They are removals of statues of confederates who denounced their part in America. No longer democrats, confederate traitors.

Another dishonest Republican pretending he isn’t in the party of racism today and for the last 50 years. Pretending it isn’t only Republicans trying to preserve confederate monuments to sedition and treason. Pretending the Southern strategy didn’t switch positions of both parties. Most Americans aren’t as ignorant of their history as you, bob, or the present...we all know what you’re trying here, but it only works on people who didn’t finish 8th grade and don’t know any American history. Go back to Parlor.

Disgracefully dishonest, @bobknight33....I expect nothing more from you. You are a liar, sir.

Why are you so dishonest, Bob. Are reality and honesty that hard to bear? You know, and we all know you know this is bullshit lies by omission. It only proves the point that Republicans know reality is against them and they don’t have an honest argument to make when you post this dishonest stupidity.

How many times are you going to try this dishonest lie by omission, because you leave out the southern strategy (actually you just deny it, la la la la la, neverhappened neverhappened, lalalalala), when the parties switched sides on social issues. After the 60's Republicans courted white racist southerners as Democrats supported civil rights for everyone.
Every single klansman today affiliated with a political party chose Republican. Every neo Nazi with a party preference chooses Republicans. Every white supremacist that votes voted Republican. +-8% of "black" voters voted Republican. They aren't as stupid as you think, people know which party doesn't think black lives matter.

This propaganda is technically correct, Democrats WERE the party of racists, but as presented it is a lie by omission, Bob, which is a lie. You know it's a lie too.

Edit: or do I misunderstand you and you post this to indicate the Republican Party is redeemable, just like the Democrats redeemed themselves from their racist, hateful beginnings? Because you are, but you need to reverse almost every position on every issue to get there, and all I see is heels digging in farther and farther on the wrong side of every issue.

for the most part, the people of china, japan, korea, and saudi arabia are native to those places, not invaders who often committed genocide to take control of those places and resources. there have also long been outcries to how they deal with foreigners, we just don't hear about it since we don't live there and aren't part of that media bubble. their attempts at monoculture have presented them with a variety of different issues and existential threats, japan probably suffering the most acutely right now.

You continue to use the common definition of "snuff".
Here's what the terms and conditions say.

The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited, incidental portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary that encompasses a much broader narrative. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

There was no lengthy educational or informative news report or documentary here, just a short clip in which 5 fatalities occur, although not visible on camera.

I'm not trying to have it removed, just pointing out that you are actually violating the snuff rule by the sift's definition....a definition that maybe should be reexamined.

Singh's right. Spending money for Native to have potable water shouldn't even be a question. There's nothing more of a basic human right than having drinkable water, especially since they've suffered being under the broiling water advisory for YEARS.

However, the problem with the NDP is that everything involving doling out money on social programs is a priority. They, like the Greens, are perpetually lacking in presenting anything close to a sensible, financiable budget during elections. They don't even try. That's why the NDP was never a ruling party (at the federal level), just the occasional kingmaker.

Its not where you start in life its where you end up.

White privilege is a false statement. Its really middle class privilege. Its about education not skin color. There are plenty of poor whites as much as there are poor blacks.


Those in the back mostly without fathers.
All knowing Newt, What is the fix?

Economic hardship of those kids would be lesson if both parents were present.


Finally JOBS or lack of them are mostly due to government policies ( Fair trade / Free Trade) have decimated job opportunities for All Americans, especially low wage and entry jobs.


Make policies that bring jobs back to America. Passing bills that take tax dollars and make roads or such only create short term jobs.

Trump was right Lower business tax rates to compete on world stage stimulated economy and America started to flourish.

Sadly Biden/ Democrats want to move tax rate up which will slow down growth, if passed.


Learn???
My dad started working at 14, His dad never got passed 8th grade.
My dad went bankrupt, had a chronically ill wife ( died in early 40s due to it) and 4 kids.

He never left. He worked his ass off.

Also he broke his back in 3 places and crushed his right hand. He left the hospital to sign a house mortgage, knowing he might never work again.
With a healing back and crippled hand he drove 50 miles each way in a stick shift car for 3 years like this just to keep a roof over our heads.

I paid my own way through college, Same for my sister.

My dad says If you want it bad enough you will find a way.

So don't tell be about white privilege bull shit.

What about Black lawyers, Drs, and ball players?
They make way more coin than most white people. Do they have white privilege?

The person making minimum wage likes it enough to stay, else he will find a better paying job.


Should fines, penalties be smaller for poor people , yes.

If the video were presented that they were athletes and the white people were just average people off the street, the comment from the announcer would be warranted. That's not how it's presented however, it's shown as a random group of young people who we SHOULD all treat as equal.

If he had said "I've seen a couple of these guys run and I KNOW they are faster than all of you." then that would be relevant personal knowledge, not just a guess based on their race. The fact that they did run faster has no bearing on why he made the statement before anyone ran and should have no idea how fast they are.

satire.

or what could have passed as satire. in the present, it's more observational.

So how far did making women ghostbusters get us, newt?

This is possibly stupid and uniformed fun, it might even be slightly malicious fun, but there is present an element of making fun of ideology that goes too far.

I know it's mentioned at the end of the vid, but I want to do a quick PSA for Nebula. Don't mean to sound too much like an ad, but if you like edutainment-type videos there really is a lot there for your money.

I will say Nebula's platform tech is a bit rough at present. So far as I know there's just the web version and iOS / Android apps. I really want a Roku app, which should exist eventually. I'll note that for some reason the web version is limited to the most recent 100 videos on each channel, while the mobile versions don't have that limit (a bug of which the service is aware).

I tend to watch quite a few of what had been my favorite YT channels on Nebula now, to get the ad-free / slightly longer versions (I think they show up slightly earlier too). This channel, Legal Eagle, Wendover... discovered a few others I'd not have run into as well. So yeah - unpaid endorsement over.

(Edit - I didn't realize he mentioned Logistics of D Day at the end of the video - it's damned excellent if you're into WW2 stuff.)

"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

My first impulse is to give mama time rather than present a threat to her babies.

*ponders a bit. Visualizes mama ripping my heart out to set an example for other bystanders.*

Yeah... I'm sticking with that.