Asked If His Thesis Advocated A ‘Radical Agenda,’ Bob McDonnell Replies ‘No’
Asked If His Thesis Advocated A ‘Radical Agenda,’ Bob McDonnell Replies ‘No’
Last month, the Washington Post revealed that Virginia’s Republican gubernatorial candidate, Bob McDonnell, had written a master’s thesis at Regent University in 1989 “in which he described working women and feminists as ‘detrimental’ to the family,” said that “government policy should favor married couples over ‘cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators,’” and criticized “as ‘illogical’ a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.” After reading the thesis, TPM’s Eric Kleefeld and Zachary Roth said it represented “a manifesto of the anti-gender-equality right-wing.”
The thesis has since become a central issue in McDonnell’s race against Democrat Creigh Deeds. On Fox News Sunday today, host Chris Wallace asked McDonnell if his thesis represented a “radical agenda.” McDonnell replied that it did not:
WALLACE: … it was revealed that in 1989 you wrote a master’s thesis in which you said — and let’s put up some of the things on the screen — this has obviously been a big issue here in Virginia — The new trend of working women and feminism that is ultimately detrimental to the family. You criticize tax credits for child care. And you even opposed a Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for married couples. Mr. McDonnell, isn’t that a pretty radical agenda?
MCDONNELL: No. I think those are a couple of quotes out of a 100-page document, Chris, and what the whole purpose of the — of the thesis was to say, Look, families are the bedrock of society. And I think there’s broad agreement on that, and that government programs should not undermine the family, because that will lead to more government spending for problems that occur when the family’s not intact.
Watch it:
When McDonnell said the thesis was “20 years ago and some of my views over time have changed,” Wallace played a clip from an ad being run by Deeds, which said that McDonnell has supported his thesis agenda as a legislator. “In fact, we checked the record. As a legislator, you voted against a resolution that would have called for ending wage discrimination based on gender,” said Wallace. “You voted against extending child care services. And you voted against extending or requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control. So it’s not just the thesis.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Boy, when a republican can’t even get softball questions from Little Chrissy Wail-*ss, it’s hard to see how he can get elected.
September 27th, 2009 at 10:34 amThat gobbledy gook qualified as part of a master’s thesis? Geez!
Regent University: Toe the Ideological Line and the Sky’s the Limit!
September 27th, 2009 at 10:39 amHe wrote it, then he legislated it. Why won’t he now own it?
September 27th, 2009 at 10:40 amWhen Fake News busts your own chops it’s time to call it quits, repugs don’t do irony very well.
September 27th, 2009 at 10:42 amWhat was the answer to the next logical questions: “Which of your views have changed?” Do you now believe in Birth control for married couples? All couples? Do you believe in same-sex marriages?do you believe that woman can and should hold jobs if they wish?”
Inquiring minds want to know.
September 27th, 2009 at 10:48 amMCDONNELL: No.
September 27th, 2009 at 10:50 amYOU LIE!
mcdonnell: We have to outlaw the internet and media so people won’t remember and can’t prove what I’ve said in the past.
September 27th, 2009 at 10:54 amWhy can’t these clowns publicly embrace the “values” they so strongly endorse?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:01 amJust another re-puke trying to rewrite HISTORY, AGAIN!!!!This guy belongs back in the dark ages with his ideology.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:08 amWe know damn well if “40 million” aborted fetuses had actually not been, McDonnell would have been the first one to cry, “We can’t possibly feed these people! Get a job as*holes!”.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:11 amAh oh. Repukes are stunned by FoxNoise questions. I would assume Wallace will be recalled and his programming checked. There seems to be a problem in Stepford Fox.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:13 amI would NOT want to live in that misogynistic theocratical fascists Wingnut World, that’s for sure!!
And frankly, I don’t think anyone but evangelican Jesus Campers would.
Extreme? You bet. This guy’s a nutter.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:13 amAnother lying republican. I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you. Why didn’t Chris ask this family values guy how many mistresses he has and do any of them live in Argentinia?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:13 amWhen I was in college I wrote a paper on the legalization of marijuana as a source of revenue. I went into some depth of the negative aspects and tried to dispel them, as well as went into potential positive aspects. It was certainly no masters thesis, but I still believe what I wrote was true.
When McDonnell claims he no longer believes the things that he said in his masters thesis, I think he is lying, and, as Obama suggested, we need to call these liars out.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:15 amPat Pomery is a POS pussy pretender. Do I need to beat their sorry ass into the ground here as well?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:15 amPat Pomery says:
Where’s obamas thesis? michelle’s?
– - I’d prefer to read Palin’s. Oh…what?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:16 amI see that everyone is sucessfully ignoring pat/trajan.
good job.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:16 amRegarding voting down trolls, I suggest we stop when it reaches -10 – some trolls might take pride in how many minus votes they get. After all, for some people, even negative attention feeds their craving for attention.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:18 amdbadass, I thought folks were ignoring Pee Pee pretty well. What’s your take?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:18 amIgnore that wannabe columbia curbside turd…
September 27th, 2009 at 11:18 amFor 8 years our nation had lying hypocrites living in the White House, but yet, not a peep out of their base or by those who supported them clicking their jackboots together. Now that we have a President in the White House whose only “radical agenda” is to reform health care so it’s affordable and accessible to our nation’s people and now suddenly the Fascists have reared their ugly heads and are calling everyone what they are: LYING HYPOCRITES!
September 27th, 2009 at 11:18 amMorning ralph. I agree. I was just reinforcing their efforts while expressing my contempt. Now about those oxtails..
September 27th, 2009 at 11:19 amIf the fascist capitalists ever have their way again, they will radically make over America to resemble Saudi Arabia.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:20 amSome people enjoy watching a stray dog lick his nuts.
Others ignore the trolls…
September 27th, 2009 at 11:21 am23
September 27th, 2009 at 11:21 amI disagree. I think they shouldn’t even be voted down once. Just allowed to watch the zero. Being voted down is justified by them as being significant.
Shouldn’t good little Reichwhiners be in church?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:21 amJust walk away and avoid eye contact with it, folks. If you look at it, it will hit you with LOLspeak and fecal matter.
What McConnell needs to understand is that a master’s thesis needs to stand up as a whole by the support of its points. This isn’t some piece of paper where ignoring some of the items means the rest of the document can stand on its own.
Writing a thesis or a dissertation means you have FULL confidence in all of the points. If you disagree with those points down the road or criticize people for cherry-picking the facts out of it, you are essentially saying that the thesis is null and VOID.
If you stand up for a thesis, you have to stand up to all of the thesis. If you have grown to disagree with your past points, you need to disavow the ENTIRE document.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:21 amRegents University requires a Thesis? I thought all their students had to do was give their allegiance to their Lord And Savior Lord Jesus Christ and they got a diploma and a job in a Republican Administration.
NeoCons – where the “N” stands for Nowledge!
September 27th, 2009 at 11:21 amI pity the poor trolls. They have nothing but hollow propaganda, yet they are expected to try to stop the rising tide of progressivism. They believe in their cause with all their heart and soul, and they are still failing.
Put yourself in the place of the trolls and take pity on them, for there, but for the fickle hand of fate, is where we could be.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:21 amYawn…
too bad there are no sensible oppositional voices here, which could make for an interesting discussion. But alas.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:22 amOne of the biggest Lying Hypocrites right now on the national stage is Glenn Beck who uses two national microphones a day to promote his Mormon Militia to violently overtake the White House, so he and his thugs can force their radical agenda on America. See?
We have a domestic terrorist in our midst who has the freedom of using the radio and Fox News to catapult his radical agenda.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:22 amGlenn Beck called President Obama a racist while ignoring the fact that Obama’s VP is white along with most of his Cabinet. On the other hand, Beck is the lying hypocrite who is going after ANYONE BLACK WHO IS ASSOCIATED WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA. See?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:24 amThat’s a radical notion, dbadass, but it has some merit.
The sticking point as I see it is that it’s most effective if the count stays at zero, and there are so many uncontrollable factors that could disturb that optimum condition.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:24 amI usually feel bad when someone is flailing about while drowning…
September 27th, 2009 at 11:25 amWhat Thesis Would Jesus Write?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:27 amI don’t think so. You have to be pretty shallow to do what they do. I’ve never done it and I don’t see it ever happening.
I think there is something wrong with them mentally.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:27 amLet’s see. Questions…questions…
Nope. I don’t hear any questions. Funny. I could have sworn I heard a flea asking questions.
Either that or Major Garrett from Fox.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:29 amMcDonnell is the hypocrite who is against abortion while being against birth control at the same time! Beck is against Nancy Pelosi for getting emotional the other day when she was thinking back to a time in her life when the rhetoric cost the lives of Harvey Milk and others. Glenn Beck is the one who fakes crying to brainwash his Mormon Militia worshipers into believing he cares and will be with them when their radical revolution takes place! Turns out, Beck has stated many times he won’t be with them when it happens and will pause for 5 seconds on his radio show to “show” how emotional all this is for him. Oh please! On his Valentine’s Day show every year he tells his listeners to pause for 5 seconds before telling your wife you love her because it makes it appear you do mean it!
LYING HYPOCRITE WHO NEEDS TO HAVE HIS MICROPHONES PULLED FROM HIM AND THEN BEATEN ON THE HEAD WITH THEM BOTH. The End.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:29 amPat Pomery says:
FYI…for my part, all I need is to see your name and I Vote Down. I don’t need a steady diet of tripe and I’ve already had my morning constitution.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:29 amgrande? What are you low budget? Can’t afford the venti?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:29 amImagine yourself so brainwashed that you think it is a good idea to spam threads on a progressive Blog with fascist propaganda. No matter how many times your talking points are debunked, you are still expected to spend your free time spreading the propaganda.
Pity them. Their minds are clouded by ignorance and brainwashing. It is very much a cult that they have joined, a very dangerous cult that has and will result in violence.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:30 amJust like the fun whack-a-mole game….we need to beat the trolls severely every time they rear their ugly heads! Seriously, by doing so would protect the country. See?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:31 amAnd yet Fox “news”, Beck, Hannity, & Repubs can take a word or two from something a Dem said years ago, then twist it so that it doesn’t even say what the Dem said, & that, of course, is perfectly acceptable to these liars & hypocrites like McDonnell.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:33 amLevi:
You are assuming they have an ideology. I propose that they do not. It is my thesis that this is entirely about attention seeking at any cost. The real world has left these people isolated and alienated. They come here in hopes of having some sort of twisted significance. I do however agree with you that it is indeed quite sad.
best-
September 27th, 2009 at 11:33 amOut of curiosity, what was the “illogical” decision in 1972 the legalized birth control for unmarried couples? Was this a decision that an unmarried woman could get birth controls pills if they wanted them? I am always amazed at how much the right wing seems to want to control everyones sex lives.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:34 amw_cleon_skousen,
I am still waiting for you to produce a link regarding the license plate conspiracy or admit you are a liar, if you are man enough.
I am also waiting for you to propose a hypothesis that disproves the theory of Evolution, which you claimed was a lie. If Evolution is a lie, then you need to provide a hypothesis that better fits the evidence. Until you provide this hypothesis of yours, you have to admit you are lying, if you are man enough.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:35 amSince the government should adapt policies and laws favorable to only married couples, then the adjunct should be laws to punish adulterers. I wonder how McConnell feels about this.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:36 amIn a fascist controlled world, all women would be forced to wear chastity belts and would be stoned to death in the town square if they were caught not wearing theirs. See?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:37 amThe way to keep families intact is to keep women pregnant, underpaid, or unable to work for lack of child care?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:37 amI am so amused at the way Inbredheads, Repubtards, Trailer Popes, and HypoChristians lie so easily. Facts be damned. They just go on like they didn’t hear their own self quoted. They should just stick their fingers in their ears and say” Lah, Lah,Lah, I can’t hear you”. F’n encephalus head mongoloids.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:38 amtoo bad there are no sensible oppositional voices here, which could make for an interesting discussion.
Ok. You’re on.
Since the dawn of the agricultural era, when our species stopped being a hunter-gather clan society and became dependent upon residing in one locality and growning crops, the family has been the dominant unit. Since food became available in surplus, the agrarian society could support more people in a single locale. Men worked, women had babies – which took them out of the work force for a period of time.
Hence it has been rooted in our societal systems for about 100,000 years for women to have the subserviant role of baby-maker.
Only recently, with the advent of effective birth control available to women did that balance change. Women could decide when to have, or even whether to have babies. This freedom of choice represents a radical departure from previously established societal roles. Women, no longer enslaved to be baby-makers, could enter and remain in the workplace.
This, in turn, puts downward pressure on wages, as the labor pool virtually doubled overnight.
It also upsets the power relationship between the genders. When the male is the sole breadwinner, the female is held in economic servitude.
The past imbalance of power was a stable societal fixture for around 100,000 years. A new model, one of equality between the genders, changes that structure without giving any assurances of stability. Instability inevitably leads to chaos, whether it be in chemistry, physics, or societies.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:38 amw_cleon_skousen@46 said,
September 27th, 2009 at 11:39 amI can’t speak for everyone here, but to me this sounds like a threat of mass violence. I recommend everyone flag this comment so we can remove this troll. I also recommend to any federal agents that might be reading this, get w_cleon_skousen behind bars as soon as possible.
I see the other troll is advocating the only solution they know to any problem. Kill someone.
history repeats itself. a right wing extremists threatens or actually acts on a violent impulse because they don’t know how to function in a democracy.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:40 amNellre…and chained to the dishwasher. You forgot that one. In a fascist world, women should not be seen, not heard, and should never ever ever ever break Rule #1: having an opinion! See?
President Obama promotes a free society where all of us have equal rights. This is why the American Taliban (the republic party) has him in the cross-hairs!
September 27th, 2009 at 11:40 amGeh, I should vote myself down for calling him “McConnell” and not “McDonnell”. I guess that’s a reflex for you.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:41 amKrazny says:
Out of curiosity, what was the “illogical” decision in 1972 the legalized birth control for unmarried couples?
The first case, Griswold v. Conn. 1965, was about ads for contraceptives which the court held the states could not restrict advertising of them. Later decisions by the court extended the principles of Griswold beyond its particular facts. Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried couples, whereas the “right of privacy” in Griswold only applied to marital relationships.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:42 amWho wants to bet McDonnell beats his wife.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:42 amEverybody sing!:
September 27th, 2009 at 11:43 am“If you hate the republic party clap your hands…if you hate the republic party clap your hands…If you hate them and you know it and you’re tired of their hypocritical lies….if you hate them and you know it, CLAP YOUR HANDS!”
What Thesis Would Jesus Write?
The Book of Matthew, chapters 5 et seq. : The Sermon on the Mount. Good stuff, actually.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:45 amPlease do not vote don’t the f ucked up homebound loser pos. Let them watch the zero. It eats their f ucked up loser insides up from the inside out. They have nothing to offer and seek nothing but attention. If they had any balls they would track me don’t and shut me up but they can’t and won’t and besides, They are too weak and puny…
Thanks you for your time…
September 27th, 2009 at 11:45 amI still maintain that w_cleon_skousen is a very accomplished parody troll, making fun of the real trolls with every post.
I think you guys do a disservice to this fine artist every time you respond as if his performance were really genuine.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:45 amHow keeps turning my downs to don’ts
September 27th, 2009 at 11:45 amAnd my whos to Hows?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:46 amPat Pomery@71 said,
September 27th, 2009 at 11:46 amLooks like I hit a sensitive nerve.
KayInMaine says:
Who wants to bet McDonnell beats his wife.
I wouldn’t bet against it. Nor would I bet against him cheating on her.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:47 am****
#71,
“pussy”?
twajie, if you went to regent university you’d
be expelled for using such dirty word.
:)
September 27th, 2009 at 11:47 amI highly recommend #76
September 27th, 2009 at 11:47 amI do, however, also hear a tiny high-pitched whine, similar to that of a mosquito with a learning disability, at whom all the other mosquitos direct their laughter…
does anybody else hear that?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:47 amPurple State says:
Geh, I should vote myself down for calling him “McConnell” and not “McDonnell”. I guess that’s a reflex for you.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:41 am Add Karma Vote Up | Subtract Karma Vote Down | (-1) | Report Abuse
Nine more!
Anyways, I also heard that Chris Wallace interviewed that kid O’Keefe for the show. Did Wallace throw softballs at him instead?
September 27th, 2009 at 11:48 am***
s/b
such a dirty word.
**
September 27th, 2009 at 11:49 amThe Feminist movement accomplished things that needed to be addressed.
Women are equal to men. They should have equal rights and equal opportunities. In every way.
In accomplishing that progress, what happened was women left the home and worked.
The problem is that that men didn’t quit their jobs to fill the void left at home.
What happens at home (caring for children, preparing food, running errands, cleaning, keeping order, etc) is important work that requires someone full time.
Now, many times both parents work. Kids are cared for by a non-parent or have school and aftercare. And then, the tired couple comes home after work and tries to accomplish what used to be done by the one all day, in a couple hours before the kids have to get to bed.
10 pounds in a five pound bag. A sacrifice of time for money.
I think the Feminist movement was very important. A woman should have every opportunity that a man has.
But, to get there, we created a hole at home.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:49 amI bet he’s also like that “good” Evangelical Teddy Haggard who hired a gay male prostitute each month to have sex with and do drugs together.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:52 amIt seems that our resident trolls are aware that making threats of violence against multiple people is deadly serious.
Why would you continue to troll, when you face the possibility of life in prison without hope for parole? What could be so important that you would risk such a horrible punishment? To score some trivial political point on a blog where no one will be convinced?
