As opposed to the Daddy who kicks your door in to see if you're smoking pot or talking to Al Qaeda.

Bush-Daddy only hits you because he loves you.

Bush-Daddy only hits you because he loves you.

Actually, Bush-Daddy is drunk again, was trying to hit Laura-Mommy, and missed.

Bush daddy is drunk and swinging because his ratings are so far in the toilet that he'll soon be rated the worst president ever.

with the worst Congress ever following closely behind

And that mitigates Bush's poor ratings in what way?

And that mitigates Bush's poor ratings in what way?

It doesn't.  It shows how the GOP's obstructionist policies have created a "do-nothing Congress", in the hopes that they could used that as ammo at the ballot box.  But it ain't gonna work - the GOP will be the minority party for some time to come.

Veto proof majority.

You know, I really cannot understand why the cons do not get this little aspect of our government. I thought they were supposed to be the Constitutional experts and stuff. They are always screaming about it. Especially The Detestable One... he is a Constitutional lawyer, among other things which are better left unsaid here.

Part of the reason their ratings are so low is because President Numbnuts has clearly committed impeachable offenses and they have done NOTHING.

Compare Bill Clinton's "crime" to what Numbnuts has done..... and they won't even hold hearings?

I see that Lee Rogers didn't heed the warning of what happens to a partisan (like his old co-host Melanie Morgan, Imus, or I suppose to a certain extent Randi Rhodes) that takes things to far.

Perhaps this one won;t do it, but I give this clown less than 9 months before he does or says something that gets him off the air as well.

It won't be a liberal conspiracy, it won't be a silencing of someones first amendment right.... it will be a collection of citizens rallying against another mud slinger!

Not to mention dead beat dads who have all the fun of making a baby but split long before they can be forced to pay a cent in child support.  Only the nastiest male chauvinist prig wold not hold both the father and the mother equally responsible for sleeping together resulting in the conception of a child, and  then allows either the mom or the dad to not support the child is a prig.  Unfortunately, the male often gets off scott free.  This sort of depraved male chauvenism says it all about the far right anti-welfare freaks.  Guess what men, you help make a baby, you are just as responsible as the mom to support the baby. THAT IS THE LAW.  If you do not like the rule, keep your pants zipped.  So stop this sexist whine!!!!

No specifics, no statistics, no sources, no basis. 

Just a kneejerk, pulled-from-his-behind theory as to why Democrats have an advantage over Republicans for the female vote. 

 

 

 

I'm sure the right to choose issue is a big one.  I think there are a lot of more important factors than what this person cited. 

Excuse me?

What this guy cited doesn't rise the level of a "factor." What Rodgers said was pure bat squeeze and you know it.

Women vote Democratic because democrats care about equality. It's that simple.

Only for those women who feel they need the government's help in making them equal. For those who don't, they may vote elsewhere.

:) 

Whatever, dude. The history of the women's movement is one of women coming together to fight inequality.

Well, lookie here! What is this... you channeling Rush?

Were women able to get the Nineteenth Amendment without government involvement?

Were women and minorities able to get the Civil Rights Act without government involvement? 

So we are where we were then? Ahhh....ok.

History is always conveniently irrelevant or inapplicable, isn't it?

Oh Pete, come on.  That's ridiculous.  That's like saying blacks have the same struggles and battles that they did during slavery and need the same intervention for equality.  If you can't see the apples and oranges in your comparison, so be it.

This did start with Rounds assertion that women vote Democratic because they care about equality.

Now, where would Round possibly get an idea like that?  And why would it be so relevant in this day and age?

It couldn't be how Republicans vote on such issues as recently as last year, would it? 

Well, women, or men for that matter, who look to government to solve their problems or fix their inequities may vote Democratic, those that rely on themselves and their perseverance may vote otherwise.  Because they don't feel they need the help up, or the hand out.  

Or they may note Democratic when they feel that their self-determination and perseverence is being ignored, discouraged or hindered by employers and the Republicans that their employers donate to and vote for.

Equality is a hand out? 

Equality is a hand out?

Did I say that?  No. 

You implied it.

"Well, women, or men for that matter, who look to government to solve their problems or fix their inequities may vote Democratic, those that rely on themselves and their perseverance may vote otherwise. Because they don't feel they need the help up, or the hand out."

