Anonymouse

I fail to see how one follows from the other. You're trying too hard here and out of your element. Try again though, my fellow Armenian sister. I support you!

Thanks alot. I actually tried accessing in safe mode and the problem still persisted, which, per your advice, then leads me to conclude it's a software issue. I guess reformatting is the way. Damn it, I was hoping to avoid that so I won't have to reinstall all the programs all over.

I already have. I forgot to mention that. It didn't work.

So my desktop has been having a problem. I don't know what it is but I'll describe it. Every time I open either a folder (e.g., My Documents) or a browser, the scroll bar uncontrollably scrolls without my moving it. I usually use the mouse wheel to scroll up or down using the scroll bar but this occurs precisely when I do not do anything! It's been annoying the hell out of me and it moves up and down in different times. I have tried to do every sort of virus scan, and I have tried all sorts of adware and spyware removal programs. Nothing seems to solve the problem. I even tried to uninstall the Logitech drivers that I thought may have been causing the problem, yet it still persists. Short of reformatting, I don't know what else to do.

Oh great! Yet another liberal with their pliable philosophy of all things are relative and there are no defined rules or boundaries and everything is a blur and bend where we have all merged into one androgynous utopia. And to top it off, you seal your liberalism with the nice closer - "environment", "poverty" and "injustice" - all the typically vague and cliche issues all liberals like to take up as a cause. You end by stating that we should "leave personal choices alone!" That's great! I couldn't agree more, which is why homosexuals should not advertise their behavior and demand all sorts of handouts and rights and commercialize their deviancy. I mean, who the hell has a "pride parade?" Why do homosexuals feel the need to constantly flaunt themselves and their lifestlye to the rest of the world stating, "Hey look at us we are gay and we exist!" Who are they trying to prove their homosexuality to, us or them? Very insecure mass-minded psychosis.

So what? Because homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom thereby we should promote and commercialize and advertise and shove it down peoples' throats? There are all sorts of deviancies that man is capable of, that doesn't mean it should be lauded as a good thing or accepted. Even the god damned Greeks recognized and allowed homosexuality to exist among men, provided they got married to a woman, for god's sake. Only the inverted "Western Civilization" (whatever that means) is foolish enough to dabble in such crazy social experiments.

Here is a picture of the hambeast. From the way this article lays her out, I'm surprised she made it through law school and became a judge eventually. She seems more fit to work at Wal-Mart or Target and her weekends spent attached to a slot machine. http://media.lvrj.com/images/1804560.jpg

Lebanon is just an example that multicultural 'nations' cannot stand (an artificially created state per the mandate of European powers). Iraq is another. The Soviet Union was another. France will be another as the French population wanes and the non-French increase, as the riots indicate. America will be another in the course of time, just as Rome was another a long time ago. Simple hard and fast rules, perfected and reaffirmed by the pendulum of time, but always forgotten by people.

I must say...what annoys me most at the moment are finals. The most reprehensible aspect of existence to surely befall upon the shoulders of man.

Where's the mustard? By the way, in this case, I need the mustard to spray it on you.

I don't know who would get insulted by being called baloney. It's a figure of speech. In fact, it's a "cutsey" way of not being overly insulting I'd say. If someone told me I am full of baloney, I'd say, "Where's the mustard?" But since you're the moderator, I abide by the rules sir.

Essentially, this is irrelevant. Love is a choice and nothing more. People grow unto one another, the rest is just tacked on. A man should be at the helm of the household. If you don't like that go marry a gay guy. That does not mean a man should be the sole arbiter or decision maker, but his word should carry weight. The reason marriages don't last beyond the 8th quarter is because of silly women who think we are all equal and want to be all independent and cute. The contract should be mutual, or else why bother entering into such a transaction? A prenuptial agreement by the parties involved is a must, otherwise you accept the State's prenuptial agreement. Another reason marriages fail is because the sex is horrible but this is not a valid reason to divorce when children are in the mix. I am a genius, objectively manifested and time tested and peer reviewed. It's your delusion not mine.

No. What was stated in that thread was purely for the purposes of that thread. I'm not bringing that into this. Who have I insulted by answering the thread topic in this instance? If people are that sensitive to take it upon themselves to be insulted by what I said, then that falls on them. Should I be insulted when Anoushik complained about people using toothpicks in public in post #8 above? After all, I do that.

