Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=510001...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
History Channel: Finally, we have proof! ...
Ignorance really is bliss.
--
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire
|
|
Net,
Actually, as a self-employed carpenter I have formed my own opinion through years of dealing with peoplel types, and I must say that the conservative rich are more repectable toward my trade, and more likely to pay me well with appreciation and "thank-you's" to boot.
(not all cases though)
Leberals, I have found for the most part, merely talk a big talk about being in favor of equality and supportive of the working class, whereas when they need my services they suddenly become stingy and try to talk me down on my price.
They are also more in favor of the illegal labor influx that undercuts our efforts to make a good living.
Just my personal observation.
|
|
This is a good subject.
Extreme Liberals are self-righteous anarchists.
Extreme Conservatives are dinosaurs.
Both are trouble.
I lean to the right but only because more solutions to our problems are on the right.
I sometimes lean to the left because, solutions should not come at the expense of neighbors.
Or is it the other way around?
I can't remember.
I'm old too.
--
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask you to back off.
|
|
It doesn't say Liberals are more intellegent people.
It clearly shows they are CONFUSED people.
|
|
|
Actually the two terms are just something used so that people in society will block themsleves into two groups, thus easily being manipulated and controlled.
Why can't the masses, even if they are intelligent, see past this blanant manipulation of people?
--
Edited by Victrix Laurus at 05/07/2008 9:31 AM
|
|
Yanker
Your example seems to show the responses from more wealthy conservatives and less wealthy liberals.
What are the responses from more wealthy liberals and less wealthy conservatives?
Tellurian
--
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the ruler as useful" Seneca the Younger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIKAyzeIw4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGpO1lQrLY&feature=related
|
|
Research suggests that highly egalitarian women are less happy in their marriages compared with their more traditional counterparts, apparently because they are more troubled by disparities in domestic labor.
Wow...I could have provided an expert opinion for the article.
So it seems that the woman who stays home, is barefoot and pregnant, who bakes and cleans up after her husband is happier than the 'liberal' woman who passes on childcare and goes to work only to find she gets paid less than her husband for the same job is less happy.
--
If you're going through hell, keep going.
|
|
|
I didn't need an article to tell me that liberals are angry and miserable.
And despite all of their angst about "equality", they don't give as much to charity as conservatives do, either.
Go figure.
|
|
|
Liberals are dependent conservatives are independent
Jack forever independent
--
<><
|
|
Define liberal
Define conservative
--
Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell.
Spirituality is for people who have been there.
"No matter how strange you are, there's something unique in you.
Something that not only makes you happy, but makes the rest of us feel happy that we don't have to be you and do what you are doing!" - ADG
|
|
No definitions any longer.
Liberal used to mean progressive, Conservative used to mean small government.
They don't mean anything any more other than derogatory terms used by their adversaries.
I just wanted to stir the pot.
--
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire
|
|
> Define liberal
>
>
Define conservative
>
>
--
> Religion is for people who are afraid of going to
>
Hell. Spirituality is for people who have been
>
There.
>
I think your pulling my leg LOL;
But here go??..
Liberal: Big government;
The haves should take care of the have-nots = lots of free stuff paid for by the haves etc.
Etc. etc.
Conservative: Small government, ?not the way it is now?;
Self reliance; Judea-Christian values that characterize our constitution remain integral
Jack
--
<><
|
|
Wow...I could have provided an expert opinion for the article.
So it seems that the woman who stays home, is barefoot and pregnant, who bakes and cleans up after her husband is happier than the 'liberal' woman who passes on childcare and goes to work only to find she gets paid less than her husband for the same job is less happy.
Exhibit A?!
--
AncientManuscript-That's how I feel every time I post to you and others of your ilk.
I also get a little sick to my stomach knowing people like those in that play/movie really exist, vote, and have KIDS.
That's the worst of it
Facts they dont need no stinkin facts they got space aliens and gill slits.
--
Edited by robladw at 05/07/2008 4:14 PM
|
|
> Research suggests that highly egalitarian women
>
Are less happy in their marriages compared with their
>
More traditional counterparts, apparently because
>
They are more troubled by disparities in domestic
>
Labor.
Whereas I [MOSTLY MODERATE] have CHOSEN to remained unmarried since after my spouse passed on about 15 years ago [before which I had been a combo at-home parent of SIX and part-time outside employee], I relate to being concerned about what I call the "working poor"--those who are full-timers, raising families, but who cannot get anything better in their localities than minimum wage jobs, aka, an egalitarian for better wages for the "working poor".
This "working poor" situation is the biggest disgrace to the US.
>
Wow...I could have provided an expert opinion for the
>
Article.
It's, by far, wiser not to count chickens before they hatch.
So it seems that the woman who stays home,
>
Is barefoot and pregnant,
That "barefoot and pregnant" LABEL is chauvinistic, whether used by a man or by a woman....
who bakes and cleans up
>
After her husband
And after those children she chose to carry and for whom she is caring, aka, round-the-clock motherhood [given the situational relationships are NORMAL].
I know quite a number of young mothers [all married] who have chosen to set aside good/great-paying occupations to do what they KNOW is best for thier children [again, given the situational relationships are NORMAL], and who stay at home, are having more than that 2."whatever" children, managing or co-managing the family budget/finances, contributing to their children's PUBLIC schools, networking for the purpose of establishing early, healthy co-peer relationships for their children, assisting one another in matters of cooperative and voluntary childcare schedules/playgroups so that their children's need are taken care of properly in their absences so that during some part of their busy lives they can help with charitable matters within groups in the community.
These young mothers are NOT barefoot in the least, even if at times they chose to carry.
It appears to me they are today's equivalent to their counterparts of 1945-60s.
This could mean that these young woman [and spouses] may have received good-bad-ulgy, eyewitness accounts of their parents'/grandparents' eras, as are the familial relationships between myself and my grown children/young grandchildren.
In this, one may choose to see that although times change, people don't.
Taken more along the anaylicical line, this generation of young, married women [in the NY-NJ-some PA region, specific] are the equivalent in part to the multi-persuasion/multi-ethnic/multi-racial womens' clubs of the era of 1945-60.
One of the 1950s clubs had been the Westchester County [NY] Womens' Club.
This organization of women networked for the needs of the less forunate in their communities.
This era is also known as the "father knows best" era where for the most part, women had also chosen to set aside careers and good pay to make themselves totally available to their children.
One of the differences that I'm observing between the 50s young married mothers and today's is: there are far fewer of them at present, and establishing the highly-recognized and far-reaching womens' clubs of the former era is not happening because of the need for most young mothers to HAVE to go to work OUTSIDE of their homes...and not for a NY second is working at home at this important multi-relationship situation a breeze!
It's a 24/365-day occupation that they CHOOSE, regardless that others mythize that they're "slaves".
HA! Not THESE young moms in THIS neck of the woods.
They're more aware, more knoweldgeable, and better equipped in their motherhoods than had been those of prior eras due to across-the-board advances in all fields, and IMO, they're the Echo Boomers plus, and though their generation doesn't like the implied "JR" category, they show the Echo in quite a number of pointed ways!
Therefore, the destorted, antiquated "barefoot/pregnant" LABEL, which didn't even apply in the 50s, is dust in the wind today.
>is happier than the 'liberal' woman
Whereas the article draws contrasts between two camps, it's focus, stated at the beginning, is the subject of egalitarian women [let's say married], regardless which of the two LABELS had been assigned TO them.
It only follows reason that there would be persons from both camps who are egalitarian, since that inclination is rooted in an external outlook and this personal attribute resides not only within these camps, but also among th moderates.
This active concern is one of the human heart and anyone can choose to "have a heart".
Therefore, based on the findings in the article, the only-one-group assumption apparently didn't even rate an "honorable mention".
>
Who passes on childcare and goes to work only to find
>
She gets paid less than her husband for the same job
>
Is less happy.
On the contrary regarding the young mothers in my neck of the woods, who DON'T work outside their homes.
Therefore, according to the above "description, that particular group is not the same one as today's young mothers group at this location.
Given this region is similar to like-ones across the US, this group may be a representative sample for the whole, or most of it.
Two thoughts which appear to need repeating: (1) these women CHOSE to set aside their careers/good earning capacities and CHOSE to have children, and might otherwise well have been making as much as their spouses, or even more than they are, and (2) the destorted, antiquated bare-foot-pregnant LABEL that didn't even apply in the 50s, is dust in the wind today [and for all ethnicities, etc.].
--
Edited by TWilly at 05/07/2008 6:31 PM
|
|
Who says a stay at home mom isn't working?
Are you crazy?
My friends who are still married after twenty years have spouses who don't role play around the house.
If something needs to be done,it gets done.
He knows where the kitchen is and may do the majority of cooking.
She may do the vast majority of outdoor chores.
The one's who married the "Father knows best" type woke up and got divorced.
|
|
|
|