Oh, Tommy that rugged individualist line is so played out. People who still believe that government has no role to play in fostering an economy that works for all are dinosaurs.

If it isn't obvious by now to the you're on your own crowd that people working together, through good government, toward common goals, to achieve a better future for all, is more effective than the individual can mount to secure a propserous livleihood, they'll sustain more and more electoral losses.

Rugged individualism may be a tired line to you, but I tend to think it is a fine goal, for everyone, if they work hard enough it, they can be one too.

:) 

The game is rigged against the individual. Community and togetherness is where it's at, brother.

One doesn't fight the other Round. Community, togetherness and individual responsibility make a damn good marriage.

Not really. Individualism eschews cooperation and pits neighbor against neighbor in competition for security. To be the self-centered individualist actually rips communities apart.

I never said self-centered, those are your words.  Individual responsibility is not self centered, is that what you believe? 

What it is to take care of your responsibilities so they do not fall on someone else, that is the very definition of being self centered.

And I never said the individual is without responsibility. Of course a person has to be responsible for themselves, but that's only half the equation.

I got mine, you get yours is socially irresponsible. The largest part of personal responsibility, the most rewarding part is lifting up those around you.

Well, if people put their priority in taking care of their responsibilities first and foremost, live within their means, be responsible when bringing children into the world, make smart moral choices while avoiding bad moral mistakes, work hard and realize being self sufficient financially is by far the most rewarding......then all else falls into place for decent, giving and responsible people.  Communities thrive, cities prosper, states are stronger and our nation is much better off, in every way.

Except you ignore the reality of a marketplace that does not honor labor. So many people follow that prescription of keeping their noses to the grindstone but at the end of the day they can't afford to get sick, they can't feed their family or keep them warm eventhough they hold a full-time job or two. It's profit over people. It's unacceptable.

That's what I mean by the game is rigged against the individual.

If we pool our resources, share the risk and share the reward, we all do better. When we all do better, we all do better.

What's funny is those very same Republicans who talk about self-reliance, etc, and eschew community, try to claim they they have the highest morals and they are the ones who value Christianity.

Ever hear of communion? Guess what it's root is? The same root as community. Guess who Jesus fought strongest for? Those who could not pull themselves up with rugged individuality. Social Justice was Jesus's main goal. Having the community help those in the community that needed help was his aim. Yet here we see compasionate conservatism in action.

Amen!

Wouldn't it be something if they aspired to everything the Bible teaches?  Instead of just the part about not being gay?

Meanwhile, they'll keep beating the war drums against homosexuals while poverty related causes will kill thousands of children daily.

Why does Leviticus 20 outrage make bigger headlines than Matthew 25 outrage?

 

 

Liberals are a curious bunch. They can't scurry away from religion fast enough when it's associated with certain tenets they feel will be imposed on their "morality", yet they snuggle up to it when they can use their own biblical passages to redistribute income and enact their sainted social programs. Make up your mind, do you want only our tax and welfare laws based on religion, but that's it, right?

More emotional arguments.

There's a huge difference between the two.  Even outside of a religious context, the teachings of Jesus had a perfectly valid societal rationale.  Anyone and everyone can appreciate that and understand the basis for what he was saying (even atheists like me).  On the other hand, disdain for homosexuality is a judgment based on what the Bible says and nothing else.  There's no societal basis for condemning that, because the entire problem is that society hasn't accepted it, with no other factors to consider.  If society can deal with it, then there's no problem at all.  So use of the Bible to condemn homosexuality is based on faith alone, while passages about caring for everyone in society have strong ties to secular morals.

Fine. But neither are applicable in making tax laws or social policy. You can't use one when convenient, and dismiss the other when it's not.

I happen to think "societal rationale" and "secular morals" are EXTREMELY important in making tax laws AND social policy!!!

You can respect what Jesus said without being religious at all.  I happen to think he was a great philosopher but wasn't actually the son of God.  And has been pointed out, you can use societal morals to make social policy.

If there's something that requires faith alone to believe, then that is no basis for any policy.  I don't see how the teachings of Jesus fit into that category, since the merit of his words do not hinge on whether he's sent from God or not. 

