Of course you need a man grown up enough to deal with that, but there are many out there, contrary to what most/.ers would think.
Of course you have that backwards, you know. Not all women are attracted to money, but all women are attracted to success. And the easiest sign of success is money. Rare is the woman who picks a man considerably less successful than she is.
Case in point - how many female business executives and law partners do you know of that are married to the assistant manager of a Burger King?
I've heard that high school teachers in some states actually make decent pay (like $50-60k)
Sure, after you've been teaching for 30 years, but that part is usually left out. Which is pretty weak sauce when you've gotten at least a masters degree, years of continuing education and loads of 50+ hour work weeks in a stressful job.
Another lame rationalization for government inaction. Because a child is free to go fuck himself educationally if he's born to the wrong set of parents, or ones who are too busy working 60 hours a week to keep a roof over their heads and the family insured.
Because it's a lame rationalization for not even trying. And it ignores the fact that Southern states would be third world countries without Federal spending and leadership.
Just how stupid are you, really? It's not just docking your wage from $X an hour to $X-5 an hour, it's recalculating the entire year and docking your pay accordingly. So you might very well end up working the next paycheck or two or five for free.
So how are you going to protect teachers from bad parents WITHOUT unions? Upstanding Member of the Community and Churchgoer Mrs. Shrew bitches to the PTA that Mr. Stark gave her little angel Johnny an F for the semster and detention after school. Mr. Stark gets demoted, suspended, or even fired - even though Johnny earned his F and his detention. Funny how conservatives never see the dichotomy between wanting teachers to be firm and demanding of students while also wanting the elimination of teacher's unions.
The other problem with your storyline is that there is nothing - nada, zip, zero - about unions that prevents people for being fired for cause. Yes, I'm sure you can rattle off some cute anecdotes about some bad teacher that wasn't fired, but if you're honest with yourself, you can also rattle off some bad coworkers that have managed to keep their jobs. But I bet you don't run around whining how private businesses are bad and must be eliminated....
But private ineptitude tends to be a self-correcting problem.
Yes, as evidenced by the fact that all the bankers and investors that drove our economy into the ground are now delivering pizza and mopping floors. Oh wait, they're getting bigger bonuses than ever.
What you describe works nice in theory, but in practice executives will take enormous risks at the chance of enormous short term profit. Why make a million dollars a year through responsible investment if you can make 30 million dollars in two years? So what if the business goes belly up because of it - you made 30 million dollars!
Yes, I'm SURE the Apple haters would give them a pass if the update merely disconnected jailbroken iPhones from the AT&T network (permanently) rather than making the devices completely inoperable.
I'm sure the hundreds of millions of murdered victims who perished at the hands of their governments in the 20th century would agree with you.
Speaking out of your ass again, I see. The two worst dictators of the 20th century, Hitler and Stalin, killed 50 million of their own peoples, and that's counting generously. But if you want to conflate their governments with all governments in general, then the same must apply to businesses. Which must be promptly banned before they put poisoned food on store shelves, dump toxic waste loaded with mercury into the river or grope their secretaries.
Government won't let you test cattle for mad cow, btw.
Because the big operations don't want to be forced into testing through competition, so they lobbied for the ban. Nice try, btw.
SS and Medicare are imploding on their own
No, they aren't. But it is quite hilarious to see wingnuts whine about SS and Medicare when we're spending over a trillion dollars a year on the military.
I'm not sure you understand how counterinsurgency fighting works.
I'm not sure you understand how a quagmire works. It's when you're stuck in an open ended war and the very people you are "fighting for" are frequently the same ones shooting at you.
Things have changed since then, and Iraqi opinion is not the same.
Laughable. What part of "our invasion destroyed their country, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions while supporting massively corrupt puppets" do you not understand? Just because the media has decided the Iraq occupation is so 2006 doesn't mean that violence and bombings aren't still a part of everyday life.
This is reflected in the other poll you linked to, from 2007, which shows that most Iraqis wanted the Americans to stay longer. So public opinion has shifted in favor of America staying longer.
I'm not sure you know how reading comprehension works. The first sentence in the Washington Post article from 2007:
Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.
Continuing to argue that Iraqi's want us there is like arguing that Miramax made a wise decision in passing up Lord of the Rings, after it made Time Warner a few billion dollars and nearly a dozen Oscars. Simply bizarre.
