Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I LOVE the statement that all liberals are unfaithful. My mom and dad have been married for 27 years, and they have never cheated on each other, and have three kids, myself included. --transResident Transfanform! 16:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Your comment is ridiculous and takes literalism to a new level. Nowhere does the essay say that all Liberals are unfaithful. However, such are Liberal values by their nature that the likelihood of infidelity, violence, STDs etc is far higher among Liberals than Conservatives. Bugler 16:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
"Transfan", you left out one detail: you seem to have trouble reading and/or thinking, as demonstrated by Bugler's response.--Aschlafly 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, Andy! LOVE the personal attacks you're dishing out today! --transResident Transfanform! 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
It is good you are easily amused, Transfan, but it would be even better if you expressed an understanding of your own mistake.--Aschlafly 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)


Will this essay be expanded to include sourced examples, or will it continue to consist of unverifiable anecdotes? Wandering 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

We're not going to violate anyone's privacy, but there may be examples that are already published elsewhere that could be sourced. Ronald Reagan's first marriage comes to mind.--Aschlafly 16:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Wandering, aren't you going to follow through and post the example of Ronald Reagan's first marriage?--Aschlafly 18:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm a bit concerned that such an example could be taken the wrong way, Andy. I've known some liberals to make much of Reagan's rulings as governor of California (particularly his self-admitted mistake of signing a bill that expanded abortion.) Isn't it likely that they'd take the opportunity to twist an example of his first marriage into an attack on the man? --Benp 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Not once the details are set forth. I guess Wandering isn't going to follow through on his suggestion, so I suppose I'll have to do this.--Aschlafly 19:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Give the trouble I got in for edits on articles you seem to be focused on (such as Barack Obama), I'm not even going to think about editing your personal essays. Wandering 21:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Why did you bother me with your question if you're not willing to follow through?--Aschlafly 21:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Follow through with what? It's your essay, I'm not going to try and fix it's shortcomings. Wandering 08:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)


The vagaries of life that define the contours of one's romantic life are hard to reduce to an aphorism, and I can't help but think that for every example you put up a counterexample could be found. I'll testify for myself that I'm a liberal grad student, and have been in a committed relationship for five years now (we're talking about marriage), but I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears; I need a challenge, and my girlfriend of five years has always been great fun to debate and learn from. Her counsel is invaluable to me, and her life as a young professional the source of countless exciting conversations, and a great deal of pride for me, for whatever small credit I can claim in her accomplishments (and she mine).

But that's my choice. Others may see it the other way. I wouldn't reduce my own taste to a generic lesson for the populace, any more than I would try to foist my preference for brunettes on the world either!-AShephard 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears Why think that? There are many, many examples of Conservative women who render your hoary old stereotype a... hoary old stereotype. And giving birth and raising a family at home doesn't require a brain removal, you know. Bugler 17:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Of course not! I know that. But the conservative women I've met - as conservative is defined on this website - seem to think that it does. Submission, and all that. AShephard 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Your candid comments are appreciated, but "submission" is a stereotype rather than a conservative value. Many "grad school" relationships do not last 10, 20 and ultimately 50 years of marriage. To the extent one party to the relationship insists on liberal values, there can be lots of unhappiness that follow for both parties to the relationship down the road.--Aschlafly 18:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for telling me my relationship is going to fail. I didn't know "sniping at your ideological opponents" was a conservative value," but now I guess I do. And I think your aphorism is best reduced to "pe mople should make sure their life goals match, regardless of political persuasion." That seems to be much more accurate, and a lot less needlessly hurtful, no?
As for "submission is a stereotype," let's investigate. Can a "conservative" woman in your mind have a job?-AShephard 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Wow, AShepard, you insult conservative women, to which no one takes offense, but woe to anyone who even slightly challenges your views! Perhaps you're right you're better off finding a liberal spouse, because a conservative one wouldn't be able to stand your reactions (and absurd stereotypes)!
Sure, you and wife can have a job, as you obviously expect. And then a child arrives, and there is the issue of who is going to take care of the child. Often liberal women want the man to provide at least half that care, whereupon there is juggling your job with that, and juggling the wife's job with her half. The stress hits fourfold from that awkward arrangement, careers suffer, the child frequently gets sick in group care, nerves start to snap, and the marriage begins to feel the strain. And that's if all goes well! The situation can be even worse if no child arrives, as before long the spouses can grow apart.
It's not a formula for success. I wish everyone the best who tries. I also do my best to let them know what's in store for them so they don't go down a road they'd rather not travel.--Aschlafly 19:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am a moderate and so is my partner (Moderate in NZ is liberal in the states) and so are many of our friends but we have a wonderful life. Same with our friends also. In fact, we have gotten happier as time goes on. Also, small point, I dont think a liberal would want to marry a conservative. AdenJ 18:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure there are counterexamples. I'm also sure you're not telling us the whole story about marriages by liberals among people in NZ.--Aschlafly 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm well I am not telling you any stories about marrige in NZ, whole or otherwise. All I know is my liberal (and atheist I might add) partner and I are very happy. AdenJ 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

