(05-09-2022, 08:20 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2022, 05:18 AM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]Jj some issues reach beyond in political ideology. Yes there is rampant abuse of social welfare programs but that doesn't change the reality that without them many of these kids are going to suffer horribly. If we are truly going to call ourselves pro life then let's do it. It's not about scoring a political win or strategically beating the democrats for me. It's strictly a question of what now, for my entire adult life the fight has been to end the genocide.
Not really. Let's be honest, we don't REALLY mean that. If we actually took that word to heart, you don't wait for a 6-3 majority to end GENOCIDE! That's why we're loosing.
While overturning Roe doesn't end abortions outright it brings into reality the opportunity for many states to end it. In those states which will have my full support we absolutely can not drop the ball and abandon these kids at birth or there mother's.
That's another example of Feels before reals. Of all the bad arguments for raising the minimum wage, the best argument is based on the fact that in most cases it pays MORE to be on public assistance than it does to find an entry level job! You don't just have cash payments, Snap, Refundable tax credits and the like. You also have HUD, Medicaid, The affordable care act etc. The idea that somehow in the current system we are starting with ZERO social safety net is just a talking point for the far Left. NY and CA have the largest state sponsored Social Safety nets, has the demand for abortion gone up or down in those states? I'll wait.
Further more the argument that better access to birth control would mitigate the need for abortions from unwanted pregnancy is a solid argument. I can not come up with a reason that argument is wrong. My only goal is to end the genocide, my only goal is to protect the children, I don't care about anything else. If that means this is the only political victory we get so be it, end the genocide at all cost.
In the 19th century, there was no social safety net, a not insignificant portion of the country was just emerging from unimaginable, inhumane, forced bondage. Almost all families were living at below subsistence levels compared to what we have today, and birth control had not yet been invented. Moreover the Mortality rate for bearing a child was infinitely higher, there was nothing called an epidural so having a child meant bearing a kind of pain i can scarcely imagine. Is the demand for abortion Higher or lower now?
Now, I am not advocating for the restriction of birth control. Far from it. I am simply pointing out that its introduction to the populace from invention to over 90% consumption has had the opposite affect than is what's currently advertised. Why? Because although it was advertised as a means of family planning for married couples, it was the first step in ushering in the sexual revolution as a precursor to modern hook up culture. As such it fundamentally divorced the physical expression of love from both humanity (it's basic role in pro-creation) and critical thinking. Why should a woman have to vet her partners? Its all fun, no one's getting hurt what's the big deal. Once you deny the humanity of both your partner and yourself, how hard is it then to abandon the humanity of a being you can't see?
Again, one of the challenges we face is our unwillingness to confront the true nature of those who oppose us. Shonda Rhymes is one of the most influential figures in our modern culture. Essentially she owns a day of the week in the hearts and minds of many Affluent Suburban women. Two of her strongest female leads, Dr. Christina Yang and Ms. Olivia Pope were depicted killing their unborn child. Both Characters were affluent, both Characters were impregnated by suitable partners, a doctor and a President Respectfully. Yet both were depicted to peaceful joyous tones, killing their unborn children. Why? In the name of Equal Pay and rebelling against the Patriarchy.
Post Great Society we have spent 22 trillion Plus on redistributive programs (that's just @ The federal level) we have given trillions to Charitable activities and the like, we have funded an educational establishment to the tune of trillions of dollars. Yet we have still managed to kill over 65 million people in the legacy of planned parenthood (founded to simply expand the use of BC.) This wasn't a case of women bloodying their hands on the church doorsteps while being spit on with their unborn children slinking away to PP with no recourse. This happened in the Richest nation to ever exist that has spent trillions of dollars to assist the less fortunate. This happened as the end game of a Demonic Marketing campaign to paint unborn children, the closest thing to innocence in a fallen world, as obstacles to the latest iteration of egalitarian utopia conjured up by the authoritarian far left. They don't deny the humanity of Children because of their birth status. That's just the fig leaf. They deny their humanity because in a "socialized" world, the life of ANY individual is insignificant to the collective whole.
If you believe as I do that this was in fact a genocide against Human beings and not just clumps of cells then we are on the doorstep of surpassing the second world war, in all its theaters, as the single greatest mass casualty event in the history of all Mankind. The left and those who advocated it will not take that lightly. They will not allow that truth to define their legacy or much less consign them to the ash-heap of history. There is a reason that the Author of the leaked draft opinion can't go out in public and that we are having to erect fences around the people's house! This enemy can be defeated, but it will not be defeated with Apology, concession or prequalification. It can only be defeated with the basic assertion that despite whatever collective goal or aim someone wishes to achieve the life of an individual human being are precious and inalienable. Moreover, the only legitimate role of the state is as expression of the common need to protect those rights through force of law. We as INDIVIDUALS have and always will help those in need, but we stop genocide because it's evil, not because some far leftist finally believes that they have sufficiently mitigated income inequality.
I dont disagree with your arguments. I do think however that we live in a world with various definitions of morality and values. The reality is if we are justifiably going to say at this point you no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy we have to acknowledge the reality that there will be a greater demand for assistance to low income mother's, sadly and specifically single mothers. I'm willing and ready to help them even if it means accepting some bigger social programs I'd normally oppose. It's not about negotiating it's more acknowledging many of these children that would have been previously aborted are going to be born into households that either won't or can't provide for them.
My wife is a teacher at a small local church school. Of her 10 students in the 5th grade she has one student that has a two parent home. The other 9 have at least one parent either in jail, dead or not present in their lives. Without some of these social programs these kids don't eat, they don't have medical care, many of them we personally provide them lunch on a daily basis. When I got grocery shopping for my 4 kids we make sure to buy enough to pack lunch for a few of them my wife noticed never had a lunch. They attend this church school on a school choice voucher so it's not a rich group of kids at all. Maybe the solution isn't more social programs but I don't think we as a society can count on goodwill. One of the mom's had her car broken down in Daytona for over a week. My wife found out and I went down to Dayton last week on my day off from the shop to replace a bad coil for her. It was an easy job took me 30 mins to get her car running, she was broken down the parking lot of a mega church. I asked my wife why didn't someone at this mega million dollar church with 5 buildings not offer to help this lady? All she needed was a $100 part and some compassion from somebody? She didn't have the money to fix it but I have the skills and ability to fix it so I did. If we cant count on the churches to help someone broken down in there parking lot for over a week can we really say individuals will fill the gap?
I just want this to be the pro life's chance to show it, we're not just telling you have the baby and good luck. I don't want to put nasty someone, I don't see the left as my enemy I see them as my opportunity to display my values my beliefs that's how you win hearts and minds. And ultimately that's what we need is change hearts and minds.
(05-09-2022, 01:05 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2022, 08:20 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]In the 19th century, there was no social safety net, a not insignificant portion of the country was just emerging from unimaginable, inhumane, forced bondage. Almost all families were living at below subsistence levels compared to what we have today, and birth control had not yet been invented. Moreover the Mortality rate for bearing a child was infinitely higher, there was nothing called an epidural so having a child meant bearing a kind of pain i can scarcely imagine. Is the demand for abortion Higher or lower now?
Now, I am not advocating for the restriction of birth control. Far from it. I am simply pointing out that its introduction to the populace from invention to over 90% consumption has had the opposite affect than is what's currently advertised. Why? Because although it was advertised as a means of family planning for married couples, it was the first step in ushering in the sexual revolution as a precursor to modern hook up culture. As such it fundamentally divorced the physical expression of love from both humanity (it's basic role in pro-creation) and critical thinking. Why should a woman have to vet her partners? Its all fun, no one's getting hurt what's the big deal. Once you deny the humanity of both your partner and yourself, how hard is it then to abandon the humanity of a being you can't see?
