Post: #76

I expect Obama will legalize millions of illegal immigrants. Either with the bi-partisan bill that is being kicked around in congress as we speak or through expansion of his executive order to include more eligible classes of illegal immigrants.

Post: #77

(11-09-2012 08:53 AM)Roosh Wrote:  What do you hope he will accomplish in the next four years that he hasn't in the past four?

Smarten up. Divorce Patrick Ewing and tap into some of that SWF groupie action.

Post: #78

If this is true, then I'm really happy Romney didn't win. The last thing we need as a President is a conman and a crook.

(and it speaks a lot about his ability to get the country out of financial collapse too)

Post: #79

(11-16-2012 10:47 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  If this is true, then I'm really happy Romney didn't win. The last thing we need as a President is a conman and a crook.

(and it speaks a lot about his ability to get the country out of financial collapse too)

Ironically the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, was a convicted conman before he ever started the religion. That said, most Mormons seem like pretty naive benevolent people. It is like when I traveled through Wyoming, which went 70% Bush Cheney. They were amazingly nice and helpful. These people are so naive they BELIEVE guys like Bush/Cheney/Romney.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon391.html

Also, I believe George W Bush pretty obviously engaged in unethical practices at Harken energy

http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/11/news/bush_loan/

No one filed charges about it. Maybe he had connections, like a ex-president father.

John Edwards was realy right about one thing, there's "Two Americas".

EDIT: Make that three Americas: The Rich, You and Me, and the Loonies. Apparently Joesph Smith was a sophisticated practitioner of Game, as he would describe a message from God authorizing the marriage when he wanted a new girl.

The Joseph Smith story would be deemed implausible if sold as fiction. ( See article cited above)

Post: #80

oldnemesis Wrote:This seem to be a typical manosphere whining. In fact most people I've met who complain about the child support being inflated didn't have any kids, and have no idea how much the things like daycare cost. Just wonder if your "small level of reasonable child support" includes such things as:

- An larger (extra room) apartment/house in a better school district (this could be HUGE);
- Daycare/afterschool if the parent works full time;
- Extra classes (swimming, soccer, whatever else);
- Extra health insurance + copays (could easily add up to $200 a month here in California);

Obviously our opinions are going to differ here, due to different living arrangements and countries, so take this with a grain of salt. I just don't see how an extra room, a better neighborhood or extra classes are a necessity. They're luxuries. I grew up without any of that - ok, correction, I did get my own room when I was 14, and I did have additional English classes for 5 years (costing 40$ a month) - and have never felt slighted in any way. Sure, they're all nice, but necessary? No.

Daycare is a legitimate need - self-imposed by the separation, true, but still legitimate. The health insurance is the most significant difference, as health insurance is free for children and supported family members in Croatia, and the one who supports them gets tax breaks too. It really depends on the country.

Here is what I think the purpose of child support should be: cover 50% of the basic, necessary costs of raising a child (food, proportional extra household bills such as electricity, water, heating, mandatory education (inc. daycare for a very young child), health insurance (if any)). This is to ensure that children are not deprived from their basic needs because one of their parents is not present. It is a reasonable requirement that every parent should get no matter what happened or what were the circumstances of divorce.

In Croatia, 50% of the cost of these basic needs works out to about 150$ a month (I'm being fairly generous here - 150$/month is more than 50% of what I spend on food, electricity, water, heating, transport and health as an adult living alone). The minimum child support amount (as defined in law) is set to no less than 17% of average monthly wage, which also works out to 150$. That's fair, but you have to keep in mind that the average amount awarded is significantly higher than that minimum, and never less. I don't know about the exact amounts for California - naturally, they'll be at about triple of that, in proportion to American wages), but remember that the issue is not the total amount of basic costs here, it's the proportion of basic costs covered.

The question is: why should the mother (the other parent, technically, but we know how often that happens) have someone else cover more than 50% of basic costs of the child? She is expected work to support herself and cover 50% of the basic child costs just as well as the father - and if not, she is getting either some kind of social security or disability support to make up for the difference, as would any disabled or poor person.

