After all, the number of murders fall in proportion to IE's market share, implying that IE drives people to murder. Therefore, in order to reduce murders even more everyone should abandon using IE.
Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
This pertains to an experience I had recently while travelling (sic) on a Public Transit bus in Fall of 2012.So far two instances of domestic abuse perpetrated by the women in the relationship and these guys don't dare report it? Is this yet another example of how society has now been programmed to automatically assume something that isn't true because the victim happens to be male?
Four male student's were standing just beside me in the isle. These young fellows obviously knew each other and were friends as part of their discussion was related to adventures between the previous year and the current one. Of course for me sitting there, it was hard not to overhear because they were right there and carrying on their conversation quite openly, so I listened a bit because honestly I was pretty well bored.
They started talking about their girlfriends and some general adventures, just the usual surface type of chat but that quickly changed. One of these fellows (Friend A) had a bruise on his face and he said to the others that his girlfriend had done that to him because he did something she didn't like. As this fellow related his tale and expanded on similar such occurrences, being hit with objects, punched and even kicked, another of his friends said, “Yeah my girlfriend is even worse than that, she has yours beat by a mile”.
Friend B started to relate a story of how he and his girlfriend went shopping and that on arrival at home he was going upstairs with the groceries and she was angry over not having picked up something or other at the store and blaming him for not thinking of it. He then related how after he put the groceries down at the top of the stairs and was about to go back down to get the last bags, she kicked him in the back and he went down the stairs hard which resulted in him breaking his leg and having to get a cast which ruined his summer. His friends asked him what he did about it and he related that the doctor at the hospital asked him how it happened and he told the Doctor he had a bicycling accident. His Friend C asked him why he said that to the Doctor and he replied with, if I told him what happened, he wouldn’t have believed me and likely I would have gotten into some kind of trouble. I looked up at this moment only to see all 4 nodding in agreement and a couple of them saying “yeah, that was smart thing to do”. I was to say the least “shocked” but not surprised given the issues I have been through personally.
Friend C then related that a couple of years previously he was injured by his no[w] EX Girlfriend for not being on time for something or other and how she hit him with an object that had cut his arm open, requiring stitches at the hospital. He said that he went to the hospital and not thinking, he told them that his Girlfriend had done this to him because she was mad at him. [T]he hospital called the Police and the Police...questioned him and almost mocked him and told him that they thought she was defending herself from him and they wanted her phone number to talk to her, so he gave them the number. [W]hen one of the officer's went off to call, the other officer who stayed behind asked him very accusatory questions and...the hospital staff seemed to be hostile towards him while treating him... When the first officer returned he told him that he was lucky he wasn't pressing charges because his girlfriend confirmed what Friend C had told them. When he asked the police officer if they would charge her, they both laughed at him and said “Not likely” and they laughingly told the hospital staff, “This guy's ok, just stupid”. Again all 4 friends nodding even more vigorously in agreement.. and the others saying, yeah, don't ever do that again bud. None of them were laughing or obviously thinking it was funny. All the while Friend D was quiet but nodding in agreement and looking a bit disturbed by the conversation as it was proceeding.Again, an assumption is made that it was the male who committed the acts of domestic violence even though the woman didn't have a mark on her, the man was beaten and lying unconscious, and the woman stated he hadn't done anything to her. They arrested him “because it is the law.” If that were indeed the case, with the law stating only the man must be arrested, then that law is unconstitutional. (Somehow I doubt that's the case. Rather it was the prejudice by the arresting officers assuming he was the violent one even though there was plenty of prima facia evidence that she was the perpetrator.)
The [three] friends looked at the [four]th friend, Friend D, and asked him why he was so quiet. He answered with, “Well, I wish I had been smarter and knew better, if only I had known.” Well with their curiosity peaked (sic)...they pressed him to tell. Very uncomfortably he said that he's been charged and is facing court soon because his girlfriend went into some rage over him seeing another girl somewhere, but that she didn't know this girl was his cousin. Friend D said that when he went home she was in a rage and started throwing things at him and kicked & punched him and that he just tried to defend himself while attempting to explain that it was his cousin. She eventually hit him a pot or pan (I didn't quite catch it) which knocked him out. He then related how he hadn't hit her or anything and just put his hands and arms in the way of her blows and he showed his friends some bruises and cuts on his arms by pulling up his sleeves. But that after she knocked him out and he regained consciousness the Police had arrived on the scene because a neighbour (sic) had reported Domestic Violence going on. The Police, while arresting him, were talking to his girlfriend and she was telling them that “He didn't hit me or anything” and the officer said that he had to charge him anyways under the law and that she could not do anything about it because they were called to the scene.
Friend D said that he's toast, [that his] lawyer said that he will be convicted no matter what at this point and that even with his girlfriend signing a statement that he never touched her and it was all a misunderstanding, he almost broke down... he said, “I'm not even going to be able to finish my career now because if I have a criminal conviction I won't be able to finish and get a job in what I want to do... It's all over because of that stupid B and now she's off doing whatever to some other poor Effer.” The 3 friends were consoling him as the bus arrived at their stop and the[y] debarked.So it seems there's a presumption of guilt. If “Friend D” was indeed being truthful about what he experienced, then there's something seriously broken in our legal system. After decades of lobbying and pushing through legislation like The Violence Against Women Act that seriously skews the perceptions of domestic violence – that the man is always the perpetrator – the unintended consequences are now being felt by those who are on the receiving end of such violence.
People just don't get it. They don't know what's good for them. They're dumb. And they just want to complain. That sums up most of what Windows 8 advocates and even Microsoft says about people who simply don't WANT to use this OS. Look, this is really very simple. If you make a car no one wants to drive you had better go back and make something else if you want to stay in the car business. You don't complain that no one wants to buy your car and you don't blame them for poor design. The market is going to buy what it wants. You can make that and profit or make what you want and shoot for a niche.I know when it comes time to replace my wife's computer I'm going to do my best to make sure it has Windows 7 installed. The last thing I want to do is spend a boatload of time trying to help her figure out the Windows 8 interface. Both she and I have better things to do with our time.
The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.Obama has been arrogant his entire career and that arrogance carried forward into the White House. Like all arrogant men, their arrogance often leads to a downfall. In this case it has fed the prejudices of Obama's underlings and set the tone for his administration. To them they thought nothing was forbidden to them and they worked to destroy anyone foolish enough to question The One. Now that work is coming back to haunt them and their Dear Leader, and rightfully so.
As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not.
Recently a loud protest was underway in NY City on 3rd Ave and 32nd St. What was it about? Who was protesting?They went to an expensive liberal arts college and got a degree in order to get jobs at a pizza joint? What is wrong with this picture? They could have gotten the same job at Domino's while still in high school and saved $200,000 by not going to college. A follow on comment asked “I wonder what degrees they earned? Maybe something that ended in 'Studies'?”
The delivery crew from a Dominos Pizza site was on the warpath about its wages, protesting as loudly as possible. There were a few dozen and they were given space near the sidewalk to march with their signs and chant about the evils of corporate operations, though this time it was more about olive oil rather than crude oil.
Several policemen were assigned to the protest to ensure order, though, due to the noise, the stretch of sidewalk was largely avoided by pedestrians. The protestors remained in the area delineated by the blue saw-horses that had been delivered earlier by the police department.
A couple of protestors carried signs that said, "I didn't spend so much on tuition as Swarthmore so I could be paid so little at Dominos."
“If prices are information, then subsidies are censorship.” - Russ NelsonAnyone with a modicum of economics knowledge knows that prices are a means of feedback in a market economy. Subsidies distort feedback and skew prices, causing them to rise or fall from their normal level depending upon what is being subsidized and why. In the end it causes a distortion in the marketplace which will hurt some other part of the market.
It takes a community organizer to raze a village (and a country).There's little I can add to that.
If you want to introduce someone to libertarian thinking, encourage them to try this experiment. Spend a few days reading nothing but technology news. Then spend a few days reading nothing but political news. For the first few days they’ll see an exciting world of innovation and creativity where everything is getting better all the time. In the second period they’ll see a miserable world of cynicism and treachery where everything is falling apart. Then ask them to explain the difference.Call it another case of willful cognitive dissonance if they still believe both at the same time.
...liberals will get you killed. Yes, killed. Modern liberalism kills people, and does so by the millions, all in the name of humanity, of course. It should have a warning label that asks you not to practice liberalism at home, or something along the lines of "I am a trained professional, do not attempt liberalism on your own."While some of you out there may disagree with the opinion expressed above, there's plenty of history to prove that it is accurate. I could go into a lengthy description of how this is so, but Diplomad did a far better job of it than I could, so I suggest you read his post.
Liberals hate all sorts of people but their special, most lethal hatred is reserved for the poor and the "uneducated." They kill the poor by the bushel, by the ton, by the hectare . . . they kill them at home and abroad. No poor person is safe from the lethal loving embrace of the liberals.
Liberal welfare policies create havoc throughout our society. What slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, and racial discrimination could not do, liberal polices have done, to wit, destroy the black family and turn millions of blacks into permanent wards of the state and of the liberal political machines that control most of our cities.The constantly rising minimum wage pushed by liberals has, with very few exceptions, led to higher unemployment for the very people it was supposed to 'help'. (The only time in my memory when that wasn't the case was when labor was in such short supply employers were offering pay above the minimum wage in order to find the entry level workers they needed.) Raising the minimum wage during this latest, seemingly endless recession hasn't helped anyone, despite liberal claims that it would provide a living wage for those supporting a family. All it did was artificially raise the cost of labor, making it less likely employers would hire more workers. In some cases it caused them to shed workers because they couldn't afford to keep some of their employees at the higher wages. (The last thing you want to do during a recession is make it more expensive to run a business, something the liberals conveniently ignore, or worse, don't understand.)
Liberal minimum wage laws ensure the disappearance of the starter jobs, once a platform for the poor to spring out of poverty. All of these people, the old poor and the newly arriving poor, need, of course, social programs and more and more government help. The liberal political machine dispenses jobs and money, and the productive sectors face rising taxes, a labyrinth of regulations, and the constant presence of "helpful" government regulators and enforcers. Let the poverty and misery spread!
Liberal gun control policies also target the poor. The poor in our cities must live with the drug dealers, gang bangers, and the other hoods in the hood. The comfortable liberals live in secure high-rises, and tony suburbs well protected by overpaid and over equipped police and fire departments and expensive security firms. The poor must put up with the inability to defend themselves; they must allow themselves to be murdered in the name of ridding America of gun violence.We've seen the effects of this in cities all across America, where gun control laws are so draconian only the criminals carry guns. The law abiding citizens are left defenseless, unable by law to defend themselves. This has worked out so well in places like Detroit, Chicago, and Washington DC. How many innocents have died because liberals have worked so hard to make their built-in constituencies prey to criminals? In every state that has instituted “shall issue” CCW laws, the violent crime rate has fallen, in some cases dramatically. But liberals wail that such laws will lead to blood in the streets because of “OK Corral” or “High Noon” type shootouts despite overwhelming evidence that just the opposite is true. Since the evidence goes against the narrative, the liberal 'betters' ignore it or try to bury it, hence the “If it saves just one life” argument so often used as justification. But they never ask about the many others who will die instead because the only means they had of defending themselves was stripped from them.