aksjfd's Blog

well I screwed up those links, copy and past as you must
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/06/21/collectio
n-of-obama-flip-flops/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag
eId=67225

maybe this will work

aks, you missed the entire point in my blog. The blog was not on which employer paid their employees more, it was which employer paid their male employees more than they paid their female employees. You call me a liar while you lack basic reading comprehension.

You cited CNSNews and I came across this little nugget.

Cybercast News Service calculated three different sets of average salaries for the male and female components of each of the three Senate offices: 1) the averages for all male or female employees listed in the Secretary of the Senate's report, 2) the averages for all male and female employees listed in the Secretary of the Senate's report who were not described as "interns," and 3) the averages for all male and female employees who were paid more than $23,000 on annual basis. The analysis also looked at the number of men and women on each staff earning more than $100,000 per year.

As noted, female staffers were paid less than men on average in Obama's office no matter which measure was used. Female staffers in McCain's office were paid more than men on average no matter which measure was used. Clinton provided an almost identical average pay to males and females paid over $23,000 per year, but paid proportionally more to males than females, when averages were calculated for her entire payroll.

I read the material just as well as you did, Tweety. The average salary of women was least in McCain's camp. And...the average salary of men, I assume (I didn't look it up, but you are welcome to if you'd like) was also lowest in his camp. Funny how the multi millionaire elitist doesn't like to pay the little people. You also neglected to mention which jobs were held by which people which would lead to a difference in salary. If you can actually find this info on the SOS site, I would love to take a look at it. There are many variables at work, apparently too many for you to comprehend which is exactly my point.

Give me a break. You started a post accusing me of a lie by telling one yourself. You don't possess the decency to admit when you are wrong. If it makes you feel good, go ahead and spin things to suit you.

Are you going to continue to ignore what I brought to your attention?

It's fine that you want to go beyond my original post and discuss numbers more in depth. However, to accuse me of lying and attempt to insult me wasn't the way to go about it. Since you continue to not acknowledge anything I say it would be pointless for me to carry on further discussion. It is obvious you are only looking for someone to agree with you.