If providing your child with more than the basics it requires is more important to you, shouldn't you think about it before divorcing? Why would it be the responsibility of the parent who does not have custody of the child - or anyone else? If it is expected that fathers pay for 100% of costs of the child, then they should also be getting custody by default.

Quote:Yeah, I've heard that before, so what I gonna ask you is this: if you believe this is the problem, how do you realistically propose to fix it?

- Institute mandatory DNA paternity testing.
- Eliminate or make significantly more difficult no-fault divorce.
- Eliminate alimony.
- Set upper limits for child support. No "accustomed to former lifestyle" bullshit.
- Return single-mother and slut shaming (i.e. perception as a failure) to national culture. Cut funding for groups working to eliminate said shaming.
- Educate girls with realistic information about their biological roles and responsibilities rather than "follow your heart".

You can't ask those measures to solve everything. That seems almost impossible, as the problem might have already ballooned out of proportion. But it would be a start compared to what we have now (i.e. either nothing at all or encouragement of the problem), wouldn't it?

Quote:So you were talking about single motherhood and not about children born out of wedlock. Those two things are not related to each other in any way, as single motherhood may (and often does) follow the children born in the marriage.

Yes, it's true that we can't accurately pinpoint the primary source of single mothers, as it is blurred by out of wedlock births including so many different things. However, I'm still asking you to explain why it makes a significant difference whether she had children out of wedlock (without a stable partner), had children out of wedlock with a partner who left her/she dumped later, or had children while married and then divorced. The outcome is always the same: single mother.

Post: #81

More of this..

Post: #82

(11-17-2012 04:32 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Obviously our opinions are going to differ here, due to different living arrangements and countries, so take this with a grain of salt. I just don't see how an extra room, a better neighborhood or extra classes are a necessity. They're luxuries. I grew up without any of that - ok, correction, I did get my own room when I was 14, and I did have additional English classes for 5 years (costing 40$ a month) - and have never felt slighted in any way. Sure, they're all nice, but necessary? No. Daycare is a legitimate need - self-imposed by the separation, true, but still legitimate. The health insurance is the most significant difference, as health insurance is free for children and supported family members in Croatia, and the one who supports them gets tax breaks too. It really depends on the country.

As I said, it depends. Some localities have the laws which basically require you to have a separate room for an other gender kid over specific age (i.e. a 14yo son cannot share a room with a mother). After school classes are necessary because the school here in US ends too early (like 2:30pm) to pick up the kid. Better area may be necessary if you care for the safety of your kid. Health insurance generally isn't free in the US if you make money above poverty line.

There are other things. There are clothes, school supplies, furniture. There are sick days when a parent has to skip work because the kid is sick and can't go to school. And so on.

Quote:In Croatia, 50% of the cost of these basic needs works out to about 150$ a month (I'm being fairly generous here - 150$/month is more than 50% of what I spend on food, electricity, water, heating, transport and health as an adult living alone).

In US it is far, far more than that. To start, a reasonable daycare here in Bay Area costs at least $800/mo.

Quote:The question is: why should the mother (the other parent, technically, but we know how often that happens) have someone else cover more than 50% of basic costs of the child? She is expected work to support herself and cover 50% of the basic child costs just as well as the father - and if not, she is getting either some kind of social security or disability support to make up for the difference, as would any disabled or poor person.

I can tell you why it happens here in the US. Vast majority, if not all of the guys who claim to be "screwed by the system" are so-called "traditional men" who insisted their wives should stay at home and do not work. So she can't start working right away and earn as much as she could if she was working before, and since it was her husband's decision to keep it like that, he is paying for that.

Quote:If providing your child with more than the basics it requires is more important to you, shouldn't you think about it before divorcing?

Everyone's situation is unique, but people with kids rarely take divorce easily. This is usually the last resort option when it is clear nothing can be fixed, and they cannot live together.

Quote:1 Institute mandatory DNA paternity testing.
2 Eliminate or make significantly more difficult no-fault divorce.
3 Eliminate alimony.
4 Set upper limits for child support. No "accustomed to former lifestyle" bullshit.
5 Return single-mother and slut shaming (i.e. perception as a failure) to national culture. Cut funding for groups working to eliminate said shaming.
6 Educate girls with realistic information about their biological roles and responsibilities rather than "follow your heart".

1. Useless. I don't get at all why should it be mandatory. I have several kids and I have no intention to run any DNA tests. If a dude married a girl who he doesn't trust enough to bear his kids, then why he married her? He is an idiot, and I'm not willing to pay for his idiocy through my taxes (as those tests ain't cheap).

2. This is a typical manosphere argument which is both useless and impossible. This ain't going to happen ever, and even if it did within the whole US (which is impossible), it would still be useless when you can take a flight to Mexico and get a divorce there.

3. Impossible (I assume you're again talking about child support; if you talk about alimony it is rarely awarded nowadays if both parents work). The civilized society isn't going to let the kid starve to death just because one of kid's parents doesn't like another one and doesn't want to provide for the kid. This means the kid is going to get support from the state, i.e. my taxes. I'd rather force his parents to pay for him.

4. This is reasonable, but my state already has an upper limit. If your state doesn't, talk to your legislators.

5 and 6. Another useless and impossible thing. You cannot change the culture, it is self-developing thing and everyone who tried to do so failed. Not to mention I'm against slut shaming - it makes it easy to fuck them. And which groups are you talking about, and how much government funds (i.e. those you can cut) they receive?

Quote:You can't ask those measures to solve everything. That seems almost impossible, as the problem might have already ballooned out of proportion. But it would be a start compared to what we have now (i.e. either nothing at all or encouragement of the problem), wouldn't it?

Well, if this is what you propose, then I have bad news for you - your case is doomed, and you can forget about changing anything ever since none of your solutions are going to be implemented, or even achieve anything if they are.

Quote:Yes, it's true that we can't accurately pinpoint the primary source of single mothers, as it is blurred by out of wedlock births including so many different things. However, I'm still asking you to explain why it makes a significant difference whether she had children out of wedlock (without a stable partner), had children out of wedlock with a partner who left her/she dumped later, or had children while married and then divorced. The outcome is always the same: single mother.

It makes difference because you somehow assume the children born out of wedlock are without a stable partner, and going to be raised by a single mother. This is a pure speculation from you which is not supported by the data you're referring to. The data simply talks about the birth out of wedlock, which may mean that the people will get married later, or not married at all but still raise the kids together. Linking out of wedlock births and single motherhood is a Dalrock type sleazy argument, which only works when you have the audience which is not really educated and takes whatever propaganda which fulfills their beliefs.

Post: #83

Ok, I give up on child support. When you add all those miscellaneous expenses (I'm just warning it's a very slippery slope), it can't be proved that any amount of child support is too high. In fact, if the information on this website is true and the average monthly payment in the USA is $430/mo, it turns out that child support should be at least doubled!

My problem with your post is not that you don't have good arguments about things that can't be conclusively proved yet, it's that from reading it, one would think that there were no problems whatsoever. Are Dalrock and the rest of manosphere writers simply inventing problems to have something to write about?

Quote:The data simply talks about the birth out of wedlock, which may mean that the people will get married later, or not married at all but still raise the kids together.

But how do you know that they'll do? Is there any data indicating that this is the fate of most unmarried couples, as opposed to eventual separation? If it does, how does it coexist with the fact that 73% of pregnancies out of wedlock are "unintentional", compared to 44% overall?



Are there enough divorces in the USA for account for such a big difference as seen here (note that the category "two parents" already includes unmarried partners and remarriages)?

p.s.

Quote:(I assume you're again talking about child support; if you talk about alimony it is rarely awarded nowadays if both parents work)

Nope, I meant alimony as alimony. I agree with you on that for child support, as I've already mentioned.

Post: #84

(11-18-2012 06:48 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Ok, I give up on child support. When you add all those miscellaneous expenses (I'm just warning it's a very slippery slope), it can't be proved that any amount of child support is too high. In fact, if the information on this website is true and the average monthly payment in the USA is $430/mo, it turns out that child support should be at least doubled!

My point was to disprove your statement that "child support often has alimony stealthily rolled into it". It seem to be common within the manosphere, but very few people there actually have kids and know how much it really costs to raise them.

Quote:My problem with your post is not that you don't have good arguments about things that can't be conclusively proved yet, it's that from reading it, one would think that there were no problems whatsoever. Are Dalrock and the rest of manosphere writers simply inventing problems to have something to write about?

Yep, this is true in the vast majority of the cases. I have said it before, and I will repeat it again that a lot of manosphere writing looks like whining about "good old times", and it seems like the majority of those writers just want to bring us back to the 1950s. Those people are delusional. It doesn't matter how good it was back there, the society has changed (not just in the US, but also around the world), and it isn't coming back. Wanting to get rid of no-fault divorce or child support is like wanting everyone to stop driving/flying and get back to riding horses because you really like horses or want to save your horse business. This doesn't work, most people just won't take you seriously. This is why the manosphere turned into the Scientology-like cult with its own mantras and witch hunting, but which is politically worthless and not capable of doing any changes. Even when you ask about the things they want to change, they often come with a list like yours which is either impossible to achieve at all, or even if implemented will not achieve anything.

To give you an idea, the "repeal-no-fault-divorce" is one of typical examples of ignorance. It is typically "supported" by the graphs shown the increase of the divorce rate, and linking it to the introduction of no-fault divorce country-wide. However they don't mention at all that those times (70s) the society went through several significant changes, and one of them was that women started working, and making the reasonable wage.

Quote:But how do you know that they'll do? Is there any data indicating that this is the fate of most unmarried couples, as opposed to eventual separation?

I don't know, but I don't imply any correlation either, while you do even though you don't have the data.

Quote:If it does, how does it coexist with the fact that 73% of pregnancies out of wedlock are "unintentional", compared to 44% overall?

What does this fact prove? "Out of wedlock" may include drunken one night stands as well as people living together as a family, who can't get married only because of the state law.

Please explain what you mean by posting the graph or some statistics, as otherwise it makes no sense in the context we discuss.

Quote:Are there enough divorces in the USA for account for such a big difference as seen here (note that the category "two parents" already includes unmarried partners and remarriages)?

I don't know. If you have the data which answers the question, post the data. Instead you're posting some irrelevant or incomplete info and start speculating around it the Dalrock way.

Quote:Nope, I meant alimony as alimony. I agree with you on that for child support, as I've already mentioned.

Alimony is very rare thing nowadays if you marry equal.

Post: #85

(11-09-2012 08:53 AM)Roosh Wrote:  What do you hope he will accomplish in the next four years that he hasn't in the past four?

I'd hope for real healthcare reform, a slow return of manufacturing/construction/something resembling a job market, defense spending being streamlined and (one can hope) made more oriented towards providing jobs, not just defense. Even tougher measures on China. I do hope he'll be forced to take a less-pro-immigration stance and I hope (and predict) he'll coddle female voters less now that his position is secure, as those are my two big things I don't agree with him policy-wise on. I hope he tries to follow in Clinton's footsteps and style.

In a unilateral, bi-partisan, purely factual way, Obama's got generally good ideas--domestic industry should be cultivated, we should give incentive to not offshore, be tough on China, not coddle the ultra-rich, and should worry about our healthcare and future. The reps and dems do seem to agree on most of those general points as a whole. He's proven himself to be smarter and more centrist than he looks. I'm cautiously optimistic.

On child support:
It's too goddamn much even now. I grew up to a single mom with two kids, who ended up marrying a man with two kids. Both of them had fairly mediocre jobs and my father left my mum with a lot of debt. My father has paid a grand total of one month of child support since I was two, and I actually respect him for it. I was mad as a teen, but as a man, I understand and can respect him. We made due as it was, and I remember that time much more happily than later, when the parents had 150k+ govt jobs and constnatly bitched about money.
While yes I'll get raged at for saying I have sympathy for single mothers, and I don't think that most of them use child support for themselves, 10% of a man's income should be more than enough. They get the kid, and with that gift comes the responsibility to take care of it. That means financially too!

Post: #86

Oldnemesis Wrote:What does this fact prove? "Out of wedlock" may include drunken one night stands as well as people living together as a family, who can't get married only because of the state law.

Please explain what you mean by posting the graph or some statistics, as otherwise it makes no sense in the context we discuss.

Of course. Here is my logic:

- Divorce results in a single mother in X% of cases. I don't know off the bat how much X is, but it could be precisely calculated by taking the number of divorced marriages that had children in it, factored by 0.80 (say that 80% of times the woman gets the kids).
- Having children out of wedlock also results in a single mother in Y% of cases. Given that people who are not married are even less likely to stay together for life than married couples (let's assume the same distribution of child custody as before), it follows from this assumption that the Z number of breakups with children out of wedlock would result in at least the same number of single mothers as would the same Z number of divorces.
- You might ask why are people who are not married less likely to stay together - flimsy as today's marriage contract is - it's still some kind of barrier to leaving and an incentive to resolve problems first. Isn't it logical that people who have barriers to leaving each other are less likely to do so?

Maybe I'm wrong and couples with children out of wedlock are more responsible / mature / stable, and thus stay together (or marry and don't divorce) at higher rates than couples who first marry. This makes them the exemplars of society. But what are the odds of that happening?

You're saying it can't be proven what the odds are. I agree. But what is the likelihood of such couples being more mature and stable in the long run (i.e. not resulting in single parenthood) as opposed to married couples, given the factors that we know? Even if you can't conclusively say what the number is, there are the odds of the number being low or high based on other factors. I'd say that it's about 10%, but from your post I'd assume at least 75% (the chance of couples with out of wedlock children being more stable than married couples with children).

Alternative phrasing of question: what are the odds that more than half of the rise in single motherhood (seen in the graph) is caused by divorces with children, as opposed to children out of wedlock?

However, this discussion has already become moot by the fact that sluts are positive for society, that child support payments can't be proven to be too high, and that alimony is always just and deserved. In that case, it becomes irrelevant what the divorce rate or other facts are. Problem solved.

Post: #87

(11-19-2012 02:57 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  - Divorce results in a single mother in X% of cases. I don't know off the bat how much X is, but it could be precisely calculated by taking the number of divorced marriages that had children in it, factored by 0.80 (say that 80% of times the woman gets the kids).

Every study I'm familiar with analyzed kids growing with two parents vs kids growing with one parent. I don't see how single fatherhood is different from single motherhood for the kid. So you can say divorce results in a single parent in roughly 85% of cases (the rest remarry)

Quote:- You might ask why are people who are not married less likely to stay together - flimsy as today's marriage contract is - it's still some kind of barrier to leaving and an incentive to resolve problems first. Isn't it logical that people who have barriers to leaving each other are less likely to do so?

This may be true for the childless people. But for those who have a kid, the kid itself represents a significantly higher barrier to split apart than any marriage contract you can imagine.

Quote:You're saying it can't be proven what the odds are. I agree. But what is the likelihood of such couples being more mature and stable in the long run (i.e. not resulting in single parenthood) as opposed to married couples, given the factors that we know?

This is actually a good indicator where the problems in the manosphere are. Instead of conducting a real research so you know what the odds are, you guys speculate based on assumptions and beliefs. And this is a problem because to implement whatever you want you have to convince the people who do not share your beliefs. Therefore you need the facts - and you don't have them.

Quote:Alternative phrasing of question: what are the odds that more than half of the rise in single motherhood (seen in the graph) is caused by divorces with children, as opposed to children out of wedlock?

It doesn't matter what you and me think the odds are, because we don't know the facts. What do you think were the odds the early people believed the Earth was flat? Close to 100%. But was it flat?

Quote:However, this discussion has already become moot by the fact that sluts are positive for society, that child support payments can't be proven to be too high, and that alimony is always just and deserved. In that case, it becomes irrelevant what the divorce rate or other facts are. Problem solved.

This is correct.

I don't think "slut shaming" solves anything and, being selfish, I'm against it as it serves my interests. Not to mention nobody so far even tried to explain what it is going to achieve, not even talking about HOW they are going to achieve it.

Most if not all the people in the manosphere who scream about child support payments being too high never raised the kid themselves and have no idea what the real costs are, so their opinion on that matter is worthless.

Nowadays alimony is so rare that you shouldn't even worry about it unless you're a "traditional man" who insists the wife should stay at home. If you are - it is a major financial decision, and you should carefully consider the risks which come with it. There's no free lunch, you cannot make decisions without accepting the responsibility for them.

Post: #88

Oldnemesis Wrote:This is actually a good indicator where the problems in the manosphere are. Instead of conducting a real research so you know what the odds are, you guys speculate based on assumptions and beliefs. And this is a problem because to implement whatever you want you have to convince the people who do not share your beliefs. Therefore you need the facts - and you don't have them.

See, that makes sense. But are laws about these matters based on the same, completely proven facts? For example, do you think that whomever wrote up VAWA applied the same rigorous standards as you did and said "Oh gee, I can't prove beyond doubt that all men are violent abusers who need to be locked up if anyone accuses them, so it would be unfair to claim such a thing (given the inevitable number of innocent victims that would result)"? Of course not. Or did someone who wrote up child support laws without an upper limit do research that showed beyond doubt that children would be harmed if the law included a cap on maximum child support or spousal support? Again, most certainly not.

You are putting the "proven beyond reasonable doubt" responsibility on the manosphere, but not on those who create the laws opposed by the manosphere.

Anyways, other than agreeing with your sentiment to be very careful with decisions, I have nothing else to say here.

Post: #89

We don't really care what Obama does. We don't even really follow politics. We just wanted him to get re-elected to piss off all the republicans. We don't even know how his policies effect our lives.

We are actually more into the NFL right now. Our females are back into the next installment of "50 shades of grey", 30 Rock", and "Honey Boo Boo". That is the stuff we really care about.

We couldn't vote for Romney. He is a rich, old white guy. We want to feel progressive, forward thinking, and modern. Voting for an old white guy makes us feel like conservative, right wing racists. We don't even really know what all these words mean, but, given the choice between an older white guy and a half black ex Harvard lawyer, we will take the half black, ex Harvard guy. That just seems like the progressive thing to do.

Basically, it was all to piss white people off. They have been so cruel to everyone for the last few hundred years that we want some payback. They have all the money, all the power, and they haven't been very nice about it.

We couldn't vote for another old white guy. It would seem like a slap in the face of diversity, equality, progressiveness, etc. It would seem like a return to the Bush days. It's really all symbolism, a Black president makes it seem like we are a cool, progressive country. In reality, we don't really know how Obama will do a better job then Romney, it was all for looks.

Plus, not giving Obama a 2nd term would seem kind of racist right?

And, changing our vote from 4 years`ago would make it seem like we didn't really believe in those votes. It would make it seem like we made a mistake last time. We will rarely admit a mistake. This is politics, we would rather make the same mistake again and hope no one notices, then admit that we made a mistake in the first place.

If Obama was dark skinned, many of us would not have voted for him. But, he is half white and he is just light enough for us to support him. Who knows when we will have another smart, half black guy to vote for? This might have been out last chance to have a Black president for a long time. We are waiting for a really cool 1/4 Black, 1/4 White, 1/4 Latin, 1/4 Asian guy to vote for. That would be awesome. Even better if he was a hermaphrodite and was part female. Then we would really show the world how diverse and forward thinking we are!

The republicans fucked up. They could have won this election. Why the fuck would they nominate a Mormon guy!?!?!?

Don't republications know that their voting block is Christian bible reading people! They would never vote for a Mormon. This is how they lost Ohio and all those other swing states. A Mormon presidential candidate?!? That was one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the Republican party.

If Romney was a Christian, he would be the President of The United States right now!

We voted for Obama not because of his political skills, we voted for him because he is a symbol for change.

Now, back to more important issues...Monday Night Football!!!

Post: #90

Nah, Romney was the establishment candidate, ie. a progressive.

You want anti-progressive, go to vdare.com, they were not satisified. A real conservative is Kim Kobach or perhaps Tancredo. Look at the Repiblican reaction to the defeat. Looks like they're prepared to capitulate (again) on immigration. The Republican response to fielding a rather progressive, establishment candidate is... "he's not establishment enough". This will surely render Republicans more indistinguishable from Democrats than they are now, and represent another shift to the left on what issues are being contested.

Republicans have been fucking up bad since Reagan, but Romney had a lot of intelligent ideas. I think Romney fucked up - he wasn't a good speaker, he was not as articulate as Obama nor charismatic, he ran a poor campaign letting Obama do a Bush-Kerry on him. He totally underestimated what he was up against. If Obama could win doing as bad a job as he has, he deserved that win.

Post: #91

(11-19-2012 02:48 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  We couldn't vote for Romney. He is a rich, old white guy. We want to feel progressive, forward thinking, and modern. Voting for an old white guy makes us feel like conservative, right wing racists. We don't even really know what all these words mean, but, given the choice between an older white guy and a half black ex Harvard lawyer, we will take the half black, ex Harvard guy. That just seems like the progressive thing to do.

Basically, it was all to piss white people off. They have been so cruel to everyone for the last few hundred years that we want some payback. They have all the money, all the power, and they haven't been very nice about it.

We couldn't vote for another old white guy. It would seem like a slap in the face of diversity, equality, progressiveness, etc. It would seem like a return to the Bush days. It's really all symbolism, a Black president makes it seem like we are a cool, progressive country. In reality, we don't really know how Obama will do a better job then Romney, it was all for looks.

Plus, not giving Obama a 2nd term would seem kind of racist right?


If Obama was dark skinned, many of us would not have voted for him. But, he is half white and he is just light enough for us to support him. Who knows when we will have another smart, half black guy to vote for? This might have been out last chance to have a Black president for a long time. We are waiting for a really cool 1/4 Black, 1/4 White, 1/4 Latin, 1/4 Asian guy to vote for. That would be awesome. Even better if he was a hermaphrodite and was part female. Then we would really show the world how diverse and forward thinking we are!

Congratulations, you win the award for most references to race in one RVF post. The only people that seem to be obsessed with race are the Republicans.

And stop crying. Your guy was a dud, get over it.

Post: #92

(11-19-2012 02:48 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  We are actually more into the NFL right now. Our females are back into the next installment of "50 shades of grey", 30 Rock", and "Honey Boo Boo". That is the stuff we really care about.

Brilliant Parody

ManAbout Wrote:Congratulations, you win the award for most references to race in one RVF post. The only people that seem to be obsessed with race are the Republicans.

And stop crying. Your guy was a dud, get over it.

Why are you such a downer all the time ManAbout? Liberals just suck at having fun!

Post: #93

Im pretty sure Gio copied and pastrd that. Good post!!

Post: #94

(11-19-2012 03:04 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  Congratulations, you win the award for most references to race in one RVF post.

Thanks. I know, I'm a race troll.

(11-19-2012 04:03 PM)houston Wrote:  Im pretty sure Gio copied and pastrd that. Good post!!

What makes you think I copied that?

You didn't know I could break down politics?!?

Post: #95

(11-19-2012 07:37 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  You are putting the "proven beyond reasonable doubt" responsibility on the manosphere, but not on those who create the laws opposed by the manosphere.

This is another problem with the manosphere - you guys seem to have no idea how the American legal system works. And without it your chance to get any of those laws changed are ZERO. Expecting Congress to repeal it is extremely naive. Look on DOMA, for example, even the DOJ says it is unconstitutional and doesn't want to defend it, did the Congress vote to repeal it? No, they hired some lawyers on our dime to defend it. If you think your case is different, I've got a gold mine stocks for you to purchase.

To challenge the existing law you need to go to the court, and to prove a lot of things. And when you argue your position in the court, nobody cares about your ideas or speculations. You'll need facts. Until you have them, your chance to change anything is zero.

Post: #96

Post: #97

Romney is edging down towards 47% of the vote. How deliciously ironic.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?k...rue#gid=19

Post: #98

Romney spotted in Southern California last week, looking disheveled and pumping his own gas:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics...-1.1205493



Frankly I'm surprised he even pumps his own gas or would be seen out in public so soon after the race.

Post: #99

Here he is looking like the pathetic fucking beta that he really is, trying to copy Obama, and failing miserably.

Post: #100

Dude's father was governor of Michigan I think. He might as well be from Mars as far as knowledge of what it's like to have a shitty job. I doubt he would have gone for, like concentration camps or some murderous stuff.