexual assault victims to people that "Dance in black clothing at Midnight in the middle of I96," or "Wear a deerskin and antlers, run around the woods on the morning of November 15th." However, even though these are your own words, I will do better by not bringing them into future conversations, particularly where they are not relevant.

And that's taking those words completely out of context and thus a lie. But it's ok, I understand that's how you operate.

Just the words of a dope smoking retiree in a poor MI country who can afford a computer and internet service who follows FAKE NEWS from FoxNews

Blah Blah Blah

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

And that's taking those words completely out of context and thus a lie.   But it's ok, I understand that's how you operate.

1) I understood those words in a different context.
2) When a person dresses up in black and plays in traffic at midnight, or dresses like a deer and runs around the woods on opening day, the expectation of being hit by a car or shot should not be far from their thoughts. In other words, they should not be surprised if they are hit or shot.
3) When they are hit or shot, the driver or the hunter is not at fault. It is an accident.
4) Therefore, it sounded to me like you were saying that A) women who do not adhere to your dress code should not be surprised when they are victimized, and B) anything the perpetrator did was purely accidental.
5) I apologize if I incorrectly understood your poor analogies.

Nah, just as usual they're being twisted. I would spend the time to explain but in this place it's not worth the bother. All of you know what's best no matter the situation.

GRR Spartan wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

And that's taking those words completely out of context and thus a lie.   But it's ok, I understand that's how you operate.

Just the words of a dope smoking retiree in a poor MI country who can afford a computer and internet service who follows FAKE NEWS from FoxNews

Blah Blah Blah  

Better that than a full time jackass. Tell us some more about how Mateen's accuser is just after the $$.....I notice your pals are still ignoring that.

Goose you should slow down your rate of posting right now to at least give the appearance that you read and considered the post. Maybe like from one bumped thread every minute to one ever 3-4. Just a thought.