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.
Hmmm...Neil Young has always sucked as a musician and always will. Sting, is NOT a musical genius. A uniform and a dangerous job, firefighter, cop, soldier, does not a hero, make. Being a "hero" is over rated. And,lastly, for now, men have no obligation to put the toilet seat down. The latter has caused many a...disagreement.
Last edited by NVplumber; 04-09-2015 at 09:46 AM..
I am a big believer in adoption over anything esle when it comes to an unplanned pregnancy. Don't try to raise the child yourself if you're a teenager, putting the onus on your parents to help you. Give that blessing to a couple that cannot have children of their own.
I am with you. Teen sex and pregnancy is still such a problem. I would like to see more done in the way of birth control and Sex education, which apparently some parents are against. I think these forced-parenting situations could be avoided, along with forced relationships / marriages due to an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy. Usually the female ends up dealing with this as you say, with parents, altering everyone's lives unnecessarily.
I've always felt it is not focused upon, the other reasons involved that lead to pregnancy. Females are more emotionally involved and males have their own motives. Also, if kids are taught abstinence or parents are unaccepting of birth control and against abortion, it creates a lot of pressure, when it is inevitable there will be involvements. Then, boys still "get off the hook" and should be taught to have more responsibility, to not get into those situations. Girls need to know what the realities are regarding boys and relationships and to not have unrealistic expectations. Then there are those situations, when a girl may be under the influence, taken advantage of or forced.
Besides this, I feel overpopulation is real, though some do not want to acknowledge it, and there are too many kids who are not adopted. The entire issue really bothers me.. obviously.
Drug amnesty, legalization of prostitution, allowing felons to vote, banning foreign aid to the Middle East, abolition of the sales tax, repeal of California's Prop 13, declaring Monsanto to be a terrorist organization, ban on welfare for single mothers (excepting only those who lost their partners due to wars or other military actions), a Single Tax, end of race/gender based affirmative action, restoration of the Fairness Doctrine.
I didn't include ending corporate personhood and overturning Citizens United and Buckley vs. Valeo because those are popular positions with everyone except the political class.
Why?
Let's look at an example: stay at home mom raises two kids while her husband goes to work. One day, the doctor tells him he an an inoperable brain tumor. He dies a year later. That mother now has to raise those kids and provide for them entirely on her own and you think she is less deserving a welfare than someone who's husband is killed in action?
And even if it's a case where they were unmarried and the man walks out... you're punishing the wrong person. The man is the problem in that situation: he shouldn't have left. Why is the mom getting the restrictions when she's not even the main problem?
Everything else is mostly fine. I wouldn't say we need to BAN foreign aid, just be smarted about. I also wouldn't call Monsanto a terrorist organization but would have no problem bringing them to court on various charges involving manipulating the law and corruption.
Let's look at an example: stay at home mom raises two kids while her husband goes to work. One day, the doctor tells him he an an inoperable brain tumor. He dies a year later. That mother now has to raise those kids and provide for them entirely on her own and you think she is less deserving a welfare than someone who's husband is killed in action?
And even if it's a case where they were unmarried and the man walks out... you're punishing the wrong person. The man is the problem in that situation: he shouldn't have left. Why is the mom getting the restrictions when she's not even the main problem?
Everything else is mostly fine. I wouldn't say we need to BAN foreign aid, just be smarted about. I also wouldn't call Monsanto a terrorist organization but would have no problem bringing them to court on various charges involving manipulating the law and corruption.
Because parents have the responsibility to raise their own children, and a big part of that is to prepare for the unfortunate events. If the mother chooses to stay at home, then she must prepare for the situation when her main source of income is lost, i.e. the husband dies of brain tumor. She can do that by simply buying a life insurance.
In the case of they aren't married and the man walks out, she should have prepared for that too. There are multiple things that she can do starting with using appropriate contraceptive method(s), not having the child, getting a job or getting financial supports from her family.
If they can't prepare for this, then they aren't fit to raise children. To be unprepared is not called "falling on hard time." It's called ignorant, irresponsible and child endangerment.
I believe most have no use for corporations that believe their corporate interests should take precedence over the country's, that's a big difference from simply hating corporations.
Our country is broke and high taxes. Do you have use for able bodied welfare recipients who's interest of living on the dole (taking tax payer money) takes precedence over the country?
It's both ends of the spectrum and people are caught in between. Why have no use for one and give the other a pass?
I can think of two that are controversial to many...
My wholehearted endorsement of California's grass root movement that against all odds made Prop 13 the law of the land... I was too young to have voted for it at the time and am thankful for all the voters that stood up to the politicians and even more to the United States Supreme Court for upholding it...
If I talk to 10 people about Proposition 13, chances are I will get 10 different descriptions for Prop 13... which is amazing for something so simple that it only takes a few paragraphs in it's entirety and did away with volumes of tax code...
Prop 13 was a visceral response to two major forces at the time... one being the State taking local school tax dollars to allocate as it sees fit and the other is homeowners driven from their homes after double digit tax increases... minor issues at the time were the corruption in Assessor's offices that gave those with influence and power sweetheart tax deals...
Prop 13 did away with all that and transformed a confusing and mistrusted system into one of simplicity... your home will be taxed based on it's fair market value at the time of transfer plus a annual 2% inflation factor... additions and improvements tax accordingly and voter approval of at least 55% to raise new taxes... imagine that... Democracy in action in both Prop 13 inception and in going to the voters for approval before a new tax can be implemented...
Some would say Prop 13 is the anti Christ and responsible for every woe, ailment and malady known to man... and for those wondering... until last month I was paying the highest taxes in my area for the oldest and smallest home that I bought at the end of 2003...
What I hear all the time is that Prop 13 rewards long term homeowners which is completely untrue... length of ownership has NOTHING to do with the amount of taxes assessed...
Plenty of people in California willing bought between 2004 and 2007 and have much higher tax basis than those that bought after... why??? simply because the tax is based in what you paid in the simplest of terms...
The second is political and directed to those that blindly follow political parties... I have no party affiliation and never have... I read the measures and study the candidates and base my decision accordingly... this can make for split tickets and some very uncomfortable if not lively discussions.
Because parents have the responsibility to raise their own children, and a big part of that is to prepare for the unfortunate events. If the mother chooses to stay at home, then she must prepare for the situation when her main source of income is lost, i.e. the husband dies of brain tumor. She can do that by simply buying a life insurance.
In the case of they aren't married and the man walks out, she should have prepared for that too. There are multiple things that she can do starting with using appropriate contraceptive method(s), not having the child, getting a job or getting financial supports from her family.
If they can't prepare for this, then they aren't fit to raise children. To be unprepared is not called "falling on hard time." It's called ignorant, irresponsible and child endangerment.
Then no exception should be made for spouses of those killed in combat either. They should have prepared for that too, correct?
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.
