search results matching tag: independent

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.005 seconds

    Videos (708)     Sift Talk (53)     Blogs (39)     Comments (1000)   

newtboy (Member Profile)

The attempted US coup

JiggaJonson says...

America without its institutions and laws is just dirt that people are standing on.

Joe Biden doesn't hate the institutions of the USA. He doesn't talk about them in broad strokes in every speech he gives in a negative way. He seems to recognize that 1/2 of the country doesn't like him, more or less, but doesn't talk about those fellow Americans like they are enemies of the USA.

By contrast, all the "can't trust the government" types, including the previous president, are saying in essence things that are fundamentally anti American. Which is not to say no oversight is needed, but oversight and regulation to stop power from running amuck are different and distinct compared to dissolving those institutions or hobbling them in favor of more centralized power in the executive branch.

Biden is delegating power across government bodies and institutions, rather than concentrating it on himself.

And he doesn't rage tweet at all hours of the day and night every fucking moment he has a plucky idea. Just look at the sheer volume of tweets that poured out of that monster https://www.thetrumparchive.com/

Almost like one guy is doing his actual job and one guy is literally sitting on his phone and watching TV all day.

And one guy seems to like America and working for the government and one guy cheers every time there's bad news. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-sean-spicer-newsmax-america-b1920400.html

TangledThorns said:

Democrats put more troops into DC than Kabul when it fell last month. Proves Democrats fear conservatives more than Jihadis murdering our American troops.

Biden is a potato. Change my mind.

US sues to block TX abortion law

noseeem says...

Hee Hee.

It's just good fun. You pretend to know facts, so why not fight mud with mud?

Look, you're answer is no answer. Calling it murder makes you look unconscionably devoid. It has no merit. Also is an insult to the whole matter.

If life - other people's unformed, potential children - matter that much...then why not support Democrats?

They are the only ones seriously taking about national healthcare. NO GOP PLAN - isn't that true?

If you w/the holy staff, want children to be carried to full term, then prenatal care is a necessity. Data shows that the bulk of terminations are single parents with children. As a citizen of the USA, you KNOW that's tough enough. But no guy, no religious fart, that talks about "personal responsibility" yet offers no aid is sewer fodder.

Even adoption is a lie. Poll anyone at your church (if you do that sort of thing and are not independently enlightened) how many have adopted, bet it's not that much...if any.

It's a hard sell, amigo.

But do know there are foreseeable unintended deaths coming because of this bill if left in place - GO DOJ!!! Blissful Bob and his ilk will claim it did no such thing either.

Mean you no ill will (the devil you say) but your intent isn't being served by this notion that banning means solving.

[BTW: do you remember when the state of FL and Jeb Bush lost ~10,000 children in the foster care system? Sometime later he glowingly said they accounted for 99% of them? Meaning 100 kids could have been sex slaves, dead, or dating Matt Gaetz.]

bobknight33 said:

Using my words? from some other posted Video.

Fake news personnel also at this site?

Why should I be surprised.

TX law & tattoos

Anom212325 says...

"So you agree that women wanting to leave TX to receive this, should be allowed? Right? Easy is the word." yes, but don't expect to return because you committed murder and that's a crime in Texas.

"You'd be against the idea that anyone could be fined or arrested for transporting the women. Right? Easy enough." Helping to commit murder is a crime.

"So if it wasn't easy for a poor person to travel - your okay w/groups or even businesses helping those who don't like it to get them out of TX? Right? Letting them get the procedure and returning them after. Paying for their travel is an easy solution to the problem - right? " Again, all of those examples are accomplices in committing murder.

"And if it became the norm, are your okay with independent services or organized groups - like an over-the-ground railroad - helping women to get out of states that make it impossible to get a legalized abortion into states that have more realistic laws? If it's done in another state, doesn't break TX's law (or any other state's) - then no crime. Right? No trouble for her or from the state of TX (or any other state entity). Easy peezy." Again, all of those examples are accomplices in committing murder.

"So you are easily in agreement w/the ease of these solutions. Right?" Yes, commit murder and expect the full extent of the law in Texas.

