mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 17, 2012 10:27:03 GMT -5
If the mom is married, she's not exactly a single mom. If the dad is married, she can still be a single mom. reverse your mom/dad roles. What is your point My point, cme, was to answer PBP's post, in which he asked if for every single mom there wasn't a single dad. The answer to that question is "no". If you want to spin it off into something else, we'll discuss that. I answered PBP's post.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 17, 2012 10:28:18 GMT -5
I really don't understand the question, but I think I have an inkling. Can I get some clarification before I respond to it-- to make sure I'm responding to the right question? Is the question is: For every single mom, isn't there- or probably more accurately "shouldn't" there be- a single dad? No what they are trying to say is that dads do not matter that only women raise kids by themselves. Dads get to "run away" while mom stays. Who are "they" who are trying to say that?
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Oct 17, 2012 10:30:24 GMT -5
VB, Gotta love the Big Dawg!!! ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) (Seriously, while I do think he was an excellent president, no one can pretend that he was a faithful husband) Re binders: I believe (I could be mistaken) that we are talking files.....
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 17, 2012 10:31:32 GMT -5
I really don't understand the question, but I think I have an inkling. Can I get some clarification before I respond to it-- to make sure I'm responding to the right question? Is the question is: For every single mom, isn't there- or probably more accurately "shouldn't" there be- a single dad? No what they are trying to say is that dads do not matter that only women raise kids by themselves. Dads get to "run away" while mom stays. Well, that last sentence in particular is kind of what I thought- but I'll keep an open mind. If it turns out to be the case, though it's pretty easily put to bed (pardon the pun)-- if you don't want to get stuck raising kids by yourself, don't become a single mom. You can't see everything coming, and you can't possibly plan for every evil thing human beings do to one another- or that someone might do to you; but you can and should do everything you can to put the odds in your favor. It'll probably involve making some lifestyle changes, and making some ***GASP!*** ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/secret.png) judgments- but if you don't want to become a single mom, you can at least make the big decisions right, pay attention to red flags, and then all you can do is hope for the best. It may not turn out well, however. I know one single mom who did everything right, got married, and when her husband suffered a debilitating back injury from playing semi-pro sports, he got hooked on the pain meds, over-dosed and died. Before that, he was a church going guy that didn't even drink. Stuff does happen that you can't plan for. Not everything is as simple as living a good moral life and nothing bad will happen, you won't ever be wronged, or screwed over, and stuck in a tough spot. But that being said, I repeat: put the odds in your favor. Get married. That's probably the A#1 thing you can do. If you don't do step 1, you hardly have a complaint concerning what follows.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Oct 17, 2012 10:40:26 GMT -5
No what they are trying to say is that dads do not matter that only women raise kids by themselves. Dads get to "run away" while mom stays. Who are "they" who are trying to say that? I have seen this line used by... Huffington Post Democratic Underground PJ Media Twitter Feeds Facebook the list goes on and on. Here you have people saying it as well when the fact of the matter is that Romney stated that it was both Single Mothers and Fathers, which studies do show the correlation between one parent households and gun violence. Single Parent households do not always have a parent involved with the child besides trying to provide the necessities of life, allowing the child to look elsewhere for the affirmation that they desire.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 5, 2024 6:36:19 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 10:44:59 GMT -5
I really don't understand the question, but I think I have an inkling. Can I get some clarification before I respond to it-- to make sure I'm responding to the right question? Is the question is: For every single mom, isn't there- or probably more accurately "shouldn't" there be- a single dad? No what they are trying to say is that dads do not matter that only women raise kids by themselves. Dads get to "run away" while mom stays. Because the debate was held in 1960, I think their intent was that single moms often bear the bulk of the child-rearing responsibility. In reality, both moms and dads are raising children on their own, but women have a few more avenues available to them to become parents if they so choose. Women can conceive and bear a child without a partner, while men can't. And they are a number of adoption agencies that will allow single women to adopt but not single men. So, some fraction of the statistics is not men being deadbeats, but men being disenfranchised. (Just in defense of the non-deadbeats)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 10:58:47 GMT -5
i would like to challenge the whole line of reasoning here. if the president really knew this was a terrorist event, he would be wise to ADVERTIZE it, imo. it worked for Bush, and it has worked for every leader since the dawn of civilization. if you can cloak yourself as the defender against visible and invisible enemies, it INCREASES your standing. this idea that somehow Obama is weakened by it is totally absurd. sorry, but it is. Are you on drugs? ad hominem.Obama knew that he had lost his standing as defender against visible and invisible enemies as soon as the attack and resulting deaths occurred. really, now? just like Bush lost his standing when the Cole was attacked? just like Bush lost his standing on 911? this perspective is really strange to me, dancin'. when we are attacked we tend to rally AROUND the president. if it is random, there is no need to rally. if it is orchestrated, there is. sorry, but i think you are totally wrong here.It was the last thing he needed right before the election. But now we know that it was an act of terror against the US. Based on your theory, he would have spent more time tonight on the topic and used the debate to promote himself as the great defender; instead he literally couldn't get Crowley to move onto the next debate topic fast enough. i disagree again. i think he scored his most damaging blow against Romney last night during that sequence. and that proves my point.Your conclusion that he could use this terror attack to his advantage is "totally absurd". your opinion. i think it is absolutely correct. but i can see that you have spent too much time wading around in the right wing blogosphere to believe it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 11:00:36 GMT -5
Agreed, dj. I'd imagine, when something like that happens nobody knows their butt from third base for awhile. With all that's going on in that part of the world, it's sometimes hard to tell an organized terrorist attack from just a bunch of folks with an axe to grind. It's always easy to armchair quarterback, it seems. Then why not wait to make a definitive statement about it until you have the facts? Instead, Obama made a false statement about it the very next day. did he, now? what false statement did he make the next day?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 11:04:26 GMT -5
Perhaps you should tune into CSPAN from time to time instead of watching the channel where you currently get your "news". yeah, i really should turn off FOX. you're right. i'm so ashamed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 11:05:49 GMT -5
i think Obama is naturally cautious. perhaps that is a fault. perhaps it isn't. ie- after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, given that the UN weapons inspectors wanted to continue looking for his mythical WMD, it seems that a little extra caution would have been advisable. on a side note, i think Romney is making a big mistake going after Obama on this issue. no matter what you might think of Obama personally, the man has handled foreign policy far better than anyone on the right ever gave him credit for. Really? I don't care what kind of credit you believe Obama deserves for the way that he has handled foreign policy. If Obama didn't know the truth, I want to know why he didn't know the truth and why he delivered a "story" to the American people before he had the facts. If he had the facts, but flat-out lied about the incident, I want to know that too. Neither scenario is good news for Obama. Obama is the one who made "a big mistake". i felt the same way about Bush's WMD. when he WON in 2004, i was shocked and disappointed. prepare yourself.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 17, 2012 11:08:45 GMT -5
Who are "they" who are trying to say that? I have seen this line used by... Huffington Post Democratic Underground PJ Media Twitter Feeds Facebook the list goes on and on. Here you have people saying it as well when the fact of the matter is that Romney stated that it was both Single Mothers and Fathers, which studies do show the correlation between one parent households and gun violence. Single Parent households do not always have a parent involved with the child besides trying to provide the necessities of life, allowing the child to look elsewhere for the affirmation that they desire. I see. I thought we were discussing this thread, silly me. I haven't seen that said in this thread, so I asked.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 17, 2012 11:09:26 GMT -5
Just finished the replay of the debate. My analysis? Adraw. The difference? The President showed up for a debate. Romney held his own, but since the President was vastly improved over the first debate, it looks like he won. That and the fact Candy kept lobbing softball foolowup questions to the President, and her cutting Romney off, and backing the President on his Rose Garden speech when she was totally wrong about it. The the conservatives claim a "draw" you KNOW Obama won!!!! ![](http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff155/JiminiChristmas/smileys/1-1.gif) Oh, well I guess Obama lost then. Because USA Today called it a "split decision". Same logic. www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/10/17/town-hall-presidential-debate/1638205/
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 17, 2012 11:10:11 GMT -5
Perhaps you should tune into CSPAN from time to time instead of watching the channel where you currently get your "news". yeah, i really should turn off FOX. you're right. i'm so ashamed. You could always turn off FOX and catch good ol' Rush on the radio. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 11:12:41 GMT -5
What's been known "for several days now" isn't what was known at the time. I'm sure the investigation of events is ongoing and more will be forthcoming. Then again, I'm not one to claim I'm in on everything that goes on, why it goes on, or who's making the decisions. That said, let me tell you something, sister. You don't tell ME where to get my news. You have no clue where I get my news. It's a cinch you're not the be-all-know-all of all things, and acting like you are won't make it so. It was known real time by the intelligence community when it happened. We, the American people, have known (because of the Congressional hearing) for several days now. The investigation of events is ongoing and more will be forthcoming and none of it is good for Obama. I'm not the be-all-know-all of all things, but I did spend hours watching the hearing last week so that I could get the facts (assuming that those who testified under oath told the truth) instead of listening to talking points from media who wants to protect Obama at any cost so that he'll be re-elected. The fact that Crowley stuck her neck out to inappropriately interject her "opinion" into the debate, instead of moderating it is evidence of that. I don't think that you would be getting your undies in a bundle if you didn't feel yourself that this might be a very big problem for Obama. you don't seem to get it, so let me spell it out for you. Obama should be tried in the Hague for War Crimes, imo. i couldn't care less about whether this brings down his administration or not. string him up, for all i care. but after 2004, i know better than to hope for justice. there is no justice. there is only fear and politics. your reasonable arguments are not going to work, just as mine didn't work in 2004. i am sorry, but THOSE are the facts. you seem to think that because i think the arguments are the right are naiive and wrong than i am working for the Obama campaign, and you could not be more wrong about that. a critique of the POV of Obama's detractors is not a defense of Obama.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 17, 2012 11:12:55 GMT -5
Are you on drugs? ad hominem.Obama knew that he had lost his standing as defender against visible and invisible enemies as soon as the attack and resulting deaths occurred. really, now? just like Bush lost his standing when the Cole was attacked? just like Bush lost his standing on 911? this perspective is really strange to me, dancin'. when we are attacked we tend to rally AROUND the president. if it is random, there is no need to rally. if it is orchestrated, there is. sorry, but i think you are totally wrong here.It was the last thing he needed right before the election. But now we know that it was an act of terror against the US. Based on your theory, he would have spent more time tonight on the topic and used the debate to promote himself as the great defender; instead he literally couldn't get Crowley to move onto the next debate topic fast enough. i disagree again. i think he scored his most damaging blow against Romney last night during that sequence. and that proves my point.Your conclusion that he could use this terror attack to his advantage is "totally absurd". your opinion. i think it is absolutely correct. but i can see that you have spent too much time wading around in the right wing blogosphere to believe it. Be careful, dj! Dancinmama reads minds! She knows what you're thinking! She knows what everyone is thinking. Just ask her. She'll tell you what you're thinking and expand on it! ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/secret.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 11:15:39 GMT -5
Does no one read a freaking transcript?? He clearly called it a terrible act it terror... No. He did not. Since you brought it up, why don't you post the verbiage you're referencing? He never once called it an act of terror. In context, he was referencing 9.11.01 and he said, "No act of terror...". This is black and white, and it's a slam dunk for Romney, and a catastrophe for Obama. wrong.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 17, 2012 11:16:41 GMT -5
I think the bottom line is that Obama needed a "knockout" not a win on "points" and he did NOT get it. After last weeks Romney blowout, all Obama did was show that he does have the ability to consume enough Red Bull to stay awake, stay in the ring, and throw some punches. But he landed only light jabs; where as Romney landed one hard-hitting, devastating blow after another. Romney isn't feeling the effects of having "lost" last night on "points". Romney is moving right on. Obama is reeling today. The whole conversation today is about the Benghazi lie, and the moderator's humiliating misstep.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 11:19:28 GMT -5
In his speech to the UN on September 25th, two weeks later, the President mentioned the video six times and never once called the incident an act of terror. didn't some Imam just declare a holy war on the US for that video?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 17, 2012 11:21:52 GMT -5
If the mom is married, she's not exactly a single mom. If the dad is married, she can still be a single mom. Well, again- if the point is that women can and often do get stuck raising the kids while the men run off and have a good time- true. It happens. Life isn't fair. All the more reason to be careful with whom and what context you have sex if you're a woman. All the more reason to treat sex with sobriety, to ensure you're married, and again as I like to put it-- put all the odds in your favor if you're a woman. Admittedly, it's not always a woman's "fault" and that's not what I'm trying to say, but when you see the skyrocketing rate at which women are having kids without being married-- there are a whole lot more bad decisions than situations women didn't see coming. That may not sit well with some people, but that's the truth.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 11:22:50 GMT -5
yeah, i really should turn off FOX. you're right. i'm so ashamed. You could always turn off FOX and catch good ol' Rush on the radio. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) i find the notion that someone can tell what media i consume by how i post to be hilarious. oh, and if someone wants to take me to task for mentioning the right wing blogosphere, that was "tit for tat".
|
|
Waffle
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 11:31:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,391
|
Post by Waffle on Oct 17, 2012 11:23:28 GMT -5
I don't think the Libya exchange is going to make much difference in the election. Sadly, the issue just isn't that important to most Americans.
I think Romney lost the entire debate and he knew it. After the debate was over and his wife came up on the stage you could just see the shock of the defeat in both of their faces.
At the first debate the President seemed shocked by Romney, as if the man he was debating was someone he didn't know at all. Last night, the tables were turned, albeit not quite to the same degree.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 11:24:13 GMT -5
I think the bottom line is that Obama needed a "knockout" not a win on "points" you think wrong. it is actually Romney that needed the KO, and he didn't get it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2012 11:27:52 GMT -5
I don't think the Libya exchange is going to make much difference in the election. Sadly, the issue just isn't that important to most Americans. i agree completely. if one wants absolute proof of this, one need look no further than 2004. we had a president with well known foreign policy failures in that election, and he won. he won with a shit job record, mediocre GDP growth, a stock market that was down considerably, and a quagmire in Iraq. if anyone thinks that Libya is going to do to Obama what Tehran did to Carter, you are gravely mistaken.I think Romney lost the entire debate and he knew it. After the debate was over and his wife came up on the stage you could just see the shock of the defeat in both of their faces. Obama trounced him. calling it a draw is very generous.At the first debate the President seemed shocked by Romney, as if the man he was debating was someone he didn't know at all. Last night, the tables were turned, albeit not quite to the same degree. this debate was an absolute reversal. that having been said, 2nd debates usually don't matter, and i doubt this one will. Obama will be lucky if he gets a 1% bounce.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 17, 2012 11:40:55 GMT -5
Really Paul? You cannot separate the two? Then riddle me this. Where I live, in Quebec, we have over 60% of children born out of wedlock. Marriage has long fallen out of favour, with fewer than 3 in 10 people tying the knot. Yet, we have incredibly low crime rates. Why do you suppose that is? Clearly, you CAN separate the two.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2012 12:32:53 GMT -5
You're also sucking $3,500.00 per capita per year out of the remaining provinces for full-day daycare programs. Your provincial debt is astronomical. And despite that, your enfant rois have shut down your universities and public transport in protest of the lowest tuition rates in all of North America.
Canada's solution is to throw more money at you.
The violence starts when the money runs out.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 17, 2012 12:44:24 GMT -5
And despite that, your enfant rois have shut down your universities and public transport in protest of the lowest tuition rates in all of North America. ------------------------------ Our universities and public transit is not shut down. One day of throwing a smoke bomb in le metro does not a shut down make. Our schools and universities are in full swing. For what it's worth, I don't agree with the students and I never wore a red square. We have some of the lowest tuition in the world, and some students want it even lower. Not everyone agrees with them, and I certainly don't. Regardless of protesting students, progeny of unwed parents does not automatically equal more crime.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2012 12:50:14 GMT -5
For now.
How many months were they shut down for before the province caved?
Statistically in the US it does.
Why is Quebec not a raging pit of violence? Because the entire country's money hasn't run out yet.
Start paying for your own bloody daycare and then you can lecture us on the wonders of your society.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Oct 17, 2012 12:50:19 GMT -5
I have seen this line used by... Huffington Post Democratic Underground PJ Media Twitter Feeds Facebook the list goes on and on. Here you have people saying it as well when the fact of the matter is that Romney stated that it was both Single Mothers and Fathers, which studies do show the correlation between one parent households and gun violence. Single Parent households do not always have a parent involved with the child besides trying to provide the necessities of life, allowing the child to look elsewhere for the affirmation that they desire. I see. I thought we were discussing this thread, silly me. I haven't seen that said in this thread, so I asked. Well then silly me, I thought we were discussing the debate not talking points that the blog-o-sphere is using to paint candidates the way they want. I pointed out the fact that one of our members decided to run the ROMNEY BLAMES SINGLE MOMS FOR GUN VIOLENCE, when he pointedly stated that single parents in particular carry a higher burden.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 17, 2012 13:00:59 GMT -5
Virgil, the majority of births in Scandanavian countries are also out of wedlock. They also have very low crime rates, and get no transfer payments from the rest of Canada. No, I think it's something else that accounts for the crime and violence in the US.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 17, 2012 13:06:58 GMT -5
You can't blame it solely on out-of-wedlock births, no matter how much you want to.
|
|