How to raise angry, lying children

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
toffkreg2ad.jpg


Now comes in hardcover: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060544244/qid=1122388306/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_1/002-6018661-8786423?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

And audio cd: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060738448/qid=1122388306/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-6018661-8786423?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
 
[quote name='Derwood43']Ah yes. While we're taking shots at easy targets.

"How to become a bitter, angry adult"[/QUOTE]
That's a nice try, but it falls short. You see, it's funny about O'Reilly because he is an angry, bitter man (who likes to sexually harrass employees on the phone). Now Clinton is many things, but angry and bitter are not usually the first adjectives to leap to mind. Perhaps if you would have said horny, philandering liar it would qualify as a joke. Right now you're just parroting what someone else said in a way that's no longer clever.

Man, it just kills a joke when you have to explain it. :lol:
 
[quote name='Derwood43']Ah yes. While we're taking shots at easy targets.

"How to become a bitter, angry adult"
mylie4fg.png
[/QUOTE]

If you want to make fun of clinton, bitter and angry aren't exactly the words that come to mind.

Though, from amazons customer reviews, this has to be my favorite for the o'reily book:

Unlike most subhuman varmint of the nether regions of reactionary liberalism/socialism who robotically tarnish O'Reilly because of surrender to their stupidly hysterical misguidance that he's a "conservative," I actually did my homework by squandering my precious time with O'Reilly's infantile attempt at child psychology and am a reliable Factor watcher--meaning I'm more credible if I criticize O'Reilly than some commie, peacenik socialist-leftie who does so as a reflex action. As much as it disheartens me to admit this since I firmly believe O'Reilly--unlike the elitist, derisively pro-terrorist and anti-American, anti-profiling, anti-Patriot Act liberal/mainstream media--cares unmistakably deeply about his viewers/readers and the impact of open and fair government on them. Nonetheless, despite O'Reilly may well also care about teenagers, his "book" impersonates more a cash-out exploitation of his name-brand status to sucker gullible kids into buying his elementarily unoriginal advice-doling.
Click to expand...

I looked at his other reviews, he attacks people like springsteen with the same idiocy.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I can't wait to read the chapter on seexually harassing your coworkers.[/QUOTE]


I'm excited about the chapter devoted to the dangers of listening to Ludacris! :D

Seriously though, isn't the whole "celebrity pens a book for kids" thing wearing a little thin? Furthermore, do the teens and tweens Bill’s trying to reach through this even know who the hell he is?
 
You know what other book is sure to be found in the bargain bin soon as well? Rick Santorum's It Takes a Family:

1932236295.01._PE34_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg


From http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cu...te&n=507846&s=books&customer-reviews.start=21

Santorum blames women working outside the home on radical feminism:
Many women have told me, and surveys have shown, that they find it easier, more "professionally" gratifying, and certainly more socially affirming, to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children. Think about that for a moment...Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders. Pg. 95

Santorum thinks it's wrong to help unwed mothers earn a college degree:

The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong. Pg. 138

Santorum compares a woman's right to choose to slavery:

But unlike abortion today, in most states even the slaveholder did not have the unlimited right to kill his slave. Pg. 241

Santorum calls the goal of diversity an "error:"

The elementary error of relativism becomes clear when we look at multiculturalism. Sometime in the 1980s, universities began to champion the importance of "diversity" as a central educational value. Pg. 406

Santorum questions whether both parents really need to work:

In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do... And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home. Pg. 94

Santorum thinks the courts are anti-democratic:

Throughout this book I have been referring to the left as the "village elders." Well, when it comes to the Court and its activist decisions, we have come to the high oligarchy of the village elders: accountable to no one, deciding the most important and troubling issues of our time, issues that speak to our very identity as a people and even as human beings. And all of this has been done undemocratically - even anti-democratically. Pg. 222

Santorum believes in privatizing Social Security:

I have for a long time advocated reforming Social Security to keep the current system's strong safety net protections in place while at the same time allowing workers to put some of their payroll taxes into real savings - into a personal retirement account (PRA). Pg. 154

Santorum thinks public schools are weird:

It's amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools. Pg. 386

Santorum doesn't think he's to blame for using money from PA's Penn Hills school district to finance his kids' education in Virginia:

We liked the idea so much that we have some of our children enrolled in some of these public cyberschools-until the increasingly uncivil world of partisan politics extended its venom into our home and into our children's education. Pg. 387
 
Fox & Friends even punked Santorum this morning. Santorum was telling about some woman & her kids (I forget all the details but it was a hard luck story and she was helped out by her community). Then Brian Kilmeade says, "So it does take a village." It got a nervous laugh from Santorum. That's the kind of jab I expected from Jon Stewart last night, not from someone at Fox News.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Fox & Friends even punked Santorum this morning. Santorum was telling about some woman & her kids (I forget all the details but it was a hard luck story and she was helped out by her community). Then Brian Kilmeade says, "So it does take a village." It got a nervous laugh from Santorum. That's the kind of jab I expected from Jon Stewart last night, not from someone at Fox News.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I heard that Jon Stewart went too easy on Santorum last night. What a shame.

I also heard that both of Santorum's parents worked. So where the hell does he come from telling families that the mother shouldn't leave the house?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Yeah, I heard that Jon Stewart went too easy on Santorum last night. What a shame.

I also heard that both of Santorum's parents worked. So where the hell does he come from telling families that the mother shouldn't leave the house?[/QUOTE]

Maybe Santorum and his fellow republicans should try helping out the middle and lower classes for a change so that mothers don't have to get a job to help support their family.
 
Ironically, most of what Santorum said is basically right.

