Obama Associate Propagadist Bill Mahar Says Women Should work 8 hours a day for a mean boss!

[Chachma v'Oz]

I think Alberto is a movie buff.

[Malcolm Wright]

Are you also Alberto_Balsalm?

Hehe.. no. Why?

[Desert Fox]

An OP with no quotes or links has very rapidly sunk deeper, to generalizations about all democrats?
Really?

M

So he feels that the party of no isn't divisive?

[soylentgreen]

Gosh, I guess someone forgot to send me the memo on how liberals are supposed to feel about women. I don't work. I stay home with my two kids, and the third is on the way in a few more weeks. I haven't worked since my first was born almost 8 years ago. Not only do I not work, but I won't be returning to work for quite some time, since I also home school my kids. Of course, I guess we're breaking all the rules as liberals, because my husband and I both think it's pretty damn awesome that we can afford for me to stay home with the kids. Plus, he's in the military, and I bet liberals all hate soldiers and sailors and pilots too, right? <eye roll>

Liberals don't hate stay-at-home moms...they just look down on them. They think you don't work. They also think you should drive your three kids and all their stuff around in a Prius. No one "needs" and SUV is what they say.

I think it's great that you stay home with your kids and work in the home. As long as that's what you choose to do, I support you fully. If you choose to work outside the home, I also support that. I value both. Liberals are the ones who don't respect your choices. They're the ones pushing to eradicate the gender roles.

[soylentgreen]

How often do you have to replace your club? Does your woman's hair come out when you drag her around your cave?

Nope. I'm a modern man. I give my wife the freedom to do what she wants. I don't demand she do this or that. I don't disrespect her choices. But, the idea that there are no "proper" roles for the genders is just fucking stupid.

[antiquity]

So he feels that the party of no isn't divisive?

You mean the party of no energy policy and gas prices approaching five dollars a gallon?

You mean the party of no immigration policy and none on the horizon?

You mean the party of no policy on medicare reform?

You mean the party of no SS reform policy?

You mean he party of not submitting a budget for 1092 days when they had a clear super majority for two years of that 1092 days?

You mean the party that voted down Obama budget in the Senate 97-0 and in the House 414-0?

You mean the party that passed a HC bill without reading it in the middle of the night that most Americans oppose to this day?

The party that hates stay at home moms?

Right, that party of NO.

[antiquity]

Liberals don't hate stay-at-home moms...they just look down on them. They think you don't work. They also think you should drive your three kids and all their stuff around in a Prius. No one "needs" and SUV is what they say.

Liberals are pissed at stay at home moms because they don't pay taxes to help pay for people who don't work at all.

[Desert Fox]

Liberals don't hate stay-at-home moms...they just look down on them. They think you don't work. They also think you should drive your three kids and all their stuff around in a Prius. No one "needs" and SUV is what they say.

I think it's great that you stay home with your kids and work in the home. As long as that's what you choose to do, I support you fully. If you choose to work outside the home, I also support that. I value both. Liberals are the ones who don't respect your choices. They're the ones pushing to eradicate the gender roles.

You listen to too much Limbaugh. Try reality for a change.

[Desert Fox]

You mean the party of no energy policy and gas prices approaching five dollars a gallon?

You mean the party of no immigration policy and none on the horizon?

You mean the party of no policy on medicare reform?

You mean the party of no SS reform policy?

You mean he party of not submitting a budget for 1092 days when they had a clear super majority for two years of that 1092 days?

You mean the party that voted down Obama budget in the Senate 97-0 and in the House 414-0?

You mean the party that passed a HC bill without reading it in the middle of the night that most Americans oppose to this day?

The party that hates stay at home moms?

Right, that party of NO.

For a party of no immigration policy it's remarkable that more illegal aliens have been deported under Obama's administration than under Bush's (who is a Republican if you didn't know).

Do you mean the party that is against the Republicans gutting Medicare?

Do you mean the party that is against the Republicans gutting Social Security?

You're figures suggest that there are 97 Democratic senators and 414 Democratic representatives. Odd. I thought there were more Republicans in the House than Democrats and at least some of the Senators were Republican.

No, I mean the party of no that has put out bullshit about the health care, as well as a lot of bullshit about most anything else. (They are envious of Limbaugh's ability to put out bullshit and try to emulate him at every step.)

If the Democrats hate stay at home moms why is it that they tend to support choice for women whereas Republicans tend to support the choice that they (mostly men) make for women? Where do you get your facts such as Democrats hating stay at home moms? You must get your news from Fox.

[antiquity]

For a party of no immigration policy it's remarkable that more illegal aliens have been deported under Obama's administration than under Bush's.

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — The Obama administration said Thursday it will allow many illegal immigrants facing deportation the chance to stay in this country and apply for a work permit, while focusing on removing from the U.S. convicted criminals and those who might be a national security or public safety threat.

That will mean a case-by-case review of approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants facing possible deportation in federal immigration courts, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in announcing the policy change.

Most illegals are self deporting due to the Obama economy.

Do you mean the party that is against the Republicans gutting Medicare?

Saving Medicare by reforming it is not gutting it.

Do you mean the party that is against the Republicans gutting Social Security?

Since it was announced just today that social security will not be self sufferance by 2033. Democrats think that okay as we have plenty of time to fix it later.

You're figures suggest that there are 97 Democratic senators and 414 Democratic representatives. Odd. I thought there were more Republicans in the House than Democrats and at least some of the Senators were Republican.

If democrats can't support their own budget why should republicans? The major stumbling block for democrats supporting the republican budget plan is the so called tax cuts for the rich. Which Obama supported and signed into law last December.

No, I mean the party of no that has put out bullshit about the health care, as well as a lot of bullshit about most anything else.

Lets see if it is bullshit after the SC decides the case. Most anything else, don't be so general, get it off your chest.

If the Democrats hate stay at home moms why is it that they tend to support choice for women whereas Republicans tend to support the choice that they (mostly men) make for women? Where do you get your facts such as Democrats hating stay at home moms? You must get your news from Fox.

No I got it from CNN and Hilary Rosen, a democratic white house mouth piece who make it perfectly clear what the democrats think about stay at home moms. Oh, by the way, I am pro-choice and if you had been around for a while you would have known that.

[hadit]

Do you mean the party that is against the Republicans gutting Medicare?

1. George Bush, (who is a Republican if you didn't know), created the biggest expansion of Medicare ever.
2. Obama, (who is a democrat if you didn't know), using Washington math, cut half a trillion from Medicare to pay for Oh-crap! care.

Which party is gutting Medicare again?

It sounds like you just had a knee-jerk reaction and didn't do a lot of fact checking.

[antiquity]

I was going to mention that fact, but I thought everyone already knew it before hand. Even if they didn't read the bill, like Pelosi.

[hadit]

I was going to mention that fact, but I thought everyone already knew it before hand. Even if they didn't read the bill, like Pelosi.

They do know it, they just prefer to ignore it and hope no one mentions it.

[food4thought]

So if you're rich and you choose to stay home with your children, that's "work" and it makes you an honorable mother, but if you're poor and you choose to stay home with your mother, your children are learning indolence and laziness, and neither you nor they have any dignity? That's what Mitt Romney said about women on welfare - he said he'd rather spend more money putting their children in daycare than letting those children be raised by their own mothers, because doing so was somehow so damaging to them that the government money wasted to warehouse them was worth spending. At least if Bill Maher doesn't value motherhood, he devalues it based on principle. Romney just devalues it based on how much money you have.

I think what Mitt Romney meant was that poor, unemployed mothers don't feel good about themselves (dignified) while home raising their children, because they (or their husband/childrens' father) can't afford it themselves, and they're doing it on someone else's dime. Therefore, as you said, according to him, spending (even more of) the taxpayers' money on sending their children to daycare, instead, so these women can go off to work and become self-sufficient and dignified, is much better than them raising their children themselves.

Does it make sense if he and his wife believe it best for children to be raised by their own parents rather than daycare workers, that he would propose spending the money on daycare workers raising welfare recipient's children instead of the children's own mothers?

These women feel bad about themselves for accepting welfare because that's how the Republican party has made them feel. It's no secret the repubs have long considered welfare recipients to be parasitic losers. So, if these women feel undignified, it is because of the prejudice of conservatives like Mitt Romney, who's own wife is lucky enough to have the wherewithal to be able to stay home and raise her own children without feeling like an undignified loser.

Wouldn't it make much better sense, if money is going to be spent, to spend it (instead of Mitt's proposal - spending even MORE on daycare subsidies) on enabling the mother to stay home, and feel GOOD about it, if she wants, while, perhaps, simultaneously being enabled to take pt/night classes/training to prepare her to join the workforce as soon as her children are old enough to enter school.

We should all put an end to the cultural scarlet letters for W[elfare] L[oser] and focus on helping ALL mothers, from every socioeconomic background, feel supported and good about being the best mom she can be, whether it's while working outside the home or not, in order for us all to raise the most well-adjusted, productive members of society we can.

[Desert Fox]

Most illegals are self deporting due to the Obama economy.



Saving Medicare by reforming it is not gutting it.



Since it was announced just today that social security will not be self sufferance by 2033. Democrats think that okay as we have plenty of time to fix it later.



If democrats can't support their own budget why should republicans? The major stumbling block for democrats supporting the republican budget plan is the so called tax cuts for the rich. Which Obama supported and signed into law last December.



Lets see if it is bullshit after the SC decides the case. Most anything else, don't be so general, get it off your chest.



