Money, women, politics
May 16, 2014 16:08:41 #
The "New York Times" has fired its top editor, Jill Abramson, she is out. And some say it's because she thought she wasn't paid the same wage as men in her position at the "Times".
The reporting comes from Ken Auletta who works at the "New Yorker" magazine. A little history the "New York Times" a very liberal newspaper and has bought into the war on women political pose. In April it editorialized about the claim that American women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. A claim we have debunked here.
Anyway, the "Times" put forth, quote: "It reflects over discrimination as well as more nuanced g****r-based factors like the fact that women are disproportionately concentrated in the lowest paying fields and there is no doubt that the pay gap is real", unquote.
Apparently Jill Abramson hired a lawyer to investigate why she was not receiving the same compensation than men in her position received in the past. And if that's true, the "Times" could be in for legal trouble as well as having a PR nightmare on its hands. The newspaper denies Miss Abramson was not paid fairly. This comes on the heels of that the White House paying women 12 percent less than man according to the American Enterprise Institute. That revelation embarrassed the president who's pushing the e******y deal.
So the two leading g****r e******y promoters, the Obama White House and the "New York Times" both are now involved in pay controversies concerning women. To be fair, we don't know the t***h of these situations. But that's the point. You can't make blanket pay comparisons unless you know all the factors of a person's employment. And that's impossible on a mass level.
Now, I think this is karma. I think the phony war on women, the attempt to divide Americans along g****r and race lines is appalling. And now we are seeing those who promote that embarrassed. "Talking Points" will say once again, you will never, never have e******y in a free marketplace. It's impossible. Talents vary, experience vary, circumstances are all different. Intelligent Americans know when they hear the word e******y, it's being used to push a social agenda.
In this case liberal America wants women to believe they are not being treated fairly. So they will v**e for the Democratic Party the same thing with income ine******y. The left wants American workers to believe that not getting their fair share so they will v**e Democratic.
If the majority of American v**ers buy into the ine******y scenario, bad things are going to happen. What has made this country great and strong is free competition, a drive, an individual drive to succeed. Not a nanny state that seeks to level all playing fields. And that's "The Memo."
Transcript Date:
Thu, 05/15/2014
Transcript Show Name:
O'Reilly Factor
Transcript Talent Byline:
Bill O'Reilly
The reporting comes from Ken Auletta who works at the "New Yorker" magazine. A little history the "New York Times" a very liberal newspaper and has bought into the war on women political pose. In April it editorialized about the claim that American women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. A claim we have debunked here.
Anyway, the "Times" put forth, quote: "It reflects over discrimination as well as more nuanced g****r-based factors like the fact that women are disproportionately concentrated in the lowest paying fields and there is no doubt that the pay gap is real", unquote.
Apparently Jill Abramson hired a lawyer to investigate why she was not receiving the same compensation than men in her position received in the past. And if that's true, the "Times" could be in for legal trouble as well as having a PR nightmare on its hands. The newspaper denies Miss Abramson was not paid fairly. This comes on the heels of that the White House paying women 12 percent less than man according to the American Enterprise Institute. That revelation embarrassed the president who's pushing the e******y deal.
So the two leading g****r e******y promoters, the Obama White House and the "New York Times" both are now involved in pay controversies concerning women. To be fair, we don't know the t***h of these situations. But that's the point. You can't make blanket pay comparisons unless you know all the factors of a person's employment. And that's impossible on a mass level.
Now, I think this is karma. I think the phony war on women, the attempt to divide Americans along g****r and race lines is appalling. And now we are seeing those who promote that embarrassed. "Talking Points" will say once again, you will never, never have e******y in a free marketplace. It's impossible. Talents vary, experience vary, circumstances are all different. Intelligent Americans know when they hear the word e******y, it's being used to push a social agenda.
In this case liberal America wants women to believe they are not being treated fairly. So they will v**e for the Democratic Party the same thing with income ine******y. The left wants American workers to believe that not getting their fair share so they will v**e Democratic.
If the majority of American v**ers buy into the ine******y scenario, bad things are going to happen. What has made this country great and strong is free competition, a drive, an individual drive to succeed. Not a nanny state that seeks to level all playing fields. And that's "The Memo."
Transcript Date:
Thu, 05/15/2014
Transcript Show Name:
O'Reilly Factor
Transcript Talent Byline:
Bill O'Reilly
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.