Found the breast feeder lol

Bet a friend this would make it to the top 15 due to the fact that every video with a white man using the N-word is like offering breast milk to a baby. As usual it was a good investment.

I got this from a friend.

I was a photographer and I once was taking a picture of this attractive young woman so I told her to remove her blouse so she did. Then I told her to remove her bra and she did. Then I told her to jiggle her breasts and she did. Then she said I cant believe I had to do this just for a drivers license photo.

“Girl strength beauty lab”
Experiment 1
Breast weight
Do you know how much boobs weigh?
A cup = 2 parrots
B cup = 2 rats
C cup = 2 hedgehogs
D cup = 2 rabbits
E cup = 2 hens
Experiment 2
Breast movement/sports
Do you know how boobs move while moving/doing sports?
Running, Jumping rope, tennis, volleyball, boxing.
The results might not be what you expect.
That’s why you need Wacoal 5 star sports clothes.
Brought to you by Wacoal.
With its 5 band support technology yadda yadda. Bra.

I have no interest in defending Trump.

...Yeah, you smell it coming. BUT:

Budgetary concerns for telling trans people "thanks but no thanks" regarding desire to serve in the military might possibly be defensible and comparable to other conditions / states / whatever.

Manning was in jail (whether you think that deserved or not) and got ACLU assistance to be provided with hormone therapy and eventually gender reassignment surgery, because it was deemed psychologically damaging to withhold them. That's some pretty expensive treatment. Paid with tax dollars.

Perform a thought experiment and replace barring trans people from military service with some other group that would similarly require expensive medical maintenance. There's a pretty good example available: Type 1 Diabetes, requiring insulin. And guess what -- diabetics are barred from military service. If you develop diabetes while in the military it isn't grounds for discharge, but if you have it beforehand and want to join up you're SOL.

Back to trans. Do I personally think that they should be barred from service? No, not based purely on that. But if somebody feels that they need hormone replacement and/or gender reassignment surgery, I think they should be paying for that themselves, not on government / military dime.

I'll admit that I see those things not as necessary, but elective. Maybe that's unfair, but at what point does it become ridiculous? Can bald soldiers get hair transplants? Botox? Breast implants?

Trans people want to serve and either A) don't need hormone replacement / gender reassignment or B) are willing to pay out of pocket for them? Sign 'em up. Otherwise, it becomes murky. If that seems insensitive / bigoted, sorry. But plenty of things beyond your control can make you ineligible for military service.


**edit:
Oh, forgot to mention. Do I think Trump really had that sort of argument in mind when he made this decision? HELL NO. He's a spiteful prick. He probably did it for a combination of trying to curry favor with prick GOP congressclowns and just to prod.

Synthol injections. It hardens in-between the muscle fibers to separate them and make your arms look bigger. It's dangerous, and does not increase strength or muscle tissue size.

It's basically breast implants for men. So yes, just like you said, they don't seem real because they aren't

It's a very subtle distinction, as far as I can tell. It's about hating the other who is less deserving. So---they can accept Obamacare/Kentucky Connect, but be furious about others because they feel that the other people accepting some sort of government benefit are LESS DESERVING...

I think.

And like the very nice lady who had her breast cancer treated says: "I didn't know the government was subsidizing my insurance"...

They tend not to know their own state's economic balance sheets and cash flow statements

Not sure how to put this in the context of the video, but...

My gf was diagnosed with breast cancer a few months back and has just finished chemo... now prepping for surgery, radio, and hormone therapy. I know that's a world apart from chronic leukemia - like flu and aids are both viruses - but her attitude was/is:
"Ok, I'm sick, I've got to go through some crap and I'll be better than I am now, even if I'm not fully cured. There's no point raging out about the big fight, or raging inwardly about how unfair it is. I've just got to do some stuff.

"Sick or not, going to work is annoying but necessary. When I need to take care of my child or bf it can be annoying, but necessary. There's no promise that life is easy, but you just do what you can."

I think it's great that people have the strength of character to rage against the disease and not give in to depression, but I will forever be astounded and impressed by my gf's incredibly practical "meh" attitude.

She's Russian. They're a strange people with the weirdest and most practical dark sense of humour, but it's amazing how practical that whole side is.

Not a law, but the rule because of incidents just like this.
I'll stick with TSA standards which forbid open palming a breast...because of incidents like this.

Can they legally ignore these 'rules'? Sure, but it leaves them wide open for a lawsuit, and public opinion is not on the officer's side anymore. Will he go down for molestation, probably not. Will she win her lawsuit, probably.

