Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[Coito ergo sum]

I'll believe it when you admit that you attributed to me something I didn't write. You said I claimed that there wasn't an attempt to roll back abortion rights. I've clarified many times that I did not hold that position, and that I in fact held the exact opposite position. You've been told this several times, and you've never admitted your error.

Because you aren't reading what I wrote. I specifically addressed "reproductive rights" not abortion rights, because that is the term Hadespussercat used. Your subsequent narrowing of that to "abortion rights" is not only self-serving, it's also disingenuous, considering your insistence elsewhere on literalism regarding the language. If you are going to chastise me for deriving connotations rather than denotations, you'd damned well better be practicing perfect literalism yourself.

It doesn't even matter - and I'm about done with you, because you're continuing to make things up. Whether you say "reproductive rights" or "abortion rights." I never said there wasn't an attempt to roll back those things. My comment was confined to contraception. You're filibustering and obfuscating.

I have nothing to apologize for; I've addressed the point in the terms laid down by her. You don't like it? Fine. But don't try to artificially narrow the scope in order to accuse me of something.

You're mixing two different things.

The point I don't agree with regarding the OP was your mischaracterization of Romney asking his wife what women are telling her on the campaign trail with the position of "Adviser." The former is not the latter, no matter how many times you try to repeat it.

The issue of "rollback" came up when I pointed out to Hades that there really hasn't been any attempt to rollback contraceptive rights and that opposing mandatory insurance coverage for contraception is not a "rollback." You then stuck your face into the discussion by accusing me of saying there was no attempt in the US to roll back reproductive rights. I never said that. I was referring to contraception, and you fucking damn well know it. You continue to refuse to acknowledge it, however.

I already did. Evidence is that the only way you've had to attack my argument was by creating a straw man.

Nonsense. Is English your primary language? I've addressed your points, or what pass for such.

I'll leave it to the good graces of anyone following this conversation. And, my proficiency in the use of the English language dwarfs yours. It's not even close. Your arguments are those of a middle school child.

That isn't the case at all. I don't believe in normal gender roles.

This is dubious, but we'll see.

There you go again, failing to read the actual words and just making up what fits your preconceived notions.

I don't need to concede your point. He didn't say what you said he said. His wife is not an "Advisor." And, nothing he said he discussed with his wife requires having a career or even being a woman for her to render a valuable opinion.

Once again, you're ignoring the way that language is used.

Once again, you are making things up. Typical of someone who wants to prove a preconceived notion. You won't give people the credit of meaning what they say, rather than what you think they really mean.

And, if he's discussing what American women regard as issues, experience balancing a career, parenthood, and workplace discrimination would render her opinion more valuable.

Not if she's only reporting back what she says women have told her, which is exactly what Romney says she does. He did not raise her as any expert on balancing career and family, or with workplace discrimination. Did he? If so, post the quote. Your first quote only related to Ann Romney reporting back to him what women told her on the campaign trail. That's it.

I haven't attacked your character. Only your argument.

Really?

Change your mind? You're too intellectually dishonest to honestly change your mind [...]

Looks like a character attack to me. Either you're so stupid you don't realize that that's what it is, or you're lying. Which is it?

Calling a spade a spade. Again, you piss and moan about me responding to your attacks? Cry me a river.

And, if you look back, you'll find you threw the first rhetorical punch. If you don't like being responded to, then don't take jabs.

I don't mind responses; I simply prefer them to be intelligent.

Since I've slaughtered your "argument," it must be that you are too limited in cognitive functioning to recognize a good argument when you see one. Either that, or you're too intellectually dishonest to admit it. Only you really know for sure.

Thanks, I'm not speaking to you out of ignorance. You attributed to me an argument I did not make. That's the main thrust of this. And, you also saw fit to take rhetorical jabs at me, and now you cry about being responded to.

As pointed out above, you're both wrong, and dishonest.

Joke. I can see you'll never admit that I never claimed that there isn't an effort to rollback reproductive rights. Until you are at least willing to admit that, you're an obvious prevaricator.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sure thing, Fred. You cannot admit now that you're playing words games, and yet you would attack me.

What a blowhard. Your overinflated self-esteem is unjustified ... but I'll let the fry cook clue you in on that when you get to shift-change.

[eXcommunicate]

Another nontroversy.

[kiki5711]

Mitt Romney, however, judging by his January remark, views stay-at-home moms who are supported by federal assistance much differently than those backed by hundreds of millions in private equity income. Poor women, he said, shouldn't be given a choice, but instead should be required to work outside the home to receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. "[E]ven if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work," Romney said of moms on TANF.

Recalling his effort as governor to increase the amount of time women on welfare in Massachusetts were required to work, Romney noted that some had considered his proposal "heartless," but he argued that the women would be better off having "the dignity of work" -- a suggestion Ann Romney would likely take issue with.

"I wanted to increase the work requirement," said Romney. "I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, 'Well that's heartless.' And I said, 'No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.'"

Regardless of its level of dignity, for Ann Romney, her work raising her children would not have fulfilled her work requirement had she been on TANF benefits. As HuffPost reported Thursday:


As far as Uncle Sam is concerned, if you're poor, deciding to stay at home and rear your children is not an option. Thanks to welfare reform, recipients of federal benefits must prove to a caseworker that they have performed, over the course of a week, a certain number of hours of "work activity." That number changes from state to state, and each state has discretion as to how narrowly work is defined, but federal law lists 12 broad categories that are covered.

Raising children is not among them.

So choosing a so called "career" in being stay at home mom is only for the rich. The poor should not have kids if they can't afford to.

If he'd bothered to check, many poor people work, pay for day care and take care of their kids. They are not all on welfare. Hardly very small percentage are.

I remember when I had my two girls, I stayed home for a year, then went to work. It was hard as hell, and I spent more on babysitters than I brought home from my paycheck, but I knew once they get to kindergarten it would be leveled off and I'd still have a job, and I'd bring more money home.

In addition, being home 24/7 with kids was making me insane. I thought was going to start climing the walls and pulling my hair out.

It's glamorous to be stay at home mom when you have the luxury to hire help for anything, any time of the day.

And don't get me on how Mrs. Romney battled cancer and raised kids too. Because I DID also. With a much much lesser income in the family.

[Coito ergo sum]

So choosing a so called "career" in being stay at home mom is only for the rich. The poor should not have kids if they can't afford to.

Well, yeah....I am scratching my head wondering why the world that would at all controversial. Heck, "the poor" can do whatever they like. But, any individual that chooses to bring a child into the world ought only do so if they can take care of it. Other than that, I'd appreciate not having people ask me to pick up the tab.

If he'd bothered to check, many poor people work, pay for day care and take care of their kids. They are not all on welfare. Hardly very small percentage are.

He never said they didn't. And, if the poor people are taking care of their kids, paying for day care and not on welfare, then they're probably not "poor" and even if they are poor, then the people you just described are apparently able to deal with their kids. Good.

I remember when I had my two girls, I stayed home for a year, then went to work. It was hard as hell, and I spent more on babysitters than I brought home from my paycheck, but I knew once they get to kindergarten it would be leveled off and I'd still have a job, and I'd bring more money home.

Sounds like you handled your the responsibility you voluntarily took on. Good show.

In addition, being home 24/7 with kids was making me insane. I thought was going to start climing the walls and pulling my hair out.

It's glamorous to be stay at home mom when you have the luxury to hire help for anything, any time of the day.

And don't get me on how Mrs. Romney battled cancer and raised kids too. Because I DID also. With a much much lesser income in the family.

Nobody is denigrating people who stay at home. How are you turning this around on Ann Romney? She's not the one who said that stay-at-home moms don't work.

[Coito ergo sum]

Another nontroversy.

Imagine the ruckus if that line had been spoken by a similarly situated Republican operative...

It would be featured on the front page of the NYTimes and MSNBC would be running it over and over again 24-7.

[Svartalf]

Well, the poor just ought to get their tubes tied, and not reproduce, since they can't afford it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, the poor just ought to get their tubes tied, and not reproduce, since they can't afford it.

Apparently, they can afford it, according to kiki, above. She explained how she afforded it.

They can have all the kids they want. The thing is, I wanted kids earlier too. I waited until I was better able to care for a child.

But, by all means, people who can't afford things, someone else should be made to buy it for them. makes sense.

[Svartalf]

Obviously kiki had a husband or additional revenue stream, since she did not starve on working while bringing home less than she spent on babysitting.

[kiki5711]

Well, yeah....I am scratching my head wondering why the world that would at all controversial. Heck, "the poor" can do whatever they like. But, any individual that chooses to bring a child into the world ought only do so if they can take care of it. Other than that, I'd appreciate not having people ask me to pick up the tab.

It's not that simple as you say it. It's in our human nature to want children no matter what the scale of wealth/or lack thereof, we are born into.

Romney's camp made it some kind of an issue by defending her of "not ever having a real job" in her life, to being she is "stay at home mom" which is really hard work.

Well, how enlightening, as if all the moms in the whole world don't know it. She has it easier because of their household income. And if it's such a hard job, nobody told them they had to have 5 kids either.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In related news, Romney is getting his son's views on defense issues, stating that his son knows what he's talking about because he spent much time as a lad playing with his toy soldiers.

[maiforpeace]

Well, the poor just ought to get their tubes tied, and not reproduce, since they can't afford it.

Romney says that poor women should work outside the home.

Apparently the standards are different for you if you are poor.

What a hypocrite, talk about double and different standards for the haves and have nots. What an ugly man.

[Warren Dew]

Well, the poor just ought to get their tubes tied, and not reproduce, since they can't afford it.

Romney says that poor women should work outside the home.

Apparently the standards are different for you if you are poor.

What a hypocrite, talk about double and different standards for the haves and have nots. What an ugly man.

What Romney actually said there is that they should get child care assistance. I think what's ugly is the implication of your post that poor women who have to work should just leave their children at home unattended.

He is saying that the standards should be different in that poor women should get child care assistance if they work, and rich women should not. I do agree that it might be even better to give working women child care assistance no matter what their income.

[Svartalf]

Well, yeah....I am scratching my head wondering why the world that would at all controversial. Heck, "the poor" can do whatever they like. But, any individual that chooses to bring a child into the world ought only do so if they can take care of it. Other than that, I'd appreciate not having people ask me to pick up the tab.

It's not that simple as you say it. It's in our human nature to want children no matter what the scale of wealth/or lack thereof, we are born into.

Romney's camp made it some kind of an issue by defending her of "not ever having a real job" in her life, to being she is "stay at home mom" which is really hard work.

Well, how enlightening, as if all the moms in the whole world don't know it. She has it easier because of their household income. And if it's such a hard job, nobody told them they had to have 5 kids either.

Actually, God ordered it... "grow and be fruitful" and such crap... not even mentioning any specifically mormon scripture and policy.

[Svartalf]

Well, the poor just ought to get their tubes tied, and not reproduce, since they can't afford it.

Romney says that poor women should work outside the home.

Apparently the standards are different for you if you are poor.

What a hypocrite, talk about double and different standards for the haves and have nots. What an ugly man.

What's worse, he's the single least disgusting specimen the GOP could muster up for this run...