search results matching tag: reinforcement

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (69)     Sift Talk (6)     Blogs (4)     Comments (708)   

5 things to fix black communities

newtboy says...

Hilariously idiotic uncle Ruckus.

#1- stop supporting the industry that has made more multi millionaires and billionaires in the black community than any other, all rap is evil and negative (try some Clint Black instead)
#2- don’t vote for the party that’s supported and empowered your community for 70 years, vote for the one that abandoned your community 70 years ago and would strip you of your vote in a heartbeat.
#3- reinforce the trope that black men are all absentee fathers and other races aren’t.
#4- don’t support organizations like BLM, a hugely successful black run organization dedicated to solving major issues in the black community, specifically racially biased violent murderous policing with impunity like this…. https://videosift.com/video/Mississippi-Goon-Squad-Highlights-Brutality-By-Police
#5- stop looking for white people to solve your problems…which isn’t a thing.

Basically his *terrible suggestion is don’t try to solve your problems yourselves and don’t think someone else will, maybe just be an old white guy.
We need a *stupid and *racism channel just for Bob’s idiotic racist posts.

Colorado Supreme Court Declares Trump Ineligible For Office

newtboy says...

True, but you’ve got to celebrate the small victories.

Biden won Colorado handily anyway, by double digits. It’s not really in play so it’s a symbolic victory anyway, but it’s nice to hear a state Supreme Court officially declare him an insurrectionist AND reinforce the fact that the president holds an office in the federal government and that comes with a responsibility to follow the constitution, contradicting all of Trump’s legal positions.

Yes, it may be reversed by the Supreme Court, but my take is running elections is a state’s responsibility so the federal court has no standing, and I think they understand that whatever precedent they set could be exploited by the current administration to maintain power…if it’s not illegal for Trump to call for an overthrow of democracy, it’s not illegal for Biden…and they likely recall the numerous times Trump has hinted that he doesn’t feel we need a Supreme Court anymore and he would hobble or disband it once he’s “dictator on day one”….the newest horrifying MAGA slogan…so they have little incentive to get involved.

cloudballoon said:

Too early to celebrate. Trump got his cronies up at the Federal Supreme Court.

"Hunter Biden Spent $872K on Hookers" - Facing 9 Indictment

newtboy says...

😂 Tantrum much!? 😂

I know reading and comprehension are weak points for you, it’s sad and shocking to see how weak.
Another reason to not believe you could earn the lowest of tech degrees…I can’t imagine you passed middle school when you can read my very short clear statement and come up with that. I spelled it out simply and clearly, and you 100% got it 100% wrong and continue to argue against something never said….typical for you because you can never back up your claims so you must pretend the topic is something else.

I never said there’s no tax fraud case, I said your title is a total lie and is debunked in the video itself. That’s a fact. You’re a constant liar. No amount of your intentionally misstating facts or what I said will change that, it reinforces it.

I have said if it wasn’t a politically motivated attack on Joe, Hunter would never be prosecuted for any of the minor crimes he did commit, he would be offered a plea deal with a fine, like he originally was. I stand by that statement. Wanna try again?

Hunter was late paying his taxes…he has paid them at this point unlike Trump who is still over $250 million behind in his NY state taxes and has defrauded the federal government out of at least that much, likely 10 times that amount.
Consider, Trump pays taxes on Maralago as if it was worth $20 million (and he complained and sued because he said that was too HIGH, it was worth LESS for tax purposes). If, as he claims, it’s really worth $1.8 BILLION…he needs to pay property taxes on $1.78 BILLION he evaded for 40 years…according to Trump himself he’s evaded over $700 MILLION in property taxes on Maralago alone. That’s quite a bit worse than Hunter’s late payment, and is only one example out of thousands where Trump defrauded the country out of hundreds of millions. 😂
If Hunter’s crimes are prison worthy, the Trumps’ are execution worthy.

😂 Fake news! 😂
I know you can’t accept the truth, bob. We all know. You deny reality daily, on every front.

HUNTER HUNTER HUNTER…..The Hunter laptop is a long dead horse, just like the election fraud fraud, every attempt to legitimize it only ended up proving how much MAGA had tampered with the data, making it not evidence but propaganda. You’ve been trying to sell this nonsense for 5-6 years now. Nobody’s buying, and nobody’s listening anymore. You can only cry wolf so many times before the villagers stop listening and start hoping a wolf will eat you and shut your lying mouth permanently….you passed that point years and years ago, friendo.

No need to google anything about the laptop, it’s nothing. The FBI proved the data had been forged by Giuliani’s team. Nothing there makes any case for anything besides more MAGA frauds perpetrated on the courts, it’s a well established pattern for MAGA, and it’s a losing strategy, because you keep getting caught! Try again. 😂

Hunter is living rent free in your head, and he’s got a mansion in there with a pool, hot tub, putting green, even a driving range, and there’s still empty space for expansion. He’s not even a politician, so why would anyone care about him? It makes the lying, exageration, and hysterics hilarious self owns by you and yours. Another big “L” for your team…one you just can’t accept but everyone outside the cult has. Reminiscent of the big lie, only cultists believe, and everyone else just sees you losing your shit over your own lies not catching on. 😂

Hilarious how the mantra was “family is off limits” when it came to Trump despite the constant nepotism, but not for his enemies despite their complete lack of involvement in politics. More dishing it out but unable to stand it from your cowardly leader…he was even to scared to testify in his own defense! What a sniveling little fat cowardly baby, cowering because he has something to hide according to his spokesperson Haba.

Nothing you claim about Hunter is true, (fortunately MAGA is so untrustworthy that no one cares what stupidity you lie) and nothing Hunter has done makes one whit of difference about his father. Keep focusing on him, ignoring the same tax crimes comitted by Trump but by a factor of 250 or more…voters notice the hypocrisy and it guarantees your loss next year….meanwhile Joe has rescued the economy in every possible way from the utter disaster and guaranteed recession/depression Trump left,
IN EVERY WAY BOB, INCLUDING INFLATION THATS AT 0% while MAGA eats itself alive and gets absolutely nothing done! 😂

Of course I’m not clicking your link, if ever there was a site I would expect to host malicious viruses, it would be the Russia/MAGA hosted anti Biden pdf site you pointed people to. Why would any rational person expose their computer to attack to download and read your pure faked propaganda? A: they wouldn’t.

It’s going to be so delicious when/if Hunter beats the charges and gets Giuliani and the RNC to pay his legal bills. You morons had a guilty plea in hand and decided to go to court instead with little chance of getting more and a huge risk he might beat all charges, vindicating himself and by extension Joe…talk about snatching defeat from the mouth of victory! 😂 😂 😂

bobknight33 said:

@BSR

IF you can handle the truth: Which you can't

Hunter Biden Laptop contents, with a PDF down load link

https://bidenreport.com/#p=1

Or if you want to cry about the link Just google
marco polo hunter biden laptop pdf
and select the Link title Report on the Biden Laptop

Israel-Hamas War: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

newtboy says...

There’s lots of reporting on Hamas saying they want to eradicate Israel (without the ability to even do damage 99.9% of the time, certainly not eradication), but very little reporting of the Israeli government saying the exact same thing about Palestine while actively doing so using US supplied advanced weaponry at bombing rates never before seen, and dropping them on civilian populations.

There’s little mention that Palestinians die at around 20 times the rate Israelis die despite having less than 20% the population of Israel (and extreme high death rates mean 50% of Palestinians are children).

Gaza is an open air prison where inmates serve life for the crime of being Arabs in their native land. Electricity flows a maximum of 3 hours a day in good times, food is scarce, and under 10% have access to clean water. There are no jobs, and there’s a very good chance your family will die together at home from indiscriminate bombing.

They have nothing to lose because Israel has taken everything from them over 70 years of ever expanding violent military occupation including their humanity.

The Israeli military spokesman said this campaign is intentionally not targeted, and is designed to do maximum damage to Palestine not to target Hamas. That’s another war crime.

Why in the fuck are we supporting and supplying clear undeniable, even proud war criminals!? That should make congress and Biden war criminals themselves. Send them all to The Hague to defend their actions if they think their actions are defensible.

If we use Israel’s metrics, that makes all Americans war criminals prime for righteous retaliation by the law abiding world. Not a good plan.

Edit: Side note- Israel has apparently made no move at all to negotiate hostage releases. In fact, they claim the hostages are held in the very tunnels they are bombing, so they are in fact targeting the hostages. Don’t let them get away with the lie that they are invading and raising the city to save them. They refused to consider pausing bombing for two days in exchange for their release, pretending Hamas might be miraculously completely resupplied and reinforced if they did.

Watch Elon Musk's Rocket Explode After Launch

newtboy says...

Sweet zombie Jebus…I just read WHY there was such catastrophic damage at the launch pad…NO FLAME TRENCH, NO WATER CURTAIN!!!
It seems Elon, on a guesstimate, decided the most powerful rocket ever built didn’t need any method of deflecting the thrust away from the plain concrete launch pad. He did plan to eventually try a huge steel plate under the rocket, but couldn’t get it done so just launched anyway with NOTHING.
NASA has been using both for over 50 years with success. A flame trench is a reinforced trench designed to redirect thrust horizontally away from ground infrastructure. A water curtain is exactly what it sounds like, a huge curtain of water dropped at ignition that absorbs the initial pressure/heat wave, also minimizing damage to ground infrastructure and lowering initial sound levels.

Why Elon decided he needed neither for the most powerful launch system ever is unfathomable. His launch pad is destroyed and this launch never even came close to 100% thrust. How many times does Elon have to totally screw the pooch as an engineer before they take his drafting table away? He’s playing with public money, somebody stop this insanely poorly implemented boondoggle please.

The Scariest Climate Science Paper I’ve Ever Read?

newtboy says...

Any sufficiently intelligent AI might just reinforce climate change as the simplest way to hobble and eradicate us with the least effort.

BSR said:

Artificial Intelligence will probably surpass climate change in destroying humanity.

Good parenting

newtboy says...

Are they disrespectful? Yes.
Is their behavior acceptable? No.
Will it hurt their future if not corrected? Absolutely.
Is that why I think YOU chose to post this particular video? No, I believe it’s because you think it reinforces your world view that includes sentiments like the one you quoted above….” I'm baffeled as to why people insist these creatures can live on equal terms with humans.”…you actually said you just think that MIGHT possibly be racist, it’s “iffy”, but I think you agree with the idea, and the others I listed above that you somehow inexplicably don’t find at all racist too.

There is a similarity in the people you single out as “the problem” vs those you excuse for similar actions…it’s not their behavior, it’s their skin color. It’s too consistent that you use non whites as examples of criminality and excuse whites for similar or worse actions to be coincidental. I think you really believe all non whites are just born criminals, and white criminals are mostly framed. I think you wear blinders that won’t let you see anything else.

Bad parenting….explain. Because their parents may need 3 jobs to pay rent and feed them, and they’re unsupervised?
Sounds like government sponsored daycare might be something you would support….but I bet you don’t.
Sounds like funding a variety of after school programs would save tons of money and stop crime, but I doubt you support them either.
Both together are insanely cheaper than police, prisons, and high crime.

@kir_mokum hit the nail on the head. You vote and advocate to remove all pathways to advancement then blame the needy for falling behind.

bobknight33 said:

I know that they are disrespectful.
You and @newtboy find this acceptable.


They will grow up and end up like this kid. All due to bad parenting.



Apparently you like this kind of behavior .. Your ok with it?

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

dogboy49 says...

After reading all your material, and after reading your rants on the other thread, my belief is reinforced that the best path is still the suggestion I noted above:

"If abortion should be considered to be a "right", then so amend the Constitution".

Bye Felicia.

newtboy said:

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.

Nov 3rd, 202, Atlanta’s State Farm Arena Fulton County

newtboy says...

Disgusting, anti democratic, inexcusable anti American treasonous fraud.
Every bit of it perpetrated by the Republican Party and Trumpsters.

Such a rube, Bobby. You trip yourself up so often it must be intentional. Your avatar being a clown only reinforces that theory.

🤦‍♂️

bobknight33 said:

So much fraud in so many states.

Pike County Sheriffs Beat And Mace Man In Restraint Chair

BSR says...

Some cops need to reinforce their bravery, pride and cowardice. They should probably do a welfare check on his wife. That is if she is still alive after "accidently" falling down the stairs.

When a bully challenges the coach of a boxing gym

newtboy says...

Bullies don't deserve your sympathy.

I feel satisfied that if the bully was winning that sparing match he wouldn't have been so restrained, his prison record reinforces that theory.

The only obvious sign of brain injury I saw was the asshat driving an hour to try to bully a boxing coach. He wasn't pounding him in the head, he was more pushing him to the floor. I saw a boxer jabbing at 10% power vs an arrogant bully throwing haymakers who thought he's the toughest person around. Sometimes the only one who can teach humility is the ground.

I think he learned that lesson, he seemed like a good teacher to me.

TheFreak said:

I see a pair of assholes in this video.

First indication:
"After I showed him my crutches he went on to call me a pussy and said are you backing out."

Fighting someone because they called you a pussy and then continuing to punch them in the head after obvious signs of brain injury...
Yeah, you're an awesome teacher.

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

"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

newtboy said:

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.

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

newtboy says...

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.

scheherazade said:

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.

^

Republicans Try to Dismiss Trumps Second Impeachment Trial

newtboy says...

It would be more convenient to go with a majority vote to bar him from office if it was that simple, but I don't think it really is. (In reality I think that's maybe not the best move, because if he can run and starts a new conservative party, it will guarantee a Democratic landslide because the liberal vote won't be cut in half)
No matter the method, it's imperative that calling for the overturn of a certified election by any means necessary, and sending a crowd to force trial by combat, instructing them to stop the congressional certification, don't let it happen (which is a a direct call for interference in government proceedings only possible by force) be punished not ignored or it begs for a repeat. It's far from just using the word fight, it's saying if you let them certify this election you lose your country, you've got to get rid of these representatives that won't go along with you, and fight hard, you can't let them install Biden, stop it, he's illegitimate and I won by a landslide but Biden stole it, do not let them certify him or you're country is gone they must elect me, I'll be there with you stopping the steal.

I seriously doubt the American people will see it that way, all polls show a majority agree with his policies over Trump's. The election reinforces that.

It's hard to imagine hurting the economy worse than Trump's disastrous pandemic response that continues to cause more damage today because the distribution part of his "plan" was 1/2 baked and 1/4 implemented. Hundreds of millions of vaccines are being shipped to Europe because he wouldn't commit to buying them when he could, even knowing he couldn't buy them later. Any misstep in the response cost lives and hurt the economy horrifically.
Then there's the 8-9 trillion added to the debt not including last year's unprecedented spending spree during a recession meaning the deficit his last year may be well over $4-5 trillion (I've seen estimates of $9 Trillion). The debt and deficit will be hard to screw up worse, but time will tell.

Let's be realistic that the majority of Americans never wanted Trump, so much they voted for Hillary the most despised politician at the time, 3 million more times...it took nothing but not ignoring swing states and not being the most hated candidate in living memory to flip the electoral vote. Trump becoming the most despised candidate in history helped.

It wasn't a few thousand, my recollection is it was hundreds of thousands in most critical states, only a few were even close, only Georgia was as close as 12000, still more than a few, and Biden won easily without it.

The green new deal, if implemented, should create tens of thousands of good paying jobs. Innovation almost always pays off....again, time will tell. I'm of the opinion that it's too late to avoid climate disaster, probably too late to avoid a near total extinction next century without a miracle, but any mitigation is worth trying if it works. I don't want to live on Venus....and don't want my grand nieces and nephews to either.

I'll agree to disagree about guns. I've heard the same fear my entire life, claims democrats will take guns away, I once believed it. It's never happened even when they had the house, Senate, and Whitehouse. I'm pro gun and pro regulation.....a well regulated militia is what the constitution says. I respect your position even if I disagree.

I am a stickler for not fudging terminology. It makes understanding another person's argument impossible if they use words that are just wrong just because other people are misusing them, and is often used intentionally as a means of escaping one's statements by saying they didn't mean what they said, but only when tightly cornered. That's not an accusation, just a peeve. Bob, to name one, insists Trump's never been impeached.

Mordhaus said:

I could quote legal scholars who think otherwise, but since it is kind of split down the middle, you would be able to find just as many that argue that it is constitutional. My opinion goes towards the non-constitutional side. He isn't a sitting President any longer and the only reason Democrats are doing this is because, as you mentioned, it is a much higher bar to convince a jury that using the word 'Fight' means a call to insurrection. If they could manage to force it through the easier method, then they can simply call for a majority vote and block him from running again in 2024.

That is the net goal of the Democrats, because they fear he will win once people realize how badly the new ecological policies and debt from a further stimulus is going to hurt our economy. Let's be realistic in that it took Trump fucking up multiple times, the worst pandemic in 100 years, and the entire Democratic voting bloc turning out for Biden to win by a few thousand in the critical states that gave him the electoral mandate. I can't vote for him again, but there are plenty who would. Mostly poor and middle class working people who are going to be realizing just how bad Biden is going to fuck up the economy in the short term over his appeasement of portions of the green new deal.

We've discussed the gun situation to death. I could post quotes from Kamala and Biden, as well as his stated plan for gun control he put up on his site, but it would again serve no purpose. You feel that nothing will happen or it will only be limited to scary 'assault rifles'. I feel otherwise. We can bang our heads against the metaphorical wall over and over, but in the end neither of us is going to change the other's mind on gun control.

Sadly, in my case, that still means that unless Democrats do a 180 on gun control and illegal immigration I will continue to be forced to vote for Republicans. Also, yes, I mean the trial, but can we not split hairs? It's like asking for a Kleenex and getting nagged that you really meant Puffs.

joe scarborough on wednesday jan 6 2021 maga riot

newtboy says...

Still waiting for this ethereal clip of a reporter standing in front of a burning building calling riots “mostly peaceful”. Your silence on this amounts to an admission you are just a liar, you’ve had plenty of time to produce one.


One wonders where you get your numbers from, too. They sound like you just made them up, they are not even close to the numbers capitol police and the fbi are using. They indicate there were well over 1000 that invaded the capitol building, and close to 10000 total...that’s around 10% of the crowd that entered the building by force, the rest were outside murdering police and damaging public property, setting live bombs, and keeping police reinforcements from being able to get to the scene. Mostly peaceful it was not.

greatgooglymoogly said:

30-50,000 people in the protest. A few hundred invaded the building. I'd call that "mostly peaceful" by the definition of the reporter standing in front of a burning building saying the same.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon