[bearishgurl]

[quote=njtosd][quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]

If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html

So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.[/quote]

That was a very interesting article, njtosd. Based on my past experience, I wouldn’t have thought that, at all. About 8 yrs ago, I signed up for “online dating” with a major “personals” site. I never really “joined” and my profile was “active” for just over 2 weeks before I took it down. My basic parameters were for a 50-60 yo male, within about 10 miles from me (Chula Vista). I rec’d at least 15 hits, the majority “seemingly” attractive and well-spoken. Besides fielding and eliminating obviously “attached” men on the prowl, I corresponded back and forth with about 6 men, all aged 50-55. As I recall, ONE claimed to be divorced (1 grown child), ONE claimed to be widowed (no children) and FOUR claimed to be single, that is, claimed to have NEVER been married. None of these 4 had children (or so they said). ALL of these men stated in their profiles that they would consider (having) children. Whether that meant consider being a stepfather or wanted their own children was for me to find out.

Delving deeper, it turned out that ALL SIX, when push came to shove, wanted their OWN children ASAP! One actually stated to me he would much prefer an Asian woman (I’m not and neither was he – and not sure why he responded to my profile). I ended up asking them all why they are responding to women’s profiles in their own age groups when what they REALLY WANT is to now finally “settle down” and have their own families. As much as I would have liked to meet a couple of them, I had to direct them ALL to the 30-40 yo age group as they were wasting time corresponding with me.

This left me with the typical “baby-boomer set”: the “sorta married, sorta separated, their spouse/families lived outside of SD County (frauds), divorced but still living with ex, had longtime female `platonic (lol) roommates,’ and other assorted `posers'” whom I wanted nothing to do with. Hence, I took my profile down and called it a day, lol.

I still believe that in SD County, there are MANY over-50 men who only just recently “decided” they wanted to “start a family.” You have to ask yourself (and them) what they have been doing the last 30 yrs :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=njtosd][quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]

If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html

So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.[/quote]

That was a very interesting article, njtosd. Based on my past experience, I wouldn’t have thought that, at all. About 8 yrs ago, I signed up for “online dating” with a major “personals” site. I never really “joined” and my profile was “active” for just over 2 weeks before I took it down. My basic parameters were for a 50-60 yo male, within about 10 miles from me (Chula Vista). I rec’d at least 15 hits, the majority “seemingly” attractive and well-spoken. Besides fielding and eliminating obviously “attached” men on the prowl, I corresponded back and forth with about 6 men, all aged 50-55. As I recall, ONE claimed to be divorced (1 grown child), ONE claimed to be widowed (no children) and FOUR claimed to be single, that is, claimed to have NEVER been married. None of these 4 had children (or so they said). ALL of these men stated in their profiles that they would consider (having) children. Whether that meant consider being a stepfather or wanted their own children was for me to find out.

Delving deeper, it turned out that ALL SIX, when push came to shove, wanted their OWN children ASAP! One actually stated to me he would much prefer an Asian woman (I’m not and neither was he – and not sure why he responded to my profile). I ended up asking them all why they are responding to women’s profiles in their own age groups when what they REALLY WANT is to now finally “settle down” and have their own families. As much as I would have liked to meet a couple of them, I had to direct them ALL to the 30-40 yo age group as they were wasting time corresponding with me.

This left me with the typical “baby-boomer set”: the “sorta married, sorta separated, their spouse/families lived outside of SD County (frauds), divorced but still living with ex, had longtime female `platonic (lol) roommates,’ and other assorted `posers'” whom I wanted nothing to do with. Hence, I took my profile down and called it a day, lol.

I still believe that in SD County, there are MANY over-50 men who only just recently “decided” they wanted to “start a family.” You have to ask yourself (and them) what they have been doing the last 30 yrs :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=njtosd][quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]

If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html

So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.[/quote]

That was a very interesting article, njtosd. Based on my past experience, I wouldn’t have thought that, at all. About 8 yrs ago, I signed up for “online dating” with a major “personals” site. I never really “joined” and my profile was “active” for just over 2 weeks before I took it down. My basic parameters were for a 50-60 yo male, within about 10 miles from me (Chula Vista). I rec’d at least 15 hits, the majority “seemingly” attractive and well-spoken. Besides fielding and eliminating obviously “attached” men on the prowl, I corresponded back and forth with about 6 men, all aged 50-55. As I recall, ONE claimed to be divorced (1 grown child), ONE claimed to be widowed (no children) and FOUR claimed to be single, that is, claimed to have NEVER been married. None of these 4 had children (or so they said). ALL of these men stated in their profiles that they would consider (having) children. Whether that meant consider being a stepfather or wanted their own children was for me to find out.

Delving deeper, it turned out that ALL SIX, when push came to shove, wanted their OWN children ASAP! One actually stated to me he would much prefer an Asian woman (I’m not and neither was he – and not sure why he responded to my profile). I ended up asking them all why they are responding to women’s profiles in their own age groups when what they REALLY WANT is to now finally “settle down” and have their own families. As much as I would have liked to meet a couple of them, I had to direct them ALL to the 30-40 yo age group as they were wasting time corresponding with me.

This left me with the typical “baby-boomer set”: the “sorta married, sorta separated, their spouse/families lived outside of SD County (frauds), divorced but still living with ex, had longtime female `platonic (lol) roommates,’ and other assorted `posers'” whom I wanted nothing to do with. Hence, I took my profile down and called it a day, lol.

I still believe that in SD County, there are MANY over-50 men who only just recently “decided” they wanted to “start a family.” You have to ask yourself (and them) what they have been doing the last 30 yrs :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Vod-Vil]BG,

Why are public sector unions spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns pushing tax increases?[/quote]

I guess I’ve been “asleep at the switch here.” Can you provide any links?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Vod-Vil]BG,

Why are public sector unions spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns pushing tax increases?[/quote]

I guess I’ve been “asleep at the switch here.” Can you provide any links?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Vod-Vil]BG,

Why are public sector unions spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns pushing tax increases?[/quote]

I guess I’ve been “asleep at the switch here.” Can you provide any links?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Vod-Vil]BG,

Why are public sector unions spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns pushing tax increases?[/quote]

I guess I’ve been “asleep at the switch here.” Can you provide any links?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Vod-Vil]BG,

Why are public sector unions spending millions of dollars on ad campaigns pushing tax increases?[/quote]

I guess I’ve been “asleep at the switch here.” Can you provide any links?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Vod-Vil][quote=CA renter][quote=paramount]Unorganized Tax Payers vs Organized Public Unions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CxP5clZf_g%5B/quote%5D

The battle is, and has always been, capital vs. labor.

It’s stunning how the capitalists have managed to brainwash so many people into doing their bidding, and voting against their own interests.[/quote]

The public sector unions and their bought and paid for politicians push for non-stop tax increases on the private sector to support the unions lavish pay and benefits.

How are private sector workers “brainwashed” or “voting against their own interests” for wanting to keep their tax rates low?[/quote]

Vod-Vil, are you taking into consideration that all those many thousands of “public sector union” workers might be ALSO paying property taxes and also income taxes on their “lavish” salaries? This doesn’t even take into account the portion of those “lavish (union) salaries” contributing to the sales tax coffers.

Just think about this. Tax rates are not just a concern of private-sector workers. They’re EVERYONE’s concern!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Vod-Vil][quote=CA renter][quote=paramount]Unorganized Tax Payers vs Organized Public Unions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CxP5clZf_g%5B/quote%5D

The battle is, and has always been, capital vs. labor.

It’s stunning how the capitalists have managed to brainwash so many people into doing their bidding, and voting against their own interests.[/quote]

The public sector unions and their bought and paid for politicians push for non-stop tax increases on the private sector to support the unions lavish pay and benefits.

How are private sector workers “brainwashed” or “voting against their own interests” for wanting to keep their tax rates low?[/quote]

Vod-Vil, are you taking into consideration that all those many thousands of “public sector union” workers might be ALSO paying property taxes and also income taxes on their “lavish” salaries? This doesn’t even take into account the portion of those “lavish (union) salaries” contributing to the sales tax coffers.

Just think about this. Tax rates are not just a concern of private-sector workers. They’re EVERYONE’s concern!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Vod-Vil][quote=CA renter][quote=paramount]Unorganized Tax Payers vs Organized Public Unions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CxP5clZf_g%5B/quote%5D

The battle is, and has always been, capital vs. labor.

It’s stunning how the capitalists have managed to brainwash so many people into doing their bidding, and voting against their own interests.[/quote]

The public sector unions and their bought and paid for politicians push for non-stop tax increases on the private sector to support the unions lavish pay and benefits.

How are private sector workers “brainwashed” or “voting against their own interests” for wanting to keep their tax rates low?[/quote]

Vod-Vil, are you taking into consideration that all those many thousands of “public sector union” workers might be ALSO paying property taxes and also income taxes on their “lavish” salaries? This doesn’t even take into account the portion of those “lavish (union) salaries” contributing to the sales tax coffers.

Just think about this. Tax rates are not just a concern of private-sector workers. They’re EVERYONE’s concern!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Vod-Vil][quote=CA renter][quote=paramount]Unorganized Tax Payers vs Organized Public Unions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CxP5clZf_g%5B/quote%5D

The battle is, and has always been, capital vs. labor.

It’s stunning how the capitalists have managed to brainwash so many people into doing their bidding, and voting against their own interests.[/quote]

The public sector unions and their bought and paid for politicians push for non-stop tax increases on the private sector to support the unions lavish pay and benefits.

How are private sector workers “brainwashed” or “voting against their own interests” for wanting to keep their tax rates low?[/quote]

Vod-Vil, are you taking into consideration that all those many thousands of “public sector union” workers might be ALSO paying property taxes and also income taxes on their “lavish” salaries? This doesn’t even take into account the portion of those “lavish (union) salaries” contributing to the sales tax coffers.

Just think about this. Tax rates are not just a concern of private-sector workers. They’re EVERYONE’s concern!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Vod-Vil][quote=CA renter][quote=paramount]Unorganized Tax Payers vs Organized Public Unions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CxP5clZf_g%5B/quote%5D

The battle is, and has always been, capital vs. labor.

It’s stunning how the capitalists have managed to brainwash so many people into doing their bidding, and voting against their own interests.[/quote]

The public sector unions and their bought and paid for politicians push for non-stop tax increases on the private sector to support the unions lavish pay and benefits.

How are private sector workers “brainwashed” or “voting against their own interests” for wanting to keep their tax rates low?[/quote]

Vod-Vil, are you taking into consideration that all those many thousands of “public sector union” workers might be ALSO paying property taxes and also income taxes on their “lavish” salaries? This doesn’t even take into account the portion of those “lavish (union) salaries” contributing to the sales tax coffers.

Just think about this. Tax rates are not just a concern of private-sector workers. They’re EVERYONE’s concern!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]I’m of the mind that family who stick together and help each other will be better off than those who thinks everyone for themselves. My parents did everything they could for me (pay for my tuition, let me live at home for as long as I want, etc), and in return, now that I’m independent, I will be there to support them anytime they need/want me to. They would never have kick me out of the house and I will never put them in a home when it’s time for me to take care of my parents in return. I’m doing the same thing to my kids as my parents did to me. Just because my parents paid everything for me doesn’t make me lazy and a deadbeat. I help out around the house when I was little and start working when I was 15 and never stopped working since. But because they helped me out financially, it sure made my life a lot easier. I don’t have to worry about student loans. I can save a lot more than I would have if I have a pile of student loans to worry about. I will take that advantage my parents gave me to take it to the next level and pass on that advantage to my kids.[/quote]

AN, you have a very good memory. You are the exception in your generation, and/or a product of your culture, or both. As I remember your situation, you purchased your first home in the exact same or adjacent neighborhood that you grew up in :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]I’m of the mind that family who stick together and help each other will be better off than those who thinks everyone for themselves. My parents did everything they could for me (pay for my tuition, let me live at home for as long as I want, etc), and in return, now that I’m independent, I will be there to support them anytime they need/want me to. They would never have kick me out of the house and I will never put them in a home when it’s time for me to take care of my parents in return. I’m doing the same thing to my kids as my parents did to me. Just because my parents paid everything for me doesn’t make me lazy and a deadbeat. I help out around the house when I was little and start working when I was 15 and never stopped working since. But because they helped me out financially, it sure made my life a lot easier. I don’t have to worry about student loans. I can save a lot more than I would have if I have a pile of student loans to worry about. I will take that advantage my parents gave me to take it to the next level and pass on that advantage to my kids.[/quote]

AN, you have a very good memory. You are the exception in your generation, and/or a product of your culture, or both. As I remember your situation, you purchased your first home in the exact same or adjacent neighborhood that you grew up in :=]

[Author]

Posts