I take it black men don't swing?

I apologize if I'm not up on my racist stereotypes.

Sorry to all for answering a wall of text with another wall of text.

I have far more than just circumstantial evidence, but I do have a few truckloads of that as well to make me think this duck is a duck.
You have no proof that those things in the lake are ducks, why do you keep insisting they are? Because 100% of evidence you DO have says "duck" and nothing contrary besides the ranting cat lady that loves them tells you it's really a swan that lays golden eggs?
Same goes for Clinton supporting and displaying unethical, dishonest behavior repeatedly. I don't have verifiable indisputable "proof", but all evidence I have, including multiple videos of her doing it, and constant reports (none from Faux news) of things like her handing DWS a key position in her campaign directly after proof of her actions at the DNC (for Clinton's sole benefit) that were so bad they forced her out of the DNC (or give me another more plausible reason Clinton would hire someone that absolutely ensures she won't get the Sanders voters she needs to win and that's been tossed out in disgrace, so she is a HUGE NEGATIVE for the campaign she's just been hired to lead, so absolutely not "skilled" at the job, and I'll consider it), actions which were incontrovertibly dishonest and unethical if they've been reported at all truthfully, and you have offered zero evidence or even theory that it hasn't been reported truthfully, or evidence that that's not the reason she just hired her, much less proof, you have a theory not supported by reason or evidence that she was hired for being so good at her job...uh.....

I'm not a court of law trying to put her away, I'm an independent voter, appearance is important, and she appears unethical to say the least, without listening to a word from Faux or any right wing media, BTW. She has demonstrated enough clear dishonesty for me to make up my mind about her in one answer in one live debate...."I supported $15 an hour for years....I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage....I support $15 an hour", and done and/or said nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.....enough said.

BTW, the only actual accusation I made about Clinton was that she rewarded clear undisputed unethical and dishonest behavior with a top position in her campaign...that is absolutely true unless you're saying she didn't really hire DWS and everyone is lying.

Clearly if she thinks hiring DWS to head her campaign is going to get her the Sanders supporters votes she needs to win, she has zero insight about what the public thinks.

Yes, her JOB was to ensure a fair election process first and foremost, she failed. Secondly to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, she failed, she made them look like cheaters and backstabbers, hurting them horrendously and probably losing the election. How is she "skilled" again? What part of her job did she get right again?

It doesn't matter if her cheating is really why Sanders lost, it looks like it is, and it went 100% against her duties to be impartial and safeguard the process. If you cheat on a test and get the highest score on the test, you don't get to say 'it wasn't the cheating that made me score that high, I would have been the highest score anyway, so I'm validictorian', you get a zero and are disqualified....that goes for if someone cheats FOR you too, even if you didn't ask them to, just allowed it and lied about it when asked, but that's not the case here, she was totally complicit, she had her lawyers instructing them on how to toss people off the voter rolls etc.....at least according to all EVIDENCE...but I don't have a paper trail in hand to PROVE it...happy? (sweet Jesus...it's come to this)
No other reason why he may have lost matters since she cheated to win. (and BTW, the DNC emails show some underhanded reasons why he lost like that with minorities, not that it matters)

Carl Rove was protected by Bush after he said anyone in his administration involved would be out, right? So yes, still on Bush.

Did I say "you"? Are you ALL of her supporters, or did I say ALL of her supporters? The DNC and SOME OF her supporters rigged the system to shove her down our throats, which shows me that they were not at all confident she would win in a fair primary, contrary to your insistence. You have no proof she might have won anyway.

Yes, being a governor is more governing experience than being a senator (especially while running for president). (to be honest, I thought he had also been a senator, but it seems not) Secretary of State is good experience, but not at governing, good for understanding foreign affairs, something the president has a secretary of state for. First lady wasn't governing, she didn't pass bills, she was more of a connected political activist. Palin didn't even serve a full term, so no, not the same.

Time will tell, it's still possible that Trump might do something horrendous enough to turn off his rabid supporters....but he would have to suck a black mans dick on stage or worse to do that it seems. Unlikely. Her support is smaller today and FAR less excited about her....that's insane, yes, but true.

I can't have blinders on about why Sanders lost because I have a bag that was put over my head because the process was rigged, so we have no idea what it would look like if it were not. Maybe with the DNC's help talking about his work for civil rights he would have gotten 75% of blacks and Latinos, he certainly has been working for them for longer and in more meaningful ways.

