I can't believe he sacrificed his drink to catch her. I can only score him 6 points.

Your video, True Facts: The Self-Sacrificing Amoeba, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The court ruled that they found "there is uncontroverted evidence that respondent (Giuliani) communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former president Donald J Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020."

They explained the false statements bolstered Giuliani's false narrative that there was widespread fraud and that the 2020 election was "stolen" from his client.

Now disbarred indefinitely for perjury, and facing criminal charges on multiple separate federal and state crimes, all for Trump who didn't even pay him for sacrificing his own livelihood and reputation on the alter of Diaper Don. Gonna be hilarious when he requests a public defender....THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!

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.

Stop posting this unscientific propaganda, pedophilia supporter.

Notice not one reference on any of his "data" because he likely made it up like he usually does.

His data doesn't match any verified data either, and his graphs are intentionally confusing, including individual states and countries in a completely unscientific propaganda graph, some countries with populations in the 70-80000 range. My guess is it's improperly presented this way to hide how bad America has done, with well over half the slots being US states and many of the remaining countries having tiny populations and third world conditions. This is the superstition side of the argument, not science based or scientific at all.

We have >200000 deaths with just over 2% infected. Herd immunity takes 70-80% being infected and a stable virus that won't mutate enough to erase immunity. That's a minimum of 7-8 MILLION Americans dead and p to 21-24 million permanently disabled if we have 1.6 million ICU beds....hint, we don't, so multiply the deaths by 4-7 but lower the disabled numbers, they'll die instead. So far, there's no study that shows herd immunity is even possible, since this virus mutates every few months it's unlikely. I think sacrificing millions - 60 million or more to find out is outrageously insane.

Use real, verified data, we are at best 8th worst (only 7 countries have more deaths per 100000 and 8th highest death rate per infection too). Just look at India, with 4 times the US population, just over 1 million fewer cases than the US, and way less than half the deaths....IN FUCKING INDIA.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/08/05/899365887/charts-how-the-u-s-ranks-on-covid-19-deaths-per-capita-and-by-case-count

Because our population is so large, that puts us at number one in total deaths with 4% of the population but 25% of deaths....so > 6 times the global average per capita and the most reported deaths by far.

Fail Bobski. Only the most uneducated rubes fall for this ridiculous nonsense.

Our health care system was stretched beyond it's limits with under 2% of Americans infected over a 9 month period, and even so 200000 died (likely more), some from lack of access to hospitals because they had zero beds available in entire states.
His plan is now to allow 35-40 times that many people to get infected in the next few years, which would lead to 7.3 million dead if we could give them the same treatment and mortality rate, but we simply cannot. 15-20% need ICU beds and equipment, in Trump's plan 9/10 won't get it at best, all those people will die, bringing the mortality rate up to as high as 20% +-.

.70 (expected minimum effective infection rate) x 350000000(population) x .20 (probable mortality rate without ICU care) = likely 49 MILLION +- expected dead if all goes to plan under Trump's herd mentality plan....an apt name since he's lining up Americans and sending us to the killing floors.

So somewhere between an optimistic 7.3 million and a pessimistic 49 million dead sacrificed Americans is his best idea (he knows tested widespread vaccines are years off and only good until the virus mutates, which it has already), plus any collateral damage from no functional health care and other factors. I can't fathom where this 3 million number that's being tossed around comes from, it seems insanely optimistic and not based in reality.

so the economy is worth sacrificing ~3.3M people in the US alone?

If they allowed her husband and their therapist to testify and present his notes as evidence, they could at least prove she told the same story in 2012 with no interest in going public with her story or even naming Kavanaugh privately...or that she's an evil supergenius that started planning this fraud 6+ years ago.

Yes, there might be reasons to want to prevent his appointment, but it's a stretch to believe this successful professional wife and mother would knowingly upend her life and the lives of her family permanently in hopes of delaying his confirmation slightly and smearing his name as a likely best case scenario if she were making it up. It also doesn't make sense that she would request a formal FBI investigation since lying to them is a crime they often prosecute harshly.
It's possible she's a liar and a nut sacrificing herself for short term political gains, but it really seems unlikely.

I do agree, there are a lot of reasons why someone might want to prevent him from being selected. I have a few myself.

""Fox reporters would lie with him, but they didn't"". ??? On what grounds do you state this ??? Fox is more fair and balanced than CNC/MSNBC and others.


HE was not expected to wing by a land slide It was to be close, which it was.


" Republicans have totally sacrificed their morality " Are you kidding. Democrats are the party of Debauchery. Democrats are a joke. Republicans have slipped to a new low but democrats promote the worst of society.

Democrats are American but they represent the blinded sheep degenerated by its politicians.

No.
It shows us a pitfall of early voting. Most, the vast majority of votes, were cast before he assaulted the reporter.
He was always expected to win by a landslide both before and after he lost it on tape and blatantly lied about it assuming the Fox reporters would lie with him, but they didn't.
Because of early voting, last minute surprises like this barely matter....unless he gets the maximum sentence, which is appropriate. If ever there was someone the courts should use to set an example with, it's a violent elected official.

That's not to say he would have lost if early voting wasn't the norm there. Republicans have totally sacrificed their morality and rationality on the altar of partisanship. Like Trump said, they could murder people publicly in cold blood and not lose votes. This means they're fine electing people who display this kind of total lack of self control and poor decision making processes along with a proven willingness to bold faced lie to the public to represent us as long as the tie they wear is red.
It's far less about Democrats, the minority there, than it is about a total lack of civility, honesty, or basic self control in Republican leaders and their voters accepting that, even relishing it.

And btw, Democrats ARE Americans....since you're confused again.

For the police that are pulling out, your countercurrentnews quoted the Dan County Sherrifs office as pulling out and not planning to return. The local news link they reference though tells much more than just the biased spin countercurrent put on it. Sheriff Mahoney cites the reason for pulling out was that their agreed on involvement was only ever for the week they were there and no future funding was offered so they would be sacrificing local services to go back.

Even more glaring an omission if Mahoney is to be championed as countercurrent did, he described his officers experience at the pipeline as follows:

“Our people have shined, they report they stood in line and were confronted with baseball bats and tire irons and being sprayed with wasp spray,” he said. “Our deputies said there was a need for law enforcement.”

The full local story free of countercurrent's extremely prejudiced and biased stripping is below if you want a more full story. Surprisingly, the police officers aren't all just showing up on the protesters own property to start shooting them with water, tear gas, and rubber bullets while the protesters huddle up and sing kumbaya.

http://m.bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/sheriff-in-wisconsin-pulls-deputies-back-from-north-dakota-pipeline/article_c0378e3a-8e57-59f1-99
75-781c35bf1ee1.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share