# Moms are turning to crowdfunding to help pay for maternity leave



## Preacher (Mar 11, 2016)

Moms Are Turning To Crowdfunding To Help Pay For Maternity Leave
This is just sad. The only industrial nation that DOES NOT have paid maternity leave....disgusting. Obama and the democrats had 2 years to get this done with majorities in Congress and did NOTHING.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 11, 2016)

Do you know where each of the candidates running for President stands on paid maternity leave?


----------



## Preacher (Mar 11, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Do you know where each of the candidates running for President stands on paid maternity leave?


Here’s Where The Major Presidential Candidates Stand On Paid Family Leave

Sanders is obviously the strongest on it. Of course its part of the reason I like Senator Sanders.


----------



## dblack (Mar 11, 2016)

What does government have to do with whether your employer pays you to have children?


----------



## Preacher (Mar 11, 2016)

dblack said:


> What does government have to do with whether your employer pays you to have children?


YAWN. If you can't or don't comprehend how the US is the ONLY civilized nation that doesn't offer then you are one of the ones who obviously doesn't care and therefore its useless to even try explaining.


----------



## dblack (Mar 11, 2016)

Odium said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > What does government have to do with whether your employer pays you to have children?
> ...



That, or your position makes no sense and trying to explain it would be painful and humiliating.


----------



## Preacher (Mar 11, 2016)

dblack said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


When the rest of the civilized world has something then obviously it makes sense. I can't explain things to a caveman republitard who really doesn't care anyways.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 11, 2016)

Odium said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > What does government have to do with whether your employer pays you to have children?
> ...



dblack would be one of those people arguing "But what about MY rights?  I don't have kids, but I should get at least as much paid leave as some woman who wants to have kids!"  Or maybe "Women need to decide whether they want a career or kids.  Why should they have both?"


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 11, 2016)

Why should a business owner or taxpayer be forced to pay for a woman to go off and have a kid?   .....


----------



## dblack (Mar 11, 2016)

Odium said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



I'm not a Republican.


----------



## dblack (Mar 11, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> Why should a business owner be forced to pay for a woman to go off and have a kid?   .....



Because the rest of the world. Duh.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 11, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> Why should a business owner or taxpayer be forced to pay for a woman to go off and have a kid?   .....



An intelligent business owner wants to retain good employees.

An intelligent taxpayer understands what happens to countries with low birth-rates.

Someone who is neither asks stupid questions.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 11, 2016)

You know, being in the military kinda shielded me from a lot of the way things are done in civilian life.  20 years in the Navy, and because the Navy gives 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, I thought that civilian businesses would give out at least 6.  I based that on the fact that civilians got only 2 weeks (14 days) vacation per year, whereas in the military we get a full 30 days of paid vacation (leave) per year, so I figured the civilian world would be about half for this as well.

Yes, I think that paid maternity leave should be given to all mothers, at the very least 4 weeks, because bonding is important for the mother and the child. 

Hey, like I said, the military does it (even fathers are eligible for a shorter period of time), so why can't others?


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 11, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Someone who is neither asks stupid questions.


Incorrect Poindexter.

Women have been shooting out kids without government help for tens of thousands of years.

Only liberal progressive loons think the government suddenly needs to intervene.   .....


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 11, 2016)

Speaking of vacation:

List of minimum annual leave by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 11, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> Women have been shooting out kids without government help for tens of thousands of years.



An intelligent person would know your numbers are off by millennia...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 11, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Speaking of vacation:
> 
> List of minimum annual leave by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Know what the best part about the military leave policy?  You could save leave up to 60 days, but if you had over 60 days, you had to use it by the end of the fiscal year or lose it, but, you could carry  over 60 days into the next year and build on that if you manage it right.

When I went on retirement leave, I had a full 72 days built up.  It was nice to be on vacation for 2 and a half months, getting full pay, but not having to do anything.


----------



## dblack (Mar 11, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Why should a business owner or taxpayer be forced to pay for a woman to go off and have a kid?   .....
> ...



An intelligent person doesn't want government telling them who they can work for.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 11, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Is that what you think this thread is about?


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 11, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> An intelligent person would know your numbers are off by millennia...


Were you born retarded or did you suffer a head injury later in life?   .....


----------



## dblack (Mar 11, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Of course it is. If government mandates maternity leave, they're telling us we can't work for an employer that doesn't offer maternity leave. It gets old explaining such basic facts to you. Are you really this stupid? Or is it just part of your propaganda?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 11, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > An intelligent person would know your numbers are off by millennia...
> ...



So no one ever explained to you where babies come from?  How sad.  Write another meaningless off-topic post.



dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Is that how you think it works?


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 11, 2016)

dblack said:


> Of course it is. If government mandates maternity leave, they're telling us we can't work for an employer that doesn't offer maternity leave. It gets old explaining such basic facts to you. Are you really this stupid? Or is it just part of your propaganda?


dblack, I'm not going to waste any more time responding to this obvious Troll.

I suggest that you do the same......and maybe he will just go away.   .....


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 11, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is. If government mandates maternity leave, they're telling us we can't work for an employer that doesn't offer maternity leave. It gets old explaining such basic facts to you. Are you really this stupid? Or is it just part of your propaganda?
> ...



dblack isn't a troll, just someone with very rigid opinions.


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 11, 2016)

*^^^^^^^^^      *  *^^^^^^^^^^*


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 11, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> *^^^^^^^^^      *  *^^^^^^^^^^*



So what would you consider a reasonable amount of time for a woman to bond with a newborn before she went back to work?


----------



## dblack (Mar 11, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



If maternity leave is mandated by government, yes. You deny it?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 11, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



If you want to do business in Country X, you abide by the regulations in Country X.

Otherwise you should move your corporate HQ as well as your manufacturing and revenue overseas.  I hear Somalia's amenable for scamster entities like you.

So what would you consider a reasonable amount of time for a woman to bond with a newborn before she went back to work?


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 11, 2016)

* ^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^*


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I live in Country X. I have a vested interested in avoiding stupid laws.



> Otherwise you should move your corporate HQ as well as your manufacturing and revenue overseas.  I hear Somalia's amenable for scamster entities like you.



Somalia!!!!



> So what would you consider a reasonable amount of time for a woman to bond with a newborn before she went back to work?



I wouldn't presume to make that call for someone else. That's where our disagreement lies.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 12, 2016)

dblack said:


> I wouldn't presume to make that call for someone else.



And yet employers do.  So shall we put you in the "corporations are people" column or the "CEOs are wealthy and powerful, therefore they know best" column or just your usual ?


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't presume to make that call for someone else.
> ...



Put me in the column of people who understand the difference between employers and government.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 12, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That's patently obvious.  You praise employers (except for insurers) for doing the exact things you condemn government for doing.

Either exploiting people is wrong or it isn't.  You feel "it depends on who's doing the exploiting."

You'll say "If these women don't like it, they can just go work somewhere else."

But if someone says to you "If you don't like the way your country's run, you can go live somewhere else" you get all upset.

To most people there are other choices.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Nope. Not even close. Employers can't pass laws, they can't arrest you and put you in jail if you defy them. The worst they can do is fire you. If you can't  understand that, then you're never going to understand my political opinions.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 12, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Apparently you believe a mother's right to spend a few extra weeks with her newborn - not to mention the benefits to the baby - is a political issue.

You're right.  There's no reasoning with that mindset.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Exactly the opposite.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 12, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Is that why you're trying to turn it into one?


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



WTF?? Are you just playing Orwellian word games, or do you really not understand what I'm saying? I'm saying it should NOT be a political issue - government should have no say in the matter. What part of that is confusing you?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 12, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Get back to me when you succeed in overturning all the special privileges government has granted corporations at taxpayer expense.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Vote libertarian. We're working on exactly that.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 12, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Get back to me when you succeed in overturning all the special privileges government has granted corporations at taxpayer expense.
> ...



I admire your optimism.  But first you have to wrest control from the Tea Party that has co-opted so many libertarians and done little more than throw tantrums and wear funny hats.

Once you manage to get them to go stand in the corner, you can work on ending corporate tax breaks for Things That Hurt the Taxpayer.

If that ever happens, I'll be marching right next to you.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



The Tea Party are Republicans. I'm talking about the actual Libertarian Party.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 12, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



They claim to be libertarians, lower case.  That's about the only thing they can agree on (well, that and the funny hats).

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party seems to be running Gary Johnson again, but few people seem to know that.  Is it a fund-raising issue?


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Sure. Funds, press, and - more than anything else - the sense of permanence people grant to the Democrats and Republicans. With the Republicans imploding this could be a good year for us. But it's hard to have much hope in light of the kind of mentality driving the shift.

But Johnson hasn't been nominated yet. The national convention is being held at the end of May.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 15, 2016)

Odium said:


> Moms Are Turning To Crowdfunding To Help Pay For Maternity Leave
> This is just sad. The only industrial nation that DOES NOT have paid maternity leave....disgusting. Obama and the democrats had 2 years to get this done with majorities in Congress and did NOTHING.



Sounds like family is funding it.

That's great !  

I would think this would be one more way for companies to compete for top talent.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 16, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > Moms Are Turning To Crowdfunding To Help Pay For Maternity Leave
> ...



Really?  Because the U.S. Military allows for 12 weeks of maternity leave.

They also allow 6 weeks for the father.

Seems that the military (a government job) provides better than some civilian jobs.


----------



## dblack (Mar 16, 2016)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



There are plenty of good reasons to offer such leave. The question is whether such benefits should be a concern of government. In my opinion, they should not. It doesn't properly fall under the Commerce Clause, or any other power of Congress. And, outside the technical legality, it's just a bad idea to give government the power to dictate personal economic decisions.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 16, 2016)

Odium said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > What does government have to do with whether your employer pays you to have children?
> ...



Why on earth should an employer have to pay someone a salary when they are not working?

Sorry but if you want a kid then you save up your vacation time and pay your own fucking way


----------



## dblack (Mar 16, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Providing employees with a stable income that allows them the flexibility to live a full life, to be with their family when needed without taking a hit financially, is a great way to attract employees.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 16, 2016)

dblack said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



See how long your business lasts when you have to pay people their full salary for months on end every time they have a kid

It's up to the individual to fund his own lifestyle.  Like I said save up your vacation time and use that as your leave.  I have no problem with some unpaid leave but no way should an employer ever be forced to pay someone who is not working


----------



## dblack (Mar 16, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



That depends on how you form the policy. I'm currently working on one for our company right now. Fortunately, we're not large enough to fall under the legal mandates, so we can set up something that works well for us.



> It's up to the individual to fund his own lifestyle.  Like I said save up your vacation time and use that as your leave.  I have no problem with some unpaid leave but no way should an employer ever be forced to pay someone who is not working



I totally agree that it shouldn't be forced. Government has no business in this at all, other than prohibiting fraud and making sure people fulfill contractual obligations.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 16, 2016)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



And, of course, the taxpayers foot the bill.

Good to know our tax dollars are being used in this way.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Preacher (Mar 17, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Try living in a CIVILIZED world and not some place like Somalia. In a CIVILIZED world we take care of each other.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 18, 2016)

Odium said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I live in a very civilized world.  One where we take care of each other because we want to.

Not one, like Somolia where things are enforced at the end of a gun.

Seems you might want to shove it and wake up.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 19, 2016)

Do you have paternity leave over there ? 
I got a fortnight off for each of my kids. It was much appreciated. Used to get a days holiday for my birthday as well. It made me feel appreciated and in return I would go the extra mile for the company.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 19, 2016)

There is only one reason to give someone a paid leave they aren't really entitled to get.  They are being eased out of the company and candidates are trying out for their job.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 19, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> There is only one reason to give someone a paid leave they aren't really entitled to get.  They are being eased out of the company and candidates are trying out for their job.



Sounds like someone's speaking from personal experience.  

Not too long ago, pregnant women were required to leave their jobs and never come back.  Men might be allowed the day their child was born off, but that was it.

This is part of that nostalgia for the Fifties some of you pine for...especially since it's got nothing to do with you.

Employers who want good employee morale and company loyalty provide a decent amount of maternity leave.  Some even provide day care on corporate premises.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 19, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > There is only one reason to give someone a paid leave they aren't really entitled to get.  They are being eased out of the company and candidates are trying out for their job.
> ...


Pregnant women get sick time and vacation time.  They can accumulate comp time.   Letting men have the day off is incredibly generous since they aren't sick, injured or have given birth.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 19, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



And God forbid any man should have time to spend with his wife and his newborn baby, much less a chance to make sure all the details are taken care of so that when his wife comes home she can just relax and not worry about the laundry or the groceries or any of that, right?

People who want children should _suffer_, maybe more than people who have abortions, right?  It's their fault for assuming they can have a work life in addition to just spawning, right?

I mean, June Cleaver never had a job.  Ward never got a day off, but the kids survived, right?

Welcome to the 19th century.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 19, 2016)

It's funny how what is a "good idea" now has to be legislated.

Maybe it isn't such a good idea.

Naaawwwww.......

The asswipes on the left want to take us to a new level......a new level of dependency.

Wonder what happens when small businesses have to give out those days off ?

I never had a day off when my kids were born.  Didn't seem to cause much trouble.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 19, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Now it's the employer and co-worker's responsibility to take care of laundry and groceries! They had a child.  It's theirs.  Not mine.  How did making sure they have time with the baby become my responsibility?


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 19, 2016)

We need to skip the 19th century and go back to the 17th century until people are able to take care of themselves.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 19, 2016)

Yanno...............the military provides for 12 weeks for the mother for maternity leave.

They also give 6 weeks for the father.

Why are people so much against the government (of which the military is part of), when they provide such good benefits?


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno...............the military provides for 12 weeks for the mother for maternity leave.
> 
> They also give 6 weeks for the father.
> 
> Why are people so much against the government (of which the military is part of), when they provide such good benefits?



Because they don't work for government?


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 20, 2016)

Because the government is spending other people's money.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> Moms Are Turning To Crowdfunding To Help Pay For Maternity Leave
> This is just sad. The only industrial nation that DOES NOT have paid maternity leave....disgusting.



Why should you get paid for your lifestyle choice?  If you are unable to take care of a child then don't have one.


----------



## Preacher (Mar 20, 2016)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > Moms Are Turning To Crowdfunding To Help Pay For Maternity Leave
> ...


Got 4 and counting clown. Try keeping up with the rest of the civilized world. You and your ilk "libertardians" should be shipped to Somalia so yall can enjoy survival of the fittest and no government to tell you what to do.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



You didn't answer my question.


----------



## Preacher (Mar 20, 2016)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


I would first have to give a shit.... Like I said you people need to realize you live in a civilized nation and as such we live like civilized people or are least supposed to. That includes paid maternity leave like the rest of the civilized world has.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



And the only way you can conceive of civilization is via a coercive state government?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



Still didn't answer my question.  Other countries do it isn't a compelling answer, so we'll try this again.  Why should you get paid for making a lifestyle choice?  Nobody has to go out and have a child.  It's a choice and when you make that choice it's your responsibility to make the preparations to take care of that child, not someone else's.  If you can't afford to do it financially or can't invest the time then don't have one.  Don't expect others to pay your way.


----------



## Preacher (Mar 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


No one is forcing you to stay here. You can leave at any time.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



Why should we be the ones to leave?  You're the one using the excuse, "every other country does it" to justify your government dependent welfare slavery state.  If everyone else does it, it would seem to make sense for you and your ilk to leave for those places and let the rest of us alone.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 20, 2016)

How much would the compassionate care if they had to write the check themselves?  That pregnant stranger comes up and demands you give her a personal check every month for groceries and her maid,


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



So can you. This is the coward's response. If you can't defend your views, just admit it.


----------



## Preacher (Mar 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I don't need to defend common sense...you and your ilk just need to learn to accept common sense or leave for somewhere like Somalia. There you can have your survival of the fittest and no government telling you what to do.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



Still with the "I got nuthin", eh?

Your appeals to "common sense", and horseshit propaganda about "Somalia!!!" don't amount to an argument. 

In point of fact, civilized behavior is a result of voluntary cooperation, not coercive government. Coercive government can only mandate obedience.


----------



## Preacher (Mar 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


blah blah blah. My facts stand. Accept being a civilized country or don't. I personally don't care.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



You keep typing, so apparently that isn't true.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...


Or, stop paying and oppose all laws that force payment.  Start firing women shortly after they become pregnant.  Hire older women past childbearing age.  There are dozens of ways to avoid paying for the lifestyle choices of others.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...


Youre FACTS are that women are not getting the pregnancy perks they imagine they are entitled to and are turning to crowdfunding.  That's your facts. Your maternity and paternity leave is just your imagination.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 20, 2016)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno...............the military provides for 12 weeks for the mother for maternity leave.
> 
> They also give 6 weeks for the father.
> 
> Why are people so much against the government (of which the military is part of), when they provide such good benefits?



Judging from the OUTRAGE in this thread, I'd say jealousy has to be a big factor.

"I raised my kids without any 'help' from my employer!"
or
"I don't have kids.  I hate kids.  Why should I be punished for that?"
or
"I don't have kids.  I can't even get laid.  Why should my co-worker's empty desk remind me of that?"

Or some variation on that.

Bet me they're all "pro-life," too.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 20, 2016)

I am very pro animal rights.  I still don't think I should pay the vet bills of the dog owner across town.  

People make decisions for themselves.  Wanting someone else to pay for those decisions is a rather new thing.


----------



## Anathema (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> Moms Are Turning To Crowdfunding To Help Pay For Maternity Leave
> This is just sad. The only industrial nation that DOES NOT have paid maternity leave....disgusting. Obama and the democrats had 2 years to get this done with majorities in Congress and did NOTHING.



If the women were at home where they belong to begin with, while their husbands worked, it wouldn't be an issue. 

That's all I have to say on this.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> I am very pro animal rights.  I still don't think I should pay the vet bills of the dog owner across town.
> 
> People make decisions for themselves.  Wanting someone else to pay for those decisions is a rather new thing.



Indeed it is. And the thing I think most people don't get is that making others responsible for your well-being takes away your freedom to take care of yourself as you see fit.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > I am very pro animal rights.  I still don't think I should pay the vet bills of the dog owner across town.
> ...


Because what liberals want is to be returned to slavery.  The child of a slave belongs to the master who has a vested interest in the well being of mother and child.  A kind and generous master would provide for mother, father and child.  The master is enriched by the addition of children.  The number of livestock is increased.

Freedom says that there are no slaves and no one is responsible for you but you.


----------



## Preacher (Mar 20, 2016)

Anathema said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > Moms Are Turning To Crowdfunding To Help Pay For Maternity Leave
> ...


My wife prefers that but thanks to low wages that won't work.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 20, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> People make decisions for themselves.  Wanting someone else to pay for those decisions is a rather new thing.



Who's paying what for whom, and what does it have to do with the topic of this thread? 


Tipsycatlover said:


> Because what liberals want is to be returned to slavery.  The child of a slave belongs to the master who has a vested interest in the well being of mother and child.



Whereas you're the one arguing that the employer is the master who owns the employee.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > People make decisions for themselves.  Wanting someone else to pay for those decisions is a rather new thing.
> ...



Unlike government, you can quit a job if your boss pisses you off.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



There are a lot of ways you can "quit" the government.  

And Tipsey's the one confusing 21st century employment with feudalism, not I.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 20, 2016)

Odium said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Since when?

Sorry but if you want to have a kid then you pay the fucking bill


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 20, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



Guys can take vacation time to be with the wife and kid if they want

For christ's fucking sake people have been having kids for tens of thousands of years it really isn't any big deal


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 20, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



This is not about paying a bill.  Kerist, you people have your reflexive anti-everything speech so ingrained you think it applies to everything.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 20, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...



No it's about people wanting to be paid for not working just because they had a kid


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 20, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



"Just because they had a kid."  Yep, jealousy.

And you're "pro-life," too, aren't you?  Which really means "pro-life until it's born and then fuck you because reasons," right?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 20, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...





Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...





Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Wow you like to assume shit don't you?

Why on earth would I be jealous of people who have kids?  It's nothing special do you know how many billions of people have been born in the past 10000 years?  

And FYI I am not pro telling anyone else what to do with their lives.  I am pro personal responsibility and it is your responsibility to have your own kids and an employer should not be compelled to pay you not to work simply because you had a kid


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 20, 2016)

Babies are a national resource. If there werent any children then eventually society would fall apart.
The state should try and support families when they can.
A century back women didnt have the vote, crap maternity provision is just another sign post on the road to a better world.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 20, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Why on earth would I be jealous of people who have kids?



You shouldn't be, but Post #94 suggests you're jealous of anyone getting something you're not eligible for.  Do you park in handicapped spaces as well, or just bitch about people who do?


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Babies are a national resource.



That's is exactly where this kind of crap leads.

Anyone here read "The Handmaid's Tale"?


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You really don't get the difference cops with guns and your employer? Pause a minuted to reflect on how deluded that is. The go tell a cop 'get fucked' and let me know how that works out for you.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> You really don't get the difference cops with guns and your employer?



Not sure how or why you introduced LEOs into the conversation, but what they have to do with maternity leave is so _outre_ it's beyond my comprehension, so you'll have to elucidate.

Or just stock up on jerky and ammo, buy yourself a generator and go off the grid, Grizzly Adams.  Seems as if that's the only way you'll stop feeling like a victim, but it might cut down on your ability to post here.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Babies are a national resource.
> ...


Someone will have to wipe your arse when you are incapable. Maybe in a year or two.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You really don't get the difference cops with guns and your employer?
> ...



Well, let's see. Law enforcement officers enforce _laws_ (imagine that!). We've been discussing _laws_ mandating maternity leave. 



> Or just stock up on jerky and ammo, buy yourself a generator and go off the grid, Grizzly Adams.  Seems as if that's the only way you'll stop feeling like a victim, but it might cut down on your ability to post here.



This always your fallback schtick. But it's empty non-sense and you know it. What you won't acknowledge is that the authoritarian government you dream of is far more barbaric "Grizzly Adams" could ever manage.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You really don't get the difference cops with guns and your employer?
> ...



Well, let's see. Law enforcement officers enforce _laws_ (imagine that!). We've been discussing _laws_ mandating maternity leave. Need more?



> Or just stock up on jerky and ammo, buy yourself a generator and go off the grid, Grizzly Adams.  Seems as if that's the only way you'll stop feeling like a victim, but it might cut down on your ability to post here.



This always your fallback schtick. But it's empty non-sense and you know it. What you won't acknowledge is that the authoritarian government you dream of is far more barbaric "Grizzly Adams" could ever manage.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Babies are a national resource.
> ...



So, in your mind, a mother having a few extra weeks to spend with her newborn is EXACTLY the same as a slave being forced to bear children for someone else.

Mind-boggling.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So you picture storm troopers breaking in to the executive suite and _forcing_  (your favorite word) corporate execs to allow women a few extra weeks with their newborns.  Mind-boggling.



dblack said:


> > Or just stock up on jerky and ammo, buy yourself a generator and go off the grid, Grizzly Adams.  Seems as if that's the only way you'll stop feeling like a victim, but it might cut down on your ability to post here.
> 
> 
> 
> This always your fallback schtick. But it's empty non-sense and you know it. What you won't acknowledge is that the authoritarian government you dream of is far more barbaric "Grizzly Adams" could ever manage.



It is the suggested fallback for you, because there doesn't seem to be anything you like about living in this country, yet I doubt you'd have the resources to move to some Randian paradise like, oh, I don't know, Somalia?


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



I'm sorry for boggling your mind.  But the idea that babies are a 'national resource' was the core idea of that story (you really should read it) and the more general idea that the _people_ are a resource in service to the priorities of the nation is the sickness at the core of fascism.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I have read it.  And the central concept of the story was that young fertile women were used as concubines to bear children for wealthy women who could no longer get pregnant.  Apparently that part went right over your head.

The idea of granting the mother of a newborn a few extra weeks to spend with her baby without fear of losing her job is precisely the opposite of that.

"You don't get maternity leave" says "You're our property; we decide your fate."  Which is exactly what the ruling class in _The Handmaid's Tale_ dictated to the women under its control.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Boggled again? Let's see if I can help. Tell us how think it would work out if a company persisted in flaunting the mandate? What do you think might happen if they ignored the government's demands that they pay fines, or close their company?



dblack said:


> It is the suggested fallback for you, because there doesn't seem to be anything you like about living in this country, yet I doubt you'd have the resources to move to some Randian paradise like, oh, I don't know, Somalia?



I know it's the suggested talking point when dealing with libertarians. Nevermind that it's an empty strawman. Spin doesn't have to makes, as long as you repeat it confidently!


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I've got a better idea.  Why don't you tell me what you _imagine_ happens in a country where the birth-rate drops below the point of sustainability.  (I say "imagine," because it's obvious you've never _thought_ about it.)

You can use Japan as a RL example.

Because I would like to stay within the realm of RL, not "dblack's OMG!!!! fantasies," mmkay?


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> I've got a better idea.  Why don't you ...



Ahh, I don' t blame you for dodging. Not really. You sound like one of those people who is uncomfortable with being called out as an authoritarian. Maybe you can got OFA and get another TP for us to talk about. I'll wait.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> I've got a better idea.  Why don't you ...



Ahh, I don' t blame you for dodging. Not really. You sound like one of those people who is uncomfortable with being called out as an authoritarian. Maybe you can go to OFA and get another TP for us to talk about. I'll wait.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> I've got a better idea.  Why don't you ...



Ahh, I don' t blame you for dodging. Not really. You sound like one of those people who is uncomfortable with being called out as an authoritarian. Maybe you can go to OFA and get another TP for us to talk about. I'll wait.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2016)

Sorry for dupes. Had some spotty internet on the train. I only meant to be one-third as much of an asshole.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Why on earth would I be jealous of people who have kids?
> ...



Another assumption

No employer should be compelled to pay people for not working. For whatever reason,

Is that a simple enough statement for you to understand or do I have to dumb it down even more for you?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


She can have all the time she wants as long as her employer doesn't have to pay her not to work


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> No employer should be compelled to pay people for not working. For whatever reason,



So you get no paid vacation/personal days at your job?  That's unfortunate.  But it does explain your envy of anyone who does.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > No employer should be compelled to pay people for not working. For whatever reason,
> ...



Paid maternity leave is not the same as vacation and sick days , Idiot
If you had any memory retention at all I said earlier in the thread that people should save up their vacation time if they want to have kids.  Pregnancy isn't an illness so sick time doesn't apply.

FYI I own a business so I don't work for anyone, people work for me.  I take as much time off as I damn well please unlike you who has to beg your boss for a day off

I have no problem with unpaid maternity leave never did.  I just don't think people should expect to get paid simply because they had a kid


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



You're absolutely right, though anyone who's walked the floor all night with a colicky neonate could tell you that.  Then there are little things like post-cesarean recovery, the complications of a preemie who needs a stay in the NICU, etc.

Nothing vacationy about any of that.

P.S. For future reference, I stopped reading everything else in your post past "idiot."  If you want civil discourse, you first need to be civil.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > No employer should be compelled to pay people for not working. For whatever reason,
> ...



It's actually kind of liberating. When compensation is solely in the form of wages, it leaves each employee free to choose whatever 'benefits' are the most valuable to them. That might be vacation time, more money in their savings or family leave.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Sounds fascinating.  And they're allowed to keep their jobs, too?


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Depends on what they've worked out with their employer, but this isn't an uncommon arrangement. When I worked as a sheet metal worker, the union voted to forgo paid vacation and sick leave in lieu of better wages. It worked out great. The people who wanted extra time off could have it, the people who wanted to maximize their income could do that. Of course, not all employees have that freedom. Unions, ironically, can opt out of the mandates imposed on other workforces and choose they benefits they want. It's not fair, but that's the kind of "some are more equal than others" bullshit our labor laws create.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Brave of you to say anything positive about unions on this board.  Interesting thought...unionize all workers.  It would eliminate a lot of the inequities.  But since the pull from the RW is legislation to destroy unions and make all states "right to work" states, doesn't seem as if it would happen.  Too bad.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Fuck you.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Thank you for your thoughtful, on-topic post.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Unions are great. It's labor law that's all fucked up. There's no reasons union members should get special exemptions and privileges.

The point here is there's no justification to have outside parties dictating our benefits. Such negotiations should be a private matter between employers and those they hire.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

dblack said:


> Unions are great. It's labor law that's all fucked up. There's no reasons union members should get special exemptions and privileges.
> 
> The point here is there's no justification to have outside parties dictating our benefits. Such negotiations should be a private matter between employers and those they hire.



Unfortunately, you're describing an ideal world in which workers en masse have equal power with business owners.  I don't have to tell you this is not the case.  Sometimes an intermediary is required.  Again, in an ideal world, that would be your union negotiator.  But as long as there are more workers than jobs, and corporate execs and their phalanx of lawyers call the shots, sometimes a third party with a big stick - and an awareness of the correlation between a strong corporate sector and a strong nation - has to step in and  the guys with the private jets and remind them this ain't the 19th century anymore.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Oh so you read that despite your bullshit tender sensibilities?

FYI what you read or don't read is your problem not mine


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Thank you for your thoughtful, on-topic post.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Then stop giving etiquette lessons


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



In my view, some people are unteachable.

That said, what do you think about unions?  A solution to the inequities the adults are discussing in this thread, or evil incarnate?


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Unions are great. It's labor law that's all fucked up. There's no reasons union members should get special exemptions and privileges.
> ...



No, I'm not. I'm questioning the notion that some workers get special exemptions and protections, and some don't. Corporatism is wrong.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I'm not sure how your second sentence (with which I agree) follows from the first.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Corporatism is interest-group politics, where power and privilege is distributed to factions based on political clout.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I get that part.  But it seems to me that unionizing workers would give them some power to negotiate with the people in the executive suite and mitigate the inequities.  Otherwise you end up back in the 19th century.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



It was BECAUSE of the working conditions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that workers decided to form unions.  Look up the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire sometime.  It was because of that one incident that the garment unions were formed.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Nope.. all we can do is go forward in time. Again, what you long for is corporatism, and I'm adamantly opposed to it. Government should protect the rights of all individuals equally, regardless of which 'bargaining unit' they belong to.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Who says I want to be taught anything by some anonymous message board participant?

And the title of the thread has nothing to do with unions


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Where did you get the notion I'm pro-corporatist when virtually everything I post says the opposite?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> And the title of the thread has nothing to do with unions



There's more on this page than a thread title.  It's called _discussion_.  If you're no longer interested in participating, why are you still posting?


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2016)

So...not only should we pay women to have sex with losers who refuse to marry them, and pay for the children they have with those losers, and not only should we provide unemployment for those who get laid off by employers who can no longer afford to keep people year round because of the punitive effects of minimum wage, mandatory insurance etc....but we should also force employers to pay employees who get knocked up to sit at home for as long as they like, just like they are actually working.

What could go wrong. Progressives are mentally ill retards.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

koshergrl said:


> So...not only should we pay women to have sex with losers who refuse to marry them...



What does that have to do with paid maternity leave?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 21, 2016)

You know...........the military gives women up to 12 weeks of paid maternity leave, and the fathers can get up to 6 weeks. 

And, that is the United States military.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > And the title of the thread has nothing to do with unions
> ...



Your little etiquette lesson was off topic as well so maybe you should practice what you preach


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



The sidebar on unions was not off-topic.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I stopper reading after you started telling me how to comport myself so as not of hurt your oh so sensitive feelings


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



That's entertaining.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Corporatism isn't what you think. I saw in interesting article on Salon a while back that suggested the word be retired, because no one wants to use it correctly. So, apparently you aren't the only one who is confused. Did you read anything at that link?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Numerous specialized definitions all saying essentially the same thing: "Humans tend to form groups."


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Well, it's more than that. It's government that distributes power to competing interest groups. In particular, it's government where our rights are based on which group we belong to.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Well, if we're going meta, we can define "government" as "any overarching authority."  Start with parents and teachers and go from there.

I doubt you'd say authority _qua_ authority is wrong; it just depends on who the authority is, appointed by whom, and whether or not that authority can be replaced or escaped from.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 21, 2016)

Hey dblack,

I can't see your "opponents" posts, but do get you are arguing with an idiot.

Can you tell me what corporatism has to do with the OP.

I'd be curious.


----------



## AsherN (Mar 21, 2016)

Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 21, 2016)

AsherN said:


> Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.



So, if a country does not have maternity leave...it is uncivilized ?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

AsherN said:


> Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.



This is where you'll come up against the knee-jerk "doctrine" of American Exceptionalism which, if you examine it closely, translates as "If we didn't invent it (or at least believe we did), we won't utilize it, because we're not like anyone else, especially when it comes to emulating things that make other countries' citizens' lives so much less arduous because Amurika, Fuck yeah!"

It's entirely motivated by ignorance and emotionalism, and you can't make a dent in it.  Best you can do is showcase it for the thinking American who will gradually distance him/herself from the Looney Tunes, as they're doing even as we speak.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 21, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> AsherN said:
> 
> 
> > Civilized countries have maternity leave. Most are funded from the government's unemployment insurance funds. The only 'burden' on the emp;loyer is that the job is granteed upon the woman's return. Canada gives 12 months. EI payments are just abut minimum wage.
> ...


 You sound like an elitist asshat.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 21, 2016)

koshergrl said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > AsherN said:
> ...



Based on your previous post in this thread, you seem to think only unmarried women have babies.  Why is that?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 21, 2016)

koshergrl said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > AsherN said:
> ...



Or a handout seeking moron.

It just does not seem to register that people in America like living in houses and driving cars (not living in high rise apartments and taking mass transit all over the place).

But the left is bound and determined to get us there.


----------



## AsherN (Mar 22, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Weird because I live in a house and have 2 cars. Yet my wife was able to take mat leave for both our kids.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



No need to redefine it. What I'm talking about is coercive state government. The kind that passes laws and enforces them.



> I doubt you'd say authority _qua_ authority is wrong; it just depends on who the authority is, appointed by whom, and whether or not that authority can be replaced or escaped from.



It doesn't depend on any of those things, actually. It depends on _what_ the government is authorized to do.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 22, 2016)

AsherN said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Let's see.....first, you didn't address my question.  Is a country without maternity leave uncivilized ?

Second, it's great you have those things.  So why are we talking about this ?

I live in the U.S....and have more than two cars, a house and a wife who had maternity leave.  Shows the market can provide.


----------



## koshergrl (Mar 22, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 Because they think it's their duty to reduce everybody to the same circumstances they have chosen.

They're nothing but small minded, brain washed minions.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> No need to redefine it. What I'm talking about is coercive state government. The kind that passes laws and enforces them.



So, um, what kind of government _doesn't_ pass laws?  And what kind of government passes laws but doesn't enforce them?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

AsherN said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



First, welcome to the board!

Second, you'll notice very quickly who talks about you in the third person because they're unable to discuss the topic.  The cute little assumptions they make about you are hilarious.

They apparently have no concept of how maternity leave is handled in the real world.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > No need to redefine it. What I'm talking about is coercive state government. The kind that passes laws and enforces them.
> ...



