Wow, FoxNews and their minions have been so full of it.

[awesome guy]

They fought it and brought up legislation. They just flat out lost on the issue.


I think it's much better they present a valid reason for divorce rather than "we don't want to be married". They should show cause.

Why are you so interested in other people's business? Amazing how conservatives preach getting government out of people's lives... unless the intervention is "good for them" according to their own religious beliefs.

A married couple wants a divorce. So? Let them find their happiness.
Two men want to get married. So? Let them find their happiness.

How does either event effect you? Why do you think your religious beliefs should trump the rights of others to find happiness in their own lives?

because we're on the hook for dealing with the issues the kids face. They're much more likely to be incarcerated and live in poverty. It's an harsh thing for the children to go through, often leading to a lifetime of issues. Best to avoid it. And since we have to pay for the poverty and crime, we have a say in it. There responsibility to be parents trumps their quest for happiness. If they don't want the responsibility, they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.

In NY before no-fault, couples used to stage fake extra-marital bedroom affairs and take pictures. Kind of silly, eh?

extremely selfish if they have kids. The minority of people going to such lengths to skirt their responsibility doesn't justify giving an easy escape to everyone else. They could not get married in the first place if they can't hack it.

I actually support your sentiment, but you can't legislate how consenting adults choose to live. It's an antiquated notion of the same ilk as dry counties and sodomy laws.

I'm not legislating how they live, I'm legislating how they treat their children. I consider divorce for no good reason abusive to the children. I support no fault for childless couples or ones with adult children. Kids 0 to 18? Suck it up or have a good reason. I don't see such victims in drinking or sodomy laws, so don't support them.

[Marine Hokie]

1. You do keep jumping around, as I described in my post. Tell me how I'm wrong.

2. "You guys"? What makes you think I'm a Reagan/Bush I fan?

I don't keep jumping around. Different posters keep trying to poke at me from different angles. If you believe all the stuff people say about me, then yes it might seem illogical.

Again, the confusion may be that we saw different things in Reagan/Bush. I saw good leaders, record economic expansion, cutting onerous taxes (70%!) and solid foreign policy. I did not like everything about them... specifically their relationship with the Christian right and their abortion litmus test. But I did favor them over their opposition. Perhaps what you guys liked about Reagan/Bush WAS their association with the Christian right. Back then, the GOP was a more welcoming big tent. Today... not so much.

[VoiceOfReason]

because we're on the hook for dealing with the issues the kids face. They're much more likely to be incarcerated and live in poverty. It's an harsh thing for the children to go through, often leading to a lifetime of issues. Best to avoid it. And since we have to pay for the poverty and crime, we have a say in it. There responsibility to be parents trumps their quest for happiness. If they don't want the responsibility, they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.

That is quite possibly the most stupid, most selfish piece of crap you have ever shat on this board. Which is saying quite alot!

First you presume that parents who seek divorce cannot effectively raise their children. Or is your statement just code for "inner city parents"?

And then you wrap it all up with the summary that since we have social programs for the poorest among us, and YOU pay into it, that YOU should have say in how other people live their lives (according to YOUR values) and reduce the chance that you will be asked to pay more. If that is the true meaning of conservatism... you guys really are the awful people the left demagogues you to be.

[VoiceOfReason]

My first wife and I did a no fault. We both realized we made a mistake and agreed to divorce. It was indeed the best thing for both of us. Granted, we didn't have kids. But why would anyone want to stay in a bad situation that would only get worse by being forced to stay married.

And frankly, it's none of your business anyway.

Exactly.

[awesome guy]

because we're on the hook for dealing with the issues the kids face. They're much more likely to be incarcerated and live in poverty. It's an harsh thing for the children to go through, often leading to a lifetime of issues. Best to avoid it. And since we have to pay for the poverty and crime, we have a say in it. There responsibility to be parents trumps their quest for happiness. If they don't want the responsibility, they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place.

That is quite possibly the most stupid, most selfish piece of crap you have ever shat on this board. Which is saying quite alot!

First you presume that parents who seek divorce cannot effectively raise their children. Or is your statement just code for "inner city parents"?