No, that's not all you said. You also claimed "so are many of [your] friends." And there is strikingly little detail about your own marriage, such as the basic number of years you've been married (and how many times). If you and your friends are as liberal as you say, then unfortunately I'm confident there is a lot of marital unhappiness there and many divorces. I'm not asking for the gory details, but I do object to the false portrayal of it here.--Aschlafly 19:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

What? Are you serious? You are doubting what I say based on what? None of my friends have ever been divorced and neither have I. We are all very happy and, actually, I dont know why I even dignify your comment with an answer. Yes it is unfortunate that you are confident you know my life better then I. You have basically implied I am a liar based on......well, nothing. AdenJ 19:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Still no details from AdenJ, so I'll give you some: the divorce rate in New Zealand is almost as high as the marriage rate! [1] --Aschlafly 19:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am not going to give you details of mine or others marriages and your stats, while true, say nothing about my situation or my friends. I said I am happy and my friends are happy so what reason do you have to suggest I am lying? If your reason is "because they are liberals" then that says more about you than me. AdenJ 20:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I reiterate my statement that the truth in your little "essay" - if any truth there be - lies higher up the funnel of abstraction, at the simple aphorism, "people should talk about long-term plans before getting married." A couple can get through anything if they truly love about each other and appreciate the sacrifices, and a couple with different values - regardless of what values those may be - will fall apart before long, but it won't be anyone's fault, except the couple's for planning poorly. Your attempt to blame the marriage on liberals is sheer polemic, and quite insultive at that.-AShephard 22:27, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Maybe it is better to marry a conservative... if you're a conservative.

It is better for any thinking person to marry a conservative, even if they haven't yet arrived at a fully conservative outlook themselves. But what is best of all is for dyed-in-the-wool Liberals to marry each other - so that two other innocent people aren't made miserable. Bugler 13:31, 10 October 2008 (EDT)


I don't even know what to say, this essay turns my stomach. ---user:DLerner--- 20:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

That says more about you, DLerner, than it does about the essay.--Aschlafly 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)


Being a member of this site for a while (not that anyone would notice, they don't give me any extra rights cause they don't like my politics/religion), one of the things liberals get attacked for is their alleged bias to people of different ideologies, (Complete rubbish article, but I gave up arguing with Andy on the talk page once he stopped being coherent).

I've seen a lot of crazy nonsense written on this site, but this takes the cake. Why not throw in "Don't marry blacks or Jews, most of them are liberal".