These trolls are clearly insane and pose a clear and present threat to the security of the United States of America. If it is within your power to do so, please charge them with whatever crimes necessary to get them off the street.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:54 amI vote down and report anyone advocating violence.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:55 amBut, to get there, we created a hole at home.
Maybe power-couples who covet their careers more than their children’s well being should be sterilized.
Selfish morals lead to selfish actions, let the end product be damned, I got some money to be makin’…
September 27th, 2009 at 11:55 amThanks for sharing your very concerned views, b-cup.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:56 ambackup, I saw this problem in Japan, and it’s a pretty dreary picture. The woman is still expected to support the children and the family at home, and I’ve seen cases where women who work and don’t marry by their mid-20’s, only to either experience ignorance from their fellow workers or pressure to marry and leave the job.
I feel that this problem still does exist to some extent in America, but the problem is not as severe as it is in Japan. If anything, I see more cooperation in America between the male and female when it comes to raising a child. I think the average American male could handle his own child pretty well, but I also encourage the family to never give up loving their children.
It takes sacrifice to survive with a family in modern times. I don’t expect the man or woman to quit their job for the sake of the child, but I expect the parents to sacrifice equally for the sake of the child.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:57 amFair enough, Fred. I’m just sayin’.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:57 amw_cleon_skousen,
They don’t serve coffee in prison.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:58 amSo do all progressives. Any woman who wants a career should be encouraged and paid equitably.
The problem with your understanding of events is that you missed the raygun era when women were forced into the workplace alongside thier spouse just to make ends meet.
That is when and why the family suffered and it’s ironic isn’t it, it happened due to the so called family values party.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:59 amA true diehard liberal would NEVER watch Fox News because it’s the channel where the dumbing down of the nation occurs. It’s a proven fact that those who watched Fox News over the course of the Bush Regime are 8 years behind the rest of the country who did not watch the propaganda arm of the American Taliban.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:59 amThanks to capitalism….the husband, wife, and children of all families have to work to keep food on the table.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm#66 – w_cleon_skousen says:
——————————————————
“Mr. Levi the Dungbeetle, why don’t you open your liberal mind and listen to Pat Pomery?”
September 27th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Mr. Clean “Out Your” Skousen, the only tie that right whiners use the “open your mind” phrase, it’s because people have refused to drink their kool-aid and repeat the right-whiners party line.
Kinda funny that you would claim minless lemming behavior as “open your mind”. Then again, it’s not surprising that the party of “No Ideas” believes in folling the leader and not engaging the brain.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pmw_cleon, I have to ask…What the hell is a AR14? Is that a toy gun Mom gave you? I’ve heard of a M14, but not a AR14. Does Mattel make it?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:01 pmOther than that I agree but violence crosses the line. I never vote people down for anything except that and I also report it for abuse. If he is a parody troll then he needs to understand that.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:03 pmRep. Michele Bachmann (Vice President of Glenn Beck’s Mormon Militia) works out of the house. Since she is a conservative, it’s okay for her to do so because she uses her time to brainwash the right wing fringe into becoming violent members of the Mormon Militia. See?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:03 pm#99 – KayInMaine says:
————————————————————
“A true diehard liberal would NEVER watch Fox News”
September 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Liberals use their brain, therefore the right-whiners at Faux news wouldn’t find a receptive audience made up of liberals. Faux News exists to hypocritically find fault with anything not-radical-right, and to pass on the right-whiners talking points.
The “follow what you tell us” right-whiners don’t need to think, they just repeat what they’ve been told, and Faux News is a perfect platform for their daily “kool-aid” allotment.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pmFred says: The problem with your understanding of events is that you missed the raygun era when women were forced into the workplace alongside thier spouse just to make ends meet.
While there is a great deal of truth in this I think the greater disservice begun under Reagan was creating the greed culture. A large number of two income families are the result of wanting more and now.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pmExactly. The funniest part? Those who watched Fox News over the past 8.8 years can’t even see their own failings! They’ve been brainwashed to believe that they are #1 in everything good, just, and pure, when really, they’re #1 in Everything Negative & Despised By Normal Rational Brained People. They do not have the ability to see outside the box, but we can, then again…..WE’RE TRUE LIBERALS! Our brains rock as*.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:08 pm#103 – angels81 says:
———————————————————-
“w_cleon, I have to ask…What the hell is a AR14? Is that a toy gun Mom gave you? I’ve heard of a M14, but not a AR14. Does Mattel make it?”
September 27th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
The AR-14 is the civilian version (semi-automatic) of the M-16, which is fully automatic.
Since W_Clown is perverting other’s posted names, I believe it’s appropriate, and very non-hypocritcal, to return the favor and refer W_Clown by a name that is consistent with the content of his (her?) posts.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:09 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Kay, shouldn’t that be “to keep food on their family”?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:11 pmPat Pomery carry on in the name of the Lord.
—
September 27th, 2009 at 12:12 pmJah Rastafari….
True but that was not the majority of women at the time. Most families were still fairly traditional and the few women who were trying to enter the workforce were either single or had no children.
Some of those achievers thought they could have it all, a family and a career. Some suceeded at different levels but never lost track of trying to maintain a family.
The real damage was done to families with no choice.
Remember raygun holding up the newspaper and saying look, there are lots of jobs out there. Of course they were all minimum wage but he didn’t care.
It was used to keep wages down for working class families and it worked in that regard. The damage to family life has never recovered.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:12 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Hey, just wondering… what do you guys think of a person who feels the need to proclaim himself or herself “superior” as a means of self-identification?
I generally assume the person is masking deep feelings of inadequacy. And it usually turns out to be the case. Anyone else notice that?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:14 pmIgnore that ignorant pretend kid no life mother f ucker @115.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:14 pmI already own that lame ass…
I smell a FAKE
September 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pm–
Me to and they are a wannabe…
Actually, the semi-auto version of the M16 is the AR-15.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pmdbadass, you must have quite a collection of lame asses under your ownership by now. Where do you keep them all?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pm#109 – KayInMaine says:
——————————————————–
“They (right-whiners) do not have the ability to see outside the box, but we can…”
September 27th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
That is one of the strengths of the Democratic Party. We are a truly “open tent” party, and we encourage people with different views to join our party. Then again, that is also one of our weaknesses. Because we encourage diversity, we also get people who don’t follow the “party line”.
This, ironically, is one of the Republican Party’s strength. Because they have a “believe in the party first, and yourself second” mentality, and actively fight against any kind of diversity, they have a very strong voting block,, because they HAVE to vote along the party line. If they don’t, the risk being ejected from the Republican party, or driven out by the ultra-radical right-whining Republican party elite.
Diversity is stronger in the long run, but the “follow us, lemming!” Republican party does have short-term strengths. Just look how they’re supporting the Insurance Companies over the American public in Health Care reform! The Repubs are getting millions in campaign financing to support the Insurace Companies over their own constituents!
September 27th, 2009 at 12:16 pmKayInMaine says:
Thanks to capitalism….the husband, wife, and children of all families have to work to keep food on the table.
During WWII many women went to work to replace the men that were away at war. When the war ended, many women stopped work. Women took over the teaching profession after the war. Very few women had professional careers. In the 1960’s women started working out of financial necessity and that lead to women going to college. Women’s Lib started in the 70’s and it has been a fight since that time for equal rights. The ERA was defeated because enough states would not ratify so today we still do not have an amendment.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:17 pmnotveryhow.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:20 pmAre you asking me or ralph? It is unclear.
#115 – Politically Superior says:
——————————————————
“WRONG. There is no such gun as an AR-14. The gun is called an AR-15 which is a civilian dumbed down M-16.
Any soldier would know this. Sniff sniff, I smell a FAKE. MOS and regiment?”
September 27th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
No, you smell someone who was up too late last night, didn’t get enought coffee this morning, and fat-fingered my post! (Come on, tell me you’re perfect all the time.)
My MOS was 74-D, computer/machine operator. I was stationed at the Command & Control Support Agency at the Pentagon from 86-90.
Now, what was your MOS? Where were you stationed? Can you complete the 14 count manual of arms? Based on FM 22-5 (replaced by FM 3-21.5) on which foot does the command of preperation and command of execution occur when leading a marching order? (I feel it’s appropriate for me to question your credentials in return, don’t you think?)
September 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pmWhere do you keep them all?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pm—
I used to keep them on the mantle. After just a few I got bored with that so now I just shove them in one of those corrugated storage units that I rent over in that questionable part of town.
The problem is that that men didn’t quit their jobs to fill the void left at home.
What happens at home (caring for children, preparing food, running errands, cleaning, keeping order, etc) is important work that requires someone full time.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Exactly! The 100,000 year status-quo has been upset, with no new model in place regarding child-rearing, which is now left to non-parents. In some ways, this reflects a return to the earlier clan model, (it takes a village to raise a child). But now, instead of being a close-knit clan society, raising children has been out-sourced to strangers; babysitters, nannies, day care centers, public and private schools.
In this emergent model, parents are no longer the most influential people raising their offspring.
Another point addressed above: capitalism forces women and children into the work force. That has been true since the onset of the agrarian society. All able-bodied people, with the exception of the people at the top of the societal heirarchy, had to work. That included women and children, when they were able. A non-working family member was merely a drain on the families resources. In times of plenty, that was no problem, but in times of scarcity, the weak and invalid were the first to go.
Now, there has been a very brief period of time where one wage earner could support his whole family, but that was an aberration in history, and occurred just before women entered the workforce en masse. It is logical to find cause and effect in this instance – as the sudden increase in the labor pool must, of necessity, drive down wages, thus making it more difficult, if not impossible, for one wage earner to provide for the needs of his family.
Another effect of a two-income household was the sudden increase in available income. For those families, the increase in income lead to an increase in lifestyle, as this effect spread, costs of consumer goods increased, most notably, the cost of housing. Soon, the single wage-earner household was priced out of the housing market.
Forward to now. Two wage earners are necessary to provide the basic income necessary to support a household. The loss of employment to just one wage earner is sufficient to drive the household into bankruptcy.
Instability and uncertainty prevail. We have not found a sucessful societal model to accomodate an equality between the genders. Thus there is a strong urge to return to the model which worked well for 100,000 years.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pmAnd you refer to yourself as ‘politically superior’? Bah hahahahahahahahahaha! I bet you are with George Bush who believes that working 3 part time jobs is uniquely American! Ah yes, all work and no play is good for the fascist capitalists.
Those of us who are TRUE LIBERALS already know what your side thinks. You’re very simple people if you hadn’t noticed. Shallow doesn’t even describe how simple you really are! Here’s what you believe:
WAR IS PEACE,
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
Anytime a situation arises in America and we want to know where you stand, we refer to this cute little diddy courtesy of Orwell. It’s how you think. It’s how you are. We do not have to watch Fox News to understand you buffoons!
Get it pal? If you don’t, scram. You’re stinking up the place here.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pmSpinning around a single nonchuck must be hard what with it not being attached to anything. That must take some serious grasshopper training….
September 27th, 2009 at 12:25 pmwhy do my u’s keep coming up o’s?? Better get me back to the Shaolin temple…
September 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pmI’m going to test mine in the backyard after the Cowboys/Panthers game today.
It’s already Monday where you are, cuz they don’t play today.
(you got some stupid hanging from your lower lip there pal…)
September 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pmAre you the gay male prostitute Evangelical Leader Ted Haggard was having sex with and doing drugs to prove how gays are sinful but it’s the heterosexual right wingers who are the moral ones?
September 27th, 2009 at 12:28 pmdbadass, I think this is the same troll who yesterday, as Pee Pee tried to make a false equivalency between one who proclaims himself “Superior”in his self-identification, and your screen name which, as I explained then, is a remnant of a childhood nickname.
Apparently Pee Pee missed my reply, or didn’t want to deal with it and instead donned another sock with a face painted on it in order to make the same, infantile point.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:28 pmBriseadh na Faire, during those thousands of years men and women worked together to survive and each did what they could to contribute to that survival.
People have evolved.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:28 pmw_cleon, I hope you burn.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pmWho wound Kay up today? Knock it off you’re killin’ me here ;)
September 27th, 2009 at 12:30 pmWhatever ralph, I am just lucky I guess to have a name which causes them to make their first mistaken assumption…
September 27th, 2009 at 12:31 pmI bet McDonnell’s wife and daughters are right now chained to the washing machine & dryer in the basement. And who wants to bet ole McDonnell cried a river of tears when he found out Phillip Garrido had been caught (you know, the guy who kidnapped an 11 year old girl, kept her as a sex slave in the backyard for 18 years and fathered two children with her!)?
This is how the reich wing of America views women and girls.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:31 pmWell, folks, it appears that our ignore campaign against Pee Pee was so successful that the troll abandoned the troll identity that had become so ineffective and adopted another.
I suggest a transfer of the “ignore” protocol to the new sitcom character, “notveryhow”.
By the way, the incoherence of this latest name indicates that Twajie is getting to the bottom of the barrel of pre-selected troll names.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:31 pmAs per usual, the llama’s words are valuable words. I concur.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:32 pmLOL Some days it doesn’t take much to wind me up! Today is one of those days. :-)
September 27th, 2009 at 12:33 pmnotveryhow@104 said,
You could have read my post at 67 yourself, do try to keep up. However, since you asked,
w_cleon_skousen@46 said,
I read this to say that if w_cleon_skousen gets his hands on a gun, he would kill innocent people at a Starbucks. This is a direct threat of violence, and it is a hate crime. w_cleon_skousen deserves to be prosecuted for it now, before he commits this or some other equally heinous crime.
I encourage everyone to flag the post at 46 for making threats of violence against the customers of a Starbucks. The only way we are going to rid our society of these fascists is if we lock them up.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:42 pm#144 – KayInMaine says:
——————————————————-
“LOL Some days it doesn’t take much to wind me up! Today is one of those days. :-)”
September 27th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Apparantly, it only takes answering questions by “Politically Superior”, and then questioning him back to shut him up. ;-)
September 27th, 2009 at 12:44 pmLevi, way ahead of you on flagging the violence.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pmw_cleon_skousen@149 said,
Tell it to the judge. If he asks me, I would tell him to put you behind razor wire for the rest of your life. Your apology is most certainly not accepted.
I am still waiting for you to provide a link to your license plate conspiracy or man up and admit you lied.
I am also waiting for you to propose your alternate hypothesis to disprove the theory of evolution.
You want to be my friend? I do not need a fascist friend. What I need is a long, sharp stick so I can poke you through the razor wire.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:55 pmPeople were still discussing the impact of “womens’ lib” in the 80’s. But even then, he looks a little behind the times if he’s submitting crap like that as late as ‘89.
.
Pat Pomery says:
Any person with one shred of integrity would question why the messiah had his thesis sealed.
1. Obama is not “the messiah.” You guys are really starting to creep us out with that talk.
2. He didn’t “have it sealed,” it’s just not the policy of Harvard to automatically publish it.
3. There’s no requirement to submit your college homework to the American people when running for President.
.
notveryhow says:
Hey, just wondering… what do you guys think of a person who feels the need to proclaim himself or herself “superior” as a means of self-identification?
dbadass?
Another wingnut troll asked the exact same thing a couple days ago… what was that username? Because this is its sockpuppet.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:17 pmeven_flow, “I got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals”
- Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
September 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pmOf the two posters in question in the screen name squabble, one is more of a courtesy warning. The other, a product of delusion brought on by a severe Cheetoh overdose and lack of imagination.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:26 pmWell, at least he didn’t use “macaca” in his thesis. Probably only because he didn’t know its meaning. Michele Bachmann’s people display their “knowledge” on race relations as well.
http://www.startribune.com/local/west/61452677.html?page=1&c=y
September 27th, 2009 at 1:28 pmKeep in mind that McDonnell was 34…34…when he wrote that thesis; so it can’t be chalked up to youthful indiscretion.
Virginians, vote CREIGH DEEDS in November.
September 27th, 2009 at 1:46 pmI LAHV YOU SIR! I LAUV YOU! YOU ARE MY HEROW!
September 27th, 2009 at 2:01 pmI will say that if McDonnell starts renouncing what he wrote in that book of beauty, I may accidentally cast a vote for Deeds. I may do something on mistake. Don’t irk me, McDonnell. Don’t pander. Fight against this new radical Obamarica.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:08 pmWhen Rasmussen has this race in as a “toss up“, you know McDonnell has a beautiful chance of winning.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pmWell, at least he didn’t use “macaca” in his thesis.
It seems this term has been banned from today’s Republican vocabulary. Not because of its history but because it sounds too much like my kaka, which reminds them it is time to change their diaper.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:14 pmMcDonnell cannot renounce his thesis since that gets him the Pat Robertson and Rev. Dobson endorsements. An astute news reporter/journalist can put him on the spot and force him to answer some questions about his views. If he renounces the thesis then he will lose the Christian conservatives. The best McDonnell can do is walk it back.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pmYep! That’s it. That’s all you have to do…or ask for a link to prove their “I just pulled it out of my as*!” statement. See?
September 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pmYes, McDonnell’s views probably have changed, but they have probably changed for the worse.
Since he was that crazy 20 years ago, one can only imagine how utterly raving mad he is right now, in spite of all his reassuring remonstrations and his soothing palliatives.
He’s a repiggie, so you can’t trust a thing he says.
September 27th, 2009 at 2:47 pmI think it is valuable to examine the statements that Conservatives give as a premise – in this case:
“Look, families are the bedrock of society. And I think there’s broad agreement on that, and that government programs should not undermine the family, because that will lead to more government spending for problems that occur when the family’s not intact.”
