Should Sarah Palin stay home with her kids?

[shereads]

It's near my bedtime and my dog, Harry Reid, is wanting to go out and if I don't walk he will shit all over everything, so I guess I better say, "good night" excuse myself and go on to bed. I'll visit again when my panties aren't as tight. But you do have a nice room. Thanks for your patience with this first time visitor. Must run; Harry is starting to spin in a circle. ~hug~

Gayle

Harry Reid is a great name for a dog. May he spin in glee.

Welcome to the AH, Gayle. BTW, I saw you scooping cocktail shrimp into your fanny pack. Next time, please contribute something to our buffet.

 

[Belegon]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu080902.jpg

Even this obviously biased cartoonist is smart enough to leave the identification of the woman as a Democrat off the second panel.

Kinda telling, I think.

 

[Belegon]

I un-wounded you in post No. 32. It was a fast moving thread there for a bit.

But I still want you to kiss the boo-boo

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I have serious qualms about Sarah Palin, for a variety of reasons. In fact, she is one of the negatives for McCain now, to be honest.

He still has positives....but she is definitely going to hurt him in the long run. She strikes me as the Republican version of Hillary Clinton....an ice queen, ruthless and self-centered.

And that's not counting her extreme views of creationism and abstinence-only. Evidently, her daughter didn't even agree with her there. But not to strike any low blows. I don't judge Bristol. Just her mother.

 

[Belegon]

For cantdog, I admire what Jefferson, Pain and Franklin did. I also admit they were human and made mistakes. In the long run the accomplishments are much greater.

So you say, yet you can't even correctly spell the name of someone you supposedly admire. Ridiculous.

Have you actually READ Thomas Paine?


He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death.
~Thomas Paine


It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.
~Thomas Paine


Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.
~Thomas Paine


A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
~Thomas Paine

 

[IrezumiKiss]

So you say, yet you can't even correctly spell the name of someone you supposedly admire. Ridiculous.

Have you actually READ Thomas Paine?


He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death.
~Thomas Paine


It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.
~Thomas Paine


Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.
~Thomas Paine


A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
~Thomas Paine

Snaaa-AAAP!

 

[SensualCealy]

Obviously McCain picked her for a reason, and honestly, her being home didn't help her daughter make better decisions!

Why is everyone ("media" and those against McCain's group) blaming Sara for the actions of her daughter?

Whoopi said it best on the VIEW yesterday-you can talk to your kids, teach them all that you can possibly get through to them, they will still make their own decisions, good or bad!

Being Canadian, it isn't my call but I think by standing behind her daughter and not hiding her daughter she is being 1000 times better than any other candidate who is hiding past sins.

JMO
C

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SC

One of life's Great Truths is: The fruit never falls far from the tree.

 

[cantdog]

You just accused around 120 million Americans of preferring a particular policy because it will result in more rotten meat and the consequences that ensue, which are innocent people getting sick.

It is perfectly legitimate for you to argue that you think that will be the consequence of a policy you disagree with with; and for them to argue that more federal inspectors is not a cost-effective means to attain a goal that you and they share, which is less tainted meat. That is a civil debate, and you can both be pretty tough and uncompromising in it, too. What you can't do is claim that your opponent supports a policy because he desires innocent people to suffer.

That's precisely the point. My opponent, as you call him, neither wants e. coli deaths nor mad cow deaths. His decision clearly does not even consider that. It is a pellucidly logical sequence, and the only criterion used is the bottom line. For the sake of the bottom line, production halted and meat wasted? Hold that to a minimum.

When you've made that decision, and you look to implement it, you discover the forces against you are agents, firstly, of the public good, and secondly, of the federal government. Altruism, to Randists, is an evil. Public altruism, even worse.

Logic of the bottom line and also ideological rightness! But it's only rightness to the GOP. But, happily, the GOP is in power, so the shit covered meat can go through. Internal rules of the agency regulating, purely a matter of the executive, all taken care of.

Notice that nowhere in this calculus does the factor of the deaths and sicknesses enter in. That kind of thinking is considerations of the common good. Altruism. We already have a tight chain of clear logic and ideological Purpose, anyway. No need to muddy the waters.

The meat thing is a mere example. "Pro-business" and "good business climate" are code words for this sort of thinking.

 

[DesertPirate]

My dad's retired military after 22 years.

He had all kinds of trouble finding a job in the real world after.

I've seen the pay scale for today's military. The National Guard, the part timers, were the ones really hurt by being called up.

They left families and full-time jobs and took pay cuts to go fight this ridiculous excuse for a war.

I know personally of two families who have gone bankrupt and one that has lost their home due to their spouse serving extended tour. Their jobs were still there when they returned - sort of. Their employers had to give them a job, but not the same job. Less pay when they served, less when they returned.

You can't blame this shit on Clinton.

The way the Guard is treated is wrong. Blame the greedy employers, they are the ones doing the pay cuts, not the Govt. Much as I hate Govt. involvment we might need a law about people returning to the same pay scale, not just "a job".

