I'm not going to trust some random site you linked that I've never heard of before, so I researched the issue myself. From what I can tell, Hunter was there on Tuesday for July 4th celebrations, and the Secret Service had found cocaine in a heavily-trafficked area of the West Wing on Sunday the 2nd. The president was out of town late Friday until Tuesday. So cocaine was found two days before Joe and Hunter were on site, in a part of the building which regularly hosts tour groups (particularly on weekends), and through which staff frequently transits. I doubt Hunter can time-travel (or has time-traveling cocaine), and if he does then you and I are waaaaay out of our league here - this is superhero business. If I've the basic facts incorrect please do let me know, I didn't spend more than 10 minutes reading up on this.

But, for the sake of argument: let's say the current president's adult son visited during a publicized, well-attended event, and accidentally left some illegal narcotics in a restroom. What would that actually imply, as a worst-case scenario, about Joe Biden? So far as I can tell, it shows he's willing to continue having a relationship with his adult child in spite of that child's known (and perhaps continued) character / behavior flaws. The teachings of Jesus make it clear that we should treat those around us with love, even the very flawed. None of what the news is describing, even as a worst-case, feels like a problem in any way - there are no implications pertaining to public policy, foreign policy, or nepotism. Perhaps there should be legal consequences for Hunter (or whoever left the cocaine there), but it hardly reflects on Joe.

You only heard about this cocaine because it plays into an existing, nonsensical narrative currently being pushed by right-wing media bullshitters. Namely, Joe's son Hunter has had drug problems, and some weird business entanglements, and that all somehow implies Joe is dirty. I'm extremely concerned about official corruption, so I absolutely would want to know if any were occurring - but the evidence pertaining to Hunter/Joe having any shady backroom dealings together is extremely thin on the ground.

Bob, have you given anywhere near this level of scrutiny or mental time to the question of why Donald's son-in-law received $2,000,000,000 from the Saudis? I feel that's actually worth knowing, particularly given that Jared very clearly DID have the former President's ear on policy matters, and WAS regularly present in the White House outside of big public events. But I've a hunch you care less about getting to the bottom of that obvious massive corruption, than the identity of the scoundrel who sullied the immaculate Administrative Palace with (I'm guessing) petty misdemeanor quantities of magic nose dust.

You are projecting.

Marriage takes the honesty away from a relationship.
It's no longer me and you.
It's me and you and uncle sam.
I want *consensual* relations where me and my partner set our rules, not some 3rd party, and not when the rules are stacked against me.

Congratulations to your brother. Lucky him.

I never said women don't work.

I said that men make more personal sacrifices for their work - a true statement about men as a group. Exceptions don't alter the rule.

Yes, women under 35 out earn men now. And as legacy earners retire, we will be facing a situation where women out earn men at any age. Preferential admittance and hiring tend to have that effect. It's by design.

And women don't get paid less for the same work - the studies saying that don't account for hours worked and don't provide any breakdown of job title. E.g. Women doctors get paid less - because the type of doctor they choose to be is more likely to be a pediatrician than a heart surgeon or anesthesiologist. But within each category of doctor, per hour worked, and per year experience, their income is essentially identical.

And you don't need to be a home maker to get paid in a divorce. Just make less than your partner.
Historically the divorce rewards scale higher for women given mirror situations.

Why would I want to deal with a 50/50 split when I brought 90% of the assets into the marriage? A 50/50 split would set me back decades. I just want to keep my stuff, I did pay for it after all, which cost me money, which cost me time, which cost me life.

And why should /anyone/ have their life supported by anyone else?
(*context=spouses. Not interested in some bad faith out of context argument bringing up children or retirees supported by taxes, etc)
Are you able bodied? Then get working.
Is it tough? Too bad.
It's harder for both people supporting themselves alone, you aren't special. You were in this situation before you got married, you can go back to it.

In any case, the homemaker job argument is senseless. There are benefits (time with kids), and there are pitfalls (hole in your resume). You make your choice, and you deal with the consequences.
You are paid by the home over your head and the money you're given while you are a home maker. What other job do you get to leave and still be paid. People act as if the working partner was just chilling this whole time. Where are the working partner's continuing post divorce benefits?


I have no mindset about women. More projection.
I couldn't care less if I marry a stripper with 2 kids - so long as in the event of a divorce we go our separate ways with ZERO obligations to one another.

I have a mindset about the dangers of divorce, and the fact that most marriages end in divorce, and most divorces are initiated by the female partner.
I am on average more likely than not to face a divorce.
Hence the risk reduction by being more 'picky'.


I am in a nearly 20 year happy relationship - unmarried.
She's the boss of the relationship. And I'm fine with that because I *consent* to it. I can always walk away if I decide otherwise.

So long as laws and family court are how they are, I won't even consider marriage.

-scheherazade

I looked up some stats just to see.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

30 per million blacks fatally shot by police.
12 per million whites fatally shot by police.

So cops are roughly twice as likely to kill a black person, per racial group.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219gg

US being 76% white and 13% black, that works out to an aggregate ratio of roughly 9 whites killed per 4 blacks, per capita. In the end the death toll is high all around, white people aren't getting away scott free.

We should also consider poverty. Poverty and crime tend to track one another. It's safe to assume that areas with more crime will be more likely to experience police encounters, and hence more police shootings on average.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%
22%7D

White poverty rate (9%) is roughly half of black poverty (22%), which implies that crime is also half as frequent among whites, which is roughly similar to the per capita difference in police shooting rate.

30/12 is 2.5
22/9 is 2.44
2.5 > 2.44, so it implies bias against blacks, but not as big as I expected.

As far as total people killed, cops kill plenty people of all races. The numbers don't look as lopsided as I expected, which surprises me.

I appreciate the solidarity among black people. They at least try to hold authorities to account.

White people couldn't care less when cops kill whites. They just shrug it off as 'well the guy must have done something to piss off the cop, so it was probably their own fault anyways'. You can sit on liveleak watching cops kill white people all day, but other white people never get worked up about it. It's a shame they don't have the same sense of unity as black people do.

I wish the protests were about police abuse in general. Or even goverment abuse. There are so many issues that need fixing (e.g. civil forfeiture, repeatedly trying people for the same event by tweaking charges until a conviction sticks, government budget being infinitely larger than a defendant's budget, government freezing a defendant's funds so they can't afford lawyers, etc).

-scheherazade

Wow, this is really bad. I couldn't care less about what these two dweebs have to say. After watching a few minutes, Completely lost interest in them.

I really wanted to hear about the new show, and I just couldn't hold on to any of their opinions.

It's that whole double standard of, "no it's okay because she's gay!"

Honestly though, I could care less, have fun.

Cry me a river.

I couldn't care less if the guy that just stole my car stereo has a hard time in jail.

IMO minor crime should be treated like baseball. You get 3 strikes and then you're out. If you're not stealing for food you're a selfish scumbag and society would be far better off without you.

(and of course violent crime has no place in modern society at all, and I know there's cases which aren't black and white, but many cases are, video evidence and everything, if we at least got rid of the people who without a doubt violently assaulted someone, then we'd be better off...

You only have to watch a few videos on the Active Self Protection channel to see how many people are just straight up scum, and it's little wonder the police in the US are trigger happy - there's piles of videos where people just straight out fire at the police when asked to show their license)

/rant

This. So much this. And just in case anyone was wondering here is an actual quote from a recent discussion about vaccines in NZ:

"your belief in vaccines is an article of faith.

Vaccines are a purification ritual. A cult. And you couldn't care less about evidence and logic.

You will just shift the goalposts.

Since the widespread use of vaccines, childhood disability rates in the US have risen ten fold, healthcare expenditure has increased to be four times what it was as a per cent of GDP and currently one in two children have a chronic illness.

now rationalise away

This should be great to see all your religious, faith based reasoning as to why you should maintain your delusional faith in your cult."

The irony would be hilarious if the outcome wasn't so tragic.

It was definitely dumbed down thematically though, especially from 1st/2nd GiG. While they were pretty pretentious (e.g. 'second order simulacra'), at least they were full of things to think about. The whole 'give consent' theme was as far as I can tell introduced in the adaptation and immensely cringe inducing.

What also irritated me is how they created a weird mish mash of the seperate Ghost in the Shell stories for no good reason. Why did they have to combine the 2nd GiG antagonist with the original movie's key plot scenes? It was just strange and unnecessary.

I don't at all mind the westernisation / white lead. Felt that controversy was nonsense. It's a Hollywood adaptation, why even bother remaking it if you're not going to have a new take on it or adapt it to be more familiar to local (American / English) audiences?

Same thing with the Netflix Death Note adapation. No idea if it will actually be any good but couldn't care less that they moved the location to the US and made the lead characters white. There are already multiple Japanese live action Death Note movies with Japanese leads. What's the point in another?

Just in case anyone actually thinks I was being serious, I'm not.

Tabs, spaces, line feed, em... I could not care less as long as the code is readable.

But seriously..... spaces.

Kidding.

(or am I?)

Personally better because i could care less about computers or their commercials (BORING). This commercial i was completely entertained and i especially enjoy the music which i've replayed many many times. So for me it's better(more enjoyable).

that sumes it up. After watching those 2 clips I understand %100 the purpose of the channel and couldn't care less anymore about it.

Measurably less intelligent. Nice summary. Starts as a rant but gets deeper.

Mercury at 4:00 and 5:33. Gold.

Also appearing: Frank Zappa.

I could not care less about "pop music" as such, but why cant there be even just one radio station run by someone competent to pick music?

Disclaimer: I like the first Coldplay album.

Anyone who spends this much time making a meal for their cat needs a girlfriend/boyfriend/fuckbuddy.

Don't get me wrong, I understand WHY he's doing it, but honestly, the cat doesn't give a shit and is probably going "WHY I CAN'T JUST HAZ CHEEZBURGER? WHY IZ YOU TEEZING MES?"

Cat's birthdays are 134% about the owner. The cat could NOT care less, and usually is somewhat put out.