My Facebook reaction to this ad: https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/cbs-bbc-america-ban-tv-ad-that-depicts-menstruating-men/
But second, the only ones who young girls not properly educated on the biology of it (either by the fault of their parents or the education system), and, those messed up mentally into believing they are female when they are not. I wonder if that's the plan here? To further the mental manipulation of children who are being told it's okay to "think" you are a girl even though you are a boy.
And hey look for those guys who have been brainwashed into thinking they are girls here's a commercial to make you feel more comfortable about something that isn't natural and twenty years from now you'll be seeking therapy on for the rest of your life.
This ranks as #2 behind that horrid toxic masculinity garbage spewed out by Gillette earlier this year. I wonder if it was the same marketing morons who came up with it? I wonder if Jessica Yaniv works for this advertising firm?
If we weren't so horribly messed up in our sense of reality and trying to make boys into girls and girls into boys young people today wouldn't be so damned confused to think we would even need a commercial like this.
Let's say this was targeting real boys and men. You know what? We don't care! We know that girls and women get their periods and so what. And that scene with the couple making out? I mean seriously, how many women do you know want to get "involved" when their bodies are going through that time of the month. Just, umm no.
My guess would be though that this rather fraked up commercial takes aim at the first theory that we are somehow trying to make periods experienced by both girls and umm males.
But the point made “Would we be able to talk openly about them, without shame? Half the population does have a period, and we want to broaden the conversation to everyone, no period required.” Umm, why the frak would we need to??
What kind of twisted idiot feels that periods or menstruation should need to be openly discussed and normalized (more than it already is, after all, 50% of the population know it happens personally and part of the other 50% will hear about it at some point - probably on one of their first near intimate encounters with their girlfriends').
What shall we normalize next as we sit in the local coffee shop talking over our double-doubles? How about wetting the bed, male masturbation, or maybe women who fantasize about making out with that other really cute woman at work? I think that last one might have its' own website though.
And all this to advertise underwear? Remember the olden days when people (girls/women) were intelligent enough to know they needed ways to better... contain their periods and that hey, just putting it on the ad somewhere in writing would be enough? So it's a pair of underwear that protects the outside world, ie clothing, bedsheets, etc, while on your period (sorry for the blunt description but there it is). So, just say that?
Our society is getting royally fraked up. It's sad when only ABC, CBS, and BBC seem to see that and reject it outright. It did, apparently air on Bravo, Oxygen, MTV, BET and VH1 which, in the end, isn't really saying much if you know those networks at all.
What's next pregnancy ads depicting men as pregnant in awkward situations like high schools, or maybe dressed as nuns? This nonsense is why I don't watch ads (normally) or regular television anymore.
This is a Facebook response to a segment of this video where Christina Hoff Sommers talks about "male privilege" at 7:35 minutes in the video. She is absolutely correct and I'll add to it. This is the full length video where Sommers talks about the corruption of "feminism" in our modern times. "Christina Hoff Sommers | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)"
More women are being hired these days vs men to meet quotas (and I mean in real jobs not retail, though if you note the majority of cashiers/customer services/office admin have been and continue to be women, whereas men who are hired tend to be placed in areas like receiving or stocking positions). I personally could care less, if they have the qualifications and experience to do the job then so be it, man or woman,
I was turned down for a job 3 years ago, the district manager said I wasn't suited for the position. The store manager disclosed to me that it was likely because I was a man and the DM only hired women. You didn't see me run out and file a sexual discrimination lawsuit did you? Sometimes you get rejected and you need to just move on.
more women appear to be publicly offered grants and loans to start or support their small businesses than men (just look at the womens business day events, womens small business support groups, women in small business, and on and on and on, screw the men who have been and continue to support the community eh),
more women are believed (at first impression) than a man in an accusation of inappropriate sexual behavior (example Patrick Brown, and others). Notice how when the truth came out about the accusations against Brown became public the story was quickly buried by mainstream media.
And nowadays men must live in constant fear that a relationship they had 20 years ago will come back to haunt them today. How many women out there do you see being accused of inappropriate behaviour in their past and having their reputations and lives dragged through the mud?