Again, one of the challenges we face is our unwillingness to confront the true nature of those who oppose us. Shonda Rhymes is one of the most influential figures in our modern culture. Essentially she owns a day of the week in the hearts and minds of many Affluent Suburban women. Two of her strongest female leads, Dr. Christina Yang and Ms. Olivia Pope were depicted killing their unborn child. Both Characters were affluent, both Characters were impregnated by suitable partners, a doctor and a President Respectfully. Yet both were depicted to peaceful joyous tones, killing their unborn children. Why? In the name of Equal Pay and rebelling against the Patriarchy.
Post Great Society we have spent 22 trillion Plus on redistributive programs (that's just @ The federal level) we have given trillions to Charitable activities and the like, we have funded an educational establishment to the tune of trillions of dollars. Yet we have still managed to kill over 65 million people in the legacy of planned parenthood (founded to simply expand the use of BC.) This wasn't a case of women bloodying their hands on the church doorsteps while being spit on with their unborn children slinking away to PP with no recourse. This happened in the Richest nation to ever exist that has spent trillions of dollars to assist the less fortunate. This happened as the end game of a Demonic Marketing campaign to paint unborn children, the closest thing to innocence in a fallen world, as obstacles to the latest iteration of egalitarian utopia conjured up by the authoritarian far left. They don't deny the humanity of Children because of their birth status. That's just the fig leaf. They deny their humanity because in a "socialized" world, the life of ANY individual is insignificant to the collective whole.
If you believe as I do that this was in fact a genocide against Human beings and not just clumps of cells then we are on the doorstep of surpassing the second world war, in all its theaters, as the single greatest mass casualty event in the history of all Mankind. The left and those who advocated it will not take that lightly. They will not allow that truth to define their legacy or much less consign them to the ash-heap of history. There is a reason that the Author of the leaked draft opinion can't go out in public and that we are having to erect fences around the people's house! This enemy can be defeated, but it will not be defeated with Apology, concession or prequalification. It can only be defeated with the basic assertion that despite whatever collective goal or aim someone wishes to achieve the life of an individual human being are precious and inalienable. Moreover, the only legitimate role of the state is as expression of the common need to protect those rights through force of law. We as INDIVIDUALS have and always will help those in need, but we stop genocide because it's evil, not because some far leftist finally believes that they have sufficiently mitigated income inequality.
I dont disagree with your arguments. I do think however that we live in a world with various definitions of morality and values. The reality is if we are justifiably going to say at this point you no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy we have to acknowledge the reality that there will be a greater demand for assistance to low income mother's, sadly and specifically single mothers. I'm willing and ready to help them even if it means accepting some bigger social programs I'd normally oppose. It's not about negotiating it's more acknowledging many of these children that would have been previously aborted are going to be born into households that either won't or can't provide for them.
My wife is a teacher at a small local church school. Of her 10 students in the 5th grade she has one student that has a two parent home. The other 9 have at least one parent either in jail, dead or not present in their lives. Without some of these social programs these kids don't eat, they don't have medical care, many of them we personally provide them lunch on a daily basis. When I got grocery shopping for my 4 kids we make sure to buy enough to pack lunch for a few of them my wife noticed never had a lunch. They attend this church school on a school choice voucher so it's not a rich group of kids at all. Maybe the solution isn't more social programs but I don't think we as a society can count on goodwill. One of the mom's had her car broken down in Daytona for over a week. My wife found out and I went down to Dayton last week on my day off from the shop to replace a bad coil for her. It was an easy job took me 30 mins to get her car running, she was broken down the parking lot of a mega church. I asked my wife why didn't someone at this mega million dollar church with 5 buildings not offer to help this lady? All she needed was a $100 part and some compassion from somebody? She didn't have the money to fix it but I have the skills and ability to fix it so I did. If we cant count on the churches to help someone broken down in there parking lot for over a week can we really say individuals will fill the gap?
I just want this to be the pro life's chance to show it, we're not just telling you have the baby and good luck. I don't want to put nasty someone, I don't see the left as my enemy I see them as my opportunity to display my values my beliefs that's how you win hearts and minds. And ultimately that's what we need is change hearts and minds.
Exactly.
So well said.
I think you'd have a hard time finding a group more dedicated to helping young children than the hardcore pro-lifers. For the rest of people who are anti-abortion, it's no different than not wanting some people to harm others. We don't hold people to that same line of thinking for other crimes.
(05-09-2022, 02:44 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I think you'd have a hard time finding a group more dedicated to helping young children than the hardcore pro-lifers. For the rest of people who are anti-abortion, it's no different than not wanting some people to harm others. We don't hold people to that same line of thinking for other crimes.
The only reason I'm "pro choice" is because I don't want that [BLEEP] stealing my car in 15 years.
(05-09-2022, 03:31 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2022, 02:44 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I think you'd have a hard time finding a group more dedicated to helping young children than the hardcore pro-lifers. For the rest of people who are anti-abortion, it's no different than not wanting some people to harm others. We don't hold people to that same line of thinking for other crimes.
The only reason I'm "pro choice" is because I don't want that [BLEEP] stealing my car in 15 years.
That's kind of funny. Perhaps we should have a legal screening process to determine which individuals qualify for abortions (e.g. allowed for persons with criminal records, low IQ, on welfare, etc.)
(05-09-2022, 04:27 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2022, 03:31 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]The only reason I'm "pro choice" is because I don't want that [BLEEP] stealing my car in 15 years.
That's kind of funny. Perhaps we should have a legal screening process to determine which individuals qualify for abortions (e.g. allowed for persons with criminal records, low IQ, on welfare, etc.)
You forgot the one that
REALLY matters to Democrats...
Here, I'll give you a hint...
![[Image: 395-351.png]](https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/395-351.png)
(05-09-2022, 10:16 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2022, 09:29 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think we should be hectoring each other over interpretations of 150 year old history.
Let's agree that raising a child is inherently a cash negative proposition, so some level of welfare or subsidy is needed for some of the people raising children.
Let's agree that the welfare state today creates incentives to not work, and to avoid getting raises.
So let's work on that.
Please?
In every stare that I am aware of, Father's are legally obligated to financially support their children.
And that works about as well as restraining orders. People who are hellbent on avoiding their responsibilities to their child(ren) or beating on their baby mama/daddy are going to do so no matter what any law says.
And some moms are going to kill their children.
Yes, they will. The world is a [BLEEP] place.
(05-09-2022, 07:54 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2022, 10:16 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]In every stare that I am aware of, Father's are legally obligated to financially support their children.
And that works about as well as restraining orders. People who are hellbent on avoiding their responsibilities to their child(ren) or beating on their baby mama/daddy are going to do so no matter what any law says.
Well we do a pretty good job as a society punishing father's that skip child support. However many of the fathers on child support are low wage workers so it's not really enough to make a difference. I know I have a few guys that I have to deduct child support and they're always the lowest wage workers in my shop. They usually have the least ambition to do more and generally stay in entry level roles way to long.
Deadbeat dads are often deadbeat workers too, not always but more then not in my experience.
I think we can make these social in programs better, food stamps for example it should be ran more like the WIC program. Instead of an EBT with money loaded and they get to but whatever it should be specific nutritional stuff. If you want junk food work on making more so you can buy it.
I'm not going to sign off on socialized medicine for everyone but I'm ok with it for minors. It's not the minors fault their parents are unable or unwilling to provide medical care. If we can send a trillion dollars to Ukraine we can make sure our kids have medical care.
Make school choice nationwide give kids the chance to attend private and charter schools were already funding education let's make it competitive to get the best results for the kids.
We do the safety nets half-[BLEEP] that's what I'm realizing as I get older and move up the economic ladder. I'm doing well now that wasn't always the case, we struggled as a young family. I have seen and in lived the poverty we worked out of it, it can be done but not every kid has parents willing to it, that's where we have to fill the gap imo. Otherwise it becomes generational and that's a real problem.
(05-09-2022, 08:21 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2022, 07:54 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]And that works about as well as restraining orders. People who are hellbent on avoiding their responsibilities to their child(ren) or beating on their baby mama/daddy are going to do so no matter what any law says.
Well we do a pretty good job as a society punishing father's that skip child support. However many of the fathers on child support are low wage workers so it's not really enough to make a difference. I know I have a few guys that I have to deduct child support and they're always the lowest wage workers in my shop. They usually have the least ambition to do more and generally stay in entry level roles way to long.
That's not supposed to happen. The driver of societal evolution is female reproductive selection. Those kids weren't supposed to be fathers in the first place.
Deadbeat dads are often deadbeat workers too, not always but more then not in my experience.
In the black community 16% of unmarried men account for between 75 to 80% of children born.
I think we can make these social in programs better, food stamps for example it should be ran more like the WIC program. Instead of an EBT with money loaded and they get to but whatever it should be specific nutritional stuff. If you want junk food work on making more so you can buy it.
You were doing so well. Social programs fail because they are "Social." By that I mean that they have delocalized goals and objectives and they are administered by people fully insulated from economic factors or results. It's the very social engineering of those who advocate for "Social Responsibility" that have intentionally destroyed the nuclear family and created the problem that we have.
I'm not going to sign off on socialized medicine for everyone but I'm ok with it for minors. It's not the minors fault their parents are unable or unwilling to provide medical care. If we can send a trillion dollars to Ukraine we can make sure our kids have medical care.
At current over 50% of every dollar spent on medical care in this country is spent through the state. That includes virtual universal care for all children. I have family members who qualify for free health and dental and the parents won't get off the phone long enough to fill out the forms. I'm opposed to the slaughter of innocent children. That doesn't mean that every child has to be raised with their biological parents.
Make school choice nationwide give kids the chance to attend private and charter schools were already funding education let's make it competitive to get the best results for the kids.
I still think that as a whole we Trad Con's havent fully come to grips with the reality of the educational system. The national teachers unions are hellbent on indoctrinating children with post modern secular progressivism and care more about their agenda than actually teaching kids to read and write. We spend more than most nations in the world and our high school graduates are reading @ a 7th Grade level, lower than that in the black communities. Moreover, the system is designed as an engine of radical egalitarianism. That's wholly antithetical to Hypergamous mate selection. When young girls don't have mates that answer the hypergamous question then it's only natural that they then turn to another status hierarchy to find mates. Unfortunately for us, that usually means young men who are by DEFINITION unstable because that triggers the female attraction to uncertainty. And when young men aren't in the space of demonstrating Socioeconomic Status young women in turn are attracted to less mature displays of masculine aggression.
We do the safety nets half-[BLEEP] that's what I'm realizing as I get older and move up the economic ladder. I'm doing well now that wasn't always the case, we struggled as a young family. I have seen and in lived the poverty we worked out of it, it can be done but not every kid has parents willing to it, that's where we have to fill the gap imo. Otherwise it becomes generational and that's a real problem.
Earlier you mentioned that you and your wife go above and beyond to take a personal stake in the life and well being of children less fortunate than you. That's Nobel. That's also the function of (insert appropriate non specific deistic traditional belief system). Ultimately my point is that we need more people like you, not more bureaucrats. When you went to change that womans coil pack even for the 20 minutes you might have interacted with her she got to see the impact of mature servant masculinity. The kids you help get to see it too. That's missing in society and that doesn't come with a government check.
As for values. AS A HISTORICAL MATTER: In old Israel, they would leave a certain portion of the Crops in the field for the less fortunate. They would allow the less fortunate to come into the field and pick up what was left to feed themselves and their families. In the desert, the Mana that was dropped from (Message Board approved reference to deistic entity) was to be picked up by each person. When the question was raised about putting young Widows on he role for public assistance Paul said no, and that says nothing of the concept of single motherhood today. Why? Because its one thing to help someone on a one to one basis. It's another thing to institutionalize the idea that people can survive and have the life they want without a reciprocal contribution to society through personal production. Moreover, the Traditional concept of charity is supposed to create restoration not dependence!
As a community in our private charitable endeavors, of course, we should aim that all children are cared for. But that has to come with the recognition that the ultimate way to make that happen is to build competent responsible parents with the skills and conscientiousness to care for their own children. Those who are unwilling to fully engage with society and meet their personal responsibility aren't fit to be parents. The answer is to allow the children better homes, not vacuum them from the womb. As to the low status guys in your shop, aside from the last 60 years or so it would have been expected from the time they were 12 or so to be out in the world learning to earn money and being exposed to the rigors of advancing within the socioeconomic hierarchy. It's only as the result of those benevolent social bureaucrats that wished to do him good that those opportunities are no longer practical leading to generations of young men with a failure to launch. At current it's just accepted that you don't reach manhood until your what 35? That's a long time to resist the strongest biological urge that we have.
The left loves this! It creates a demand for larger social programs, big government, birth control, termination of pregnancy, and most of all a general state of compliance. Just look At current black America. If we are serious about advancing Traditional values and arresting the challenges that face our ability to couple, form long lasting families and raise children then we are going to have to get serious about the factors and strategies that oppose us and develop our own vision of society that has the infrastructure to support our values.
We should not assume anything about how human mate selection worked before we were born.
We didn't observe it, and our parents didn't give us a full unvarnished set of facts.
We also should not underestimate the task of rewiring the next generation of young lovers to make more socially productive choices. None of the Disney princesses fell in love with men their parents set them up with. Sleeping Beauty did, but she didn't know it was him. That was an accident. The others actively avoided their parents in the process of finding a mate. So that's just one set of stories advanced by one corporation, but think of all the other love stories floating out there that would need to be rewritten. Do we need to put high caste Indians in charge of all romantic entertainment?
That's all sarcasm of course.
I think we need to deal with the society and culture we have via the laws, tax policies, and welfare qualification requirements we can actually change.
(05-10-2022, 07:18 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We should not assume anything about how human mate selection worked before we were born.
We didn't observe it, and our parents didn't give us a full unvarnished set of facts.
We also should not underestimate the task of rewiring the next generation of young lovers to make more socially productive choices. None of the Disney princesses fell in love with men their parents set them up with. Sleeping Beauty did, but she didn't know it was him. That was an accident. The others actively avoided their parents in the process of finding a mate. So that's just one set of stories advanced by one corporation, but think of all the other love stories floating out there that would need to be rewritten. Do we need to put high caste Indians in charge of all romantic entertainment?
That's all sarcasm of course.
I think we need to deal with the society and culture we have via the laws, tax policies, and welfare qualification requirements we can actually change.
I'm not talking about a caste system. I'm talking about viewing matting through an economic lense. On average women make more than men until they are 35 years old. For women to view men as suitable long term partners they want guys that make around 50% more than them. That math doesn't work! Right now. We designed a system to waste guys time. If the goal is to become an economically attractive man with a family the displacement of men till their mid thirties is a recipe for disaster.
Saw this on my FB feed and thought it was funny (But True)
wifes comment on the abortion protestors
"they all look like lesbians"
why would they worry about it?
(05-10-2022, 07:39 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2022, 07:18 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We should not assume anything about how human mate selection worked before we were born.
We didn't observe it, and our parents didn't give us a full unvarnished set of facts.
We also should not underestimate the task of rewiring the next generation of young lovers to make more socially productive choices. None of the Disney princesses fell in love with men their parents set them up with. Sleeping Beauty did, but she didn't know it was him. That was an accident. The others actively avoided their parents in the process of finding a mate. So that's just one set of stories advanced by one corporation, but think of all the other love stories floating out there that would need to be rewritten. Do we need to put high caste Indians in charge of all romantic entertainment?
That's all sarcasm of course.
I think we need to deal with the society and culture we have via the laws, tax policies, and welfare qualification requirements we can actually change.
I'm not talking about a caste system. I'm talking about viewing matting through an economic lense. On average women make more than men until they are 35 years old. For women to view men as suitable long term partners they want guys that make around 50% more than them. That math doesn't work! Right now. We designed a system to waste guys time. If the goal is to become an economically attractive man with a family the displacement of men till their mid thirties is a recipe for disaster.
There are some areas where women under 30 earn slightly more than men under 30. In most of this US this is not true.
But now you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
First you said women need to avoid deadbeats.
Now you're saying that women should accept men who earn about the same amount as them, rather than holding out for someone who earns 50% more.
Which is it? What did I miss?
(05-10-2022, 08:40 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2022, 07:39 AM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not talking about a caste system. I'm talking about viewing matting through an economic lense. On average women make more than men until they are 35 years old. For women to view men as suitable long term partners they want guys that make around 50% more than them. That math doesn't work! Right now. We designed a system to waste guys time. If the goal is to become an economically attractive man with a family the displacement of men till their mid thirties is a recipe for disaster.
There are some areas where women under 30 earn slightly more than men under 30. In most of this US this is not true.
But now you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
First you said women need to avoid deadbeats.
Now you're saying that women should accept men who earn about the same amount as them, rather than holding out for someone who earns 50% more.
Which is it? What did I miss?
So in your mind, making the same as a woman makes a man a deadbeat?
The New Deal screwed this country and made it beholden to the government. We're so far down that rabbit hole now we will never climb out. The politicians have learned how to use it to keep people in check and they won't give that up willingly. The left uses it to persuade their voters to keep voting for them while the right uses it to do the same just for different reasons. It's the same with Roe v Wade. It's used as a weapon by both parties to use against each other.
People need to see who the real "enemy" is and it's not each other. We're all just living life and trying to get along. It's the politicians, the media and now big tech but we're too divided to see it.
(05-10-2022, 08:19 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Saw this on my FB feed and thought it was funny (But True)
wifes comment on the abortion protestors
"they all look like lesbians"
why would they worry about it?
I have wondered this as well.
if it exists, one stat I would love to see is how many professing lesbians were actually women who at one point were married to or in a relationship with a man until they just couldn't take anymore of the man's stupidity, infidelity, <<fill in the blank>>, and they just decided that women were more compatible with them. Of the 10 lesbians I know personally (5 couples), 7 of those told me flat-out that this was the case. Antecdotal, i know, but it would be interesting to see a reliable poll of that with a larger sample size.
If I was screwed over hard enough to never want to be in a relationship with a man again the answer would not be a woman. I don't need another me I need a dude to balance my crazy. Lol.
I lived with enough women during boot camp, AIT and in the barracks at my duty station to know I don't need all of the drama. I prefer to hang around guys for their lack of drama. The Hallmark channel is a foul word in my vocabulary. Lol.
(05-10-2022, 10:51 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]If I was screwed over hard enough to never want to be in a relationship with a man again the answer would not be a woman. I don't need another me I need a dude to balance my crazy. Lol.
I lived with enough women during boot camp, AIT and in the barracks at my duty station to know I don't need all of the drama. I prefer to hang around guys for their lack of drama. The Hallmark channel is a foul word in my vocabulary. Lol.
[BLEEP] be crazy.
I always say that when my girl threatens to go lesbian. [BLEEP] be crazy and you can't handle one as crazy as you.