|
In article , Harry Krause wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: Looks like the dumfoch got himself a four-year term to further destroy what was once a great country. Won fair and square Harry.... despite stuffing the tabulators in Ohio, it wasn't enough - and Florida was won DECISIVELY. Karl...I wouldn't take your word on change from a dollar. Oh c'mon Harry. The sKerry whine machine is out in full force this morning. He's down 135,000 votes, there are only 135,000 provisional ballots in Ohio, and he's still not conceding. Give me a break. KERRY LOST! Even assuming the provisions break 2:1 for him (unlikely), he STILL loses. He'd had to win EVERY provisional and EVERY absentee to win - it ain't gonna happen. As I said, Karl, I wouldn't take your word on change from a dollar. That has nothing to do with Kerry's loss. No grace in defeat eh Harry? Let's be honest here, shall we? It has to do with my belief that while you are a bright guy, you are slime. My reasons for feeling that way are known to you and have nothing to do with your political party of choice, although that is a symptom of your problem. Yeah, yeah. Can't respond to the points on the table, so you launch personal attacks. What else is new? -- Karl...I am not denying that Bush won the most divisive election in modern history. I think the fix was in, and that helped Bush, but he still won. Oh please. Sore loserman still whines. Bush won fair and square, and is the first President in a looong time to have a majority of the popular vote as well as the electoral. But Bush's victory has nothing to do with my distaste for you. And my distaste for you goes back many, many years, before the 2000 election even, and has nothing to do with presidential politics. You and I both know what it has to do with, eh? Tell me, Karl, are you still helping husbands who want to dump their wives and kids minimize their spousal support and child support payments? Tell me Harry, are you still helping women who want to play gold-digger, steal their family's children and hold them hostage, alienate them from one half of their heritage (genetic, family and otherwise), use them as weapons in their adult battles, and take out "restraining orders" based on false and perjurous statements - and get away with it? That issue cuts both ways, you see. My position has been consistently - since long before the 2000 elections - that NEITHER gender should be able to to do that. That NEITHER gender should be able to steal children and use them as weapons. That NEITHER gender should be able to twist what were contractual promises made when the "union" was entered after the fact. Further, it is (and has been) my position that for those who wish the "security" of state enforcement of their "family rights", that they should be able to secure same via a formal civil instittuion. Such an institution must involve a clear means of advice and consent of the parties, recorded at the time the agreement is made, covering all areas of potential dispute, and that the courts role should be limited to enforcing those agreements. Note that this protection should be available for ANY adult family configuration that is legal under state law. The state has no busienss being involved in marriage whatsoever. Marriage is a religious institution - period. The States got involved in it around the time of reconstruction AS A MEANS OF ENFORCING RACISM! Prior to that time, you posted your banns on the door of the church - the state had nothing to say about your marriage, as there was no "licensing" and no court in which to plead for a divorce. You wanted out, you went and talked to the priest - not the judge. These laws were passed to prevent "miscogenation" - the marriage between white and black people. THAT IS A FACT HARRY. THAT is what you support Harry? Laws that were passed to encourage and ratify racism as an American Institution? That's an outrage, but here you are supporting it. Not that this surprises me, since the Democrats are the party of Senator KKK Byrd! If not, then get marriage out of the state's hands. If the state wishes to confer protection of one's family rights and obligations, then each couple must be able to form a contract between the two of them, file same with their "partnership license", and expect that whether a need for enforcement comes a month or 20 years later, that is what will be enforced. The only persons who should have the ability to change that agreement are the two individuals who entered into it in the first place. Of course you can continue to support institutionalized racism and sexism Harry..... Funny how the "democrats" and "liberals" aren't REALLY for equality under the law. Gore wasn't, it appears Kerry isn't and you sure as hell aren't. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
|