That being said, I believe that in the past there were men who used their position to gain sexual favours from women in exchange for better pay or position (though the story of Erin Brockovich proves that it worked both ways). It wasn't right, but you can't go back now and dig up every time in your past you were rejected and make a big deal out of it today.
more men are expected to succeed in all aspects of life (work and home) than women - not perform, succeed, A woman who fails is viewed as needing more help whereas a man is viewed as a failure to himself and those he supports,
there are shelters and protection for women in abusive situations but people rarely hear of or believe that men can be in abusive situations as well, (physical and mental abuse appears to apply only to women, apparently, according to most media, men can not suffer mental abuse from a woman).
I won't financially support "women's shelters". I believe men should be offered shelter equally and for every womens shelter built in Ontario there should be a mens shelter built, at the same time, somewhere in Ontario. I support "human rights" in regards to a relationship that both men and women deserve to be treated fairly and equally. Abuse is not good if you are a man or a woman.
a minority of women complain they are discriminated against yet don't attempt to apply for the higher-paying jobs (noted at the end of the video),
I found that commercial on the radio about "more women are dying of heart disease than ever before". Yes... that's because more women are working in the fields and working to the level expected by men in the past. And as a result more women are dying of the things that traditionally killed more men in the past. With equal pay and equal rights comes equal opportunity for serious health issues and an early death.
an equal amount of women were placed in the 2015 Trudeauland government not because they were qualified through experience but simply because they were women (I believe a Federal cabinet position should be based on your experience, not your sexual organs),
and the latest, the Trudeauland government wants to give women (not men) money to participate in politics and become candidates (so much for equality in opportunity). It is not "easy" for all men to participate in politics simply because they are men and this upcoming program discriminates against men in yet another field - worse, it affects our democracy where everyone is supposed to have equal opportunity to represent our nation.
Seriously WTF! Can people not look at a photo of the sky without seeing conspiracy theories!? Good god, enough already! It's just bloody contrails from the thousands of planes flying overhead. It's not a damn chemical drop every single time!
The ones who look at crisscrossed contrails in the sky in a photo from their backyard and say things like "these are chemtrails, it's a conspiracy to poison us. I know this because twenty years ago you never saw these many chemtrails in the sky like this here!"...
Well, yes, because 20 years ago we had hundreds of planes in the sky, now we have tens of thousands flying to all points... so you will see more trails now than you did 20 years ago. Maybe if you spent less time in your tinfoil hats watching Alex Jones on the internet and more time doing actual research you'd know this. (google "How many planes are flying over the US right now") "Depending on the time of day or time of year, there could be anywhere from 8,000 to 20,000 planes mid-flight at any given moment, according to Flightradar24, which keeps track of flights in real-time."
But some simply don't get it. they seem to think there is the same number of planes up there today as there was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago.
Do you even know what cloud seeding is? It is done from low altitudes and smaller planes. Alberta, for example, has been doing it since 2014. I know this because it was in the newspaper back then. They started doing it after the big hailstorms that caused millions in damages.
How effective do you really think a chemical dumped at 35,000 feet is going to be on the population immediately below? Absolutely none! It will travel hundreds of kilometers before it even reaches the ground.
Getting you to waste time on conspiracy theories like this takes your focus away from the very realities that are taking place right under your noses. Wake up.
I had a discussion with someone who had stage 4 cancer. I told them that I did not believe we will ever find a cure for cancer. They asked me why and I said: "as long as we keep eating garbage and poisoning our bodies cancer will continue".
Look at cancer patients. What is the first thing they do when you are diagnosed with cancer? Change your lifestyle and change your eating habits.
The problem is, eating junk food is more convenient and affordable than eating healthy. And when I say "junk food" I don't just mean things like pop and chips. I mean processed foods, unhealthy fat, sugars, and salt.
If you look at, for example, Albertans who are struggling to make ends meet and pay the necessities like rent and hydro it's a matter of $1.79 for a 2 litre of pop versus $2.99 for a 2 litre of orange juice. Money plays a big role too.
And I include "foreign foods" into this. Too many foods now are subject to things like e-coli and chemical enhancement, two things that would not happen if the produce was picked locally.
True, you can't get fresh oranges to grow in Southern Ontario in December but there are many things that used to be grown here in the spring-fall that are now arriving on our grocery shelves from foreign countries.
I believe that all products, including those fresh made like bakery, should include not only a clear list of ingredients but, in the case of mixed ingredient items, in brackets the country of origin of those items. Let's say a product that has several ingredients, a fruitful cookie, okay, orange USA), cranberry (Canada), raisins (USA) produced in USA. So not only do we know where it was created but we know where the parts came from.
How can we expect people to eat healthy and avoid bad things when people don't know what the bad things are? We need to educate people not on foods to avoid but what all those nasty things are in that cookie and why some of it really doesn't need to be there.
And then, lifestyle, how many of us including myself go out for daily walks (yes, even when it is cold)?
How many people still open a window when the air is cool and fresh on a normal hot summer day versus using their air conditioners and lock themselves up in their homes?
How many of us are sitting on the computer right now reading the news and instead of meeting with friends over coffee to discuss it we just hit the Share button?
Change of diet and change of lifestyle. Why do we all wait until we are sick, pregnant or motivated by terminal illness to change our lives for the better?
These comments were in response to an original story published by CTV. They have since revised the original story to make the corporation appear to have done the right thing right away and take the sign down. It was then revised to appear the restaurant had reacted immediately and added in their little pitch about being all about community.
This action only occurred after substantial backlash from customers, the community and social media.
Let me point out the I do not like this new style of "revisionist reporting" that media has taken on. We all reacted to the original story which is what reporting the news is meant to do - incite public reaction. However, CTV has now completely altered the story (at the original link) to reflect that the sign was taken down. So why not write a NEW story with a NEW link, and link it at the bottom of the old story? This type of reporting is not responsible and implies an attempt to re-write the past rather than to learn from it.
Why is it that on Facebook when you make an Edit to something you said ALL of the edits are available for someone else to read and criticize and yet the media is not required to do the same thing with reporting? It is bad enough to revise the original story at all (within the original story!) but if they do we should be shown all of the edited/revised portions made.
My comments are in response to both the original story and the revised version: https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/mobile/news/controversial-sign-at-ottawa-tim-hortons-taken-down-1.4730387
That's what happens when the Yanks take over a Canadian chain. Well, hope they don't want customers because they'll probably lose all their regulars. Most business for McDonalds I guess eh. If it's a matter of homeless hanging around then you should work with the city to find them somewhere else to go. This banning/arresting the homeless because the citizens of the city have Failed them is a pathetic copout to addressing the real problem.
This would have been a great PR opportunity for Tim Hortons to work and promote ending homelessness in Ottawa and instead they are one of the evil corporations that are part of the problem not the solution.
Response on Facebook to this article in Ontario, Canada https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/ont-man-denied-10-002-jackpot-over-casino-self-exclusion-rule-1.3306039
So if there is a self-exclusion rule, a system they imposed to prevent gambling abuse AND the lottery still allowed him into the casino to play doesn't that mean they violated the contract they'd created between the player and the casino?
As soon as they accepted his money into the machine they broke their agreement. In fact, by doing so they enabled a gambler to abuse gambling, the very thing they claim to be vigilant in preventing.
I'd sue the casino for $50,000 for violating the contract and for failing to clearly post the rules of self-exclusion at the door (and I mean a big a$$ sign not some little note behind the counter) plus allowing me to play while the self-exclusion contract was in effect (which they clearly knew about).
Response on Facebook to this article: https://www.kincardinenews.com/news/local-news/monthly-unemployment-rate
The Unemployment rate for this area is only 2.4% makes you wonder why people are still drawing social assistance (welfare) in this area.
Many employers are desperate for workers and while they don't pay a "living wage" (usually only $14/hr vs the $19/hr needed to live independently around here) if you really wanted to work you'd take that cashier job wouldn't you?
Single unemployed young people in Alberta should consider moving to Ontario. Who cares about taxes and politics when it's about providing a life for yourself or possibly your family? We have jobs everywhere from collecting garbage (not that that is at the "bottom" of the list, but anyways) to running a nuclear power plant. Now is the time to think about your future and not just your address.
A cashier costs more than a self-checkout per transaction. However, a self-checkout costs far more upfront than a cashier.
A cashier is an active theft of product deterrent and will save the company money in the long run, whereas a self-checkout expects the customer to be honest. Not all customers are but then not all cashiers are either.
Customers like the human approach and prefer a live person over a machine, however, when line-ups occur people tend to opt for the faster way out of the store and some believe that involves serving themselves.
Self-checkouts don't offer discounts or rebates for using them and saving the company money, but then, in many stores, humans tend to slow down the process of harassing customers with things like credit card offers and discount card enrolments.
In many instances, retailers are turning to self-checkouts not because they are cheaper but because they just can't find the labour. $14/hr or $20/hr fewer people these days want to be cashiers. Don't think so? How many people on unemployment rush out to get a job working in retail as a cashier just to get off EI. Many will opt for drawing EI over standing on their feet most of the day dealing with irritated people who wonder why the store stopped giving out rainchecks in 2004.
As for the retail stores getting them because the government raises the minimum wage - sorry, that's false. While it seems to correspond with wage increases self-checkouts in retail stores have been in place for a couple years now, long before minimum wage made its a recent jump. Self-checkouts first became popular as line busters, reducing long line ups and opting people to choose their own speed at which they leave the store.
People like convenience, self serve banking, self serve gas pumps, and self serve pop machines in retail stores that sell an aisle full of every pop/soda you can imagine. People like convenience and in a time of online shopping and mobile banking people want their checkouts to be as fast as their smartphones.
However, what retailers didn't understand is that many people also like human interaction and some being able to talk to another person as they leave the store.
In the end, if you want stores to stop installing self-checkouts you have to do one of two things.
1) stop using them, and,
2) teach your kids it's okay to be a simple cashier if it means providing for your family.and paying your own way in life.
Who am I? Well, I've been in retail for over 30 years now so, while I'm no expert, I do know a thing or two.
Orange Man Bad cuts food stamp program back, but look who really suffers. Retailers collect $Billions off those using food stamps. Imagine what would happen if the retailers just paid more than $7.25US or even better provided better benefits like day care and lower health care costs.
It takes patience but if you read between the leftist mob rhetoric you can see the effects siphon out those who spend Years on the program, have income/assets over $35,000/yr or don't work in places of low unemployment.
The Business Insider's varying reporting styles, first "millions affected" https://www.businessinsider.com/food-stamp-eligibility-proposal-may-negatively-impact-food-security-2019-7
or wait "700,00 affected" I'm guessing they meant 700,000 (less than 1 million)
No wait, now it's "3.7 Million" https://www.businessinsider.com/proposed-trump-administration-rules-affect-millions-snap-food-stamps-study-2019-12
We could have only hoped on this one (SARCASM)
Oops, now it's "3.1 Million could be affected" https://www.businessinsider.com/usda-rule-could-affect-31m-food-stamp-recipients-2019-7
At one point they stuck to the facts but I guess it wasn't getting Hits https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-tightens-food-stamp-work-requirements-2019-12
Notice how they demonize Trump by showing a closeup of him eating food (while so many will now "starve") could it be because the article digs into the facts on how the program Might change https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-budget-changes-snap-food-stamps-2018-2
The evil 'loophole' catches those bending the rules to become "eligible" when they shouldn't be. Orange Man Bad! https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-proposal-seeks-to-crack-down-on-food-stamp-loophole-2019-7
"bad news for Walmart" - "Walmart International's net sales amounted to 120.82 billion U.S. dollars in the 2019 fiscal year. Walmart's total net sales amounted to about 510.33 billion U.S. dollars in the same fiscal year. Walmart's ecommerce revenue in 2017 added up to more than 14 billion U.S. dollars.
They don't point out that these people will still end up shopping at Walmart, it's just the company will have to work harder to attract the revenues (better wages, lower prices, etc) instead or receiving guaranteed kickbacks from the US government (this was in 2017 btw) https://fortune.com/2017/06/30/walmart-food-stamp/
"bad news for Target" - "Target had revenues of 77 billion U.S. dollars in the United States in 2019. The company's U.S. revenue was forecast to be 85.98 billion U.S. dollars in 2025."
I am no expert but I think both companies will "manage" with changes to the food stamp program revenues they receive.
Facebook response to article posted: https://globalnews.ca/video/6251638/alberta-mlas-address-suicide-outside-legislature-please-reach-out
A very important message to our neighbours in #Alberta and to #Canadians across the country.
In Alberta If you are in need of support, you can call the Health Link at 811 or the Mental Health Help Line at 1-877-303-2642, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If you are in immediate peril/danger call 911 where available.
