Women voting, bad idea?

Terrible idea. Who let those dames vote? Barefoot and naked in the kitchen, that's a woman's place. :2razz:

Peter King said:

in a democracy all people should be allowed to vote in which only the voting age is the deciding factor that decides who should be allowed to vote and IMHO that is how it should be. Why not else would the people who not pay federal income tax decide that people with attitudes towards the rest of society like yours be banned from voting for anti-democratic values? It must never go back to the times in which minorities had to prove that they could read before being allowed to vote. Your attitude towards democracy is wrong and not how democracies should work.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the part where the United States is not a democracy, but a democratic republic. Democracy on it's own is a proven failure. The results of letting every regular jack off have a voice, and vote speaks for itself. We're laden with worthless bureaucracy, a horrible tax system, a broken economy, terrible working conditions, castrated border security, and a whole slew of other major problems that are destroying this country, and its people. Why? Because our leaders have to pander to every person in the US that's 18+ and not under court supervision for a felony offense.

Thank goodness people like you do not get to decide insulting and denigrating rules as to which kind of people should be allowed to vote. A lot of people now no longer pay taxes after paying tax their whole life and they have every right to vote. Paying taxes should never be the deciding factor in whether people should have the right to vote, it is a given right to all adults in the US and that is how democracies work.

Click to expand...

It should always have been a factor.

Thank goodness all those bleeding hearts will make sure your kind of democracy will never come to pass. The US is a democracy and for decades you have been.

Click to expand...

Actually, they won't, because "my kind of democracy" is what we founded this nation on. Public virtue does not exist, as men will always put their own interests before the needs of others. That is why democracy fails, and why a structured constitutional republic stands.

And I could care less that you feel that way, your views like yours on society are arrogant towards those who do not have much money, that makes a person an arrogant elitist who are totally out of touch with reality.

Click to expand...

I am an elitist, but I'm looking at the problem very realistically, but it's easy to criticize and judge when you're an entire ocean away, and don't have to deal with the consequences of a failing system.

Surtr said:

It's easily achieved, you send their asses to prison for tax evasion. Taxes have always been necessary for the survival of the Union, it's the sole reason why we have a Constitution, and not the Articles of Confederation. Roads have to be built and maintained, hospitals and medical care have to be instituted, police and soldiers have to be properly equipped, trained, and paid, and so on. Society cannot function without taxes, and when people don't pay taxes, they're stealing from society. They're taking everything we built as a nation, and putting a big ole mushroom stamp on it.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% with your last few sentences. I just disagree that the income tax is necessary and as such, required to vote. The government generates money in many ways: 1) tarrifs, 2) printing it 3) Production (offers services for pay) 4) Penalties 5) sales tax 6) excise tax.

It wasn't until 1862, nearly a century after our nation existed, that we implemented our first income tax. Now 1.5 centuries later, you suggest that this tax is necessary for our nation to exist and therefore suggest that those whose income aren't taxed should not be allowed to vote?

I agree that those not paying taxes are a huge contribution to what's wrong with the country. Those taking more than they produce from society are stealing from those paying more than they receive (or worse, from future generations), and they're doing so under the rule of the majority. It's disheartening. (at the same time, I would love if those making more were more willing to part with their earnings to the less fortunate [but not the less motivated]). But to empower the national income tax with the law to vote is necessitating the income tax, which is a corner I'm not willing to turn. I'd still rather focus on undoing what's wrong rather than accept it.

fredmertzz said:

I agree 100% with your last few sentences. I just disagree that the income tax is necessary and as such, required to vote. The government generates money in many ways: 1) tarrifs, 2) printing it 3) Production (offers services for pay) 4) Penalties 5) sales tax 6) excise tax.

Click to expand...

Printing money actually decreases the value of the dollar. The dollar itself is just a representation of the funds the nation has.

It wasn't until 1862, nearly a century after our nation existed, that we implemented our first income tax. Now 1.5 centuries later, you suggest that this tax is necessary for our nation to exist and therefore suggest that those whose income aren't taxed should not be allowed to vote

Click to expand...

Yes. This isn't the 19th century anymore.

I agree that those not paying taxes are a huge contribution to what's wrong with the country. Those taking more than they produce from society are stealing from those paying more than they receive (or worse, from future generations), and they're doing so under the rule of the majority. It's disheartening. (at the same time, I would love if those making more were more willing to part with their earnings to the less fortunate [but not the less motivated]). But to empower the national income tax with the law to vote is necessitating the income tax, which is a corner I'm not willing to turn. I'd still rather focus on undoing what's wrong rather than accept it.

Click to expand...

The income tax is just one of many taxes necessary to keep this country running. The reason why it was needed in the first place was because the taxes present weren't enough. We didn't even have 50 states then, and the current taxes of the time still weren't enough. Now, with 50 states, territories, allies, and and infinite number of bureaus, there's simply no possible way that we can abolish the income tax, and still be alright.

Surtr said:

Printing money actually decreases the value of the dollar. The dollar itself is just a representation of the funds the nation has.

Click to expand...

Correct... which is why I include it in the list of ways the government takes money from us, other than an income tax.

Surtr said:

A set percentage? No, it wouldn't be fair to anyone, but tax evaders should definitely lose all suffrage rights, and then some.

Click to expand...

Anyone convicted of tax evasion already does lose the right to vote for time, Surtr. That's a felony.

fredmertzz said:

I agree 100% with your last few sentences. I just disagree that the income tax is necessary and as such, required to vote. The government generates money in many ways: 1) tarrifs, 2) printing it 3) Production (offers services for pay) 4) Penalties 5) sales tax 6) excise tax.

It wasn't until 1862, nearly a century after our nation existed, that we implemented our first income tax. Now 1.5 centuries later, you suggest that this tax is necessary for our nation to exist and therefore suggest that those whose income aren't taxed should not be allowed to vote?

I agree that those not paying taxes are a huge contribution to what's wrong with the country. Those taking more than they produce from society are stealing from those paying more than they receive (or worse, from future generations), and they're doing so under the rule of the majority. It's disheartening. (at the same time, I would love if those making more were more willing to part with their earnings to the less fortunate [but not the less motivated]). But to empower the national income tax with the law to vote is necessitating the income tax, which is a corner I'm not willing to turn. I'd still rather focus on undoing what's wrong rather than accept it.

Click to expand...

Threadjack much?

Peter Grimm said:

Terrible idea. Who let those dames vote? Barefoot and naked in the kitchen, that's a woman's place. :2razz:

Click to expand...

Go make me a sammich, boy.

Surtr said:

A set percentage? No, it wouldn't be fair to anyone, but tax evaders should definitely lose all suffrage rights, and then some.

Click to expand...

A homeless person cannot vote -- a person needs an address before their district can be identified.

A poor person spends as much as 40% of their total income on taxes. Possibly more. I fail to see why their inability to generate more income, and pay more taxes, should make them any less qualified to vote than some wealthy person, who pays as little as 1% of income in tax.

Whose children are sent to war, Surtr? Not the rich dude's, not unless they fancy a career in politics. I dunno why you view the poor with as much disdain as you do, but IMO, these people have paid more'n enough to "get in the game".

Pinkie said:

A homeless person cannot vote -- a person needs an address before their district can be identified.

A poor person spends as much as 40% of their total income on taxes. Possibly more. I fail to see why their inability to generate more income, and pay more taxes, should make them any less qualified to vote than some wealthy person, who pays as little as 1% of income in tax.

Whose children are sent to war, Surtr? Not the rich dude's, not unless they fancy a career in politics. I dunno why you view the poor with as much disdain as you do, but IMO, these people have paid more'n enough to "get in the game".

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about amount of money, but those who just don't pay their taxes. Everybody else does, but they think they're special, and that everyone should work for them. The kind of people who take and take, but when it comes for them to give a little, nah, that's just exploiting the poor little parasite. They come in all social classes, it's not about that. It's about people pulling their own weight. The ones who don't shouldn't get to reap the benefits of everyone else's hard work, nor should they have any say in our governance.

ab9924 said:

One of my American teachers was going through a divorce lately. He was angry that 50 % of his earnings went into the child support of his 2 children. Apparently it is like you pay a ~25 % regular income tax before child support, then child supports takes another 25 %, resulting in the total 50 % income loss. I think that a man should love his children regardless of marital status, but living on half your income can be easily crippling I guess, especially if the man must move cities as usual in today's volatile job market. Does the woman's income drop 50 % too? I don't understand your point fully, I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

Every state has a formula, ab9926, and it is virtually impossible to move a judge off that formula.

Two adults, one child, both parents make $30,000 (total parental income, $60,000) = about $300/month in child support. (This is an example, but it's reasonably close to actual state formulas.)

But, to house, feed, educate, furnish medical and dental care to, etc. even one child, the custodial parent will spend far, far, far more than $600/mo. Child care alone is usually about $800+.

So if the wife has custody, as is still common, and the husband only pays child support, the wife has far less income than she did prior to the divorce and the husband has far more.

I do not know what's happening to your teacher, although I am shocked that a school teacher would confide in his students about his divorce in the detail yours apparently has -- that's extremely inappropriate behavior, IMO.

Here are some possibilities:

* Your teacher is lying his ass off. This isn't even a sin in divorce, as most combatants feel grievous injuries and it's common to vent to friends in a biased manner. ("Friends" meaning other adults, not schoolkids who admire you.)

* Your teacher and his former spouse have 8 kids. The formula I described will run up the child support obligation (to a degree) for the number of kids to be supported. Of course, as with the example in which the couple has only one child, the amount the wife/custodial parent spends on a child is usually far higher than the amount the noncustodial parent/husband pays in support.

* Your teacher is paying both child support and temporary alimony and/or a property settlement. The couple may have owned a home together which the husband wanted to keep, and the wife may have agreed to accept periodic payments to retire her buy out (her share of the home's equity). Or, the wife may have had a HS education and the husband a PhD, so the judge gave the wife 2 years' temporary alimony to allow her time to get ready to support herself and her child.

* The judge ordered the husband to pay the wife's legal expenses. This is rare, usually reflects very bad behavior on the part of the husband and would normally not be handled as periodic payments to the wife -- but it's possible.

What do we know about your teacher? We know he has grossly inappropriate convos with his students in which he demonizes his former wife. That's all we know for sure -- but it should give you reason to pause and reflect, ab9926.

I'd bet next month's mortgage payment, there are 2 sides to this tale of woe he's spun to you -- not one divorce lawyer in America thinks no-fault divorce has been some sort of economic boon to women and children. However, that does not mean there aren't hordes of men paying child support who deeply resent "giving money to their ex".

Surtr said:

I think you missed the part where the United States is not a democracy, but a democratic republic. Democracy on it's own is a proven failure. The results of letting every regular jack off have a voice, and vote speaks for itself. We're laden with worthless bureaucracy, a horrible tax system, a broken economy, terrible working conditions, castrated border security, and a whole slew of other major problems that are destroying this country, and its people. Why? Because our leaders have to pander to every person in the US that's 18+ and not under court supervision for a felony offense.

Click to expand...

I am sorry to disappoint you, but a democratic republic is still a democracy. The fact that a president is the leader of a democracy or a queen/king is not defining for a democracy. And a democracy is not a failure, it may have it's problems but compared to all other forms of government it is far out superior to all others.

The fact that it is a democracy has nothing to do with worthless bureaucracy, dictatorships and communist countries have much more worthless bureaucracy than normally in a democracy. The problem is with the US that the political, legal and governmental rules have been created by (however smart they were for their time) 18th century statesmen who had to rule a country of a few million people on a very small part of what is now the USA.

Other democracies have renewed their laws and have reworked their governments and bureaucracy to deal with the new times. In the US there is such an admiration for the statesmen who started the US that everything has to be created or re-worked within the confines of rules that were made for the US as it was 250 years ago and IMHO that does not always work.

Truly new laws and new rules are almost impossible to create because everything has to be conformed to what the founding fathers would have wanted and that restricts solving issues that have arisen from living in the 21st century with rules from the 18th.

That is largely the reason that there are only 2 political parties in the US who are almost totally incapable of solving the problems that the US has now.

