When will Obama end his ridiculous, sexist War on Women?

Quote: A record 55,553,000 women 16 years and older did not participate in the labor force in September, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This means that 55,553,000 women in the United States did not have a job and did not actively seek one in the past four weeks.

The number of women not in the labor force increased from 55,345,000 in August to 55,553,000 in September, an increase of 208,000.

The participation rate for women also dipped in September to 56.7 percent; it has not been this low since September of 1988 when it was 56.6 percent. This means that only 56.7 percent of women participated in the labor force by either having a job during the month or actively seeking one.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meye...abor-force

The important thing is Unemployment is down to 5.9%,


just ask RWT.

Quote:Yes, it's still not where we need it, but it's much better than the alternative and did exceed expectations (before revisions of course).

More time to raise kids.

This isn't a problem.

But it should be brought up that immigrants are displacing women who want to work.

Should it really?

(10-03-2014 11:56 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More time to raise kids.

So... barefoot and pregnant is how democrats think women should be kept.

As long as they're educated and not unfairly limited in their opportunities due to their sex, I couldn't care how barefoot and pregnant women want to be. The outcome isn't what's important, the ability to make a choice to affect that outcome is.

(10-04-2014 05:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  As long as they're educated and not unfairly limited in their opportunities due to their sex, I couldn't care how barefoot and pregnant women want to be. The outcome isn't what's important, the ability to make a choice to affect that outcome is.

I love how you play the fool. Just for kicks, explain what the ethical basis for your position is.

(10-04-2014 05:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 05:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  As long as they're educated and not unfairly limited in their opportunities due to their sex, I couldn't care how barefoot and pregnant women want to be. The outcome isn't what's important, the ability to make a choice to affect that outcome is.

I love how you play the fool. Just for kicks, explain what the ethical basis for your position is.

You want to know my ethical basis for wanting equal education and opportunities regardless of ones sex?

(10-04-2014 04:52 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 11:56 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More time to raise kids.

So... barefoot and pregnant is how democrats think women should be kept.

Are you against parents spending time with their kids?

Fast food, dishwashers and Pampers messed up the working equation.

Torch,

When you say play the fool that is a personal attack. You could have asked him for clarification of the statement without the attack.

(10-04-2014 07:45 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 04:52 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(10-03-2014 11:56 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More time to raise kids.

So... barefoot and pregnant is how democrats think women should be kept.

Are you against parents spending time with their kids?

As long as parents can pay their bills with $0 government assistance no problem. If the parents are at home creating more government dependents yes.

(10-05-2014 08:35 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Torch,

When you say play the fool that is a personal attack. You could have asked him for clarification of the statement without the attack.

Wow! Good think you're not a moderator, a person would have to be really thin skinned to think Torch's comment was a personal attack.

Could he have made his point without calling him a fool? That's the point.

This is exactly what conservatives want. They want their women Barefoot and pregnant.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Being called a fool by Torch is a sign I'm doing something right, believe me when I say there is no offense taken.