"You are not a person, you are a planet, made of roughly 40 trillion cells. There is so much of you, that if your cells were human-sized, you would be as big as 20 Mount Everests."

Oh! Like I haven't heard that before. Do your worst.

I'm not falling for your trick to make me inhale the scent of your book to contract a new man made disease that will make my nuts dry up. Nice try.

Being against the vaccine?

At ░5░9░ you should remember the AIDS epidemic?

Think about how people were worried about it? How they had to learn about it? That it was, for a while, a real fear amongst the unknowing? But after a while, most people understood the risk. After all that, shouldn't you've learned?

When those nurses came back from Africa, caring for Ebola victims, then they got treatment also - which group was most vocal? The changes of them contracting it were even more remote than AIDS!

Being ░5░9░ , should remember living under the threats of Herpes, Hepatitis, AIDS, West Nile, Lyme, Ebola, Hunta...all those viruses...having to learn the what it is, what it does, how it's caught, and the risks of ignoring sound medical advice - why has it changed?

Remember seat belts and helmet laws? Child seats? Live with it and had no choice about it. Those help keep people alive.

Why is having a SAFE - EFFECTIVE - and F R E E vaccine such a misery?

"Two weeks ago a 30 year old came into my hospital perfectly healthy dead....dead from the swine flu."....really?! What kind of nonsense is this? How often does he treat perfectly healthy dead people? Wasn't he surprised when a dead man walked in?

Bill is 100% correct that the average American diet leads to a large percentage of American health issues across the board, and exacerbates others.

Islam today is largely fundamentalist. Any religion practiced like Islam is practiced by many today is bad and evil. That is Bill's position. Christianity had it's fundamentalist period....we call it the dark ages....it's seeing a resurgence in America.

Milo on Bill was not a platform, more an expose. He didn't look intelligent at all. Bill's show is about getting both sides of a debate, even when one side is abhorrent. It's about exposing Nazis, not pretending they're right.

Compared to right wing talking heads, Bill is 100% right about everything....which is to say, those who complain about his mistakes and odd opinions AS A COMEDIAN are invariably the same people who back outrageous nutjobs like Beck, Jones, Limbaugh, Trump, and all the other feckless and feculent right wing propagandists who never honestly explain positions they disagree with and always create paper tigers and windmills to fight. Bill has them on to have their say in their own words to expose the insanity, and often goes on to contradict them.

BTW, Bill did get fully vaccinated for Covid....and one month ago he contracted it anyway. This broke his perfect attendance record of never missing a show since 93. He is not a crazed anti vaxer, he simply believes in America that the health crisis and poor overall health of Americans comes mainly from our diets since >70% of us are overweight and >42% are clinically obese. He's right.

The technical term is a rear crash attenuator.
I worked for a friend with a patent on foam cured carbon fiber manufacturing, using the heat and pressure of an expanding foam core to cure the carbon fiber without vacuum bagging or autoclaving....I helped with designing, and personally designed and built the molds, and built a number of test attenuators meant to replace the huge yellow plastic boxes on cal trans trucks. Basically an approximately 3x4x6' carbon fiber box with a dense foam core containing multiple tuned air chambers. We had to tune the chambers to stop vehicles at 60 mph without exceeding certain g forces. In the end, he lost the contract, but not because the device didn't work, I think it was too expensive, and my friend was not a great businessman. Ours was far lighter than the plastic versions, and was meant to pay for itself in fuel savings hauling it around.

Such bullshit *lies @bobknight33. Nice try trying to hurt BLMs ability to generate donations with these unfounded accusations, but it's pure bullshit as usual from you and your ilk. Liars.

There's absolutely zero evidence a single dime of BLM money was used, nor is there evidence these homes were actually owned by her or her family, or even evidence they were owned at the same time. The houses described in the articles were two were small homes in South Central and Inglewood, severely depressed areas you would call ghettos, the modest family home in Topanga, not near Beverly Hills as claimed, has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a tiny guest "house" (shed) and sits on just over a quarter of an acre-sized lot, so not a mansion but a small family home, the fourth reported purchase was a home in rural Georgia, so not worth much.

There's actually no evidence she bought anything. Dirt’s article, which is the source that all of the stories and posts about the Topanga home purchase are based on, didn’t report that Cullors purchased the home with BLM donations. It said the home was sold “to a corporate entity that public records show is controlled” by Cullors, but didn’t name the corporation.

Besides being a public figure who is paid to speak at events, Cullors is a best selling author who last year signed a lucrative contract with Warner Brothers, so she has her own money, and filings show she was paid a total of $20000 a year by BLM until 2019 when she stopped taking a dime. There's zero evidence BLM had a thing to do with these purchases, no timeline of when they were purchased or sold, no mention of who lived there....There's nothing but supposition by dishonest people like yourself who have no problem making up hurtful lies about their enemies like 4 year old snot nosed spoiled little girls trying to make themselves feel better....you lying little crybaby snowflake.

We don’t have enough information from the Dirt or Post story to answer questions like: Were these homes consecutively purchased, lived in and sold? Were other parties involved in the reported purchases? Were they lived in by family members? Did any of the addresses crop up due to errors in public records databases?

Such utter bullshit and *lies Bob. Another factless racist and just stupid attack against non whites who you think couldn't possibly buy a house without stealing the money for it.

Gonna leave this here, but I know Bob isn't interested in finding out how his game of radical right wing telephone started so he won't read it.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrisse-cullors-topanga-house/

Btw, this isn't fear, isn't philosophy, is only Wtf because Wtf are you thinking posting these baseless accusations, and only fail because you once again failed to be honest. It's pure political lies by the party of lies that repeatedly make the argument that they aren't required to tell the truth about anything. Facts have a liberal bias, and truth and honesty are for liberals and have no place in your party. You're such a dishonest tool.

Edit: with Trump dividing the country and starting a failed coup with his election fraud fraud he used to bring in hundreds of millions in donations to fight against, a fight he never fought and instead put those hundreds of millions he duped you and your ilk out of into his own pockets to pay off his massive debts, including not just his failed campaign debts (that he still didn't pay for the most part) and his own private debts, it's just hilarious you would try this lie, knowing full well Trump did what you accuse Cullors of a hundred times over AFTER the election with proof he took the money, but not one scintilla against Cullors. 🤦‍♂️

Good for him on standing up to dumb assery... Masks are overrated unless you are in close proximity to others for extended periods of time... I've not wore one outdoors for the entirety of this pandemic and have yet to contract the virus... I'm a fan of theme parks and I'm not going back until there are no mask requirements, but its hot here in FL during the summer and fuck all that... I got vaccinated, that should be enough.

Try it. If she takes the kid and bolts, it's legal. Even if you manage to get a court order before she leaves state, chances are you won't get equal custody unless she's a documented certifiable nutjob. I say this because you live in a fault state which are invariably the same states backwards enough to automatically give women custody and force fathers to prove the mother is unstable and dangerous, and even then you'll share with her as primary without documented abuse.

So you've been together 20 years and share nothing. What a way to live.

Shared assets when not married aren't divided by the courts. If you want their help, gotta be married or sign an ownership contract with every purchase.

I can find no instance where I said my brother "won". He got custody, that's different from "winning". Be real. If you're going to quote me, please don't make up the quotes. Spending over $100000 on a two week marriage isn't winning by my definition.

That link is off topic. Find a study of similar jobs with similar hours worked and compare salaries, not a study that says average women work X ammount less so overall earning should be X amount less but instead it's X-1 less, so women are overpaid. That's not what their study showed, they're extrapolating there, and ignoring that the lower hours are usually not their choice, but their superiors orders to avoid paying overtime and full benefits to women. Also, they said Married men managers without kids also earn more for each hour at work: they earn $38.40 per hour while married women without kids earn only $28.70. That means that for each hour spent at their jobs, male married managers without kids earn about 34% more than women. 34% more for each hour. Did you read it? Mic drop.

See, more insulting dismissiveness...those women couldn't possibly be more competent or harder workers, they must be succeeding because of preferential treatment. In case you missed it, that's incredibly misogynistic.

What?! Prove it.....with data not an anecdote.

So....You wouldn't marry a crazy person only because of what divorce would cost. Yeah....right.

" I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators" sounds like personal issues to me, they aren't good enough to marry....because of divorce....Again ignoring the prenup that dictates divorce splits.

Lol. Such utter bullshit. Maybe if they have an impairment and no lawyer, and can prove it in court, not because they say so.

Ashley Maddison.

Wedding rings are aphrodisiacs. It's why I don't wear one, hit on repeatedly wearing it, never once without it. My experience differs from your assumptions and statistics, same with my friends. I'm 5'9", so not tall cute and photogenic....but two out of three ain't bad.

Bob said it, you agreed with him and more.

An uncodified partnership is one of convenience or even imaginary. Nothing to stop either of you walking tomorrow if you meet your new soul mate. That's not a stable partnership. It may be exactly what you want. It seems you made up your mind that marriage=bad for men long ago, in which case you should not partake. I hope your path leads to at least half the happiness mine has.

Newt

"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

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.

This is only a "problem" in countries/parts of countries, where women rarely work away from home. In those circumstances it should be evident to most people that the work the one who stays at home does is also worth a lot. Otherwise get a wife who wants to work and get child care. Or stay at home yourself.

And who is so ignorant that they don't know that in case of a divorce everything is split 50/50? This is part of the contract. If one isn't willing to share everything no matter what the other person does, then don't get married.

And how can he blame his drinking on his ex wife? And losing his job? And his masculinity? WTF? The end was the whiniest shit I've heard on the internet in a long time.

LMFAHS!!!! Bobby? That is you, isn't it? This is the kind of total non sequitur, irrational, fact free, second grade level "argument" I expect from you. Not sure why you quoted me, you didn't address a single point I made with your rambling rant.

The delusion and lack of self awareness is strong with this one.

Sorry, there's no cult of Biden. Democrats still have functioning brains, unlike Trumpists who believe eating fresh babies make people younger and gives them magic powers, that vaccines have invisible Microsoft microchips that will take over their brains so George Soros can force them to become transsexual communists, and that when you lose an election the patriotic thing to do is stage a deadly coup. The right lost it's mind in 2015 and has never seen a doctor.

If Biden shot someone in cold blood, Democrats would demand prosecution and ostracize him. When Trump said it, he meant it, and the crowd of magamorons cheered in unanimous agreement. Derp?

Not a bit sure what you mean by linking an article about Biden considering completing some of the useless fencing Trump replaced existing barriers with. No surprise, most of the "wall" Trump brags about replaced existing barriers, many more functional than his fence design that is just gawd awful, easy to push down and drive trucks through and that can't even stand up in wind, but also weren't completed and often ended up being maybe 100 yards of fence, then 20 yards of nothing, then another 100 yards of fence, then more gaps, etc. Those unfinished repair/replacement projects are worthless wastes of billions if not finished, and often made the border more porous, not more secure, because they replaced functional (if imperfect) barriers. You think you have some point to make because Biden is considering finishing those projects to at least fix the holes Trump left, and plans to fund them legally through congress not by illegal executive orders taking money earmarked by congress for military family housing and handing it to his donors brand new construction companies for no bid contracts like Trump did, against court orders no less? I just don't know what you think that means, how it's a bad thing Biden is doing by not just ignoring problems created by the ineptitude of the previous administration but instead being presidential, or how it defends Trump's disastrous record, which seems to be your objective.

Hmmmm.....more snowflake tears, yummy.

Marriage is a contract, but it isn't complete because a good contract should have penalty and exit clauses. A pre-nup addresses those. I got lucky and my marriage has lasted 22 years, but I am the exception and not the rule.

Also, *nsfw for n word later in video.

We need to get over this "marriage is forever" BS.
It's a construct from an earlier stage in our social evolution and it's irrelevant to modern times. We as animals did not evolve to mate for life.

I propose expiring marriage contracts. Choose the length of your marriage. All asset division and child custody at the end of the contract determined in advance. If you want to keep the contract when it's over then just sign an extension.

I could never understand parents that happily destroy their children’s trust in them and teach them that their trust isn’t as important as likes from strangers.
Any parent that does this deserves the state run nursing home they end up in. They broke the “protect and care for” contract first. Crushing a child’s trust in their parents is abuseive.