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 The ones who accept the outdated misogynistic patriarchal mindset you show aren't the ones with much to offer, the desperate and insecure who will take whoever accepts them.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.

1) you're wrong. None have said they personally heard Trump explicitly tie the aid to his demands, but many have said he himself tied the white house meeting to his demand for a political gift, which is a crime, and just as many have said it was clear the funding was tied too, and never did anyone at the Whitehouse contradict that in any way, even when asked directly, until they knew they were under investigation.
2) trump himself released the summary transcript in which he ties the funding to the investigations of political rivals and nothing else. Even your stage 5 cranial rectosis can't shield you from that inconvenient truth.

A majority still say he should not only be impeached, but removed from office.

*facepalm. The lack of direct witnesses is because of Trump's obstruction, telling subordinates to ignore subpoenas. That alone is impeachable.
You probably mean they can call unrelated red herrings like Biden who has zero bearing on the charges.
1/2 the republican question time was wasted by them giving whining speeches about how they can't ask questions, and 1/4 spent whining that they can't use this time to investigate Biden....who has never been accused of anything illegal you might note. Edit: ....and the whistleblower, because clearly it's important to know who they are in order to destroy their lives, but not for any other possible reason.
Using impeachment to investigate political rivals and harass whistleblowers instead of investigating the president isn't going to help win independents, the only voters in play. Lose the Senate, which is likely, and Trump will be the first president to be impeached twice if he remains in office.

Oh Bobby, who cried the last two election nights? Not Democrats. I wasn't even surprised Trump won. I called that in spring 2016 when the DNC was caught helping Clinton and screwing Sanders.

You are right on one point, when the Turtle gets the case, he's going to tank it and Trump won't even get a slap on the wrist, but only because party loyalty is far more important to Republicans than national loyalty or rule of law, not because he didn't commit more crimes. In that sense, Democrats have lost. We all have.

But I don't write to you, it's for others who maybe wouldn't watch Trump rape and murder young boys then defend him. There is literally nothing he could do to make you stop riding his dick. Absolutely nothing. I'm not trying to convince you. You're a lost cause....and likely a Russian troll.

MAGA=Making Attorneys Get Attorneys

The CIA doesn't have to do much to make him look crazy. He has, at various points said, there are "Humanoids that are 80 percent gorilla, 80 percent pig," Michelle Obama is actually a man and she murdered Joan Rivers, and my personal favourite, in England, "They had tanks, people with gills, and there were little babies, and they were in there just gulping, clawing at the sides. You see a turtle at the zoo that wants out and you feel for it? They got humanoids crossed with fish and stuff. I mean... we are screwed people, you understand that?"

I mean... fish people? Nevermind the math on the gorilla/pig hybrids, but fish people? He's like the Weekly World News. I honestly feel sorry for anyone who believes that stuff. Poor people like @Sagemind and @bobknight33 a lack of proper education, perhaps parents who didn't keep enough books in the house... poor nutrition? I honestly don't know what deprivations a human mind has to go through to become that incapable of discriminating the obvious lies people like AJ tell.

I still don't think the scenario they present is that far fetched, people today regularly get operations that they personally could not possibly afford, but insurance covers it. Vets returning from wherever we're fighting then getting hooked up, most vets are probably not rich by any definition. Then get a few rich backers like David Sarif and scientific advocates like Hugh Darrow and you can frame it as a quality of life issue, or even a productivity issue.
You're right about the super limbs not being too practical or likely, I would also add illegal to that list, no beat cop wants to face off against Robocop. But I wonder if even slightly stronger limbs might pose problems of their own? Say you have one of your legs replaced with a cybernetic limb, if that one is stronger than your other meat leg, I wonder if you might not end up favoring that one and that screws up you normal gait, generating a whole bunch of new problems.
The kid in the video we see getting abused seems to only have a cyber leg, I'm not sure how much good a single leg is going to be in a fight, or flight for that matter especially if you are hugely outnumbered. Adam is a different story of course, he was clearly built for combat and infiltration.
The cynic in me would readily agree with the scenario where the wealthy wind up with everything but that sounds almost too perfect and cliche. So I think there's room for other possible futures.

My first question is invariably "Why did this happen?" I seldom give a shit who's at fault.

One thing I've always liked about certain Japanese mentalities. The fault is secondary to the solution. If you screw up, you say you're sorry, and then fix it.

@VoodooV Interesting point, but won't people be less inclined to be responsible if they have less freedom?

Rights and responsabilities go hand in hand, I agree. That means when you screw up, you're held responsible, you pay for your actions.

With gun control, you want to take people's freedom away to stop them from screwing up in the first place.

Doesn't seem to me like that would make people more responsible.

Screw you you classist robo! What are these power points even good for?!

*skillful

Take that!

No, I think the problem is that the people that argue why it's failing have different agendas. For example, banks aren't going to claim they screwed up. You can't have the people that have the ability to lose millions or billions have a say in what's wrong.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Jerykk:
If a protest involves hordes of people marching in the street, blocking traffic and generally being loud and annoying, I don't really consider that "peaceful." It may not be violent but it's entirely disruptive and hinders people's ability to get where they need to go and do what they need to do.
You can try and justify the disruption by saying that it's the only way to get attention but really, you would only say that if you agreed with the protestors. If a bunch of people marched on the streets because the MSRP of Twinkies was raised by 5 cents, would that protest still be "justified"? A disruption is a disruption, regardless of motivation. If the protestors in the video had permits and conducted their activity in a genuinely peaceful manner, I seriously doubt there would have been any police intervention.

You only see what you want to see. The only people being disruptive and blocking traffic in this video are the cops and their fucking horses.
And who said you have a right to life without "disruption" anyway? You gonna call the police when that asshole won't stop talking in the movie theater? You going to just keep your mouth shut and walk away peacefully when that cashier overcharges you for your Twinkies? Maybe your idea of protest is standing quietly on some street corner, permit in pocket, holding a sign. It's not my idea of protest (not any more), and if disruptions bother you, stay home and veg on VS all day. Just remember to be quiet and keep your opinions to yourself, because I feel they are disruptive, and they bother me.


Flawed analogies. If you're telling someone to quiet down in a theater, you are directly addressing the person you take issue with. If you tell a cashier that he overcharged you, same deal. Nobody aside from the people directly responsible for your grievances are affected. Conversely, when you block traffic so you can protest against police brutality, who are you actually affecting? The cops will show up and do what they get paid to do. Bystanders, on the other hand, get screwed.

If you want to protest police brutality, do it where only police are affected. Like a police station. Don't do it in the middle of a business area where you're just impeding people's ability to live their lives. If you're so self-centered that you're willing to promote your agenda at the expense of everyone else, don't surprised when people get irritated. And when these people have body armor, guns, tazers, tear gas, pepper spray, riot shields, etc, things probably won't end well for you.

You're being pretty immature, heropsycho. You specifically called up this old thread so you could gloat over the Obamacare decision, mistakenly believing that it was what I was referring to when I mentioned that the unconstitutional contraceptive mandate will be thrown out in court. In actuality, if you look back to this comment:

http://videosift.com/video/What-More-Do-We-Want-This-Man-To-Do-For-Us?loadcomm=1#comment-1459002

You will see that I said:

"There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/7-states-sue-to-block-contraception-mandate/"

You had conflated the two things in your mind, yet you had the temerity to say that I didn't know what I was talking about. Now, instead of doing the grown-up thing and admitting you screwed up, you are still on the attack, now saying that they aren't going to hear another case on Obamacare. Based on what? It's not a challenge a direct challenge to Obamacare in any case, it is challenge to a specific piece of Obamacare. I will also note that 6 of the justices are catholics, and this has primarily been a catholic issue.

>> ^heropsycho

Hell if I am wearing crappy clothes, I'll just dry my hands on the back of my shirt after vainly attempting to use an electric drier. I think I've used one electric drier in my life that actually dried my hands in under 30 seconds. After 30-45 seconds I give up and move on, my clothes will probably dry faster if I wipe my hands on them than if I stood there trying to use that machine. And if you shake your hands dry, you end up with water drops all over you....like when you try to use a sink that is screwed up and sprays every which way. Looks like you spent your time pissing all over yourself either way, which is rather annoying.

Only reason I use more than one or two paper towels is because the dispenser is so screwed up you end up pulling out a wad of them instead of one, and feeding them back in is worse than just throwing them away...because no one is going to use them if you lay them out. So take the extra with you, or toss them. I prefer the rolls where you can crank it a couple times and rip off your paper towel. The old cloth rolling "towels" were nasty, would never use those....because you know someone did something to it...people are assholes.

made the best point at the end, "we're getting screwed and you're not helping". I don't bother watching regular news, or even TV anymore, if I want some news i'll get it online from places like RT, Democracy now and the RNN, if I want to be entertained i'll watch some sports or go outside.

