The fact that the spousal abuse rate for cops is up to 15 times higher than among the general public is just the tip of the iceberg. Wives of cops who are beaten and abused have to deal with the fact that their abuser is armed with a gun. Their abuser knows the location of battered women's shelters, and knows how to manipulate the system to avoid penalty and or shift blame to the victim.

In a way they have it worse then the occasional citizen who finds them self dealing a jackbooted thug with a badge. A citizen if left alive doesn't have to go home and live with an abuser.

BWAAAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!! Excellent.
Too bad he's already banned, this is almost worth leaving his spam post up just to spread the word about him!
Scary stuff. I guess he's lucky no one caught him on nanny cam and blackmailed him for sleeping with coworkers wives in customers beds. I sure HOPE that's enough for him to lose his real estate license.

Police abuse their own wives and children at a rate 15 times higher then the general public. The young man should count himself lucky, at least he is still alive. Black americans tend to receive more lethal abuse.

I think the answer is that the lunch isn't made yet. They're not making their own lunch and then handing it to someone. The dudes in the video receiving lunches are already at work while their wives are at home making their lunches.

But it's not really solving a problem, is it? If you have a 3rd Testament then people a century later need a 4th Testament to understand the 3rd. It's just endless guessing.

The many confusions & consistencies deal with God's actions toward the peoples of its time. In this video's case, Paul to the Corinthian believers (people-people). My "narrow-minded" guess, is the "women" at the Corinthian church were there not as seekers of the Faith, but as wives just accompanying their husbands, so these females gathered around and started gossiping and various sundry conversations, turning bothersome to the brothers listening to the sermons... so that's why Paul ordered the women silenced. Now, that's MY interpretation, you can argue it's sexist/degrading of me calling the women gossipy (but bear with me for argument sake, because those men at those times are likely sexist!)... but that's one possible scenario. There can very well be other equally (or likely more) convincing scenarios, but only one of them is the truth. But which one is? Who has the authority to know and write down the true case in this 3rd Testament?

People have been discussing for centuries and I don't see the point of reading the Bible literally and try to interpret meanings on these small things. Humans in the Bible all make mistakes. We need to keep on progressing to make the world a better place. That's what Jesus advocated... Picking faults of the people in Bible is useful if we use them as examples of never repeating their faults. But it's no good if we're too focused on finding faults but lost sight of doing good.

I love the pointless rationalization by the guy near the end. So husbands should love their wives unconditionally? Presumably because their wives are silent and submissive, right? How does the former cancel out the latter?

@newtboy

Tillman's words incited the incident, but it was his colleague's response, calling him a malicious liar, that started the fight and it was Tillman's ally in the senate who proposed the rule to protect him in the future.

The rule was made to protect Ben Tillman, who, among other things said:

"[We] agreed on on the policy of terrorizing the Negroes at the first opportunity by letting them provoke trouble and then having the whites demonstrate their superiority by killing as many of them as was justifiable."

"The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand niggers in the South before they learn their place again."

"We of the South have never recognized the right of the Negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him. I would to God the last one of them was in Africa and that none of them had ever been brought to our shores."

^--- This, I'd like to point out, is the guy @bobknight33 is effectively siding with. Rules that protect men like that should be followed, according to Bob.

@ChaosEngine

i have many:teachers,police,firefighters as facebook friends.

during the run up to the election i was posting a ton of my research,analysis and commentary in regards to the election.

this,on it's own,should not be surprising,what WAS surprising is all the support i received from these people and who were simply afraid to like,or comment.

they were literally sharing my work with other people via private messaging.

each and every one expressed to me a fairly robust paranoia that if they liked any of my posts,or commented,that they would receive disciplinary action and that their jobs would be in jeopardy.

i found this very troubling and what i could not,and STILL cannot reconcile,is how some people not only ignore this very subtle form of censorship,but find it a viable and understandable in the realms of social media.

when you restrict what a person can comment or speak on due to fear.this is censorship.

in the case of justine sacco,she was simply making a joke and when put in context..a really damn good one.but due to the self-righteous moralizing of total strangers,her life was destroyed.

now there will be some that may still find this justified,and that is fine,that is their right but what REALLY chills me is that nobody is addressing the much deeper and far more insidious nature of public shaming.basically:other people saw what happened to justine sacco and will modify their social media persona accordingly.

this,in my opinion,will only result in a vanilla goo like substance that offers no challenging ideas,no conflicting opinions that offer an opportunity to discuss and debate difficult subjects,because debate starts with disagreement,and if you impose a fear of retribution by simply posting any content that may be construed as controversial.then the conversation ends...
and we all pay a price for that kind of groupthink.

this will force the really bad and worst of us to go underground,and reside in an echo chamber where their fucked up ideas are parroted back to them,resulting in a confirmation that their worldviews are correct.

conversely...

those who may have good ideas,or wish to engage in controversial subjects,or in the case of justine sacco..make a fucking joke...will be relegated to the "good little worker bee" position.who never challenges power or authority and simply obeys...for fear of losing:financial security,public standing etc etc.

they become fucking stepford wives.

and in my sincere opinion,this is the real danger.

What little we know about Trump....he's a tax cheat, charity fraud, rapist (according to an ex wife), misogynist, racist, serial adulterer that tries to screw his 'friend's' wives, and a failed businessman probably deep in debt to our enemies and competetors that produced (didn't write, although he claimed he had) a book about how to get ahead by lying that's screwed over every person that's ever done business with him, and has never made money for others.
What we know about Clinton, she's a politician that acts like one, meaning lying and obfuscating, that made a bad move once with some emails.
Trying to compare the two is impossible, there isn't a scale that stretches that far.

"That your gonna have some ups and your gonna have some downs. Most people give up on themselves easily, you know the human spirt is powerful. There is nothing as powerful, its hard to kill the human spirt. Anybody can feel good when they have their health, their bills are paid, they have happy relationships, anybody can be positive then, anybody can have a larger vision then, anybody can have faith under those types of circumstances. The real challenge of growth, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually comes when you get knocked down. It takes courage to act. Part of being hungry when you have been defeated, it takes courage to start over again."

It wasn't mental, emotional and spiritual growth when he took steroids to initially make his name. Also boinking his maid behind his wives back didn't take courage.

I am not drinking the lemonade on this one.

I heard the Hooliganism was getting out of hand, but Christ, I didn't expect them to compliment each other's wives and reflect on their priorities in life. The sport is doomed.

"Go home to your sexy wives"

As psychologist Nicolai Sennels explains, "Mohammed, the prime example for Muslims, married Aisha when she was six and had intercourse with her when she was nine. Besides, according to the Quran (4:24), Muslims are allowed to have sex with female slaves[.]" In addition, "uncovered women are in many Muslim cultures seen as a kind of prostitute, and if a man is aroused by such a female, then – partly due to the corrupted logic of responsibility within Muslim psychology – the female is blamed for being raped (and will therefore often face execution)."

Andrew C. McCarthy, in his book entitled The Grand Jihad, described rape by Muslim immigrants as the "unspoken epidemic of Western Europe." Six years later, it continues to expand and sweep across the continent. Ingrid Carlqvist documents how Sweden is now the rape capital of the West, and when "Michael Hess, a local politician from [the] Sweden Democrat Party, tried to warn his nation that 'it is deeply rooted in Islam's culture to rape and brutalize women who refuse to comply with Islamic teachings' he was charged with 'denigration of ethnic groups'" – a crime in Sweden.

According to Islamic clerics, a woman who fails to wear a headscarf is asking to be raped. Consequently, in the eyes of Muslim men, Western women are seen as "promiscuous, loose, and willing," and since no one in the Islamic community refutes this, they engage in the violence and abuse of power that rape represents. In Australia, Lebanese gangs threaten policemen's wives and girlfriends with rape. In 2006, the mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj al-Din al Hilali, maintained that "women who do not veil themselves, and allow themselves to be 'uncovered meat,' are at fault if they are raped."

In Rotherham, England, some 1,400 British children as young as 11 were plied with drugs before being passed around and sexually abused by Muslims. As shocking as this was, it is the fifth sex abuse ring led by Muslims

In Nigeria, Boko Haram seized 300 schoolgirls in order to sell them on the open market.

In Pakistan, the police do nothing as Hindu and Christian children as young as 7 years old are gang-raped and sold as prostitutes or slaves to wealthy Muslim families. From 2011 through 2014, approximately 550 Egyptian Coptic Christian girls were abducted and sexually abused by Muslim men.

I could go on and on, but the point is that in Islam, a women is considered to be a subservient and second class person. Men are supreme and women who do not dress appropriately (per Islamic standards) risk things happening to them. This is nothing new, it is part of their culture. Exposing them to women not raised in that culture is going to lead to incidents.

Now, please note that I do not think that we should not accept refugees. But I do think that we should make sure that women are aware of the situation and we should absolutely be enforcing the law in regards to the people breaking it, refugees or not.

It's like an entire country of Stepford Wives. Why, South Korea, why?!