I don't know. Or why you're asking. We were talking about corporatism, a style of government that dispenses with individual rights in favor of group-based privilege. It promotes the notion of government as a power broker and resource allocator.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Aside from small tribal entities where everything was shared in common, you're describing all of human history.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Hey dblack,
> 
> I can't see your "opponents" posts, but do get you are arguing with an idiot.
> 
> ...



Corporatism is a kind of government that distributes power and influence to competing interest groups. It dispenses with the goal of protecting the equal rights of individuals in favor of attending to the demands of organized 'corporations' (people organized around a specific purpose). The 'corporations' of corporatism _can_ be modern, incorporated business, but more often they are organizations that represent larger groups. Trade unions, industry associations, political parties, labor advocates etc... Basically, any group that has a vested interest in using the power of government to steer society their way.

In this case, labor advocates (and other interested parties) have lobbied government to force businesses to provide certain 'benefits' to employees.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Not at all. You'll have to read up on the topic if you want to have an intelligent conversation about corporatism. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I read the Wikipedia article.  "Corporatism" seems to be another one of those words that's defined on the basis of confirmation bias.  So you'll have your definition and I'll have mine and never the twain shall meet.

I find your overall sense that government is oppressing you untenable to begin with.  Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...if you're even willing to do that.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You've shown hardly any comprehension of my views so far. Here, again, you are wildly off the mark. I don't have any sense that government is oppressing me. And as far as "your definition" vs "my definition" nonsense - well, that's just more diversion.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 22, 2016)

koshergrl said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Actually, I think they are afraid.

Security is more important than liberty.  And security is just a pipe dream.  They have neither.

Do I think we have issues that are oppressive to people in this country...yes.

Is there any evidence Obama has fixed anything...no.

This constant bulls**t about insuring more people ignores the fact that others are now paying more for insurance they can't use.

Some freaking security.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Voila !  Your are catching on.

It's endemic to the left and right.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It's true you haven't used the word "forced" in at least a couple of days.  Tell you what: Given that all human organizations are only as good as the people forming them (and, in my view, most start out with good intentions but eventually fall prey to entropy), maybe you can give a concrete, RL example of what you consider an optimal form of "corporatism."

If you can say "I think the fact that Iceland has had a representative government featuring direct interaction and universal suffrage since the ninth century makes it a good form of corporatism," or something along that line, we'd have a basis to begin.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



If you want to learn about corporatism, do some reading. Or don't.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Okay, so now let's get back to paid maternity leave.  There's plenty of evidence that a great deal of learning and personality development occurs in the first year of life.  Arguably the care of a newborn is one of the most important jobs there is.  Where do you suppose the uniquely American resistance to allowing parents a little extra time with their newborn comes from?


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



We're not debating whether it's good for parents to be with their children. We're debating whether we have the right to work for companies that don't offer paid maternity leave as a benefit.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



So you're concerned that you might be "forced" to work for a company that does offer paid maternity leave?  How do you perceive that would affect you?


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > We're not debating whether it's good for parents to be with their children. We're debating whether we have the right to work for companies that don't offer paid maternity leave as a benefit.
> ...



You are quite determined to make this some kind of weird personal thing, aren't you?

To reiterate, I'm not concerned about personal repercussions. I'm arguing against the continuing encroachment on our economic freedom. Government shouldn't be involved in mandating how we're compensated.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If you could explain why paid maternity leave encroaches on your freedom, it might help.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



It's dictating what sort of benefits an employer must offer. If someone prefers, for example, to receive higher pay rather than a bunch of "benefits" that they have no use for, they should be able to negotiate for that. Laws that mandate what benefits an employer must offer offer take away that option.

Is this thing on? ...


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Then an intelligent employer would be aware of the likelihood of such legislation being passed and would adjust his/her corporate philosophy accordingly.

Or just bribe a Congressman.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Well, yeah. That's what this shit tends to produce. But what does that have (at all) to do with my comment?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Cause and effect.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



What???

It's weird. Certain concepts just bounce off your head. In particular, it seems like anything regarding personal liberty "does not compute" for you. And they you start talking about something else instead.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



What's weird is that no one else in this forum seems to have a problem understanding me.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



See what I mean? My post says nothing at all about an inability to understand you. You just fling shit at the wall and pretend you made a point.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 22, 2016)

Good employers will find ways to incentivise staff and maternity pay is a good way to show that you care.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> See what I mean? My post says nothing at all about an inability to understand you.



The entire tenor of your replies to me indicates it, however.



Tommy Tainant said:


> Good employers will find ways to incentivise staff and maternity pay is a good way to show that you care.



Exactly.  So what are we to conclude from the fact that a certain segment of Americans just don't get that?  Are they predominantly male and childless, ergo resentful of what they see as a "special privilege" (again, I'd invite any one of them to walk the floor all night with a colicky infant, or sit in the ER while the kid howls in pain from otitis and say honestly that _of course_ they'd be able to show up at work and be functional the next day)?  Or are they so oppressed in the workplace that it never occurs to them that there's some wiggle room?


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Good employers will find ways to incentivise staff and maternity pay is a good way to show that you care.



Exactly. And there are plenty of other ways. No mandate is required.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> So what are we to conclude from the fact that a certain segment of Americans just don't get that?


First you'd have to prove that people "just don't get that". Opposing government mandates isn't the same thing as opposing the things they mandate. That's a tricky concept for a small mind to grasp, but it's true. No one is saying paid maternity leave is a bad thing. We're just saying government shouldn't be telling us what benefits we want. 

Now, let's see how this point gets twisted around in your head to something entirely unrelated. Go!


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > So what are we to conclude from the fact that a certain segment of Americans just don't get that?
> ...



I wouldn't want to interrupt this fascinating conversation you're having with yourself.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Good employers will find ways to incentivise staff and maternity pay is a good way to show that you care.
> ...


Well thats a conversation for Americans. What sort of country you want to be and all that. 

On a personal note I think its a bit extreme to expect a woman to use her holiday time to have a baby. By definition that is discriminatory.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Nice! Total evasion. FTW!


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



No, it's a conversation for the two people involved. It's no one else's business.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

dblack said:
			
		

> Exactly. And there are plenty of other ways. No mandate is required.



It's like dealing with a recalcitrant adolescent.  You give him so many chances to clean his room and get good grades on his own, and when he's still lying there glued to his iPod and ignoring you, you drop the hammer.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 22, 2016)

You know, when I was in the Navy, there were times that I would hear the single guys bitching about some of the married guys and gals getting maternity leave.

My response was simple.  Give birth, or have a newborn come into YOUR house and tell me you don't need some extra time to recuperate and take care of the new one. 

Most of them would shut up after that. 

And yeah..................I was one of those single guys most of my Naval career, but I understood the need for certain things.

If the military is capable of allowing 12 weeks off for the mother and 6 weeks off for the father of newborns, why can't businesses do that?  Most of the rest of the Western world does so as well. 

When it comes to stuff like vacation, the civilian populace of America gets screwed every time.  For 20 years in the Navy, I got 30 days paid leave (paid at my current rank) EVERY YEAR.  You could carry over 60 days into the next fiscal year, but if you were over 60, you lost anything from 61 on.

