How about a controversial thread?
02-21-2005, 01:20 PM
#1141
On a more positive note, there was a NYT article today about how Clinton and Sr. Bush have become real buddies via the Tsunami Relief program....traveling together just like Tonto and the Lone Ranger
So which one is Tonto?
02-21-2005, 08:19 PM
#1143
Just thought I'd stop by to mention that when it comes to politics, Jerry's always wrong. (But I still love ya' brotha'.) Everyone knows the democrats get free positive media coverage and the conservatives have to buy it. (well, except for that Limbaugh guy and some of the Fox news opinion shows, but who watches those?)
Lets tie up 2 loose ends before we move on to propaganda. If you live forever, you may actually be able to pay off your alimony.
Divorce is always such a funny topic. Everyone has a story about how unfair it is to one sex or the other. I always wonder how a prenup can acheive what a divorce cannot. Does agreeing in advance somehow create all the assets needed to make everyone happy at the end? Do we feel better about the outcome if we know that both sides agreed to it in advance?
Why should anyone get all the assets and an income stream? Who cares if neither party gets to live in the style in which they have become acustomed? Why does this rule apply to the dissolution of marriage? (well, it really doesn't in most states.) If you lose your job, do you expect unemployment to support you in the style to which you have become acustomed? When you retire, do you expect social security to maintain your life style? Can't you make the same arguements against your former employer and government that you can make against your former spouse? Don't you think the employer and the government is better able to support you than your former spouse? But somehow we expect one individual to do what corporations and the government would never be asked to do.
Two people can always live together cheaper than they can live apart. Divorce should understand that. After the kids have grown, disolve everything, split it and go seperate ways.
As for child support... What a joke. Either the guy skips out and pays nothing, or the guy tries to do the stand-up thing and supports the whole household just so mom can keep junior in a room. Don't get me started on child support. The courts abolutely recognize that much of the money will not be spent on the kids and the law just doesn't care.
Lets tie up 2 loose ends before we move on to propaganda. If you live forever, you may actually be able to pay off your alimony.
Divorce is always such a funny topic. Everyone has a story about how unfair it is to one sex or the other. I always wonder how a prenup can acheive what a divorce cannot. Does agreeing in advance somehow create all the assets needed to make everyone happy at the end? Do we feel better about the outcome if we know that both sides agreed to it in advance?
Why should anyone get all the assets and an income stream? Who cares if neither party gets to live in the style in which they have become acustomed? Why does this rule apply to the dissolution of marriage? (well, it really doesn't in most states.) If you lose your job, do you expect unemployment to support you in the style to which you have become acustomed? When you retire, do you expect social security to maintain your life style? Can't you make the same arguements against your former employer and government that you can make against your former spouse? Don't you think the employer and the government is better able to support you than your former spouse? But somehow we expect one individual to do what corporations and the government would never be asked to do.
Two people can always live together cheaper than they can live apart. Divorce should understand that. After the kids have grown, disolve everything, split it and go seperate ways.
As for child support... What a joke. Either the guy skips out and pays nothing, or the guy tries to do the stand-up thing and supports the whole household just so mom can keep junior in a room. Don't get me started on child support. The courts abolutely recognize that much of the money will not be spent on the kids and the law just doesn't care.
02-22-2005, 04:19 PM
#1145
Marriage is a commitment from beginning to the end. No marriage should be entered into without some careful consideration and thoughtful reflection. If divorce is inevitable, I think both parties should maintain some sense of decorum and not try to destroy each other. There should be a sense of fair-play throughout the whole proceeding. Equitable way of dividing the asset as well as liability should be considered. No one gains when both parties engage in nasty fights.
02-22-2005, 06:42 PM
#1146
Thread Starter
Here's a good controversy for you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/23/politics...artner=homepage
Assisted suicide. Legal in the State of Oregon. The Bush administration is taking the law to the Supreme Court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/23/politics...artner=homepage
Assisted suicide. Legal in the State of Oregon. The Bush administration is taking the law to the Supreme Court.
02-22-2005, 07:12 PM
#1147
Tough to argue that one, Rob. Same deal as abortion. You have to take a side on the question of whether life is valuable as life itself or whether quality of life can/does take precedence.
One more reason (for me) to hate the Bush executive, that they would fight Oregon over this.
One more reason (for me) to hate the Bush executive, that they would fight Oregon over this.
02-22-2005, 07:27 PM
#1148
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Chazmo' date='Feb 22 2005, 11:12 PM
Tough to argue that one, Rob. Same deal as abortion. You have to take a side on the question of whether life is valuable as life itself or whether quality of life can/does take precedence.
One more reason (for me) to hate the Bush executive, that they would fight Oregon over this.
One more reason (for me) to hate the Bush executive, that they would fight Oregon over this.
I pretty much agree with what you've said. I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration is fighting the State of Oregon. They never fail to amaze me.
02-22-2005, 07:31 PM
#1149
Well, honestly, I'm not surprised at all by this. Bush is simply pandering to his support base and following his sense of moral superiority. Same thing going on with gay marriage.
I've just been putting my fingers in my ears and humming loudly. I think I'll likely have an ear infection long before 2008.
I've just been putting my fingers in my ears and humming loudly. I think I'll likely have an ear infection long before 2008.
02-22-2005, 07:39 PM
#1150
Thread Starter
There is an interesting Op-Ed piece in today's New York Times by Paul Krugman. It is referred to as the "Terrorism Card". It's proper title is "Wag-the-Dog Protection". It speaks about how every time this administration become entangled is a domestic problem, it speaks to the terrorism threat as a diversion. Worse still, for all of the talk, the administration isn't really doing an adequate job at that either. It is well worth the read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/22/op...rugman.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/22/op...rugman.html?hp