We had a GREAT candidate with a statistically MUCH BETTER chance of winning a general election. They screwed him viciously. You want me to reward that?

Clinton does NOT always operate within the system. That's a major complaint about her, and the big issue here, she's rewarding operating totally outside of and contrary to the system.
Her biggest problem is her unfavorability rating....which may be tied with Trump in the percentage of people that dislike/distrust her, but is exponentially above Trump in the level that those people dislike her...and she's running against the party of hate and handing them more ammunition to get their voters out daily.

I don't think I compared Clinton and Trump...I refuse to agree that I have only 2 choices. Yes of the two, she's preferable. She's still absolutely not my choice. What others do is their concern. Penn voting for Clinton does not sway my vote, nor do the republicans voting for her any more than the democrats voting for Trump convince me he's a good choice.

I live in Ca. Clinton gets our electoral votes no matter how I vote. If I lived in a swing state that was close and mattered, I might reconsider voting out of fear, but I would have to completely ignore my own morals and ethics to even go that far, and would never be able to forgive myself.
Fear is the mind killer. Never do anything important based on your fear is my advice.

"Radical feminist"? Lame. WTF does this have to do with feminists. These are just stupid chicks getting their comeuppance for being violent assholes. Adding feminist (in the description, now removed) is so weak. Agenda much?

I agree you get physical with someone dont be shocked when you get your shit checked. They all seemed to have it coming as does anyone who takes a poke at someone. Never swing and not expect to have someone swing back. That's just being ignorant.

Also i know zero feminists (woman) that think its cool to get violent with a dude and not think they shouldn't be dealt with physically, although im sure they exist.

I think the argument is not that his behavior is stunning etiquette, but it is understandable and his frustration is relatable. Optimally he would've just sat in silence, or driven around to the other entrance, but all things considered, her behavior was more unacceptable. Or to put it another way - this was three minutes out of their respective days. There may be an infinite number of circumstances on either side that we don't see, that would swing our opinion either way. However, if we ignore their emotional states, and just look at the principle, she was dead wrong.

If a restaurant or movie theatre wants to kick you out in the middle of a meal, you can't stay. If a hotel wants to kick you out at 2 am (and lets you pack and take your stuff), you can't stay. That's why they can call the cops to get you out if you refuse to leave - because they have the presumptive right to decide who stays and goes. You have no right to call the cops and ask them to stop the owner from kicking you out, because you have no fundamental right to stay there.

I am not going to say that you're trolling, and your arguments are not unreasonable or dickish, but you're wrong. (In principle) you have a number of potential recourses that you can choose when a proprietor asks you to leave. (in principle) refusing to leave is not one of the options you have any right to exercise.

We can come up with scenarios where it could be argued that you should be allowed to refuse to leave:

1. You're staying at a ski lodge and you will die if you are kicked out into the cold. Then we're no longer talking consumer rights but emergency / health and safety rights.

2. If you leave the premises, you would lose all your other means of recourse, for example if you don't have contact or identifying information for the business you're at. In that case you can ask for that information, and then leave.

In principle, however, sticking around isn't an option, and there's no sane reason why it should be an option. If the business in question doesn't have a valid reason for kicking you out, you get to sue them afterwards.

Suck on those lion balls swinging in the breeze.

Swang and Swagger (Parov Stelar - Catgroove) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Parov Stelar - Chambermaid Swing (Doc-Terry's Video Club Mix has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Girl does Melbourne Shuffle to Parov Stelar has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Parov Stelar - Clap Your Hands has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Parov Stelar - Beatbuddy Swing (performed by takeSomeCrime) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by eric3579.

Oh grunting man. Grunting man, will you ever cease your grunted proclamation of full body, mind, and soul dedication to each swing of the game of tennis?

During sex grunting man exclaims EAUUUGH EAUUUGH EUGH EEAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUGGGHH with the windows down and everyone in the neighborhood sorta liked it at first but now it's just goddamn annoying. Seriously every time, grunting man?

Damn grunting man. Ahhhh grunting man.

What are you grunting at this time? What are you trying to tell me, boy? Timmy fell down a giant gaping anus filled with sores and fissures? Is that why you grunt every time you swing your racket?

No, no, no -- he was just lifting a bag of grain to carry from the mill down to the grainery. Why grunting man has made a name for himself all over the realm (mostly as grunting man). I remember when he was a wee lad, grunting at anything that moved. Birds, signposts, bidets...

What was I saying? Ahhh... GRUNT GRUNT --

Grunting man to the rescue! Hooray Hooray! He comes to save the daaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy!

WTF?!? How exactly does he determine it's 'mocking' and not his own grunt at a hard swing?
That's some ol BS right there. If one can grunt, the other can grunt back. If grunting is a problem, guy in blue should lose.
No wonder these judges get hit with tennis racquets.

It's two guys swinging a car around on a platform held up by four thin cables and you're worried about the animation being off-kilter?

Many animated movies have unrealistic animation. Style. Yes, I can see where the animation and motion isn't realistic but it's obvious enough, and backed up by an exaggerated art style, where I think it's intended.

No, if you believe in and work for gender equality FOR WOMEN, you're a feminist.
Those who believe in gender equality for all are called egalitarians.

Why 'feminism' is historically 'feminism' is because it works to secure the rights of women. Period. The feminist movement has never, as far as I know, worked against unequal rights for women when the inequality benefits women...or said another way, worked for equality FOR men.

It was not ONLY women at the start, only mostly women, and you disrespect and dismiss the contributions of all those men who worked against their own self interests to secure equal rights for you. How rude and ungrateful....I bet you would be upset if women's contributions to men's issues were dismissed like that.
No, men have not done the bulk of the work, but they have been invaluable in getting action many, many times. Calling it feminism and acting like it's only by women totally 'disacknowledges' all those self sacrificing men....which is why I have a problem. If we and our votes, money, and efforts don't count and are completely unapreciated, then buh-bye.
Again, no one is even suggesting renaming the entire movement, I suggested that people WHO THINK LIKE ME might start or join another that's more inclusive from the start. If you don't think like me, it's not about you, and even if you do, it's not a command, it's barely a suggestion.

If you focus solely on those with the MOST disadvantages, you only swing the pendulum of unfairness the other direction in a never ending struggle back and forth. Only by focusing on equality for all can you come to the right solutions to inequalities.

(Expletive deleted)! Men and whites ABSOLUTELY need equal rights. Yes, in MOST cases men and whites have advantages, not all by far like you said, still today a crackhead mother is more likely to get full custody than a fully employed stand up father...that is not the ONLY case where women are given advantages men aren't....another off the top of my head, domestic violence, men will ALWAYS be the one thought to be the aggressor without clear evidence to the contrary, but that's simply false, and leaves many abused men victimized twice. Same for sexual abuse/rape. Men get zero support if they've been raped, only ridicule and disbelief. Take each situation individually, or you'll continue to make that insulting, repulsive, self serving mistake that perpetuates inequality and pits men against women.

Equal child custody rights....yes, good example....how has the feminist movement worked to secure that....for men? If the imbalance is in their favor, that's FINE with feminists. I disagree strongly, and I won't be considering myself one anymore.

Would you expect white people who's children were killed by police to stand at the front of a 'black lives matter' event, or would you think they might not be there at all because the movement, by name and focus, ignores their 100% paralleling issues with police and makes them feel unwelcome?
I also think 'black lives matter' is losing out on a lot of support because they made it so racial, even if the target of MOST abuse is minorities. That is not the same as saying they can't call themselves that, or demeaning them for being part of the movement, or saying the movement is un-necessary, just that it's name is, to many, divisive, and that hurts them and their movement, and a more inclusive name for the movement would have been smarter, IMO.

I will say all my arguments apply equally to Masculisim/The men's rights movement, and while I might support many of their goals and might even work towards those goals, I would not call myself a part of that movement, as it by name ignores women's issues and focuses only on men's. Certainly those men's issues need attention, but that doesn't mean I should be so single mindedly focused on one part of equality that I put blinders on to better ignore other parts that also need work.

If the parenting issue had been solved by 'egalitarianists' the first time, there would likely have been joint custody, and fairly equal (1/2 with mom-1/2 with dad) full custody decrees LONG ago rather than have us continue to ride the pendulum, hitting 'fair' for an instant on each swing, then swinging back away from it.

Equality matters.
I think you don't ever get there by fighting for one side or the other. You get there by fighting for equality where ever that goal has yet to be reached.

You matter.
THAT would be the best, most inclusive name for a movement I've ever heard.

@Babymech , that is one brilliant analogy.

Black lives matter.

NO NO NO, all lives matter!

What? Who was saying that all lives don't matter??!!!!

I'm going to use that in the future,

Because that is it. Right there.

To restate it in a way that @newtboy might approve:

Women's lives matter.

Men's lives matter.

Feminist = women's lives matter.

Men's Right Movement = men's lives matter.

The Constitution = all lives matter. (In a perfect world.)

PS There are separatist, angry nutters in the Men's Rights Movement. Doesn't mean that their goal is wrong in concept. An example of that is parental rights. What a pendulum swing that topic has gone through over the decades. First men own the children and women have no rights. Then it was women were blindly seen as the "best" to take care of the kids and men had no rights. And after legal pushback, there are plenty of joint custody agreements out there.

Women's lives matter. Yep.

Yes, that's true. A stock Hilux is definitely meant to be kitted out to run the Rubicon with ultra long travel swing arms, springs and shocks. Good comparison. My 1993 Ford Escort wagon lifted a wheel on these types of ramps too, piece of shit car that high centers on even the smallest curb. Couldn't touch anything on the Big Sluice. (Could the point have been that the vehicle is stable on 3 legs and with 4wd able to keep moving with one wheel providing zero traction?? For a stock pickup, not bad)

What does the President actually do? A few main things:

Chief Diplomat for foreign relations.
Commander in Chief of the military. (although legislature has some checks on that)
Appointing Supreme Court justices.
Presidential Pardons.
Veto power over Legislative bills.

Anything on any Presidential candidate's agenda that doesn't fall under one of those headings is hot air. Considering that, which of the candidates would actually be a better president?

Chief Diplomat role: Hillary wins here, pretty handily. Trump is generally hated by anyone outside of the US. Bernie isn't as smooth and well connected as Hillary. Interestingly enough, this is one area where I think Obama really shines. He's a good talker, and he increased the level of respect that other countries viewed the US with. Some of that was having a very easy act to follow -- Bush and the wars sent us pretty close to rock bottom in terms of how the rest of the world saw us, but Obama is legit as a diplomat even without the bonus of simply being an extremely welcome reprieve from Bush.

Commander in Chief: This one is more open to interpretation, but I think Bernie wins here. He had the right view on Iraq wars when most didn't, and a totally solid track record for a long time. Clinton acts like she was always on the correct side of that also, but she voted for Bush's war when she was in the Senate. Bernie didn't. Whatever she says to try to justify that doesn't change the simple facts of it. Trump could be pretty apocalyptically bad as Commander in Chief, but on the other hand he'd have the legislature and Joint Chiefs to keep him in check if he was doing anything truly insane. I think he's definitely the worst of the three, but I think saying a vote for him is a vote to "let the world burn" is a bit overly dramatic.

Supreme Court appointments: Sanders wins here by a LANDSLIDE. He's got the right idea on all of the judicial topics of the time, and knows exactly how important this is. Hillary is a massive corporate tool. She knows who pays her, and she'd definitely be looking out for their interests when it comes to stuff like Citizens United challenges, etc. I even think that Trump would be massively better than Clinton in this area.

Pardons: I'm specifically thinking of Ed Snowden here. Trump and Clinton both say he is a "traitor". Sanders at least acknowledges that Snowden's revelations did a lot of good, but still says that he should come home and face a trial. So that makes me think he's the best of the three -- but Jill Stein of the Green party says she would pardon Snowden, which makes her my favorite on this particular hot-button issue for me.

Veto powers: Opinions are going to vary on this one. I think Sanders wins considering that he simply stands by his record in the Legislature, which I think he deserves to be proud of. Clinton is a flip-flopping weasel of a politician, and she could easily swing things in favor of her corporate overlords with her veto power. Trump is a wildcard, but the inherent nature of veto power means that he can't do anything truly crazy with it unilaterally -- the worst he could do is get veto-happy and grind the legislature to a standstill (which they tend to do all on their own anyway) or pass something terrible (which would be more the fault of the legislature).


Depending on how any individual voter evaluates those topics, and how the prioritize them, I think it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that any of the candidates would make a better president than any of the others. Personally, I think Sanders is the best of the three, but honestly I'd prefer incompetent President Trump to very dodgy President Clinton.