Mr. Knight, I stand on what I posted.
It's 'hilarious'. You 'repeat' stuff, and 'think', through shear
'force' of such 'repetition', the 'random' ideas you espouse, are
somehow, transformed into Truth?
I'm waiting for you, Mr. Knight, to respond to the stuff I've shared
with you, not as some 'trap', but simply because what you're doing
needlessly divides folks, rather than bringing folks together.
In other words, you're precipitating the worsening of everything you
'complain' about.
Makes about as much sense as an Infantryman's refusing to fight
in-unison with his platoon.
K. P. Collins
John Knight wrote in message ...
>>>Well said, Mr. August,
>>There are several different ways to approach the "contribution"
people like
>Rosie the Riveter made to our economic productivity, with the most
>conservative approach showing that it takes 8 productive men workers
to make
>up for the negative productivity of one woman worker, and the most
accurate
>estimate showing that it takes 16.
>>So the negative contribution of each additional woman worker in the
American
>labor force is equivalent to the positive contribution of 8 to 16
men
>workers, which is why the mostly one-working-parent families of 1973
had
>three times the purchasing power of the mostly two-working-parent
families
>of today, and why the Japanese, with almost exclusively
one-working-parent
>families, now have incomes two to three times higher than ours.
>>What k. p. collins writes is a lot of feminazi hot air without a
shred of
>statistical evidence to back it up, and reams of statistical
evidence that
>she's dead wrong and the Holy Bible is just as honest and accurate
and
>correct as it's ever been.
>http://christianparty.net/familyincomes.htm>>Sincerely,
>>>John
>>>>><raugust at ptd.net> wrote in message
>news:Z5Ic9.1096$Lo4.245884 at nnrp1.ptd.net...>> Dear Mr. Collins,
>>>> However heroic "Rosie the Riveter" may have been, 5 of her were
still
>> required to perform what 2 or 3 men would have done, simply
because of
>upper
>> body strength. This is not to mention the untold cost to
consumers which
>> women cause due to maternity, female problems, and general sick
leave.
>Now
>> that men have been back in the workforce for over 50 years, sexual
>> harrassment is also an issue. Let a man make a casual comment
about a
>> blouse a woman worker wears, or about her dress or shoes, and
instantly,
>the
>> man is at best called on the carpet and sent to counseling, and at
worst
>> fired.
>>>> The NEGATIVE productivity, the REDUCTION in productivity, the
lies, the
>> deceit, the philandering, and the misappropriation of funds which
women in
>> the American workforce have caused, is INCALCULABLE. As Mr.
Knight and
>the
>> US Department of Labor have proven and continually prove annually,
it
>takes
>> 14 men to compensate for the lack of productivity of 1 (read:
single
>person)
>> working woman. These are 15 paychecks wasted for the lack of work
of one
>> single human being who ought to be home raising the kids. Add
health,
>> medical, dental, and insurance benefits to that, as well as 401
(k)
>programs
>> and other retirement benefits, and you see the cost is staggering.
>>>> Simply put, 40 years ago, women comprised less than 10% of the US
>Workforce.
>> The Dollar was worth 4 times what it is worth today. Men died
leaving
>their
>> widows with 4-5 times more buying power than their counterparts
today,
>whose
>> widows' benefits and Social Security checks can't feed a canary.
Men and
>> Women lived out their retirement years in relative comfort,
knowing their
>> incomes were at least at parity with expenses because they were
able to
>save
>> money under disciplined investing in bank savings accounts which
yielded
>6%
>> or better. Their counterparts today don't dare invest in passbook
>savings,
>> which only yield 2% interest. Mutual Funds and 401(k) plans yield
a
>little
>> better. And who has the $1,000 minimum to invest in a CD, except
for the
>> wealthiest of people?
>>>> Let's see how to solve this. Hmmmm... put the father back as the
head of
>> the household, employ more men and less women, ditch affirmative
action
>and
>> hire each employee on proven merit (Men over women first), destroy
the
>> Welfare system, and disallow Congress to raid the Social Security
Fund for
>> any reason. Repeal all forms of VAWA. Then, Repeal the 19th
Amendment.
>> That's just for starters. But Hell will celebrate Christmas
first.
>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> Richard C. August
>>>> "Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:mHCc9.6244$jG2.446940 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...>> > John Knight wrote in message
>> > <73tc9.38347$Ic7.2598180 at news2.west.cox.net>...
>> > >[...]
>> > >Why should you want to force yourself on White Christian
Israelites
>> > who
>> > >don't want to have anything to do with you?
>> >
>> >
>> > Mr. Knoght, it's 'hilarious' that you 'think' that you could
get-on
>> > without all the work done by the folks whom you disparage.
>> >
>> > Without all of us, working together, any of us would be left
>> > struggling not to starve to death.
>> >
>> > There'd be no 'technology', so we couldn't 'meet' online to
exchange
>> > ideas.
>> >
>> > Without all of what you term 'muddy' blood shed, including the
work
>> > of women who 'fought' the wars in its factories, America
wouldn't've
>> > made it through all the wars it's had to fight [and those it
didn't
>> > have to fight, but fought anyway].
>> >
>> > So, you're sittin' there, typing out your anti-this and
anti-that
>> > ideas, supported, even as you sit there, by the sole virtue of
all
>> > that 'muddy' stuff that gave-all that you might have the
opportunity
>> > to Live.
>> >
>> > Your 'blindness' to such is illogical, no?
>> >
>> > Yup.
>> >
>> > k. p. collins
>> >
>> > >[...]
>> >
>> >
>>>>>>
