Attorney: 'Busty' teen kicked out of class for wearing this outfit

[Shake n Blake]

(09-22-2017, 01:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sound like Trump is just "playing the room" with moves like that.

We all know that there is no need for any days of recognition from the WH for anyone.

I guess you really are going to twist it into a bad thing.

[Benton]

(09-22-2017, 10:52 AM)Vlad Wrote: Caught my fish! LOL

It doesn't have to be said, nor even taught...but whether from God or mother nature, it can't be refuted that the female breast was intended to attract males...
Don't know about Dino but it works on me! LOL

The human female is the only species of animal that have completely formed breasts at all times...so what other reason would there be other than to attract males?
Every other animal form breasts only when it comes time to give birth, when they are lactating.

Now a cow is different, they always have boobs because they are always lactating.

Even the 1957 Cadillac was designed to attract male buyers by its boob emulating bumper.
Designed by GM's Harley Earl who was inspired by God to do so.
http://www.sirensofchrome.com/sirens/?p=523

(09-22-2017, 11:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, speaking from an evolution standpoint, enlarged breasts on human females are a way to attract males. As humans evolved to walk upright, we separated ourselves from the rest of our ape kin. Females in the rest of the apes and monkeys tend to use their buttocks to attract males, but as we started walking upright our interactions became less buttocks-centric. Because of this the breasts on the female evolved to enlarge through natural selection. Why? Ever compared the cleavage of a female's breasts and her butt? It is designed to look similar because that is what our primal brains are attracted to, generally speaking.

Meh, I just don't like the inference that 'God did it, so chicks just gotta deal.'

My ancestors did pee on rocks and trees and open ground based on their physiology and geography. I can pee on rocks and trees and open ground. So, when I whip out my willy and whiz all over the Waffle Hut counter, it's God's fault.

[GMDino]

(09-22-2017, 01:29 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I guess you really are going to twist it into a bad thing.

Not me.  Others here had said we don't need such proclamations.  People that need the WH to tell them they are special are "fragile".

I think they are good things.

[Benton]

(09-22-2017, 12:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yeah I know about the other POW day. So we're going to twist him making an extra day of recognition as a bad thing? C'mon now.

You're reaching with the Generals thing. 


You're right, but one side certainly has more influence over the mainstream media. It's difficult to find news that doesn't have a left slant these days. Even in sports. PFT, ESPN, CBS are all sites/channels I've been following for years, and they haven't even bothered pretending to be neutral lately. I often click on Yahoo just to see what new ways they'll bash Trump. They literally post 4-5 bash articles every day, varying in ridiculousness.

I guess much of my frustration comes from that. I get that both parties hate each other and constantly struggle for power, but I wish the media could be neutral. I'd like to hear more about the positive things Trump is accomplishing without having to search. I'm tired of seeing a negative spin put on every move he makes. Sports media shouldn't be talking politics at all.

Part of the problem, IMO, is you report what the story is.

Right now, Trump is President. He's the story. He's making some good decisions and a lot of questionable ones. He's honoring some campaign promises, he's backing out of others. It's news because he is the POTUS. Same way as when Obama was POTUS, his decisions were examined, his commitments questioned. To me, that's where bias comes in.

If an outlet has a "negative" story on Trump, maybe it's because they're just reporting what he did or didn't do; it's up to the reader to determine if it's a good thing or bad thing. Like the wall. First it was 'I'm building a wall, and they're paying for it.' You know the progression from there. It's newsworthy because he's — from the sound of it — given up on the issue, which was a big deal to some of his constituents. It's not negative, it's just his action and how you, the media user, interpret it. Personally, I think the wall is a giant waste of money, so I view the stories as positive.

But the bias comes in with outlets that, instead of doing anything or downplaying whenever a new issue with the wall comes up, they just focus on something else... like emails or Obama or some other irrelevant issue.

And the same is true across the board. Like the 'Trump gets too many scoops of ice cream' story. Surely there was something more newsworthy. But that was one far end of the spectrum, just like the pro-Trump coverups are on the other far end. I think the bulk of news is somewhere in the middle. We just interpret it one way or the other based off our own prejudices.

[BmorePat87]

(09-22-2017, 12:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yeah I know about the other POW day. So we're going to twist him making an extra day of recognition as a bad thing? C'mon now.

No, but I don't think it makes up for disparaging POW's. 

[Shake n Blake]

(09-22-2017, 01:48 PM)Benton Wrote: Part of the problem, IMO, is you report what the story is.

Right now, Trump is President. He's the story. He's making some good decisions and a lot of questionable ones. He's honoring some campaign promises, he's backing out of others. It's news because he is the POTUS. Same way as when Obama was POTUS, his decisions were examined, his commitments questioned. To me, that's where bias comes in.

If an outlet has a "negative" story on Trump, maybe it's because they're just reporting what he did or didn't do; it's up to the reader to determine if it's a good thing or bad thing. Like the wall. First it was 'I'm building a wall, and they're paying for it.' You know the progression from there. It's newsworthy because he's — from the sound of it — given up on the issue, which was a big deal to some of his constituents. It's not negative, it's just his action and how you, the media user, interpret it. Personally, I think the wall is a giant waste of money, so I view the stories as positive.

But the bias comes in with outlets that, instead of doing anything or downplaying whenever a new issue with the wall comes up, they just focus on something else... like emails or Obama or some other irrelevant issue.

And the same is true across the board. Like the 'Trump gets too many scoops of ice cream' story. Surely there was something more newsworthy. But that was one far end of the spectrum, just like the pro-Trump coverups are on the other far end. I think the bulk of news is somewhere in the middle. We just interpret it one way or the other based off our own prejudices.

See the thing is, I would have no problem if it were just news outlets reporting on Trump's actions and leaving interpretation of those actions up to the reader. Way too often, they put a negative spin on everything the man does. Even things that would seemingly be viewed as a positive are spun into a negative. I realize there's plenty of negative to talk about (I feel that way about every president), but when you constantly put a negative spin on everything and highlight nothing positive, I start to tune out. There is a distinct difference in the way Trump and Bush were/are treated by the media compared to the way Obama was treated. 

It's not just Trump though. Most sports sites have praised Kaepernick as a hero and feigned ignorance as to why there's backlash. Bruce Jenner wins the courage award over more worthy candidates. Hundreds of sports and news outlets refusing to say "Redskins" or railing against that Dan Snyder for refusing to change the name. North Carolina was slammed for the bathroom bill. These are just a few of the bigger examples, but anytime sports sites (or news sites) get political these days, it seems they side with the left point of view, rather than maintaining a neutral stance and recognizing that many of their viewers/readers are on the other side of that moral fence.

(09-22-2017, 01:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, but I don't think it makes up for disparaging POW's. 

I think his actions as a President are more important than his words as a citizen.

[BmorePat87]

(09-22-2017, 02:25 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I think his actions as a President are more important than his words as a citizen.

Well, they were his words as a candidate for President, but I tend to agree that what someone does in office matters more than their words before. That doesn't mean, however, that a throw away gesture makes up for such a disrespectful statement. 

[Benton]

(09-22-2017, 02:25 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: See the thing is, I would have no problem if it were just news outlets reporting on Trump's actions and leaving interpretation of those actions up to the reader. Way too often, they put a negative spin on everything the man does. Even things that would seemingly be viewed as a positive are spun into a negative.  

I understand. I guess I'm looking at it from the other side of the table.

Probably a fifth or so of the stories I do, I get someone complaining that they weren't covered fairly or were painted in a bad light. I used to take it personal, go back through my notes or recordings and make sure I hadn't missed something. the problem usually wasn't what was said in an interview or public meeting, it's what wasn't said because nobody said it.

Case in point, I've got a public figure who uses his office to deny services to a public entity because a few years ago they didn't consult his office and spent money in ways he didn't like. That's the nutshell. Well, every few meetings they ask for access to things they've paid for with taxpayer money, and every meeting he denies them. So every meeting that happens, I run a story saying the entity asked for whatever, and his office denied it.

Because I'm being negative? No, because it involves taxpayer money and public officials.

On the other hand, several of the phone calls, emails and letters I've gotten are pretty upset with me, not because I've printed anything false, but because I haven't searched out stories to put him in a better light.

Quote:I realize there's plenty of negative to talk about (I feel that way about every president), but when you constantly put a negative spin on everything and highlight nothing positive, I start to tune out. There is a distinct difference in the way Trump and Bush were/are treated by the media compared to the way Obama was treated. 


It's not just Trump though. Most sports sites have praised Kaepernick as a hero and feigned ignorance as to why there's backlash. Bruce Jenner wins the courage award over more worthy candidates. Hundreds of sports and news outlets refusing to say "Redskins" or railing against that Dan Snyder for refusing to change the name. North Carolina was slammed for the bathroom bill. These are just a few of the bigger examples, but anytime sports sites (or news sites) get political these days, it seems they side with the left point of view, rather than maintaining a neutral stance and recognizing that many of their viewers/readers are on the other side of that moral fence.


I think his actions as a President are more important than his words as a citizen.

Just out of curiosity, do you get most of your news from the internet?

The reason I'm asking is, as you probably already know, sites use your data to influence what the internet suggests for you. It happens on social media, search engines like Google, web sites. It's been a discussion for a couple years now (and more with all the fake news from the last election) in my industry on how big of an impact that's having both on perception and actual readership.

Like, say you Google "second amendment rights" a lot, and visit Breitbart a lot. Chances are, sites (in an effort to keep you coming back) are going to give you something pro-2nd based on your history. On the other hand, same Google search, but you visit HuffPo a lot, you might get something from sites on why guns are bad. In other words, to keep you coming back, sites tell you what they think you want to hear.

Which doesn't do anything to explain ESPN or the like supporting Jenner's courageous woman thing, but TV news hasn't hidden their bias since cable news went live. I realize I'm riding a dinosaur, but that's why I still get most of my news from a paper or magazine. It's more trustworthy than the internet and less polarized that television.

[Au165]

This thread has gone way out there haha.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 10:52 AM)Vlad Wrote: Caught my fish! LOL

It doesn't have to be said, nor even taught...but whether from God or mother nature, it can't be refuted that the female breast was intended to attract males...
Don't know about Dino but it works on me! LOL

The human female is the only species of animal that have completely formed breasts at all times...so what other reason would there be other than to attract males?
Every other animal form breasts only when it comes time to give birth, when they are lactating.

Now a cow is different, they always have boobs because they are always lactating.

Even the 1957 Cadillac was designed to attract male buyers by its boob emulating bumper.
Designed by GM's Harley Earl who was inspired by God to do so.
http://www.sirensofchrome.com/sirens/?p=523

All I heard was, "You can milk anything with nipples."

[Shake n Blake]

(09-22-2017, 03:14 PM)Benton Wrote: I understand. I guess I'm looking at it from the other side of the table.

Probably a fifth or so of the stories I do, I get someone complaining that they weren't covered fairly or were painted in a bad light. I used to take it personal, go back through my notes or recordings and make sure I hadn't missed something. the problem usually wasn't what was said in an interview or public meeting, it's what wasn't said because nobody said it.

Case in point, I've got a public figure who uses his office to deny services to a public entity because a few years ago they didn't consult his office and spent money in ways he didn't like. That's the nutshell. Well, every few meetings they ask for access to things they've paid for with taxpayer money, and every meeting he denies them. So every meeting that happens, I run a story saying the entity asked for whatever, and his office denied it.

Because I'm being negative? No, because it involves taxpayer money and public officials.

On the other hand, several of the phone calls, emails and letters I've gotten are pretty upset with me, not because I've printed anything false, but because I haven't searched out stories to put him in a better light.






Just out of curiosity, do you get most of your news from the internet?

The reason I'm asking is, as you probably already know, sites use your data to influence what the internet suggests for you. It happens on social media, search engines like Google, web sites. It's been a discussion for a couple years now (and more with all the fake news from the last election) in my industry on how big of an impact that's having both on perception and actual readership.

Like, say you Google "second amendment rights" a lot, and visit Breitbart a lot. Chances are, sites (in an effort to keep you coming back) are going to give you something pro-2nd based on your history. On the other hand, same Google search, but you visit HuffPo a lot, you might get something from sites on why guns are bad. In other words, to keep you coming back, sites tell you what they think you want to hear.

Which doesn't do anything to explain ESPN or the like supporting Jenner's courageous woman thing, but TV news hasn't hidden their bias since cable news went live. I realize I'm riding a dinosaur, but that's why I still get most of my news from a paper or magazine. It's more trustworthy than the internet and less polarized that television.

Yeah I do get most of my news from the net. CBS sports and PFT have probably been my top 2 sports sites for 10 years. I guess Florio has always leaned left, they've just been posting way more political themed stories for the last couple years or so. CBS used to just report on sports, but that's also changed over the last couple years.

I've had the same email (yahoo) for 12 years, so I usually wind up seeing their stories before I get to my mail. And yeah...most of their stuff is just links to articles from Huff post.

Any recommendations on neutral news and sports sites? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2017, 12:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yeah I know about the other POW day. So we're going to twist him making an extra day of recognition as a bad thing? C'mon now.

You're reaching with the Generals thing. 

I didn't twist into a bad thing. You brought it up, not me. You claimed actions speak louder than words. Trump's actual actions towards a veteran and former POW were disrespectful. Not only to McCain, but all POWs.

Whereas the proclamation is just words. Trump didn't do anything except sign a piece of paper. A piece of paper which doesn't actually do any more than Hallmark recognizing a second Boss's Day in addition to the original Boss's Day the same as a second POWs Day does the same thing as the original POW/MIA Day.

You think I'm reaching with the General's thing? Trump doesn't even know as much as a Private. So yes it is insulting when an idiot claims to know how to do your job even though they couldn't adequately perform any entry level position.

What do you do? I know just as much as you about your job even though I don't know what it is you do. Pretty stupid, right? Okay, so maybe it isn't insulting. It's just incredibly stupid.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2017, 03:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: This thread has gone way out there haha.

Must admit I have not participated. How did this possibly become to be about Trump?

[BmorePat87]

(09-27-2017, 05:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Must admit I have not participated. How did this possibly become to be about Trump?

This is how

(09-21-2017, 06:57 PM)Vlad Wrote: Some serious government overreach there bro.
 
It isn't a big deal. Governments role in public education was established the 1780's.
 
Dress codes have been around forever and have zero do with government overreach, but a lot to do with liberal overreach because the liberal of today needs to find something new to ***** about or they're not happy.

(09-21-2017, 10:59 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: That's really all it boils down to, and these agenda's and liberal games constantly lead to people playing victim for 15 minutes of fame (or a payday), which only speeds the downfall of this country. People are becoming entitled b****s with zero respect for authority of any kind, whether it be teachers, military, police or the POTUS.

(09-21-2017, 11:18 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Spoiled, entitled bitches like Trump disrespecting POWs or our generals?

[Benton]

(09-23-2017, 01:04 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yeah I do get most of my news from the net. CBS sports and PFT have probably been my top 2 sports sites for 10 years. I guess Florio has always leaned left, they've just been posting way more political themed stories for the last couple years or so. CBS used to just report on sports, but that's also changed over the last couple years.

I've had the same email (yahoo) for 12 years, so I usually wind up seeing their stories before I get to my mail. And yeah...most of their stuff is just links to articles from Huff post.

Any recommendations on neutral news and sports sites? 

Npr and BBC are about the only news sites I put a ton of faith in.

Sports, no clue. Most of what I get (news or sports) is from one of three old fashioned papers. Used to be four but the courier journal has gone a lot left these days. I don't know if that's because Bevin went after them or if Bevin went after them because they started it. No idea, but it's almost impossible to read anything without it being anti-Bevin or McConnell.