It may not be how the founding fathers saw it but doing away with the electoral college and just having the popular vote decide who becomes president. And have proportional voting decide how state representatives are chosen etc. That would do away with the reworking of districts etc. by the 2 parties and it would make the election a less political issue. It would make it less necessary for politicians to be campaigning almost non-stop and stop it being all about the money.

But that is easy for me to say as I am not an American and have a much more pragmatic view about this issue.

Surtr said:

It should always have been a factor.

Click to expand...

No it should not, because that would open up the whole issues for barring all kinds of groups of lawful citizens from participating in elections.

Surtr said:

Actually, they won't, because "my kind of democracy" is what we founded this nation on. Public virtue does not exist, as men will always put their own interests before the needs of others. That is why democracy fails, and why a structured constitutional republic stands.

Click to expand...

What you are proposing is not a democratic society but a society that would be a dictatorship by a view. Your society is a carbon copy of communist societies and just like any other elitist dictatorship is bound to fail from the pressure of all masses as they stand up and demand the rights that they should have anyway (like voting rights).

Surtr said:

I am an elitist, but I'm looking at the problem very realistically, but it's easy to criticize and judge when you're an entire ocean away, and don't have to deal with the consequences of a failing system.

Click to expand...

No, what you are proposing is not realistic. It is as unrealistic as the nazi regime in Germany was and how the Soviet Union was (and I am not implying that you are a nazi or communist but I am comparing the way these countries were lead to the one you propose, leadership by a few "worthy" who are better equipped to rule and decide than the normal people).

And it would be much better to actually solve the failing system than creating a new system that is even more flawed than the one it replaces.

Surtr said:

I'm not talking about amount of money, but those who just don't pay their taxes. Everybody else does, but they think they're special, and that everyone should work for them. The kind of people who take and take, but when it comes for them to give a little, nah, that's just exploiting the poor little parasite. They come in all social classes, it's not about that. It's about people pulling their own weight. The ones who don't shouldn't get to reap the benefits of everyone else's hard work, nor should they have any say in our governance.

Click to expand...

The only tax evaders among us are the wealthy and those who work under the table. Every poor person and working poor person who works on the books pays taxes that are extracted in advance or at the time of the taxable event -- they have no opportunity to commit tax evasion.

Dragonfly said:

My daughter is 20 years old, and a junior in college working towards med school.

She's got no right to vote this coming election?

Click to expand...

I noticed this went unanswered...

Surtr said:

I'm a tax paying citizen. I give my time, and my money to my community just like everybody else in this country. Why should a freeloading ****bag get the same voice as those who actually finance this nation?

Click to expand...

LOL - yep - I sure do.

Because without be being a freeloading ****bag my husband wouldn't be able to deploy around the world and defend your stupid right to bitch.

I guess that just sucks for you

No - it's like I said at some point earlier in this thread . . .there's a huge difference between being a leech on your partner's dime - and being something like a stay at home parent.

Peter King said:

I am sorry to disappoint you, but a democratic republic is still a democracy.

Click to expand...

I'm starting to think you don't know what democracy actually is. If we were a democracy, we wouldn't have a congress, or an electoral college. Democracy means everyone votes for everything, you don't have the middle man representatives. As the saying goes " democracy is doomed once people begin voting for bread and circuses." Well, we vote for beer and the Super Bowl, not what the nation actually needs.

The fact that it is a democracy has nothing to do with worthless bureaucracy, dictatorships and communist countries have much more worthless bureaucracy than normally in a democracy. The problem is with the US that the political, legal and governmental rules have been created by (however smart they were for their time) 18th century statesmen who had to rule a country of a few million people on a very small part of what is now the USA.

Click to expand...

It has everything to do with the way our nation operates, and all the broken systems within it. Our leadership is ruled by popular opinion, getting reelected means pandering to, not only those who are versed and knowledgeable in how the nation actually functions, but everybody. That means our leadership has to appease the lower, middle and upper classes, the uneducated, the poor, the illiterate, the racists, the special interest groups, the unions, the gangs, Joe the plumber who only knows what the tv and his union rep tells him, Jesse the 3rd year college freshman who gets baked every night and thinks George Bush colluded with the Jews to bomb the World Trade Center with lasers and thermite, and the damned birthers and closet skinheads who can't believe we have a "nigger" for a president. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars appeasing these people because we have to. It's the only way to shut them up long enough so people who know what the **** is going on can focus on real issues, like the economy, or industry, or how we're going to end the war, or how to reform the tax system to make it more efficient, or even how to keep water flowing to desert towns in New Mexico and Arizona. That's exactly why we originally had restrictions on who could vote. Public virtue does not exist. People are going to vote for their individual needs and wants, not what's best for the nation as a whole, because the majority of people don't know what's best for the nation as a whole. An election isn't some piddly dick PTA meeting where soccer moms decide what the prom decor should look like, it's how we decide how we're going to continue being a nation.

Other democracies have renewed their laws and have reworked their governments and bureaucracy to deal with the new times. In the US there is such an admiration for the statesmen who started the US that everything has to be created or re-worked within the confines of rules that were made for the US as it was 250 years ago and IMHO that does not always work.

Truly new laws and new rules are almost impossible to create because everything has to be conformed to what the founding fathers would have wanted and that restricts solving issues that have arisen from living in the 21st century with rules from the 18th.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and other democracies don't have a landmass of 3.8 million square miles with a population of 300,000,000 and rising. The Constitution has nothing to do with our federal bureaus, except for the ones specific to the Constitution, such as the IRS, which is the arm of the US Dept of Treasury. What really slows progress is popular opinion.

That is largely the reason that there are only 2 political parties in the US who are almost totally incapable of solving the problems that the US has now.

It may not be how the founding fathers saw it but doing away with the electoral college and just having the popular vote decide who becomes president. And have proportional voting decide how state representatives are chosen etc. That would do away with the reworking of districts etc. by the 2 parties and it would make the election a less political issue. It would make it less necessary for politicians to be campaigning almost non-stop and stop it being all about the money.

Click to expand...

There are many reasons why we only have two major political parties, the Constitution isn't one of them. The founding members of this nation didn't want political parties because they saw them in Britain, and they didn't like it. Political parties started because of the rift between what would become the Federalists and the Republicans, which is a very long story.

But that is easy for me to say as I am not an American and have a much more pragmatic view about this issue.

Click to expand...

Well, it has nothing to do with pragmatism. You don't understand the American People, or how our government functions. I don't understand how your people or government functions, either. Only difference is I won't tell you how to better run you country based on what I think is ideal based on my limited experiences. Direct democracy was never an ideal for us. It would never work, and it could quite possibly be the worst thing to ever happen to the US if it were put into effect.

No it should not, because that would open up the whole issues for barring all kinds of groups of lawful citizens from participating in elections.

Click to expand...

This country started with only wealthy land owning freemen being allowed to vote. There's no reason why voting shouldn't be restricted to those who are educated, pay taxes, and have no record of criminal activities that equate to moral turpitude.

What you are proposing is not a democratic society but a society that would be a dictatorship by a view. Your society is a carbon copy of communist societies and just like any other elitist dictatorship is bound to fail from the pressure of all masses as they stand up and demand the rights that they should have anyway (like voting rights).

Click to expand...

A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government under the rule of a single party, which is not even close to what I'm talking about,

No, what you are proposing is not realistic. It is as unrealistic as the nazi regime in Germany was and how the Soviet Union was (and I am not implying that you are a nazi or communist but I am comparing the way these countries were lead to the one you propose, leadership by a few "worthy" who are better equipped to rule and decide than the normal people).

And it would be much better to actually solve the failing system than creating a new system that is even more flawed than the one it replaces.

Click to expand...

Come back when you can spare me the pathetic hyperbole.

Aunt Spiker said:

LOL - yep - I sure do.

Because without be being a freeloading ****bag my husband wouldn't be able to deploy around the world and defend your stupid right to bitch.

I guess that just sucks for you

No - it's like I said at some point earlier in this thread . . .there's a huge difference between being a leech on your partner's dime - and being something like a stay at home parent.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I also deployed around the world, but we don't defend your freedoms to do anything. We have been reduced to "convincing" other nations to be on our side to ensure that millions of fat, stupid, gluttonous, wasteful, slobs continue to have all the resources they need to be fat, stupid, gluttonous, wasteful slobs, instead of having to face the reality that the Earth's resources actually are finite, and that we really do need to change in order to make sure that our future generations have a future worth entering. But changing our ways is somehow more appalling than dropping 500 lb bombs on small villages full of little brown people so we can ruthlessly steal their resources.

I didn't bring up stay at home mothers, or say anything against them. That was a pathetic jab at me by another overly emotional poster.

Surtr said:

Yeah, I also deployed around the world, but we don't defend your freedoms to do anything. We have been reduced to "convincing" other nations to be on our side to ensure that millions of fat, stupid, gluttonous, wasteful, slobs continue to have all the resources they need to be fat, stupid, gluttonous, wasteful slobs, instead of having to face the reality that the Earth's resources actually are finite, and that we really do need to change in order to make sure that our future generations have a future worth entering. But changing our ways is somehow more appalling than dropping 500 lb bombs on small villages full of little brown people so we can ruthlessly steal their resources.

I didn't bring up stay at home mothers, or say anything against them. That was a pathetic jab at me by another overly emotional poster.

Click to expand...

You're the one on a thread about women's suffrage, ranting about "leeches" and asking that we disenfranchise them.

Don't be shocked when one of these "female leeches" shows up to beat you snotless.

Surtr said:

Yeah, I also deployed around the world, but we don't defend your freedoms to do anything. We have been reduced to "convincing" other nations to be on our side to ensure that millions of fat, stupid, gluttonous, wasteful, slobs continue to have all the resources they need to be fat, stupid, gluttonous, wasteful slobs, instead of having to face the reality that the Earth's resources actually are finite, and that we really do need to change in order to make sure that our future generations have a future worth entering. But changing our ways is somehow more appalling than dropping 500 lb bombs on small villages full of little brown people so we can ruthlessly steal their resources.

I didn't bring up stay at home mothers, or say anything against them. That was a pathetic jab at me by another overly emotional poster.

Click to expand...

We're appalled to change? You're in a tizzy - all wound up - over . . . ??? Something. Rough day at work? Damn, dude.

You remind me of how I use to be - when I was angry I'd rattle off endless creative slanders and insults just to *get* my spiteful feelings across to someone - it seemed like it was never enough and if only I could just get one perfect rant out I'd feel better - or the person subjected to my **** would. Get. My. Point.

But that was a long time ago - I grew out of that.

Pinkie said:

Every state has a formula, ab9926, and it is virtually impossible to move a judge off that formula.

Two adults, one child, both parents make $30,000 (total parental income, $60,000) = about $300/month in child support. (This is an example, but it's reasonably close to actual state formulas.)

But, to house, feed, educate, furnish medical and dental care to, etc. even one child, the custodial parent will spend far, far, far more than $600/mo. Child care alone is usually about $800+.

So if the wife has custody, as is still common, and the husband only pays child support, the wife has far less income than she did prior to the divorce and the husband has far more.

I do not know what's happening to your teacher, although I am shocked that a school teacher would confide in his students about his divorce in the detail yours apparently has -- that's extremely inappropriate behavior, IMO.

Here are some possibilities:

* Your teacher is lying his ass off. This isn't even a sin in divorce, as most combatants feel grievous injuries and it's common to vent to friends in a biased manner. ("Friends" meaning other adults, not schoolkids who admire you.)

* Your teacher and his former spouse have 8 kids. The formula I described will run up the child support obligation (to a degree) for the number of kids to be supported. Of course, as with the example in which the couple has only one child, the amount the wife/custodial parent spends on a child is usually far higher than the amount the noncustodial parent/husband pays in support.

* Your teacher is paying both child support and temporary alimony and/or a property settlement. The couple may have owned a home together which the husband wanted to keep, and the wife may have agreed to accept periodic payments to retire her buy out (her share of the home's equity). Or, the wife may have had a HS education and the husband a PhD, so the judge gave the wife 2 years' temporary alimony to allow her time to get ready to support herself and her child.

* The judge ordered the husband to pay the wife's legal expenses. This is rare, usually reflects very bad behavior on the part of the husband and would normally not be handled as periodic payments to the wife -- but it's possible.

What do we know about your teacher? We know he has grossly inappropriate convos with his students in which he demonizes his former wife. That's all we know for sure -- but it should give you reason to pause and reflect, ab9926.

I'd bet next month's mortgage payment, there are 2 sides to this tale of woe he's spun to you -- not one divorce lawyer in America thinks no-fault divorce has been some sort of economic boon to women and children. However, that does not mean there aren't hordes of men paying child support who deeply resent "giving money to their ex".

Click to expand...

Wow Pinkie, your information points to such a high level of complexity in a divorce, that you need an accountant's services to deal with it. The whole thing, especially the demonization part, that is highly possible, is scary. I begin to think that divorce is a thing that plagues working people, because working people have such inflated attitudes about work that they undermine their love to their spouses with it. Someone said, I forgot where it was now, that in life, we can end up in two ways, either we become losers, or we become ... losers. I think it's best to keep a low profile (at least with work), that way we become losers a little slower. This is sooo interesting. I think (an educated guess) that most of my teachers earn in the magnitude of $250kpa.

ab9924 said:

Wow Pinkie, your information points to such a high level of complexity in a divorce, that you need an accountant's services to deal with it. The whole thing, especially the demonization part, that is highly possible, is scary. I begin to think that divorce is a thing that plagues working people, because working people have such inflated attitudes about work that they undermine their love to their spouses with it. Someone said, I forgot where it was now, that in life, we can end up in two ways, either we become losers, or we become ... losers. I think it's best to keep a low profile (at least with work), that way we become losers a little slower. This is sooo interesting. I think (an educated guess) that most of my teachers earn in the magnitude of $250kpa.

Click to expand...

When I was in law school, one of my professors told me a woman can have any two of three things: a great kid, a great marriage and a great career -- but no woman gets all three.

That's likely not exactly true, but most adults I know with all three (and I don't know many; in fact, I may not know even one), did so across time. They invested heavily in their marriage and children in their 20's and 30's, and neglected them in favor of their careers in their 40's and beyond.

I don't know if you'll beat the odds, ab9926. I hope so. I do know, having a preconceived idea that half the adults on the planet are not trustworthy will not enhance your future.

Peter King said:

That is your opinion, in a time of crisis usually it is cooler heads that prevail and IMHO, women do that better than men.

Click to expand...

Well, it depends on what time of the month it is.

Surtr said:

The only people who should be barred from voting are those who don't pay taxes.

Click to expand...

I change my vote to this.
Good-by Democrat Party :2wave:

So you'd like to register to vote? Ok, may I please see your tax return for last year? Oh you you didn't file?:

• Because you were in prison? Oh gee that's just to bad, see you next year. What? That's discriminating against Black people? Well maybe Blacks should stop committing so much crime then.
• Because you're an unmarried mother living off welfare? Maybe you should've thought about that before dropping your pants.
• Because you're a deadbeat? Well get off your ass and get a job, then.

johnny_rebson said:

Well, it depends on what time of the month it is.

Click to expand...

My goodness, the misogyny on this thread is just stunning.

Jerry said:

I change my vote to this.
Good-by Democrat Party :2wave:

So you'd like to register to vote? Ok, may I please see your tax return for last year? Oh you you didn't file?:

• Because you were in prison? Oh gee that's just to bad, see you next year. What? That's discriminating against Black people? Well maybe Blacks should stop committing so much crime then.
• Because you're an unmarried mother living off welfare? Maybe you should've thought about that before dropping your pants.
• Because you're a deadbeat? Well get off your ass and get a job, then.

Click to expand...

Two can play this game, Jerry.

* Ever failed to pay your child support? If you can't even satisfy the most fundamental obligation you have as an adult, you don't get to vote.

* Fathered more than one child out of wedlock? You are clearly too irresponsible to be entrusted with voting.

* Failed to visit a child of yours anytime in the last year? No vote for you, you child abandoner.

* Paying less than 10% of your real income in effective tax? You have too little at stake and are too likely to divert government resources to your own selfish ends. No vote for you.