Oooff….this did not age well….

Dershowitz WAS named in the Epstein depositions repeatedly as a client, one who Jane Doe #3 was forced to have sex with repeatedly as a 13 year old minor not just in Florida but on planes, in New York, New Mexico, and the US Virgin Islands. The sworn statements go on to document that Dershowitz was also often present on the island alone with Epstein, without his family, getting “massages” from young, like 13 year old girls…not a one time with his wife together couple’s massage by 35 year old women as he claimed.
Not exactly the pinnacle of virtue or brilliant legal mind he once may have been.
His answer…no one can possibly say anything about him unless they first publicly condemn Hamas.

Bwaaahahahaha! You fool. An over 35 year old clip of Biden being tough on crime is what you’ve got? Quit now. 😂

At that time Trump was publicly calling for the lynching death of 5 boys who were known to be innocent of all the charges against them, he still is. He had recently paid out millions in fines for racist redlining at his NY properties. Way to remind us of the public lynching supporting racist he is.
For a long time after this, Trump supported the democrats and these same drug policies.

Do you not know your party STILL wants MORE mandatory sentencing and MORE disparity between crack and cocaine….you actually think Don Jr shouldn’t ever be prosecuted for his blatant current full blown cocaine addiction despite it being obvious he was high as a kite as he did government business, but Hunter should get life for recovering from a private crack addiction 5 years ago (past the 3 year statute of limitations). 😂

Biden said jail for Hunter too…if he had been CAUGHT with the crack or if he had refused treatment in 2019…or if he’s convicted of a crime with a prison sentence.

He said all this about mandatory sentencing well over 30 years ago when the pitfalls of mandatory sentencing and underlying racism of considering crack different from cocaine weren’t as obvious.
Yes, his support of mandatory sentencing and different sentences for crack than for cocaine was misguided in hindsight. At the time the Regan CIA’s responsibility for flooding the inner cities with crack and causing the epidemic of crackheads wasn’t understood, but the damage it was doing was.

Dark Brandon has done not one thing to keep Hunter out of jail. Not a word of protest, no interference whatsoever. Rant and cry all you like, no one has presented a single word of evidence indicating he has. Not even the fake whistleblower actors the GOP paid to testify. 😂
You cannot say the same for Trumps or the Trump administration, which pardoned dozens of its own members for committing serious crimes against America and We The People for Trump and then were set free by decree.

Keep whining and crying Bobby boy. Every MAGA tear gives Dark Brandon more power, makes Trump weaker and sadder, and makes your friends see you as weak and someone to be cuckolded. Better keep an eye on your wife and kids, they think you’re a loser and a nutjob, and may be out the door already just like Melania.

Enjoy upcoming indictment 5, 6, and 7!
Enjoy the next 2 years of public trials with discovery exposing more disgusting, abusive, illegal subversion of the government by MAGA, more blatant lies they sold you, more avoidable deaths caused by divisive policies, and always more and worse debauchery. 😂 😂 😂

Hilarious….you need to ask why someone doesn’t like nazis?…but who said to kill them all? Wasn’t me.
Are you under the mistaken assumption that being a mine defuser is a death sentence, and they all died? Is that what happened in the movie? This was a German plan to have them earn their freedom and not starve to death in POW camps.

I can’t abide Nazis. If you feel the urge to defend nazis, that’s on you, buddy.

So, you’re just trolling then….or are you so dense you don’t see a difference between captive invading murderous soldiers who are around 16 and who were committing a genocide and non combatant children who are 10 and not indoctrinated into violent expansionist racist and murderous fascism? Nazi youth aren’t cub scouts….Jojo Rabbit wasn’t a historically accurate documentary.

If we had not abandoned Vietnam and our soldiers were captured instead, our soldiers there should have been forced to demine Vietnam and Cambodia, including the 15 year olds (the idea that non combatant children be sent there is brain numbingly ludicrous)(Dan Bullock (December 21, 1953 – June 7, 1969) was a United States Marine and the youngest U.S. serviceman killed in action during the Vietnam War, dying at the age of 15. Yes, we use youth soldiers too.).

The mines we left all over those countries have killed and maimed numerous generations, tens of thousands, and continue to do so to this day, and if I’m not mistaken, many POWs did clear mines during captivity. Leaving an active minefield on foreign soil should be a war crime if it isn’t already. It’s definitely targeting the civilian population once the war is over.

Wow. Remind me to never be around your family then. Everyone in my family knew it was wrong to invade and murder our neighbors because we like their stuff and land, and wrong to try to exterminate an entire ethnicity by the time we were 6. If you didn’t know that by 14, you have serious issues. Nazis exterminated the mentally feeble.

The young republicans aren’t a murderous group exterminating Jews, blacks, gays, and anyone not Republican…nazis were. If the young republicans were a murderous group like the nazis, any member should get the death penalty, even the murdering racist 15 year olds….young adults kill just as thoroughly as 35 year olds, their victims were just as terrified and are now just as dead.

The nazis didn’t have a tiny majority through which they controlled German politics, they had a monopoly. Another false equivelent. Christ on a cracker. If Trump had won in 2020, and used the Jan 6 attack on congress as a false pretext to outlaw any opposition to Republicans, taking over completely through violence and intimidation and held and consolidated power for nearly a decade you would be almost there. Holy Ghost on toast!

Are you shitting me. You equate these things, refusing vaccines, creating bad state laws disenfranchising voters, to accepting and participating in genocide. Just fucking wow, buddy. Stretch much? Almighty God on cod!

Old enough to murder, and you do it, you’re an adult. I don’t give a flying fuck if you’re 9. If you know what your doing when you put that gun to a Jews head and say “your children are next, you fucking kike” or a similar slur then pull the trigger, you just became an adult and eligible for the death penalty. We try 12 year olds as adults, but you would shield murderous hitler youth, many of whom turned in their own parents for liquidation, from responsibility from committing genocide among other disgusting atrocities. These kids aren’t Jojo Rabbit. Mother Mary with her cherry!

Besides…as I informed you, it was the German commander who had the idea and gave the order. At least get mad at the right nation.

You said “ but just can't get my head around putting children in a minefield. no matter the justification. that'd be just as bad as anything the nazis could ever do: lose any sense of humanity.”
1) you have lost your ever loving mind if you think a little danger is as bad as anything the nazis could ever do….you simply have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. The atrocities the nazis committed make clearing a minefield they layed look like a nice summer job with a friendly and generous boss by comparison. Try abasination, sewing twins together, seeing how long people can live without skin, raping people to death, melting people alive in acids, starving babies, stomping babies, gassing entire populations, etc. you really climbed so far up on that high horse you can’t see reality anymore. Sweet Zombie Jesus!
2) it was something the nazis did. This was a nazi plan from a nazi officer. Get it straight. The nazis did this, not the allies. That’s what I mean by learn the history instead of getting mad over a story….you are upset over fiction….and defending nazis in your outrage over nothing.

You have a problem. Your position is that nazis shouldn’t have to take any responsibility for their actions…apparently going so far as excusing college age men for fascist, racist genocide because you know some people that age who made some mistakes. (I say that proves my point that just as being older doesn’t mean making better decisions, being younger doesn’t mean you can’t make good decisions. I learned to not hurt other people except in defense in preschool.)

I say if you pick up that gun and march, you’re a soldier and responsible for your actions. If you kill, you’re a killer, no matter your age.

Had a similar experience with a buffed 35 years old security guard... Back when I was 11. On a daily basis. Made me a stronger man... With a bit of numb tissue.

I believe you, @gorillaman. If those sentences read the same to you, then they read the same to you. It IS hard for me to understand how that can be true because my experience is radically different, but that is my problem, not yours.

I'm sure it is a generational thing (although I know that there are young men and women who are careful with their language, so it isn't JUST me and my generation. You made some pretty sweeping statements about the whole world, as if the way you experience things is the standard. Gotta disagree with you there. And your use of "we" does seem a tad bit ... over-reaching.) It blows my mind how things have changed in the past 40 years. I grew up with arguments about whether it was okay to call an author who happened to be a woman an "authoress." Can you imagine? Making the act of writing a book gender-related? That word is gone. As is "poetess." And very few women were reporters -- if they wanted to work for a newspaper, they were mostly relegated to the "women's section" where the news was all about society events and recipes. It was even labelled "women's section." It was a different world, and I do NOT miss it.

I too would love it if gendered nouns and pronouns went away. I just learned that until relatively recently, it was proper usage to say "their" instead of "his" as the gender neutral version. And it was a woman who worked hard to change it (I guess it bugged her that a singular subject would have a multiple pronoun, or whatever the grammar terms are.) I'd love to go back to "them" and "their".

I disagree with you that my "radical" version is unsound. I acknowledged that the cultural significance has changed in the past 40 years. However, I dare say you would not go up to a 35 year old black man who is a stranger to you and call him a boy to his face. Although if you do it, I would love to hear the results. We would need a sample of more than one, right? -- you might get a polite person, after all!

If you try this experiment, I urge you to avoid a Southern accent and turn the "boy" into a two syllable word.

As to your question -- "What do you think is the #1 reason 'girl' as a synonym for 'woman' is in more common usage than 'boy' for 'man'?" -- you wouldn't accept my answer, I fear. It hasn't changed in 40 years. I hear things you don't, right? I am happy to tell you, if you really want to hear. I am afraid what I say will just cause you to scoff.

I would love to hear your answer to that, though. Why is that? Why is it okay to casually, consistently, overwhelmingly call a grown woman a girl, but we don't do that to men? Why the difference? What is gained from that word substitution? What is lost?

And why is sometimes okay to use "girl" and "boy" for grown men and women? I do it all the time. Boys' night out, girls' night out -- those are just fine with me.

Personally, I would love to see the word "guy" get ungendered. I have a very butch Lesbian friend who HATES it when a group of women is called "guys." I can't stand the word "gal" -- don't know why. It is just... ancient and stodgy. I love being out with the guys, but lord save me from being out with the "gals".

I do wonder about this part of your attempt at this experiment -- "words come up ... in the wrong contexts." I don't understand what that means. It is a simple list of rules. You hear the word "man", change it to "boy." You hear the word "girl" applied to anyone age 20 and older, you change it to "woman." If you are adventurous, you use those words when talking. How can there be "wrong contexts"? That is exactly the experiment, isn't it?

Any way this plays out, I really appreciate you engaging me on this. This is the most fun I've had with this topic EVER. And I really appreciate hearing from a different generational perspective. I'm letting it percolate and I can feel things shifting a bit.

>> ^brycewi19:

36 is not "almost 40". (I am trying to convince my 34 year old self something?!)
Melissa Joan Hart still has "got it" in my book!


Fun story.

My kitchen manager at work is 35 years old. (I'm 23). On the day of his 35th birthday he goes "Shit, i'm like, halfway to 40"

I replied, "No Shawn, i'm halfway to 40. You're halfway to 70."

He was not amused.

>> ^bobknight33:

Quit your raciest rants. Just the guy is non black does not give anyone a free pass out of jail.
You don't know what happened so keep you shit to yourself.
Maybe the guy though he had a gun I don't know, you don't know and we don't know. Time will tell.
Being 1/2 the size don't mean jack. An 8 year old with a gun is just as deadly as a 17 or 35 year old.
>> ^Drax:
>> ^bobknight33:
Both left and right smear facts when its convenient and both side are smearing this story for all its worth.
I don't think all the facts are in. I don't know who is right or wrong. All I know is that sadly there is a grieving family who lost their son.
Hopefully ideology won't get in the way of facts.

Yeah, it's certainly a fact that an unarmed teenage boy of his size needed to be shot in the chest with a gun in order to be dealt with.
So many in fact that there's no reason to detain the non-black person at all. Yeah.



If by gun you mean skittles. Shitbird.

Even if he did have a gun, the guy should still go straight to the station and be arrested. If he just THOUGHT he had a gun, then he should go there as well.

Zimmerman is racist. And so are the cops that did not arrest him immediately.

>> ^bobknight33:

Quit your raciest rants. Just the guy is non black does not give anyone a free pass out of jail.
You don't know what happened so keep you shit to yourself.
Maybe the guy though he had a gun I don't know, you don't know and we don't know. Time will tell.
Being 1/2 the size don't mean jack. An 8 year old with a gun is just as deadly as a 17 or 35 year old.
>> ^Drax:
>> ^bobknight33:
Both left and right smear facts when its convenient and both side are smearing this story for all its worth.
I don't think all the facts are in. I don't know who is right or wrong. All I know is that sadly there is a grieving family who lost their son.
Hopefully ideology won't get in the way of facts.

Yeah, it's certainly a fact that an unarmed teenage boy of his size needed to be shot in the chest with a gun in order to be dealt with.
So many in fact that there's no reason to detain the non-black person at all. Yeah.

So Bobknight, any civilian with a gun can stalk and kill anyone else, as long as they claim they saw a gun? This was ridiculous enough when uniformed cops did it. But now I can carry and get away with murder as long as I'm the only witness?

And what about Trevan's right to defend himself? Some strange, big, armed guy was stalking and chasing him; what would you tell your teenage son to do. Seems like the teenager had more to fear than this neighborhood watch clod.>> ^bobknight33:

Quit your raciest rants. Just the guy is non black does not give anyone a free pass out of jail.
You don't know what happened so keep you shit to yourself.
Maybe the guy though he had a gun I don't know, you don't know and we don't know. Time will tell.
Being 1/2 the size don't mean jack. An 8 year old with a gun is just as deadly as a 17 or 35 year old.
>> ^Drax:
>> ^bobknight33:
Both left and right smear facts when its convenient and both side are smearing this story for all its worth.
I don't think all the facts are in. I don't know who is right or wrong. All I know is that sadly there is a grieving family who lost their son.
Hopefully ideology won't get in the way of facts.

Yeah, it's certainly a fact that an unarmed teenage boy of his size needed to be shot in the chest with a gun in order to be dealt with.
So many in fact that there's no reason to detain the non-black person at all. Yeah.

Quit your raciest rants. Just the guy is non black does not give anyone a free pass out of jail.

You don't know what happened so keep you shit to yourself.

Maybe the guy though he had a gun I don't know, you don't know and we don't know. Time will tell.

Being 1/2 the size don't mean jack. An 8 year old with a gun is just as deadly as a 17 or 35 year old.

>> ^Drax:

>> ^bobknight33:
Both left and right smear facts when its convenient and both side are smearing this story for all its worth.
I don't think all the facts are in. I don't know who is right or wrong. All I know is that sadly there is a grieving family who lost their son.
Hopefully ideology won't get in the way of facts.

Yeah, it's certainly a fact that an unarmed teenage boy of his size needed to be shot in the chest with a gun in order to be dealt with.
So many in fact that there's no reason to detain the non-black person at all. Yeah.

@aurens: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/others/RayJan07.html




Your copied original text: Another argument commonly used in healthcare-policy debates is that there are almost 46 million people who have no health insurance at all. Again, this is not a problem in and of itself. According to the National Health Interview Survey, 40 percent of those uninsured are less than 35 years old, while approximately 20 percent earn over $75,000 a year. In other words, a large fraction of those who are uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to buy it or are healthy enough that they don’t really need it (beyond, perhaps, catastrophic coverage).

My paraphrase: "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance."

The poor: 40% - of the uninsured NEED healthcare, as do the 40% young. That's 80% of the uninsured who cannot afford healtcare and need it. Even if you cut the (free-market) cost an assload, it will still be too expensive for many. Therefore, the federal state that is there to protect their lives should provide the healthcare needed. It is not intellectual dishonesty. Healthcare is a right, at least in every industrialised country except the USA. Just because some guy says it isn't, doesn't make it so.


Can you reallistically tell me how poor people without jobs will be provided with food, healthcare and housing without their government providing if they live in small, poor village in the middle of the USA?

3. My answer is meant to show that your question is laden with faulty assumptions. (Your initial post is a textbook example of begging the question.) But, again, to humor you, I'll address what would happen without farming subsidies in the United States: (a) Americans would eat more healthfully; (b) no, farming would not become unprofitable (except maybe for the huge corporations who wastefully produce the once-subsidized products, namely corn); (c) the average percentage of income spent on food might go up, though it wouldn't necessarily cut "heavily into the income of poorer people."

By the way: farming is profitable for many farmers, and to suggest that it isn't ("would it become profitable again") is misleading.


2. I'll spell it out for you: I choose not to address it. There are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of labor laws. To suggest that, in their absence, people would be "fired on a whim" is not one of them, and it relegates this conversation to something unworthy of my time.


1. The point of the link was to show, without engaging with your assumption-laden imaginative dystopia, that there are many defensible positions for those who question the wisdom and necessity of antitrust laws.


4. "That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance."

That's worse than a bad paraphrase; it's intellectual dishonesty. You and I gain nothing from this kind of conversation if we interpret information with that strong a bias. Read it again and see if you can't come up with a more intellectually honest response:


"A common argument advanced in support of greater government intervention in the American healthcare market is that a large and growing fraction of the gross domestic product (GDP) is spent on healthcare, while the results, such as average life expectancy, do not compare favorably to the Western nations that have adopted some form of universal healthcare.

This argument is spurious for two reasons:

A growing fraction of GDP spent on healthcare is not a problem per se. In the early half of the twentieth century, the fraction of GDP spent on healthcare grew significantly as new treatments, medical technology, and drugs became available. Growth in spending of this nature is desirable if it satisfies consumer preferences.

Attributing national-health results to the healthcare system adopted by different countries confuses correlation with causation and ignores the many salient variables that are causal factors affecting aggregate statistics (such as average life expectancy). Factors that are likely to be at least as important as the healthcare system include the dietary and exercise preferences of a population.

Another argument commonly used in healthcare-policy debates is that there are almost 46 million people who have no health insurance at all. Again, this is not a problem in and of itself. According to the National Health Interview Survey, 40 percent of those uninsured are less than 35 years old, while approximately 20 percent earn over $75,000 a year. In other words, a large fraction of those who are uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to buy it or are healthy enough that they don’t really need it (beyond, perhaps, catastrophic coverage). The real problem with the American healthcare system is that prices are continually rising, greatly outpacing the rate of inflation, making healthcare unaffordable to an ever-increasing fraction of the population—particularly those without insurance.

If prices in the healthcare market were falling, as they are in other markets such as computers and electronics, the large number of uninsured would be of little concern. Treatments, drugs, and medical technology would become more affordable over time, allowing patients to pay directly for them. Identifying the cause of rising healthcare costs should be the first priority for anyone who seeks solutions to America’s broken healthcare system."


Again, the full article: http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Of course the post is highly speculative ...

Love how that "student" is like, 35 years old!

Way to alienate your lonely 35 year old woman demographic!