This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
A CNN piece
that is quite scathing to the liberal marching tune of the supposed "war on women". My how the tables have turned!
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Romney is a "religitard" who , supposedly, believes that the world will end very soon. It's no surprise that his wife is crazy as well. I'm intrigued by the comment that "women make 80% of healthcare decisions". Where are the men then?
You aren't doing yourself or those who don't like Romney any favors by spewing baseless bile coated ad hominem like this. This post barely deserves any attention at all. I only replied to it to answer the question you post at the end, because the answer is so obvious that a rock could figure it out.
Answer: Probably because women more often than not are the ones caring for kids, while many men are off at work. Tradition and all. But, what do I know? I'm just a religitard with a wife crazy as hell.
Geez. What a lousy excuse for a political opinion. Please, vote Democrat. We don't want you.
Post by
gamerunknown
He can't, given he's in the South of Ireland from what I recall.
Oh and I doubt that mushroom will be very effective. There's a bacteria that produces nylonase that hasn't had any noticeable effect on rubbish.
By the way, the reason for Rosen's comments was that Romney has made comments saying that he wants to negotiate entitlements, cut taxes and reform unemployment benefits. If Anne Romney weren't married to a multimillionaire, she wouldn't be able to raise her children under a Romney administration.
I'd wonder if he had a shred of empathy for single parents, but I suppose he does, given that he passed a state version of Obamacare.
Post by
MyTie
Mushrooms? Huh?By the way, the reason for Rosen's comments was that Romney has made comments saying that he wants to negotiate entitlements, cut taxes and reform unemployment benefits. If Anne Romney weren't married to a multimillionaire, she wouldn't be able to raise her children under a Romney administration. People were actually unable to have babies and raise children before the federal government took care of them. People were just wandering around, hungry, and aimless. Thank goodness we don't have to rely on ourselves anymore.I'd wonder if he had a shred of empathy for single parents, but I suppose he does, given that he passed a state version of Obamacare.
Do you have any money? If so, give me all of it, and then I'll give you back some of it. This is to show that I have empathy for you.
Post by
gamerunknown
People were actually unable to have babies and raise children before the federal government took care of them.
Yeah, well, she'd be unable to unless a state governor took care of her.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
People were actually unable to have babies and raise children before the federal government took care of them.
Yeah, well, she'd be unable to unless a state governor took care of her.
You mean she wouldn't be able to take care of children without income? I agree. Can't make bread without flour. How does that mean she is somehow less able to do the things she does if she is not well heeled?
I guess I just need to make this more plain and in your face:
The idea that Conservative fiscal policies only benefit the rich, and hurt the downtrodden, is short sighted. Your point that he must care about the poor, due to his passing of "state Obamacare" is actually the opposite belief that I have. I believe that this healthcare reform will result in even higher healthcare costs, and lower quality, that will hurt the general welfare of middle and low class citizens, much like over-regulation of the health care industry has done i the last 30 years. Simply stated, government taking over something doesn't generally help. While on the surface, it may look like government is producing something out of thin air, and riding its valliant steed, in shining armor, to save the poor peasants from the evils of the world, it is actually just unduly burdening the economy, and denying the market the ability to self regulate. I agree that 'some' regulation is necessary, but we are so far beyond that at this point.
So, no. I don't believe being against Obamacare means I hate poor people any more than I believe being pro-life means I hate women. Both of these views are simplistic to the point of sheer falsehood. But this is the marching orders that you have. Romneys are rich and hate poor people. Better just stick with what you know, I guess.Sorry for my facetiousness MyTie. My point was that this guy believes in the imminent second coming of Jesus, and the imminent destruction of the world. Do you really want somebody like that anywhere near the red button? It's his religion, let him enjoy it in peace, but to vote for him as a president?I, too, believe these things. Do you think that makes me unstable? Should the government take away my kids for their safety? Should I not use any sharp objects? I believe in Jesus. I guess I'm a dangerous psychopath. Hurr Durr.Regarding gender and healthcare. Working for pay has never stopped me from making "healthcare decisions". I've cared for people with pancreatic cancer, Parkinson's disease, and chronic depression/agorophobia/panic attacks, among others. Working for pay the whole time. You just get on with it, because it needs doing. To think that somebody working at home is not as valid as the person who gets the pay cheque is erronious. That is why it called House Work. If there is a "tradition" of men abdicating responsibility for the health of their family, on a day to day basis, then that is a bad tradition, that should be abandoned.I'm not sure what you mean. In what tradition do men "abdicate responsibility"? Someone needs to bring home the bacon. Someone needs to spend time with the kids. Realistically, parents have to share responsibility and divide up the tasks to achieve acceptable efficiency.
Post by
gamerunknown
Simply stated, government taking over something doesn't generally help.
Explain Sweden and Norway's quality of life indicators.
Post by
MyTie
Norway - Massive oil exports
Sweden - Rejection of the Euro, and massive IT exports.
I love how these are the only two examples in the world of moderate success in socialism. Liberals pull them out of their pocket at the first question that maybe government intervention is a bad idea. You all have them on quick draw. You have them hotkeyed. The other 300 examples are of wretched economic failure, usually coupled with gruesome human rights violations.
I'm not saying that socialism CAN'T work. I'm just saying that it usually doesn't (see the word "generally" in my post) and when it fails, it is catastrophic in its scope of devastation.
Do you want me to cite some examples? They are numerous.
lol Sweden and Denmark.
Post by
gamerunknown
The other 300 examples are of wretched economic failure, usually coupled with gruesome human rights violations.
Explain Cuba's tied lifespan with the US. Explain the 30 countries with higher lifespan and lower rates of infant mortality than the US.
Edit: I'm comparing industrialised countries here.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
A nice story :)
I am not engaging in any debate or negativity today- today will be my fun day with rainbows and sunshine and kitties and stuff. Nothing serious.
Post by
MyTie
The other 300 examples are of wretched economic failure, usually coupled with gruesome human rights violations.
Explain Cuba's tied lifespan with the US. Explain the 30 countries with higher lifespan and lower rates of infant mortality than the US.
Edit: I'm comparing industrialised countries here.
Poor decisions and obesity in the US. Not everything is due to government.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Our per capita homicide rate is through the roof too, compared with most European countries, which has nothing to do with healthcare.
The per capita occurrence of murder in the US in 2010 was like 2 and a half times that of Israel (including deaths to terrorism), 4 times that of the UK, Australia and Ireland, 5 times that of Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Japan, and TEN times as high Norway.
That throws our numbers off.
EDIT: Not Debating- just providing some info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
.
Post by
Azazel
I'd like to note that we here in Denmark, had a social-
liberal
, mainly capitalist government from 2001 to 2011. Last year we got a completely socialist (not communist) goverment.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Our per capita homicide rate is through the roof too, compared with most European countries, which has nothing to do with healthcare.
The per capita occurrence of murder in the US in 2010 was like 2 and a half times that of Israel (including deaths to terrorism), 4 times that of the UK, Australia and Ireland, 5 times that of Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Japan, and TEN times as high Norway.
That throws our numbers off.
EDIT: Not Debating- just providing some info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
.
Any reason for such homicide rate?
Depends on who you ask. Proliferation of firearms, lack of ability to combat areas of urban decay, violence in the media- everyone has a different answer.
Post by
Azazel
Our per capita homicide rate is through the roof too, compared with most European countries, which has nothing to do with healthcare.
The per capita occurrence of murder in the US in 2010 was like 2 and a half times that of Israel (including deaths to terrorism), 4 times that of the UK, Australia and Ireland, 5 times that of Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Japan, and TEN times as high Norway.
That throws our numbers off.
EDIT: Not Debating- just providing some info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
.
Any reason for such homicide rate?
Depends on who you ask. Proliferation of firearms, lack of ability to combat areas of urban decay, violence in the media- everyone has a different answer.
My guess would be excessive amounts of stupid :P
Post by
Adamsm
A nice story :)
I am not engaging in any debate or negativity today- today will be my fun day with rainbows and sunshine and kitties and stuff. Nothing serious.
Jeez, mayors are really getting into the Hero act lately ain't they?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.