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.

The fact that these things are so routinely covered up shows how systemic the problem is.

To quote Tim Minchin (on the subject of pedophile priests): "If you cover for another motherfucker who's a kiddy fucker, fuck you you're no better than the motherfucking rapist."

Power corrupts. I've seen it happen to me. It absolutely has to be monitored and controlled.

Ok, but other than referencing or citing, and to suggest other books on the subject, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Forgot I am trying to avoid charged subjects in the future. Disregard.

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.

So weird seeing people disagree with you, and then go off spouting shit about subjective benefits while married.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's pure win for the woman and pure loss for the man.

It's practically a carrot dangling in front of them daring them to divorce.

eg.

Woman wins :
Woman = Here's 30% of his income for 20 years and 50% of assets, and you get to walk away with no obligations.
Man = You get to keep all your financial marriage obligations for the rest of your productive life while she gets her divorce.

Man wins :
Man = Here's $500 for 6 months. You are an able bodied person and you can take care of yourself after that.
Woman = Pay him $500 for 6 months, then you have your divorce.

... and women win practically all the time.



So considering that most women 'marry up (financially)', and most women don't sacrifice personal life for career (to the extent that men do)... they benefit financially from marriage.

Then the divorce is massively skewed for their benefit.

So in the end, they win in marriage, and win in divorce.

And since it's the men paying for those wins, the men are losing and losing.

So yeah, I think your description is totally on point.




Marriage is so screwed up that I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators that suggest they are even slightly disloyal or temptable. Don't care how much I like them otherwise.

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

When the consequence of failure is immediate total financial annihilation, and a heavy financial burden for the rest of your productive life, you better F'ing choose carefully.

Or just don't get married.

(Or change the law so a divorce is actually a divorce for both people. No obligations. Just everyone go their own way.)

-scheherazade

If this was originally posted on Twitter, he could have gotten potentially nothing. The Twitter TOS grants free, unlicensed use of any words, videos or images posted on their site. You basically sign away all First North American Serial Rights when you tweet something (AFAIK / IANAL).

From Twitter's TOS:

"You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your incorporated audio, photos and videos are considered part of the Content)."

So far, so good, buuuuut ...

"By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, Retweet, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, is made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services as the use of the Services by you is hereby agreed as being sufficient compensation for the Content and grant of rights herein."

liked that.

on the subject, I like this guys' drumming...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p85-KtgDSs&feature=emb_logo

...and he's well featured on this, from their latest.

the video is kind of interesting too.

The cult stayed tight and slept through the trial. They didn’t even pretend to be impartial. Precedent set, expect the same if a democrat is impeached. (To be honest, that is the norm, but it’s not right)

Only 7 times more votes by his own party than any other impeachment trial in history, but yes, the main cult prejudged this based on nothing but party by Jan 7. He will go down as the best at impeachment, by volume, level of criminality, and bipartisan guilty votes. Another win?

It should be noted, many Republicans said he's guilty but voted not guilty because they insist the trial itself is unconstitutional despite the Senate voting on just that issue and affirming it is constitutional, and despite there being no court ruling on the subject, and despite it being far from the first impeachment trial held against an ex elected official. This was a one time only technicality made up to excuse their spinelessness, and willingness to excuse and ignore what they admit was treason. Again, precedent set, no whining when the tables are turned.

If democrats had the abilities you must give them to believe that stupidity, they would rule the world without opposition by now. They would be so genius about it you would think it was your idea. It’s insane, you like to say how worthless stupid and weak they are, except for the most complicated, biggest heist in history with millions of people involved that they pulled off so perfectly with such skill and competence that there’s not a shred of evidence despite there being an actual paper record of every vote and the most highly scrutinized certification by every State, Republican and Democratic led. I know you can see how those ideas are mutually exclusive. Democrats are no where near that organized or competent.

But rationality isn’t exactly your strong suite.

Bullshit. Maybe if it was some minor story it could be shunted to page two if there are enough paid adds and sites that pay for preferential treatment. A major revelation like that, with evidence not just crackheads claiming it,could never get off page one of a search. It’s not there because it’s utter bullshit made up by professional bullshit artists to excuse their cohorts from treason and murder....or perhaps because there are a dozen professional fact checks that all debunked it and the original claims have been retracted and taken down by their original posters. (That’s what politifact indicates)
They do not “hide” pages, and they aren’t the only game in town.

The one bit of evidence I can find on the subject is the photo of Trumpsters taking selfies with capitol police that some nut job said proves they are ANTIFA agents working with police to frame Trumpsters....too bad those people have actually been identified as long time trumptards. There was also a claim that facial ID software identified many as ANTIFA, but the company itself said it identified white supremacists and other far right extremists, no ANTIFA. That claim is gone because it was retracted when the truth came out.
Just admit you bought the lie and made it up. If that weren’t the case, you absolutely could have proven me wrong by now, instead you are taking this red herring “it’s been hidden by google” lie as far as you can in hopes you won’t get called out again for just making up bold faced lies, again.

It’s a pure bullshit lie. ANTIFA did not instigate the attempted Trump coup, Trumpsters did, and they planned it online, documented and verified, some for months. Every person asked said Trump directed them to go there and “stop the steal” by “fighting hard” and “not allowing Biden to be declared president” and “getting rid of representatives like Cheney and others that are weak”. Not one said some hipster said attack congress so I did. It’s a transparent, baseless, evidence free excuse for treason. No body is buying it, it’s just so stupid a lie to start with. You need an IQ below 75 to think it MIGHT be true.

Absolutely serious subject matter, but it is so surreal -everything/everyone is so ridiculous looking - it takes me a bit to register it isn't a parody.

My guess is that they need to measure the forces that the weapon, and its internal components, are subjected to if it falls out of a transport or if it goes off course and subsequently impacts the ground. This will help them predict the likelihood of and unintentional detonation of the conventional explosives, and I suppose the likelihood of a nuclear reaction resulting from this. It will also help them predict the kind of cleanup task that will be necessary. It might also be useful to know how much secret technology survives after an impact if the weapon does not detonate.
Anyone know the back story on Sandia Labs appropriating the thunderbid symbol? It seems a poor choice for a weapons lab of colonizing nation to use the symbol of a people that nation has displaced.

I mean it's all subjective, to me it's a bad take on stuff I heard almost two decades ago. Seems like he's just discovered John Butler (who was also a busker) and Xavier Rudd among others.