Agreed, so learn the fundamentals, because you have them wrong.

The bible says if a group of men beat a woman so hard she has a miscarriage but otherwise don't hurt her, no crime or harm has been done, but if they harm HER an eye for an eye comes into play. That's as close to directly saying abortions are fine because the unborn aren't people under Christianity as you could possibly hope for 1800 years before the current procedure existed....but it should be noted that the practice began nearly 5000 years ago in China, and 3500 years ago in European culture. It was not unknown when the bible was written, but is unmentioned beyond this passage that indicated it's not a crime under Christianity.

All the nonsense you've been taught and are repeating is not in the bible, it's only coming from the church as a power grab over reproduction rights. If you don't know the fundamentals of your own religion, please don't try to impose your ignorant misunderstandings on others.

Why does he only grab the stick so late? Whats with the fancy finger waving?

*promote because of http://www.gog.com/promo/rerelease_ultima_underworld_and_syndicate

"Grab them for free until September 3rd..." Syndicate was awesome, but I couldn't get into Ultimate games.

*promote because of http://www.gog.com/promo/rerelease_ultima_underworld_and_syndicate

"Grab them for free until September 3rd..." Syndicate was awesome, but I couldn't get into Ultimate games.

Lol. Dick Tracy. I guess that’s your way of admitting I proved everything you said was dead wrong and that Trump duped you with another lie into continuing to believe the big lie, that the only way the least popular president in memory who takes absolutely no responsibility for the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands and a crumbling economy and absolutely insane deficit and debt and the almost total division of the union lost the election was if there was massive and meaningful fraud.
I doubt it, there is no amount of proof that you’re wrong that could convince you, because the belief doesn’t stem from proof, it stems from your undying faith in the blatant baseless lies of a consistent con man.

With the courts packed like sardines with Trump judges, you somehow think liberals let people off from legitimate charges. LMFAHS! Or did Biden pardon them like Trump had to pardon most of his “best people” (now called “garbage stars”) from crimes they did for him? Don’t think so.
They were released because police arrested anyone they could grab, then made up ridiculous charges, and in court had no evidence against any of them…so they were released as the law requires….except for the white supremacist right wing terrorists caught with bombs, guns, molotovs, and terrorist manifestos, there’s plenty of evidence against them. The FBI and DOD agreed the right wing terrorists like proud boys and boogaloo boys, like those I pointed out, caused approximately half the violence at BLM protests, non protester bystanders caused one quarter, and BLM protesters caused one quarter.

Nut bag fake news….which means all true but you don’t like it, right? Not a word of it can you contradict, but your mantra, fake news, will save you from acknowledging reality, that you’re in an anti American racist terrorist cult.

60% of Americans can't find the US on a map, and 100% of my statistics come directly from my ass, but when I see another American in Europe, my first thought is "are you lost?" and my second thought is "oh Christ, please don't open your mouth."

Seriously, if the Americans, Brits and Chinese had a cunt-off to see who were the most insufferable tourists, the Germans would come busting in, grab the gold, silver and bronze, fart loudly on a child then fall drunkenly into the nearest canal.

Wait, that was my last trip to Ghent.

To be fair, if it were a real power grab, they would also be pushing HARD for Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa too. If they were "red", we all know Republicans would have pushed for their statehood. I say they should live under the revolutionary mantra....no taxation without representation. That's the country I grew up thinking I lived in, time to make those history lessons a reality for all Americans.

I disagree that just because it would politically benefit them that means Democrats are ONLY doing the right thing as a power grab, but I do agree they likely wouldn't be trying to give these citizens the right to vote if they were more likely to vote Republican.

To be fair, if the republicans were trying to add a very red 51st state there'd be outrage from the democrats. There are arguments for and against, but this is being done now as a power grab.

However, this is hardly the first low blow to be struck. Dirty tricks like this have been escalating fast - mostly from the right, from what I've seen - and in this arena if only one side is fighting dirty they're going to win. On top of that, the two-party system means neither side has a vested interest in getting a referee in to make things fair since that could open the door to other competitors.

This is just another sign that American politics could really do with a reboot, or at least (as we say over here) a boot up the arse.

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

Thanks McConnell. At least more goes to citizens than Republicans wanted, and less as handouts to large international companies.
Yeah, you don't think schools should get any money, but some people think a third grade education isn't enough. They absolutely need funding to reopen safely, but again you don't believe the virus is anything to worry about. The only intelligent thing to do is wait until students and teachers are vaccinated before returning to a system where social distancing is impossible.
Republicans are outraged there's more cash for citizens in it, they just gave $600 per person and weren't happy giving back that much. Your party completely disagrees with you....but it is interesting you suggest they should go with the Democrats original plan to give up to $2000 per adult monthly...a plan republican representatives refused to consider because it's socialist to help citizens that much, but fine to hand trillions to large companies they own or have stakes in that didn't need assistance. It sounds like you're saying Trump's pandemic relief bills were total cash grabs by his lackeys not designed to help citizens or the pandemic. Welcome back to reality.
If you let the people decide, 1/3 of Republicans will pretend there's no pandemic, refuse vaccination because Bill Gates put microchips in there, and go maskless to group events, starting wave four and reversing the gains under Biden. The healthcare portion is imperative, as is mandatory vaccination. It should be just like measles, no vaccine, no school, no job, no government cheese.

It is confusing how, when raising the minimum wage was the most expensive part of the bill, it's still $1.9 Trillion with it removed and with payouts regulated instead of paid out across the board like Trump's unregulated bailouts. Where did that savings go?

Funny how now, after 4 years of completely ignoring it as it skyrocketed, the debt suddenly matters to Republicans again. Y'all can eat a crate of baby dicks, democrats are far more fiscally conservative than Trumpsters.

Edit: btw, this bill has >75% support from the American people, and zero support from obstructionist republican representatives. This is the unity Biden brings, not unity with outrageously self dealing and self centered obstructionist republican representatives but unity with Americans, and an end to legislating solely for the benefit of the top 10% - 1%.

Sorry sugar, newsmax isn't being honest with you.

Almost every challenge has already been tossed out of court or ruled against Trump. Those remaining deal with a miniscule number of votes that may have arrived (not mailed) late thanks to the USPS acting as a part of the Trump campaign and slowing deliveries, and ignoring court orders to "sweep" mail rooms for missing ballots. When forced, one single Houston mail room found over 800....most for Biden. The vote fraud that's been found are all Republican frauds, again, and the numbers aren't large enough to swing the election for Trump in any states. Some might turn blue if all legal votes were delivered.

Most lawsuits were asking to stop vote counting, and were tossed in the trash. Some were about observers, but have zero effect on the counts. The rest are based on pure assumptions, not evidence, of things like late votes being counted, or normal processes like ballot "curing" which is filling out the circle/box when the vote intent was clear but the box not totally blacked out. They're even trying g to disqualify ballots that only had a vote for president...as if that was abnormal or illegal.

Even his case for a recount in Georgia is highly unlikely to proceed, since the margin is over .25% the team requesting a recount must pay for it, and the Trump team is too broke to even hire real lawyers, forget paying up front for a statewide recount.

There aren't even enough votes being questioned by Trump's campaign to swing any states...so there aren't enough to cast doubt even if every one being questioned is fraudulent...and so far there aren't many if any verified fraudulent votes, and my bet is the few found are double votes for Trump anyway.

Sorry sunshine. You lost, and are just stewing in your sour grapes. Just another never Bidener. There's a decent chance you'll lose the Senate too when Georgia is through.
Red tsunami 2020!

Edit: if you donated to the legal defense fund, I hope you read the fine print, because at least half is going to pay pre-existing debts from the campaign, and still more goes directly into Trump's pocket for using his donation portal. Not much is going towards his legal battles, battles he knows are lost causes (most already lost in court). Don't be surprised if you also signed up for monthly donations too, watch your credit card bill, his campaign has repeatedly suckered donors into agreeing to that by hiding it in the fine print, now that his presidency is done he has no reason to not be a pure con man/thief again. Russia won't extradite him, so he's going to grab every penny of your money he can before he flees the country.

No other Howard Stern guest ever talked about lusting after their teenage daughters, or violating young teenagers by forcing their way into their dressing rooms and leering at them undressing, or publicly catcalled 10 year olds on camera, or bragged about grabbing any random woman or girl by the pussy, or trying to buy sex from their friends wives while they were both married by buying them new furniture like the bitch Trump knows he is. What's your point? That incestuous pedophilia is OK if confessed to a shock jockey? Um....
Btw, it wasn't just on Howard Stern either, it was nearly everywhere he was interviewed....he couldn't even stop lusting after his daughters on the View.

Trump allowed Epstein access to maralago and his home for over a decade after Epstein pleaded guilty to pedophilia. He only banned him when Trump's employee's threatened to sue Trump for setting them up to be raped.

The last time they were together, except all those times they partied at Epstien's island, or other homes, or in public, or friends private orgies, or....well, I could go on all day. They never broke ties. Trump just had to ban him from Trump's properties for liability reasons.

Clinton and Epstein never met in person from all reports....unlike Trump who was his best friend for decades, including well after it became public knowledge Epstein was a serial pedophile rapist.

Daughter raping low T is floundering, Bobski. So is your disinformation campaign. Sad you can't come up with better.....but expected.

🤦‍♂️