Irrelevant, input device false dichotomy, is irrelevant.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you're in that special category of people that make the Darwin Award winners look like Nobel Laurettes. You know, people who blame Bill Clinton for Waco and Ruby Ridge and think that Miramax made smart move on passing on Lord of the Rings after it made Time Warner a few billion dollars.
So why do you keep your head lodged firmly in your ass? Is that a comfortable position for you, or is it for the warmth, or what?
Batshit irrelevant. The only context where his comment:
I don't know any marketing company that designs it's own computer hardware and has software engineers creating their own operating system.
...makes any kind of sense whatsoever, is in the context of personal computers, not computing devices. Otherwise you could say the same thing about Nintendo, LG and Samsung.
It's reality, try dealing with it some time. What would the media have done to Bill Clinton if he sat on his as for 20 minutes while the nation was suffering an attack that Clinton was warned about, face to face, in advance?
The media NEVER held Bush accountable for the Iraq clusterfuck because then they'd have to admit their own gullibility in believing obvious lies and culpability in pushing a pro-war agenda.
The ONLY time the media didn't cover for Bush was during Katrina. And they STILL didn't hold him accountable, as the "Dean Scream" was only played a million times more than the video showing Bush being warned point-blank (AGAIN) that New Orleans was exceptionally vulnerable to a hurricane.
You have the right to your own set of opinions, but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. And the FACT is that the media has ALWAYS covered for Bush.
Laughable. Seriously, put your Charles Craphammer talking points and lame annecdote down for two seconds and put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi. Or, in the shoes of a veteran of the Soviet armed forces:
The universality of war propaganda By Glenn Greenwald
I'm traveling still today, but I wanted to note an amazing Op-Ed that was referenced in a book I'm reading: the Op-Ed is by Nikolai Lanine, published in The Toronto Globe and Mail in November, 2006. Lanine was drafted into the Russian Army at the age of 18 and spent several years as part of the Russian occupying force in Afghanistan. Thereafter, he moved to Canada, and in 2006, his wife's first cousin, a medic in the Canadian Army, was killed in Afghanistan. Lanine wrote this column after attending his funeral, and recounted what he and his comrades in the Russian Army believed they were doing in Afghanistan:
I identified with the Canadian soldiers at the funeral mourning the loss of their friend. Like them, I went to Afghanistan believing in "fighting terrorism" and "liberating Afghans." During my first mission, we were protecting refugees escaping an area that was under attack by the mujahedeen. I was deeply affected by their misery, and by the poverty and suffering of the Afghan people in general. In my mind, our presence was "helping Afghans," particularly with educating women and children. My combat unit participated in "humanitarian aid" - accompanying doctors and delivering food, fuel, clothing, school and other supplies to Afghan villages.
It was only later that I began to wonder: Did that aid justify our aggression ?
Exactly the same quandaries arose which the U.S. confronts today, and the same justifications were concocted to dismiss them:
It is hard to kill people without demonizing them. In 1988, my unit accidentally hit an Afghan wedding party. My friend, whose mortar shells had killed innocent people, was shocked when he learned of it. Some soldiers, however, were indifferent. "That village supports the resistance, anyway," they said. Like NATO now, we didn't count "their" casualties. As another friend, Alexander, would later write : "We thought that all of them - old and young - were insurgents." Alexander, to save his unit, had called in artillery that destroyed a village from which the mujahedeen were attacking. People of the villages hit by our air strikes became hostile and turned to the resistance. More attacks by insurgents led to more Soviet strikes.
After 10 years of such a tragic cycle, more than a million Afghans were dead and millions more had fled their devastated country. Also, ignored by many, a powerful religious force of militant Islamic movements grew under the pressure of foreign aggression. In 1989, during negotiations between my regiment and the most radical militants from the area, a mujahed told my friend : "We'll take our revenge to your country." And they did. The backlash spilled out and hit not only the former Soviet Union and Afghans themselves in the 1990s, but also America on 9/11. The vicious cycle I witnessed in the 1980s - violence causing violence - is still continuing.
