Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (33756)	2/12/1999 1:14:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

First, you attacked me irrelevantly. Second, I enjoyed Murphy Brown for a few seasons, and never claimed it was a source of moral decay. I merely defended Quayle's use of the show to highlight a problem. Third, almost every Presidential election season, the networks do stories profiling convention delegates. Republican delegates, including woman, are better educated, have higher incomes, and are more successful as a group, than their Democratic counterparts. What are you ranting about?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (33756)	2/12/1999 2:38:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>Your personal prejudice is irrelevant actually. I am merely trying to figure out why conservatives like you focus on stipid things like TV shows with great role models like Candice Bergen as Linda Ellerbee and try to pin some grand moral decay theme on them.< I do not think people have focused on these people. There is an issue underlying Murphy Brown, and it is upon this issue that they focus. You see, to many people MB seems a most objectionable role model for anyone, male or female. The very issue of her being, as you say, a role model, compels many people to publicly declare their objections. They ostensibly see the widespread adoption of MB's values to be a detriment to society. (Single parenthood, as an institution preferable as well as or above dual parenthood, is a value I heartily reject.) Perhaps they think these values, encouraged by the power of network television, demand some sort of equally powerful countermeasure. Not being in possession of major television networks, they perhaps think they must use whatever platform available to them to voice their opinions. There is nothing wrong with this at all. They have a right to do this just as well as you have a right to illogically claim stay-at-home moms are generally dumb and lazy. >Have you ever noticed that working women dont go over to the Heritage society and chant about how everybody has to work or else they are "not doing their part" etc?< No, but this is really not a very good argument at all, as it makes quite an irrelevant case. Moreover, your submitting it in context of the MB issue implies a claim that its inverse counterpart is true. I hardly think it generally the case that stay-at-home moms “go over” to NOW “and chant about how everybody has to” stay-at-home instead of abandoning their families for money. >Do working women ever propose "working women tax cuts" in order to encourage other women to work? NO.< You do not want to go down this road as for years working women have benefited from government entitlements and “set asides” crafted expressly to encourage working women business owners. Working women don't have to propose tax cuts for themselves. In addition to their manifold entitlements, they receive every tax cut given to working men. Meanwhile, the noble stay-at-home mom goes forgotten by virtually everyone except men whose values cause them to esteem her role as one who crafts the intellectual and moral legacies of families. Fortunately many, perhaps most, stay-at-home women simply do not care to be applauded by the likes of Murphy Brown or her male compatriots. Nevertheless it seems in light of the fact the Murphy Browns of this country have so heavily benefited from government programs, the stay-at-home mom should receive at least some general applause, if not a larger piece of the economic pie. >These people - in fact your enitre party - are a group that cannot accept changing times, they are not intelligent enough to make it in the workforce or something and their only recouse is to come up with this drivel.< This is nonsense. >Get lost! Get a real platform.... how about, mathematics education? Why dont you help the housewives of the world learn how to divide fractions or soemthing.< Dear me, Michelle. A mathematics education certainly provides no guarantee of clear thinking. Why does this issue hurt you so deeply?