Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > full custody and how?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 lynaudio
Joined: 2/11/2007
Msg: 200
full custody and how?Page 11 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Pretty much bang on 4ms4me .

But to be fair I think we have made some ground in terms of realizing that we should first focus on what is best for the children. Well I hope anyway.

I have enjoyed reading your post. It seems that your family has raised some pretty respectable individuals. Yourself included of course.
cheers
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 201
view profile
History
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/29/2010 9:40:12 AM

when I point out that most MEN weren't even allowed to vote for most of history, that ALL men, with the exception of ALL First Nations men, weren't given the vote until the same time as women, women never respond...

Ok, I have never heard this before (other than first nations men not being able to vote. Or Blacks either, in the States?) and I'm curious about it. It seems illogical to claim that men were given the vote at the same time as women, since it seems pretty obvious that SOMEONE was voting prior to women being legally entitled to - and there are only two choices. At least in countries/societies where voting was a political option.

Anyway, please educate me about this. Info and links would be great, either here or privately as it might be considered off-topic or something.

Thanks!
______
ETA: Thanks, Laudio. Part of being a good parent, in my view, is also considering the fact that the other parent also has value to the kids and that, even when we make mistakes as parents (and we all do), the kids need to know that even the mistakes are motivated by good intentions. Fighting over money/custody is rarely in the best interests of the kids (excluding situations that are abusive in any way) and kids can tell when the motivation is for revenge or punishment vs. real concern for their welfare.
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 202
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/29/2010 10:00:43 AM
U.S. Voting Rights

When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier.
1790
1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.
1800
1810
1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.
1820
1840
1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.
1860
1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.
1880
1889 Florida adopts a poll tax. Ten other southern states will implement poll taxes.
1890 Mississippi adopts a literacy test to keep African Americans from voting. Numerous other states—not just in the south—also establish literacy tests. However, the tests also exclude many whites from voting. To get around this, states add grandfather clauses that allow those who could vote before 1870, or their descendants, to vote regardless of literacy or tax qualifications.
1900
1910
1913 The 17th Amendment calls for members of the U.S. Senate to be elected directly by the people instead of State Legislatures.
1915 Oklahoma was the last state to append a grandfather clause to its literacy requirement (1910). In Guinn v. United States the Supreme Court rules that the clause is in conflict with the 15th Amendment, thereby outlawing literacy tests for federal elections.
1920
1920 The 19th Amendment guarantees women's suffrage.
1924 Indian Citizenship Act grants all Native Americans the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in federal elections.
1930
1940
1944 The Supreme Court outlaws "white primaries" in Smith v. Allwright (Texas). In Texas, and other states, primaries were conducted by private associations, which, by definion, could exclude whomever they chose. The Court declares the nomination process to be a public process bound by the terms of 15th Amendment.
1950
1957 The first law to implement the 15th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, is passed. The Act set up the Civil Rights Commission—among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination.
1960
1960 In Gomillion v. Lightfoot (Alabama) the Court outlaws "gerrymandering."
1961 The 23rd Amendment allows voters of the District of Columbia to participate in presidential elections.
1964 The 24th Amendment bans the poll tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections.
1965 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., mounts a voter registration drive in Selma, Alabama, to draw national attention to African-American voting rights.
1965 The Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act is expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
1966 The Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, eliminates the poll tax as a qualification for voting in any election. A poll tax was still in use in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
1966 The Court upholds the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.


So you can see that all men in fact could not vote in free America. Different tactics linked to wealth, education or property ownership have been used to keep this so called democracy hindered.
Especially literacy considering that most immigrants came here to populate the west became farmers or trappers or miners and education was secondary.
A single man would literally own a town or county or even an entire state could easily control many aspects of the political realm. Law enforcement was also owned privately.
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 203
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/29/2010 10:07:35 AM
Women and the Vote, 1867–1900 1867 British North America Act entrenches women's exclusion from the vote.
1873 Female property owners in British Columbia are first "Canadian" women to gain right to vote in municipal elections.
1876 First women's suffrage group set up in Toronto under the guise of a literary society.
1885 Sir John A. Macdonald introduces, then withdraws, an elections act amendment giving women the vote.
1894 Women's Enfranchisement Association of New Brunswick formed.

Manitoba Equal Suffrage Club founded.

House of Commons votes down a petition for women's suffrage presented by the Women's Christian Temperance Union.
1900 By this date, most women property owners have the vote in municipal elections.

British North America
1758–1866

In the colonies that would later form Canada, the vote was a privilege reserved for a limited segment of the population – mainly affluent men. Eligibility was based on property ownership: to be eligible, an individual had to own property or assets of a specified value or pay a certain amount in taxes or rent.

The law also prohibited some religious, ethnic and other groups from voting. Women were also excluded by and large, though by convention rather than statute. In short, only a fraction of the population could vote. Since then, the situation has improved markedly, and in the following pages we provide a brief history of its evolution.

Evolution of the right to vote was neither consistent nor ordered. The right to vote was not extended gradually and steadily to encompass new categories of citizens; rather, it evolved haphazardly, with the franchise expanding and contracting numerous times and each colony proceeding at a different pace. For example, the degree of wealth needed for eligibility changed several times, with the result that people who had been entitled to vote suddenly found themselves deprived of that right, only to have it returned sometime later. Similarly, laws were adopted from time to time that withdrew the right to vote from groups that had previously enjoyed it.


Kind of the crib notes of voting history but you get the drift.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 204
view profile
History
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/29/2010 11:26:24 AM
Thank you, KMA for the thumbnail sketch of historical voting rights in US and Canada. It does seem to go in fits and starts, doesn't it? That's the way societal change goes, I guess, whether it's women voting or men gaining true equity when it comes to custody of children. Still, I don't think CB's implication that the oppression was equal, or nonexistant because some men also weren't allowed to vote is supported by the facts, imo. He may be accurate in the sense that SOME men who belonged to a specific group were excluded up until that time, but there's a difference between SOME men and ALL women.

In any case, kudos to all the pioneers, past and present, who fight for real gender equality.

Thanks again.
 kissmyasthma
Joined: 12/4/2009
Msg: 205
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/29/2010 12:09:20 PM
Well I have to say the current status in America has really improved much.
The primaries are controlled by a select portion of the population the general population really isn't getting proper representation at all in who could become president.

It is very evident in how obama has been treated while in office, the only thing he has done is improved how the rest of the world views America. He still tows a thin line based on who is really pulling the strings ie. wall street, the military complex etc.

Voter turnout is pretty poor also, maybe the common American has really been savvy to not believing that every vote counts.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 206
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/29/2010 12:26:48 PM
Still, I don't think CB's implication that the oppression was equal, or nonexistant because some men also weren't allowed to vote is supported by the facts, imo.


I didn't imply in any way that "oppression was equal".

I do realize, however, why it's important for women to believe that they were the only group who has ever been oppressed....

... and I STILL find it hilarious that women don't like to vote for women or that women haven't staged a democratic coup, being the majority of voters, if they think they are still so horribly oppressed....




And why its important for men to believe that women are oppressing them now just to get even for before - cause otherwise, nobody would ever have reason to whinge.


Yes, whinging is a popular passtime in the fora, though I didn't realize men feel oppressed. Some may, I certainly don't.

Cheers.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 207
view profile
History
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/29/2010 12:46:12 PM

I do realize, however, why it's important for women to believe that they were the only group who has ever been oppressed....

And why its important for men to believe that women are oppressing them now just to get even for before - cause otherwise, nobody would ever have reason to whinge.

 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 208
view profile
History
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/30/2010 6:17:44 AM
izzbeth, haven't you hears? Women simply whine and **** and men say "oh, blah blah blah, take the dam kids already!
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 209
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/30/2010 6:38:00 AM

The simple answer and sad truth is that most men just leave with their clothes and their big screen tv's before they give a thought about their kids...

Ummm... maybe we should have stats posted when comparing single moms who choose to stay home with the child and collect money from other sources in comparison to the number of men who do the same..... I'm sure you'll argue women do it for the emotional stability of the child(ren) and men don't give a rats' ass about the emotional value of such a decision. But then again, I guess you would label all those working moms as deficient and uncaring also.

Not many people buy into the notion that women stay home because it's emotionally best for the child to live on welfare and child support payments for the first part of their life..... while mom doesn't provide any financial support whatsoever. I'm crtain there are 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation welfare families who are emotionally equipped and well tuned into the world of freedom... or free cash. Depending on your outloook.

I'm sure there are a lot of taxpayers who are glad to see that government is being less inclined to buy into the gender influenced protests that men are the only irresponsible parents..... women ar doing a good job proving it to be so
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 210
view profile
History
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/30/2010 7:08:46 AM

I'm crtain there are 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation welfare families who are emotionally equipped and well tuned into the world of freedom... or free cash. Depending on your outloook.


For once, we agree! The sense of entitlement that many welfare recipients have is astounding. Not limited, however, to one gender, as many women who collect live with the father of at least one of their children, making both genders guilty of welfare fraud. Here in the US, at least, it is unfortunate that the system itself seems to be set up to keep people on it, as if you earn even a little, you lose benefits. Women who seek aid from the government as it is intended to be used, however, are by & large, women with children whose fathers have chosen to be deficient in their responsibilities.

In any case, I didn't realize that the government ever thought that being irresponsible was a gender quality. Gee, thanks for the omniscient look into the mind of government.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 211
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/30/2010 7:49:24 AM

Not limited, however, to one gender, as many women who collect live with the father of at least one of their children, making both genders guilty of welfare fraud.

Ummmm... it's peculiar that a woman invites a guy live in her welfare home and lives off the spoils of both the man and the taxpayers yet, you lump him in as the fraud as well. Ya see, once a person decides to commit fraud, it's always easy enough to blame all other parties. She's the one committing the fraud because it is her that is collecting the welfare money and not claiming secondary income(s).... Does he have the right to ask for financial records from her?

I'll agree that some men are in on the fraud. But the bottom line is that the woman is the perpatrator and the man is just going along for the cheap rent and sex. The oldest profession in the world hasn't died... it's simply more refined and no longer considered as the main income
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 212
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/30/2010 11:31:33 AM
Are you saying that women should vote only for women?


No, no, no....

.... I'm just so sick and tired of hearing women using the tired ol' argument that because they had to fight to get the vote 100 years ago, it proves that they are still the horribly oppressed victims of men....

... while so many women don't even use their democratic right to vote until their last egg has dropped, their boobs are pointing at the centre of the earth and post-menupausal hairs are sprouting all over the place......

Women are the majority of the population. They could vote men out of office if they don't like what they experience at the hands of those horrible oppressors.

Most people, male and female, struggle every day to feel they have value. Women do not have the corner on the market of feeling they aren't valued as they ought to be, despite what most women believe.




Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that just because SOME women don't vote the rest of us shouldn't have a voice?


Oh, for fvck's sake, how do you get that ^^^ out of what I said?

Oh what the fvck. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying....

Women should take off their frickin' shoes, spread their frickin' legs, get frickin' knocked up and stay in the frickin' kitchen. It's their own fault that they are so horribly oppressed and downtrodden to this very day. They don't deserve to have a right to vote. They deserve no rights at all....

Jayzu Christi!

Cheers.
 barefootkitten
Joined: 12/17/2009
Msg: 213
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/30/2010 11:44:43 AM

... while so many women don't even use their democratic right to vote until their last egg has dropped, their boobs are pointing at the centre of the earth and post-menupausal hairs are sprouting all over the place......

Poor voter turnout is indicative of many young PEOPLE, not just young women. So should we state men don't "use their democratic right" until their d*cks go limp and they have nothing else to occupy their minds?!

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that just because SOME women don't vote the rest of us shouldn't have a voice?
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 214
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/30/2010 12:32:00 PM

(bfk) Poor voter turnout is indicative of many young PEOPLE, not just young women. So should we state men don't "use their democratic right" until their d*cks go limp and they have nothing else to occupy their minds?!


I know that *I* get a chubby every time I vote...

Phil...
 Kahukura
Joined: 5/3/2010
Msg: 215
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/30/2010 12:57:19 PM
I worked at one of the elections in Ontario when I lived there, poor voter turnout generally happened in the poorer uneducated areas, which is what they count on. After all it is I find those that tend to complain the most about not enough money on welfare, who don't bother to vote.

When asked why they didn't their answer? It's not going to make a difference anyway.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 216
view profile
History
full custody and how?
Posted: 5/30/2010 2:39:22 PM
Ummmm... it's peculiar that a woman invites a guy live in her welfare home and lives off the spoils of both the man and the taxpayers yet, you lump him in as the fraud as well. Ya see, once a person decides to commit fraud, it's always easy enough to blame all other parties. She's the one committing the fraud because it is her that is collecting the welfare money and not claiming secondary income(s).... Does he have the right to ask for financial records from her?

I'll agree that some men are in on the fraud. But the bottom line is that the woman is the perpatrator and the man is just going along for the cheap rent and sex. The oldest profession in the world hasn't died... it's simply more refined and no longer considered as the main income


Seriously, how well versed are you in the scenario? I have lived in more than one neighborhood comprised of welfare families. All but one of them was comprised of a mom & a dad, their child(ren) , & her child(ren) by others. It is not the case that he is an "innocent", invited in to the home of a woman hell bent on committing fraud. I don't know that she blames him, either; they both enjoy the benefits of taking full advantage of the hard earned cash you & I both work for, with full knowledge of doing so. An "innocent", self respecting man does not lay with an unemployed woman with three children by three different men, none of whom are ever around. Let's not pretend that either of them are innocent; it is merely simpler to have the woman claim that she doesn't know where here her child's father is. Both adults were not only well aware of how the system works, they took full advantage. It is not true, literally or legally, btw. that only the woman is committing fraud. She is collecting the cash because she has custody of the children. How interesting that you seem to be sticking up for the fraudulent men here. Whore is not a word restricted to the description of women.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 217
full custody and how?
Posted: 6/1/2010 3:44:44 PM

How about these socialist FDR and LBJ two American presidents.
FDR was labelled a class traitor because he was rich but he hated seeing Americans living in poverty because of the Great Depression. Can you say he was looking for a hand out? Or is it just easier to excuse the single mother of looking for a hand out?


I found this about FDR and his "new deal"

How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People

by Jim Powell

Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003).

Added to cato.org on December 29, 2003

This article appeared on cato.org on December 29, 2003.
PRINT PAGE
CITE THIS
Sans Serif
Serif

Share with your friends:
ShareThis

Democratic presidential candidates as well as some conservative intellectuals, are suggesting that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is a good model for government policy today.

Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists -- including two Nobel Prize winners -- at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities.

New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up.

Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003).
More by Jim Powell

The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.

New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.

Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938.

What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.

For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side.

Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937).

Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded an estimated 750,000 acres, an area about the size of Rhode Island, and TVA agents dispossessed thousands of people. Poor black sharecroppers, who didn't own property, got no compensation.

FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions.


Hummm so the dems is responsible for making the unions so powerful and the same thing Noboma is trying now failed to correct the great depression.
Seeing as it didn't work then what makes the Dems think it will work now.

Cutting taxes and spending has been the ONLY thing proven to stimulate the economy.
Put more money in the hands of Americans and things will get better. Entitlements will keep the country in a stupor as long as they are there.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 218
view profile
History
full custody and how?
Posted: 6/2/2010 7:35:16 AM

if men cared more about how their children lived....they wouldn't be so quick to rent a U-Haul to load up their prize possesions....minus the kids sadly.

Found out last night that my daughter and her partner of 9 years have decided to call it quits (They've both tried hard, I give them credit for that). He has a son from a previous relationship, for whom he neglects to pay CS (my daughter 'forced' him for a while, but he resented that and eventually she gave up) and he makes minimal effort to see though the mother is certainly open to it. He and my daughter have a child together, and he expressed interest in having custody - which my daughter said she would support. When I asked her about that, she said the child would be staying with her after all. Further in the conversation, she remarked that he'd fight tooth and nail for the big screen TV.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 219
view profile
History
full custody and how?
Posted: 6/2/2010 7:33:20 PM

Unfortunately, some pesky men fight to get their children in their care (like me) and their ex-wife life crumbles into oblivion as a result.

Women having children and using them as assets does sometimes have it's downside.


I find it sad that you look at it that way, as it seems that you are the better parent, and that your children are lucky. Do you really believe that most women seek "a man to abuse"? Do you really think that living in subsidized housing makes one; world an "oyster". Did your ex-wife make the children without you? Throughout most of the state of NY, where I reside, living in subsidized housing means that it is unsafe to let your children outdoors, hardly what I would call an oyster! I do believe it is true that more often than not, the story goes the other way, with the man crumbling into oblivion, but no matter; what is important is that the children are cared for, no? Children ARE an asset, but not in the way you mention, and those who use them as weapons, whether they be male or female, are lesser beings. Nuff said.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 220
view profile
History
full custody and how?
Posted: 6/4/2010 8:43:02 PM
I am sorry that you believe this about women. I don't personally know of any woman who has a credit card for her use only, while sharing one with her mate, nor have I ever even met a woman who vacations alone while her man stays at home. Maybe you need to associate with a different type of woman?

As for those "inbred" mothers, their children most definitely have fathers. I suppose they know no better either (maybe they are their brothers?) Sad, isn't it? Have they told you what they want? Where the hell do you live, anyway? Ever considered moving?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 221
view profile
History
full custody and how?
Posted: 6/5/2010 10:08:12 PM
Do you realize that what you are saying that you know many really stupid men? You expect us all to believe that that many stupid men earn enough to afford all that? Not in my world!
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 222
full custody and how?
Posted: 6/7/2010 4:12:50 PM

(jenn8131) That's not much of an observation. Sounds more like a judgmental assumption about people who have socialist views.


No, it's an observation. Economics is NOT a complex subject: you want something, SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, has to pay for it. Socialists invariably fall into one of two groups:

1) Either they are totally unaware of this simple fact; or,

2) They KNOW that someone has to pay, but as long as it's not them, they're okay with it.


Anyway my time is better spent writing short stories for harlequin.


I'll see your Harlequin Romance, and raise you a Letter to Penthouse Forum...

Phil...
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 223
view profile
History
full custody and how?
Posted: 6/7/2010 7:25:58 PM
Phil, even I, who am nearly "Anti socialism" can see that you have failed to miss a significant category" those who ARE aware, and ARE willing to contribute. So it seems you have made assumptions, perhaps based on your own personal experiences? That's called being human, and I would never assume that someone who doesn't share my views is ignorant or uncaring, simply due to that fact.
 Arlo_Troutman
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 224
full custody and how?
Posted: 6/8/2010 4:47:24 PM

(own46) Phil, even I, who am nearly "Anti socialism" can see that you have failed to miss a significant category" those who ARE aware, and ARE willing to contribute.


I'll argue that they constitute a "significant category"; I will add my observation that, those who are willing to shoulder the burden(s) of others are VASTLY outnumbered by those who want to get over on others. Come on, don't pretend that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of humans don't like to pass off the heavy lifting to others; and the bothersome triffling matter of actually PAYING.

I'm in no way defending capitalism, which has proven over and over again to be a SPECTACULAR failure. It fails less often than socialism; it makes up for this by being far more devastating when it inevitably DOES fail. But, I'm not convinced that socialism is a solution -- far from it.

Socialism and capitalism both fail because they fail to take human nature into account.

Phil...
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  > full custody and how?