Well, it would have to be, given that you live in a trailer. 
Why do assholes like you and Rand Rover and **curlcoat **even get into discussions? Just submit your income tax return inthe “post” box, impress us all with your fabulous levels of annual income, which makes you right and poorer people wrong, and cut your losses? Every time you idiots try using language, or logic, or history, or really anything, you destroy your own case.
Some of us are born trailer trash, others achieve it, others have it thrust upon them. I’m all three. And too stupid to realize I’m supposed to be miserable.
Hey, at least you’re not irresponsible. 
Not necessarily. We haven’t seen his tax return, nor do we know if he got his trailer the responsible way (inheritance, spouse).
-Joe
:smack: You’re right—I forgot we’re supposed to second-guess or make assumptions about everyone’s situation.
Oh, hell, assume and second-guess all you like, no prob. Doesn’t mean shit to a tree. I know who I am, and I like the guy. What else is there?
Do you doubt that “doula” and “monitrice” are actual professions? Do you dispute that their work directly concerns the birth process? What collective noun would you use to describe the the variety of professionals and paraprofessionals who specialize in human birth?
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Even coming from you, this makes no sense.
I don’t doubt it, I know for a fact that they are not professions. Being a doctor or a lawyer is a profession, a “doula” is not. What’s next? Is Tarot Card reader a profession? Palm Reading? New-Age Crystal selling?
Man this thread is a total disaster.
Good thing the guys at Lehman Brothers didn’t rely on a bunch of New Age hokum, if they had made their decisions by a Ouija board, they’d be in big trouble now, you betcha!
Holy freaking hell.
Did you get your brain from a jar in a fridge somewhere?
< googles “doula” >
And why not ? It sounds like a specialized personal assistant; I don’t see why that can’t be a profession any less than a housekeeper or gardener.
If someone can make a living off it, of course it is.
It was labeled “Abby Normal”.
missed it by thaaaat much!
It depends whether you’re using the more formal, sociological definition of a profession, or the more general definition.
For sociologists and others who study them, professions have particular characteristics that separate them from other occupations. Usually, certain levels of education and certification are required, and the members of the profession generally assert their right to control access to the work through such certification. I did some of my undergrad honors thesis work of professions, and a couple of quotes from my notes give a pretty decent summary of how sociologists view the professions:
and
By contrast, many people tend to use the term profession in a much more general way, to simply mean anything that someone does for a living. So baseball playing or bartending or being a personal assistant can be a profession, as long as you make money doing it.
But this isn’t really what sociologists are talking about, and there are some important differences between a regular occupation, on the one hand, and the types of occupations that sociologists refer to as professions, on the other.
I’m not saying either is necessarily a better definition, only that we need to be clear what the word profession means to us when we use it in discussions like this.
Sounds like, um, monitrice-ing would count as a profession under either definition, since it appears to be a specialization of nursing.
So your position is that if you do not have a 6 figure savings then you have no responsibility to save for the future? Maybe that is why so many people in this country no longer bother to save.
And? Yes, if we had to take a bunch of equity out and were not able to pay it back, we could lose our house. How is that the responsibility of the taxpayer? Particularly since you seem to advocate taxing the hell out of us to the point that all we have available to cover an emergency is the equity in our house. Even my phone bill is mostly taxes.
Whether or not this is unusual or not, if all of that happened at some point 15 years ago when we owed more on the house than it was worth, yes we’d be screwed. And we would have to rebuild. Your solution seems to be to tax other people, who have zero to do with us, to give us money simply because we had a series of bad luck. Why do you feel that those taxpayers have to be responsible for us, rather than responsible for themselves?
Which has nothing to do with what I said, which is there is an attitude in this country that we don’t need to be responsible for ourselves. One of the signs of this is the lack of savings by a majority of US citizens.
Somebody did that - if it wasn’t you, it was Broomstick - I have trouble telling you two apart. ETA: I read further and I see it was Broomstick - excuse me for mixing the two of you up.
The thing is, we don’t know that. Rand Rover, or maybe it was Carol Stream, seems to feel that the majority on this board (or at least in this thread) are either unemployed or under-employed, so maybe this isn’t a realistic cross section of the US.
I have no idea what you “deserve”, but apparently you think I deserve to pay to keep you from going in debt. Why is that?
At this point, I have no idea what you are talking about, but I can tell you that I didn’t correct whatever you wanted corrected in the time frame you wanted it corrected because I am not spending hours on the computer answering your silly demands. As some people have noted, I am pages behind the rest of you. So if I made a typo I didn’t correct right away, it most likely I didn’t see a post pointing out the error until at least that day later.
The rest of your post was just spew. :rolleyes:
No it isn’t.