May 31, 2013
— Ace Discussing a new factoid that 40% of mothers were now the primary breadwinners in their families, Erick Erickson commented that the situation was bad for children.
Which isn't all that objectionable.
But then he went a little Anchorman and opined that nature intended men to dominate women in the family sphere -- and that's Science.
So I ignored this story hoping it would go away because it's just going to cause a lot of shouting and RINO vs. True Con fighting.
But Megyn Kelly has upset my plans and forced me to mention it.
I have three observations, which don't really explain anything. They're just explanations.
First: One of the biggest problems with social conservatism as far as politics -- as far as the politics of the thing, mind you, not the truth -- is that the hedonistic message is live for yourself, live for today, and social conservatives are constantly being big buzzkills by saying, "Let's remember the children, huh?"
If you look at the abortion debate, or the social conservatives' arguments that people should have little to no sex outside of marriage, what is that about? The leftist media always casts this as "trying to control people's lives," and I suppose it is, but what is it really about?
It's about children. Sex outside of marriage will lead, inevitably, to two things:
1. Pregnancies terminated by abortions.
2. Pregnancies carried through to term with a child now born into a single-parent family.
A cavalier, loose attitude about sex is just buttered pickles for everyone... except the actual victims of it, which is children either born into poor circumstances or fetuses/babies (however you term it) aborted before they can even have those poor circumstances.
Now, as a political matter, as a message for a populace which is increasingly lazy and narcissistic, which is the politically winning message? And which becomes the Square, Nagging, Buzzkill message?
I think this argument illustrates the ever-present tension that exists between personal fulfillment and what's best for children.
Second: As you can see from Megyn Kelly's hostile reaction -- why, she almost seems like a Smelly Pirate Hooker here in her anger about Erickson's "Science (TM)"-- no one really wants to hear outsiders criticizing his or her personal choices.
And there's really no way to cast Erickson's argument as anything other than a criticism of Megyn Kelly's choices -- though he tries to soften it up and fudge it up, he is, or at least was, saying that Megyn Kelly was short-changing her kid by continuing to work.
There's no way to fudge that. It's what he said. Megyn Kelly refuses to permit him to fudge it. There's no way that you can lay down the marker that "Women who work are doing a disservice to their children" and then think a working mother is going to be mollified by a "Well if that works for you..." fudge.
Third: One problem I have with this: If you're going to lay down that marker, then don't run away from it when challenged by Megyn Kelly. I mean, if you believe that, then stand up for it and declare it proudly. If it was true when Megyn Kelly wasn't around to hector you, it remains true when she is around to hector you.
I mean, if this was important enough to say, then it's important enough to say when under fire. If it's not important enough to say, maybe it wasn't important enough to say the first time.
Just a thought.
I think, as a general matter, it is very easy and emotionally rewarding to criticize other people, which is why all human beings, since the beginning of human speech, have spent such a large amount of their time doing so (and some people, like myself, have chosen criticizing others as a career!).
Eh, I don't know. I don't know what to make of it all. I'm not going to settle the argument this afternoon so I won't bother trying.
Posted by: Ace at
11:00 AM
| Comments (505)
Post contains 684 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Adriane ... at May 31, 2013 11:05 AM (Jv4FA)
Posted by: rickb223 at May 31, 2013 11:05 AM (NKBxV)
Posted by: jwpaine @PirateBallerina at May 31, 2013 11:05 AM (/lWM8)
Posted by: wheatie at May 31, 2013 11:05 AM (CnFRK)
Posted by: troyriser at May 31, 2013 11:06 AM (vtiE6)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 31, 2013 11:06 AM (f9c2L)
..........
Especially since you have the sound muted, right?
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 31, 2013 11:07 AM (f9c2L)
If you're a "big fan" of either of these fools, it's a big clue that you will appear MUCH smarter by just keeping your mouth shut and your keyboard disconnected.
Kelly isn't exactly Jeanne Kirkpatrick, either, but it doesn't take much more than a triple-digit IQ to shame those two Bozos.
Posted by: Adjoran at May 31, 2013 11:07 AM (473jB)
Women earning more than their husbands isn't quite the societal upheaval that children have half the parental care and supervision.
Posted by: zsasz at May 31, 2013 11:07 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 11:08 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: Mallfly, important opinionater at May 31, 2013 11:08 AM (bJm7W)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 11:08 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:08 AM (LCRYB)
As far as i know she is providing , feeding , clothing her children. and her spouse? doesn't seem to mind sharing the work of raising the family?
why is this an issue?
Posted by: willow at May 31, 2013 11:09 AM (nqBYe)
Same with 'Two mommies/daddies.'
Hell, most of liberalism is 'here's my new untested idea, let's impose it on society because it'll be great.'
Posted by: zsasz at May 31, 2013 11:09 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: rickb223 at May 31, 2013 11:10 AM (NKBxV)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:11 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: I'mNotACreep at May 31, 2013 11:11 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 11:11 AM (/jHWN)
It would be a fairly meaningless statistic if it turned out that the "primary" breadwinner was also the only breadwinner.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 31, 2013 11:12 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Beagle at May 31, 2013 11:12 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:12 AM (LCRYB)
still their are many cases wher divorce is less abusive to the childrens health and welfare than the family staying united.
Posted by: willow at May 31, 2013 11:12 AM (nqBYe)
There you go Ace... I' kinda like it..
Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 11:12 AM (/jHWN)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:12 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Tami[/i][/b][/u][/s] at May 31, 2013 11:13 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: shredded chi at May 31, 2013 11:13 AM (2UrMT)
Posted by: Dogbone at May 31, 2013 11:13 AM (mCOPv)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at May 31, 2013 11:13 AM (C8mVl)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:13 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:13 AM (ZPrif)
I just want to say that Megynn Kelly- Dominatrix would be a huge seller even if it was shot as a parody with a lookalike.
Posted by: Another Sick Moron at May 31, 2013 11:13 AM (1RIcI)
Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 11:13 AM (wsGWu)
I was just about to inquire as to MWRs melons on the other thread.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, The Colossus of Independence at May 31, 2013 11:14 AM (fwARV)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:14 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Blondies. at May 31, 2013 11:14 AM (VtjlW)
earning bread is a nice way to assist the family!
lol
Posted by: willow at May 31, 2013 11:14 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: SarahW at May 31, 2013 11:15 AM (LYwCh)
And with that said...how does "40% of mothers are the breadwinners" = sex outside of marriage? Not all of those mothers are unwed (and that has more to do with the government replacing husbands/fathers with paychecks than it has to do with sex outside of marriage anyway).
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at May 31, 2013 11:15 AM (3B1GS)
Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at May 31, 2013 11:15 AM (A0sHn)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at May 31, 2013 11:15 AM (fMiHM)
Posted by: garrett at May 31, 2013 11:15 AM (Ov9U8)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:15 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: joe at May 31, 2013 11:15 AM (CtzJm)
1) Erick is, by and large, a pudgy dumbass.
2) Only sometimes he is right.
3) There is some evidence that, yes, little kids are best raised by their mothers--nannies, child care, etc. don't cut it--up to school age.
4) The JEF was raised by a single mom; as was Bill Clinton (Lefits call that a good thing, reality and results may tell a different story.).
5) By the over-all numbers, we've all gotten poorer--economically and morally--after we took the two-working parents deal.
6) Again, by the over-all numbers: It's almost a sure bet that if you are a single-mom, you're going to live a large part of your life below the poverty line (the amount of time you're going to have to miss work because of your kids plays a big role, I suspect.).
All of this strongly suggests we need to take close look at the cost/benefits of two-income families and single parents.
And the huffiness of "well, _I'm_ a good mom, how dare you criticize _me_!" won't change those numbers.
Posted by: RoyalOil at May 31, 2013 11:15 AM (VjL9S)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 31, 2013 11:16 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: Nate at May 31, 2013 11:16 AM (i3OIF)
Posted by: Ace Runner Stephen Price Blair at May 31, 2013 11:16 AM (QF8uk)
Predictably, dimwits like Erickson don't get this and insist on hopping back in the mud pit over and over and over again.
It's not that hard to redirect on that question, either.
"40% of mothers are now primary breadwinners. Threat or menace?"
Answer:
"Bravo for those women for shouldering the load. The real shame here is that many men would like to carry more of the household economic burden, but they're not able to. Men disproportionately have careers in manufacturing and in construction, and President Obama's policies have completely decimated those sectors. That's a tragedy at a societal level and at a family level. We need to start talking about how to roll back Obamanomics and get American men back in jobs again."
After that, FYNQ.
Posted by: torquewrench at May 31, 2013 11:16 AM (gqT4g)
"is that the libertarian/liberal/libertine message is live for yourself, live for today"
This really mischaracterizes most Libertarians.
Its not Live for yourself... but it is 'I do not have the wisdom to tell you how to live, and YOU do not have the wisdom to tell ME how to live'.
And that Government power is used, to do just that...
If YOU wish to do good Acts? Great!!! We all should... and Kudos to YOU!... but if the Government forces you to do good acts... is it good for YOUR soul?
And its also if you wish to Destroy yourself? Then as we cannot Stop you anyway, why should the Government try?
War on Drugs.... prime example... there are just as many drugs available today as when I was a Kid... and the erosion of Civil Rights (no knock Raids and Government Property seizure) which the War on Drugs was used as an excuse for.... has NOT stopped it... and NEVER WILL...
I think the best way to describe at least this libertarians view... is that Government should be a Referee... not an entity that tells us how to live (through the tax code).
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 11:16 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: bour3 at May 31, 2013 11:16 AM (5x3+2)
23...why is this an issue?
Willow...it's because of that new 'statistic' about how many women are the "Primary Breadwinners" in their family.
Megyn Kelly is one of those women, who works outside the home...and makes more than her husband.
She is also pregnant with her 3rd child right now.
Erickson should have just thrown himself on her mercy, begged forgiveness, and hoped for the best.
But instead, he doubled down.
Posted by: wheatie at May 31, 2013 11:16 AM (CnFRK)
Posted by: AG Holder at May 31, 2013 11:16 AM (NKBxV)
Posted by: Vote Lord Humungus 2016 at May 31, 2013 11:17 AM (HEa5q)
Posted by: D. Hopper at May 31, 2013 11:17 AM (UsR5V)
.........
And your point is?
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 31, 2013 11:17 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: garrett at May 31, 2013 03:15 PM (Ov9U
She's about 7 1/2 months pregnant.
Posted by: Tami[/i][/b][/u][/s] at May 31, 2013 11:17 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 11:17 AM (/jHWN)
What is not complex is recognizing that Erickson defines mediocrity (which is why they let him represent the right on CNN).
His whole site is a circle jerk and a shitty advertisement for conservatism. I mean, RS rises to, like, the bottom rung of lower-middlebrow on a really good day.
Posted by: P.M. at May 31, 2013 11:17 AM (DgZld)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at May 31, 2013 11:17 AM (b9K4P)
I grew up as socon as you could get, but I gave up a long time ago thinking the government was the solution to anything. I wish everybody in the world was a Southern Baptist, but I damn sure don't want the government to make that happen.
Posted by: Bomber at May 31, 2013 11:18 AM (AkdCZ)
Posted by: Jim The Embalmer at May 31, 2013 11:18 AM (+iqDb)
Frankly I couldn't care less what women have to say on this issue.
I don't think the question is, "Wow, when did women become the breadwinners in 40% of households?" The question SHOULD BE, "What is happening to the men?"
But no one wants to talk about that. Men don't matter, right?
ARRGH, don't get me started. This is one of my pet issues. Sorry, ladies -- I don't care about you. I really don't. And I'm one of you. I'm sick and tired of being treated like I'm somehow special because I've got two X-chromosomes, while the men can go jump off a cliff because REASONS. Fuck that.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 11:18 AM (4df7R)
If I were to put forth a premise such as this and knew that I was going to be on national tv, I'd at least rehearse my replies to obvious challenges.
His premise is not out of bounds. It needs to be discussed. But please, whoever decides to bring it up in a venue such as this, be prepared with some facts and stories.
Posted by: Soona at May 31, 2013 11:18 AM (TqtU4)
Posted by: Some journalist who could barely pass algebra at May 31, 2013 11:18 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Beagle at May 31, 2013 11:19 AM (sOtz/)
Women earning more than their husbands isn't quite the societal upheaval that children have half the parental care and supervision.
Posted by: zsasz at May 31, 2013 03:07 PM (MMC8r)
Yep - the 40% number includes single mothers raising kids alone along with married couples where say the wife is a doctor and makes more than the husband. These situations are so different it's really impossible to generalize about both.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2013 11:19 AM (pAlYe)
Are any of them married?
Who the fuck has sex inside of marriage?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 31, 2013 11:20 AM (O6Tmi)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:20 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 11:20 AM (wsGWu)
Posted by: mrshad at May 31, 2013 11:20 AM (Xqfwb)
Posted by: Zeb Quinn at May 31, 2013 11:20 AM (HRmlz)
Posted by: Don Rickles at May 31, 2013 11:20 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: CarolT at May 31, 2013 11:20 AM (AxE3L)
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at May 31, 2013 11:21 AM (3B1GS)
Posted by: redguy at May 31, 2013 11:21 AM (oqvI4)
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 31, 2013 11:21 AM (ZshNr)
still their are many cases wher divorce is less abusive to the childrens health and welfare than the family staying united.
Posted by: willow at May 31, 2013 03:12 PM (nqBYe)
I got divorced when my twins were 1 1/2 years old... and I was granted full custody... they are now 22 and out on their own...
THEY have asked me how I ever married their Mom in the first place...
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 11:21 AM (lZBBB)
He's like the guy from the bullpen who you can count on to blow the game no matter how big the lead
Think of him as the conservative's Doug Sisk or Mitch Williams
Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2013 11:21 AM (mCvL4)
OT a bit but this reminded me of a recent unsettling feeling that I realized that I was experiencing for quite sometime now.
My default frame of reference for women now is that they all hate men and only tolerate us until something better comes along. I hate that feeling because it makes my constant pursuit of women with the goal of finding the right one, seem like a fools errand.
I tried to evaluate what has made me come to this position and found that it was not hard to determine. Today you have constant reinforcement through various media sources that all women are lesbians deep inside and that all men are dork faces that can't do anything right. Also my personal anectdotes of male friends whose wives have filed for divorce because they just aren't in love any more, in other words, bored.
Nothing I can do about it because as they say women have half the money and all of the P.
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 11:21 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Weirddave at May 31, 2013 11:21 AM (aH+zP)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at May 31, 2013 11:21 AM (fMiHM)
The problem with Megan Kelly's argument is that she is likely the "breadwinner" because her job presents the greater income for the family.
Her complaints aside, the majority of that 40% aren't Megan Kelly's making six figures living in Manhattan.
Posted by: Nate at May 31, 2013 11:21 AM (i3OIF)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at May 31, 2013 03:18 PM (4df7R)
That just makes you intellectually honest.
And also hot.
Posted by: Washington Nearsider, The Colossus of Independence at May 31, 2013 11:21 AM (fwARV)
Posted by: rickb223 at May 31, 2013 11:21 AM (NKBxV)
After that, FYNQ.
Posted by: torquewrench at May 31, 2013 03:16 PM (gqT4g)
1000 times this.
Posted by: Berserker at May 31, 2013 11:22 AM (FMbng)
Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2013 11:22 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:22 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Dr Spank at May 31, 2013 03:21 PM (4cRnj)
Three now, including this one?
Posted by: EC at May 31, 2013 11:22 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: .87c at May 31, 2013 11:22 AM (a9Kbt)
I grew up as socon as you could get, but I gave up a long time ago thinking the government was the solution to anything. I wish everybody in the world was a Southern Baptist, but I damn sure don't want the government to make that happen.
Posted by: Bomber
S'Truth.
Employing the power of the State to reinforce or underline one's moral framework will always come back to bite you in the ass, and it is one of the least effective ways of changing behavior.
Posted by: Pres. Bystander [/i] [/b] at May 31, 2013 11:23 AM (ZIcZg)
Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2013 11:23 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Waldo at May 31, 2013 11:23 AM (dHIHO)
Posted by: mrshad at May 31, 2013 11:23 AM (Xqfwb)
Posted by: rickb223 at May 31, 2013 03:21 PM (NKBxV)
This is why, if I could practice a little necromancy, I'd raise LBJ from the grave JUST to have the pleasure of killing him again.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 11:23 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: slatz at May 31, 2013 11:24 AM (mE0Rl)
Posted by: The Obsidian Owl at May 31, 2013 03:20 PM (tWmgi)
Yeah.... because those have sooooo much to do with human behavior...
Please disregard the last few thousand years of human history.... as unimportant...
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 11:24 AM (lZBBB)
I'm right there with ya..
Posted by: Hillary at May 31, 2013 11:24 AM (/jHWN)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:24 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:24 AM (ZPrif)
But instead, hedoubled down.
Posted by: wheatie at May 31, 2013 03:16 PM
If you've seen his Tweets, that's how he rolls
Erick can't help himself, the word "obtuse" has his picture next to it in the dictionary
Posted by: kbdabear at May 31, 2013 11:25 AM (mCvL4)
Back on topic, nothing should be discussed in absolutes. Personally I think its better if the man is the protector / breadwinner and the mother is the child care /homemaker.
That doesn't mean that a structure other than that cannot be successful. My mother worked full time as did my father. I was a key latch kid and I think I turned out fine. Of course your mileage may vary on that opinion.
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 11:25 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: RolandTHTG at May 31, 2013 11:25 AM (QM5S2)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 11:25 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 11:25 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: Brother Cavil at May 31, 2013 11:25 AM (fMiHM)
Posted by: jwpaine @PirateBallerina at May 31, 2013 11:26 AM (/lWM8)
Posted by: dogfish at May 31, 2013 11:26 AM (nsOJa)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at May 31, 2013 11:26 AM (b9K4P)
Do not watch "Zero Dark Thirty."
It is two+ hours of hectoring about how the presence of female genitalia confers superior strength, resilience, insight and intelligence.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 31, 2013 11:26 AM (O6Tmi)
A man pursuing his own goals is a selfish prick asshole dirtbag.
A woman pursuing her own goals is a shining example of empowerment.
*SEETHE*
In my own personal hell, I'd be forced to watch "Eat Pray Love" on a neverending loop.
*ragestroke!*
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 11:26 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:26 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: JohnKerryIsADoucheBag at May 31, 2013 11:26 AM (6sqK6)
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 11:26 AM (m2CN7)
First: One of the biggest problems with social conservatism as far as politics -- as far as the politics of the thing, mind you, not the truth -- is that the libertarian/liberal/libertine message is live for yourself, live for today, and social conservatives are constantly being big buzzkills by saying, "Let's remember the children, huh?"
Eh...not really ace. You're confusing hedonism (I'll grant you libertinism) with classic political liberalism which is two different things.
Politically speaking you can be socially conservative and still believe that government should get the fuck out of my business. In fact I'd argue this is the heart of social conservatism (that we must return to family units making moral choices.)
The problem comes when it becomes "government must enforce the morals I see as good!" in that end rabid social conservatism really is just the other side of progressivism.
You burn down an army of strawmen by putting it your way though. Indeed, "let's remember the children" by handing them a government that is still marginally functional and a country that is not strangled by debt. (Funny that's fiscal conservatism....)
Do you see my point?
Posted by: tsrblke at May 31, 2013 11:27 AM (GaqMa)
88...Yep - the 40% number includes single mothers raising kids alone along with married couples where say the wife is a doctor and makes more than the husband. These situations are so different it's really impossible to generalize about both.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2013 03:19 PM (pAlYe)
--------
Really? ...Well then it is a bullshit statistic.
How can they justify including Single Mothers in a statistic about the "biggest breadwinner in a family"...when there is only one parent?
Who are they comparing the single mothers' salaries to?
Posted by: wheatie at May 31, 2013 11:27 AM (CnFRK)
Posted by: rickb223 at May 31, 2013 03:21 PM (NKBxV)
that was a disaster i have often wondered if by design.
They destroyed the family unit and made dependency a norm to survive .
Posted by: willow at May 31, 2013 11:27 AM (nqBYe)
Ace, awesome.... can I use this?
Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 11:27 AM (/jHWN)
It is two+ hours of hectoring about how the presence of female genitalia confers superior strength, resilience, insight and intelligence.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 31, 2013 03:26 PM (O6Tmi)
Duly noted.
People wonder why I hate "chick flicks." This is why.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 11:27 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2013 11:28 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 11:28 AM (wsGWu)
This is pretty close to my default framing as well.
You omitted one important thing though: the government also should not be in the business of using our tax dollars to encourage people to butter their pickles. Progs are *masters* at changing all their newly discovered "civil rights" into something the government Must Pay For Or Else You're A H8r.
Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 11:28 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: Andy at May 31, 2013 11:28 AM (fPLno)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 11:28 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: BlueStateRebel at May 31, 2013 11:28 AM (7ObY1)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:28 AM (ZPrif)
There is a big f'ing problem with the gender imbalance in our universities--that is leading to lots of problems that we also must pretend aren't problems lest we hurt some poor dear's feelings.
Posted by: RoyalOil at May 31, 2013 11:28 AM (VjL9S)
"So I ignored this story hoping it would go away... "
Wait a sec.... is this really Ace??? or did someone in the MSM slip him one of those Wrath of Khan Earworms?
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 11:28 AM (lZBBB)
Well, no, he wasn't.
His mom, a typical selfish 1960s hippie flake, took off on a solipsistic quest to "find herself" and get an anthropology degree focusing on Turd World leftist crap, ignoring her kid. The young Obama was essentially raised by his grandparents.
And Obama did have a father figure in his life for most of his childhood. That was (cough) family friend (cough) Frank Marshall Davis. Who may well have been more than merely a father "figure".
Posted by: torquewrench at May 31, 2013 11:28 AM (gqT4g)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:29 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 11:29 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2013 11:29 AM (QxSug)
I think it is wrong to assume unemployed women make better mothers. Like obviously. I have seen unemployed parents blowing aid money on Lotto and 12 packs where neither could be bothered to parent despite having 24-7 to do so.
---------
My Mom was a "stay at home" mother, and let my Dad be the sole breadwinner. She gets *very* upset if someone says that she was unemployed. She was a "home maker", and for her it was a full-time job.
Posted by: junior at May 31, 2013 11:29 AM (UWFpX)
Posted by: ace at May 31, 2013 11:29 AM (LCRYB)
heheh, Howie Carr is playing the CNN clip with the two nitwits saying "the American people are saying 'the heck with the scandals,' let's focus on the economy"
Posted by: Soothsayer at May 31, 2013 11:29 AM (vzLhi)
It was just a stupid, stupid place to take the topic of discussion.
Posted by: The Obsidian Owl at May 31, 2013 03:20 PM (tWmgi)
---------------------------------------------
Wow. Sounds like the public school system has versed you well in relativism.
Please get a clue. People are not spiders, or cats, or dogs.
Posted by: Soona at May 31, 2013 11:30 AM (TqtU4)
Posted by: Tami[/i][/b][/u][/s] at May 31, 2013 11:30 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: The littl shyning man at May 31, 2013 11:30 AM (PH+2B)
Posted by: Andy at May 31, 2013 11:30 AM (fPLno)
I've never met anyone who is so conflicted on these issues. To the point it makes him appear disingenuous. In retort, you want to ask- "gee, tell me what you really think".
It's the liberal modus operandi- only from the Right perspective. It's an anomaly. An extreme.
The sad part is people listen to Erick mostly without intellectual intervention. They identify him as some type of quintessential "conservative". Bull-dinky. He's the reason we never make any progress and the minute we find compromise (oh, there is that dirty word which has under-girded our politics since the Continental Congress) that inches us forward, he is looking for the Establishment Bogeyman.
I'm a little tired of people who are self-anointed "leaders". They are not. No person holds the political Rosetta Stone, nor have they or will they. Until we learn to work as a single party and compromise amongst ourselves, enjoy the forest view.
/rant
Posted by: Marcus at May 31, 2013 11:30 AM (GGCsk)
Posted by: CarolT at May 31, 2013 11:30 AM (AxE3L)
* Except Lindsay Lohan. And most other people. In fact, most people who court controversy go broke. But still, my point stands, even if untrue.
Posted by: ace
------------------
Ye gads, Ace. The footnotes/references would run to pages. I'm wondering who the most successful (recent) controversy-courter would be? My money is on Al Sharpton, but it would be foolish to discount Jesse Jackson, though his star has faded.
Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at May 31, 2013 11:31 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: X at May 31, 2013 11:31 AM (KHo8t)
Posted by: tsrblke at May 31, 2013 03:27 PM (GaqMa)
Fuckin' A!
Well put.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 31, 2013 11:31 AM (O6Tmi)
Frankly, our kids have impairments and disabilities that having a stay-at-home parent for is infinitely preferable to two part-time commuters, and, given she's a manic type-A with the degrees and winning attitude vs. me who is the absolute opposite, there's really no other decision. She can earn twice as much as I can and there's no reason to pretend different.
Posted by: zsasz at May 31, 2013 11:31 AM (MMC8r)
Who are they comparing the single mothers' salaries to?
Posted by: wheatie at May 31, 2013 03:27 PM (CnFRK)
They're lumping them together. The articles would more clearly be titled something like "30% of households now headed by a single mom"
Posted by: slatz at May 31, 2013 11:32 AM (mE0Rl)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:32 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Dr Spank at May 31, 2013 11:32 AM (4cRnj)
"I think this argument illustrates the ever-present tension that exists between personal fulfillment and what's best for children. "
It is also the tension between instant and delayed gratification, between being irresponsible and being responsible, between living life like it is a beer commercial and growing up.
It is real easy to say that someone can be irresponsible as much as he or she wants, just don't make someone else take responsibility. The reality is that a lot of irresponsible behavior inflicts a lot of collateral damage on people who were not initially involved but now have to manage the mess.
How that squares with the popular idea of the libertarian message is difficult, because some responsible person is always, always, always going to have to step up.*
*Some people understand the libertarian message is actually one of great responsibility. I am refering to those who think it means smoking pot and doing whatever you want, when, where, and how you want.
Posted by: Mikey NTH - Pirate Scum of Umbar at May 31, 2013 11:32 AM (hLRSq)
Posted by: The Jackhole at May 31, 2013 11:32 AM (nTgAI)
Posted by: Weirddave at May 31, 2013 11:32 AM (aH+zP)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 31, 2013 11:32 AM (pLTLS)
yeah it's a real question and it's so huge it goes outside of politics.
Think about it: Is it actually true that a human being must live entirely for his or her kids, even remaining inside a marriage in which he or she is miserable?
---------------------------
That's a cheap-shit, false-choice, sloppy-assed, transparently insulting rhetorical device. Unsurprising that Erickson has chosen it, as he is one unimpressive debater.
OF COURSE you don't live *entirely* for your children. Everything must be done in balance. What if you have multiple children? You can't live *entirely* for all of them, or it wouldn't fucking be ENTIRE, now would it?
But he either can't be honest because it's a short segment and it's more important to think you're scoring points of Megyn Kelly, who is clearly his superior in every way, or he's just that fucking stupid because he gets his ideas from TV.
In a family of six, I have five relationships to maintain as well as making sure that I remember to take time for myself. When you let things get out of balance, you suffer. You get out of shape. Your relationship with your wife suffers. One of your kids are hurt because you haven't done something with *just them* in a while.
But who the hell wants to do a segment about how to have a happy, well-adjusted two-parent family? It's more entertaining to watch Erick Erickson run his fat, sloppy cocksocket, I guess.
And who eats buttered pickles? That doesn't sound good.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 11:32 AM (CJjw5)
Posted by: willow at May 31, 2013 03:12 PM (nqBYe)
This. The happiest day of my miserable childhood was the day my parents got a divorce. A quiet household with one parent was far preferable to the non-stop screaming with two. (Though it didn't last long...Mom remarried and proceeded to fuck up another husband and two more kids.)
Anecdotally, my mother was a stay-at-home with five kids. She was miserable and she made damn sure everyone around her was miserable too. She wanted to be back at the paper, reporting on local happenings instead of cleaning house and shagging kids.
You'll never settle this argument, ace, because it's invalid to begin with. Cause/effect has not been proven and never will be.
Posted by: creeper at May 31, 2013 11:32 AM (vbzvs)
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at May 31, 2013 11:32 AM (MUZDl)
Posted by: garrett at May 31, 2013 11:33 AM (Ov9U8)
So impossible that it's foolish to even try ... unless you're Erick Erickson, who apparently likes the feel of stepping on his own dick.
Posted by: Andy at May 31, 2013 03:28 PM (fPLno)
And that's why Erickson was a double idiot: He was wrong on the 'science' and he was a fool to take on such an ill-defined statistic.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2013 11:33 AM (pAlYe)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 11:33 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Cadet Juan "Johnny" Rico at May 31, 2013 11:33 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: Yup at May 31, 2013 11:33 AM (1o2+Q)
Name for me a TV "commentator" who ever did a single thing to advance the Republican Party. I can think of perhaps one.
Posted by: Marcus at May 31, 2013 11:34 AM (GGCsk)
88...Yep - the 40% number includes single mothers raising kids alone along with married couples where say the wife is a doctor and makes more than the husband. These situations are so different it's really impossible to generalize about both.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2013 03:19 PM (pAlYe)
What it means is that there are a shitload of single-mother households with only one breadwinner, and a smaller portion of two-parent households where the mother makes more money than the father.
(Note, however, that there's no discussion of single FATHER households, because again, fuck the men. *RAGESTROKE*)
So I ask once more: where are the men? And why aren't they there? Anybody out there in libby land care to talk about that? And I don't mean talk about it in terms of how their absence affects the children (answer: badly) or, God forbid, how it affects women (everything is not about women!!), but how their absence affects MEN THEMSELVES.
There are men out there who are miserable because they have no direction, no attainable goals, and are constantly fed a stream of media bullshit that tells them they are hapless imbeciles who can never hope to reach the pinnacle of superiority that women allegedly inhabit. If that doesn't make you furious, you're not paying close enough attention.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 11:34 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 11:34 AM (dZ756)
1. Pregnancies terminated by abortions.
2. Pregnancies carried through to term with a child now born into a single-parent family.
and 3. Getting hit in the head with a frying pan by your wife.
Posted by: wth at May 31, 2013 11:34 AM (wAQA5)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:34 AM (ZPrif)
So impossible that it's foolish to even try ... unless you're Erick Erickson, who apparently likes the feel of stepping on his own dick.
Posted by: Andy at May 31, 2013 03:28 PM (fPLno)
And that's why Erickson was a double idiot: He was wrong on the 'science' and he was a fool to take on such an ill-defined statistic.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2013 03:33 PM (pAlYe)
He constantly makes arguments that are obtuse and pointless, did I mention his blog sucks too ?
Posted by: The Jackhole at May 31, 2013 11:35 AM (nTgAI)
That's a broad brush there. Like I said, I'm way out on the socon side of things, but that's my personal choice. I choose not to partake in any drugs (well, alcohol), but I don't care what you do. As long as you don't ask me to pay for it. If it was up to me the govt would stay out of that decision too.
Posted by: Bomber at May 31, 2013 11:35 AM (AkdCZ)
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at May 31, 2013 11:35 AM (MUZDl)
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 31, 2013 11:35 AM (PsfVm)
Posted by: Y-not is a tiny bit off topic at May 31, 2013 11:35 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 03:28 PM (wsGWu)
Oh hell no!
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 11:35 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 11:35 AM (/PCJa)
174 Megyn's husband is an author and I think before that he worked on Wall St. I couldn't say with certainty that she makes more than him. Possibly not.
----------
They sort of alluded to it, Tami...in a joking way...one time, when he was on her show.
Posted by: wheatie at May 31, 2013 11:36 AM (CnFRK)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:36 AM (ZPrif)
With respect, this is not a tough issue.
Used to be a "household" income meant what the man made. Now both parents have to work to maintain a somewhat similar lifestyle to days gone by.
Is it good for strangers/nonparents to be home for the kids. Or is it better for a parent to always be at home and available for the kids.
And is the mom or dad the better stay at home person. It really is that fucking simple.
Posted by: Prescient11 at May 31, 2013 11:36 AM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Andy at May 31, 2013 11:36 AM (ROAr1)
Megyn Kelly cuts these jackasses's balls off, and they sit there smiling as though their balls are still attached.
Just for once I'd like to see one of these guys break down and say "oof" or start crying or just sit there in stunned silence, realizing how stupid they look.
I'd pay for that.
Posted by: Kensington at May 31, 2013 11:36 AM (Yy2ZT)
Okay, I know this is so OT, and forgive me for derailing this thread, but I have to vent:
I had an employee who physically attacked me in my office last October and who I fired on the spot. Then she had the audacity to file for unemployment benefits AND got them. I have filed written protests online, by snail mail, and fax, with no response.
Today I received a notice from the state of Florida stating my unemployment rate is doubling, beginning July 1, and will remain doubled for 3 years.
I called the Tallahassee office, and they said, sorry - even though I filed my initial protest online back in October, they "missed" it. They did get my faxed protest from April, and forwarded it to the Ft Lauderdale adjudication office May 6th. But that doesn't matter: the doubled rate goes into effect July 1 unless Fort Lauderdale rescinds it. And if they resolve the case later, I can always file an amended return and request a refund. Of course I called Fort Lauderdale today and of course none of the 3 names I was given by Tallahassee answered their extensions.
As I wrote in my new protest letter today, “unless a physical assault on your employer is now grounds for receiving reemployment benefits and doubling the rate of the individual who was attacked, there is no earthly reason for this claimant to collect them OR for this rate increase.”
Although I'm in a big executive office building and other people witnessed the attack, I'm berating myself for not contacting the police at the time. I could have shut down this whole thing very quickly and made this former employee pay back the $ she essentially stole from the state.
What makes this story even more pathetic? This former employee and assailant is my sister – who always claimed she was a big conservative and would never take a handout from the government.
Like I’ve said to my husband – you can’t make this shit up.
Posted by: Marybeth at May 31, 2013 11:37 AM (Ks0w4)
Can we buy Erickson a clue?
Posted by: wheatie at May 31, 2013 03:02 PM (CnFRK)
He wouldn't know what to do with it, but I'm sure he'd be happy for you to donate.
Mew
Posted by: acat at May 31, 2013 11:37 AM (4UkCP)
Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 11:37 AM (wsGWu)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:37 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: torquewrench at May 31, 2013 03:28 PM (gqT4g)
He was adopted at 5, and raised in Indonesia in a Two Parent household until 9?
Then went to Hawaii where he was raised by his Grandparents... again in a two adult household....
Not a poster child for 'raised by a single Mom' IMO....
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 11:37 AM (lZBBB)
People don't want to sacrifice for anything. Not even children.
My parents were willing to sacrifice everything for us and, on some occasions, did. I have no doubt that if one of us had become disabled by sickness or accident, my parents would have sacrificed all of their worldly wants in order to make our lives better.
My mom was a registered nurse with a bright future. When she had children, she accepted that was, at that point, her primary responsibility.
Posted by: Soona at May 31, 2013 11:37 AM (TqtU4)
1: I, too, believe in the traditional Mom stays home and Dad works, but in Daughter's case son-in-law really is the better stay at home parent. That isn't usually true, but in this case it really is (Daughter used to say if she got the maternal instinct she would borrow one of her brothers kids till she got over it).
2: Spelling her name Souxie is more likely to drive her to the pole than Dad missing soccer games IMNSHO, but to each his/her own.
3: The more MWR says the hotter she becomes. Pretty soon she will melt through the earth's crust and go all the way down to its core.
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at May 31, 2013 11:38 AM (3B1GS)
Didn't read all the comments. I'd like our side to focus on the deliberate feminizing of men, the abuse they take in our schools simply for being boys (overmedicated, attacked for toy guns, competitiveness etc...) and the fact that the legal system fucks over men regularly in the areas of divorce and child support.
I'd also like to note that boys are falling behind in education and no one give a shit. Because #fairness, I guess.
Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2013 11:38 AM (HzhBE)
Posted by: Marcus at May 31, 2013 11:38 AM (GGCsk)
And Obama did have a father figure in his life for most of his childhood. That was (cough) family friend (cough) Frank Marshall Davis. Who may well have been more than merely a father "figure".
---------------------------
There was also Obama's step-father in Indonesia. But based on what I've heard, apparently Mom realized that little Barry was bonding too well with Step-Dad, and the latter was starting to adopt some of the positions that Mom hated, and she sent little Barry back to the States.
Posted by: junior at May 31, 2013 11:38 AM (UWFpX)
Well something is swelling up....
Posted by: wooga at May 31, 2013 11:38 AM (SexZN)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 03:34 PM (dZ756)
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Really, better appreciation for the arts and literature ? Becuase gay people are superior in the arts and literature. Listen to yourself.
What about retarded parents, what will their kids be better at ?
Posted by: The Jackhole at May 31, 2013 11:38 AM (nTgAI)
And I could make as many poptart guns at school as I wanted, and no one would mess with me.
Posted by: Mad Man at May 31, 2013 11:38 AM (Djwm9)
Please get a clue. People are not spiders, or cats, or dogs.
Posted by: Soona at May 31, 2013 03:30 PM (TqtU4)
Actually go tell Erickson that since he was arguing that science and Nature say that the male should be dominant.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2013 11:38 AM (pAlYe)
When a study shows that doing X means you're Y% more likely to have bad outcome Z happen, every idiot who did X just has to show up with "OH YEAH WELL UR WRONG CUZ I DID X AND Z DIDN'T HAPPEN SO THERE".
It's disappointing that Megyn played it this way.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 31, 2013 11:39 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2013 11:39 AM (CMlD4)
Posted by: AuthorLMendez at May 31, 2013 11:39 AM (yAor6)
Posted by: Thunderb at May 31, 2013 11:39 AM (nH8jP)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 11:39 AM (XIxXP)
I happened to drive through a ghetto area of North Philly last night on the way to a concert. Noticed in a short drive FOUR very large, institutional-looking daycare centers, all run by the same outfit. I mean these places were huge. Made me sad. All those babies being warehoused in those places because their baby daddies are probably either dead or in prison.
Then I watched "Nightline" last night, which just happened to be about Strawberry Mansion High School, also in a ghetto area of Philly, which is considered one of the most dangerous high schools in the US. Has a very dedicated principal and some really great and courageous teachers. But when they had back-to-school night, when parents are supposed to come and meet their kids' teachers and learn about what their kids are studying, nobody came.
And then we wonder why there are shootings and robberies and rapes on the news every single night. Thousands and thousands of young people are out on the streets of our cities, with no family to govern or support them and no education and no job and no self-respect. And liberals think some bullshit called the Common Core is going to fix everything in our schools. It's the PARENTS that need fixing!
Anyone who cannot see what we are doing to ourselves is just willfully blind.
Posted by: rockmom at May 31, 2013 11:39 AM (Ea7Up)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 03:32 PM (CJjw5)
Fried pickles, on the other hand, are ambrosia.
Posted by: joncelli at May 31, 2013 11:40 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 03:33 PM (XIxXP)
Two parent homes are obviously a healthier place to raise children. Who is the breadwinner is secondary to the presence of a mother and father.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 31, 2013 11:40 AM (O6Tmi)
So when the bus comes for Erick and Co., she can get on it too.
Posted by: Marcus at May 31, 2013 11:40 AM (GGCsk)
--------------
Big deal. I know of a murderer who is now a professor at Columbia..., actually there are many such. See? We should encourage such behavior...
Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at May 31, 2013 11:40 AM (aDwsi)
Any headline that has
Dominate
and
Megyn Kelly
in it is going to get my instant and undivided attention. Imagine my disappointment...
Posted by: RobM1981 at May 31, 2013 11:40 AM (lV1tZ)
>>>>216 With respect, this is not a tough issue.
Used to be a "household" income meant what the man made. Now both parents have to work to maintain a somewhat similar lifestyle to days gone by.
Exactly. And it's by design.
Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2013 11:40 AM (HzhBE)
Posted by: Pipe Holder at May 31, 2013 11:41 AM (VTeUD)
The old "scratch a libertarian, get a rant about pot" saw still cuts sharply, I see.
Banning marijuana is not a socon thing, it's a statist thing. (As far as I'm aware, the Bible has nothing to say on the subject, but the Koran does). Barack Obama, who is nobody sane's idea of a socon (oh hai Andrew Sullivan), has prosecuted an order of magnitude more pot users and growers than evil KKKristian George W. Bush.
This is an important data point for my grand unified theory that progs are mostly rich people trying to pull up the ladder after themselves. Even the Choom Gang noticed that tendency with Barack.
Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 11:41 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: Mætenloch
Are you saying men aren't physically dominant? Have you seen the WNBA?
Posted by: Dr Spank at May 31, 2013 11:41 AM (4cRnj)
http://www.myfoxny.com/story/22466841/hands-free-whopper
Posted by: WalrusRex at May 31, 2013 11:41 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:41 AM (ZPrif)
Erickson couldn't dominate a thirteen year old girl, wtf is he blathering on about?
Posted by: Jean at May 31, 2013 11:41 AM (CMlD4)
How did she show her true stripes?
Posted by: Dr Spank at May 31, 2013 11:42 AM (4cRnj)
afraid of is that children of gay parents are going to have better appreciation for the arts and literature than those of hetero parents.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 03:34 PM (dZ756)
Wow.... stereotype much?
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 11:42 AM (lZBBB)
As for gay parents, I think what some on the social right are really afraid of is that children of gay parents are going to have better appreciation for the arts and literature than those of hetero parents.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 03:34 PM (dZ756)
----------------------------
Yes. That's exactly it. I want all children to be as uncultured and lowbrow as I am, not fabulous, witty and urbane like Teh Gheyz.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 11:42 AM (CJjw5)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
-------
Just putting a point on it...
Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at May 31, 2013 11:42 AM (aDwsi)
Yep. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Applies to all.
Posted by: Bomber at May 31, 2013 11:42 AM (AkdCZ)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 11:42 AM (/PCJa)
Except that for certain people, and I have several examples from people close to me during my own life, drinking one beer WAS a gateway to becoming a whiskeyholic.
And except that for for certain people, and I have several examples from people close to me during my own life, smoking one joint WAS a gateway to becoming a full scale hard-drug addict and loser.
I have drunk beers. I have smoked weed. I experienced a gateway effect from neither. Most people don't. That some people do, though, is inescapable and indisputable.
A guy I knew in high school was a sober, serious, accomplished student. He smoked weed one weekend to unwind from a heavy load of AP courses and test prep. That started a steady, smooth downhill slide to where he was a horrifying homeless mess. Sucking scary old guys' cocks in dirty alleys in order to buy crack. He eventually got clean and he says specifically that weed really was the thing that tipped him into regular drug abuse and he wishes to this day he'd never tried it.
Prohibition of drugs and/or alcohol is a heavy-handed brute force policy. Such policies always have unpleasant second-order effects. The nation tried alcohol prohibition at one time and decided that the unpleasant second-order effects were just too much compared to the benefits, and repealed the thing.
But let us not pretend that lack of prohibition does not also have unpleasant second-order effects. Including that, in a world with legal and available alcohol or legal drugs, some susceptible individuals WILL experience a "gateway" phenomenon from either or both, and those individuals may end up with damaged or destroyed lives. Prohibitionist policies reduce the numbers of such afflicted persons. But with other bad numbers going up in their stead.
There is no magic policy set which produces health and happiness for everyone with no downside. There are always unavoidable, unpleasant tradeoffs of various kinds. Recognizing this is an important part of being an educated adult. Insisting that the magic policy set exists is best left to 20-year-olds in college dorm room bull sessions.
Posted by: torquewrench at May 31, 2013 11:43 AM (gqT4g)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:43 AM (ZPrif)
Btw, citing psychological studies as "science" is a joke.
Homos were a mental disorder 40 years ago according to these "scientists."
Posted by: Prescient11 at May 31, 2013 11:43 AM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2013 03:38 PM (pAlYe)
In the case of humans he was absolutely correct. Testeterone and Estrogen are the science behind dominant behavior or lack thereof.
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 11:44 AM (m2CN7)
What about retarded parents, what will their kids be better at ? Posted by: The Jackhole
Yes, dude. How many single, straight men, not on a date, do you see at the ballet, the opera, etc.?
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 11:44 AM (dZ756)
Fried pickles, on the other hand, are ambrosia.
Posted by: joncelli at May 31, 2013 03:40 PM (RD7QR)
----------------------
I disagree. I tried some at Buffalo Wild Wings and the taste was reminiscent of a skunk shitting on a hobo's socks. Different strokes, I guess.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 11:44 AM (CJjw5)
Posted by: Marcus at May 31, 2013 11:44 AM (GGCsk)
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 31, 2013 11:44 AM (ZshNr)
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at May 31, 2013 11:45 AM (qFpRI)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 03:34 PM (dZ756)
What about children of lesbians? Won't they have an advantage in motorcycle repair and professional tennis?
Posted by: zsasz at May 31, 2013 11:45 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Moby at May 31, 2013 11:45 AM (MUZDl)
Posted by: garrett at May 31, 2013 11:45 AM (Ov9U8)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 31, 2013 03:40 PM (O6Tmi)
HOMOPHOBE!!!!!!
Posted by: © Sponge at May 31, 2013 11:45 AM (xmcEQ)
Good choice! A child with a lawyer for a parent already has three strikes against them!
Posted by: Hrothgar at May 31, 2013 11:46 AM (Cnqmv)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 03:34 PM (dZ756)
Wow.... stereotype much? Posted by: Romeo13
------------
A little, but much less than society in general.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 11:46 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: Warden at May 31, 2013 03:38 PM (HzhBE)
This is a point I always try to make. Yo look at the math and reading and science statistics for girls vs. boys, and while they suck on both sides, any drops or improvements on the girls' side are treated as big news, while on the boys' side such things are dismissed as, "Oh, that's just the boys."
You look at morbidity and mortality statistics. You see that men are far more likely to successfully commit suicide, while womena re more likely to attempt it, and yet it is the LATTER that gets the HHS crowd in a tizzy. It's just accepted as okay that men kill themselves more than women, and usually more violently; cuz they're men.
Violent crime - more often committed by men. Prison terms -- longer for men. Recidivism -- men again! But none of that matters, because they're men. It's the poor WOMEN who have been FORCED into the correctional system who we should focus on. THEY'RE the only ones worthy of being saved.
Scuse me, I've got to go have an epileptic fit of uncensored, frothing profanity in the parking lot.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 11:46 AM (4df7R)
I'll take your word on the comparison, but the problem was that you got them from BWW.
Posted by: dogfish at May 31, 2013 11:46 AM (nsOJa)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:47 AM (ZPrif)
Yep. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Applies to all.
Posted by: Bomber at May 31, 2013 03:42 PM (AkdCZ)
Yep... Anti Abortion Libertarian here.... because that fetus is a PERSON... and your Rights stop when it hurts someone else...
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 11:47 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Y-not at May 31, 2013 11:47 AM (5H6zj)
***
Dear Penthouse Forum:
I never thought that it would happen to me but I did X and Z happened.
Posted by: WalrusRex at May 31, 2013 11:47 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Marcus at May 31, 2013 11:47 AM (GGCsk)
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2013 03:38 PM (pAlYe)
In the case of humans he was absolutely correct. Testeterone and Estrogen are the science behind dominant behavior or lack thereof.
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 03:44 PM (m2CN7)
But he was claiming that this was true across nature in general which is not true. Even among primates sexual dimorphism varies quite a lot from species to species.
Science is hard - it's harder when your initials are EE and you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2013 11:47 AM (pAlYe)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 03:34 PM (dZ756)
What about children of lesbians? Won't they have an advantage in motorcycle repair and professional tennis?
Posted by: zsasz
Exactly. And they'll be able to discuss the differences between the 4-3 and the 3-4 much better too.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 11:47 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 03:44 PM (CJjw5)
How often was that on the menu that you were tempted to give it a shot?
Posted by: © Sponge at May 31, 2013 11:48 AM (xmcEQ)
Also, I don't see how this discussion is getting us any closer to the goal of getting frosting on both sides of the Pop-Tart.
Posted by: garrett at May 31, 2013 11:48 AM (Ov9U8)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 11:48 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at May 31, 2013 11:48 AM (MUZDl)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at May 31, 2013 03:46 PM (4df7R)
Then add in.... Hey... Lets put more women into Hot Zones in the Military!!!
Oh... look... sexual assaults have increased!!! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 11:48 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: joeindc44 at May 31, 2013 11:49 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at May 31, 2013 03:34 PM (4df7R)
Refer to my last comment, point number 3...
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at May 31, 2013 11:49 AM (3B1GS)
Posted by: joeindc44 didn't analyze nuthin, just offered his own anecdotal evidence at May 31, 2013 11:50 AM (QxSug)
One I don't give a damn about your use of drugs and I am a socon. But I have yet to see the drug addled addict who won't take advantage of state benefits. Self reliance and responsibility comes first. Then I will support you having your weed. Not before.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose DOOMCASTER! at May 31, 2013 11:50 AM (0q2P7)
Also, I don't see how this discussion is getting us any closer to the goal of getting frosting on both sides of the Pop-Tart.
They'll never bridge the jelly matrix.
Posted by: zsasz at May 31, 2013 11:50 AM (MMC8r)
EoJ's already addressed this, but I have an additional point.
Gays and lesbians are around 3% of the population. If they were the only ones contributing to the arts, the arts wouldn't exist.
Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 11:50 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:50 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 11:50 AM (dZ756)
***Nobody analyzed the evidence. They just looked at the anecdotal evidence in their own life and got offended if they thought the evidence might make them feel bad. ***
Was the evidence in the Post?
Because people don't read those.
Posted by: garrett at May 31, 2013 11:50 AM (Ov9U8)
but it's my fervent wish that someday he won't see the
pro-life/anti-abortion position in terms of social conservatism. It's
really a human rights issue. I realize some pro-lifers incorporate
religious language into their arguments, but ultimately I hope this is
still a country in which the right to life transcends a belief in God.
--------------------------
Won't work. If one does not believe in God, then any action becomes excusable, sooner or later. If one were to ask a woman about to have an abortion,
1. Do you believe in God?
2. Do you believe that God wants this child dead?
a pair of 'Yes' answers isn't possible..., I don't believe, within the strictures of any religion. On the other hand, Left\Liberal\Progressives, who claim that they hold life precious (Coexist!) have no problem with abortion.
Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at May 31, 2013 11:50 AM (aDwsi)
Does anyone here know anyone who smoked weed before either smoking tobacco or drinking beer?
Yep. Me.
Posted by: garrett at May 31, 2013 11:51 AM (Ov9U8)
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 31, 2013 11:51 AM (irlNU)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 11:51 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 11:51 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2013 03:47 PM (pAlYe)
Thanks I admittedly did not read or watch EE since I'm not a fan and I did not realize that he was talking across nature as a whole. Another dumbass who suppressed the vote in 2012.
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 11:52 AM (m2CN7)
"Sex outside of marriage will lead, inevitably, to two things"
A third is a sexually transmitted, although that is not inevitable. Then again, neither are the first 2. I would have used the word possibly
Posted by: Bill at May 31, 2013 11:52 AM (UvI0D)
How often was that on the menu that you were tempted to give it a shot?
Posted by: © Sponge at May 31, 2013 03:48 PM (xmcEQ)
-----------------------
In my defense, I was heavily overserved at the bar before ordering the fried pickles.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 11:52 AM (CJjw5)
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 31, 2013 03:38 PM (pAlYe)
------------------------------------------
Nowhere on this thread have I defended Erickson. With his use of the liberal relativistic line, he deserved it. He would have been better served, as I said, with some basic facts from passed eras of marriage roles to prove his point.
However, I think the moral problems we have in this nation now are not just from mommy going to work all day. One question that desparately needs to be asked is; why does mommy have to work?
Posted by: Soona at May 31, 2013 11:52 AM (TqtU4)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:52 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at May 31, 2013 11:53 AM (qFpRI)
Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 11:53 AM (wsGWu)
Posted by: garrett
------------------
Not only that..., I want them thick enough to simulate a six-shot cylinder.
Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at May 31, 2013 11:53 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 31, 2013 11:53 AM (ZshNr)
It's not about whether there's an ideal or not that is looked to, it's a matter of the value of the ideal and what its potentials are.
The short-sightedness of social conservatives has to do with not being traditional enough, not being too traditional. If you go back far enough you find that the nuclear family is not the family, the extended family is. The male marrieds tend to be the leaders, and this is natural.
When you have 40% of women as breadwinners, that means that men are shirking their duties as the leaders of families. It doesn't help, however, that the nuclear family as we understand it is unnatural anyway.
There's a connection between the responsibility of the man, abortion, sex, and breadwinning. The fi-cons are on the wrong side of history on this one, just in that the liberal view on these things is one of demographic decline, which is to lose the long game.
I see the phenomenon of so many breadwinning mothers/women not as a positive, but a negative sign for the economy; women are the second-string working team, and while second-string teams have always been called on to play, if most of your players are from the second-string team, it means your first-string are out of commission.
The feminization of much of the workplace and society has as much to do with this 40% figure as to do with the impact of feminism.
Posted by: RiverC at May 31, 2013 11:53 AM (KTytI)
Posted by: booger at May 31, 2013 11:53 AM (E1tcO)
Posted by: rickb223 at May 31, 2013 11:53 AM (NKBxV)
Progs are obsessed with the idea that Earth will become uninhabitable Because Global Warming You Guys. Even Serenity, which otherwise has a very libertarian message, includes that little point.
Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 11:53 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 03:50 PM (dZ756)
Yes... multiple people...
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 11:54 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: zsasz at May 31, 2013 11:54 AM (MMC8r)
Yes, dude. How many single, straight men, not on a date, do you see at the ballet, the opera, etc.?
Can I be counted because I have tons of classical music on my I-pod?
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 11:54 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 11:54 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 11:54 AM (/jHWN)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at May 31, 2013 11:54 AM (DuH+r)
Posted by: eleven at May 31, 2013 11:54 AM (fsLdt)
I made a 1/8" slice of Kosher dill, and spread it with butter. It was gross. Don't do this. One star.
Posted by: Splunge at May 31, 2013 11:54 AM (bKA83)
Posted by: RWC at May 31, 2013 11:55 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: joncelli at May 31, 2013 11:55 AM (RD7QR)
Once you've had a Toaster Strudel you'll never look at a poptart again.
Spoken like a true fuckin' RiNO.
Posted by: garrett at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (Ov9U8)
You know, Maetenloch, maybe you're being too harsh on Erick Erickson. He could know exactly what he is doing.
There is porn for guys who like getting their balls stepped on by stiletto heels, or having their shit tied, pulled backwards between their cheeks, and spanked bloody with a wire BBQ grill brush.
Maybe he's one of those guys, because it sure looked like that's what happened and he didn't seem too upset by it.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (CJjw5)
Inre all of this crap, it seems to me the "science" keeps getting morphed to achieve various ends.
A woman working = science doesn't hold that the woman is better suited to stay home with the kids.
A woman in a divorce = kids should go with the woman because women are better suited to raise kids than a father is.
Posted by: @JohnTant at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (eytER)
Honestly, how is this NOT true? Women make babies, care for babies, raise babies. Otherwise, chaos.
We see the result currently. Scream all you want, but Megyn Kelly is shortchanging her kid, and that's the plain truth.
