Yea military women do their job, which isn't the same as a military man's job because they can't do it. If women and men were treated equally to SEALs, then no one would pass the standard. There are different standards for the job you want. There are different standards for each branch. So which military fitness standard are you talking about? Pick any.
Male teachers are doing their job. Women in the military serve no purpose and only create problems. If women were treated equally they wouldn't pass any standard of military fitness. There's no reason to have women in the military, it is common sense since the dawn of man. It's a dumb gender experiment.
Really makes you think. You should have linked to the full story: http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/First-Alaska-woman-charged-with-possessing-child-pornography-gets-no-jail-time-397985081.html
ask my students to respect the need for gender-neutral language There is no "need" for such thing, just your stupid opinion, stop forcing it on your students She proceeded to tell me that the NAU English department, as well as the Modern Language Association, are pushing for gender-neutral language, and all students must abide by this,” Burn it with fire. Who the fuck is "the Modern Language Association" and who the fuck has given them authority to institute new speech!? Absolutely disgusting.
I dunno. I think it's silly to place nationalism on the right at all. The 1-dimensional political spectrum being arbitrary and simplistic to begin with. Why does being lefty on every issue but recognizing that people have national interests and that there are differences between groups of people suddenly put move you from the far left to the far right? really makes you think.
So reading and understanding without inventing facts is "white knighting" is it? Nope. Making up ad hoc excuses, not understanding anything when it makes a woman look bad and playing ignorant is white knighting. You know exactly that she's after his money, even if the article is silent on it it's a reasonable inference. the opposite claim, you implicit claim, that she has no lust for his millions, is an extraordinary claim on the other hand. You prove that, you prove that she has stipulated that…
Under the Human Rights Act they will have to interprete the act in accordance with the ECHR or if it's impossible issue a declaration of incompatibility.
ECHR isn't EU it covers all of Europe except Belarus and the Vatican City. Presumably though, the higher courts in the United Kingdom aren't big fans of eroding due process rights. UK doesn't have a constitutional limitations on what Parliament can do though so if the law is clear and unambiguous.
As always, play the ball not the player. You should tell that to Machester United, they could save hundreds of millions if they just focused on the ball and not the players.
Is washing your childs dick sexual? Is sticking an anal thermometer up his arse to take his temperature sodomizing? Is a rabbi sucking sucking/licking/kissing/whatever they do exactly/ a circumcision wound for ritualistic purposes oral sex? The answer to all three is no.
On the one hand I don't care what these weirdo minorities do. On the other it'd be nice to inconvenience jews and muslims so they might leave our countries.
Just as it does in the civil court system, where someone can lose a case and be forced to pay millions of dollars on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence. It's no way compariable to a civil court. While the standard of proof may be the same, in civil courts you are entitle to due process, discovery, calling in witnesses, cross examinations, a lawyer and an impartial judge.
We live in a world that allows women to walk over to the wall and flip a switch and get electricity and forget that virtually 100% of the work it takes to put that light in your wall is done by men. If men took a day off, society would absolutely collapse. If women took a day off you would have to make your on coffee. Women could take a whole day off, they could take a week off. It would be annoying. If men took a week off everything would stop running. There would be no power, there would be no…
That's a big if though. Another option would be to allow for post-natal abortions, there's no reason a father shouldn't have the same right to abort his child once it's outside the mothers body.
Baroness Deech says that far from doing women a favour, the law as it stands in England is both patronising and stops them being treated seriously in the workplace. Funny how equality legislation always has to be justified from the women's perspective.
Unfair alimony laws discourage men from getting married because of the risks. anti-small biz? Did you read the article? Scott’s veto is also bad for small business owners, business formation, and job creation in Florida. As I noted in 2013 in the Tampa Bay Times, “Gov. Rick Scott’s veto of a bipartisan alimony reform bill missed an opportunity to improve the state’s business climate… . Florida courts have discouraged the creation of small businesses through one-sided alimony rulings that ratchet…
I don't get where you get the idea that the term honor-killing is softening anything if you know what it is you it's a terrifying phenomenon, you are just a complete idiot to suggest such an insane though. You must not know what the term mean? How else can you suggest such nonsense? AND nobody ever said an honor killing isn't a murder where did you get that retarded idea from? From these equally retarted feminists?
No you are a fucking joke, you are actually claiming that prohibiting a useful term will help anything whatsoever and not obscure things. You are completely retarded.
IT IS BASED ON HONOR THAT'S THE MOTIVE YOU FUCKING IDIOT. HOW DO YOU PREVENT MURDERS? BY FINDING OUT WHY THEY HAPPEN. But you don't give a shit, fuck you and your insane newspeak. You can't make a problem disappear by removing it from the dictionary. You fucking lunatic.
It doesn't imply that it was justified you dumb fuck. It's a term that describes a murder with a specific motive. But we should ignore it exist because ???. Because it's a muslim problem so it needs to be swept under the rug.
Honor killings are a real phenomenom describing them as such calling them what they are prohibiting the term is prohibiting the truth and sweeping the problem under the rock.
the proposed Crime (Aggravated Murder of and Violence Against Women) Bill, which calls for the term “honour killing” to be banned Femishits just casually whitewashing islamic violence and controlling language. These tyrants have no place in civilization.
