<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ron Paul on Employee Rights (Part 2): Unattractive Women Need Not Apply</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/16/ron-paul-on-employee-rights-part-2-unattractive-women-need-not-apply/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/16/ron-paul-on-employee-rights-part-2-unattractive-women-need-not-apply/</link>
	<description>Employment Law Firm Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:19:10 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: wake up</title>
		<link>http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/16/ron-paul-on-employee-rights-part-2-unattractive-women-need-not-apply/comment-page-1/#comment-27106</link>
		<dc:creator>wake up</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:46:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/16/ron-paul-on-employee-rights-part-2-unattractive-women-need-not-apply/#comment-27106</guid>
		<description>understand that his comments are not directed at women, he is simply stating that there is NO place for the government to direct private companies in their hiring procedures, and since he is opposed to big government, this is obviously his logic.  The government already is far more extended than it should be, and this is just another example of this.  How you stumble over so many words trying to find something to complain about..........why don&#039;t you look at the real issues facing the country.  WAKE UP</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>understand that his comments are not directed at women, he is simply stating that there is NO place for the government to direct private companies in their hiring procedures, and since he is opposed to big government, this is obviously his logic.  The government already is far more extended than it should be, and this is just another example of this.  How you stumble over so many words trying to find something to complain about..........why don't you look at the real issues facing the country.  WAKE UP</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: E F Hodges</title>
		<link>http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/16/ron-paul-on-employee-rights-part-2-unattractive-women-need-not-apply/comment-page-1/#comment-27026</link>
		<dc:creator>E F Hodges</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 11:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/16/ron-paul-on-employee-rights-part-2-unattractive-women-need-not-apply/#comment-27026</guid>
		<description>I want to thank you profusely for finding this unsettling quote.  Ron Paul&#039;s anti-choice stance bothered me only slightly until you pointed out this unsavory view of women which, in my opinion, answered a lot of questions I still had about Mr.  Paul.

Why do I require that my candidates be pro-choice?  Because the alternative view always seems to uncover a capacity for sliding down that slippery slope of misogyny revealed by Mr. Paul in his view that unattractive woman just might not be right for the job of glorified food-server.  

I myself would much prefer attractive men to serve me in the sky if given the choice between them and hard-to-look-at men, but my empathy for unattractive people coupled with my good etiquette compel me not to mention that---until someone puts his big fat, backwards foot in his mouth with such an unsavory opinion as the one you located for me. 

Thanks again.  Now I don&#039;t have to waste my time reading ANY Ron Paulisms. Learning from your article that he has also exhibited racism and homophobis is enough for me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I want to thank you profusely for finding this unsettling quote.  Ron Paul's anti-choice stance bothered me only slightly until you pointed out this unsavory view of women which, in my opinion, answered a lot of questions I still had about Mr.  Paul.</p>
<p>Why do I require that my candidates be pro-choice?  Because the alternative view always seems to uncover a capacity for sliding down that slippery slope of misogyny revealed by Mr. Paul in his view that unattractive woman just might not be right for the job of glorified food-server.  </p>
<p>I myself would much prefer attractive men to serve me in the sky if given the choice between them and hard-to-look-at men, but my empathy for unattractive people coupled with my good etiquette compel me not to mention that---until someone puts his big fat, backwards foot in his mouth with such an unsavory opinion as the one you located for me. </p>
<p>Thanks again.  Now I don't have to waste my time reading ANY Ron Paulisms. Learning from your article that he has also exhibited racism and homophobis is enough for me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Peters</title>
		<link>http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/16/ron-paul-on-employee-rights-part-2-unattractive-women-need-not-apply/comment-page-1/#comment-24751</link>
		<dc:creator>James Peters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 22:26:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/16/ron-paul-on-employee-rights-part-2-unattractive-women-need-not-apply/#comment-24751</guid>
		<description>@Jonas: 

Every candidate has said something that someone will take exception with.  If you agree with the quote, that is your prerogative, but it offends me.

I think that many of Mr. Paul&#039;s ideas are brilliant, but these particular comments and other related ideas of his I discovered while digging deeper are not things I would ever support.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Jonas: </p>
<p>Every candidate has said something that someone will take exception with.  If you agree with the quote, that is your prerogative, but it offends me.</p>
<p>I think that many of Mr. Paul's ideas are brilliant, but these particular comments and other related ideas of his I discovered while digging deeper are not things I would ever support.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonas</title>
		<link>http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/16/ron-paul-on-employee-rights-part-2-unattractive-women-need-not-apply/comment-page-1/#comment-24188</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2008/01/16/ron-paul-on-employee-rights-part-2-unattractive-women-need-not-apply/#comment-24188</guid>
		<description>You can cherry pick and stretch out a quote all you want, Ron Paul is still the best candidate in this election.  He&#039;s for less government intervention, sorry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You can cherry pick and stretch out a quote all you want, Ron Paul is still the best candidate in this election.  He's for less government intervention, sorry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