Posted by: tcn at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (ZOUmX)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (XIxXP)
-------
Ah. Like the Chinese female infanticide?
Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (aDwsi)
Would such a Pop-Tart simply rotate in mid-air if dropped, like toast with butter on both sides allegedly does?
Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (B/VB5)
Overpopulation, not global warming.
Posted by: Bomber at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (AkdCZ)
Posted by: Lemmenkainen, Freelance Warlord at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (ZWvOb)
Posted by: joeindc44 didn't analyze nuthin, just offered his own anecdotal evidence at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (QxSug)
As for gay parents, I think what some on the social right are really afraid of is that children of gay parents are going to have better appreciation for the arts and literature than those of hetero parents.
Uh-huh.
Let's just forget the fact that fags and dyke couples predominantly live a funny little life-style they like to refer to as "open monogamy".
And we all know that swinging adults make great "parents"!
....you fucking moron.....
Posted by: Strife at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (ntNJz)
afraid of is that children of gay parents are going to have better
appreciation for the arts and literature than those of hetero parents.
EoJ's already addressed this, but I have an additional point.
Gays and lesbians are around 3% of the population. If they were the only ones contributing to the arts, the arts wouldn't exist.
Posted by: Ian S.
What? You're assuming they're equally represented in all fields. For instance, Jews do dominate learned professions and are nearly absent from team sports. It's not a conspiracy -- it's that Jewish culture emphasizes education and becoming a professional; and Jews tend to be on the smaller and slower side. Gay men are overrepresented in the arts because it's "safe". Who's more likely to be harassed, the gay construction worker or the gay ballet dancer, the gay mechanic or the gay fabric store guy who sold me some dark gray silk-on-linen fabric for my faboo in-progress 1740 outfit? The lesbians I dunno about -- they live across town, though I know some fiiiine lipstick lesbians who enjoy the arts. If you took gays out of the arts, yes, they would suffer greatly.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 11:56 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: eleven at May 31, 2013 11:57 AM (fsLdt)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 03:50 PM (dZ756)
Yes... multiple people...
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 03:54 PM (lZBBB)
Youngest stepson. Found it easier to get weed than get a beer, and hated beer when he finally tried it.
Posted by: joncelli at May 31, 2013 11:57 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: jwpaine @PirateBallerina at May 31, 2013 11:57 AM (/lWM8)
It's no wonder that conservationism has so little success in stopping the left when all it does is try to conserve the left's policies.
Posted by: GhostShip at May 31, 2013 11:57 AM (sbaXF)
gay parents are going to have better
appreciation for the arts and literature than those of hetero parents.
That's one of the silliest thing I've ever heard.
Throughout most of human history, the two person, heterosexual family has been the norm. Amazingly, even though the men were allegedly off fighting wars and working in coal mines while scratching their balls and the women were at home, barefoot and pregnant, we somehow STILL managed to have illuminated Bibles, the Renaissance, William Shakespeare, The Odyssey and The Illiad, Beowulf, commedia dell'arte, architectural masterpieces, the Romantics, the Rationalists, Jane Austen, Citizen Kane, Dante's Inferno...
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 11:57 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: Lemmenkainen, Freelance Warlord at May 31, 2013 11:58 AM (ZWvOb)
Posted by: The Jackhole at May 31, 2013 03:38 PM (nTgAI)
Dealing with jackholes?
How many single, straight men, not on a date, do you see at the ballet, the opera, etc.?
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 03:44 PM (dZ756)
None. Cause women civilize us. That's a good thing IMO. I'm an uncouth beer drinking sloth who sits on the couch in his underwear farting and watching the NASCAR races, but if I had a lady who wanted to go to the opera I'd be putting on a monkey suit just to see her smile. Cause that's what they do for us.
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at May 31, 2013 11:58 AM (3B1GS)
Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 03:53 PM (wsGWu)
wrong based on what? Cultural norms? Because there are many cultures that didn't have a problem with it and even some now that don't have a problem with it. India is knocking back little girl babies like they were skittles.
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 11:58 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 11:58 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at May 31, 2013 11:58 AM (MUZDl)
Posted by: joeindc44 didn't analyze nuthin, just offered his own anecdotal evidence at May 31, 2013 11:58 AM (QxSug)
"Sex outside of marriage will lead, inevitably, to two things"
A third is a sexually transmitted, although that is not inevitable. Then again, neither are the first 2. I would have used the word possibly
Posted by: Bill at May 31, 2013 03:52 PM (UvI0D)
Yeah.... its must be fiiiinnnnalllly coming.... because I was married for 3 years.... and been sexually active for ... 38 years... with no STDs, no unwanted Pregnancies...
Inevitable... you keepa using that word... I done think it means wha you think it means...
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 11:58 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Star Bellied Sneetch at May 31, 2013 11:58 AM (Ov9U8)
Like we are doing now. See how that works? Say whatever you want to, but the truth always brings the pain.
Posted by: tcn at May 31, 2013 11:59 AM (ZOUmX)
Chalk sticks weren't shooting back like the paper ladies were.
Posted by: Bomber at May 31, 2013 11:59 AM (AkdCZ)
Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 11:59 AM (wsGWu)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 11:59 AM (ZPrif)
Perhaps, but most atheists would agree that it's wrong to murder a toddler. A secular prolife case is very possible. Posted by: Lauren
Case in point: Nat Hentoff
Very liberal (probably a commie back in the day -- he's in his 80's) former NYT jazz critic. Pro-life, pro-1st amendment, and about 20 years ago, converted to pro-2nd amendment.
The argument can easily be flipped around -- if one does believe in God, then any action becomes excusable because God told you to do it.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 11:59 AM (dZ756)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 03:58 PM (XIxXP)
Sweetie, that would be my dad. I'm a little more feminine than that.
And you can kiss my pretty female ass.
Posted by: tcn at May 31, 2013 12:00 PM (ZOUmX)
Posted by: Adriane ... at May 31, 2013 12:00 PM (Jv4FA)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 12:00 PM (ZPrif)
Yeah, but the fucking wrecks aren't the ones adopting children (or fathering them with a fruit fly and a turkey baster). It's the cultured ones who are.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 12:00 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: The Jackhole at May 31, 2013 03:38 PM (nTgAI)
==========
Being Vice-President?
Posted by: RoyalOil at May 31, 2013 12:00 PM (VjL9S)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 12:00 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 12:01 PM (/PCJa)
Posted by: mrshad at May 31, 2013 12:01 PM (Xqfwb)
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 03:58 PM (lZBBB)
Just because you have been shooting blanks doesn't mean the rest of the world is following suit.
Posted by: tcn at May 31, 2013 12:01 PM (ZOUmX)
Posted by: rickb223 at May 31, 2013 12:01 PM (NKBxV)
Posted by: booger at May 31, 2013 12:01 PM (E1tcO)
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 31, 2013 12:01 PM (ZshNr)
Posted by: joeindc44 didn't analyze nuthin, just offered his own anecdotal evidence at May 31, 2013 12:02 PM (QxSug)
None. Cause women civilize us. That's a good thing IMO. I'm an uncouth beer drinking sloth who sits on the couch in his underwear farting and watching the NASCAR races, but if I had a lady who wanted to go to the opera I'd be putting on a monkey suit just to see her smile. Cause that's what they do for us.
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at May 31, 2013 03:58 PM (3B1GS)
----------------------
Well said.
***scratches satchel***
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 12:02 PM (CJjw5)
238
Yep, that was your FKUP Marybeth. Now you have to eat it.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 03:39 PM (XIxXP)
I know, I know, OSP - you don't have to tell me. :-) I beat myself up about it when I think about it. Because she is my sister, I wasn't thinking as rationally as normal.
But that doesn't mean I'm not going to fight like hell to make her pay that $ back. With the witnesses, there is a good chance I can, which will fix her ass but good.
It's the working through the government bureaucracy/red tape that has me even more pissed off about the situation.
Posted by: Marybeth at May 31, 2013 12:02 PM (Ks0w4)
The scientific term you're looking for is "female hypergamy"; Insty mentions it about twice a week.
Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 12:02 PM (B/VB5)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 12:02 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 03:52 PM (CJjw5)
Those are my favorite bartenders....the overservers.
Oh, and the link in your nic is broken.
Posted by: © Sponge at May 31, 2013 12:02 PM (xmcEQ)
Posted by: tcn at May 31, 2013 12:02 PM (ZOUmX)
Posted by: NotCoach at May 31, 2013 12:02 PM (NJNBv)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 12:02 PM (XIxXP)
Posted by: booger at May 31, 2013 04:01 PM (E1tcO)
Short answer: your mom cared about you, and showed it.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 12:02 PM (4df7R)
Posted by: joeindc44 didn't analyze nuthin, just offered his own anecdotal evidence at May 31, 2013 12:02 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at May 31, 2013 12:03 PM (jKWYf)
Posted by: Ragamuffin at May 31, 2013 12:03 PM (fzFF6)
Sweetie, that would be my dad. I'm a little more feminine than that.
And you can kiss my pretty female ass.
Posted by: tcn at May 31, 2013 04:00 PM (ZOUmX)
---------------------------
OBJECTION - assumes facts not in evidence.
SUSTAINED - pics or gtfo
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 12:03 PM (CJjw5)
Posted by: joncelli
So weed turned him onto heroin and meth, but not beer. LOL. Some gateway drug. (I'm being sarcastic about the heroin and meth part.)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 12:03 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 12:03 PM (wsGWu)
I love how erudite "deep thinking" libertarians/conservatives whatever, in their rush to show they are not troglodytes, fancifully dismiss certain traditional positions as the religion of rubes.
Of course we evolved from monkeys. Well, if we are nothing more than a more intelligent mammal, would it not be wise to consult nature on the subject.
Hmmm, in how many species of mammal is the female the primary caregiver? How many animals are strictly homos?
Yes, we are nothing more than animals. But don't look to the animal world as to how NATURE structures things. That would be CRAZY.
LOL.
Posted by: Prescient11 at May 31, 2013 12:04 PM (tVTLU)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 12:04 PM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 12:04 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 04:00 PM (dZ756)
Did you cry when 'A Different Light' was closed?
Posted by: Star Bellied Sneetch at May 31, 2013 12:04 PM (Ov9U8)
Posted by: WalrusRex at May 31, 2013 12:04 PM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at May 31, 2013 12:04 PM (MUZDl)
Funny that.
Posted by: Strife at May 31, 2013 04:03 PM (ntNJz)
So, you know enough for a robust sample size? Come on, that's verging on mobyism.
Posted by: joncelli at May 31, 2013 12:04 PM (RD7QR)
A society in which women cannot officially be 'the worker' or a political unit of her own forces men to take responsibility. This is only one factor of course in the whole thing but these states are not 'benighted states we have emerged from' but states that were concocted over time for the betterment of society.
I'm fine with women working but we shouldn't pretend its all hunky-dorey especially if women are replacing men as breadwinners. There has always been disability preventing men from breadwinning and its fine that women can do more now to make up for that, and it's good that society is by in large safe enough that a woman can live and work single, but the reality is that we have descended, mostly, not ascended. These other advances are our adaptations to our descent, not the product of enlightenment.
Posted by: RiverC at May 31, 2013 12:04 PM (KTytI)
Right. I should've mentioned the trope actually encompasses a range of leftist bogiemen: climate change, overpopulation, corporate-cause famine, or an unspecified "ecological disaster" (which is always implied to be caused by capitalism).
Posted by: Ian S. at May 31, 2013 12:05 PM (B/VB5)
How many single, straight men, not on a date, do you see at the ballet, the opera, etc.?
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 03:44 PM (dZ756)
You live in a bubble.... San Francisco is WAY different than many other cities...
Heck... I'm 1.5 hours from Frisco, and would never go to an Art or cultural exhibit there as a single guy... because I DON'T feel like getting hit on by the Gays who WILL be there....
In Denver? Where I lived for 15 years? I went to Art functions because that's where the Martini Business crowd hung out...
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 12:05 PM (lZBBB)
So, once my mother went back to teaching when I was 10 (and my brother was 2) they hired a woman to come keep house and get the youngest ready for school. By the timeI was in high school, the housekeeper just came to get my brother dragged out of bed and do a quick clean of the house. (This was not a nanny type person. This was the grandmother of one of my classmates and she was a down-yonder old lady from Kentucky with an 8th grade education.)
Dad came home at 3PM, He would feed the farm animals, get supper started, and we would straggle in from school, practices, or friends house. Mom would tool in around 5 and we would all eat together.
Then my parents would go to bed and read mysteries (hence my screen name) and we would do homework, talk on the phone, and stay up until midnight. HA!
The women in my family move in and out of the workforce as family situations require. I worked professionally for a number of years, stayed home when my children were younger and did all of that stuff like team mother and PTA and then went back to work when my daughter was11.
My brother, an electrician, is now retired, but when he was working he always did the cooking. My sister-in-law is a terrible cook, but she is a partner in a law firm.
It helps if siblings and grandparents live close by, as mine did and do. I think what is important is that the child isn't left feeling abandoned and without support.
Why didn't I continue to work when my children were small? Because I cannot do well at two things at the same time. I would have been neglecting my job or neglecting my family, and I do not care to live with guilt. So I stayed home.
Posted by: Miss Marple at May 31, 2013 12:05 PM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 12:05 PM (XIxXP)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 31, 2013 12:05 PM (pLTLS)
258...Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 31, 2013 03:42 PM (/PCJa)
Totally agree, AllenG.
I would also add...that Megyn's kids get to watch their mom on TV, while she is away from them.
Not something that most moms get to do.
Posted by: wheatie at May 31, 2013 12:05 PM (CnFRK)
Posted by: Buzzion at May 31, 2013 12:07 PM (n0H1a)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 04:04 PM (XIxXP)
Heck, I won't even hire friends anymore...
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 12:07 PM (lZBBB)
Wait until your Organizing for America Political Officer arrives with its suitcase.
Posted by: zsasz at May 31, 2013 12:07 PM (MMC8r)
The men hating over this stupid brouhaha is strong on twitter. Apparently this is all the fault of... men. Even lots of conservative women are taking the bait on this one. Shameful.
*cracking knuckles* They don't want to meet me.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/u][/i][/b] at May 31, 2013 12:08 PM (4df7R)
Now, as a political matter, as a message for a populace which is increasingly lazy and narcissistic, which is the politically winning message? And which becomes the Square, Nagging, Buzzkill message?
Republicans should be for people who have as much sex as possible before marriage, don't get anyone pregnant, then marry and have kids. The segment who did this, or is doing this, is huge. They have fun, AND they are responsible.
With people getting married after age 30, it is delusional to expect them to wait until after marrige to have sex. The key is: Do you have chlidren within or outside of wedlock? The married, and those who plan to marry, are our people. Almost EVERY domestic policy debate is a shadow debate over single parenthood. Poverty, crime, schools, access to health care are all debates over "How can the government mitigate the effects of society's shift to single parenthood?" - That is, mitigate the effects of horrible choices?
Voters will support government programs to help the truly needy. Every election. But they won't support those who made selfish choices - provided they know we're talking about selfish choices.
The Left is perfectly happy to continue the shadow debate, because they'd lose the real one.
Posted by: CJ at May 31, 2013 12:08 PM (9KqcB)
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 31, 2013 12:08 PM (YYJjz)
Posted by: "Franklin" at May 31, 2013 12:08 PM (qam6F)
Posted by: Lauren
--------------------------
Perhaps..., but most (as you qualify, '..in America..') atheists have at least a residual Judeo-Christian ethic transferred to them by society. That influence is being lost, and with it the basis for a civil, stable society, including regard for human life.
Posted by: Mike Hammer at May 31, 2013 12:08 PM (aDwsi)
Most would but the current trend in liberal Intellectia is that "aborting" a toddler* is morally justifiable. So given how much ground we've lost over the past half century, if unabated, how long to you think toddlers will be safe?
(18 months)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose DOOMCASTER! at May 31, 2013 12:08 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: fluffy, copy cat at May 31, 2013 12:08 PM (z9HTb)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 31, 2013 04:05 PM (pLTLS)
As I told my current Lady when we first started dating...
I'll be your Knight in shining armor... if you act like a Princess...
Posted by: Romeo13 at May 31, 2013 12:09 PM (lZBBB)
----------
I'm assuming this is aimed at me. Sorry, but I've never watched Glee (I don't even know what it is) or Will & Grace.
As for your saying gays are only 0.3%, well, as you admit, that's only you saying. Frankly, I have no friggin' idea what the % is, and I don't go spouting out #s, in part because we have no set definitions and no reliable way of making the determination. I will agree with the other statement that gays predominantly (but not always -- see Northampton, MA) cluster in big cities -- because that's where they can find life venues in which they feel more comfortable. "Small town values" aren't particularly welcoming to faggots.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 12:09 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: Puddin' Head at May 31, 2013 12:09 PM (ED/BE)
I like that.
Posted by: Bomber at May 31, 2013 12:10 PM (AkdCZ)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 31, 2013 04:08 PM (CJjw5)
I knew what you meant, and much better.
Posted by: © Sponge at May 31, 2013 12:10 PM (xmcEQ)
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 12:10 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Lemmenkainen, Freelance Warlord at May 31, 2013 12:10 PM (ZWvOb)
Posted by: Beagle at May 31, 2013 12:10 PM (sOtz/)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 31, 2013 04:05 PM (pLTLS)
This.
Posted by: Insomniac at May 31, 2013 12:10 PM (DrWcr)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 03:54 PM (XIxXP)
----------------------------------------
Then please refer back to my comment about so many parents/parent not willing to make essential sacrifices in order to make raising their children their primary purpose.
Posted by: Soona at May 31, 2013 12:11 PM (TqtU4)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at May 31, 2013 03:31 PM (O6Tmi)
Sorry. Ran off for personal stuff (it's one of those weeks.)
In any case. Thanks. I have to put this useless degree to use somehow, and the division between "progressivism" and "conservatism" is a topic 'o discussion around the department right now in a big way.
(I'm busy trying to make the progressives head go 'asplode by showing how they are much like the SoCons.)
Posted by: tsrblke at May 31, 2013 12:11 PM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Bomber at May 31, 2013 12:12 PM (AkdCZ)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at May 31, 2013 12:12 PM (r+7wo)
Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 12:12 PM (wsGWu)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 12:12 PM (XIxXP)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 04:09 PM (dZ756)
Yeah because how can you have a parade with only 3 people.
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 12:12 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: SFGoth
------------------------
Strawman. Point to the basis (at least in the Judeo-Christian ethic or scripture) that condones, say, humans murdering babies.
Posted by: Mike Hammer at May 31, 2013 12:12 PM (aDwsi)
Except, that's not what he said either. That's the hyperventilating liberal freak-out spin on what he said. What he actually said, which is that families where the husband plays the dominant role (and someone has the dominant role in each relationship) tend to be more stable, and that stable two-parent families tend to be better for kids. Both of those things are demonstrably true. His failure was mealy-mouthing it in front of Megyn Kelly instead of sticking to his guns and making his case.
Posted by: The Deuce at May 31, 2013 12:12 PM (oDCMR)
Naughty Librarian Glasses
http://tinyurl.com/kcjjepj
Hawt with Julie Banderas
http://tinyurl.com/mf2xkgl
You're welcome.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 31, 2013 12:12 PM (TIIx5)
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 31, 2013 04:05 PM (pLTLS)
Not a twitterer, but I imagine this caused more than a few squawks. How do you know you're over the target?
Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at May 31, 2013 12:14 PM (3B1GS)
gay parents are going to have better appreciation for the arts and literature than those of hetero parents.
Don't forget the parades.
Posted by: Don Lemon at May 31, 2013 12:14 PM (wAQA5)
Posted by: joeindc44 didn't analyze nuthin, just offered his own anecdotal evidence at May 31, 2013 12:15 PM (QxSug)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at May 31, 2013 12:15 PM (r+7wo)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at May 31, 2013 12:16 PM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 12:17 PM (XIxXP)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at May 31, 2013 04:15 PM (r+7wo)[/I
Uh...well for the first few years they kinda need 24/7 attention...
Posted by: tsrblke at May 31, 2013 12:17 PM (GaqMa)
Posted by: fluffy at May 31, 2013 12:17 PM (z9HTb)
Are you still the head of the household, though? I would bet that is the case. It is not every man that can lead his household while not being the economic engine of it. It takes a particularly strong personality.
Posted by: RiverC at May 31, 2013 12:17 PM (KTytI)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at May 31, 2013 12:18 PM (C8mVl)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at May 31, 2013 12:19 PM (r+7wo)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at May 31, 2013 04:18 PM (C8mVl)
Let's fix this:
Apart from Singer and his cultlike followers.
(i.e. when was the last time you heard it without someone referencing Singer.)
Posted by: tsrblke at May 31, 2013 12:19 PM (GaqMa)
Thank you liberalism for making men obsolete, and no longer want to marry.
201
So I ask once more: where are the men? And why aren't they there? Anybody out there in libby land care to talk about that? And I don't mean talk about it in terms of how their absence affects the children (answer: badly) or, God forbid, how it affects women (everything is not about women!!), but how their absence affects MEN THEMSELVES.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at May 31, 2013 03:34 PM (4df7R)
Posted by: Pyrocles at May 31, 2013 12:21 PM (cv5Iw)
does believe in God, then any action becomes excusable because God told
you to do it.
Posted by: SFGoth
------------------------
Strawman. Point to the basis (at least in the Judeo-Christian ethic or scripture) that condones, say, humans murdering babies.
Posted by: Mike Hammer
----
I'll just point to thousands of years of crimes, small and large, committed by believers. Let's start with pogroms against Jews by their Judeo-Christian ethic partners. You ever been told you're shit because your people killed Jesus?
As far as I'm anecdotally concerned, there may be external sources of morality, but in the end, it's up to the individual to determine and live by their own (or lack thereof).
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 12:21 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at May 31, 2013 04:19 PM (r+7wo)
Right, it kinda depends on what you mean by "extended period of time."
I've seen friends do it with something like 4 weeks off and back to work. I've seen other roll for about a year. I'd personally consider the latter "extended" and perfectly acceptable.
Posted by: tsrblke at May 31, 2013 12:21 PM (GaqMa)
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 04:09 PM (dZ756)
Yeah because how can you have a parade with only 3 people. Posted by: polynikes
But you can have a train.... LOL
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 12:21 PM (dZ756)
440 Parents should make sure they see to the welfare of their family, but I frankly don't think children need a parent hovering over them 24/7. And as a sinister furriner peeking in, it seems to me Americans idolize kids a little too much. Just my opinion.
