Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Espnthree]

In spite of the fact that you are mainly shitposting, and generally not worth the keystrokes, I would like to reply to:

Oh I have plenty of suggestions starting with scrapping the futile policies of recent history.
We could also focus on the importance of the modern day nuclear family, two loving parents regardless of differing skin colors, differing religions, while accepting those who are of the same sex....

You just devoted several posts to the damaging effects of fatherless homes on children.  But now you are on board with "two loving parents...accepting those who are of the same sex."  So are you saying the key to solving our social problems is having fathers in homes, or in having two parents in homes?  These are not the same thing.  You are okay with two moms and no father?

If this what you want to argue about then you are a part of the problem.
Fatherless homes leaves one parent.
My modern nuclear family means two parents, regardless of sex, religion, skin colors.
Two moms or two dads.
The key word TWO.
Hope this clears it up for you.

I guess.  So all your posting about "fatherless" homes was really about single parent homes. 

You seem to catch on slowly.

So I assume you favor initiatives to promote teen contraception, to reduce a major cause of single parenthood.

Yes. It was something I practiced when I was a teen and my kids did too.

   And of course you support LGBT parent couples and policy that protects their rights to marry and be free from discrimination and form stable households. 

Always have.

And free or reduced cost counseling for domestic abuse, marital estrangement, abandonment, etc.  Awesome.  You are really evolving.

Reread that part about you catching on slowly.

[FlyingVProd]

We need to give the children without fathers a chance at having a good life, we need to give the children without fathers a free college education and internships at the movie studios and on Wall Street, etc.

Salute,

Tony V.

[Holly Martins]

In spite of the fact that you are mainly shitposting, and generally not worth the keystrokes, I would like to reply to:

Oh I have plenty of suggestions starting with scrapping the futile policies of recent history.
We could also focus on the importance of the modern day nuclear family, two loving parents regardless of differing skin colors, differing religions, while accepting those who are of the same sex....

You just devoted several posts to the damaging effects of fatherless homes on children.  But now you are on board with "two loving parents...accepting those who are of the same sex."  So are you saying the key to solving our social problems is having fathers in homes, or in having two parents in homes?  These are not the same thing.  You are okay with two moms and no father?

If this what you want to argue about then you are a part of the problem.
Fatherless homes leaves one parent.
My modern nuclear family means two parents, regardless of sex, religion, skin colors.
Two moms or two dads.
The key word TWO.
Hope this clears it up for you.

I guess.  So all your posting about "fatherless" homes was really about single parent homes. 

You seem to catch on slowly.

So I assume you favor initiatives to promote teen contraception, to reduce a major cause of single parenthood.

Yes. It was something I practiced when I was a teen and my kids did too.

   And of course you support LGBT parent couples and policy that protects their rights to marry and be free from discrimination and form stable households. 

Always have.

And free or reduced cost counseling for domestic abuse, marital estrangement, abandonment, etc.  Awesome.  You are really evolving.

Reread that part about you catching on slowly.

Hmm.   But wouldn't that last one, about free or reduced cost counseling, require, erm, um, public policies (you know, that stuff legislators do) and the levying of (gulp) taxes to implement them?   You may not have noticed this, but large secular societies like ours, when everyone works together to solve a societal problem, it's called politics.  We pool resources through a thing called government, which we elect.  And if experts are called in to, you know, do stuff like counseling, they need to be paid.  And payment, if the clients have no money, comes from.... what is the word....rhymes with "facts is" or saxes...

[Holly Martins]

WIP.  guess Who?

Nicole Kidman?  Yoyo Ma?  Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

Old Yeller?

[Espnthree]

In spite of the fact that you are mainly shitposting, and generally not worth the keystrokes, I would like to reply to:

Oh I have plenty of suggestions starting with scrapping the futile policies of recent history.
We could also focus on the importance of the modern day nuclear family, two loving parents regardless of differing skin colors, differing religions, while accepting those who are of the same sex....

You just devoted several posts to the damaging effects of fatherless homes on children.  But now you are on board with "two loving parents...accepting those who are of the same sex."  So are you saying the key to solving our social problems is having fathers in homes, or in having two parents in homes?  These are not the same thing.  You are okay with two moms and no father?

If this what you want to argue about then you are a part of the problem.
Fatherless homes leaves one parent.
My modern nuclear family means two parents, regardless of sex, religion, skin colors.
Two moms or two dads.
The key word TWO.
Hope this clears it up for you.

I guess.  So all your posting about "fatherless" homes was really about single parent homes. 

You seem to catch on slowly.

So I assume you favor initiatives to promote teen contraception, to reduce a major cause of single parenthood.

Yes. It was something I practiced when I was a teen and my kids did too.

   And of course you support LGBT parent couples and policy that protects their rights to marry and be free from discrimination and form stable households. 

Always have.

And free or reduced cost counseling for domestic abuse, marital estrangement, abandonment, etc.  Awesome.  You are really evolving.

Reread that part about you catching on slowly.

Hmm.   But wouldn't that last one, about free or reduced cost counseling, require, erm, um, public policies (you know, that stuff legislators do) and the levying of (gulp) taxes to implement them?   You may not have noticed this, but large secular societies like ours, when everyone works together to solve a societal problem, it's called politics.  We pool resources through a thing called government, which we elect.  And if experts are called in to, you know, do stuff like counseling, they need to be paid.  And payment, if the clients have no money, comes from.... what is the word....rhymes with "facts is" or saxes...

So, do it.
No oneI know is against reducing domestic abuse which occurs between partners or married couples.
What that has to do with the cause of one parent homes must be known only to you.

[josh]

"abused women are 1.7-5.7 times more likely to divorce"

Domestic abuse increases the incidence of single parent households significantly.

[Espnthree]

"abused women are 1.7-5.7 times more likely to divorce"

A minor factor in the overall problem of one parent household.
The US is a leader in births to unmarried women.
Increases in divorce rates are tied to better employment opportunities for women coupled with decreased opportunities for men, (especially Blacks) and increased welfare benefits for single parent women.

[facilitatorn]

White folk?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/20/us/washington-dc-shooting-sunday/index.html

White folk pocketed the bulk of the proceeds resulting from the sale of the weaponry involved. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Hairy Lime]

In spite of the fact that you are mainly shitposting, and generally not worth the keystrokes, I would like to reply to:

Oh I have plenty of suggestions starting with scrapping the futile policies of recent history.
We could also focus on the importance of the modern day nuclear family, two loving parents regardless of differing skin colors, differing religions, while accepting those who are of the same sex....

You just devoted several posts to the damaging effects of fatherless homes on children.  But now you are on board with "two loving parents...accepting those who are of the same sex."  So are you saying the key to solving our social problems is having fathers in homes, or in having two parents in homes?  These are not the same thing.  You are okay with two moms and no father?

If this what you want to argue about then you are a part of the problem.
Fatherless homes leaves one parent.
My modern nuclear family means two parents, regardless of sex, religion, skin colors.
Two moms or two dads.
The key word TWO.
Hope this clears it up for you.

I guess.  So all your posting about "fatherless" homes was really about single parent homes. 

You seem to catch on slowly.

So I assume you favor initiatives to promote teen contraception, to reduce a major cause of single parenthood.

Yes. It was something I practiced when I was a teen and my kids did too.

   And of course you support LGBT parent couples and policy that protects their rights to marry and be free from discrimination and form stable households. 

Always have.

And free or reduced cost counseling for domestic abuse, marital estrangement, abandonment, etc.  Awesome.  You are really evolving.

Reread that part about you catching on slowly.

