exhaustedThis is a full debate between me and Michael from his blog.
I want people to see how involved me and Michael get about our passions and still keep a cool head toward each other.
This is an example of how to try to convince yet not get violent.
All comments are welcome about the content, and I will not debate against any other commenters.
the purpose of this blog is to show others where i stand, how I debate and to demonstrate how in the right conditions, Michael doesnt call me names and I dont get angry with him.
Thats a very LONG blog Michael..lolNow I have fear-of-long blogs syndrome...hahaha!Naww its ok, I'm getting a bit more used to that by reading Danides blogs :o)I want to hit you with some direct questions:1. do you think McCain will die while in office if he wins2. if not, do you REALLY think McCain is going to pull our troops out
(I can tell you that andswer but I want to see yours)3. If Sarah takes over due to McCains death, do you think SHE will pull our troops out.4. If Obama is elected, do you think HE will pull our troops out.5. Do you think that the alternative energy sources will be in place during McCains
presidency if he wins6. What plan do YOU have about finances if McCain gets in and keeps warmongering7. If you dont thin McCain is going to die in office, why are you worried about
Sarah Palin getting bashed when she wont be doing anything anyway.
all good questions
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 12, 2008 7:01 PM
[Reply to this]
1. McCain's mother is 96 years old. There have been a shitload of world leaders older than McCain.
2. It is a moot point. Iraqi and U.S. negotiators completed a draft security agreement that would see
American troops leave Iraqi cities as early as June 30 2009, Iraqi and American officials stated. In
Washington, a senior military official said the deal is acceptable to the U.S. side, subject to formal
approval by President George W. Bush. It also required final acceptance by Iraqi leaders, and some
members of Iraq's Cabinet oppose some provisions.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407424,00.html3. Yes, do you think she wants a war with her son on the front lines? 4. Whatever he says he will do, and will actually do, are two different things. Obama can talk a
good game but it is not entirely his game. It takes military officials' opinions and the opinions of
Iraqi leaders. We just can't walk out and say "bye bye."5. Yes, if Pelosi the bitch does not obfuscate and prevent voting on drilling. It is all about the
makeup of Congress and YOU know that.6. Our GDP going to war and war related products was way higher during WWII so don't go there.7. I have complete confidence in Palin's abilities.
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on Sep 12, 2008 7:30 PM
[Reply to this
I Read that article you linked me to.Here are some things that caught my eye.1. Sen. John McCain, is opposed to setting any timeline for withdrawals; his presumptive
Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, says he would bring all combat troops home
from Iraq within 16 months.2. The Muslim Shiite-led government has been pressing for some sort of timeline for the
departure of U.S. troops, saying that is essential to win legislators' approval3. Bush long had refused to accept any timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. Last
month, however, he and al-Maliki agreed to set a "general time horizon" for ending the
U.S. mission.
ok as far as number 1 on these things, if anything, it will be THIS that makes McCain
lose because the general public want their kids home from the war and now that this
is on the table, and McCain opposes it, he is a dream smasher.number 2 shows that Iraq wants us out, even more power to what I said in number 1
3 shows me that Bush is NOW at least more of a human than McCain
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 12, 2008 8:43 PM
[Reply to this
1. Yes, but the point is moot, a settlement has been reached. 2. You just can't leave all at once...that worked so well in 1975 when we totally left
Vietnam, didn't it? 3. Did it ever occur to you that it was not that he opposed the withdrawal outright,
but no satisfactory scenario could be reached with the generals, Iraqi leaders, and Congress?http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/27/obama-endorses-mccains-iraq-position/NEWSWEEK: In Iraq, it's not new that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has wanted to take
control of his own country. But there's always been this gap between his assessment of his
abilities and American commanders' saying he's not up to it. As president, faced with that
difference between what he says he can do and what the commanders say he can do, how
would you choose between them?OBAMA: Iraq is a sovereign country. Not just according to me, but according to George Bush
and John McCain. So ultimately our presence there is at their invitation, and their policy
decisions have to be taken into account. I also think that Maliki recognizes that they're
going to need our help for some time to come, as our commanders insist, but that the help
is of the sort that is consistent with the kind of phased withdrawal that I have promoted.
We're going to have to provide them with logistical support, intelligence support. We're
going to have to have a very capable counterterrorism strike force. We're going to have
to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective.NEWSWEEK: You've been talking about those limited missions for a long time. Having gone
there and talked to both diplomatic and military folks, do you have a clearer idea of how
big a force you'd need to leave behind to fulfill all those functions?OBAMA: I do think that's entirely conditions-based. It's hard to anticipate where we may
be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now.
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on Sep 12, 2008 8:56 PM
[Reply to this]
and you hit yet another thorn in my butt Michael"We're going to have to continue to train their Army and police to make them more effective"so NOW I see Obama is NO better than Bush.when are people going to get it?ITS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO TRAIN THEIR TROOPS!!Its also not our responsibility to protect them until the end of time either, They are NOT
our country.If we pull out and they get their asses shot off...oh well.worlds saddest song on the smallest violin!!It was a mistake in Vietnam and it was a mistake in Iraq.
NOTHING was accomplished by this war except to make Iraq a democratic nation until
about 5 years after we pull out and it goes right back to dictatorship again.
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 12, 2008 9:45 PM
[Reply to this]
Well, your concern is the same as mine...that Iraq will just devolve back to what they
were several years before. I hate being the world's policeman and promoting democratic
governments when our cultures and mores are night and day, due to their more theocratic
nature. The fact is, the military is a pawn of Congress, which really has the authority to
declare war and send our troops overseas.
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on Sep 12, 2008 10:13 PM
[Reply to this]
Hi Ben: Matt Damon is almost as dumb as Ben Affleck, but not as stupid. So I give Mr. StupidAs
s Matty a pass there. As for the feminazis, look at the women bashing Palin on MySpace
as an example of the feminazi empire emploding! Some of these women haven't gotten a
guy to ask them out since Jimmy Carter was peanut picking in Plains. The socialist agenda
is not as much for equal rights but to blur the lines between men and women, to make us
a society of men in dresses and women in pantsuits. That is why ugly women connected so
well with Hillary Pantsuits, she had comtempt for men (and with good reason, I mean for
crissakes look at the bastard she married) and showed it on the campaign trail...but used
"crying" when she knew the Birkenstock Luftwaffe would vote for her in droves if she
showed a scintilla of vulnerability. Put Palin stood up to a jerk like Charlie Gibson and for
a first interview, she came off professional and confident. Now when she debates Joe Blow
Biden, she should just deliver the knockout blow and just dance around the stage to the
Rocky Theme!!
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on Sep 12, 2008 7:37 PM
[Reply to this]
"The socialist agenda is not as much for equal rights but to blur the lines between men and
women, to make us a society of men in dresses and women in pantsuits"and yet at the same time fundamentalist Christians like Sarah would have women kept
"in their place" like a suzy homemaker.
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 12, 2008 8:45 PM
[Reply to this]
Since she is working and being a mother as well, isn't that statement fatuous at best?
She never advocated women staying at home and making babies. You worry about
fundamentalism in her faith. Several presidents can be considered fundies: James Garfield,
Dwight Eisenhower (River Brethren church), Jimmy Carter (Southern Baptist).
The president is not there to get people to convert to his religion. And what is wrong with
being a homemaker? The left tends to demonize those women who chose to be a fulltime
mother instead of Mary MakeYourMarkinBusiness.
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on Sep 12, 2008 9:00 PM
[Reply to this]
And what is wrong with being a homemaker"ok Michael, this is a blog in itself.As a conservative in at least that issue:I believe a woman should be able to CHOOSE whether or not she wants to work
Now I also dont think that stodgy Christians say that it SHOULD'NT be a choice
that its a womans DUTY to stay home...WRONGGGG!!!!For every man that comes home and slaps his woman for not having his supper on the
table I would love to hand that woman a gun to shoot his nuts off and make him sing
soprano.I absolutely HATE men that are sexist!Like that jackass in my Dr. Phil blog.If I met that guy in person, I'd clean his F'ing clock.Now when Sarah gets her position if McCain is voted in, she will have to hire
a nanny or have hubby do the parenting. I'm sorry but thats not a GOOD mother.
She needs to be with her children for at least 4-6 hours a day.BEING THERE is what a child lives for. Not even money or candy is as good as
being there.
My grandkids can tell you ALL about that Michael.
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 12, 2008 9:53 PM
[Reply to this]
You apparently don't know the story of Joe Biden and the fact he was a fulltime
senator and father to two preschool boys from 1972 to 1977. In 1972 his wife
and daughter were killed in a traumatic Christmas time car crash where he and his
surviving sons were also injured. Should Biden have given up his recently won senate
seat, to be closer to his sons? You see, when the same thing is applied to the other
side, it all smacks of sexism, not by you, but by the MSM assholes who hold the
most ridiculous double standards on earth.With all kinds of domestic violence laws on the books I doubt men do that as much
as they used to do. I also know of at least one woman who went to a battered
woman's shelter in order to get her husband in trouble because he wanted to leave her. The sexist men are always going to be there, as well as battleaxe women. Ever see
(name withheld)? She is a big fat heifer, arrogant, proudly unfeminine, and with a
big fat chip on her big fat shoulders. She posts in (name withheld)'s blogs and
sometimes Dan's or Stephanie's blogs. I mean, she is a bigtime fatso man hater so
the misogyny goes both way. Men are pretty much jerks when it comes to women,
and I always try to be a gentleman. Heck I will even date an Obama supporter
(and I have, holding my nose as I kissed her).I was a latchkey kid for some of my childhood and turned out fine. Because Shrillary
was a lawyer, it is okay, then, because that is different than what Palin is doing?
Governor Jane Swift of Massachusetts was doing the same stuff when she was
running the commonwealth even as she became a mother to a child when in office.
The standards you are holding are ridiculous...I feel your theme is "you've come
a short way, baby!"
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on Sep 12, 2008 10:06 PM
[Reply to this]
"The standards you are holding are ridiculous"excuse me Michael?Being there for your children is ridiculous?That is the most obvious thing you have ever said that is wrong.
I am a child advocate above all other and I dont care if its a man or a woman.Those children NEED their parents. If you want to be a pro, close your damn legs
or keep it in your damn zipper.Michael, let me make one thing clear.EVERYBODY that is a parent needs to hear this:When you are without children it is YOUR life. when you have children, it is no
longer YOUR life, it is all of your lives (Your life as well as your childs life)
so in essence , your child OWNS part of your ass out of moral responsibility,
and if that means to get a job that will place you back with your children,
that is the way it SHOULD be.If you must be a pro, adopt your baby out.
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 13, 2008 12:50 AM
[Reply to this]
Parents should be their kid's worlds, but today's society is different from the
more agrarian society where the men farmed and the women took care of the kids
. It has been progressively more a two income family life for most Americans
starting in the late 1960s, and it was not only feminism but economics. I think the absolutes in your paradigm are very rigid! Children adapt to many things
, more than I could adapt as a kid in the 1970s. There are no perfect solutions to
dealing with society's need to be there for kids, and a person's need to keep a roof
over their heads. In order to raise a child, one must have the financial security to
do so...and to suggest adoption is fatuous...only the most irresponsible dolt parents
should ever consider that over two working parents struggling to make ends meet.
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on Sep 13, 2008 8:55 PM
[Reply to this
Michael...look again
24 hours in a day8 to sleep, 8 to work, 8 to be at home.easy solution.be there for your kids are you are guilty of emotional neglect.
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 13, 2008 9:18 PM
[Reply to this]
Didn't Nancy Pelosi have 5 children? I wish liberals would make up their minds
. They either argue to justify abortion or argue to condemn a mother who works
. Man, liberals send so many mixed signals that you don't know which side of
their brain to argue with. At least children of working moms survive. Sadly,
children of abortion don't.When one cannot attack facts, they dig for "possibilities." Just like the "possibility"
of McCain not living long. How ridiculous, imateur and pathetic. Geez, the young die
as well as the old.
