- This topic has 46 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
livinincali.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 2, 2015 at 6:02 AM #789775October 2, 2015 at 6:13 AM #789776
scaredyclassic
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=zk]
Is the bible consistent with the Constitution? Does it matter whether either is?[/quote]
I have a friend who’s born again and “saving” people is part of the calling. Despite my making light of it, he’s persistent. I’m OK with it because he’s not pushy but will bring up God when the occasion arises. He’s a Democrat.
One time, we were on the phone while I was driving to Vegas. He read Genesis to me, and we discussed the characters. People lived to 900+ years, they were having incest with one another, etc.. Some real kooky stuff.[/quote]
Robert crumb, the famous underground cartoonist, recently did the complete Genesis unedited as a comic book. It is so very awesome. It is absolutely worth reading. Crumb dud fritz the cat, mr. Natural, those ubiquitous keep on trucking shirts. He is a genius
October 2, 2015 at 10:46 AM #789787FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=scaredyclassic]
Robert crumb, the famous underground cartoonist, recently did the complete Genesis unedited as a comic book. It is so very awesome. It is absolutely worth reading. Crumb dud fritz the cat, mr. Natural, those ubiquitous keep on trucking shirts. He is a genius[/quote]
That will be my friend’s holiday gift from me. The characters in Genesis are so numerous, it’s hard to keep tract of all of them.
October 2, 2015 at 11:36 PM #789823paramount
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Have you checked out Bernie Sanders?
Even his opponents respect him. He’s … has no baggage.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BernieSandersVideos/wiki/index%5B/quote%5D
No baggage? How about advocating/voting for the destruction of families? That’s what socialists do via the welfare state.
October 3, 2015 at 2:34 AM #789827CA renter
Participant[quote=paramount][quote=CA renter]
Have you checked out Bernie Sanders?
Even his opponents respect him. He’s … has no baggage.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BernieSandersVideos/wiki/index%5B/quote%5D
No baggage? How about advocating/voting for the destruction of families? That’s what socialists do via the welfare state.[/quote]
Bernie Sanders on family values:
FWIW, I agree that children do best when they are raised by both of their parents in the same household (every study bears this out). But I don’t believe that welfare is solely responsible for the disintegration of the traditional family unit in the U.S. It might have some effect, but it’s a much more complex issue. Divorce laws, especially “no-fault” divorce, have played a major role. The social push to not judge those who disregard their obligations to their families is also a part of the problem. The social pressure to pretend that marriage is an “obsolete” tradition is a big part of it, too.
It’s a complex problem, but ALL of us have to accept responsibility for our part in it.
October 3, 2015 at 7:52 AM #789828spdrun
ParticipantFor what it’s worth — this might be regional patriotism, but I know quite a few New Hampshire and Vermont conservatives. They mostly all support Sanders, because he’s not in the pocket of Wall St. corruption.
October 3, 2015 at 9:20 AM #789831Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=paramount][quote=CA renter]
Have you checked out Bernie Sanders?
Even his opponents respect him. He’s … has no baggage.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BernieSandersVideos/wiki/index%5B/quote%5D
No baggage? How about advocating/voting for the destruction of families? That’s what socialists do via the welfare state.[/quote]
Bernie Sanders on family values:
FWIW, I agree that children do best when they are raised by both of their parents in the same household (every study bears this out). But I don’t believe that welfare is solely responsible for the disintegration of the traditional family unit in the U.S. It might have some effect, but it’s a much more complex issue. Divorce laws, especially “no-fault” divorce, have played a major role. The social push to not judge those who disregard their obligations to their families is also a part of the problem. The social pressure to pretend that marriage is an “obsolete” tradition is a big part of it, too.
It’s a complex problem, but ALL of us have to accept responsibility for our part in it.[/quote]
Well stated and I agree. And from my perspective I much prefer Sanders over that “other” candidate (hrod).
October 4, 2015 at 9:10 AM #789877ParticipantAwesome, paramount. 🙂
October 4, 2015 at 9:23 AM #789878GuestMarriage is anachronistic but commitment and responsibility are not.
CAr, explain this. you’re so fond of Northern Europeans. they educate their kids well. But they don’t need marriage to do it as evidenced by low marriage rates.
October 4, 2015 at 10:48 PM #789886Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Marriage is anachronistic but commitment and responsibility are not.
CAr, explain this. you’re so fond of Northern Europeans. they educate their kids well. But they don’t need marriage to do it as evidenced by low marriage rates.[/quote]
This is a huge problem in Europe. It’s part of the reason why the government needs to implement so many programs to help these people out. It’s also one of the reasons for the low/declining fertility rate. Since you’re such a fan of an ever-growing population, surely you would be opposed to this European trend, right?
Anecdotally, I have a few cousins (female) in Europe who are unmarried with children. They each have one child, and they live in relatively poor conditions, usually in a one bedroom or studio apartment. The status of the fathers, and the number of other women they might have impregnated is unknown to me. I have one cousin (a male) who married; they are better off than my single cousins and they have three children.
No, marriage is not anachronistic. It’s the most effective social safety net ever known to mankind.
October 5, 2015 at 8:07 AM #789892zk
Participant.
October 5, 2015 at 10:01 AM #789893GuestMore total income per household is better than less. There’s a correlation, but marriage in of itself doesn’t guarantee that. Marriage is just social engineering for pooling of resources.
October 5, 2015 at 1:10 PM #789907Doofrat
ParticipantBlack people weren’t exactly consistent with the Constitution while’ back either.
October 5, 2015 at 1:57 PM #789911bearishgurl
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]More total income per household is better than less. There’s a correlation, but marriage in of itself doesn’t guarantee that. Marriage is just social engineering for pooling of resources.[/quote]
Wow, I find myself actually agreeing with brian, here! I DO believe in marriage but I see so many people (especially parents of minor child(ren)) who feel they are “trapped” in their marriages, precisely due to divorce laws, which are patently unfair to the higher-earner spouse and too lax with the lower/non-earner spouse.
I think a lot of people enter marriages (esp 1st marriages) thinking that their new working spouse who is currently taking care of themselves will always be that way. As the years go by, one (or both) of the spouses changes in a manner which wasn’t what the other party signed up for (absent long-term illness). Nothing in this regard was ever discussed between them while one party quietly and unilaterally decided to quit their jobs and/or one (or both) parties (consciously or unconsciously) stopped taking care of themselves.
Life can be short … wa-a-a-y too short to spend the bulk of it with a “roommate” who is only still with you because they (as an able-bodied adult), choose not to bring in their fair share of support and thus are too insecure to leave. The complaining higher earner who allows this behavior in their spouse is also to blame for the mess they are in.
I find it sad that many, many people staying in marriages for the long haul are only doing so for financial reasons. Long-dissatisfied dads are also staying in their marriages in droves because they have (erroneously, in CA) been told that they will only see their kids a few days per month if they divorce. Many of them believe this bunk but nothing could be further from the truth. In CA, absent a few very specific reasons having to do with incarceration and hospitalization of a parent, BOTH parents are each entitled to a 50% timeshare of the children in the event of a divorce (or in the case of never-married parents).
In short, if the CA legislature repealed and reformed the legislation on child support being based upon the timeshare percentage(s) with the child(ren), it would completely eliminate time-consuming and costly custody battles. Also, legislation needs to be reformed on basing the amount of CS (and SS, if applicable) on current income of each party and instead base it on imputed income to a party who is deliberately underemployed or unemployed solely for the purpose of qualifying for more support from (or paying less support) to the other party. Some judges already do this but there is no practical enforcement mechanism in place in the law.
If these two areas of CA law were reformed, it would eliminate much of the tremendous amount of fear (mostly unfounded, IMO) over getting a divorce. In other words, I feel being a single person (with no mindfvckery and drama in their lives) is far preferable to being married, whether a parent of minors … or not.
I think kids do fine when their parents divorce as long as they can continue to stay with each parent regularly, especially if it is palpable to them that their parents don’t even like each other. This doesn’t work as well if the parents live more than 10 miles apart and a 50/50 timeshare situation doesn’t really work if one parent relocates too far from their kid(s) school(s).
I don’t have any issues with the CA property division laws in the event of divorce.
October 6, 2015 at 8:49 AM #789931ParticipantBG, we already know that you don’t respect those who work inside the home, but that’s just YOUR opinion.
For those of us who know better, we understand that the laws have to be fair to both parties, and that includes monetary consideration for the spouse who worked full-time as a SAHP since that person has a permanently reduced income-earning capacity as a result of leaving the paid workforce to do the unpaid work at home.
Most families make these decisions jointly, BTW; though I don’t doubt that some like to change the story after-the-fact to claim that it was unilateral if he/she feels that it would make them a more sympathetic character during the divorce process. In my case, for instance, it was the current income-earning spouse who made the decision to have a SAHP well before the marriage took place. In every family that I know where there is a SAHP (most families we associate with), it was a joint decision. Oftentimes, it’s the income-earning spouse who feels more strongly about the need to have a parent at home.
Please, stop projecting your beliefs and opinions on others. I think that we all understand that people have different preferences and beliefs. Your insistence that we all live the way you want us to — that our housing choices, family composition, parenting choices, etc. must align exactly with yours — gets really, really old.
I respect you, BG, but please stop doing this all the time.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.