Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Until you have been in an abusive relationship, perhaps YOU should butt out. You sure as hell don't know anything about being abused apparently, so don't pretend to think you can speak for me. I am a woman. I was once in a VERY abusive relationship(I lost my spleen and was within minutes of losing my life). I am against this bill. My reasons are my own. Men are as welcome on this thread as you are....
As a man, who has NEVER abused a woman, this bill really sets my teeth on edge. I have been in only two, serious relationships in my life. One is the current one I am in. Both of these fine ladies have been victims of abusive men.
I will use my current relationship in this discussion, but both similar. My little gal goes bout 100#s. Her ex was a truck driver, and a master at giving out mental and physical abuse. She has been out of that relationship for 12 years, and I still have to be careful, very, about what I say, how I say it, and worse than anything, how I move.
Simply reaching out to touch her hair, or reaching for her hand, can trigger a fearful reaction, if not broadcast well in advance. This embarrrases her, and she gets angry sometimes, and takes it out on me. I just let her vent, and then hold her when shes done. It hurts me to. Its hard to pay for some douchebags wrongs, but she is getting a LOT better.
I would like nothing better than to stomp a mudhole in the creep. But, it makes me feel very warm when she clams down and tells me she feels safe when I hold her. Tbis is the big reason this law twists me up so much. It's a two edged sword. Making good men pay for the vermins crimes, and rewarding venomous women while good ones, like my gal, ask for nothing more than someone who will be patient and help them heal. Things money and material stuff can't compensate for. This law needs to take that into account and the lack of objectivity makes things worse, not better. It is divisive and inflammatory, and the heavy handed manner in which the courts treat ALL men, under it, causes much more harm than good.
It can be hard not to be VERY cynical for me, when discussing this topic. I know, all to well, the damage that abusive relationships can do to a woman. But, beating up all men, out of hand, for that just makes good, loving, patient, men an endangered species.
Do you have proof that Clinton was a serial rapist? He beat up his victims??? Well, that's news to me. Please provide links to support your claims. Did his "victims" press charges against him and was he convicted? What threats did Hillary make and to who??
Do you live in a cave? There are laws in place against animal abuse. But, I would think someone would make an exception and overlook those laws if someone were to abuse you.
Not sure about the guys claims, but there is no doubt that Hillary is a goon, so it wouldn't be too surprising.
why should there be a "violence against woman" act????
is not all violence illegal???
I guess not, Obama can drone bomb people in other countries whenever he likes without reasonable cause. Guantanamo is still not closed so people there are still probably being tortured.
Oh yes I almost forgot he can detains american citizens without a trial as well, thanks to NDAA.
Well aren't you just special? Too clever to fall for an abuser, and modest to boot! I am a woman who has been there. I am college educated and made a reasonable living, so it only took me three tries. And of course I know women who are lawyers, doctors, bankers, CEOs who fell into the same trap. You have proven with your ignorant, arrogant posts that you know nothing about what it's like. It's not about brains. It's about luck and emotional health. Like I said, you're lucky. Patting yourself on the back like that could cause tendon problems, you should be careful.
What, you think we all just woke up one morning and said, "Hey, I think I'll get into an abusive relationship today!" It's a million times more complicated than your shallow, self-satisfied description. It takes a long time to get in - abusers always wait until you're hooked somehow in terms of money, kids or health - and even longer to get out. Depending on where you live (because the states are SO wise), the courts can even institutionalize the abuse and take the abuser's side. Women go back all the time because the abuser got custody. She made it all up, you know.
Of course, it's people like you who make that happen in your local jurisdictions.
And by the way ... With a friend like you, that poor woman was almost better of with her abuser.
Your posts make you seem cold, cruel, self- righteous and judgmental. Pretty much what I've come to expect on CD, actually.
Nice. And quite the disgusting attitude to take. And yes, I do feel self righteous. I've never abused drugs. I've never been abused by a man. And for that success, I'm being vilified. Instead, those that weren't smart about it are being glorified, because they "got away".
Of course it's complicated. And I never said anyone CHOSE to BE in an abusive relationship. I just said I was smart enough to never enter into one. Yup - SMART. As for being "hooked" - you have to allow yourself to be hooked. And again, I was SMART enough to never get hooked. I was SMART enough to recognize abuse before it became physical. Before it became too hard to leave. Before he promised for the tenth time that this time would be different.
And yea, all those women and men being abused are because of people like me. Not their fault at all.
And you can namecall all you want. I could really care less what you think of me.
Until you have been in an abusive relationship, perhaps YOU should butt out. You sure as hell don't know anything about being abused apparently, so don't pretend to think you can speak for me. I am a woman. I was once in a VERY abusive relationship(I lost my spleen and was within minutes of losing my life). I am against this bill. My reasons are my own. Men are as welcome on this thread as you are....
Yup, you're right. I don't know anything about being abused. Because I was smart enough to recognize potential abusers, and stayed clear.
I never said I spoke for you. But don't speak for me.
As a man, who has NEVER abused a woman, this bill really sets my teeth on edge. I have been in only two, serious relationships in my life. One is the current one I am in. Both of these fine ladies have been victims of abusive men.
I will use my current relationship in this discussion, but both similar. My little gal goes bout 100#s. Her ex was a truck driver, and a master at giving out mental and physical abuse. She has been out of that relationship for 12 years, and I still have to be careful, very, about what I say, how I say it, and worse than anything, how I move.
Simply reaching out to touch her hair, or reaching for her hand, can trigger a fearful reaction, if not broadcast well in advance. This embarrrases her, and she gets angry sometimes, and takes it out on me. I just let her vent, and then hold her when shes done. It hurts me to. Its hard to pay for some douchebags wrongs, but she is getting a LOT better.
I would like nothing better than to stomp a mudhole in the creep. But, it makes me feel very warm when she clams down and tells me she feels safe when I hold her. Tbis is the big reason this law twists me up so much. It's a two edged sword. Making good men pay for the vermins crimes, and rewarding venomous women while good ones, like my gal, ask for nothing more than someone who will be patient and help them heal. Things money and material stuff can't compensate for. This law needs to take that into account and the lack of objectivity makes things worse, not better. It is divisive and inflammatory, and the heavy handed manner in which the courts treat ALL men, under it, causes much more harm than good.
It can be hard not to be VERY cynical for me, when discussing this topic. I know, all to well, the damage that abusive relationships can do to a woman. But, beating up all men, out of hand, for that just makes good, loving, patient, men an endangered species.
My apologies to you...It was never my intent to 'beat up on all men'. I applaud you and wish you and yours happiness the rest of your lives.
It was in 1979 that I was in my 'chosen' relationship. Only with the understanding and gentleness of my husband(married in 1986)was I able to put it (mostly) behind me. He too, had to be very cautious. I trusted no one. About 5 years ago, I went through the classes to certify to become a counselor to battered women. It was then that I realized that I would be putting myself through hell...again. You are right, once a woman(person)goes through something like that, only time and patience heals it. It is never forgotten.
You cannot choose to avoid a relationship like that if you are already in it and children are involved. Especially back in '79...
I would hardly consider a capial gains tax an entitlement program. It's a tax on a gain you've made from a risk that you've taken. I do however agree that it should be treated as regular income...but that regular income should be subject to a flat tax rate of 17%.
Oh? Where'd you come up with 17%?
Quote:
We all know that arguments about taxes and the rates they pay but regardless of how it's spun the 10% of income earners pay over 70% of the federal taxes in this country...and the top 1% which are the people you are referencing above pay approximately half of all federal tax revenue.
That's funny. I just came back from a conference on estate planning given by a right winger no less, who was trying to scare us into buying his financial instruments by saying, "And guess what? I'm not into discussing politics, but if we continue this way, the highest earners are going to end up paying 50% tax rates in this country!"
Quote:
I believe that they pay enough. Only in the minds of the "compassionate" liberals is 10% shouldering almost three quarters "not enough." The issue is that we spend too much. Only in DC could you cut a "projected future expense" and call that savings. That is tantamount to me saying..."Hey, I think I'll buy a Bentley.......Nah, maybe not....I just saved 400k!" If the outlays were curtailed a bit, the receipts wouldn't be an issue.
I'm sure you do. That's why you're a right winger and not a lib. You share the concept of right wingers that it's not necessary to have money circulating and spent at all levels, only at the top, and that's a perfect way to stagnate the economy, as started happening when the revenues of the treasury were lowered through reducing the taxes of the rich to ridiculously low levels. We've seen that the more tax money the rich and corporations are allowed to pocket, the less apt they seem to be to keep jobs here, and the more they try to lower wages and deny benefits. The mythology that the more money the rich have trickles down to the rest, is a myth that died a very hard death.
Quote:
Now I do agree on a few of your points. Corporate farm subsidies and farm subsidies in general should means tested to those with 250k or below in "non-farm" income. It doesn't make sense to spend more on farmers that are wealthy. I disagree with subsidies in any capacity...it merely picks winners or favorites in the market which serves as a market distortion. Same with corporate bailouts, the military industrial complex, etc. Any intervention of the federal government in the market distorts the free market......and thats a problem. Proper resource allocation will happen if we don't step in and screw it up.
Subsidies to the rich are also a bad bet for the government, not only because it loses too much money to fathom, but it results in nothing for economy and the rest of the population. On subsidies to the poor, that's a whole nother story.
Quote:
As for your last paragraph. You have attempted to explain it. And because you have attempted to explain in no way means that your explanation was convincing. I respect your opinion, but I disagree. You've essentially said that state governments are worthless...which as you know is conjecture only. I contend that states DO perform the jobs well...better than the leviathan floating around in Washington. States perform very well when Medicaid and other programs are block granted (See New Mexico's medicaid situation under Gov. Gary Johnson). Comparable examples exist for the DOE or other departments...they spend and spend with effectively no result. This program will be no different. If you want results...move it to the state level.
I never said you had to agree. However, I lived in two countries with socialized healthcare, where the expense per capita is lower than it is here, and the efficiency is amazing, and by living in these two countries is how I got hooked on socialized healthcare. Health care in this country is an expensive joke, and one of the primary causes of homelessness. It cannot be tolerated as it is.
Yup, you're right. I don't know anything about being abused. Because I was smart enough to recognize potential abusers, and stayed clear.
I never said I spoke for you. But don't speak for me.
Interesting. What criteria do/did you use to spot potential abusiveness? For the record, I am not being sarcastic. Abusers are canny predators. My little gals story was a sad tale. As she relates it to me, he was a dream come true. Supportive, attentive and giving. After a year together, she married him, he landed a swank job, out of state, bought a real nice house, and she didnt have to work, but did because she wanted to.
The change came with zero warning. Ya see, the whole moving thing was designed to remove her from people who would be able to help her. At least thatz how I read it. The abuse was mainly mental. But brutal nonetheless. And, when it did turn physical, that wasn't exactly restrained. He played it out quite patiently, before he actually showed what kind of a varmint he was.
Winning her trust has taken a heap of patience and understanding, and even after considerable time is far from complete. Probably never will be, but I love her enough to take a bullet for her, nonetheless.
So, what warning signs send up flags for you? As good as a lot of these creeps are at picking their prey, I'm thinking you have some luck as well? I guess, to answer tbe latter actual hard numbers on tbe % of dirtbags to decent real men would be needed, so thats kind of a superfluous question. Disregard.
So, how do you smell these skunks? From what I have seen, that ain't easy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
