destruction of america

[yenpit]

7 hours ago, datzenmike said:

 

Red hed right? Insane in and out of bed.

 

 

How did you know I was a redhead?? 😏🤣😉

[paradime]

We all have stories, and no doubt, there are some F'ed up women who abuse the justice system to gain a legal advantage, and there are equally F'ed up men who do the same. At the same time, women are not unique in being bat shit crazy drunks. In terms of domestic violence by an intimate partner, at least once in their lifetime, 35% of American men and women have experience some form of battery from a partner leading to physical injury. Here's the difference that shouldn't be ignored; over 85% of those victims were women, with more than 2 million recorded injuries, and 1,100 battered women are killed by their bat shit crazy husbands/boyfriends every year. 

[frankendat]

1 hour ago, paradime said:

We all have stories, and no doubt, there are some F'ed up women who abuse the justice system to gain a legal advantage, and there are equally F'ed up men who do the same. At the same time, women are not unique in being bat shit crazy drunks. In terms of domestic violence by an intimate partner, at least once in their lifetime, 35% of American men and women have experience some form of battery from a partner leading to physical injury. Here's the difference that shouldn't be ignored; over 85% of those victims were women, with more than 2 million recorded injuries, and 1,100 battered women are killed by their bat shit crazy husbands/boyfriends every year. 

Battery is ANY unlawful touching, physical injury is a subjective standard, then certain religions allow battery, aggravated battery and sexual battery of both wives and minors; all of which manipulate statistics. The Democrats successfully employed victimization and they continue to beat that to death. Now, do I deny that there are some assholes out there who make their domestic partners bleed internally if the beer is warm--No. It is a slippery slope that goes both ways and I am reluctant to join the instant damnation and emasculation parade selectively embraced by media fueled hypocritical cunts.

[datzenmike]

 

 

[john510]

2 hours ago, paradime said:

We all have stories, and no doubt, there are some F'ed up women who abuse the justice system to gain a legal advantage, and there are equally F'ed up men who do the same. At the same time, women are not unique in being bat shit crazy drunks. In terms of domestic violence by an intimate partner, at least once in their lifetime, 35% of American men and women have experience some form of battery from a partner leading to physical injury. Here's the difference that shouldn't be ignored; over 85% of those victims were women, with more than 2 million recorded injuries, and 1,100 battered women are killed by their bat shit crazy husbands/boyfriends every year. 

My ex wife from almost 40 years ago threw a full bottle of Gatorade at me (the big one) one night because I wouldn't argue with her. I was ignoring her and just trying to de-escalate things, it made it worse. That was pretty much it for me and her. Thirty years later she got arrested for beating up her boyfriend. I knew to get away from that situation. I knew not to fight back.

[paradime]

26 minutes ago, john510 said:

My ex wife from almost 40 years ago threw a full bottle of Gatorade at me (the big one) one night because I wouldn't argue with her. I was ignoring her and just trying to de-escalate things, it made it worse. That was pretty much it for me and her. Thirty years later she got arrested for beating up her boyfriend. I knew to get away from that situation. I knew not to fight back.

 

Smart move John. No sane person needs that kind of Fight Club relationship. Some people who grew up around drama shit at home think that's what love is. 

[paradime]

1 hour ago, frankendat said:

Battery is ANY unlawful touching, physical injury is a subjective standard, then certain religions allow battery, aggravated battery and sexual battery of both wives and minors; all of which manipulate statistics. The Democrats successfully employed victimization and they continue to beat that to death. Now, do I deny that there are some assholes out there who make their domestic partners bleed internally if the beer is warm--No. It is a slippery slope that goes both ways and I am reluctant to join the instant damnation and emasculation parade selectively embraced by media fueled hypocritical cunts.

So in Boise certain religions have legal immunity? Must be one of those new Democrat protection programs.

[frankendat]

1 minute ago, paradime said:

So in Boise certain religions have legal immunity? Must be one of those new Democrat protection programs.

Not in Boise, the east coast and Michigan and not legal immunity, Democrat protection programs. There are times when I am impatient and rather than waiting for the simple, common, retort, I preempt. In the current offshot, I chastise for generalization over gender, but it could be noted that I generalize regarding religion. In my defense, it is not generalization to hold individuals accountable to tenants of the doctrines which they vow allegiance. In this instance I am talking about Muslims, but they are not the totality of fundamental, unreasonable, religions.

 

Douchebag fundamentalist apologists cry over non-traditional Muslims; those who speak the oaths with their fingers crossed, as undeserving of generalized scorn. I sympathize with this position. In the same regard, at present I support the Republican party, while I am passionately pro death, I understand and accept the pro life agenda, because that is the deal. You do what you can to bring about the change you believe in, but choose your side.

My sympathy ends when I run across women in "bee keeper" outfits walking behind men in tunics. The same way I am in disbelief, when a man says he is going to kill a person, a man of sufficient size, age and ability that could indeed kill the person he is threatening, yet it is not self defense to kill that man. Muslims do not believe in Democracy, they do not believe in equity or freedom of religion or the foundations of America (aside from a shared interest in a type of colonialism and expansionism) The same as the man who yells out he is going to kill you, strict adherence to the Muslim religion demands killing Americans. If someone is wearing the clothes and supporting traditions to demonstrate strict adherence, we should take them at their word. Because American is a charitable nation, I would concede to surveillance and re education over slaughter.  

 

Regarding the comments on domestic violence, I believe  laws and societal intervention have gone too far, regulating the relationships of people. Statistical rants are not persuasive when placed against witnessed events. The "liberal", "Democrat", whatever, agenda, much of which I supported is eroded and rotten. I believe a man or woman should have the right and freedom to talk themselves into a fat lip. I believe a parent has the right to spank their child. These are not a new concepts, the "fighting words" doctrine has been around since the Constitution, but the Courts have refused to define it. However, the reasonableness standard, found mostly in civil law, would be an excellent start. Parents have physically punished their children for the majority of human civilization, only in my lifetime has this changed and if the generations after X are the result, then this parenting change was not for the better. My only expansion on these concepts is gender inclusion, because that is what equality is all about. To those who disagree, I am not suggesting my ideals become the standard, I am only suggesting greater leniency in application of laws in opposition. 

 

My country is becoming (or has become) a pack of ninnies (myself included) for even I have with held action over concern of community and/or legal reprisal when someone is begging to be unlawfully touched.  

[paradime]

2 hours ago, frankendat said:

Not in Boise, the east coast and Michigan and not legal immunity, Democrat protection programs. There are times when I am impatient and rather than waiting for the simple, common, retort, I preempt. In the current offshot, I chastise for generalization over gender, but it could be noted that I generalize regarding religion. In my defense, it is not generalization to hold individuals accountable to tenants of the doctrines which they vow allegiance. In this instance I am talking about Muslims, but they are not the totality of fundamental, unreasonable, religions.

 

Douchebag fundamentalist apologists cry over non-traditional Muslims; those who speak the oaths with their fingers crossed, as undeserving of generalized scorn. I sympathize with this position. In the same regard, at present I support the Republican party, while I am passionately pro death, I understand and accept the pro life agenda, because that is the deal. You do what you can to bring about the change you believe in, but choose your side.

My sympathy ends when I run across women in "bee keeper" outfits walking behind men in tunics. The same way I am in disbelief, when a man says he is going to kill a person, a man of sufficient size, age and ability that could indeed kill the person he is threatening, yet it is not self defense to kill that man. Muslims do not believe in Democracy, they do not believe in equity or freedom of religion or the foundations of America (aside from a shared interest in a type of colonialism and expansionism) The same as the man who yells out he is going to kill you, strict adherence to the Muslim religion demands killing Americans. If someone is wearing the clothes and supporting traditions to demonstrate strict adherence, we should take them at their word. Because American is a charitable nation, I would concede to surveillance and re education over slaughter.  

 

Regarding the comments on domestic violence, I believe  laws and societal intervention have gone too far, regulating the relationships of people. Statistical rants are not persuasive when placed against witnessed events. The "liberal", "Democrat", whatever, agenda, much of which I supported is eroded and rotten. I believe a man or woman should have the right and freedom to talk themselves into a fat lip. I believe a parent has the right to spank their child. These are not a new concepts, the "fighting words" doctrine has been around since the Constitution, but the Courts have refused to define it. However, the reasonableness standard, found mostly in civil law, would be an excellent start. Parents have physically punished their children for the majority of human civilization, only in my lifetime has this changed and if the generations after X are the result, then this parenting change was not for the better. My only expansion on these concepts is gender inclusion, because that is what equality is all about. To those who disagree, I am not suggesting my ideals become the standard, I am only suggesting greater leniency in application of laws in opposition. 

 

My country is becoming (or has become) a pack of ninnies (myself included) for even I have with held action over concern of community and/or legal reprisal when someone is begging to be unlawfully touched.  

 

Sorry Farnkendat, I'm having trouble following your point here, because your wide ranging opinions and ideas seem tangential to the subject of domestic violence. Here's the events I witnessed. My stepfather was a drunk pissed off vet of the Korean War. He beat the shit out of my mom, my younger brother, and me. I lived in terror, with hatred and a desire to kill him for many years, and all it did was fuck me up. I never hit my kids because of it. Our 2 Gen Z'ers are conscientious, responsible, and ambitious young people. On Fathers Day, they made me very proud of that accomplishment. 

[datzenmike]

I'm not toooo opposed to child spanking as you can't really reason with a child and they really need to be taught asap that there are consequences to disobedience. In the past this was handed out in public, usually rightly so and people would nod. Today I would recommend disciplining your child indoors. Later, as they get older reasoning, rather than force, and deprivation and reward used and certainly as an adult there is absolutely no good reason for delivering or receiving a 'fat lip'.

 

My wife grew up in a very violent family with a crazy father (he died in jail for it) Her sisters are so fucked up and one brother committed suicide. We have nothing to do with them and yet, she constantly amazed me with the lengths she would go to to love and protect her three kids. They are all adults with kids now and we really had no problems with them growing up even as teenagers and young adults. The point is that growing up with violence does not always perpetuate it. Some are able to walk away and be almost normal.

[frankendat]

4 hours ago, datzenmike said:

I'm not toooo opposed to child spanking as you can't really reason with a child and they really need to be taught asap that there are consequences to disobedience

We are in agreement. I would advocate, but never legislate, that corporeal punishment be mandatory if a parent wishes to instruct their child on methods of defense that can seriously injure or kill. I find it troubling that there are adults that were not instructed that there are lines you do not cross. Not sometimes, not if it is really important--never. As with any absolutist statement, with enough time someone, somewhere, could conjure a hypothetical to undermine the line, but I will hold it nonetheless--never, even in failure--never.  

 

5 hours ago, datzenmike said:

as an adult there is absolutely no good reason for delivering or receiving a 'fat lip'.

A father delivering a "fat lip" to his adult son--I agree. If I were a father and thought such was warranted, then it would mean ultimate failure as a parent. I would gladly take a hundred beatings, than face the fact I raised a man deserving of one. 

As for general adults, there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of good, very good, and excellent, rationale for delivering or receiving "fat lips", "black eyes", "lost teeth", "cracked ribs", "dislocated noses", "broken bones", etc. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, I would support legislation or regulation that lowered the threshold for the application of the self defense exception to the crime of battery and/or provided the possibility, battery is an acceptable response to assault. 

[yenpit]

5 hours ago, datzenmike said:

I'm not toooo opposed to child spanking as you can't really reason with a child and they really need to be taught asap that there are consequences to disobedience. In the past this was handed out in public, usually rightly so and people would nod. Today I would recommend disciplining your child indoors. Later, as they get older reasoning, rather than force, and deprivation and reward used and certainly as an adult there is absolutely no good reason for delivering or receiving a 'fat lip'.

 

My wife grew up in a very violent family with a crazy father (he died in jail for it) Her sisters are so fucked up and one brother committed suicide. We have nothing to do with them and yet, she constantly amazed me with the lengths she would go to to love and protect her three kids. They are all adults with kids now and we really had no problems with them growing up even as teenagers and young adults. The point is that growing up with violence does not always perpetuate it. Some are able to walk away and be almost normal.

 

My absolute favorite girlfriend, some 25 years ago, was  younger than me, but was an old soul with a VERY good head on her shoulders.  At 12, she left her parents cuz of drunkeness & growing violence, to live with her aunt & uncle.  HER choice, according to her.  I suppose that meant her parents did not legally oppose it.......??  She was often the level headed one, in disagreements........not that we had many at all.  She was EXTREMELY good in the sack & her attitude towards love.  She ended up getting married to her HS boyfriend years later, had 4 kids, but he cheated on her, so divorced.  Remarried a couple years ago, apparently a great mix!  Sounds like you have a good catch there, Mr Mike!! 🥰 

[frankendat]

17 hours ago, paradime said:

 

Sorry Farnkendat, I'm having trouble following your point here, because your wide ranging opinions and ideas seem tangential to the subject of domestic violence. Here's the events I witnessed. My stepfather was a drunk pissed off vet of the Korean War. He beat the shit out of my mom, my younger brother, and me. I lived in terror, with hatred and a desire to kill him for many years, and all it did was fuck me up. I never hit my kids because of it. Our 2 Gen Z'ers are conscientious, responsible, and ambitious young people. On Fathers Day, they made me very proud of that accomplishment. 

It is my goal, more than finding consensus, to be understood and will work to improve. I hope my wide ranging opinions and ideas are tethered to similar principles, but do not deny this may not be the case. 

Your childhood reads like one of those lifetime television specials, of which I am not fond. I only knew one boy growing up who endured that kind of home life. It was sad and undeserved. I remember dropping by his house once unannounced, as children do, and his father was on a bender. I didn't understand. The boy was embarrassed and afraid for me. My parents were not heavy drinkers and I didn't have experience in the tenuous triggers and volatile emotional nature of drunks. It made an impression that has remained almost 50 years, but outside looking in is not the same. 

I do not deny abuse exists. I question the prevalence and the legislation in response to it. The "safer" a society the less freedom, that is not my statement, it is a documented, researched fact, proven and re-proven throughout human existence by those of much greater intellect. 

Earlier, you posted a statistic "1,100 battered women are killed by their bat shit crazy husbands/boyfriends every year." According to the internet, the 2024 female population of the United States is 169.87 million. By your account 0.000647554012% of females in the United States are killed. It is unfortunate and I would support programs and education to stop it, but I will not sacrifice Constitutionally protected rights.

I will link another idea, which I do not believe is tangential, rather it supports a fundamental principle.  I support the NRA and the right to bear arms. The existence of firearms in the United States provides the possibility of a child being injured or killed by a firearm. I believe this will be true no matter how many laws are enacted, no matter how many firearms are destroyed, but for the sake of argument, I will entertain that confiscation and reduction of individual firearm ownership will prevent any further children from being injured of killed by a firearm. Even if that fairy-tale-fantasy were true, I would fight every and all legislation and regulation proposing to confiscate or reduce individual firearm ownership. The freedom to protect my family from those who would do harm, including my government is the highest order.

Principles. I will work on linking other posts

 

 

 

[a.d._510_n_ok]

 

[datzenmike]

1 hour ago, frankendat said:

We are in agreement. I would advocate, but never legislate, that corporeal punishment be mandatory if a parent wishes to instruct their child on methods of defense that can seriously injure or kill. I find it troubling that there are adults that were not instructed that there are lines you do not cross. Not sometimes, not if it is really important--never. As with any absolutist statement, with enough time someone, somewhere, could conjure a hypothetical to undermine the line, but I will hold it nonetheless--never, even in failure--never.  

 

A father delivering a "fat lip" to his adult son--I agree. If I were a father and thought such was warranted, then it would mean ultimate failure as a parent. I would gladly take a hundred beatings, than face the fact I raised a man deserving of one. 

As for general adults, there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of good, very good, and excellent, rationale for delivering or receiving "fat lips", "black eyes", "lost teeth", "cracked ribs", "dislocated noses", "broken bones", etc. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, I would support legislation or regulation that lowered the threshold for the application of the self defense exception to the crime of battery and/or provided the possibility, battery is an acceptable response to assault. 

 

The 'fat lip' was regarding husband and wife only. It should never come to that.

[datzenmike]

1 hour ago, yenpit said:

 

My absolute favorite girlfriend, some 25 years ago, was  younger than me, but was an old soul with a VERY good head on her shoulders.  At 12, she left her parents cuz of drunkeness & growing violence, to live with her aunt & uncle.  HER choice, according to her.  I suppose that meant her parents did not legally oppose it.......??  She was often the level headed one, in disagreements........not that we had many at all.  She was EXTREMELY good in the sack & her attitude towards love.  She ended up getting married to her HS boyfriend years later, had 4 kids, but he cheated on her, so divorced.  Remarried a couple years ago, apparently a great mix!  Sounds like you have a good catch there, Mr Mike!! 🥰 

 

Yea I was on the rebound for 10 years and 38, she was separated with three kids at 24. Her ex was around and I knew him first as we boarded at the same house. I met her and the kids a month later. She was ferocious at making him being involved with their kids. Nothing was planned and I did not want to get in the way but she made it clear that she had no intent to get back together and would remain separated. We all got along but slowly I spent more time at her place and 6 months later I moved in. There was this big elephant in the room after that when we all got together but we all got by. Wind ahead 24 years, he has passed away from cancer, 8 years earlier in 2004, The kids are grown and long out the door, married and working on their own families. The benefit of having 3 parents. We finally wed and she changed from her married name. That was 14 years ago already. 

[paradime]

Getting walloped when my parents were pissed at me seemed antithetical to the good behavior they were demanding. So they solve problems by hitting me, but I get my ass kicked for hitting stupid kids? OK, WTF's up with that hypocritical mixed message? My costly rebellion against authority was fueled by that kind of unjust double standard.

 

For children, self awareness and morality are hard lessons to learn, but fundamental for social functioning. I understand why many fail at this job because it's F'n hard. It's still the parent's responsibility to teach their kids wright from wrong so society doesn't have to. My wife and I were married, worked through our shit, and played good and hard for 10 yrs before having kids. We both had tough childhoods and knew that to be good parents, we had a lot of growing up to do first.

 

No F'n way I was going to lay that hypocrisy on my kids. Recognition and reward for good behavior, with realistic and consistent penalties as consequence for bad behavior. I started this as soon as our kids could talk, and it was a very effective way to discipline and teach them the difference between good vs bad. With every major infraction, I asked "Do you understand that you'er bad behavior is why your good stuff was taken away? So what's a better way to handle it, so I don't paddle your ass next time?" 😜

[yenpit]

14 hours ago, a.d._510_n_ok said:

 

 

He is one weird dood, but now I see how messed up he really is, thinking Brandon is a good bet!!!!!!!! 😂😆🤣

[datzenmike]

FUCKING CELEBRITIES!!!!!!!!  What complete moron would vote based on their opinion?? Celebrities know shit and have shit for brains. They're paid to act, not think, and not tell people who's best to vote for. Unless in this case you're an out of work has been being paid to do this.  Jack, join the ranks of George Clooney and Jennifer Aniston flogging Nexpresso and Alvina. Instead, go and enjoy retirement and get the fuck over your fucking selves. 

[john510]

19 hours ago, a.d._510_n_ok said:

 

Well that settles sit. If Jack Black supports Biden I have no other choice but to vote for.....   Anybody but Biden.

[difrangia]

22 hours ago, a.d._510_n_ok said:

 

 

Who the Fook is Jack Black ??

 

Don't anyone respond; rhetoric in the extreme was intended; same for the rest of the 'Hollyfux' !!

 

Please, Please, Kate Winslett, keep your politics to yourself !!

 

 

[bananahamuck]

[frankendat]

On 6/18/2024 at 12:48 AM, paradime said:

Getting walloped when my parents were pissed at me seemed antithetical to the good behavior they were demanding. So they solve problems by hitting me, but I get my ass kicked for hitting stupid kids? OK, WTF's up with that hypocritical mixed message? My costly rebellion against authority was fueled by that kind of unjust double standard.

 

For children, self awareness and morality are hard lessons to learn, but fundamental for social functioning. I understand why many fail at this job because it's F'n hard. It's still the parent's responsibility to teach their kids wright from wrong so society doesn't have to. My wife and I were married, worked through our shit, and played good and hard for 10 yrs before having kids. We both had tough childhoods and knew that to be good parents, we had a lot of growing up to do first.

 

No F'n way I was going to lay that hypocrisy on my kids. Recognition and reward for good behavior, with realistic and consistent penalties as consequence for bad behavior. I started this as soon as our kids could talk, and it was a very effective way to discipline and teach them the difference between good vs bad. With every major infraction, I asked "Do you understand that you'er bad behavior is why your good stuff was taken away? So what's a better way to handle it, so I don't paddle your ass next time?" 😜

It is unfortunate that I am forced to embrace PRO child beating position, as in many situations it is unwarranted and unnecessary and it other situations it is abuse. I hold fast to the supposition that there are instances, not only where swift corporeal punishment is necessary, the lack of said punishment is detrimental to both the child and society. 

The demonetization of disciplinarians by media, by society, has extended, in this democracy, into the law. Victimization is rewarded by the government, endorsed by the government, and a tool to manipulate citizens, to cede more control to the government. 

I understand the benefit of inquiring if the errant behavior is understood and if the correct response to the situation is grasp for future reference. However, there must be a method e.g. Dad's low serious voice, where immediate compliance is necessary, where discussion and debate is shelved until opportunity presents. Failure to comply in this instance, bringing sanction swift and severe. There must be a time, when "Because I am your father and I say so." is enough and if the father lacks the respect to command the aforementioned, "Because I will beat your ass, unless you do." will suffice. 

I worked with at risk youth for a number of years and didn't touch, in any manner, any of them, ever, but it was clear there were some who would have benefited from physical confrontation. It is about boundaries, and respect, and understanding the lines that should not be crossed. I wonder what happened to the worst offenders. I saw the obituary for one 10 or so years ago, he was stabbed outside of a bar in South Western Utah. I have no clue what happened, but I am tempted to speculate, he pushed someone too far.

[Duncan]

Damn.  This restaurant has been on Sunset Bl. right at the Hollywood Freeway for as long as I can remember.  The new $20 minimum wage that was to lift all boats, sunk this particular one.  Was never a fan of Arby's food, but that thing was a landmark.  It makes me sad when I hear stuff like this..

 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/farewell-hollywood-arbys-saying-goodbye-210242597.html    

[john510]

20 hours ago, difrangia said:

 

Who the Fook is Jack Black ??

 

Don't anyone respond; rhetoric in the extreme was intended; same for the rest of the 'Hollyfux' !!

 

Please, Please, Kate Winslett, keep your politics to yourself !!

 

 

One thing I never understood about Hollyweird is that the vast majority of them are extreme liberals. If you aren't and make it known your career will be sabotaged. Is it the money, fame, the fact they know people like them as characters in movies and TV ? The part about being liberal is the one I can't figure out. What causes that mindset ? Those people have no perception of the reality that the average person lives in. The egos are so big they think their opinion means something.