You can't kill a living human being...

Death Penalty exists...

Abortion will always be a touchy subject, but if you have money to travel, you can get that abortion in places that support them. So what these abortion laws do is punish poor people who can't make that trip. Then those same people are forced to either put the child up for adoption (because we don't have a ton of children that can't be adopted already) or they can raise that child, most likely in the same situation that led to them being poor and not having a proper family unit.

Storytime, and god help me if my wife ever finds out I talked about this.

I was raised in a poor home, with an abusive family. My wife was raised in a poor home with a good family. When we started dating after High School back in 1992, you had two choices for safe sex, condoms or birth control (doctor visit with no insurance and it was Texas in 1992, they weren't just tossing it out like free candy). We had to use condoms because we couldn't afford birth control and because she was scared of using it. If you have ever read the side effects, you might be too, seeing as death can be one of them in rare instances.

So condoms were the watchword. But accidents happen; maybe one just didn't work right, maybe it was the one that broke one time, but we ended up getting pregnant. I told her that I would do whatever she wanted. We planned to marry soon anyway, so I said we could shotgun it if need be. She said she didn't think she wanted a child. So I said that it was HER decision, but I would be there through it.

It isn't easy. Unless you have been in that exact situation, you will never know the fear and uncertainty involved. We were 18 and 20, just starting out with shit jobs, living with parents, and with a 1968 Catalina as our only vehicle. Her parents would have forced her to have it if they knew, because they thought the same way as @bobknight33. We would have been stuck living with them, they already didn't like me because I wasn't deeply religious and not into ranch life. My parents wouldn't have taken us in because my mom didn't like my wife until years later. The stress and anger would have probably split us up, and both of us would have likely remained poor to this day.

Instead, my wife chose to not have the child and got an abortion in the first trimester. We kept it to ourselves, married later, and are still together today. We both fought our way out of being poor people to being on the upper spectrum of middle class. We decided we just didn't want kids and now we spoil our niece. I will swear right now that we would never have made it to where we are today if we had been forced to raise a child because of someone else's deranged idea that every child must be born regardless of the future in store for it.

So, yes, I can speak to what an actual poor person goes through in that situation. We were lucky, because there weren't laws rammed through by religious people who have no clue of the consequences, just a strong delusion that God wants all children born. Funny how those religious people wash their hands of the aftermath of their crusade. Even funnier are the ones that quietly send Mary Lou to California to 'visit an aunt' for a couple of months when they find out their spawn got knocked up.

TL;DR

If you fight against easy abortions, except those where the child has reached the capability to survive if it had to be medically removed from the mother, you and the rest of your ilk can go fuck yourselves.

I can't listen to this one because when he says an "S" word it splits my eardrums.

I 100% agree with you! Further, I hope those 100 GOP leaders choose to split and form their own party and take 10% of the Republicans with them. Hell, I hope all the red states bail from the US and form their more perfect union where they can all get together and enjoy the 26% of GDP fruit of their labors -- hell, they can even keep it!

Y'all just stay over there and we'll put up some nice fences on Highways 2, 90, 80 and 50 to keep you from straying into our horrible socialist paradise. Then, after pellagra sets in, we'll even provide you with a nice new life as organ donors to rich Chinese, but we will want to keep the $.50 a head we get for your worthless bodies.

Fair deal?

For @bobknight33-
Equality - e·qual·i·ty
/əˈkwälədē/
noun
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.
"an organization aiming to promote racial equality"
synonyms: fairness, justness, equitability, impartiality, even-handedness, egalitarianism, equal rights, equal opportunities, nondiscrimination, justice, freedom, emancipation, coequality

It does not mean exact sameness, mirror image, clone, 50/50 split on everything, no difference, etc..... This is why it's important to know your own language, it helps you not be an imbecile.

Congratulations! Your video, 4th Ever Televised PBA 7-10 Split Conversion, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 74 Badge!

Your video, 4th Ever Televised PBA 7-10 Split Conversion, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

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?
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.

You are projecting.

Marriage takes the honesty away from a relationship.
It's no longer me and you.
It's me and you and uncle sam.
I want *consensual* relations where me and my partner set our rules, not some 3rd party, and not when the rules are stacked against me.

Congratulations to your brother. Lucky him.

I never said women don't work.

I said that men make more personal sacrifices for their work - a true statement about men as a group. Exceptions don't alter the rule.

Yes, women under 35 out earn men now. And as legacy earners retire, we will be facing a situation where women out earn men at any age. Preferential admittance and hiring tend to have that effect. It's by design.