I haven't heard you present a good argument yet Eurodance. Kind of comical! You
are quite entertaining but somewhat lacking in the intelligence department.Michael, you rock! Not only can you make us smile, you have lots of knowledge to share.
Posted by The Tigress on Sep 13, 2008 7:05 PM
[Reply to this] "Didn't Nancy Pelosi have 5 children?"where did I say it was ok for Nancy to do it either?why is it a habit for Republicans to keep using comparisons to others that are not
even being addressed?
especially when an independent is the one speaking?I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT>>>LEARN IT>>>MEMORIZE IT!You are assuming I am for abortion.
Didnt you just see my last words: (adopt them out), thats because I think its
"nicer" to adopt than to abort.
"Just like the "possibility" of McCain not living long"the average life expectancy for a man is 75 years
McCain is 72
His term would be 4 years
That leaves him a very dangerous last year in office.
"I haven't heard you present a good argument yet Eurodance"I think I just beat your logic in math right away.
possibilities become realities.
I also have SEVERAL other readers that have read my debate in here with
Michael who believe in what I said."When one cannot attack facts"half of what is presented in Michaels blogs are not facts, they are biased
to the Conservative view.
One perfect example of a non fact Mike has used is that "The fat lady has
sang and that its already over as far as McCain winning"The fat lady hasnt sang until election day.You also make assumptions that I am 100% Liberal, but thats not true either,
I have conservative principals as well and thats why I'm Independent.The stuff I say is common to all people and thats about equal rights.I can say this is a very abrasive way if you wish.1. Rich people do NOT deserve special priveleges
2. Heterosexual people do not deserve special priveleges
3. Religious people do not deserve special priveleges.
4. Parents need to BE THERE
5.EVERYBODY deserves health care
6.Children should be our primary concern.
7. Animals do not deserve to die for sport
8. People should be naturally inclined to help their fellow man
Now I challenge you Tigress to disagree with any of the list and
I also challenge you to find any of my comments that were just
supporting that stuff on the list.They are ALL facts and ALL morals that should be held by everybody
in existence on this planet.If you disagree, get off our fucking planet!
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 13, 2008 8:41 PM
[Reply to this] "why is it a habit for Republicans to keep using comparisons to others that are
not even being addressed? "That is called "debate." Valid comparisons should be drawn when tearing down
a politician fpr his or her actions, when another politician does the same thing
and is not given the same or similar scrutiny. It is all fair game when precedents
have been set, and when hypocrisy shows its ugly face, it is important and
obvious to compare similar situations.
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on
Sep 13, 2008 8:50 PM "Now I challenge you Tigress to disagree with any of the list and I also
challenge you to find any of my comments that were just supporting that stuff
on the list."change that to were'nt.oh and just one more thing...The war on terrorism is the only war worth fighting.
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 13, 2008 8:51 PM 1. Rich don't get special priviledges...their "priviledges" come from being in a
completely different world from us. Do you really begrudge people for being
successful? In society, the famous will get good seats in a restaurant and the
poor get the ones near the kitchen...it has always been that way.
2. Gays CAN marry as well as straights, as long as it is of the opposite sex.
Now you know I am okay with civil unions, as a compromise. The American
public is not for gay marriage right now, and even Obama is not straight out
for it EITHER!
3. How do religious people get special priviledges? If I got bennies for attending
mass every Sunday I want a piece of the action. Please further explain number 3.
4. Yes, they do, the question is, how? As their buddy or as their parent?
Too many parents today tend to want to be the former and not the latter.
Thus you can be there for the kid all the time and be their buddy, or be there
for them after work and be a real parent and give discipline and limits. I would
rather have the latter!
5. Why are some things "rights"? This is a country where the pursuit of happiness
is paramount, not obtaining happiness itself. WE need to get the butt off the coach
and make our own happiness and get our own stuff. Is everyone deserving of
transportation? Name brand clothes? A good zip code?
6. Yes, children should be our primary concern, but we are raising a nation of brats
and it is more HOW to parent and not how "long" we should be around the kid.
7. Animals like deer and moose overbreed and in the end, they end up as roadkill or
they even get into fighting and infanticide. Hunting thins the herds which actually
helps the animal population as a whole. Most deer and moose are not killed for sport
alone. Most people use the the animal for food and pelts. Are you listening to that
moonbat Pam Anderson?
8. Yes, we should be, but many of the Gen Y generation are out there for
themselves. Plus I don't have time in the day until late at night. We live in a
world where time is taken away by responsibilities.
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on
Sep 13, 2008 9:05 PM
I think Pelosi did not have children as much as she had "spawn."There had been many world leaders much older than McCain, heck wasn't Churchill
close to 80 when he was in his last year as Prime Minster? Many Canadian Prime
Ministers were in their 70s when they led their government. Charles de Gaulle was
almost 80 when he was leading France up to 1969. These arguments are irrational,
it is like saying we should not elect Obamasshole because there is a good chance
he is going to be assassinated...now I think that is as legitimate as a concern as
a McCain's age. His mother Roberta is 96 and looks great.I at least am grateful that the liberals here, with the exception of the assclown
from the last blog (Kill Everyone), at least they can debate rationally. Simple Man
is a good liberal blogger but his subscribers are nuts. But I invite dissent if they
are intelligent and not imbecilles like moonbat La Chica Liberal Idiot Warrior. lol
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on Sep 13, 2008 7:38 PM
[Reply to this]
If you believe that McCain is going to continue on living Micheal, why are you SO
worried about people cutting down Sarah since she wont be doing anything anyway?
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 13, 2008 8:44 PM This is for Eurodance addict :It is the same attacks that the liberals found offensive when Geraldine
Ferraro was nominated in 1984...it is the hypocrisy the left has when it
comes to female candidates.
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on
Sep 13, 2008 8:48 PM
"It is the same attacks that the liberals found offensive when Geraldine Ferraro
was nominated in 1984...it is the hypocrisy the left has when it comes to female candidates"Michael....tsk tsk tsk doing it yet again.Your habits Michael are always assuming what I'm thinking or that you can group
me into the other debaters who ARE democratic or who have cut down other candidates.I was not against Geraldine Ferraro and never have said that.You and Tigress make a good couple assuming things about me.When will it be learned that liberals dont all share the same brain and that all
liberals are not completely 100% Liberal.Thats that black and white thing that Soulful Tigress was talking about Michael.
You know I'm the GRAY, thats why I'm relaxed with you as a friend even though
you have different viewpoints.I bet that Tigress has already assumed that I am your enemy and dont like you.Look at my friends list Tigress, Mike is on my TOP friends list.Heres what I'm gonna do Michael.
I'm done arguing politics...my mission from day one in even engaging in all this
is to get people aware to STOP BEING FUCKING SNOBSThats all, no more, no less.I will stick to other issues. I'm also done with religion.
Talk about psychology and I'll burn your butt. I know a whole hell of a lot
about that.And one of those things I have already said as far as being there for your kids,
I DARE you to find any professional mental helath expert that will disagree with that.With that said. Michael, I will come comment on your blogs that dont deal with politics.
I like your other blogs too, but I'm simply DONE with people making assumptions about me.
People are supposed to take their judging shoes off at the door when they argue
politics or religion.Tigress, I dont know you, but I sure do hope that of that list I just made that you
agree with them or I truly feel for ya.See ya in my blog Michael and any of your others that are diff subjects.
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 13, 2008 9:03 PM That brings up an interesting point which leads to the vice presidential nominee, Biden
. In 1972 Sen. Joseph Biden,lost his wife and young daughter in a car accident.
Losing your family in a auto accident is a gut wrenching tragedy, to be sure.
No one underestimates that and no ever blamed Mrs. Biden for the accident.Right up there with despicable things one human can do to another, is falsely accusing
the innocent of a crime. "Bearing false witness" is even in the 10 commandments,
but Mr. Biden's feigned Catholicism doesn't let that stop him.On CBS Inside Addition reports, "In a striking moment in December 2007, he opened
his heart to University of Iowa students. "Let me tell you a little story. My wife
and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree, a tractor trailer,
a guy who allegedly, and I never pursued it, drank his lunch instead of eating his
lunch, broadsided my family, killed my wife instantly, killed my daughter instantly,
and hospitalized my two sons."Out on the stump recently and for years, Biden has repeated this charge. Lately,
he has tried to soften it with the thought that he doesn't know if the semi truck
driver was drunk...., " I never pursued it". He didn't follow the case about the
death of his wife and child? Give me a break.The court certainly did. The driver was never charged and was cleared of any wrong
doing. Mrs. Biden, driving a station wagon full of kids and a Christmas tree pulled
into the truck's path. The driver, also a victim, had not been drinking and for the
years before his death his reputation suffered with the false charge that Biden
put out in the public for sympathy and political gain.He will use his dead family and an innocent fellow American for his own personal
profit Don't be surprised when he uses the rest of us.
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on
Sep 13, 2008 7:41 PM
[Reply to this well isnt that slander Michael?Why didnt he have to answer to that charge?One thing too, Isnt "bearing False witness" when you speak of other gods as being
real and not the God of the bible?I'm not up a lot on religion,but thats what I was told when I was young.
I dont think Biden should be representing us if he has to tell such lies and especially
how "calculated" it was.When somebody dies, everybody has to point a finger to pass blame.In this case, it was just an accident. Things happen that are bad and its not
hard to accept that.
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 13, 2008 9:14 PM
what about single mothers? or single fathers for that matter. should they not
work? and if they can't see their children very often, they should just put
them up for adoption? i disagree. and so would millions of americans who have
their children in day care. and i think that yes, you should be there for your
children, but what is more important-serving your family or serving your country?
can't you do both? and if you have to do more for one-shouldn't it be your
country? i'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me on this, but when you
sacrifice time with your family for the greater good, that is noble. yes, sarah's
children won't see much of her, but she will also be serving her family in a
different way-changing the world in ways that she thinks will make it a better
place. i'm sure it was a tough decision for her, but she saw outside herself a
nd did what she thought was best. and your statement is somewhat sexist-so only women should stay home and be
with their children? men don't have to be there for their children? if everyone
stayed home to be with their children nobody would be working. and how can
parents support their children if they are not working? so who exactly should
be having children and who shouldn't? i would have to agree that the standards
you are holding are ridiculous.
Posted by ß¿€§§ on Sep 13, 2008 12:16 PM
[Reply to this]
ummm I cant exactly type out your name nor make out what its special
characters are...is it Bless? or Bess?.anyway,"what about single mothers? or single fathers for that matter. should they not
work? and if they can't see their children very often, they should just put
them up for adoption? "Single parents usually have to double up their time and that would be an exception
to the rule of course.
But Michael was referring to Sarah who is not single, and so I was addressing
the 2 parent home.As far as the adoption part, if you are in a 2 parent home and your job is a pro
job and you think your kids are less important than your job, you dont need
those kids anyway.
I have heard several pro women talk about kids saying they are obstacles to
their success.
When a kid becomes an obstacle, they are not loved. "but what is more important-serving your family or serving your country? can't
you do both? "thousands of soldiers are away from their kids because of this war because
they were FORCED by Bush to go to War so its not really their choice.
Point taken.
However, during peacetime, a soldier gets off work at the Army, I know,
I was in the Army,
just like any other job. We were released at 4:30 pm every day and had
to be at first formation at 5:45 AM. so its at that time the soldiers
could be with their kids."when you sacrifice time with your family for the greater good, that is noble."thats a very hard one to answer because normally people dont sacrifice theri
own kids for the better of more.
