Trump Administration Predictions (3 Viewers)

[Thales750]

Ahhhh, good old days. Most women did what they are best at, being at home raising the children whilst men went out to work. Younger women did jobs suited to women - waitresses, office work, barmaids, shop work etc. Nowadays we have women doing traditionally men's work like train driving, bus driving etc.
That's all very well but employers need to factor in the additional anomalies that women present, like 'time of the month' problems or menopause, and worst of all you spend hours training them and then they get themselves pregnant which presents them with a ready excuse to take days off. Those working with kids of school age just take days off if the kid gets a snivel and sod the effect that has for the employer, women never think of that.
If women did what they are here for instead of fobbing the kids off on anyone who offers maybe there might be some order in society.
Col

As much as that is not so dry humor. Full time moms do a good job of raising kids.

 

[Pat Hartman]

@ColinEssex Your ugliness is offensive. You should look inside yourself to see why you are so hateful and bigoted in your opinions of others. But it looks like you have a comrade in arms. You deserve each other.

 

[Thales750]

@ColinEssex Your ugliness is offensive. You should look inside yourself to see why you are so hateful and bigoted in your opinions of others. But it looks like you have a comrade in arms. You deserve each other.

As usual, you continue to show you're incapable of understanding any view other than your own. Colin was making a joke. How sad for you that you don't realize that. If you do realize it, it seems like you were using it as a springboard to make a little hating of your own.
As far as what I said, I grew up in house where Mom was a full time stay-at-home mother that also wrote novels and managed the family business. You assumptions are pitiful. Or, should I say pitiable.?

I taught my daughter math and science from the day she spoke her first words. We taught her to excel in an the real word. You do not have my permission to continue to make false accusations or erroneous assumptions about my person.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Colin was making a joke.

Colin was not making a joke although he does feign innocence when challenged. And we know this because the only "jokes" he makes are vicious personal attacks. He has been banned multiple times by multiple moderators for his bad behavior. It doesn't surprise me at all that you would stand up for him. This is used to be a free country and the forum's rules are pretty flexible regarding what type of behavior is tolerated. Otherwise Colin would have been banned permanently years ago. This is the kind of personal attack that will get the police sent to your door with the new laws in the UK and the forum, to survive, will need to crack down so be aware of that lest the forum be charged with a hate crime.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

<sigh> WHY did I know that Colin would eventually stir up another micro-tempest?

@Thales750, we have anti-censorship rules on the forum, which is as least partly why ColinEssex and you are still allowed to post. But Col's favorite method is to stick a "needle" in someone to watch them jump, and he gets an inordinate thrill from it. Not everyone liked Don Rickles and his form of humor.

As usual, you continue to show you're incapable of understanding any view other than your own.

As did you by making that very comment. Pot and kettle, my friend, both as black as can be. And it might not be that we didn't understand it, but rather that we found it distasteful. Did THAT ever occur to you? Did it ever occur to you that we find YOUR posts verging on distasteful AND disrespectful? Because some of us do. Particularly when you demean the mental capacity of those who disagree with your economic views.

I'm only minimally responding directly to Col because he should know better. But Thales750, old chap, some people dislike vicious humor based on antiquated viewpoints... which is what we have come to expect from Col whenever he wakes up. We should call Col our "official forum groundhog" because it appears that he crawled out of his hole and saw his own shadow, and thus reacted to it.

 

[ColinEssex]

This is the kind of personal attack that will get the police sent to your door with the new laws in the UK and the forum, to survive, will need to crack down so be aware of that lest the forum be charged with a hate crime.

I'm confused. I express an opinion based on factual experience from my time in the 1970's as a manager of a department in a hospital. I mention no names (so it's not a personal attack), yet you immediately dive in and launch a personal attack on me and my observations.
Whereas you verbally attack virtually any politician mentioning their names and accusing them of various things that I'm sure are exaggerated.
Could you explain why it's different for you? Thanks
Col

 

[Thales750]

Ahhhh, good old days. Most women did what they are best at, being at home raising the children whilst men went out to work. Younger women did jobs suited to women - waitresses, office work, barmaids, shop work etc. Nowadays we have women doing traditionally men's work like train driving, bus driving etc.
That's all very well but employers need to factor in the additional anomalies that women present, like 'time of the month' problems or menopause, and worst of all you spend hours training them and then they get themselves pregnant which presents them with a ready excuse to take days off. Those working with kids of school age just take days off if the kid gets a snivel and sod the effect that has for the employer, women never think of that.
If women did what they are here for instead of fobbing the kids off on anyone who offers maybe there might be some order in society.
Col

Are you being serious?

 

[Thales750]

<sigh> WHY did I know that Colin would eventually stir up another micro-tempest?

@Thales750, we have anti-censorship rules on the forum, which is as least partly why ColinEssex and you are still allowed to post. But Col's favorite method is to stick a "needle" in someone to watch them jump, and he gets an inordinate thrill from it. Not everyone liked Don Rickles and his form of humor.



As did you by making that very comment. Pot and kettle, my friend, both as black as can be. And it might not be that we didn't understand it, but rather that we found it distasteful. Did THAT ever occur to you? Did it ever occur to you that we find YOUR posts verging on distasteful AND disrespectful? Because some of us do. Particularly when you demean the mental capacity of those who disagree with your economic views.

I'm only minimally responding directly to Col because he should know better. But Thales750, old chap, some people dislike vicious humor based on antiquated viewpoints... which is what we have come to expect from Col whenever he wakes up. We should call Col our "official forum groundhog" because it appears that he crawled out of his hole and saw his own shadow, and thus reacted to it.

All said was that when mothers had the option to be the primary child care giver, that act worked out for society. If you don't see that I meant that then your are systematically avoiding trying to listen, let alone understand.

I

 

[Thales750]

I'm confused. I express an opinion based on factual experience from my time in the 1970's as a manager of a department in a hospital. I mention no names (so it's not a personal attack), yet you immediately dive in and launch a personal attack on me and my observations.
Whereas you verbally attack virtually any politician mentioning their names and accusing them of various things that I'm sure are exaggerated.
Could you explain why it's different for you? Thanks
Col

Are you suffering from dimintia?

 

[Thales750]

<sigh> WHY did I know that Colin would eventually stir up another micro-tempest?

@Thales750, we have anti-censorship rules on the forum, which is as least partly why ColinEssex and you are still allowed to post. But Col's favorite method is to stick a "needle" in someone to watch them jump, and he gets an inordinate thrill from it. Not everyone liked Don Rickles and his form of humor.



As did you by making that very comment. Pot and kettle, my friend, both as black as can be. And it might not be that we didn't understand it, but rather that we found it distasteful. Did THAT ever occur to you? Did it ever occur to you that we find YOUR posts verging on distasteful AND disrespectful? Because some of us do. Particularly when you demean the mental capacity of those who disagree with your economic views.

I'm only minimally responding directly to Col because he should know better. But Thales750, old chap, some people dislike vicious humor based on antiquated viewpoints... which is what we have come to expect from Col whenever he wakes up. We should call Col our "official forum groundhog" because it appears that he crawled out of his hole and saw his own shadow, and thus reacted to it.

Nothing in my reality gave me the context for that kind of humor. I thought he being critical of misogyny using sarcasm.

Pat did use it as an excuse to extrapolate my response into another attack on my character. That you continue to support her in that speaks your credibility.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Pat did use it as an excuse to extrapolate my response into another attack on my character. That you continue to support her in that speaks you credibility.

When you support Colin's misogyny, which is real as is his hatred for religion, you show us your character. My comment was simply redundant.

 

[ColinEssex]

When you support Colin's misogyny, which is real as is his hatred for religion,

You are of course entitled to your opinion however incorrect it is. Shame you don't let other members voice their opinions, even if they differ from yours.
Col

 

[ColinEssex]

Could you answer my questions please? Or are you going to avoid them as usual.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

All said was that when mothers had the option to be the primary child care giver, that act worked out for society. If you don't see that I meant that then your are systematically avoiding trying to listen, let alone understand.

Actually, I'm well aware that a child's chances to become a productive member of society increase with the number of parents who ... how shall I say this delicately? Who haven't left the family unit. What most likely reduces the child's chances - by percentage of occurrence - is the absent father who loves and leaves the woman with a child on the way.

