Last night — before engaging in a baseless, misleading attack against ThinkProgress’s Amanda Terkel — Bill O’Reilly launched his ire at single mothers who dare to have children without fathers. He said such decisions make women poorer because they need male breadwinners, and he insisted that mothers should be at home with the children anyway:
O’REILLY: Everybody, all the statistics and studies, show if you don’t have a father supporting the family, you’re probably poor.
HOOVER: That’s sexist. It’s not that you have to have a father supporting the family. But you do have to have parents and you have to have them be able to —
O’REILLY: I love this. I love this from you. It’s sexist, because I just told the truth. You don’t have the father providing some income when the mother is giving birth, OK? You see, when you give birth — you may some day know this — you can’t go out and work the next day, OK?! And you should be watching the kid anyway. So there’s got to be somebody else giving you money beside the government.
Watch it:
“dare to have children without fathers”?????
Who knew O’Reilly would be such a staunch proponent of abortion?
March 24th, 2009 at 10:58 amThat O’rally sure has something against women, don’t he?
March 24th, 2009 at 10:59 amO’REILLY: Everybody, all the statistics and studies, show if you don’t have a father supporting the family, you’re probably poor.
Note how Bill-dO blankets the statement, but provides no facts, but plenty of ‘probablys’. This is the extent of this asshat’s ‘research’…
draw premature conclusions, coupled with premature ejaculations.
March 24th, 2009 at 10:59 amYou got to hand it to this guy, he must have a Phd in “how to be a complete idiot on national television. Give him his award, Lord knows he’s earned it.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:02 amI think it’s easy to assume if there’s one less parent there that there’s less income. It doesn’t matter if that’s a father or a mother, despite what he thinks.
Plus it’s not like the mother is recovering from pregnancy for the next 10 years. How does that effect being a single mother in the future whatsoever?
It kind of amazes me that anyone wants this guy around talking at benefits for womens’ rights. I really don’t understand how he’d even come to mind.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:02 amO’REILLY: I love this. I love this from you. It’s sexist, because I just told the truth. You don’t have the father providing some income when the mother is giving birth, OK? You see, when you give birth — you may some day know this — you can’t go out and work the next day, OK?!
– - I’m never sure if O’Reilly is willfully and woefully ignorant or just snarkily rude to the nth degree.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:03 amO’REILLY: Everybody, all the statistics and studies, show if you don’t have a father supporting the family, you’re probably poor.
__________________________________________________________
I believe that “statistics and studies” show that two-parent families are, on average, better off economically than one-parent families.
O’Reilly’s leap to the conclusion that it’s a man who has to support the family is just his little 1950’s fantasy.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:04 amO’Rally: Everybody, all the statistics and studies, show if you don’t have a father supporting the family, you’re probably poor.
DRxJ: Everybody, all the statistics and studies, show if you’re a multimillionaire with no family, and work for a propaganda television show, you’re probably not very well endowed, and suffer from halotosis.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:05 amHe seriously needs to STFU before his viewers wake up and see him for the sexist idiot he really is.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:05 amBILL O’REILLY: “So anyway I’d be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda’ kissing your neck from behind…and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I’d just put it on your p***y but you’d have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business…”
–as quoted in a sexual harassment suit filed against him by a Fox News producer, 2004 (Source)
That’s what BO is doing while the little woman is taking care of “the kid.”
March 24th, 2009 at 11:06 amthe so-called man is just plain wierd…and creepy !
March 24th, 2009 at 11:09 amHey, Billo does MYSOGENY ring a bell, this is the 21st century not the dark ages, unfortunately most families have to have both mom and dad working because, oh let me see,because of the greatest distribution of wealth we have ever seen in this country over the last 28 years of RAY GUN Nomics was installed in Washington.Why do you REICH wingers hate women and womens rights so damn much?
March 24th, 2009 at 11:09 amWhat if the man leaves; ‘forgets’ his obligations or dies and cannot go to work from the grave?
I love it when ignorant people try to pontificate on how everyone should live, especially when they live in the gutter themselves.
Liars, Hypocrites and Thieves down to the last one of them.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:10 amIgnoranceIsNotBliss Says:
He seriously needs to STFU before his viewers wake up and see him for the sexist idiot he really is.
– - Are you kidding? This kind of prattle from O’Reilly is like manna from heaven for HIS demographic.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:11 amTP: Can you please post the part with Wendy Murphy where she claimed that “Alexa” had to quit her job because she was so upset that there were protesters at the event where O’Reilly spoke. The claim was so outlandish that I have to see it again….
March 24th, 2009 at 11:11 amBildo, you wouldn`t know the truth if it hit you square in the…..Zipper.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:12 amMy sister-in-law is a single mom; never had a husband or other domestic partner, and has adopted two little girls from China. Together, they’re an incredibly well-developed and functioning family without any male breadwinner — she’s doing quite well as a senior marketing executive for a major consumer products corporation, and her daughters want for nothing.
Anytime this guy speaks anymore, bats fly out of his belfry…
March 24th, 2009 at 11:12 amDoes Bill-O have children and a wife at home that he’s supporting? It’s hard to imagine, but I suppose it’s possible.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:12 amFourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism
#5. Rampant sexism.
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVa1IvHdKc
March 24th, 2009 at 11:12 amhasn’t he contracted a terminal disease yet?
March 24th, 2009 at 11:12 amI would just LOVE to see O’Reilly tell a young military wife with a couple of small children, whose husband just got killed in Iraq, that she needs to have “a father supporting the family”.
Bill-o just loves to perpetuate the myth that single mothers (I’m sure he doesn’t have the same problem with single fathers) CHOOSE their lifestyle — that most of them said to themselves, “My goal is to get pregnant and raise a kid all by myself, even though I have no real way of supporting it.”
Yes, there are some women who do make this choice, out of stupidity, youthful idealism, emotional need, or mental illness (the Octomom is an extreme example). But there are also many women raising children by themselves whose husbands/partners have died, have run off, or didn’t want to accept any responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy.
For Bill to criticize these women for doing the best they can with a bad situation is — well, VERY O’Reilly.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:13 am“O’REILLY: Everybody, all the statistics and studies . . .”
Stop right there. When you hear that, you just know BillO is serving up another lie.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:15 amBO is 60 years old and this is how he deals with a minor annoyance — tick tock, Bill…
March 24th, 2009 at 11:15 amWhat about a woman like me whose husband of many years left her and the kids? Should I have stopped taking care of the kids since he was no longer interested? Given them to child protective services? What should I have done? I thought it best to take care of my kids, working two or three jobs, because they were my responsiblity. They have turned out just fine, thank you. Glad to have had Billo’s support with my situation. Snark! What a jerk!
March 24th, 2009 at 11:19 amO’RALLY: Everybody, all the statistics and studies, show if you don’t have a father supporting the family, you’re probably poor.
My Kindergarten daughter’s friend has two moms. Both are financially secure and are very well to do.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:20 amSo Loofah boy, you’re probably WRONG!
BO has no respect for women. His idea of the good women is the one who is barefoot and in the kitchen. I can’t believe that any women in her right mind would be married to a asshat like BO.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:20 amwait bill but your hypothetical scenario doesnt apply to lesbians to adopt…is a woman unable to win bread for another woman?….several thousand years worth of madames would have to disagree with you on that one..
March 24th, 2009 at 11:22 amThere’s a big difference between citing statistics to advocate for policy direction, and citing statistics to prove that your belief in the worthlessness of a particular group of people is justified.
O’Reilly does the latter.
Almost exclusively.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:22 amJimminy flippin’ crickets, Zooey (#14), every time you post that, I get the heebie jeebies.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:25 amNot because of it’s content, but because it seem to be written by a darn 6th grader who has absolutely no clue about sex and intimacy.
Yet it’s from a man in his fifties at the time.
brrrrrrrrrrrrr.
Not all lesbians with children adopt — there are those (don’t have a figure on it) who have children the ‘old fashioned way’. through artificial insemination or by obtaining a father to… well, do it the natural way.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:25 amGuido the Loving OBGYN Says:
Who pays Bill Oreilly? Are his advertizers this sexist?
March 24th, 2009 at 11:02 am
His audience is preponderantly flying-monkey/phuktard/males…So I’m guessing his advertizers don’t much care what he says…
March 24th, 2009 at 11:28 amtpafla Says: Pull your head out of your ass, Bill-licker.
As many note above, how about widows? Nearly 5,000 soldiers have been lost in the Bush Wars. Should they all give up their kids because Billdo says they need a man in their life?
Supporting Billdo is goofy enough…believing him is batshit crazy.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:30 amtpafla Says:
From reading posts, it is obvious none of you really know what it is like having children. I know in your “think progress” lives you don’t think beyond the usual “how can I blame Bush and O’Reilly for everything”.
AaaahOOOO-Gah!! Retard alert AaaahOOOO-Gah! Retard alert
All hands, prepare to repel retards…
this is not a drill…
March 24th, 2009 at 11:30 amHow would O’Silly know since he was probably born in a barn anyway?!
March 24th, 2009 at 11:30 amFrom reading your first sentence, it’s obvious that you really have no idea who you’re dealing with here among TP commenters.
Perhaps that’s because, like many right-wingers who show up here, you make blanket assumptions about people based on your own ill-informed prejudices and beliefs.
May it serve you well.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:31 amtpafla, Poor mommy, she just couldn’t do anything without a man to show her the way threw life. Poor mommy just couldn’t care for her kid without daddy bringing home the bread. You really are a tool tpafla.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:31 amtpoopfla Says:
From reading posts, it is obvious none of you really know what it is like having children.
I have four children.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:32 amShall we dance, monkey breath?
jimmy kimmel features
o’reilly’s porno on his show.
this is great!
:)
March 24th, 2009 at 11:32 amLet’s see O’Reilly has kids and his example is to use bad language, sexual harassment and acting like a complete idiot. With his conduct it shows what little respect he has for his wife.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:32 amPresident Obama grew up in a home without a father. He went on to graduate at the top of his class at Yale Law school. Went on to be President od the United States. Bill “we’ll do it live” O’Reilly grew up in an affluent Long Island suburb (despite his biography’s claims) and became a shill for a failed political party and part time sexual predator and stalker. Oh, but he had a father around. Conclusion: BillO don’t know dick!
March 24th, 2009 at 11:32 amSorry… his attention to TP.
(Read over before posting next time.)
March 24th, 2009 at 11:34 amWe must thank Bildo, though. His attention to TO has sent a whole new crop of trolls over, just as our old ones were getting really battered and threadbare.
Plus all of these new Bildo-defending commenters really drive up TP’s page count, which makes the site all the more attractive to advertisers.
So thanks.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:34 amralph, great point, never thought of that.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:35 amSo by Loofa’s reasoning a child raised in a house with two fathers would be twice as good for the child, no?
March 24th, 2009 at 11:36 amI must confess I miss….
ihateyoucommies, BLC, ohplease, barkq Hannah Cucab, restlessin florida, saltlick11, tgtaxcheat, wizdoom, blasater, cry me a river, conservativetruth, Getty, patrooper, Lemondrops, Rena, win8ive, serpantinthefescue, sickofstupidpeople,alpuz3,Mike Hunt,gregoryhunt1,Klatu, 420conservatism, USpace, Blogzilla, goodgrief, tigerdog, kmac813, spearnmagichelmet, mrsL and all their wonderful comments.
They certainly extended last night’s thread for the good of all mandkind.
snark\
March 24th, 2009 at 11:37 amI want to add that all single moms are not poor or dependent on the government! This damn fool is so ignorant it’s just beyond me why he is still on the air. The sad thing is that there are people who actually buy into the BS that O’Silly sells.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:38 amtpafla Says:
From reading posts, it is obvious none of you really know what it is like having children. …… Right now you are too naive and young to know it.
From reading your post it is obvious that you do not have children. Your conceptualization of the dialogue between ‘the man’ and ‘the woman’ is incredibly uninformed and plastic. You clearly, from your single post, do not understand the financial situation of the average american family, nor have you ever known or heard of the multitudes of women who work up until their water breaks, not from desire but from necessity. Nor do you have any sympathy for single mothers who do not have a husband because the father abandioned them or died. I presume that YOUR idea in that instance is that this young mother go out immediately and marry the first male with a job that she can find. I suppose that is what YOU would do?
But it is obvious from the generalization that you will make based on no actionable information that you are a clueless moronic sheep, enamoured by the fantasy setting of the “idealistic 50’s”, and you have no reality based perception of living in the modern world (nor the REAL world of those 50’s). Your generalization is a logical fallacy — common in the uneducated or ignorant when they try to argue. What you attempt to do is to refute every single statement made here in one broad sweep by claiming that the people presenting their arguments are inexperienced and thus their arguments are false. This is a fallacy in critical thinking.
Shall we delve further? Shall I enumerate ALL the logical and argumentative fallacies in your ONE post above? There are several to deal with.
In essence, you are an idiot. A small minded, pathetic buffoon, lampooning a sentinet human being. Your inability to register your own thoughts is coterminous with your need to be told what to think by others that you elect to elevate to messiah status.
And my above insults are not meant as refutation of your weak argument — the flaws of your argument are clear enough. I am simply stating what i see from YOUR post.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:38 amHis sexism isn’t surprising, but his buffoonery makes me laugh. Yes, Bill, women don’t usually go back to work the same day they give birth. This is why many employers provide maternity leave so a woman can take time off work to care for her newborn without losing her job. Of course, I’m sure Bill railed against that benefit just as he rails against same sex marriages which would allow more families to care for their children with a stay-at-home parent. It is difficult if the working parent can’t extend their benefits to the stay-at-home parent.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:38 amPatriotacting: Classic!
March 24th, 2009 at 11:39 amStart calling and complaining to his advertisers, asking them why they would sponsor offensive hate speech. It has to start somewhere. Bill-O the Clown always says he stands up for “the people”…well, it’s time “the people” let their voices be heard. Hit his advertisers.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:40 amI imagine the “bold fresh piece of inanity” based his opinion on the way things used to be when the better paying jobs we all held by men. As a woman in a male-dominated industry in the 70’s I heard this sort of thing a lot, mostly from men who were intimidated by having to compete with me at work.
For tpafla: When I was younger I was my family’s primary breadwinner. I often worked 80 hour per week. At the same time I organized a local environmental group, renovated a house, raised two fine sons and grew most of my families food. Now I stay home with a special needs child, I recently started my own business, and managed to go through chemo while home alone with my child while my husband was in Afghanistan. Don’t underestimate we progressive folk….we’re perhaps more capable than most of your peers.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:40 amFirst of all, with your asinine post, you prove you are actually the naive one you speak of.
Secondly, you also prove your ignorance 1:
, by assuming everyone who posts on TP is young & 2: by assuming no one who posts here has children & 3: by assuming no one here knows how to run their own lives & 4: by assuming your simplistic worldview actually means anything to anyone with a smidgen of intellectual curiosity & 5: by assuming no one who posts on TP has a life other than posting on TP; speak for yourself rube.
Third, you prove you are disinterested in actually discussing anything of importance.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:40 amtpafla spoofs himself. I hope whoever is paying this troll gets their money back. Not convincing at all.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:41 amtpafla is obviously an anagram for “flap at” which is what’s it’s come here to do.
Yes, we are so very young, naive and childless here at Think Progress. Thank you for being so well-studied of the demographics here before coming on the board and making assumptions.
PEACE
March 24th, 2009 at 11:41 amSee?? O’Reilly is only reporting indisputable facts!
There is absolutely nothing biased or sexist about putting the blame on the woman. Clearly the father is completely innocent.
Just like the Mel Gibson defense. If she’s gonna drink then she better not complain about gettin raped!
Just the facts, that’s O’Reilly
March 24th, 2009 at 11:43 amUnless, of course, you’re Sarah Palin!
March 24th, 2009 at 11:44 amTo all:
March 24th, 2009 at 11:45 amI’m sorry if I came across as thinking I’m so special, I was angry! I actually believe that most people are extraordinary.
