Shotgun

Oh, you have not been paying attention. http://www.bakadesuyo.com/?sort=bestmatch&search=Commercials That was pretty vague since they didn't say how many of the 477 commercials portrayed men as inept. But it has nothing to do with me paying attention. It has to do with what I watch. I don't own a TV, so generally the only commercials I see are on hulu, which are somewhat tailored to the viewer. By now they've figured out not to show me commercials about domestic chores, so it's likely I haven't seen any of the commercials they're talking about in your link.

First of all, I think you're exaggerating with "majority." I can't even think of a recent commercial I've seen that bashed men, but maybe the shows I watch don't attract that type of commercial. Anyhow, this has little to do with men's rights. It has to do with a company's right to free speech and a consumer's right to not buy from companies he finds offensive.

I hear that men sometimes get a bad deal in divorce court, but I don't have any personal experience with this. My parents were divorced, but I don't think my dad feels like the courts screwed him over. Same thing with my step-dad, who divorced his first wife. I've been divorced myself (no kids), and I didn't take anything from my ex. And I know a lot of happily married couples with children (many of them grown children now), so it is quite possible to have that. Of course nothing is guaranteed in this world, but having a strong relationship/family is largely up to you - who you choose and how much effort you put into making it work. Single men can adopt. It is generally harder for single people to get approved, but it is possible. There are a lot of independent women these days who don't expect a man to pay for everything. So this depends on who you choose to date. This would also be an important consideration if you are eventually wanting to get married. This may be true. I do think that police and courts tend to be a little bit easier on women. But then, aside from the possibility of being falsely accused of something, you could choose to never get arrested.

OK. So is there another way that you feel your rights are being infringed because you're a man? (Again, open to anyone here.) I don't want to imply that there are no issues here. I think the struggle for "fairness" will always be around, and there is rarely a perfect solution. I feel fortunate, as a woman, to not feel generally disadvantaged in my time, but I also don't see men as being generally disadvantaged.

Do you feel like you're living a lifetime of slavery? (Not just you; I'm curious if any of the guys posting in here feel that way.)

Already Have http://news.yahoo.com/romney-early-us-response-attacks-disgrace-031350301--election.html That did not take long, Mitt's always a classy guy. He gave you what you were "waiting for." You started a thread about this apparently to make it about Romney. Just sayin'.....

You can deplore what someone says without attacking his right to say it. So I don't think she made an "attack on free speech."

OK, I think you win for most vivid imagination in this thread. You're obviously not counting the ones who think he's innocent. Yes, I am. And I've seen some pretty imaginative stuff in this thread. But turning Zimmerman into a serial killer tops them all. Anyhow, I doubt that you're serious. But if you are, I'll just leave you to your opinion.

??? Are you serious? If he gets away with his first murder he'll go for a second. How did you come to this conclusion? That's how serial killers operate. Yeah, he's already up to "1". (Hey ...even Ted Bundy had to start somewhere.) The next time his 'self defence' alibi will be even easier as everyone would expect him to be attacked. He'll be paranoid and well armed. He'll still have a thing about black guys. He'll have a sense of grievance about the time he's spent in prison but elation that he's finally got away with it. Just a little patience and he can make sure he gets himself into a situation where he can bait and murder again. He'll also almost certainly escalate to a double or triple murder just to show how 'outnumbered' he was. OK, I think you win for most vivid imagination in this thread.

I think he was agreeing with you. And I agree too. Even if he is found "not guilty" or the case is dismissed, he will probably never be "free" or safe again.

??? Are you serious? If he gets away with his first murder he'll go for a second. How did you come to this conclusion?

??? Are you serious?

Wow, a book has already been written: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/11/2997023/zimmermans-best-friend-pens-book.html Defending Our Friend: The Most Hated Man in America

You responded to the second paragraph as condescension not the first. I read it as a reply to the first paragraph.

Hey, he's setting a good example by recycling.

I think it's a shame that third party Presidential candidates really have no chance of winning. Yes, there are a couple of third party candidates that I probably like better than the "main two," but I know they have no chance of winning. And since I feel pretty strongly about who I like better of the main two, I'd rather use my vote to help that person win. What could be changed that would make way for someone other than D/R to have a real chance at becoming President? I know I'm contributing to the problem by not casting a vote for who I really want, but until something changes, I would feel like I was wasting my vote.

In some situations, yes.

I think he's full of shit and deliberately lied. There is a huge difference between his unimpressive real time of 4:01 (average guy) and 2:5x (super for a non-professional athlete). You would either have to be senile or lying deliberately to mix up those finish times. Hey, I don't know much about running. I ran in a 5K about two years ago, and I don't remember now what my time was. I wouldn't even know what is considered an average or excellent time (off the top of my head). So I guess it made sense to me that he could make such a mistake. Anyhow, I doubt this one thing will change anyone's vote one way or another. Anyone who cares about this, probably wasn't going to vote for him anyway. And some of us who don't care about this weren't going to vote for him anyway.

Reading the transcript, I get the impression that he wasn't intentionally lying. It was a long time ago, and it doesn't sound like he's made a hobby of running races since then, so he probably didn't remember what his time was (maybe he could have just said that, but everyone makes mistakes). I mean, he's a VP candidate, and he must know that lots of people are watching him closely to find any little thing to make a big deal about. And he has nothing to gain by lying about it, so it makes no sense that he would intentionally lie about such a silly thing.

A recreational user is like a social drinker, an in fact the majority of people who do any drug are recreational users, why? Is this a rcreational user??? http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA12DEHO1%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018 Hard to say. Obviously someone who had too much and/or a bad reaction to the drug. And of course, with illegal drugs, there's really no telling what drug the person was actually on since there are no standards for manufacturing/selling/marketing these drugs. Anyhow, I'm sure alcohol is by far the drug involved in most homicides and manslaughters (when there is a drug involved). And I don't think these incidents always involve alcohol addicts or even problem drinkers; some probably involve recreational users (social drinkers).

I see. Well, may the Green Fairy bring you peace, love, and happiness.

So you like his racism? I don't like the racism, but I appreciate the honesty.

Well, there's this one black lesbian who might vote for him. But she was drunk when she said that, so who knows... http://www.salon.com/2012/08/29/this_black_lesbian_might_vote_for_romney/ And then there's the African Americans for Mitt Romney on facebook. But yeah, the numbers are probably pretty small, for reasons that others have mentioned. I have to admit I enjoyed Samuel Jackson's candid interview where he talked about why he voted for Obama: http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/politics_of_color_MDmhUI8zFK19t18kHfrI0M Not saying I agree with him, but I like his honesty.

From a sample size of "just 120 African American voters," I wouldn't expect very accurate results.

As opposed to the dumb shits who think it's cool to live in a society of alcoholics rather than making booze illegal?