Yeah, I initially was disturbed by the sinking, but one of the architects they spoke to about it said if it was uneven sinking it would be easily spotted by tenants due to the cracking of floors, walls, and ceilings. They are also saying it is a classic example of pillar failure, which the building rests on, but they can't be certain of what caused it. It could be poor quality concrete or spalling, if that is found it is definitely the builder's fault.

My initial suspicion would be underground sinkholes instead. These massive sinkholes happen so often that I imagined one day it'd occure underneath a building instead of a road/parking lot. If so, the responsibility is mostly on the local government's lack of infrastructure maintenance funding.

Some of the more recent United States Governmental statistics indicate that about 2% of elementary schools in the U.S. use metal detectors, 7% of middle schools, and 10% of high schools. This is a fairly low number, with literally only 1-in-10 high schools utilizing metal detectors within the country. Aug 13, 2019
-----------------------------------------
I understand that "probably" all school shootings have been committed by real students. Students with hatred issues, respect issues, power issues or whatever. She got away with acting as a student and penetrating the security or lack of it. Granted I can't see just anyone getting away with her plan by "acting" as a student but she was able to gain unfettered access.

With 3D printers getting more sophisticated, metal detectors are not a catch all. I also think there can be better ways to recognise mental issues earlier to reduce the threat of would be killers. It's not foolproof but after a shooting there were usually signs of a violent nature of the shooter before hand.

Yes she may be a criminal but she was unarmed and had no violent intentions and was aware of the risks of her actions but still felt more was needed to be done. I believe more needs to be done keeping the public safe from people that want to cause harm just because they have the power to do it. That includes bullies who don't pick up guns but rather create rage in innocent people.

My initial comment was due to @jimnms comment which seemed to imply the woman was merely an attention whore and overlooked what her real intentions may have been.

EDIT: I also think your decision to not have children and perhaps grandchildren could have a HUGE impact on reducing the number of children killed or wounded anywhere in the world. If only...

Don't know this Stossel guy (seems like a tool), but was always a fan of Mike Rowe, and also his initiative to get more workers in the trades.

I've seen plumbers (2-yr degree + certification) with higher hourly rates than lawyers (8-yr degree + bar exam). I also know a guy who makes more now as a general contractor than he did as a DBA (B.S. in Computer Science).
I think part of this is supply & demand- not as many tradespeople so the wages go up to hire those willing, and the cost of higher wages gets passed on to the customer.

But the point of this video isn't "should you go to college?", it's "the liberals want hard-working people to pay for college for all these liberal students", which is a false premise and why I can't upvote it.

I think community college should be taxpayer-funded for those students who want more than just high school. (but they should have to maintain certain GPA to remain free)
As far as other private Universities, they should be able to charge for it. Colleges that receive Federal or State money should have a cap on the rate that tuition can increase per year (maybe based on inflation). Over the past 20 years, most college tuition has gone up way more than inflation or wages.

Rather than student-loan forgiveness, I'd rather see a federal program that will help those students who couldn't finish school go back and get their degree (where it will pay for itself) or get a different degree. Most of this sub-$10k student debt they talk about is for students who never got their degree.

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.

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 got the first dose of Pfizer. The tetanus vaccine I had 20 days earlier was a total bitch. My arm felt like I'd been shot there. It was so bad, I couldn't sleep.

The Pfizer Covid vaccine, on the other hand, made my arm a little tender for a day, and that was it. In fact, the initial shot stung a little more than other shots I've had, but was unremarkable other than that.

I'm not certain I've seen a better drag racing video, or possibly even auto-related in general. Absolutely love that it gains altitude after the initial launch, presumably due to the speed, shape, and angle of attack causing it to act as a goddamn WING for a brief time. It would still be cool even with a crash after, but the lack of one, for a change, makes it drastically better!

Initially when I was this I was like: naw. But by the end of the video I was like: yaw, yaw, yaw, yaw, yaw, yaw, yaw.

Oh yeah, libel per se is a -bitch- if you're nailed with it. In libel per quod ("lost-cause libel"), you have to prove damages. Generally, this is what prevents people from filing lawsuits every time someone calls them a dick on 4chan.

Libel per se is different. Oh, it is SO different. Libel per se means y'all fucked up. Y'all fucked up BAD. In LPS, what you printed was such bullshit and so obviously damaging, the plaintiff don't have to prove SHIT; they sort-of name a figure and the judge works from that.

In the case of Dominion, I'm 99% certain it'll be LPS. Also, the Gold Standard defense against libel -- what you printed is actually true -- will not apply here, and it'd be comedy gold if the defendants actually tried this defense. At that point, the three fastest winds ever recorded on the planet would be Typhoon Li, Hurricane Katrina and the explosive laughter and legal pimp slap from the bench. It'd make Rudy's immense clusterfucks in court seem like goddamn Perry Mason cross-examining a 6-year-old.

It gets better.

So, on the billion-to-one chance you win a libel per quod suit, you get "damages", which can be surprisingly little as you have to prove every single dollar in very narrow legal ways. Libel per se, on the other hand, is the BIG PRIZES. Your ass is at least catching dollar damages that would make Jerome Powell say "Y'all niggas need to tone them digits down, yo!". Those damages are ANYTHING THE COURT DECIDES. Again, LPS means the plaintiff doesn't have to prove a single dime of loss to claim damages of damned near any amount. Given that Dominion is asking for a cool bil-point-something, I wouldn't be hugely surprised if another zero wasn't slapped on the end of that figure.

That's just the "actual" damages. If you egregiously fucked up, like claiming a company overthrew a US election and was in league with a dead dictator, you get to spin the wheel of punitive damages. Punitive damages are how the court hands out spankings, only they're not spankings, they're that scene from 12 Years A Slave, only with less tickles and kittens. Given the shitstorm that followed the lies about Dominion, those damages could make the initial billion-dollar claim look quaint.

(By the way, you can't discharge the settlement in bankruptcy, given that libel per se is considered 'malicious', meaning the laughter from the judge presiding over your initial case will be roughly 1/10,000th the laughter coming from the bankruptcy judge.)

If I was Newsmax, OAN, Fox News, Rush or Alex, I'd be lawyering up but good, because the Wrath of Fucking God is coming and there ain't no rock big enough to hide behind.

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of traitorous, America-hating, back-stabbing cocksuckers (and good luck to them on their per quod claim should they decide to sue me over the previous statement).

16) propaganda
17) they should be, most of my american friends are very optimistic about the future right now
18) this is really interesting - basically supports my theory that covid is doing less economic damage than the daily news would suggest
19) and 20) good news for rich people

So what does this say about Trump - he let the economy do its thing, did not start wars and helped rich people.
If he did not have other failings this would not be too bad. But presenting this as something extra is.. uninformed?

I have to say I had an interesting few minutes of reading up on these things and thanks Newt for your insights, and Bob for the initial ideas, I know a number of people who believe this type of propaganda and its always interesting to try to find out what statistic or news article is being misrepresented.

Initially when she panned over to the raccoon in the lamp over the dinner table it looked like she had put it in a gibbet. And yeah, she could have handled that a lot better.

So this is a bit incorrect. Teller-Ulam devices (aka: huge fucking nukes like the Tsar Bomba) are three-stage or more weapons. The first stage, the "atom bomb", is the initiator. The second stage is where a normal hydrogen bomb gets its "oomph" from. After a third stage is added, things get very scary very quickly:
" Each stage can be 10-100 times the size of the previous stage. The 50 Mt bomb mentioned above was a three stage weapon."
Edward Teller proposed a (theoretical) T-U bomb that would be in the gigaton range, but reasoned it was impractical because it'd blow off a huge part of the atmosphere into space.
Fun bonus fact! The actual amount of plutonium that achieved pure fission in the Hiroshima explosion was roughly the size of a grain of rice. E=MC^2 is a hell of a thing!

I was slightly disappointed to find out the whole "hand down the pants thing" was legitimately him tucking his shirt in. Initially that sounded like a wild BS excuse, but no - it actually fits in context. He was certainly a bit creepy, but I didn't feel he actually *quite* crossed a line.

Overall I found the movie lacking compared to the first one. It was a lot more scripted set-up, and a lot less crazy shit involving real people in an unscripted manner. I would guess he had more planned originally, but the pandemic threw things off.

What they do see is, how all that stuff pisses off the Dems and then they orgasam.

Nice list.

Excuse my initial caps. Just a habit.