|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 2, 2008 15:53:12 GMT -5
Bolverk, I am not entrenched in any like movements to NOW etc. and sorry your comment went sailing over my head.  Now, your patience will be required here... Do you mean it's a woman's right to work after the birth of her baby and my comments go against that? I'm still not sure where you stand on this issue, although if I had to guess I would think you would want a mother to be with her baby for as long as possible, just a guess. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 2, 2008 16:03:04 GMT -5
My point is very, very simple. Women have to work, in most cases. The woman's movement of the 70's did not take into account the stay home mom, and in fact, marginalized and looked down on them for not being independent. This caused a monumental shift in our economy, making anyone who wanted to have a family and be middle class in this state virtually poor, forcing the mother to work. All because NOW looked down on stay home moms.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 2, 2008 16:09:34 GMT -5
Bolverk, yes, that makes sense. I did say I don't judge women who need to work, I completely understand that. My gripe is with women who can stay home, but feel their careers are far more important than shaping the future well being of their child, or they are stressed by motherhood (boo-hoo) and have to hire day, and night nannies to do their job as a mother. I'd have to say the latter gets under my skin more. For those mothers that feel having children is too much work and ruins their nails, get a DOG!
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Oct 2, 2008 16:15:03 GMT -5
Actually, change DOG, to CAT since they need less attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 2, 2008 16:45:09 GMT -5
I will always remember when my mom had to start working. What a drag it was. She was there for me and my sister until about Junior High School, in the early 1970's, about the time the whole shift occurred. Hind sight is 20/20, and I can see clearly the correlation between the Woman's movement run by NOW and the decline in family.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 2, 2008 16:45:32 GMT -5
Actually, change DOG, to CAT since they need less attention.  ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 2, 2008 19:56:44 GMT -5
Isn't it the latest, out of well-known Republicans saying (P)alin should bow out of the race? One in particular has said, more or less, "she or (P)alin , is out of her league"? Did Dems see this first? References, please. Would you also give equal weight to those in the Democrat Party who claim that Obama was the bad choice, that you should have gone with Hillary? Or, are you cherry-picking your cites for maximum effect? Actually, I'm surprised you asked for a link. It was also presented on FOX news. www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/27/2008-09-27_calls_rise_among_republicans_for_sarah_p.htmlquote: On the Wall Street meltdown and polls showing Republican nominee John McCain slipping, she added, "What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it." It made some GOP veterans yearn for Dan Quayle. ____________________________________________________ I voted for Obama, not Hillary, even though I love the Clintons. I understand any Democrat that voted for her. Hillary and Barack actually have similar if not the same stances on policies, so to me, it didn't matter who won. What about you, are you happy with mccain as opposed to one of the other candidates running for Republican pres. nominee? |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 4, 2008 2:27:55 GMT -5
In the primaries, you vote for the person. In the general election, you vote for the party. How else can you explain all of the centralist Democrats lining up behind such a radical presidential candidate? Could it be because of his vast experience in delivering "change" while a community organizer in Chicago? Or, maybe it was all of the "change" he brought to the Illinois state senate? Or, how about his long list of "change" during his 174 days in the US Senate?
Or, exactly what is it?
|
|
;D 