I feel like Conservatives have a very specific and narrow frame about what a ‘family’ is. I think they’ve believe that the ‘ideal’ family is a ‘nuclear’ family of the “Leave it to Beaver” type, with all the traditional 50’s gender roles. I think, for them, the ‘ideal’ society would be constructed solely from ‘nuclear family’ units. They seek to use government to move society more toward their ideal. Government spending that does this is acceptable, but spending which does not is wasteful, or worse, ‘enabling’ or even threateningly ‘undermining’ of their ideals.
My problem with their philosophy is that current society does not conform with their utopian vision; not all families meet their ideal. As our society has (under their influence) become more and more preferential to the nuclear family, the ‘non-conforming’ and imperfect ‘family units’ (and those outside of this family-centric model: adult individuals, child-less couples, homosexuals, widows and widowers, etc.) are increasingly vulnerable. I think society needs to protect and nurture these people, instead of punishing them for the ‘deviance’ through a cruel sort of ’social darwinism’.
I’m not convinced that government can be effectively used to create their utopian ideal. I’m not convinced their ideal is necessarily preferrable or ideal. And, I think the methods they would use to reach their desired state are unacceptably destructive and cruel toward the ‘imperfect’ among us.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:15 pmI doubt he has changed his views; he just hides them. He has 5 kids. If karma bites him in the behind one of the kids will become an unwed mother and one will be gay. Then we can sell popcorn for the show.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pmI’m not convinced that government can be effectively used to create their utopian ideal.
That isn’t governments function. Government and regulation is there to even the playing field, to prevent the conmen, shysters and hucksters from playing the ’suckers’.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:24 pmBriseadh na Faire.
I agree with what you are saying with one caveat. I think the premise that both parents need to work to survive should be questioned.
I think the communal answer (using the village to raise the children) is an alternative, but what is also an alternative is a resetting of expectations about what is a need and what is want.
Obviously, there are people that don’t make a lot of money and have circumstances that are expensive (many kids, poor parents, or health problems). These people may be in a circumstance that both partners have to work.
But, there are also people that choose to work because they confuse wants for needs or at least choose placating wants as a priority over creating more domestic time by opting out of work.
Many people make the argument that both people need to work to get by.
But, do we ever ask the question of what is it that we need to get by?
Do we need flat screens? cell phones? cable? internet service? bottled water? Do we really need to own a home? Could we get by with owning or renting a smaller home? Are there less expensive neighborhoods? Two cars? Would a less expensive car do? Can clothes last longer? Less expensive foods substituted for more expensive ones? Etc.
The point is couldn’t most people get by with less? Haven’t we got to a point that we don’t really want to get by with less; we’re only deciding that the things we want are a higher priority than having one parent stay home.
The Feminist movement was an essential element of our evolution. The answer is not for women to go back to the kitchen. Or that we abandon the primacy of family.
I think the answer is to see the importance of one parent (man or woman) managing the home and the children or making accommodation for that role to be shared. If the role is shared, each spouses employment obligations would seem to have to be reduced to free the time to perform the functions adequately.
In most cases, it’s not that both parents are forced to work.
We are making wants a higher priority than the responsibilities of the home.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:25 pmOk. You’re on.
Briseadh na Faire says:
Since the dawn of the agricultural era, when our species stopped being a hunter-gather clan society and became dependent upon residing in one locality and growning crops, the family has been the dominant unit. Since food became available in surplus, the agrarian society could support more people in a single locale. Men worked, women had babies – which took them out of the work force for a period of time.
Hence it has been rooted in our societal systems for about 100,000 years for women to have the subserviant role of baby-maker.
Just for the record, I think your number is off or is a typo. I believe the agricultural revolution occurred 10-12,000 years ago.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pmbackup. if you continue to make posts that are rational, reasonable and make sense, you will lose your troll status. No more nickels.
And, ’shudder’, people might actually listen to what you say.
Are you sure that is what you want?
September 27th, 2009 at 3:42 pmThere are a lot of single parent homes so much of this discussion about the need to work for women is irrelevant. They have no choice and the kids are in day care, with a friend or a relative. Feminism is not a part of the equation. McDonnell thinks that in his other reality that these issues will go away if the government follows his ideas. He is so far removed from the truth because he hides out in his suburban home where most everyone is wealthy and white. That is not the reality for a lot of people. There are many single parent homes and working couples just trying to pay their bills. There are no Republicans that can completely grasp this concept since many of them come from small towns, what they call the “true” America.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:52 pmIt’s part of the backup cycle, after he gets his a$$
kicked for trolling he comes backs and temporarily plays nice.
Everyone forgives and forgets, then backup reverts
to being an annoying concern troll.
B-cup, How mant times have pulled this off
and got away with it?
six, eight, ten times?
Does anyone want to wager some hard earned dollars on
September 27th, 2009 at 3:54 pmhow long it will take before b-cup reverts to
being Captain Mantastic again?
backup: In most cases, it’s not that both parents are forced to work.
“Most”? You want to back that up with data? The two-working-parent families I know and have known are not loaded down with flatscreen tvs and extra cars. In fact, just the opposite is true: it’s the families with dad making so much money mom doesn’t work that have the garage full of toys.
I think it’s a good guess that you don’t have a family to support, particularly no kids to put through college.
September 27th, 2009 at 3:55 pmgummitch. Have you ever questioned whether paying for kids college is a need?
September 27th, 2009 at 4:02 pmAnd it’s wikipedia and Heritage info, but you asked for data:
September 27th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
backup says:
gummitch. Have you ever questioned whether paying for kids college is a need?
Well, I suppose they could just work crappy jobs the rest of their lives.
What does the Heritage Foundation’s claims about poor people have to do with anything?
backup: In most cases, it’s not that both parents are forced to work.
What does this have to do with the fact that poor people have refrigerators and stoves?
September 27th, 2009 at 4:11 pmVery astutely observed, Reggie. That is exactly b-cup’s pattern.
Often the cycle will start when he gets his ass kicked on a thread about racism, then he’ll come back and make amends on a thread about gay marriage. When he feels comfortable again, he’ll go into concern mode, which is where he really wants to be.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:15 pmThat’s comforting… the Heritage Foundation says that Most poor Americans report zero financial or material problems.
That’s always been the go-to source for me when I’m looking for unbiased analysis of economic data.
Thanks, b-cup. Thanks for your concern.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:17 pmThings cost money. People work to get money to buy things. Instead of working more to buy more things, people could do without things that aren’t necessities, to enable them to have more time to manage the home and kids and their relationship with their partner.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:23 pmralph the wonder llama says:
That’s comforting… the Heritage Foundation says that Most poor Americans report zero financial or material problems.
What-you want them to report the truth? It will destroy the Republican concept that the poor don’t need anything like good jobs, health care, education…
September 27th, 2009 at 4:24 pmralph. I’d rather not use heritage information. Do me a favor and find another source that has done the research.
If there has been a refutation of the heritage data, I’d love to see it. In the absence of the refutation, it’s all there really is to go on.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:26 pmFlat screens, no. But right-wingers ridicule poor people having cell phones without realizing that cell phones ARE an inexpensive way to communicate these days. They’re no longer the luxury they appeared to be five or ten years ago.
And owning a home as opposed to renting? Seriously?
So many other consumption issues are traceable less to selfish choices by poor people and more to an economy tied to consumption. Advertising pushes foolish consumption because it is good for business. Credit cards advertise different ways to buy things on credit because it helps the bottom line. And, incidentally, American consumers buying shit they didn’t need on credit is basically what postponed the recession until 2008. The nation’s savings rate was in negative territory for a couple of years before everything else collapsed.
So while living within one’s means is a responsible life choice for individuals, Wall Street sees it as a damaging reduction in consumer activity. And Wall Street basically controls the messaging these days.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:27 pmralph and Reggie.
Have you ever agreed with someone on one issue but disagreed on another?
September 27th, 2009 at 4:28 pmYou’re not just using “Hertiage information”. You are repeating their conclusions as well.
You repeated, “Most poor Americans report zero financial or material problems” without a hint of skepticism. What does “most poor Americans” represent? That phrase alone includes two different indistinct terms; “most” –what is “most”? How many poor people need to report what Heritage Foundation wants them to report ion order for them to confidently characterize them as “most”? — and “poor” — what’s poor? At or below the poverty line? 150% of poverty line?
Forgive me, but I’ve seen too much of the work of the Heritage Foundation to trust them as far as I could throw my car. They have an avowed agenda and they are not averse to misrepresenting data to support it.
I would have a very difficult time believing that “most poor Americans report zero financial or material problems” if the statement came from the GAO, let alone from the Heritage Foundation.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pmbackup says:
What does this have to do with the fact that poor people have refrigerators and stoves?
Things cost money. People work to get money to buy things. Instead of working more to buy more things, people could do without things that aren’t necessities, to enable them to have more time to manage the home and kids and their relationship with their partner.
I don’t question that things cost money. What I question, and what you have done nothing to substantiate, is your claim that “most” families don’t need to have two working adults. If only they didn’t own anything, they’ve have plenty of money!
September 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pmYes.
Your point?
September 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pmralph. I agree with you on Wall Street and marketing.
But, just because it’s being pushed, doesn’t mean we can’t say no.
We all make choices.
If we have a car, we could get a cheaper car. If we have a two bedroom apartment, we could get a one bedroom. If we need a cell phone, we could limit the service. If we have cable television, we could cancel it. Eat at McDonald’s? Get can soup at the store instead.
I suggest that (not all but) many people don’t want to sacrifice their wants. And they confuse wants for needs.
They don’t have to have both partners working. They choose that arrangement so they don’t have to compromise on many wants they consider needs.
Additionally, many prefer work to the arguably more difficult job of managing the home.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:36 pmralph: I would have a very difficult time believing that “most poor Americans report zero financial or material problems” if the statement came from the GAO, let alone from the Heritage Foundation.
I don’t even know what that means, frankly. Poor Americans don’t think they’re poor? WTF?
September 27th, 2009 at 4:36 pmWell, it would go a long way toward explaining why poor right-wingers support tax cuts for the rich.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:39 pmAnd what if we already have a cheap car?
What if we have limited service? What if we don’t eat at McDonald’s and buy and cook fresh food?
I guess we could eat even fewer green beans at each meal. And we could limit our cell phone use like the guy in the commercial speed-talking to his wife from the grocery store. And we could trade in our fifteen-year-old car for a cheaper, twenty-year old car. Of course, it will cost us more in repairs and in gas consumption, but at least b-cup will be satisfied that we’re “making choices”.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:43 pmralph.
The point is this: Why is agreement viewed as ‘playing nice’ and disagreement as trolliing?
What I find much more difficult to believe than genuine disagreement on individual issues, is the idea that a community can be almost uniformly in agreement on almost every issue.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:46 pmIt’s an error to say that women flooding the work force lowered wages. The family wage system broke down first, then most working class women and a lot of middle class women had to go to work. Think about it. There weren’t a lot of job openings all of a sudden because women wanted to work. The third wave of feminism was in part inspired by how badly those women were treated at work.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:46 pmI would bet the Heritage Foundation did not talk to people in the inner cities. These people do not have a lot of assets and depend on welfare just for the necessities. They do not have luxuries like cell phones, computers, etc., because they do not have excess cash. Welfare benefits can only be spent on housing, utilities, clothing. That does not leave any money for all those other material things. Let Heritage come into an inner city and talk to people or go to the unemployment line and talk to the new poor.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:46 pmbackup: They don’t have to have both partners working. They choose that arrangement so they don’t have to compromise on many wants they consider needs.
You keep making that claim, but you’ve got nothing to back it up (ironically). Like I said, you’re clearly not supporting a family or you might have a different understanding, and you might not feel so comfortable sitting in judgment on other people.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:48 pmLet me try it like this. The average U.S. citizen has some level of standard of living. The U.S. standard of living is better than most other countries around the world.
The average U.S. citizen could sacrifice some of their relatively better standard of living and reduce the amount they work.
If they work less, they could focus more on their kids and families.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:53 pmbackup says:
What I question, and what you have done nothing to substantiate, is your claim that “most” families don’t need to have two working adults.
Let me try it like this. The average U.S. citizen has some level of standard of living. The U.S. standard of living is better than most other countries around the world.
The average U.S. citizen could sacrifice some of their relatively better standard of living and reduce the amount they work.
If they work less, they could focus more on their kids and families.
Built into your assumption is the additional assumption that people who work don’t focus on their kids and families. Having been a father and a stepfather who at times had to work two jobs, I can tell you that your assumptions all need a lot of work. I worked because I had a family to support and I lived without fripperies; I worked to pay the rent and put food on the table and I focused pretty much my whole life on the kids.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:59 pmb-cup, the issue isn’t disagreement; the issue is your disingenuous troll behavior when you’re concern trolling.
You have three distinct behavior patterns:
one, when you agree with the bulk of the community, you can make your points forcefully and well. No conflict naturally fails to produce any objectionable habits.
two, when you’re concern trolling, you don’t so much make points as “raise questions that should be addressed”. You “play devil’s advocate” and dance around any definite points in favor of introducing doubt that more often than not seems insincere.
three, when you’re full-on trolling, you fall into the habit of misconstruing the comments of others, often recasting them in ways that distort their original expression. usually you’ll do this in the guise of asking if they really mean X, where X is typically a straw man only distantly related to the original comment.
This pattern is what earns you your reputation, b-cup — not any alternation of agreement and contention.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:00 pmgummitch. I’ve been married for twenty years and have a couple of kids that we homeschool. My wife decided to quit working, although she had a great career and made the same money that I do.
My parents didn’t pay for my college and my wife’s parents didn’t pay for hers. I don’t plan to pay for my kid’s college. They’ll be okay.
We sacrifice the extra money and do with less. It’s well worth it, because our relationship and family are worth more than things.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:00 pmw_cleon_skousen says:
——————————————————————————–
Mr. dbass, why the hell would I want to read anything so early in the morning?
Pat Pomery carry on in the name of the Lord.
Oh, the irony. :D
BTW, dbadass is telling you to read the Bible, you idiot. Sermon on the Mount to be precise.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:03 pmCongratulations, backup. You surprise me.
You and your wife, however, are neither everyone or “most people.” A lot of us value our families just as much as you do, regardless of whether you think we have too many things.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:09 pmBob McDonnell says, “Look, families are the bedrock of society.”
If that’s true then why are married Republicans (David Vitter) running around in diapers when they visit their local house of prostitution?
And why are are married Republican preachers (Ted Haggard) having gay sex with male prostitutes while they’re high on crystal meth?
And why are married Republicans (John Ensign) nailing all their coworkers wives?
And why are married Republicans (Mark Sanford) flying to Argentina to have sex with women who are young enough to be their grandchildren?
September 27th, 2009 at 5:12 pmFor all the talk of the breakdown of the family, our child rearing habits are not greatly changed. As a child I could go days without seeing my parents except at mealtimes yet there were always parents within earshot. I see the same thing at the playgrounds around the neighborhood.
I admit that my experience may not be typical but I don’t see a lot of evidence that children are being “raised by daycare”. The many dozens of young mothers I worked with generally had arrangements in place to allow a family member or trusted friend with the kids.
About the only ones who fit the stereotype of using a combination of school, T.V, and strangers were single mothers new in town without a support system. In these cases our family restaurant provided a support system. It was common to have a few kids doing homework, or even napping in a booth, for a while before closing time. That’s what communities do and they always have.
Though it strays way off topic, when people talk about the “breakdown of the nuclear family” no one seems to consider that fate has always found ways to break families. It hasn’t been so very long since mortality; war, plague, famine, bad hygiene, childbirth, child mortality, caused as many broken homes as any “modern” cause.
And that doesn’t even include the fact that people have never been as monogamous as Leave it to Beaver would make the sheeple Believe. The only other force that has ever made an impact on single parents and “broken” families is social stigma. When one really studies genealogy one finds that the stereotypical nuclear family has always been a relative rarity.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:16 pmBut but but b-cup, a few weeks ago you claimed to be a pilot and you were leaving to fly to Dubai. Last time I checked, the American airlines fly those routes exclusively with wide body jets.
I did I little checking with my nephew who is a pilot and
was told that a pilot pulling those kinds of flights would be grossing at minimum 135k, probably much more.
What so you, b-cup?
September 27th, 2009 at 5:18 pmgummitch. I concede this. I have a belief that we are a materialistic society. I agree with ralph’s assessment of Wall Street and marketing.
I don’t have a desire to judge those without the means. It’s just that in my day to day life, I see couples lamenting that they both have to work to make ends meet, but the materialism is obviously there.
Don’t get me wrong. I like choice. And I’m no enemy of materialism. But, when people (that I know, maybe not those who you know) start complaining that both partners have to work to make ends meet; I question what it is they consider a need.
Many people do have a choice. If they really want to spend more time at home or if they want one of the partners to be at home full time with the kids; they could make it happen.
Many times, it’s a matter of priority.
BTW, I concede the heritage information is probably biased. I searched, but couldn’t find another source for that information. If it’s not true, it should be countered.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:20 pmReggie. That’s true. Although I’m well south of 135K. We do with less than we would if my wife was working.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:21 pmFor instance. It’s hard to quantify how many women have been abandoned by a lout and have claimed widowhood to appease judgmental neighbors. How about “maternity swaps”? While a search of confidential records may say otherwise, many young mothers children have been raised as siblings.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:26 pmThen, of course, there are the traditional nuclear families that hire people to watch their kids and, very popular in Victorian England among the less affluent, the dullest sister in a family, or the one who was the sickest and couldn’t labor, would be the defacto “mother” for a bunch of cousins.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:40 pmPlus, I don’t know if there is any convincing data that any particular “ideal family” produces the best kids.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:43 pmOn the other hand, one can make the case that women have gone to work because they have the time, not by abandoning child rearing, but because modern civilized life doesn’t demand that moms spend 16 hours a day at hard labor just to keep the household functioning.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:50 pmpete. I agree that the idea of the Cleaver family has been overplay. It’s never been like that.