I had four children and spent 34 years as the primary breadwinner of our family. My husband was able to take paternity leave and spent 10 years as a stay at home Dad. There is more than one way to have a successful family. Each family should have the freedom to work out what works best for them, not have to fit some sexist “norm”.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:45 amObviously watching the kids is too demeaning for Bill O’Reilly but not unwanted phone sex with a co-worker. Once a jerk always a jerk, at least in the case of Bill O.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:45 amThe Dogfather Says:
My sister-in-law is a single mom; never had a husband or other domestic partner, and has adopted two little girls from China. Together, they’re an incredibly well-developed and functioning family without any male breadwinner — she’s doing quite well as a senior marketing executive for a major consumer products corporation, and her daughters want for nothing.
Anytime this guy speaks anymore, bats fly out of his belfry…
March 24th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Happy to hear a a positive single mother story, but your sister is not the typical single mother.
Single mothers are more like below:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/sr0045.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/sr0045.cfm
Several other myths are debunked and their references are included in the linked articles at the Heritage Foundation site.
The forty percent of children are born out of wedlock number is a CDC number.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:46 amthey cant and should not get up the next day and go to work and there should be someone bringing money home to support them,
Obviously you’ve never been gainfully employed then gone on maternity leave, nor have you been a part of a couple who has.
Dip-
SHIT.
Seriously, you are fcuking dumber than a bag of toenail clippings.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:49 amTPers, it’s time to deluge O’Reilly’s advertisers. The only thing Bildo understands is money – thus his career as a whore – so hit him where he lives. I’d love nothing better than to see him get dropped by Faux and have move back home to live in his parents’ basement (”Goddamit Bill, I told you to mow the lawn. What are you doing in the bathroom for so Goddam long anyway?”)
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/sponsor-boycott-list.htm
March 24th, 2009 at 11:50 ambitblt Says:
……articles at the Heritage Foundation site.
HAHAHAHA
Surely you jest?
March 24th, 2009 at 11:51 amBilldo O’Really = Strawman Central
March 24th, 2009 at 11:51 amGotta love bitbit coming here with “facts” as gathered and evaluated by the Heritage Foundation.
Brainwashed much?
PEACE
March 24th, 2009 at 11:51 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
bitblt, not one of those citations in that radical reich-wing ranting is based on peer-reviewed data. Try again.
Ol ‘one-bit’ is as cognitively limited as his digital counterpart.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:52 amSeveral other myths are debunked and their references are included in the linked articles at the Heritage Foundation site.
cough cough
The Heritage Foundation is the mother of all fascist neocon sites.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:52 amWow, Heritage Foundation. Bringing out the big guns eh.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:52 amralph finds bit’s ill-informed condescension somewhat nostalgic today, after the flood of new troll blood over the last twenty-four hours.
The fact that bit thinks we’d find links to The Heritage Foundation compelling is quite naive, almost charmingly so.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:53 amidjit, your “facts” can be summed up by your link’s mission statement:
To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
So, you based “facts” on a formulation to promote conservative policies????
March 24th, 2009 at 11:54 amBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What’s next? Citing Kristol as fact?
“O’Rally: Everybody, all the statistics and studies, show if you don’t have a father supporting the family, you’re probably poor.”
DRxJ: Everybody, all the statistics and studies, show if you’re a multimillionaire with no family, and work for a propaganda television show, you’re probably not very well endowed, and suffer from halotosis
__________________________________________
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good one, sweetie. But I think he does have a family. Imagine having to live with that ignorant blowhard.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:54 ambtblt: The Heritage Foundation? No reputable news organization uses THF as a credible source. Whenever someone uses THF as a source I know they’re not interested in the truth, but rather are just trying to prop up an otherwise unsustainable viewpoint.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:54 amIf O’liar is advocating the need for a full-functioning family in order to develop well-rounded, “decent” offspring, WHAT THE FCUK IS HIS EXCUSE FOR BEING SUCH A STUPID A$$HOLE???
March 24th, 2009 at 11:55 ambelac wonders if bit will now support further spending on education as studies show that women who pursue higher education have both lower birthrates and higher incomes… Also schools are often the best place to identify needs and dispense assistance to young children and their families…
belac is hopeful, but believes bit would rather pretend that ‘marriage’ will fix these problems despite historical evidence to the contrary…
March 24th, 2009 at 11:57 amOutstandingInMyField Says
March 24th, 2009 at 11:45 am
To all:
I’m sorry if I came across as thinking I’m so special, I was angry! I actually believe that most people are extraordinary.
_________________________________________________________
Not to worry — I didn’t get any “I’m so special” vibe from your post, and I’m sure there are many people who have stories similar to yours. It’s real stories like these that are necessary to combat the I-don’t-know-WTF-I’m-talking-about from the Bill O’Reillys of the world.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:58 amMaybe we should find out how many illegitimate children this warthog has & spread the info.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:58 amI think when the distorted lens of the right wing smear machine is moved out of the way the picture will become more clear.
Since you seem to have all the facts on poverty and single mother homes, perhaps you can elucidate on the actual root causes of the single parent paradigm especially in low-income and/or minority communities. Or perhaps the fact that the ideology you support has contributed to this factor?
and your statistic is meaningless when compared to those for actual divorces;
It would be better to advocate for all children to come from loving and well structured homes, whether they run the gamut from traditional family units or single parent, where there are enough resources and community support.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:58 amtpafla, you are just another one of the Reich Wing SHEEPLE aren`t you?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:00 pmWonder what the lovely governor of Alaska would say to Mr. O’Reilly’s belief that she should be home taking care of the baby.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:00 pmbitblt!
g.l.a.a.d. you’re here dude.
check out billy on jimmy kimmel’s show.
*
i know you’ll enjoy it because
i know how much you enjoy the
good porno.
:)
March 24th, 2009 at 12:00 pmAnd a bunch of girls are like:
”You don’t need no man
to help you raise no child.”
STFU with that bull.
Yeah, you can do it without a man
but that don’t mean it’s to be done.
S**t, you could drive a car with your feet
if you want to.
That don’t make it a good f*ing idea.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:01 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says
They began to remind me of the code names used in the military and of the movie “The Spy Game” where Redford named an operation “Dinner Out”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXy3Pxlad-A
March 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pmThe preceeding was a Chris Rock quote.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pmLet us know when you find some.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pm#52
Ralph the wonder llama said:
A Lovecraftian bargain if I ever heard one.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:03 pmtpafla Says:
STUPID ACCOMPLISHED
March 24th, 2009 at 12:03 pm— you may some day know this —
what a condescending ignorant thing to say…
you can’t go out and work the next day …
ha! billo hasn’t read “The Good Earth” i’m guessing…
March 24th, 2009 at 12:05 pmhow ’bout within the hour of giving birth?
Truth is relative.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:05 pmTruth Does Not Require Belief.
cd Says:
The preceeding was a Chris Rock quote.
*
was he doing a lecture at the heritage foundation
or a comedy monologue when he said “the preceding”?
*
but hey cd if you’re looking for some real laughs
check out billo on the jimmy kimmel show!
:)
March 24th, 2009 at 12:05 pmCan you cite a single commenter who posted anything like the tantrum you portrayed?
I don’t recall anyone saying “we can do whatever we want when we have children”, and most people who have said “that’s not right” have backed it up with reasoned arguments.
Frankly, you sound a little hysterical.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:06 pmI have to say… BillO threads bring out even bigger freaks than El Rushbo threads…
No doubt El Rushbo will feel terribly slighted when he learns this and feel compelled to say something even more incendiary in a desperate attempt to close the gap BillO has opened up in their competition for the hearts and minds of
March 24th, 2009 at 12:08 pmwing nutters everywhere.
Patty: Good point – the Reich-wingers embraced a woman who in many respects is living proof that their most fervently held beliefs are built on a foundation of sand. I genuinely hope she gets the GOP nod in 2012.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:09 pmcd,
“Say baby, put down that pipe and get my pipe up.”
“I would like you to unhook your bra and let it slide down your arms. You can keep your shirt on.”
“Cup your hands under your breasts and hold them for ten seconds.”
“Off with those pants.”
“I wish I were a lesbian.”
**
March 24th, 2009 at 12:09 pmOnce again, Bill O is directing his anger at the wrong people… rather than recognizing that single motherhood is difficult and that ALL children living in poverty need more assistance to thrive… Bill O. (and bitblt) choose to attack the single mothers for ‘not getting a husband’ rather than actually deal with the poverty and the poor…
More blame the victim crap with talk of ‘personal responsibility’ while ignoring their own social responsibility to the children… these kids are here, let’s make sure their clothed, fed and educated, okay?
If we do that, I guarantee you’ll see teenage pregnancy rates go down anyway.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:09 pmjoe,
youtube link dead.
check here.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:10 pmI don’t know. Can you die from being a pathological liar?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:10 pmthe preceeding were a bill o’reilly quotes.
(dramatic pause)
word.
:)
March 24th, 2009 at 12:10 pmbill is such an ass clown, noticed his wiki entry fails to mention this
March 24th, 2009 at 12:11 pmjoe cantwell Says:
“I wish I were a lesbian.”
___________
Siiiiiigh.. how sad for BillO. Unfortunately, he’ll just have to settle for being an idiot.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:12 pmDNFP Says:
joe,
youtube link dead.
check here.
*
cd, blbt,
billy’s porno is so sick…
youtube banned it!
-_-
March 24th, 2009 at 12:12 pmthis is too important NOT to re-post:
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/sponsor-boycott-list.htm
Smack him right in the mouth.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:13 pmDNFP Says:
this is too important NOT to re-post:
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/sponsor-boycott-list.htm
Smack him right in the mouth.
*
let’s post it again.
__-
March 24th, 2009 at 12:16 pmO’Lielly: Women should be home, near a phone, that way I can call them and do dirty sex talk with them, you know the whole falafel in the shower stuff, that’s just good clean fun.
Pig.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:16 pmO’REILLY: I love this. I love this from you. It’s sexist, because I just told the truth. You don’t have the father providing some income when the mother is giving birth, OK? You see, when you give birth — you may some day know this — you can’t go out and work the next day, OK?! And you should be watching the kid anyway. So there’s got to be somebody else giving you money beside the government.
Every single mom is a welfare queen ?
Somebody better inform Jodi Foster , Madonna , Kim Basinger and others of your “fact” there , Dildo O’Lielly ……….
March 24th, 2009 at 12:17 pmbelac Says:
Once again, Bill O is directing his anger at the wrong people… rather than recognizing that single motherhood is difficult and that ALL children living in poverty need more assistance to thrive… Bill O. (and bitblt) choose to attack the single mothers for ‘not getting a husband’ rather than actually deal with the poverty and the poor…
More blame the victim crap with talk of ‘personal responsibility’ while ignoring their own social responsibility to the children… these kids are here, let’s make sure their clothed, fed and educated, okay?
If we do that, I guarantee you’ll see teenage pregnancy rates go down anyway.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
In case you didn’t read the first bitblt post, bit came down on the irresponsible men, not the single mothers. bit has been clear about this numerous times.
Is this your logic?
If the US government does this:
..their own social responsibility to the children… these kids are here, let’s make sure their clothed, fed and educated, okay?..
then we can expect this:
If we do that, I guarantee you’ll see teenage pregnancy rates go down anyway.
So, if the U.S. government spends $250B/yr doing this now, exactly what amount do you think is required to fix it?
This single mother problem is caused by lack or morality, not lack of money.
You may also want to note that only 1 out of 7 of the 40% born out of wedlock was to a teenage mother.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:18 pmtpafla Says:
You all can say whatever you want.
Thanks for the permission. I was worried that I was speaking out of turn, you know, with such an older and wiser person with a greater education. And as to “older” — I’m impressed that you can still operate a keyboard AND be old enough to speak at me with such a condescending tone.
And scream and yell “No No that’s not right” we can do whatever we want when we have children”.
Hmmmm. So you feel that YOU have the authority to redefine OUR positions in YOUR words? (and making a generalized assumption while doing so — BONUS!!!! TWO logical fallacies in one sweep. Impressive.)
The truth is the best thing you can do for your kids is have a husband that works brings home money and let’s YOU decide what to do next.
Based on what? Are you even AWARE of the realities of the world around you? Are you even an American? Thgis statement claims to offer “the truth”, but does not do so — it merely establishes your personal opinion, not fact. And with no proof (needed for a fact), nor any argument (needed to convince others of the correctness of your opinion).
Grade: F
Try again, please.
Oh… and I’ll use language that you will understand better:
U R N Idjit.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:19 pmHow is it that BO and his 23 Percent Posse never hold the man responsible? I’m sure there are many women who would love to have the help and support of the child’s father, but that’s not an option due to the man refusing to take responsibility. It’s always the women in BOs tiny mind – they are responsible for their own rapes, responsible for irresponsible men, and doubtlessly responsible for their own harassment – “Hey, if she wasn’t so hot, I’d use the falafel thingy to make falafels.”
March 24th, 2009 at 12:19 pmpastcaring Says:
#71 bitblt Says:
Happy to hear a a positive single mother story, but your sister is not the typical single mother.
The forty percent of children are born out of wedlock number is a CDC number.
I think when the distorted lens of the right wing smear machine is moved out of the way the picture will become more clear.
Since you seem to have all the facts on poverty and single mother homes, perhaps you can elucidate on the actual root causes of the single parent paradigm especially in low-income and/or minority communities. Or perhaps the fact that the ideology you support has contributed to this factor?
and your statistic is meaningless when compared to those for actual divorces;
“According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%”
Source: http://www.divorcerate.org/
It would be better to advocate for all children to come from loving and well structured homes, whether they run the gamut from traditional family units or single parent, where there are enough resources and community support.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:58 am
bit wanted to respond to this post, but there were simply too many non sequiturs to make sense of it.
So, why is the divorce rate so high?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:20 pmI’ve noticed that, too, TRoS, and my guess is it’s because Rushbots know they’re far-right and therefore believe that anyone to the left of them is incapable of understanding “truth” as they know it.
But I think the O’Reilly freaks, because he claims to be “independent”, think of themselves as mainstream, and thus tend to get more upset when others don’t buy their moldy crap.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:20 pmone more time,
DNFP Says:
this is too important NOT to re-post:
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/sponsor-boycott-list.htm
Smack him right in the mouth.
;;
March 24th, 2009 at 12:21 pmHoly loly, what gall.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:23 pmSorry Rock is to harcore for you cantwell.
Does Bonnie Hunt offend you too?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:24 pmbitblt says “This single mother problem is caused by lack or morality, not lack of money.”
First off, nobody who defends BO has a leg to stand on when it comes to morality.
Second, the Reich’s insistence on failed abstinence-only programs is not pragmatic – it would seem to be obvious to all but the slimiest 23 Percenter that fewer pregnancies equals fewer single mothers.
Third – Bristol Palin.
‘Nuff said.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:25 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
This single mother problem is caused by lack or morality, not lack of money.
You may also want to note that only 1 out of 7 of the 40% born out of wedlock was to a teenage mother.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Like Bristol Palin ………..?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pmtploofa says: From reading posts, it is obvious none of you really know what it is like having children….The reality is that woman have babies, they cant and should not get up the next day and go to work and there should be someone bringing money home to support them, preferably a loving father. And then when the mommy feels up to it and after mommy thinks it’s a good idea, she can go back to work. And the daddy agrees to everything the mommy says. That is how a happy home works.
Wow, how incredibly 1800’s of you, idiot. Here’s my story: mommy works after first child is born, while daddy stays home and works on his graduate school work at night. Then, daddy graduates and gets a real job, and mommy STILL works cuz she has to cuz Reagan is president and nobody except the rich are making any real money. Then, mommy and daddy have a second child, and mommy returns to work shortly after that because Bush #1 is president and they STILL can’t afford not to have both parents working.
Today, those two kids are 22 and 18. And both mommy and daddy still work, cuz the kids are in college and our economy sucks cuz of Rushpublican mismanagement for the last 8 years. Perhaps mommy and daddy will get to retire sometime soon, but probably not cuz both of their 401(k)s just got hammered by Rushpublican mismanagement for the last 8 years.
