If a war takes 20 years someone is doing something wrong.

Probably least of all the guy in charge for the last couple of months.

The withdrawal IS a mess.

Trump did nothing positive and contributed a lot to the current situation.

Obama should have pulled out as soon as Usama was gone. The result would have been the same as today but at least the war would be over.

You cant fight a war in the name of people who dont want to fight for themselves, with unclear or unrealistic objectives.

When has getting involved in a foreign civil war ever worked? Its like getting involved in a family dispute that is not your own.

*backup=[...snipped...]

The creator put some answers in the comments:

How the heck did i make it?

The living room of my father's place had a very strong ceiling fan, which could go in reverse. Instead of blowing air down, it would pull the air up. That would create an updraft strong enough to sustain the vortex. Next, I had a box fan and a blanket set up to redirect the air flow so it rotated around the center of the room. You can see it as the dark blue object in the back right. After the fans were turned on, I laid out an old dark red bed sheet with a small PVC pipe underneath it connected to a fog machine. The bed sheet allowed the fog to gently seep through and get pulled into the vortex, as opposed to being blasted out of the pipe. And then it was all a matter of letting the ceiling fan's updraft and the box fan's rotation mix into a 10 ft tall indoor tornado!!

*backup=[...snipped...]

The only silver lining in this whole goddamn debacle. With any luck they'll immediately become a permanent minority party at the federal level, and at the state level within a few years. Frankly that needs to happen (ideally via voter abandonment of the party, rather than through viral attrition), as the anti-science assclown brigade has made it clear they'll be no help with climate change. It'll be the same fucking pack of lies and denial of obvious objective reality, except with more flooding, fire, extreme winds, and with much less food. It's going to be a clusterfuck of horrific consequences, within a few decades. Unless the anti-sciencers get the reins of power stripped away.

*backup=[...snipped...]

I'm the opposite, in a sense. I couldn't really get hooked on Futurama. I watched pretty much all the episodes and enjoyed them, but didn't really get attached to any of the characters. However, Rick and Morty keeps me coming back because of the irreverence and the way nothing matters.

Rick and Morty is a middle finger to the universe, to causality, to the notion of object permanence, that suddenly jumps back to remind you of the endless and inescapable human suffering in the middle of it all.

Then again, it's been a fucking rough year. Wubba Lubba Dub Dub!

*backup=[...snipped...]

It was quick, but I'm pretty sure 11:56 answers a question I'd had for years, but never actually bothered to look up. Every so often I'd see a parked highway dept vehicle with a big, fairly flat object lowered to a horizontal position behind it. Barrier makes *way* more sense than any of the hypotheses I'd imagined.

*backup=[...snipped...]

So weird seeing people disagree with you and offering various examples of marriages that contradict your blanket statements and then you go off spouting shit about subjective pitfalls some minority still experience after being married as if those outcomes are the only possible outcomes or even the norm.
What you two mean to say is DIVORCE is win win for the woman and lose lose for the man, still dead wrong but at least it's the point you two are trying to make.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's neither in no fault states.

It's asinine of you two to assume the man always has more assets, and more earning power. It's maybe true on average but it's trending away from that, and it's absolutely not in every instance.

My brother won. He got full custody and child support. No alimony for either. In Texas, a non no fault state where the woman is assumed to be the primary child raising parent.

Really, you still think most women don't work? Are you still living in the 1960's? My wife works, has since before we met in 92. I retired in early 2000's. If we divorced, I would get alimony.

I've known plenty of women who lost in marriage, not sure where you come up with that, and for over 1/2 the population, divorce is 50/50 split of marital assets, no winner.

It's only men in fault states who caused the dissolution of the marriage or don't fight for custody that get screwed as you describe. Most of us tossed out the system you describe decades ago. Most of us understand that while women still get paid less for the same work, that's no guarantee she makes less than her husband. As for "marrying up".... plenty of men do that too. Even if your significant other is a homemaker, they contribute enormously to the marriage, at one point they determined the jobs a homemaker does would cost over $80 K per year if you hired people.

With your opinion about women and marriage, I doubt you need to worry about the kind of woman who would marry you. The ones who accept the outdated misogynistic patriarchal mindset you show aren't the ones with much to offer, the desperate and insecure who will take whoever accepts them. They might resemble the women in your descriptions. Treat women better and you'll attract better women.

What makes you think you are some prize that only a near perfect woman would be acceptable to? It sure sounds like you're alone now. How is making the perfect the enemy of the great working for you?

Again, many states have changed the law to no fault, 50/50 splits with no prenup. Hard to be more fair. You complain about issues most Americans evolved out of.

So weird seeing people disagree with you, and then go off spouting shit about subjective benefits while married.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's pure win for the woman and pure loss for the man.

It's practically a carrot dangling in front of them daring them to divorce.

eg.

Woman wins :
Woman = Here's 30% of his income for 20 years and 50% of assets, and you get to walk away with no obligations.
Man = You get to keep all your financial marriage obligations for the rest of your productive life while she gets her divorce.

Man wins :
Man = Here's $500 for 6 months. You are an able bodied person and you can take care of yourself after that.
Woman = Pay him $500 for 6 months, then you have your divorce.

... and women win practically all the time.



So considering that most women 'marry up (financially)', and most women don't sacrifice personal life for career (to the extent that men do)... they benefit financially from marriage.

Then the divorce is massively skewed for their benefit.

So in the end, they win in marriage, and win in divorce.

And since it's the men paying for those wins, the men are losing and losing.

So yeah, I think your description is totally on point.




Marriage is so screwed up that I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators that suggest they are even slightly disloyal or temptable. Don't care how much I like them otherwise.

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

When the consequence of failure is immediate total financial annihilation, and a heavy financial burden for the rest of your productive life, you better F'ing choose carefully.

Or just don't get married.

(Or change the law so a divorce is actually a divorce for both people. No obligations. Just everyone go their own way.)

-scheherazade

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.

*backup=[...snipped...]