At Andrew's funeral, the shock and disbelief on the faces of his military friends were all too familiar. So were the official speeches. And the Canadian media coverage seemed like an echo of the Soviet press. "Positive changes are evident. However, it would be premature to say that Kandahar is not a 'hot spot' any more," the Soviets said in the 1980s. "Things have improved," one Canadian newspaper said now, yet "significant problems" remain. "Development is occurring" in Kandahar, the paper added, just like a Soviet journalist had observed in 1988.
Of course, back then it was Russia who was fighting -- a
Firing a teacher is hideously complex and takes about 3 years and thousands of dollars.
Well, since we're arguing by anecdote, I overheard an old ex-navy coworker tell a young female employee, "I'd like to rape the shit out of you." Not only was he not summarily fired, he wasn't even disciplined because he was friends with management. And this was at a shop that makes Wal-Mart look pro-union.
Therefore, private, non-union businesses are evil and should be banned ASAP.
Now, back to reality, teachers unions are like the old line about Democracy: it's the worst form of government, except for all the others. This is because nothing - nothing - is more political than children. It's why "oh why wont someone think of the children" is not just a cliche.
So most of the time, "bad teacher" really means "my son got a D in that teachers class because he's a slacker and got detention for being an obnoxious brat". You want teachers to be protected from WATB's who sit on PTA meetings and run for the school board.
Teachers can't actually, you know...teach worth a damn without unions, because they'll always be looking over their shoulder for parents upset over the fact that "their little angel" earned his D in math.
Everyone who responded to the grandparent post is making a strawman argument, but yours is the worst so I'll reply to you.
Hardly. It might seem like hyperbole, but everything in that list is based on actual results from "small government for the sake of small government" Reaganomics and rhetoric from wingnut conservatives.
Mad cow? Check. Salmonella in peanut butter? Check. Entirely your responsibility as an individual to deal with natural disasters? Check. Ending Social Security and Medicare? Check.
Check, check, check, check and check. Less government for the sake of less government is WORSE than more government for the sake of more government, because while the latter might waste money, the former gets people killed.
Ah, so you're going to enjoy your Mad Cow burgers while planning to work into your late 70's since your retirement plan was annihilated in the Ponzi scheme known as Wall Street, and Social Security & Medicare have been repealed. Your kids will happily play with their toys from China that are covered in lead paint while munching on peanut butter & salmonella sandwiches. The fully deregulated power company will quadruple your electric bill while you shop for used hovercrafts so you can skim over the broken, unmaintained roads on your way to work at Wal-Mart.
After you finish your double shift (one for a cleaning contractor, so no overtime), you stock up on fire extinguishers, first aid kits and shotguns to make up for the loss of public fire departments, police departments, and ambulance services. You herniate a disk while shoveling your own dike to protect you from flooding, which your insurance company promptly denies coverage for (you didn't disclose the fact that you had acne as a teenager) so their CEO can be worth three quarters of a billion dollars.
Which blows your water purification fund, which you were saving so you could remove the mercury, arsenic and cholera from your drinking water. But you can bask in the marvels of the free market AND mob rule, all the while saving yourself the cost of moving to that ultimate Libertarian paradise, Somalia.
Slashdot Mirror
I hold that there are far more irrational liberals in the three states I mention than there are "crap-assed" christians in the entire South.
I suppose you could say that, if you were lying or a moron. Where's the liberal equivalent to the Creationist Museum, again?
Of course you need a man grown up enough to deal with that, but there are many out there, contrary to what most /.ers would think.
Of course you have that backwards, you know. Not all women are attracted to money, but all women are attracted to success. And the easiest sign of success is money. Rare is the woman who picks a man considerably less successful than she is.
Case in point - how many female business executives and law partners do you know of that are married to the assistant manager of a Burger King?
I've heard that high school teachers in some states actually make decent pay (like $50-60k)
Sure, after you've been teaching for 30 years, but that part is usually left out. Which is pretty weak sauce when you've gotten at least a masters degree, years of continuing education and loads of 50+ hour work weeks in a stressful job.
And Asia one day will be where we are.
Not if they don't have asian Ronald Reagans, they wont.
although that too will change if Obama gets healtchare 'reform' passed
You were doing so well till you got to the baseless right wing bullshit.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you're a moron. The whole reason to push the issue onto parents is to excuse the lack of action from schools.
