search results matching tag: Jordan

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (361)     Sift Talk (5)     Blogs (26)     Comments (329)   

Congressman Matt Gaetz Snubbed by Trump Amid Growing Scandal

luxintenebris jokingly says...

just notice...

- that 'not-so' green women who had (at least) two affairs on her now re-united with husband
- jacket-less jordan who 'said' he didn't know (about sexual abuse) but those who said he did can quote his response(s) verbatim
- cruz who vacation in mexico while his state's people had to deal with an unnatural disaster

(overlook the conservative donors that gave jobs by getting hand-jobs, the university president that got fired for not having sex with w/his wife, or the ones responsible for the burning deaths of prom-goers)

...now the lackluster news of a republican congressman paying for sex and doing illegal drugs ONLY makes the headlines because one of the contractors was underage...

this is not your dad's gop.

paleontologists don't have that many skeletons in their closets.

surfingyt said:

One by one Trump's little bootlickers are falling. It is glorious.

Can't wait to see who is next in line.

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

newtboy said:

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

Let's talk about Trump going to the hospital....

bcglorf says...

@newtboy
-Including race as a determining factor in your admission score
as a 'liberal' ideal
This IS happening broadly, link to how and arguments for why it is 'good'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/10/03/harvard-beat-an-effort-end-its-use-race-factor-admissions-what-will-supreme-court-do/
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/10/01/471085/5-reasons-support-affirmative-action-college-admissions/

-Enforcement of a race based "day of absence" where based on your race you were to be 'kicked off' campus for the day
Specifically the day of absence was at evergreen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests
Similarly reverse racist attitudes though are common enough, like chasing out a student journalist here for simply covering an event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kVGtqp7usw

-"deplatforming" people for having dissenting opinions
Jordan Peterson is the biggest example, but my local uni has also banned pro-life student clubs too, so maybe I'm a little Canada biased on this?

-The entire circle-jerk of intersectionalism:
---"whiteness" needs to be defined as something inherently negative
Here's the Standford course on it if you or your parents wanna enrol:
https://explorecourses.stanford.edu/search?view=catalog&filter-coursestatus-Active=on&page=0&catalog=&q=CSRE+32SI%3A+Whiteness&collapse=

---"Racism" needs to redefined as not simply racial prejudice, but racial prejudice PLUS power(you know, so only white people can be racist under the new definition)
Likewise offered at Stanford, unless this is the lone critical race theory course that doesn't champion the above prejudice+power definition.
https://law.stanford.edu/courses/critical-race-theory/

---"systemic racism" getting defined as anything with unequal outcomes, so if asian students do too well in math it must mean the system is favouring them and we need to step in


And I'm out of time,

but seriously I'm a little baffled this was remotely controversial? Identity politics is a game the left has been playing at HARD for at minimum the decades since Affirmative Action was launched. The notion that the idea would eventually get national level push back should have been easy to see coming.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

The gallery has been accused of providing a platform for fascist, neo-Nazi and Islamophobic speakers and individuals who promote white supremacy and eugenics.

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

After the attack, Mr Stevens, who edits a far-right website called Amerika, wrote: “I am honoured to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”

Mr Stevens comments on his blog, Amerika, where he says the “neoreaction conference” was hosted behind a “veil of secrecy", confirming the secret agenda of the gallery because you can't have a beneficial discussion of these issues when the discussion is hidden from one side of the issue. Clearly then this isn't an effort to facilitate “a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies” when the event is hidden from all but one ideology, right?

The gallery has leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.

The gallery has also hosted, Peter Brimelow, a high profile American anti-immigrant activist. He has been described as the “new David Duke” – the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Mr Brimelow founded website VDare, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describe as “a nonprofit that warns against the polluting of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants.”


Ms Diego, the owner, described the left as “more like a fascist organisation than the real fascists”“I’m not even sure if I disagree with the Muslim ban. I see it also as a temporary measure in order for America to get sorted while they transition to another form of government,” She said: “Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." But her actions, holding far right racist events in secret exposes that statement as pure bullshit.

I can't speak to the student/Jordan Peterson thing without knowing all the facts or I might end up as wrong as the title and description of this video, which is pure lies btw.
I feel it's likely the video she played actually promoted hatred and violence directly, not just that it included one person who had a different political affiliation like you indicate, but I don't know.

After how you erroneously described this event/video, I'm not so sure I can trust your explanations. Sorry.

Again, all this info is in the links provided.

bcglorf said:

The gallery is accused of repeatedly bringing in white-supremacists. The guy in the video is accused of being a neo-nazi figurehead.

The only evidence I’m seeing though is the gallery bringing in one guy I’d clearly label white supremacist, and then a bunch of people that same to have the wrong opinions on immigration, but it’s hardly clear that there is anymore evidence than that with which to convict.

This matters to me because here in Canada a student assistant was brought in for discipline and became the center of a storm for playing a fee minutes if an interview that included UT prof Jordan Peterson. She was accused of promoting hate and violence(and even committing violence herself) for the act of playing the video. All this because Jordan Peterson is a ‘well known’ alt-right extremist...

The evidence I’ve seen here has the same stink to it and so I’m reluctant to just convict the accused on the mobs say so.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

bcglorf says...

The gallery is accused of repeatedly bringing in white-supremacists. The guy in the video is accused of being a neo-nazi figurehead.

The only evidence I’m seeing though is the gallery bringing in one guy I’d clearly label white supremacist, and then a bunch of people that same to have the wrong opinions on immigration, but it’s hardly clear that there is anymore evidence than that with which to convict.

This matters to me because here in Canada a student assistant was brought in for discipline and became the center of a storm for playing a fee minutes if an interview that included UT prof Jordan Peterson. She was accused of promoting hate and violence(and even committing violence herself) for the act of playing the video. All this because Jordan Peterson is a ‘well known’ alt-right extremist...

The evidence I’ve seen here has the same stink to it and so I’m reluctant to just convict the accused on the mobs say so.

newtboy said:

If the same standard applies, then yes, you are saying you expect a lone BLM activist at a clan rally to be treated better...because this treatment is unacceptable in your opinion.

His speech, or at least the speech he's defending, has been used to exactly that effect publicly and repeatedly in recent past, maybe just seconds earlier we don't know, so now it seems you've come around to my side. Am I wrong?

No, I never heard of this before this video, I have no other info, nor have I independently verified what I found. That said, a gallery that repeatedly hosts Nazis and white power speakers, surely bringing with them crowds of Nazis and white power groups into a neighborhood IS acting as a neo Nazi hq, at least during those multiple events.

I think if the gallery wasn't in a residential neighborhood but in the country, the "wrong think" would be fine, it's that they repeatedly turn the neighborhood into a race war zone by holding what amounts to white power rallies people would be outraged by, imo...but I'm not British, I can imagine they think worse about Nazis than Americans do and might be less tolerant.

I don't disagree that the gallery may have intended to just be an open space available to anyone, but what they became was a beacon to Nazis and racists, a safe place to hold rallies and events in a neighborhood that clearly doesn't want them. A place from which to provoke. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When they saw how angry their neighbors were at the groups they brought to the neighborhood they should have changed how they operate, or where, but seemingly didn't.


So, while the gallery may not be specifically a Nazi HQ, by hosting the speakers and groups it does, it supports their ideologies and facilitated spreading their message by offering them a platform. That makes them complicit, intentionally so after the first protest when they were put on notice the neighbors are outraged.

newtboy (Member Profile)

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your video, Meet ‘The Michael Jordan of Dogs’, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 414 Badge!

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Zawash (Member Profile)

Angelina Jordan - Bohemian Rhapsody - AGT Champions

Angelina Jordan Astar - Summertime

Angelina Jordan - Bohemian Rhapsody - AGT Champions

Impeachment Bombshell Ties Trump and Rudy to Ukraine Scheme

newtboy says...

No Bob. Wrong again. Some were background witnesses that prove the mindset....removing a top diplomat known internationally for her anti corruption successes in the manner he did it was like like photos of Trump dismantling video cameras the night before he robbed his own bank, they don't prove he did it, and he has the right to remove them, but it's still good evidence he was planning the crime. There were also direct witnesses to his actions, and what the Ukrainians were saying.
We get more direct witnesses today, including numerous professionals who were listening in on the phone calls.

Most leaks have come directly from the Whitehouse, and a never ending stream from Giuliani, but he used them. Secondly, what exactly was he so worried might leak about his perfect phone calls that he needed to create a secret non governmental channel to do foreign policy based on ridiculous false claims from criminal Ukrainians who paid him for access, then hide all evidence behind a top secret clearance firewall? Could it be because the State Department had already debunked both theories thoroughly, or because the payments from Russian tied Ukrainians was totally illegal, as is selling American policy to the highest foreign bidders? Next excuse.

Bob, you know the Republicans aren't asking about the facts or offering a defense, but are only using their time to make false statements about Biden and the witnesses, and to whine about the process they themselves designed, right?

...and you add a video from rabid nutbag Jordan why? His animated blatherings were only designed to confuse and obfuscate, and had no logical bearing on the procedure. His rapid fire naming players only works on morons who can't follow along, anyone with an iq above 80 understands Songland was revising his testimony because others testified he was lying. Taylor recalled having been told by Songland's staff, Mr Morrison, about Songlands conversations with Mr Yarmack, a Ukrainian official, about meetings with Zelensky and Pence (and what he told Yarmack was the meeting was conditional on an investigation announcement over Biden, not Burisma or corruption, and it was cancelled because there was no such public announcement). Mr Morrison would testify the same, so Songland had to admit the conversation happened. Hilariously, until that admission, Songland was your guy, now you guys pretend you can't follow one sentence if it has 5 names in it. This from the guy who brought you Benghazi, numerous closed door secret investigations over nonsense with zero evidence or corroboration. *facepalm

Btw, Zelensky had a scheduled interview to announce his Biden investigation in a quid pro quo for the funding release, but the illegal funding hold and related extortion was discovered publicly first and the scheme fell apart days before he gave the interview, which he cancelled as soon as the funds were released and the extortion plot ruined. If he wasn't being extorted, he would have had that interview anyway.

Funny how they repeatedly use their time to complain about not being allowed to ask questions (a total lie btw) in closed door sessions or to make false accusations against others like Biden or Schiff instead of asking questions about this case....even the Republican lawyer. It's like they have no defense....oh, wait.

Keep laughing. I know Jordan being the best you've got gives me a chuckle. Rational people see him as the total nutjob he is.

bobknight33 said:

I'm not crying I'm laughing my ass off over the democrat special. Only hearsay witnesses.




State department pissed that they weren't used. With all the leaks no wonder Trump bypassed this group.


Your drinking Shift Koolaid and being killed by facts.

Conan Takes Jordan Schlansky 2 A Favorite Italian Restaurant



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon