Wifely Duties
POSTED BY: piratenews
UPDATED: Saturday, January 9, 2010 04:47
VIEWED: 62964
PAGE 6 of 19
Quote:Wait - I thought this wasn't just about women? Admit it Wulf - you're a sexist old coot, aren't you? Be a REAL man and own up to it!
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
It opened up opportunities at the cost of the lives of the children that these women would abandon for their own wants.
Hmm. Or were you just treated like shit by your own mother and that's why you make these assumptions? If that's the case, I'm truly sad for you. Bad parents suck. But all women aren't like that, and you do yourself and women a disservice by projecting the blame.
(And if this offends you, tough. The tone of your post above doesn't encourage me to be gentle with you. Consider it a fuck-you-very-much.
)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kwicko,
ROFL.
Quote:
Actually, that whole "most inflammatory thing possible" part of his posts is EXACTLY what makes me question his motives and understanding of the situation.
Are there 50 million italians?
My point exactly, I'm not sure that "fucking jews" is an approach that adds to your credibility, but his point would be that it attracts attention and responses, which gives him audience, which is true. He knows it sounds batsh*t crazy, and doesn't care, because it works.
I think the point was about how the new society has mandated everyone's time, and there is no free time, and no time to raise children, so they're being raised by the public school and the idiot box, but I have learned from experience that such a post doesn't generate the same level of response.
I still think there's another way, I just haven't found out what it is yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Phoenix,
PN was trying to attract responses with absurd remarks. It's not new. but arguing whether that is a good tactic is probably more fruitful than arguing whether it's a good position. I'm guessing no one, including PN supports the position. A lot of people might support the mild, non-reponse getting "someone other than the state or TV needs to take care of the kids"
Personally, I'd propose some sort of communal organization, I don't have great faith in parenting. But that's a whole other story
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kwicko,
I think the point was about how the new society has mandated everyone's time, and there is no free time, and no time to raise children, so they're being raised by the public school and the idiot box, but I have learned from experience that such a post doesn't generate the same level of response.
I still think there's another way, I just haven't found out what it is yet.
You are getting close there.
Fifty years ago, the average U.S. family made the same as the average family now, adjusted for inflation - but now we need 2 income earners to make that same wage. Other countries/economies do not.
The women's 'equal pay' baloney has traded the pay for one income earner for the same pay split between 2 earners, subsidising the maternity leave and transient worker (work this year, not last year or next year) with the actual worker, so that all get "equal pay" whether they do the work or not.
So that now, the same pay out from companies/businesses is half as much per person, so most families MUST have 2 earners to keep up with the Joneses.
Other countries/economies do not have that disadvantage, so our economy slips farther behind (the rest of the world), despite the superior economic model of Capitalist Free Enterprise.
Some think that it is better to require 2 income earners per family. Some think it is better to require only one, and have the second optional, like 50 years ago. The benefit (some view) of the second is that when a single parent is a female, there is not as much stigma or as many obstacles in the path - many different jobs in many different fields are available to women now, for the women who chose to work them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
jewelstaitefan
That's a pretty good analysis.
I'd only add that many of other countries have a similar situation and similar problems, but as we approach a one world economic scheme of socialist-capitalist hybrid, there is only one economy.
Capitalism is inherently evil, but it's infinitely better than socialism. Everything needs to be looked from our perspective, which I think it's safe to say, if someone enjoyed firefly for some reason other than that they were stoned, a part of them is either libertarian leaning or a complete anarchist.
That said, Capitalism is better because it coerces the population into slavery. The wage slave system is actually better than slavery itself from the point of view of the masters, because no whipping is required, or relatively little, and the cost of labor is below the cost of supplying food housing and medical care.
Dodging the argument that slaveholders throughout history ducked those responsibilities to their subjects, just suffice it to say that not only do employers duck them, so do service providers.
The main point here is that the cost of maintaining those basic services is now pushed off on the worker, and in order to get them, the worker has to a) give up on some of them, and b) go into debt.
Nazi work camps shirked on the cost until everyone died. They were stupid. The new masters not only shirk, but they get the workers owing them. (Everyone recalls the "Truck System") So, okay, not directly, but often indirectly, you may work for a corporation, but that corporation's major shareholders are the banks than loan the money for mortgages, credit cards, etc. The banks become the masters, and your boss is only the whip holder.
The reason that capitalism is infinitely superior for our purposes is that it is coercive, but by choice. We can opt out of it. Socialism is universal slavery by law. There is no option. And any socialists on the board, spare me the euro-socialism argument, those countries are 90% capitalism or more, more probably than the us, if you look at govt. control % of the economy.
At the moment, the scariest "change we can believe in" is Obama's idea that "You must buy health insurance for your children." Sounds good if you're not listening, but what it's really saying is "here's a very expensive bill that you will now have to pay to buy a consumer product which is a middleman for another consumer product that has no net benefit, if you want to have kids." That's another way of saying "You can opt out, or you can have kids." Not allowing people the freedom of having children under their own terms, a path that we embarked on with the introduction of Clinton and Waco, have carried on through Bush, and now will potentially complete with Obama, falls under the UN charter of genocide.
So, our ability to opt out will soon have to adapt, by creating its own insurance company, a shelter for those who choose freedom over slavery, so that they can have a right to have children.
Even with all of this evil about, it still does take only 20 hours a week of work to keep yourself afloat, if you do it right. This hasn't changed since the dawn of the human race. The only thing that changes is whether or not you have the freedom to make that choice.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
At the moment, the scariest "change we can believe in" is Obama's idea that "You must buy health insurance for your children." Sounds good if you're not listening, but what it's really saying is "here's a very expensive bill that you will now have to pay to buy a consumer product which is a middleman for another consumer product that has no net benefit, if you want to have kids." That's another way of saying "You can opt out, or you can have kids." Not allowing people the freedom of having children under their own terms, a path that we embarked on with the introduction of Clinton and Waco, have carried on through Bush, and now will potentially complete with Obama, falls under the UN charter of genocide.
I keep reading this thinking I'm missing something... are you equating his desire to see that all children get insurance with Genocide?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pizmo
Read the UN charter on genocide. I'm not equating anything, it's already there. He can provide children with healthcare all he wants. But that's not what he proposed. What he proposed was that "if you have children, you must buy them health insurance." That's intentionally discouraging the birth rate. Go read, learn.
It's not the only genocidal policy by our govt, against its own people, but at least we don't have a "one child policy" ... yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pizmo
Read the UN charter on genocide. I'm not equating anything, it's already there. He can provide children with healthcare all he wants. But that's not what he proposed. What he proposed was that "if you have children, you must buy them health insurance." That's intentionally discouraging the birth rate. Go read, learn.
It's not the only genocidal policy by our govt, against its own people, but at least we don't have a "one child policy" ... yet.
I'll give the UN Charter a check in a few - I sincerely doubt any of it's authors would agree with your characterization though.
Just checked his site because, quite frankly I could not remember the details:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf
"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."
Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).
It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Pizmo
Read the UN charter on genocide. I'm not equating anything, it's already there. He can provide children with healthcare all he wants. But that's not what he proposed. What he proposed was that "if you have children, you must buy them health insurance." That's intentionally discouraging the birth rate. Go read, learn.
It's not the only genocidal policy by our govt, against its own people, but at least we don't have a "one child policy" ... yet.
I'll give the UN Charter a check in a few - I sincerely doubt any of it's authors would agree with your characterization though.
Just checked his site because, quite frankly I could not remember the details:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf
"When children are born, their parents will be assisted in signing them up for affordable, high quality coverage, either through their own employer-sponsored insurance plans, through Medicaid or SCHIP, or through options established by the Obama plan.
We will continue to make sure that children are covered, which may include verification when parents sign them up for daycare or school. Obama’s plan will help parents make sure their children get the care they need, at the time they need it."
Seems like a noble endeavor to me IF it can be done. I don't see any language that discourages having babies (if anything, it might encourage since they will be taken care of).
It's probably a little too early to tell - especially that part, "or through options established by the Obama plan."
50-million illegal aliens need free medical care, er, 100-million. They average 6 anchor babies each... Billed to YOU.
And everyone will be forced at gunpoint to take the bioweaponized vaccines, that include live HIV and cancer virus. Same vaccines that infected 50% of Africans with AIDS. Just like the military is already forced to do by socialized medicine.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is no freedom without the freedom to say no.
F.I.W.
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME