Life

Just because it's been done to death doesn't mean that it's not important.There were bits of the US Drone program on her emails. There was evidence of collusion between media and DNC. There was evidence of the Clinton Foundation's peddling of diplomatic favours for money. There were 30 mentions of Libya and Benghazi in the emails at least. And it's possible that Obama also knew about the server and communicated on it. And don't forget that Hillary commited perjury about the emails. Yeah... this can't be done to death. I mean, if Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice did this, they'd be sitting in prison for giving aid and comfort.

So... why does Trump get questions about birtherism and other things like that... but Holt declines to mention the Clinton Foundation? I was reading Ben Shapiro's notes on the debate. He is still a #NeverTrump guy and even he is slightly stunned at how obvious Holt was in slanting towards Hillary. CNN (which is Hitler) and Anderson Cooper (head of the Gaystapo) are next. Yay...

I want to sit with a bowl of popcorn while watching. If Trump stays relatively on keel (no meltdown), he comes out on top simply due to lower standards. Hillary needs to convince people that she can actually be trusted, which is much harder. This is gonna be fun. I think Hillary melts down because of ad hominem attacks. That's my prediction based on Trump's performance in the past month.

Trump's trolling level > 9000. Threatening to invite Gennifer Flowers and Flowers accepts? That's going to make this personal for Hillary. Second I heard this, my mind jumped to Juanita Broaddrick. And PJW ended up mentioning Broaddrick about an hour later. This made me laugh so hard. Like him or hate him, he just trolled the Clintons so hard.

Goodbye conservative videos!

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE80M2BS20120123 That's the link that claims that abortions are safer than giving birth.

I'm going to counter this by mentioning the Shout Your Abortion movement. There was also some study that a friend linked me to that claimed that abortion was actually healthy for the woman. Since I'm not a scientist, I can't say that it is false.Your move.

My boss (the owner of the bar/restaurant that I work at where I'm the kitchen manager) will frequently insult me and I'll respond in kind. And we laugh and continue working.That's completely different to the supposed employer/employee relationship in America, I guess. Unless that happens in bars where it's normal. The point that I was trying to make is that I would never treat a close friend who is a woman the same way I would treat a close friend who is a man. And that's acceptible because I wouldn't want her to be treated like a man. Because she's not.

25. My buddies are my age or slightly younger. And we're all past the army.That was my army experience. And same after. Some of us have serious relationship, my old commander just got married (he's my age) and we still all act that way together. Same thing at work with my boss who is 31 and in a commited relationship. But that being said, women take far less shit here in Israel so culture might have a serious effect here. The point is, I don't treat men and women equally. And neither does anyone I know. And this is a good thing. By the way, when I said tits, I meant sacktaps but women don't have testicles. Tried to equate it.

And the officer was charged with manslaughter. That is how justice works. Not by inciting race riots in Charlotte.This was a mistake. A mistake that deserves to be tried by a court of law but a mistake. She did not go out planning to kill a black guy. In fact, cops in general (and let's go with 99.99%) do not go out in order just to kill black people. This is putting aside the fact that cops are 18x more likely to be killed than suspects. Or that less black suspects are killed than white ones in general considering that 10% of the population commits almost half the crime. What Hillary did was equate Tulsa and Charlotte. And that's where you get into race baiting. She only mentioned Tulsa on Harvey's show but she mentioned both on Twitter. No waiting for the facts. Just "this is terrible". Well, no it's not if you look at Charlotte where the police actually have a legitimate argument... and the cop in question was black. Brother's response? "All white people are the fucking devil!" But if you want to equate it to Islamists, let's go. Did the guy commit a mistake by trying to bomb NYC and NJ? No? It was intentional. And more people who are coming as refugees may try to commit terrorist attacks. So yeah, I don't want them to come. Your logic is inconsistant.

So you want me to slap your tits, call you horrible names, occasionally wrestle you down to the ground without warning and do what we guys call "banter"?Because this is what we do to each other.

Sorry, Steve Harvey. Should be easy to find. Here's the quote that pissed me off. "Maybe I can, by speaking directly to white people, say, look, this is not who we are." No, we just can't help ourselves from shooting blacks. It's like eating Pringles, betcha can't have just one. Fuck you, you race baiting cunt. Pretty much every single person even on the right has admitted that it was a bad shoot and we want the full extent of the law to come down on the officer.

Anyone hear Hillary Clinton call into the Steve Madden show? Hey Hillary, fuck you. How dare you pretend that you are the only altruistic person out there and the rest of us "whites" really just harbour deep racism for blacks. I've never felt so insulted in my life.

Here's the thing. Women do not want to be treated the same way that men treat each other.

I think it is a really solid metaphor.I quite literally don't understand why everyone is freaking out about it. Does it sound insensitive? Yeah. But does it accurate describe the problem? In my opinion, it does. Having a few bad apples in a whole group should make you instantaneously cautious. If not, then fuck it, you deserve any terror attacks that come as a result. How dare America be responsible for its own security! I get that you leftists hate the right but logic, bro. I've only given up because I've treated you with respect and received none.

I'm quoting everything.Notice how leftists always say "well, there's racism" but A) fail to provide proof of where and B) want to then enact policies based solely on race? Who's the racist here? I don't think it's the person who is saying "hey, skin colour has no factor with regard to ability to learn". Now you say you'd be inclined to choose the Asian kid... but AA restricts that. They intentionally go with the black kid because he is black. So I don't believe you because you contradicted yourself. I'm not saying that Asians should have AA. I'm saying that AA fucks them by giving their spot to some black kid because of race. That is actually disgusting how you can literally turn someone down because of their ethnicity over another and then call me the racist. As for women, yeah I think it would be great if more women went into hard sciences. Yes, I think sexism in the workplace is bad. This should be obvious. I have never in my life advocated for women to be stay at home mothers instead. But if they choose to be, that makes sense. Tell me. How would YOU fix the inequality? Do women require 5 points less than men to get into hard sciences in order to make it more enticing? All you are doing is trying to attack my character and portray me as someone who hates women. You assume that I believe that sexism is good. Well, that makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me". My point is that any policies set into effect by the government to fix this imbalance is inherently sexist against men. Are you against sexism or do you think that the double standard is necessary?

And Skittles are trending. Seriously, that's actually a pretty good metaphor.

I think that fucking with those barriers comes very close to equity and sexism if not outright.I'm not saying that social barriers are good. But aside from convincing women that it is acceptable to go into hard science, any policies set down to enact equity is inherently excluding men for the sake of women. And that doesn't fly with me.

Thor, thanks for bringing in your own personal anecdote. I think it explains the situation perfectly. Is there a social stigma against women going into hard sciences? Probably in a lot of cultures but much less so in Western countries. But those Western countries don't limit women from doing it. Women choose not to for a variety of reasons and social stigma may very well be a big reason. I don't believe that having less women in hard sciences when no actual barriers exist is a bad thing. For the same reason why less men go into studies such as nursing. Rather, the people who go into those sciences choose to do it themselves, regardless of gender. And those who choose to do it of their own volition will probably have a higher chance of succeeding. This is why I get annoyed when feminists state that this is a bad thing. Mostly because they then argue that women should have lower standards than men to get in... which is sexist against men. Again, equity based on gender or race is inherently sexist/racist. The irony astounds me. If a woman claims in court that she is scared of her husband, judge usually rules in favour of the mother regarding kids when no evidence to prove otherwise can be properly brought.Check out Karen Straughn on this stuff, she's rather informative.

Your first point is spot on the money and I put that solely on Democrats who are elected by those communities. Women don't usually want to go into hard sciences where they have to devote their lives to their jobs rather than raising a family. I'm all for encouraging them to do so but just because there are 5/25 women in a class, that doesn't mean that women can't choose that class. It's more that they don't. Correlation =/= Causation

I call bullshit on that.Poor is poor. The colour of your skin doesn't matter. A poor white kid in Detroit has no better shot at life than a poor black kid. In fact, AA screws the white kid. Raising the level of basic education is much more important than lowering the standard to those who may not succeed. If I have a solid 85 average across the board in high school, should I be given a spot at Yale rather than an Asian kid who averaged 90 because I'm black? That's my favourite thing about AA. What about Asians? Honestly, I think that is a racist argument. You are saying that black kids need a boost because they're black. And that they simply are not at the intellectual standards of white kids because of their skin colour.

No? We shouldn't work on a meritocracy? Kinda absurd if you ask me.

This is what I mean. But rather than use height, use merit. My issue with AA is that it blocks people who achieve the requisite marks in favour for those who have a disadvantage. A noble idea but it subverts the idea of merit by setting two different standards for two different groups of people. Add in the fact that it makes the distinction solely on ethnicity and I have a serious problem with it. Same idea with current feminism. Two different standards are imposed creating a no-win scenario for men.

Well, not yet. But around the globe? Just look at the UN.

Well, I don't know... how about we look at the Kosher supermarket attack in France on the same day as Charlie Hebdo?And I have have immediate family (aunts/uncles) in the USA. You are actually willing to play Russian Roulette with my family's lives. That doesn't fly with me especially when your reasoning is "well I have family in Pakistan". I'm pretty sure your family didn't move from Pakistan to the USA just for the nice beaches. It was probably to give you a better life than what you could have had in Pakistan. You are American. Defend that shit. Otherwise, might as well have the same laws as in Pakistan or Bangladesh in the USA.