Hmm.   But wouldn't that last one, about free or reduced cost counseling, require, erm, um, public policies (you know, that stuff legislators do) and the levying of (gulp) taxes to implement them?   You may not have noticed this, but large secular societies like ours, when everyone works together to solve a societal problem, it's called politics.  We pool resources through a thing called government, which we elect.  And if experts are called in to, you know, do stuff like counseling, they need to be paid.  And payment, if the clients have no money, comes from.... what is the word....rhymes with "facts is" or saxes...

So, do it.
No oneI know is against reducing domestic abuse which occurs between partners or married couples.
What that has to do with the cause of one parent homes must be known only to you.

But domestic violence against, say, girlfriends are of a different magnitude. Or do you reject your party deceisin to maintain the boyfriend loophole in the coming gun bill?

[Espnthree]

In spite of the fact that you are mainly shitposting, and generally not worth the keystrokes, I would like to reply to:

Oh I have plenty of suggestions starting with scrapping the futile policies of recent history.
We could also focus on the importance of the modern day nuclear family, two loving parents regardless of differing skin colors, differing religions, while accepting those who are of the same sex....

You just devoted several posts to the damaging effects of fatherless homes on children.  But now you are on board with "two loving parents...accepting those who are of the same sex."  So are you saying the key to solving our social problems is having fathers in homes, or in having two parents in homes?  These are not the same thing.  You are okay with two moms and no father?

If this what you want to argue about then you are a part of the problem.
Fatherless homes leaves one parent.
My modern nuclear family means two parents, regardless of sex, religion, skin colors.
Two moms or two dads.
The key word TWO.
Hope this clears it up for you.

I guess.  So all your posting about "fatherless" homes was really about single parent homes. 

You seem to catch on slowly.

So I assume you favor initiatives to promote teen contraception, to reduce a major cause of single parenthood.

Yes. It was something I practiced when I was a teen and my kids did too.

   And of course you support LGBT parent couples and policy that protects their rights to marry and be free from discrimination and form stable households. 

Always have.

And free or reduced cost counseling for domestic abuse, marital estrangement, abandonment, etc.  Awesome.  You are really evolving.

Reread that part about you catching on slowly.

Hmm.   But wouldn't that last one, about free or reduced cost counseling, require, erm, um, public policies (you know, that stuff legislators do) and the levying of (gulp) taxes to implement them?   You may not have noticed this, but large secular societies like ours, when everyone works together to solve a societal problem, it's called politics.  We pool resources through a thing called government, which we elect.  And if experts are called in to, you know, do stuff like counseling, they need to be paid.  And payment, if the clients have no money, comes from.... what is the word....rhymes with "facts is" or saxes...

So, do it.
No oneI know is against reducing domestic abuse which occurs between partners or married couples.
What that has to do with the cause of one parent homes must be known only to you.

But domestic violence against, say, girlfriends are of a different magnitude. Or do you reject your party deceisin to maintain the boyfriend loophole in the coming gun bill?

Interesting that you avoid the devil(details).
The Boyfriend designation relies on different factors

The gun prohibition, which is in federal law, does not apply to boyfriends who are, or were, in mere dating or more casual relationships.

But it does apply to boyfriends who have a child in common with the domestic violence victim; live or lived with the victim; or who are similarly situated to a spouse.

[josh]

[Holly Martins]

Better post before Barton guesses Rin Tin Tin

Ahh!  It's either Olivia de Havilland or Elon Musk!   

[Espnthree]

I am guessing Josh and Napoleon have a lot in common.

[Holly Martins]

Better post before Barton guesses Rin Tin Tin

Ahh!  It's either Olivia de Havilland or Elon Musk!

Either I need to improve my caricatures or you need new glasses, maybe BOTH!

For taking a guess, you get to pick my next caricature.  Who is your choice?

Liz Cheney.

[josh]

I am guessing Josh and Napoleon have a lot in common.

I didn't know that Napoleon (a) posted on the internet or (b) reported poll numbers that indicate a majority seems to support charging Trump with a crime.