And then you wrap it all up with the summary that since we have social programs for the poorest among us, and YOU pay into it, that YOU should have say in how other people live their lives (according to YOUR values) and reduce the chance that you will be asked to pay more. If that is the true meaning of conservatism... you guys really are the awful people the left demagogues you to be.

I'm right on, thus your idiotic and hateful response.

I don't presume single parents being the worst parents, statistics back me up. Walter Williams has a great piece on it. It's common sense, a single parent has not the time or resources to be as effective as a man and a woman.


If someone is taking MY money, then hell yes I have a say in how it's spent. And my demands are to end the practices that put them in a state of need in the first place. That makes me a great, caring, and intelligent person. Not only am I aiding them, I'm also helping them ensure their kids don't suffer the same fate as them, breaking the poverty cycle. You can thank me latter.

[VoiceOfReason]

1. You do keep jumping around, as I described in my post. Tell me how I'm wrong.

2. "You guys"? What makes you think I'm a Reagan/Bush I fan?

I don't keep jumping around. Different posters keep trying to poke at me from different angles. If you believe all the stuff people say about me, then yes it might seem illogical.

Again, the confusion may be that we saw different things in Reagan/Bush. I saw good leaders, record economic expansion, cutting onerous taxes (70%!) and solid foreign policy. I did not like everything about them... specifically their relationship with the Christian right and their abortion litmus test. But I did favor them over their opposition. Perhaps what you guys liked about Reagan/Bush WAS their association with the Christian right. Back then, the GOP was a more welcoming big tent. Today... not so much.

I was not address you directly with term "you guys". A better response would have been "the conservative board members". Like I said in a previous post, I get poked from different angles by different posters... and sometimes I like to combine responses in my reply. Sorry for the confusion.

FTR... I don't think I need to refute an accusation that I "jump around"... if such a task could ever be accomplished. A statement like that is needlessly derisive. I understand my politics and opinions are not shared by many conservatives on this board. But there is nothing wrong with my critical thinking ability. Those that seek to minimize it are really pointing out their own inadequacies. Better to stick to the thread topics at hand.

[Marine Hokie]

Is that how government works?

If someone is taking MY money, then hell yes I have a say in how it's spent.

[awesome guy]

Is that how government works?

If someone is taking MY money, then hell yes I have a say in how it's spent.

yeah, it is. We also have a say in how much is taken, thus our representative democratic government.

[VoiceOfReason]

I'm right on, thus your idiotic and hateful response.

I don't presume single parents being the worst parents, statistics back me up. Walter Williams has a great piece on it. It's common sense, a single parent has not the time or resources to be as effective as a man and a woman.


If someone is taking MY money, then hell yes I have a say in how it's spent. And my demands are to end the practices that put them in a state of need in the first place. That makes me a great, caring, and intelligent person. Not only am I aiding them, I'm also helping them ensure their kids don't suffer the same fate as them, breaking the poverty cycle. You can thank me latter.

I will rest easy knowing that small minded fracktards like you and those that hold your selfish and contradictory opinions about the role of government interfering with an individual's pursuit of happiness will remain a small (in EVERY sense of the word) minority of this great country of ours

[awesome guy]

I'm right on, thus your idiotic and hateful response.

I don't presume single parents being the worst parents, statistics back me up. Walter Williams has a great piece on it. It's common sense, a single parent has not the time or resources to be as effective as a man and a woman.


If someone is taking MY money, then hell yes I have a say in how it's spent. And my demands are to end the practices that put them in a state of need in the first place. That makes me a great, caring, and intelligent person. Not only am I aiding them, I'm also helping them ensure their kids don't suffer the same fate as them, breaking the poverty cycle. You can thank me latter.

I will rest easy knowing that small minded fracktards like you and those that hold your selfish and contradictory opinions about the role of government interfering with an individual's pursuit of happiness will remain a small (in EVERY sense of the word) minority of this great country of ours

oh please. I'm not going to respond to your hatred with hatred. I'll just point out the hypocrisy of you calling me selfish because you want to take my money and do what you want with it. IE, you're the selfish one. You're the one demanding to control what is not yours, not I.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is no justification to abandon your children. Even the craziest of liberals can agree with this.