"Karl Denninger" wrote in message news:NE6id.74528$bk1.32332@fed1read05... In article , Harry Krause wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: Looks like the dumfoch got himself a four-year term to further destroy what was once a great country. Won fair and square Harry.... despite stuffing the tabulators in Ohio, it wasn't enough - and Florida was won DECISIVELY. Karl...I wouldn't take your word on change from a dollar. Oh c'mon Harry. The sKerry whine machine is out in full force this morning. He's down 135,000 votes, there are only 135,000 provisional ballots in Ohio, and he's still not conceding. Give me a break. KERRY LOST! Even assuming the provisions break 2:1 for him (unlikely), he STILL loses. He'd had to win EVERY provisional and EVERY absentee to win - it ain't gonna happen. As I said, Karl, I wouldn't take your word on change from a dollar. That has nothing to do with Kerry's loss. No grace in defeat eh Harry? Let's be honest here, shall we? It has to do with my belief that while you are a bright guy, you are slime. My reasons for feeling that way are known to you and have nothing to do with your political party of choice, although that is a symptom of your problem. Yeah, yeah. Can't respond to the points on the table, so you launch personal attacks. What else is new? -- Karl...I am not denying that Bush won the most divisive election in modern history. I think the fix was in, and that helped Bush, but he still won. Oh please. Sore loserman still whines. Bush won fair and square, and is the first President in a looong time to have a majority of the popular vote as well as the electoral. But Bush's victory has nothing to do with my distaste for you. And my distaste for you goes back many, many years, before the 2000 election even, and has nothing to do with presidential politics. You and I both know what it has to do with, eh? Tell me, Karl, are you still helping husbands who want to dump their wives and kids minimize their spousal support and child support payments? Tell me Harry, are you still helping women who want to play gold-digger, steal their family's children and hold them hostage, alienate them from one half of their heritage (genetic, family and otherwise), use them as weapons in their adult battles, and take out "restraining orders" based on false and perjurous statements - and get away with it? That issue cuts both ways, you see. My position has been consistently - since long before the 2000 elections - that NEITHER gender should be able to to do that. That NEITHER gender should be able to steal children and use them as weapons. That NEITHER gender should be able to twist what were contractual promises made when the "union" was entered after the fact. Further, it is (and has been) my position that for those who wish the "security" of state enforcement of their "family rights", that they should be able to secure same via a formal civil instittuion. Such an institution must involve a clear means of advice and consent of the parties, recorded at the time the agreement is made, covering all areas of potential dispute, and that the courts role should be limited to enforcing those agreements. Note that this protection should be available for ANY adult family configuration that is legal under state law. The state has no busienss being involved in marriage whatsoever. Marriage is a religious institution - period. The States got involved in it around the time of reconstruction AS A MEANS OF ENFORCING RACISM! Prior to that time, you posted your banns on the door of the church - the state had nothing to say about your marriage, as there was no "licensing" and no court in which to plead for a divorce. You wanted out, you went and talked to the priest - not the judge. These laws were passed to prevent "miscogenation" - the marriage between white and black people. THAT IS A FACT HARRY. THAT is what you support Harry? Laws that were passed to encourage and ratify racism as an American Institution? That's an outrage, but here you are supporting it. Not that this surprises me, since the Democrats are the party of Senator KKK Byrd! If not, then get marriage out of the state's hands. If the state wishes to confer protection of one's family rights and obligations, then each couple must be able to form a contract between the two of them, file same with their "partnership license", and expect that whether a need for enforcement comes a month or 20 years later, that is what will be enforced. The only persons who should have the ability to change that agreement are the two individuals who entered into it in the first place. Of course you can continue to support institutionalized racism and sexism Harry..... Funny how the "democrats" and "liberals" aren't REALLY for equality under the law. Gore wasn't, it appears Kerry isn't and you sure as hell aren't. -- -- The fix: 1. Dan Rather reporting false information against Bush. 2. The press reporting a Kerry sweep based on their exit polls....clearly an attempt to sway the election. 3. All the polling companies reporting a 50%-50% election....then at the last minute reporting a 48%-52% Bush win, coincidentally almost exactly what the final results are Knowing their final numbers are the ones that go into the books, they knew the finally had to report actual results rather than trying to sway the election. 4. 30 vehicles in Wisconsin had their tires slashed on election eve. The vehicles were to be used to deliver voters to the polls by the local Republican group. I can go on and on....and clearly the *fix* was one the Dems were planning. |
|
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:30:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: In article , Harry Krause wrote: Looks like the dumfoch got himself a four-year term to further destroy what was once a great country. Won fair and square Harry.... despite stuffing the tabulators in Ohio, it wasn't enough - and Florida was won DECISIVELY. Karl...I wouldn't take your word on change from a dollar. Oh c'mon Harry. The sKerry whine machine is out in full force this morning. He's down 135,000 votes, there are only 135,000 provisional ballots in Ohio, and he's still not conceding. Give me a break. KERRY LOST! Even assuming the provisions break 2:1 for him (unlikely), he STILL loses. He'd had to win EVERY provisional and EVERY absentee to win - it ain't gonna happen. As I said, Karl, I wouldn't take your word on change from a dollar. That has nothing to do with Kerry's loss. No grace in defeat eh Harry? Let's be honest here, shall we? It has to do with my belief that while you are a bright guy, you are slime. My reasons for feeling that way are known to you and have nothing to do with your political party of choice, although that is a symptom of your problem. Yeah, yeah. Can't respond to the points on the table, so you launch personal attacks. What else is new? -- Karl...I am not denying that Bush won the most divisive election in modern history. I think the fix was in, and that helped Bush, but he still won. But Bush's victory has nothing to do with my distaste for you. And my distaste for you goes back many, many years, before the 2000 election even, and has nothing to do with presidential politics. You and I both know what it has to do with, eh? Tell me, Karl, are you still helping husbands who want to dump their wives and kids minimize their spousal support and child support payments? Considering the bias the courts seem to show toward men, we need to utilize as many legal resources that we can get. Do you think it's fair that an X-wife can claim a chunk of projected unearned income as well as a portion of 401K and pension retirement benefits? Of course this varies from state to state but, the way it should be is a simple 50-50 split of both current assets AND liabilities. Once the divorce is final, there should be no further claims made. If the husband gets a job 3 years later, which doubles his salary, that's too bad. Anyone who shirks their responsibility to provide child support is a scumbag. But there is nothing wrong with trying to legally minimize the liability. I've known a few guys who had gone through painful divorces and after alimony and child support, what's left of their paycheck cannot even qualify them for a mortgage on a mobile home. Meanwhile the x-wife is free to latch on to another wage earner, and continue the good life. Is that fair? Dave |
"Clams Canino" wrote in message nk.net...
Why are the GOP red and the DNC blue anyway??? Any history on this? And if so... I wanna see the Dem's in blue ties and the Rep's in red ties. Enough issues to confuse, without using counterfeit ties. :) Blue: Calm and Cool : Blue is calming. It can be strong and steadfast or light and friendly. Almost everyone likes some shade of blue. Nature of Blue: A natural color, from the blue of the sky, blue is a universal color. The cool, calming effect of blue makes time pass more quickly and it can help you sleep. Blue is a good color for bedrooms. However, too much blue could dampen spirits. Culture of Blue: In many diverse cultures blue is significant in religious beliefs, brings peace, or is believed to keep the bad spirits away. Red: Love and War: Red is hot. It's a strong color that conjures up a range of seemingly conflicting emotions from passionate love to violence and warfare. Red is Cupid and the Devil. Nature of Red: A stimulant, red is the hottest of the warm colors. Studies show that red can have a physical effect, increasing the rate of respiration and raising blood pressure. The expression seeing red indicates anger and may stem not only from the stimulus of the color but from the natural flush (redness) of the cheeks, a physical reaction to anger, increased blood pressure, or physical exertion. Culture of Red: Red is power, hence the red power tie for business people and the red carpet for celebrities and VIPs (very important people). Flashing red lights denote danger or emergency. Stop signs and stop lights are red to get the drivers' attention and alert them to the dangers of the intersection. Pretty much sums it up! |
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:21:58 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote: On 02 Nov 2004 21:41:50 GMT, unity (F330 GT) wrote: Tradesports Interactive now shows Bush pres @ 38, Kerry pres @ 62.4 a change of 15 points in the last few hours. Bush winning popular vote @ 25.1. Kerry wins popular vote @ 54.6. Follow the money.... The bettors know........ Nothing! Reality paints a much different picture the day after.... Think Washington Redskins. :) Pigs are really flying!!!! Later, Tom "Beware the one legged man in a butt kicking contest - he is there for a reason." Wun Hung Lo - date unknown |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 10:21:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: On 02 Nov 2004 21:41:50 GMT, unity (F330 GT) wrote: Tradesports Interactive now shows Bush pres @ 38, Kerry pres @ 62.4 a change of 15 points in the last few hours. Bush winning popular vote @ 25.1. Kerry wins popular vote @ 54.6. Follow the money.... The bettors know........ Nothing! Reality paints a much different picture the day after.... Think Washington Redskins. :) Or the Red Sox!? |
In article , Harry Krause wrote: Karl Denninger wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Karl...I am not denying that Bush won the most divisive election in modern history. I think the fix was in, and that helped Bush, but he still won. Oh please. Sore loserman still whines. Bush won fair and square, and is the first President in a looong time to have a majority of the popular vote as well as the electoral. Tell me Harry, are you still helping women who want to play gold-digger, steal their family's children and hold them hostage, alienate them from one half of their heritage (genetic, family and otherwise), use them as weapons in their adult battles, and take out "restraining orders" based on false and perjurous statements - and get away with it? Ahhhh... So, after you got your $11 million, or whatever it was, how much did you settle on your ex-wife? Oh, wait...didn't you have your ex-wife arrested and then use your wealth to pursue and win a custody fight with her? I don't recall all the details that were posted on usenet... You might want to try getting some facts before pontificating out your butt. Most of what is posted on Usenet is vitriol (you're a perfect example) and simply wrong. I have chosen NOT to drag those who have been involved in my personal life through the mud in public, despite people's attempts to bait me into doing it. I have a bit more class than that, even though were the truth to be put forth I think I'd look pretty damn good in the full light of day. That doesn't change the fact that dragging other people through the mud for fun isn't my style, its morally bankrupt, ethically corrupt and not the way I've ever lived. So, to the extent that you wish to try to make a personal issue out of this you're going to fail, because there is no way for me to give full air to the facts without doing that - and that is unfair to my kid and "not nice" to those who I have had in my life. Unlike you, Harry, there are very few people I hate that that I've been around, and hating your offspring (who are half their other parent) is pretty damn stupid. You can play that game with your ex(es) if you wish. I refuse. My position has been consistently - since long before the 2000 elections - that NEITHER gender should be able to to do that. That NEITHER gender should be able to steal children and use them as weapons. That NEITHER gender should be able to twist what were contractual promises made when the "union" was entered after the fact. Sounds like the making of a good country and western ballad... How about sounding like good public policy? The state has no busienss being involved in marriage whatsoever. Marriage is a religious institution - period. The States got involved in it around the time of reconstruction AS A MEANS OF ENFORCING RACISM! Prior to that time, you posted your banns on the door of the church - the state had nothing to say about your marriage, as there was no "licensing" and no court in which to plead for a divorce. You wanted out, you went and talked to the priest - not the judge. These laws were passed to prevent "miscogenation" - the marriage between white and black people. THAT IS A FACT HARRY. Your claim that the state wasn't involved in marriage until Reconstruction is bull****. ..... The *state* has been involved in marriage since the time of Rome, when wealthy Romans would sign civil documents outlining property agreements and announcing the "legalization" of their marriage, so as to differentiate it from what was that period's equivalent of a common-law marriage. This is when the civil recording of marriage began. Yes, in Rome the Pagans did this because they didn't want to register anything with the Church nor be under its rules. Sounds like my plan, doesn't it? Draw a civil contract between two parties, call it a "civil union" if you want, file it, and limit the courts to adjudicating what's written in there. Of course that would make people actually THINK before they take out such contracts, consider between themselves as a couple what is important to them, etc. This is bad..... how? Civil marriages evolved in "the Colonies" mainly because there were many colonists who wanted to throw off the religious customs of the Old World and have a civil, not a religious, ceremony. They were available before Reconstruction. Civil marriages were ALWAYS about protecting BOTH parties from each other's malfeasance. That is, they were up until the 70s. Your claim that the state got involved in marriage simply to prevent marital mixing of the races is false. The state was involved before the Civil War. Some states certainly acted as you claimed after that War to try to prevent mixed marriages. It was only recently that Virginia laws on that subject were tossed. But you grossly overstate your claim...as you do most of your claims. Not in the least. The power of the state to INTRUDE into marriage came about with anti-miscegenation laws. Indeed, that's where the "requirement" to go get a marriage "license" came from, and the "blood test" requirements for years was simply cover for forcing you to actually show up in person where they could see if one of you was of the "wrong" color. Oh sure, the claim was that it was a matter of public health, but that's bull****. Indeed, when they tried this crap with HIV testing for marriage applicants they couldn't find the positive tests in a statistical sea of negatives. Why? Well duh! How often do you think HIV-positive-risk individuals want to go get a marriage license? Especially when one of the big risk groups - gay men - can't get married under the law. THAT is what you support Harry? Laws that were passed to encourage and ratify racism as an American Institution? Blow it out your ass, Karl. There were no racial questions on either of my marriage licenses. Irrelavent. The history of the law which you acceded to was all about racial division. That's the truth, and no amount of liberal spin changes it. If not, then get marriage out of the state's hands. If the state wishes to confer protection of one's family rights and obligations, then each couple must be able to form a contract between the two of them, file same with their "partnership license", and expect that whether a need for enforcement comes a month or 20 years later, that is what will be enforced. Is this what you do when you want to get laid, Karl? Insist that the woman first fill out a contract? I ain't had any of those kinds problems Harry, and I get all I want and then some. Life is good. PS: You might try upgrading your choice in women if you think that such a factor would ever become a sticking point. Any woman worth marrying, IMHO, does and would insist on finding some way to implement what I've proposed as a matter of public policy. She'd be at least as interested in it as any man worth marrying would. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
In article , Harry Krause wrote: We all know of a few guys who seemingly have been screwed as a result of support assignments. But there are thousands of times as many fathers who just ignore even modest child support requirements. I haven't looked at Karl's anti-support web pages for years, but he used to advocate that even a really wealthy dad should not have to contribute more than a token amount to his child's support. The position I have had has not changed. Harry, as usual, is lying. My position is that no judge has a right to destroy the relationship between a child and parent, nor to substitute money for that relationship as a matter of judicial force. A judge may make that substitution only if a parent is either unwilling to take said responsibility personally (e.g. abandonment) or is unfit to discharge that responsibility personally. Therefore, unless one of the parents is unfit(*), both parents have a joint and several responsibility to provide for the child(ren) directly, through time in their home(s), without transfer payment(s) for same, and if they are unable to work out some agreement on this on their own then the authority of the court shall be limited to ordering a 50/50 custodial split and such restrictions on residential location to make this possible (e.g. both parents must remain in the same shcool district). If either parent violates these provisions, then they lose their presumption of joint custody and are ordered to pay support and all costs of implementing their time with the kid(s) - irrespective of which parent that might be. To those who say that it is "unfair" that either parent should bear half the cost of raising the kid(s) directly, I point out that such a responsibility already exists when one creates children (irrespective of which gender one might be) and as such this position represents no net change. To those who say that it is "unfair" to force someone to not move out of a given district, I point out that the same restriction existed before you filed for divorce - you certainly would not move without your (happily-married) spouse absent their agreement. To those who say this is "overly rigid", I point out that none of the proposals that I have put forth prevent two parents from privately negotiating ANY agreement that they wish for the care and raising of their children in the event of divorce - they only present a default judgement if the parties are unwilling or unable to agree. As such the only person who runs up against the "rigidity" of the law is the one who is unwilling to be reasonable on their own. BTW, none of this has anything to do with spousal support. Those who have made a decision that one partner will stay at home for the purpose of raising children and take themselves out of the job market (irrespective of which gender chooses to do this) have every right to make a private agreement within their civil union (which can already be done) providing for compensation for that choice - since it is made in joint, inures to the benefit of both, and is indeed a sacrifice. The current "alimony" laws are a reasonable default arrangement if no such agreement has been made and I've not argued otherwise. All of this is indeed on the web pages Harry references - and none of the positions there have changed. As usual, Harry, is lying about the positions that have been taken. (*) Unfit is defined as a conviction in a criminal court by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt of some offense that bears on the ability to reasonably raise a child in a productive and safe environment, or willful and intentional abandomment of the children. Domestic violence, serious drug abuse, kidnapping, child abuse and other similar offenses are disqualifiers, but must be proven either by a guilty plea or conviction by a jury to count. Mere allegations are not enough - just as they're not enough to remove any of the other rights you have as a citizen. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com