But, doesn’t it seem that it would be better for a family if one adult could be home instead of both working?
September 27th, 2009 at 5:54 pmI’ll throw this out there:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6395879.ece
Woman went to work outside the home. But all the things they used to do when they were at home, still had to get done.
Sadly, they’re still handling most of the domestic responsibilities, but with a lot less time.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:00 pmNo, b-kup, I don’t think that having one parent not work is “better”.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:03 pmC’mon b-kup. How long has it been since an American woman had to walk five miles for a block of ice?
September 27th, 2009 at 6:07 pmOops! Somehow I managed to post that without the caveat.
Obviously, natural disasters are special cases.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:09 pmbackup says:
But, doesn’t it seem that it would be better for a family if one adult could be home instead of both working?
Dude, arguing for the 50’s nuclear family online isn’t going to get you out of doing the laundry. Now get off the computer and go give your wife a hand.
We couldn’t possibly go back to a single working parent nuclear family model any more, since real wages have been steadily declining for the last 30 years.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:15 pmThere are so many single parent homes that the old nuclear family is an impossibility. Consider also that there are a lot of people with children that are not married. The 1950’s Cleaver family is dead and gone.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:19 pmpete. you make a good point. Life is changing. Has changed.
Cooking at home can be replaced with fast food, microwaveable food and restaurants.
Watching the kids can be done by daycare and then school/aftercare.
You could hire a maid to clean the house.
And there are dozens of other conveniences that make two income parenting possible.
I just think that parents are more likely to do those things better, only because they are more invested. It is their homes, their kids, their families.
And there is a detachment from those activities that seems consequential.
But, maybe that’s just the ‘Leave it to Beaver’ episodes talking.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:22 pmApparently you must not be good at navigation, here are
the current salaries paid to wide-body pilots with 12 years seniority at the legacy airlines.
They are all well north of $135K.
American airlines…….$165-$190k
United Airlines……….$168-$190K
Delta Airlines………..$168-$201K
Continental Airlines……….$193K
Source
Even First Officers flying wide body jets on extended routes make $135 at the legacy airlines. Even FedEx is paying well more than $135k.
I don’t know how you can live on such a pittance, I feel sorry for you and your family, maybe you could apply for food stamps.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:23 pmElBruce.
Good point.
Later.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:25 pmI’m guessing he denies that it’s radical, because he thinks the word “radical” describes hippy things and can’t possibly apply to conservatism.
It is indeed radical. Backward, but radical.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:37 pmNot radical? Then must be mainstream (republican ideology)
September 27th, 2009 at 6:38 pmReggie. Those rates aren’t yearly salaries in thousands. They’re hourly pay rates.
Pilots are paid from when the plane pushes back from the departure gate until it pulls into the arrival gate.
I average 70 hours a month based on that criteria.
But, I prefer your pay scale.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:38 pmI love the double standard of the libs. There’s so much that Obama hasn’t revealed about his past, including HIS thesis.
But you don’t care about that.
You dont’ care about the black liberation theology for 20 years.
You don’t care that Obama has a radical view of the US and the world.
You don’t care that he’s taking our liberties away and trying to kill jobs.
You don’t care about none of that.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:00 pmBriseadh na Faire, during those thousands of years men and women worked together to survive and each did what they could to contribute to that survival.
People have evolved.
Only our technology has evolved, Fred. We’re physiologically the same as we were 100,000 years ago.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:08 pmI picked 100,000 years from what I recall reading “Up From Eden” by Wilber. 10,000 years ago saw the building of the great pyramids, by which time an agricultural society had been firmly entrenched.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:10 pmBackup has essentially supported McDonnell’s position and provided a utopian view for maintaining the status quo (being the stay-at-home woman, sole bread winner working man status quo of recent times).
His (I’m presuming backup is male) utopia mirrors that of Thoreau: to get more out of life by wanting less. Which, in turn, mirrors the essence of Budha – all suffering is born of desire. To eliminate suffering, eliminate desire.
Peace.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:15 pmtherightscoop says:
I love the double standard of the libs. There’s so much that Obama hasn’t revealed about his past, including HIS thesis.
We know more about his past than any President in recent memory. There’s no requirement to examine the college homework of a President, but I’m sure his thesis is unremarkable.
therightscoop says:
You dont’ care about the black liberation theology for 20 years.
You don’t care that Obama has a radical view of the US and the world.
You don’t care that he’s taking our liberties away and trying to kill jobs.
You don’t care about none of that.
Oh, I care very much about the fact that everything you said is a lie.
.
Briseadh na Faire says:
Backup has essentially supported McDonnell’s position and provided a utopian view for maintaining the status quo (being the stay-at-home woman, sole bread winner working man status quo of recent times).
Is that what he was advocating? I though he was saying that men should stop working and do all the housework, and women should be the breadwinners…
September 27th, 2009 at 7:20 pmtherightscoop says:
What makes you think we need to know something about a black man who attended a very difficult law school on his own merits, was on the bar review and became a community organizer and legislator. Obama could have pulled down a huge salary as an attorney for any prestigious law firm. That salary would be more than double what he is making as President. And you think he is some sort of radical? You are watching too much Fox News or taking strong drugs.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:29 pmLooks like Obama’s thesis at Columbia University 25 years ago is exactly what he’s talking about today:
Not a big deal, but of course the wingnuts have nothing against Obama so they have to make everything about his life a big old controversy!
Have you wingnuts ever done any research on Bush & Cheney’s life and their connections to everything dark and evil? Well, you should.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:42 pmRadical view of the world.
One side says agree or be bombed.
The other says, lets talk.
Beware those wild eyed radical bomb throwers.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:45 pmOur “new” troll got a hold of an old, false, email. President Obama has, indeed, made his school records public and, while I suppose there is work that’s been lost, there are theses on file at both Columbia and Harvard.
There was a flap about the First Lady’s senior thesis when a school administrator decided to restrict access until after the election. The decision was rescinded when the Obama campaign posted the thesis themselves.
Of course, anyone who spends a few minutes actually studying the issues raised would know that. Alas, the stupid trolls insist on running with the unfounded crap produced by the Reichwing fringe.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:48 pmLet’s see, old non-radical Bob attended a theocratic university and wrote a non-radical Master’s Thesis that espoused the government dealing harshly with fornicators and such.
Twenty years later he is a member of a party that holds the same ideals.
Yeah, he grew up.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:54 pmOf course, the biggest crime is that alumni from a “university”, that demands all who enter to reject reason and the evidence of their own senses, are serving at any level of government.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:08 pmElBruce. Yeah. I think the Feminist movement was essential. Woman are equal and should have equal rights; in every way.
I’m only saying that an unintended consequence was that, in families, both parents ended up working.
I’m suggesting that there is benefit if one parent stays home to handle domestics (cleaning, cooking, shopping, child rearing, etc).
It’s a full time job that is important. Regardless of whether it’s the man or the woman doing it.
(BTW, sharing the responsibilities would be ideal. But it seems that both work commitments would have to be reduced to free the time to adequately cover the responsibilities).
September 27th, 2009 at 8:08 pmBnF
I’m working on this: Not having what you want, but wanting what you have.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:12 pmtherightscoop says:
You don’t care that he’s taking our liberties away and trying to kill jobs.
September 27th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Where were you in the Bush years…?
September 27th, 2009 at 8:17 pmBnF.
I think pyramids 5,000 years old and agriculture 10,000 years old.
But, I understood your point.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:21 pmI am still puzzled as to what freedoms Obama has taken away. No one seems to be able to pinpoint a freedom they have lost during Obama’s few short months. This must be just like the people who talk about taking their country back. We had an election and the majority voted. There is no country to take back; just disgruntled people who cannot accept the outcome of a democratic election. We call them sore losers as well as stupid, racist, radical and fools.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:43 pmHoly shit, backup – you aren’t anywhere NEAR qualified to pass judgment on poor people!!
I know people who raise their kids on effing minimum wage, with no insurance and no benefits — and here you are, santimoniously prattling about those poor people who have refrigerators and stoves – like those were luxuries they should be willing to live without! What would you have them do?
What the fluck is wrong with you?? You think a family should all crowd into a ONE bedroom apartment? How would you like to live in a ONE bedroom apartment with your kids, b-cup?
You are totally full of shit, and frankly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You have no clue, and you’re sitting in judgment – smug and sanctimonious judgment – on people whose everyday lives is a struggle simply to get by, keep a roof over their heads and keep their children decently fed and clothed.
%$^#$%@#!!! You suck. Truly.
