View Full Version : For all your Binder needs
:)
http://www.amazon.com/Avery-Durable-Binder-EZ-Turn-17032/dp/B001B0CTMU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1350525750&sr=8-2&keywords=Avery+Durable+View+Binder+with+2+Inch+EZ-Turn+Ring%2C+White%2C+1+Binder+%2817032%29+%28Offi ce+Product%29
Be sure to read the reviews as these are very helpful in selecting your binder. My favorite review:
659 of 664 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Changing my tune
I was originally going to rate this only 1 star. You see, I'm a big girl and I can only squeeze about 53% of myself into this binder. But then I decided that I'm not going to worry about the other 47%.
Published 10 hours ago by Kefsmom
› See more 5 star, 4 star reviews
That's funny. No matter where a person falls politically! Had a chuckle over that.
I read several of those. totally hilarious. :)
mtnlaurel
10-19-12, 9:42am
Oh man.... Romney evokes the feeling of pity in me on occasion, which is really strange because he has like every opportunity in the world.
He just really stinks at running for office in my eyes.
The Binders of Women.... you mean you have been in the corporate world for x amount of years and went to the best schools our nation has to offer and you can't come up with some of your own female candidates immediately from your own network?
That sad, sad stumbling answer of Romney's spoke volumes to me.
This is one of my favorite giggles from 2nd Prez Debate comedic coverage:
Second Debate "Now Including the President"
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQc7dhqALKctFDjMdnrwjQ1XsOSaAJ4a _1HUHWJcFeVJD9OWL8v
I'd agree that there's been a lot of humor come out of this election season, but it's been severely tempered by the sadness I feel to have goofy stuff like this actually become talking points within a presidential campaign. It is truly a sign of desperation for a campaign that seemingly doesn't have anything else to offer.
mtnlaurel
10-19-12, 10:39am
I'd agree that there's been a lot of humor come out of this election season, but it's been severely tempered by the sadness I feel to have goofy stuff like this actually become talking points within a presidential campaign. It is truly a sign of desperation for a campaign that seemingly doesn't have anything else to offer.
I disagree with you Alan.
The Binder comment is completely fair game for talking points - it is case in point of how non-fluent Romney is in discussing women's issues which are at the heart of middle America economic issues in that most married women have no choice but to work due to the decreased earning power of middle America and single women with the rise of single family homes.
[Edit to add- my apologies for only seeing this through a women with children lens.. that is my situation, so it's how I view most things]
I am assuming your reference to 'desperation for a campaign that seemingly doesn't have anything to offer' is directed toward the Obama platform (which I personally can't take you to task there since Obama hasn't really answered for me EXACTLY WHAT he is going to do DIFFERENT to work with an obstructionist congress)....
but how desperate is throwing out an across the board 20% tax cut and not having the cajones to outline in full what you would propose as specific spending cuts and what tax loopholes you would close to balance that?
SteveinMN
10-19-12, 12:40pm
I'd agree that there's been a lot of humor come out of this election season, but it's been severely tempered by the sadness I feel to have goofy stuff like this actually become talking points within a presidential campaign. It is truly a sign of desperation for a campaign that seemingly doesn't have anything else to offer.
Oh, you mean like my Facebook friends posting those pictures of Candy Crowley and declaring that she was favoring Obama because she interrupted Romney more times? Or that Obama interrupted Romney more times than Romney interrupted Obama? Or the pictures of Obama supered with block letters as a kind of thought balloon, "Oh, s**t, how am I gonna lie my way out of this?" Or the too-long discussions over the presence of a birth certificate?
Yeah.
I do believe there are far more substantial issues to discuss in this campaign. But neither side seems to want to get there.
And I do think the "binders" statement fits right in with the comment about Ann having two Cadillacs and Romney announcing he's a stock-car racing fan because some of his circle owns NASCAR teams. These are all indications of a man who pretends he understands Jane and Joe Sixpack. And cannot think well on his feet. I happen to think that is an essential quality in a leader, especially the leader of the free world. This is the guy we're going to send on delicate negotiations? "Well, Premier Wen Jiabao, we really need to discuss Chinese imports. I have to say, I'm not a fan of Chinese food."
Meanwhile, the Amazon reviews are fun reading.
Oh, you mean like my Facebook friends posting those pictures of Candy Crowley and declaring that she was favoring Obama because she interrupted Romney more times? Or that Obama interrupted Romney more times than Romney interrupted Obama? Or the pictures of Obama supered with block letters as a kind of thought balloon, "Oh, s**t, how am I gonna lie my way out of this?"
No, since I don't consider anyone's Facebook friends to be part of a campaign. I was referring to things like this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/10/18/obama-romney-binders-election-2012/1640727/
And I do think the "binders" statement fits right in with the comment about Ann having two Cadillacs and Romney announcing he's a stock-car racing fan because some of his circle owns NASCAR teams. These are all indications of a man who pretends he understands Jane and Joe Sixpack. And cannot think well on his feet.
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
mtnlaurel
10-19-12, 1:09pm
No, since I don't consider anyone's Facebook friends to be part of a campaign. I was referring to things like this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/10/18/obama-romney-binders-election-2012/1640727/
From article...
"The campaign of hope and change is now resorting to Big Bird and senseless political attacks such as criticizing Governor Mitt Romney for increasing the number of women in Massachusetts state government," said Republican Party spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski.
I argue that Romney is the one putting the big old softballs out there to be hit out of the park.
If Republicans can't handle critiques of the ridiculous things their candidate says maybe they need to come up with a better one in 2016. And I sure hope to goodness they get a hold of their party and steer it toward one that is into GOVERNING versus throwing temper tantrums because I am a grown up and can accept that we have a 2 party system and Dem's aren't always going to win, but it doesn't mean we have to keep the country in a stranglehold until the next election. Heck, I even used to vote for a Republican on occasion and still will even in this upcoming election, if the position has absolutely nothing to do with overseeing abortion rights and access.
I mean seriously, why would Romney even bring up Public Broadcasting.... in many markets it is donor supported and it offers educational opportunities for all age groups.
Of all the things he could mention specifically he chooses something that is infinitesimal in spending in the big scheme of things.
And I never was a big fan of the Hope & Change mantra myself... I am A-OK with some backroom politics and a little 'Git 'Er Done' until we right the sinking ship.
If the 2 ClownTown Expresses (Repub & Dem) cannot do better over the next 4 years, I will be beyond disgusted.
ApatheticNoMore
10-19-12, 1:36pm
The Binders of Women.... you mean you have been in the corporate world for x amount of years and went to the best schools our nation has to offer and you can't come up with some of your own female candidates immediately from your own network?
That sad, sad stumbling answer of Romney's spoke volumes to me.
That may be true for those kind of elite positions, of course that's nothing middle America relates to either, we who send resumes in which we try hard to distinguish ourselves from Eve and Adam with the other dozens of resumes they will get, to employers we only know from just having done research on them before sending the resume.
The Binder comment is completely fair game for talking points - it is case in point of how non-fluent Romney is in discussing women's issues which are at the heart of middle America economic issues in that most married women have no choice but to work due to the decreased earning power of middle America and single women with the rise of single family homes.
[Edit to add- my apologies for only seeing this through a women with children lens.. that is my situation, so it's how I view most things]
Hehe, was just going to say in what universe have single women ever not had to work? There might be some very small percentage of the population with trust funds, but generally manna isn't just falling down from heaven :~)
I am assuming your reference to 'desperation for a campaign that seemingly doesn't have anything to offer' is directed toward the Obama platform (which I personally can't take you to task there since Obama hasn't really answered for me EXACTLY WHAT he is going to do DIFFERENT to work with an obstructionist congress)....
The problem isn't just the obstructionist congress, a lot of things fall on the President alone, like pushing for the NDAA, that's all Obama, all the time, and he didn't just sign it, he's fighting for it tooth and nail in the courts. There's a lot of things like this. He never even uses the veto power which could stop any new legistlation he doesn't like. There's obstructionism but Obama is bad in his own right.
but how desperate is throwing out an across the board 20% tax cut and not having the cajones to outline in full what you would propose as specific spending cuts and what tax loopholes you would close to balance that?
It is ridiculous. The Romney campaign, this being a major platform of theirs, is ridiculous. Things have descended to the ridiculous. But apparently other countries at various points have run on equally ridiculous platforms. That they don't work in practice ... well yea.
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"
Is there a more elitist organization than Whole Foods? Ok, maybe the DAR...
ApatheticNoMore
10-19-12, 1:47pm
Is there a more elitist organization than Whole Foods? Ok, maybe the DAR...
I'm sure of it. You definitely don't have to be 1% to shop Whole Foods. You don't even have to earn 6 figures. Heck Whole Foods is a heck of a lot more affordable than a mortgage (much less a mortgage in some elite neighborhood). I've walked many many neighborhoods with vast mansions (the real kind not the Mc kind). Real wealth exists and it's not in the WF parking lot (how many people living in those mansions shop WF, I coudln't say, maybe they all do for all I know). Expensive cars are frankly far most elitist than WF, they just take a bigger chunk of the budget, period, to buy, to pay the taxes on, to insure. I've known the professional class that takes an overseas vacation every year, yea the cost of that could buy a lot of WF. It's true WF is not the best place to budget for living on foodstamps, it IS overpriced, but even that is probably doable if you shopped the cheapest possible on sale stuff. The costs of a lot of private schools especially college is far more elitist (of course they often do have a lot of scholarships for poor students). A lot of stock brokerages are basically elite, obviously I'm not talking an index fund at Vanguard, Morgan Stanley basically told my parents it didn't care about their business anymore because you know less than a million really isn't cutting it. They are no longer interested in that market, even though they used to be, they are instead now going after the 1% and the true 1%, a true plutonomy, WF isn't really in that category. Saying WF is elite is kind of like saying Starbucks is elite, well the latte is overpriced for some middling quality coffee and milk, but it's just strange to think Starbucks is where the real wealth is for anyone but the owners maybe.
I'd agree that there's been a lot of humor come out of this election season, but it's been severely tempered by the sadness I feel to have goofy stuff like this actually become talking points within a presidential campaign. It is truly a sign of desperation for a campaign that seemingly doesn't have anything else to offer.
We finally agree. I have to admit I did not see anything wrong when it was said. I still do not think it is that funny. I guess it us my age.
The salient point is that the binders were presented to Romney by a bi-partisan women's group trying to promote hiring more women in Massachusetts government. He didn't ask for them (and he probably didn't open them). I've seen zero indication that he gives a thought to any issues important to women--unless, of course, they're major investors or donors.
It's true WF is not the best place to budget for living on foodstamps, it IS overpriced, but even that is probably doable if you shopped the cheapest possible on sale stuff. The costs of a lot of private schools especially college is far more elitist (of course they often do have a lot of scholarships for poor students). A lot of stock brokerages are basically elite, obviously I'm not talking an index fund at Vanguard, Morgan Stanley basically told my parents it didn't care about their business anymore because you know less than a million really isn't cutting it. They are no longer interested in that market, even though they used to be, they are instead now going after the 1% and the true 1%, a true plutonomy, WF isn't really in that category. Saying WF is elite is kind of like saying Starbucks is elite, well the latte is overpriced for some middling quality coffee and milk, but it's just strange to think Starbucks is where the real wealth is for anyone but the owners maybe.
