I'll never understand these bathroom laws. They all seem to insist that people who look like and live like men must use the ladies room and vice versa. How does that make them bathroom safe? How will they be able to tell a post op transsexual man that now must use the ladies room from the pervert natural man hoping to get pictures of little girls peeing? It seems to me they are forcing what they are afraid might happen to happen daily and making it impossible to tell who belongs where. WTF?
Can anyone who supports this insanity explain?

The unemployment numbers of 28, 29, 35, and 42% is a weird sequence. So he starts by jumping 1%, then 6%, then 7%. So if we keep the pattern going if could be: 1 6 7 13 20 33 53. It may have been 28, 29, I heard 35, maybe 42, could even be 55, even as high as 88 or *gasp* 141%.

Or it could be up by 1, then up by 5, up by 1 and then up by 5 as in: 1 6 7 12 13 18 19 24 25

But since he stopped at 42, let's get the range: 42 - 28 = 14

Since it's America and it's somewhat appropriate, in the mystical ways of presidential numerology (the only way to understand Trump), the range of 14 must be referring to the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

coffee and cigarettes are my last vice,and i ain't fucking giving them up!

how is that people feel perfectly at ease to just walk up to me,a total stranger,and offer health advice?

"you know those will kill ya,you should quit"

thanks captain obvious.

so i always offer them options,people LOVE options.

cigarettes or heroin i ask them.

which always stops them in their tracks and totally bewilders them,and gives me the silent giggles.

which of course they suggest neither,but i tell them i kicked my heroin addiction,my coke addiction,my painkiller addiction,my sex addiction,my porn addiction,i have plenty of experience with addictions.

"so why not lose the cigarette addiction?"

because i don't want to i reply,as i sip my coffee and take a drag of my cigarette.

and they got nothing,and they know it.

smokers realize that smoking is bad for them.that it will facilitate future health issues and most likely result in an early death.

so when you walk up to a stranger smoking and preach the dangers of smoking.you are not revealing some secret truth that they are not already fully aware of,your intentions may be good and your heart coming from the right place,but it is extremely condescending and patronizing.

and the dangers of second hand smoke have been proven to be totally over-blown.it is just rude of a smoker to be forcing anyone to be in the same air space while they enjoy their addiction.

i do not smoke in someone elses car,or in their home.i don't blow smoke in peoples faces.i go out to smoke on the patio.i try to be respectful.

and when you look at the statistics,fewer and fewer young people are picking up the habit of smoking.for all the tobacco companies whining and crying,it appears education is the very simply answer to address a very nasty habit,and even worse addiction.

so to all you well-inentioned do-gooders out there.please do not waste your time or energy pointing out the obvious to people like me.who will be turning 50 in a few months.save that energy for the young people.

coffee and cigarettes are my last addictions.think i will keep them.

hmmmm....coffee sounds good right about now.

and what angle would that be?
YOU said mike ward was "rightly sued" for basically calling a kid ugly,and i asked for you to explain how this is a legal matter.

or is it your contention that because mike ward "punched down" instead of "punching up" IS the legal precedent?

what if he spoke on how ugly patton oswald is?
or ridiculed michael j fox's parkinsons?

would THAT be acceptable?
or would that be acceptable,but just in poor taste?

and you still haven't addressed how this young boys reputation has been ruined.from what i have been reading it was not his reputation,but how mike wards joke had become semi-popular and the kids in his school started busting this young boys balls to a degree where school was becoming an anxiety riddled event for the young man.

why aren't his school mates also being fined?
i mean,if we are going to bring in the state to handle every and all social issues..let us at least be fair.

and what about the people in the audiences that found the joke funny?
aren't they contributing to the continuation of this young mans suffering in school?

see,i think you are viewing this as a bullying situation (my assumption),and you are viewing this young man as a victim.a victim to bad jokes done in poor taste,and maybe you are correct,but jokes are subjective..NOT objective..and there is no tangible evidence that this young mans reputation has been affected.

it is the INTENT of the joke that should be scrutinized,and that is something that is also subjective and an issue we all deal with on an individual basis.the legal system should NEVER be used to decide such arbitrary and subjective material,because now you setting precedent and punishment based on "feelings",and this tactic can be easily abused.

so you may "feel" mike wards jokes are offensive and damaging,and that in your country mike ward should be executed for his crimes (fascist much?).

but remember...that pandoras box door swings BOTH ways,and the abuse can come from a direction that you,and i for that matter,would be appalled in its application.

and to even suggest that this is not a free speech issue is incredibly naive'.
if you think being charged in a civil case,and having to show in court multiple times to defend "joke" with the possibility of even MORE financial hardship,will not affect how a comedian approaches his routine and the jokes he writes,you are simply NOT thinking this whole situation through and the unintended consequences of situations such as these.

this is most certainly a free speech issue.

let me give you a hypothetical,but using the same parameters.

the wesboro baptist church goes to protest an abortion clinic,and are met with counter protesters.

the counter protesters begin to chastise and berate the westboro people.ridicule their stance on abortion and their religion.so much so that one of the younger westboro children becomes distraught,and anxious and begins to cry.someone films the exchange and posts to youtube,and it goes viral.

now the young westboro kid is being harassed in school,being picked on and being called names.the young kid is so vexed and humiliated that he avoids school at every step and is having self esteem issues.

so much so that the westboro church decides to sue the counter protesters in court.

what do you think the outcome should be?
should they even be allowed to sue?
and if so,should the young westboro kid receive damages?
or should those counter protesters receive the death penalty in your country?

do you see what i am saying?
you getting what i am laying down?

because free speech means that you are free to express yourself,but you are NOT free from offense,and offense is subjective.what offends YOU might not offend ME,and vice versa.

free speech means you are free to express every little thought that pops into your pretty little head and share with the world,and i am free to ridicule you relentlessly if i so choose.

and i will.
with gusto.

I know what will solve that problem, let's make it the law that people who are now men must use the woman's room and vice versa. Surely that won't cause any issues or confusion.

I'll never understand how these idiots think that ridiculous, poorly thought out plan helps anything, it causes the very thing they're so terrified of....a thing that's never been an issue.

Playing meek does not protect you from any abuse you've mentioned, including being shot to death. It doesn't keep one from being arrested, beaten, humiliated, having false charges levied, etc. It only perpetuates the idea that the police are 'just doing their job's' when they abuse citizens. Fight back. This guy played meek until an asshat illegally grabbed his phone, then attacked him, and remained meek afterwards. He could have destroyed that cop if he fought back....but would have probably been shot if he had exercised his right to self defense.

If you are black and armed and you get stopped, shoot first. Being armed is now considered a legitimate reason for police to kill you. You don't have to be threatening, pointing that gun, or doing anything wrong at all, just having it is 'reason' enough for them to shoot you dead today. Prison is better than dead, imo.

Cops have squandered the good will and trust granted them by the public. They no longer get the benefit of a doubt.

It's 25 times more likely a cop will murder you than the odds you might murder them, they are all armed and dangerous, and turnabout is fair play. In my opinion, citizens have more right to shoot cops in self defence than vice versa.

Very few people want more dead cops, we want fewer dead citizens at the hands of the cops.....WAY fewer.
That said, turnabout is fair play, and in a citizen VS cop death, it's 25 times more likely that the cop kills the citizen than vice versa. Until that statistic is reversed, cops have no reasonable complaint to make.
If any armed citizen can be considered a threat that may be killed for no other reason, what makes cops any different? They are not only all armed, but also aggressive, confrontational, and have proven to be deadly. Any citizen should have the same rights to self defense against them, with a LOWER threshold of threat required, after all, citizens don't have training, backup, bulletproof vests, or prosecutors on their side.

I think @transmorpher is either being a little deceitful or has completely confused himself, so I'd just like to make a few points clear:

Dr. Neal Barnard is the person who said "plant based diets (quitting meat) is the equivalent of quitting smoking."

I can find no evidence of the WHO referring to Dr. Barnard's study or any other work. They certainly would not condone that statement because it is bullshit science as previously stated.

Dr. Barnard appears on the website Quackwatch which aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." Quackwatch is well respected, except amongst quacks.

To summarise, this means that he is quoting a study written by a known quack, and using the WHO statement on carcinogenic effect to support it. There is no scientific basis for using the WHO statement as confirmation of Dr. Barnard's quote about quitting smoking (see previous comment). It is Dr. Barnard who refers to the WHO, not vice versa.

It also means that there is only one person and study saying that it is more healthy to quit meat than smoking, as far as i can tell. Perhaps other studies say the same thing with different wording and I can't find it - but the onus is not on me to find the evidence, it is upon you to supply it.

Ugh. Look, I don't like Trump. But however bad he is, comparing him to Hillary in terms of better/worse is like being forced to eat a sandwich made of pigeon turds or rat feces. They're both terrible. They're both sandwiches made of shit.

Being a better tasting shit sandwich doesn't change the shit sandwich from being a shit sandwich. You can try to mask the flavor with hot sauce or swiss cheese, but it's still a shit sandwich.

Hillary is an awful candidate. The only way she'd ever have a chance at winning it to be put up against someone as weak as Trump.

And vice-versa. Trump could never stand a chance unless his opponent was as disliked as Hillary.

But here we are. Shit sandwich vs. Shit sandwich.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and list reasons why Hillary is terrible. Google can offer plenty of criticisms of her---and to be clear, don't think I'm coming at this by suggesting that Trump is some kind of saint. I. Don't. Like. Him. But Trump is doing one thing right, that I don't see Hillary doing. He's engaging with the "deplorables" of the nation.

This doesn't make Trump less of a shit sandwich (Did I mention that I don't like Trump? I don't like Trump.) but it could be the difference between Shit Sandwich, and President Shit Sandwich. (Sorry!)

To explain where I'm coming from on this, see Johnathan Pie's rant on Brexit. Basically, the "Keep things as they are" campaign was dismissive of the "deplorables" of the nation. Look how that vote turned out.

The thesis of that rant is basically that for many people the Brexit vote boiled down to:

"If you've got nothing, why would you vote for things to stay as they are? At least with uncertainty, there's some hope that things might change."

Hillary, for many people, means "Maintaining the status quo." For this group, Trump is at least a different flavour of shit sandwich--which might just put him in the White House. (Sorry.)

...

Here's the link to J. Pie's rant:

http://videosift.com/video/Jonathan-Pie-on-Brexit

Archer Vice, Season 5

It's so involved that Hillary had to have known. She may be dishonest, but she isn't stupid.

I came across this comment on reddit:

"
We all know Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) was the co-chair of Hillary's 2008 presidential run, where she lost the nomination to Obama. So, in order to lock down the nomination for 2016, Hillary was able to get DWS in charge of the DNC and manipulate it from within. That's the theory anyway, except....

In order for this to work, they would first have to, not only get the DNC chair to step down, but also get them to recommend DWS for the position. The Clinton's would have to promise something to that person, something more prestigious than being head of the Democratic party. So who was that person and what did they get in return?

It would appear that Donna Brazile was in-line to get the position, but she was only the interim chair after the previous chair left, served only one month. According to this, http://rulers.org/usgovt.html#parties, the previous chair of the DNC prior to DWS was Tim Kaine.

Yes, HRC Vice President running m8 Tim Kaine.

www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/tim-kaine-hillary-clinton-vice-president.html?_r=0

"

/sauce:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4ur359/atheist_group_calls_for_dnc_cfo_to_resign_over/d5scevf

As a society, we disagree, and sometimes condone mass shootings.

War is considered a legitimate reason for mass shooting of anyone designated the enemy.
Self defense is also a legitimate reason for mass shooting a group that's attacking you.

As for murder NEVER being the solution, it depends on your specific definition of murder. Homicide IS sometimes the best solution. "Murder", rarely, but there are rare times when it may be the best possible solution to a problem, terrible as it may be.

The only true absolute is "there are no absolutes"....which paradoxically makes that statement untrue by virtue of it's own veracity and vice versa. ;-)

Nailed it for me, but that's kinda the point. Humour is subjective... As much as the comedian uses techniques to deliver his comedy, it also requires an audience that is receptive.

You could go off at this point and make all sort of assumptions about the person I am, and vice versa I could do the same re: you. Ultimately though, it doesn't really matter because we aren't all required to get the joke. We are allowed to be entertained, and we are allowed to be offended.

Though I'm not sure how "once rape isn't something that is filmed" makes a difference one way or another because the comedian isn't personally responsible (to the best of my knowledge) for standing by and allowing a rape to happen while he films it.

And I don't see why you'd duck out of the conversation because your opinion on this matter cannot be wrong. It's your point of view about a subjective piece. It's not like it's a fact for everyone that the routine is funny.

What'll really blow your mind is they make a 4 door car as well. The Panamera. Looks a lot like a Tesla. (or vice-versa)

The whole thing was amazing. First part was really good. Second part was even better. By far my favorite Batman. So glad i took the time to watch *doublepromote

Adam Driver is SO much more than Kylo Ren

Arts In The Armed Forces http://www.aitaf.org/


Also a doublepromote for this vice video if anyone sifts it.