TimHauck

Not minimizing it. Just saying it’s not the Democratic party’s fault some psycho wanted to kill Trump

Don’t believe I’ve blamed Trump for Jan 6.

So has-been Kathy Griffin 8 years ago and Reid Hoffman? Not sure that counts as prominent.

It’s a figure of speech moron

lol c’mon you can’t be serious with this

What prominent liberals proposed to murder Trump?

Odds are on #2, which means the entire party shouldn’t be blamed.

How would assassinating their opponent help them win? As has been pointed out here, it’s going to ensure they lose.

Hypocrite confirmed, thanks.

As @TBayXXXVII would say, it is the righties that typically love whataboutisms. Of course, unlike righties I am consistent and would agree that “stirring up hate with blatant falsehoods” is wrong and can lead to violence. Of course that is exactly what Jones did and yet many on here thought he shouldn’t be punished simply for words, but are now singing a different tune.

Curious, do you think Alex Jones did anything wrong?

That was for @Strike, he says he has old eyes

Just read a few, they seem pretty inconsistent and inconclusive, but leaning more towards being positive. The main thing that seemed consistent was children of mothers working part-time (AKA not a homemaker) had the best outcomes. So far from a “fact” that stay at home mothers “raise better children” but you are welcome to share the literature that makes you think this. You, like Butker, are of course welcome to your opinion. This meta analysis seems to sum up what I read: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5657565_Maternal_Employment_and_Children's_Achievement_in_Context_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Four_Decades_of_Research Years of research about the nature of the associations between maternal employment and children’s achievement have been beset by inconsistent results and scant attention to the power of the findings. By and large, when significant, effect sizes were very small in magnitude. In the analyses of moderators, the direction of significant effects tended to be positive, with a few notable excep- tions for the SES, age of child, and race/ethnicity moderators. When all achievement outcomes were combined and all eligible studies were included, there was a trend toward a small positive association between maternal employment and children’s achieve- ment. However, when the NLSY redundancy was managed by substituting the NLSY-low and NLSY-high studies, and again when fixed effect trim and fill analyses were conducted, the subsequent results did not reach significance or trend levels. When each achievement outcome was examined separately, nonsignificant findings predominated. The nonsignificant findings for the effects of maternal employment on children’s achievement were not an artifact of power, although power was reduced to some extent for the analyses of moderators. Power to detect small effects was adequate for combined and separate outcome analyses, and ranged from a low of .71 for formal achievement tests and teacher ratings to a high of .99 for grades, formal tests of intellectual functioning, and the combined achievement outcomes. Despite conventional wisdom to the contrary and years of conflicting empirical findings, whether a mother works outside the home does not portend negative consequences for children’s achievement under most conditions. Indeed, there are a number of circum- stances when maternal employment relates favorably to achievement. A number of studies examined achievement outcomes for chil- dren by the extent of mothers’ work outside the home, and this distinction was consequential for the achievement outcomes. Some studies compared part-time and full-time employed samples with nonemployed samples, and some contrasted only part-time and full-time samples. When achievement was compared between part- time and full-time employment, higher achievement was found for children of part-time as compared with full-time worker

You seem triggered

I heard it predicts America will be like South Africa and all the whites will have to put walls around their houses to keep the blacks out!!!!

Link?

She’s covering her groin in all those photos, must be hiding her bulge!

Lol what makes her manly? Being a cop?

Link to me doing it? I don’t have “people,” I’m not a sheep like you.

Who here said it was horrible or even “not embraced”? The hilarious thing about the original Butker thread was that the righties here were simultaneously saying those that interpreted Butker’s words as saying he thought being a homemaker was better than working outside the home were “twisting his words,” while also saying that someone saying it was dumb of him to say that at a college graduation means they’re saying “being a homemaker is horrible” (which you’re doing now).

True, he seems to have the market cornered in “buying sh1t with money other people gave him.” Must be nice.

Bump for @EternalShinyAndChrome to actually remember what Butker said and for people to see @Cdub100 lying about people “sh1tting on moms” “hating women” and “hating the nuclear family” if they disagreed with Butker. Also interesting that @Horseman @RogerDodger / @Jose M made an appearance in this thread as he’s probably the closest to someone on this board that “hates the nuclear family” (not saying he does just the closest as he chose not to have one and has made several derogatory comments about people having kids in the past) and lastly, for @TBayXXXVII, are you against IVF and surrogacy?

Agree, except in the thread about it righties here were saying his views were “correct” and people like @Cdub100 were incorrectly characterizing those who disagreed as “sh1tting on moms,” “hating women” and “hating the nuclear family” when they were simply sh1tting on Butker for being stuck in the 1950’s