Wouldn't it be better if they simply get a divorce? Partition the country and then they can have neutral zones like Vermont or something. Two tax system would be messy, kind of like living in Brussels with the Flanders and Walloons digging up the cobbled stones just so they can chuck them at each other.
Only if you count paying for capital upgrades to their own religious edifices as "charity." If you're using it in the usual sense (i.e., feeding destitute people), then not so much. Conservatives spend more money expanding parking lots at the mega-churches they attend. That isn't the same thing as being "more charitable." Statistics also show that Blue States provide a positive flow of cash to the federal government, while Red States represent cash sinks for the federal government. The "other people" whose money is getting spent are "liberals," and the "other people" who are having it spent on them are "conservatives." Not if paying for such means doing away with useful, productive programs. Or have already spent it, typically. That requires two separate countries.
While the prospect of the squealing when the conservatives find themselves forced to double the capital gains tax and boost the upper bracket income taxes by a third or more is fairly amusing, there's a catch: who pays for the debt the past decades of rightwing credit card warmongering and bank deregulation and military contract plumping and Social Security fund raiding and government service privatization have piled up? The "conservative" policies of the past need to be paid for, as well. Social Security - a "liberal" policy - has been running a surplus for decades, for example, and has built up a cushion easily able to cover its outlays for decades to come. But the "conservatives" borrowed it to fight land wars in Asia and build fancy warplanes and big military ships and finance hundreds of military ventures and bases all over the planet. So the "liberals" can cut back on their SS burdens, and the "conservatives" can take over paying for it, until the debt is paid back, agreed?
Since at least the infamous Kennedy debate with Nixon, appearance has played a crucial role in American politics. Why does the tallest guy get elected in almost every US presidential election? (A fact hilariously lampooned in the cartoon Invader Zim). Furthermore, how many fat, ugly, or even overly nerdly presidents have we elected since the advent of TV? Now that female candidates are more than just a novelty act, the same superficial standards apply to them as well. More of the same broad brush contempt. Yes, we have been dealing with issues relating to the exodus of women from the home and into the workplace for decades now. But on any reasonable scale, that's nothing. Male and female roles in human societies have been set for millennia. Now. over the past century or so, technology has allowed these roles to change. That will inevitably lead to disruptions and problems that must be dealt with. Those problems will prompt some to wonder if this radical redefinition of sex roles was a good idea. They think back to a simplier time when family was mom, dad, and kids. When all the kids in a family had the same last name. When kids went out to play rather then made play dates. When no one would have even considered installing metal detectors in schools. The Liberal response to any such musings is ridicule and derision. Heaven forbid anyone question their orthodoxy. Meanwhile, many women who embraced their new roles are finding that they were oversold on the benefits and undersold on the costs. They were told they could "have it all" and so put off child bearing while they pursued their careers. Now, many of them are spending thousands of dollars and enduring painful medical procedures in an often vain attempt to have the children they "put off". Biology will not be denied. Choosing to spend your most fertile years pursuing a career may well mean forgoing the opportunity to reproduce. On the other hand, having children early can make pursuing a career much more difficult. Does this mean that women should be banished from the workplace and sent back to the kitchens and home? Of course not. You really can't put the genie back in the bottle. But a serious discussion of the problems and implications of women's changing role in society requires mutual respect from both sides; not arrogance and derision. No one, regardless of their ideological bent, has all the answers. Assuming that you do and that the opinions of the guy from the middle of the country are worthless is pure arrogance. As Socrates said, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
Joke? The breakup of the traditional family is nothing to you? The female role as chief breadwinner and the one that does all the heavy farm work - that the one you mean? The male role as weaver, maker and sewer of fabric items - that one? The female role as owner of the house and farm property, which her daughters will inherit - that one? The male role as sexual servicer of the adult men, in youth, then when of age the stability of procreative marriage and receiver of sexual services from boys in his turn - that role? That would have been after the WWII transformation of the working roles of women, and before TV took over the social life of entire communities. The TV dinner hardly qualifies as a radical redefinition of sex roles, though. Some other description of what happened to white people's families in the aftermaths of the Korean and Vietnam Wars seems necessary. The "both sides" honk deserves no respect. Giving respect to the likes of Michael Reagan helps nobody, and contributes nothing to serious discussion.