Thank Reagan for managing to repackage lazy, self-centered selfishness as a noble ideal.
Another lame rationalization for government inaction. Because a child is free to go fuck himself educationally if he's born to the wrong set of parents, or ones who are too busy working 60 hours a week to keep a roof over their heads and the family insured.
Yawn, yawn, yawn.
Because it's a lame rationalization for not even trying. And it ignores the fact that Southern states would be third world countries without Federal spending and leadership.
Just how stupid are you, really? It's not just docking your wage from $X an hour to $X-5 an hour, it's recalculating the entire year and docking your pay accordingly. So you might very well end up working the next paycheck or two or five for free.
So how are you going to protect teachers from bad parents WITHOUT unions? Upstanding Member of the Community and Churchgoer Mrs. Shrew bitches to the PTA that Mr. Stark gave her little angel Johnny an F for the semster and detention after school. Mr. Stark gets demoted, suspended, or even fired - even though Johnny earned his F and his detention. Funny how conservatives never see the dichotomy between wanting teachers to be firm and demanding of students while also wanting the elimination of teacher's unions.
The other problem with your storyline is that there is nothing - nada, zip, zero - about unions that prevents people for being fired for cause. Yes, I'm sure you can rattle off some cute anecdotes about some bad teacher that wasn't fired, but if you're honest with yourself, you can also rattle off some bad coworkers that have managed to keep their jobs. But I bet you don't run around whining how private businesses are bad and must be eliminated....
Sounds like systemic ineptitude which is why I'm really looking forward to more government involvement in health care!
And how is your Enron stock doing these days? Managed to avoid electrocution in your bathroom from shitty contractor wiring?
But private ineptitude tends to be a self-correcting problem.
Yes, as evidenced by the fact that all the bankers and investors that drove our economy into the ground are now delivering pizza and mopping floors. Oh wait, they're getting bigger bonuses than ever.
What you describe works nice in theory, but in practice executives will take enormous risks at the chance of enormous short term profit. Why make a million dollars a year through responsible investment if you can make 30 million dollars in two years? So what if the business goes belly up because of it - you made 30 million dollars!
Yes, I'm SURE the Apple haters would give them a pass if the update merely disconnected jailbroken iPhones from the AT&T network (permanently) rather than making the devices completely inoperable.
Sure......
I'm sure the hundreds of millions of murdered victims who perished at the hands of their governments in the 20th century would agree with you.
Speaking out of your ass again, I see. The two worst dictators of the 20th century, Hitler and Stalin, killed 50 million of their own peoples, and that's counting generously. But if you want to conflate their governments with all governments in general, then the same must apply to businesses. Which must be promptly banned before they put poisoned food on store shelves, dump toxic waste loaded with mercury into the river or grope their secretaries.
Government won't let you test cattle for mad cow, btw.
Because the big operations don't want to be forced into testing through competition, so they lobbied for the ban. Nice try, btw.
SS and Medicare are imploding on their own
No, they aren't. But it is quite hilarious to see wingnuts whine about SS and Medicare when we're spending over a trillion dollars a year on the military.
I'm not sure you understand how counterinsurgency fighting works.
I'm not sure you understand how a quagmire works. It's when you're stuck in an open ended war and the very people you are "fighting for" are frequently the same ones shooting at you.
Things have changed since then, and Iraqi opinion is not the same.
Laughable. What part of "our invasion destroyed their country, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions while supporting massively corrupt puppets" do you not understand? Just because the media has decided the Iraq occupation is so 2006 doesn't mean that violence and bombings aren't still a part of everyday life.
This is reflected in the other poll you linked to, from 2007, which shows that most Iraqis wanted the Americans to stay longer. So public opinion has shifted in favor of America staying longer.
I'm not sure you know how reading comprehension works. The first sentence in the Washington Post article from 2007:
Continuing to argue that Iraqi's want us there is like arguing that Miramax made a wise decision in passing up Lord of the Rings, after it made Time Warner a few billion dollars and nearly a dozen Oscars. Simply bizarre.
Irrelevant, input device false dichotomy, is irrelevant.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you're in that special category of people that make the Darwin Award winners look like Nobel Laurettes. You know, people who blame Bill Clinton for Waco and Ruby Ridge and think that Miramax made smart move on passing on Lord of the Rings after it made Time Warner a few billion dollars.
