People aren't talking about the shirt. People are talking about the unjust bullying that the gender warriors engage in.

How is it any of your business what his shirt looks like?

That's why this analysis will soon be performed by robots.

Here's the info: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rosetta+s...

Short version:

A team of sceintists and engineers spent many years and millions of dollars to land a spacecraft on a comet -- an unprecedented achievement in human history. One of the scientists wore his lucky shirt which depicted anime characters.

Feminists and gender warriors decided that landing a spacecraft on a comet wasn't important -- their supposedly hurt feelings about the pictures on the shirt were the only thing worth talking about that happened that day. Rather than telling the gender warriors to go fuck themselves (or, more appropriately, to go achieve something themselves before coming back and making demands), the scientist was forced to make a tearful apology.

In some circles, this has led to a backlash against the gender warriors. So every time anyone achieves anything significant, people say "What really matters is what kind of shirts they were wearing!" - as a reminder of the incident, and a way to contrast achievement versus entitlement.

Rather than finger-pointing, let's just stop doing those things. The finger-pointing and division and all the rest of the bullshit that goes with it is what enables these things to continue.

Crappy used laptops are cheap. You don't need 16. You need 4. The first one will be about done by the time you get the 4th one started.

About twice as much as a buttload.

Actually, guaranteed minimum income plans aren't a terrible idea compared to what we have now. The cost of means-tested benefits right now averages about $60000 per recipient per year in the US.

Unless they have something to hide. And they think they can get away with it.

Maybe it's just insightful.

I generally agree Jeb is unlikely to win because people don't want him, but I'm more worried than you are. If your sort of analysis could be counted on, then we could already call a Hillary loss in the general election because people don't like Hillary. She has very little to offer and probably won't be able to do anything to surprise anyone or to motivate a strong turnout.

I'd guess the most likely outcome is President Scott Walker and Vice President Marco Rubio.

Unless Democrats cross over and vote Bush in the primaries to help Hillary out. That's how we got McCain.

She'll tell then she's fighting for them. They always say "I'm fighting for you!"

No one ever points out who they're fighting against: your fellow Americans.
And no one ever points out what they're fighting over: the desire to spend money other people earned.

About 30-40% of people have to vote for Hillary because they're partisan Democrats and Hillary's opponents for the Democrat nomination are very weak. There's almost zero chance they'd vote for the Republican instead of Hillary.

For black folks, 90+% will vote Democrat. They'll never vote a different way, so their support can be completely written off by one side and completely taken for granted by the other.

On the Republican side, there are a whole bunch of candidates and many of them are highly qualified, with years of successful governance of their states or years of less successful representation in congress. But some late night comedians and Hollywood douchebags said Republicans aren't cool. About 30-40% of people will vote for them anyway.

That leaves the decision up to the undecided voters. The press will tell them that Hillary should be given a pass no matter what she did, but that the Republican alternative should be held responsible for everything bad anyone ever did throughout the history of the world. We'll see what happens.

They're only extortionists if they threaten violence to extort money. If they don't, they aren't. I'm not sure what's unclear about that.

I wasn't the one who came up with the argument that paycheck earners should pay up to avoid violence. If you think that argument portrays poor people unfairly, then you should direct your complaints to the guys who made the argument.

I think it's a poor argument because I'd rather fight than pay people who would threaten me. And even if I chose not to fight every time, I'd still always view those threatening me as enemies and I'd look for opportunities to strike against them. It's not a great way to organize a society.