Europeans get 30 days paid vacation as well each year.

American civilians?  2 weeks per year, if you have a really good job with really good benefits.  Minimum wage job?  Forget about it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 22, 2016)

When did everyone's sex life become the financial burden for everyone else?  The very people screaming the loudest about staying out of their bedrooms  want to shift payment to everyone close enough to get hit by the flung shit.

Pay for my baby.   Give me aids drugs.  The free clinic better give me penicillin for the clap and don't forget the disability pay.   When the fuck did society have to underwrite the sex lives of every snail talented enough reach the pavement?

Stay in your bedrooms and stop trying to hide the rest of us under the bed.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> When did everyone's sex life become the financial burden for everyone else?



What "financial burden" do you perceive here?


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 22, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > When did everyone's sex life become the financial burden for everyone else?
> ...


Is paid maternity leave unpaid?  Who pays?

Pay for your own fucking.  People have been doing it for thousands of years.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Who pays?



Apparently you believe you do.  Please provide evidence.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 22, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



What's even worse.....why is this so important ?

I mean, many moms don't have a husband to stay at home.  You'd think the government would be more interested in collecting child support from them so we don't have to pay welfare taxes (although we need to help them....the primary help should come the father....married or not).

But government is so kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddddddddddddddddddd.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 22, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> You'd think the government would be more interested in collecting child support from them so we don't have to pay welfare taxes



Good point.  Worthy of its own thread.

Too bad you can't see this post.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 23, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Who pays?
> ...


No one should pay unless they do so voluntarily.  No one.  Not an employer, not a taxpayer.  No one.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 23, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Half the time they don't know who the father is.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 23, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



While that might be true.....DNA testing has come a long way.

You want help from the government.....you'll out the dad.  

Otherwise you can go it on your own and if you can't make it, the state will be happy to find a home for your child.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 23, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Some of these women cannot out the dad.  They haven't a clue as to who dad might be.  Did you imagine these children were conceived in loving relationships?   The women don't know.  They might identify a dozen men and it's none of them.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 23, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



DNA testing.

And that might be the case some of the time.....but not most of the time.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 23, 2016)

I wonder if helping people when they need it might be cheaper in the long run than telling them to eff off ?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 23, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...



Because you say so?  Well, I'm convinced.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 23, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> I wonder if helping people when they need it might be cheaper in the long run than telling them to eff off ?



"if they need it" is an interesting term.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 24, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if helping people when they need it might be cheaper in the long run than telling them to eff off ?
> ...


Having a baby is a stressful time. Science has shown us that it is mainly women who have babies. If men had babies there would be a law giving us a year off on full pay.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



You are a woman ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 24, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


No,why would you think that ?


----------



## Conservative65 (Mar 24, 2016)

Odium said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > What does government have to do with whether your employer pays you to have children?
> ...



Comprehending that the U.S. doesn't is easy.  Trying to understand what place the government has in telling a private business they have to this is what no one can explain.


----------



## Conservative65 (Mar 24, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> Why should a business owner or taxpayer be forced to pay for a woman to go off and have a kid?   .....



Just another example of those supporting this thinking the choice to do so belongs solely to the woman while the costs of making that choice belongs to anyone but the one that made the choice.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 24, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Why should a business owner or taxpayer be forced to pay for a woman to go off and have a kid?   .....
> ...


That is infantile thinking. We live together, as a society, in a modern joined up world, we enjoy the benefits and should share the burden.


----------



## Sunni Man (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> That is infantile thinking. We live together, as a society, in a modern joined up world, we enjoy the benefits and should share the burden.


How about, I pay for my burden, and you pay for yours.   ......


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 24, 2016)

Sunni Man said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > That is infantile thinking. We live together, as a society, in a modern joined up world, we enjoy the benefits and should share the burden.
> ...


Why should you benefit from my contribution,or anybody elses for that matter ?


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> We live together, as a society, in a modern joined up world, we enjoy the benefits and should share the burden.



I agree. The question is whether government is the proper tool.


----------



## Conservative65 (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Infantile thinking is believing someone should be able to make a choice, tell you to butt out, then believe it's OK to demand those who were told to butt out to pay the price.  

The problem with your view is those making the choices they can't afford are benefiting but not sharing the burden.  I don't owe a woman a damn thing because she chooses to have kids she can't afford, tells me her choice to do so isn't my business then expects me to be one of those forced to help pay for something SHE chose to do.


----------



## Conservative65 (Mar 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > We live together, as a society, in a modern joined up world, we enjoy the benefits and should share the burden.
> ...



What's sad is that the woman who makes the choice about her body has told the government to butt out of it then uses that same government to force others she told to butt out to pay for something she said was none of our business.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > We live together, as a society, in a modern joined up world, we enjoy the benefits and should share the burden.
> ...


I think that on the basic nuts and bolts of life the government,local or national, is best placed.Obviously subject to the will of the people.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 24, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


That womans child will save your life one day, or fight a war for you. We all benefit so we should all share the burden. Its not complicated.


----------



## Conservative65 (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



She made the choice and told me to butt out.  It's her responsibility not mine.  

Or that child will be just like his mother and be a freeloader.  You keep saying we should all share the burden but the fact that she demands helps proves she isn't sharing any of it.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Law enforcement isn't justified. These are questions of personal and social morality, not legal justice.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


In the UK there are two levels of maternity pay. Statutory which is paid by the government out of tax money. And employer funded maternity.
The employer funded is not mandatory and depends on the employer.Good employers pay it.
The statutory pay is seen as vital in helping people have children as it helps to negate the loss of income during this period. I have never heard anybody criticise it.
As to forcing private firms to pay it I am not sure how that would work, especially for smaller employers. Some form of tax incentive might be better.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> That womans child will save your life one day, or fight a war for you. We all benefit so we should all share the burden. Its not complicated.



I'm not certain how many other boards you frequent, but what you're experiencing on this board is what a bloke I know from Leeds describes as the "Internet hard man."

You get the impression that they're all eminently self-sufficient, that their mums plunked 'em in front of the telly and spent the day on the phone or doing their nails, so they're insanely jealous of future generations whose parents might have actually welcomed their arrival and tried to give them the best of their attention and affection.

These more fortunate infants will, it's assumed, grow up and take jobs - however stultifying - from the hard men, and that's their fear.

Climb the ladder and then kick it out from under anyone coming up after them.

I love the smell of desperation in the morning.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Imagine a world in which employers actually _like_ their employees and want what's best for them.

Clearly not something the Hard Men are familiar with.

The underlying misogyny is a whole 'nother story.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 24, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


The job market is very much in the employers favour at the moment and the upshot of that is poor pay and conditions.Things will improve when people have a choice of jobs. Nothing is ever given out of a sense of what is right.

The argument I struggle with is that we are all individual self sufficient people, isolated and living on a mountain,drinking spring water and feeding off Elk.

"I havent got kids so why should I pay taxes for schools" ? 

Its such a dishonest position. Almost as dishonest as a "pro lifer" saying
*
She made the choice and told me to butt out. It's her responsibility not mine. *

They would deny the poor girl the choice in the first place.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Imagine a world where employers and employees decide for themselves what's best for them.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Imagine a world where employers and employees decide for themselves what's best for them.



There is such a world, in the executive suite.  Below that, only with rare exception.  Them that's got shall get.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



The odd thing is, maybe I'm just surrounded by more intelligent people, but I don't encounter these "Me, ME, MEEEEEEE!" types IRL.  Well, at least not as adults.  The average four-year-old seems to think the universe revolves around them, but they're disabused of that concept fairly quickly.

So the conclusion we draw is that these "hard men" only exist on the Internet.  IRL, they're probably browbeaten, friendless, and desperate to vote for a bully like Trump.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



You seem to speak for what it is like to have a baby.  

My wife was generally back in stride a week after a new child (no time off for me).

Men would not have children.....we are to wimpy.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Not at the point of a gun.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine a world where employers and employees decide for themselves what's best for them.
> ...



So you can't imagine such a thing? What's wrong with employees taking the jobs that suite their needs? Why is it any of your business how someone else is compensated by an employer? Is there any limit to your desire to control others?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I've never been to the executive suite.  I have no power to control others.  You, on the other hand, seem to have a serf's adulation of the master class.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 24, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Obviously I am too much of a "libtard" to own a gun.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 24, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine a world where employers and employees decide for themselves what's best for them.
> ...



However, there ARE exceptions Arianrhod.  One of the reasons that I spent 20 years in the military was for the benefits.  Full medical, dental and vision for both me and my family, as well as 12 weeks maternity leave for women, 6 weeks maternity leave for men every time they have a child, and 30 days paid vacation per year for everyone. 

When I finally retired, I saw how badly the civilian sector gets boned when it comes to benefits.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

ABikerSailor said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



B-b-but you were working for the government, i.e. the "enemy" (or so it apparently has been since January '09, but not before, especially when the Great God Reagan - all glory to his name - was in charge).


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 24, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I served from 1982 until 2002, and yes, I served when Reagan was in office.

He was a shitty president, and damn near broke the Navy with his 500 ship Navy idea.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Based on what you post here, your entire political ideology hinges on authoritarian state power. It's behind every policy you support. You may have no personal power to control others, but you are fluffing for those who do, those who want even more.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That's adorable.


----------



## Conservative65 (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



You're too stupid to own a gun.  This would be you.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy, have you noticed how quickly the RWs go for the personal attack when they've got nothing else?  And somehow, regardless of the forum rules, they get away with it.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Diversion. Your go to.

Do you dispute my observations? Are there any decisions you think government _shouldn't_ be making for us? I seriously wonder what limitations you'd want (any?) on the government's power to dictate individual decisions.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 24, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Tommy, have you noticed how quickly the RWs go for the personal attack when they've got nothing else?  And somehow, regardless of the forum rules, they get away with it.


I just see it as a lack of education rather than anything more significant.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Are there any decisions you think government _shouldn't_ be making for us?



"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

That you need to have that explained to you is the sad part.  One has to wonder whether your Mom just plunked you in front of the TV while she spent the day on the phone or doing her nails, and that's what's missing in your life.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any decisions you think government _shouldn't_ be making for us?
> ...



What are you blabbering about now???


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Do you not understand that your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 24, 2016)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



But the government you want to enforce this will haul you away at the point of a gun if you don't comply.

Don't try to be coy.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I keep telling you....it's a constant circle.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



When I joined this board, I assumed it was predominantly populated by Americans.

Apparently it's inhabited by posters who live in some imaginary country where they're constantly under the gun.  Yet the majority are pro-gun.  Go figure.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Apparently you two inhabit the executive suite.  No wonder you have no clue what goes on in the rest of the company.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I don't understand why you would quote it. It has nothing at all to do with the question. I'm trying to discern if your goal is outright totalitarianism or what. I asked if you would set any limit on government's power to dictate our personal decisions. Do you know what that means? Can you answer it without diversion?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 24, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I can't answer it from your perception that Gubmint Control E'thing; Gubmint BAADDDD.

It's not within my perception of the way things work in the Real World.

But I'm not a Randian, so there's that.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to discern if your goal is outright totalitarianism or what. I asked if you would set any limit on government's power to dictate our personal decisions. Do you know what that means? Can you answer it without diversion?
> ...



This is your fantasy, and has nothing at all to do with my views. I've explained this to you repeatedly, in fair detail, but you refuse to acknowledge it. I'm not sure you actually comprehend what I post.

You stick with your delusion, if that's your preference. But it makes it even harder to take anything you say seriously.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 25, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Okay, then.  Take Sun Devil's advice and IGNORE me (he really, really, really needs your attention) so I can converse with the adults.  I can't help thinking of John Rogers' quote about Rand:

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: _The Lord of the Rings_ and _Atlas Shrugged_. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Why do you keep quoting Rand, or stuff about Rand, to me? Who cares? Can you ever focus on the conversation in front of you?


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 25, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The conversation in this thread is one where you'll claim you're being "forced" into doing something.  Maybe it's time for you to reread _The Virtue of Selfishness_.

St. Ayn had no children (but did she have abortions?).  If all women shared her beliefs, the species would go extinct.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 25, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


It's a good thing that not everyone feels the same way.   If you are proposing that women become brood animals who have children as a profession, we can have that discussion.


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



WTF???


----------



## anotherlife (Mar 26, 2016)

The mistake that American moms make is that they are waiting for the wrong corporation.  They should have children instead from a gang member, in which case their maternity leave is secure, they can just sit and be the lookout for cops.  Easy to do.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 26, 2016)

anotherlife said:


> The mistake that American moms make is that they are waiting for the wrong corporation.  They should have children instead from a gang member, in which case their maternity leave is secure, they can just sit and be the lookout for cops.  Easy to do.



Very interesting.


----------



## anotherlife (Mar 27, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


This has already been achieved in the USA.  It is called child welfare benefit, to protect the liberal taboo of illegitimate child.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 27, 2016)

anotherlife said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Because we have welfare benefits for illegitimate children, we owe the entire families of legitimate children,

Stop the benefits to illegitimate children.


----------



## anotherlife (Mar 27, 2016)

Tipsycatlover said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


Liberal controlled national and international laws, including various human rights laws, will always make that impossible, and amass a legal cost of ten times the child welfare drain, if you try to challenge it.  However assuming that it can be done,then we would probably discover that running prisons for the illegitimate gang bangers is cheaper than paying welfare for them, in contrast to current liberal propaganda.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 27, 2016)

If it is true that women cannot exist without the financial support of everyone known, unknown, and imagined, then take the kids away from them and build orphanages.   No maternity leave necessary.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 27, 2016)

anotherlife said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...



Just cut off their balls after the first illegitimate child.  They still have to pay child support though.


----------



## anotherlife (Mar 27, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


No, totally ineffective.  The women will just find another idiot and carry on breeding unchanged.


----------



## AsherN (Mar 27, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > That womans child will save your life one day, or fight a war for you. We all benefit so we should all share the burden. Its not complicated.
> ...



Canada works the same way. The only obligation on the employer is that the job must be available when the woman comes back.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 27, 2016)

anotherlife said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > anotherlife said:
> ...



We don't do it now.....you wouldn't know if it was ineffective or not.

I can't stand presumptuousness.


----------