Do you sense a pattern here? So don’t come around here with your “you don’t know what it’s like to have kids” crap — we know what it’s like far better than you morons who supported the idiot reich wing administrations that have kept this mommy and daddy working throughout their kids’ lifetimes, and probably into the next generation as well.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:28 pmhttp://www.oreilly-sucks.com/sponsor-boycott-list.htm
March 24th, 2009 at 12:28 pmThis single mother problem is caused by lack or morality, not lack of money.
Single motherhood is only a problem if the children aren’t being fed, clothed and educate… you seem to argue that ‘marriage’ is the solution.
While that may work for some, belac notes that it is far simpler to make sure that the children receive these things than to push a marriage that may or may not provide them…
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_pub_spe_per_stu_pri_lev-spending-per-student-primary-level
Public education spending per capita in US puts us at #36 in the world… belac would think that moving into the top en ahead of Lesotho and Ethiopia would be a good target for funding.
belac frankly doesn’t care who bit blames for crisis but recognizes that morals are a lot harder for the People to provide than meals and schools, and also seem less effective at reducing poverty.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:30 pmBill’s always had a chip on his shoulder since he started out as a weather girl in Scranton,PA
March 24th, 2009 at 12:31 pmbitblt Says:
So, why is the divorce rate so high?
____________
And highest of all in RED states, I believe…
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate
#1 Nevada: 7.1
March 24th, 2009 at 12:31 pm#2 Arkansas: 6.2
#3 Alabama: 5.4
#4 Wyoming: 5.4
#5 Idaho: 5.3
#6 West Virginia: 5.2
#7 Kentucky: 5.2
#8 Tennessee: 5.1
#9 Florida: 5.1
#10 Mississippi: 4.9
educate = educated
obviously…
March 24th, 2009 at 12:31 pmBy logical extension, bit believes that those living in poverty are of low morals.
ralph views bit as a sad and deluded figure. But that’s not new. bit has always cut a sad and deluded figure here on TP.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:31 pmfor bit
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090324/hl_nm/us_fda_planb
this will help don’t ya think?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:33 pmSome observations:
1. While I don’t have actual statistics in front of me, it’s not too hard to believe that a family headed by two adults is, on average, economically better off than a family headed by one adult.
2. There are lots of exceptions to the above. Many single parents (of both sexes) are financially and emotionally able to raise well cared for and well adjusted children by themselves.
3. Just because a two-adult family might be the statistically “better” model, doesn’t automatically mean that model has to be daddy working and mommy staying home. Either parent can fill either role, and there are many two-adult families where both adults are the same sex.
4. Not all single mothers are on welfare.
5. Not all single mothers went out of their way to be single mothers.
6. Not all children raised by single mothers go on to become criminals or sociopaths.
7. Yes, there are many cases of single parenthood where the absent parent needs to step up to the plate and take some responsibility. Why isn’t O’Reilly railing against them instead of criticizing the mothers?
8. Bill O’Reilly has no idea WTF he’s talking about on so many issues. But that doesn’t matter to him — as long as he can spout drivel in a pompous tone, his audience will tune in.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:34 pmDamn, belac. ralph feels that was a sharp, well-targeted reply to bit.
ralph is impressed.
ralph is also confident that bit will be able to ignore or distort belac’s comments in order to provide the level of comfort bit’s right-wing beliefs require.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:34 pmAmen Dogfather. Thanks also for reiterating how much of our societal problems are directly related to the hypocrisies of Reagan. For almost 30 now the Reich has been using divisive social issues as a smoke screen for rape-and-pillage economic policies. How do you get the poor to support the people who are making them poor? Simple: make them more afraid gay socialist illegal immigrant welfare moms are trying to steal Christmas.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:34 pmMethinks you have a problem or several.
1. You are creepy speaking of yourself in the third person.
2. You are definitely the pot calling the kettle black. I think you had to actually look up the meaning of non sequitur.
3. I can’t help but wondering if, when you looked up the meaning of non sequitur you perhaps saw your own picture looking back at you?
4. Since you are the only person you will defer to in regards of facts, why don’t you figure out why the divorce rate is so high? I really don’t care. Hence my name.
Thanks for playing :)
March 24th, 2009 at 12:35 pmMCMetal Says:
bitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
This single mother problem is caused by lack or morality, not lack of money.
You may also want to note that only 1 out of 7 of the 40% born out of wedlock was to a teenage mother.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Like Bristol Palin ………..?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Bristol Palin certainly fits the 1 out of 7 single mothers is a teen category. Fortunately, most of the 1 out of 7 don’t have to see their lives played out on the evening news.
You may recall that when Bristol split from Levi, her baby’s father, she was described a “devastated.”
bit believes this. OTOH, many don’t seem to think a woman’s tears mean anything of consequences; otherwise, women wouldn’t be treated like yesterday’s tp.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pmhttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXS/is_4_80/ai_73553652
So the reasons that female headed households may be less well off is because of discriminatory practices. So BullO’s argument can be reworded. Families need a male breadwinner because society discriminates against female breadwinners.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:37 pmbitblt Says:
OTOH, many don’t seem to think a woman’s tears mean anything of consequences; otherwise, women wouldn’t be treated like yesterday’s tp.
____________
My goodness!!!
What an embarrassingly silly cheap shot, even by bit’s ever-lower standards.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:38 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
I’ve noticed that, too, TRoS, and my guess is it’s because Rushbots know they’re far-right and therefore believe that anyone to the left of them is incapable of understanding “truth” as they know it.
___________
Could also be because Orally is a well-known sexual predator, and the predator community just feels obligated to stand up for one of their own?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:40 pmIs there a point you’re meandering towards? Or just ‘immorality is the cause of our social ills’ and therefore we need to legislate morality in order to fix them?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:41 pmKind of sad that Daryll had to run away, tail between legs, never to return, because of his lies. Councilman from NitWitley would love this thread.
PEACE
March 24th, 2009 at 12:42 pmwags Says:
Is there a point you’re meandering towards?
_________
No… bit is losing the debate because bit is arguing a dishonest position, so bit is resorting to non-sequitur cheap attacks…
March 24th, 2009 at 12:44 pmThe Reich seems to want to legislate morality when it comes to our personal lives, but when moral legislation like regulation of banks, Wall Street and corporate polluters is raised in an effort to make things better for us po’ common folk, they weep and wail.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:46 pmmisshusseinmolly @ 139:
Oh there you go again, missmolly, (rolls eyes, heaves a sigh), trying to raise the level of discourse again with your so-called “reason” and such.
Blimey! It’s like listening to perfectly preserved record made from the finest Colombian extruded polyvinyl, perfectly grooved by German-engineered spiral lathes, with a center hole machined by swiss watchmakers to fit perfectly over a swedish precision designed spindle post!
:D
March 24th, 2009 at 12:47 pmidjit believes this. OTOH, many don’t seem to think a woman’s tears mean anything of consequences; otherwise, women wouldn’t be treated like yesterday’s tp.
WHAT?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:47 pmbit believes this. OTOH, many don’t seem to think a woman’s tears mean anything of consequences; otherwise, women wouldn’t be treated like yesterday’s tp.
bit has admitted that he wants US marriage laws based on Biblical standards. Therefore, PLC, is curious as to whether or not bit would have US male-female relationships in general be based on Biblical standards.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pmVery well said.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pmbelac Says:
This single mother problem is caused by lack or morality, not lack of money.
Single motherhood is only a problem if the children aren’t being fed, clothed and educate… you seem to argue that ‘marriage’ is the solution.
While that may work for some, belac notes that it is far simpler to make sure that the children receive these things than to push a marriage that may or may not provide them…
http://www.nationmaster.com/ graph/ edu_pub_spe_per_stu_pri_lev-spending-per-student-primary-level
Public education spending per capita in US puts us at #36 in the world… belac would think that moving into the top en ahead of Lesotho and Ethiopia would be a good target for funding.
belac frankly doesn’t care who bit blames for crisis but recognizes that morals are a lot harder for the People to provide than meals and schools, and also seem less effective at reducing poverty.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
You didn’t read the link, did you?
Ok.
So here’s some more from the Heritage Foundation:
Single motherhood is only a problem if the children aren’t being fed, clothed and educate… you seem to argue that ‘marriage’ is the solution.
“…only a problem…” Are you saying that the emotional needs of the mother are unimportant? Are you saying that somehow the sons are auto-magically raised to be responsible young men, who will not perpetuate the cycle of poverty in which they grew up? This is very much a “wash, rinse, and repeat” cycle of poverty, as you probably know, and if you care to look for it, you can find multipled generations in perpetuating the poverty.
Feeding and educating doesn’t compensate for the lack of male example and leadership.
Further, the best way to prepare a young woman for life is to have a father demonstrating love and responsibility toward the girl’s mother and her family.
Perhaps Belac could make a business of selling those those “Honk If You want to pay for Raising My Children” bumper stickers.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:54 pmOh he must be in the Barney Frank/Scalia homophobe thread.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:55 pmSpoke too soon ><
March 24th, 2009 at 12:55 pmbitblt Says: stuff
wags wanted to respond to this post, but there were simply too many non sequiturs to make sense of it.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:57 pmAnd once again folks, another example by the master of the non-sequitur:
“A comment which, due to its lack of meaning relative to the comment it follows, is absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.”
hey bit, did I get that right?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:58 pm>many don’t seem to think a
>woman’s tears mean anything
> of consequences; otherwise,
> women wouldn’t be treated
> like yesterday’s tp.
So to turn your sappy tearjerking logic on its head, let me ask you this: if a woman finds comfort in the sexual companionship of another woman and helps her raise and provide for the other womans child, thats immoral, right? because…?
March 24th, 2009 at 12:59 pm>preferably a loving father.
Please explain the difference between a loving father and a loving (grandmother/lesbian/uncle)…
also, whats better, a hating resentful abusive father or a loving lesbian?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:00 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
bit believes this. OTOH, many don’t seem to think a woman’s tears mean anything of consequences; otherwise, women wouldn’t be treated like yesterday’s tp.
bit has admitted that he wants US marriage laws based on Biblical standards. Therefore, PLC, is curious as to whether or not bit would have US male-female relationships in general be based on Biblical standards.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
bit advocates that that all states and the Federal government recognize one man and one woman as a marriage. bit believes this is Biblical based on Matthew 19.
Before you, PLC especially, start with the OT, allow bit to remind you that Christianity is based on NT scripture. Women enjoyed a different statesus and different treatment from NT writers. Women were actively involved in supporting the early church – both with money and teaching.
Even the Apostle Paul instructed men to love their wives, and advises that a woman should be a “keeper at home.”
Other than that, if PLC has something better that the Bible to offer, bit is open to it.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:01 pm>Someone besides the
>govt. needs
> to be making
>the money for mommy and baby.
Ok..so If mommy screws up and gets pregnant by a man who has no interest in being a loving father, she should get an abortion, right? or would you prefer she give the baby up for adoption?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pmLike the Constitution?
And are you going to answer my questions or keep ignoring what implication you’re making: you want the government you legislate and police morailty. Your morality.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:03 pm>Other than that, if PLC has something
> better that the Bible to offer,
> bit is open to it.
tried scientology? it doesnt have talking snakes or vigins who get dry humped and bukkaked by a divine being, but its pretty wonky all the same…your going to have to remind me again where in the constitution of the united states the bible is mentioned?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:03 pm*to legislate, not you legislate.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:06 pmbitblt Says:
Even the Apostle Paul instructed men to love their wives, and advises that a woman should be a “keeper at home.”
Paul? You’re quoting Paul as pro-woman? Funniest bit post yet.
Other than that, if PLC has something better that the Bible to offer, bit is open to it.
How about a few million years and billions of humans who are not Christian?
Has bit yet explained or defended his comment about how “many” don’t care about women crying?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:06 pmAre you saying that the emotional needs of the mother are unimportant? Are you saying that somehow the sons are auto-magically raised to be responsible young men, who will not perpetuate the cycle of poverty in which they grew up?
belac wonders how bit can hope to provide for the ‘emotional needs’ of the mother.
belac thinks starting with the physical and educational needs of the children and mother is best place to start. belac thinks that would go a long way to providing for the ‘emotional needs’ of most mothers he knows.
belac wonders if bitblt even read belac’s post.
belac wonders if ‘male role models’ have to be fathers? belac thinks not…
March 24th, 2009 at 1:09 pmgummitch Says:
Has bit yet explained or defended his comment about how “many” don’t care about women crying?
________
Aww… give bit a break. Bit was losing the argument on merit BIG time and tried to cheap shot us, that’s all.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:11 pmbelac notes that his plan would also assist single fathers…
March 24th, 2009 at 1:11 pmIt’s probably helpful to bear in mind that “studies” like the Heritage Foundation touts are based on snapshots in time. “Single mothers” aren’t necessarily single for life or even for years; they can be single for a year or two, remarry or create other stable families. “Conservatives” like to focus on serial moms as evidence that single parents are the result of a lack of moral compass, while conveniently ignoring all those “single mothers” whose circumstances have changed through no fault of their own (or necessarily “fault” of the father).
March 24th, 2009 at 1:11 pmTaliban also thinks that woman has to stay at home and man has to provide for family. And if something happens to him – asta la vista – her life is over. Billy, my dear, what next in store for us – stupid pure women that are good only for giving you pleasure, preparing meal and taking care of kids?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:11 pmThank you nellre for finally pointing out that women tend to be paid less to do the same job.
Sounds like another good argument to end gender discrimination in pay. Women need more pay to help take care of their kids. Plus, they DESERVE it!
March 24th, 2009 at 1:13 pmbelac Says:
Are you saying that the emotional needs of the mother are unimportant? Are you saying that somehow the sons are auto-magically raised to be responsible young men, who will not perpetuate the cycle of poverty in which they grew up?
belac wonders how bit can hope to provide for the ‘emotional needs’ of the mother.
.
.
.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
bit doesn’t expect to provide for the emotional needs of the mother. That’s the husband’s job, and that’s why she needs a husband
March 24th, 2009 at 1:18 pmWay to skip the important part.
And are you going to answer my questions or keep ignoring what implication you’re making: you want the government to legislate and police morailty. Your morality.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:21 pmThe Moderate Squad Says:
The Reich seems to want to legislate morality when it comes to our personal lives, but when moral legislation like regulation of banks, Wall Street and corporate polluters is raised in an effort to make things better for us po’ common folk, they weep and wail.
Precisely. To understand this, you must understand that the reichwingers/CON-trollers (what a Leary-esque coinage!) do not believe that there are any concepts of morality that apply to business: if there is money involved, then there are no moral attachments. I think their twisted perceptions are easier to see when one considers that.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:22 pmMarch 24th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
>But it seems the left wing
>always find their way to our
>conservative blogs
Liar. Post some links to left comments on conservative blogs. Every conservative blog I’ve ever heard of bans any dissenting posts…often going to far as to block thier IP so the offender cant even view the site….
March 24th, 2009 at 1:30 pmbitblt Says:
Before you, PLC especially, start with the OT, allow bit to remind you that Christianity is based on NT scripture.
Awwwww… Bitbit…. do you REALLY want to go there? REALLY?
And I will not comment on matters others have pointed to above.
Let’s keep it simple: the ten commandments. Those are PURE OT. So — since they are OT they don’t count as absolute rules, right? They were not restated in total by JC (though he did clarify a few — such as just LOOKING at a woman and THINKING about having sex with her IS THE SAME AS ADULTRY. Ohhhh… I’m SURE that bitbit is not guilty of such sinning against one of the 10 commandments. Oh, but the 10 commandments are old testament and thus they don’t really apply to christians. Although, since the redefining of the adultery one by JC IS in the new testament, THAT one certainly stands).
SO… I know, I rambled a bit, bitbit, but what about the OT ten commandments? Or are you allowed to pick and choose as you will as to which parts of the OT apply today?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:31 pm5th Estate: Love the Python reference
March 24th, 2009 at 1:31 pm> bit doesn’t expect to provide for the
> emotional needs of the mother.
> That’s the husband’s job,
> and that’s why she needs a husband
wow. so basically you think woman need men to find emotional fullfillment? that they arent complete without a husband? right?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:33 pmDogfight Says:
So get off your high horse you left wingers and start looking around and do something about this problem instead of hating!!
Liberals are generally the only people doing anything constructive to help single moms. Hating? Maybe you should take a deep breath and reconsider, especially if you’re going to defend an all-star hater like Bill O’Reilly.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pmDogfight Says:
See comments above in response to your re-hashed comment that contributes nothing that has not already been stated and argued on this post.
Thanks for your participation.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pm> Yes, I am from a divorced family and it
> was a struggle for my Mom..She remarried
> and our life IMPROVED GREATLY
> and for you people trying to
> deny the truth just shows
> how ignorant you are..
Yes I’m sure once your mother started dating within her own species her luck starting improving…
March 24th, 2009 at 1:35 pmSo, bitbit. Have YOU been guilty of adultery with married women (by looking at them with lusty thoughts)? Palin? Peraps some younger girls? Are you an adulterer, bitbit (by JC’s rules, that is)?
And how about those old testament 10 commandments? They are not part of christianity according to your above rule, right?
right?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pm>And just WHAT are you doing to help out all these unwed Moms >WHO can’t afford their kids???
telling them to get abortions.
>WHAT ARE YOU DOING???
oh…after that…then im telling them about birth control so they dont have another unwanted pregnancy.
these are two things you refuse to do, you somehow think if you just preach about jeezuz to them their desire to have sex will wither and die
March 24th, 2009 at 1:38 pmInstead of using the Old Testament to justify that which cannot be justified, how come the “Christian” Reich-wingers overlook Jesus’ trump – Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you. That is morality boiled down to its very essence, but by actually accepting that, the Reich forfeits the right to force people to be like them.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:39 pmWith discourse like that, you’re not lying about always being on the right wing sites are ya?!
March 24th, 2009 at 1:39 pm> When you have a baby, you
> shouldnt and
> cant go right to
> work and you should have
> someone bringing home
> money to support you.
Just as long as that someone isnt another woman, right?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:40 pmTake your own advice.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:41 pmChocolate Jesus Says:
you somehow think if you just preach about jeezuz to them their desire to have sex will wither and die…
_________
Well, shi-ucks… it certainly has that effect on me.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:41 pmtpafla Says:
“Liberals are generally the only people doing anything constructive to help single moms.”
How exactly have they helped? If you call making sure they think the govt is big daddy, you might need help yourself.
As long as people like you persist in characterizing government as “big daddy”, you should be the one seeking help.
I’m sure it would be much better for their character development is single moms were thrown out on the street without any support at all, that they have no access for medical care for themselves and their children, that they have no support in court while trying to get financial assistance from absent fathers, and that they be reduced to harvesting dandelions from the front yard to feed their kids (true story).
Not to mention the fact that “conservative” ideology actively resists the sort of education that would reduce the chance of them being single moms in the first place, with stupidities like “abstinence only” programs.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:43 pm>I am sick and tired, of the
> left wing people making comments
> who probably do not walk in
> the shoes of these Moms
> that are not making it
> in our economy society as they would like..
please cite statistics showing that the majority of poor, single mothers are right wing. you think you right wing people
March 24th, 2009 at 1:43 pmhave the right to speak for poor, single mothers?
your charming little probably imaginary anecdote about your own experience is irrelvant, it proves nothing without some evidence that goes beyond your own personal experience
Whose traditional marriage? Circa when? US 2009? India 2009? Indians naturalized to US 2009? US 1950? Israel 33?
You’re on very very slippery slopes trying to pin down ‘traditional’ marriage my friend.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:44 pmtpafla Says:
If you call making sure they think the govt is big daddy, you might need help yourself.
well, now. What exactly IS “The Government”? Is it some corporation out for a profit? Is it a big monster that we pay tributes to (like the traditional fairytale dragons demanding maiden sacrafices)?
Or, is “The Government” a means of collecting the power of the people of a nation in order to focus that power to the advantage of the the people that comprise that nation?
Hmmmmmm?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:45 pmwags Says:
bit doesn’t expect to provide for the emotional needs of the mother. That’s the husband’s job, and that’s why she needs a husband
Way to skip the important part.
And are you going to answer my questions or keep ignoring what implication you’re making: you want the government to legislate and police morailty. Your morality.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Don’t fell slighted. bit sometimes draws a crowd, and note all posts are worth a response, as you may have noticed.
As to legislating morality. Someone’s morality will be legislated. For instance, either so-called same gender marriage will be made legal, or it will continue to be illegal. In either case someone’s morality was legislated.
For the sake of discussion you might want to note that the modern interpretation of the “wall of separation between church and state”( a phrase that is not in the U.S. Constituation) goes back to a SCOTUS decision in 1947. Since that time there have been many efforts to remove the influence of Christianity from the U.S. bit understands that divorce courts quoted scripture in the rulings in the 1960’s. Evangelical often refer to the date that CA first instituted no-fault divorce – either ‘66 or ‘67, as the turning point for marriage in the U.S. Up til then the morality was in the legislation and not considered something foreign.
Of course, we could bring back “shame.” You know, make it shameful for a man to abandon a woman that he impregnates, rather that the current attitude that she’s just another notch on his gun, so to speak. In addition, make it shameful for a woman to be pregnant without a husband. While these practices are unattractive to the modern mind, they do serve a purpose to encourage people to be married to raise children.
Families – father, mother, and children – make a stable society.
It’s cheaper to the society – only 7% of the babies were illegitimate at the begging of the Great Society, and it’s safer for the society. ( Think getting mugged by a fifteen year old who has never seen his father, and he – the fifteen year old is really angry.)
bit doesn’t believe that the U.S. would be the nation we enjoy today without the influence of Christianity, especially the one man one woman marriage from Matthew 19. bit also believes that the likelihood that the nation will continue to be worth preserving is very small without continuing the influence of Christianity.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:45 pm.
Nothing says, “I’m not a misogynist” like insisting women remain “barefoot and pregnant”!
Bill-doh strikes again!
.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:47 pmThe government is there to protect the homeland and that’s it.
Oh, and make sure icky things don’t happen, like dudes gettin it on.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:47 pmwags,
HOMELAND????
HOMELAND????
I thought this was America…
… From sea to shining sea.
.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:48 pmYou presented nothing but meaningless talking points, I’m not defending anything yet.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:48 pmHA
Ha
ha
March 24th, 2009 at 1:49 pmMax-1, that’s a pre 9-11 mindset.
Clearly.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:49 pmwags Says:
——————————————————————————–
Now how silly it is to compare a traditional marriage with the Taliban.
Whose traditional marriage? Circa when? US 2009? India 2009? Indians naturalized to US 2009? US 1950? Israel 33?
You’re on very very slippery slopes trying to pin down ‘traditional’ marriage my friend.
Oh, but PLEASE try to. PLEASE!!!!!!!!
What IS this “traditional marriage” of which you speak? And this definition MUST go beyond “one man and one woman” — as the discussion to which it attaches involves more content than that simplistic answer provides.
What is this traditional marriage AND what duties are traditionally entailed by spouses?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:50 pmbitblt Says:
For the sake of discussion you might want to note that the modern interpretation of the “wall of separation between church and state”( a phrase that is not in the U.S. Constituation) goes back to a SCOTUS decision in 1947.
Actually, bit might want to note that it goes back to letters written by Thomas Jefferson in which he specifically used that terminology. I’m pretty sure it was earlier than 1947.
bit doesn’t believe that the U.S. would be the nation we enjoy today without the influence of Christianity, especially the one man one woman marriage from Matthew 19. bit also believes that the likelihood that the nation will continue to be worth preserving is very small without continuing the influence of Christianity.
Fortunately, and as has been repeatedly explained to bit, we have a Constitution that will always be worth preserving and we don’t need to limit ourselves to the practice of a single religion; we can live moral lives without reference to Christianity or any other established religion or belief system.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pm>In either case someone’s morality was legislated.
Wrong…when people start forcing you to do something, or prevent you from doing something, then someone else’s morality is being legislated. Thats what you dont understand. You want to push your backward beleifs onto us. We dont care what do you. Thats the difference. You want to shove a cruxifix up your @ss and marry some 400 pound man who likes to dress you up like the virgin mary and bang you while he’s wearing a gas mask, more power to you. Morality is legislated when someone is forced to do something they dont want to do, or prevented from doing something they want to do..
March 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pm>Yes, their are liberal bloggers
> on our conservative blog
>sites..visit them and you
> will see them trolling around
>disguised as not liberals but
> eventually it comes through if
>they are out their long enough..
>but usually they run and
>hide after their hatefully speech.
post links or your a liar…..which blogs and which comments on those blogs are you referring to?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:54 pmWags,
HOMELAND???
Just like Motherland or Fatherland, NO?
… You know, something other than, America?
.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:54 pm>wall of separation between church
> and state”
>( a phrase that is not in the U.S. Constituation)
hey bacon bit..you care to remind us what the text of the establishment clause is?
oh, and I’ll ask you again, how many times is the bible or christianity mentioned in the constitution? i dont think you ever answered that question..
March 24th, 2009 at 1:56 pmMax, I can’t tell if you’re snarking me back or didn’t get my snark >.>
March 24th, 2009 at 1:56 pmwags Says:
Or, is “The Government” a means of collecting the power of the people of a nation in order to focus that power to the advantage of the the people that comprise that nation?
The government is there to protect the homeland and that’s it.
Oh, and make sure icky things don’t happen, like dudes gettin it on.
Don’t make me have to put my Jeff Gannon mask on…..
March 24th, 2009 at 1:58 pm>I was open to who I am..and I am not afraid to have a TRUE >debate on our social issues, and other topics.
Then why dont you answer any one of the 15 questions I asked in the posts above about why MEN are essentially for mothers= lives when other women are just as capeable of providing food and shelter for other women..?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:58 pmWhat arrogance.
I couldn’t care less what you think deserves a post or not, but you sure seem to get wriggly when it comes down to this point.
Legality and morailty are not the same. This country, despite what you want to believe, was founded on ethical prinicples, namely, and this is important, equality.
Any attribution to religiously dictated morality is a farce.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:00 pm> So your problems are because of Reagan and Bush.
> Not because you and your
> wife were too selfish to
> maybe figure out another way?
Right right…so are you saying SAint Ronnie and Messiah Bush dont have any affect on the financial lives of americans? or are you saying they only had good effects?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:01 pmSnarky, snark, snark, snark.
:P
.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:03 pmO’Liely’s sexism: Women need male breadwinners, should stay home to watch the kids.
And what will be your next stance, O’Liely? Women should not go out in public without their breadwinning husbands? Then next you’ll demand that women should cover themselves, from head to toe, when they do go out in public, escorted by their breadwinning men? And after that, since women should stay home and watch the kids, they shouldn’t even be given an education when they’re little girls? Right O’Liely? Why waste a good education on a woman who should just stay home and watch the kids?
O’Liely and his pack of fools are sounding more and more like the Taliban and extreme radical Muslims.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:04 pmDoes this fool ever stop??
When he was sexually harrassing Andrea Mackris, was Falfel Man concerned that he was jeopardizing his own marriage and his TWO-PARENT philosophy???
Hypocrite . .
March 24th, 2009 at 2:05 pmSay something that isn’t a fistful of generalizations, talking points, strawmen and righteous indignation, and maybe.
If you’re interested in real, substantive discussion, you’e yet to show it. You know, like making an argument, establishing facts and sources in support of said argument, and being open to dissenting viewpoints.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:06 pm>Chocolate Jesus…Did I say single Moms are right wing???
“I am sick and tired, of the left wing people making comments who probably do not walk in the shoes of these Moms that are not making it in our economy society as they would like.. ”
if you beleive left wing people dont walk in the shoes of poor single mothers you are implying poor single mothers are right wing. if you dispute this assertion please explain what political idealogoy you beleive most poor mother espouse?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:06 pm>Chocolate Jesus..What are you trying to ask me…
Read the aproximately 15 sentences I wrote above that end in question marks. Do you have answers to any of them?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:08 pmSay…. bitbit…..
what about your claim that OT cannot be used in describing or defining christians and applying that concept (which is not solely your opinion, I grant) to the ten commandments?
And, in addition, the commentary from JC about the “looking” = “adultery”?
I am curious.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:09 pm>The more single mothers you have the
> more you libs love it because
> you can have more dependent on the govt.
Uhm wait…I thought us libs love abortions…more abortions means less single mothers…so while your telling us what we love, can you please let us know which we love more? Abortions, or single mothers?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:09 pm> All I was asking for YOU LIBS to ask a single Mom,
> “Would your life and kids life be
> better if their was a male role model in their home to
> help?
Uhm pretty much every single mother I know is single by choice, they’ve been pretty unhappy with the men theyve hooked up with. Its been my experience that men will date just about anything with a hole, so I really dont think most single mothers are so hideous that men dont find them attractive..
Are you really trying to say that men are more sexually selective than women?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:13 pmAgain, I haven’t taken a stance on anything to defend yet, so your comment makes no sense.
And *boggle* at the cross remark. Pretty sure I never mentioned anything even close to it.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:13 pmbit doesn’t expect to provide for the emotional needs of the mother. That’s the husband’s job, and that’s why she needs a husband
belac thinks bit should focus on the things bit has the power to change.
belac thinks that forcing people to marry or stay married is a poor idea.
belac thinks it is far easier to assure that all children, even those without even one parent, are cared for in our country.
belac thinks that’s our job as neighbors and friends… belac thinks again that this would go a long way towards providing for the emotional needs of everyone…
belac asks bit how he will give these single mothers husbands… belac thinks it will be quicker to give them help.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:16 pm>I would like to know how many children
>you have Chocolate Jesus
I have four. thier furry and they meow when i forget to feed them. im no stranger to relationships tho, and i’ve certainly known many, many women with children who have gotten fed up with the way they’ve been treated by the men in thier lives…alot of them much prefer the companionship of other women…but then again im not claiming that my own personal experience is somehow indicitave of society as a whole..im not trying to tell you that my judgements are more valid than yours, but unfortunately your not returning the favor..
March 24th, 2009 at 2:17 pmtpafla Says:
And when you young people have the opportunity to have children you will agree. Right now you are too naive and young to know it.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Climb out of your tiny bubble, deary. You have anger issues, and I suggest you deal with them before your heart explodes.
Guess what? YOU are not the only one who gets to make choices in this world, and most of are not nearly as “perfect” as you — not even you.
Get bent.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:18 pmDogfight Says:
You have yet to post an argument. I would love to engage you in discussion. You main point seems to be to call everyone here YOU LIBS (intented as an insult… NOT an intelligent manner of starting a constructive argument, although in and of itself it has no bearing ON the argument unless the argument references it, in which case it would be a fallacy). Then you repeat that you want YOU LIBS to go out and talk to people, though you offer a strawman, which is to SUPPOSE, based on your personal ideology, what the result of that questioning would be (thus the ’straw man’ — which always returns a “false” when examined for truth value logically.)
It appears by your posts that you came here to rail on YOU LIBS, rather than engage in any discussion.
Prove me wrong.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:19 pmDogfight Says:
wags..can u read…I directed the cross comment to Chocolate Jesus…
If you post, ANYONE can comment. This isn’t e-mail, you know.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:20 pm· gummitch Says:
bitblt Says:
For the sake of discussion you might want to note that the modern interpretation of the “wall of separation between church and state”( a phrase that is not in the U.S. Constituation) goes back to a SCOTUS decision in 1947.
Actually, bit might want to note that it goes back to letters written by Thomas Jefferson in which he specifically used that terminology. I’m pretty sure it was earlier than 1947.
bit doesn’t believe that the U.S. would be the nation we enjoy today without the influence of Christianity, especially the one man one woman marriage from Matthew 19. bit also believes that the likelihood that the nation will continue to be worth preserving is very small without continuing the influence of Christianity.
Fortunately, and as has been repeatedly explained to bit, we have a Constitution that will always be worth preserving and we don’t need to limit ourselves to the practice of a single religion; we can live moral lives without reference to Christianity or any other established religion or belief system.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
bit made his point clearly. The modern interpretation of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” goes back to a 1947 SCOTUS decision. The phrase was written, by Jefferson, to the Danbury Baptist in Connecticut who were worried and asked whether Jefferson, as president, was going to do anything about the then current state religion of Connecticut. Because of the First Amendment, the wall of separation between church and state, Jefferson said he, as president, didn’t have the power to do anything about it. This is the suggestion that the phrase implies a “one way wall.” Government couldn’t influence religion, but religion could, and was expected to influence government.
Jefferson didn’t sign the constitution. He simply made a comment about the First Amendment in a letter. His often quoted phrase was also used in two nineteenth century SCOTUS decisions, but in both these decisions the entire letter is quoted.
George Mason – the father of the First Amendment – makes it clear in his proposed amendment what the amendment was intended to be.
Quoted from
Rowland, Kate (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).
The First Amendment was intended to prevent the establishment of a Federal religion the way many of the colony, later states, had established state religions; however, it specifically prevented any Christian domination from seeking preeminence. .
As to the rest of gummitch post, it remains to be seen.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:21 pmtpafla Says:
gummich,
Did I say I wan’t single moms on the street? No I did not. That is just more crap you feed single mothers while telling them the govt. will take care of you.
The more single mothers you have the more you libs love it because you can have more dependent on the govt.
Proof positive that you don’t know any real liberals. I don’t pretend to know where you get your information, but it’s clearly far removed from what “libs love”.
Loving families are great. The reality is that life sometimes gets in the way.
And, before we get too far down the road: I have two kids, one in college and one supporting herself with a job. None of us rely on the government or have any desire to. So try to free yourself from your weird preconceptions.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:21 pmDogfight Says:
wags..can u read…I directed the cross comment to Chocolate Jesus…
March 24th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
This isn’t a private conversation, idiot.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:21 pmI don’t know, anything? Statistics, peer-reviewed studies, anything.
And AGAIN, I have taken no position on anything in this thread, other than that the US was founded on humanist ethical principles, which was in response to someone else.
So, what would I be putting up? I’m just trying to get you to follow the rules of debate. You know, since you claimed you were interested.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:22 pmOh, forgive me for skimming.
And the name calling, which you seem to abhor so much.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:22 pm>I directed the cross comment to Chocolate Jesus…
what comment? what on earth in a “cross comment”? a discussion of your saviour on a stick?
i asked about 20 question in the posts above, about why women cant have their needs fullfilled by other women, about what the text of the establishment clause says, about what political leanings most poor single mothers have, about where in the constitution the bible or christianity is mentioned, etc, etc.
I havent seen any of your fetushugging biblehumping freaks answer a single one…
March 24th, 2009 at 2:24 pmtpafla Says:
——————————————————————————–
Dog,
So your problems are because of Reagan and Bush. Not because you and your wife were too selfish to maybe figure out another way? That you thought you were too important so you absolutely had to get your graduate degree right then and not wait until they went to school. That in your warped mind it was Reagan and Bush were responsible for making sure your kids were taken care of so you can keep putting yourselves first.
If I could have given your wife some advice. Marry a man that doesn’t think a graduate degree is more important as taking care of his kids. I am sure that put a whole lot of stress on everybody. What harm if you waited until they went to kindergarten?
My story. Finished school. Worked. Found a husband that worked. Had babies. Stayed home. He worked. Now- last kid starting kindergarten. I go back to work and go back to school.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Congrats on finally being able to get your GED ………..
BTW
Wouldn’t a child who is being lectured on the importance of an education find it more believable if they witness it 1st-hand , instead of merely having to hear them drone on and on about it ?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:26 pmIf the sanctity of one man and one woman marriage is SO important…. why don’t the right wing/conservatives want to abolish divorce? That would end MANY single mothers, would it not? Why should you conservatives ever consider allowing divorce to wreck a marriage? Should it not be: married with children FOR LIFE?
Why is the divorce rate higher in “red” states?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:27 pm“All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.”
where in the constitution is that?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:27 pm(it’s not)
March 24th, 2009 at 2:27 pmI proudly contributed to the divorce rate of red state Idaho — with my own divorce 16 years ago, and by working in a family law practice, helping other women get out of suck-ass marriages. :-)
March 24th, 2009 at 2:29 pm“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” -first amendment.
means you dont shove the dizzying spasms of congnitive dissonance you call christianity down my throat.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:30 pmDoes anyone have a viewpoint about single dads…?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:30 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
Choc Jesus…so you have no children..so you think you can blog about something you have no clue…of course everybody knows somebody with trouble times in their lives…are you talking about lesbians having relationships…I don’t really care what type of relationship they are in…if they are providing a healthy life for kids that is great…
March 24th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Does that mean you’re a politician , or have given birth to one or more ?
Then I suggest you do not post anything you have no 1st-hand knowledge of , just like you have done in regards to someone without children ……….How supremely and disgustingly arrogant and stupid of you.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:31 pmChocolate Jesus Says:
I havent seen any of your fetushugging biblehumping freaks answer a single one…
I’m with you in the non-answer box. I can only assume that a lack of response is because they do not have talking-point style responses to said questions and/or said questions make them uneasy because they make them think, and thinking means that they MIGHT have to actually question or at least examine their set beliefs, and examining their beliefs is scary because it may mean that they have to alter their beliefs.
My supposition, any-hew.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:31 pmI’m a stay at home dad (and not due to job loss) and we do just dandy with just that damn females salary! We haven’t had to go on any sort of public assistance in the 3 years that we decided it would be best for one of us to stay home. The house is constantly pristine, I make healthy awesome dinners and desserts and we live a pretty stress free life due to only one of us having to deal with the real world.. It’s great..I can’t wait til this worthless sack of flesh ups and dies I’ll be the first in line to piss on his grave.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:33 pm>Does anyone have a viewpoint about single dads…?
Oh come on zoey, you have to ask them QUESTIONS…what you wrote is obviously some sort of neo-lebsian lib rant…
and while we’re on the subject… why would single mothers with daughters need a man to be a male role model for thier female child? so thier daughter could grow up and learn how little boys are supposed to touch them?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:33 pmWhich was…what? I can’t even make sense of it. Single moms are right wing? Single moms are dependent on the government?
Yes, those pesky textbooks, indoctrinating us all into believing the government exists FOR the people, that we elvolved from primates and the earth is round.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:34 pm1. Re: my username, I never claimed otherwise. Only a rube like yourself would expect otherwise.
2. Chime in? To someone who wrote that first sentence?
Get real.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:34 pmDoes anyone have a viewpoint about single dads…?
Zooey~
I that think their ‘emotional needs’ would also be a lot easier to deal with if we assured that they and their children would be healthy, fed and educated…
I still wonder if the ‘problem’ is that single parents have a harder time providing these things why the ’solution’ is to force them into ’shame’ marriages… in my experience shame makes for a crappy relationship and happy people who don’t have to worry about their kids starving or dying of influenza have better relationships overall… let’s fix health care and education and let marriage take care of itself.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:35 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
…not to disagree
I bet most of your sources are from the left such as books in school which leans left on what they are teaching our kids…
March 24th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
You’re attempting to criticize “left leaning” learning institutions and material while your side simultaneously and laughably attempts to claim that Creationism is “fact” ?
Are you retarded ?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:35 pmAnd who would chime in to someone who cannot form coherent thoughts or sentences?
Really though.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:36 pm>Is this blog only for to make an argument…
Uhm, do any of my fellow ranting libs dare speculate as to what the native language of some of our trolls is?..they dont seem to have a very solid mastery of english..
March 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pmZooey Says:
Does anyone have a viewpoint about single dads…?
Of course. Single dads are just great. They can win the bread and raise the child with a stern but loving fatherly figure. Single dads are not as perfect as a mom and dad family, but they are FAR better than single moms (who are lazy, poor, welfare queen, pos w#ores). (//snark!//)
March 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pmChocolate Jesus Says:
>Does anyone have a viewpoint about single dads…?
Oh come on zoey, you have to ask them QUESTIONS…what you wrote is obviously some sort of neo-lebsian lib rant…
and while we’re on the subject… why would single mothers with daughters need a man to be a male role model for thier female child? so thier daughter could grow up and learn how little boys are supposed to touch them?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Cool. And I’m even a lesbian — yet. I love to try new things. ;)
Daddies are supposed to make their daughters feel loved and special, so the first boy with a Camaro doesn’t take over his duties. Of course, I know for a fact that many girls don’t get that from their daddies — even in two parent homes.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pmCageyCretin Says:
Zooey Says:
Does anyone have a viewpoint about single dads…?
Of course. Single dads are just great. They can win the bread and raise the child with a stern but loving fatherly figure. Single dads are not as perfect as a mom and dad family, but they are FAR better than single moms (who are lazy, poor, welfare queen, pos w#ores). (//snark!//)
March 24th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
You are the debbil!! :-D
Later all, gotta get some stuff done.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:38 pm> I bet most of your sources are from the
> left such as books
> in school
No, see, us crazy libs are the ones who are bigs fans of things like “the scientific method”..evidence, analysis, logical reasoning…yeah..books..crazy stuff…too bad we cant have all our truths and knowledge compressed into one tidy tome like you people do..
March 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pmWe the taxpayers have to continue to pay for the mistakes and wrong choices people make..continue to cover up and throwing money at the problem is not the answer…
So you’re against the AIG bonuses… cool.
Why should children not get fed or housed or cared for again… I’m fuzzy on how we don’t have an obligation to children… thanks.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pmYour are so full of shit, Dogbreath, that your eyes are brown and leaking.
I was a single mother for a very long time, and I never needed to use any government handouts — the same with my friends in similar situations. My life is not a failure, nor are my sons lives failures. You just wish it, so your stupid worldview is validated.
F uck you.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pmOf course single moms, who are not making in our society as they wish, depend on the government handouts…that is why they always vote Democrat or lean left….it is the handouts, more government intrusion in their lives..they could care less..all they want is free money…get paid for failure in their lives. We the taxpayers have to continue to pay for the mistakes and wrong choices people make..continue to cover up and throwing money at the problem is not the answer…
March 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pmOur government did not one particular religion as it was in England…
> Choc Jesus…so you have no children..
> so you think you can blog
> about something you have no clue
So I guess men, who are incapable of getting pregnant, are wrong to blog, or to even have the right to have an opinion about pregnancy or how it should be dealt with, right?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:41 pmCageyCretin Says:
bitblt Says:
Before you, PLC especially, start with the OT, allow bit to remind you that Christianity is based on NT scripture.
Awwwww… Bitbit…. do you REALLY want to go there? REALLY?
And I will not comment on matters others have pointed to above.
Let’s keep it simple: the ten commandments. Those are PURE OT. So — since they are OT they don’t count as absolute rules, right? They were not restated in total by JC (though he did clarify a few — such as just LOOKING at a woman and THINKING about having sex with her IS THE SAME AS ADULTRY. Ohhhh… I’m SURE that bitbit is not guilty of such sinning against one of the 10 commandments. Oh, but the 10 commandments are old testament and thus they don’t really apply to christians. Although, since the redefining of the adultery one by JC IS in the new testament, THAT one certainly stands).
SO… I know, I rambled a bit, bitbit, but what about the OT ten commandments? Or are you allowed to pick and choose as you will as to which parts of the OT apply today?
March 24th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Check http://www.jewfaq.com/613.htm. There are 613 commandments – not just the Big10, and they’re all in the Torah. These commands include dietary laws and ceremonial laws and laws dealing with daily life.
The notable, specific ones in the NT that were set aside are the dietary laws and the requirement to be circumcised. Both the Apostles Peter and Paul make the point that a Christian didn’t have to be a Jew first. Also the NT records that the disciples worshiped on the first day of the week, Sunday.
I’m SURE that bitbit is not guilty of such sinning against one of the 10 commandments.
What bit’s behavior is or isn’t doesn’t change anything about anything he’s said.
In addition bit believes in salvation granted by grace through belief in Jesus Christ. This is very NT.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pmOh whoops. Hit submit instead of quote.
Anyway, right after your first sentence…that’s where a source should go.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
Of course single moms, who are not making in our society as they wish, depend on the government handouts…that is why they always vote Democrat or lean left….it is the handouts, more government intrusion in their lives..they could care less..all they want is free money…get paid for failure in their lives. We the taxpayers have to continue to pay for the mistakes and wrong choices people make..continue to cover up and throwing money at the problem is not the answer…
Our government did not one particular religion as it was in England…
March 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Lending someone a “helping hand” is “intruding” on their life ?
Then what the hell has the last 8 years been , of non-stop spying and wanton arrests of individuals in the US ?
You’re deranged ……….
March 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pmAnd I can’t even decipher this. What were you trying to say?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:43 pmIn addition bit believes in salvation granted by grace through belief in Jesus Christ. This is very NT.
belac believes that Jesus had some thoughts on our obligation to care for children and the poor…
March 24th, 2009 at 2:43 pmIm starting to get incredibly confused about whose arguing what on this thread..it seems to have degenerated into near total incoherency…goodnight all…and when I come back, will someone PLEASE give me a link to these gosh darn decent, god-fearing jesus humping christian blogs that are being beseiged by us angry, left wing lesbian garden trolls? im incredibly curious..
March 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pmOnce again you show you are really NOT interested in a discussion. You just want to shove your right-wing talking points down someone else’s throat.
Shove off buckaroo.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
March 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
As if your religious prattle wasn’t idiotic and silly enough , your continued posting from a 3rd person perspective is absolutely ridiculous and monumentally stupid ………
March 24th, 2009 at 2:44 pmSweet jesus… well you’re certainly making an argument there.
“Such as books in school which leans left on what they are teaching our kids…”
*shaking head in disbelief*
March 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pmZooey Says:
Cool. And I’m even a lesbian — yet. I love to try new things. ;)
Wanna meet my wife? ;)
March 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pmI love all your nasty comments on here…So you people think you are so smart…Did anyone of you work??? Or are u guys still in college?
Can you explain to me how advocating for children to be fed, clothed and educated is ‘nasty?’
You are obviously ’so smart’ you should have no problem telling me where I am going wrong…
March 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pmTry to focus. This above statement is ad hominem. You allegedly hate name calling, which is an example of ad hominem.
You stated that single mothers trend democratic. I assume you have data to support this.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
I love all your nasty comments on here…So you people think you are so smart…Did anyone of you work??? Or are u guys still in college?
March 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I graduated years ago , and I know that you nor your rube husband can do any of the things I do.
Your arrogance is only exceeded by your delusional self-worth and warped self-importance……..
March 24th, 2009 at 2:47 pm> Or are u guys still in college?
Ah, a parting ad-hominem tacked onto the end of your non-responsive post. I’d be utterly astounded if your academic or professional credentials stacked up to half of the those of the peeps your arguing with here….hey maybe i’m wrong tho, we for some reason get an AMAZING amout of right wing, millionaire, lawyer, war veteran right wing trolls who seemingly have nothing better to do with their time than argue on the internets..
March 24th, 2009 at 2:48 pmbit also believes that the likelihood that the nation will continue to be worth preserving is very small without continuing the influence of Christianity.
Sweeeeeeeeeeeet!
As Xtianity’s influence wanes, “another one bites the dust.”
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED (giggle-giggle!)
March 24th, 2009 at 2:48 pmBillO, you forgot to mention the part where the men take away their pregnant wife’s shoes…
March 24th, 2009 at 2:48 pmYou know, you are one ignorant troll. At least the other trolls were entertaining.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:51 pmfogdight says: “Our government did not one particular religion as it was in England…”
March 24th, 2009 at 2:52 pmWTF? Construct sentences in English much?
If your posts are any indication, you obviously neither work nor have been to college.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:52 pmI really don’t like Bill O-Reilly or his views. I would like to comment, although I like him do not have the statistics right in front of me.
March 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pmI do think that 2 parent households do provide a bit more stability for the child than 1 parent households. I am a male and when my wife and I divorced in 1993, was a single parent of a 13 and a 11 year old. Trying to keep track of the needs of my kids, and work a full time job was extremely difficult. My heart goes out to all of the single parents out there. It is a tough job.
As far as income. When my wife was there, she tended to focus on the house and children to a greater extent. My career definitely benefited from having her to rely on. When she left and I had 100% of those responsiblities, my ability to make commitments, travel for business, and so forth changed. As a result, my pay increases as a percent, declined. I understood why, and that was a choice that I made until my kids were grown. Now that they are in their 20’s and on their own, I have re-engaged at a more intense level in my career.
I also believe that my kids were effected negatively by not having the balanced perspective that couples typically bring to the family experience. Whether heterosexual, or same sex parents are involved, I believe having two people who solve problems differently and provide advice based on different life experiences is a good thing for the child.
In the case of heterosexual parents, I believe studies show that females have a greater tendency to make decisions based on their feelings, and males have the tendency toward logic. I think experiencing both is good for a child. I do think that the feeling sense provides for an improved home and family environment over the logic based parenting model. I did the best that I could as a relatively young man and single parent. But I have always felt that my children suffered in some ways by not having that balance of someone who was more empathetic. Now that I am in my 50’s, and not quite so dominated by testosterone, I can look back and see how I would have done things so much differently.
So, should women be in the home and men the breadwinners? Not necessarily. But I dream of the day when we can stop stereotyping AND appreciate and value each individual for their own unique contributions. This might mean more Mom’s choose to focus on family, and more Dad’s choose to focus on career. But as a society, we will need to figure out how to reward the stay at home person (male or female) and not somehow treat that as a lesser contribution.
bitblt Says:
and they’re all in the Torah.
Well, bitbit, it is nice (no, really) for you to provide some link, but you don’t need to link information on the christian bible to me — I am quite familiar with it (among others). Yes they are. Now… YOU stated above to PLC that it was not permissible to bring up any OT arguments BECAUSE YOU are a christain and base YOUR belief on the NT. YOUR comment, not mine. So, if the OT is not admissable to agrue because you are purely a NT type of person, then nothing in the OT applies.
What bit’s behavior is or isn’t doesn’t change anything about anything he’s said.
It depends. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. If your argument uses that belief and actionas attached to that belief as part of the proof of the argument, then it DOES apply. Off hand I don’t know — I was just pointing that out, but you seem to feel free to rationalize anything away with:
In addition bit believes in salvation granted by grace through belief in Jesus Christ. This is very NT.
Now, that is vague and elusive and open to a variety of interpretations. As it applies here, it SEEMS that you are saying that NO RULES matter, as long as you “believe in JC” — that the “grace” of JC will give you “salvation” and ALL you have to do is “believe in JC”. But this statement says NOTHJING about actions — by it’s basis, as long as Hitler (easy example) “believed in JC” then he would be “saved”, regardless of what he did in life. That’s a nice excuse to do what you want. H.H.Holmes (ah… more diverse) should be in christian heaven with Hitler as they were both believers in JC. Not necessarily moral people, but believers. We could continue quite a list of murderers and rapists and such who “believed”.
Must go. may be back later.
Play nice.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:00 pmfarm1810 Says:
Thank you. Well said.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:01 pmEliHarold Says:
I can’t wait til this worthless sack of flesh ups and dies I’ll be the first in line to piss on his grave.
First of all, cudos to you for being the stay at home parent!!!
Secondly, there will always be another jerk-wad like Billo… tis has always been so… don’t waste your time fertilizing his grave.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:03 pmMy grandmother has stage 4 metastatic breast cancer. I sypathize, and wish you the best.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:04 pmI am still waiting on that data though.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:09 pmtpafla Says:
——————————————————————————–
McMetal,
Is that all you have. So you have no point. I thought so. Grow up and you will see everything I said is true. But when you are stuck in your mamma’s basement, it is difficult to see out the window.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Pipe down , hick.
I own my own home ; and seeing as how you’re in Florida , unless you live somewhere near Shaq or some other celebrity (not a chance in hell) , your home is probably worth half that of mine (if that).
I’ve seen everything you’ve written , and it looks as though it was penned by one of Palin’s kids.
You are a backwards-ass cancervative , who knows absolutely nothing , yet believes they’re the human embodiment of an encyclopedia ; I wouldn’t ask you your opinion on bubble gum preference , let alone something substantial …………
March 24th, 2009 at 3:11 pmYes, getting people to talk about you is right up there with getting someone to pull your finger on the scale of accomplishment.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
McMetal..And I bet you can’t save lives either like I have done many, many times in my profession! So your comment makes you what??????
March 24th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I’m a former EMT , moron ; and I did my life-saving FOR FREE.
Did you ?
Don’t try to compare yourself to me , you ignorant twit …..
March 24th, 2009 at 3:13 pmDogfight Says:
I love all your nasty comments on here…So you people think you are so smart…Did anyone of you work??? Or are u guys still in college?
I’ve been supporting myself and/or family for more than 40 years, through hard work and a good public education, thanks. That good public education is one of the reasons I can compose actual sentences in English. You might want to give that approach some thought.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:14 pmtpafla Says:
——————————————————————————–
Woman fall for men with big egos all the time. Look how many woman love to talk about Bill O. He’s is loving this website. What he said was a fact, but his real accomplishment was to get the haters to talk about him.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Funny how he couldn’t get Andrea Mackris to talk to him or about him , isn’t it ?
March 24th, 2009 at 3:15 pmOn a real tip here, my sincere condolences to you re: your health problems.
Re; the YOU ARE A HATEFUL PERSON blast, have you read your own posts?
You come here blasting everyone with prejudices masquerading as half-baked ideas and you expect not to get blasted back?
You never asked anyone about themselves here, you just made assumptions. Just like your last sentence implies that no one else plans for $hit to happen in their lives.
Quid pro quo:
I have 6 discs that are shot, extensive nerve damage, debilitating headaches, 2 kids, 1 job, no husband. I took care of a mother and father who both had terminal cancer as well at different times of course as well as helping many others with my time and expertise so life wouldn’t be so $hitty for them.
If I must explain what my username means to YOU, here goes:
I’m past caring about right winger bull$hit masquerading as father knows best family values. Their lies have derailed this country and REAL families for far too long.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pmTalk about hateful. You prove your own point.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:20 pmTypo, forgive me. Was always awful at typing, but I don’t remember correcting your English.
So, you’re doing what here, exactly?
Thank you. But why would you not be allowed to say a prayer for my grandmother? Have I implied that I frown on that? Have I implied that I do not also pray for her?
Some, but I doubt the majority of American colonists left England for religious freedom, at least around the time of the Revolution.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:23 pmDogfight… I wonder, what is hateful about thinking that children should be fed, clothed and educated in this country?
All children, whether they have one, two, three, four or zero parents… all children.
I’ve asked bitblt how he plans to introduce his marriage for all plan and his answer seems to be ’shame’ which I think is not only counter-productive but also ridiculous.
Instead of complaining that ’single mothers’ are more likely to be poor and have a harder time providing for their families why don’t we work to alleviate that poverty and let them sort out their families on their own?
March 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm1. If you cannot take a look at current events and see how right wing bull$hit has derailed this country, then you are a lost cause.
2. The bitterness you see in others is your reflection.
3. Go to hell.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:30 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
Since you are correcting my English….wags you mispelled sympathize wrong….Just showing all of you how meaningless you all are…who cares wags miss spelled a word….I knew what the blogger was saying and I appreciate you wishing me the best…
I hope and pray (whoops I guess I am not allow to say a prayer) for your grandmother…Tell her to keep a positive attitude, not feel sorry for herself. I had a 12% chance of making it 24 months..now I am here after 7 years…Prayer is my life line and I really don’t care what you all think…It works and maybe you all should give it a try…But you have free choice and that is what makes America great…
Our fore fathers fled England….why???? B/C they were being prosecuted b/c of their religion.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
So , are you going to try to claim that those dying of starvation don’t pray ?
How come their prayers aren’t answered ?
They’re praying incorrectly ? Isn’t that the same being that’s referred to as the “most merciful” being in the universe ?
And actually , our Founding Fathers didn’t “flee” England based upon religious beliefs or persecution ; they were born here ……..Duh
March 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pmDid you want the government to come in a take all the responsibility for your family
No.
I also don’t want the government telling me what my family should look like and who can be in it.
What about our accountability and responsibility to the children living in poverty?
March 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pmI’ll venture a guess: massive degregulation of financial, banking and insurance industries, suppression of personal freedoms (see patriot act, gitmo signing statements, ‘defense of marriage act’), sqaundering of international goodwill, two wars of dubious integrity with no concrete terms of victory, turning a substanatial surplus into record deficits, our current economic recession…need more?
March 24th, 2009 at 3:32 pmThat’s my admittedly hazy recollection of history. You’re welcome to correct me, but saying it is so does not make it so.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:34 pmtploser says: So your problems are because of Reagan and Bush. Not because you and your wife were too selfish to maybe figure out another way? That you thought you were too important so you absolutely had to get your graduate degree right then and not wait until they went to school. That in your warped mind it was Reagan and Bush were responsible for making sure your kids were taken care of so you can keep putting yourselves first.
If I could have given your wife some advice. Marry a man that doesn’t think a graduate degree is more important as taking care of his kids. I am sure that put a whole lot of stress on everybody. What harm if you waited until they went to kindergarten?
My story. Finished school. Worked. Found a husband that worked. Had babies. Stayed home. He worked. Now- last kid starting kindergarten. I go back to work and go back to school.
I could have given YOUR husband some advice. Find a husband that appreciates REAL women, not those that pass judgment on others for the choices they’ve made in life. Congrats on pushing your offspring into life as well-coddled mommy’s boys and girls; I’m very sure that’ll get them very far in life.
You have no idea what my circumstances were at the time that we were trying to make ourselves better for our kids, so spare me your pop psychology. And by the way, our troubles early in our married life were EXACTLY because of Reagan and Bush, who both decided to tax graduate students’ stipends at a time when I was making the huge salary of $7K/year, while still allowing corporate fat-cats like your best friends in the Rushpublican party to get richer and richer.
Ask my kids, both of whom are well-adjusted productive members of society, whether or not it was a good idea for us to do what we did back then. Better yet, STFU until you know what you’re talking about, idiot.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:37 pmplease explain, how right wing bull$ht has derailed this country
See wags helpful list @ #323… Now, to your argument, how do we as a society of such riches not have an obligation and a responsibility to children living in poverty?
March 24th, 2009 at 3:38 pmpastcaring…how has the right wing B%*%%$&^@ has derailed our COUNTRY???? To me, it is the lib attitudes and government who have hijacked this country….As everyone is calling for me to do is produce evidence, give me the evidence pastcaring?? Seems you are bitter about what you did to help your family….Did you want the government to come in a take all the responsibility for your family b/c for some reason they did not plan ahead for what can happen?? Oh, I am sure I will get blasted for asking “What about accountability and responsibility for people in our country?
March 24th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
The majority of our Founding Fathers were Deists , not Christians ; that the GOP and their imbecilic backers continue to try and push the lie that this is a “Christian nation” is just 1 sad testimony of their dishonesty.
Ronnie Retard’s Trickle Down Your Leg economics has proven destructive for the past 30 years except for the 8 that Clinton was in office ; not coincidentally , that was the most prosperous era of economic growth in US history during the last half century ………
There is nothing that the right wing stands for that has anything in common to what our Founding Fathers stood for ; that you and your ilk insist you are “strict constitutionalists” is quite pathetic , laughable , and completely untrue …………
March 24th, 2009 at 3:39 pmThat there were quite a few reasons people chose to leave England for the new world. Adventure, fleeing past lives, religious freedom, freedom from an overbearing and autocratic monarchy, land, resources, etc. No single one can be postulated as THE reason.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:40 pmwags Says:
——————————————————————————–
That there were quite a few reasons people chose to leave England for the new world. Adventure, fleeing past lives, religious freedom, freedom from an overbearing and autocratic monarchy, land, resources, etc. No single one can be postulated as THE reason.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Actually , historians argue that the single biggest exodus occurred from England because of excessive taxes , which followed them here , and was the major reason for the colonies’ revolt against the King of England ……..
March 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pmBlast! Knew I forgot something…
March 24th, 2009 at 3:46 pmwags Says:
That there were quite a few reasons people chose to leave England for the new world. Adventure, fleeing past lives, religious freedom, freedom from an overbearing and autocratic monarchy, land, resources, etc. No single one can be postulated as THE reason.
Religious persecution was the rationale for a few groups (well before the Revolution, obviously), primarily the Puritans, and primarily in New England early in the 17th Century.
A whole lot of English — and a whole lot of non-English — shipped out for a whole lot of other reasons.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:49 pmAnd here I was trying to have a civil conversation.
Yes, the Democrats contributed to the current mess we’re in. That does not absolve the right of any and everything else they’ve done.
And I agree with you on one thing: the people responsible for this mess should be ousted. ALL of them, regardless of party affiliation.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:49 pmWhich was my entire point.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:50 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
Seems the Democrats have been in power since 2006…Does Barney Franks and Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters rang a bell…Saying in 2008, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Max where stable!!!! REMEMBER…SoI am sure you will argue that they had no role in this debacle of a mess they have put us in with our economy…Oh, they were stable in 2008….YOU ARE KIDDING!
Why has Obama not ask for these incompetent people who stated Fannie Mae and Freddie Max were stable, to resign…They helped create this mess we are in and they need to be called out!
But of course..lib media does not report on such truths!
March 24th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
So it was 2 years of a meager majority that is to blame , and not the previous 6 years of complete control of every branch of the government , nor the record number of filibusters the GOP was guilty of the past calendar year ?
Jesus , you possess all the depth of a drop of bug piss ……I guess that’s your idea of “personal responsibility” , eh ?
Figures……….
March 24th, 2009 at 3:51 pmbelac Says:
please explain, how right wing bull$ht has derailed this country
See wags helpful list @ #323… Now, to your argument, how do we as a society of such riches not have an obligation and a responsibility to children living in poverty?
March 24th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
bit thinks this is actually a very good question: “…how do we as a society of such riches not have an obligation and a responsibility to children living in poverty?”
As good a question as this one is, isn’t it more important that a society encourages an environment – by laws, by shaming – if that’s what it takes, and by example – that does as much as possible to provide children what it is they really need – a married mother and father?
Previously linked Heritage Foundation site had someone’s idea, or research, that if the mothers of these fatherless children married the father, 2/3 would immediately be out of poverty.
The expression of human sexuality has consequences which in this case are fatherless children living in poverty.
The real, emotional, and future cost are so great that the entire society may be put at risk.
Linked article put 40% of American children being born out of wedlock with the specifics being 69% of the blacks, 44% of the Hispanics, and 25% of the whites. The right wing didn’t cause these numbers.
The cost of this societal neglect, fatherless children, will be more than we can bear.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:52 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
McMetal…and you are right??? How old are you?
March 24th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
What does my age have to do with anything ?
If being around longer was any type of guarantee to accumulating intelligence or wisdom , McCain would be a friggin’ genius instead of the well-below average dipshit he has always been ……………
March 24th, 2009 at 3:53 pmThere you go again, legislating morailty and thinking you know what is best for every family.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:54 pmDoes Barney Franks and Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters rang a bell…Saying in 2008, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Max where stable!
Okay- still haven’t answered my question, but… the Frank ’stable’ quote you are referring to is from 2003 when Barney Frank had very little to do with the ultimate outcome, remember how willing the Republicans were to work with the Democrats in 2003? Not at all…
also Fannie and Freddie stopped backing sub-prime loans soon after the Democrats came to power in 2006… notice I said backing those loans… They didn’t write any of them… so they still would have existed and gone bad even if Fannie/Freddie hadn’t backed them…
Seems that in 1999 the Republican Congress passed a little something called the ‘Gramm-Leach-Bliley’ act which created what’s known as the ‘financial services’ industry… it removed a whole bunch of oversight of banks, insurance companies and even mortgage brokers and allowed them all to invent complicated credit swaps and insurance schemes…
That combined with increased demand for mortgage backed securities overseas (a previously safe investment) and reduced rates for borrowers domestically (Bush’s Treasuy’s attempt to forestall the economic collapse) led to over-building and over-valuation of the rel estate market.
but of course, Fox media does not report on such truths!