No I got it from CNN and Hilary Rosen, a democratic white house mouth piece who make it perfectly clear what the democrats think about stay at home moms. Oh, by the way, I am pro-choice and if you had been around for a while you would have known that.

There is no doubt that some illegals are heading back home. Most? I doubt that. I'm sure you have a link that will back up your totally improbable contention, but whether you do or not it doesn't address the fact that the Obama administration is deporting more illegal aliens than Bush's administration. All you have to do is let Google be your friend and you can find the proof of that.

Reforming Medicare is one thing, the GOP are out to gut it.

So instead of saying you were wrong you try to obfuscate the budget situation. Why did you not mention the reasons for the budget vote? Because it won't support your negative (party of no) attitude?

We have heard dire predictions regarding Social Security for decades. While it may need reforming, and in fact probably does need some tweaking, it has been tweaked time and again. Of course if the 1% currently being protected by the GOP would contribute their fair share of taxes, maybe some of those would be Social Security taxes. In the meantime, the GOP is staunchly saying "NO!"

You heard what Hilary Rosen said about stay at home moms. She doesn't speak for every Democrat and/or liberal. Nor does she speak for centrist. Evidently her comments match those of Mitt though.

Please try to use reason. Only then can you go after others intellect. You need to demonstrate some before you can use it as a tool. You've got a long way to go.

[Desert Fox]

I think what Mitt Romney meant was that poor, unemployed mothers don't feel good about themselves (dignified) while home raising their children, because they (or their husband/childrens' father) can't afford it themselves, and they're doing it on someone else's dime. Therefore, as you said, according to him, spending (even more of) the taxpayers' money on sending their children to daycare, instead, so these women can go off to work and become self-sufficient and dignified, is much better than them raising their children themselves.

Does it make sense if he and his wife believe it best for children to be raised by their own parents rather than daycare workers, that he would propose spending the money on daycare workers raising welfare recipient's children instead of the children's own mothers?

These women feel bad about themselves for accepting welfare because that's how the Republican party has made them feel. It's no secret the repubs have long considered welfare recipients to be parasitic losers. So, if these women feel undignified, it is because of the prejudice of conservatives like Mitt Romney, who's own wife is lucky enough to have the wherewithal to be able to stay home and raise her own children without feeling like an undignified loser.

Wouldn't it make much better sense, if money is going to be spent, to spend it (instead of Mitt's proposal - spending even MORE on daycare subsidies) on enabling the mother to stay home, and feel GOOD about it, if she wants, while, perhaps, simultaneously being enabled to take pt/night classes/training to prepare her to join the workforce as soon as her children are old enough to enter school.

We should all put an end to the cultural scarlet letters for W[elfare] L[oser] and focus on helping ALL mothers, from every socioeconomic background, feel supported and good about being the best mom she can be, whether it's while working outside the home or not, in order for us all to raise the most well-adjusted, productive members of society we can.

So did Mitt not say what he meant or didn't mean what he said?

[food4thought]

So did Mitt not say what he meant or didn't mean what he said?

Maybe he doesn't see the root of their 'shame', and attributes it to not working, vs. feeling ashamed of the welfare stigma, or maybe his double standard is because he doesn't consider them to be capable, good mothers, and thinks their children would be better off in daycare?

[antiquity]

Please try to use reason. Only then can you go after others intellect. You need to demonstrate some before you can use it as a tool. You've got a long way to go.

So you have run your course at debating and have returned to flaming, got ya.

[food4thought]

Nope. I'm a modern man. I give my wife the freedom to do what she wants. I don't demand she do this or that. I don't disrespect her choices. But, the idea that there are no "proper" roles for the genders is just fucking stupid.

So magnanimous of you, modern man, to give your wife the freedom to do what she wants ...

and, I wouldn't call them "proper" roles, but maybe just, more "natural" or expected. But that doesn't mean that a very feminine woman can't succeed as a CEO, or surgeon, or a macho man be a tender, loving dad.

[hadit]

Reforming Medicare is one thing, the GOP are out to gut it.

Bush gave us the biggest expansion of Medicare ever. Obama took half a trillion from Medicare to pay for Oh-crap! Care. You are wrong.

So instead of saying you were wrong you try to obfuscate the budget situation. Why did you not mention the reasons for the budget vote? Because it won't support your negative (party of no) attitude?

The budget was a joke, that's why it was treated like a flaming turd.

We have heard dire predictions regarding Social Security for decades. While it may need reforming, and in fact probably does need some tweaking, it has been tweaked time and again. Of course if the 1% currently being protected by the GOP would contribute their fair share of taxes, maybe some of those would be Social Security taxes. In the meantime, the GOP is staunchly saying "NO!"

And just how much IS their fair share? Perhaps you can answer that, since tax the rich advocates can't seem to figure it out.