Ha ha ha. I have given my brother (who is on food stamps) a gift cert for Whole Foods, because in CO they do not sell alcohol or cigarettes, so I could be sure he was using the money for food or health products. Elitist, maybe. Spending my $ not getting my brother high while simultaneously ensuring he at least has a tiny bit of access to good food for his family, priceless. But yeah, WF is higher end. As for the brokerages, a million is laughable in some of them. 10 million might slightly get you in the door. I don't actually see too much wrong with that, because it's the way a market works. I do see something wrong with said brokerage/investment bank creating a huge market for crappy mortgages by manipulating their friends at the ratings agencies to give those AAA ratings which the pension funds buy for the same people conned into getting the mortgages are supposed to have to support them in their old age. All those brokers/investment bankers, even if they eventually made huge losses for their firms from the house of cards they built, made millions of dollars.
OK, veered way off topic. I thought the Amazon thing was pretty funny but the attitude among many Republicans towards women is frequently not. If anyone thinks this is not a big issue, I would think they may be living under a rock.
puglogic
10-20-12, 12:09am
I don't find Whole Foods the Company elitist in the least. Expensive, yes, some things, but I find shopping there for certain things actually saves me money (bulk foods, their 365 brand of things like organic milk and olive oil, etc.) They are a good American capitalist company serving its niche, and serving it well. Surely our right-leaning forum folk can't argue with that? LOL
(RosieTR, WF stores in Colo have Grant Family Farms' Red Kuri Squash right now, and they make the most astonishing creamy soups. Note to self: plant those next year)
Now, in terms of elitism, the people who shop there may be a different story altogether :) But even then, I think they're far outnumbered by the people who simply want to shop in a place where they can find good organic/non-GMO/healthy foods, because they're tired of being poisoned by General Mills and Pepsico. Painting all people attempting to lead healthier lives with the "elitist" brush is a sad trend these days imho.
gimmethesimplelife
10-20-12, 12:29am
No, since I don't consider anyone's Facebook friends to be part of a campaign. I was referring to things like this: http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/10/18/obama-romney-binders-election-2012/1640727/
“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?"Good comeback Alan. Lol. We may be on totally opposite sides politically but I really have to hand it to you - good comeback on this one. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
10-20-12, 12:35am
I don't find Whole Foods the Company elitist in the least. Expensive, yes, some things, but I find shopping there for certain things actually saves me money (bulk foods, their 365 brand of things like organic milk and olive oil, etc.) They are a good American capitalist company serving its niche, and serving it well. Surely our right-leaning forum folk can't argue with that? LOL
(RosieTR, WF stores in Colo have Grant Family Farms' Red Kuri Squash right now, and they make the most astonishing creamy soups. Note to self: plant those next year)
Now, in terms of elitism, the people who shop there may be a different story altogether :) But even then, I think they're far outnumbered by the people who simply want to shop in a place where they can find good organic/non-GMO/healthy foods, because they're tired of being poisoned by General Mills and Pepsico. Painting all people attempting to lead healthier lives with the "elitist" brush is a sad trend these days imho.Puglogic, I think you are right - Whole Food in and of itself is not elitist IMHO.....but Obama's comment about arugula? That really does not show an understanding of what many are struggling with these days.....And yeah I don't think Romney gets it any better and Obama still has my vote as I do see where he has done some good - but the arugula comment, I can see where that could breed some dislike towards him. (not that Romney has not has his share of foot in the mouth moments) Rob
We finally agree. I have to admit I did not see anything wrong when it was said. I still do not think it is that funny. I guess it us my age.
I heard it too, knew exactly what he was referring to - and this is all the buzz the next day?! Shessh. I will be so glad when this election is over. Our mail in ballots arrived today. They will be mailed out tomorrow and I will be done with it.
gimmethesimplelife
10-20-12, 1:32am
I heard it too, knew exactly what he was referring to - and this is all the buzz the next day?! Shessh. I will be so glad when this election is over. Our mail in ballots arrived today. They will be mailed out tomorrow and I will be done with it.I agree with you...I will be glad when this election is over, too. Not just the presidential election but also the local elections. Here in Arizona they have been very nasty with lots of negative advertising and mud slinging....makes me not want to vote for anyone locally but I will cast a vote to get rid of Sheriff Arpaio, the one local name probably some here have heard as he's got quite the international reputation now.....Rob
The salient point is that the binders were presented to Romney by a bi-partisan women's group trying to promote hiring more women in Massachusetts government. He didn't ask for them (and he probably didn't open them). I've seen zero indication that he gives a thought to any issues important to women--unless, of course, they're major investors or donors.
