Actually no you haven’t, and yes you clearly do care what party they’re in. You may have said you think that, but your actions and arguments speak louder than your lies. Remember claiming you weren’t sexist at all minutes before (keyboard) screaming MGTOW!!!
Remember saying it was not just ok, but smart that Trump lied in depositions under oath? That only a stupid person would tell the truth if it might get them in trouble? Then you clearly stated wrong is right….and those are not the only instances.

You ignored the vote stealing, actually claimed the Republican vote harvester that admitted (his campaign workers) voting for himself thousands of times was punished when you KNOW he wasn’t because it was your district, and he remained in office until he withdrew on his own for personal reasons. Zero punishment whatsoever but you lie about it because he’s Republican.

You still call democrats the party of debauchery with zero evidence to cite, but can’t fathom that the reason I never find “my team” (I’m a Democrat only by default btw) doing that kind of wrong is because I only pay attention to reputable sources like court records and not often anonymous lying blowhards trying to score political points against their enemies, and reputable sources and police never find democrat representatives molesting children, trafficking them for sex, having cocaine fueled lemon parties, exposing themselves to pre teen girls in bowling alleys, picking up 12 year old girls in malls, having parties with Epstein and young girls and no one else, covering for child molesting coaches for decades, being long term pen palls with convicted kiddie porn producers while in office, admitting to driving for hours intending to have sex with an 11 year old girl, rewriting marriage laws so it’s legal to marry and have sex with 9 year old children, etc. …do I need to put names to all those charges? Because I can. You ignore every one of those credible accusations against Republicans and make up random accusations out of thin air about Democrats constantly.

Stealing, your hero Trump was convicted of stealing from charities for veterans, and students, and every contractor that ever worked for him, you don’t care one whit. He tried to steal an election (or two) and you cheer it on.

Cheating, why are you a Republican then, they get caught cheating for real daily, not MTG style baseless accusations based on someone’s Twitter claim. Your own district was the most egregious cheating scandal in decades, by republicans, and you would have gladly voted for him again, maybe twice. Have you forgotten how many of Trump’s administration ended up being unreported foreign assets? Hiding their foreign payments and cheating the system to allow foreign influence in our whitehouse?

It is odd, you would think statistically there must be some Democrat representative child molesters, I assume there are, but if there are they are smart enough that they aren’t getting caught. Republicans constantly are getting caught, and you are constantly ignoring it.

I do call out Pelosi for insider trading, and say she isn’t the only Democrat guilty of that crime against America, but I also say Republicans do it as a matter of course daily. Republicans went to court to make it legal for corporations to bribe them with pacs and super pacs and block any attempt to make bribery illegal again.

So you are just incorrect, again. Doesn’t that get tiring?

Teacher here. It's made-up-nonsense. I don't give a shit what gender or sexual orientation a kid is and im CERTAINLY not going to try to convince anyone to change anything about themselves.

That said, I'm going to acknowledge that gay/trans people exist in authorship and literature as it arises. You can't read someone like Whitman (Leaves of Grass, arguably America's greatest poet) and not come across references to sexuality either implicit or explicit. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45472/i-sing-the-body-electric

It becomes relevant in passages like this:

5
This is the female form,
A divine nimbus exhales from it from head to foot,
It attracts with fierce undeniable attraction,
I am drawn by its breath as if I were no more than a helpless vapor, all falls aside but myself and it,
Books, art, religion, time, the visible and solid earth, and what was expected of heaven or fear’d of hell, are now consumed,
Mad filaments, ungovernable shoots play out of it, the response likewise ungovernable,
Hair, bosom, hips, bend of legs, negligent falling hands all diffused, mine too diffused,
Ebb stung by the flow and flow stung by the ebb, love-flesh swelling and deliciously aching,
Limitless limpid jets of love hot and enormous, quivering jelly of love, white-blow and delirious juice,
Bridegroom night of love working surely and softly into the prostrate dawn,
Undulating into the willing and yielding day,
Lost in the cleave of the clasping and sweet-flesh’d day.

----------------------------------
Maybe a conversation like:

"'Love flesh swelling' like he's in love with some woman and they...he...?"

"Probably not, he didn't have any serious female relationships as far as I am aware."

"But the title is 'The female form'"

"Well, it's possible, but it's not likely the case that he was talking about himself being in love with a woman. This poem is in the text but he wrote many other pieces about he-himself falling into and out of love with various men and we have letters documenting those relationships with his male significant others. Although, I'm not sure what to call them because gay marriage would have been illegal at the time. He's likely writing the poem in a way where he appreciates the female form and sees men who are drawn to it like the way I appreciate watching bees act obsessively driven to the middle of flowers. I like watching Bees in action, but that doesn't mean I'm going all pollen crazy, still I appreciate it for what it is."
-------------------

This is an example of how discussion of sexuality would come up in my classroom as I imagine it. Note how I'm not trying to convince the kid I'm talking to to turn gay like it's a big game of rainbow-red-rover or something. Nevertheless, knowing the author's sexual preference in this instance informs our understanding of the piece.


My own personal theory?
The people railing against things like this are the same shitheads that can't be bothered to read ANYTHING and instead giggle and guffaw at "hurhurhurhur he hadd'a boner" where I get to live an early stage of Idocracy.

Also, I agree that the "funky stuff" shouldn't be just avoided altogether. For goodness sake, just let teachers have the difficult conversation that everyone is avoiding. Reminds me of when Peggy Hill was struggling to say "Penis" when she was assigned sex ed.

Sweet Zombie Jesus….Tennessee Republicans are trying to erase age limits for marriage so they can marry and legally have sex with preteen children in the name of outrage over legal gay marriage.
The alternative marriage bill, hb 233. No age limits. “Trust us” they say. “It’s ok to not put limits on it, no one will abuse it.”

So many prominent Republicans are going down this SEX WITH CHILDREN route in the last 5 years, Roy Moore, Matt Gates, Jim Jorden, Trump, I could go on… now entire Republican state legislatures are trying to make child “marriage” legal….wtf happened to you guys? Are tax cuts for the rich really worth literally everything else, including your children?

probably a small segment of the viewing populace understood 'g.i. jane' reference. even smaller knowing the hair loss issue. being hollywood - the joke was mild by ricky jarvis' standards - and having come out w/her problem, was it any worst than...
- richard pryor addressing his first audience after he blazed himself, "y'all did some nasty ass jokes on my ass - oh yeah y'all didn't think i saw some of these mfers..." then did the lit match joke.
- paul reubens' "Heard any good jokes lately?"
- and the numerous running jokes about letterman's marriage/relationship after the extortion revelation
...they humbled themselves and rode it out.

but whada i know about it? wouldn't likely to be hired on as a variety reporter but thought jim carrey's take was the best https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdofcQnr36A

Me too.
Married couples have sex less than once a month!? Not this married couple, and we’re over 50.
But Bill has always been irrationally anti marriage with insane ideas about what marriage is like.

Your video, John Cleese and Eric Idle secrets to a successful marriage, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 10 Badge!

Your video, Brutal Marriage Movie - Trailer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Lol.
She got out of a marriage she obviously didn't want to be in with you. I think she came out on top, no matter what it cost her financially (likely not very much).

If she had a lawyer and you didn't, but you kept more than half the marital assets, she obviously was willing to just leave with nothing just to get out, because she could have fought for more, but that would extend the marriage. That story doesn't make you the winner you think it does.

Really, it sounds like you got a house worth under $6000 and a dog, she got cash, her ride, and her freedom.

^
Aaaaahahaha!!!!! You're really "bragging" about Trump getting Newsom's old sloppy seconds!? Aaaaaahahahahaha!!!
If he's like pops, there's no bigly or yuge, just a funky mushroom that's all cap, no stem.

Maybe Newsom prefers poised, intelligent, beautiful, caring, and sane over bat shit crazy, screaming, vitriolic stupidity from a distant shrieking harpy. (Her wiki photo looks like Caitlyn Jenner)

He traded up....WAY up, married two years later and ever since....she definitely traded down....eventually, after a decade plus she's finally got a "rich" boyfriend. See what happens if he goes to prison! She doesn't like him, she likes his money and political clout.

She's a power whore, her biggest claim to fame is the powerful public figures she's slept with.

Ms Newsom has a long and quite successful career away from her husband, and a long marriage with him.

ROTFLMFAHS!!!! Please, oh please. More MAGA tears. We're in a drought in California and you whiners are keeping the rivers flowing.

Great gift for wife beaters too! Make that marriage work just a little bit longer.

BTW @bobknight33, his statistics are pure bullshit, totally made up figures, pure *lies.

For instance, the actual divorce rate is 39% or less and dropping, not 67% and rising. In 2019 divorce rates hit a 50 year low, and are expected to drop precipitously when 2020 statistics are released.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage-divorce.htm
https://www.businessinsider.com/alarming-facts-about-divorce-in-the-us
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-us-divorce-rate-has-hit-a-50-year-low

It follows that, with the easiest statistic to verify so incredibly wrong-not just nearly doubled but he also got the trend totally backwards, every statistic he quotes is certainly made up in the same dishonest way with zero factual basis.....Like most everything you post.

Bob, why are you such a constant liar? Everything you post is, at best, total misrepresentations of fact and far more often, like this, pure hateful lies coming from a place of weakness and infantile hatred for anyone not a conservative white male. What happened to you that makes you abhor truth and facts along with women and non whites? No, really....what happened? It must be a good story to have this kind of impact on you.

I get that you're being vague about whether you have kids, but it sounds like the answer is yes. That would mean your baby mama/girlfriend is a single mother, so clearly not marriage worthy. Is that what you meant to say?

Shut up about the money already. TLDR frankly. Having kids is the biggest investment and responsibility a pair makes. Promising to help take care of them is about the only reason marriage is really useful. Besides some legal technicalities like access to medical information in a crisis, taxes etc. Obviously every time you start only thinking about the money the relationship will go downhill fast.

Two solutions: a) have a business agreement instead of a marriage, or b) stop bitching about the money.

Try it. If she takes the kid and bolts, it's legal. Even if you manage to get a court order before she leaves state, chances are you won't get equal custody unless she's a documented certifiable nutjob. I say this because you live in a fault state which are invariably the same states backwards enough to automatically give women custody and force fathers to prove the mother is unstable and dangerous, and even then you'll share with her as primary without documented abuse.

So you've been together 20 years and share nothing. What a way to live.

Shared assets when not married aren't divided by the courts. If you want their help, gotta be married or sign an ownership contract with every purchase.

I can find no instance where I said my brother "won". He got custody, that's different from "winning". Be real. If you're going to quote me, please don't make up the quotes. Spending over $100000 on a two week marriage isn't winning by my definition.

That link is off topic. Find a study of similar jobs with similar hours worked and compare salaries, not a study that says average women work X ammount less so overall earning should be X amount less but instead it's X-1 less, so women are overpaid. That's not what their study showed, they're extrapolating there, and ignoring that the lower hours are usually not their choice, but their superiors orders to avoid paying overtime and full benefits to women. Also, they said Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. 34% more for each hour. Did you read it? Mic drop.

See, more insulting dismissiveness...those women couldn't possibly be more competent or harder workers, they must be succeeding because of preferential treatment. In case you missed it, that's incredibly misogynistic.

What?! Prove it.....with data not an anecdote.

So....You wouldn't marry a crazy person only because of what divorce would cost. Yeah....right.

" I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators" sounds like personal issues to me, they aren't good enough to marry....because of divorce....Again ignoring the prenup that dictates divorce splits.

Lol. Such utter bullshit. Maybe if they have an impairment and no lawyer, and can prove it in court, not because they say so.

Ashley Maddison.

Wedding rings are aphrodisiacs. It's why I don't wear one, hit on repeatedly wearing it, never once without it. My experience differs from your assumptions and statistics, same with my friends. I'm 5'9", so not tall cute and photogenic....but two out of three ain't bad.

Bob said it, you agreed with him and more.

An uncodified partnership is one of convenience or even imaginary. Nothing to stop either of you walking tomorrow if you meet your new soul mate. That's not a stable partnership. It may be exactly what you want. It seems you made up your mind that marriage=bad for men long ago, in which case you should not partake. I hope your path leads to at least half the happiness mine has.

Newt

"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