"Moderates" are the problem

[ChrisL]

Women aren't here to SERVE you. We do have our OWN aspirations and goals in life, and divorce is good so that we can divorce the assholes who try to smother us.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Thank you for proving the point I made earlier. If you don't fall lock and step in with the "party" then you are the enemy. THIS is why people are moving away from your party. You are all nuts!

No, the party is moving away from him, and he's scared because he isn't bright enough to make his own decisions, up until now he's just had to vote (R) on everything, and now the Republican Party is getting serious about getting rid of whack jobs, and that confuses Keys.

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

The question is better framed: "Which will cause greater destruction? Delaying what we must to return the culture to viability or doing it now?

(Here's a clue... the longer we wait, the deeper the destruction cuts into the foundation, separating the culture from the foundation, thus providing with every moment of delay, less to which we might set the reformed culture upon. Meaning that the longer the delay the less likely that the 'reform' will be possible, requiring the thorough razing of the culture... . The problem there is that to assure the likelihood of building a sound foundation, the eradication of the problem must be absolute, or very close to it. And that is a level of death and destruction which I doubt you can even begin to imagine. That would require today, the removal of a third of the US population... and it's not just a hundred million people, but the precisely correct hundred million people, odds there's no getting that done without significant spillage. Likely requiring the destruction of the majority of the US population.

Now in 1914... when Progressivism took root... that number would have been effective with the destruction of a few hundred. By 1924, a few thousand. 1934, 30k... by 1954, during McCarthy's day... it would have taken 150-200k.

So you tell me, when would that have been a good idea?

Well, seeing as how I am not INSANE, I don't advocate removing anyone.

Really? So you're saying that advocating for the removal of people is axiomatically insane?

LMAO! And you imply that you're not a Leftist... .

 

[ChrisL]

No, the party is moving away from him, and he's scared because he isn't bright enough to make his own decisions, up until now he's just had to vote (R) on everything, and now the Republican Party is getting serious about getting rid of whack jobs, and that confuses Keys.

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

The question is better framed: "Which will cause greater destruction? Delaying what we must to return the culture to viability or doing it now?

(Here's a clue... the longer we wait, the deeper the destruction cuts into the foundation, separating the culture from the foundation, thus providing with every moment of delay, less to which we might set the reformed culture upon. Meaning that the longer the delay the less likely that the 'reform' will be possible, requiring the thorough razing of the culture... . The problem there is that to assure the likelihood of building a sound foundation, the eradication of the problem must be absolute, or very close to it. And that is a level of death and destruction which I doubt you can even begin to imagine. That would require today, the removal of a third of the US population... and it's not just a hundred million people, but the precisely correct hundred million people, odds there's no getting that done without significant spillage. Likely requiring the destruction of the majority of the US population.

Now in 1914... when Progressivism took root... that number would have been effective with the destruction of a few hundred. By 1924, a few thousand. 1934, 30k... by 1954, during McCarthy's day... it would have taken 150-200k.

So you tell me, when would that have been a good idea?

Well, seeing as how I am not INSANE, I don't advocate removing anyone.

Really? So you're saying that advocating for the removal of people is axiomatically insane?

LMAO! And you imply that you're not a Leftist... .

You sound like Hitler, you crazy old man.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Women aren't here to SERVE you. We do have our OWN aspirations and goals in life, and divorce is good so that we can divorce the assholes who try to smother us.

ROFLMNAO! My goodness there's no bottom to your idiocy is there darlin'?

 

[ChrisL]

Women aren't here to SERVE you. We do have our OWN aspirations and goals in life, and divorce is good so that we can divorce the assholes who try to smother us.

ROFLMNAO! My goodness there's no bottom to your idiocy is there darlin'?

You are just out of touch.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? No, no, no! A LOT of religious people are certainly not as "good" as they would like you to believe. The fact is, most of them are no better or moral than anyone else.

Too true, too true. I agree that religion or lack thereof alone does not guarantee morality, BUT I was speaking of the country as a whole. There's no denying that things were more wholesome in the 1950s for example, than they are today.

Frankly, I blame women.

I'll wait for the screaming to calm down before explaining

In the old days, such things were just "not discussed." It is a myth that life was so wonderful in the 50s. Sure, I'm sure men thought so, but there are a LOT of women (obviously - women's suffrage?) would disagree with that. Life was not so wonderful for SOME women, I'm sure ,and once they married an asshole, they were stuck with him. Thank GOD that is not the case anymore.

Yeah, I've heard the traditionalist point of view before. I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums you know.

Yeah, now you can marry an asshole, get rid of him, marry another asshole and another...have six kids living in a shack with no father....sounds like Ferguson.

Smart people just don't do those things, but if they make a mistake they don't HAVE to be forced into an unhappy situation. There are plenty of people in the world after all.

OF course no one should be stuck in an unhappy situation, but far far too many people bail on situations that 40 years ago, people would have worked through.

Funny story about my grand parents (well funny now, probably wasn't funny at the time) they "met" via mail when my grandmother wrote tomy grand father while he was in the Navy during WWII, when he came home, they got married.

The story is that one time grandpa got mad at grandma , who knows why? , and told her he was going for a drive to cool off, four days later he came home.

How many wives would already have filed for divorce today by the time he got home?

The were married 59 years when she passed away.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, I don't know about that. There seems to be plenty of whack jobs around that claim to be republicans. The point is the republican party is the party of "conservatives," which generally means religious and in this country, that means Christian and against gay marriage, abortion and other such things that you see as a "sin." The way men have set up their religions, they are also "sinners" for going against those viewpoints, even if you can see the practicality in doing such.

I hate to say it because there are a lot of good things that come from religion, but it tends to prevent growth and knowledge and applying common sense in modern times. It was fine for back in the ancient times, but most of it is just unrealistic in our world as it is today. A perfect example of this phenomenon is the the Middle East. Easy to see how their religious beliefs put them at a disadvantage.

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

The question is better framed: "Which will cause greater destruction? Delaying what we must to return the culture to viability or doing it now?

(Here's a clue... the longer we wait, the deeper the destruction cuts into the foundation, separating the culture from the foundation, thus providing with every moment of delay, less to which we might set the reformed culture upon. Meaning that the longer the delay the less likely that the 'reform' will be possible, requiring the thorough razing of the culture... . The problem there is that to assure the likelihood of building a sound foundation, the eradication of the problem must be absolute, or very close to it. And that is a level of death and destruction which I doubt you can even begin to imagine. That would require today, the removal of a third of the US population... and it's not just a hundred million people, but the precisely correct hundred million people, odds there's no getting that done without significant spillage. Likely requiring the destruction of the majority of the US population.

Now in 1914... when Progressivism took root... that number would have been effective with the destruction of a few hundred. By 1924, a few thousand. 1934, 30k... by 1954, during McCarthy's day... it would have taken 150-200k.

So you tell me, when would that have been a good idea?

Well, seeing as how I am not INSANE, I don't advocate removing anyone.

Really? So you're saying that advocating for the removal of people is axiomatically insane?

LMAO! And you imply that you're not a Leftist... .

You sound like Hitler, you crazy old man.

LOL! Well, I expect I would sound like Histler, to you.

Do I?

Guess who killed more people in WW2 than any other nation... Go ahead, take a guess. (Here's a clue: It wasn't Histler.)

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I would disagree.

There is no denying that this country was better off when we had a religious people. The fucking gays sure have caused a lot of trouble considering they are only 3% of the population, just as one example.

All the debauchery we see now, pedophiles, children having sex, porn etc etc. ALL of that would't exist to the degree it does if we were a more religious people.

However, the question must be asked , is doing what we would have to do to return to those times worth it in terms of personal freedom? I say no it wouldn't be worth it. But to deny that the choices people make today cause harm is silly

The question is better framed: "Which will cause greater destruction? Delaying what we must to return the culture to viability or doing it now?

(Here's a clue... the longer we wait, the deeper the destruction cuts into the foundation, separating the culture from the foundation, thus providing with every moment of delay, less to which we might set the reformed culture upon. Meaning that the longer the delay the less likely that the 'reform' will be possible, requiring the thorough razing of the culture... . The problem there is that to assure the likelihood of building a sound foundation, the eradication of the problem must be absolute, or very close to it. And that is a level of death and destruction which I doubt you can even begin to imagine. That would require today, the removal of a third of the US population... and it's not just a hundred million people, but the precisely correct hundred million people, odds there's no getting that done without significant spillage. Likely requiring the destruction of the majority of the US population.

Now in 1914... when Progressivism took root... that number would have been effective with the destruction of a few hundred. By 1924, a few thousand. 1934, 30k... by 1954, during McCarthy's day... it would have taken 150-200k.

So you tell me, when would that have been a good idea?

