Raze

- that doesn’t mean it is all profit - he said he dumped most of it back in the business which then imploded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl4E81_3YJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRzdqh4sYPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwQcXggR0Jg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqIMPGgXYZI

Where did he say that?

This conflicts with what she’s saying actually. According to her this doesn’t really happen, women don’t go to the high value,en and get used, they prefer beta regular men who chase them.

The neoliberal establishment democrats loved the messaging during trump 2016 that he was racist for his anti immigrant speals because it allowed them to attack him without having to do so over corruption which their donors also benefit from. Infant many of their donors probably liked illegal immigration for cheap labor. But as per usual their strategy backfired when democrats didn’t stop trump from sanctioning Latin American countries and Biden continued it which caused a flood of illegal immigrants and made the public think democrats were supportive of open borders due to all their past bashing of trump over the border stuff. Now immigration has become one of trumps strongest issues despite how extreme he’s become.

No, he said they weren’t paying him what he was owed then he made a separate company to work with them to create boundaries, then shifts to the whole conflict. I’m guessing he was taking what he believes he was entitled to and rsd viewed it as him taking what was there’s from the brand and tried to disappear him.

Todd is leaving out why they fired him in the first place. Nick said that Todd was embezzling from the company. Owen mentioned this without naming Todd recently too. I believe I saw karisma king or someone mention they saw Todd in massive arguments over money with other people at rsd back when he was still there. Currently he already won the case with the company, this is about attempts to go after them as individuals. It’s unclear how much of this is Owen and how much is Nick. Owen and Nick also had a falling out over this and don’t work together anymore. Owen heavily implied that he offered to resolve their dispute by just paying them out of his pocket what they claim they lost if they wouldn’t go to court over it but was refused. Its also unclear how successful his current business is. RSD was dismantled and he said Covid tanked his new stuff so he just spent all his time on vacation trying to fund that.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201907/5-reasons-women-and-men-both-care-about-big-muscles

Most guys would choose the relationship, and even most of the minority who choose the latter would get bored and want a relationship. We can see this in how celebrity men usually still settle down with one woman, often even after getting reamed in divorces or cheated on they’ll do it again and again.

Oslo didn’t grant Palestinians self determination, it was just to buy time to destroy their hopes further, Netanyahu himself bragged about how he sabotaged it on leaked videos.

I don’t want to keep piling on Emerald, but I think the disconnect between her perception and the perception of the guys arguing with her is mainly two things 1) The mainstream advice is closer to what she’s saying, and the ultra masculine cult stuff emerges because guys become bitter after the mainstream advice, which is more just be kind / be a regular guy / chase women fails to work for them, rather than what she seems to lean towards as the inverse, that guys start with the masculine cult stuff and refuse to try the other way. So we are naturally skeptical to what she’s saying because we feel we’ve been there and it doesn’t match our experience. 2) I strongly suspect there is a perception bias. What she refers to as a regular guy or guy in touch with their femininity, is what most guys here are referring to as a top 20% masculinity guy on a spectrum of masculinity. And when we discuss a top 20% masculinity guy, she’s thinking of what we would see as the guy on the top 1% of a masculinity scale, which yes is way too much masculinity than what most women prefer.

Because 1) those groups have no capability to destroy israel 2) they only do that because the US and Israel are trying to strangle them and they’re doing it to counter this Even Iran signed onto the peace initiative https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2017/12/israel-iran-hassan-rouhani-istanbul-arab-peace-initiative.html But Israel rejects it because it requires ending the apartheid

“Arabs hit first” No they didn’t. The civil war happened after the British had killed, injured, or expelled thousands. Zionist militias were regularly carrying out bombings and attacks. Example: On 15 August 1947, the Haganah blew up the house of a Palestinian family near Petah Tikva killing twelve occupants, including a woman and six children It was during the civil war that Zionist’s began the ethnic cleansing operations and carried out mass killings and expelled 400,000. As I have already told you at least eight times, there is a peace deal on the table that every relevant country is signed on which Israel unilaterally rejects and gets the US to block. Every year at the U.N. general assembly a vote on the two state solution appears. It’s not asking for Israel to abolish its ethnic supremacy state, just to stop the occupation of millions of people without rights. Guess who votes no and who vetoes it every time.

It’s the opposite, Hamas’s whole argument was they shouldn’t recognize Israel unless Israel first recognizes Palestine. The PA disagreed and recognized israel, Israel’s response was to take their land and build settlements, proving Hamas right. Their offer was not giving nothing, it was offering peace. Your narrative is that Arab states won’t remove the threat which is why Israel continues violence. This is wrong, as I’ve pointed out to you about seven times now, Arab states have offered israel full normalization decades ago, israel rejected it. It is israel rejecting removing the threat, not the Arab states. Iran is irrelevant, they’ve also said they are against any fight with Israel and instead just fund rebel groups. Both Hamas and Hezbollah who they fund offered to cease fighting if a Palestinian state was established. Israel rejected this.

This guy is a shill who made the Kamala campaign spend their funds to pay him to interview her. Odds are hes a paid operative. The fact is he got his way, Bernie lost in both primaries he ran in partially because of many black voters. Yet despite this leading to disasters of two trump terms he just doubles down on accusing Bernie of racism for daring to suggest maybe something aside from the failed approach should be tried.