And this phrase:
"In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do... And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home."

does not mean he says working women "should" stay at home. An intelligent person can argue an idea based on logic and facts, while not necessarily supporting that idea. However, the paranoid and overreactionary liberals on this board and in the outside world think someone saying "You know, many families could live well on one salary" as requiring the reply, "You fascist! You want women to get out of the workforce! Sexist! Philistine!"
The thing about feminism and working: How is that wrong? Are you just pulling random quotes out to try to demonstrate something? I fail to see what you are demonstrating, try creating an argument on your own.

"The labor reformers whose stories are told in The Other Women's Movement wanted equality and "special benefits," and they did not see the two as incompatible. They argued that gender differences must be accommodated and that "equality" could not always be achieved by applying an identical standard of treatment to men and women. The reform agenda they championed--an end to unfair sex discrimination, just compensation for their waged labor, and the right to care for their families and communities--launched a revolution in employment practices that carries on today."

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7635.html
I guess that's irrelevant, because Princeton is a rightwing think tank as well.


Regarding OReilly: Have any of you read any of his books?
 
"You aint gettin no job bitch! Get your skany ass in the kitchen and make mea sandwich, woman! "

The line between white trash and conservatives just got a little thinner.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Ironically, most of what Santorum said is basically right.

And this phrase:
"In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do... And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home."[/quote]
Santorum here reveals the fact that he only hangs out with rich people. I admit that there's some families out there where both parents don't need to work - maybe 10% of all families where both parents work. In the vast majority of cases, though, there's simply no realistic alternative.

He also reveals his elite status with the "gratifying career outside the home" comment. Again, a few wealthy women may have the luxury of pursuing a career. For most working women, their 'gratifying career' involves saying "Would you like fries with that?" 18,000 times per day.

does not mean he says working women "should" stay at home.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't - that's what the rest of the book does. This was simply part of the argument, in which he tries to say that women don't need to work, something which may be true in some circumstances, but is far from true overall.

When you get right down to it, the entire 'women don't need to work' is a complete fiction anyway. Women have ALWAYS worked - the only difference is that once upon a time, they worked on the family farm, milking cows, churning butter, planting and harvesting crops, etc. It was only the wealthy elite who could afford to keep a woman who didn't put in her fair share of labor. The only thing that's changed over time is the demise of the family farm, so that now women need to leave the home to support their family.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Ironically, most of what Santorum said is basically right.

And this phrase:
"In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do... And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home."

does not mean he says working women "should" stay at home. An intelligent person can argue an idea based on logic and facts, while not necessarily supporting that idea. However, the paranoid and overreactionary liberals on this board and in the outside world think someone saying "You know, many families could live well on one salary" as requiring the reply, "You fascist! You want women to get out of the workforce! Sexist! Philistine!"
The thing about feminism and working: How is that wrong? Are you just pulling random quotes out to try to demonstrate something? I fail to see what you are demonstrating, try creating an argument on your own.

"The labor reformers whose stories are told in The Other Women's Movement wanted equality and "special benefits," and they did not see the two as incompatible. They argued that gender differences must be accommodated and that "equality" could not always be achieved by applying an identical standard of treatment to men and women. The reform agenda they championed--an end to unfair sex discrimination, just compensation for their waged labor, and the right to care for their families and communities--launched a revolution in employment practices that carries on today."

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7635.html
I guess that's irrelevant, because Princeton is a rightwing think tank as well.


Regarding OReilly: Have any of you read any of his books?[/QUOTE]

My family must be special then because if both of my parents hadn't worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, we would still be living in a one room apartment sharing a twin size bed between the three of us.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Ironically, most of what Santorum said is basically right.

And this phrase:
"In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don't need to, or at least may not need to work as much as they do... And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home."

does not mean he says working women "should" stay at home. An intelligent person can argue an idea based on logic and facts, while not necessarily supporting that idea. However, the paranoid and overreactionary liberals on this board and in the outside world think someone saying "You know, many families could live well on one salary" as requiring the reply, "You fascist! You want women to get out of the workforce! Sexist! Philistine!"
The thing about feminism and working: How is that wrong? Are you just pulling random quotes out to try to demonstrate something? I fail to see what you are demonstrating, try creating an argument on your own.

"The labor reformers whose stories are told in The Other Women's Movement wanted equality and "special benefits," and they did not see the two as incompatible. They argued that gender differences must be accommodated and that "equality" could not always be achieved by applying an identical standard of treatment to men and women. The reform agenda they championed--an end to unfair sex discrimination, just compensation for their waged labor, and the right to care for their families and communities--launched a revolution in employment practices that carries on today."

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7635.html
I guess that's irrelevant, because Princeton is a rightwing think tank as well.


Regarding OReilly: Have any of you read any of his books?[/QUOTE]

I know quite a few families where both the mother and father have to work, not to pursue a career, but just to pay for necessities like food and housing and taxes (the latter two are skyrocketing in my area). Believe me, they wouldn't be working if they didn't have to do so. In many areas of the United States, one parent alone cannot provide adequately for their children. Somethings got to change...
 
I wonder want santorum thinks about stay at home dads married to working moms? Or if the mother makes 100k a year and the father makes 40k, who should work?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']"You aint gettin no job bitch! Get your skany ass in the kitchen and make mea sandwich, woman! "

The line between white trash and conservatives just got a little thinner.[/QUOTE]

There was a line??
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I wonder want santorum thinks about stay at home dads married to working moms? Or if the mother makes 100k a year and the father makes 40k, who should work?[/QUOTE]
Both if they live in California.

fucking cost of living here is higher than the potheads in Santa Cruz.
 
I have to be honest here and say I want the "O'Reilly Factor For Kids". I was reading a book review that listed some excerpts from it and it's fucking HILARIOUS! Both Liberals and Conservatives on this board should get it. Bill O'Reilly is SO out of touch with kids. chuckles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top