"They don't like it. They can take it to another state. " Yes, just don't return because you committed murder.

"As easy as that?" yes as easy as that. Murder is a crime. Can't be simpler.

noseeem said:

So you agree that women wanting to leave TX to receive this, should be allowed? Right? Easy is the word.

You'd be against the idea that anyone could be fined or arrested for transporting the women. Right? Easy enough.

You'd be against reporting people that aid in getting the women into a state that is allows the legal procedure - right? Fall off the log easy.

So if it wasn't easy for a poor person to travel - your okay w/groups or even businesses helping those who don't like it to get them out of TX? Right? Letting them get the procedure and returning them after. Paying for their travel is an easy solution to the problem - right?

And if it became the norm, are your okay with independent services or organized groups - like an over-the-ground railroad - helping women to get out of states that make it impossible to get a legalized abortion into states that have more realistic laws? If it's done in another state, doesn't break TX's law (or any other state's) - then no crime. Right? No trouble for her or from the state of TX (or any other state entity). Easy peezy.

So you are easily in agreement w/the ease of these solutions. Right?

They don't like it. They can take it to another state.

Easy.

As easy as that?

TX law & tattoos

noseeem says...

So you agree that women wanting to leave TX to receive this, should be allowed? Right? Easy is the word.

You'd be against the idea that anyone could be fined or arrested for transporting the women. Right? Easy enough.

You'd be against reporting people that aid in getting the women into a state that is allows the legal procedure - right? Fall off the log easy.

So if it wasn't easy for a poor person to travel - your okay w/groups or even businesses helping those who don't like it to get them out of TX? Right? Letting them get the procedure and returning them after. Paying for their travel is an easy solution to the problem - right?

And if it became the norm, are your okay with independent services or organized groups - like an over-the-ground railroad - helping women to get out of states that make it impossible to get a legalized abortion into states that have more realistic laws? If it's done in another state, doesn't break TX's law (or any other state's) - then no crime. Right? No trouble for her or from the state of TX (or any other state entity). Easy peezy.

So you are easily in agreement w/the ease of these solutions. Right?

They don't like it. They can take it to another state.

Easy.

As easy as that?

Anom212325 said:

The majority voted for it and want it in Texas. Don't like it get out of Texas. As easy as that.

TX law & tattoos

Fox & GOP Freak Out About Door to Door Vaccination Campaign

JiggaJonson says...

Here's a measles virus
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/2c/c2c40270-a385-51ca-9e81-e4e7590c0c29/5ab25d6beef47.im
age.jpg

Here's a covid 19 virus
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/b91cef_2cd215ed15f544c4ae7a3a287e8baf1c~mv2.png/v1/fit/w_740%2Ch_296%2Cal_c/file.png

Here's a common flu virus
https://hms.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/assets/News/2015/images/Sep/flu%20micrograph.jpg

---------------
We have a lot
a WHOLE LOT< < < < < < < < < < < < < of experience fighting viruses that are corona types. We KNOW how to make good vaccines for coronaviruses.
---------------

And you're just wrong about being forced to be vaccinated

"It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law"

AND furthermore
https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-viemeister-v-white
"independently of any specific menace of disease, a regulation excluding unvaccinated children from the public schools is reasonable, valid and constitutional."
"the case also highlighted that claims of vaccines harms, when the majority of scientists disagree, would not be enough to lead the court to overrule the legislature. "

And i'm pretty sure most scientists agree, but even if they didn't, no, it's not just your choice. The fact is, your health affects the people around you. It's not just you looking out or not looking out for your own best interests.


ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Even if I think you're an asshole and want you to stop spreading your non-fact-based-rhetoric around, if there's one less person who can get sick and spread covid, we're all better off. Don't mistake me. I'd be happier if you shut the fuck up a lot more. But I don't want you to die. It's like talking to my trump 2024 father over here. Get vaccinated already dumbass.


p.s.
Why aren't you concerned about fiscal matters here? It costs the gov more to let someone become hospitalized than a it costs to vaccinate them. Aren't you worried about all that wasted spending?

bobknight33 said:

The Freak Out is from the Democrats spreading fake covid fear and demanding you get the shot or else be punished in some for or fashion.

Get it or don't get it it is YOUR choice.

Wasting tax dollars to know on doors is foolish.
Put a stand up at liquor store / grocery stores.

Trump didn't do anything wrong

newtboy says...

Lol. Such ignorant delusional cultists you are. When given proof of A,B,C - X, Y, Z…to paraphrase your answer…” None of that matters, Trump is perfect and honest and you’re just a jealous hater.” Thanks for proving my point. 🤦‍♂️

Lots of Russian involvement found. No definitive proof of a conspiracy directly between Trump personally and the Russian government (but absolutely proof of illegal conspiracies with many in his campaign and administration and Russia, with many prosecutions and convictions)…largely because he obstructed the investigation at every turn, refused to provide witnesses or evidence that was subpoenaed, refused to testify, answered all in writing questions with “I don’t recall”, and used the DOJ as a shield instead of a separate independent non political part of the justice system. All this was then lied about by Barr, Republicans didn’t read the report, just took Barr’s lies as truth and refused to see the crimes in front of them….too busy focused on Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Barr’s since admitted he intentionally misled congress and the public and publicly apologized for it. You got duped.

Impeached twice buddy. The trials were both thrown by McConnel without jeopardy ever being attached, he didn’t examine evidence or listen to witnesses, he acted as Trump’s defense instead of doing his job, prosecutor and jurist.

Then Trump tried to overthrow the government of the US on Jan 6, we know you hate to hear it but he did….it WAS wild, his proud boys finally got to stop “standing by” and acted for him, and you try to blame BLM and ANTIFA despite every arrest being a long time Trumpster….ALL patriotic Americans care and want EVERY perpetrator arrested and charged, it’s just getting started….and again was protected by McConnel who refused to hear a case before he was out of office, then claimed you can’t try him or even investigate, he’s out of office (and they won’t have any investigations because they can’t have their direct involvement become public knowledge before the next election or the country goes deep deep blue next year).
(Side note, Pence thought Trump tried to kidnap him on that day. When led to a secure area by his own security force, he refused to get in the armored limo Trump sent to evacuate him, telling his security chief that (paraphrasing) ‘I trust you, but if I get in that limo, you won’t be with me, and I certainly don’t trust Trump’s security team or driver right now.’ He then stayed in the secure area with his personal security team.)

We know you don’t recall any of that…or just deny it as fake news because it’s unflattering for Bunker baby, the Cowardly Liar, but it all happened, the records are clear no matter how much you deny the most criminal president ever facing uncountable prosecutions for his innumerable crimes with the most convictions in his administration in history ever did a thing wrong….including having a child with his daughter, idolizing Hitler, siding with racists, white nationalists, and fascists, and trying to follow the Nazi plan to seize power by blaming his failed coup, the attack on Congress on Jan 6, on his political enemies to outrage his base and outlaw his enemies. Like a good little brown shirt you supported every single bold faced and obvious lie without question.

Trump did nothing right. FTFY.

Edit: lol…and the universe provides again. Trump just lambasted his own “best people” as garbage stars, stars he personally created out of garbage with no talent, intelligence, knowledge, or loyalty to anything. One more thing he got wrong.

bobknight33 said:

Muller 40 Million spent--- No Russia involvement
Impeachment 1 and 2 --- Nope.

But hey Trump is out and now its just JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 JAN 6 Morning noon and night.


Trump did nothing wrong.

What did Reagan think about the right to vote?

newtboy says...

Bob, these are ALL right wing ploys, not left. Now you're so far gone you people are "auditing" votes using a company built on the big lie, a lie they started trying to sell in 2018 but couldn't gain traction with until 2020.

98/100 death threats were by "conservatives" (a misnomer) against democrats, independents, and even Republicans that refused to ignore the law and or lie for Trump....like Pence who you idiots still think had the power to just install Trump as president. Yes, there were a few against Republicans, usually after they announced they would break the law or support the big lie using taxpayer's money, but they were by far the minority. It's pretty insane you would complain, since Trumpsters have made that a feature of right wing American politics for 5 years now, including dozens to hundreds of actual attempts at kidnapping and murder not including Jan 6.
It's like you were complaining that a few Democrats are fat, prejudiced, ignorant, and uneducated....or another way of saying that is you're bitching only because you don't like the competition, not because you don't like death threats.

bobknight33 said:

As you stated""" inserting partisanship into vote counting, assaulting the integrity of the process and subjecting poll workers to death threats isn't creating a "honest vote system", it's degrading the most fundamental principle of democracy.""

That is what happens to conservatives in major democrat cities during the counting. Glad we are on the same page.

What did Reagan think about the right to vote?

luxintenebris says...

A quick summary of the HR1 'duckery'...

This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government.

Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.

The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting.

Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.

Further, the bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices.

The bill addresses ethics in all three branches of government, including by requiring a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, prohibiting Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, and establishing additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.

The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns.

...what is so offensive? where is the downside?

sounds more than fair, honest and these Americans are pushing for an honest voting system. where's your evidence there's any 'duckery' in the bill... 🦜 bob

Jyoti Ram

BSR says...

At about 0:45 the first vertical stick in the foreground has another stick horizontal to the vertical stick. As he goes through his routine the horizontal stick appears to wiggle independent of the vertical stick. Then he plucks it away.

Bruti79 said:

If he's doing it the way I think he's doing it, he has some invisible string set up to an anchor point somewhere. I want to know how he's doing the circling of it with his hands and fingers without flicking the string.

It's a really cool illusion.

GOP Purging Anyone Who Won't Embrace Trump's Election Lies

newtboy says...

This is purely a Trump thing.

It's a realization that the party has been taken over by RINOs, specifically Trumptards claiming to be Republicans, most without even knowing what the party stood for before Trump. Anyone who supports Trump isn't a Republican by pre 2016 definitions.

Edit: As late as 09, Trump was a democrat, then switched to Republican, then by 11 left Republicans and went independent, and under a year later went back to Republican and ran for president before dropping out and backing Romney....you know, the guy you say is a RINO because he doesn’t back Trump. In a July 2015 interview, Trump said that he has a broad range of political positions and that "I identify with some things as a Democrat." Previously he said -"In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat", explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats...But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans.". During the last week of his presidential term, Trump was reportedly considering founding a new political party and wanted to call it the Patriot Party. Hardy a real Republican, and a prime example of the definition of a RINO.

Hopefully they will all be shown the door and the party will die along with toxic Trumpism.

McConnell, Graham, Gaetz, Green, McCarthy, Cruise, all those RINOs do all need to go, you're right.

bobknight33 said:

This isn't a trump thing.

Just realization that the party can no longer tolerate RINOS.

Hopefully there will be a good handful will be shown the door in 2022.

McConnell, Graham, Romney all need to go.

STRONG INDEPENDENT WOMEN

BSR says...

These stats show the problem must be testosterone. Men.

If 45% of children are born to unwed mothers then there must be 45% of unwed fathers. Unless the father is married to a different woman of course. Then he will probably have a high alimony bill.

So yes, strong and independent.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

ROTFLMFAHS!!
You actually just said that. Holy shit!

You only say it's ok to lock him up now that Trump has turned his back. If Trump still stood with him, you would too.

Bob, you need some serious self examination. You are a high ranking cultist in the cult of Trump.
You yourself said lying is fine and proper even under oath, making up any bullshit that supports your position. You said that, you said only idiots tell the truth if it hurts their case. You absolutely do not look for, or care about truth or facts. You have been crystal clear about that.


Bob....I'm a registered independent. I don't have a party.
I see your party, the most criminal, dishonest, and divisive in American history that repeats like a mantra that they have no obligation to tell the American people the truth....I see them and wretch. The pedophilic, anti science, anti equality, anti ecology, anti truth, pro secret unlimited bribe money in politics party of say anything is what Republicans have become.

You are so deep in the cult, you only see what the Trump party tells you that you see, and you damn your eyes if they disagree.

bobknight33 said:

If true then lock him um.

That the difference between me and I look for truth and facts regardless of party or else.

You just blindly see your party.

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

"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

newtboy said:

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.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon