« The Vicious Attacks on Children of Same-sex Couples | Main | Does Barack Obama Have Blood on His Hands? »
By Selwyn Duke
“And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.” So said pro-choice president Barack Obama, speaking Friday on women and the economy at Rhode Island College in Providence. And some would say his remark was anything but providential, as the choice he referenced was that of mothers staying at home with their children.
To place Obama’s remark in context, he was advocating increased government pre-school so women could remain in the workforce and said:
Read the rest here.
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Your Information
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Selwyn , this is even stupider than the usual garbage you spout on your idiot website . As usual, Obama's comments have been taken completely out of context and twisted around to imply evil "liberal" tendencies on his part .
Obama is RIGHT . Many women are forced to put their chuilren in day care, because they and their husbands simply cannot survive on one paycheck, and many married couples are having a very difficult time providing for their children even with both parents working . It's extremely insulting and demeaning to women to say that they should be confined to being housewives and mothers, anyway .
It's impossible for America to go back to the alleged "good old days, when husbands brought home the bacon and women stayed home raising the children .
You really are one right-wing extremist jerk, Selwyn Duke .
Posted by: Robert Berger | November 04, 2014 at 06:04 PM
"Many women are forced to put their chuilren in day care, because they and their husbands simply cannot survive on one paycheck, and many married couples are having a very difficult time providing for their children even with both parents working."
Only a liberal American, born and raised in the most prosperous time in the most prosperous place in human history, can say, and believe, such a preposterous idea.
Robert, how can you know that the suggestion of the stay-at-home mom is demeaning and insulting to women? In the world outside the liberal-feminist bubble there are women making the choice of being a stay-at-home mom every minute, every day. Those moms love and care more for their children than their jobs.
Now, I understand that is not a desirable option for a totalitarian government. This government needs us all equals, all loyal to it, all disposables, and most of all with a supine ignorance about the world, the past and the present.
The stay-at-home mom is a threat to this project.
Posted by: Cristina | November 06, 2014 at 08:00 PM
No liberals are saying that women can't stay home and raise children . We're just aware of the fact that this just isn't possible ."Most prosperous time in US history "? For whom ? Millions of Americans are struggling to earn a living because a terrible economy, one caused by the disastrous economic policies of the GOP .
So many people are out of ork through no fault of their own, and many of those who do have jobs are still having an extremely difficult time making ends meet .
You are totally out of touch with reality ,madam . Sheesh !
Posted by: Robert Berger | November 06, 2014 at 09:41 PM
Your President did say that, Robert.
Yes, it’s possible to stay at home and raise children.
I didn't say US, but human history and it’s so for all of us. Even in the prolonged economic crisis, whose roots are in the progressive ideal of big government supported by both political parties, the US is by far the most prosperous country in the world.
Nobody is disputing the economic difficulties for millions of Americans. My point of contention is that it is possible and altogether desirable for the sake of the future that women do make the decision to raise their children without the “help” of the government. If this decision involves economic stress, so be it.
I do not accept the notion of material goods before my children. I’m not out of touch with reality. I have made the choice in favor of my children every single time that both options have been in front of me.
Posted by: Cristina | November 07, 2014 at 02:36 PM
Cristina,
Robert Berger is an intellectual maggot who cannot think critically. He cannot free himself from the intellectual iron maiden of campus cultural Marxism.
I had decided more than a year ago that it is best to not dignify his ignorance by reading or responded to his vomit.
By the way, I have a deep respect and greatly admire the wisdom and articulation of your reader comments.
Posted by: Philip France | November 07, 2014 at 05:07 PM
Thank you for the kindness, Philip.
I read and, from time to time, answer to Robert because he is the voice of the nonsense known as liberalism in this blog.
I lost my aspirations about the liberal mind many years ago, when I was a teenager and started to ask uncomfortable questions about sciences, history, philosophy, politics, and arts to my professors. With a set of five or six rules they were able to explain the past, the present, and even to predict the future.
Before you ask it, yes, I did study all of this and more when I was a teenager. Not English, though.
Posted by: Cristina | November 07, 2014 at 08:53 PM
Cristina,
You would likely be interested in a book entitled “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness” by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D. For more than forty years, Dr. Rossiter has been one of the world’s most leading psychiatrists and has testified and/or consulted in more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases. The following is a brief excerpt:
“Modern liberalism’s irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche.”
Warm regards,
Philip
Posted by: Philip France | November 08, 2014 at 01:56 PM
I know the book, Philip. I do not agree with its conclusions, but it a very intelligent analysis, nonetheless.
Posted by: Cristina | November 08, 2014 at 08:41 PM
Yes, it's possible for women to stay home and raise children . That is, IF THEIR HUSBANDS EARN ENOUGH! But too many do notand cannot ! !
Obama was not telling women they should not stay at home and raise children . No liberal has ever said this . Just another idiotic Selwyn Duke straw man .
Posted by: Robert Berger | November 10, 2014 at 10:14 PM
Mr. Duke dares point out the message and the name calling begins. No, Mr. Berger families can have the mother stay home but they do need to forgo expensive athletic shoes, high line hoodies, eating out, smart phones, facials, tanning salons, manicures, pedicures, tattoos and pre-made food. I see people doing it all of the time the mom stays home the kids are happy, polite and do well in school even public school they do even better home schooled or on line charter. The big family outing once a year is a road trip and a camp out in tents. The children grow up knowing how to be grateful for what they have. They grow up to be good university students and employees because they actually understand that they will have to work for what they want. I have seen these children as employees and spoken to progressive university professors (yes I said progressive) who have said that home schoolers are by far the better students.
Posted by: kcampbell11 | November 14, 2014 at 11:23 AM