  • freedom from sexually transmitted diseases and their harm (including infertility) Right, because we all know that conservatives are never gay (Haggert, anyone) and never cheat on their wives or boyfriends...
  • fidelity in marriage and accountability Identical response
  • lack of hostility to faith, no censorship of prayer Who would marry someone that censors their beliefs? Sounds outlandish, anybody ever have their spouse "censor" them? Once again the vile lie that all liberals are anti-religion, I'll point out again that I'm probably the most religious person on this site and Andy thinks nice conservative girls shouldn't marry me because I'm a lib
  • respect for the Ten Commandments and opposition to deceit What, are you electing a public official? I guess conservatives lie much less then liberals. (Iraq WMD's, torture, 9/11 connection).
  • respect for a work ethic, and rejection of an entitlement mentality No republicans on welfare, no siree. Liberals don't work and expect to get money from the government, eh?
  • appreciates the importance of a conservative culture in raising children And liberals appreciate the importance of a liberal culture to raise their children in. You see Andy, that what we call an opposing point of view, but then you oppose multiculturalism, so it's my way or the high way.
  • no confusion over who is the homemaker and who is the breadwinner; recognizing the benefits of division of labor Women belong in the kitchen! YAY
  • recognizing that values do matter and do have serious consequences Only conservatives do that...
  • having values powerful enough to overcome addiction, such as drinking, gambling, pornography, obesity and smoking No such thing as a fat, smoking & drug addicted conservative (Well, except this guy)
  • freedom from the liberal media and Hollywood values, and their misguided promotions and fads Conservatives don't have TV's? Where do they watch faux news?
  • a relationship where issues and problems can be openly discussed, free from the ideological shackles of Liberal beliefs, Liberal denial and political correctness. Liberals never talk, and when they do they're never open. about it.

True case studies Convenient, facts changed, they'll be just like conservative parables you'll make them up as you go along.

Case one: Right, conservatives never break up with each other over differences.

Case two: some people are infertile, it could be Joe was sterile.

Case three: John McCain did the same thing... (Now that he's the nominee he's conservative enough for you...)

Case four: Stan is a moron and got what he deserved, ("All women were that way" true conservative way of thinking).

Case five: No such thing as a gay republican, right, Senator?

---user:DLerner--- 20:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)


GlenW, this is not like Wikipedia. We do not use {{Fact}} tags to cast doubt onto well known facts. It's well known that promiscuity and STDs go hand in hand. If you doubt this, I'm sure some simple research will enlighten you. If you feel a citation is needed, why don't you find one and thereby contribute positively to the site. BryonRichards 23:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

So what you're saying is that if I demand evidence, it is my responsibility to find evidence for something else? That sounds like liberal dodging to me.....GlenW 23:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Bryon's explanation is clear. Insertion of {{Fact}} tags is not a way to argue here. Your demands for evidence for something that is proven and undisputed, such as promiscuity and STDs being closely correlated with other, are silly and will be reverted. Dispute that the earth is round somewhere else, not here.--Aschlafly 23:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
"half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases" is proven and undisputed?GlenW 23:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Cite added ... which you could have found as easily as I did. It took about 5 minutes.--Aschlafly 23:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Actually, the cite does not back up the statement. It says that 40% of teenage girls who took part in a study and admitted to having sex have a sexually transmitted disease. That is not at all the same as saying half of all promiscuous people do. 40% is not 50%, admitting having had sex does not equal promiscuity, and what is true of teenage girls is not necessarily true of the overall population. Young girls are less likely to take precaution, less likely to know symptoms, and less likely to seek treatment, especially if they have to admit to their parents that they have been sexually active. Most STDs are curable, and most do not cause infertility. the story is full of speculation. Jaguar 00:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I any case, doesn't Conservapedia Commandment #1 state that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."? Although I can agree that particular fact-tag was unnecessary, it's the original author's responsibility to find a source for the statement, not GlenW's. Etc 12:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)


In Example 1, it never says anything about Ralph marrying the liberal woman he falls in love with, but then it goes on to talk about what a hard time he had getting an annulment. He did, at some point, marry the liberal woman, right? Because if he didn't, that would go a long ways towards explaining why he had such a difficult time with the annulment.

In Example 4, Stan is described as having poorly developed social skills, a limited circle of friends and acquaintances, and a lack of knowledge about the opposite sex. Taking all this in combination with the origins of Conservapedia, I worry that people who read this example will fall back on erroneous stereotypes and assume that Stan is a product of home-schooling. Can we include some information regarding Stan's educational background in the example, in order to head that sort of assumption off at the pass?

In Example 5, Kate starts out as a Conservative. But by the end of the example, she has an STD. Does this mean she's no longer a Conservative, since one of the benefits that Conservatives bring to the table is "freedom from sexually transmitted diseases"? If yes, it seems like a regrettably harsh and unfair outcome. Is there some means by which Kate can appeal this decision? Cua1101 14:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Less STD's?

I was under the impression that Abstinence only education actually leads to higher rates of STD. I was also under the impression that conservatives are more likely to only receive abstinence only sexual education.

Also, rates of teenagers having sex is fairly identical for liberals and conservatives.

Also, if there going to be actual evidence and sources in this article or are you just going to have 5 first hand accounts that even IF they were true, would still mean nothing? CRockefeller 16:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT) - 'CRockefeller'

1. Sign your posts. 4 tildes - '~' 2. Abstinence is an absolute defence against STDs.

Learn, think, pray.

Bugler 16:11, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Rates of premarital sex is the same for liberals and conservatives. It is an absolute IF ACTUALLY APPLIED, but that's a big IF. Nine out of ten people have premarital sex.

So really, conservatives have a higher chance of having STD's because they have a higher chance of not practicing safe sex. CRockefeller 16:20, 27 June 2008 (EDT) - CRockefeller

You really are a hopeless victim of Liberal denial. True conservatives are open to teaching and education, are open to logic and reason, are open to thought being the master of impulse, are open to concepts such as honesty and purity being virtues and reasons to be proud, rather than the sniggering denigration practiced by Liberal hypocricy. Get real. Bugler 16:25, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how do you account for bushing pushing Abstinence only funding for Africa?

I'd say that's more of an example of denial than anything CRockefeller 16:30, 27 June 2008 (EDT) - '~'

Example six

OK, where does the contributor get off saying that "most liberal college students" are drug users? Does he have personal experience of this? It's not my place to edit this, since it's an essay, but might I suggest the deletion of that particular phrase?--Frey 15:18, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Frey, if you spent any amount of time on a college campus that has liberal students, you would quickly realize this is true.--Hurst 15:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

UC Davis liberal enough? How about UCLA? I realize this is a propaganda piece, so it gets a little more slack, but that's just a blatant lie.--Frey 15:56, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Frey, do you seriously doubt that at least 50% of liberal students have smoked pot? Among liberal politicians, the number may be at least 50%, let alone people who never get that far.--Aschlafly 16:14, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
As it happens, I do, although I'll grant that it's possible. In six years at UCLA and three years at UC Davis, I never smoked pot, nor did I ever witness the smoking of pot, nor had any of my friends (who tended to be leftist) smoked pot, to my knowledge.
Also, someone who has smoked pot at some point in their life and "drug user," as it is used in the story, are two very different things.
Although I do apologize for the term "blatant lie." I should have said "blatent falsehood". Didn't mean to imply intent.--Frey 16:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Stan's wife is dead! Hooray!