September 27th, 2009 at 9:03 pmLeftside. Here’s a possibility.
In the past, we got by as Americans with one spouse working. More and more today, both spouses work.
Many people will say, both spouses work because things are more expensive and the inflated prices require two incomes to survive.
What if it isn’t that it’s inflated prices or reduced earning power, but a change in what people see as necessities?
What people don’t seem to refute is that the American standard of living is better than most other countries. And that Americans on average work harder.
If the average American (not the poor, but the average American) works harder and has a relatively higher standard of living by comparison to the rest of the world, couldn’t the average American sacrifice some of his or her standard of living to enable one partner to stay at home if they wished?
September 27th, 2009 at 9:24 pmbackup says:
Leftside. Here’s a possibility.
In the past, we got by as Americans with one spouse working. More and more today, both spouses work.
Many people will say, both spouses work because things are more expensive and the inflated prices require two incomes to survive.
What if it isn’t that it’s inflated prices or reduced earning power, but a change in what people see as necessities?
There we have the old sophomoric backup game: what if?
Reduced earning power is very real, it’s not part of a game, or a matter of speculation. Reaganomics and “free trade” destroyed the industrial base of this country. We don’t make anything anymore. Even the relatively good economic era during the Clinton years had nothing to do with making things people wanted to buy.
I was in a Carhartt retail store the other day. Carhartt makes really manly, really American clothes, right? Construction workers wear Carhartt. I could not find a single item of clothing in the entire store that was made in this country. The “things” you’re so concerned about were likely not made here either.
My parents’ generation came out of WWII and, thanks to the GI Bill, among other government social programs, were able to make far more money than their parents’ generation. They filled the greatest economic expansion this country has known–an expansion that will never be replicated. They got well-paying jobs, they got benefits, they got pensions . . . and that’s all fallen apart.
What people don’t seem to refute is that the American standard of living is better than most other countries. And that Americans on average work harder.
Take a look at this map, backup. What color is the US?
September 27th, 2009 at 9:41 pmAh, b-kup.
You asserted that having one parent work while the mother stays home (you’ll forgive me if I imply a preference.) is “better”. There simply isn’t any data to support such an assertion. My personal experience in hiring young mothers and teenagers certainly doesn’t support it.
September 27th, 2009 at 9:41 pmpete. I disagree with the preference. I’ve never said the woman should stay home.
I don’t believe that.
What I believe is this. There’s a lot going on in the home. Especially with kids. And even more so with young kids.
The obligations at home are extensive. It’s a full time job.
While I support the Feminist movement wholeheartedly, I feel that an unintended consequence is that it compelled both parents or partners to work.
When they both went to work the domestic responsibilities received less attention.
I think those domestic responsibilities (primarily raising the kids) are important.
It makes no difference who takes on those responsibilities. I just think they are important.
Call me crazy for thinking that if one parent remains in the home that it benefits the family.
September 27th, 2009 at 9:52 pmbackup: While I support the Feminist movement wholeheartedly, I feel that an unintended consequence is that it compelled both parents or partners to work.
Your problem is that you’ve constructed a belief and now you have to come up with a rationalization for it.
You believe that feminism “compelled” couples to work, so you’ve had to buttress that by claiming that “most” people just want too many “things”, which is the real reason they go off to work.
Do you see, first of all, that those two have no connection at all?
September 27th, 2009 at 10:16 pmWhere are you now?
September 27th, 2009 at 10:20 pmThe connection is that when both partners work, the standard of living increases, because they are making more money. Couples acclimate to that new standard of living.
Sets a new baseline.
Over time, the belief is that both have to work to maintain that new higher standard of living.
Is that new baseline what is necessary to survive or is a new expectation for what standard of living we should have?
September 27th, 2009 at 10:38 pmTell ya what, backup: you try feeding your family on $35,000 a year in Los Angeles. Rent yourself a one bedroom apartment – in a lousy neighborhood, with gangs and rats and cockroaches, you could get a small place for $700 a month. I live in a nicer neighborhood, and my rent is $950 a month for a small one bedroom of about 600 square feet.
$35,000 a year will get you about $575 a week take home pay. I think I’m being overly generous, because I only skimmed 15% off the top of that for taxes. (I don’t make much more than that, and I get about 25% skimmed off the top.)
Your electric is going to cost you about $50 a month, your gas about $25 (averaged over a year). Basic telephone service costs about $35 a month. After your bills, that leaves you about $375 a week, to cover your food, your gasoline, your car insurance (basic liability is going to cost you about $75/month).
You’re feeding and clothing a family of 4. You have $300 a week to do it. A gallon of milk in LA costs about $3.50.
Good luck, you heartless bastard.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:07 pmbackup, I give you credit for tenacity. You’ll cling to your construction no matter how poorly it fits the facts. If you really are a pilot, I bet you drive the people in the other seat nuts.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:12 pmThe idea that feminism created the need for both people to work is totally erroneous. It is obvious that backup is not old enough to remember the 1970’s. The country had an inflation rate that was out of control. Couples both worked and were barely able to keep up with prices. Inflation reached highs in the late 70’s and came down only after the unemployment rate skyrocketed. Mortgages were going out at 13 to 16% and that choked off the real estate market also. There were so many people unemployed that it took a decade to get the rate back down. But, prices never did come down; they just stabilized and the average couple were treading water with two jobs. Women went to work out of financial necessity and they still do for the same reason.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:38 pmcleon. I’m agnostic so I don’t really buy into the ‘God’s plan’ sentiment. But, I must admit that I admire Ray Comfort’s work with bananas.
If the Christian thing doesn’t pan out, he’ll definitely find work in the gay porn industry.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:02 amit didn’t create the need for people to work. It changed the status quo of one parent staying home to handle the home and the kids.
Women being liberated – good.
Both parents working outside the home – maybe not.
Is the idea that one adult at home benefitting the family that controversial?
Nite.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:12 amYou’re still using a narrow definition to give weight to a generality, b-kup. Throughout history and around the world parents have always found a way to divide the household labor and child rearing responsibilities. It’s virtually impossible to find any two sets of parents, or individual parents for that matter, that agree on child rearing.
The individual strengths and weaknesses are evened out by the community. Always have been and always will be.
But then you follow up that broad brush assertion to establish a strawman argument. You are making the assertion that time spent working outside the home implies a level of neglect. The fact is that parents arrange their schedules to spend as much time with their children as possible whether both parents work outside the home or not.
You’ve fallen into the trap that dual income families automatically result in an empty, or neglected, house. That simply isn’t true. And I can assure you that people will go through considerable Hell in order to avoid the cost of daycare.
Then there’s the shared assertion that feminism, working women, and the “demise” of the nuclear family are related to some kind of special new greed and I don’t think there’s any particular reason to believe that. The biggest reason why women have expanded into fields they never did before is because it’s less labor intensive to maintain a modern household. The labor that used to occupy staffs of servants, in wealthy families, can now be taken care of as an afterthought.
And finally, when push comes to shove, crappy parents are going to have miserable kids and caring, wise, loving parents are going to have happy kids, most of the time. And I don’t think that anyone can establish that having a parent present 24/7 is necessary or even desirable. In fact, I had several young employees with over-protective parents and they didn’t usually fare well in what was usually their first work experience. While it’s hardly a large sample I’m pretty confident that children benefit from time independent of their parents.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:17 amKayInMaine says:
They do not have the ability to see outside the box, but we can, then again…..WE’RE TRUE LIBERALS! Our brains rock as*.
September 27th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
No one can argue with that!
September 28th, 2009 at 2:27 am#255 – w_cleon_skousen says:
——————————————————
“”However I have been involved in a ministry that has helped people (especially young teens) escape the gay life style.”
September 28th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Do you also provide resources for those who fail to “change” their sexual orientation? You could encourage them to attend support groups for gay teens to get information and support for their orientation.
Also, Beyondexgay.com provides numerous examples of people who’ve been emotionally (and sometimes physically) damaged from attempting the “ex-gay cure” from religious fundamentalists.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:10 amLeftside Annie. It wasn’t my intention to pass judgement on poor people. I looked back at it and believe that came out with the Heritage information I posted. I was trying to make the point that the American standard of living is relatively high and there are things people could sacrifice to create more time at home.
If someone is poor, they have to do what they have to do. Additionally, if someone is a single parent, they don’t have many options. And partners without kids should both work as much as they want.
I often meet people that are not in those circumstances. The are not poor. They have kids. And they complain that both spouses have to work to get by. But, they have nice cars, a big house, are higher expenses.
My point was that many people who feel that both partners have to work; have other options. They choose to maintain their standard of living instead of giving things up to spend more time at home.
I apologize for the suggestion those options apply to everyone.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:13 ampete. maybe you’re right in #254. good post.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:15 amcleon. If the lay counselors are young and good looking, put me in touch.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:16 amThanks
September 29th, 2009 at 9:44 amSesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Thank you for your sharing.!
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 am