Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There are very few real victims if any at all.
Oh there are plenty of victims of divorce, though they are under 18 years of age. Whether of a mother that denies visitation or a father that keeps 'crying' that he wants 'more' but the courts are cruel. There are way more scenarios, but these are two.
I imagine they can be trained to feel like victims and feel entitled to things that "everyone else " has. Sorta like homos wanting to be married, women who want sex without the consequences and men eating Viagra like its candy.
Wrong thread. If you want to continue, start another. (I'll answer).
Divorce and child support has generated a whole new level of the attitude of entitlement.
That's bullshit. Any married man who refuses to support his kids is worse than scum. Getting married is a vow and it implies children will follow. Any divorced father who tries to screw his ex-wife and kids out of support is the lowest form of scum there is. Worse than shit I scrape off my shoe.
I worked with a man like that. He left his first wife and kids for another woman, and his ex had a pretty good lawyer. She got half his pension and half his paycheck. That's right. She got half of his paycheck every week. I have a lot of sympathy for men who get screwed over in divorce court, but I had none for this asshole.
He refused to work overtime. We had a rotating schedule where we were all expected to work weekends and holidays. There were 8 people on my crew, so I only had to work every 8th weekend, and after my daughter was born I actually looked forward to it because my sister would take the baby for the whole weekend, so it was the only time I was ever free. This asshole was on another crew with about 5 people and he refused to work weekends, or any overtime at all, because his ex would benefit too. He'd actually tell people that to get them to take his shifts. What a fucking asshole.
His second wife was a doll. A truly wonderful person who just fell in love with a snake. Years later, what did this snake do? He left her, too, for yet another woman. He didn't have any kids with the second wife, but she did have a son who was about 12 when the snake left her, and she said that was the hardest part for her. Her son didn't understand how he could just up and leave like that.
Some men are just plain fucking assholes, and when they marry somebody, they should be held to a higher standard. I don't believe in religion at all. But I do believe in keeping your word. And that has nothing to do with anything other than being a honorable person.
Can't you read?---wrong thread !
Right. This discussion does NOT belong on the Islam thread.
Sure it does. Islam is a male dominated political system that is disguised as a religion so the discussion of divorce and child support is very appropriate on this thread.
Want to talk about taxes next?
Sure! Why not the more the merrier. But vefore we do I have one last question. Is anyone muslim on this message board?
No... the term neo-conservative is defined by a particular political agenda exemplified by the goals set by the PNAC.
If "neo-con" is liberalspeak, do you think, perhaps, the term "liberal" as it's tossed about by the right is "neo-con speak"?
You know, I don't really buy that. This is a predominantly conservative board. If you read from thread to thread, you will find one conservative poster after another agreeing with the others, posting when they can't give rep to each other b/c they've given each other too much, and generally giving each other the cybernetic high five.
I figure what's good for the goose is good for the gander and if we see eye to eye on many subjects, then why refrain from posting our agreement?
Also, just to respond to what you said about canned responses, when we say the other can "speak for" us, we don't mean that we post in the other's "voice" so to speak. It means that if you misconstrue something I say, it is more than likely that he would know that I meant something different and he might, on occasion, choose to clarify if it were on a subject that interests him or if he thinks something I've said has been unfairly mischaracterized. I might do the same if something he says is misconstrued. It's really not that twilight zone a thing nor is it particularly complex. Does that make sense?
Glad I answered your question.
You ever read the conservative responses when a lib takes a position on a controversial subject? Just the way it is.
To be truthful, I like emoticons. They humanize posts, show a bit of sense of humor and deflect sometimes from things that might otherwise be harsher than they sound.
I take them more an emotional reaction 
, kind of too cutesy.
There is one poster who claims to be Muslim that I noticed today. Sad something. Or Something Sad.
His English isn't so good so I suspect he's lying. Or she. I just noticed him so I'm not sure yet. But I've seen this kind of thing before. Fakers think if they post with broken English people will think they're really Muslims.
Classic liberal response- false accusations, play victim.
Yes, please email me some cheese, and supply a link to my attack.
I'd say that pretty much covers it. I disagree about the majority of women wanting Roe V Wade overturned. But that's another subject.
But I do think you are right about liberals purporting to defend people that they really have an unconscious contempt for. Such as blacks and other minorities.
Even Muslims. They defend Islam on principle, but they also have contempt for Muslims and show it in inadvertent ways. For example, when the Nick Berg video first surfaced on the internet the board I was posting on at the time was discussing it. Liberals decided that the video showed that Berg was dead before he was beheaded. In their minds this meant that the CIA was behind it.
Seriously. All the usual liberals kept posting links to blogs, and other "proof" that Berg was dead when they cut his head off and that meant the CIA had to be the bad guys. What they never considered was that by saying that, what they were actually saying was that only a Muslim would cut off the head of man who was alive. They never even considered it from that angle. No, if they could say Berg was dead, then they could blame the Bush administration and that was all they thought about. Liberals don't think things through too much.
Also, the fact that none of them watched the video themselves, and criticized those of us who did as being ghoulish, just added to the hypocrisy. Liberals just don't think like normal people. Maybe it's a bad gene or something.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, except his case the kettle was clean!
That simply is not true. It belongs with Deans statements that republicans/conservatives never work a day in their lives, hate women and would love to see child slave labor again. You should be ashamed of making such a statement. You are STATING that I, ME, Ronald Kallungi, doesnt give a shit if women die. THAT IS SIMPLY A LIE AND IS SLANDEROUS AND INSULTING.This entire subject shows the total hypocricy of both sides when it comes to abortion, personal responsibility, and the role of the government in social situations. It's bizarre. Conservatives are against abortion in any circumstance (the life of the mother bullshit is just mandatory detail they have to give lip service to. Most conservative wouldn't give a shit if every pregnant woman died in childbirth as long as the baby lives.) .
NO. We hate welfare as it is. We believe the govt shouldnt be in the welfare business (they are so ineffective) and that private charities should be handling that issue, just as it was for almost 200 years in America.But they also hate welfare..
I dont see the connection. Are you saying only well to do financially women should be able to forgo abortions? Kinda sounds like FORCED abortion for poor women.Liberals believe in the right to choose, and welfare. That's just as bizarre because with abortion being legal, although harder and harder to get, any woman who chooses to have a baby should be expected to support it on her own..
NOT in the arena of children, child custody, etc. etc. It is PREDOMINANTLY FEMALE DOMINATED. THROUGH AND THROUGH. I have dealt with it personally many times, I can tell you many horror stories, not to mention the family law LAWS on the books and being passed these days are very perjorative towards women. Flat out, they claim the laws arent gender biased, because they apply to the parent who has primary physical custody, but they know full well that women get primary custody over 85% of the time.Forget about the father. Our society is male dominated. .
While some states require an unwed mother to name the father in order to collect welfare, which is a good thing, many others have laws that protect unwed fathers. My kid has no legal father. Since we weren't married, I was not legally able to name him on her birth certificate without him signing a form agreeing to it. He broke up with me the day I told him I was pregnant, so I had had no contact with him for months. I knew he wouldn't sign the form, so I didn't bother trying to get him to sign it. He was a criminal defense attorney and I decided to have the baby on my own so I saw no reason to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer to fight him on it. I didn't need his child support payments so I didn't pursue it.
But even though I was not applying for welfare, or any kind of state benefits at all, the state would not let me name him as the father. I guess the rule makes sense because any nut can name anybody, so there is probably no solution for that.
I'm just as guilty as putting conservatives all in the same place.
I must say though, seriously, on all the sites I visit it is predominantly - by a huge margin - conservatives who post from blogs. Not many people do it on this board, but of those who do, most are conservative (from what I've seen)...
