timesjoke

Don't forget Newt took a few shots at Limbaugh as well. The last big one I remember was when Rush said he wanted Obama to fail and Newt said "You're irrational if you don't want the president to succeed." Sarah Palin did not want Obama to succeed either. So again hugo, Sarah is a Conservative because she took a shot at Rush, but Newt who has taken several shots at Rush, has voted for hundreds of welfare programs, voted for raising the debt ceiling many times, voted for massive foreign aid.....Newt is a great conservative? Newt like Rush is a person who makes a lot of money "talking" about being conservative but when you look at Newts voting record, you see he was not really a pure conservative himself. Why the double standard against Sarah hugo? Because you have to justify to yourself why you voted for Obama.

The beauty of being the Government is you can just print money when you run out.

The story about the little girl says a lot, I would need to see some of it myself but I would say she was starved for attention. This means she does not get that attention from daddy. As I said, there is more to taking responsibility than standing in the room. All I can say is maybe it makes more sense to get to know each other "BEFORE" you make children with them. I feel no sympathy for so called adults who make children then cry about how they are not happy with their mate anymore unless there is some form of abuse or huge issue that showed them as completely different than they got together. While that does happen, the vast majority of divorses involve people who just never took the time to get to know each other before making babies.

There is more to taking responsibility than being in the room. Being a real parent is a lot of very hard work. Every day. If your buddy was so irresponsible as you claim, it is doubtful he was doing more than going through the motions of an appearance of committment and nothing else. He may as well not have even tried. In fact he most likely made it worse than if he had just run away from the start.

Well.....now that you mention that I can see where it could sound like that, I should have been more clear in my comment. Of course Hillary did not create the scandle, but she did cash in on it

But he still trusted her enough to have unprotected sex with her, so either he is completely stupid or there was more to it than he is admitting to. Men rarely share their true emotional feelings with other men, it is easier to claim he only married her because she was pregnant then to say he was in love with her.

Well they had sex most likely because of mutual attraction, assuming the child was not the result of a one night stand....there had to be something about her that was keeping him comming back before he got her pregnant. Her getting pregnant was the result of him trusting her enough not to use his own protection. Obviously there was more to it than 'she got pregnant'. How long were they together before getting married/getting pregnant?

Did you not understand my point? Hillary's book had a sex scandle with an American President fresh in the minds of the people to help generate sales for her book, airing dirty laundry for very public figures has always been a powerful book selling possition.

Okay, so now Newt was a great conservative by comparison to Sarah......... Care to guess how many times Newt voted to increase the deficit ceiling during his time in office? Care to guess how many times Newt voted to increase entitlements and special welfare programs? Care to guess how many times Newt voted to send aid to foreign Countries? Interesting reading: Devvy Kidd -- Who is the Real Newt Gingrich? Part 1 At the bottem there is a link to part two of the story.

Well the Government has things like survivor benefits they pay to people as well as set up the laws for how property rights are set up for the family of someone who dies without a will or to even deal with challenges to a will. Many reasons gay couples complain about wanting to be "married" is how insurance companies pay out benefits to the "next of kin" or offer medical care under 'family' plans. The Government making allowances for things like civil unions would also force insurance companies to do the same.

For the same reason I believe there should be legal civil unions for gay couples I also believe several adults who choose to be in a committed relationship should also be legal, why would the Government be involved in restricting how people can live together? I reserve the term "marriage" because that term was in existence as a way to describe a religious bond long before the American constitution was even thought of but I think in a Nation that is supposed to be governed by individual freedoms.......how can we say any relationship between consenting adults is wrong? Basically the only real Government involvement should be setting up death benefits and such, if people had more then one "mate" then you simply divide equally those denefits and such, I don't see the problem.

Most of the time I believe politicians think they own the people, that is why these politicians show such indignation when the people voice their displeasure with what they do, like a parent cutting a harsh look at a child who has said something wrong in the parent's eyes......

