Liberal hypocrisy: Clinton fails to shatter 'glass ceiling,' hires all-male staff

[dcontroversal]

Another snake in the grass politician......well...she learned from the best I suppose...married to one and working for the other!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes, true. I think 1still_waters and you nailed it; however, she's been going around telling everyone else to do the opposite.

Hillary Clinton and the Democrats put a feminist spin on traditional liberal ideas.

^ blah blah blah feminist this and feminist that... "everything is a woman's issue."

Then when it comes time to pony up she kicks all the females to the curb and brings in high power men to get the job done. HYPOCRITE!!!

I think you're close to the grit of it. I don't think it has anything to do with girl power, for Hillary by herself has enough of that. Rather it seems to me she is assimilating some of Obama's old campaign apparatus.

Funny enough though, while this would normally go as an unnoticed bit of news, because Hillary's own opponents invoke that girl power though, they have pretty much reminded everyone that Hillary is the lady best poised to be first woman president.

This is going to be a fun campaign season if this is how it is going before it has even officially begun.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I think the next president will be a Republican, which is sad, because that means a lot of war, corruption and death.

The good news is, no one over here cares what you think.

Equal rights isn't the same as deliberately 50:50 male:female employment policy. Regardless of whether a person is a man or woman (and remember, more men get into politics than women; more males than females are politicians; and generally, more men than women actually decide to work full-time), they should be evaluated on their ability, not their gender.

True, unless of course, the candidate is a Republican, in which case even the screamin' meemies from across the pond and across the Pacific (read: you and David) would be howling about how horrible it is he/she didn't have any female campaign staffers, claiming it is a sign of gender prejudice and discrimination. But let it by a pseudo-liberal (I'm not sure Hillary is anything but a Hillariberal) and you leap to her defense, even though you both are clueless about American politics.

Thanks to the two of you for proving liberal hypocrisy, the subject of this thread.

hmmm.. first of all.. she, just like every other main candidate in the past 60 years; is just a puppet for the corporate America and banking systems. second.. how is this at all relevant or appropriate for CC? third.. who cares??

I'm beginning to think you're clueless as to the purpose of this board.

 

[Human]

The good news is, no one over here cares what you think.

True, unless of course, the candidate is a Republican, in which case even the screamin' meemies from across the pond and across the Pacific (read: you and David) would be howling about how horrible it is he/she didn't have any female campaign staffers, claiming it is a sign of gender prejudice and discrimination. But let it by a pseudo-liberal (I'm not sure Hillary is anything but a Hillariberal) and you leap to her defense, even though you both are clueless about American politics.

Thanks to the two of you for proving liberal hypocrisy, the subject of this thread.

I'm beginning to think you're clueless as to the purpose of this board.

If it were a republican I'd be saying the same thing. It's not about democrat vs republican for me. I really don't give a hoot what party your president or vice president belongs to. The principles remain the same, regardless of label. There are liberals I disagree with. There are traditionalists I disagree with. I happen to disagree with conservative politics more, not because some politician has the label ''conservative'', but because conservative policies tend to be antithetical to my own political ideals more often than liberal policies. That isn't to say that I will always like a liberal over a conservative -- it depends on the individual. I have never said equal rights in employment policy is about preferring one gender over another in regards to selection, because it isn't, it's the opposite. It's about forgetting gender as a factor and employing the highest qualified candidate.

My point isn't about defending Hillary Clinton. I don't care much whether she's in power or not. The point is about establishing what equal rights actually constitute, and clearing up your misconception that someone giving ''equal opportunity'' in employment is the same thing as someone's primary employment motive being to deliberately hire the same number of women as men. It isn't. Hiring more women because they are women is not giving men and women equal opportunity in evaluating their suitability as employees, it is giving women (or men) preferential treatment in employment policy just because you need to fill a quota.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Yes, true. I think 1still_waters and you nailed it; however, she's been going around telling everyone else to do the opposite.

Hillary Clinton and the Democrats put a feminist spin on traditional liberal ideas.

^ blah blah blah feminist this and feminist that... "everything is a woman's issue."

Then when it comes time to pony up she kicks all the females to the curb and brings in high power men to get the job done. HYPOCRITE!!!

So this article pretty much details how Hillary is the only potential candidate speaking about trying to help the average woman. The average woman (and man) is never going to work for any political campaign. This is best shown in Hillary's comment on minimum wage and sub-minimum wage jobs.