[Marine Hokie]

I'll just point out the hypocrisy of you calling me selfish because you want to take my money and do what you want with it. IE, you're the selfish one. You're the one demanding to control what is not yours, not I.

So you support elimination of all taxes?

[awesome guy]

I'll just point out the hypocrisy of you calling me selfish because you want to take my money and do what you want with it. IE, you're the selfish one. You're the one demanding to control what is not yours, not I.

So you support elimination of all taxes?

not following.

[Hokie5150]

I'm not legislating how they live, I'm legislating how they treat their children. I consider divorce for no good reason abusive to the children. I support no fault for childless couples or ones with adult children. Kids 0 to 18? Suck it up or have a good reason. I don't see such victims in drinking or sodomy laws, so don't support them.

You've obviously never been the child of a couple that should be divorced. If you think it is best for the child to grow up in a home where the husband and wife don't love each other, you are clueless...

[Marine Hokie]

You call him out for wanting money taken from other people, yet you want to do that also, just for different purposes.

I'll just point out the hypocrisy of you calling me selfish because you want to take my money and do what you want with it. IE, you're the selfish one. You're the one demanding to control what is not yours, not I.

So you support elimination of all taxes?

not following.

[VoiceOfReason]

oh please. I'm not going to respond to your hatred with hatred. I'll just point out the hypocrisy of you calling me selfish because you want to take my money and do what you want with it. IE, you're the selfish one. You're the one demanding to control what is not yours, not I.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is no justification to abandon your children. Even the craziest of liberals can agree with this.

I am not advocating spending your money at all. I am saying that if two persons no longer love each other and want to find their happiness elsewhere, who are we to deny this to them. Yes, you can show statistics about kids in stable homes vs. one parent families. However, there are MANY factors that contribute - not just divorce. What kinds of things happen when you keep two people together against their will? Domestic violence and child abuse come to mind.

Point is... you cannot see all ends here. And it is really none of your business. Who elected you King Solomon? I will fight for the right for you to live your life the way you choose (however pathetic that may be)... and will fight for the right to keep you out of everyone else's life. Even if you are a bitter taxpayer.

[VoiceOfReason]

I'm not legislating how they live, I'm legislating how they treat their children. I consider divorce for no good reason abusive to the children. I support no fault for childless couples or ones with adult children. Kids 0 to 18? Suck it up or have a good reason. I don't see such victims in drinking or sodomy laws, so don't support them.

You've obviously never been the child of a couple that should be divorced. If you think it is best for the child to grow up in a home where the husband and wife don't love each other, you are clueless...

Exactly.

AG speaks alot about situations he has no real experience with.

[Marine Hokie]

Kind of like how you try and use the Bible to make your points?

I'm not legislating how they live, I'm legislating how they treat their children. I consider divorce for no good reason abusive to the children. I support no fault for childless couples or ones with adult children. Kids 0 to 18? Suck it up or have a good reason. I don't see such victims in drinking or sodomy laws, so don't support them.

You've obviously never been the child of a couple that should be divorced. If you think it is best for the child to grow up in a home where the husband and wife don't love each other, you are clueless...

Exactly.

AG speaks alot about situations he has no real experience with.

[awesome guy]

I'm not legislating how they live, I'm legislating how they treat their children. I consider divorce for no good reason abusive to the children. I support no fault for childless couples or ones with adult children. Kids 0 to 18? Suck it up or have a good reason. I don't see such victims in drinking or sodomy laws, so don't support them.

You've obviously never been the child of a couple that should be divorced. If you think it is best for the child to grow up in a home where the husband and wife don't love each other, you are clueless...

then their should be a fault to justify the divorce. Or counseling.

[awesome guy]

You call him out for wanting money taken from other people, yet you want to do that also, just for different purposes.

I'll just point out the hypocrisy of you calling me selfish because you want to take my money and do what you want with it. IE, you're the selfish one. You're the one demanding to control what is not yours, not I.