What does that have to do with poor kids? They’re still screwed.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:55 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
McMetal…And what is wrong with being a strict constitutionalists? Guess, you do not like that b/c it does not allow to interpreted to fit your ideology.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I hate to inform you of this , but being a “strict constitutionalist” is actually the polar opposite of what you and your political ideological brethren believe or stand for ………
Just because your ilk makes a claim repeatedly , doesn’t mean it possesses an ounce of merit or truth to it ………
March 24th, 2009 at 3:55 pmAs good a question as this one is, isn’t it more important that a society encourages an environment – by laws, by shaming – if that’s what it takes, and by example – that does as much as possible to provide children what it is they really need – a married mother and father?
belac again wonders why bit doesn’t just address the problem of poverty directly instead of shaming people into marriage in the hopes that the marriage will address the poverty… strange.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pmI love all your nasty comments on here…So you people think you are so smart…Did anyone of you work??? Or are u guys still in college?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Another wingnut with the you are all in college and dont work idiocy. So what Limborg screechmonkey is programming their disciples with such idiocy THIS week? I swear if your basic wingnut EVER had an original thought they would think they were stroking out.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pmwags Says:
A whole lot of English — and a whole lot of non-English — shipped out for a whole lot of other reasons.
Which was my entire point.
And mine. Am I only allowed to argue?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:06 pmCan someone explain the (non) logic of this ……?
Cancervatives/right wingers claim they are “strict constitutionalists” because they claim to follow the Constitution in its “correct interpretation” ; how , exactly ?
The Constitution was penned , proof-read and adjusted by LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES ; how the hell someone who is more in line with British loyalist thinking know what the Founding Fathers’ intent was ?????????
March 24th, 2009 at 4:07 pmDogfight… can’t answer my questions or read my explanation of the financial crisis? Really think the banks were too ‘afraid’ of ACORN to act responsibly? Who are you and what planet are you from?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:08 pmJust wasn’t sure if you were correcting me when we said the same thing.
Annnnyway, Dogfight has really pounded the talking points now:
March 24th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Dogfight- you seem to have a handle on all financial matters… can you tell me why we shouldn’t make sure that every child is fed, clothed and receives an education in our land of plenty?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pmNo ‘talking points’ on this one, Dogfight?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
McMetal…can’t answer my question..how old are you…So what do you have now…majority all the way in Washington..and look want Obama is doing!!! Meager two years has done a lot to our country actually it is 3 years they have controlled Congress…And the Clinton years…Bush INHERITED A RECESSION!!!
Clinton was lucky b/c of the Tech boom. He was there in the right time in the right place…So Fannie/Freddie had a whole lot to do with this economy…banks FORCED to lead to people who had no RIGHT getting loans…but the banks where afraid of what Franks, Dodd, Waters and the rest of the Demos…would demonize them with the help of ACORN!!! YEA…real honest group.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Do you know how to add ?
Of course not , what am I saying/asking ; why should you know anything about math when it’s clear you don’t know anything at all.
The election of 2006 , in November , is when the balance of power changed ; that “new class” wasn’t inaugurated until January of 2007.
That is 2 YEARS AGO ; get it ?
As for your (untrue) statement that Bush “inherited a recession” ; aren’t you laying some of the current financial woes at Obama’s and the Dems’ feet ?
The economy started dropping in MARCH OF 2001
March 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pmDid then not demand banks to start making loans to people who could not afford them???? And you are saying that it do not contributed this mess??
Did you watch any television in the last six years? Did you see those ‘no money down, O% introductory rate’ home loan ads 24 hours a day? Are you saying that the banks and mortgage companies weren’t BEGGING for new borrowers?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pmbelac Says:
As good a question as this one is, isn’t it more important that a society encourages an environment – by laws, by shaming – if that’s what it takes, and by example – that does as much as possible to provide children what it is they really need – a married mother and father?
belac again wonders why bit doesn’t just address the problem of poverty directly instead of shaming people into marriage in the hopes that the marriage will address the poverty… strange.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
In the information related to the study showing 40% of the newborns being illegitimate, there was also the stat that in 1940 4% of the newborns were illegitimate and at the time of the “great society” – mid ’60s – 7% of the newborns were illegitimate.
Is there any reason to think people had more money in the 1930s or 1960s? It appears to bit that whatever it is we, the US, has been doing since the start of the “Great Society” isn’t working. More money doesn’t seem to be the answer any more than more money is all that’s need to improve education.
OTOH, there may have been more suitable work in the 1930s and 1960S for someone wanting to support his family, but following this line of thinking quickly gets to what illegal immigrants and off shoring of US jobs has done to the country. bit believes both political parties are responsible for this problem.
bit is always for better education, but he always remembers that regardless of what we do about education, 50% of the students will always be below average. No government can educate this observation away.
In addition, the country has lost its center – ideals that hold the country together.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
McMetal…stating the facts…Did then not demand banks to start making loans to people who could not afford them???? And you are saying that it do not contributed this mess??
March 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Do you realize that over 50% of the unpaid mortgages out there are those by investors/speculators , which cost a LOT MORE than those who are struggling to keep/own a house they actually live in or want to live in ?
Of course you don’t ; you’ve proven you don’t know anything ……
March 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pmbit is always for better education, but he always remembers that regardless of what we do about education, 50% of the students will always be below average. No government can educate this observation away.
But education may help bit realize how useless an observation this is…
March 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pmtpafla Says:
Zoey,
I never said it was perfect. But don’t be a hater because you made bad choices.
March 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I see how it is with you clueless women — it’s not HATE if you’re doing it.
The bad choice I made, Miss Assholierthanthou, was not
f ucking and living with the idiot I married BEFORE I married him. I could have done — and did — better without him.
Go live your narrow little life. I hope your children learn something more about the world than you will teach them.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:20 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
McMetal…can u quit making ur talking points?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
As opposed to the “facts” you’re drooling out , like “Bush inherited a recession” ?
Are you kidding ?
There isn’t a damn thing you’ve posted that hasn’t been 1st spewed , ad nauseam , by FOX , Fat Moron Limpballs , She-Yawn Insanity and the rest of the right wing nuthouse brigade ….
March 24th, 2009 at 4:22 pmbitblt Says:
In addition, the country has lost its center – ideals that hold the country together.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
If this country lost a “center” that you approve of — it needed losing.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:22 pmbitblt Says:
Is there any reason to think people had more money in the 1930s or 1960s? It appears to bit that whatever it is we, the US, has been doing since the start of the “Great Society” isn’t working. More money doesn’t seem to be the answer any more than more money is all that’s need to improve education.
In the 1960s a family could be supported by one wage. You’ve somehow turned that into an issue of morality that has nothing to do with the immorality of economic inequity. You want to fix the family? Start by fixing the economy.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:23 pmDogfight Says:
Zooey…are you bitter??? Sounds to me you can not say anything with any substances except to cuss your way out of the debate.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
No, only a moron like you would call me bitter. You are spewing utter filth on this thread, and you have the nerve to be worried about a few “cuss” words? That’s rich. It really is.
I would have thought a fight with cancer would help you grow a little empathy, but I see any opportunity for growth through crisis was lost on you. Pity…
March 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pmI am so tired of you people act as if this government is DOING NOTHING…is a out right lie!
Have you dealt with the poor? How about schools? Do you think that either is getting enough funding? That is an outright lie… visit a public school and see the 30 children in the Kindergarten class…
I am so tired of you people screaming ‘personal responsibility’ and not recognizing how much the Government gives YOU and how much you take for granted… We the People should take care of each other…
March 24th, 2009 at 4:29 pmbelac Says:
bit is always for better education, but he always remembers that regardless of what we do about education, 50% of the students will always be below average. No government can educate this observation away.
But education may help bit realize how useless an observation this is…
March 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Not all students want or are suited for a “high tech” job. Illegal immigrants remove jobs from the ones not capable, or not desirous, of pushing computer buttons. Off shoring removes the jobs from the ones who want to push the computer buttons. Both political parties are responsible for removing jobs though the consequences tends to make voters for only one party.
Keep them poor and they’ll vote Democrat.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pmDogfight Says:
Zooey…are you bitter??? Sounds to me you can not say anything with any substances except to cuss your way out of the debate.
Dogfight said five posts earlier:
give me the facts about the investors/speculators. Or are you pulling that out of you a$$?
Hmm…
March 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pmbitblt Says:
Keep them poor and they’ll vote Democrat.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Keep them stupid and they’ll vote Republican.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
McMeal…give me the facts about the investors/speculators. Or are you pulling that out of you a$$?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Here ya’ go , Dogshit ……..
Speculation in residential real estate has been a contributing factor. During 2006, 22% of homes purchased (1.65 million units) were for investment purposes, with an additional 14% (1.07 million units) purchased as vacation homes. During 2005, these figures were 28% and 12%, respectively. In other words, a record level of nearly 40% of homes purchases were not intended as primary residences.
Housing prices nearly doubled between 2000 and 2006, a vastly different trend from the historical appreciation at roughly the rate of inflation. While homes had not traditionally been treated as investments subject to speculation, this behavior changed during the housing boom. For example, one company estimated that as many as 85% of condominium properties purchased in Miami were for investment purposes. Media widely reported condominiums being purchased while under construction, then being “flipped” (sold) for a profit without the seller ever having lived in them. Some mortgage companies identified risks inherent in this activity as early as 2005, after identifying investors assuming highly leveraged positions in multiple properties.
All records for condominium sales throughout the country are not made available , but it is estimated that well over 50% of all condominiums were purchased by investors or speculators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
Now you can kiss my ass ; where are your links/proof ?
The Weakly SubStandard ? The American Sphincter ?
You’re pretty pathetic ………
March 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
Zooey..I do not let emotion rule my life as you seem to do…I am a survive b/c I am strong and NOT BITTER as you seem to be.
Love the name calling. So typically of the lefties…Our government does help the kids…JUST WANT DO YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO DO? Or do you have any ideas or you just like being a hater b/c you a jealous of certain classes of people?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
“McMeal” must be a term of endearment , right dogshit ?
BTW
Even if zooey were “jealous” (which she is most certainly not) , you’re very “safe” ; you have no class …..Or brains , for that matter ……….
March 24th, 2009 at 4:37 pmDogfight Says:
Zooey..I do not let emotion rule my life as you seem to do…I am a survive b/c I am strong and NOT BITTER as you seem to be.
Love the name calling. So typically of the lefties…Our government does help the kids…JUST WANT DO YOU WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO DO? Or do you have any ideas or you just like being a hater b/c you a jealous of certain classes of people?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I guess you have no way of knowing this, but I am a strong person as well — as are most of the people who comment on TP. Of course, you’ll never find that out because you came in here with your preconceived ideas about “lefties.”
I want the government to stop torturing people in my name, and going to war with countries that never did a damn thing to us. I want the government to regulate corporations so that they can’t f uck us over just because they can. I want government to provide healthcare for every single person in this country, because it will make us a healthier and stronger people and nation. That will do for starters, I think.
Now you tell me, what class do I belong to? Why would I be jealous of anyone else?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:39 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
McMetal..getting to you..and what are ur resources…Hoffington post..Michael Moore…Daily Kous…MSNBC…NPR…what ever left wing nutty information you can find….Yep…here comes the name calling….LOVE IT…Continues to prove my point.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Yeah , you certainly “got to me” , with NOTHING ; you have ZERO.
No facts , no links , no proof ; just regurgitated talking points from those who are nothing but documented liars …..
Sad ………..
March 24th, 2009 at 4:40 pmDogfight, what are your resources — for anything?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pmWow. Just wow.
I hope I never get a nurse like Dogbreath. Srsly.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pmI thought the same thing. And that is why Zooey is my hero.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pmScrew you Dog$hit.
Aw shucks, pastcaring. :-)
March 24th, 2009 at 4:46 pmThe irony is so deep you must need boots to stand in it.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:46 pmHey, Check my post # 320, # 3, it still applies to YOU.
Wow. Deep. Like meta-deep.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pmBTW, in case it was missed above — these are BO’s sponsors.
It appears I have some calls to make, and some products to stop using.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:48 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
McMetal…and Michael Moore is a reliable source??? Yea…right!
March 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Since when did Michael Moore start working for Wikipedia , dipshit ?
Are you drunk ?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:48 pmyou know nothing about me and you chose to make assumptions about me!
No- My Point is that Society helps everyone… you went to school to become a nurse, right? Did you do that yourself?
Good for you!
oh, but…
What about the money that was spent to build that school? To build the roads you took to go to that school? To educate the teachers that taught you? To build the electrical grid that supplied the hospitals where you trained and worked?
You did it all by yourself alright.
Why is there still poverty?
Because we haven’t done enough… that’s my point.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:48 pmwags Says:
Wow. Deep. Like meta-deep.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I’ll bet you $1 that bit’s home-schooled progeny are in the lower 50%.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:50 pmIt’s interesting that Dogbreath got all up on her high horse about people making assumptions about her — she’s been making assumptions about us all day.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:51 pmBTW, where did Dogbreath go?
Maybe the cognitive dissonance got the better of her?
Dogbreath…?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pmEither way, they talk in third person 100% of the time. Keeps the monsters away.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pmAnd watch in 2010 elections…
Oh believe me… I can’t wait! You guys just keep pandering to rich, white males and ignore the dire straights our country is in and we’ll be more than fine, thanks!
March 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pmUgh, I tried to have a civil, rational debate.
So much for effort.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:55 pmToo bad it’s not socialist.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pmDogfight Says:
March 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Where in the Constitution does it say our government can spy on us? Oh right, it says right there in the 4th Amendment that they can’t. Where in the Constitution does it say gay people can’t get married? Oh right, the 14th Amendment says all citizens have equal protection.
I look forward to seeing you on the next picket line about those things — because I know you’re so hot for Constitutional protections.
BTW, I, and all other Americans, have a right to decent healthcare because we are human, and that’s what we do — we take care of each other.
But you wouldn’t know about that, would you — being a nurse and all. What kind of nurse, hmmmm? CNA?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:58 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
Zooey..where does it state in our Constitution that the government is supposed to give you all these things YOU THINK YOU DESERVE? Our Constitution is there to protects us not to raise us…Why do you think you have a right to free healthcare??? Where is that in our Constitution? I see…u must be a socialist with ALL this government intervention you are calling for…Sorry our country is not socialist yet..but if Obama and the Demo in Congress have it their way we just might..at least for 4 years..But that is all Obama will serve! And watch in 2010 elections…bye bye Dems!
March 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Don’t you believe it’s about time that you zero-for-8-years-Ms Cleo-wanna’-be’s knock off your ridiculously stupid and completely erroneous predictions ?
And BTW
The preamble to the Constitution states :
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Promoting the general Welfare could be viewed as free healthcare , you colossal ignoramus.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:59 pmWhat you are doing is about as far from debate as you can get.
Spewing talking points is not debate. Presenting arguments, supporting them, and offering conclusions based on those is debate.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:59 pmDogfight Says:
Zooey…where did I make assumptions about u? I am reading what you are putting out..What assumptions have I make about you, dear Zooey? Go read the assumptions you make about me.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Here ya go, moron:
Dogfight Says:
Zooey..I do not let emotion rule my life as you seem to do…I am a survive b/c I am strong and NOT BITTER as you seem to be.
…Or do you have any ideas or you just like being a hater b/c you a jealous of certain classes of people?
March 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
That’s a whole lot of assumptions, Dogbreath. Sorry you’re having so much trouble keeping your thoughts straight. Drinking too much these days?
March 24th, 2009 at 5:01 pmDogfight Says:
Zooey…where did I make assumptions about u?
Dogfight, I reprint your FIRST comment in its entirety below…
March 24th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
BTW Dogbreath, what you are doing is not debate — it’s flailing around in a rather pitiful manner, while we toy with you.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:03 pmwags Says:
I’ll bet you $1 that bit’s home-schooled progeny are in the lower 50%.
Either way, they talk in third person 100% of the time. Keeps the monsters away.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
You lost your money, dude.
One National Merit Scholarship Finalist and one National Merit Scholarship Commended call bit, daddy.
The Finalist is bright enough that he may have to suffer for it while the Commended is real close to perfect – not painfully bright, but capable of anything.