The GOP is essentially trying to lay a snare before Hillary's feet with this campaign staffer issue by trying to cast Hillary as anti-woman. Yet they will fall into the very same trap they have laid. Don't try to play the petty war on women game with Hillary. The best course of action for the GOP, instead of making feeble attempts to criticize a woman about women's rights, is to try to build a platform of ideas and solutions.

Consider for instance the sub-minimum wage issue. This pertains to mostly waitresses and such jobs in which tips serve as the primary source of income. Instead of criticizing Hillary, the GOP should take this as an opportunity to build its own groundwork. Consider the taxing and reporting of tips ( Reporting Tip Income - Restaurant Tax Tips ).

A sensible course of action for the GOP would be perhaps to propose eliminating or reducing this tax. Such a measure could be seen as beneficial to what is mostly lower-paid working women, and also to young people whom make up the rest of this industry. It would also be seen as a boon to small businesses as well.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That's how it was written, but I don't see it that way. What I see when I look at the statistics in the aggregate are men and boys increasingly on the ropes in a bad way and the Democrat party machine refusing to adjust to a changed situation because to do so would be to reverse the radical feminist ideology they wholly support and not benefit them politically with their base.

The song's changed dramatically but Hillary is still playing the same broken feminist record meaning that she's no longer relevant in reality... just in the political arena which, of course, is not the same thing.

Yes, I'm ready to enter into an intense statistics war on this issue. Let's play.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

That's how it was written, but I don't see it that way. What I see when I look at the statistics in the aggregate are men and boys increasingly on the ropes in a bad way and the Democrat party machine refusing to adjust to a changed situation because to do so would be to reverse the radical feminist ideology they wholly support and not benefit them politically with their base.

The song's changed dramatically but Hillary is still playing the same broken feminist record meaning that she's no longer relevant in reality... just in the political arena which, of course, is not the same thing.

Yes, I'm ready to enter into an intense statistics war on this issue. Let's play.

Do tell, how are men in America on the ropes anymore than women?

As for radical feminism, where is it? What, is the notion of providing better pay, job opportunities, or reducing the burden of taxes for women now radical?

As for the statistics, no mortal even knows with absolute certainty how many people there even are today, therefore all statistics are flawed. Lol, reminds me of that saying, "99% of statistics are bullcrap."

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

It's so extensive now that a better question would be to simply reverse the question. And, I'm not sure how you could have missed the radical feminism presently transforming our entire culture so negatively against men and boys. Is it deliberate? But, I'm glad you used the term "better" because "better" has come to mean women displace men and yes that's radical. Forgive me if I disregard your incorrect comment about statistics as they are actually quite useful, especially when accurate analysis and information results in interpreting them.

The radical feminist "progressive" retribution and displacement of men and boys in western societies (most of whom weren't even alive when women were being discriminated against), has resulted in their marked devaluation in our societies, cultures, etc... simultaneously exacerbated by a host of other important negative factors to their lives.

Men are reacting by disengaging in ever increasing numbers from the institutions that undermine our societies and the liberal political correctness that has come to dominate them withdrawing their talent, utility, and contributions from marriage, fatherhood, education, the labor market, and society in general.

While this may be good for individual men (remaining unmarried and childless can be a wonderful godsend in comparison to being an impoverished divorced male who's children are taught to hate him by an ex- while facing incarceration if his employment situation deteriorates in a labor market that's transitioned away from one that's beneficial to him), it is not good for society as a whole.

The systemic anti-male pro-women feminism played out in the media daily treats men with little to no respect and does not culturally reward them but actively ridicules them because they're male. And this is increasingly mirrored across our societies and institutions.

The discriminatory environment has been so strong that most men historically masked their pain, frustration, anger, etc... to avoid the ridicule of "unmanliness" and fierce resistance from "progressives" and feminist groups that always occurs when they gather to speak about the injustices, the suffering, the problems that they are now encountering as a result of the radical [negative] changes to their lives that radical feminism has brought them (a fact that you apparently are completely oblivious to even though it's happened in the society you live in and promoted in the media you watch your entire life). And it's a good thing too because male suicide rates are exploding.

Even when "Uncle Tim's" (e.g. male feminists) like yourself deny it, every statistical benchmark shows the institutions our societies depend on in rapid decline with debt in rapid escalation with male potential falling fast and hard under the radical feminist reinvented society and that posits BIG socio-economic problems in the future because, believer it or not, it's a requirement for a healthy successful society to have healthy engaged men for many reasons including being willing to become disposable in war and high risk jobs that they do best in addition to the societal benefit to children realized of an engaged father that women cannot adequately duplicate.

Want me to keep going Uncle Timmy?

Do tell, how are men in America on the ropes anymore than women?

As for radical feminism, where is it? What, is the notion of providing better pay, job opportunities, or reducing the burden of taxes for women now radical?

As for the statistics, no mortal even knows with absolute certainty how many people there even are today, therefore all statistics are flawed. Lol, reminds me of that saying, "99% of statistics are bullcrap."

 

[kennethcadwell]

Ok , Back to Clinton.
Just what positive thing has she done for this country other than just being Hilary.
If the Dems just have to have a woman, surely they can find someone that has accomplished something positive in her life.

Same thing can be said back about the Republicans and their poor choices they have chosen to represent them in these past two presidential elections. A war hungry idiot in McCain, and a wealthy supporter in Romney who stated doesn't care about 47% of the American public. And if they go with another Bush, please God help us soon.....

 

[Human]

It's so extensive now that a better question would be to simply reverse the question. And, I'm not sure how you could have missed the radical feminism presently transforming our entire culture so negatively against men and boys. Is it deliberate? But, I'm glad you used the term "better" because "better" has come to mean women displace men and yes that's radical. Forgive me if I disregard your incorrect comment about statistics as they are actually quite useful, especially when accurate analysis and information results in interpreting them.

The radical feminist "progressive" retribution and displacement of men and boys in western societies (most of whom weren't even alive when women were being discriminated against), has resulted in their marked devaluation in our societies, cultures, etc... simultaneously exacerbated by a host of other important negative factors to their lives.

Men are reacting by disengaging in ever increasing numbers from the institutions that undermine our societies and the liberal political correctness that has come to dominate them withdrawing their talent, utility, and contributions from marriage, fatherhood, education, the labor market, and society in general.

While this may be good for individual men (remaining unmarried and childless can be a wonderful godsend in comparison to being an impoverished divorced male who's children are taught to hate him by an ex- while facing incarceration if his employment situation deteriorates in a labor market that's transitioned away from one that's beneficial to him), it is not good for society as a whole.

The systemic anti-male pro-women feminism played out in the media daily treats men with little to no respect and does not culturally reward them but actively ridicules them because they're male. And this is increasingly mirrored across our societies and institutions.

The discriminatory environment has been so strong that most men historically masked their pain, frustration, anger, etc... to avoid the ridicule of "unmanliness" and fierce resistance from "progressives" and feminist groups that always occurs when they gather to speak about the injustices, the suffering, the problems that they are now encountering as a result of the radical [negative] changes to their lives that radical feminism has brought them (a fact that you apparently are completely oblivious to even though it's happened in the society you live in and promoted in the media you watch your entire life). And it's a good thing too because male suicide rates are exploding.

Even when "Uncle Tim's" (e.g. male feminists) like yourself deny it, every statistical benchmark shows the institutions our societies depend on in rapid decline with debt in rapid escalation with male potential falling fast and hard under the radical feminist reinvented society and that posits BIG socio-economic problems in the future because, believer it or not, it's a requirement for a healthy successful society to have healthy engaged men for many reasons including being willing to become disposable in war and high risk jobs that they do best in addition to the societal benefit to children realized of an engaged father that women cannot adequately duplicate.

Want me to keep going Uncle Timmy?

AgeOfKnowledge, I actually like you, for some reason I haven't quite worked out yet. And to be fair to you, I could probably attest to most of the things you've written here having some level of truth to them. But it would be very nice to see you present evidence from the other side of the argument sometimes, using intellectual methods of pushing some weight against it that don't include referring negatively to your opponent in some way, shape or form.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

It's so extensive now that a better question would be to simply reverse the question. And, I'm not sure how you could have missed the radical feminism presently transforming our entire culture so negatively against men and boys. Is it deliberate? But, I'm glad you used the term "better" because "better" has come to mean women displace men and yes that's radical. Forgive me if I disregard your incorrect comment about statistics as they are actually quite useful, especially when accurate analysis and information results in interpreting them.

The radical feminist "progressive" retribution and displacement of men and boys in western societies (most of whom weren't even alive when women were being discriminated against), has resulted in their marked devaluation in our societies, cultures, etc... simultaneously exacerbated by a host of other important negative factors to their lives.

Men are reacting by disengaging in ever increasing numbers from the institutions that undermine our societies and the liberal political correctness that has come to dominate them withdrawing their talent, utility, and contributions from marriage, fatherhood, education, the labor market, and society in general.

While this may be good for individual men (remaining unmarried and childless can be a wonderful godsend in comparison to being an impoverished divorced male who's children are taught to hate him by an ex- while facing incarceration if his employment situation deteriorates in a labor market that's transitioned away from one that's beneficial to him), it is not good for society as a whole.

The systemic anti-male pro-women feminism played out in the media daily treats men with little to no respect and does not culturally reward them but actively ridicules them because they're male. And this is increasingly mirrored across our societies and institutions.

The discriminatory environment has been so strong that most men historically masked their pain, frustration, anger, etc... to avoid the ridicule of "unmanliness" and fierce resistance from "progressives" and feminist groups that always occurs when they gather to speak about the injustices, the suffering, the problems that they are now encountering as a result of the radical [negative] changes to their lives that radical feminism has brought them (a fact that you apparently are completely oblivious to even though it's happened in the society you live in and promoted in the media you watch your entire life). And it's a good thing too because male suicide rates are exploding.

Even when "Uncle Tim's" (e.g. male feminists) like yourself deny it, every statistical benchmark shows the institutions our societies depend on in rapid decline with debt in rapid escalation with male potential falling fast and hard under the radical feminist reinvented society and that posits BIG socio-economic problems in the future because, believer it or not, it's a requirement for a healthy successful society to have healthy engaged men for many reasons including being willing to become disposable in war and high risk jobs that they do best in addition to the societal benefit to children realized of an engaged father that women cannot adequately duplicate.

Want me to keep going Uncle Timmy?

Seems to me you think women are more advantaged to men because of divorce and the on-going drama of World War 3.

I think divorce and WW3 is to no one's advantage. For certes, both men and women are responsible of these and both have suffered.

It seems to me you did not answer my second question though. Since you know not me, nor my name, nor my thoughts, let me tell you. Me thinks everyone in America be benefitted by better pay, job opportunity, and reduced taxes to women.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Sorry I called you an "Uncle Timmy." I try to reserve that for the hard-core male feminazis who do know better. You really don't. You're a young person who's been heavily indoctrinated his entire life starting in kindergarten with the more radical forms of feminism (non-first wave), "progressivism," liberal political correctness, and now the homosexual agenda with hints of "civil rights" for polygamy and polyandry and mild forms of bestiality up next.

You've been raised in a sexually immoral, radically feminist dominated, pro-homosexual agenda, ultra-liberal relativist/pluralist culture that's brought the nation you live in to a state of rapid decline and is presently bringing it to its knees (mere decades away) while you watch it happen mostly oblivious to the dangerous reality that's unfolding.

You have no idea what God's design for a healthy society is and you're so young that you've never seen it. So, I think I need to be patient with you and share that. But right now it's late here and I've got an appointment tomorrow. Peace.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Sorry I called you an "Uncle Timmy." I try to reserve that for the hard-core male feminazis who do know better. You really don't. You're a young person who's been heavily indoctrinated his entire life starting in kindergarten with the more radical forms of feminism (non-first wave), "progressivism," liberal political correctness, and now the homosexual agenda with hints of "civil rights" for polygamy and polyandry and mild forms of bestiality up next.

You've been raised in a sexually immoral, radically feminist dominated, pro-homosexual agenda, ultra-liberal relativist/pluralist culture that's brought the nation you live in to a state of rapid decline and is presently bringing it to its knees (mere decades away) while you watch it happen mostly oblivious to the dangerous reality that's unfolding.

You have no idea what God's design for a healthy society is and you're so young that you've never seen it. So, I think I need to be patient with you and share that. But right now it's late here and I've got an appointment tomorrow. Peace.

I am not oblivious, no nor are the peers of my generation. My generation knows the way of yours too well.

A lament; for the elders have never seen a healthy society either, and have even testified that their generation created and do rule over the sick society of now.

A lament; for my generation when they are elders have only the end of this wretched world to look forward to.

A hope; that there be a new heaven and new earth wherein rules Jesus.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes, you are. Yes they are. Understood, and that's where it started but the other did exist in pockets four and five decades ago. You never saw it as you weren't alive to see it and I don't expect you to admit, acknowledge, know, or understand.

Anyways, appealing to the return of Christ in no way remits the responsibility of either generation to stop engaging in anti-Christ behaviors both individually and societally that are presently accelerating the general population into a sociological and socio-economic danger zone.

And those anti-Christ behaviors are rooted in anti-Christ ideologies which are driving our rapid decline. Modern liberalism may be the liberator of humanity to you leading us all into a brave new world but in reality it's a godless, increasingly immoral, irresponsible, increasingly authoritarian, anti-Christ constructed replacement (e.g. a faith for the faithless) that's surgically removed Creator God's normative morality and social design from western civilization replacing it with destructive policies that have led us into rapid individual, societal, and socio-economic decline in partnership with the those parts of the neo-conservative platform that also qualify.

If you want to see that practically defined, rather than the romantic notion of it existing in your mind trumpeted by Hillary and the liberal media establishment, read the first four chapters of Ostrowski's 'Progressivism: A Primer on the Idea Destroying America.'

As the famous atheist progressive John Dewey wrote, "Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology." Of course, our public education system has fallen from first place to 36th place in world rankings (see 2012 PISA rankings) since the "progressive revolution" transformed the public education system away from real objectivity to prejudiced authoritarian relativism.

You see my young friend, our founders conceived God in one of two ways. Christians and Jews believed in the God of the Bible as the author of liberty but also as the author of the moral law by which human beings are guided toward their duties and, ultimately, toward their glorification with God.

Non-believers (Washington called them "mere politicians" in his Farewell Address) thought of God merely as a creative principle or force behind the natural order of things. But both sides agreed that there is a creator God/God of nature who endows men with natural rights and assigns them duties under the law of nature.

Progressives sought to remove God from society and government to the extent they were able and to "redefine God" to align with their atheistic secular humanist ideology politically. For Hegel, whose philosophy strongly influenced the Progressives, "the state is the divine idea as it exists on earth." John Burgess, a prominent Progressive political scientist, wrote that the purpose of the state is the "perfection of humanity, the civilization of the world; the perfect development of the human reason and its attainment to universal command over individualism; the apotheosis of man" (man becoming God). Ask those who suffered under the totalitarian "progressivism" of the Soviet Union last century if they experienced the 'apotheosis of man' (see 'The Gulag Archipelago' by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn for an introduction).

Even so-called Christians hopped on the band wagon. Progressive-Era theologians like Walter Rauschenbusch redefined Christianity as the "social gospel of progress" instead of the sola scripture gospel of Jesus Christ.

Modern liberalism doesn't constitute a progressive continuation of God's normative morality and design for humanity but instead a radical break from it.

The result isn't romantic but rather harsh. God's honoring our corporate free will rejection of who He really is and what His blueprint is for us in removing his hand of blessing as our societies tumble into rapid decline in a world of far less savory competitors eager to take the reigns.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Thank you. Be patient. I presently find myself a defending Christian male lion on a plain swarming with godless "liberal" immoral hyenas whom are deceived by the devil they don't believe in... lol.

But I assure you that I will fairly assail the GOP in due course once they have positioned a heretical replacement for the heretic despot presently occupying the top position.

You should have seen me during Bush's second presidency assail the neo-conservative socio-economic model of monopoly capitalism and "free" trade (among other things). I asked for and gave no quarter to anyone including my neo-con "friends" most of whom disowned me during that period. Why? Because the truth must be respected, understood, and properly incorporated to realize success moving forward.

Yes, it would have sent shivers up your young liberal spine respite with the "warm fuzzies" lolol.

Wait for it...

AgeOfKnowledge, I actually like you, for some reason I haven't quite worked out yet. And to be fair to you, I could probably attest to most of the things you've written here having some level of truth to them. But it would be very nice to see you present evidence from the other side of the argument sometimes, using intellectual methods of pushing some weight against it that don't include referring negatively to your opponent in some way, shape or form.

 

[David_1]

The good news is, no one over here cares what you think.

​[h=1]John 13:34-35King James Version (KJV)[/h]34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

​John 13:34-35King James Version (KJV)

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

I can still love you and not care what you think about Republicans. I can love you and not even like you.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I've never seen David love any bible believing Christian posting on CC. He only comes here to "rebuke" and "condemn" Christians for not being more like the world.

"Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." -1 John 2:15

Personally, I filed him long ago under T for troll.

I can still love you and not care what you think about Republicans. I can love you and not even like you.