Kevin Barrett Gets A Massive Story In The Capital Times - Pictures Inside

I will say it again, MANY MANY gay people have children. This includes many, many lesbians, and a smaller number of gay men (who tend, when they employ artificial insemination, to use it on women who agree to be surrogates, rather than on themselves.) Grow an imagination, why doncha, while you're in the process of "enlightening" the "intellectually disadvantaged" posters at this BB.

Here's the deal. I'm a small-l libertarian. I'm likely to agree with you about a lot of issues related to government. But I will ride you mercilessly if you do not figure out on your own how to separate those issues from racism, misogyny, and homophobia because that is my mission in life.

And as for your casting aspersions on my intelligence, you're just making me laugh. You have no idea who you're talking to, and when you ASSUME, you make an ass of -- well, not so much you and me, as YOU.

The main reason "spousal support" exists, is that when two people decide to form a "marital corporation" they are very likely to enter into agreements in which payment in kind (such as the LABOR of child-rearing) is exchanged within the relationship for a stake in monetary payment that another member of the family earns from labor outside the household. Often, one partner is accepting certain losses in his or her own "proper" financial wellbeing --such as payment into the social security system or a retirement plan or income with which to invest -- in exchange for part-ownership of the family's collective assets. Spousal support is one way that one partner can "buy out" the other at the point the corporation dissolves. That is why it still exists.

Where did you come from? I could care less what the critics (numbering ONE so far), have to say, you are right on the money. When my second wife and I divorced, she got everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING. This was like seven years ago. The state paid for her to go to college (nursing) and she got her associates. That was three years ago. I have paid a HUGE amount of support from the begining, and I don't have a problem with that. During my last family court appearance, I had a statement prepared that I read before the examiner. The gist of it was how is it possible that I have to come in here quarterly to make sure there isn't some more money I should have to pay, when you people have paid to educate this person so she can make enough to support herself and the kids. Keep in mind she graduated three years ago. And works at fucking blockbuster? At what point does she become culpable for anything at all? It's OK that she is a welfare collecting leech who makes 7$ an hour, and she can do that forever, cause I'll always have to pay the slack. I believe people should have to pay for their kids, but at what point does it become a balanced equation? I guess the answer to that is never. They sure had no answer for me. I guess I should thank them. They pushed me from making 30K a year, to almost 100K, just so I could afford my own existence. I have mentioned this before, and I will again: I refuse to pay income taxes. I cannot afford the court ordered money I have to pay, if right off the top the government gets 50%. I have told the IRS (they'd really like their money) to come and get me. So far they have not. I think they know they still get money in the form of other taxes from my income. Moreso than they would if they locked me up, had to pay for everything for me, and in addition had to pay fullblown welfare on the six OTHER people I support.

For Casseia

Dear Casseia,

Shall we agree that NEITHER of us knows who we are talking to?

To respond...I don't care how long a string of politically incorrect names you try to attach to me, one thing I can do, and that is cut through all the 'sensitivity training' and see a problem brewing.

You little diatribe about why spousal support is warranted is a very 'canned' response. However, it is very outdated.

Let me be direct and to the point. Here is an example, and you tell me if you think anyone should pay spousal support, okay?

Marriage of 9 years. One child from the marriage, 7 years old at time of divorce. Both parents are college degreed and both are professionally employed. Mother always worked before and during the marriage. There are unequal incomes due to difference in career fields and time in that field and husband is 12 years older. Wife earning 42K and husband 100K. Husband is ordered to pay $900 month child support (court wouldn't hear of him having equal custody and visitation).

Now, do you think that father should or should not have to pay spousal support?

In short, while I agree that when either parent (yes, usually the mother) has sacrificed a career to stay at home and raise children there should be some help from the husband (or other way around if roles switched). But not LIFETIME. I would also make allowances for children with special needs that precludes one parent from working full time. But, the proper term for this is spousal maintenance, not spousal support.

Now, maybe you are a true libertarian (you don't sound like a true one though), and maybe we would agree on many things (probably not), but one thing I would argue with my last breath (and which I do not intend to do here), is that EVERY civilization in recorded history has fallen when it embraced fully and openly homosexuality and moral debauchery. And while I doubt your statistics about gay and lesbian adoptions and such, I guess it makes sense that they would want to have children that they could indoctrinate into their way of thinking.

However, I openly admit that I am a Christian and believe strongly that this country's (and the world's for that matter) remaining days or low in number.

But you remind me of a cartoon I saw the other day. It showed the devil welcoming new arrivals in hell and showing them around. He said 'Now remember, there are no right and wrongs here - just whatever works for you'.

What the HELL does this conversation have to do with Kevin Barrett getting a massive story on the front page of the Capital Times?

Has everything to do with it

Besides getting tangled up in this discussion about child support and alimony (which I'm disengaging from), my original point was try to explain why Kevin is only seeing part of the picture. Government controls and manipulates every single aspect of our lives, and corruptly so. By seeing THE BIG PICTURE, we can better understand why the possibility of the government manipulating us and blowing up the towers and #7 isn't so shocking and far fetched.

For example, if we look deeply into our Federal Reserve system and how we are all being duped there (to our ruin), then it isn't so surprising that the government would also stoop to other low levels to 'brainwash' all of us. You have to look at everything. Why do you think people like Kevin are being brushed aside as 'nuts' by the mainstream media? They are in on the con-job also.

You think that's something this site doesn't already know?

When you buy a house?

Could it be true that most readers here think that when they go and sign their name on a promissory note to purchase a house that the bank, in effect, goes to its vault and gets out a big sum of its money and loans it to you?

If you do, then you are sorely mistaken. They don't loan you a dime of their money. I'll explain in more detail later.

Has anyone here read 'Modern Money Mechanics' published by the Fed Reserve, or 'The Creature from Jekyll Island'? If not, you might want to do so.

Well do me a favor. Treat everyone here as you would expect to be treated. I don't need anyone putting well placed insults in extremely long winded posts.

Gold9472 said:

You think that's something this site doesn't already know?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know whether they know it or not. Do you presume to know what everyone reading this list knows or doesn't know? I was just putting it out for those who don't know. I've only scratched the surface.Could it be that you presume they know everything except what you post about?

I don't know who I've insulted. I made one post and was jumped on by one person, and I came back with my defense. If everyone could only post things that were guaranteed not to insult anyone, where would we be? I can go away just as easily as I appeared if what I have to say offends everyone (or someone).

Casseia, waiting for an answer

dnepr said:

Let me be direct and to the point. Here is an example, and you tell me if you think anyone should pay spousal support, okay?

Marriage of 9 years. One child from the marriage, 7 years old at time of divorce. Both parents are college degreed and both are professionally employed. Mother always worked before and during the marriage. There are unequal incomes due to difference in career fields and time in that field and husband is 12 years older. Wife earning 42K and husband 100K. Husband is ordered to pay $900 month child support (court wouldn't hear of him having equal custody and visitation).

Now, do you think that father should or should not have to pay spousal support?

Click to expand...

Can you express your opinion of the above scenario please? I'm anxious to hear your opinion.

I'm not going to discuss it in this thread, as the site owner has pointed out that it is off topic. Why don't you start a thread with a topic of your choosing?

Regarding Mr. Barrett: I know I'm pointing out the obvious but thank God for him being a university proffesor because of all the people on all sides calling for his resignation since he's seen a "conspiricy theorist wacho indoctrinating our young people". Hell, former govnt officials talking about 9/11 cant even get on a major newspaper.

Regarding the side topic: Start a new thread in the debate chamber, I'd love to join that discussion.

casseia said:

I'm not going to discuss it in this thread, as the site owner has pointed out that it is off topic. Why don't you start a thread with a topic of your choosing?

Click to expand...

Bull! What a cheap way to get out of answering a question. I'm outta here. You guys enjoy this mess.

I'm looking for your new thread, but I can't find it.

Oh, you're leaving?

Buh-bye.

Well now I gotta change my initial opinion. See man, you were lightly chided for bein off thread topic, and were invited by the person you were debating to start a NEW thread, where it would be appropriate to argue it. You chose to get all self righteous and say, "have fun with this mess". That's the bitches way out. Why not go have it out. You really DID have a point. Like PG I would've LOVED to go in there and tear soem hole in the common beliefs in that topic, as I've been gettin screwed by that system for almost 20 years now. (You might wanna look at havin like five feet taken off your horses legs)

No, I'll change my initial opinion

Personally, my time it to valuable to debate with this person over obvious rights and wrongs. And I didn't hear a single peep from hardly anyone until after I left. Self-righteous? No, don't think so. My father just taught me one thing really well - 'if you play with SH_T, you are bound to get some on you'. I felt 'dirty' just talking with this person. And she had the gaul to call herself a libertarian. That was really humorous. I might start a thread over there when I have time. And, you don't really thing she would have answered the question I put to her even if I had taken the bait and started a new thread over there do you? She wasn't going to answer the question, no matter where it was posed because she couldn't.

She wasn't going to answer the question, no matter where it was posed because she couldn't.

Click to expand...

It didn't seem like she could answer it. All the more reason why we should've gone and handled it. I was in your corner (and posting to show it). At least if we had gone that route we could have shown others what was what. Just like the whole 911 thing. ANti-logic is one of the main tools these people use to cloud the real issue. But it's done now, no point sweating it. You might have done the right thing by NOT engaging for all I know.

For the record, I realize this last should have been a PM. I didn't think of it until too late. I am also disengaging from this topic while in this thread.

FWIW, I would have not have backed down from answering him, although I guess that would have made him feel "dirty." To me, as a libertarian, this is about business. It's about the freedom to enter into what are essentially business arrangements (marriage as the process of forming a two-person corporation) and the responsibility to exit that corporation in a manner that is fair to both parties.

If you have a problem with this, you should not get married.