On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in the
first place.

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:

and fewer welfare moms.

Women make less money than men. That's a fact that conservatives
generally don't want to see change.

Bull****. There is no "gender gap" in wages and salaries.

On 08/03/2016 03:39 PM, Mike Colangelo wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:

and fewer welfare moms.

Women make less money than men. That's a fact that conservatives
generally don't want to see change.

Bull****. There is no "gender gap" in wages and salaries.


Hillary laughing at 12 year old girl being raped.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc

https://youtu.be/w__PJ8ymliw?t=6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT9jeK30yH8

Feminism--Fempocalypse--Liberalism--Marxism

On 08/03/2016 03:38 PM, Mike Colangelo wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in the
first place.

So murdering someone and stealing their money is taking responsibility
for being poor? At least in the Liberals world it is.

--
That's Karma






*Rumination*
#27 - Liberalism is a black hole from which no intelligence escapes.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:11:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/3/2016 1:43 PM, Governor Swill wrote:


Women make less money than men. That's a fact that conservatives
generally don't want to see change.

That depends on how you do the numbers. in the past, employers did pay
women less for the same job, perhaps a few do. Most have come to the
21st century either because the are enlightened or fear of government
regulation. Most businesses now pay the same wage for a man and woman
working side by side doing the same job.

That certainly depends on the job and employer. Women (quite) often
make more than men, doing the same job. The "diversity" keeps the
government off their case (similar to what you said, but backwards).

Why the difference? If you randomly take 10, 100, or 1000 men and the
same number of women, the man's wage will come out higher. The reason
is obvious if you look. Engineers. miners, doctors positions pay more
than bank tellers, nurses, and secretaries. More men still tend to go
to the first three professions while women tend to go to the last three.
As long as you use those statistics and women make the same choices,
they as a group will earn less.

Men tend to have more experience, as well. Women take more time off
for families. The original proposition that somehow women are
discriminated against, so make less than men, is a lie.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in the
first place.

Bingo!

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:46:47 -0400, Governor Swill
wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul Leon wrote:
On 7/29/2016 Swingman wrote:
Don't normally re-post in entirety, nor cross post, BUT, IMNSFHO this
deserves to be seen, taken to heart and disseminated far and wide.
Sadly, it might be too late for the country, but you hit the fark'n nail
on the head, Bubba!
It all started when we started living in air conditioned comfort every
day instead of when company was expected. That and color TV. ;~)

Air conditioning was what allowed the South to grow (good or bad).
Atlanta would still be a wide spot in the road without cheap AC. It
didn't take off until the '60s.

Atlanta was a regional city even before the Civil War. But you're
right about cheap ac and the city taking off in the sixties.

Sure, I was being a "tad" hyperbolic. The growth has been amazing,
though.

Metro population:
1950 - 1960 - 1970 - 1980 - 1990 - 2000 - 2010
1.0M 1.3M 1.8M 2.2M 3.0M 4.1M 5.3M
30% 38% 22% 44% 37% 29%

When I first moved there, the tallest building in town was 22 floors
and there weren't a dozen of what we'd call "skyscrapers".

I first moved here in '11 (three years earlier we moved 70mi down the
road)

Today, it's skyline rivals all but the very largest of cities.

It's not all in one place, making it look smaller than it is.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

Swill
--
#imwithher

Vote Trump/Pence
Make Russia Great Again!

On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.

On 8/4/2016 2:38 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.


The problem is not availability of contraception, it is attitude. Males
think it is macho to make babies, women think they are showing how they
can have a man, like a status symbol.

I know a young lady about 30, single, but has been in a couple of
relationships. Her female Hispanic co-workers just cannot imagine why
she doesn't have a baby or two yet.

The don't want pills, condoms or abortions, the want food stamps.

On 8/4/2016 12:31 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a
surprise or unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted
pregnancy in the first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No one has claimed otherwise.

On 8/4/2016 12:38 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

None of which negates the idea that if there is an unwanted pregnancy,
both participants are equally liable.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.

True, but that also does not negate a man's responsibility
in the matter.

On 8/4/2016 1:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2016 2:38 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in
the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.

The problem is not availability of contraception, it is attitude. Males
think it is macho to make babies, women think they are showing how they
can have a man, like a status symbol.

I know a young lady about 30, single, but has been in a couple of
relationships. Her female Hispanic co-workers just cannot imagine why
she doesn't have a baby or two yet.

And that attitude is destructive to the notion of an intact nuclear
family, and so is an indirect cause of gun violence. Man-babies grow up
poor and without a responsible father figure, and eventually turn to
gangs, drugs and crime.

On 8/4/2016 1:19 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/4/2016 12:31 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a
surprise or unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted
pregnancy in the first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No one has claimed otherwise.

I have claimed otherwise. The liability is not equal.

On 8/4/2016 1:21 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/4/2016 12:38 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo wrote:
On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in
the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

None of which negates the idea that if there is an unwanted pregnancy,
both participants are equally liable.

You're stupid. What I wrote *does* negate that there is equal liability.

The responsibility for preventing pregnancy falls heavier on the woman.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.

True, but that also does not negate a man's responsibility
in the matter.

It's not negated, but it's less. Men don't get pregnant.

On 8/4/2016 12:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2016 2:38 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in
the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.


The problem is not availability of contraception, it is attitude. Males
think it is macho to make babies,

That's bull****. Most unattached men having sex with women either don't
think about a baby being conceived, or don't want it to happen but
aren't willing to take the first step to prevent it. I think even in an
age of many men thinking "that's *her* problem," they still would rather
a baby not be conceived, because some women will come after them for money.

On 8/4/2016 1:25 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/4/2016 1:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2016 2:38 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in
the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.

The problem is not availability of contraception, it is attitude. Males
think it is macho to make babies, women think they are showing how they
can have a man, like a status symbol.

I know a young lady about 30, single, but has been in a couple of
relationships. Her female Hispanic co-workers just cannot imagine why
she doesn't have a baby or two yet.

And that attitude is destructive to the notion of an intact nuclear
family, and so is an indirect cause of gun violence. Man-babies grow up
poor and without a responsible father figure, and eventually turn to
gangs, drugs and crime.

100% of them? Really? Bull****. I know plenty who haven't. It's true
that there is a lower incidence of social pathology among children
coming from intact nuclear families, but the rate is not 100% for
children from one-parent families, nor is it zero for children from
intact nuclear families.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 14:00:45 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 8/4/2016 12:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2016 2:38 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in
the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.


The problem is not availability of contraception, it is attitude. Males
think it is macho to make babies,

That's bull****. Most unattached men having sex with women either don't
think about a baby being conceived, or don't want it to happen but
aren't willing to take the first step to prevent it. I think even in an
age of many men thinking "that's *her* problem," they still would rather
a baby not be conceived, because some women will come after them for money.

All of which is just another way of saying that men don't accept their
responsibilities in matters conception. They never have and maybe they
never will. None of your argument addresses whether or not they
should, only whether they do.

It's not a matter of appropriate "liability" or responsibility. It's a
matter of males' social underdevelopment of character and morals.
That's what you get from a historically patriarcal society.

--
Ed Huntress

On 8/4/2016 3:42 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 1:25 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/4/2016 1:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2016 2:38 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in
the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.

The problem is not availability of contraception, it is attitude. Males
think it is macho to make babies, women think they are showing how they
can have a man, like a status symbol.

I know a young lady about 30, single, but has been in a couple of
relationships. Her female Hispanic co-workers just cannot imagine why
she doesn't have a baby or two yet.

And that attitude is destructive to the notion of an intact nuclear
family, and so is an indirect cause of gun violence. Man-babies grow up
poor and without a responsible father figure, and eventually turn to
gangs, drugs and crime.

100% of them? Really? Bull****. I know plenty who haven't. It's true
that there is a lower incidence of social pathology among children
coming from intact nuclear families, but the rate is not 100% for
children from one-parent families, nor is it zero for children from
intact nuclear families.

Please point out where I wrote "100%".
crickets chirping

On 8/4/2016 2:48 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/4/2016 3:42 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 1:25 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/4/2016 1:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2016 2:38 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in
the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.

The problem is not availability of contraception, it is attitude.
Males
think it is macho to make babies, women think they are showing how
they
can have a man, like a status symbol.

I know a young lady about 30, single, but has been in a couple of
relationships. Her female Hispanic co-workers just cannot imagine why
she doesn't have a baby or two yet.

