American Health Insurance

Yes, it's fairly obvious to us and I guess the rest of the world that GWB cares nothing for the USA or he wouldn't have left New Orleans to get in the state it is now.

His biggest target was to 'make it' on the world stage. He's done that ok by screwing up the rest of the world too as well as the USA.

Col
 
Yes, it's fairly obvious to us and I guess the rest of the world that GWB cares nothing for the USA or he wouldn't have left New Orleans to get in the state it is now.

His biggest target was to 'make it' on the world stage. He's done that ok by screwing up the rest of the world too as well as the USA.

Col
What do you think of the next one? Are either of the front runners any better? They're certainly "off-the-ground", but how much do they actually care about at least trying to get something done???
 
What do you think of the next one? Are either of the front runners any better? They're certainly "off-the-ground", but how much do they actually care about at least trying to get something done???

Well of course we all know it'll take a Democrat to even start putting the things right that the current idiot's screwed up
 
What do you think of the next one? Are either of the front runners any better? They're certainly "off-the-ground", but how much do they actually care about at least trying to get something done???

From what I read in the UK papers, it had better be Clinton who gets in - it seems Obama is destined for the assassins bullet if he gets in. Then we'll have to go through all this boring procedure again.

Col
 
Here I go on the "woman" kick again, but hey, do either of you guys think that Hillary Clinton has the cold-blooded veins to do the job of a president?

I mean, women in general are soft-hearted creatures. Do you think it's a bad road to travel down, altering nature like this? As in, a woman in office? Maybe that's not altering nature, but I'll tell you what: Offering the US citizens tax rebates to ward off a recession is a HUGE mistake. THAT'S altering nature. Why try and keep expanding the economy when it's SUPPOSED TO go through business cycles? It is supposed to receed at some point ya know! We're in for the biggest economic downturn of the modern era, and it's all due to Mr. Dipsh** Bush promising the entire fu**in' world the riches. Hell, if I made promises that big to people who didn't know the difference between left and right, I would scared be out of my mind too! :rolleyes:

What a fu**in' moron (whoever came up with that idea!)
 
I think McCain will be POTUS.

Obama and H Clinton would have a better chance if they were Republican. People who are strong supporters of either a first black POTUS or a first woman POTUS will already be strong Democrats supporters.

However, on major issues it won't make any difference who wins. Very big business now completely controls the agenda in places like Australia and America. Anu differences would be with social type issues...gun laws, abortion etc

If Al Gore had won in 2000 then assuming September 11 had taken place the rest would be the same. The big American defence contracts needed an injection and lots of new gear needed to be tested.

Mike
 
Somebody, somday, is going to have to explain to me the difference between the donkey and the elephant. To me, they're just animals. But I guess that expressions fits in either context (people, or animals), doesn't it? :)
 
Here I go on the "woman" kick again, but hey, do either of you guys think that Hillary Clinton has the cold-blooded veins to do the job of a president?

I mean, women in general are soft-hearted creatures. Do you think it's a bad road to travel down, altering nature like this? As in, a woman in office? Maybe that's not altering nature, but I'll tell you what: Offering the US citizens tax rebates to ward off a recession is a HUGE mistake. THAT'S altering nature. Why try and keep expanding the economy when it's SUPPOSED TO go through business cycles? It is supposed to receed at some point ya know! We're in for the biggest economic downturn of the modern era, and it's all due to Mr. Dipsh** Bush promising the entire fu**in' world the riches. Hell, if I made promises that big to people who didn't know the difference between left and right, I would scared be out of my mind too! :rolleyes:

What a fu**in' moron (whoever came up with that idea!)

can a woman do the job

Margret Thatcher --she was a she witch bitch from hell - but did the job
 
I mean, women in general are soft-hearted creatures. Do you think it's a bad road to travel down, altering nature like this?

It is, the little ladies should be home making the apple pie and not try to be something they're not.
Or they should be looking after the kids so they grow up without the brainwashing of an outsider who looked after them when mummy was out playing at work.

Womens place is in the home raising kids and looking after hubby. If women stuck to their reason for being here then the kids may not turn out to be killers and pains to society

However it seems Hillary will slip through the net.

Col
 
It is, the little ladies should be home making the apple pie and not try to be something they're not.
Or they should be looking after the kids so they grow up without the brainwashing of an outsider who looked after them when mummy was out playing at work.

Womens place is in the home raising kids and looking after hubby. If women stuck to their reason for being here then the kids may not turn out to be killers and pains to society

However it seems Hillary will slip through the net.

Col

whoa... your on your own on this one...(Lol) thats a real hand grenade
 
whoa... your on your own on this one...(Lol) thats a real hand grenade

With the pin out;)

It makes you wonder though - how much of todays youth troubles / violence is a direct result of the parents being too money grabbing and greedy while they go to work, just so they can buy the latest gadgets and a massive 4 x 4

Many kids basic educational and growing up needs are neglected by the parents - who expect others (like schools or childminders) to do it for them, then moan on when the kid steals a car or gets drunk or pregnant aged 12.

If mums can't afford to be home and do their job properly, they shouldn't have the kid(s) in the first place. In the end, all it does (in time) is inflict a rabid wild teenager on the rest of us - it's just selfish.

Col
 
No argue on the "selfish" aspect Colin. No doubt there. Certainly a fact.

I would be careful though, with the "women" comments. They don't have a place, they are free like guys are. No difference (except maybe for the glass ceiling?).

Most of the women I know would slap you in the face for what you have said... :rolleyes:
 
With the pin out;)

It makes you wonder though - how much of todays youth troubles / violence is a direct result of the parents being too money grabbing and greedy while they go to work, just so they can buy the latest gadgets and a massive 4 x 4

Many kids basic educational and growing up needs are neglected by the parents - who expect others (like schools or childminders) to do it for them, then moan on when the kid steals a car or gets drunk or pregnant aged 12.

If mums can't afford to be home and do their job properly, they shouldn't have the kid(s) in the first place. In the end, all it does (in time) is inflict a rabid wild teenager on the rest of us - it's just selfish.

Col

Well said Col, maybe more direct than I would have chosen to say it but in my opinion I believe you have hit the mark. Rather than accepting the responsibility of raising a child couples choose to have things or think that a life style of Mom working can be balanced but I believe if we look at the results of that type of thinking then I believe actions are speaking louder than words. What is the difference between our generation and say Grandpa's generation? Mom didn't work and the children were much more respectful, obedient and etc.
 
Hmmm..
but most modern young families cannot afford to have Mum at home ,

then theres the long term what about "Mum's " pension
do we give them a salary - (I think they do this in Norway)

Its not that easy to say stay at home , what happens when Mum is the bread earner, one of my friends is the House husband, he looks after the children and Mums goes to work (she can earn a lot more than he can)

Times change , sometimes for the better , sometimes not

while the ethos of your comments are note worthy , I would not like to think that thats what women are for , women are equal (and in some area's better than men) .


its easy to point h efinger and say when mum was at home society was better , the problem is not that easy ,
the lack of father figures could also be pointed as being the route problem , television, Rap music, Blue food colour in smarties ,
the list is quite long

I do think a strong carer at home would make a difference , and also proper role models , society that shows respect and gives it in the right places ,
less intrusive media

etc

gp
 
Hmmm..
but most modern young families cannot afford to have Mum at home ,

then theres the long term what about "Mum's " pension
do we give them a salary - (I think they do this in Norway)

Its not that easy to say stay at home , what happens when Mum is the bread earner, one of my friends is the House husband, he looks after the children and Mums goes to work (she can earn a lot more than he can)

Times change , sometimes for the better , sometimes not

while the ethos of your comments are note worthy , I would not like to think that thats what women are for , women are equal (and in some area's better than men) .


its easy to point h efinger and say when mum was at home society was better , the problem is not that easy ,
the lack of father figures could also be pointed as being the route problem , television, Rap music, Blue food colour in smarties ,
the list is quite long

I do think a strong carer at home would make a difference , and also proper role models , society that shows respect and gives it in the right places ,
less intrusive media

etc

gp

In my mind equality is not even an issue in this equation. Who is better equipped and has more natural instincts to raise children? The Mother or the Father? My opinion, Mom is and she is by a big margin. Why not play into someones strengths rather than their weaknesses? Sure there are other factors that factor in on why our children are the way they are today and being raised without a Father does play a big role in that as well as other influences, which could bring up a whole different way for this to go but I believe Moms being absent from the home while her children are growing up plays a huge result in what we are seeing happen to our children today.
 
In my mind equality is not even an issue in this equation. Who is better equipped and has more natural instincts to raise children? The Mother or the Father? My opinion, Mom is and she is by a big margin. Why not play into someones strengths rather than their weaknesses? Sure there are other factors that factor in on why our children are the way they are today and being raised without a Father does play a big role in that as well as other influences, which could bring up a whole different way for this to go but I believe Moms being absent from the home while her children are growing up plays a huge result in what we are seeing happen to our children today.

agree.. but I wanted it noted that womens role it not just tied to the kitchen sink , and i agree mums are better at bring children up and we should value them , but also if an individdual want to do soemthing else , then they should be allowed to irresepctive of sex.. ( 99.9 % of the time) tere are a small % of jobs that are whole geared towards 1 sex or the other
 
I believe Moms being absent from the home while her children are growing up plays a huge result in what we are seeing happen to our children today.

and what if the mother cusses, drinks, smokes, takes drugs, steals and stays at home.

Working does not make you any less of a mother just as working does not make you any less of a father, IMO.

To be honest, a childs behavioral problem usually stems from the lack of a strong father figure. A mother's love is 99% guaranteed but it needs backing up with a father's keen attention on their children which is more often lacking than a mother's.

Just my opinion.
 
I do agree with all of you who say that one parent should be home to care for children. I don't agree with those who think that if one parent can't stay home then there should be no children. One of the saddest books I ever read was the Nanny Diaries which is about very wealthy married couples who can not be bothered with caring for their own children even though the mother did not work. Most decent people would be appalled if they read this book.

I personally would have loved to have been a stay at home mom but we needed two incomes to live decently. By decently I don't mean big screen tv, expensive cars, eating out every night. We rented for along time, we drove used cars and ate home cooked meals. The difference is that we had the help of very loving grandparents and some other really great caregivers. Our children were expected to be at the dinner table every night unless there was a school function or they had a job. Homework was done before they went out to play. All the things that a stay at home mom should be doing just at a much faster and tighter pace. My children are 26, 23, 18 and 13. Everyone comes to Sunday dinner (most of the time). I will cook Sunday dinner for as long as I can and my heart will be broken if anyone of them ever moves so far away that Sunday dinner will be missing some of my favorite people.

I guess what I am trying to say is you can work but you have to work much harder. I missed alot of school functions that took place during school hours but still managed other outings and sporting events.

Just staying at home does not make you a good parent.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom