Greene, family value candidate, is getting divorced because her long troubled marriage is “irretrievably broken” according to her husband who she previously admitted she repeatedly cheated on with polygamous sex gurus, gym managers, and certainly others, having long term intimate relationships with her boyfriends while married, not even just single instances of infidelity….because family.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2349500/marjorie-taylor-greene-husband-divorce/

Who would be able to have sex with that? Er mer gerd! Limp carrot.

I don’t live in LA….

We do have a homeless guy living in the neighborhood, down by the river (but no van) for years now….he cleans the streets of trash, keeps the gutters clean, and watches for late night crime, so no, I have no problem having homeless on my street, just like I had no problem hosting a homeless friend in my home for 6 months before letting him park and live in his airstream in my back yard for almost 7 years until he adopted an aggressive dog. I also donate fresh produce to food banks for the homeless constantly. I’ve done way more than my fair share, friendo. How about you?

There’s a big difference between accepting those here anyway and making the best of the situation and actively inviting more. Even well below normal intelligence people understand that, but you seem to not.

Rich…on $35k a year for two….in California. Well, that’s as based in reality as everything you say, so congrats on consistency….consistent insanity.

California on the other hand has a near $100 billion surplus, so we could build MORE facilities for addicts, mentally challenged/ill, and those who just had bad luck or no opportunities….if not for nimby asshats like this city council.

Funny, you thought them totally insane for suggesting housing homeless in hotels (without the option to opt out), which was the carrot part of this plan, but you relish the criminalization of being homeless, the stick. Pretty chicken shit and cowardly to pick on those who can’t defend themselves.

There was a proposed low income housing project 1 block away from me I didn’t oppose, but it fell through because there are absolutely no services and not even public transport here.

would suggest...

"HOLY HELL! He's guilty as a rabbit in a carrot patch!"

(think it's just 33's pride? maybe he paid for that avatar? to be that WRONG about someone so BAD must be an embarrassment.)

I disagree. Timing matters. Had the pipeline been halted in 2019, it may well have sparked this invasion years earlier when the US couldn’t be counted on to give the aid promised or oppose Putin at all, and when there was no unity in the UN or NATO.

By not halting the pipeline then, two years ago +, Germany let them invest hundreds of millions more in a project that’s now cancelled, causing far more pain for Russia.
Also, it allowed them to use the project as both carrot and stick….true that failed to stop Russia, but was a tool used to try to cajole them out of invasion, and is now a stick whacking their disabled economy.

Of course, it’s all supposition about what may have happened….but moderately informed supposition.

So weird seeing people disagree with you, and then go off spouting shit about subjective benefits while married.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's pure win for the woman and pure loss for the man.

It's practically a carrot dangling in front of them daring them to divorce.

eg.

Woman wins :
Woman = Here's 30% of his income for 20 years and 50% of assets, and you get to walk away with no obligations.
Man = You get to keep all your financial marriage obligations for the rest of your productive life while she gets her divorce.

Man wins :
Man = Here's $500 for 6 months. You are an able bodied person and you can take care of yourself after that.
Woman = Pay him $500 for 6 months, then you have your divorce.

... and women win practically all the time.



So considering that most women 'marry up (financially)', and most women don't sacrifice personal life for career (to the extent that men do)... they benefit financially from marriage.

Then the divorce is massively skewed for their benefit.

So in the end, they win in marriage, and win in divorce.

And since it's the men paying for those wins, the men are losing and losing.

So yeah, I think your description is totally on point.




Marriage is so screwed up that I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators that suggest they are even slightly disloyal or temptable. Don't care how much I like them otherwise.

Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk

When the consequence of failure is immediate total financial annihilation, and a heavy financial burden for the rest of your productive life, you better F'ing choose carefully.

Or just don't get married.

(Or change the law so a divorce is actually a divorce for both people. No obligations. Just everyone go their own way.)

-scheherazade

just saw the percentage of steam-powered and electric cars...
(#37 @ https://www.boredpanda.com/weird-history-twitter/?utm_source=duckduckgo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=organic)
...that were being driven by the populace. impressive.

know electric trollies were also a thing, but they were sabotaged by gasoline concerns (killed) because read the history of the one that use to run in our small mid-western town.

anyway...electric vehicles were viable then and if other concerns (like GMC) were kept at bay...100 years later we just might be driving all-electric vehicles (maybe flying them - we were supposed to have those by now).

necessity being the mother of invention, it only makes sense to keep the future (electric cars, solar-power, etc) alive. if the nation doesn't, china (or other visionaries) may capture the solar-driven land speeder market.

[trump is guilty btw. but GOP is GMC in that scenario. will be seen as a big mistake too. maybe 'big carrot' has something to do with it. he is orange.]

Beats the hell outta my damned horse. All he ever said was, "Willllburrrrr! That's notta carrot, WILLLBURRRR!!"

The choice, ignore all health professional advice and gather in large close groups without any social distancing during an accelerating deadly pandemic or lose all federal funding to your already criminally underfunded school system.

There is no carrot, just stick.

This type of blackmail or extortion has never been done to schools in this all or nothing way to force parents and children to ignore life and death public health issues for imagined political points.

States still can choose.

Feds do this carrot stick all the time.

What a disgusting piece of shit and outright liar.
Her achievements already outweigh his by miles...he's only managed to get himself kicked off Fox, impressively hard to do if you're right wing. Fox has apologized for his disgraceful ad hominem attacks against a child who he couldn't factually contradict....but Laura Ingram has also personally attacked her on her show, as has Trump on Twitter.

Being on the autism spectrum, she says she has aspergers, is a developmental disorder NOT a mental illness.
Being a pathological liar, that's a mental illness apparently now shared by an entire political party.
Being a fecal golem is a personality disorder he clearly has in spades.

The Carnegie Mellon study he sites said no such thing, and it's authors have stated that it's a total misrepresentation of their findings....repeatedly.
The study actually said certain produce at it's worst might be more ecologically harmful per calorie than some kinds of white meat eating by comparing things like bacon vs lettuce on a calorie to calorie instead of serving to serving rate, so 4 strips of bacon were compared to > 40 cups of lettuce. Get real.
To compound the confusion they chose a calorie poor produce like lettuce with high greenhouse gas emissions instead of kale, broccoli, rice, potatoes, spinach and wheat (just to name a few) which all rank lower than pork in terms of greenhouse gases.
The same argument holds for water usage...they chose lettuce, with high water requirements, instead of things like corn, peanuts, carrots and wheat which all use less water than all non-seafood meat.
It's also assumed the produce will be wasted at exponentially higher rates than meat, which can be preserved more easily. That may be true, but they don't include the preservatives or energy to refrigerate and/or freeze meat on the bacon side of the equation.

Of course the lettuce takes more resources if you eat 40+ cups instead of 4 thin bacon strips, just like when you compare a single fish stick to several giant pumpkins.

*rant over*

Maybe....but Trump only needs a guy who can put a whole baby carrot in his mouth.

I've seen movies where the horse has hobbles that pull it's front hoofs up so it goes down on cue. Pure, unadulterated animal abuse.

You can tell in this clip the horse has been trained to do exactly what it does. It knows it's falling. It's prepared to fall. If it didn't choose to do it, it most likely wouldn't. It damn well better have got ALL the carrots too.

I like carrots, and if eating a full serving a day increased my lifetime risk for one cancer from 5-6%, I would eat exactly the same amount of carrots, but if I could reduce that risk increase based on the soil I grow them in or other factors under my control I would.
...and there aren't 800 studies saying bacon CAUSES cancer, there are studies that indicate eating it regularly increases your risk slightly....but I know, that's too advanced a concept, better to just fudge it and lie by telling people it's conclusive that each slice of bacon increases your cancer risk by 18% and insult anyone who corrects you. Fuck.

I drive, that's risky. Walking is risky. I use my bathroom....risky. I weld, super risky, use power tools, risky, breath in America, that's far more risky than bacon, drink water here, risk, go outside in public, all kinds of risks. If a 1% increase in one area of risk stops you, you would be dead already. You choose your risks, you just want to choose other people's risks too, because they aren't getting scared of what you want.

Plenty could make me quit bacon. Again, you spout nonsense you know nothing about. A simple lack of curing would make me not eat it, proof the supply chain is contaminated with human parasites or certain diseases. A slightly higher risk factor for one type of cancer, fuck no, you know that's not enough to dissuade most people from things they enjoy, that's why you exaggerate.

I don't claim to know what made you that way, but you are hyper biased towards all things vegan and against all things non vegan which results in constant dishonesty. No question at all.

Allow me to demonstrate your bias in this situation.

Q: if instead of bacon, what if they had 800 studies showing that, say, carrots cause cancer. Would you be arguing about the stats, or would you stop eating carrots?

I'm pretty sure you'd stop eating carrots. But because you enjoy bacon so much, it's having a impact on your reasoning. That is your bias.


I can prove this further by asking you what it would take to make you give up bacon. And I'm quite sure you would say nothing. Perhaps short of some instant effect, I know you would never stop eating it, no matter strong the evidence. In fact many people don't. They rather go blind and hav their legs amputated from preventable diabetes than give up their instant comfort foods. They are so biased they lose their own limbs, and still refuse to accept the reality.

You also you like to claim that me being vegan makes me biased. But the truth is that the Science made me vegan. And not the other way around. The reduction of animal cruelty is just a bonus.

Your video, Dog does not want carrots, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.