Suicide is a final desperate act that results from months if not years of a need for help. It is rare for someone to choose suicide impulsively.
Suicide does not discriminate. Man, woman, child, all are at potential risk of choosing suicide as a solution to depression and other forms of mental illness.
Suicide is NOT selfish. Suicide is NOT a means to hurt others. Suicide is the last desperate act of someone who needed our help.
Don't let someone close to you (family, friend, coworker, classmate, neighbour) reach the point in their lives where they feel that suicide is the only option left.
You would be surprised that sometimes all it takes is just acknowledging that someone exists. Saying hello to a stranger. Offering a sympathetic ear to a friend in person or to a stranger on social media. Wouldn't you have a few minutes to spare if you knew that just pausing your busy life for a moment might save someone else's?
Sometimes the problems get to be so bad that the person feels they have no other choice. And yes, sometimes no matter what you say or do to try and help a person they will still choose suicide as the solution.
Sometimes you just can't help someone in need. But isn't it better to try and offer help than to just ignore them and go on with your lives?
I think so. I know so.
I just saw a posting which of course FB has now consumed and buried which basically stated - a person can't live on $14 an hour, how do we expect seniors on CPP to live on 1/3rd of that?
Well, in addition to the fact that many seniors don't have to deal with costs like vehicles, auto insurance, kids at home, mortgage payments, income taxes, full costs on services and utility costs that aren't subsidized, all of which we will discuss another time. We have to look at the bigger picture here regarding Canada Pension....
I don't agree with the amount we pay seniors in pension plan/old age, but you also need to take into account that we are paying at most CPP: $2,748.90 into the plan each year and seniors receive (from CPP alone) the maximum of $1,154.58.per month (not all seniors, the average is only $679.16).
The problem isn't that they are not being paid enough (make no mistake though it is certainly a problem in that you can't live on so little) but we have created a system that can no sustain itself.
Pay in $2,748 per year and employers kick in about 1.5X what the employee does so evening off it's still under $6,000 per year.
Pay out max $13,854 per year
My math isn't the most accurate but it's a pretty clear message. We have created a system that is not self-sustaining.
Add to that anyone over 45 coming into Canada will receive a pension when they retire even though they've contributed less than half what someone has starting at the age of 18.
The point of the meme states "why are seniors forced to live on 1/3 of minimum wage from CPP that they paid into". The answer - they are receiving about 500% return on what they paid into the system vs a minimum wage job that pays based on the revenues of the company.
In no way does this say seniors or minimum wage earners make enough to survive. But you have to look at the bigger picture here. A minimum wage earner does not make enough, especially when their employer (in some cases) takes in over $10 million per year. But a senior, who has at most, paid in ballpark $50,000, is expecting a return of, at least, $225,000 over the next 20 years.
It isn't right but we have to look at the bigger picture here, the pension system not only is not sustaining itself but it goes deeper into debt each year.
The solution, first off we need a system like the US based on "work credits". If you earn 40 work credits over your lifetime you receive a full pension at retirement 65, if you do not earn the 40 credits you get a partial pension. This prevents someone immigrating to the US at 60 and expecting to receive a full pension at 65. It's not hard to earn credits. I lived and worked there for 8.5 years and earned 32 credits - enough to receive a partial pension (which probably isn't much but it is what it is).
We have a similar system in place but leftist mentality will soon force the government to pay a full pension to everyone I suspect thus driving the system into bankruptcy before 2050.
A lot of people have said individuals should invest their own money into RSPs, etc and not pay into CPP. Clearly, no one seems to recall the great recession of 2008 when many near-retired workers lost thousands of their savings to the crash. This idea is risky and puts workers at the mercy of the banks vs the economic strength of a country (in countries that don't have fools in charge that is).
What would be wise is a hybrid savings system that incorporates and encourages both saving in RSP AND paying into CPP (by employers, employees and the government of the day) thus reducing overall risk.
There should be a special CPP RSP savings fund, where 2% of your pay goes into it and you can't take any out until age 60. It is far too easy to take regular RSP savings out during financial struggles or when investing in a home/education. This 2% would be constant and backed by the Government but in the individuals name.
This website section uses a lot of satire and sarcasm to get points across. if you don't like it why are you reading this website at all?