And is that not still the fault of the adults? Both the adults decided to get together and either through not caring or being irresponsible made children with the other person when they should have never got together in the first place, hense the fastest growing segment of society being the never wed mother. When women used to slow the process down and require men to jump through some hoops before 'putting out' there were less unwanted pregnancies and less divorce. Yes, I am saying it, men are dogs and have always wanted sex, that has not changed with men, but women not making the men work for it has changed. "Booty call" My point will always be that while we can make all sorts of excuses for why adults marry/divorce/or never marry, that is not really a big issue in life, but these same adults making babies without taking full responsibility for the welfare of their children "IS" a big issue with society. Aduls hurt more than themselves with their own immature and irresponsible behaviors......and that is "black and white".

Humans are too complicated to have a set 1 + 1 = 2 formula but you can look to certain trends to help figure out what is more likely to happen than not. You say as a child you had a rough family life filled with abuse, so did your spouse, and now your contemplating a divorce yourself if I get your comment earlier correctly. I am sorry your situation is so bad but at least you are working very hard........most 'modern' couples do not try that hard Merc. I do not want any woman or man to stay in a relationship that is abusive, that is not what I am saying, and it does not even have to be marriage, I am not married to Tami, but I have a deep and solid committment to her, and it is that part many 'modern' couples do not have these days. But again, it is the children who will pay the biggest price for divorce most of the time. "There is some evidence that in our well-meaning efforts to save children in the immediate post-separation period from anxiety, confusion, and the normative divorce-engendered conflict, we have set the stage in the longer run for the more ominous symptoms of anger, depression, and a deep sense of loss by depriving the child of the opportunity to maintain a full relationship with each parent." ~ Joan Kelly, Ph.D "Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income. ~ book:Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development

Merc I feel bad for the situation that makes you feel bad but I imagine your still somewhat old school in your approach to trying to make things work and my point is how the "new" attitudes are not to work hard on anything. As Snaf said, divorce is more prevalent now but even more than that, marriage is not an option for women at all. The fastest growing segment of society is the single, never wed mother, usually with two children. If nothing has changed, why is it more and more women don't want fathers to go with their children? Are you saying women never wanted the men, just their money and now with child support they don't need the men? Children without fathers in the home: 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes There is a mountain of hard scientific study that proves divorce or otherwise little involvement of the father is very bad for chilkdren, especially girls: "Among teenage and adult populations of females, parental divorce has been associated with lower self-esteem, precocious sexual activity, greater delinquent-like behavior, and more difficulty establishing gratifying, lasting adult heterosexual relationships. It is especially intriguing to note that, in these studies, the parental divorce typically occurred years before any difficulties were observed." "Finally, girls whose parents divorce may grow up without the day to day experience of interacting with a man who is attentive, caring and loving. The continuous sense of being valued and loved as a female seems an especially key element in the development of the conviction that one is indeed femininely lovable. Without this regular source of nourishment, a girl's sense of being valued as a female does not seem to thrive."

Just admitting your feelings have changed must have been significant. I am glad they are getting counseling and maybe they can find new ground to base love and respect on, relationships have to change because people change. The things we like, the things we believe are important, what excites us, what bores us, it really is easy to understand why someone would consider divorce. And it is even more impressive when they don't take the easier choice and decide to work through it. You know, I have always wondered about this, I have seen many examples of men and women running off to be with someone else and the part that confuses me is the other person........ If the married person is willing to dump their mate to run away with you, what makes you think they will not fool around on you? Your involved with a person who cheats, obviously they are not a great catch in the first place.

There was no hard date, just a gradual change of attitudes to no longer try to work things out and to instead cut and run. My mother was 17 when she married my father, she was 73 when she passed away a couple weeks ago, that is 56 years together and believe me, they have had their fair share of problems during that 56 years. I agree, there are many reasons a person can come up with to leave a relationship, no two humans will ever be able to live together and agree on everything, the question is if those people will put in the time to work through their issues and find solutions or instead run away from those issues. This was my point of the 'trash society' where our mindsets require instant gratification and will reject without thought anything that is not feeding our need for instant gratification. If children are not involved, no big deal, the only people who suffer are those adults who made those decisions to cut and run, but once children are involved there are greater issues that should be considered. Once your making your children pay for your issues, or even using your children as a weapon to hurt your "baby daddy", I'm sorry to say that is not right. Yes, a great deal of the issues changed once women felt more in control of their finances and future, child support laws and a market place that wanted the cheaper labor women represented. But I see the greatest change in the morals of women happend once abortion became accepted as a birth control method. Something about killing babies in the womb to escape taking responsibility for our actions has tainted our society for the worse in my opinion. Now we even have the 'booty call' where a guy is not even expected to buy dinner and a movie before you "get lucky". Things certainly have changed in my lifetime. Just have sex and you each go your seperate ways, I guess some people see that as an improvement...........

No need to try and pick a fight Wez, I have no desire in getting into a personal flame fest with you. My point about marriage was not the act itself but the mindset of how people used to have long term goals of being together forever, that is no longer the case. We throw everything away at the first sign of it not being what we wanted it to be, and that mindset has moved to our relationships. You speak of the past without any real knowledge of it yourself Wez, I saw the stay at home moms and there was no doubt in anyone's mind that it was the women, not the men who ran the home. My father never even signed his own paycheck. And if you dared to walk into a woman's home with dirty feet you would remember who the real boss was for a very long time after that, lol. Both of my sisters had hope chests, they actually looked foward to getting married and raising a family Wez. A comedian once said, that rasing children without a father was like driving your car with your feet, sure you can do it, but that does not make it a good idea.......

And yet you expect Sarah Palin to be perfect? Every good conservative you name supports various forms of welfare, even giving more money to the rich would still be giving them money they did not actually earn so why are you completely blocked against Sarah Palin? Becuase you voted for Obama and need to justify that vote to yourself, that's why.

Well I was ripped apart when my wife took off for another man, she refused me all contact with our children until there was a court order for visitation. An emergency hearing still took over three months.....that is a long time to not see or speak with your children. It is horrible to have that game played with you but unfortunately, it happens more often than not in broken relationships. The women feel their best way to punnish the man for not being who they wanted them to be is a lifetime of manipulation and games with the man's children. Sad, I go through it all the time, and there is no easy way to handle it, you just have to have the strength to eat that frustration and accept it as part of life. Getting upset and saying things will only give her the ammunition to have all your visitations eliminated, and that is what they really want so don't give it to them. As far as trends go, we live in a 'trash society' where we don't even fix televisions anymore, we just throw everything away and start over. Hell, people don't even get married before having children anymore, the relationships are fast and heated then die off before they can even think about getting married. So now we have terms like "my baby daddy" that has made it into mainstream society and is considered normal. Don't think any of this is going to get better any time soon Wez, we have let the genie out of the bottle.

Newt also has voted for various 'welfare' programs while in office, again, everyone hugo mentions as great conservatives also support welfare programs so why is he so worked up against Sarah Palin? Obviously he voted for Obama, there is no other explanation that makes sense. It kills me how these independents put people like Obama into power but then later pretend to be conservative minded people, I think their crazy to be honest.

Hitler and Stalin were both Atheists too, so what? The point is if Sarah is a conservative, you say she is not a conservative and is instead a socialist based on one point of sharing the resources all Alaskan people own based on State law. We have established that even Texas gives a cash benefit to all residents with lower taxes that all people benefit from but very few actually contrubute to oil production. We have established that two other people you say are good conservatives both support welfare in various forms and the last guy you named is actually a success story of how welfare can help create great Americans. Like I already said, I believe you voted for Obama and your now just grasping desperately to your excuses for not voting for her and McCain. You independents claim to be conservative but your directly responsible for putting Obama in the Whitehouse, how do you guys balance that inconsistency?

Finally, someone who likes my humor

Your never going to get hugo to admit he is wrong about Sarah, he bought into the negative hype from the liberals and is now having to justify why he voted for Obama. He will refuse to admit it, but I do believe hugo like his fellow independents voted for Obama as a 'punnishment' to the Republicans. Now everything Obama has done is directly because these independents like hugo gave Obama that power. Palin is a great conservative, but hugo can't admit it because admitting it would mean he voted for the wrong guy. The last two guys hugo named as good conservatives both support welfare, in fact the last guy was a product and success story of welfare.

I hear ya, like the recording that says "we are experiencing longer than average wait times, please be patient...." No their not, this is typical, but they want you to believe they really care about you as a customer. Hey, for the cashier thing come up with a list of horrible things to reply with like "well I am digging up my septic tank to clean it out, roots have been growing in it, do you want to come over and help??????".