Indeed: "The Hamilton judge who wore a ‘Make America Great Again’ hat in court has been banned from trying cases - Justice Bernd Zabel, who declared his support for Donald Trump in court, is no longer presiding in court, according to a spokeswoman for the Ontario Court of Justice." Completely different jurisdiction though.
Sex is a marrital duty and the whole purpose of marriage is to facilitate the family even if it doesn't ultimately lead there. The institution has been perverted in recent times but whatever.
Law enforcement is "racist" because their job is to stop crime and black people are extremely criminal. Black neighbourhoods are high crime neighbourhoods. Racial profiling is criminal profiling.
The welfare state is the exploitation of the working class (mostly men, mostly whites) for the benefit of welfare-class (mostly women, mostly black and hispanic). Men's rights are white rights.
Women do make up fewer positions in tech and STEM fields in general. Seems like news reporting the facts to me. There is no lack of diversity anywhere ever.
"Royal priviledges are an insult to kings and queens". And the argument is fucking stupid. Women DO need quotas if they are to reach parity, if anything reality is an insult to women. Too bad.
I have nothing against women only hours, especially considering that Luton has an especially large Muslim community, That would be a reason to be against it.
And Western media always paint the west in a positive light, and russia, Iran etc in a bad light. I frankly do not know of any MSM source I would consider a very credible source in general. RT atleast creates some balance.
He had already been wronged five times. Wrongfully accused. wrongfully painted as a rapist in the media. The police and prosecution not investigating and charging her for her lies until after he has had to investigate and charge her himself. Being labelled as a rapist and an abuser again in the media after her suicide. And finally being charged from defending himself from the fathers defamation.
Wanting a workforce that matches the gender distribution of society is a good business practice for companies to do. Hmm yea I mean hmm, without 50% women we couldn't... hmm... I mean with too much testosterone in a lab you get.. hmm... And no maternity leave? we couldn't do without that I mean...
Well Westboro Baptist Church usually protest another event, it would be counter-productive to bomb-threaten them as you'll end up shutting both events down. Besides even if you are successful they will just go somewhere else.
The Universities are really in a clinch. Department of Education threatens them with removing funding if they afford due process, the courts will punish them if they don't.
Of course in many cases the child may be an accident. And whether or not it was an accident raising a child entails costs, child support is a answer to the question of who should bear that cost in case of a divorce or whatever. But it was just one example to rebut your argument which seemed to be based on a principle that debts must be based on agreement. Other examples: taxes, mandatory insurances, minimum wages.
He is involved in the accident, but to say he caused it is unfair. I disagree. Causation =/= exclusive cause. While he isn't the sole cause his involvement is still a but for-cause. This is especially true given that any damage from the accident can be prevented by the woman deciding not to allow there to be any damage from the accident (abortion). Of course the same is the case in accidents, the pedestrian didn't have to walk out on the sidewalk at the wrong time. The cyclist could have worn a …
Child support is a debt that most men never agreed to (how can it be legally binding). Not to say child support is fair, but this argument holds no water. If you cause an accident you are liable for damages for example, you never agreed to that either.
I don't believe any state directly criminalizes inability to pay, but the kicker is the presumption of wilful failure, it is up to you to prove you couldn't pay.
The problem is, we can't draft women for combat. Not only do they make worse soldiers than men, not only is there significant extra cost in drafting them for combat, but we simply can't draft them: any woman who doesn't want to get drafted can simply get pregnant. Pregnancies can be terminated. Besides you can draft people for non-combat roles.
They aren't qualified according to Gordon Food's specifications. Deparment of Labor says Gordon foods specifications are discriminatory and that the women are qualified under their own assesment of what the job requires.
Wrongfully recanted is also a possibility. Pressing charges for domestic abuse makes little sense, what hurts your spouse hurts you as well as long as you are staying together.
But regardless, it will be interesting to hear what Sessions' argument is for exempting women, since that may become relevant in the event he's successful and this comes down to a court battle. In the Rostker decision they reference Congress's reasoning for excluding women in their decision, so I feel that how this amendment is portrayed may be important. Hunter's "war is tough and we need to protect fragile little women" doesn't seem like something that would hold up in court, but if they have …
I think this is fundamentally a good idea - lack of accountability does cause people to say a bunch of hateful shit on the internet, and that is a problem. No it isn't. Hate is a fundamental human emotion and it is our right to express it.
Yours do. There's absolutely no reason to believe that they are speaking the truth and there is plenty of evidence that they are full of shit. The conclusion is obvious, it didn't happen. Granted it is not theoretically impossibility that it happened but there is no reason to believe that it did. Obama might be a reptilian from Antiga Prime, we can't be absolutely 100% sure that he isn't, but I'd still say it is obvious that he isn't.
You seriously believe 44% of the best jurists are jews? Do you seriously believe that all the best jurists in USA are jews and catholics from Harvard and Yale?
You're right. A financial abortion is more akin to an putting the child up for adoption which coincidentally a mother also has full competence to unilaterally decide.
This story is a tricky one. I completely agree with David’s stance, of course, and no innocent man should be subjected to such treatment. But the sad truth is we live in a world where bad things seem to happen on a regular basis. No we fucking don't. Stop feeding the hysteria.
No they aren't, and you're wrong. Mothers don't get to murder their babies. While they are in the womb they do. And when they come out they can murder them with far less punishment than anyone else.
As usual from feminists, nothing but lies and falsehoods. They are so used to it that they do not even attempt to say something factual, just flat-out make shit up on the spot.
