Amazon Vehicles Up to 80 Percent Off Textbooks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer TheKicks TheKicks TheKicks  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Celine Dion Shop Now
Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

The war on moms?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 601-625 of 781 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 10:30:59 AM PDT
Biru

Yeah, graduating Harvard with an MBA is starting with nothing? I'm sorry, it's just like being a dirt poor black in Alabama. How foolish of me.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 10:27:46 AM PDT
Birutegal

At two years, my son did not breast feed all the time. Plus, as you have no idea as to the reality behind the circumstances, your inane questions simply demonstrate that you are not very open to the world as it is. Typical right wing radical christian.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 9:46:05 AM PDT
Harry Marks says:
Birutegal -
"the attackers are as low life as one can found, attacking her children, particularly making of her DS baby son."

I have never in my life heard anyone attack or make fun of any Down's Syndrome person. Could you please provide some citation or other evidence about this accusation?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 9:43:46 AM PDT
Harry Marks says:
"liberals tend to emote like junior high kids"

and like Jesus. How can they be so simple-minded?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 9:42:44 AM PDT
Harry Marks says:
Birutegal -

The "beef" is that the current Republican budget proposal, besides being tremendously deceptive and outrageously fantasy-based, is supported by people who have no concept of the human cost of what they are proposing. Having lived all their life in relative comfort (frankly, in absolute comfort), they have no conception of, and obviously no concern for, the hunger, poor health and humiliation they propose to impose.

Their motto should be, "If you see your neighbor well fed, take his money away. If you see your neighbor with enough clothing, throw him out of work so he will be naked. If you see your neighbor able to get medical care, deny it as quickly as possible."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 9:30:07 AM PDT
Harry Marks says:
Anyone willing to characterize mandated neutral treatment of employees as an "assault on Religious liberty" should expect the other side to respond with equally inflammatory rhetoric. The anger and hostility was over an actual attack, not over the lie that attempted to deflect blame for it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 9:27:58 AM PDT
Harry Marks says:
Lying is not just "speaking ill". It is in fact a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. It is vile.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 9:27:30 AM PDT
Harry Marks says:
ScoopingCatLitter -

I am an economist, and I know that when someone says, "I am just giving you the facts" it is time to hold on to your wallet. If a person cannot own up to the interpretations they are providing, they have already ditched their credibility.

If you want to see what the problem is, start with Alex Miller's 8:12:57 post in which he lays out the BLS and Politifact response to Romney's demagoguing. The women's jobs were lost due to a slightly delayed reaction to the dive into recession, all in the first few months. If you know anything about macroeconomics then you know that follow-on effects take 6 months to a year, so that the recession that hit in October 2008 should not have had its full impact till July to October 2009. The point is that they all (not mostly, all) happened due to events entirely under George W. Bush's control and not at all under Barack Obama's control. You pretend that your "just stating the facts" is unassailable, but the fact that you are doing so for rhetorical reasons, and dishonestly so, is transparent to all.

Second, refer to my post to Macheath. If the same logic were applied to Ronald Reagan, (which it most certainly was not) then he would have been a one-term president. Unemployment rose significantly under Mr. Reagan, and he reasonably argued that it was due to events that occurred under the previous, Democratic, administration. Trying to argue the opposite when a Republican crack-up looks bad for a Democrat is what our friend Mr. Macheath is fond of calling "hypocrisy" meaning a person only accepts logic when it appears to favor their side.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 8:37:33 AM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
Birutegal says:
And you find it unusual that parents will buy a car for their child, pay for his education, or help with as downpayment.

K: No, not at all, though a great many children receive no such aid.

Birutegal: The fact is that Romney was a top student. He has proven himself to be a hard worker.

K: Yes, I believe I clearly made this point myself.

Birutegal: What's the beef?

K: The beef is simple. You stated he started out with nothing, which is not true.

Posted on Apr 17, 2012 6:59:30 AM PDT
Birutegal says:
One just has to be aware of the constant barrage of attacks on Sarah Palin, who, if liberal, would be a feminist's ideal woman. She has worked on the fishing boats, she is intelligent, articulate, compassionate, has a husband who supports her 100%, has achieved much as governor of Alaska, etc.

But because she is a conservative, she is viciously attacked, and the attackers are as low life as one can found, attacking her children, particularly making of her DS baby son.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 6:53:14 AM PDT
Birutegal says:
Right on, Mac. She is being scoffed at because she is a conservative.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 6:51:34 AM PDT
Birutegal says:
Well said, Gr.

I recommend listening to Dennis Prager on talk radio and, if you have time, Michael Medved.

Prager is a genius re analyzing the mentality/emotionalism that is behind "progressive" ideas.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 6:48:47 AM PDT
Birutegal says:
Tammy,

I wasn't referring to myself, just generalizing about the neighbors.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 6:46:26 AM PDT
Birutegal says:
"Onanism," as Romanists call it, is also forbidden.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 6:44:19 AM PDT
Birutegal says:
The Romanist denomination must follow the dictates of its prelates.

However, the teachings against murder apply to the unborn, according to Exodus, and contraceptives, other than the simple prophy, are abortifacients, though the Romanist denom forbids the use of the latter, also.

Did God not say that children are a blessing from him? To be fruitful and multiply?

The point of all this is not contraception but the unprecedented infringement by the fed gov't upon religious liberty. Let me reword this: this is an unprecedented, radical intrusion of the state upon a religion.

Let me repeat: the matter is not about contraception but about religious freedom.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 6:09:21 AM PDT
Birutegal says:
Snarky post. "Science" has proven no such thing. However, "science" has proven that conservatives, particularly religious ones, give the most to charity.

Conservatives have produced the real intellectuals such as George Will, Bill Buckley, and a plethora of others. Conservatives think and are grounded in reality; liberals tend to emote like junior high kids.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 17, 2012 6:05:52 AM PDT
Birutegal says:
And you find it unusual that parents will buy a car for their child, pay for his education, or help with as downpayment.

The fact is that Romney was a top student. He has proven himself to be a hard worker.

What's the beef?

Obama went to the best schools all his life, being supported by his grandparents. So? He made his money from the sales of his books.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:19:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 17, 2012 7:26:29 PM PDT
A customer says:
Yes I am. I like to verify facts, point out contradictions, and take note when the pot calls the kettle black.

The difference between the two of us is I encourage and appreciate it when people do it to me. Accuracy is more important to me than opinion. If I'm shown to be wrong, I admit it. If my statements are incorrect, I withdraw them.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:16:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 16, 2012 8:17:50 PM PDT
A Customer says:
He's like that a lot. Use the Ignore button

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:06:19 PM PDT
A customer says:
No, just pointing out that Mac, a conservative, was doing on this thread exactly what you were attacking liberals for.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:00:56 PM PDT
Gr8fl2bHis says:
Looks like you were replying to Macheath, not me.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 7:22:50 PM PDT
A customer says:
"I do not see your link refuting these statistics about women and the economy during the first presidential term of Barack Obama. Your link appears to support this fact."

That's good, because it was supposed to. I never contested the fact. I only asked for a source, which is reasonable when someone posts a statistic as an "undisputed fact." My exact words were, "Do you have a source for these undisputed facts? Not saying you're wrong, just asking for a source."

I then found the source myself, the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What the link *does* contest, providing further information from the BLS, is Macheath's interpretation, presentation of the statistic as the, "'War on Women' that has been the Obama economy." According to the BLS, the percentage of jobs held by women has held steady at nearly half, going from 49.5 to 49.3.

We're in a recession, and millions of people out of work. Not arguing that. Not even arguing that Obama couldn't have done more. But the evidence from the BLS simply doesn't show that women are being specifically targeted or dispraportionately unemployed compared to men by "Obama's economy." Women hold the same percentage of jobs as they did three years ago.

Macheath took a single statistic and presented it out of context. I don't even think he did it intentionally. I doubt he took the time to research it, just saw something that he felt made Obama look bad and posted it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 6:56:53 PM PDT
A customer says:
"Whatever liberals say is correct and should not be questioned. Even if they say something that they themselves would complain about if someone said it about them..."

The irony.

Macheath says, "...what I have been talking about here is more the systemic behavior of the Democratic Party leadership and their surrogates in the mainstream media, not Beck and Olbermann types. All the stuff like "War on Women"..."

Macheath also says, "...Obama's ugly little war against religious liberty..."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 6:31:55 PM PDT
Amon says:
Ok, I'm not disagreeing with you Mac.

Posted on Apr 16, 2012 6:12:53 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 16, 2012 6:28:42 PM PDT
A Customer says:
Btw, besides this democrat consultant demeaning Ann Romney as "having never worked a day in her life", and now the democrat surrogates in the mainstream media are coming out to say "Hilary Rosen is right", besides this line of attack, in the first place you have to wonder what is wrong with these people to go after a woman who is a breast cancer survivor and suffers from MS who has done *nothing* to make herself a polarizing figure. No controversial statements or positions have come from this woman yet the democrats have decided they have to tear her down because she's too "likable" (I guess surviving breast cancer and MS can actually make someone more likable). The whole modus operandi is sooo loathsome.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  32
Total posts:  781
Initial post:  Apr 14, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 6, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions