shubzilla

One side would make war rather than condemn Nazis, and the other side would accept war rather than allow the Nazis to go uncondemned. And so the war came.

THIS IS INSANE Two men, who both pleaded guilty to R*PING a 15yo boy and making child p*rn, received DIFFERENT sentences from two different judges. Eric Bergstrom was sentenced to 30-50 years by Judge Derek Vaughn. Judge Rich McGowan then took over the case and sentenced co-defendant Bradley Perry to ONLY 3 YEARS for the SAME CRIME. When Judge McGowan was questioned on his decision, he stated, "I am the law." How is this justice???

New research indicates that fathers build bonds best with their children (and craft secure attachment in them) by "destablizing the child" in a "safe environment. Fathers in the study had a unique ability to make their children laugh and therefore create more perceived safety for the child which led to stronger attachment. Mothers made children feel safe too, usually with repetition and soothing, but the laughing and playing did not make the children as attached as it did when fathers performed it. Several things jump out from this at me: First, a father who is relaxed enough to laugh and play indicates a safe environment. Fathers are biologically the providers of safety, so if dad is relaxed, the world must truly be safe. Children may be picking up on this. Second, being worthy of a father's time and attention is a huge marker for kids. A father's attention may actually mean more in many cases, as we've seen in other studies. The bond with mom is equally as important, but sometimes the bond with mom is taken for granted, where the bond with dad is taken as remarkable due to perceived other demands on his time. What this means: Dads, you've got to be playing with your kids. As silly and disruptive as possible. They need this from you. It's one of the strongest ways they can bond to you. More about the research: psypost.org/laughter-plays…

1972? Have we just decided that, across states, there are no statutes of limitations in any cases involving women, anything sexual, or DV - criminal or civil? I've read some of this and tend to think Bill IS guilty, btw. But, how do you try a 54 year old case?

White guy kills a seagull: 8 months in prison Black guy kills a man: misdemeanor, released Black guy kills a pregnant mom and her unborn child: not guilty by reason of insanity, baby doesn’t count as a human Asian woman kills family of 4: probation Red guards in black robes have destroyed the value of justice and life - the purpose of a system is what it does.

“Corporate farming methods” are why you don’t have to do backbreaking work as a farmer anymore and why starvation is the exception rather than the rule around the world today

The US shipbuilding workforce is huge (~120,000 people), of similar size to Japan (140,000) or South Korea (180,000), both of which produce literally hundreds of times more ship.

During an interview in 1974, Corrie ten Boom shared how she once encouraged fellow believers in Africa with one of her father's memorable lessons on why Christians need not fear being strong enough to endure suffering: "I once said to my father (I was still a little girl), 'Daddy, I will never be strong enough to suffer for Jesus.' And Father said, 'When you go to travel with a train to Amsterdam, when do I give you the train ticket? Three weeks before?' I said, 'No, Daddy, the day that I go to travel.' And Father said, 'That's what God does. Today, you do not need to have strength to suffer for Jesus, but the moment you will have the honor to suffer for Him, He will give you all the strength.' And then I was confident. And I said to these people, 'When you have to suffer for Jesus, the Lord will give you the train ticket.'"

No. This is not actually a choice that women need to make. Almost everyone is confused about this, because the actual, functional mating customs of civilized humanity were almost entirely lost in the baby boomer great reset. In civilized humans, courtship between the sexes is initiated by the female. This is why civilized men hate cold approaching, and only r-selecting knuckledraggers are comfortable with the practice... along with men who have killed off their natural distaste for it because they had to learn it out of sheer necessity. Women generally hate this idea, because they don't like cold approaching, either. But I did not say cold approach. I said "initiate". What a woman is supposed to do, according the customs of actual civilization with functional mating rituals, is see a man she thinks she might like, and covertly signal an invitation to approach. This invitation is the first measure of a graceful social dance, where the steps are known to both partners. The signal is to be clear enough that the man understands its intent, but subtle enough that it can be plausibly denied if he proves to be distasteful on closer examination. It is then the man's responsibility to overtly approach and court. But this is not a cold approach, because he knows he has been invited. His responsibility is to not screw up a good beginning. Thus, no one is cold approaching. Look at the cartoon. You've seen it before. And this indeed how it works... but only in a broken culture. Because when both sexes understand their roles, the difference between the top and bottom panels isn't whether the man is objectively attractive or not, but whether Susan dropped a hint. The reason things work this way now is that Susan was brought up without the slightest inkling of what she was supposed to do. In fact, if you told her now that she's supposed to know how to accidentally drop a handkerchief, she'd probably resent the implication that she has any duties or bears any responsibility for doing anything at all. But power and responsibility together in both directions. If women have no responsibility to invite an approach, then they have no power to control who approaches them. And this is a power they desperately want. This is the true reason why they complain about how being approached is "creepy". They have an instinctive sense that men they don't want are not supposed to make a pass, but they have no idea how this is supposed to not happen. So they try to leave it to men to work out. And men, like women, and like every other carbon-based life form on the planet, are noted for their inability to read minds. There is no individual solution to a broken collective. Dire misunderstandings between men and women trying to find mates are simply one more symptom of the disease that caused the late twentieth century West to try to wipe the cultural slate clean, and reinvent all social customs from an undifferentiated soup of naive postwar liberalism. An individual woman who learns to drop a hint — and more importantly, understands that she should — is still powerless to force men around her to learn to pick one up, or to refrain from being a sex pest when she doesn't drop one. An individual man who learns to spot a hint is still powerless to read the minds of women who don't even know they are supposed to drop one, much less how. Humans, unlike almost all other animals, are not creatures of instinct alone. We are evolved to develop and use rituals. And thus we need to have those rituals, and to transmit them to the next generation. Or we will not thrive. Did every culture have a genteel lexicon of hints and winks and dropped handkerchiefs and how to hold a lace fan? Of course not. Mongol horse archers would think this was all effete nonsense. But Mongol horse archers never invented the radio or the airplane or machine tools or the air conditioner, either. So who cares what they would have thought? We had a way of courting. It was a dance, not a war. It worked. People were happy with it. Then some hippies decided it didn't work with their abstract and stupid philosophy. So it all had to go. And now even conservatives don't always remember what it is we're supposed to be conserving.

Charlie excelled at what he did well. Staffing TPUSA with the best and brightest was not one of those things. Exemplifying discernment in the selection of friends and whom to trust was also not one of those things.

A pedophile migrant was facing deportation after he molested a 5 year old girl and failed to declare his conviction. Until Judge Paul Lodato stepped in. Lodato called the migrant’s actions an “honest mistake” and BLOCKED HIS DEPORTATION. And this isn’t the first time. Other outrageous rulings by Judge Lodato include: >he declared an adult migrant with ‘deep forehead wrinkles’ and a ‘protruding Adam’s apple’ is actually a child >he blocked the deportation of a pedophile migrant and said “he did not cause any actual harm, let alone serious harm” >he blocked the deportation an Iraqi migrant who told an “implausible” story and lied to claim asylum Judge Lodato is everything wrong with the British judiciary. He is wholly unfit to wear the robe and wig. He deserves to be named, shamed, and disbarred.

Swedish sheep farmers are locking their sheep inside to prevent them from being slaughtered during the night when Muslims ”celebrate” Eid. ”Anna’s sheep was slaughtered in the field” -You can see how they have stabbed it with a knife just a few meters from the pen, where there are bloodstains, then they dragged it to the ditch and left the entrails behind, which they didn’t want from the animal. Under her post, there are many comments from farmers confirming that they’ve also lost sheep and are now locking them inside. This is the new Sweden, where our sheep can't even live safely.

A bartender in Galveston, Texas was arrested for serving a drunk customer who killed someone. She makes $25 an hour. A federal judge makes $236,000 a year and has absolute legal immunity for every decision on the bench, including releasing violent offenders who kill again. 42 states have dram shop laws. The bartender’s causation chain has two links: pour drink, person crashes. Exposed window? Sometimes three hours. She can be charged with criminal negligence, sued in civil court, and lose her livelihood. All for failing to eyeball whether a guy at a crowded bar was too drunk for one more round. The judge has a pre-sentencing report, a criminal history score, a risk assessment algorithm, victim impact statements, and a prosecutor arguing the case in front of them. Every tool the system can produce. And when they get it wrong? Nothing. Absolute judicial immunity, codified since Bradley v. Fisher in 1871, means a judge cannot be sued for any act performed in judicial capacity. How absolute? In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Stump v. Sparkman that a judge who signed a petition to sterilize a 15-year-old girl without her knowledge or consent was fully immune. The court acknowledged the act was reprehensible. Didn’t matter. Judicial act, judicial immunity, case closed. That precedent still controls today. The recidivism data is where this gets obscene. The U.S. Sentencing Commission tracked violent offenders released in 2010 across eight years. 63.8% were rearrested. Median time to rearrest: 16 months. These numbers haven’t moved in two decades. The 2005 cohort and the 2010 cohort produced statistically identical outcomes. Judges aren’t making unpredictable calls. They’re making well-documented bets with other people’s lives, and the base rates have been published and available the entire time. The bartender gets three hours of ambiguous signals. The judge gets the full weight of the federal data apparatus. One of them can go to prison for getting it wrong. The other can’t even be named in a civil suit.

Rush Limbaugh was right...you can't partner with countries like Russia, China and Iran...you can only compete against them... Because they're not interested in mutually beneficial cooperation....for them it's a zero sum game and you're naive if you don't understand that from the outset This is the mistake America made in thinking economic cooperation with China would get them to change their behavior It's the mistake Europe made in thinking that economic interdependence with Russia would get Russia to set aside their imperial aspirations It's the mistake Obama made in thinking he could appeal to the "moderates" in Iran You can't change the nature of an authoritarian state

Yes, they did. This is an indisputable fact backed by the Mueller Report, all U.S. intel agencies, and the bipartisan (Republican-led) Senate Intel Committee. Russia ran a massive and aggressive operation, spending $1.25 million a month to target Americans. They literally hacked the DNC & Podesta emails, then leaked damaging material via WikiLeaks. This was all confirmed by Marco Rubio & the rest of the Senate Intel Committee back in 2019-2020. None of this is to say that the election was stolen. Trump won fair & square in 2016 and in 2024, and no serious person disagrees with that fact. But to be clear: Russian INTERFERENCE in 2016 is not debatable. Russian COLLUSION between the Trump campaign & the Russians was the hoax.

@AlHendiify Shakespeare was 500 years ago. You can still read it. Well, I can. You apparently suffer from terminal brain death.

Now show us 10,000 years worth of safely stored waste and how you communicate to a society 500 years into the future that no longer speaks the same language that this is an incredibly dangerous material.

For those who don't know, the men's volleyball net is several inches higher than the women's in order to reduce the risk of injury from face spikes. So, when a man plays on a women's team the risk of injury for the women players increases dramatically.

It happened exclusively because of online censorship. You simply couldn’t be an open conservative online (or in many left wing companies/ universities) for like a decade. The end result was things like mainstream democrats advocating for government taking children away from parents if they didn’t transition them or abolish prisons. I think about this quote a lot: “So the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it—perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection, opposition, and contumely; this is the trial heat which innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old; out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole.”

@AGHamilton29 Because America First has always been America last.

Let’s put aside the daily Israel obsession… How does anyone believe that a podcast host who spends all of his time shilling for America’s enemies and pushing non-stop anti-American lines is actually “America first”? This guy consistently sides with China, Russia, Iran, and every other regime that hates us… He constantly argues that we should cede power and alliances. He consistently tries to demoralize Americans and blame us for all the bad things in the world. There’s a reason Tucker is promoted on Iranian, Russian, and Chinese state media almost every other day. The guy is the clearest example of an enemy agent I’ve ever seen in my life. And it drives me crazy that there are so many people who refuse to see it.

This is the most amazing encapsulation of Code Pink leftism that I've ever seen. Going to an oppressed nation, showing solidarity with the oppressors, going around taking photos of poverty from tour buses, & then having a big party that takes down the electric grid. Perfection.

Interesting findings from this study. 🤔😄 Attractive female students no longer earned higher grades when classes moved online during COVID-19. "When education is in-person, attractive students receive higher grades in non-quantitative subjects, in which teachers tend to interact more with students compared to quantitative courses. This finding holds both for males and females." A Swedish university study found that attractive female students got higher grades in subjective, non-quantitative courses during in-person teaching, but that edge vanished when classes moved online, while the male beauty premium stayed. 307 students across 5 cohorts were rated for attractiveness by 74 independent judges, and the pandemic created a natural split where the same kinds of courses were taught first face-to-face and then remotely. That matters because quantitative courses are graded mostly by exams, while non-quantitative courses leave more room for teacher judgment, so when female students lost the premium only after visibility dropped, the most likely explanation was not skill but the halo effect, where appearance quietly gets mistaken for ability. i.e. when evaluation becomes more anonymous and less face-driven, grades look more like performance and less like perception. My read is that this is less a story about beauty than about how fragile “objective” grading becomes once human impression enters the room. --- techfixated .com/attractive-female-students-got-better-grades-until-classes-went-online/