I am guessing he opened those binders and hired from them. Jane Edmonds spoke about in her RNC speech, on day one Romney spelled out what promises he had made and started looking for solutions. He gathered bi-partisan support - the only way possible in that democratic state. ;)
SteveinMN
10-20-12, 1:15pm
He gathered bi-partisan support - the only way possible in that democratic state.
Too bad that Romney isn't running for President....
We finally agree. I have to admit I did not see anything wrong when it was said. I still do not think it is that funny. I guess it us my age.
NO, it wasn't funny, in and of itself. Just another Romney gaffe and a mini ha ha. (and really typical of this man. He speaks like he is from another planet sometimes!) The funny is the reviews on the amazon listings.
Oh, and actually, Romney didn't go out to find these 'binders of women', as it turns out. Rather, the women who put together these 'binders' approached him, as well as his opponent. So, again, he lies as easily as water flows...I'm just saying. I believe bae put it right in another thread, 'his lips are moving and he is a politician'.;)
Here are some talking points that I'd like to talk about in terms of republicans:
If you, yourself, do not agree with the Theocon agenda, how has this agenda taken front stage in your campaign, such that many of your political leaders believe in legitimate rape, believe that the world was created in only 6 days, and so on, and strive to create policy based on these religious ideas -- in both social (anti gay marriage, etc) and scientific (on the science committees) spheres -- when it is neither traditional republicanism nor an aspect of the constitution to even *deal* in these issues at the level of federal governance?
If you, yourself, do not agree with the Neocon agenda, which supports military interventionism and all of the expenses that it incurs, how do you still support the political party -- touting it as being more fiscally responsible, more interested in appropriate governance at the federal level (which includes international law and trade as well as interstate commerce) -- when the very idea of military interventionism goes against the underlying philosophies of the traditional republican party and, likewise, there is no mention of it in the constitution or in terms of interstate commerce? And we can also talk about the issues of individual rights under elements such as homeland security, the patriot act, and similar.
What aspects of the republican party -- as it exists today -- do you actively support, and how are they acting i those elements at the governance level, using examples from the last 3 republican president's terms.
Essay. Go. ;)
Once again this is a whole lot of chatter in the media about nothing. The bottom line he had many women serving in high positions in his government.
Here are some talking points that I'd like to talk about in terms of republicans:
If you, yourself, do not agree with the Theocon agenda, how has this agenda taken front stage in your campaign, such that many of your political leaders believe in legitimate rape, believe that the world was created in only 6 days, and so on, and strive to create policy based on these religious ideas -- in both social (anti gay marriage, etc) and scientific (on the science committees) spheres -- when it is neither traditional republicanism nor an aspect of the constitution to even *deal* in these issues at the level of federal governance?
If you, yourself, do not agree with the Neocon agenda, which supports military interventionism and all of the expenses that it incurs, how do you still support the political party -- touting it as being more fiscally responsible, more interested in appropriate governance at the federal level (which includes international law and trade as well as interstate commerce) -- when the very idea of military interventionism goes against the underlying philosophies of the traditional republican party and, likewise, there is no mention of it in the constitution or in terms of interstate commerce? And we can also talk about the issues of individual rights under elements such as homeland security, the patriot act, and similar.
What aspects of the republican party -- as it exists today -- do you actively support, and how are they acting i those elements at the governance level, using examples from the last 3 republican president's terms.
