“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

- Pastor Dave Barnhart at Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama

Definition of sanctimonious
1: hypocritically pious or devout

other considerations;
https://www.vasectomy.com/article/vasectomy/procedure/no-needle-vasectomy or even https://www.parsemus.org/humanhealth/vasalgel/

https://youtu.be/25JyC5Whhvc

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ben-franklin-american-instructor-textbook-abortion-recipe.html

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-americans-really-think-about-abortion/

remember the cute "my body my choice" covid 19 zinger?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7047e1.htm#:~:text=Pregnant%20women%20are%20at%20increased,1%E2%80%933)

folks like yourself weren't against late, late term abortions. i.e. grandma/pa

also a DYK https://dirtysexyhistory.com/2016/07/28/ancient-birth-control-silphium-and-the-origin-of-the-heart-shape/

Big difference

The TEA party wants to follow the Constitution.
All other groups don't.

How do the justice democrats line up with the Constitution?

I checked you link to the JD platform - Some are worthy but still most are Un constitutional BS feel good look nonsense .


Pass a constitutional amendment to put an end to Washington corruption and bring about election reform. --- Never pass FOx watching hen house- only a smaller government helps this and term limits.


Defend free speech and expression.-Left are the oppressors
Ensure universal healthcare as a right. -Un constitutional
Create the new new deal.
Ensure universal education as a right. Un constitutional
Ensure universal healthcare as a right.Un constitutional
Make the minimum wage a living wage and tie it to inflation.Un constitutional
Defend and protect women’s rights. - So we dont cre about men?
Ensure paid vacation time, sick time, family leave, childcare. Un constitutional
Protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Un constitutional
Implement comprehensive immigration reform. agreed
Enact police reform. - Agreed arrest criminals
Combat homelessness. - bring back sanatoriums that liberals removed .

Heh, I made a similar argument years ago to a friend of mine but I wasn't so harsh on the common people.

I don't think it is so much that people are sheep as it is the fact that the system is designed to keep people as preoccupied as possible with their own survival so that they simply can't afford to be truly political activists.

Think about it--in the U.S. you can be legally fired from your job, for example, for expressing political opinions your boss disagrees with. It isn't a freedom of speech issue because freedom of speech only prevents the government from censoring your speech--not private business. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a political opinion. When someone wears an ostensibly "offensive" Halloween outfit and pictures of it show up on the Internet, they can be fired without having any kind of recourse.

Now you add on top of that how the middle class has been eroded away. A lot of families need dual incomes just to survive. That means you also need to pay for childcare if you have kids. Prices have increased but wages haven't kept pace. Now add debts on top of all this, whether it be from college loans, credit cards, car payments, mortgages, or whatever.

What you get from all this is a society where, as bad as things are in Washington, it's not bad enough for people to risk their already precarious circumstances by boycotting work to attend protests or engaging in some other form of extreme activism that would probably be required to effect real changes. A lot of people are one bad circumstance away from, if not bankruptcy, then at least a drastic lifestyle shift where they'll lose most of their personal belongings and possibly dreams (like having their kids go to college).

So things plod along pretty much the way they always have, with those in power continuing to consolidate that power and see how far they can push it. Barring college students with pretty much nothing to lose (they have both the free time and probably economic freedom to protest and engage in political activism), the best most people can do is gripe about things on the Internet.

In Japan, my wife got 12 months maternity at 2/3 salary. Legally, companies are required to provide 6 weeks pre-birth leave and 8 weeks after-birth leave (paid for by National Insurance). Technically according to the law both she and I can ask for up to 2 years off (at reduced pay) but that never happens--people are too scared of losing their jobs. You can't be fired for taking childcare leave but you can be transferred to a new position and most people are afraid of being delegated to a position that has no further room for career advancement (or requires a ton of menial tasks).

The explanation I heard was thus:
They didn't want to go with red, the tradtional Labour colour, because they wanted to make a statement that they were trying to reach out to women and break from the norm. So they went with pink, which is close to red but not red (symbolic of a change or break from the mainstream), is not affliliated with any of the other major parties, and is a bright, warm colour. Clearly they are still guilty of being so out of touch they couldn't see how it might be perceived, but I can sort of believe that the thinking wasn't purely " girls like pink, lets make a pink bus".

This all came to pass because of polls showing that voter turnout for women is abysmal (frankly I can't blame them...) so here is Labour making a clumsy stab to try and engage with half of the voting public.

I think it is silly to deny that men and women care more about different things. Is it patronising to focus on education, or childcare, or care for the elderly (all things women ranked higher than men) in order to try and score votes, or is perhaps the greater sin to simply ignore any difference and continue the existing dialogue which seems to be turning women away from politics in droves?

Not only do i think this is wrong, but i think it is obviously and patently wrong.

It is demonstrable that a confrontation does not necessarily escalate the longer it goes on for. If you've been taught that in training by someone purporting to be an expert then i despair. I almost feel at a loss for where to begin - i have been in thousands of confrontations that de-escalated due to more time passing allowing both parties to explain or understand better, or for the blood to cool down. I've seen thousands of the same types of confrontation happening to other people. It literally happens all the time; misunderstandings get corrected and the situation de-escalates.

I hope that the brief explanation has betrayed what you really meant. Perhaps you were talking about a specific range of situations with a violent individual.

Or perhaps that's the problem and someone has been training law enforcement this falsehood which effectively encourages you to use the most extreme measure you have to end the conflict more quickly and keep it at a safely low level of escalation. And then you end up with mine- and rocket-resistant urban combat vehicles patrolling the streets, teams of camo'd police holding weapons INCORRECTLY in the presence of civilians on your own streets, and the mowing down of unarmed shoplifters...... all because it's more kind that way? I refute that, and before anyone says the most dangerous words ever spoken 'but we've always done it that way', in a discussion about the ineptitude or otherwise of law enforcement you aren't allowed the premise "law enforcement's methods are and always have been the best way to do things." -- Law enforcement, along with politics, should be the most heavily scrutinised and re-scrutinised systems that exist - because of their unique position to affect people.

I do NOT consider the concern for the safety of a police officer to be greater than the concern for the rights of a citizen; i was under the impression that police were the defence line between citizens and criminals, they put their lives on the line to keep society safe and running. Their job is to ensure we can be citizens, and they are paid to uphold the ideals of the society - freedom, respect for the individual and personal security. I genuinely hope they do so safely, but you don't play with feathers unless you're willing to get your arse tickled, as the saying goes. It is very possible to be safe, respectful and understanding all at the same time in the pursuit of law enforcement. If a person does not have the ability to behave that way they should not be in the job in the same way as someone who finds kids irritating and hit-able shouldn't go into childcare.

This is nothing new especially. There's a lot of literature about social engineering. That if you spend a little money on things like childcare for your employees they'll work harder for you. Same with making the workplace just more enjoyable. They'll work harder and have an investment in their workplace so it makes sense to treat them nicer. Make them feel like they belong with significant things rather than just propaganda about how we're all a corporate family bullshit. People don't fall for that, unless they're already really indoctrinated.

In many cases though corporations won't do something like that even though it'll make them more money. Why? Because there would be giving up some control. It's not all about money, it's also about controlling your workforces.

>> ^lantern53:

Why do I always have to be the adult here?
In a large city like Anaheim you undoubtedly need a permit to march, which these people probably did not have, so therefore the demonstration is unlawful, and highly irritating to the people who work for a living and have to drive back and forth to work, the store, the childcare, the doctor, etc.
And the cops have to deal with people who are anarchists or just drones, and it's hard to tell them apart, especially when they hide behind anonymous avatars and say things like "KILL PIGS".


I'd argue that you're being immature, rather than adult.

Adults question bullshit. Kids swallow whatever they're told and indeed adopt it for themselves. Your government has managed to get you to help opress your fellow citizen.

Why do we have so many police sympathizers here? It is obvious that this sort of conduct goes on ALL OF THE TIME and no one is doing anything about and in fact it is illegal. I present KILL PIGS as more of a slogan.

I am not anonymous here... many people here know my voice and my face. Some people know where I live! So, shut the fuck up and Fuck the pigs. If you don't agree then you do not have firsthand experience with the way America actually is, right fucking now.

I was confronted with this sort of totalitarianism many times. One time most colleges let students out to protest unjust wars and we were faced with militarized police, I was taking photographs and I was batoned. Who won in court? I FUCKING DID MOTHER FUCKERS. I can't even tell you the amount of brutality I saw to people who were not doing anything in an illegal situation that the militarized pig fucks put us in. It's a tactic they use to break up just political uprisings and they get away with. Wake the fuck up! This AMERICA not 'MERICA.

>> ^lantern53:

Why do I always have to be the adult here?
In a large city like Anaheim you undoubtedly need a permit to march, which these people probably did not have, so therefore the demonstration is unlawful, and highly irritating to the people who work for a living and have to drive back and forth to work, the store, the childcare, the doctor, etc.
And the cops have to deal with people who are anarchists or just drones, and it's hard to tell them apart, especially when they hide behind anonymous avatars and say things like "KILL PIGS".

>> ^lantern53:

Why do I always have to be the adult here?
In a large city like Anaheim you undoubtedly need a permit to march, which these people probably did not have, so therefore the demonstration is unlawful, and highly irritating to the people who work for a living and have to drive back and forth to work, the store, the childcare, the doctor, etc.
And the cops have to deal with people who are anarchists or just drones, and it's hard to tell them apart, especially when they hide behind anonymous avatars and say things like "KILL PIGS".


The revolution will not have a permit.

There is nothing more offensive or frightening to me than the idea that peaceful protesters should be required to get a permit. If a government is corrupt or unpopular enough to spawn widespread civil unrest and disobedience, why would that same government aid protesters in its own removal? It wouldn't. What it would do in a nominally 'free' democracy or republic is clamp down slowly yet inexorably on basic rights of the citizens. In America, our government has a big roadblock to that goal, however the Justice Dept. is proving to be nimble minded enough to figure out some very clever ways to conquer that problem.

So far, imho, their most creative solution to: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is to assert that although the government might not have the right to "prohibit the freedom of speech" per se, they do have the right to tell the people when and where they can do it.

Almost always the acceptable time and place to protest is in a "Protest Zone" that the government sets up out of sight and sound of the media and reason for the protest in the first place, thus neutering the protest in toto.

"Protest Zones" are a disgrace to our constitution.

Why do I always have to be the adult here?

In a large city like Anaheim you undoubtedly need a permit to march, which these people probably did not have, so therefore the demonstration is unlawful, and highly irritating to the people who work for a living and have to drive back and forth to work, the store, the childcare, the doctor, etc.

And the cops have to deal with people who are anarchists or just drones, and it's hard to tell them apart, especially when they hide behind anonymous avatars and say things like "KILL PIGS".

>> ^notarobot:

I applied for a job outside of my field with decent pay that needed no education beyond high school, but did ask for a little experience, which I did not have. I approached it with the attitude that I had lots of education and even more enthusiasm. I did not hear back from the company. Later, they brought in a hundred workers from the Philippines. There were no domestic hires.


And this reply is to what @Edgeman2112 said as well.

It's yet another logical disconnect in our society. Where they expect you to be able to buy their goods, but they will not employ the people they want to buy them for a myriad of reasons. Some of them might even be legitimate, as in having a lot of education for a job might mean you end up going to something new when it's presented. But the flipside of that argument is that they are hiring un-educated workers simply because they know it's unlikely they will ever have the ability to leave........which is worker exploitation. Not because they are most qualified, but because they are least likely to be able to leave.

And more specifically to edgeman2112, two parents working is fine if both want to work and can make a good wage. Specifically being able to afford childcare or have parents who willing and able to watch their kids. The point is that when one is unable to draw a wage high enough to make it feasible to work and still earn beyond the costs of child care, etc....you are stuck with choices of education costs. And higher education often makes it harder to find work because your education works against you when it comes to getting any job like above...and you are stuck in the "need to know someone" zone to get anywhere in a reasonable time frame. Which likely if you knew someone, you probably would have taken advantage of that relationship if it was going to provide you with a overall beneficial and financially productive job.

There are lots of financially unproductive jobs... like one's that require you to travel longer and longer distances for work...eventually you make less at the job than you would minimum wage flipping burgers if they don't comp your travel or fuel costs to make up for vehicle wear, etc. And this goes back to them picking worker's that are unlikely to be able to hop to another job due to some circumstances, not the best qualified candidates...because they need to be able to exploit them for lucrative contracts that require them to drive nearly as much as they work or rent elsewhere to cut drive times.

Work and employment overall is becoming a dishonest or "cover-your-ass" practice more than just honest employment. "An honest day's work" seems less likely to happen now than 40 years ago. There's just too much bullshit associated with employment now, mostly in office politics and trying to peer beyond the language of your employee contract to decipher how they are going to fuck you in the future. Just look at non-rolling vacation days where they are all too happy to not inform you or suggest you take a vacation day if you need to do something instead of taking an unpaid day........it happens a lot. They use their organization to actively work against you, and use their bureaucracy to make it hard to invoke your rights in the contract.


Personally in my region, I see a lot of businesses and government agencies going out of their way to list their job postings in weird locations or for like 3-5 day windows. The only good reason I can come up for this is that they already know who they want to hire, but they post it publicly to reduce the chance of someone crying foul when they just hire the guy they wanted all along. Keep in mind that if they end up hiring at all, it comes 2-3 months minimum after the listing...especially for government. You'll also notice a lot of fathers and sons, wife and husband, or other nepotism rich hiring practices in these places. Should not be taking place in any business that accepts government money or any government facilities. It's rampant on military bases, and not just for active duty couples which I understand the need for.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video New Hope for Busy Parents: Outsourcing Childcare Overseas. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Thanks!

In reply to this comment by RedSky:
*promote