The fundamental reality that the Americans are incapable of competing in an honest, practical fashion is no surprise to any other nation over the past 100 years. The blundering, inept incompetence of American companies has never been supported by anything but the USA military force, and the eagerness of American diplomats to threaten to bomb other nations 'back to the Stone Age' if they don't stop competing with the US on a economic level. The Americans have used every stunt they accuse the Chinese of using over the past 100 years, as their normal dishonest business dealings. They have no one to blame but themselves for having taught how an honest rival how to play the game their way.
Here we see the throughly conditioned obedience of Western citizens to the utterly false propaganda of their media and governments. The article is scurrilous, 100 percent fairytale fantasy world speculation, without the slightest basis in fact or evidence to support its bigoted bias. The offshore investments of China are a tiny fraction of the foreign investments of companies based in the USA. The defamatory, slanderous, and libellous media hate-mongering against the Chinese is merely the hysterical and malicious inability of Americans to cope with any competition, resorting to the unfair business practice of demonizing their economic rival, because they have no talent or skill to compete on a level playing field.
There is an excellent article in today's Times of London on the benefits system of the UK, citing many of the statistics, and naturally completely contradicting your laughably stupid and ignorant claims.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnis...
Enjoy, pinhead.
No one care about your personal live, and no one cares about your selfish, self-centered, egotistical, vain, conceited, childish obsession with you, you, you. No one cares about one person, one woman, one single mother family out of tens of millions. No one should ever need to be told something so obvious and simplistic.
If you sincerely think men leave women and children for no good reason you are a pathetic fool. It takes a lot to drive a man out of a comfortable bed with regular meals and a roof over his head. There are many variables and couples are a two-way street by definition, but if you think women are innocent and blameless you are just plain wrong, and so blockheaded there is no hope for you in the world. There is always right and wrong on both sides. No person in a couple is ever innocent and blameless. Never.
Try keywords like welfare, or benefits, or social services, etc., with the keyword prostitutes, and see what you get. My reference sources are all internal government papers, not available to the public. I know that sounds self-serving, but I can't change the facts. The truth is that the huge majority, between 75 and 85 percent of all 'single mothers' are simply lifelong welfare bums, or women who simply got tired of working, and tired of getting along with any male. Simply because males left them, and refuse to live with them, does not automatically make them good people, good women, or good mothers. Raising a child without a father is extremely bad for the child, and obviously child neglect and failure to provide the necessities of life. Good mothers don't do those sorts of things to children, which should be self-evident to any good person. What a person says is not slander or hate speech when what the person says is true. I will add that your childlike attempt to keep your inner world nice and pretty is very sweet and cute, and makes me smile and chuckle at your delightful innocence. ____Arithmetic is counting, adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing, and math is statistical analysis.__
PaperTiger, this is really good, very entertaining, and definitely merits a thoughtful response. The major limitation of your argument is that you're careless over details, and misinformed about other details. I merely guessed that the number of single fathers might be five percent, and I added a question mark to the sentence, clearly indicating that was only a guess, and I definitely was not suggesting it was the correct number. Sadly for your assumed policy position, the reality is that the majority (more than half, or greater than 50 percent) of the single mothers in the Western world are, in fact, part-time or full-time prostitutes. That is a fact, known to all governments, law enforcement agencies, and social service agencies in the Western world. I regret disturbing the tranquility of your prejudices. Where on earth you could goggle to verify that information, I have no idea, since it's obviously something most governments don't publicize. If they can, most governments try to hide any evidence that their countries have any prostitutes at all.
I'm obligated to agree with RunningGag. I can't see the motivation for co-workers giving someone a hard time for leaving early on Friday's an taking religious days off. I get the vague impression the scenario describes someone who was generally obnoxious in the first place, and her co-workers just picked on her conversion as a way of really getting under her skin. The entire event seems very juvenile.
I wrote the basis of his disagreement was prejudice, not the disagreement itself. My comments about 'single mothers' was a generalization, which is what humans do to talk about very large subjects best described in the statistics of probability and percentages. While it is obviously true that a tiny percentage of all 'single mothers' are competent and honest, the entire world, including all governments, know perfectly well that the overwhelming majority of all 'single mothers' are not good people, good women, or good mothers. When you talk about specifics and exceptions, you are simply using the dishonest, deceitful trick of trying to change the subject, from the general to the specific. That is cheating, and it doesn't count. It certainly doesn't change the arithmetic and math of the majority percentage of all single mothers. That is an immutable fact.
In other words, since you obviously don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, your opinion on the subject is very light-weight and trivial. Everything in your post is trivial, and not worth discussing.
No, that is not right, and that is not what the columnist described. You're putting the cart in front of the horse. The conditions are not every single-person household, they are households in which every single person doesn't work. The source of your confusion is your failure to read, not the writing mistakes of anyone else.
Your central dilemma is that you're wrong, and you refuse to admit it. So what? No one cares about your juvenile vanity. We can all see you're wrongheaded, and that's all we need to know.
I can see you're overjoyed at all the attention you're getting. Busy, busy, busy answering all those objections as fast as you can. Anyone can tell you're desperate for attention.
What I consider is not relevant. We are discussing what the three levels of government -- local, regional, and national -- consider. Just to clear the topic, no, I don't consider one person a family. What matters, ignorant imbecile, is that governments don't consider one person a family, either, which you would know without needing to ask if you had read the previous post I gave you. To repeat, since crudity is obviously the only type of dialoque you can understand, that is why statistical agencies, especially those that make reports to governments, divide the population of a tax jurisdiction into households, because virtually any taxation system around the planet sets credits and deductions for personal tax on the basis of the type of household submitting a return. Do you get it now, retard, or will you need to ask yet another moronic question any 12-year-old could figure out in her own head?
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
paganbarbarian 
Opus