>> ^quantumushroom:

As long as he doesn't burn millions of taxpayer dollars for fat-assed vacations on Soul Plane 1, go robo!


You vile racist hack.

Clearly with your short attention span, you've forgotten that Bush II spent more vacation time than any other president, or burned through our biggest budget surplus with his corporate welfare programs and handouts to the rich. Clearing brush on his ranch in Crawford, TX, was a greater priority to him than bringing to justice the man responsible for thousands of US deaths and probably securing his second term.

So screw you, you morally-bankrupt retard. No, it's an insult to the mentally challenged to liken them to you - you have no excuse as to why you don't use all your brain. You're going on /ignore, and no amount of private pleading will help your case this time.

Liberal insanity (doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results).

Every time Sh;tgress takes a break from their year-round vacations to draft new legislation, we're screwed. Are you beginning to understand?

We could seal every last one of the bastards in a vault for 10 years and leave the laws as they are and be no worse for wear.

But let's assume for a minute that this new garbage legislation does exactly what the left wants it to do. Even in this pristine fictional form, the very real consequences will be higher taxes or more debt (someone has to pay for those new bureaucraps/police) more crippling regulations for businesses and, oh, I almost forgot, the average joe (whom taxocrats claim to be standing up for) not only is taxed more, businesses will simply pass along costs.

With thugverment---a necessary evil and nothing more---the cure is almost always worse than the disease.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

That's total bullshit. Cops are allowed to do things during the course of their job that the average citizen is not.
Try pulling someone over with your car today. Really yell at them and honk your horn like crazy and see if they pull over. Then, when they don't, perform a nice PIT maneuver with your car. After all, cops are allowed to do it right? So shouldn't you?
Or how about this: Try carrying around a loaded, fully-automatic assault rifle. If anyone screws with you, tell them that SWAT team members are allowed to carry them, so you should be allowed to as well. Sound like crazy talk? It is.
How is this for a double-standard: if a cop sees someone committing a crime, they are required by law to stop it. Whereas you, a normal citizen, is not required by law to do anything. Is that unfair? Or is that because stopping criminals is part of a cop's job description?
Cops are allowed to do things that normal citizens are not. They can put up barricades. They can direct traffic. They can use "police only" radio channels.
It seems to me like this is equivalent to walking into a hospital and saying, "I'd like to perform some brain surgery, and if you don't let me, you're holding me and the actual brain surgeon up to different standards!" But they're not holding you up to different standards at all. Almost anyone can go to school to become a brain surgeon. But the school part is a requirement to actually practicing the work.
In the same way, almost anyone can go to a police academy or other training school and become a cop. So it's not a double-standard, it's two separate roles that individuals play in a society. Roles that are established by that same society. It's not that complicated.
Again, if the cop was using an illegal space to park in while he went and got a tic-tac or something, I could see the argument. But this isn't even an argument. It's crazy talk.


Cops are allowed to do break the law only in the case of an emergency.

A citizen is not afforded the lawful power to stop someone from moving freely on the street, or in the commission of a misdemeanor, or felony.

When was the last time you saw Special Weapons and Tactics carrying around fully automatic weapons on a beat, or a QRT for that matter? No, they cannot just walk around with their fully automatic weapons while patrolling. That argument is bogus. Force proportion. A peace officer does not need an M-4 to perform a traffic stop.

Cops are allowed the erect barricades only in case of emergency. Traffic redirection is case of emergency or special occasion, funerals and the like. In some cases officers have the legal authority to setup checkpoints for license and registration checks. That's been argued that they cannot do that because it hinders freedom of movement, and the police didn't have a legal reason to stop. Other than to check if someone committed an offense.

You will find that police only radio channels are often encrypted, because the public can listen to them, and hijack them. Which is illegal and those laws are enforced by the FCC.

Your argument above has many sections I would say are crazy talk. The video producer's argument is simply stating if a officer who is at rest and is illegally parked he or she is violating the same law he or she is sworn to uphold. There is a reason that area is illegal to park in; fire hydrants, bus-stops, bicycle path, or whatever reason the municipality decided citizens can't park there. What is the officer doing? The exact same thing a citizen would be doing, except he has a different hat on.

This has been argued over and over. The only time an officer can lawfully break the law is in case of emergency. It's the same case when an officer is speeding without his or her lights and sirens active. The only time anything ever gets done to stop unlawful activity is when someone raises the red flags, otherwise it will continue.

Whether the producer's a douche or not is beside the base argument of this video.