OK, a few things.
First of all, how can you hate this? They even had a vagician!
Still cracks me up.

Second, look, I'm not a female so I'm probably not the best person to comment on this but...
I've seen "Carrie" and even read the book (which obviously makes me an expert), so I wouldn't compare the first period with random erections. I don't know about you but I had them way before I knew what they truly meant. When girls get their first period, they are at least capable of understanding it (depending on their sexual education more or less well). And it is a bigger deal. Not like making you an awkward, homicidal X-Men big but noteworthy when it happens the first time.
Just from a stigmata perspective (not even talking the maintenance side of things) it's a quite different thing. How many boner jokes did you see and hear on average in movies or TV last year? How many menstruation jokes? See where this is going? It's still very much a taboo subject. You're more likely to find videos here about fucking children than menstruation. That's how comfortable our western culture is with the subject.

Third, the only stupid thing about this is that there is a country that is super rich and wealthy and still somebody feels the need to sell a menstruation starter kit to the parents living there. And that commercial is not aimed at single fathers (who'd probably really love such a kit), no, it's aimed at the moms. You know, the women who menstruated for (hopefully) at least a decade or two before their little girls start as well. Just like their grandmothers and great-grandmothers. They are supposed to buy that shit. Welcome to the country of vajazzling!
Still, hilarious video! Exactly the shit I'd pull on my kids if I had any (and the exact reason I shouldn't have kids).

I think both advices are terrible simply because they are very generalized and too unspecific. Sure, they're simple messages that sound uplifting and make sense at first glance but the same could be said about my horoscope in the daily newspaper.
Somebody surely told Rebecca Black to follow her dreams and the same must been told to all the casting show rejects that sucked hard enough to be put on the gag reel that makes up most of the ridiculing-others-part at the beginning of each season.
On the other hand I'm sure Bill Gates could've been a wonderful elderly care nurse but I prefer him super rich and very charitable. The same goes for topathletes and moviestars that spend bazillion dollars and their PR forces on charity.

Without sufficient data any advice except the really obvious ones (Don't eat spoiled food!) are nothing but a coin toss. You don't know if you need heads or tails until that coin has landed for good.
Jim's dad didn't follow his dreams and now we may have missed out on a great comedian. Hitler did and now we wish he hadn't. Who's got the last laugh now?
Godwin, that's who.

So Bill's mad that things are the way they are...ok.

The Republican party as even republicans are realizing is not a political party at all. No one has a voice in them but the super rich. They can stir up crazy sectors of the populace by talking about people coming after your guns or gays buttfucking your sons off the football team. But they don't actually listen or care what any of their voters think.

The democrats aren't much better, this isn't a functioning democracy.

This is a great thing, and it makes perfect sense. The workers should own the factories.

However why is this considered Socialism Coming To America, when Goldman Sachs and GM and basically any fucking huge corporation is supported by Tax dollars? When the big crash happens just like always they "Socialized" the hit, and used tax dollars to bail them out. That's Socialism, but you can't call it that because The Market decides everything, The Market is God.

It's complete propaganda, Socialism has existed in America since the beginning but it's not to the benefit of everyone but the super rich.

Lots of coincidences. There's only so many super rich pricks in the venture capital game. You are going to see overlap. Investigate it and accept the findings. These two just jump to conclusions.

Besides, regardless of their ties to Bain, venture capitalists have enough incentive to rig the election anyway.

>> ^lantern53:

Doesn't Romney pay by the rules set up by Congress and the IRS? Doesn't Obama? Don't we all?
If it isn't fair, who set it up that way? Congress makes the laws. Romney has never been a member of Congress...Obama, on the other hand, has.
Why hasn't Obama changed the IRS rules in the past 4 years?


He was going to end the Bush Tax Cuts for the super rich 2 years ago, but when he lost the majorities in the House he had to compromise with the Republicans that want the cuts around forever so they can continue to live like super kings. He allowed the cuts to be extended by two years. They are ending in the next couple months.

Presidents aren't emperors and dictators that can just 'change whatever they feel like or they are liars!' they have to have the house and the senate agree with them under the majority of circumstances.

Obama wasn't exactly born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He earned his money through writing. It's exactly because his perspective connected with so many people that he earned both his money and the office he holds.

It's easy to gripe about this policy or that, but he ain't exactly old money. When you look at wealth it's important to look at how the money was earned. Presumably anyone qualified to be president has already demonstrated their faculties. In so doing, they've likely earned a comfortable living.
>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^bmacs27:
Next time you see a homeless dude, consider whether you think it would be responsible to make him president. >> ^criticalthud:
does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.


of course not. nor is it responsible to make a hoarder a president, but that is what we are often left with.
consider whether it is responsible to elect a person who has absolutely no perspective on the everyday struggles of the average person, who only knows life by the silver spoon, or has so long been entrenched in washington and politics that greed, back door deals, and buying influence is all that registers in their reality.
is that a good idea?
I think not.

>> ^bmacs27:

Next time you see a homeless dude, consider whether you think it would be responsible to make him president. >> ^criticalthud:
does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.



of course not. nor is it responsible to make a hoarder a president, but that is what we are often left with.

consider whether it is responsible to elect a person who has absolutely no perspective on the everyday struggles of the average person, who only knows life by the silver spoon, or has so long been entrenched in washington and politics that greed, back door deals, and buying influence is all that registers in their reality.
is that a good idea?
I think not.

Next time you see a homeless dude, consider whether you think it would be responsible to make him president. >> ^criticalthud:

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.

>> ^criticalthud:

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.


Of course not. The entire way we conduct our election process is undemocratic. We should take a page from Columbia and actually elect someone from out own ranks.

>> ^criticalthud:

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.


We prefer the dragged-out version maintaining mineral rights, gun ownership, and polygamy.

does anyone really think that choosing between 2 super rich guys chosen by other super rich guys is a democracy?
i'm undecided, but only because i can't decide on whether i'd rather witness the collapse of the American empire in fairly immediate fashion or whether i'd prefer to see it dragged out over the next 30 yrs.

"Lasch wrote that in 1995. Now, almost two decades later, the super-rich have achieved escape velocity from the gravitational pull of the very society they rule over. They have seceded from America."

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

>> ^jjw001:
so what happens when more than 1 super rich guy wants to come/leave around the same time?

They're just gonna have to request another bailout to build that second lift. Why should these people have to wait just so some poor assholes can keep their houses?
IT'S IN SINGAPORE!

>> ^jjw001:

so what happens when more than 1 super rich guy wants to come/leave around the same time?


They're just gonna have to request another bailout to build that second lift. Why should these people have to wait just so some poor assholes can keep their houses?