1) Barack Obama says- Guys, be better Dads.

And after years of BS, that makes it all better? Uh HUH.

I don't think so...let NOW say that, and MAYBE that would be something.

2) You say- God damn it, women are always telling me that the father is inconsequential to the relationship, to the child, and I strongly disagree, I think that fathers should be in the lives of their children

While I agree, I have to fight this crap every day with my son. Why SHOULD he care about that when he's constantly being told don't worry about it from everywhere else?

3) Everyone says- "yeah, we agree, thats what this little post is about."

4) You continue prattling on like an idiot about how awful women are, and basically end up arguing against a position YOU AGREE WITH.

No, I'm playing Devils Advocate...letting people see all the BS that's been put out for the last 30 plus YEARS. Well our hens have FINALLY come home to roost. ABOUT G@D D@MN time people started realizing this was BS. Now I want NOW to have to cough it up too! Maybe THEN I'll back down.

Now do you REALLY want to get PO'd about food stamps?

Recall that your friendly neighborhood Legislator on Capital Hill has been discussing taxing sugar products, to include cokes, etc.

Well, it might (or might not) surprise you to learn people who get food stamps can use the money for candy, cakes, ice cream, cokes, etc. Now, since no one has bothered to look at that on Capital Hill, and the fact that the ARE looking at taxing the sugar products as a sin tax to make us "healthier", then you're looking at only Food Stamp reciepiants getting sugar products without being taxed for them. Worse, they also get the free health care...which means they get to eat however they like, be as fat as they like and we STILL pick up the medical tab for it.

How do you like THEM apples?

"Who says "men are irrelevant?" NOW, the courts, etc do. I am ALSO a man and a father. I have a family at home and support them and love and protect them.

"what you are experiencing is the loss of undeserved power and control. just as some southern whites felt (past tense?) victimized by negroes during desegregation, you seem to feel that any deviation from "leave it to beaver" is radical and inherently anti-man."

I have not experienced anything. I am simply tired of being told how inconsequential I am. I KNOW how necessary I am. I am just disgusted with others saying that men have no place in a family. I don't feel irrelevant because I KNOW I'm relevant.

What chafes is that those who have constantly whined about this are now bitching about how little interact they have with their kids and are trying to blame the men.

BTW, maybe you need to start getting over the rhetoric that men have screwed up the system. Appears to me that women wanting to marginalize men have screwed it up - recall how it's ok for women to go have a child without being with the guy who got her pregnant or to be married. It's ok for men to be ignored. Now, they want to blame the men.

Sorry but the blame lands squarely on their shoulders...and the young guys today just need to let them know it.

"What was our unemployment like in the post-WWII period? During the period between JFK and Nixon? Nixon and Reagan?

It must've been HUGE!"

Remember that JFK CUT taxes - the LAST Democrat President to do so BTW.

"We've lowered income taxes so much since then, and unemployment even between the '80s and today was fluctuating between 5%-9%."

Ah yes, but then when Reagan cut the income tax, the high end was 38% - and THAT was JUST the income tax. Didn't include FICA (social security) or anything else. So basically you could figure HALF of your taxable income was gone, prior to Reagan's tax cuts, in those days.

You have a chart plotting the 90% marginal rate unemployment next to our 28% rates?

"Your claim is bullshit. Corporate profits don't translate to jobs, and neither do lower income/cap-gains taxes."

My Lord, you don't have a CLUE, do you? If corporations don't make a sufficient profit, do you REALLY think they are going to STAY in the state that is taxing them into the poor house?! Of course not...there's such a thing as a Cost Benefit Analysis in which the business deteremines if it would be more beneficial for them to MOVE from the state than it would be to eat the costs of additional taxes. If the taxes go up enough, then the business MOVES, simple as that.

"NO ONE in business wants to create jobs, and the biggest reason why is because all those damn employees cut into the dividends and bonuses paid to owners and officers."

Of course they want to create dividends and bonuses...but they have to have WORKERS to do the work to produce the product to MAKE the money. Obviously you don't see it, but corporations NEED the workers to make a profit. Granted the corporation WILL try to minimize costs but that is part of being in business. You're right that businesses are in the business to make a profit, not to create a job. BUT to make a profit, businesses HAVE to create a job.

To put it bluntly, I've been hired to do a job by a rich man before...but I've NEVER been hired to do a job by a poor man.

"Hey, don't forget, Salon's best and brightest agree: the only way for the Republican party to stay relevant is to move to the CENTER and be JUST like Arnold!"

Well there's your answer - Salon's best and brightest agree. LOL