I am lookin in your face though

Your face looks like your arse so I don't know

Arx me if I'm bovvered.

Look, you know the classic "started in the mail room and worked his way up" story? That's me, literally.

I don't think that trying to make a lot of money is the only important thing, and there are many other major considerations that as a family we try to keep in balance. It's probably been easier for me than for some, and harder than it was for some others. But I've always known that I only had myself to rely on, and that making some hard, consistent choices to delay gratification and stay on course was something I would have to stick with. To be honest, I don't think that enough people these days hold those fundamental principles close to their heart and live by them.

So when I hear "lucky" used as a throw-away term to describe what is essentially my demographic (income-earning father supports a stay-at-home mother) I take offense. It isn't easy to do what we do. It's hard damn work. We may have been lucky as hell, maybe we have been, but if we hadn't added HARD WORK into the mix it wouldn't have amounted to a hill of beans. I say "we" because I believe that my wife works harder than I do.

I do not disagree with this
I get what you mean. And you get what I mean I think, because of my post above.

My beef is the opposite.
A viewpoint that denigrates toilet cleaners, dustbinmen, sandwich makers, lunchtime supervisors, barmaids and all those who work hard in multiple part time jobs. I worked full time and part time so I met them. They worked hours to suit bringing up their children. The jobs we did were mindless. Other people were at night school.

We were trying to earn enough to raise families, run cars, pay mortgages and debts.

We never thought anyone why worked hard as lucky.
Although I envied those who'd made the right choice re partners.
But hey - I was never into the Amish ;)

Every choice, every action, has a billion possible positive outcomes and a trillion possible negative outcomes. Things are so complex that it's impossible to predict the outcomes of all your decisions. "luck" is just which side of the statistical spread you happened to land on. of course personal effort matters far more than statistics can in the MIDDLE of the bell curve - where your luck is overall pretty neutral. Hard work and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps can't mean a thing at the bottom end of the curve, just like no matter how bad your decision-making is, you aren't going to ruin yourself at the top end of the curve.

So you can't assume a SINGLE thing about someone's work ethic, choices, anything, by their socioeconomic status alone. You don't know where on the "luck" statistical bell curve they fall.

Agreed.
That they rented a $75 month basement apartment when they first got married and had their son. - Irrelevant!

That she delayed going to school to be a stay at home mom. - Irrelevant!

That she went back to school part-time so it wouldn't interfere with HER raising her kids. - Irrelevant!

Are they rich as shit? yep. So fucking what? Don't let your jealousy get the best of you.

This BS is as relevant as
"Obama pays a lower % in taxes than Buffett's secretary."

What the fuck does that mean? I'm saying that if all you know about a person, or hypothetical person, is that they are poor, you know absolutely nothing else about them, their work ethic, etc, from knowing that they are poor. I'm not sure what you're on about, and i'm not saying that to be a bitch, i really dont understand your point or what you're referencing.

Tony Hayward once said; How did spin convert that into what he did not say? Suddenly Tony has contempt for the residents and employers so harmed by an oil spill? Clearly he did not say that. But spin promoted by emotions converted his statement into something different. So many only entertain their emotions rather than grasp hard facts - what was actually said.

Politicians must be experts at playing to emotions because so many only use emotions to know how to think. Hard facts - what he really said - has little relevance to those who use feelings to hear something different.

Rosen simply said that Ann Romney, who never worked as both a mother and in the workplace, would not know how most women think. But in a world of soundbytes and emotion, what she said and what others heard are two completely different conclusions. Tony Hayward demonstrated how secret interpretations, not found anywhere in the statement, are only what matters to so many.

Ann Romney lives a sheltered and privileged life. She has little knowledge of what women want. Are most women only interested in the economy? The majority of posts here never once address the question. Are posted as if the question does not exist. The majority of posts here imply spin (what she did not say) is the truth.

Stated accurately is that Ann Romney did "Not worked a day in [his/her] life" ... professionally. She did not raise children while earning an income. She did not make compromises to pay the bills. She probably had many maids and cleaning women working for her. Which is fine. Except that does not make an expert on what a real world woman needs.

And that is fine. But is completely irrelevant to what Hilary Rosen said and what Ann Romney did with her life. What toilet cleaners do is irrelevant to Ann Romney’s experience and knowledge. Why does that make Ann Romney an expert on what women want? What will politicians do for women? The most important and relevant question is not even discussed here. Because spin (inspired by emotions) has subverted logical discussion.

Ann Romney knows women worry most about economics issues? Nonsense. Most women (like most men) have little basic grasp of basic economic issues. And have more important issues in their life – ie paying the bills.

Spin manipulated by emotion averts the only and relevant question. For the same reason that Tony Hayward said one thing. Then spin castigated him, instead, for saying what he did not say.

Why does Ann Romney know what women want. Can anyone answer that simple question without spinning it into contempt for women?

I agree with you. I added some other facts to the equation that change nothing.
Your statement still holds true.
Now pull your panties outta your ass & relax or go argue with JBK.
Either way, don't piss on me for no reason.

Sorry mate. I assumed there was something connecting those statements in a way that I didn't understand, and that you were making a point. I read the post as hostile so I assumed you were disagreeing with me. I didn't mean to piss! i didn't think i was. Sorry for saying "fuck". to people my age "what the fuck does that mean?" isn't a hostile construction. My last sentence there was s'posed to mitigate things and make sure you knew i wasn't trying to attack!

This is, roughly, what I wanted to say. Just because Ann Romney is a woman does not make her an appropriate representative for all the women of the US.

Imagine the dinner conversation.

"Hey, Honey"

"Yes, Mitt darling?"

"You're an American woman. What are American women most concerned about?"

"Well, taxes on billionaire families, for one thing, whether our husbands are going to be elected president for another, what kind of drapes to have in the White House, you know. How many nannies to hire, which private schools have the best religious classes, which kinds of underwear best prevent impure thoughts, that sort of thing..."

"Great, thanks, I'll get onto those issues. Women's vote, here I come!"

President Carter asked 12 year old Amy what was the most important issue. Children knew it was "the control of nuclear arms". Amy clearly represented the concerns of all kids.

Well Obama didn't like it at all. Look at the timeline of events starting with "Ann Romney never worked
a day in her life." The White House goes into defense mode immediately. Distancing themselves from
Hilary. I felt kind of sorry for her. After looking at the timeline, shown last night, then spew your hatred
at a woman who raised 5 sons, wealthy or not!
Why have you not said the same about Jackie Kennedy? John Kerry's wife, the ketchup heiress?
FDR's wife? And on and on? It's because it's a Republican you hate. Because you hate people who have more than you?
That's called jealousy. These posts are filled with them. Obama doesn't agree with you.
Kinda funny, really, especially reading all of this. You all see one thing. Rich Republican woman.
Nothing else matters to you than that. Kind of sick to me. And kind of scary. Take out all the other rich
women in the history of politics as if they never existed. They are omitted by the mere fact that they
were/are Democrats and it's OK for them to be rich.

When did the president know what all women wanted because they consulted their wife? When did John Kerry's wife say she knew what all women wanted? Why are you spinning the topic into something irrelevant. Democrat or Republican is 100% irrelevant. The question is only about consulting honest sources. Ann Romney represents what concerns all women? Just as Amy Carter did not represent what concerns all kids.

The only question you should be answering: Does Ann Romney know what concerns all women? Nothing political in that question or the resulting doubts. Why did you even post the irrelevant Republican word? It is a simple question. Does Ann Romney know what all women want? Where is her experience? So how does she know?