Maybe in theory, but generally the more you want something and the more you invest in it the more needy and attached you become. As a woman you would also find yourself more clingy or nervous around a guy you really like as opposed to one you only mildly like. If you spend lots of time and investment in a man you would find yourself being more prone to jealousy related to him opposed to a man you just met and haven’t invested in. it’s the same for guys.

That’s actually a common complaint from women we hear, the guys they are most interested in don’t want anything long term. Also again your idea of hyper masculine is not what we are referring to. Yes women mostly don’t prefer roided out body builders, probably not even for short term relationships. Your regular guy examples like Brad Pit or Ryan Gosling would be examples of the alpha. High status, tall, handsome, stoic, etc. Would you consider this video how a beta guy or regular guy operates? We who are arguing with you or most Guys using the term would not. If what you’re saying was true it would be easier for guys to get lots of women to enter short term relationships and harder to get them to enter long term relationships. But it really isn’t. The exception being if a guys lifestyle is a complete disaster but he’s also freakishly charming and handsome.

Yes, but the point is distribution. More women can have sex overall if a larger portion of women have sex with a smaller portion of men. Ex imagine there is 100 women and 100 men, 2 of the men sleep with all 100 women, now it’s 100 women who have each slept with 2 people, but 98 men who slept with no one and 2 who slept with 100.

Nope. The PA recognized Israel’s existence and it just lead to expanded settlement growth. Hamas offered a long term ceasefire in exchange for a state on the 67 borders which is de facto recognizing Israel, and it lead nowhere. The Arab states offered full normalization in exchange for a Palestinian state which would leave Israel intact, and it was rejected. At one point they even threatened to withdraw their recognition of Israel unless Israel would finally recognize their right to exist. https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-said-set-to-withdraw-recognition-of-israel/ Still didn’t work. Those are the facts even if it is inconvenient to your narrative. Israel only wants recognition as a means to have a permanent apartheid state. No amount of recognition will be enough for them because their goal is to wipe out Palestinians as a people. A moral position would be to support protests of western governments until they pressure israel to recognize Palestine and free the people they are destroying. But you’d rather ignore reality and make up narratives to justify their war crimes for some reason, no matter how many times you are shown otherwise.

- those countries have 3 - 20x the population as Gaza - the difference is western governments are giving israel its arms, meaning they could stop it at any second, hence the protests

Point out to me - when did I say parading a corpse was legitimate - when was it said by israel they rejected the treaty because of the massacre - when did I say massacres are legitimate - when did I say Jews must go I get it’s easier to just argue with a fiction you invented in your head, but you can leave me out of it. the only one who thinks massacres of civilians and expulsion is justified, is YOU, because you keep insisting israel has no choice but to do it. You’ve attached yourself to a narrative not related to reality. We are literally talking about a peace treaty israel rejected that would have left Israel with their lands. Yet you concocted a narrative it’s all about expelling Jews therefore Jews are allowed to expel Palestinians. It’s beyond stupid. For the second time, Israel itself did not say they rejected the deal because of the massacre. Hamas itself claimed the massacre wasn’t in response to the peace deal, even though at the time they rejected it, though they would later accept it. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304102933/http://www.sptimes.com/2002/03/29/Worldandnation/Hamas_rejects_Arab_pe.shtml to break this down even further the sequence of events is, Palestinians and all Arab states offer a deal that is the opposite of expelling Jews -> Israel rejects it -> Israel attempts to expel Palestinians Your conclusion: the evil Palestinians want to expel Jews! The Jews must expel them. If you disagree with me you’re supporting expulsion. Did I mention israel is speaking the only language it can which is expulsion? So given that you keep saying I endorse massacres because I support resistance in any form, given you support Israel’s actions, by your own logic you think this is legitimate. https://youtu.be/qqusa-96WLs?si=UwYw64lp0j44q0d4&t=264 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqzE4hkuee4

This is basically a sequence of events you made up in your head. The Passover massacre was not why the treaty was rejected. Israel rejected the treaty because they are against ending the occupation period. Israel never even claimed the Passover massacre was why they rejected the treaty. Hamas never said they committed the massacre because they rejected the treaty. The PLO which represented the majority of Palestinians at the time condemned the massacre and arrested Hamas members in response. Electing Hamas was not because they approved of the Passover massacre, it was because the PLO failed to end the occupation after Israel rejected that treaty. Exit polls show the majority of Palestinian voters voted against the PLO for its corruption and failure to end the blockade, but still supported a two state solution.

You’re not trying to understand anything, you’re trying to reinforce an uneducated colonial framework. Irrelevant to what I said. Your point was that Palestinians rejected peace by electing Hamas, my point was that Israel already rejected peace when it failed to secure a resolution with the PLO, thereby Palestinians voted Hamas because the PLO had failed. Let’s put that aside, if Israel wants peace so bad why don’t they just ignore Hamas in Gaza entirely, and focus on the West Bank, Hamas was arrested / expelled from there and the PA in charge agreed to stop fighting israel at all. They did exactly what you demand. What was Israel’s response? Seize more land, build more settlements, and kill so many children that by September in 2023 it had been the deadliest year for children since the intifada.

That’s essentially what Lyubov was saying which you dismissed, The only difference is he’s assuming they prefer the short term guys but go for the long term ones as a consolation prize, and you’re saying they prefer the long term ones overall. I doubt this as in most cases I think she’d actually prefer the short term guy also had the qualities of stability and emotional intimacy for a long term relationship, but he either doesn’t or does but won’t stick around and give them to her.