@newtboy,

thanks for clarification.

So in your view, do you see the left objecting to any of the following things that kinda speak to Maher's point, and I think fits to the point of the 'left' being upset with him,

-Defending Chapelle which left would decry invoking their definition of dog whistle, transphobia...
-Pointing out a correlation between violence and Islamic extremism which left would decry as islamophobia
-Believing sports/olympics should divide competitors based on biological sex rather than gender identity == Transphobia
-(Big any famous celebrity accused of sex crimes) and suggesting they deserve a fair trial == failure to believe victims/survivors

Those are all things that have been pretty commonly defended by large groups of the left from what I've been seeing. Am I wrong?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-abortion-is-illegal

^ That's about 2/3 of the world's population.

"Texas's loss" LOL!! Somebody haven't been keeping up on migration in the US. People are fleeing the blue states like no tomorrow. Texas is the fastest growing state in the US...

This is just another example of how divided your country is.

Keep fucking over each-other. You dumb fucks are doing your enemy's job for them. Like I said to you 4 months ago. Enjoy your war and draft. +- 8 Months left of your life as you know it. US have never been so weak. The sharks are circling.

Unbelievably *terrible idea.

Never in a million years, and it shouldn’t happen, and wouldn’t help. Trump would show for the money and do nothing but bash Obama as a foreigner Muslim illegitimate “so called president” (who won two more presidential elections than Trump), would blame all his failures on either Obama or Biden, and would interrupt Obama’s every thoughtful point with rambling, self congratulatory nonsense. Trump has no interest in unification unless that means everyone unify behind him and he’s emperor. Trump is a divider, his entire platform is “blame the libs for everything wrong, take credit for anything that’s working, even if he opposed it”. He has nothing to offer but hateful lies.

Trump is incapable of having a nice discussion. If the other people speaking aren’t just praising him, he thinks they should just shut up and let him praise himself. It’s an impossibility for him to sit and have a productive conversation with a non sycophant, especially one as intelligent and knowledgeable as Obama that would outshine him like a supernova beside a black hole of ignorance. He wouldn’t make it 5 minutes before his first temper tantrum.

Obama doesn’t need the money, he’s a real, successful, happy, self made multi millionaire...no doubt he would donate any payments to the needy ….Trump does need the money, he’s an unhappy failed businessman and broke trust fund baby with dozens of criminal court cases pending and hundreds of millions in unpaid bills...no doubt he would pocket every penny...and Trump is considered by most Americans as personally responsible for the worst attack on Washington since 1812 as an attempted coup....and the idea is to give him another high profile platform from which he can try again to make his baseless and highly divisive case that he's not a loser, like he does at his shrinking rallies and random paid events at his properties.

If you want to unify America, you need to remove Trump from the equation, he divided America more than slavery. Division is his only real accomplishment….how does this guy think he’s the one to help unify?

It's like saying Jim Jones or David Koresh should be publicly debating the Dalai Lama to unify people around religion in positive ways, they both just had that one little slip up and their remaining people still believe in them for the most part.

Yes, given the evidence solely in the previous video, he presented a valid alternate hypothesis, and even 80% convinced Bill Nye.

My only problem with him (as it was presented in this video) was that he seemed sooo confident about the "divide by zero" infinite force denominator part of the equation "obvious error" that he didn't go further. "well they must be wrong because this math makes it impossible".

I do give him kudos though, because he paid on the bet.

Congratulations! Your video, Divide by Zero on the Friden STW10 Mechanical Calculator, 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 12 Badge!

Your video, Divide by Zero on the Friden STW10 Mechanical Calculator, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Most Cops do practice good policing .
Media just likes to focus on the bad.

As you state
"stark contrast to the daily barrage of cops gone wild, boys in blue behaving badly videos that come without repercussions"

Is a bold false narrative propagated by media to divide Americans.

You imply that day in day out across America cops routinely bead down as a matter of fact.

This is not the case.

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. 🤦‍♂️

The strobe didn't get the kid shot.
The kid got shot because he had a gun, shooting ( him and his thug buddy) in the middle of the night .
He should not have run.
Chased by cops with gun in hand and ditching it and turning around at last moment got him shot. The kid is 90% responsible for his death.

Strobe, cop and all other factors 10%.

This is a non story except by fake media to divide Americans.

When People are being divided by fake news Monty Python doesn't make it better Facts and truth.

Media divides Americans more than another group.

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