Conservatives are a curious bunch. They can't scurry away from religion fast enough when it's associated with certain tenets they feel will be imposed on their personal income, yet they snuggle up to it when they can use their own biblical passages to turn otherwise law-abiding people into a hostile force bent on destruction of marriage the American family.

Make up your mind, you want only our marriage laws based on religion, but that's it, right? 

More kneejerk crap. 

More emotional arguments.- tommy

No need for the footnote summary, Tommy.Everybody can read your posts.Or was it a teaser for more emotional arguments... coming soon!

Liberals are a curious bunch. They can't scurry away from religion fast enough when it's associated with certain tenets they feel will be imposed on their "morality", yet they snuggle up to it when they can use their own biblical passages to redistribute income and enact their sainted social programs. Make up your mind, do you want only our tax and welfare laws based on religion, but that's it, right?

More emotional arguments.

- TOMMY / Thursday June 12, 2008 10:37:28 PM EDT

No, Tommy, you're being willfully ignorant. We don't think the Bible has any more justification on economics than on fashion (Leviticus prohibits you from wearing clothing spun from two types of fibers--check your labels, everyone!!!)

We point out these Biblical passages to point out the RAMPANT HYPOCRISY of "Bible-thumpers."

I don't care one whit more what Jesus said about economic policy than what I care about what Constantine, Buddha, Milton Friedman, Ghandi. or Karl Marx said. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with evaluating different ideas and examining their merits.

Well, if people put their priority in taking care of their responsibilities first and foremost, live within their means, be responsible when bringing children into the world, make smart moral choices while avoiding bad moral mistakes, work hard and realize being self sufficient financially is by far the most rewarding......then all else falls into place for decent, giving and responsible people. Communities thrive, cities prosper, states are stronger and our nation is much better off, in every way.

- TOMMY / Thursday June 12, 2008 6:49:30 PM EDT

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary." James Madison, The Federalist, #51.

So, congratulations, Tommy, you have come up with a solution that the Founding Fathers knew was utter hogwash 220+ years ago...

Your ideal solution might work perfectly well on ideally-programmed robots, but since I am a human being, and my neighbors and colleagues are all human beings, I would like a government with policies that work when applied TO HUMAN BEINGS, not to some theoretical moralist abstraction that doesn't actually exist.

Why don't you go build your own internets, Tommy? Quit suckiling at the Government teat. Let us know when you've got 'er running, we can all come over and ask Why It's There.  ;0)

I have written to Al Gore to help me invent my own, he's too busy solving global warming.....so go tell him.

Some rugged individualist. Asked somebody else to help you, then gave up when you realized you were on your own.

But keep talking the talk, Lone Wolf.  ;0)

Yeah, why do you need help? Sorta goes against that 'enterprising, go at it alone' attitude that the Right loves to push, doesn't it?

If I was a loan officer for the SBA I would be sure to toss your small business loan app straight into the trash. How's THAT for keeping 'guvmint' outta your life?

those that rely on themselves and their perseverance may vote otherwise...

That's bull crap and you know it.  Your implication is that people who work hard do not vote for Democrats.  That, my friend, is ridiculous and idiotic.  Government has and still can help people - its just been about 8 years ago that it last happened but maybe you were too young to remember those days.

Well, maybe not the exact same struggles during slavery but they are still struggling today, are they not?

I see women at every level of success, in every business, at every achievable measure being respected and honored, hell, one was a hair from her party's presidential nomination.  To compare on any planet the struggles of today's women with those in the early 20th century is not only incredibly disrespectful of those women, but ridiculous.  

Did you not read my post? BTW, I was talking about the blacks but we'll go with the women instead. I did not say that the struggles were the same as they were a century and a half ago. I DID say that they are still struggling, albeit in different ways.

Everybody struggles, it's called life.  Nobody has the market on it, sorry.

Then you actually agree that the struggle does and should continue. So my question to you is, what the hell is your point?

Why do you insist on twisting my words, that is not like you Round.  Normally you make your points, good ones, and move on.

I never said struggle should continue. I said that struggling is a part of life, is it not?  Everyone struggles for something, money, family, health, job, relationships - everyone.  Many of our struggles are a result of our own doing, some by poor choices, and others are not, like bad breaks or ill health.  

Nobody, or no special interest group, has a monopoly on tough times, sorry, I don't buy it. 

"Candide, who beheld all that passed and saw his benefactor one moment rising above water, and the next swallowed up by the merciless waves, was preparing to jump after him, but was prevented by the philosopher Pangloss, who demonstrated to him that the roadstead of Lisbon had been made on purpose for the Anabaptist to be drowned there."

http://www.pangloss.com/Candide/chapter5.html

Tommy, you, like Pangloss, have crossed WAAAAY past the line of "rugged individualism" and into righteous selfishness shabbily (and falsely) justified by the claim that what is, must be.

And study after study confirms that women lag behind men in pay scales for doing the same work, are less likely to be hired with the same qualifications, and are less likely to be perceived as being good at their jobs with the same achievements. If you bring up Hillary Clinton, just look at the ridiculous amount of sexism she endured during her campaign (As MMFA has documented)...

And just how, exactly, without legal recourse, do you expect these STILL disadvantaged people to be able to strike out on their own??

And were women denied rights by a bunch of male chauvinists in the first place.  Of course since I I did not read one woman's name in the roster of the constitutional Convention.  So your arguement is?  Of course women had to fight for their rights because a bunch of men denied them their rights.

Only for those women who feel they need the government's help in making them equal. For those who don't, they may vote elsewhere.

Uh, Tommy - if it weren't for the government ratifying the 19th Amendment in 1920 to give women the right to vote, NOW women would be voting ANYWHERE.

Government has a vital role in our lives.  Except when it's run by Republicnas, as Bush has demonstrated over the past 7 years.

I love this piece... take note of the irony.

The Republican, rightwing, 'screw guvmint', red as blood South sucks up most of the federal tax money paid by... you guessed it... those 'elitist' and 'snotty' Northern 'libruls'.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E3DA163EF93BA35753C1A960958260

Talk about biting the hand... god...

Yeah, it's from '96 but it still applies... even more so.

Actually, Tommy, yes: if you're seeking equal rights, protections, and recognition under the law, then yes, your objective is to effect change at the level of the government. What is so hard to understand about that?

Tommy, if i were you, I would just shut up!!!!.  You have not one iotoof insight into what you are talking about.   Our reasons for supporting Democrats is far ranging as are people's reasons for supporting Republicans.  Some like me were Republicans when folks like Javits and the good guys still controlled our party and then we got out.  But, the thought that we only support Democrats on the basis of reproductive rights is just stupid.  But that attitude assure that Republicans will lose female voters in droves every year until they get it.  I see the Republican brand totally decimated for years to come since they insisted on electing Bush the dodo and Cheney the criminal.     Amazing that the Bush stacked court still found his administration in violation of the Constitution on the gitmo detainees and still even some bright, thinking Republicans I know still support the villiam.  Very strange, indeed.

Welfare is a safety net that some women would view as a factor to consider.  Republicans don't campaign on that stuff.  That's just my opinion.

Oh, you think he was talking about welfare. Nice to get a glimpse into the way the conservative mind works. To me it sounded like Rodgers was simply saying that most women can't be trusted to manage their own lives without a big strong man to take care of them.

But, given the utter failures conservatism has wrought over the last few decades and electoral losses they are staring down this year, maybe they should adopt a more welfare friendly stance.

"....Daddy in terms of paying the bills"

The reference was clearly welfare. 

Says you.

Tommy, my objection to your first statement was about the fact you ONLY held the mother responsible for a pregnancy.  Is it really your thinking that a man who fathered a child has NO responsibility to support that child.  You blame the entire mess on the woman?  If not, why did you not mention the dead bear dad who refused to support the child he fathered.  I am a child advocate and I have many children whose mothers are struggling but who try to support their child but the dad sim0ply does not help with the child support.  Most of those dads we haul into court and they are fianlly held as accountable as the moms are in supporting their child.  If men object so supporting their child, let them keep their pants zipped.  Your sexist comment had to do with the fact you mentioned only the mom for not supporting her child.  That is truly unequal jsutice and chauvenistr.

I thought the welfare inference was clear as well.

I'm gonna pull a Tommy on you. Did he say welfare? No. He was simply being a pig.

Tommy says "If he didn't say it, then he didn't say it".  So by that standard, he did not refer to welfare.