The significant factor is that folks USUALLY presume that the mother is the one who has to give up something, but nobody talks very much about deadbeat dads. If there is inequality here, it is the sexist presumptions inherent in talking about the preordained evolutionary "duties" of a woman as a child-bearer and nurturer, but nobody emphasizes the corresponding duties of the man as protector and provider for his family - which implies that he would STAY with the family. I will acknowledge that some folks see that as a toxic belief, but the point was brought up when considering Col's comments, which were based on a "woman's role." If you are going to talk about one, talk about the other.

 

[ColinEssex]

When you support Colin's misogyny, which is real as is his hatred for religion, you show us your character.

Hmmmm, I wonder if your comments could be classed as a personal attack on another member as you mention me by name. Perhaps I should ask Doc for clarification.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Could you answer my questions please? Or are you going to avoid them as usual.
Col

Col, as you well know, your comments stir up people because you claim innocence in your ire-baiting comments. See my comments directed to Thales750, which includes a comment or two that is indirectly responsive to your diatribe on the effects of hiring women. Note that I am not at this time making any comments about any intention of banning anyone. However, please be aware that the new British law about online safety (avoiding use of derogatory comments online) MIGHT force Jon to make a banishment decision he would otherwise want to avoid. To be honest, I would hope that never happens - but it is a legitimate concern.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Hmmmm, I wonder if your comments could be classed as a personal attack on another member as you mention me by name. Perhaps I should ask Doc for clarification.
Col

Col, you have to realize from your own past experience on this site that your style of commenting is not always well received. If you DON'T realize that then you haven't been paying attention.

I will grant that your most recent comments in this thread appear prima facie to be innocent reminiscences of older times. It is hard to lay blame when your comments are taken individually. But I've been on the forum over 20 years and have seen your posts for many of those years. Some of your comments - when taken together - take a more disturbing trend as a revelation of racial, social, and gender bias. All of us have our biases. Mine happen to be mostly political or religious, and that isn't a surprise to anyone, I'm sure. You and I have butted heads over some of your past comments because I dislike unfairness when it is blatantly exposed, and your exposed biases tend to be unfair.

You asked me for a clarification. I don't speak for Jon - or anyone else on the forum, for that matter - but it is my personal OPINION that Pat's response was provoked. She knows better - but so do you. Other than possibly "wagging my finger" at BOTH of you disapprovingly, I see nothing actionable.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Could you answer my questions please? Or are you going to avoid them as usual.
Col

I don't avoid your questions but I probably should. You weren't joking and we all know it. Your misogyny is real and virulent and you have voiced it many times. Be proud of it and keep it up. The police will be knocking at your door because the UK has passed anti-free-speech laws and they're coming to get you I always wonder what kind of a mother you had. Maybe we should feel sorry for you that you hate women so much.

 

[ColinEssex]

I always wonder what kind of a mother you had.

Oh yes - families. I'd forgotten about that. How is your daughter now?
Col

 

[Thales750]

Actually, I'm well aware that a child's chances to become a productive member of society increase with the number of parents who ... how shall I say this delicately? Who haven't left the family unit. What most likely reduces the child's chances - by percentage of occurrence - is the absent father who loves and leaves the woman with a child on the way.

The significant factor is that folks USUALLY presume that the mother is the one who has to give up something, but nobody talks very much about deadbeat dads. If there is inequality here, it is the sexist presumptions inherent in talking about the preordained evolutionary "duties" of a woman as a child-bearer and nurturer, but nobody emphasizes the corresponding duties of the man as protector and provider for his family - which implies that he would STAY with the family. I will acknowledge that some folks see that as a toxic belief, but the point was brought up when considering Col's comments, which were based on a "woman's role." If you are going to talk about one, talk about the other.

Could not agree more.

When I make statements it is almost never meant to be taken unequivocally . Some people here make nothing but those kinds of statements and then misquote me to make it sound like I made them. Or, take what I say and extrapolate it to an extreme.

I think it would be nice if you didn't always side with her unequivocally. Just sayin' Doc