So why do you keep your head lodged firmly in your ass? Is that a comfortable position for you, or is it for the warmth, or what?
PCs were not specifically mentioned.
Batshit irrelevant. The only context where his comment:
...makes any kind of sense whatsoever, is in the context of personal computers, not computing devices. Otherwise you could say the same thing about Nintendo, LG and Samsung.
Seriously, just how pathetically stupid are you?
Reading Comprehension Fail.
Fuckwit Projection Fail.
It's reality, try dealing with it some time. What would the media have done to Bill Clinton if he sat on his as for 20 minutes while the nation was suffering an attack that Clinton was warned about, face to face, in advance?
The media NEVER held Bush accountable for the Iraq clusterfuck because then they'd have to admit their own gullibility in believing obvious lies and culpability in pushing a pro-war agenda.
The ONLY time the media didn't cover for Bush was during Katrina. And they STILL didn't hold him accountable, as the "Dean Scream" was only played a million times more than the video showing Bush being warned point-blank (AGAIN) that New Orleans was exceptionally vulnerable to a hurricane.
You have the right to your own set of opinions, but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. And the FACT is that the media has ALWAYS covered for Bush.
Oh, and since you want polls, here's more.
Laughable. Seriously, put your Charles Craphammer talking points and lame annecdote down for two seconds and put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi. Or, in the shoes of a veteran of the Soviet armed forces:
So what kind of tax would you want? Property? Income?
Firing a teacher is hideously complex and takes about 3 years and thousands of dollars.
Well, since we're arguing by anecdote, I overheard an old ex-navy coworker tell a young female employee, "I'd like to rape the shit out of you." Not only was he not summarily fired, he wasn't even disciplined because he was friends with management. And this was at a shop that makes Wal-Mart look pro-union.
Therefore, private, non-union businesses are evil and should be banned ASAP.
Now, back to reality, teachers unions are like the old line about Democracy: it's the worst form of government, except for all the others. This is because nothing - nothing - is more political than children. It's why "oh why wont someone think of the children" is not just a cliche.
So most of the time, "bad teacher" really means "my son got a D in that teachers class because he's a slacker and got detention for being an obnoxious brat". You want teachers to be protected from WATB's who sit on PTA meetings and run for the school board.
Teachers can't actually, you know...teach worth a damn without unions, because they'll always be looking over their shoulder for parents upset over the fact that "their little angel" earned his D in math.
Everyone who responded to the grandparent post is making a strawman argument, but yours is the worst so I'll reply to you.
Hardly. It might seem like hyperbole, but everything in that list is based on actual results from "small government for the sake of small government" Reaganomics and rhetoric from wingnut conservatives.
Mad cow? Check.
Salmonella in peanut butter? Check.
Entirely your responsibility as an individual to deal with natural disasters? Check.
Ending Social Security and Medicare? Check.
Check, check, check, check and check. Less government for the sake of less government is WORSE than more government for the sake of more government, because while the latter might waste money, the former gets people killed.
Ah, so you're going to enjoy your Mad Cow burgers while planning to work into your late 70's since your retirement plan was annihilated in the Ponzi scheme known as Wall Street, and Social Security & Medicare have been repealed. Your kids will happily play with their toys from China that are covered in lead paint while munching on peanut butter & salmonella sandwiches. The fully deregulated power company will quadruple your electric bill while you shop for used hovercrafts so you can skim over the broken, unmaintained roads on your way to work at Wal-Mart.
After you finish your double shift (one for a cleaning contractor, so no overtime), you stock up on fire extinguishers, first aid kits and shotguns to make up for the loss of public fire departments, police departments, and ambulance services. You herniate a disk while shoveling your own dike to protect you from flooding, which your insurance company promptly denies coverage for (you didn't disclose the fact that you had acne as a teenager) so their CEO can be worth three quarters of a billion dollars.
Which blows your water purification fund, which you were saving so you could remove the mercury, arsenic and cholera from your drinking water. But you can bask in the marvels of the free market AND mob rule, all the while saving yourself the cost of moving to that ultimate Libertarian paradise, Somalia.
Low taxes have high costs.