I'm not going to challenge this because I believe spirituality would have to
be brought into this."and your statement is somewhat sexist-so only women should stay home and
be with their children? men don't have to be there for their children"no, I didnt say she had to stay at home in fact it was the opposite, I was
attacking Sarah for wanting women to be Suzy Homemaker
(conservative Christian views) and I said as long as mom is with her child
4-6 hours per day, that is some quality time, it doesnt have to be LITERALLY
day (is that what you are all getting caught up on?), it could be evening too.And yes I think Dad needs 4-6 as well.
Over the road truck drivers in my opinion make lousy family dynamics.
" if everyone stayed home to be with their children nobody would be working."once again I said it should be a choice for a womanI think a lot of people should Re-read my statement because they missed its
central meaning.Since when do 2 parent households have both parents always working
16 hour shifts?I will say of all the comments back to me, I liked yours the most because it
was less assumptive and said civilly. Thanks for that :o)
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 13, 2008 10:07 PM
[Reply to this]
It is becoming apparent that the most sexist people on earth are liberals, and
feminists. That is the most strikingly parallel universe thing I have discovered
since Palin's nomination as Vice President. How these mother issues have
croppped up when other liberal politician's family issues never did...
Geraldine Ferraro was a mom of teen daughters when she ran and the
public never questioned her ability to be a mom to her daughters and
son. But for Palin a different standard arises. It is all lousy and
stinks, and I think the public is seeing through the false indignities of the
left and the feminists.
Posted by Michael, the Rochester Guy! [a.k.a. PalinPointMan] on
Sep 13, 2008 7:44 PM
[Reply to this]
Michael? how stupid is that afrter you JUST GOT DONE READING my list about
equal treatment and my blasting of the guy in my Dr. Phil blog etc etc...I am completely the OPPOSITE of a sexist, what are you smoking?heres the reply to YOUR reply above of my list....geesh!
"Now you know I am okay with civil unions, as a compromise" thats cool as
long as they get benefits
1. Rich don't get special priviledges...their "priviledges" come from being
in a completely different world from us. Do you really begrudge people
for being successful? In society, the famous will get good seats in a
restaurant and the poor get the ones near the kitchen...it has always
been that way. doesnt make it acceptable, thats a survival of the fittest attitude.3. How do religious people get special priviledges? If I got bennies for
attending mass every Sunday I want a piece of the action. Please further
explain number 3.When laws are made as according to the moral majoritys beliefs, then it
is those who are religious wingnuts that win ie (no benefits for same sex
marriage couples)"4. Yes, they do, the question is, how? As their buddy or as their parent?
Too many parents today tend to want to be the former and not the latter.
Thus you can be there for the kid all the time and be their buddy, or be
there for them after work and be a real parent and give discipline and
limits. I would rather have the latter"8+8+8=24 Michael (do an 8 hr workshift)
"5. Why are some things "rights"? This is a country where the pursuit of
happiness is paramount, not obtaining happiness itself. WE need to get the
butt off the coach and make our own happiness and get our own stuff.
Is everyone deserving of transportation? Name brand clothes? A good zip code?"whats that got to do with helath care?
I said "everybody DESERVES health care""6. Yes, children should be our primary concern, but we are raising a nation
of brats and it is more HOW to parent and not how "long" we should be
around the kid."wrong, it is the abscence of parents that is creating the problem Michael,
I can throw stats at you if you like."7. Animals like deer and moose overbreed and in the end, they end up as
roadkill or they even get into fighting and infanticide
Hunting thins the herds which actually helps the animal population as a whole.
Most deer and moose are not killed for sport alone. Most people use the the
animal for food and pelts. Are you listening to that moonbat Pam Anderson?"missed the KEY word Michael,
I said killing them for SPORT is wrong.
Thinning a herd is not for sport (thrill), it is for balance in that situation."8. Yes, we should be, but many of the Gen Y generation are out there for
themselves. Plus I don't have time in the day until late at night. We live in
a world where time is taken away by responsibilities."I wasnt referring to volunteer work Michael but that would be nice too
but more unrealistic.
I'm talking about handing that bum a dollar here and there.
Posted by EurodanceAddict2 on Sep 13, 2008 10:13 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment