Also, I'm here to give a holler back. I didn't forget this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dth123451
Melanie has independently shown herself to be a complete piece of **** on countless occasions.
Also, it isn't like she was a sex trafficking victim or something. She was a NY model hanging out in clubs looking for a rich husband so she could sit on her ass her whole life. She is a spoiled stupid whore and I will delight at anything bad that happens to her. Hopefully she spends her days in complete misery already.
MT grew up in communist Yugoslavia in a nowheresville shoe factory town in the 70s. She found a way out, and YOU do not get to judge women from limited means who exercise their limited options. You don't have the slightest clue what its like to grow up knowing you have fewer choices, or what it means to have to sell pieces of yourself in return for stability and safety.
Meanwhile men are happy to find themselves beautiful trophy wives. Explain to me WHY a beautiful woman shouldn't agree to that kind of contract when it comes with providing for your family, knowing your children will have every opportunity for success, knowing for sure that you'll sleep in a safe place that night. You don't know what a woman would trade for those things, thats not part of your purview and it never will be. Its so easy for someone like you to sit in your ivory tower and judge a woman for trying to make the best choices she can in life given the role she's been assigned. Its easy for you to judge her for not bucking those roles and going off on her own gumption and talent. Its not your world, you don't know what its like to be a girl- the danger and insecurity and fleeting worth. This is a man's world- how dare you turn around and shame a woman for playing by YOUR rules.
Furthermore, I consider your usage of the word "whore" in this spot akin to the usage of the n-word when people are ascribing motives and character to actions you don't understand. You don't get to slut shame anyone. Period.
Use it again like that and I will come for you.
That's a promise.
With love, I leave you with this song about eating pussy, because you need some time to sit by yourself and think about the things you've let poison your mind, and I want to offer a good soundtrack for that.
a few years ago 2p2 cracked down on bikini pics in bbv4l because they were worried about advertisers. i would THINK that moving the tone of these boards more towards the messageboard that livestreamed a racist murder spree would look worse to advertisers than girls in swimsuits but i'm not a businessman.
Advertisers also care *mostly* about clicks, news at 11
I do feel for Melania. Trump living this long was never part of her plan, one of Trump's ex-wives has credibly accused him of marital rape, really I don't know what options she has to get away from someone with his power and money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossnerd
Tldr, you guys are appealing to the wrong sensibilities re tptb
States can now execute people in whatever manner they feel fit as long as they don't intentionally "superadd" cruelty to the execution. A lot of other thing like the hanging of children are now theoretically possible
Quote:
Pay attention to this language: According to Gorsuch, “the question in dispute” here is whether lethal injection “cruelly superadds pain” to Bucklew’s death. But that language does not come from Baze or Glossip. It comes from Thomas’ separate opinions, which were joined only by Scalia. With one neat trick, Gorsuch has transformed the “superadds pain” test from a minority viewpoint to binding Supreme Court precedent.
Why does this matter? Because since 1958, the Supreme Court has rejected an originalist interpretation of the Eighth Amendment—which would, after all, permit the hanging of children, among other ghastly punishments. Instead, the court has asked whether a punishment violates the “evolving standards of decency” of a “civilized society.”
Baze and Glossip*did not embrace this standard, but they did not reject it, either. After all, by forcing states to use the less painful of two execution methods, the court adopted a resolutely nonoriginalist view that the Eighth Amendment may require a more “civilized” death. In Bucklew, Gorsuch gutted that logic and replaced it with Thomas’ hard-line originalism.
To what end? First, Gorsuch rejected Bucklew’s claim, asserting that he failed to prove death by nitrogen would really be “feasible” or less painful. Second, Gorsuch cast doubt on a vast range of precedents built on the “evolving standards of decency” rule by substituting it for the “superadds pain” principle. For instance, Supreme Court rulings outlawing the execution of minors, the mentally disabled, and individuals who committed*nonhomicidal crimes all rest on the “evolving standards of decency” rationale. So, too, do decisions that strictly limit the imposition of life without parole on juvenile offenders.
I don't feel bad for her re her life. She is living the life she signed up for. Its the trade she made, and I don't judge her choices.
That being said, I don't agree with people disparaging her for her *lifestyle* choices. Disparage her for her politics, for parroting horrible ideology, for being insensitive and ill-equipped. But not for her lifestyle choices. Im sorry, No.
I feel bad for her being abused with misogynist language though. And that is called moral consistency.
I don't care about Melania in particular. It's more or less shallow celebrity culture. But chasing money over morals is indictable even if you come from shoe factory town.
No, It represents the way half the country thinks, and I now suspect with the "No Trump Russia Collusion" an the super strong economy, it'll grow.
Mason
it's not half the country, and i'm sure your predictions about the super strong economy under trump will come just as true as your predictions about the super terrible economy under obama
You need to consider their top motives and play off that. You know who they are and you know what they want. Its should be really simple when you have all that info.
But chasing money over morals is indictable even if you come from shoe factory town.
Again, you're coming from a place of privilege where you have infinite options.
I very much doubt everyone here would be as happy as they CLAIM they would be to live a small and poor life vs exercising the option to the alternative. You're lying to yourselves.
Another difference in spending involves duplication. In the book I focus on three right-wing state networks: ALEC, encompassing state legislators; the*State Policy Network(SPN), coordinating state-level think tanks; and*Americans for Prosperity*(AFP), a federated advocacy group combining millions of grassroots volunteers with a large campaign war chest.
Although these three organizations are distinct from one another, they coordinate with each other quite closely: ALEC writes model bills that it encourages state legislators to support and pass, SPN think tanks pump out research reports, testimony, and media coverage in support of those model bills, and AFP’s grassroots volunteers help to elect politicians favorable to ALEC’s priorities and then lobby state governments to pass those model bills.
The close coordination is no coincidence: My book shows how the three organizations have deliberately established mechanisms to work together, like sitting on one another’s leadership committees or*coordinating*grants from wealthy donors across their networks.
Jesus Christ. Her "limited options" included marrying a ****ing billionaire.
The option, actually, is just "marry". The fact that she married well and you all hate her for it is just OUTRIGHT sexism. Nobody has EVER hated a man for marrying a dumb hot busty blonde, and according to you that should be JUST AS immoral.
i'm honestly bummed that mason and david don't feel like sharing their perspective on the high stakes poker economy. because the poker economy that i see had only been hurt by trump. things were way better under obama, in the games i play. but i don't play high stakes like i've read david plays 25/50nl at bellagio and i imagine mason plays private games with judges and other ceos, but i never see them talking about it, like it would make his story more believable if he occasionally said, "yeah i was playing 20,000nl last night and there were a ton of fish blowing their tax cuts, it's great out here." but we just get nothing, so i can only assume he's ****ing with us when he brings up the poker economy thing.
I don't feel bad for her re her life. She is living the life she signed up for. Its the trade she made, and I don't judge her choices.
That being said, I don't agree with people disparaging her for her *lifestyle* choices. Disparage her for her politics, for parroting horrible ideology, for being insensitive and ill-equipped. But not for her lifestyle choices. Im sorry, No.
I feel bad for her being abused with misogynist language though. And that is called moral consistency.
sorry but equating the word "whore" with the word "******" just took your credibility down a few notches
The option, actually, is just "marry". The fact that she married well and you all hate her for it is just OUTRIGHT sexism. Nobody has EVER hated a man for marrying a dumb hot busty blonde, and according to you that should be JUST AS immoral.
After actually looking at Melania's wiki, I'm calling bull**** on this narrative. Sorry, but there are a lot of girls of far humbler means who decided not to become professional trophy wives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossnerd
Nobody has EVER hated a man for marrying a dumb hot busty blonde