Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 82 (view)
 
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 8/25/2010 7:19:46 AM

I am curious to know why you think it's a traditional model of authoritative rearing & not the "family time", community involvement & general environment that made children of yesteryear "better"? Personally, I see that many parents are less effective simply because they are less involved, more selfish, less willing to actively parent, period, not simple less authoritative.


Mostly because "family time" didn't really exist in the era i'm speaking of. I just used the 50's as a general reference point. The "greatest generation" (people that survived the depression and ww2) were raised by factory workers in horrible conditions working 6 days a week. The parenting style then was FAR more authoritarian, often parents beating their children. I don't advocate that of course, but i'm not speaking of the june cleaver parenting, although that also was more authoritarian than nowadays. These children were given responsibility at a very early age, often working out of necessity, they had the HARDEST lifestyles and yet were some of the most well mannered children.

And soul, when i look at children being worse now, i look at the following COMPLETELY subjective measuring sticks.

Suicide rates
responsibility
maturity
divorce rates
youth criminality stats
drug use
gang violence
etc.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 80 (view)
 
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 8/24/2010 10:41:51 AM

The key is that children develop better in a two-parents healthy household than in a one-parent healthy household. When it becomes a traumatic environment, that's another story.


The problem is, the parents that i've seen get divorced will call a home unhealthy because they aren't happy, NOT because it's unhealthy for the kids. People remember watching mom and dad fight and use that emotion to justify selfish behaviour. They don't think of kids first anymore.


So, bigpacific - let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying that the parenting methods I am advocating, and to which you oppose so vehemently, are "selfish" and "lazy" parenting? Are you saying that learning to communicate in healthy way, problem solve together, understand your child's problem's root cause, and learn to listen to their deeper emotions and needs is "easy"?


No. I did in reading your original posts, as we have discussed it further i have changed my opinion. I do question the ability of parents to distinguish between the difference in your parenting program from letting their children run wild however. While you have years of training and experience and can hold true to training, I have fears that they will take the "listening" and forget to enforce boundaries, misinterpreting your message.....As i did.


Sure does. Who says YOU should always be right? Can't you conceive a world in which the parent may make a mistake? Or, more importantly, a world in which the parent may be right, but the child still feels HE was right, too? He is a full person, he deserves to be heard, even when he is wrong. Because his FEELINGS are never wrong. And he needs to make sens of them.


This is what i mean. Parents don't always have to be right, but they DO always have to be in control. I have concerns that parents will have the ability to distinguish between the two.

Still though, this question still lays unanswered: Children were better behaved in the 50's, with a traditional parenting model of authoritative rearing, children are now worse, and we have been moving AWAY from the traditional authoritative parent, how much is correlation and how much is causation?
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 72 (view)
 
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 8/11/2010 7:29:12 AM

the past was bullshit. I don't think my life was better when I was living in a nuclear family. I think my daughter's life has been far better because she doesn't have to live with two people who hated each other but didn't have the guts or money to get divorced.


This doesn't bear out statistically. It's justification for selfish parents to do what is best for them, not their children. Children develop better in a 2 parent household, even if they aren't "happily" married.

My whole point in getting in this thread was to point out that selfish parenting and taking the "easy" way out is exactly what is responsible for the changes we've seen societally, ESPECIALLY in our children.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 56 (view)
 
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 8/2/2010 8:30:49 AM

By all means then, please continue. I sincerely hope that I have addressed your feelings and concerns.

If not, please advise.


Stop being an ass. If you have a point to make, challenge his point don't just insult someone. It shows your lack of analytical thinking or writing.

I disagree with the man, but i wouldn't converse with you either.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 2270 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 8/2/2010 8:27:44 AM

^^^^Apparently not scary enough for men to disprove any deception...but just cowardly enough to wait for the slow grinding wheels of government to deliver justice to men by mandating and paying for dna testing?
I think 2cents a person is a waste of tax payor dollars to hold the hands of the men who are in obvious denial of their responsibilities...


Lolz, from lizbeth, taker of any social benefit or man's check she can get her hands on, the ULTIMATE irony. I'll keep the kids despite them wanting to live with the dad so i can get the check lizbeth.

I take precautions myself, don't have any children because i chose my partners and my actions very carefully, unlike some. That being said, i'm all for a test to validate paternity, the savings in court will save you tax dollars.

I'm fully aware of my responsibilities, but deceiving women can give men that shouldn't HAVE responsibility the burden of children that aren't theirs, or steal a man's "responsibility" to raise his own child.

But keep defending fraud.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Why Did He Lie? And Why Is He Being A Lap Dog To A Girl That Isnt Good Enough For Him??
Posted: 7/29/2010 1:22:13 PM

uhh, in English writing you don't have to capitalize every word, nor should you..

it's as irritating to read as those who never capitalize


Its a forum filter in all likelyhood, it takes a post that is all caps and does that so it isn't in all caps.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 49 (view)
 
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 12:47:01 PM

Everyone deserves to be heard when they need to be, big pacific. Not just children, Not just parents -- everyone. That's the beauty of empathy and trust in human relationships: that you know someone will be there to listen to you when you are in pain. Not when someone else decide that it's time for you to be heard. When you need it.


Ah, see this is a fundamental difference of philosophy in general, not in parenting then. I don't believe it's ok to burden people with my issues at my whim.


Yeah, baumrind was sort of interesting in her time, i feel she steered the archtypes into what she believed, not what existed per se. She says authoritarian parents are by definition low nurture, and i don't think that is necessarily the case.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 12:00:13 PM

Good, since I am not a shrink. This is your choice, and as far as I am concerned, you are welcome to think that way if that's what you want. So why argue with me here then?


Wasn't you i was referring too, i know you aren't a shrink. I've seen your posts for quite a while. I argue with you because i see you in the forums, and your posts strike me as pushing us FURTHER down the road we are already on.

I feel you take much from "experts" in child psych without doing field work. I was mentored by a leading policy writer in the early childhood development field, i've read many of the same studies and books you have, but they all treat how children FEEL, not what children will become. I work with big brothers, mentor kids since i was 18, and the kids that i see that were raised the way you prescribe tend to retain the "my feelings come first" selfish attitude that i feel is responsible for most of our problems.

The base assumption that authoritarian parenting leads to "count on only yourself to survive" is just hilarious. Setting rules, and listening and communicating with children when it is appropriate to the parent teaches that their needs don't trump the needs of the parent, that while they are respected, they don't put themselves first.

Realistically, I'm not as authoritarian and you aren't as permissive as is coming across and i'm sure we are far more similar. The HUGE difference for me is that you allow a child to dictate when they will be heard, i don't.

Just out of curiosity, and it's been awhile since i've read baumrind, didn't she posit that spanking didn't hurt kids in an authoritative parenting? In the threads i've read you in you don't advocate any spanking of any sort, how does that jive with you?
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 44 (view)
 
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 11:17:36 AM
Most of what you said is true, but it is not related to the parenting abilities and skill I am referring to. In fact, using a parenting method in which children are respected and their emotions are heard has a direct impact on reducing suicide - not the contrary.


How do you know? Your specific version of the PET program may have only been around since the 70's, but a pervasive and far more permissive parenting style similar to what you propose has been around for over 50 years. By the way you define punishment, i don't trust your statistics on "permissive" or "abusive" or the definitions of the words themselves as they apply to modern life. 25% authoritarian parenting compared to 50% permissive or "balanced" is exactly what i mean. This shift has been going on for decades.

I find it telling that you dismiss suicide statistics saying they aren't reliable, then say that your method reduces suicide.

You say divorce has nothing to do with it, i say the instant gratification of controlling a situation for a child instilled since birth is one of the biggest problems out there, and your method seems to be far more tolerant of allowing a child to seize attention and control. It's this entitlement to self gratification that has eroded marriage, the idea that you have a right to be "understood" and "happy" at all times, that life doesn't come with sacrifice. This though leads to divorce, single parenthood, etc. Selfish decisions, because children were raised thinking their "needs" should come first.


So how do you "know" what it was like to be a child 50 years ago?


I listen to those who came before me thats how. I take the advice of parents i have seen be successful at raising well mannered and respectful children that became successful later in life, NOT the advice of some random shrink who is an "expert" in the field.


One thing you can not argue is that parenting has been becoming more liberal than it has been in the past, this happens to correlate to the shift in parenting. Now is it 100% the cause? Absolutely not. It is however a STRONG contributing factor. At 27 years old, the kids i was raised with were NOT as a rule character people. They are selfish "me" driven ego maniacs fed by drivel saying their happiness is the most important thing in the world, their parents taught them that.


The society is facing today challenges that we didn't have 50 years ago. There are hundreds if not thousands of variables in play: how today you need two revenues to be able to makes ends meet where as before you could handle it with one revenue, how children are "hurried" today toward responsibilities as fast as possible because parents have no more time, how many women today also choose to work, leaving children in the care of strangers, the impact of globalization, the impact of the increase of population, the impact of technology (cells, computers, video games, television) and the influence of marketing strategies, the shift of the society toward consumerism, and so much more. To compare children from 50 years ago to children today, and assume all the changes is linked to the impact of "listening to your kids" is a huge generalization.


2 revenues are NOT required to make ends meet. I had a stay at home mom while my father earned welfare qualifying wages in the army, you can't have the frills, but you CAN make it. You think kids are hurried more to responsibility now? Kids started working when they were 10 years old, i was working on a farm at 11 contributing to the household income, most kids NEVER have that responsibility. In fact i'd say children have FARRRRR less responsibility now. Technology is controlled by parents, nintendo's were around when i was a kid, and i didn't have one. This goes back to needs vs wants. Consumerism and marketing are functions of the shift in selfishness, this ALL goes back to what i've been saying, people feel they deserve happiness and understanding at all times because their parents INDULGED them that at a young age.

I've never said don't listen to your kids, i've said listen to your kids on YOUR schedule not theirs. You can call it a generalization all you like, but the thing is this, parenting has become more liberal and less old school, and kids have gotten worse.

Jive the "societal" pressure all you want as an excuse, but it's ALWAYS been there. Funny though, when kids were raised to put others first, instead of being "heard" whenever they feel they should be, the world was a better place.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 42 (view)
 
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 9:37:39 AM
Absolutely, and there is a HUGE seperation between what i'm advocating and abuse. The old fashioned way isn't "not allowed to speak your mind", it's not allowing you to control the situation at a whim, and discussing it when it is appropriate for everyone, not just you.

I don't advocate corporal punishment either. I was raised the old fashioned way as well, i was raised as a child, someone who had no right to dictate the circumstances or actions of adults, not just parents. I didn't lie to my parents, never doubted their love. I was punished for things i did wrong by shoveling a driveway or extra chores or not being able to go to a movie on friday. Those weren't to hurt me, but to teach me that my choices have consequences to match. It was a lesson that has served me well in life. Unlike many children, i have personal accountability.


<div class="quote">To assume that children are ill-prepared because of these types of techniques is not really right IMO. Any technique that is not done correctly can fail but it is not the failure of the technique but rather the failure of the one using it incorrectly.


Are children better or worse since the 20's, 30's, 40's in this country? Are they more or less capable? Do we have higher or lower rates of suicide? Are there more or less divorces? When i look at the results of this parenting philosophy over the last 50 years, i gotta tell ya, we were better off back in the 40's and 50's.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 40 (view)
 
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/29/2010 7:57:11 AM

I realize we are arguing on the terms here, but what you are describing is not a punishment. A punishment is something that is inflicted on someone with the specific intent of hurting them for the purpose of getting them to "learn" something.


Sorry man, removal of a perk to prove a point IS a punishment. If you are just going to word jive to make it sound like a punishment isn't, than i guess no one has ever "punished" a kid outside of a spanking. I don't know any parents that punish with the intent of "hurting" them, they punish with the intent of understanding cause and effect.


For instance, this is why when you have toddlers and small children as siblings, it's often recommended to buy the main toys in double, so that they can both have that really bright and intriguing flashy red car at the same time: it's perfectly natural, when one starts to be interested by a toy, to see the other suddenly interested in it too.


Perhaps you and i describe "need" differently, the basic needs are food, shelter, clothing and in children love from a parent. I do not see how the desire of another toy or curiosity being indulged is a "need" it's a desire.


A kid who punches a baby brother is feeling a strong emotion, and using an unacceptable way to express that emotion. Usually, this emotion is a desperate attempt to express how frustration about sharing the parent's love has been accumulated for months, perhaps years. It's very difficult for an older child to see a younger new one appear in the family and take time away from his parents, especially when the age difference is only a few years.


Again, there isn't a NEED here. I think at earlier ages we need to teach children that their actions have consequences at others, i don't completely ignore your teachings, at the same time i'm concerned at what teaching like this has wrought on my generation, i'll elaborate in a bit.


Inner strength is developed and will grow when we have acquired a solid self-esteem. Self-esteem is eroded and hindered when parents use punishments and fail to understand their child's inner emotions. Perhaps your fear comes from the society's view of a "strong man" as being someone who doesn't show his emotions ("a real man doesn't cry")? Yes, parenting from the inside-out promotes a true expression of feelings and helps children become adults who are in-tune with their emotions, and also who learn to listen and understand other people's emotions. But this makes them strong, not weak. See Goleman's EI (Emotional Intelligence) ratio for instance.


Inner strength is NOT taught by your pacification techniques. It's not about society's view of a "strong" man that doesn't cry. It's about raising capable men and women that understand the world doesn't revolve around them. An idea that children learn from an early age that the world isn't going to take a time out to talk out their feelings for every single thing that might cross their mind, that they are accountable for their behaviour and actions. Despite their "wants", we can teach children that their wants are NOT a trump on anyone else's.


Sorry? And what generation would that be? The baby boomers? The generation who is destroying the planet and starving half of its population?


No actually, "the greatest generation" refers to the generation that dealt with the great depression and fought in ww2. The baby boomers are their children/grandchildren. When we went through the drastic social changes in the 50's and 60's, we saw a swing to a more liberal view of raising children from many people such as yourself starting in the 50's. The more it happened, the worse children became, the less capable, the more needy. We teach children of today that most desires are "needs" and that they "deserve" to be happy. This sense of entitlement has led to higher divorce, lower educational standards and the dissolve of the traditional family, latchkey kids, children of divorce and single parenthood has been on the rise SINCE the greatest generation, in my opinion due to this swing.

Your disdain for the boomers is actually kind of funny, because it's your mentality of emotion based thinking that LED to the boomers being how they are in the first place, again, my opinion.



Let me give you a concrete metaphor to explain: imagine if you are trying to grow a plant of tomato. Would you purposely decide to stop giving it water for several days (because in real life, it may not rain for many days) or purposely drown it in a lot of water (because in real life, there may be a very large rain storm)? If you do this, especially when the plant is still young, it will never grow as solid as it could have, and perhaps may never grow mature at all. The point is that in order for the plant to become solid and mature, so that it can resist any storm or drought, it has first to grow in a protected and secure environment in order to reach that growth.


Now let me use your example. Imagine a plant, with all your protection and "understanding" and no "punishment" for bad consequences are personified in a green house. You want whats best for it's growth, so you shelter it in said greenhouse, and tell yourself "it'll grow stronger in there, i'm doing the right thing". Couple years go by and you've raised what YOU think to be a strong vibrant plant. Then you let the plant go, you plant it outside having never seen the harshness of the real world in winter, you've sheltered it with over emotional "care" and thinking it was best for his growth, and protected it for SO long that it can't survive outside in the real conditions. They expect the greenhouse, the caring and compassion you showed their entire lives to continue, and it won't.

We've had child rearing like what you are describing now for over 40 years, are you satisfied with the children that have been raised?

I agree you must teach children to deal with emotions first, then handle behaviour. That being said i'm not going to give a child free reign to express their feelings when they are inappropriate. It feels like you taking the easy way to raising children, with less tears, but less success when they grow up.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 36 (view)
 
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/28/2010 5:55:51 AM

This concept stems from the behavioral model: do not "reinforce" a "misbehavior" by rewarding it. The problem with this is that it only tackles the surface problem. What is a "misbehavior"?


Using an example of a child crying to misbehavior is inappropriate at best. You argue that a child doesn't misbehave but are trying to express needs, what need is being met when he steals another childs toy? What "need" is there? What need is there to "punch" a baby brother?

There is room for your parenting philosophy, but i fear it will raise weak men and women. Your parenting philosophy flies in the face of the parenting of the greatest generation. It's too one sided for my liking. Similar to a parent that only resorts to spanking, the touchy feely let's see what it all means babble teaches an unfair life lesson. When you throw a tantrum at work, no one is going to care about your "needs", just your behaviour. When you go to school, some kids won't want to "talk it out" and kids need to have an understanding of multiple ways to handle conflict.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Gotta admit, it is easier to parent alone than co-parent
Posted: 7/27/2010 12:41:45 PM

In life, I do feel one is best served by trying to remove their personal feelings about someone to listen to what they are saying. That is the only way I managed to get to where I am with my daughter's father. I still don't like him but I don't have to....I only have to recognize that he has a right to his own opinions with respect to our daughter and how she should be raised. I love to see her loving her father and him loving her...it makes it all worthwhile!


If everyone was like this, the world would be a better place. Bravo.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 2267 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 7/27/2010 7:20:31 AM
Lolz. I'm gone for 6 months and this thread is STILL kicking?

Jenn, women and men can both get STD's, there is equal risk. Women are the only ones who can deceive in a pregnancy. It's that inequality of risk that leaves a want for DNA testing. That deception is a scary thought in a world where the financial implications of a lie can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Boston Red Sox 2010
Posted: 4/5/2010 6:52:41 AM
Great game last night, wasn't the pitching duel i expected though.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 387 (view)
 
Adults living at home with Mom and Dad
Posted: 3/31/2010 7:28:06 AM
I couldn't imagine living at home, I bought my house at 24 and if things went poorly i'm sure i could.

Wouldn't want to burden my parents though.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Boston Red Sox 2010
Posted: 3/29/2010 6:25:24 AM

...and this re-enforces my point!.......now that the Bsx went out and spent "Yankee-esque" amounts of money, there will be 1 less excuse for your side to make..if you come up short!

...and if you do win it, you'll be hearing it from all over the league (except from NY) as to how the Bsx "bought" the WS.


We've been the second payroll for quite a while now.

Outspending you THIS off season, after you dropped a quarter BILLION last offseason still doesn't mean we outspend your payroll.

You still spend more than anyone else, so that excuse will still be there. But who the hell cares, you do what you can to win, spend, borrow, steal, whatever it takes.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 59 (view)
 
Terrell Owens does it again
Posted: 3/23/2010 6:27:26 AM

and he had a valid point on all of those quarterbacks (except Garcia)& getting fair market value for an all pro reciever of his calibre....


And this after a diatribe about spin of the media? Give your head a shake and look at the facts of what he's done and don't try to justify it. He get's criticized because of his actions, not because of some conspiracy to hate on athletes for whatever reason you have in your head.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Shutter Island...
Posted: 3/19/2010 1:04:05 PM
He was trying to give you the same sick feeling that the protagonist was experiencing during world war 2, as a backstory to explain his reason for being on the island in the first place.

The idea that he MADE you uncomfortable is supposed to bond you to the protagonist with a mild understanding of the horrors he experienced.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton) random thoughts
Posted: 3/16/2010 6:16:27 AM
I completely agree, thats why when i see a post defending depp and burton by citing examples of others that have collaborated more frequently, i see a defense of their work. As i followed the thread I saw a recurring theme of those that were tired of seeing the same movie over and over again, with the same players.

Then i see a post saying "but others have done it MORE". To which i respond, yes they did but they varied the films in which they acted, as i saw your post as a continuation of the discussion on the lack of variety that was in the thread by defending them for their repetitive work.

My point was only that while there were others that collaborated often, the variety was far greater (and of better quality), and my post was assuming you were following the thread theme with your post, apparently you weren't.

My apologies.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton) random thoughts
Posted: 3/15/2010 7:20:13 AM

The collaboration of Burton and Depp pales in comparison to John Wayne and John Ford, they made 24 films I believe so these two have a lot to go to match that run. Many directors have used the same actor/actress in multiple films and used their wives in lead roles. Mia Farrow was in 13 for Woody Allen. (Course very few others would bother with her.) He also liked Diane Keaton enough to put her in 7. Other Elfman fans are Sam Raimi (who also likes Joseph LoDuca) and Gus Van Sant. He has scored several films for both directors.


True, but the DIVERSITY of performance and themes are HUGELY different for Wayne and Ford, to even compare them is hilarious. Also the moviemaking process was FAR different back in the 50's. I mean Ford and Wayne did the searchers AND the quiet man.

To even mention tim burton or johnny depp in the same breath as Ford and Wayne is almost insulting. The scores of elfman in the burton films are almost identical, compare Jaws with Indiana Jones and I feel there is a tangible difference in theme.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 3/9/2010 1:54:50 PM
Respect Sacrifice.
Have a sense of humor.
Enjoy every sandwich.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton) random thoughts
Posted: 3/9/2010 11:08:09 AM
I completely agree.

His routine of applying white makeup to a person clad in black with stripes and spirals in the backround and calling it a movie is wearisome at best. I honestly wish someone would tell him to actually step outside the box and do something different.

I mean this was willy wonka in wonderland, i feel like i'm just watching beetlejuice part 10 at this point.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 33 (view)
 
What if..........
Posted: 3/9/2010 10:56:53 AM

I'm far too lazy to perform that however, I strictly remember you stating
that men can perform labor. I would like to ask...how do you know
this? One cannot state that men can perform childbirth when a man
has never performed such action. Do you understand the point I am
trying to relay here?


Completely. However, I've seen labor in person, and have ZERO desire to ever go through with it. I've also seen people in such pain that they literally go unconscious. I guess my response would be it in labor the pain isn't severe enough for the woman to lose consciousness, but other pain can cause people to literally shut down, then I think in my personal opinion that the pain experienced is as bad or worse.

Of course it's just an opinion, and pain is subjective, just my .02, but this isn't a competition of pain tolerance, i think people can bear far more than people give them credit. Regardless of gender.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 32 (view)
 
What if..........
Posted: 3/9/2010 10:20:20 AM
You ma'am, while i thank you for your service of defending this nation, are insane.


You see....you only acknowledge that KNOWN fact of women being war veterans
when informed as such, otherwise, you wanted everyone to believe that
only men have suffered the horrors of war. Obviously, both genders
have done so and galantly I might add. God bless our troops. Notice
I didn't say men or women because one is not a gender in the military,
they are troops...period.


No, you SEE that because you want to have sexism as a crutch to change the subject. I don't reference women as suffering war because the debate is if MEN CAN HANDLE CHILDBIRTH. Why in the hell would i talk about women's suffering if i am trying to make a point that men suffer in what some would think is greater or at least equal pain.

I know women can handle the suffering of childbirth, why would i compare pain when they suffer the actual pain? Are you daft?


I have jokingly stated that men could not handle childbirth. If
the good lord designated men to give birth, I'm sure they would
perform gallantly (minus the ones who kill themselves).


Oh it was jokingly then?


Referencing your statement of men being tortured. Once again, you
failed to mention women as well.


Again, if i am trying to make a point that men have experienced pain similar to childbirth, why would i point out that women have also experience pain similar to childbirth when it is blatantly obvious? (especially when women GO through childbirth)


I do agree with some other women that childbirth may not have been
so bad for them. It highly depends on the individual. I"m not stating
nor will ever state that giving birth is the worst thing on this earth
to experience but in my humble opinion referencing what I have
experienced with it......don't ever want to do it again. There is a
reason.


True, but i don't ever want to tear my MCL again, that doesn't mean it's the worst pain ever.


My point referencing being shot and giving birth is different. Are
you a doctor? Some type of healthcare professional? I would assume
no due to the knowledge that some women DIE during childbirth and some
have great complications during labor. This is why when someone such
as yourself wants to downplay the act of labor, it only shows your
disrespect for not only the labor of delivering a child but women
overall.


Of course not. To be honest, if i think of getting shot and tortured as similar to childbirth, you honestly think that is a downplay of the act of labor? Are you serious? You can make this a sexism debate if you like, but that isn't what this is about.


Men do not give birth to children therefore, this argument is obviously
redundant and proves nothing because no matter how much you or some
other man wants to stand on your soapbox while claiming ...labor is
no big deal,,,you still haven't performed the act therefore making your
argument truly laughable.


If you can show me where i said labor was no big deal i'd greatly appreciate it. What you can find will be that i compared it to torture, and being shot. I guess if that is "no big deal" to you thats one thing.

You have consistently and purposefully twisted my posts to your own means to start a gender war, when that is not what i posted, i have continually pointed out that the quotes you establish to me have never been stated and if you reread my posts you'll see the entire time i have not once attacked women in the slightest, except to say i think it's laughable that you think men have never suffered pain similar to childbirth.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 30 (view)
 
What if..........
Posted: 3/9/2010 9:18:27 AM

Last I checked, not only men are war veterans.


Can you show me where I said women weren't? You see, you read what you want to read, which is a fight. I haven't once said women can't or haven't suffered ANY of what I have used as examples of what men suffered, the reason is women HAVE suffered as well. You want to see sexism, so you do. When I use examples of what I consider to be extreme physical pain that men have and do suffer, where do you read that women don't suffer the same? This isn't a men vs. women battle for me like it is you, it's about showing that there is a TON of suffering out there that many consider to be as bad or worse than childbirth and that men have made it through that, so it's laughable to consider that they couldn't handle childbirth.

The only difference is, unlike you I'm not disparaging a gender by saying they couldn't hack it.


Men being tortured for information? Women have also been tortured
and murdered while in captivity. There are and have been male
POW's as well as women. Check your history before making such
incorrect statements.


My statement is incorrect that men have been tortured? Where did i say women haven't been pow's?


You utilize all these examples of torture but have YOU been through
torture? Probably not. Have I given birth? Yes, I have. You
have performed neither therefore, it's safe to say......you have no
clue about either.


Nope never been through either. Then again I've spoken with women who say migraines were worse than their childbirth, and i happen to have migraines. So i guess it's always up for individual interpretation isn't it?


Yes, men have performed many great things in this world and I for
one am grateful but I will not idly sit by while someone who wants to
compared being shot to giving birth. That is just outright ridiculous.


Really? You think childbirth is that much worse? I mean in terms of recovery time most women are up and at it before most gunshot victims would you not agree?


You stopped telling women what to do? Actually the law made men stop
telling us what to do.


Actually i said we, implying that men as a gender no longer feel it necessary to limit women because of their gender. Apparently there are many women like you who would do well to do the same.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 191 (view)
 
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 3/9/2010 9:08:12 AM

That's right. Refugee immigrants can come to the US and get free medical benefits and disability for life and never pay one dime into the system. Our own citizens do not qualify for that kind of help. I don't hear anyone complaining about that situation ... they just b1tch and gripe about our own citizens who are down on their luck asking for help they obviously can't get but that we gladly give to non-citizens.


Actually, I'll be the first to **** about it. I don't support anyone getting what they haven't earned. Earning citizenship is only part of it, you have to pay your way as well. Thats bullshit that that occurs.


What about people who are working and paying their way and start their family but then lose their jobs as well as their insurance as well as their house?

At the time, they made all the right decisions based on their financial status ... but sometimes we just don't have control over our jobs being sent overseas or the company we work for going under.


Yup they did, and thats a shitty roll of the dice. These examples are those that SHOULD be receiving the social programs we have, they earned their keep and paid into a system that is in place to help situations just like this.


I worked for a company in Florida that was having internal problems and ended up laying off almost all of their home health nursing staff. We nurses had nothing to do with it ... we were just out there doing our jobs and slowly all got layed off.

Before they layed us off, they took our hours down so drastically that we no longer qualified for insurance ... so that when we finally lost our jobs, we couldn't even qualify for COBRA benefits. Again, something we had not control over.


Well, thats not entirely true. When they started cutting your hours drastically you didn't start looking for alternate means then? Hell if your looking for employment, a buddy of mine is the pres of a hospital up here he can't GET enough good nurses, i'd be happy to pass your info along. My point being the writing was on the wall, I've been there too.


I wonder why it's so easy for some people to believe that people actually choose to be poor and have children.


Because your personal stories are not reflected in the worldwide or nationwide statistics of children being born into poverty. Their are and should be social programs to help those that fit your story, people that are lawfully employed and paid dues.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 29 (view)
 
What if..........
Posted: 3/9/2010 8:37:05 AM

What I think is TRULY laughable is that men such as yourself believe that men have always performed the most painful labor continuously in this world. Nothing you have ever performed even compares to childbirth therefore, nice try.


Really? Men bleeding to death storming normandy getting shot in the stomach isn't like childbirth? Men working 20 hour days of backbreaking labor dying from exhaustion building the railroads, bridges and tunnels of nations isn't like childbirth? Men being tortured for information, bamboo under fingernails, the rack, all these things couldn't POSSIBLY be as bad as childbirth right?

Men haven't done all the awful things, but we have done our bit, no one is on here saying women can't do anything, but i see a BUNCH of women saying men can't deal with childbirth, INCLUDING you so YOU are the one that needs to get over yourself. Women worked in the fields, women have performed backbreaking and physical work, but no one on here is disparaging the capabilities of women, it's women like YOU saying men can't handle what women do.


Ever hear of Ying/Yang guys? Both genders are needed in this world for balance.