Both were educated in public school where bit and Mrs_bit were heavily involved grades 1-8 and very involved grades 9-12.
bit has Christian friends who have home schooled a NMS Finalist, and have gotten full tuition scholarships to a private school for two of their kids.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pmMCMetal Says:
Promoting the general Welfare could be viewed as free healthcare , you colossal ignoramus.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Ignoramus — good word! :-)
March 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pmThis sentence is beyond fascinating. So much implied, so much unsaid…
Go on, please.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:09 pmYou, my friend are an illiterate psycho.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pmThere is no further point in talking to you.
???
March 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pmDogfight Says:
March 24th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
You really are a colossal ignoramus, aren’t you? I can’t believe you even wrote that idiotic tripe.
The Czars never worried too much about anyone being equal to them — that’s why the last Czarist family got riddled with bullets, you f cuking doofus.
BTW I’ve got news for ya, honey — a rich person wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:14 pmwags Says:
The Finalist is bright enough that he may have to suffer for it while the Commended is real close to perfect – not painfully bright, but capable of anything.
This sentence is beyond fascinating. So much implied, so much unsaid…
Go on, please.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
The bane of bright, smart people is too many choices. Sometimes it’s difficult to reach a decision because there are too many choices.
The Commended is more focused than the Finalist.
It bit’s feeling that the luckiest people are the ones who know exactly what it is they want in life, not the ones who are capable of any and everything they choose.
That’s what it meant.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:16 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
March 24th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
And I own a big sleigh that I take out only 1 day a year , near the end of December ………..
Your continued posting from a 3rd person perspective is hilarious , because while you laughably believe it gives you some sort of unique posting style , it merely says to me “Delusionally arrogant , stupid , and completely full of himself and full of shit”.
BTW
There would be nothing more poetic than for you to meet your end by being beaten to death with a stolen Bible ….
March 24th, 2009 at 5:17 pmBoy Dogfight… you just shot right past my point, didn’t ya?
March 24th, 2009 at 5:17 pmAnd I love the name calling…
When have I called you a name other than Dogfight?
March 24th, 2009 at 5:18 pmDogbreath, you’re protesting too much.
We, the libs of TP, own you now.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:18 pmMarch 24th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Fixed that for you. There have been many bright yet highly focused people.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
belac…what do you call this site? Are all these people not Demo or libs here that blog…what are these people blogging about..Hate toward the Republincan, conservatives, any conservative blogs or programs…Bill O’Reilly, Rush, just to name a few..so how was I making an assumption about people blogging here…I read the blogs here before I entered and I knew what I was getting into…reading blogs here pretty well states what positions people here are taking…IT IS NOT AN ASSUMPTION!!!! And I love the name calling…continues to prove my point about you people…and that make you all feel good about yourselves..RIGHT?
March 24th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Yeah , because we all know O’Reilly nor Rush would ever NAME CALL , would they ……………?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
March 24th, 2009 at 5:21 pmwhat are these people blogging about..Hate toward the Republincan, conservatives, any conservative blogs or programs…
What do you call this Dogfight?
I call it an ASSUMPTION.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pmYour continued posting from a 3rd person perspective is hilarious , because while you laughably believe it gives you some sort of unique posting style , it merely says to me “Delusionally arrogant , stupid , and completely full of himself and full of shit”.
Third person is a continual reminder that ideas are being discussed, not people, and than not everyone on the INet is really who they say they are.
And if there’s anyone who knows
March 24th, 2009 at 5:23 pm..stupid , and completely full of himself and full of shit”.
it’s you.
So, since the wealthy in our country are ammassing such fortunes as to be virtual Czars, the American proletariat is going to rise up in rebellion?
March 24th, 2009 at 5:24 pmDogfight Says:
——————————————————————————–
Zooey…you need to read may comment right instead of interpreting the way u see fit…Of course, they got Czar’s family got riddled with bullets…people where feed up with there narcissistic attitudes…They people were all equal expect the powers to be..just as our country is headed down…
So, honey read your history!!!
March 24th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
You believe Bush’s presidency was a lesson in EQUALITY , from top to bottom ?
Are you fu(king insane ??????????????????????
March 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pmHOLY COW!!!
I just realized dogfight is really….Sarah Palin!!!!!
:)
March 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pmDogfight Says:
Zooey…you need to read may comment right instead of interpreting the way u see fit…Of course, they got Czar’s family got riddled with bullets…people where feed up with there narcissistic attitudes…They people were all equal expect the powers to be..just as our country is headed down…
So, honey read your history!!!
March 24th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
You really didn’t help yourself with this comment, Dogbreath — you only succeeded in looking more stupid.
I wouldn’t have thought it possible, but there it is.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:25 pmgood grief.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pmI don’t hate the rich and I know my history just fine. Maybe you need to make your point more clearly?
No one here is advocating killing the top 5% wealthiest of the country. That is ludicrous.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pmDogfight Says:
Zooey…you need to read may comment right instead of interpreting the way u see fit…Of course, they got Czar’s family got riddled with bullets…people where feed up with there narcissistic attitudes…They people were all equal expect the powers to be..just as our country is headed down…
So, honey read your history!!!
What are you talking about?!!!
“They people were all equal”? The 1917 Revolution that overthrew the Czars was totally unnecessary, then. Poor dumb Bolshies never realized that everything was already hunky dory except for those “narcissistic attitudes”.
It’s not Zooey that needs to read history, honey.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pmDogfight Says:
Take away the rich, like all of you seem to have a hatred for and see how I country will look?
March 24th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Hey look, another ASSUMPTION.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pmDogfight… do you know ho much WEALTH the upper 5% have gained in the last 30 years?
Do you know how much a person needs to live and be healthy?
What good is wealth if there is no productivity?
Do you know how much work the wealthy would get done with no workers?
Take away infrastructure and the American worker and see ‘how I country will look?’(sic)
March 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pmNot that it makes any difference, but I am 27. My family is my own business.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
Your continued posting from a 3rd person perspective is hilarious , because while you laughably believe it gives you some sort of unique posting style , it merely says to me “Delusionally arrogant , stupid , and completely full of himself and full of shit”.
Third person is a continual reminder that ideas are being discussed, not people, and than not everyone on the INet is really who they say they are.
And if there’s anyone who knows
..stupid , and completely full of himself and full of shit”.
it’s you.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
No , they are simply your ideas , not a widely held belief or view , so stop trying to claim the inspid piss you post is some sort of “idea” adhered to by anyone other than extreme , ignorant religious types such as yourself.
And it’s funny too , that “judge not lest ye be judged” doesn’t seem to apply to you , eh Baby Jesus ?
BTW
There is no one more full of himself and completely full of shit than some nitwit who has the audacity to claim he knows “God’s” intention(s) or “his words” ; especially one who backs a political group known for its rampant dishonesty and supremely “un-Godlike” behavior ………
March 24th, 2009 at 5:32 pmMaybe Dogbreath will share with us information about her fabulous family — kids, husband?
Give us something to aspire to, Doggie.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:33 pmAnyway, this was fun. I need to head home from work. Same time tomorrow?
March 24th, 2009 at 5:33 pmHave a nice evening, wags. :-)
March 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pmZooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
Maybe Dogbreath will share with us information about her fabulous family — kids, husband?
Give us something to aspire to, Doggie.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
No thanks
I’ve already seen Forrest Gump ………
March 24th, 2009 at 5:38 pmMCMetal,
Heh.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:39 pmDogfight Says:
McMeal.seems up to 2006 our economy was booming…So what happened in 2006..Yep, Demos took control of Congress and see what has happened….Yea, Pres Bush pulled us out of a recession in 2001..read the history…
Read my comment @#343… then answer this: What role did foreign investment and the de-regulation by Sen. Gramm of the newly created ‘financial services’ industry play in the current financial crisis?
Thanks.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pmAnd what did Franks Dobb and Waters and the rest of the controlling Demo in Congress did to our economy?? BELAC? answer that.
I did. Read comment #343… now, answer me or go home.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pmAll of you, Zooey, McMetal, esp. must have had a bad up bringing. Just so bitter u two….
Is this an ASSUMPTION?
March 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pmMore assumptions from Dogbreath. What a hypocrite.
We can’t belittle you without your express permission, Dogbreath.
Come on, how old are you? Got kids? Husband? What kind of nurse are you?
You hold yourself above us, so let’s see what you’ve go going for you.
March 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pmuh, Dogfight. You haven’t proven a point all day. It’s honestly more than a little bit embarrassing reading your posts.
Keep at it though. I’m all for you putting it out there for the world wide interweb to read.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:00 pmAnd it’s funny too , that “judge not lest ye be judged” doesn’t seem to apply to you
This scripture, from the first part of the book of Matthew, is not the only thing Jesus said.
bit has no reason to take it to mean “sin is Ok,” or you can’t comment on someone’s behavior, which is how it is usually used on TP.
And the fact that Christ said one man one woman in Matthew 19 certainly isn’t contrary to “…judge not…”
Even if it were the case bit were judging, he’d be judging handles, not actual people.
bit also thinks it’s kinda lame when this scripture is referenced by someone who apparently doesn’t believe in Christ. Poster could be referencing all kinds of stuff he didn’t believe in. So what’s the point in that?
Remember, bit said third person is a continual reminder that not everyone on the INet is who they say they are.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:01 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?scp=20&sq=9/11/03&st=cse&pagewanted=all
Sorry this link should work, Dogfight.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:06 pmUm, Dogbreath, Frank and Waters were making those statements based on the word of Frannie & Freddie, which were totally motivated to lie, and were almost completely without regulation — thanks to George W. Bush’s refusal to enforce what little regulation remained.
Where did you get your brain? Goodwill?
March 24th, 2009 at 6:06 pmDogfight: her you go… pay attention to the
date…http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?scp=20&sq=9/11/03&st=cse&pagewanted=all
Hmm, 9/11/03? Did they have fore-knowledge of Barney’s quote in 2008?
March 24th, 2009 at 6:06 pmDogfight, do you use the term “hater” in regular conversations amongst your peers?
March 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pmWow! I really mean it. I’ve been reading you guys/gals all day lay it on Dogfight and am really impressed. It takes a lot of patience to try to educate someone who desperately needs it. I know, I must be assuming. I feel your pain though. I live in a part of Texas where, easily, 90% of the population really think like dogfight. Throw out a talking point and offer no proof whatsoever. I call it the land of cognitive disonance.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:12 pmDogfight Says:
I believe Franks was in Congress in 2003…so your point is???
You said 2008… there’s a big difference between 2003 and 2008.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:14 pmThe rest of my point is contained in post #343… answer my question yet?
No?
Weird…
Again, Dogbreath shows her moral relativity by concentrating on my language skillz, rather than her lack of humanity.
Sorry, Nurse Doggie, I’m not going back through 400+ comments to find out that information.
Obviously if your children put themselves through school, you had nothing to do with it. So why are you so proud? THEY should be proud.
What about your hubbie, Dogbreath? Did he hang around? Is that why you’re so hateful and nasty?
Are you living on disability?
March 24th, 2009 at 6:15 pmNew York Times lied about the date of the quote? Five years BEFORE it allegedly happened?
I guess I do need to get my facts straight… jeebuz.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:16 pmAnswer a question, Doggie. And stop projecting your hate onto us. It’s really lame.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:16 pmDogfight Says:
I believe Franks was in Congress in 2003…so your point is???
George Bush was President in 2003. Republicans controlled everything in 2003. What’s your point? That the lowly democrats were so powerful that the ones in power were powerless.
Someone break out the water hose and put this dogfight to an end.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:17 pmDoggie, speak English. Sheesh…you’re supposed to be educated enough to be a CNA.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:18 pmWhere do you get ur information from NY times who has been known to cover up stories about Demos and their corruption.
Again I ask. The NYT lied about a Franks quote FIVE YEARS before FRANKS said it?
Where do you get ‘ur’ information from?
March 24th, 2009 at 6:19 pmThis wingnut O’Reilly giving lectures about the problems with families. I have come to the conclusion he is just plain dumb.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:21 pmThe ideal family is not the “Leave it to Beaver” model. It is one of many that will work. The primary goal in my opinion is to provide children with a healthy structured enviorment, with any combination you can come up with. Commen sense!
Belac go to youtube and you can see when Barney Frank and Maxine Waters states in 2008 that Frannie/Freddie are IN GOOD SHAPE!! That was in 2008 belac….
Here’s what you said, Dogfight.
How is that not utterly and demonstrably false?
March 24th, 2009 at 6:22 pmZooey, with sentences from dogfight like “And you all not cognitive dissonance!!”, it’s way past time to give up the ghost.
I have to say that I have never laughed so much.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:24 pmHa!
hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
March 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pmROFL!
Did you go to the youtube and search for it belac..or are you just trying to make ur self look foolish…typically, libs, can’t admit to what F/F played in this downward economy..
No, I posted the story about the quote you are referring to… from 2003. Can you find one from 2008? Post it…
March 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pmDogfight Says:
…have I called any one here names, cursed, calling anyone stupid, etc..I think you haters get the idea…Just keep proving my point.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Well, let’s go back to your initial comment, shall we?
Wow. That was a nasty introduction, wasn’t it? If you truly were here for debate, you wouldn’t have started with the ad hominem, would you?
It only gets worse from there, and I’m not inclined to continue trying to enlighten such an imbecile.
That’s not name-calling, that’s truth.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:28 pmDid someone say “illegitimate children”? That’s hateful.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:31 pmDogfight Says:
And Zooey want education do you have? I have a masters in nursing as I stated before…Obviously, u have a problem with comprehending things I post…What is ur educated Zooey..Seems I missed that???
March 24th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
OMG, you have a masters in nursing? And you can’t even put together a sentence?
What state are you in? I want to make sure I never get sick there.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:33 pmDogfight Says:
…maybe I need to read the definition of name calling…
March 24th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
BINGO.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:34 pmBelac…It was in 2008 not in 2003 and you know it…I will find it and post it.
Please do… I’m interested in your sense of time…
March 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pmThe government is the answer to all of our problems, the U.S. should be a socialist country. Every single mother should be supported by the govt. The govt is our master. The claw is our master.
The claw is our master.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pmJust remember the quote of the day:
“And you all not cognitive dissonance!!”–dogfight
nice conservative wisdom.
MMM Good!
March 24th, 2009 at 6:36 pm“And you all not cognitive dissonance!!”–dogfight
The claw is our master.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:39 pmDogfight~ did you answer yet?
March 24th, 2009 at 6:40 pmhere I’ll repost the question… What role did foreign investment and the de-regulation by Sen. Gramm of the newly created ‘financial services’ industry play in the current financial crisis?
It must have been one of those degrees you can get through the mail.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:41 pmpastcaring Says:
Just remember the quote of the day:
“And you all not cognitive dissonance!!”–dogfight
nice conservative wisdom.
MMM Good!
March 24th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
On that note of pure brilliance, I pass the baton to other TP Troll Whackers ™. I have a class to get to.
Yeah Doggie, I’m a university junior and I pwned your ass while writing a research paper. Suck it, b!tch.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:42 pmbelac Says:
Dogfight~ did you answer yet?
here I’ll repost the question… What role did foreign investment and the de-regulation by Sen. Gramm of the newly created ‘financial services’ industry play in the current financial crisis?
No distractions. Dogfight is looking for the video of 2003 that is really 2008 — or the other way around. And you’re seeking HARD answers that Bill O has yet to provide soundbites for.
March 24th, 2009 at 6:43 pmHave a good night Zooey, amongst the land of people who can actually write a clear, meaningful sentence.
;)
March 24th, 2009 at 6:45 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
March 24th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
That’s a new one ; I can’t reference a passage you’re supposed to follow and that you claim to believe , because I don’t believe it ?
Then why are you posting any scripture at all ?
It’s like I posted earlier ; you are not discussing or posting ideas , merely your idiotic religious beliefs that are based upon faith , not fact.
Remember what you posted in your ridiculous 3rd person ; check the nearest mirror for someone who claims something they simply are not.
You are simply pathetic , shitstick ……..Or whatever your stupid name is.