No doubt. Rodgers may have been talking about welfare, but I think he was specifically using emotionally manipulative stereotypes of single mothers to rip social programs in general.

Since he never mentioned welfare, my insistence that Rodgers was simply being a pig should be easy for the literalists to accept.

I believe it was a reference to welfare as well.  His statement does, however, pigeonhole ALL single mothers into being welfare recipients, which what really makes this the words of a misogynistic scumbag.

I am not defending what he said, but he didn't say ALL, he clearly says some.

Actually, he said "a lot".

Yes, exactly.

"a lot of women in this country who get knocked up and they don't have a husband."

That's ALL single mothers. 

Uh, no.

He used "some" to describe the women who will be offended,

and then he painted all single mothers with a broad brush.

There is no point in arguing such a minor point, but he did say "a lot", not "all".  It's right there. 

Nope, you're wrong.

You may want to actually read what he said, Tommy. He said, "We have a lot of women in this country who get knocked up and they don't have a husband." He didn't say "a lot of single mothers..." he said "a lot of women are single mothers." He then said that those women treat the government as the "daddy." So yes, he pretty much said all single mothers use the government to support themselves.

Are welfare mothers that big of a voting block? The implication was that women in general want to be taken care of.

This, apparently, is one of those cretins who seem to defy "market forces" and gets to spew nonsense out over the radio. How does that work, exactly? Is this really what the audience wants to hear, or is some corporate sugardaddy subsidizing this twerp's career? I'm not questioning his right to do it, I just challenge the oft-heard assertion that Conservative talk radio dominates the market because it is somehow far superior in quality to Liberal talk radio. I just don't buy it.

I'd like to see a real investigative reporter look into the whole talk radio "phenomenon", and follow the money trails. I think it could be interesting.

And I definitely think you're on to something.  I find it hard to believe more people aren't outraged when they hear comments like this from people who aren't comedians, but fancy themselves knowledgeable in the political arena.  Lames have continually suggested Hillary Clinton funds mediamatters.  I wonder if their isn't a conservative entity heavily invested in keeping ignorance like this on public airwaves.  I bet you there is a money trail that leads somewhere . . .

Who owns ClearChannel?  And what about Rupert?  I'm sure you're right.

I think "outrage" is the whole point. I imagine half of the listeners of rightwing radio are people who, according to Marc Maron, comedian and one time AAR radio jock, like to "get their hate on". You know, smart people who cannot believe what they're hearing.

1984 is the model strategy for the Republican Party. All the radio morons are supplying the daily "two-minute hate" for the masses who listen and can do nothing more than droolingly follow what the voices say.

Substitute "Muslims" or "welfare queens" or "illegal immigrants" for "Goldberg" from the book, and it all falls into place. 

 

 "but here's another dose of reality"

Okay so is Rodgers saying women associate democrats with father figures?  Or is he insinuating most femlaes who get knocked up depend on Uncle Sam to pay the bills.  That's a pretty broad way to marginalize single mothers.  You know what's amazing, is their insensitivity is completely lost to them.  What reality does he live in?!?

Or is he insinuating most femlaes who get knocked up depend on Uncle Sam to pay the bills.

No, that would be relatively reasonable compared to what he's actually saying, that a large part of the 1/2 of the voters in this country who vote Democratic are single mothers on welfare.

It's not a wildly over-the-top idea by righty radio standards. I hear callers all the time who seem convinced that Republicans are all hard-working rugged individuals who are supporting all of the  non-Republicans , who are sitting at home drinking malt liquor.

And a lot of these "hard working" Republicans just think it's scandalous that anybody wants to tax billionaires. I guess they assume that someday, they will all be billionaires too.... because they work so hard.

And they won't...which brings us full circle to all that "rugged individualism" and where exactly it really gets you in a society that isn't organized to help the individual...

We have a lot of women in this country who get knocked up and they don't have a husband.

 

WTF?  

 

I'm sorry, every single one of the "men" and "women" pundits have lost their ever loving minds. 

Mr. Rodgers, Do you realize that many of these single moms probably make more money than you? Many single moms work to support their child dismissing any hand-out from daddy. Many single women are a result of divorce and do not look for a handout. Many single women have children out-of-wedlock and may need some help from others. But your silly remark is either just plain silly or you are somehow referring to poor women and just maybe trying to throw in Black women.

But just because more women vote for Democrats is not a result of your reasoning maybe they do it because of the way you come to these silly conclusions. And the stupid comment will not help the Republan cause. When will the Republans throw the simple minded Conservatives out of their party?

When Democrats do the same. :-)

Lieberman left voluntarily. ;0) ;0) ;0)

I'm trying to get those Conservatives out of the Democratic Party but they belong to the Democrat Party so it is very difficult to find them. If you know of any, please call 1-999-IHA-TE06.

A few stats from the Census Bureau that pertain to Rodgers' ridiculous theory:

5.6 million: Number of stay-at-home moms (2006)

10.4 million: The number of single mothers living with children younger than 18 (2006)

67%: Percentage of women who gave birth for the first time between 2001 and 2003 and worked during their pregnancy. This compares with 44 percent who gave birth for the first time between 1961 and 1965.  

83%: The percentage of mothers who went back to work within a year of their child’s birth who returned to the same employer.

55%: Among mothers with infants in 2004, the percentage in the labor force, down from a record high of 59 percent in 1998. 

 

 

 

Your facts are useless against the emotional appeals of the conservative stereotype. And yet conservatives still believe that liberals argue from emotion while cons argue from facts.

Their REAL call sign...

When I used to commute, I often listened to KSFO just to hear the latest distortions, lies and fabrications being spewed forth from America's hate radio.

Early on, I realized that, even though they're way west of the Mississippi, their call sign really should be WKKK.

It'd be a much better fit.

 

 

Is that a different Daddy than the one who wants to tell you that you can't have control of your own reproductive system.

A lack of a husband, somehow I get the feeling he puts the responsibility for this entirely in the womans hands. There are reasons for this beyond, he was a scum sucking bastid who got lucky, or stacked the deck. Rape, incest, accidents, ignorance.

Supporting society means dealing with what is and having options beyond the nuclear family with 2.4 kids for people who just do not fit that life style.

Good points, Eweston. Rodgers (and others) focus on those knocked-up welfare queens, and portraying that group as a large number of Americans, is just another distraction to make sure the talk radio zombies don't pay attention to who's really picking their pocket.

On the other hand, some of the con posters may be able to get me on board railing against the nanny state today. I just popped into El Pollo Loco on my way back to the office. Only after ordering my food did I notice the salsa bar stripped of all tomato-based salsas.

The humanity ! But I'm ok, apparently tomatillos are still cool, and the green stuff was stocked up.

Only after ordering my food did I notice the salsa bar stripped of all tomato-based salsas.

I read of a man in Texas, celebrating that he was cancer-free after six years of treatments. He and his family went to a restaurant to celebrate, and he died of salmonella from the salsa. His system had been compromised.

There's a reason food should be inspected. But the GOP thinks that interferes with the God-given right of businesses to maximize their profits at the expense of the dead people who would have been saved had the inspections been carried out. 

Right on. You guys have touched on an underlying theme that Tom Sullivan has been writing about. Basically, Sullivan asserts, Republicans don't mind being told what to do, so long as it's the, "right kind of people," telling them what they can and connot do.

This guy sucks. What the hell is a mother to do if the father won't take responsibility?

If you do not care for the innocent children that end up in this mess, then you are not "pro-family".

Agreed...and this nonsense is coming from the party of 'personal responsibility'...what a joke they are!

O.k.,,. it;s clear that none of us here care for right-wing radio. 'Nuff said.

But the core of what he said, regardless of naming a phony, conservative think-tank white paper or other special interest group's report, is probably not that far off the real mark.

We don't like to hear it coming from a righty, especially Melanie Morgan's former troll doll, but my experience has been that many young, scared mothers, who made a baby with no lingering daddy and her family is indifferernt to her plight, do rely on government programs to help them with food, medical bills, transporation, day care...all the stuff we normally pay for ourselves. 

My dearly departed Mom worked in our state's child protective services division for 22 years and I heard the stories. As compassionate, liberal and feminist as she was, young mothers who made a baby knowing the dad was going to disappear sooner than later made her furious because she knew what a life and lifestyle they had inadvertantly created with the baby.

And she knew they would be hooked to some serious government programs in order to survive with very young children.

Yep one billion dollars a year in federal tax money just to support teenage mothers in Texas.

I'd like to think an actual sex education program would do wonders in this area.

I would agree with you if he held the man equally responsible for fathering the child and if he directed as much unease towards a deadbeat dad.  I have some male children and I made certain they understood that if they got a woman pregnant, they were daddies for life and no skippong out on their responsibility.  I object to his discussion not on the basis of non support of children that I too find reprehensible, but that the claim is not directed to both dead beat dads and dead beat moms.  That is totally sexist.

It's not sexist. It's a fact of biological reality. Two people have a kid, the dad skips off, the mom doesn't have a lot of choices other than abortion or adoption or the government. In some cases, her family might help out, I think, unless they've disowned their own by then. I'll bet family help ususally comes in the form of a fist in a velvet glove because they probably didn't approve of the guy in the first place!

 

As far as deadbeats dads go, that's why we have the Office of Recovery Services. And they do not play nice.

" Two people have a kid, the dad skips off, the mom doesn't have a lot of choices other than abortion or adoption or the government."

What are you talkin' about? The majority of single moms work and work hard for unequal pay.

Take your stupid stereotypes to freepersissies.com.

Why'd Lee Rodgers have to drag his family into it?

a lot of women in this country who get knocked up and they don't have a husband

He's talking about the FLDS women and girls in their "spiritual marriages", or at least he should be.

The only Rogers that should be a political pundit is Will.

Well, women, or men for that matter, who look to government to solve their problems or fix their inequities may vote Democratic, those that rely on themselves and their perseverance may vote otherwise.  Because they don't feel they need the help up, or the hand out. 

I had once believed that we were all masters of our fate -- that we could mold our lives into any form we pleased... I had overcome deafness and blindness sufficiently to be happy, and I supposed that anyone could come out victorious if he threw himself valiantly into life's struggle. But as I went more and more about the country I learned that I had spoken with assurance on a subject I knew little about. I forgot that I owed my success partly to the advantages of my birth and environment... Now, however, I learned that the power to rise in the world is not within the reach of everyone.            -- Helen Keller

Great quote, Carn. I've noticed, living in (or adjacent to) a fairly affluent area of Southern California, that a lot of that "rugged individualist" talk comes out of the mouths of trust fund babies and the beneficiaries of the wills of hard-working people.

I think a child is a blessing to the world.  I also know some women (personally I might add) who have children very irresponsibly and expect the government to pony up.  However, to insinuate most women vote democrat because they don't have their child's father to financially support their family is ludicrous and it diminishes the female vote. Moreover, some of these people so worried about social programs taking away their hard earned money, should look to the social program going on in Iraq.   

So TOMMY...you are saying only women who need government support in some form are Dem's?  Are you serious? Maybe if so much of this country wasn't still operating under the "good 'ol boy" rules, we wouldn't need government intervention to ensure equality. Regardless if the propaganda re: how far we've come, one look at labor stastics (yes, statistics...from the gov't) shows there is still a glass ceiling in this country. On the average (of course there are always individual exceptions, but on the average) women still make 70% of what men do for the same job.  That is crap. It is the old politics (of the boardroom, not just legislatively) at work. Anyone who doesn't see that is burying their head in the sand, or simply a good old chauvinist pig.  Bet you don't have a daughter...if you do, I feel sorry for her.

Who is this guy? Archie Bunker on crack? To him, the woman is responsible for the pregnancy, leeching off the man for "help" with the child and when the "man" runs away from his own child she burdens the government. Maybe sexist boys who screw irresponsibly burden innocent women with their mistakes and then run away leaving them little choice but to turn to the women and men who pay taxes for government to help them. Perhaps the reason why women distrust Republicans is because it takes Democrats to fight for equal pay for equal work, family friendly work rights, maternity leave, healthcare for children, anti-sexual harrassment legislation, hate-crime legislation, stricter rape law,  and .... what do Republicans offer? Hell, they'll do all they can to prevent you from marrying another woman, but that's about iit, girlie.

How exactly to these women get knocked up without men?  I mean, obviously if men were involved they'd be stand-up guys and take responsibility.