- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 22,676
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Location
- DC Metro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Not all of them are born super wealthy.
Ann Romney wasn't born "super wealthy".
Not all of them are born super wealthy.
Really?
Michelle Obama’s Pricey Vacation Wardrobe - ABC News
For the Christmas Day church service at the Kaneohe Bay Marine Base, Mrs. Obama was photographed in a seemingly simple white sundress with red and yellow stripes. The dress, however, was by French-born, U.S.-based designer Sophie Theallet, and would have cost the first lady almost $2,000 when she bought it in 2009. More recent designs by Theallet sell for even more.
For the meet-and-greet with service members and their families in a nearby mess hall later in the day, Mrs. Obama dressed down — in a printed green $950 Comme des Garcons skirt with bag waist.
I want the smartest and most capable person available and that is Romney compared to Obumble. I also like the fact that Romney is less likely to do something for the money-its harder to buy off a wealthy successful man.
I never said being a SAHM wasn't hard work. In fact, I've said the opposite. I do, however, stand by the argument that being a working mother is harder than being a SAHM - yes, even with MS and Cancer, particularly if you have a crap ton of money to help you with the "job" of raising kids. I'd also add that being a working mother with MS and Cancer would be harder than being an SAHM with MS and cancer.Ok, how about juggling stay at home Mom, with MS and Cancer? How's that factor in?
Listen, I make far less money than Governor Romney, and after my wife retired from the military, we decided that she should stay at home to raise our kids while I worked. It's tough, despite me making a decent living, first in the military as well, then as a civilian. I'll tell you this though, she get's up when I do, and is working well after I get home. People get paid to do the things she does, but she does it "for free."
2,000 for a dress isn't that expensive
I think Vicky is a really inspirational woman on the show because of her success and hard work. There is nothing wrong with her taking pride in her work over housework. Housework has value especially for children and families, and good mothers and fathers are doing a great thing for the rest of society by taking care of their kids. People shouldn't have kids unless they are willing to raise them. There needs to be more great parents, and they should take pride in not working hard to wash dishes and change diapers... anybody can do that. They deserve respect for actually parenting and being teachers to their children.
Lastly, a woman doesn't have to be SAHM to be a great parent, nor do you have to work a job to be earn respect.
George Washington, owned other Human Beings as chattel and did absolutely nothing to set the moral record straight as President of the United States. Exactly how did that work out morally for Washington?
Being "good" means more than being opportunistic, and being an effective leader is neither a right, nor a sure fire guarantee of undeserved privilege.
At some point, we have to stop digging this hole. And Obama only knows the big government way, which is to keep digging with other people's shovels until we run out of shovels.
I never said being a SAHM wasn't hard work. In fact, I've said the opposite. I do, however, stand by the argument that being a working mother is harder than being a SAHM - yes, even with MS and Cancer, particularly if you have a crap ton of money to help you with the "job" of raising kids. I'd also add that being a working mother with MS and Cancer would be harder than being an SAHM with MS and cancer.
The thing is, if you're a working mother you have to balance many/all of the things that SAHMs do in addition to work. You're doing two jobs when someone else is doing one. The comparison to me is a false one.
The hole that you speak of, was created under Republican leadership. Hello! It was created during eight (8) long dramatized years of an Administration that had difficulty spelling the word phrase: Domestic Agenda, remember? And, it was catalyzed by something called: "like a new Pearl Harbor" - taken directly from the Neocon playbook called: Project for A New American Century, recall?
At what point did Republicans, all of sudden, out of nowhere, earn the right to claim moral high-ground on ANY subject related to Foreign Policy and/or Economics?
2,000 for a dress isn't that expensive
2,000 for a dress isn't that expensive
When the stay at home mother has two jobs instead of one.Does the working mother (making decent income) that hires house cleaners, and dry cleans clothes, has tutors help the kids, etc etc...have it worse? Where's the limit?
Why do I leave fathers out? Because this entire thread has been about stay at home mothers. :roll:Does the same apply to working fathers? Fathers have to balance work and family commitments as well, why do you leave them out?
I'm thinking the average stay at home mother vs. the average working mother. One works one "job" and the other works two.If you are thinking of a single mother, with little or no education struggling to support her kid(s), I'll agree with you. But dual income families....not.
It worked well enough. You are using an anachronistic viewpoint. They mostly realized there was a problem with slavery, but during their time it was fine. Furthermore, it has not derailed his Presidential legacy to the degree it did for Thomas Jefferson.
For a wedding dress.
For a wedding dress.
When the stay at home mother has two jobs instead of one.
Why do I leave fathers out? Because this entire thread has been about stay at home mothers. :roll:
And sure, it applies to fathers too. Being a working father is harder than being a stay at home father.
I'm thinking the average stay at home mother vs. the average working mother. One works one "job" and the other works two.
A sundress for $2,000? Good gravy.
Wouldn't you put the hole at the very least, back to the 1980s?
That's the problem with America today. You classify something that real Human Beings went through as being "anachronistic," as opposed being the causality for the social disaster we are witnessing today. You have a hard time making the connection between Causation and the Effect of Causation. People who think this way (or, fail to think) seem to ignore the universal rules of cause and effect.
When I asked, how did that work out for George Washington, you took the question literally. That tells me (in no uncertain terms) that drawing the logical nexus between the causality of such immoral judgements, and the current set of social debacles this nation faces today with respect to race relations, is completely lost on you.
I feel sorry, for those who can't see the clear connection between several hundred years of upholding such an immoral institution such as American Slavery, and the current sad state of affairs in this country today - which can be seen in all kinds of ways throughout our society. It's as if, some people are completely unable to comprehend the affects of their own history. Let alone, know anything about how to correct what still runs pervasively and destructively throughout this country.
The fact that other nations did it, is no excuse - especially for a country that was supposed to have been founded on the principle that "all men are created equal," - as it simultaneously labeled a segment of its population, 3/5ths Human. The problem is not my recognition of these facts. The problem is the continual failure of too many in our society to muster the moral decency that allows them to recognize the absolute causal connection from the days of both Washington and Jefferson, to the present.
Of course, when you've never had ancestors who lived through American Slavery, and when you never had ancestors who died because of American Slavery, and when you never had relatives (alive) who lived through Jim Crow, or who died as a direct result of trying to defeat Jim Crow; then you don't have the slightest clue about the things I speak about.
And in this day and age, the father doesn't? I'm a working Father, with a stay at home wife, and I work when I get home too. I'm also damn happy that my kids are at home with their mother rather than in a day care with someone "keeping them alive."
I have to say, I love it when liberals who normally encourage people to "make their own choices, live their own way" come down on someone choosing to live a way that can be called "conventional" or "conservative".