Well, seeing as how I am not INSANE, I don't advocate removing anyone.

Really? So you're saying that advocating for the removal of people is axiomatically insane?

LMAO! And you imply that you're not a Leftist... .

You sound like Hitler, you crazy old man.

LOL! Well, I expect I would sound like Histler, to you.

Do I?

Guess who killed more people in WW2 than any other nation... Go ahead, take a guess. (Here's a clue: It wasn't Histler.)

You wanna bet on that?

 

[ChrisL]

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? No, no, no! A LOT of religious people are certainly not as "good" as they would like you to believe. The fact is, most of them are no better or moral than anyone else.

Too true, too true. I agree that religion or lack thereof alone does not guarantee morality, BUT I was speaking of the country as a whole. There's no denying that things were more wholesome in the 1950s for example, than they are today.

Frankly, I blame women.

I'll wait for the screaming to calm down before explaining

In the old days, such things were just "not discussed." It is a myth that life was so wonderful in the 50s. Sure, I'm sure men thought so, but there are a LOT of women (obviously - women's suffrage?) would disagree with that. Life was not so wonderful for SOME women, I'm sure ,and once they married an asshole, they were stuck with him. Thank GOD that is not the case anymore.

Yeah, I've heard the traditionalist point of view before. I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums you know.

Yeah, now you can marry an asshole, get rid of him, marry another asshole and another...have six kids living in a shack with no father....sounds like Ferguson.

Smart people just don't do those things, but if they make a mistake they don't HAVE to be forced into an unhappy situation. There are plenty of people in the world after all.

OF course no one should be stuck in an unhappy situation, but far far too many people bail on situations that 40 years ago, people would have worked through.

Funny story about my grand parents (well funny now, probably wasn't funny at the time) they "met" via mail when my grandmother wrote tomy grand father while he was in the Navy during WWII, when he came home, they got married.

The story is that one time grandpa got mad at grandma , who knows why? , and told her he was going for a drive to cool off, four days later he came home.

How many wives would already have filed for divorce today by the time he got home?

The were married 59 years when she passed away.

Well, I agree, but I think the real problem is that people jump into marriages too quickly without really knowing the other person very well. If those people involved thought the relationship was worth saving, then they would work on it. Obviously, they don't feel it's worth it.

Besides, men could get away with having mistresses back then. That probably has something to do ALSO with why they were so happy with the situation. They had a maid at home (their wives) and their sex kitten that they set up somewhere. Now, your wife can leave you for such things. Of course, the guys would be unhappy. They DO NOT get to have their cake and eat it too anymore. Women have a say in such things.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Are you forgetting about the Catholic church sex abuse scandal? No, no, no! A LOT of religious people are certainly not as "good" as they would like you to believe. The fact is, most of them are no better or moral than anyone else.

Too true, too true. I agree that religion or lack thereof alone does not guarantee morality, BUT I was speaking of the country as a whole. There's no denying that things were more wholesome in the 1950s for example, than they are today.

Frankly, I blame women.

I'll wait for the screaming to calm down before explaining

In the old days, such things were just "not discussed." It is a myth that life was so wonderful in the 50s. Sure, I'm sure men thought so, but there are a LOT of women (obviously - women's suffrage?) would disagree with that. Life was not so wonderful for SOME women, I'm sure ,and once they married an asshole, they were stuck with him. Thank GOD that is not the case anymore.

Yeah, I've heard the traditionalist point of view before. I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums you know.

Yeah, now you can marry an asshole, get rid of him, marry another asshole and another...have six kids living in a shack with no father....sounds like Ferguson.

Smart people just don't do those things, but if they make a mistake they don't HAVE to be forced into an unhappy situation. There are plenty of people in the world after all.

OF course no one should be stuck in an unhappy situation, but far far too many people bail on situations that 40 years ago, people would have worked through.

Funny story about my grand parents (well funny now, probably wasn't funny at the time) they "met" via mail when my grandmother wrote tomy grand father while he was in the Navy during WWII, when he came home, they got married.

The story is that one time grandpa got mad at grandma , who knows why? , and told her he was going for a drive to cool off, four days later he came home.

How many wives would already have filed for divorce today by the time he got home?

The were married 59 years when she passed away.

My wife has been married to me for 35 years... . Mom and Dad were married for 56 years when Dad passed.

Women will make ya crazy... but at the end of the day, ya know that they're worth keeping, because they chose you and well... that's just good judgement and besides she's smarter than you, so why fight the math... it's cheaper to keep'er.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The question is better framed: "Which will cause greater destruction? Delaying what we must to return the culture to viability or doing it now?

(Here's a clue... the longer we wait, the deeper the destruction cuts into the foundation, separating the culture from the foundation, thus providing with every moment of delay, less to which we might set the reformed culture upon. Meaning that the longer the delay the less likely that the 'reform' will be possible, requiring the thorough razing of the culture... . The problem there is that to assure the likelihood of building a sound foundation, the eradication of the problem must be absolute, or very close to it. And that is a level of death and destruction which I doubt you can even begin to imagine. That would require today, the removal of a third of the US population... and it's not just a hundred million people, but the precisely correct hundred million people, odds there's no getting that done without significant spillage. Likely requiring the destruction of the majority of the US population.

Now in 1914... when Progressivism took root... that number would have been effective with the destruction of a few hundred. By 1924, a few thousand. 1934, 30k... by 1954, during McCarthy's day... it would have taken 150-200k.

So you tell me, when would that have been a good idea?

Well, seeing as how I am not INSANE, I don't advocate removing anyone.

Really? So you're saying that advocating for the removal of people is axiomatically insane?

LMAO! And you imply that you're not a Leftist... .

You sound like Hitler, you crazy old man.

LOL! Well, I expect I would sound like Histler, to you.

Do I?

Guess who killed more people in WW2 than any other nation... Go ahead, take a guess. (Here's a clue: It wasn't Histler.)

You wanna bet on that?

Oh a message board bet? Golly YES!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Too true, too true. I agree that religion or lack thereof alone does not guarantee morality, BUT I was speaking of the country as a whole. There's no denying that things were more wholesome in the 1950s for example, than they are today.

Frankly, I blame women.

I'll wait for the screaming to calm down before explaining

In the old days, such things were just "not discussed." It is a myth that life was so wonderful in the 50s. Sure, I'm sure men thought so, but there are a LOT of women (obviously - women's suffrage?) would disagree with that. Life was not so wonderful for SOME women, I'm sure ,and once they married an asshole, they were stuck with him. Thank GOD that is not the case anymore.

Yeah, I've heard the traditionalist point of view before. I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums you know.

Yeah, now you can marry an asshole, get rid of him, marry another asshole and another...have six kids living in a shack with no father....sounds like Ferguson.

Smart people just don't do those things, but if they make a mistake they don't HAVE to be forced into an unhappy situation. There are plenty of people in the world after all.

OF course no one should be stuck in an unhappy situation, but far far too many people bail on situations that 40 years ago, people would have worked through.

Funny story about my grand parents (well funny now, probably wasn't funny at the time) they "met" via mail when my grandmother wrote tomy grand father while he was in the Navy during WWII, when he came home, they got married.

The story is that one time grandpa got mad at grandma , who knows why? , and told her he was going for a drive to cool off, four days later he came home.

How many wives would already have filed for divorce today by the time he got home?

The were married 59 years when she passed away.

Well, I agree, but I think the real problem is that people jump into marriages too quickly without really knowing the other person very well. If those people involved thought the relationship was worth saving, then they would work on it. Obviously, they don't feel it's worth it.

Besides, men could get away with having mistresses back then. That probably has something to do ALSO with why they were so happy with the situation. They had a maid at home (their wives) and their sex kitten that they set up somewhere. Now, your wife can leave you for such things. Of course, the guys would be unhappy. They DO NOT get to have their cake and eat it too anymore. Women have a say in such things.

oh please, you been watching too many reruns of Mad Men. Most men didn't have mistresses.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well, seeing as how I am not INSANE, I don't advocate removing anyone.

Really? So you're saying that advocating for the removal of people is axiomatically insane?

LMAO! And you imply that you're not a Leftist... .

You sound like Hitler, you crazy old man.

LOL! Well, I expect I would sound like Histler, to you.

Do I?

Guess who killed more people in WW2 than any other nation... Go ahead, take a guess. (Here's a clue: It wasn't Histler.)

You wanna bet on that?

Oh a message board bet? Golly YES!

say the US please.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

German losses 3.3 million, US losses .295 million.

Japanese Losses add another 1.5 million.

And before ya go giving credit to Histler for the Russian Meat grinder, Stalin was responsible for that mess. Total axis losses were 18 million, deduct Stalin's suicidal tactics, resulting in 13.5 million and the Allies did the most killing by nearly half a million.

 

[ChrisL]

In the old days, such things were just "not discussed." It is a myth that life was so wonderful in the 50s. Sure, I'm sure men thought so, but there are a LOT of women (obviously - women's suffrage?) would disagree with that. Life was not so wonderful for SOME women, I'm sure ,and once they married an asshole, they were stuck with him. Thank GOD that is not the case anymore.

Yeah, I've heard the traditionalist point of view before. I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums you know.

Yeah, now you can marry an asshole, get rid of him, marry another asshole and another...have six kids living in a shack with no father....sounds like Ferguson.

Smart people just don't do those things, but if they make a mistake they don't HAVE to be forced into an unhappy situation. There are plenty of people in the world after all.

OF course no one should be stuck in an unhappy situation, but far far too many people bail on situations that 40 years ago, people would have worked through.

Funny story about my grand parents (well funny now, probably wasn't funny at the time) they "met" via mail when my grandmother wrote tomy grand father while he was in the Navy during WWII, when he came home, they got married.

The story is that one time grandpa got mad at grandma , who knows why? , and told her he was going for a drive to cool off, four days later he came home.

How many wives would already have filed for divorce today by the time he got home?

The were married 59 years when she passed away.

Well, I agree, but I think the real problem is that people jump into marriages too quickly without really knowing the other person very well. If those people involved thought the relationship was worth saving, then they would work on it. Obviously, they don't feel it's worth it.

Besides, men could get away with having mistresses back then. That probably has something to do ALSO with why they were so happy with the situation. They had a maid at home (their wives) and their sex kitten that they set up somewhere. Now, your wife can leave you for such things. Of course, the guys would be unhappy. They DO NOT get to have their cake and eat it too anymore. Women have a say in such things.

oh please, you been watching too many reruns of Mad Men. Most men didn't have mistresses.

What about JFK and Marilyn Monroe? Everyone knew they were having a relationship on the side, and no one had a problem with that, and he was the president of the United States at the time, so just because ALL men or even most chose not to do it or never got caught doing it, does not mean it wasn't acceptable practice back then. There were a lot of things that lead me to believe that.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

German losses 3.3 million, US losses .25 million.

Japanese Losses add another 1.5 million.

And before ya go giving credit to Histler for the Russian Meat grinder, Stalin was responsible for that mess. Total axis losses were 18 million, deduct Stalin's suicidal tactics, resulting in 13.5 million and the Allies did the most killing by nearly half a million.

No no no you said COUNTRY, now you're arguing Axis versus Allied. AND you aren't even taking into account the 6 million Jews that Hitler had slaughtered.

The National WWII Museum New Orleans Learn For Students WWII by the Numbers World-Wide Deaths

The Soviet Union lost 24M people. You gotta lay some of that at minimum on Hitler.

45M civilian deaths. I think we know which side allied/axis caused most of that..

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yeah, now you can marry an asshole, get rid of him, marry another asshole and another...have six kids living in a shack with no father....sounds like Ferguson.

Smart people just don't do those things, but if they make a mistake they don't HAVE to be forced into an unhappy situation. There are plenty of people in the world after all.

OF course no one should be stuck in an unhappy situation, but far far too many people bail on situations that 40 years ago, people would have worked through.

Funny story about my grand parents (well funny now, probably wasn't funny at the time) they "met" via mail when my grandmother wrote tomy grand father while he was in the Navy during WWII, when he came home, they got married.

The story is that one time grandpa got mad at grandma , who knows why? , and told her he was going for a drive to cool off, four days later he came home.

How many wives would already have filed for divorce today by the time he got home?

The were married 59 years when she passed away.

Well, I agree, but I think the real problem is that people jump into marriages too quickly without really knowing the other person very well. If those people involved thought the relationship was worth saving, then they would work on it. Obviously, they don't feel it's worth it.

Besides, men could get away with having mistresses back then. That probably has something to do ALSO with why they were so happy with the situation. They had a maid at home (their wives) and their sex kitten that they set up somewhere. Now, your wife can leave you for such things. Of course, the guys would be unhappy. They DO NOT get to have their cake and eat it too anymore. Women have a say in such things.

oh please, you been watching too many reruns of Mad Men. Most men didn't have mistresses.

What about JFK and Marilyn Monroe? Everyone knew they were having a relationship on the side, and no one had a problem with that, and he was the president of the United States at the time, so just because ALL men or even most chose not to do it or never got caught doing it, does not mean it wasn't acceptable practice back then. There were a lot of things that lead me to believe that.

OMG! Someone tackle this wench, before we start hearing charges that she's a RW plant here to embarass the Left.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yeah, now you can marry an asshole, get rid of him, marry another asshole and another...have six kids living in a shack with no father....sounds like Ferguson.

Smart people just don't do those things, but if they make a mistake they don't HAVE to be forced into an unhappy situation. There are plenty of people in the world after all.

OF course no one should be stuck in an unhappy situation, but far far too many people bail on situations that 40 years ago, people would have worked through.

Funny story about my grand parents (well funny now, probably wasn't funny at the time) they "met" via mail when my grandmother wrote tomy grand father while he was in the Navy during WWII, when he came home, they got married.

The story is that one time grandpa got mad at grandma , who knows why? , and told her he was going for a drive to cool off, four days later he came home.

How many wives would already have filed for divorce today by the time he got home?

The were married 59 years when she passed away.

Well, I agree, but I think the real problem is that people jump into marriages too quickly without really knowing the other person very well. If those people involved thought the relationship was worth saving, then they would work on it. Obviously, they don't feel it's worth it.

Besides, men could get away with having mistresses back then. That probably has something to do ALSO with why they were so happy with the situation. They had a maid at home (their wives) and their sex kitten that they set up somewhere. Now, your wife can leave you for such things. Of course, the guys would be unhappy. They DO NOT get to have their cake and eat it too anymore. Women have a say in such things.

oh please, you been watching too many reruns of Mad Men. Most men didn't have mistresses.

What about JFK and Marilyn Monroe? Everyone knew they were having a relationship on the side, and no one had a problem with that, and he was the president of the United States at the time, so just because ALL men or even most chose not to do it or never got caught doing it, does not mean it wasn't acceptable practice back then. There were a lot of things that lead me to believe that.

Actually, it was NOT common knowledge back then. Most people didn't realize that JFK was a pill popping womanizer until after his death.

 

[ChrisL]

German losses 3.3 million, US losses .295 million.

Japanese Losses add another 1.5 million.

And before ya go giving credit to Histler for the Russian Meat grinder, Stalin was responsible for that mess. Total axis losses were 18 million, deduct Stalin's suicidal tactics, resulting in 13.5 million and the Allies did the most killing by nearly half a million.

Who cares? When I called you Hitler, it wasn't a compliment.

 

[ChrisL]

Smart people just don't do those things, but if they make a mistake they don't HAVE to be forced into an unhappy situation. There are plenty of people in the world after all.

OF course no one should be stuck in an unhappy situation, but far far too many people bail on situations that 40 years ago, people would have worked through.

Funny story about my grand parents (well funny now, probably wasn't funny at the time) they "met" via mail when my grandmother wrote tomy grand father while he was in the Navy during WWII, when he came home, they got married.

The story is that one time grandpa got mad at grandma , who knows why? , and told her he was going for a drive to cool off, four days later he came home.

How many wives would already have filed for divorce today by the time he got home?

The were married 59 years when she passed away.

Well, I agree, but I think the real problem is that people jump into marriages too quickly without really knowing the other person very well. If those people involved thought the relationship was worth saving, then they would work on it. Obviously, they don't feel it's worth it.

Besides, men could get away with having mistresses back then. That probably has something to do ALSO with why they were so happy with the situation. They had a maid at home (their wives) and their sex kitten that they set up somewhere. Now, your wife can leave you for such things. Of course, the guys would be unhappy. They DO NOT get to have their cake and eat it too anymore. Women have a say in such things.

oh please, you been watching too many reruns of Mad Men. Most men didn't have mistresses.

What about JFK and Marilyn Monroe? Everyone knew they were having a relationship on the side, and no one had a problem with that, and he was the president of the United States at the time, so just because ALL men or even most chose not to do it or never got caught doing it, does not mean it wasn't acceptable practice back then. There were a lot of things that lead me to believe that.

Actually, it was NOT common knowledge back then. Most people didn't realize that JFK was a pill popping womanizer until after his death.

Please, there are plenty of instances of misogyny from the 50s. Even some of the ads. Women were expected to stay home, serve their man and have babies. Women who decided they wanted more than that were considered "hysterical" or some crap. Women, throughout history, have been basically glorified slaves. There is no denying that. They still ARE in some parts of the world, sadly.