Bitch...he's just waiting for a thank you....since you never show appreciation for the hard to find gifts (ever look for a 1/2 bird, 1/2 turtle?), he's assuming it wasn't enough to earn some gratitude, so he upped his game.....again and again.
She screwed up on night one, when he expected pear compote on roasted partrige breast, a thank you, and maybe a handie.
Now she's alone, homeless, and owes her soul to her landlord for destroying his property, all due to a complete lack of grattitude and not a smidgen of thought about how to properly use the gifts.

There are two types of people, those who can extrapolate from an incomplete data set...

you're welcome to your opinion, but there's a reason they are supposed to use the BACK of their hand rather than an open palm, and a reason why they are supposed to have a female officer conduct the search. There's no reason for the officer to have ignored those two things he's been trained to do. Cuff her, seat her, and wait.
I saw groping and rotating. I saw it again when I watched again. Her breast moved. I would vote for the plaintiff in her lawsuit against the force.

I didn't see any groping, or actually any contact with the his hand to her breast. He had a flat, open palm the entire time and was using his thumb to check for any objects in the bra/cleavage.

I get that she was caught off-guard by the search and the officer should have explained what he was doing before beginning. This might also have been a wrongful arrest and unconstitutional search, but there is no video evidence that this is sexual assault.

WTF?!? They still do field sobriety tests without a breathalyzer to back them up? That's moronic. They could supply the entire force with two breathalyzers each for what this one bad arrest is going to cost us.
....and WTF 2.0....
Aren't they supposed to have female officers search women. That was not a normal search either, you don't open palm the breast and rotate, that's copping a feel, not searching. Proper search method is to use the back of the hand across the under side of the breast, and maybe a pat to the middle/top if it's possible there's something hidden, not a grab and rotate.

She's going to get paid, no matter what the cops say. All her attorney has to do is ask the jury 'what if that was your wife, mother, daughter being molested over someone else's mistake?' They won't have to leave the court room to deliberate. Sadly, the cops don't seem like they'll learn a thing.

OK, assuming what you say is correct (I'm not taking the time now to check) you have a point, but the stats, even if only 1/2 as bad as it seems, still show there's absolutely no equivalence.

Well, if you ate like that, no wonder you think meat is deadly. Eating like that, it is. Eaten in moderation, meaning <50g of CURED meats, and probably less than 1/3 lb of non cured lean red meats, the conclusion I came to is reasonable....that it's in no way comparable to smoking in it's danger. it's not even comparable if you eat 5 times the studied portion of cured meats, although it is clearly not healthy to do so. I eat < 1/2 lb of steak, on the rare occasions I eat it. I eat 1/2 a chicken breast on a normal day, baked. Because I eat good meat, properly prepared, in moderation, there's little to no statistical increase in danger to my health over eating pure vegetarian.

No sir, your stats are wrong....here's direct from the WHO.....
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
12. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?

According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.
These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

So, it's 34000 cancer deaths for cured meats (and IF the correlative results with red meat are in fact causative, another 50000 worldwide for red meat) VS 1000000 cancer tobacco deaths. So no, it's not 2/3 there, it's at best, IF red meat is the cause of cancers at the highest level possible (not at all proven) it's 1/12 of the way there....around 8.4%. Agreed, that's not good, but no where near what you (and he) claims.

Cholesterol and saturated fat only MAY cause heart disease and diabetes, not 'do without a doubt', and then usually only in high levels (in normal people). They raise the risk factor for those diseases, but do not automatically cause heart disease and/or diabetes, even in people with incredibly high levels.

Research indicates that you missed the mark with the 644000 number, it's more like 34000 (and maybe another 50000, unproven) according to the WHO, I'll take the stats of the organization whose study is being discussed.

So if you look at the real numbers, it's still not comparable at all. Cancer, and death rates are orders of magnitude different, far more than 10 times higher for smoking with every possible benefit of a doubt given to meats toxicity/effects, so not at all easily matched. Sorry.

(and you also appear to be 100% wrong about cancer survivability)
http://www.Cancer.org -Colon cancer-For stage IIB cancer, the survival rate is about 63%. The 5-year relative survival rate for stage IIIA colon cancers is about 89%. For stage IIIB cancers the survival rate is about 69%, and for stage IIIC cancers the survival rate is about 53%.
http://www.lung.org - Lung cancer-The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is 54 percent for cases detected when the disease is still localized (within the lungs). However, only 15 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an early stage. For distant tumors (spread to other organs) the five-year survival rate is only 4 percent.

So, to summarize, colon cancer 53%-89% survivability (depending largely on when it's caught) VS lung cancer 4% (for 85% of cases, and 54% for the 15% of lucky few with early detections)