And that attitude is destructive to the notion of an intact nuclear
family, and so is an indirect cause of gun violence. Man-babies grow up
poor and without a responsible father figure, and eventually turn to
gangs, drugs and crime.

100% of them? Really? Bull****. I know plenty who haven't. It's true
that there is a lower incidence of social pathology among children
coming from intact nuclear families, but the rate is not 100% for
children from one-parent families, nor is it zero for children from
intact nuclear families.

Please point out where I wrote "100%".

It was when you omitted to write "*Some* 'man-babies' [sic] grow up poor
and..." *THAT'S* when you said 100%.

On 8/4/2016 5:00 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:



The problem is not availability of contraception, it is attitude. Males
think it is macho to make babies,

That's bull****. Most unattached men having sex with women either don't
think about a baby being conceived, or don't want it to happen but
aren't willing to take the first step to prevent it. I think even in an
age of many men thinking "that's *her* problem," they still would rather
a baby not be conceived, because some women will come after them for money.

I'd agree if I didn't hear some of the guys bragging how many babies
they have, often with two or three mothers. Since many of the fathers
don't have regular employment they are content getting state aid.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 14:42:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 8/4/2016 1:25 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/4/2016 1:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2016 2:38 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in
the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.

The problem is not availability of contraception, it is attitude. Males
think it is macho to make babies, women think they are showing how they
can have a man, like a status symbol.

I know a young lady about 30, single, but has been in a couple of
relationships. Her female Hispanic co-workers just cannot imagine why
she doesn't have a baby or two yet.

And that attitude is destructive to the notion of an intact nuclear
family, and so is an indirect cause of gun violence. Man-babies grow up
poor and without a responsible father figure, and eventually turn to
gangs, drugs and crime.

100% of them? Really? Bull****. I know plenty who haven't. It's true
that there is a lower incidence of social pathology among children
coming from intact nuclear families, but the rate is not 100% for
children from one-parent families, nor is it zero for children from
intact nuclear families.

That's an absurd argument. The fact is that fatherless kids are *far*
more likely to drop out of school, turn to drugs, become criminals,
and die at the hands of other fatherless kids.

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:13:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 8/4/2016 2:48 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/4/2016 3:42 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 1:25 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/4/2016 1:20 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/4/2016 2:38 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 8/4/2016 11:31 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:38:09 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:
On 8/1/2016 9:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
Women are always more responsible, especially about
kids, than men.

If you said generally rather than always, I might agree.
But if what you wrote ("always") was true there would be
fewer abortions,

Getting an abortion is not taking responsibility for a surprise or
unwanted pregnancy?

"taking responsibility" would be not having an unwanted pregnancy in
the
first place.

Which makes men equally liable.

No, not equally. Men don't get pregnant. If a woman doesn't want to
get pregnant, she can either abstain from sex or take contraceptive
measures. The woman always bears the greater responsibility for an
unwanted pregnancy.

It is just mind-boggling that the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth
rates got sky-high in the 1970s and 1980s after contraception became
widely and *cheaply* available, and after women became "empowered"
[chortle] following the sexual "revolution". Simply inexcusable.

The problem is not availability of contraception, it is attitude.
Males
think it is macho to make babies, women think they are showing how
they
can have a man, like a status symbol.

I know a young lady about 30, single, but has been in a couple of
relationships. Her female Hispanic co-workers just cannot imagine why
she doesn't have a baby or two yet.

And that attitude is destructive to the notion of an intact nuclear
family, and so is an indirect cause of gun violence. Man-babies grow up
poor and without a responsible father figure, and eventually turn to
gangs, drugs and crime.

100% of them? Really? Bull****. I know plenty who haven't. It's true
that there is a lower incidence of social pathology among children
coming from intact nuclear families, but the rate is not 100% for
children from one-parent families, nor is it zero for children from
intact nuclear families.

Please point out where I wrote "100%".

It was when you omitted to write "*Some* 'man-babies' [sic] grow up poor
and..." *THAT'S* when you said 100%.

Nonsense.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 21:54:36 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:46:47 -0400, Governor Swill
wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul Leon wrote:
On 7/29/2016 Swingman wrote:
Don't normally re-post in entirety, nor cross post, BUT, IMNSFHO this
deserves to be seen, taken to heart and disseminated far and wide.
Sadly, it might be too late for the country, but you hit the fark'n nail
on the head, Bubba!
It all started when we started living in air conditioned comfort every
day instead of when company was expected. That and color TV. ;~)

Air conditioning was what allowed the South to grow (good or bad).
Atlanta would still be a wide spot in the road without cheap AC. It
didn't take off until the '60s.

Atlanta was a regional city even before the Civil War. But you're
right about cheap ac and the city taking off in the sixties.

Sure, I was being a "tad" hyperbolic. The growth has been amazing,
though.

Metro population:
1950 - 1960 - 1970 - 1980 - 1990 - 2000 - 2010
1.0M 1.3M 1.8M 2.2M 3.0M 4.1M 5.3M
30% 38% 22% 44% 37% 29%

When I first moved there, the tallest building in town was 22 floors
and there weren't a dozen of what we'd call "skyscrapers".

I first moved here in '11 (three years earlier we moved 70mi down the
road)

I first moved there back in 1969 when the Hyatt's "flying saucer" was
a local landmark. Now it's completely obscured by taller structures.

Today, it's skyline rivals all but the very largest of cities.

It's not all in one place, making it look smaller than it is.

Depends on your point of view. The 'scrapers are spread in clumps
northward from Five Points along the Peachtree ridge, so a view from
the east or west makes it look bigger. The majority of the tallest
ones have addresses on Peachtree Street.

Then there's the growing Buckhead cluster along Peachtree Rd and the
Marietta cluster at 285 and 75 in the nw corner.

Swill
--
#imwithher

Vote Trump/Pence
Make Russia Great Again!

On Thu, 04 Aug 2016 23:29:32 -0400, Governor Swill
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 21:54:36 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:46:47 -0400, Governor Swill
wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul Leon wrote:
On 7/29/2016 Swingman wrote:
Don't normally re-post in entirety, nor cross post, BUT, IMNSFHO this
deserves to be seen, taken to heart and disseminated far and wide.
Sadly, it might be too late for the country, but you hit the fark'n nail
on the head, Bubba!
It all started when we started living in air conditioned comfort every
day instead of when company was expected. That and color TV. ;~)

Air conditioning was what allowed the South to grow (good or bad).
Atlanta would still be a wide spot in the road without cheap AC. It
didn't take off until the '60s.

Atlanta was a regional city even before the Civil War. But you're
right about cheap ac and the city taking off in the sixties.

Sure, I was being a "tad" hyperbolic. The growth has been amazing,
though.

Metro population:
1950 - 1960 - 1970 - 1980 - 1990 - 2000 - 2010
1.0M 1.3M 1.8M 2.2M 3.0M 4.1M 5.3M
30% 38% 22% 44% 37% 29%

When I first moved there, the tallest building in town was 22 floors
and there weren't a dozen of what we'd call "skyscrapers".

I first moved here in '11 (three years earlier we moved 70mi down the
road)

I first moved there back in 1969 when the Hyatt's "flying saucer" was
a local landmark. Now it's completely obscured by taller structures.

Today, it's skyline rivals all but the very largest of cities.

It's not all in one place, making it look smaller than it is.

Depends on your point of view. The 'scrapers are spread in clumps
northward from Five Points along the Peachtree ridge, so a view from
the east or west makes it look bigger. The majority of the tallest
ones have addresses on Peachtree Street.

But *everything* in Georgia is named "Peachtree" something. I work in
Peachtree City (where there are tons of cherry trees, pear trees, and
golf carts but no peach trees).

Then there's the growing Buckhead cluster along Peachtree Rd and the
^^^^^^^^^^^^ see?
Marietta cluster at 285 and 75 in the nw corner.

Buckhead and Marietta were what I was referring to.

On 08/05/2016 10:07 PM, wrote:

[snip]

But *everything* in Georgia is named "Peachtree" something. I work in
Peachtree City (where there are tons of cherry trees, pear trees, and
golf carts but no peach trees).

I used to live on Sycamore Street, where there were a lot of oak trees
but no sycamore trees. There were plenty of sycamore trees a block away,
on Mulberry Street.

BTW, the place I used to live is now a parking lot.

[snip]

replying to Woody Sawyer, Destiny Kemp wrote:
I agree with this poast.

--
for full context, visit http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...aw-898116-.htm

On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 23:07:14 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Aug 2016 23:29:32 -0400, Governor Swill
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 21:54:36 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 13:46:47 -0400, Governor Swill
wrote:

On Sun, 31 Jul wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul Leon wrote:
On 7/29/2016 Swingman wrote:
Don't normally re-post in entirety, nor cross post, BUT, IMNSFHO this
deserves to be seen, taken to heart and disseminated far and wide.
Sadly, it might be too late for the country, but you hit the fark'n nail
on the head, Bubba!
It all started when we started living in air conditioned comfort every
day instead of when company was expected. That and color TV. ;~)

Air conditioning was what allowed the South to grow (good or bad).
Atlanta would still be a wide spot in the road without cheap AC. It
didn't take off until the '60s.

Atlanta was a regional city even before the Civil War. But you're
right about cheap ac and the city taking off in the sixties.

Sure, I was being a "tad" hyperbolic. The growth has been amazing,
though.

Metro population:
1950 - 1960 - 1970 - 1980 - 1990 - 2000 - 2010
1.0M 1.3M 1.8M 2.2M 3.0M 4.1M 5.3M
30% 38% 22% 44% 37% 29%

When I first moved there, the tallest building in town was 22 floors
and there weren't a dozen of what we'd call "skyscrapers".

I first moved here in '11 (three years earlier we moved 70mi down the
road)

I first moved there back in 1969 when the Hyatt's "flying saucer" was
a local landmark. Now it's completely obscured by taller structures.

Today, it's skyline rivals all but the very largest of cities.

It's not all in one place, making it look smaller than it is.

Depends on your point of view. The 'scrapers are spread in clumps
northward from Five Points along the Peachtree ridge, so a view from
the east or west makes it look bigger. The majority of the tallest
ones have addresses on Peachtree Street.

But *everything* in Georgia is named "Peachtree" something. I work in
Peachtree City (where there are tons of cherry trees, pear trees, and
golf carts but no peach trees).

Then there's the growing Buckhead cluster along Peachtree Rd and the
^^^^^^^^^^^^ see?

Lol! "Peachtree Battle Avenue"

The local joke is that when Sherman took Atlanta, he should have
trimmed the peach trees.

Marietta cluster at 285 and 75 in the nw corner.

Buckhead and Marietta were what I was referring to.

Swill
--
The only time NATO has ever invoked Article 5 and rushed to
the aid of a NATO ally in response to an attack was on September 11,
2001. On that day, monsters murdered 2,977 people in New York
City; Washington, DC; and Shanksville, PA.

Almost 3,000 Americans were murdered by monsters and our NATO
allies for the first time in the history of the NATO Alliance
rose as one and defended American airspace and American interests
around the entire freaking world while we wrestled with what had happened.

Donald Trump wants to turn NATO into a damn shakedown scheme and
you people are cheering him on.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
You should be ashamed of the fact that your cult leader who claims
to have been personally affected by 9/11 does not even know our NATO allies
protected his ass that day.
You should be ashamed that he wants to turn one of the strongest military
alliances in the history of the world into a racket where
protection is bought.
You should be ashamed that you are not ashamed. -- Eric Erickson

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 11:06:03 -0500, Sam E
wrote:

On 08/05/2016 10:07 PM, wrote:

[snip]

But *everything* in Georgia is named "Peachtree" something. I work in
Peachtree City (where there are tons of cherry trees, pear trees, and
golf carts but no peach trees).

I used to live on Sycamore Street, where there were a lot of oak trees
but no sycamore trees. There were plenty of sycamore trees a block away,
on Mulberry Street.

But no mulberry trees, one assumes. ;-)

BTW, the place I used to live is now a parking lot.

They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum?

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 12:39:23 -0700, Mike Colangelo
wrote:

On 8/3/2016 10:43 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug Just Wondering wrote:

and fewer welfare moms.

Women make less money than men. That's a fact that conservatives
generally don't want to see change.

Bull****. There is no "gender gap" in wages and salaries.
Both of my daughters make more than I ever did. My wife made a lot
more than I did when she was also working.

Governor Swill wrote in
:

Women make less money than men. That's a fact that conservatives
generally don't want to see change.

You are so full of ****. Ypu clearly have not worked in a long time.

ALL of my managers in the last 20 years have been woman and presumably paid
more than I am. And in general they have been terrible. Bad people skills,
bad tech skills. The fact that they are working is an EEOC gift.

--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and
pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure."--Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787