Help - Freepers out in force in my local bashing Al Gore, Feminists and me

Help – the Freepers are out in force bashing Al Gore and even feminists. (I had already posted the one where they bashed me for calling Bush a moron: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2116696&mesg_id=2116696

But, here is a place to respond anonymously, if you don’t mind.

http://remindernewspapers.com/speakout/speakout.php

You can put some of the following towns in CT for your location: East Hartford, East Windsor, South Windsor, Enfield, Manchester, Vernon, Rockville, Ellington, Tolland, Stafford, Stafford Springs, Glastonbury, Norwich, Putnam, Colchester, Windsor.

Thanks for any help.


LAUGHING STOCK
I find it interesting that Al Gore’s Nobel Prize was for “peace” - not for “science.” This at least shows the Nobel Prize people haven’t totally lost their minds or been taken in by his opinionated propaganda which did not include all the research on “climate change.” Had all the evidence been weighed, he would have been a laughing stock, not a hero.


LOST PRESTIGE
The Nobel Peace Prize has now lost all prestige since they have now awarded the 2007 prize to the charlatan, Al Gore. This man has created a media frenzy with his documentary on “global warming” and the supposed human activity that has caused the sky to fall. Eminent scientists have said there are multiple falsehoods in his movie and that there is far from a consensus on the causes of global warming. The climate has been changing, for warmer or colder, for eons. Remember in the 1970’s when we were going to have a new “ice age?” Gore, and his U.N. flunkies, have only political motives for their global warming gospel. If Gore is so concerned about human activity causing global warming, then the prophet of doom should lead by example-- no gargantuan home, no gigantic SUV, and definitely no jetting around sucking up energy while he preaches his message. I want to see him put into action what he wants everyone else to do to stop the global warming!


FEMINISM DID IT
Religion has not ruined our world. Feminism has ruined our world. We are living in the generation where feminism was introduced. If moms stayed home and had husbands working, there would be fewer divorces, less crime, and just all around fewer problems. Moms wouldn’t be so busy, there would be dinner in the oven and not the microwave. There would always be someone home so fewer teens would be getting into trouble, and we would have happier husbands. If everyone truly felt loved, especially by their parents, why would there be so many problems? Imagine every child having a mother and father to come home to and in the same house. I bet they wouldn’t be shooting up schools, that’s for sure.

http://www.remindernewspapers.com/

Feminism...that's cute and getting stale. Knuckle dragging freaks...

...he may knock on their door any minute...

They are such morons. It is amazing that they can actually function on a daily basis.

Yes, feminism is the root of all evil. All we need is for our women folk to stay home, make babies, cook us men folk dinner, and shut up when we are talking. If they would do that then we'd all be happy and there would be no divorce.

Boneheads.

Feminism really started with the women's suffrage movement, which culminated in the 19th amendment being passed and women being allowed to vote starting in the 1920s.

However, women were still a minority in the workforce through the 1960s and 1970s and the height of feminism. What caused the mass entrance of women into the work force was necessity. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan first cut taxes on the rich and then subsequently raised the social security tax, which directly affected the poor and middle class the most. With the tax increase hurting those among us that could least afford it, women were then forced to enter the workforce in order for their families to stay afloat. So, people can actually thank Supply Side economics for women trickling down into the work force.

There are numerous studies which show that the real cost of living - including food and fuel, which are not computed into core inflation rates - has skyrocketed to the point where even with two incomes, families are taking home less money after paying for the necessities (housing, food, fuel, insurance). The average single earner they seem to miss makes less money now than they did 30 years ago and would need to work 80 hours a week to make ends meet.

My only guess is these folks either hate women (how dare women want the same opportunities as men? Pshaw! :eyes: ) and they also long for a return of the "good old days" of the early 1900's.

My wife stays home to take care of our kids, and we are very happy with that arrangement. Of course I make enough that we can get by for a few years until the kids are in school full time. Then she can go back to work. But even then, we're planning on part-time so she can be there when the kids are home from school. We prefer that to daycare or after-school programs.

where you make enough that your wife can afford to stay home.

Would you have accepted the situation if your wife was the one that made enough so you could stay home?

How about if you both had jobs, but lived near a retired in-law who offered to care for the children while you worked? Would you then both work in hopes of putting more money aside for your children's education or your retirements or paying down your mortgage?

I agree we are in a fortunate situation that not everyone can emulate. But we're not rich. I drive a 10-year-old honda civic and we live in a very basic 1950's rancher. But we make that trade-off for time with the kids.

We do have family around. But we both decided that we preferred to have one parent home to raise our kids rather than having other people take care of them. That has always been very important to us. And yes, if my wife was some big-shot attorney making huge dollars, I would stay home and take care of the kids for a few years.

I don't know why this issue is politicized. Is it written somewhere that Dems don't want to stay home and take care of their kids? My wife is not some 1950's throwback, nor is she under my thumb. She just really wants to be involved in our kids' lives and we both believe that that is best for our kids. It's really not a Dem versus Repub issue; it's a matter of what is best for the kids.

and, there are plenty of stay at home moms on DU, or women who were stay at home moms in the past.

I was just saying that for many families, they don't have the option of one parent staying at home these days. It was far easier in the 1950s, 60s and 70s than it is now.

Not until OxyRush told them about it. And then they got the idea from him that "Nobel = Bad" because Gore won it and Jimmy Carter won it. Damn it must really hurt to be that willfully ignorant.

moved there for the convenience and afford ability of the location NOT the neighbors. Most of the locals are red-necked morans (sic) and the above posts don't surprise me at all. It is much easier to stay home and cook dinner when there are NO employment opportunities for you at all. The kids move away after high school and never come back - and they are not all in college - they just want out of rural CT.

Science would not be high on their list of subjects of interest - more like car racing and hunting. It has gotten to the point where I am just glad these people generally keep to themselves and leave me alone. I cant imagine what they would think/do if they found out a liberal DU-loving homosexual lived on their street!!!

though it's definitely not rural... I think a lot of the wealthy Republicans here decided they didn't like liberal and Jewish West Hartford, so moved out of town to Avon, Farmington & Simsbury. A lot of business executives, doctors and lawyers who have wives that stay at home, but still have cleaning ladies/maid service. The wealthier wives drive those Volvo XC 70 station wagons, while the "less elite" drive Subaru Outback/Forester station wagons.

I used to call my daughter's old preschool on the border of Avon & Simsbury "MILF Central" because it seemed that every mom there dropping their child off was young, slim and attractive.

It's horrible. I don't even read the comments any more because they're mean spirited, ignorant and crude. There is very little moderation. Just a big ugly mess.

of the wives being happier.

that stated that women who label themselves feminists and their husbands are usually happier?

too. Indeed the housing market prices are based on double incomes. Why would the freepers want to cut the working population in half? Won't that hurt productivity in the USA?

you'll make the heads of those poor Freepers hurt.

Tolland
State: Ct
Speakout: I had no idea there were so many neolithic,closed-minded people in this area."Feminists have ruined America"?What ruined America was the greed of the Republican neocons who have shrunk wages so much that both family members HAVE to work.They have caused tuition rates to rise beyond the abilities of most families.They chaired the lending organizations whose loan-shark tactics have created the greatest housing crisis in history.They chair the companies that have irreversibly polluted our Earth.And,finally,they created a war for profit,one in which many lives were destroyed.I know..my son has been there 3 times.Shame on you all for supporting these criminals.

i'll let you know if it get published.

(it's a weekly paper, so most likely it would be there October 30 or November 6)

Imagine every child having a mother and father to come home to and in the same house. I bet they wouldn’t be shooting up schools, that’s for sure.

Great. I'll remember that the next time a white-Christian-heterosexual-female-stay at home-housewife drives her 5 kids into a lake, or drowns them in the bathtub.

you should add a few lines and submit it as a letter.