Henry Luce, Clair Boothe Luce were Republicans. Time Magazine is not considered liberal by normal people.
the case with O? Or is Time Magazine just another fucked up libby rag?
Time has always been a conservative rag, I believe. Weren't the Luces hard core?
Doesn't AstraZeneca both cause cancer and maintain Breast Cancer Awareness Month (they invented it too?).
Good racket. Buy stock in those creative mother fuckers.
Says the guy who DOESN'T have any children.... Yep, you're definitely a verifiable resource for knowledgeable parenting!!
It's you that made the claim that being a parent is hard, yet anyone with a child is one. And the requirement for being in this prestigious club is to merely forgo contraception. Impressive task! Further complicated by the fact that if you promote the idea that being "a good parent" involves x, y or z, it becomes more of a statement of values than any objective claim.
If a woman is single (perhaps through no fault of her own!), and has to raise children, it is possible that "being a good parent" requires her to work a few jobs to pay the bills, keep the lights on and food on the table. Saving for college costs money and that would be an objective for someone who seeks a better life for her children.
But she will spend time away from the children in their formative years, which would make her relatively absent in the parenting department. Which choice makes her a good parent?
Brush up on your use of the dictionary. It may be dominated by intellectuals, but that doesn't mean you conservatives can't trust the dictionary, right?
Is there a point you're trying to make with all your keyboard diarrhea?
That you're utterly wrong? That you're too proud to admit the claim is ridiculous? That self-congratulatory parent worship is nothing more than a circle-jerk for you? And that for every one who claims they work so hard as a parent, at least one of their kids would disagree and say that their parent was a self-absorbed asshole?
Amazing that it's so difficult yet they've been parenting since the dawn of time.
The baby boom is age 51 to 69 this year, with the median boomer age 60. Next 5 years are really going to feel this "retiree" demographic wave, one we haven't gone through before.
Question: What happens after the wave of Baby-boomers is processed and subsides? If Social Security has trillions of dollars in surplus, can't we just get through that period where we will have extra retirees and then revert back to the norm? Why all the hand-wringing?
If we don't deport immigrants, we have extra young contributors to the program, and if they are undocumented they will not be beneficiaries. If we raise the cap, we have even more extra revenue for SSI. We could even raise the Medicare tax. Since SSI is pay-go, isn't that what the surplus and the trust fund was for anyway, to cover periods with increased outflows?
I sure as shit can exclude an ABSENT parent from "parenthood".
You can, but then you are altering the definition based on your own values. Are you saying a crackhead who spends time at home with her kid, or a prostitute with her brood, or an abusive parent are not still parents? Of course they are, and they are not all absent. In some cases, absenteeism would be preferable!
Because humanity has pigs. And those pigs often breed gross little children that resemble the PARENTAL pig. Unless you think smacking your kid, living in squalor and doing oxys is "hard" it is most definitely easy to be a parent. It is more difficult to be a good parent, and for that you have to try. Self-centered and selfish bastards, the types this country creates by the millions (and I include plenty of the "Greatest Generation"), don't really try but have convinced themselves that they're fucking martyrs because they gave up a fancy dinner one night or change a crappy diaper. Or have their nannies do it all.
The parenting you dream of requires that you teach your children to think for themselves, be responsible, have values of their own, and so on. That is an ideal, but is not a necessity. To be a parent you have to fuck and that's about it.
I think you are confusing that with single parenthood
Single parenthood is parenting. The root is right there! You can't exclude it because you don't like it, because a single parent is still a parent. It proves my point even better.
To be a GOOD parent is tougher than an 80hr/week job.
What percent of biological parents do you deem "good" then?
My first question to you, what is YOUR definition of being a parent and the responsibilities of a parent? Then, we can go from there..
I already defined it. M-W does too:
: a person who is a father or mother : a person who has a child
: an animal or plant that produces a young animal or plant
: something out of which another thing has developed
Now any other value or quality you want to imbue a parent with is your own projection. Simply doing the above is not difficult. By your own observation, you can see negligent parents, verbally abusive parents, physically abusive parents, drug-addled negligent parents, and so on. Are they not parents? And how hard are they working at this task?
So, can you really say that it is harder to be a parent than any 80hr/week job? That is simply factually incorrect.
Parenting is so rewarding, the parents say. If you've ever done say, concrete labor as I have, I'd rather raise a child any day than swing a sledge for 80/hrs a week. That is really difficult work, and barely rewarding.
Reconcile these to thoughts for me, CIC.
Are you that fucking stupid?? Do you really think people "try" to be a BAD parent??
Being a parent is the absolutely toughest job in the world. A 80 hour work week is a walk in the park in comparison.
If it is so fucking hard to be a parent, then wouldn't simply not trying be failure? And wouldn't not trying hard enough be failure as well?
If it's hard, it's easy to fail. That's the definition of hard, isn't it?
Most parenting in the world is failure, particularly on the effort side. They can engage in self-congratulatory drivel, but being a parent only requires that you impregnate someone or are yourself impregnated. And if that's hard, then any creature with offspring throughout history has worked just as hard.
Being a parent is the absolutely toughest job in the world. A 80 hour work week is a walk in the park in comparison. Those who aren't parents will never understand the total sacrifice and unselfish nature that goes into trying to provide for your kids.
That explains rightwing compassion for the single parent. I mean, shit, even a crackhead can be a parent, and since it is the hardest job in the world, you conservatives should gladly open your wallets and help the welfare people out, right?
The way I see it is that anyone with functioning genitalia can be a parent. Now, you may mean being a "good parent", but in that respect I see most biological parents fall far short of being "good", since most are self-serving pricks who justify their selfishness at least in part because they have "a family" to care for. They look out for themselves and their kin, and not much more, in the bets of cases. In the worst, they are absentee or devoid of any real responsibility.
What liberal media?
It's the media that, although wholly owned by Corporations ( Ralph Nader's best friends!), supports any war like Manna from heaven, outsources reporting to India, begs for advertising dollars, rubs elbows with the Robber Barons, enjoys cocktails with the Georgetown crowd, but somehow manage to steal elections for those Communists, the Democrats!
My problem with "conservatives" is that they say they want lower taxes and for everything to be market-based, but when the companies above do both, they pretend to be bothered by it.
What do I expect from people who don't think the government can do anything right, but support the death penalty, the cops and the pentagon with religious fervor?
Fair enough. I just went there and remembered why I had left in the 1st place.
Having only lived here 8 months I'm not sure what to make of all this just yet
Wait. You moved TO Indiana? Witness relocation? Did you join the Mennonites? Really love corn or pollution?
Travel-gate! Trooper-gate! Blowjobs.
Just a lot of Clinton baggage that really mattered. Plus, the Iraq war? Clinton's!
The housing bubble? Clinton's! Or Carter, if you are a real retro hipster.
Anyway, Ds bad Rs good!
We should tax the poors more, because they're all sitting around shoving their lobster and steak in our middle class faces! Man, the less fortunate get all the breaks!
Meanwhile, suckers like us are busy paying 10.1% and still don't know what a marginal tax rate is!
"The average American pays an income tax rate of 10.1 percent, the Joint Committee shows"
What is it, 15% in the 200-500k range? Oh nooooes!
Low income people don't pay taxes. Duh.
I thought paying taxes was FOR little people? Ya know, moochers.
Well, you're good at hyperlinks. Too bad it actually shows me responding positively to your comment.
Good day, sir!
And it's trolling to say that your claims of holier-than-thou will be followed by bullshit evidence? So sensitive! Especially since there is a dearth of answers to my poignant questions.
If I were actually trolling, I'd call you Bicurioustoo or something witty. Because, like your cheap attacks, it doesn't further the conversation and is deliberately provocative.
What is your ideology and how do you maintain your own consistency? Since you despise Obamacare and corporate insurance and all of their evil works, I would suppose you eschew insurance just to stick it to the man?
Not bad advice re: reefer farm. I could have Mexicans work the land as an agrarian reform platform. I can pay them with dollars from my UA investment.
You should see my portfolio! But since I have a 401k and my taxes are spent on neocon priorities, what can I do? The system is pervasive, so viva la revolucion.
If you had an ideology, what would it be? And your investments are as pure as that I suppose, lest anyone reading this view you as a rank hypocrite.
What is that ideology, and do you assert your purity? Let me preempt with a loud "bullshit!!" But do answer. It'll be fun.
Well, I'm not sure why you conflated an avatar with a commenter, but you did so first. Perhaps you can explain?
And what can a real liberal, according to you as sole arbiter, invest in? These are your assertions, not mine.
Further, one of us is a closeted conservative and it's not me.