Oops…did I trigger someone with my opinion? I didn’t know my opinion means so much to you. 😂
god forbid someone doesn’t love your new anti tax anti assistance “where’s my assistance?” fat people fat shaming fat people MAGA anthem.

I just looked up who he is, a drunkard and high school drop out now complaining he’s not very successful, and looked at the crowd, 99.99% white MAGgots, and read the lyrics, which are easy to read/hear as racist, pro-incel, and anti government, blaming politicians for his low wages not his boss…blaming taxes for his lack of cash, not the $7 a hour minimum wage.

If he’s so popular among minorities as you claim, why were they not present at his concert? Are just his fans racist? Possible. The line “people like me and people like you” sung to pure white crowds has a definitive racist feel, and your denials are meaningless…you said the Charlottesville rioters weren’t racists. It’s less about what he thought when he wrote it (if he in fact did, there’s accusations it was written by conservative operatives, but no evidence of that) and it’s more about what his audience hears…and I’m pretty sure what the conservative lily white crowd he’s playing to hears.

You found a few “blacks for Trump” who like it. Ok. You think that makes it less a racist anthem? 😂 that’s fine, it convinces you. You’ve never seen racism you believed existed…except racism against whites, you’ve complained that that’s a major problem. 😂 Do you honestly believe that all black people are going to love this conservative country song? You probably do, you are that delusional.

“ It's a damn shame what the world's gotten to
For people like me and people like you”. Who are those people, because the people in his crowd are all just one type of people. White middle class conservative and middle aged.

Or a pedophilic anthem?
“ I wish politicians would look out for miners
And not just minors on an island somewhere”
Really, he’s complaining the government (eventually) stopped Epstein’s pedophile island but only spent $850 million on welfare programs specifically supporting coal communities since Covid!?… https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/american-rescue-plan/coal-communities-commitment#:~:text=Through%20ACC%2C%20EDA%20awards%20funds,%2C%20and%20re%2
Demployment%20opportunities.

An obese man complaining that fat people get food assistance while complaining about people starving in the street is the height of hypocrisy and ridiculousness. The solution isn’t to starve the obese, it’s to feed everyone…but that’s not his solution. To him, only some people deserve assistance….you can guess which ones.

Go ahead, love the song. It fits you. Understand it wouldn’t have ever charted if your political leaders like Walsh and Greene hadn’t told you to love it, made it a “conservative anthem” (their words). It’s not a great song, it’s a politically motivated whine about stupidity by an uneducated drunk. Before MTG and others started hyping him, he had barely a few hundred followers…his success is not “natural”, it’s a political move.

I hate the Bob Dylan quality it has, never liked him one bit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/20/rich-men-north-of-richmond-oliver-anthony-protest-song-america

The best part is, the right has forgotten… who is the richest man north of Richmond? Hint, he moved to Florida in 2021, but wants to move back north of Richmond. If this song isn’t a pure conservative whine fest, it’s definitely 100% anti Trump…so which is it @bobknight33?

The issue is the wrong guy, a dishonest blowhard trying to cover his own failures, claimed this early on with absolutely zero evidence. It was a clear dodge, his normal MO. Refusing any responsibility for ending the international pandemic response team that would have been able to actually say when and where the outbreak started, and likely be able to keep it relegated to one small area in China. By blaming it on a Chinese lab, actually saying it was intentional, he deflects from his abject failure to protect America from a clear, obvious, incontrovertibly deadly threat on the horizon….or any time after it’s discovery.
Were the Chinese studying Covid, yes, so were we. That’s not an indication of where it came from. There’s no evidence it came from any lab, only supposition at best.

Edit:Even if the guess that it came from a Chinese lab is correct, it doesn’t excuse one second of Trump’s (lack of) response and outright denials for months-years. The origin has nothing to do with the danger level, in fact, if it WERE enhanced/created in a lab as he claimed, that’s more reason to consider it MORE dangerous, not reason to claim it’s just a cold or mild flu and will disappear like magic in a few weeks. Granted, it was fun to see him (only after his trade deal fell apart) blame this deadly virus on the Chinese as an unforgivable deliberate act of germ warfare and accuse them of minimizing the danger and hiding the size and severity of the outbreak and in the same breath claim it’s nothing to worry about, not dangerous, probably not deadly, not worth any action to protect against, and just a minimal annoyance soon to disappear….but also disappointing to see how easily so many Americans glossed over the two faced hypocritical responsibility shirking stance he took.

This guy claims most, nearly all viruses can’t both infect people and be transmitted….what utter nonsense. If that were true, there would have never been epidemics, pandemics, not even outbreaks. Credibility destroyed.

I guess he didn’t hear about swine flu, or bird flu, or flu, or colds, or any transmittable virus. 🤦‍♂️
I guess they haven’t heard new mutations are far less deadly (but more transmittable) than earlier versions, so they are getting less dangerous, contrary to his claim.

Not transmitting well outdoors means it’s not natural?! Bullshit, animals nest together. Many natural viruses require close contact to transmit.

DNA testing proved early on that this is not a man made virus. Is it possible a Chinese lab made a natural virus more dangerous, then a lab mistake released it? Yes, but there’s no evidence that’s the case, even these people who’s livelihood relies on people accepting “the lab hypothesis” (hypothesis=guess) admit it’s all conjecture, there’s no evidence, certainly no proof. It’s not the lab theory because it’s unproven.

Duh.

BTW, this couple are married, anti vaxers, Ivermectin proponents, and were thrown out of Evergreen College, and are now both now discredited and disgraced. Their main source of income is now their anti vax, pro Ivermectin, Covid isn’t dangerous podcasts loved by morons like Joe Rogan, and a source of much of his misinformation that’s getting him removed from his platform.
“Bret Weinstein is one of the foremost purveyors of COVID-19 disinformation out there,” says Dr. David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and professor at Wayne State University who also debunks quack remedies as managing editor at a website called Science-Based Medicine. “Weinstein can be ‘credited’ with playing a large role in popularizing the belief that ivermectin is a miracle cure or preventative for COVID-19, that the vaccines are dangerous, and that the disease itself is not. Why are Rogan and Maher attracted to his messages? Contrarians and conspiracy theorists tend to be attracted to each other.”
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/09/16/bret-weinstein-and-heather-heying-go-unvaccinated-take-ivermectin/

Downvote discredited shills who profit from misinformation. No surprise at all, considering who posted this dishonest propaganda from discredited propagandists.

Damn. That's just not natural.

I do believe in aliens. I do, I do, I do believe in aliens.

So, you think rust isn't iron?

Yes, this is aluminum, just as ruby and sapphires are states of aluminum (technically corundum, the technical term for aluminum oxide) but because this is not naturally occurring they were smart to make the chemical composition it's name, AlON (aluminum, oxygen, nitrogen).
You make a new useful compound, you can name it whatever you like. ;-)

"Golf is not nature"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Agreed.

And @newtboy is right. In the media, men are being pushed into unnatural representations of men's physiques now, in a way they haven't been in the past.

It is the comic book, super hero, action hero thing.

Again selling to men but the sexual aspect of it is skewed differently. More like -- men want to LOOK like them, not penetrate them. Ha. But the destructive message is the same to men as it is to women -- you are not worthy enough if you don't look like this.

Hence my comment said that the makeup of the future would enhance their masculinity, not make them sexually desirable. More manly, to be attractive to women, not to men.

Did you know that all that ab action in the movies is not "natural"? That right before a movie scene is going to filmed, the actor works with his nutritionist and personal trainer for at least a couple of days beforehand? They work to minimize body fat for just that day. Makeup is also used to enhance the ab definition. And that right before the camera rolls, the men do crunches to make the muscles stand out even more?

I say this because I read an interview/article about a man who was working hard to look like those guys in the movies. He was so relieved to learn that his failure to exercise his way into looking like those movie images wasn't his fault.

He didn't know. HE DIDN'T KNOW.

This is not good for men's psyches, goldurn it.

I hear ya, and feel what you are saying. I t does seem sooo not natural but have to say im impressed that it happened. Looks pretty crazy. Pushing limits and all.

These sorts of arguments heavily weigh on definitions. What do you mean when you say life? Natural selection may not explain the presence of the first 'blueprint molecule' (which would probably be much simpler than anything we'd recognise now as DNA) but it can and does explain the massive expansion of data contained within that molecule.

A good definition is that something is alive when it is embedded with genetic information, and you can only apply the idea of natural selection to living systems. Non-living systems follow the laws of physics, not natural selection.

Similarly, what do you mean when you say 'information'? Clearly you aren't using the word in the way most people do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

I think that definition covers the sense in which I am using it. The information in DNA is stored as a genetic code with language, grammatical syntax, meaning, vocabulary, error correction and many other features.

Wow, so much ignorance in one post.

First up, you've just made @Yogi's point. Classical music was invented by humans, i.e. it does not naturally occur in the wild, unlike homosexuality, which does.


One: So fucking what? I have no desire to watch or participate in male homosexual behaviour. Because I'm not gay. Why would I have a problem with those that do?

Two: Eh??? What the hell does "priests" have to do with this topic?

Three: for the last time, homosexuality is not pedophilia. In fact, the majority of child sexual abuse is carried out by heterosexuals.

Four: Again, so fucking what? If you don't like gay men wearing codpieces or dog collars, stop searching google for those images.

Five: Man, you keep some strange fucking company. I've never heard of that before. Maybe it's a thing, maybe (and far more likely) you made it up or exaggerated a few incidents of people acting like assholes. Again, so fucking what? Straight people do terrible things do.

Six: I repeat, so fucking what? Are you that insecure that you can't handle a few queers acting effeminate? If you don't like that kind of person, don't associate with them.

It all comes down to this. No-one is forcing you to be gay or participate in "gay" activities. You have a choice.

Seriously, stop going to gay bars. Stop searching the internet for gay porn. Stop watching TV shows about home decorating. Stop looking for things to be outraged about.

But don't expect other people to conform to your narrow little viewpoint. You don't have the right not to be offended.

And yet here you are a demand homosexuals to keep their sexuality a secret, keep it away from the public eye because it upsets you with your faith.
Nobody makes you go kiss a boy (assuming you're male yourself here) but nobody stops you from holding your girlfriends hand in public either. Nobody tells you you can't get married in the legal sense because you're straight and no kid gets bullied in school because they're into the other gender.
You talk about beliefs and lifestyles and in that you disrespect gay people, force your belief onto them. It's not a lifestyle, it is who they are, at the very core of their existence, like being straight is not a lifestyle for you. Your refusal to acknowledge this is nothing but deminishing their very identity.
If homosexuality was a lifestyle, so would be heterosexuality. Lifestyles are not natural attributes given by the gods, lifestyle is choice. Do us a favour, choose neither of them, become asexual. It's the best proof, the Pope will agree.

In the end you won't be able to let go of this because christianity has always been obsessed with sexuality, especially that of other people. So eager to control masturbationary habits (Don't be Onan, fight the urge!), women's sexual freedom (Contraception is for whores!) and the queer (Worse abominations than seafood!) and therefore blind to see that this nonsense crusade against everybodys desires drives the masses away from their oh-so-important message of salvation. That's why you loose the fight, mankind is becoming more tolerant and we refuse to beat down the minorities for you any longer.
You can't have it both ways, you can't preach god is love and then hand us a list of people we're supposed to hate and expect us to nod in silent obedience. Times have changed, the minorities get more and more allies.
Honestly, that's what I admire about the Westboro Baptist Church, they're idiotic haters but at least they're consistent with their ideologies and brave enough to stand up for them.

Damn you mother nature! What is this evil white stuff that has invaded the south! Its not natural!!

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Southerners on ICE! Much funnier than Hitler on ice.

A few questions...
ANYBODY who doesn't give 110% to their career will not reach the highest levels of that career?
Are you saying that Georgew W. gave 110% to become President? Well, if that what he delivered is what it takes to get the job, it's a shame I can't run for office. I wouldn't even have to put on pants to come across as less idiotic as he did.
Are you really buying into this "Just give everything and you'll get there" myth? 'Cause that's not how the real world works for everyone. Have you ever been denied a deserved promotion? That is not that uncommon, especially for women. Look, giving your best is usually necessary but not always required. Luck, a lack of scruple, intolerance of others, manipulative skills and connections can really propel your career even if you don't work hard enough to deserve it. Just think of the cliché of the woman who sleeps her way on top. She doesn't even have to give 110% there, men are easy to please.

And regarding you biological theories, yes, men are stronger but how strong do you have to be to sit in an office? How much strength does it take to type on a keyboard? I'd say the jobs these female breadwinners we're talking about have are usually not involving tasks of great physical strength.
And why is it automatically the women job to take care of the children?
I mean, we're talking 2 parent families here since single women have no other choice than going to work unless you want to suggest poverty or child labour as viable alternatives.
In todays first world society it shouldn't be such a stretch to consider men as caregivers of the family's offspring. What makes the stronger sex so unsuitable to play that part? Because we're emotional cripples, unable to bond with the little ones like people with real breasts? Because society could point at us and laugh about our mangina? What is it a woman does a man can't do?
Oh I get it, that's just how biology wants it, right? We have to listen to mother nature, it's the smart thing to do. Well, that's at least what I told the cops after I left my house naked. You know, pants don't grow on trees and shirts don't run through the woods, evading capture by predators. It's not natural, not what mother wants. Let's not do this. Right?
We decided to shape the world as we see fit a long time ago. We can't change all behavioural routines in our heads but we are not powerless either. Why stick to role models that are ancient when we can make new ones with more benefits? Humans can't fly; didn't stop them from building planes. This is a question of nurture not nature.

What troubles me the the most, though, is your apparent belief that households with both parents working do it by choice. That is certainly not always the case, especially not in lower income families in America. To avoid that both parents would be forced to work, you need to have minimum incomes that are high enough to feed an entire family. How much is the minimum wage in america and how well can one person provide for a family with it? Would you like to raise 2 kids with only that much money?

Another thing is your idea that "women should gravitate to careers that will give the maximum flexibility so that they can spend all the needed time with their children". What kind of career is that? What jobs allow you to have "maximum flexibility" in terms or worktime? Drug dealing? E-Mail spamming? Porn?
I'm sure such jobs exist but I'd say they're very, very rare. Not a viable solution.

You call it "guidelines not rules" but maybe these guidelines are as antiquitated as ducking under the table when the bomb drops. We live in a brave new world, we need to do better than this. We shouldn't leave potential untapped because grampa doesn't like it. This is the 21st century, let's act like it.

There is nothing that makes women less qualified to bring home the bucks. "Think of the children" is simply a lazy argument against it and only shows the real problems of this debate: sexism and a lack of social security.

not natural at all. yoga mats?

....and Jeff Gordon's acting at the "Reveal" is very poor. Not natural at all.

Just found this which seems much more credible than the examiner article referenced above: http://jalopnik.com/that-jeff-gordon-terrifying-a-car-salesman-pepsi-ad-is-453519481