 

[DesertPirate]

Of course he can. He can't blame it on anyone else. It's psychologically impossible.

Like you blame everything on Bush? Talk about psych problems?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

That's precisely the point. My opponent, as you call him, neither wants e. coli deaths nor mad cow deaths. His decision clearly does not even consider that. It is a pellucidly logical sequence, and the only criterion used is the bottom line. For the sake of the bottom line, production halted and meat wasted? Hold that to a minimum.

When you've made that decision, and you look to implement it, you discover the forces against you are agents, firstly, of the public good, and secondly, of the federal government. Altruism, to Randists, is an evil. Public altruism, even worse.

Logic of the bottom line and also ideological rightness! But it's only rightness to the GOP. But, happily, the GOP is in power, so the shit covered meat can go through. Internal rules of the agency regulating, purely a matter of the executive, all taken care of.

Notice that nowhere in this calculus does the factor of the deaths and sicknesses enter in. That kind of thinking is considerations of the common good. Altruism. We already have a tight chain of clear logic and ideological Purpose, anyway. No need to muddy the waters.

The meat thing is a mere example. "Pro-business" and "good business climate" are code words for this sort of thinking.

If this were a class and I was your instuctor your test and final grade would be to make a logical and morally sound case for the position you disagree with in this issue, without sarcasm or satire. Obviously it would not be a position you agree with because it would contain certain premises regarding human action, human nature and incentives that you don't share. But you are capable of writing that little essay, and I suspect you know very well just what it would say. Most of the others here know it too. That's why I'm not going to bother to respond to this bad-faith screed.

 

[bull1]

Women with children are working jobs all over America. It's not the most ideal situation, but I was a single father, running a business and studying electrical engineering at a university. From the time I got home untill the kids were in bed I gave them my time, along with the chores that go along with the job.
She did a great job with Alaska, and she's the only one of the 4 running for executive office with any experience. Period!
Look at it this way: 1. The only thing Obama has ran is himself. Besides, the London Telegram (unsure of the name) ran a picture of Obama's Kenyon birth certificate. If he was born outside of the USA, he is constitutionaly not qualified to be president. 2. The only thing Joe Biden has ever run is his mouth. 3. McCain, like Biden is a senator. Being senator is the worst training ground in government, they have no responsibility, they run nothing and they do nothing.
Go Sarah Palin, I like her..... but will probably vote 3rd party... that's another story!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The issue of children is irrelevant. Palin made a rational decision to have kids. Kids werent imposed upon her by the state. Kids dont disqualify her from public office. But kids are an expensive, inconvenient, pain in the ass and an obstacle to various endeavors.

When people piss & bitch about equality, the first thing I want to know is: Who gets to be the standard for equality? The Asian coolie who wades thru shit all day, with his nose up a water buffalo's ass?

 

[jomar]

Well said.

Anytime you attach a label (you liberals, right wingers, bush lovers, whatever) the discussion leaves the realm of discussing issues important to individuals, and becomes a personal attack. Names and labels have been tossed about somewhat carelessly. We are all passionate, intelligent, and PATRIOTIC people. I personally vow to make my best effort to avoid personal attacks, and keep my discussion about the issues at hand.

This being Lit...aren't we all bush lovers to some extent?

In spite of the vitriol of your post, this line is classic. I think I need to visit the General Board more often.

I sort of liked the 'go getter, go get her' line.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

You all suck!

Was that mean enough?

I started this thread because the topic interested me. The question itself was suspect in my mind. How could you even ask it? How could it even be relevant? Yet it was being asked, over and over (in some not-so-nice ways, too). Did other people think it was relevant? Important?

There were some really interesting, thoughtful responses... much appreciated.

Hard to talk about this stuff without emotions running high... but honestly, when I think about it, I'd rather have it this way than have a room full of apathetic "who gives a fuck what happens!?" folks.

I appreciate the passion, on both sides. It means someone actually CARES. That's awesome.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I don't mind career women, as long as innocent parties (like children) don't get hurt. As for men, well, it may be unfair in some people's minds that they don't become homemakers equally, but they're not designed with a love for domestic things. It's also not fair to force someone to do something he neither likes or nor does his best at, something for which he has little or no aptitude. Not only is that unfair to men, but to the children and the women, too, since they have expectations and hopes sure to be dashed in time.

I should know. I was briefly a homemaker. It didn't turn out so well. I truly believe that this is Nature, not nurture, at its root. Some things are innately gender-based.

But, then, I'm a Stoic and hold to staunch principles regarding what I call the ordo natura- the natural order of things. Society is no match for Nature, in the long run.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

SEVERUS

Someone has to do the work while the women wallow in Global Whining.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I don't mind career women, as long as innocent parties (like children) don't get hurt. As for men, well, it may be unfair in some people's minds that they don't become homemakers equally, but they're not designed with a love for domestic things. It's also not fair to force someone to do something he neither likes or nor does his best at, something for which he has little or no aptitude. Not only is that unfair to men, but to the children and the women, too, since they have expectations and hopes sure to be dashed in time.

I should know. I was briefly a homemaker. It didn't turn out so well. I truly believe that this is Nature, not nurture, at its root. Some things are innately gender-based.

But, then, I'm a Stoic and hold to staunch principles regarding what I call the ordo natura- the natural order of things. Society is no match for Nature, in the long run.

I have a leaning this way myself, but it's a personal one. I stay home and we sacrifice two incomes because I want to, and feel it's important. I'm amazed by the difference in my children when I go away for just a weekend. I can easily forget how much of a steady presence I am in their lives, and when I'm gone, they really DO feel it a great deal. It often surprises me.

But I wouldn't think of imposing my way of thinking or seeing things onto someone else and insist they live that way.

 

[Belegon]

The way the Guard is treated is wrong. Blame the greedy employers, they are the ones doing the pay cuts, not the Govt. Much as I hate Govt. involvment we might need a law about people returning to the same pay scale, not just "a job".

WHAT? What? You want the government to pass a law protecting employees? But, but, but... that's interfering in the free market and hurting business!

(Okay, sarcasm aside... the way our fighting men and women are treated is wrong and shameful. They are not paid nearly well enough and don't even get me started on the whole National Guard silliness.)

 

[Recidiva]

In my opinion I come down on specific sides during this whole reproduction issue.

It's the woman's choice to have a baby.

Once she has that baby, that baby is her first priority.

In an abortion issue, I'm concerned about the mother's rights and health, less so the fetus.

After a child has been born, I'm more concerned about the infant's rights and health, less so the mother.

I don't think she should stay home. I do think though, as a parent, that she's making a poor choice as a mother. I think it's strictly ambition driven, and couldn't be worse timing for her family. If I were in her position, I would have considered my family's need for privacy, as well as two full-time parents, and opted to protect my family.

As for this being a "sexist" issue, I disagree, as I'm coming down on the side of a four month old male.

I don't see at all, how she's making a positive choice for her kids.

 

[Corylea]

As for men, well, it may be unfair in some people's minds that they don't become homemakers equally, but they're not designed with a love for domestic things. It's also not fair to force someone to do something he neither likes or nor does his best at, something for which he has little or no aptitude. Not only is that unfair to men, but to the children and the women, too, since they have expectations and hopes sure to be dashed in time.

I should know. I was briefly a homemaker. It didn't turn out so well. I truly believe that this is Nature, not nurture, at its root. Some things are innately gender-based.

Oh, what bullshit.

I'm usually Ms. Politeness, but this is one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

"Designed" with a "love" for domestic things? I guess the Great Designer didn't design me, then, or any of my women friends, because none of us have any love for domestic things. You think there's a gene for, say, doing laundry? Then how come humans in some cultures don't do any?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

There we'll have to disagree.

I have a firm belief that homemaking isn't natural for men, in general. If a man happens to choose it, that's his choice, certainly. But compulsion to do what one doesn't choose to do, especially given an innate inaptitude, seems inherently wrong to me.

Of course, as one who has tried and failed as a homemaker, I'm in a better position to know from personal experience than most men.

Helping around the house is one thing. Making a profession must be a personal choice, and will probably be a rare one at that for most of my sex.

But I resent any idea or suggestion of compulsion, especially given my belief that certain things are intrinsic, Nature rather than nurture.

I don't think that society can just impose its will and expect everyone to conform to the latest social norm or egalitarian platitude.

I regret any offense I might have given, but I must uphold the rights of the individual first. If a person, male or female, doesn't mind being a homemaker, that's fine with me. If they do mind, they can't and musn't be coerced into it. Then again, I have no use for forced equality, which is why I'm no Marxist.

As long as provision is made for the well-being of children, it's no harm and no foul about one's own choice.

 

[Corylea]

I have a firm belief that homemaking isn't natural for men, in general. If a man happens to choose it, that's his choice, certainly. But compulsion to do what one doesn't choose to do, especially given an innate inaptitude, seems inherently wrong to me.

Of course, as one who has tried and failed as a homemaker, I'm in a better position to know from personal experience than most men.

Well, my personal experience is that it isn't natural for me. Perhaps it isn't natural for anybody.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Well, my personal experience is that it isn't natural for me. Perhaps it isn't natural for anybody.

Anecdotal evidence really doesn't get us anywhere. *shrug* I can tell you that it's much more natural for me than for my husband - I'm a wonderful multitasker, and I can have five or six things going at once without a problem - load of laundry in, doing the dishes, talking on the phone, helping with homework, cooking dinner, and letting the dog in or out... My husband is much more linear. ONE. THING. AT. A. TIME. Drives me crazy.

But that doesn't really tell us anything. It just tells me how our relationship runs best. It doesn't tell me about yours. We'd have to look to archetypes for a clearer idea of something like this, split along gender lines... and Sev, you have to admit, for as many Aphrodite or Hestia types, there's plenty of Dianas to make a counterbalance...