So how many significant others do you go through like a pair of jeans? I'm just wondering before I (a) make-out with you and (b) have sex with you.
Wait, each past relationship "had a voice"? Interesting. What did you learn from each? Oh, you "grew" as a person and "learned" what you "wanted." What is it that you learned and wanted?
*crickets*
[mouths off some generic, cliche standard devoid of anything transcendent]
I see.
So I head you traveled to India and Ghana and Mexico. How was that? Oh, you learned a lot about yourself and now consider yourself a "global citizen." What did you learn about yourself? Ah, we're all the same and now you're a human rights advocate teaming up with Emma Watson and Angelina Jolie to save women from poverty in Africa. Well, I'm gonna go down to my city's soup kitchen and volunteer while I mentor a young black teenager in the inner city. I'm thinking of donating at least five percent of my income to the charity of my choice even though I make less than 40K a year.
I suppose it was her goal, but the evolution of Miley Cyrus - an obnoxious yet somewhat charming young girl to a an even more obnoxious pansexual tongue wagging girl with weird as heck hair styles - is a case that a psychologist should be jumping on like Cyrus getting excited over a penis cake. I just find the transformation outright sad, embarrassing and puke worthy. And it practically out of the blue. This "new me" was most definitely planned - a calculated PR move.
Not surprisingly a number of child entertainers, who have been established well before they were 18, tend to follow the path similar to Cyrus. Now many will say it's "the system" that forces such transformations in a retaliation to the "be a good girl" but I feel that's a cop-out. Rarely does anyone blame parents, the kids turn young adults and the hedonistic and, at best, amoral atmosphere that permeates the entertainment world, especially the movie/film/theater sect.
Don't hire a person who believes modern victimhood statuses of blacks, women and the LGBT.
Flanagan, 41, worked as a reporter at WDBJ for less than a year before
he was fired in 2013 for disruptive behavior, the station manager Marks
said.
Bryce Williams, real name Vester Flanagan, posted his own video of the shooting on social media, which disappeared in minutes.
Marks called Flanagan "an unhappy man" who "quickly gathered a reputation of someone who was difficult to work with."
When Flanagan was fired, he had to be escorted out of the building by
police, Marks said. Shortly after that, Flanagan filed an EEOC complaint
against the station.
In tweets days before the shooting, Flanagan posted pictures of himself
as a child, teenager and former TV anchor. He also alluded to a
modeling career and being raised as a Jehovah’s Witness.
. . . .
You want a race war (expletive)? BRING IT ON THEN YOU WHITE...(expletive)!!!" the fax says.
Meanwhile, he praises Virginia Tech shooter Seung Hui Cho, calling him
"my boy" and crediting Cho for killing "NEARLY double the amount" of
people as Columbine High School shooters Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris.
William also writes that he was often attacked for being a gay, black
man, and says Jehovah spoke to him and told him to do the shooting.
Given what was said in the article, I don't think Jehovah spoke to him and issued him permission to kill people.
Before anything else is assumed, I can only go off what was said and reported in various articles. Williams seemed to have an inferior complex and his poor work relations with colleagues were due to this inferiority complex. His is issue with the two slain reporters had to with race: it is said that Alison Parker, the broadcaster, said something which he took offense to in the past and he and the cameraman, Adamn Ward, did not get along on an assignment.
He complained about the South Carolina shooting writing a 23 page rant, his supposed victimhood of bullying of his sexuality and his skin color. The first understandable, but he wanted an actually race war. The second and third is just par for the course when it comes to modernism and wanting to feel society is against you.
What Williams did was of person with mental issues. Him liking the dick and thinking white men hate him just added to his mental rocking.
I can see SJWs and the media pointing out the fact that he was able to purchase a gun in forms of further gun control momentum and will probably jump on the "God told me so" card to put religion in a darker skeptical light, as well as the "equality" card for LGBT.
If South Carolina shooter, Dylan Rood, never held up the Confederate flag the momentum of abolishing it in public spaces would be mostly dormant. This zeitgeist of removal sounds mightily familiar of those who want to remove God from dollar bills and The Pledge of Allegiance.
Of course, the irony in this analogy is upfront - God being more respected, if not revered, in the interior of the States than the coasts. One can say that the Confederate states were rebelling against the Northern states drive to control economic revenues in the South. One can say that the belief in God and the following of traditional mores is the rebellion against secularism and modernism. One can say that both, that God and the Confederate flag, are misunderstood. One can also say that many will use the Confederate flag and God to justify horrid acts against certain groups. When this happens this does not mean that the item or "being" is innately corrupted - it just means that their use is being applied wrongly.
As a Yankee, or Northerner, I do not fly the Confederate flag nor have I had any feelings of animosity towards it. After the news that Wal-mart, Amazon and ebay taking the flag off their shelves as an act of non-race hating; it was simply an agency undoubtedly filled with reactionary thought. Corporations pander towards society's supposed aggrieved groups (LGBT, women, black & illegal aliens). I feel, in this case, that they are practitioners of the pathetic mindset of "nihilistic 'equality.'"
I will admit, the Confederate flag is an aesthetically pleasing flag. I may actually fly it one day.
One thing I have not heard much about, when it comes to reasons for abortions - besides the rape, dangerous child birth and incest situations - is aborting a baby when physical abnormalities, genetic disorders (down syndrome), or - one day, non-straightness, can be detected. Physical abnormalities and genetic disorders, at least in the cast of down syndrome, can be detected months before the final four weeks. If a non-straight gene is found, and there are some studies that show non-straights have some sort of larger gland in their brain - once that becomes definitive 'proof', it would be perfectly fine - without much controversy - to abort a baby who isn't straight.
Now the defense for aborting a baby with physical abnormalities or genetic disorders is that the compassion is directed towards not wanting that human to live a life of mocking and hardship. Well, despite the current social shift towards same-sex "marriage" and the acceptance of non-straights when they "come out" to their parents, there still seems to be an insecurity of non-straights that isn't really found in straights. There is still is a stigma - innate really - when it comes to non-straights and them walking hand in hand with their partner in public.
I'll paint this scenario. Let's say I have a child, and that there is medical technology and knowledge of science has expanded that onr can detect a child's sexuality early within its development. If abortion is legal, where morality has absolutely no place in it, just a women's choice to choose either to abort or to have the baby, then the mother has every right to abort the child if it's not straight - if she so chooses to for whatever reason. If I embrace "choice" and body sovereignty to its logical conclusion, and with advancement of technology growing every year, with science expanding its knowledge on the human mind and body, then there will come a point where "surprises" are only surprises because of not using medical technology and current science to know almost everything about ones baby before it's birth.
So, LGBT people: You're fair game, if there is no law that protects you in this case, to abort if there ever comes a time where medical technology & discovery ever advances to a Gattaca like plain.
After all, if ever a law to protect babies who are shown to have same-sex attraction comes into existence, then it proves that, indeed, the LGBT, is a protected class due to their sexuality - a sexuality, if they aren't bisexual, produces nothing and their relationships give nothing of substance back to society.
I wasn't really disappointed in any of the candidates since I watched without much expectations. I wasn't too impressed with Governor Walker - he's probably the most vanilla of all the candidates that were shown tonight, but he is my personal favorite. He didn't say anything bad, but it wasn't "Yea! Totally! Woohoo!"
Mike Huckabee's response to female entrance to combat units and LGBT making waves in the military was magical. I thought he was sharp on what he said: The military's job is to kill and break stuff. It is not a social experiment for "equality" and "diversity"; to make it an experiment is to weaken the military overall and to make America vulnerable. This "social experiment" angers me. He also made some "R" rated comments on welfare. Most of his responses, that I remember, have impressed me.
"Lindsey" Ryan, a supposed military vet of 15 years, and a transgender (man to woman in this case) has some opposing worlds to say to Huckabee:
This is eerily the same tactic, if not appeal to emotions - "I've raised X number of kids with my partner," "my relationships/'marriage' is not a problem with my family/friends," - that the LGBT "community" use when countering those who oppose same-sex adoption and "marriage." This time it's how one transgender's fellow soldiers are okay with him being open about his state. I do not doubt that military personnel are fine with open LGBT servicemen; I also do not doubt that anything is actually better.
Jeb Bush's thoughts on immigration were great as well - to eliminate sanctuary cities and to make illegal aliens pay a fine and to make them enter the legal process towards legal citizenship not named Amnesty. His co-pilot on illegal immigration was Donald Trump. Of course. He basically said "to build a wall" alongside the Mexico border where there's a "big beautiful door" for those who want to enter legally. I agree. If the LGBT have their "gay pride" parade the illegal aliens have their "immigration reform" marches. It's fucking pathetic. And I bet many many Americans with Mexican blood and illegals are absolutely mad over how the candidates see illegal immigration. You know what? Their anger is misguided. They should be thankful that such people care about this country AND about healthy, legal immigration that makes America great.
Ben Carson was charming but he's in over his head; he didn't do bad, but he has nothing to offer when it comes to the presidency. I wouldn't oppose his recommendation as Surgeon General. He did say something brilliant: Do not broadcast your plays during war time. He also called out on how secular progressives relies on the sleeping people of America to vote for them. Leftists relies on the uninformed and the naive to say "Yes we can!"
Ted Cruz. I have to say he, besides, Rubio, is a gifted public speaker, but his pauses to hint for applause can be irritating. He, like Obama, is Ivy League educated through and through (if we don't count Occidental). I do sense of a bit arrogant, like Obama, but he's a different type of intelligence. Obama is clever and insidious; Cruz is sharp and direct.
Trump is Trump. He's a charismatic businessman. He did say some good words on why Obamacare sucks.
John Kasich did well. He's a patriot with common sense. I wasn't too hot on his response with same-sex "marriage" - he pulled the "went to a gay 'marriage' a few weeks ago and I think we need to love everyone. That's what Jesus said." Though he gives good talk about the economy, saying that a good economy is the solution to everything (I don't know about that), he's unaware of how important of the 'other' economy: The economy of marriage and family. He accepts that same-sex "marriage" is law of the land, still believes in traditional marriage yet he thinks it's best for America to just let the issue go die out, to let if fly into the sunset. The "non-bigots" have won this - it's end game according to him. Then again he is Anglican so I suppose I can forgive him.
I have mix feelings on how Rand Paul's performance. He picked fights with Trump and Christie - that's not smart when you need public favor to advance.
A few conservative/libertarian online news sites have said that there are three serious candidates (Walker, Cruz, Fiorina). Back then I would agree, but now I think that three have expanded to at least five: Walker, Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee, Rubio and Kasich, just from this top half.
The questions asked by the moderators, Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, were, for the most part, alright. The best question was how the current set of candidates dealt with the common "small government" claim while, whenever GOP wins the POTUS, expands government. This is a crucial question because it forces them to actually follow the claim with hopes to 'evolve' their stance to do such a thing.
I did not see the bottom GOP half with Carly Fiorina, which I hope to catch before the end of the week on re-run. Word has it she was the outright winner of her group. This is good news. The real question is if this debate has made the American people take serious interest in her, serious enough to move her up in the poll standings and to earn her a spot on the top half. It'll be interesting; I don't think she'll get over the hump of her non-name brand, but if she does then America is paying attention. America helped Obama's brand grow - from a little known Senator with barely three years of Congress experience to the fast track towards the White House, and they can do the same thing with Fiorina. But unlike Obama, who, after I do some serious thought, was groomed and pushed towards the White House by the established DNC, Fiorina would earn that GOP nomination in a less contrived way.
The social progressive zeitgeist has successfully implemented itself as present and future norm. Same-sex "marriage" is supported by more than 60% of the American population. Why? Because Americans are lazy thinkers and idiots when it comes to the institution of marriage. Abortion is on-demand even though there are small spurts of resistance to end late-term abortions. I thought the Planned Parenthood fiasco would be more of a hot button but it's not - the media has done a good job and the American people are too indifferent about it, even if they are aware of the videos. But they can show anger when black people die and strongly favor same-sex "marriage." What I'm trying to say is this: The American people have changed for the worse, but maybe they can surprise me.