Love is an illusion for which the body tricks the spirit by drugging it with dopamine. -- Me Marriages are corporate mergers and contractual negotiations. -- Me I am such a genius. -- Me Love poetry is purely for the delusional and the surrealists by the delusion and the surrealists. -- Me

What annoys me: People who state they are "open minded" and dislike "narrow minded" people. The sheer irony of that is amazingly hilarious but the simpletons don't realize that in this world there is no open-mindedness for the simple fact that we all have certain views and paradigms we abide by. And to the extent that some things are outside our paradigm or contradict it, we are all intolerant and narrow minded of those things that do not fit neatly into our paradigm. People who talk incessantly about tolerance but are the least tolerant of those who disagree with their dogma of tolerance.People who think voting for presidents makes a differencePeople who drive slow or don't signal.People who say "I could care less." No you idiots it's "I couldn't care less."People who like sushi and brag about it or announce it to the world that they are going to eat sushi.

That's the problem - the inevitable confusion surrounding the words "acceptance" and "tolerance." Acceptance is thrown around in a talismanic fashion as if it's the same thing as tolerance. I tolerate the homosexual's right to exist and be a homosexual. I do not, however, accept his lifestyle as proper. It's presumed that unless we accept homosexuality we are not tolerant of homosexuality. However, there is a blurring effect prevalent in that line of reasoning.

It's a forum. I am allowed to express my ideas, as you just expressed yours. It has nothing to do with "me" so get over it. You do not have to like it.

Cheesy sappy love poems are so boring to me though. I never understood them. I'm so boring and dry perhaps.

Sounds like someone is in a love-nostalgic mood. Better prepare some tea, it's gonna be a looong night.

Preaching to the choir.

There is nothing "idealistic" in Mr. Paul's position. I have already pointed this out and you are just rehashing the same thing. Your basic assertion is that "It is idealism, because I say so." An assertion that something is idealistic does not make it idealistic without some showing of why it is so. I have already pointed that many of the points he articulates are, in fact, what was considered policy in this country not so long ago. I pointed out several things in my prior response. (1) His view on the federal reserve and getting rid of it cannot be automatically done, so one shall begin with baby steps such as auditing the fed. (2) Why does the government need to spend alot considering the state of its financial situation at the moment? (3) You basically gave nothing more than your personal view of the war and you supported it, in the process of why maintaining troops in hundreds of countries is not feasible politically, militarily and financially, you clearly did not know what blowback means, thus I had to aid you. If you do not like it, you should do a better job of not exuding misunderstanding of such things. 'Blowback' is not 'high school material'. Despite your response, many of our politicians in the highest levels show an ignorance of the word, including the McCains, Obamas, Gulianis, Clintons and Romneys as was evident during the debates and campaigning. Second, your response above is confusing me. Just what are you trying to say? It seems to have nothing to do with anything. (1) So what if the U.S. is dependent on foreign oil? If you want to lessen the strain and burden, drill in Alaska. But then environmentalists would not have it. What Paul advocates is nuclear energy, which would completely end our dependency on it. Many of the people again don't want any of this. It seems fair to say people want their cake and to eat it too. (2) Why is China a threat? How much spying and information stealing has the U.S. done? How much weapons does the U.S. have? How much weapons does the U.S. sell to its client states and how much does the U.S. use the CIA for its dirty operations and overthrows or what not? The only country right now that is a menace to world peace is America, not China. When China does become menace, criticism won't be far off. You should thank China for still supporting American debt, as without Chinese and Japanese taking our worthless dollars we would be in far worse situation than we are now and I don't think the day is far when they decide to dump their dollar assets. (3) You speak of Hezbollah missles from China but fail to mention the American missiles and American technology Israel uses that constantly bombs Palestinians, Lebanese, etc. Why? Whoever wrote your response is clearly an ignorant republican neo-con, that much is for sure. Furthermore, Israel itself has been guilty of selling American technology to China, and here you are defending it. Some "ally". (Not to mention Israel's denial of the American issue). And this is why the wisdom of the framers is so important, avoid entangling alliances. But you, nor the person who seemed to write your response, seems to know that. It's interesting to note that what I said was Paul receives the highest donations from active and non-active military personnel, than all other candidates combined. What do you say? You mention self-interest. And what's bad about self-interest? That only shows that people who are actually doing the fighting know more about war and peace than politicians and keyboard warriors like you. No you did not, otherwise I wouldn't have pointed it out. First off, what is the point of those graphs? They do not demonstrate anything or disprove anything I have said. Second, this response shows a basic level of misunderstanding when it come to economics. You are only giving lip service to how gold is going to cause inflation, yet you, do not even use the word inflation. First, even if there is a drastic amount of gold increase such as in the case of Spain's empire from the new world, thereby causing inflation, it is no where near the levels of what fiat inflation does. That is a myth. Second, a government in this age cannot inflate gold. Gold acts as an inflation hedge for the most part. The gold that a government has, is the amount of its money. It cannot be inflated and increased. The money supply must remain relative to the amount of gold, thereby causing a check on inflation. Historically, gold has out competed all other forms of currency and commodity to come out on top as the prime choice for money. This has been constant through almost all ages of empires young and old. The reason for gold's success is because it is easily portable, durable and divisible. Gold and silver are divisible, so that they can be divided into small pieces without losing their value; unlike diamonds for example (or of course paper money), they are homogeneous, so that one ounce of gold will be of equal value to any other. The purchasing power of gold always rises relative to the inflation of paper currency. Your point that somehow gold will be chaotic is without merit because (1) this country experienced its biggest development when it adhered to hard commodities as a source of its money and (2) the purchasing power of money (remember money can be anything, gold, paper, etc. ) can adjust by changes in the general price level to accommodate any quantity of money in relation to goods. It's just gold, unlike paper, cannot be inflated. If gold got the point of not being divisible enough to use in everyday common transactions (such as platinum would be today), some other commodity ( silver) would arise to serve as a subunit. And by allowing the participants to decide that through experience (the market), it will work its way in a course correcting way like markets always do. I don't see what the point of this is. What are you trying to say? Somewhere along the lines the meaning must have gotten lost in translation. If you are quoting anti-federalists you are only aiding me, as my position, and Paul's is purely Jeffersonian. My point was that the size and power of government has grown, beyond what was intended in the set up of the country. Your point? You mention anti-federalists and with good reason, as Hamilton and the federalists wanted nothing short of a strong central government with states taking a back seat. As I mentioned, prior to the civil war, there was this understanding that states had the power to secede from the union at their own choosing if they saw fit. This was the whole notion of states' rights. The idea of a government "by the people" (supposedly). The civil war was mostly a fight for whether this country will adhere to the Jeffersonian model of a republic, or the Hamiltonian notion of federalism run amok. Then you agree that taxation is coercive? I see someone has been formally acquainted with the commerce clause.

I guess if your potential husband is reading this, he knows that he has one free b of cheating before you guys go to the counselor. Wow! You and I agree? This must be the twilight zone. Spasi mi hat pati mech chop khrem. You raise a very important all too often overlooked point about complaining parents. Seriously, whatever happened to the notion that you assume the risk and that it all comes with the territory? Why do such people bring lives into this world if they aren't prepared to deal with the difficulty that comes with it? If I had no conscience I would kill these people. But then I'd deprive these kids of their parents. I guess shitty parents are still better than no parents. More like to withstand what you have created. It seems some people are awfully weak these days. They make choices, and all choices contain ramifications, and then when the logical consequences of those choices come to fruition, they yell "Oh me oh my I did not expect this was going to be this difficult." And so they choose to run away from the hole they created for themselves. Instead of running to it, they run away from it. But alas, this reminds me of something a powerful villain, Apocalypse, in X-Men once said: "There is no freedom from me, there is only freedom through me." And so here, there is no freedom from ones choices (whether good or ill), but only freedom through ones choices. Excelsior.

I disagree completely. An illuminating point on the matter written with far more clarity and substance that I ever can. Particularly lucid are the passages I have marked in bold. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The American Myth of Divorce "Don't stay together just for the sake of the children." "If divorce is better for you, it will be better for your kids." By William C. Spohn For the past 30 years, Americans have used these ideas to justify their increasing recourse to divorce. Recently, however, mounting empirical evidence indicates that these justifications are illusions. The widespread practice of divorce in this culture has been based on the wishful thinking of adults while its tragic cost has been borne by children. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's The Divorce Culture analyzes the history and social significance of divorce. More importantly, she raises troubling ethical questions about the practice. First, the factual profile: From 1965 to 1975, the rate of divorce doubled in the United States. It peaked in 1979 at 22 per thousand married women and then stabilized at the 1994 rate of 20 per thousand. Since 1974, 1 million children a year have seen their parents divorce, and 45 percent of all American children can expect their families to break up before they reach the age of 18. This historic increase in divorce evoked minimal public anxiety or debate, unlike previous eras when the divorce rate rose, as it did between 1910 and 1920, and after World War II. Dafoe charges that this change in attitude resulted from a change in the ethical frame of reference applied to divorce. Instead of looking at marital breakup in terms of an ethic of obligation to others, Americans began to see it in terms of an ethic of obligation to the self. In other words, no longer were the parents' interests presumed to be subordinate to their children's; instead, individual happiness became the new standard by which a marriage was judged. According to Dafoe, this shift was a result of the psychological revolution of the 1960s and '70s, which changed "the locus of divorce from the outer social world to the inner world of the self." In this view, "the family, once the realm of the fettered and obligated self, [became] a fertile realm for exploring the potential of the self, unfettered by roles and obligations." The first wave of literature on the new divorce culture, largely written by relatively affluent and recently divorced women, celebrated these trends as liberating for women and children. After the mid-1980s, however, popular advice books began to challenge some of the earlier assumptions. A more troubling picture emerged from studies of larger populations and from tracing the effects on children over time. It turned out there was no trickle down of psychological benefits from mothers to their children. Even though 80 percent of men and 50 percent of women felt their lives were better after divorce, the effects on children were disastrous. By almost every measure, children in divorced families fared worse: emotional problems, early sexual experimenting, dropping out of school, delinquency, teen pregnancy, and drug use. Remarriage was no solution; children in stepfamilies were two to three times more likely than their counterparts to suffer emotional and behavioral problems and twice as likely to have learning problems. Long-term studies by Judith Wallerstein and others argue that the impact of divorce on children is cumulative. Even 15 years after their parents' divorce, many children are emotionally troubled, occupationally aimless, and unable to sustain a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Their parents' inability to sustain the relationship that counted most to them and the subsequent loss of connection to their fathers seem to have eroded these young peoples' sense of identity and ability to trust others and commit themselves. In the ethos of expressive individualism, where self-fulfillment is the central moral norm, the parents are the only stakeholders in the marriage. But once we pay attention to the children, it becomes impossible to pretend that divorce is primarily an individual's choice rather than a profoundly social event. Dafoe questions whether our reluctance to blame individuals who divorce has stifled ethical criticisms of the divorce revolution. She writes, "The truth is that divorce involves a radical redistribution of hardship, from adults to children, and therefore cannot be viewed as a morally neutral act." So, should we stay together for the sake of the children? Dafoe argues that in most cases the answer is yes. Divorce makes sense in the 10 percent to 15 percent of troubled marriages that involve high-level and persistent conflict with severe abuse and physical violence. But the case is not so clear in marriages marked by marital dissatisfaction, emotional estrangement, boredom, or another romantic interest. In these instances, adults, who are more resilient than children, can be expected to sacrifice some of their own interests in order to preserve the stable and caring home necessary for their offspring to flourish. Traditionally, spouses were obligated not merely to stay in a troubled marriage for the sake of the children but to improve it. Society also has a stake in parents' remaining committed: "It is the experience of dependable and durable family bonds that shapes a child's sense of trust and fosters development of such traits as initiative, independence, and even risk-taking," Dafoe writes. "Without these traits, it is extremely difficult to cultivate other personal characteristics such as resourcefulness, responsibility, and resilience, which are essential in a pluralistic society and a demanding global economy." The American discussion of divorce seems to be moving back to the conviction that divorce has ethical and social dimensions. There are calls to retrieve some traditional standards: Children have moral priority; the social cost of divorce has to be counted even more than the benefit to the individual spouse; society has a stake in keeping marriages together; fathers are not dispensable. Such appeals may be able to counter the ethos of expressive individualism that has redefined marriage as an institution for the self-fulfillment of adults. William C. Spohn is Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good at Santa Clara University. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v9n2/divorce.html

Really? I'm surprised at that stance from you. I would have assumed you would be all about divorce in cases of infidelity and drugs or whatever. As the saying goes, "Once a cheater, always a cheater." Of all the things on that list, infidelity is truly the thing that which I cannot forgive. Oh no, not the "they don't report it out of fear" response! I find that to be complete baloney especially in this day and age in Western societies. Women are not the disadvantaged little creatures they once were, and I firmly believe that while there are your run of the mill abusive men, they aren't in great numbers these days, or instead they feel socially castrated from even coming close to abusing their women even if they entertained the thought for fear of ramifications of divorce (especially considering how slanted divorce laws are against men in the States). It means I don't find sympathy with people who divorce on those trivial reasons, because they don't like something about the person that they chose!. I think that is stupid, selfish and silly and reflects only about how weak and pointless the lives that they have led have been, and its sad that their own jollies are via the next thrills and chills about being "happy" (whatever that means). Who is to say that leading a happy life is the way things ought to be, and not the more difficult, unhappy and struggling life? That then prompts one to ask, does one prefer to live a life of happiness or a life of meaning? A life of happiness is outward driven. What thing that I can do here and now and next that will maximize my utility of being happy, content and pleased? It means supposedly correcting "bad choices" because one perceives a worse social state of existence. So thereby, the presumption, the selfish happiness is the end all of all things. On the flip side, a life of meaning is always about reflecting on the past, and pondering the future. This process does not necessarily involve moments without worries, moments without unhappiness, and moments without depriving yourself of certain dreams or happier avenues you had planned for yourself. It is inward driven in the sense that it requires introspection, self-reflection, self-discipline and self-realization, and of course, the weighing of divergent interests, not just of yours, but of others like children who are now dependent on you. A life of happiness is almost like a life of blindness. Blindness to the trials and tribulations that go and grow with the choices one makes and the unforeseen and perhaps not-always-beneficial pathways that each choice contains. So when you make certain choices and bring children into this world, in my eyes you have lost the right to pursue what you're supposed dreams were, or what you perceive as would put you in a better social state of existence than staying in that situation. If you don't like it, perhaps you shouldn't have made the shortsighted and stupid choices that you made in the heat of passion or imaturity. And if you did, live with it, as it is "till death due us part". It seems modernity has quite a deaf ear for that particular phrase. Every situation has a silver lining and I don't think staying in what one selfishly presumes as an "unhappy marriage" is a bad thing, for if you put aside the prurient and hedonistic interests of a vague and undefined happiness, staying for the greater good of depriving that child or children of a broken home is much wiser in the long run.

Thank you for echoing my sentiments. Here is something I found on a blog posted by a divorce attorney of top reasons people get a divorce. * They don't agree on finances, never talked about it before marriage, and never solved the manner of handling money after marriage. * They got themselves into an uncomfortable financial situation in the process of being married. * They stopped talking. Then they stopped having sex. * He or she started having sex with someone else. * Someone became gay after the fact. (Solution? Try the other sex in advance?) * Kids/work/odd hobbies. No time for being married. * TV, drugs or alcohol. * No exercise. * The slow demise into slothful living signifying depression without treatment. Or, no treatment for other noticeable mental health issues, despite their spouses insistence therapy is needed. * Basic lack of understanding that marriage is tough and sometimes the situation isn't fun or enjoyable. * Failure to re-enlist for another tour of duty each time the couple is called upon to go deeper and take their relationship to the next level of intimacy and love. Especially at the three and seven year marks. http://lawlady.typepad.com/lawlady_blog/20...op_reasons.html Of that list, whatever I have in bold is in my opinion the only valid time a person can divorce after they have brought children into the equation. It's also interesting that abuse isn't a top reason. That must mean that there aren't as many abusive men as people think. That would be another case of where divorce wouldn't be without merit. And call me insensitive or non-compassionate but there is a reason why divorce rates are much higher now in this era than ever before, and that is because of the trivial reasons people divorce and an unwillingness by people to dish out what they reaped. Any other reason aside from abuse, or what is in bold, cited as divorce, in my opinion, is the hallmark of wrong choices and selfish attitudes. It's akin to an assumption of the risk. When you are dealing with the impressionable life of a child or children, you thereby sacrifice whatever hedonistic pleasure seeking and selfish reasons you had for your "purpose driven life" or lack of.