Your average liberal is a law abiding, spouse-loving citizen. Blaming Hollywood values? Right. I don't think Paris Hilton is really a tick on the political spectrum. Blaming infertility on the woman? Surely it can't be his fault! This is the biggest load of medieval-minded garbage I've ever read. Corry 23:38, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

You're providing a good caricature of a closed-minded liberal. Don't stop.--Aschlafly 23:46, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
I admit freely that I am a liberal, and I make a constant effort to be open-minded. My point is that this is a load of scare tactics based on anecdotal evidence. I can name one very prominent example where marrying a conservative joins you to a patron of male prostitutes and a meth abuser. Does this make marrying a conservative likely to saddle you with such a situation? Certainly not, no more than marrying a liberal makes you unlikely to have children. Corry 00:20, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
If you're claiming that there is absolutely no correlation between one's beliefs and one's conduct, then you're plainly wrong. People who oppose promiscuity are less likely to have sexually transmitted diseases than people who favor promiscuity. If you deny that, then you'll lose all credibility.--Aschlafly 00:32, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I agree that there is a correlation between one's beliefs, consisting of their religious perspective and system of values, and their actions. I also agree that risk of contracting an STD rises with the number of sexual partners one has. What I disagree with is the idea that being a liberal is synonymous with promiscuity, infidelity, infecting your spouse with HIV, etc. Corry 11:18, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
No one claims that "being a liberal is synonymous with promiscuity ...." But it's absurd and wrong to deny the correlation, which is what you first did above.--Aschlafly 11:20, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
That claim is clearly made in the essay. The essay explicitly claims that by marrying a conservative you are able to avoid promiscuity, personal debt, etc. The clear implication is that by marrying a liberal you are in danger of being left, getting HIV, and getting your house burglarized until thankfully your horrible liberal spouse dies. This is a fine example of setting up liberals as some kind of boogeymen. Corry 11:34, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Each posting by you contradicts the one before. First you insist there is no correlation, then you imply there is a correlation, and now you're back to denying it again.
Having sex with someone who believes in promiscuity does increase one's chance of contracting a STD and becoming infertile. Ditto for marrying one. Liberals are more likely to believe in promiscuity than conservatives. I'll let you apply basic logic to those indisputable statements, or you can revert to liberal denial.--Aschlafly 11:41, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
On the contrary- if there is sound statistical evidence showing an association between liberal political views and having more sexual partners or a higher incidence of STDs, then I will concede that particular point. Corry 13:07, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Now you try an entirely new approach by introducing the implausible condition of "if there is sound statistical evidence showing ...." Of course no one is likely to pay for such a study, for several reasons. First, it's politically incorrect and second, it's obvious.
You have free will to reject logic. Belief/acceptance of promiscuity is undeniably correlated to more promiscuity, and hence more STDs and infertility. We don't need a study to prove logic, and it's liberal denial to claim that one is necessary. Suit yourself.--Aschlafly 13:33, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
"Liberals are more likely to believe in promiscuity than conservatives." That's not a statement of logic, that's a statement born of your opinion. How is it liberal denial to ask if there is evidence regarding your statement? I am offering, in a civil discussion, to admit that you are right about a point of contention, but not just because you say so. Corry 13:43, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Challenging that statement is like denying that liberals are less likely to support the Second Amendment than conservatives.
Liberals are more likely to deny that promiscuity is sinful; liberals are more likely to oppose and even ridicule abstinence; liberals are more likely to support abortion, a product of promiscuity; and liberals are more likely to defend the highly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle. Show me liberal institutions that emphatically declare that promiscuity is wrong, sinful and harmful as many conservative institutions, organizations, and leaders do. Good luck.--Aschlafly 13:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Liberal churches teach that when you marry somebody you should devote yourself to them and them only. They just might not seem to make their point as "emphatically" because they generally don't try to get their own cable channel. Corry 14:01, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
On a conciliatory note, the webpage is running much more smoothly today. Whatever was wrong seems to be fixed. Corry 14:08, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Here is a breakdown of the rates of Chlamydia by states in the US. The liberal ones should have higher rates than the conservative ones but there does not seem to be a correlation in this manner. Hope this helps Andy and Corry. --MCrowe 14:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll say, Massachusetts is certainly much lower than Mississippi and South Carolina. I don't know what's happening in Alaska, but they're winning by a landslide! Seriously, though, it would be interesting to compare these data with prevalence of abstinence-only sex education. Corry 14:26, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I'd say STDs and abortions probably correlate more with income and education than political affiliation.--DamianSuarez 14:39, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
That's fair and entirely possible. Surely there's a multitude of causes for these differences. Corry 14:45, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I suspect (and its only a suspicion) that Andy may be correct about the rate of liberal promiscuity being higher than that of conservatives. However I think that liberals are better at teaching their children about safe sex and the use of condoms than conservatives are.--MCrowe 14:47, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I don't think the CDC data really adds anything to the debate, whilst as a Brit I will freely admit to not having a good working knowledge of US politics, as I understand it the Democrat/Republican (and hence liberal/conservative split) in most states is roughly 50:50. As a result you cannot really gain any meaningful correlation between a red or blue state and its STD rates.
It would be very interesting to see if there is a correlation between different sex-ed policies and STD rates (and a suspect such a study has been done) --J00ni 15:22, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Back from the weekend. It would be interesting to see statistics on STD rates with abstinence-based vs. normal sex ed. And I agree that these data from the CDC can't be extrapolated from to prove a point they were not meant to prove. I remain convinced, though, that this essay is nothing but a bunch of hateful boogeyman stories. Corry 09:18, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Quick question

Honestly, I didn't read the whole thing because I'm afraid of a repeat like Writing Homework One--where you make the assumption that all public schoolers write emails like that. So, this "works" as long as one person is conservative? I'm still -0.35 (Left) according to that political compass test... this "method" works as long as I marry a conservative girl, right? -.- Natebecause I care? 11:57, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I suggest you try to understand the concept of "correlation" first.--Aschlafly 12:07, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
High irony, coming from you baby-shaker. Stile4alyReturns 15:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)


  • Example One: You said, "fell in love". Doesn't that mean true love? True love is a mistake? Pancakes!It's how I swear
Ralph thought it was true love. Who's to say it wasn't? Perhaps true love is not always sensible and doesn't always end in happiness for both parties.--Aschlafly 22:56, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Example Two: A Catholic/conservative friend of mine, "Elle", has had premarital sex and is now a lesbian. Conservative =/= STI-free.
Doubt she's very conservative. Maybe you mean to say she used to be conservative. I also doubt she'll be happy in 25 years.--Aschlafly 22:56, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
No true Scotsman. Corry 23:23, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Example Three: Is Bob truly happy? I'm sure he feels guilt. "Justice Guy" might just come around and treat Bob with what he deserves. When Bob is about to die, he'll regret everyone he hurt, 'tis human nature.
Bob seems to be happy as far as anyone can tell. But perhaps you're right. Even if you're right, however, that doesn't change the effect on the other spouse, or the point of the story.--Aschlafly 22:56, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Example Four: Conservative fairy tale? Bad karma? "Justice Guy" does exist! Which every "side" you are, you will almost naturally censor the other.
No, I don't see why that would be true. Think Muslims are as tolerant of Christians in Muslim countries as vice-versa? Nope.--Aschlafly 22:56, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
  • Example Five: You should date before falling in love. Is there more of a back story to Kate and Bill? How long did they date before marriage? I suggest 7 years of dating.
  • Example Six: What?! How do you convince someone to have premarital sex? If you are true to your beliefs, then you will not succumb to such a pitiful "persuasion". Does convince = seduce? Or does convince = rape unwanted sex?
"got a good job". Don't use "got" it's too broad.
Lock your door. Purchase a stable security system. Don't tell your drug-dealing friends where you live! Common-sense!
Was the wife unfaithful? No? Cheap-shot divorce. "Hey, while you're in jail... I'm going to divorce you and start dating this chick I met at my old job."
Thank you for reading my rant. I am done. Anyone, feel free to yell at me on the weekend. -.- Natebecause I care? 19:16, 31 July 2008 (EDT)


Every time I visit this article I'm amused to see the parody entries I put here still remain. Poe's Law FTW!

Starting with this parody comment by you?