They are human beings, you know .... In your opinion, who was the last hot president? As I suggested, there might be a reason. At what point do years of repetitive behavior have an influence on how we view people? I would suggest poverty has more to do with that than empowered women. See, that's where you're wrong. Yes, we chuckle at such arguments, but not for questioning "orthodoxy". Liberal orthodoxy is a conservative myth, or else liberals would be a lot more effective in politics. The reason we chuckle at such arguments is that they were slapped down over two hundred years ago, and yet people still insist on their validity. It's rather quite insulting, actually. At least we're laughing. Really? You're going there? We might also suggest that biology will not be denied; a man choosing to spend his most fertile years staying out of jail may well mean he doesn't get laid as often as nature tells him to. Yes, biological clocks tick. That's why we have boner drugs for guys who can't get it up. And, yes. Some women will regret their choices in life; they are human, after all. So let me know when conservatives are willing to stop denigrating women and acting like they have bricks between their ears. I live in a fairly liberal area, and I quite literally never see this raging cadre of radical feminists. I'm sure there are a few out there, but Mr. Reagan is hardly attempting "a serious discussion of the problems and implications of women's changing role in society". Rather, he's raising a spectre specifically to lash out at it. And here's the thing: If we take him seriously, it's incredibily arrogant, derisive, and offensive. If we simply laugh it off as more stupid bullshit, we're accused of elitist contempt and snobbery. It's not a mere label—e.g., "conservative"—that brings such disdain, but, rather, the principles it asserts. Ah, yes, another windmill for you to tilt. Liberals didn't invent the "middle America" idea. That was a campaign tactic of the right. And if people wish to stand up with some sort of regionalist or cultural identification, then yes, they're going to influence the definition of that region or culture. And when the definition of that region or culture includes such repugnant ideas, it's not going to encourage a positive influence on how others view that region or culture.
Evidently it was Clinton. His extra marital dalliances seems to indicate that Hilary just wasn't enough.
Red and Blue states is not a static value so how can you say this is true? Indeed, Some Red states for President are Blue for Governor, so in that case, is it a Red State or a Blue State? Seems like a fairly flakey statistic. Arthur
Yes, the state I live in is a mixture of the two ONLY sides of the debate, Democrat vs. Republican. There are no others. Resistance is futile. Republican in this case outweighs the Democrat by a small margin most of the time. Depending on whether you are talking about Presidential, Gubernatorial, or US House and Senate seats. This discussion is way too interested in this monochromatic view of politics, and whether one state is blue colored or red.
Make them ignore you instead of just pretend they're stupid Be careful, Ice. Many of our conservative neighbors can't tell the difference between valences of respect. To wit, I sincerely doubt you'd leave a man bleeding to death on the street simply because you thought he was a lying conservative. That's part of basic human respect to at least call an ambulance if not try to do something more directly to his benefit. But beyond that basic human respect is another level: Obsolete bigotry has no place in the public discourse. But if we laugh down centuries-old bigotry that was dealt with two hundred years ago, we're not being respectful. We owe it to Michael Reagan and conservatives—in the name of respect—to treat this manner of conservative disrespect with the utmost courtesy and validation. And I know, we find that last kind of silly, but at the core of this caution is a simple reminder of how many times your conservative neighbors in this community have failed entirely to understand such basic differences. In the future, qualify your context of "respect", so that they have to actually ignore you instead of pretend they're the village idiots. (It's just one of those things. If I don't mention it, the problem will come up. If I do mention it, I appear to be fretting. So let's just call it a point aside about what apparently constitutes a "serious discussion" or "mutual respect", as the various factions around our community have diverse functional definitions of words like "serious", "discussion", "mutual", and "respect".)
Uh - I'm pretty sure that the "nothing" there was referring to the time scale over which we've been grappling with this issue (or, this particular incarnation of it, anyway), rather than to the import of the issue itself. The point being that it's a serious issue that will take a while yet to hash out, and not some settled piece of historical development. Could have been phrased a lot better, though.
The problem with that That's a very conservative idea insofar as it rejects the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. And the problem in giving conservatives what they want is that, eventually, everyone else would have to suffer for it, too.
thats one of the failings of the left (although in the US what they really mean by the "Left" (i.e The Dems) is "sort of right wing-ish but not as right wing as the complete fucking religious homicidal manics on the extreme right") - somehow conservatism has successfully positioned itself - clearly erroneously - as the choice of the patriot
hehehehe, riiiiiight. or it appears that way. let's evaluate the modus operandi of conservatives. usually pretty die-hard capitalists. controlling and believe in taking whatever you can. of course when you have all the cards, then you can be charitable and 'appear' to be giving more. if you don't take as much, there would be no need to give as much. kind of like those conservatives who go out and feed the homeless some slop to quell their guilt or make themselves feel better while on a larger scale they support a system that is responsible for putting them in that type of position in the first place. good game. interesting how that works. lmfao
Millard Fillmore gets me hot in the knickers. I hear James Buchanan played for my team though. Who knows. ~String
Don't whine. It is sort of deserved. I'll get to that in a bit. It should not be. At its core, the desire for better things in life and for the rest, poverty forces both parents into the work force. Unless you are born wealthy, or have a very high paying job that provides you and your family with insurance and other perks, both parents have to work to be able to afford to buy or rent a house, car(s), education costs, clothing, food, etc that goes with family life. I wouldn't say they had changed. I think it is now more acceptable to the general population that men do spend time with their children from when they are born. That caring and loving one's children is not just solely the role of the mother. In the past, men weren't even allowed into the birthing suite and there was no such thing as the father cutting the umbilical cord. There was no encouragement of bonding with either parent in those first moments after birth and no encouragement for the father to learn how to bathe and change their baby, let alone care for it (do the day to day things you do as a parent). That is now not only more acceptable but expected. We are now parents and that encompasses the range of things that come with caring for and bringing up a child. Fathers (and mothers) who come home, pat the children on the head and then ignore them are now deemed bad parents or lacking in parenting skills. I'm sorry, but harking back to the good old days when wifey stayed home and taught their daughters to be good mother's and wives and father's came home and saw their children for 2 minutes before they were banished from sight, should be treated with ridicule and derision. What would your response be if someone told you that the care of your children, all the care of your children, should fall solely on your wife and that you're just in the picture to bring in the money? *Snort* Oh dear god. I cannot believe you went there. Yes, the horror of women deciding to do things for themselves instead of opening their loins and start farting out children from the moment they are fertile. As a parent, I would imagine that you are hoping your daughter will go to college and get an education and become self sufficient and self reliant and confident in herself to do what is right for herself? Or are you hoping she's going to be popping out the children as soon as she is physically able to and married by the time she's out of high school? Are you going to teach her that she will probably reach her most fertile period by the time she's around 22 years of age and are you going to encourage her to have started to have her children by then? Or will you be hoping that she will be finishing up with college or university first? Michael Reagan has basically bome out and said that mothers should be teaching their daughters to be a good wife and mother.. to learn that the way to their man's heart is through his stomach.. Do you envisage yourself having that conversation with your daughter? That to get a good husband, she had better learn to cook? Can you understand why there is so much contempt and derision when this subject is brought up? Or women can choose for themselves what they want for themselves.. My, that's a novel idea.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! One day, there will be a realisation that women aren't baby making machines and that we do have autonomy over our own bodies. Mutual respect is not reminding women that their biological clock is ticking if they decide to not start popping out children in their late teens and early twenties, when they are most fertile. Nor is it to waffle on about how real good women are home, caring for the children and teaching their daughters that the way to their man's heart is through his stomach and that girls need to be taught by their mothers how to be good wives and husbands. I mean honestly. The killer for me was the father giving a gift to the mother by taking the family to eat at a local fast food restaurant.. Hahaha.. His roles are clear. The mother cooks and cleans and teachers the daughter to cook and clean and the father is to do the "chores" that will lighten the mother's load a bit. God forbid the father cooks.. That role is apparently set for the mother.. She is apparently supposed to be the queen of the kitchen. Would you ever tell your wife or daughter that their domain was the kitchen? Would that be something you'd want your daughter to grow up thinking or believing? Or would you teach your children, regardless of their sex, that all have to pull their weight everywhere? I grew up in a household where both parents cooked (my father is actually a better cook than my mother is.. by a mile) and both cleaned and did the laundry and mowed the lawn, etc as needed. There was no set rule or role. Both did whatever needed to be done. If the grocery shopping needed to be done, whoever was free to do it would do it. If my father ever told my mother her place was in the kitchen she'd have thrown him out the door. There was no 'mother does the dishes as father dries', etc. If there were dirty dishes, whichever of them in the kitchen would do them. If my mother was out doing the shopping, my father would cook and clean the house and vice versa. That's the kind of household I grew up in and how we raise our sons. They aren't told that mummy's role is to make dinner and do this or that. All do everything.
ja burn social security to the ground build a soup kitchen on the ashes praise the lord /spits insightful shit, birch Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not wow at all. It has been said for a long while now but mostly by women. The following explores these books: A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue Wendy Shalit The Free Press, 1999; Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism F. Carolyn Graglia Spence Publishing, 1998 What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman Danielle Crittenden Simon & Schuster, 1999 The opening of the professions to women or urging them to work and express themselves is not the complaint of A Return to Modesty, Domestic Tranquility, and What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us. Rather, the books lament the collateral sexual baggage that has come along with the newfound freedom of women: the idea that men and women are not only equal to, but actually interchangeable with one another, that commitment to others smothers identity, and that the female instinct to take care of others is, as Gloria Steinem claims, women’s "compassion disease." If women today have the freedom to work, to express themselves, and to earn their own livings, they also have some freedoms that they may not want: the freedom (or pressure) to sleep with men they do not like much; the freedom to be dumped by the men that they sleep with; the freedom to abort the consequence without social stigma; the freedom to deposit their children in day care; the freedom to be dumped in middle age. Different in kind from the old sort that kept women penned in the kitchen, this kind of misogyny is still an oppression of women, the books maintain. As feminism rebelled against the old kind of repression, they are rebelling against a feminism that tends to make war on the feminine nature of women and that treats such things as the longing for bonding, love, nurture, fidelity, as outmoded baggage, and womanhood as a "condition to be cured." Feminists love fighting angry white men, as they make such good targets. The authors of these books, however, are angry white women (though whiteness has nothing to do with it) expressing displeasure with feminist doctrine. Feminists have long urged women to speak out, find voices, and express their anger. Now, women are expressing anger at them. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/559289/posts
Frankly, I'm surprised at the publication dates of the above texts ('98 and '99). It would seem to me that such are responses to much earlier generations of feminist thinking (a few exceptions withstanding). Edit: Without going into much detail, take this for instance: Contemporary feminists readily concede that women have boobs and whatnots...