And women don't get paid less for the same work - the studies saying that don't account for hours worked and don't provide any breakdown of job title. E.g. Women doctors get paid less - because the type of doctor they choose to be is more likely to be a pediatrician than a heart surgeon or anesthesiologist. But within each category of doctor, per hour worked, and per year experience, their income is essentially identical.

And you don't need to be a home maker to get paid in a divorce. Just make less than your partner.
Historically the divorce rewards scale higher for women given mirror situations.

Why would I want to deal with a 50/50 split when I brought 90% of the assets into the marriage? A 50/50 split would set me back decades. I just want to keep my stuff, I did pay for it after all, which cost me money, which cost me time, which cost me life.

And why should /anyone/ have their life supported by anyone else?
(*context=spouses. Not interested in some bad faith out of context argument bringing up children or retirees supported by taxes, etc)
Are you able bodied? Then get working.
Is it tough? Too bad.
It's harder for both people supporting themselves alone, you aren't special. You were in this situation before you got married, you can go back to it.

In any case, the homemaker job argument is senseless. There are benefits (time with kids), and there are pitfalls (hole in your resume). You make your choice, and you deal with the consequences.
You are paid by the home over your head and the money you're given while you are a home maker. What other job do you get to leave and still be paid. People act as if the working partner was just chilling this whole time. Where are the working partner's continuing post divorce benefits?


I have no mindset about women. More projection.
I couldn't care less if I marry a stripper with 2 kids - so long as in the event of a divorce we go our separate ways with ZERO obligations to one another.

I have a mindset about the dangers of divorce, and the fact that most marriages end in divorce, and most divorces are initiated by the female partner.
I am on average more likely than not to face a divorce.
Hence the risk reduction by being more 'picky'.


I am in a nearly 20 year happy relationship - unmarried.
She's the boss of the relationship. And I'm fine with that because I *consent* to it. I can always walk away if I decide otherwise.

So long as laws and family court are how they are, I won't even consider marriage.

-scheherazade

So weird seeing people disagree with you and offering various examples of marriages that contradict your blanket statements and then you go off spouting shit about subjective pitfalls some minority still experience after being married as if those outcomes are the only possible outcomes or even the norm.
What you two mean to say is DIVORCE is win win for the woman and lose lose for the man, still dead wrong but at least it's the point you two are trying to make.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's neither in no fault states.

It's asinine of you two to assume the man always has more assets, and more earning power. It's maybe true on average but it's trending away from that, and it's absolutely not in every instance.

My brother won. He got full custody and child support. No alimony for either. In Texas, a non no fault state where the woman is assumed to be the primary child raising parent.

Really, you still think most women don't work? Are you still living in the 1960's? My wife works, has since before we met in 92. I retired in early 2000's. If we divorced, I would get alimony.

I've known plenty of women who lost in marriage, not sure where you come up with that, and for over 1/2 the population, divorce is 50/50 split of marital assets, no winner.

It's only men in fault states who caused the dissolution of the marriage or don't fight for custody that get screwed as you describe. Most of us tossed out the system you describe decades ago. Most of us understand that while women still get paid less for the same work, that's no guarantee she makes less than her husband. As for "marrying up".... plenty of men do that too. Even if your significant other is a homemaker, they contribute enormously to the marriage, at one point they determined the jobs a homemaker does would cost over $80 K per year if you hired people.

With your opinion about women and marriage, I doubt you need to worry about the kind of woman who would marry you. The ones who accept the outdated misogynistic patriarchal mindset you show aren't the ones with much to offer, the desperate and insecure who will take whoever accepts them. They might resemble the women in your descriptions. Treat women better and you'll attract better women.

What makes you think you are some prize that only a near perfect woman would be acceptable to? It sure sounds like you're alone now. How is making the perfect the enemy of the great working for you?

Again, many states have changed the law to no fault, 50/50 splits with no prenup. Hard to be more fair. You complain about issues most Americans evolved out of.

This is only a "problem" in countries/parts of countries, where women rarely work away from home. In those circumstances it should be evident to most people that the work the one who stays at home does is also worth a lot. Otherwise get a wife who wants to work and get child care. Or stay at home yourself.

And who is so ignorant that they don't know that in case of a divorce everything is split 50/50? This is part of the contract. If one isn't willing to share everything no matter what the other person does, then don't get married.

And how can he blame his drinking on his ex wife? And losing his job? And his masculinity? WTF? The end was the whiniest shit I've heard on the internet in a long time.

Were the house and dog yours before the wedding? Were there any marital assets?

Most people in the U.S. live in no fault divorce states, meaning marital assets are split 50/50 no matter what without a prenup. Your experience is not the norm.

Even my parents, who remained best friends for a decade after divorcing, spent a mint on their amicable divorce in Texas.

Yep. I live in Humboldt. Moved up here from the bay area, a completely different culture. They are also totally different from Southern California, which itself is a completely different animal from Central Valley California. There was a time when splitting the state into two, north and south, was considered, but no one wanted the bay area in their half, and Sacramento didn't belong in either half either. If we split, it should be into at least 4 distinct states, north, central, south, and Bay area California, and even then there would be many communities in the wrong states.

If the cultist’s brains are shit, they will aquit. Look at the monkey.

Edit: Hilarious you choose an exemplar that is widely accepted as a miscarriage of justice based on a bullshit claim like “if it doesn’t fit, you must aquit.”....especially since the glove DID fit...just like the charges fit Trump. OJ stretched his hand so it wouldn’t fit, giving his jury an excuse to aquit when they knew he was guilty. Trumptards stretched their little brains to create out of thin air a trial disqualification where there clearly was none, then used that lie to excuse excusing treason, treason they admit publicly Trump committed. Since McConnel caused the trial delay then claimed the delay invalidated the trial, he’s next. Obstruction of justice is rarely that straight forward.

There were more votes to convict by his own party than in every impeachment trial combined, 7 times as many votes, even in his hyper partisan, excuse anything party. You probably think that indicates he’s the best at being impeached or something just as ridiculous.

More than enough admitted he was guilty, but they ignored the law, actually made up a law, voted on that law and lost, and excused Trump based on it anyway, voted by party to avoid being physically attacked by crazy trumptards because they’re all cowards.

Who’s your president, laughing boy? Who runs the house? Who runs the Senate? HAW HAW.

Trump has dozens of other cases to handle without council now, some criminal with no presidential protections. His troubles are just starting. Send him money, he needs it.

HA HA....dozens of civil AND CRIMINAL cases chump boy. No more protection from cultist senators. No money for lawyers. Being forced to sell his failing properties at huge discounts to pay his bills before he defaults on everything. He’s going to be the biggest loser again in 2021, his third year at least being the nation’s biggest loser. Banned from other allied countries, the first time that’s ever happened. Under criminal investigation in multiple other countries, again, a first. Trump is not “winning”, in case you’re confused. His empire of cards is crumbling just like his political clout.

Go make up more excuses and bat shit crazy paranoid fantasies. He needs them as much as he needs your money.

Edit : prepare for more Democratic victories, people are fleeing the Republican party largely because they acquitted Trump based on pure party politics...it's going to be incredibly hard to win an election when 10% leave the party and the rest split into two parties...harder than the election you just lost in a massive landslide of blue.

Oh....and I was wrong, McConnell and other Republicans did instigate the coup to hurt Trump....forget all those facts and logic I handed you and go get em boy.

I could quote legal scholars who think otherwise, but since it is kind of split down the middle, you would be able to find just as many that argue that it is constitutional. My opinion goes towards the non-constitutional side. He isn't a sitting President any longer and the only reason Democrats are doing this is because, as you mentioned, it is a much higher bar to convince a jury that using the word 'Fight' means a call to insurrection. If they could manage to force it through the easier method, then they can simply call for a majority vote and block him from running again in 2024.

That is the net goal of the Democrats, because they fear he will win once people realize how badly the new ecological policies and debt from a further stimulus is going to hurt our economy. Let's be realistic in that it took Trump fucking up multiple times, the worst pandemic in 100 years, and the entire Democratic voting bloc turning out for Biden to win by a few thousand in the critical states that gave him the electoral mandate. I can't vote for him again, but there are plenty who would. Mostly poor and middle class working people who are going to be realizing just how bad Biden is going to fuck up the economy in the short term over his appeasement of portions of the green new deal.

We've discussed the gun situation to death. I could post quotes from Kamala and Biden, as well as his stated plan for gun control he put up on his site, but it would again serve no purpose. You feel that nothing will happen or it will only be limited to scary 'assault rifles'. I feel otherwise. We can bang our heads against the metaphorical wall over and over, but in the end neither of us is going to change the other's mind on gun control.

Sadly, in my case, that still means that unless Democrats do a 180 on gun control and illegal immigration I will continue to be forced to vote for Republicans. Also, yes, I mean the trial, but can we not split hairs? It's like asking for a Kleenex and getting nagged that you really meant Puffs.