So you support elimination of all taxes?

not following.

There are justified taxes. It's part of living in civilized society.

[Marine Hokie]

That's the same line that democrats use. Funny how when it comes to liberal issues, you view that as taking something that isn't theirs, but when it comes to your issues, it's justified.

There are justified taxes. It's part of living in civilized society.

[awesome guy]

oh please. I'm not going to respond to your hatred with hatred. I'll just point out the hypocrisy of you calling me selfish because you want to take my money and do what you want with it. IE, you're the selfish one. You're the one demanding to control what is not yours, not I.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness is no justification to abandon your children. Even the craziest of liberals can agree with this.

I am not advocating spending your money at all. I am saying that if two persons no longer love each other and want to find their happiness elsewhere, who are we to deny this to them. Yes, you can show statistics about kids in stable homes vs. one parent families. However, there are MANY factors that contribute - not just divorce. What kinds of things happen when you keep two people together against their will? Domestic violence and child abuse come to mind.

Point is... you cannot see all ends here. And it is really none of your business. Who elected you King Solomon? I will fight for the right for you to live your life the way you choose (however pathetic that may be)... and will fight for the right to keep you out of everyone else's life. Even if you are a bitter taxpayer.

Sure you are. You're a tax and spend liberal. You spend all day calling me a fracktard for not wanting to steal from the rich to give to single moms and their offspring. Your demands are through your giant government you advocate. Of course you're greedy and egotistical to think such things and demand me pay for your morality, but I still have a say in how your theft is spent.

[Marine Hokie]

You're a tax and spend conservative who wants to steal from the taxpayers (much of which goes to the already rich). You just don't want it to go to single moms and their kids. You still advocate for a giant government.

Sure you are. You're a tax and spend liberal. You spend all day calling me a fracktard for not wanting to steal from the rich to give to single moms and their offspring. Your demands are through your giant government you advocate. Of course you're greedy and egotistical to think such things and demand me pay for your morality, but I still have a say in how your theft is spent.

[133743Hokie]

everyone would love a strong 3rd party.
few ever vote for that which they say they'd love.

c'est la vie

Perhaps... but I am guessing my idea of a great 3rd party might be different than yours

"great"? "supported"?

Yeah. Apparently you'd only be interested in how many other people supported the 3rd party. If other people would support it, then, lemming like, you would too.
Me? I'd actually be more interested in the ideas being advocated by the third party.

This, going only off what you'd written, above.

Well then you have misinterpreted my message. (And perhaps I did not state it articulately enough.)

My comments above pertained to the idea of issuing a "protest vote" to a 3rd party candidate in the hopes that my party (the Rs at the time) would take note and change their direction back to where I could support them again. Obviously, that was a stupid idea and it had no effect on the R party.

Believe me, if there was a serious attempt at a third party that was progressive on social issues and ready to tackle government spending and the debt in a way that did not put it all on the middle class while allowing the powerful to get even richer... then I would be all for these guys.

That party will never exist because it is in contradiction with itself. You can't favor progressive social causes and also tight on government spending. The two can't co-exist.

[awesome guy]

You're a tax and spend conservative who wants to steal from the taxpayers (much of which goes to the already rich). You just don't want it to go to single moms and their kids. You still advocate for a giant government.

Sure you are. You're a tax and spend liberal. You spend all day calling me a fracktard for not wanting to steal from the rich to give to single moms and their offspring. Your demands are through your giant government you advocate. Of course you're greedy and egotistical to think such things and demand me pay for your morality, but I still have a say in how your theft is spent.

swing and a miss.

[USN_Hokie]

My first wife and I did a no fault. We both realized we made a mistake and agreed to divorce. It was indeed the best thing for both of us. Granted, we didn't have kids. But why would anyone want to stay in a bad situation that would only get worse by being forced to stay married.

And frankly, it's none of your business anyway.

When people are forced to live with the consequences of bad decisions, they tend to make better decisions. EX: I bet if we had debtor prisons (note, not advocating this), the default rate in the US would be a lot better.