There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

[free thoughtpolice]

There is a a discovery that claims to have the oldest preserved human footprints in the Americas. From some of the photos of the site and the description given, it looks very much like the place on Calvert Island that I expended some footprints circa late 70s. :drool:
https://www.archaeology.org/news/6476-1 ... footprints

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

So don't fucking go there, you blubberous incompetent.

https://i.imgur.com/oXVDMpN.png

[rayshul]

Oh Arnie! I hope the surgery goes well for him!

[rayshul]

Is anyone else watching Pizzagate revelations?

I thought that had died, and only a few tinfoil-hat freaks still clinging to the rotted corpse. Nor does a brief search reveal anything but that same news.

No, it's getting bigger with every new pedophile ring that gets busted or scandal. When they hit the news I go back to pizzagate and check what they've said about it, from the UN pedo problem to the very odd Nickelodeon stuff.

Source(s)?

For the UN (and related agencies) shit there's... just bucket loads of it. All these fucking charity foundations that I've contributed to myself over the years.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 14781.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/un-s ... -c627rx239
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-say.html

Perhaps the most fascinating is one of the people who wrote the UN Convention of the rights of the child:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... oy-13.html

How is this shit even possible? That's only stuff I found after a quick search. Like how can these organisations be rife with this shit? The pizzagate premise is that multiple top agencies political and otherwise are covering up pedophilia or are hiding pedophiles in their midst. It sounds barmy and then there is all this shiiiiiit. Apparently unicef had a child porn thing happening in its fucking basement in the 80s. !!!!! It's real fucking things!!!!

So now I think I'm completely like feh if anything else comes up, I guess I am just assuming these creeps are in high placed positions everywhere and tolerate it under their fucking noses.

The Nickelodeon stuff is beginning to unravel a bit with the firing of Schnieder. There's nothing absolute out there but that's the thing, I'm like... he got fired... fuck I remember flicking through the things about him online and activities... what's going the fuck on there...

[rayshul]

I'm looking forward to new Roseanne, I loved old Roseanne.

[KiwiInOz]

Update:
It was #3. Spleen is fuuuuucked up. BUT specialist today saw him-- a malignant spleen cancer this big probably would haved metastasized by now. She couldn't find any other lesions, including is heart or lungs, where this cancer likes to spread. Outside of the bacterial infection and a massive spleen, he's totally healthy. Which means it could be benign. Which means surgery will solve this problem. Which means Im going to be eating beans and rice for the next few years to pay for this, but I don't care.

Monday night I had no hope. I'd accepted it.

Now I have some hope.

My digits are crossed for Arnie.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I'm not worthy to tie the sandal of Hitch, so I must content myself with a (B)itch slap:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... 3831039802

[Easy J]

So don't fucking go there, you blubberous incompetent.

https://i.imgur.com/oXVDMpN.png

??? Did it displace a socialist or government-run coffee shop?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

They expect to be led into the bedroom. Trans women can be really shy, and therefore it is up to the man to lead in the bedroom. Also, men have to be gentle with these women

https://i.imgur.com/zKlfFM6.jpg

This is Zinnia's idea of being gentle in the bedroom:

assblaster.jpg

(36.01 KiB) Downloaded 139 times

[Matt Cavanaugh]

[tweet][/tweet]
Okay...

I think that counts as Peterson's cofveve moment.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

At least normal decent folk are starting to push back against the transgender activists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw20YuZ6dzo

At no point did any of her friends or family opine wrt this video, "let's not and say we did?"

[Service Dog]

So the sitcom Roseanne is back. I enjoyed it well enough in the 90's. I think it's one of the only shows that got the lower middle-class right. The new show features a black grandchild (supposed to be interracial but she doesn't look it), and a trans grand child. The show is trying WAY to hard. Oddly; Roseanne(both character and actress)is a Trump supporter.

The last time I paid attention to Roseanne, was back in 2013-- when an episode of Roseanne's podcast included two guests: TERF 'Bug' Brennan, & a black feminist.

They exemplified the feminist version of Consensus Of Opinion: each one would state her opinions. The others would not pay close-enough attention to notice their opinions were contradictory. They would all make agreeing-noises. Then the next one would talk while the others didn't listen & nodded-along.

In the end, the TERF said sexist oppression of women was the Primary Axis Of Oppression in society. The black feminist said Racism was the Primary Axis of Oppression. Roseanne said Rich vs. Poor class-ism was the Primary Axis Of Oppression.

Complete disagreement about what the problem even-is. Total failure to even recognize their disagreement, let-alone reconcile it, or notice they are trying to 'solve' different things.

Roseanne's a clown. But at least she's on the right side of SJW vs. Dankula.

https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-produ ... hitler.jpg

[Guest_d2e60302]

https://jonathanturley.org/2018/03/30/o ... amendment/

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has caused a stir by calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. It was a call that young protesters should heed if they want to work for real change — and not simply be hijacked by political figures wanting to harness their energy and votes. Putting the merits of a repeal aside, Stevens, 97, was doing something that has been missing in the aftermath of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. He was being honest. These kids have been sold a bill of goods by politicians exaggerating not just the impact of proposed legislative changes but their actual ability to significantly curtail this individual right.

Most of us were moved in watching millions of young people rally around the country to demand real change. David Hogg, 17, spoke for many Parkland survivors in proclaiming during the March for Our Lives that “We need to see real action from lawmakers. They have to actually mean it, take meaningful steps to save children’s lives.” The problem is that both Democrats and Republicans have long worked in Congress to bar such steps from being taken. It is not just the power of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Around 30% of Americans own guns. There are over 357 million guns in this country — more than the population itself. Politicians (including Democrats) do not want to significantly challenge a right that three out of 10 citizens not only support but invested money to enjoy. Thus, even when massacres occurred with Democrats in control of Congress, no major changes were passed.

...

absent a repeal, these students are being misled about the chances for substantial limitations on gun ownership. Neither side in this debate is eager for these young people to hear that message. For Democrats, the frustration and anger of these kids represents a promising voting block going into the midterm elections. For Republicans, any focus on a repeal drives an instant wedge between young voters and their party platform. It is much better to keep these kids focused on shiny legislative objects like bump stocks and not the constitutional realities of gun control.

Gun owners are being sold a different bill of goods. While there are good-faith reasons to oppose a repeal, it is not true that a 28th Amendment repealing the Second Amendment would leave gun owners without protection. First and foremost, citizens are still afforded due process in the exercise of privileges and enjoyments of benefits. The standard would be lower (a rational basis test) but there would still be a process of judicial review. Second, the greatest protection of gun rights has not been constitutional but political. Indeed, until 2008, there was not a recognized individual right of gun ownership but it was still extremely difficult to pass significant gun control. Finally, a 28th Amendment could include not just a repeal but positive language imposing additional protections for gun ownership.

...

If it is real reform that these students want, they must convince their fellow citizens, as Justice Joseph Story once said, that part of the Constitution “has become wholly unsuited to the circumstances of the nation.”

It is not impossible but it is not easy. Circumstances and politics change. However, what does not change is the process for achieving real change. Even if the Second Amendment is, as Stevens describes, a “relic of the 18th Century,” it will take more than rhetoric to remove such a relic in the 21st Century.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, where he teaches constitutional and tort law. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley.

[Guest_d2e60302]

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine ... amendment/#

The ‘Nice Girl’ Who Saved the Second Amendment
By JOHN J. MILLER
March 29, 2018 10:34 AM

For Heller, thank the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm
Arlington, Va.– In the hours after February’s school massacre in Parkland, Fla., Joyce Lee Malcolm watched the response with growing annoyance:

“Everybody seemed to leap upon it, looking for a political benefit, rather than allowing for a cooling-off period.” As a historian, Malcolm prefers to take the long view. As a leading scholar of the Second Amendment, however, she is also expected to have snap opinions on gun rights, and in fact she often has engaged in the news-driven debates about violence and firearms. “Something deep inside of me says that people never should be victims,” she says. “And they never should be put in the position of being disarmed by their government.”

Malcolm looks nothing like a hardened veteran of the gun-control wars. Small, slender, and bookish, she’s a wisp of a woman who enjoys plunging into archives and sitting through panel discussions at academic conferences. Her favorite topic is 17th- and 18th-century Anglo-American history, from the causes of the English Civil War to the meaning of the American Revolution. Her latest book, due in May, is The Tragedy of Benedict Arnold, a biography of the infamous general. She doesn’t belong to the National Rifle Association, nor does she hunt. She admits to owning an old shotgun, but she’s unsure about the make or model. “I’ve taken it out a couple of times, but the clay targets fall safely to earth,” she says in an interview at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School in Virginia, where she’s a professor who teaches courses on constitutional history as well as on war and law.

She is also the lady who saved the Second Amendment — a scholar whose work helped make possible the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller decision, which in 2008 recognized an individual right to possess a firearm.

...

Malcolm’s doctoral dissertation focused on King Charles I and the problem of loyalty in the 1640s, and much of her scholarship has flowed from this initial work. The Royal Historical Society published her first book, and she edited a pair of volumes for the Liberty Fund, totaling more than 1,000 pages, on political tracts in 17th-century England. As she researched and wrote on the period, she noticed something peculiar. “During the English Civil War, the king would summon the local militia to turn out with their best weapons,” she says. “Then he would relieve them of their best weapons. He confiscated them. Obviously, he didn’t trust his subjects.”

At a time when armies were marching around England, ordinary people became anxious about surrendering guns. Then, in 1689, the English Bill of Rights responded by granting Protestants the right to “have Arms for their Defence.” Malcolm wasn’t the first person to notice this, of course, but as an American who had studied political loyalty in England, she approached the topic from a fresh angle. “The English felt a need to put this in writing because the king had been disarming his political opponents,” she says. “This is the origin of our Second Amendment. It’s an individual right.”

As she researched, Malcolm taught at several schools and worked for the National Park Service. In 1988, she took a post near Boston, at Bentley College, a school best known for business education (and now called Bentley University). Fellowships allowed her to pursue her interest in how the right to bear arms migrated across the ocean and took root in colonial America. “The subject hadn’t been done from the English side because it’s an American question, and American constitutional scholars didn’t know the English material very well,” she says. Some Americans even resisted looking to English sources because they wanted to stress their country’s uniqueness. Moreover, law-school textbooks and courses skimmed over the Second Amendment. “The subject was poorly covered.”

Her research led to a groundbreaking book on the history of gun rights, To Keep and Bear Arms. Before it went to print, however, she faced something she had not expected: political resistance. “I had a hard time finding a publisher,” she says. After several years in limbo, To Keep and Bear Arms came out in 1994, from Harvard University Press — an excellent result for any scholar in the peer-reviewed world of publish-or-perish professionalism. “The problem was that I had come up with an answer that a lot of people didn’t like.”

The Second Amendment, she insisted, recognizes an individual right to gun ownership as an essential feature of limited government. In her book’s preface, she called this the “least understood of those liberties secured by Englishmen and bequeathed to their American colonists.” Confusion reigned: “The language of the Second Amendment, considered perfectly clear by the framers and their contemporaries, is no longer clear.” The right to keep and bear arms, Malcolm warned, “is a right in decline.”

...

Then, in 2008, came Heller, arguably the most important gun-rights case in U.S. history. A 5–4 decision written by Scalia and citing Malcolm three times, it swept away the claims of gun-control theorists and declared that Americans enjoy an individual right to gun ownership. “If we had lost Heller, it would have been a big blow,” says Malcolm. “Instead, it gave us this substantial right.” She remembers a thought from the day the Court ruled: “If I have done nothing else my whole life, I have accomplished something important.”

A simple idea has motivated her work: “For me, trust in the common man is such a basic principle. Few governments actually allow it. They want to keep their people vulnerable and disarmed. I find it awful that people wouldn’t be allowed to protect themselves.” She also calls attention to a cultural aspect: “City people who grew up without guns think it’s just a bunch of rednecks.” She recalls an incident at Bentley, years before Heller: “I was in my office one day and a groundskeeper came up. ‘I just want to shake your hand and thank you,’ he said. What else could I have been writing about that anyone would want to thank me for?” She pauses. “There’s just so much vilification of the people who want to ‘cling’ to their guns,” she says, echoing the words of Barack Obama, who as a presidential candidate in 2008 said of rural and working-class whites — future Trump Republicans — that “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

Malcolm is now a Republican herself. When she hears gun-control advocates say they don’t want to ban all guns — “just the ones that look scary,” as she puts it, with a tone of contempt — her thoughts turn back to Britain. In 2002, she published Guns and Violence: The English Experience. It showed, among other things, that crime rates were low in the 19th century, a period with few gun restrictions. Things are different today: Crime has worsened in the United Kingdom, while gun ownership is rare. “Britain has gone down the road of taking away guns,” she says. “And look where it got them.”

She points to a website of the U.K.’s Police National Legal Database, which includes an online forum called “Ask the Police.” One question inquires about self-defense products. Are any legal? The answer: Only one, a “rape alarm” that looks like a car remote. Its panic button emits a screeching sound. The website also warns against using nontoxic sprays against assailants. If “sprayed in someone’s eyes,” such a chemical “would become an offensive weapon.” In other words, potential rape victims can push panic buttons but must not dare to injure attackers — not with sprays, let alone knives or guns. “Can you believe it?” asks Malcolm. “They don’t let people protect themselves.”

...

[Guest_d2e60302]

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine ... amendment/#

The ‘Nice Girl’ Who Saved the Second Amendment
By JOHN J. MILLER
March 29, 2018 10:34 AM

For Heller, thank the scholarship of Joyce Lee Malcolm
Arlington, Va.– In the hours after February’s school massacre in Parkland, Fla., Joyce Lee Malcolm watched the response with growing annoyance:

“Everybody seemed to leap upon it, looking for a political benefit, rather than allowing for a cooling-off period.” As a historian, Malcolm prefers to take the long view. As a leading scholar of the Second Amendment, however, she is also expected to have snap opinions on gun rights, and in fact she often has engaged in the news-driven debates about violence and firearms. “Something deep inside of me says that people never should be victims,” she says. “And they never should be put in the position of being disarmed by their government.”

Malcolm looks nothing like a hardened veteran of the gun-control wars. Small, slender, and bookish, she’s a wisp of a woman who enjoys plunging into archives and sitting through panel discussions at academic conferences. Her favorite topic is 17th- and 18th-century Anglo-American history, from the causes of the English Civil War to the meaning of the American Revolution. Her latest book, due in May, is The Tragedy of Benedict Arnold, a biography of the infamous general. She doesn’t belong to the National Rifle Association, nor does she hunt. She admits to owning an old shotgun, but she’s unsure about the make or model. “I’ve taken it out a couple of times, but the clay targets fall safely to earth,” she says in an interview at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School in Virginia, where she’s a professor who teaches courses on constitutional history as well as on war and law.

She is also the lady who saved the Second Amendment — a scholar whose work helped make possible the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller decision, which in 2008 recognized an individual right to possess a firearm.

...

Malcolm’s doctoral dissertation focused on King Charles I and the problem of loyalty in the 1640s, and much of her scholarship has flowed from this initial work. The Royal Historical Society published her first book, and she edited a pair of volumes for the Liberty Fund, totaling more than 1,000 pages, on political tracts in 17th-century England. As she researched and wrote on the period, she noticed something peculiar. “During the English Civil War, the king would summon the local militia to turn out with their best weapons,” she says. “Then he would relieve them of their best weapons. He confiscated them. Obviously, he didn’t trust his subjects.”

At a time when armies were marching around England, ordinary people became anxious about surrendering guns. Then, in 1689, the English Bill of Rights responded by granting Protestants the right to “have Arms for their Defence.” Malcolm wasn’t the first person to notice this, of course, but as an American who had studied political loyalty in England, she approached the topic from a fresh angle. “The English felt a need to put this in writing because the king had been disarming his political opponents,” she says. “This is the origin of our Second Amendment. It’s an individual right.”

As she researched, Malcolm taught at several schools and worked for the National Park Service. In 1988, she took a post near Boston, at Bentley College, a school best known for business education (and now called Bentley University). Fellowships allowed her to pursue her interest in how the right to bear arms migrated across the ocean and took root in colonial America. “The subject hadn’t been done from the English side because it’s an American question, and American constitutional scholars didn’t know the English material very well,” she says. Some Americans even resisted looking to English sources because they wanted to stress their country’s uniqueness. Moreover, law-school textbooks and courses skimmed over the Second Amendment. “The subject was poorly covered.”

Her research led to a groundbreaking book on the history of gun rights, To Keep and Bear Arms. Before it went to print, however, she faced something she had not expected: political resistance. “I had a hard time finding a publisher,” she says. After several years in limbo, To Keep and Bear Arms came out in 1994, from Harvard University Press — an excellent result for any scholar in the peer-reviewed world of publish-or-perish professionalism. “The problem was that I had come up with an answer that a lot of people didn’t like.”

The Second Amendment, she insisted, recognizes an individual right to gun ownership as an essential feature of limited government. In her book’s preface, she called this the “least understood of those liberties secured by Englishmen and bequeathed to their American colonists.” Confusion reigned: “The language of the Second Amendment, considered perfectly clear by the framers and their contemporaries, is no longer clear.” The right to keep and bear arms, Malcolm warned, “is a right in decline.”

...

Then, in 2008, came Heller, arguably the most important gun-rights case in U.S. history. A 5–4 decision written by Scalia and citing Malcolm three times, it swept away the claims of gun-control theorists and declared that Americans enjoy an individual right to gun ownership. “If we had lost Heller, it would have been a big blow,” says Malcolm. “Instead, it gave us this substantial right.” She remembers a thought from the day the Court ruled: “If I have done nothing else my whole life, I have accomplished something important.”

A simple idea has motivated her work: “For me, trust in the common man is such a basic principle. Few governments actually allow it. They want to keep their people vulnerable and disarmed. I find it awful that people wouldn’t be allowed to protect themselves.” She also calls attention to a cultural aspect: “City people who grew up without guns think it’s just a bunch of rednecks.” She recalls an incident at Bentley, years before Heller: “I was in my office one day and a groundskeeper came up. ‘I just want to shake your hand and thank you,’ he said. What else could I have been writing about that anyone would want to thank me for?” She pauses. “There’s just so much vilification of the people who want to ‘cling’ to their guns,” she says, echoing the words of Barack Obama, who as a presidential candidate in 2008 said of rural and working-class whites — future Trump Republicans — that “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”

Malcolm is now a Republican herself. When she hears gun-control advocates say they don’t want to ban all guns — “just the ones that look scary,” as she puts it, with a tone of contempt — her thoughts turn back to Britain. In 2002, she published Guns and Violence: The English Experience. It showed, among other things, that crime rates were low in the 19th century, a period with few gun restrictions. Things are different today: Crime has worsened in the United Kingdom, while gun ownership is rare. “Britain has gone down the road of taking away guns,” she says. “And look where it got them.”

She points to a website of the U.K.’s Police National Legal Database, which includes an online forum called “Ask the Police.” One question inquires about self-defense products. Are any legal? The answer: Only one, a “rape alarm” that looks like a car remote. Its panic button emits a screeching sound. The website also warns against using nontoxic sprays against assailants. If “sprayed in someone’s eyes,” such a chemical “would become an offensive weapon.” In other words, potential rape victims can push panic buttons but must not dare to injure attackers — not with sprays, let alone knives or guns. “Can you believe it?” asks Malcolm. “They don’t let people protect themselves.”

...

[KiwiInOz]

[tweet][/tweet]
Okay...

I think that counts as Peterson's cofveve moment.

Or his fantasy.

[Ape+lust]

Update:
It was #3. Spleen is fuuuuucked up. BUT specialist today saw him-- a malignant spleen cancer this big probably would haved metastasized by now. She couldn't find any other lesions, including is heart or lungs, where this cancer likes to spread. Outside of the bacterial infection and a massive spleen, he's totally healthy. Which means it could be benign. Which means surgery will solve this problem. Which means Im going to be eating beans and rice for the next few years to pay for this, but I don't care.

Monday night I had no hope. I'd accepted it.

Now I have some hope.

:dance: :dance: :dance:

I love good news :D

You're still needed, Arnie. There are too many pizzas yet to eat.

[MarcusAu]

Sometimes I just can't make head nor tail of people...

[Kirbmarc]

Sometimes I just can't make head nor tail of people...

Didn't we already know of a guy who was way too obsessed with his own brilliance and with semen? What was his name again?

https://i.imgur.com/hLEnKAe.jpg

[MarcusAu]

Update:
It was #3. Spleen is fuuuuucked up. BUT specialist today saw him-- a malignant spleen cancer this big probably would haved metastasized by now. She couldn't find any other lesions, including is heart or lungs, where this cancer likes to spread. Outside of the bacterial infection and a massive spleen, he's totally healthy. Which means it could be benign. Which means surgery will solve this problem. Which means Im going to be eating beans and rice for the next few years to pay for this, but I don't care.

Monday night I had no hope. I'd accepted it.

Now I have some hope.

Spleen!

Here's to many good (if strange) times to come.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsglQ83cbT4

[Ape+lust]

Remember this weirdo?



He says he's an FBI snitch. Golly gee.

The ‘crying Nazi’ from Charlottesville now says he’s an FBI informant

[MarcusAu]

Sounds like he might be trying to do a deal to reduce his sentence time.

Can't blame him for that.

[Ape+lust]

When Rosie met Melody.

Stay for the last tweet, it's classic Roseanne.

https://imgur.com/nUPPo8f.png

https://imgur.com/JCsr7md.png

[Bhurzum]

Reverse! Reverse! Aaaargh!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/93845 ... eggs-halal

[clownshoe]

now I've been banned from Facebook and permanently suspended on Twitter for calling the person who told me to kill myself a "Cunt" (thanks trust and safety). I guess I'll have to return to the only place online I've ever felt safe. The Slymepit is my safe space. Hell is home.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

At least normal decent folk are starting to push back against the transgender activists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw20YuZ6dzo

At no point did any of her friends or family opine wrt this video, "let's not and say we did?"

Canada is fucked up.

[Sunder]

C) is actually relatively easy to understand too, in that it create plot conflicts and Archie Bunker situations. It will let the writers rail and mock at all the sides.

Carrol O'Connor was very liberal though and Archie was a character. Roseanne is playing herself but fictionalized.

[Guest_3bc53337]

And at the time of All in the Family most working class men were Democrats. Making Archie Bunker essentially a Republican was the start of the trend that led to Trump :D

[screwtape]

Update:
It was #3. Spleen is fuuuuucked up. BUT specialist today saw him-- a malignant spleen cancer this big probably would haved metastasized by now. She couldn't find any other lesions, including is heart or lungs, where this cancer likes to spread. Outside of the bacterial infection and a massive spleen, he's totally healthy. Which means it could be benign. Which means surgery will solve this problem. Which means Im going to be eating beans and rice for the next few years to pay for this, but I don't care.

Monday night I had no hope. I'd accepted it.

Now I have some hope.

Very glad to hear it. If the spleen is enlarged simply because of infection, it's worth asking about treating the infection first (you can't cure leptospirosis with a splenectomy) and seeing if his spleen returns to normal size. That's what you do in humans, anyway. You see an enlarged spleen very commonly during infectious mononucleosis (hence the no contact sports rule) and we just wait for it to go down rather than rushing in to take it out. Life without a spleen is harder than used to be thought, with a large increase in risk from encapsulated bacteria infections. Splenectomised humans get extra vaccinations against pneumococcus and meningococcus as a result.

[Kirbmarc]

And at the time of All in the Family most working class men were Democrats. Making Archie Bunker essentially a Republican was the start of the trend that led to Trump :D

I think it's the other way around. The Democratic Party distanced himself from the working class, because they thought that they were all potential Archie Bunkers :bjarte: D

Or, more seriously, the shift in the US Democrats was due to the fact that the Democrat donors noticed that they could act exactly like the GOP donors, making laws that benefit them and their cronies while abolishing limits to the corporate lobby system, while they could still get plenty of votes by playing identity politics. Which is what the GOP had done with the Religious Right since the '80s, and later what Trump has done with white/rural identity politics in 2016.

In reality the vast majority of the SocJus and the Alt-Right bullshit is simply, well, crowd-pleasing bullshit, which helps politicians to get elected, but never solves any actual problem, and instead is a great way to keep people occupied while corporate friendly-laws are passed, in order to further the interests of this or that corporate holding which has ties to this or that party.

People get politicians who "listen to them" and to their "identity" issues while they funnel government money into projects that make them rich, fight pointless wars in order to get rich, or keep themselves and their cronies out of jail and lower their own taxes.

Everyone is busy bickering about video games or flags or statues or prayers or "culture" while the scammers keep playing the system like a fiddle.

[screwtape]

John,
As well as the carb restriction, you might want to look at this idea.

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/is-w ... ing-it-out

It seems the science is catching up with what we've been saying for years. Eat your calories earlier in the day, while your liver is awake to deal with them and make glycogen for the ready-use locker. If you eat them later in the day they get thrown into long term storage, around your waist. It occurs to me that the pattern of meals I was brought up on (likely now exceedingly rare) may have been healthier than the typical. My family had recently arrived in the middle class, but had hung on to the working class meal plan: breakfast, dinner, tea. When I married upwards, I had to learn that it's breakfast, lunch and dinner. In each case the dinner is the largest meal, and having it at noon is better than having it at 7pm. If I'm still here when my wife retires I may have to try to switch her back to the old way.

[MarcusAu]

attern of meals I was brought up on (likely now exceedingly rare) may have been healthier than the typical. My family had recently arrived in the middle class, but had hung on to the working class meal plan: breakfast, dinner, tea. When I married upwards, I had to learn that it's breakfast, lunch and dinner. In each case the dinner is the largest meal, and having it at noon is better than having it at 7pm. If I'm still here when my wife retires I may have to try to switch her back to the old way.

Three meals a day is all well and good - but how many ways are there to cook a rat?

[screwtape]

Three meals a day is all well and good - but how many ways are there to cook a rat?

Now I'm imagining the Monty Python skit with 'rat' instead of 'Spam'.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/93882 ... ssion=true
What country doesn't have rival gangs of machete wielding thugs brawling in the streets and assaulting police? If only Aneris were here to tell us all is fine in Germany, Fake News.

[katamari Damassi]

So don't fucking go there, you blubberous incompetent.

https://i.imgur.com/oXVDMpN.png

There used to be rumors that Caribou Coffee was owned by someone in the UAE, and that they give the profits to,Hamas. That should get Peeze's patronage.

[Kirbmarc]

So don't fucking go there, you blubberous incompetent.

https://i.imgur.com/oXVDMpN.png

There used to be rumors that Caribou Coffee was owned by someone in the UAE, and that they give the profits to,Hamas. That should get Peeze's patronage.

Hell, that WOULD be a good reason for a coherent progressive to boycott Caribou Coffee. Hamas is an ethno-religious nationalist movement which shares a lot with the alt-right (including the support for conspiracy theories about Jews).

[katamari Damassi]

Is anyone else watching Wild Wild Country on Netflix? I'm only a couple of episodes in but am intrigued so far. It's a documentary about the Bhagwan Rajneesh's cult takimy over a town in Oregon in the 1980' s.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Caribou Coffee and Church's Chicken are indeed owned by goat fuckers who run the companies based on sharia.

[katamari Damassi]

I also recommend The Butterfly Effect podcast from Jon Ronson. It starts by exploring the origins of Pornhub.

[John D]

Is anyone else watching Wild Wild Country on Netflix? I'm only a couple of episodes in but am intrigued so far. It's a documentary about the Bhagwan Rajneesh's cult takimy over a town in Oregon in the 1980' s.

Yes. I watched the whole thing.... very good.

[SM1957]

Labour Party members in the UK are sharing white supremacist articles claiming the Holocaust had been confirmed as a hoax by the Red Cross.

http://www.renegadetribune.com/internat ... jews-hoax/

And they look down on Tommy Robinson!

[Matt Cavanaugh]

http://www.renegadetribune.com/internat ... jews-hoax/

For years, people around the world – “the West” in particular – have been told that “six million Jews were systematically murdered by Germans in ‘Concentration Camps’ during World War 2.”

Sealed and guarded since the end of WWII at Arolsen, Germany, the Official IRC records reveal the actual Concentration Camp total death toll was 271,301

Shouldn't Count Dankula's sentence be correspondingly reduced?

[Kirbmarc]

You know, maybe I'm just a relentless optimist, but I've seen some of these arguments pop up in some ultra-SocJus circles, so maybe, just maybe, some of the madness will scale back. Hopefully.

[DrokkIt]

You know, maybe I'm just a relentless optimist, but I've seen some of these arguments pop up in some ultra-SocJus circles, so maybe, just maybe, some of the madness will scale back. Hopefully.

This pretty much sums it all up:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZdixqXX4AEzBXC.jpg

[Shatterface]

Pink News.

Having swallowed the transagenda they're now pushing incest:

Why can’t gay or lesbian twins have sex with or marry each other? Why is incest wrong between same-sex siblings?

...“If I can consent to have sex with an entire football team, why can’t I consent to have sex with my brother who is over the age of 30?” she adds, her voice rising.

“It just doesn’t make sense to me that I can consent to one but not to the other. I don’t think that is correct at all.”

..Some argue that between consenting adults, of the same or a similar age, incest is a victimless crime. That is, of course, providing they don’t reproduce.

So, between twins of the same-sex, where there are no grey areas regarding consent or abuse, and there’s absolutely no chance that either will conceive, why not?

...That said, in the interest of fairness and equality, if gay or lesbian siblings/twins fall in love and are legally allowed to marry or have sex, it’s not really fair if straight siblings/twins aren’t given the same rights just because some of them can reproduce.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/22/w ... lings/amp/

[Shatterface]

Pink News.

Having swallowed the transagenda they're now pushing incest:

Why can’t gay or lesbian twins have sex with or marry each other? Why is incest wrong between same-sex siblings?

...“If I can consent to have sex with an entire football team, why can’t I consent to have sex with my brother who is over the age of 30?” she adds, her voice rising.

“It just doesn’t make sense to me that I can consent to one but not to the other. I don’t think that is correct at all.”

..Some argue that between consenting adults, of the same or a similar age, incest is a victimless crime. That is, of course, providing they don’t reproduce.

So, between twins of the same-sex, where there are no grey areas regarding consent or abuse, and there’s absolutely no chance that either will conceive, why not?

...That said, in the interest of fairness and equality, if gay or lesbian siblings/twins fall in love and are legally allowed to marry or have sex, it’s not really fair if straight siblings/twins aren’t given the same rights just because some of them can reproduce.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/22/w ... lings/amp/

[Shatterface]

They are oobviously doubling down.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I do wish Mrs. Mike Hunt is watching how I deal with this pro-lifer:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/frie ... 3831852769

But she's probably out somewhere fixing the world by wearing a pink pussy hat or defending the First Amendment's Endorsement Clause.

[Lsuoma]

Lionel Shriver is currently on Any Questions on Radio 4. She's being a real shitlord. Just said that in the Labor Party's view, Jews are almost at the bottom of the stack, just above straight white males.

[shoutinghorse]

The bare faced nerve of these two fuckers.

One of them said the killings of captives was "regrettable" and could have been avoided.

I have generally been against the death penalty all my life but I would gladly see these cunts swing.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... um=twitter

[free thoughtpolice]

The things you read in the Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... and-rises/
Who knew that superstition can cause demon possession?

[Kirbmarc]

Pink News.

Having swallowed the transagenda they're now pushing incest:

Why can’t gay or lesbian twins have sex with or marry each other? Why is incest wrong between same-sex siblings?

...“If I can consent to have sex with an entire football team, why can’t I consent to have sex with my brother who is over the age of 30?” she adds, her voice rising.

“It just doesn’t make sense to me that I can consent to one but not to the other. I don’t think that is correct at all.”

..Some argue that between consenting adults, of the same or a similar age, incest is a victimless crime. That is, of course, providing they don’t reproduce.

So, between twins of the same-sex, where there are no grey areas regarding consent or abuse, and there’s absolutely no chance that either will conceive, why not?

...That said, in the interest of fairness and equality, if gay or lesbian siblings/twins fall in love and are legally allowed to marry or have sex, it’s not really fair if straight siblings/twins aren’t given the same rights just because some of them can reproduce.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/22/w ... lings/amp/

I can't believe this isn't a Christian conservative parody of an LGBT magazine. :twatson:

If you’ve watched Game of Thrones, you’ll know that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with f**king your sibling in Westeros.

Jaime and Cersei Lannister make a really great couple, and aside from Joffrey, their kids turned out just great.

And let’s not forget the Targaryens – who always used to marry brother and sister to keep bloodlines pure.

However, even in George RR Martin’s fictional world, incest is frowned upon (so much so that poor old dead Ned lost his head).

What the actual fuck.

Erick Erickson, a contributor to Fox News, and a political blogger posted on his own blog RedState, commenting on what Irons said, and asked why not legalise incest, if the US is to legalise equal marriage.

He wrote: “Seriously. Why not incest… If love and commitment are the justification for marriage, why exempt this?”

So, basically, Fox News trolls the progressives efforts to legalize gay marriage by claiming that they should legalize incest, too...and this progressive online newspaper actually think it's a good idea? :twatson:

Speaking to Refinery29, adult entertainment giant GameLink’s Jeff Dillon said that “family roleplay” or “fauxcest” is growing in the porn industry.

Most viewers of this branch of porn are women or couples, and it ranges from fake father-daughter relationships, to sister sex.

Meanwhile, PornHub says that incest porn is one of its top trending searches – also among women.

Porn. They're using porn in their argument to justify incest. :bjarte:

[Sulman]

If the left ever learnt to stop being so fucking obnoxious they might get somewhere.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Pink News.

Having swallowed the transagenda they're now pushing incest:

Why can’t gay or lesbian twins have sex with or marry each other? Why is incest wrong between same-sex siblings?

...“If I can consent to have sex with an entire football team, why can’t I consent to have sex with my brother who is over the age of 30?” she adds, her voice rising.

“It just doesn’t make sense to me that I can consent to one but not to the other. I don’t think that is correct at all.”

..Some argue that between consenting adults, of the same or a similar age, incest is a victimless crime. That is, of course, providing they don’t reproduce.

So, between twins of the same-sex, where there are no grey areas regarding consent or abuse, and there’s absolutely no chance that either will conceive, why not?

...That said, in the interest of fairness and equality, if gay or lesbian siblings/twins fall in love and are legally allowed to marry or have sex, it’s not really fair if straight siblings/twins aren’t given the same rights just because some of them can reproduce.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/22/w ... lings/amp/

This and transgender crap are confirming the religious nuts fears that the gay acceptance/marriage movement was a slippery slope. Shouldn't the gay community push back?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

[tweet][/tweet]
A valid point. Nor is there an easy solution.

[InfraRedBucket]

Jonathan Haidt uses a hypothetical case of "non reproductive incest" in his "moral dumbfounding"
Where there is no victim, possibly no crime but it seems very "wrong" or disgusting.

Or imagine a brother and sister who go on holiday, and end up sleeping together. They feel that it brings them closer, and are very careful with birth control so there's no absolutely chance of pregnancy.

Don't worry if you found these stories sick and wrong -- most people do. But trying to pin down what exactly is wrong with these stories can be tricky. No one is harmed, the food isn't wasted, the siblings are happy, yet it's somehow still wrong. This is "moral dumbfounding', the strong feeling that something is wrong without clear reasons as to why that is. According to Haidt, this offers a deep insight into human morality, and has profound implications for politics and religion.

Haidt's studies bear out his message is that for every one of us, however rational we think we are, intuition comes first, and strategic reasoning second. That is, we rationalise our gut instincts, rather than using reason to reach the best conclusion.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/jonathan-haidt-interview

[katamari Damassi]

I don't care if brothers and sisters want to fuck, but gay marriage came about so that long term partners could have property rights, hospital visitation rights, and custody rights over children raised together. Siblings being already legally related already have those things and don't need marriage.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

I don't care if brothers and sisters want to fuck, but gay marriage came about so that long term partners could have property rights, hospital visitation rights, and custody rights over children raised together. Siblings being already legally related already have those things and don't need marriage.

Absolutely agree, but now a major gay news outlet seems to be confirming the Right's worst fears about the slippery slope, gay rights leading to all sorts of pervy behavior, and homosexuality being conflated with lifestyle choices. I think it's really bad optics, as they say, regardless of the relative (get it?) morality.

[Shatterface]

I can't think of anything more narcissistic than wanting to fuck your own twin.

Even the Pornhub stuff is (a) fake, and (b) step dad/step daughter or step mom/step son, not blood relative.

A friend told me.

[Suet Cardigan]

Guess what those damn Russians are up to now:

Forget Facebook, Russian agents have been pretending to be furries on Tumblr

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2018 ... ies-tumblr

The idea of Boris and Natasha generating pro-Trump furry porn is too delicious. But it’s no less worrying than any other influence exerted by foreign agents.