Essay. Go. ;)
+1
+1
-1
Outline a false narrative against a group and then challenge others to defend it. I'm pleased to see that no one fell for it.
gimmethesimplelife
10-21-12, 1:20pm
Here are some talking points that I'd like to talk about in terms of republicans:
If you, yourself, do not agree with the Theocon agenda, how has this agenda taken front stage in your campaign, such that many of your political leaders believe in legitimate rape, believe that the world was created in only 6 days, and so on, and strive to create policy based on these religious ideas -- in both social (anti gay marriage, etc) and scientific (on the science committees) spheres -- when it is neither traditional republicanism nor an aspect of the constitution to even *deal* in these issues at the level of federal governance?
If you, yourself, do not agree with the Neocon agenda, which supports military interventionism and all of the expenses that it incurs, how do you still support the political party -- touting it as being more fiscally responsible, more interested in appropriate governance at the federal level (which includes international law and trade as well as interstate commerce) -- when the very idea of military interventionism goes against the underlying philosophies of the traditional republican party and, likewise, there is no mention of it in the constitution or in terms of interstate commerce? And we can also talk about the issues of individual rights under elements such as homeland security, the patriot act, and similar.
What aspects of the republican party -- as it exists today -- do you actively support, and how are they acting i those elements at the governance level, using examples from the last 3 republican president's terms.
Essay. Go. ;)OK I accept.....But first I want to say one thing in FAVOR of Republicans - I think their basic arguement about debt is vaiid - this kind of spending just can't keep going on forever unless the government pulls in more revenue somehow and I don't see a long line of people willing to pay more taxes forming anytime soon lol. I will also say that if we were in the fifties or sixties, I might have voted Republican then. The notion of hard work yielding some rewards and the notion of fair pay and some kind of pay increase on a regular basis work for me, and back then this was much more attainable.
What doesn't work for me about Republicans is their insistence on traditional family values - given that I am a gay man I find this a bit off putting but beyond that, for many straight folks I have known, traditional family values have not worked all that well. And yes this is not 100% across the board, so for those exceptions more power to you.
Then I don't care for their insistence of doing it all on your own, when the rules have changed, you can lose a job because someone sneezed too loud in Dehli or Shanghai, there is no job security, the cost of everything is rising but wages are not, and those few at the top are raking in rewards while the rest lose ground. Republicans seem to think this is just fine - to me it is fodder for a national debate if many people's best interest would be served in leaving the US.....So you can see I am way way way off that page.
I also don't care for their insistence that the military be so strong. Seems to me there are other countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, that keep the majority of their folks housed and fed without so much military spending. This truly to me seems like such a waste - bot OTOH, it's the only way out of what America has become to many young people -at least they can pick up degrees of questionable worth on Uncle Sam's dime and avoid debt this way. So it's not all bad but I resent the size and dollar amount anyway, and Republicans seem fine with this.
I also don't care for the Republican belief that health care is not a right - and for the life of me, I don't understand why so many Americans agree with this. It really seems hypocritical to me to hold human life in such low and cheap regard via a lack of universal health care but then turn around and make such a big deal about abortion. Seriously, now that the standard of living in on it's way down, and access to health care seems to be up in the air, how many people's best interests are served remaining in the US? For those who are capable of analyzing something like that without any pro US feelings getting in the way......Pretty scary conclusions are what can be drawn. So you can see where I am totally totally totally off the page with Republicans here.
But I still think they are right about government spending and that something needs to be done. I just don't agree with how they propose to get there. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
10-21-12, 1:38pm
Zoebird - sorry, I looked at your post again and I really didn't address what you brought up. Sorry about that. Oh vey, I am not the person to respond as I am not in the Republican camp. I will leave what I have posted unless it upsets that I responded not in vein of your post? Rob
ApatheticNoMore
10-21-12, 2:23pm
Maybe they got in the situation via the same lesser-of-two-eviling the left is neck deep in arguing about now (yea he's a theocrat but at least he's not a Democrat etc.). But honestly I really don't know.
OK I accept.....But first I want to say one thing in FAVOR of Republicans - I think their basic arguement about debt is vaiid - this kind of spending just can't keep going on forever unless the government pulls in more revenue somehow and I don't see a long line of people willing to pay more taxes forming anytime soon lol.
But are the people willing to cut programs either? (cynical answer: yea programs for the elderly as long as it's only applying to people younger than me etc., yes as long as it's not my special tax break etc.). But really I'm not sure they are. The actual historical record on Republicans and budgets is not good (no that doesn't conversely imply democrats are always good on this). The very plan Romney is running on now is ridiculous, no details even. I mean look if the guy ran on eliminating all specialized tax deductions it would be honest but risky (mortgage interest, and healthcare expenses and charitable deductions?) - but no it's all mysterious tax loopholes being closed somewhere, somehow. Don't ask to see the books just trust Bernie Madoff, um I mean Mitt Romney. I don't take the Republican party SERIOUSLY on deficit spending, except for a few exceptions, I dont' even halfway imagine they REALLY MEAN it and are really concerned about it. I think it's ONLY something to complain about when the OTHER party is in power. Like you know wars are for Democrats. So it's not that I don't believe dealing with the deficit is somewhat important (although I question how important, it might be fake scarcity, where if the environmental problems progress we may be head on with VERY REAL SCARCITY). But it's really more I'm just not buying the whole song and dance, I've heard this tune before.
What doesn't work for me about Republicans is their insistence on traditional family values - given that I am a gay man I find this a bit off putting but beyond that, for many straight folks I have known, traditional family values have not worked all that well.
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about social conservatism, but when I've encountered true social conservatism, reading "intellegent social conservatives" and so on, yea I find that worldview profoundly hostile to me. Because I'm a single woman (this is not some commitment, it is just what I AM NOW). And I'm not talking about the moderate social conservatives those who merely have some qualms about true abortions and so on, if abortion is their issue I can understand that, and that's what I assume I more often encounter (but who knows), but I'm talking those who are dead serious about the full deal of social conservatism. Their worldview is hostile to so many of us, it accepts only one acceptable mode of life. And all of us who don't live that acceptable mode of life: straight, married, probably with children etc.. - they don't want any other way of life to be anything but utterly and completely marginalized within society - their way of being is the only way to be. And that is supposed to be serious (social) conservative thinkers, ugh no.
ApatheticNoMore
10-21-12, 6:57pm
I can definitely top arugula at Whole Foods! I realized today I was not only eating arugula at WF (it was a free sample) but it was arugula sprouts, micro arugula! None of that full sized argula, that is just SO lower class, I remember the bad old days when we had to eat that, but now only micro sprouted argula for me :laff:. It did go on my mental list as interesting for garnish part of a salad and other things, I have no clue what it cost though as it was not on my actual list of groceries for this week and I didn't get it. Maybe next week I'll have to add it though! :)
Maybe they got in the situation via the same lesser-of-two-eviling the left is neck deep in arguing about now (yea he's a theocrat but at least he's not a Democrat etc.). But honestly I really don't know.
But are the people willing to cut programs either? (cynical answer: yea programs for the elderly as long as it's only applying to people younger than me etc., yes as long as it's not my special tax break etc.). But really I'm not sure they are. The actual historical record on Republicans and budgets is not good (no that doesn't conversely imply democrats are always good on this). The very plan Romney is running on now is ridiculous, no details even. I mean look if the guy ran on eliminating all specialized tax deductions it would be honest but risky (mortgage interest, and healthcare expenses and charitable deductions?) - but no it's all mysterious tax loopholes being closed somewhere, somehow. Don't ask to see the books just trust Bernie Madoff, um I mean Mitt Romney. I don't take the Republican party SERIOUSLY on deficit spending, except for a few exceptions, I dont' even halfway imagine they REALLY MEAN it and are really concerned about it. I think it's ONLY something to complain about when the OTHER party is in power. Like you know wars are for Democrats. So it's not that I don't believe dealing with the deficit is somewhat important (although I question how important, it might be fake scarcity, where if the environmental problems progress we may be head on with VERY REAL SCARCITY). But it's really more I'm just not buying the whole song and dance, I've heard this tune before.
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about social conservatism, but when I've encountered true social conservatism, reading "intellegent social conservatives" and so on, yea I find that worldview profoundly hostile to me. Because I'm a single woman (this is not some commitment, it is just what I AM NOW). And I'm not talking about the moderate social conservatives those who merely have some qualms about true abortions and so on, if abortion is their issue I can understand that, and that's what I assume I more often encounter (but who knows), but I'm talking those who are dead serious about the full deal of social conservatism. Their worldview is hostile to so many of us, it accepts only one acceptable mode of life. And all of us who don't live that acceptable mode of life: straight, married, probably with children etc.. - they don't want any other way of life to be anything but utterly and completely marginalized within society - their way of being is the only way to be. And that is supposed to be serious (social) conservative thinkers, ugh no.
I couldn't agree more with what you wrote. If anyone's interested, they can Google "the two Santa Claus theory" and disabuse themselves of the notion that Republican politicians give a (fill in the blank) about deficits. Dick Cheney said as much point blank "Deficits don't matter." And they really don't, if you have a healthy economy and adequate revenue stream. Remember when Bill Clinton presided over a robust economy and all the Republicans could talk about was his sex life and how evil he was for trying--IMO--to avoid embarrassing his wife and "Miss Lewinsky" any further by copping to the exact details of it? It's misdirection, pure and simple. And it obviously works.
We finally agree. I have to admit I did not see anything wrong when it was said. I still do not think it is that funny. I guess it us my age.
Count me in with that. Finally, something with bipartisan support!
Well I'm still confused as to what exactly ARE "women's issues". To me the only women's issues I can think of are reproductive issues and unequal opportunities in the workforce in the few places that still deny women equal opportunities. Other then that I see the other issues as things that are just as important to men as women. I consider those to be family or economic issues that effect everyone and not just women. Many men are single full time fathers - and many more share joint custody and parenting duties. To leave men and fathers out of disscussions that concern family and economic issues, is to leave out their important role and duty as parents. Often struggling single parents.
iris lily
10-25-12, 2:29pm
Well I'm still confused as to what exactly ARE "women's issues". To me the only women's issues I can think of are reproductive issues and unequal opportunities in the workforce in the few places that still deny women equal opportunities. Other then that I see the other issues as things that are just as important to men as women. I consider those to be family or economic issues that effect everyone and not just women. Many men are single full time fathers - and many more share joint custody and parenting duties. To leave men and fathers out of disscussions that concern family and economic issues, is to leave out their important role and duty as parents. Often struggling single parents.
Oh She-Ra you just are not a good victim.
Please remember that women are constantly held back at all levels of society in all instances and for nefarious reasons. Please polish up your victim narrative, you are an embarrassment to our gender!;)
Oh She-Ra you just are not a good victim.
Please remember that women are constantly held back at all levels of society in all instances and for nefarious reasons. Please polish up your victim narrative, you are an embarrassment to our gender!;)
He He!! I'll practice my swooning to make you proud!
Of course I don't really even see alot of other unequal employment issues for women other then the ban on women in combat - and promotions and jobs in the armed forces denied women because of that. Besides the Coast Guard (yes they do go to war!), who lifted the ban on women in combat back in the 1970's and has all jobs open to women and will not seperate a female from her unit in a combat situation, every other armed force still imposes that ban. Otherwise I believe that in both the public sector and private sector all jobs are open and available to women (can't think of anything off hand). Now are they being hired as often as they would like? Probably not but then that's the case for many minorities of both genders as well as people over 50 of both genders, and probably for many men of all ages who are looking for employment in fields traditionally held by mostly women. So I don't see the employment (or lack of employment) issue specifically as a a "women's issue".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.