That's because in their sub-conscience they know they're shitty sub-par parents, so they overcompensate by treating their kids like little gods and goddesses.
Posted by: Strife at May 31, 2013 12:21 PM (ntNJz)
I'll say there is no difference in men and women as the high earner when the time comes when its not uncommon that rich women marry bartenders, pool boys, gardeners, etc.
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 12:23 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 12:24 PM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 12:25 PM (XIxXP)
Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks....Bra-VO!
Posted by: CrotchetyOldJarhead at May 31, 2013 12:25 PM (PsfVm)
I know people that own businesses that wouldn't dream of hiring a family member.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 04:04 PM (XIxXP)
In this case, lesson learned.
She did a good job for 5 years. But she went off the rails after our dad died.
I know people who own businesses for whom hiring family members works out very well.
So it can be a crapshoot.
It was always my dream to have a family business. But for our family I now KNOW it's a nightmare. :-)
Never again.
Posted by: Marybeth at May 31, 2013 12:26 PM (Ks0w4)
"The argument can easily be flipped around -- if one does believe in God, then any action becomes excusable because God told you to do it."
Incorrect. The Bible (taken in *context* btw) tells Christians what they are to do and not to do. There is absolutely no room in Christianity for "any action becomes excusable since God told you to" since God won't tell you to do any and all actions, and indeed, forbids a great many.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 31, 2013 12:26 PM (YYJjz)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 04:24 PM (XIxXP)
Thinking men and woman are the same both physically , emotionally and mentally is what is bullshit. Its fine and correct to acknowledge that women are superior at many things but intellectually dishonest to think that men and women are equally capable across the spectrum.
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 12:27 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: secretary of state at May 31, 2013 12:29 PM (gJdNT)
@ 452 - "I'll just point to thousands of years of crimes, small and large, committed by believers. Let's start with pogroms against Jews by their Judeo-Christian ethic partners. You ever been told you're shit because your people killed Jesus?"
Ah yes, a variant on the old "Hitler ate sugar" logical fallacy.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at May 31, 2013 12:29 PM (YYJjz)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at May 31, 2013 12:29 PM (C8mVl)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 12:30 PM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Beagle at May 31, 2013 12:30 PM (sOtz/)
Posted by: David at May 31, 2013 12:34 PM (J9mCu)
EOJ got me again. The coworkers are demanding to know what I'm laughing at. I can't say "Erickson's sloppy cocksocket" out loud, for obvious reasons.
Posted by: Low Level keeper of the White House visitor logs at May 31, 2013 12:36 PM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie ® at May 31, 2013 12:38 PM (1hM1d)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 04:30 PM (XIxXP)
And I agree with that, but I also think there is way that has been proven to be the most desirable and natural. Again, I agree that other structures can be successful. I was raised by two working parents. I have to admit though that I was envious of my friend whose house I went to after school occasionally, who had suzi Qs and milk waiting for him.
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 12:38 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at May 31, 2013 12:38 PM (2up3Q)
Posted by: Lemmenkainen, Freelance Warlord at May 31, 2013 04:10 PM (ZWvOb)
Just about every sunday during NFL season there's a story about a player who was raised by his mom or grandma, i'm sure there's lots of stories like that if people looked for them, sooner or later anecdote becomes data.
Don't get me wrong, i hate the way dads are portrayed as bumbling idiots in popular culture and commercials, they don't get the respect they deserve, but that doesn't mean we should turn around and treat mothers that way.
Posted by: booger at May 31, 2013 12:40 PM (E1tcO)
Posted by: Irish Right at May 31, 2013 12:41 PM (nw1T6)
Posted by: booger at May 31, 2013 04:40 PM (E1tcO)
I think Ray Lewis was raised by a single mother.
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 12:42 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: David at May 31, 2013 12:42 PM (J9mCu)
Ah yes, a variant on the old"Hitler ate sugar" logical fallacy.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Never heard of that. Now, since you're "vaguebooking", maybe you'll explain what you mean. While you're at it, explain the Inquisition. I guess they weren't true Catholics.... Sounds like a variation on "Muslims don't murder, therefore they weren't Muslims".
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 12:43 PM (dZ756)
There's plenty of debate to be had here, except for about the fact that Erickson is a dumbass.
Also, you guys defending libertarianism as being about freedom to exhibit (and be responsible for) your own behavior, and not some sort of endorsement of hedonism, have my vote.
As to the invocation of "science", one could get heart disease from all the salt one should take all that with. It sounds like Global Warming, all over again.
This all reminds me of a discussion on Red Eye, where they made fun of a liberal for suddenly discovering something about himself that people have recognized for - well, forever - and then narcissistically patting himself on the back for his Huge Self-realization, when the only reason he didn't recognize the fact in the first place was that he had his head up his ass, and bought into some seriously absurd liberal nonsense. (He then went on to act upon his newfound wisdom in a particularly stupid manner, of course).
The subject simply cries out for a little common sense, not for the absurdities expounded by the extreme left AND right.
Posted by: Optimizer at May 31, 2013 12:45 PM (Mxt9o)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 31, 2013 12:45 PM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Marquise Megyn de Kelly at May 31, 2013 12:49 PM (+mvGT)
Posted by: polynikes at May 31, 2013 04:42 PM (m2CN7)
Well, he did have a pretty successful life outside of the whole murder thing..........
Posted by: booger at May 31, 2013 12:49 PM (E1tcO)
Posted by: Buzzion at May 31, 2013 12:54 PM (NhX2N)
And there weren't any Jews or Muslims left. However, you are rather making my point. The Spanish crown were believers, no?
What about the whole pederasty thing with the Catholic church?
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 01:01 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: sound awake at May 31, 2013 01:07 PM (ZjfK8)
Please, ace, don't give him any more attention. He already thinks enough of himself as it is.
Posted by: beltway refugee at May 31, 2013 01:13 PM (jbwz5)
Posted by: Lauren at May 31, 2013 01:16 PM (wsGWu)
Posted by: Buzzion at May 31, 2013 01:33 PM (k2ZBB)
When people defend the fact that the workplace is being overrun with women, you know society is going down the crapper.
Men are not better than women. Women are not better than men. But men are the ones who build up civilization, while women make civilization nice to live in. Society is much, much better off when you have a dad who works and a mother whose primary job to tend to the house and take care of the kids. And I don't give two flying fucks if that makes me a sexist pig.
Posted by: Ra's at May 31, 2013 01:33 PM (8LCi0)
Pretty good argument of why you don't let gay guys be around young boys. Posted by: Buzzion
All gay huh? You'd think that the Catholic Church, having a hotline to God, would have a homo detector.
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 01:35 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: Stormy at May 31, 2013 01:50 PM (RZssu)
Posted by: J'accuse! at May 31, 2013 01:57 PM (+mvGT)
Posted by: Schaeffer at May 31, 2013 02:01 PM (rqazu)
"How can you even measure "tend to be more stable" based on a "dominant spouse"?"
One way would be "doesn't come apart completely" and "is primary breadwinner":
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/women_divorce_cur_SfyEHTdYT8khsy625mbJOL
Posted by: The Deuce at May 31, 2013 02:28 PM (oDCMR)
Never heard of that. Now, since you're "vaguebooking", maybe you'll explain what you mean. While you're at it, explain the Inquisition. I guess they weren't true Catholics.... Sounds like a variation on "Muslims don't murder, therefore they weren't Muslims".
Posted by: SFGoth at May 31, 2013 04:43 PM (dZ756)
What's your point? I can point to times (many times) when Jews and Atheists also commited atrocities in the name of their religions. We can play this game until we all agree that all humanity is just generally terribly.
Posted by: Paul at May 31, 2013 02:31 PM (JM48I)
Sorry Ace, can't seem to extricate myself from the "Attempt to Dominate Megyn Kelly" fantasy...
um, give me an hour guys.
Posted by: socalcon at May 31, 2013 02:41 PM (vHlQ5)
ah crap:
490 ...women...are the only ones naturally equipped to feed the baby.
great, now I gotta deal this that, too...
Posted by: socalcon at May 31, 2013 02:43 PM (vHlQ5)
Posted by: ExPat Patriot at May 31, 2013 02:55 PM (LPbig)
And does anyone think kids will be happier nurtured by their moms vs. daycare? I do. Moms are almost always the best choice. Dads are necessary too -- VERY -- and grandmas are nice to have around. And either is obviously better than day care. But if you are talking about what is BEST for the kids, how about an at-home mom who gets the kids on and off the bus, helps with homework and goes to every school event, lovingly tends to their father, and oversees a happy home (not stressed out from working all day and throwing Hamburger Helper or fast food on a plate because of it) -- t'would seem to be an arrangement most kids would want. And that many of us had! (and many of our kids don't)
Oh, and traditional mom and dad roles are best case scenario for humans. All humans. Why did she feel the need to bring up past idiocy such as racism and fools thinking children of different races are different? I see liberals do this all the time -- change the subject and use something disgusting or hateful or wrong to try to paint a topic with the same brush. It's just as frustrating when a non-liberal, as I'm guessing Megyn is, does it.
Posted by: MyKidzMom at May 31, 2013 03:48 PM (UWPIW)
But is it really anathema now to hold the opinion that moms staying home with their children instead of having a daycare raise them would be a healthier option for the children? Most people understand that that's not always possible, but it really shouldn't be something that causes people to gasp in shock.
I don't appreciate when people on either side get flummoxed when someone doubles down on their opinion instead of acting chastened just because someone disagreed with them.
Posted by: Stella at May 31, 2013 04:11 PM (eDHo4)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 31, 2013 04:47 PM (8cOY0)
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 31, 2013 08:47 PM (8cOY0)
Please elaborate, Reggie1971. What "good points" do you mean?
Mew
Posted by: acat at May 31, 2013 05:51 PM (4UkCP)
Posted by: MyKidzMom at May 31, 2013 07:48 PM (UWPIW)
Bull. Prior to the 1950s, the "normal model" had the couple surrounded by aunts, uncles, cousins, and grandparents - you're arguing the "nuclear family" (which is remarkably new and revolutionary in historical terms) as "normal" when it *clearly never was*!
When Libs pull this bull, it's "revisionist history" .. what is it when you do it?
Mew
Posted by: acat at May 31, 2013 05:55 PM (4UkCP)
501
Specifically his comments about a stastically greater likelyhood of negative psychological effects being experienced from single parent households, especially with regards to boys.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 31, 2013 06:15 PM (8cOY0)
Posted by: Skip Tracer at May 31, 2013 07:04 PM (2+bRt)
Posted by: Emily at June 01, 2013 06:41 AM (2VkGe)
501
Specifically his comments abouta stastically greater likelyhood of negative psychological effectsbeing experienced from single parent households, especially with regards to boys.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at May 31, 2013 10:15 PM (8cOY0)
Please go re-read the first three paragraphs Ace wrote, Reggie1971.
Mew
Posted by: acat at June 01, 2013 10:58 AM (4UkCP)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2727 seconds, 633 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Yip at May 31, 2013 11:02 AM (/jHWN)