Thats something WE know. Then again we STOPPED telling women what they couldn't do. Funny, i still have women like you telling me that we could never possibly hack the horrors of childbirth that women suffer.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 28 (view)
 
What if..........
Posted: 3/9/2010 8:13:54 AM

I mean realistically obviously women have superior pain tolerance and adaptation skills compared to men.....

^^^ That's tough to prove.
We each have unique abilitites and tolerances being different genders. However, you can't prove one is superior to the other unless each has taken on the roles of the opposite sex.


That was sarcasm my friend.

My point was that when we do most of the dangerous, painful labor out there and have throughout history i think it's laughable that women think childbirth is out of the realm of men to "handle"
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 188 (view)
 
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 3/9/2010 7:59:03 AM
Canada doesn't do that, which is why they can be so smug, because they don't HAVE an illegal immigration problem.

Killene, posters in here want to tell you that those workers are working somewhere paying taxes, so they have a right to free whatever they feel like taking.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 187 (view)
 
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 3/9/2010 7:22:11 AM

^^^^The really interesting thing about you big pacific....is you CHOOSE not to acknowledge your fellow citizens....you CHOOSE not to acknowledge the people who are struggling with your opinions that makes you almost predjiduce.


People are struggling with my opinions that you should be a legal citizen of a nation to accrue the benefits of said nation? Should an american be able to cross the border to canada and get free healthcare whenever they need it? You can call it prejudicial all you'd like, I AM prejudicial......against those that make poor decisions and expect me to pay for them.


f you expect to enjoy the democracy that has in large part been delivered to you on the backs of those who are less fortunate than you..then learn how to share...


Share what exactly? If someone earns it, by immigrating legally and working gainfully then they have EVERY right to whatever they can earn. I won't take it from them. I don't care what color, creed or nationality they may be, as long as they earn their citizenship and earn their keep.


If you cannot walk a mile in another person's shoes....you have no right to complain.


Really? I am a second generation immigrant. My family fled europe during ww2 to come to this country, and the immigrated legally. I grew up with very limited means and was taught that I must earn what i have, not that my decisions will be paid for on the backs of others labors.


In Canada our poor people are generally healthy...and at the very least have access to healthcare....a healthy person works twice as hard as a sick one..and costs much less in hea;thcare costs in the long run!


Yeah, and thats why the people of canada with means to do so come to the states to have their healthcare. I just saw an entire show about a state funded center for heroin use in vancouver, and using your healthcare system in it's current state with waiting lists isn't a shining example of healthcare.

All I'm asking for is personal accountability. The type where if you can't afford children, you don't have them. If you can't immigrate legally, you don't do so against the laws of the nation you wish to immigrate to. If you can't afford something, you do something to afford it or do without. I lived without healthcare in my country until i was 22. I just couldn't afford it while working my way through college, I HAVE been there, I just paid my way.

Thats all I'm asking, that people earn their keep and pay their own way.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 185 (view)
 
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:50:32 PM

Do you have any evidence that the Pilgrims had their passports and visas in order when they landed here on the East Coast?

Did they check with the Native authorities to ascertain if they could legally obtain permanent residency? What about all the squatters that went West into the ancestral lands of the Cherokee, the Sioux, the Apache, etc.?; did they wait in line to have permission from the native authorities to enter into their territories? Do you know how much did they have to pay to the coyotes to help them cross into the natives' lands?


Nice, a straw man now?

There isn't a nation on earth that wasn't controlled by someone else previously, and it has zero to do with the current state of illegal immigration in this country. This nation exists currently, and to live here legally there are steps that must be taken to obtain the benefits of citizenship.

Do you argue that those that come here illegally have equal right to the benefits of citizenship as those that waited, took the test and became legal citizens?
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
 
What if..........
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:40:48 PM

If men were the ones to have babies the world would be a lot less populated..and there would be more abortions because most men couldn't handle being pregnant


I always find this laughable, I mean realistically obviously women have superior pain tolerance and adaptation skills compared to men.....

Except men built the railroads, built the dams, fought the wars, are the miners and have done backbreaking and dangerous labor for eons but we couldn't handle childbirth eh?

Men have endured torture, but to hear women tell it, it was patty cake by comparison.

Hell we live shorter lives on average BECAUSE of the dangerous, painful and difficult labor we perform.

But childbirth? To much for us wimpy men.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 183 (view)
 
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 3/8/2010 1:34:04 PM

Are there any laws that say that in America only the well-off have the right to reproduce and have families of their own?

Somehow your position on the issue sounds like you are very close to those who wanted to rule the world in the 1940s and tried to put into practice their beliefs that only some people had the right to have children. It took many, many thousands of lives, American, European, Russian, to defeat them.

You can try to sugarcoated the issue by saying that it is a matter of choice, but then you are requiring that only those with plenty of means should be the ones having children.


You can cloud the issue with a nazi reference if you like, although it's childish at best. How you can compare eugenics to the belief that if you are going to HAVE children that you should be able to SUPPORT children is amazing.

You can have as many kids as you want tranquilo, just don't expect OTHERS to foot the bill for them. YOU decide to have children, YOU pay for them, that INCLUDES hospital care.

How can you in your right mind believe that bringing children into a world where you can't afford them is a good idea? I'd LOVE to have kids right now, I can't afford them so I'm not having them.

To do anything less is borderline negligence. To have the knowledge that you can't financially support your own offspring and expect others to pay for your choices is fair how?
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 181 (view)
 
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 3/8/2010 12:13:40 PM

Any normal human lying beside someone they partner with nightly is not going to abstain.
If you want to post nonsense I can do that as well.

XERQ6hT9 3NYret 16pRBy


So you are saying then that it is impossible NOT to have children unless prohibited by chemical birth control or condom? No one can possibly abstain from sex?

Your critical thinking skills and maturity shine through with a post like this, while you apologize for those that refuse to make the RIGHT decision, and instead make the selfish one.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 178 (view)
 
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 3/8/2010 10:21:23 AM

Part of the reason for "illegal" in this thread may be that nobody really knows the immigration status of those who utilize medical services through EDs in a hospital setting.
Just because someone has a slightly darker complexion than those of use who have an Anglo-Saxon background and does not have English as their first language does not automatically give them undocumented status.


I haven't seen anyone say anyone who isn't anglo-saxon isn't legal, where did you see it?


I am curious as to what reliable form of birth control anyone without medical coverage is supposed to utilize.
If you know of something affordable, please, let us all know.


Abstinence is pretty cheap? While not a truly viable option, the idea that people have ZERO personal choice in their own reproduction is laughable.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 176 (view)
 
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 3/8/2010 6:53:25 AM

Maybe they are coming from a country where there are no such expectations! Or maybe the $5.00 an hour that they are making allows them to think that they are normal people and dream of having a family of their own.

By the way, we are also paying for the millions of American citizens who have children without regard to their financial status.

Can you tell what is the difference between them and the "illegal aliens"?


If they come from a country where there are no expectations, they shouldn't be having children? How you defend people who make choices for themselves and then decide to leech off of the efforts of others as a result of those decisions astounds me.

I have a problem paying for the american citizens who have children without regard to their financial status as well.

Putting quotes around "illegal" aliens is hilarious. If you are in this country illegally, you deserve ZERO privaledges of those that came here legally. Your quotations are pointing out what, that you don't believe they entered this nation illegally?
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 172 (view)
 
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 3/5/2010 1:50:29 PM

Let me guess ... I'm betting you're against abortion ... right? But would be perfectly okay with letting someone die outside the door of an ER?


Nope, actually I'm pro choice. Maybe you pidgeon hole yourself, I remain open to individual issues.


The poster after me brought up the fact that illegals often use fake social security numbers to get jobs. The tax money that is taken out of their paychecks is never returned to them and they do not get to use social security when they age. That's a lot of lost money for them. Sounds like they pay more then their fair share to me.


So because i pay taxes i should get everything free? Cars, houses, boats, food, healthcare? Illegals often do use fake socials i'm sure, i'm also sure they work under the table, paying NOTHING and using the system for everything it's worth.


There are far more low paying jobs in my town then there are paying jobs.


And there are other towns.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 168 (view)
 
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 3/5/2010 1:12:32 PM

It's called common sense.


COMMON SENSE? So let me get this straight. You argue the following line of logic is common sense?

1. Move to country illegally
2. Gaining employment (again illegally)
3. Having children despite having a job that is not suitable to supporting children
4. Instead of going to a clinic, because there is a wait, you instead choose to go to the faster, easier ER and pay 5 times that amount?

I'm sorry, but those are choices that don't amount to common sense at all. You aren't billed at a higher rate, thats called price discrimination. What they do is charge you the full amount, as none will be paid for by the HMO or insurance you don't have.

All your math is awful and it's a tough life, but choices were made to get to those numbers. You didn't HAVE to come to the states, why not go to canada illegally? Or head south? Why am i paying for the "common sense" of people that don't have the common sense to wait until they have a decent paying job to have children?

I grew up poor, made choices that allowed me to no longer BE poor. NONE of those choices involved leeching off a system and having OTHERS pay for my health care. I worked commission until i could start my own business, if i didn't go to work? I didn't get paid. If i wasn't there when i was sick, guess what i was fired too.

People make choices every day, some choose to not immigrate illegally to another nation, some CHOOSE not to have children until financially capable of doing so, some CHOOSE to work to better themselves and get the education and drive required to better their lot in life. They also choose to do these things without receiving goods or services they have no intention of paying while living in a nation illegally and sucking the money out from the people that work and pay IN to a medical system.

The really interesting thing, is that if we had taken a hard line and refused treatment to those in the country illegally, theres a decent arguement that healthcare COULD be affordable to most americans.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 166 (view)
 
Health Care Cost Increases
Posted: 3/5/2010 11:28:34 AM

If they go to the ER and don't have insurance, they get billed for it just like others do.


This line alone discredits the entire post. If you think that illegal immigrants getting billed by a hospital has ANY chance of paying, your delusional at best. Sure they get billed, and when they don't pay, who exactly do you think does? The hospital has to raise rates to cover losses of those that don't follow the rules.

This kind of simplistic thinking is amazing.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 1147 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 3/5/2010 10:32:07 AM

Men worried about becoming victims rather then showing concern for a child they may have or may not have fathered. Comming up with a million and one reasons why not to be responsible for someone that shares half their genetic DNA because the woman tricked them or stole their sperm... Wonder why there aren't more charges of rape against women. All these women forcing themselves on men.


Uhhhm, if they didn't father them, why would they be a father to them? WTF is this shit? Just because people want a verification of paternity doesn't give you an excuse to villify a gender. It's real easy to just say yeah i agree we need it......because men suck. That's a bullshit statement, Period.


Rather then having save sex they want an opt out plan because thats whats fair why not right women get to decide if they carry the pregnancy to term why don't men get an opt out if they decide they don't like being a father after they've tried it and decided it wasn't for them. Don't like being a father 3 months after the fact you don't have to be. Can put the child up for adoptioin. Let someone else take care of ur responsibility.


Again, you essentially say that when women put up kids for adoption it's any different than a man? It's amazing to me that you can rationalize such a huge gender bias and inequality.


The whole premise for mandatory DNA testing is that women are unfaithful. If women weren't unfaithful and never had an unplanned pregnancy and tried to "trap" a man would there be need for mandatory DNA testing. No.


Uhhm, no in fact it isnt'. What if a woman doesn't know? What if she had multiple partners in non committed relationships? What if it's an open relationship? You can make it about you and how much it "accuses" women of infidelity, but that simply isn't the case. It's just saying if you are going to PUT a man on the birth certificate, let's verify it's the RIGHT father.


We don't seem to be making any progress instead just being selfish, greedy, wasteful and irresponsible.


I completely agree. Conservative family values are shunned nowadays because they force people to do things for their family and value others before themselves. The "do whatever" to make yourself happy psycho babble that makes everyone think they are entitled to whatever it is that they desire had a huge effect.

If people think of their family first, and themselves second maybe we'll have some change.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 23 (view)
 
olympic hockey
Posted: 3/5/2010 9:49:40 AM
I'm talking about worktolife halftime, your post actually had me thinking on the value of sport in my country. Was a good post.


I mean, if we are going to start a flame war about athletics between our two nations with the gold medal bullshit, just expect a ton of crazy flames lol.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
 
olympic hockey
Posted: 3/5/2010 9:36:24 AM
Wow, do we REALLY want this to become a US vs Canada thread?
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 1144 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 3/5/2010 9:31:00 AM

And you are basing your arguments on protecting people who don't want or need your protection.

I'm still waiting on that study btw....


All the guys in here, i've seen one that didn't want to know, and he can just not look at the results if he so chooses, but the kid's right to know his true father isn't important to you at all?

I didn't know i was supposed to provide any studies?
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 108 (view)
 
Would you date someone who believed in UFOs?
Posted: 3/5/2010 6:56:37 AM
For me there is a different level of devotion to the ufo people.

Believe they could exist and that life off earth is a possibility or likely? Sure.

Believe they were abducted by a grey? No thanks..
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 1139 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 3/5/2010 6:44:07 AM

And I'm sorry, but I don't see how protecting men who MAY be a victim of paternity fraud trumps the rights and expectation of privacy for ALL women who give birth.


Actually since the mother won't be tested. Your entire post is moot, your rights aren't violated in the slightest.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 68 (view)
 
80/20
Posted: 3/4/2010 7:31:01 AM
Saw a real good quote on here the other day, i apologize for not remembering the poster.

Essentially was "if you ever want to settle down, you have to learn what you'll settle for".

BTW, that quote about hating the snoring but having it as comfort after he passed was a great story. Thanks!
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 1106 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 3/4/2010 7:14:46 AM

I find it ironic that some posters can support mandatory DNA testing but they don't support Universal health care. We want to protect men from becoming victims of paternity and having to pay $$$ for a child that isn't theirs but going to deny them the access to health care which might prevent lose of life which I think is a greater concern then having a financial set back. I know I know some of you men love your money and your toys more then your children... joys of living in a materialistic society....

However how are you going to do a manadatory DNA testing if the man doesn't show up to the delivery of his child???


Test is performed when you put a name on a birth certificate. If he doesn't show and isn't available you would go through the current channels of a court order. You get a one shot deal here, not a carte blanche to name 10 fathers.

I don't see how universal healthcare is even relevant to this topic. Protecting men from a crime committed, and protecting the children to ensure correct parentage is a far cry from medical care.

In my country, you can't get turned away from an inability to pay if a disease is life threatening, and the assumption that they are "denied" access to healthcare is just ludicrous. They can pay for health insurance or for services rendered, and as i stated before it is illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient if their death is a possibility.

Of course you think the financial setback isn't a big deal, you'll never be a target. See when you had your child, you and you alone made the decision to continue with a pregnancy after conception, if you were worried about a financial burden adoption was always an option for you, as was abortion. Men have no such decision making power, after conception we don't have the same right to opt out of responsibility that women do. Men can't hit you for child support, unless we win custody (which stats show we don't).

To say that some men love money and toys more than children is just silly, and isn't relevant to the topic at hand even if it WERE true.

Some women like dancing at prom and leave their babies in a dumpster, does that mean i can say women like dancing more than children? Cmon now.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Headline: Canadian Hockey Gals had a beer!
Posted: 3/4/2010 6:12:32 AM
So let me get this straight walts,

You think that this story BECAME a story because they were women? Really?

Was your guy walking through whistler with his jersey on?
Was he of legal age to drink?
Were press officials still present with him?
Was he on the luge track after winning a race drinking a beer?

You can compare apples to oranges all you want, and of COURSE it was f*cking media driven, how else would someone that wasn't in vancouver know about it but the fact remains that I see ZERO evidence that this is about them being girls, all the headlines I read that day were talking about underrage drinking not crass behaviour from those crazy canadian women.

I think part of the reason it was reported was because it WAS in front of cameras, hell remember michael phelps? If there was no photo of him hittin the bong would THAT have been a news story?

Of course not, but he got KILLED in the media for a month here for a photo of him smoking weed, now i'm sure other athletes smoke weed as well during the olympics and after but did we here about them?

NO. Is it because he was an american the he got crushed? A man? A swimmer?

No. It was because he did it in the public eye.
 big pacific
Joined: 7/2/2009
Msg: 62 (view)
 
Congratulations to the US Olympic Hockey team on it's victory
Posted: 3/3/2010 12:51:50 PM

Criticizing Vancouver after Atlanta and Salt Lake is really rich. Unbelievable arrogance and ignorance.


Atlanta and salt lake were two of the worst run olympics in the history of the games. What makes you think becuase i see some problems with the way it was done in vancouver imply that i think my country did better? That is certainly not the case.

Sour grapes my ass, i think the US did just fine in terms of medal count, i just call them as i see them. I get that this is a predominantly canadian site, i also get that this is the time in the sun for you, both are fine.

Heres what Richard Williams from the guardian said about the luger death btw.


"For such a gifted and graceful people – think of Leonard Cohen, Robbie Robertson and Mary Margaret O'Hara – the Canadians have committed a grotesque error in their approach to the Winter Games. Quite apart from that lethal luge track, their 'Own the Podium' programme constitutes the most egregious show of superfluous aggression by an Olympic host since ... well, let's not cause undue offence. Oh, all right, 1936. Olympic hosts are judged by the warmth of their welcome and the efficiency of their organisation, not by their medal count. London 2012 should take note."


BTW, he's not an american.


Just Monday, Aksel Lund Svindal, the Swede who won the men's downhill silver, took a "pointed whack" (in the phrasing of the Toronto Star) at VANOC: "Erik Guay gave me a great report on the hill here. I want to thank the Canadian ski team. It wasn’t them who kept me off the hill. It was VANOC and Own the Podium, or something."


Neither is he. I love how nothing can possibly be wrong with the olympics or the way they were held.

As for the skating, i completely understand his reasoning, having watched them hundreds of times, i disagree on his interpretations of the actions of impedement.
 
Show ALL Forums