The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
i'm talking about the divorce of michael jordan and his missus. she wants half of his 330 million pound fortune and all i can say is why in the hell does she even deserve to get a damn penny or the family house or even the kids.
now let's see who was it that was setting the NBA alight with his breathtaking gravity defying dunks and last second winning shots. who was it who got all those sponsorship deals due to his talent. now to my recollection it wasn't juanita jordan but it was Michael Jordan. HE'S earned ALL that money HIMSELF due to HIS talent so that money is HIS he's earned it so he should keep it. but of course due to equality *scoffs at that little phrase* she's able to claim half of a fortune which her husband has worked hard for himself and earned all by himself. while he's earned all that money she's just been sitting her fat behind on the sofa watching day time soaps until michael comes home with another bundle of sponsorship cash which she'd probably spend in about 2 minutes of him opening the door.
now is he able to claim half of her fortune............oh wait my bad she hasn't got a fortune seeing as she's been leading the life of lady muck while old MJ has to go and work hard to feed his family and keep a roof over their heads. she's saying she needs that money to maintain the life she's accustomed to? well MJ gave her that life she didn't earn it herself so why should she be allowed to keep living it? and also MJ should get the kids seeing as he's the one with a stable job bringing in all the money while mrs jordan feeds her fat face watching ricki lake on the tv.
this is just the feminists getting their own way with their special brand of equality. the type of equality which is just a little bit more equal on the side of the fairer sex. now i'll probably get some feminists ooooh your a sexist pig all i say to that is thank you cause that just means i'm right cause if that's all you can say that means you know i'm right you just can't admit it or think of something to counteract my argument
now let's see who was it that was setting the NBA alight with his breathtaking gravity defying dunks and last second winning shots. who was it who got all those sponsorship deals due to his talent. now to my recollection it wasn't juanita jordan but it was Michael Jordan. HE'S earned ALL that money HIMSELF due to HIS talent so that money is HIS he's earned it so he should keep it. but of course due to equality *scoffs at that little phrase* she's able to claim half of a fortune which her husband has worked hard for himself and earned all by himself. while he's earned all that money she's just been sitting her fat behind on the sofa watching day time soaps until michael comes home with another bundle of sponsorship cash which she'd probably spend in about 2 minutes of him opening the door.
now is he able to claim half of her fortune............oh wait my bad she hasn't got a fortune seeing as she's been leading the life of lady muck while old MJ has to go and work hard to feed his family and keep a roof over their heads. she's saying she needs that money to maintain the life she's accustomed to? well MJ gave her that life she didn't earn it herself so why should she be allowed to keep living it? and also MJ should get the kids seeing as he's the one with a stable job bringing in all the money while mrs jordan feeds her fat face watching ricki lake on the tv.
this is just the feminists getting their own way with their special brand of equality. the type of equality which is just a little bit more equal on the side of the fairer sex. now i'll probably get some feminists ooooh your a sexist pig all i say to that is thank you cause that just means i'm right cause if that's all you can say that means you know i'm right you just can't admit it or think of something to counteract my argument
Page:
i can't stand wife beaters there just cowards but i also can't stand husband beaters as well. most recent case of violence is tracy shaw towards her husband on the plane when they were coming back from holiday. all he did was want a nap and she beats seven bells out of him but nobody is asking why isn't she being put infront of a court for violent conduct like they would if it was the other way round. either way though violence towards the other or same sex is just wrong plain and simple
slave2games wrote:
> Another bad thing is, not that I do it, but if women want >equal rights, why is
> it still ok for them to hit men, and nothing is done, yet >when a man hits a
> woman, there is a big uproar?
> Around christmas time, the >adverts said, "1
> in 6 women will get beaten up in their homes",or >something, they fail to
> mention that men can be the ones getting beat up, it's >just that it is too
> embarrising for them to come forward and tell someone. >Now somebody reply to
> anything i've said, and tell me i'm wrong
Men are probably less likely tocome forward, and unless they are really badly hurt are unlikely to go to hospital or a doctor. Studies show that many men try to shrug off injury and illnesses and are less likely to seek medical help. Without trying to be too sexist, I'd say that men are more likely to injure women seriously as opposed to the other way around. Obviously there are exceptions to that, and its not okay just to hit someone anyway. The adverts are about women simply because they are the group it happens to most - there is only so much money available. The assumption that "nothing is done" is mostly because cases are never reported. The "uproar" is something I wont argue against, what does it say about a society if it doesnt react in uproar to violence against people ?
As a rule, men who commit this kind of violence always do so against someone they know cannot hurt them easily. They're just sad pathetic people who should be locked up.
> Another bad thing is, not that I do it, but if women want >equal rights, why is
> it still ok for them to hit men, and nothing is done, yet >when a man hits a
> woman, there is a big uproar?
> Around christmas time, the >adverts said, "1
> in 6 women will get beaten up in their homes",or >something, they fail to
> mention that men can be the ones getting beat up, it's >just that it is too
> embarrising for them to come forward and tell someone. >Now somebody reply to
> anything i've said, and tell me i'm wrong
Men are probably less likely tocome forward, and unless they are really badly hurt are unlikely to go to hospital or a doctor. Studies show that many men try to shrug off injury and illnesses and are less likely to seek medical help. Without trying to be too sexist, I'd say that men are more likely to injure women seriously as opposed to the other way around. Obviously there are exceptions to that, and its not okay just to hit someone anyway. The adverts are about women simply because they are the group it happens to most - there is only so much money available. The assumption that "nothing is done" is mostly because cases are never reported. The "uproar" is something I wont argue against, what does it say about a society if it doesnt react in uproar to violence against people ?
As a rule, men who commit this kind of violence always do so against someone they know cannot hurt them easily. They're just sad pathetic people who should be locked up.
you are wrong...
:p
Yeah, I agree, but I think that it is probably more often the woman getting beat, but yeah, men do get beat by wome sometimes too, and they should get the same treatment as a male wife beater would recieve...
:p
Yeah, I agree, but I think that it is probably more often the woman getting beat, but yeah, men do get beat by wome sometimes too, and they should get the same treatment as a male wife beater would recieve...
Another bad thing is, not that I do it, but if women want equal rights, why is it still ok for them to hit men, and nothing is done, yet when a man hits a woman, there is a big uproar? Around christmas time, the adverts said, "1 in 6 women will get beaten up in their homes",or something, they fail to mention that men can be the ones getting beat up, it's just that it is too embarrising for them to come forward and tell someone. Now somebody reply to anything i've said, and tell me i'm wrong
Just adding my agreement.
(Except nothing at all for mrs jordan is a little harsh, but half? Come on? Anyway, why doesn't she just write a book like rodman's ex, feed off her undeserved celebrity status instead of her undeserved celebrity joint bank account?)
...Ah to be 6'6", another half-foot and i could play the low post, instead of having no shooting range (i think the arc on my shot is too high) and having to make spectacular reverse layups from the far side of the backboard just to get a percentage shot off without being blocked by gerry or phil or someone. Maybe then i'd be off the bench and get to actually play, instead of being a novelty cheerleader who's given up on even going to the away matches, after enough trips across the country only to touch a ball in the warm-up and fill up some water bottles at half time.
Positive discrimination... how about everyone over (check my height) 5'11" has to crawl around the court on their knees?
; D
(Except nothing at all for mrs jordan is a little harsh, but half? Come on? Anyway, why doesn't she just write a book like rodman's ex, feed off her undeserved celebrity status instead of her undeserved celebrity joint bank account?)
...Ah to be 6'6", another half-foot and i could play the low post, instead of having no shooting range (i think the arc on my shot is too high) and having to make spectacular reverse layups from the far side of the backboard just to get a percentage shot off without being blocked by gerry or phil or someone. Maybe then i'd be off the bench and get to actually play, instead of being a novelty cheerleader who's given up on even going to the away matches, after enough trips across the country only to touch a ball in the warm-up and fill up some water bottles at half time.
Positive discrimination... how about everyone over (check my height) 5'11" has to crawl around the court on their knees?
; D
how about we burn a flag with a pair of boxers on it that way we stay warm and unshrivelled (sp) but still make our point.
and yea god help you nowadays if your a straight, tall white male with no disability because that's the type of person who gets discriminated against the most now and unlucky for me that description is actually me. i've got a girlfriend, i'm 6'6, i'm a man and i'm also white. so bring on the *positive* discrimination
and yea god help you nowadays if your a straight, tall white male with no disability because that's the type of person who gets discriminated against the most now and unlucky for me that description is actually me. i've got a girlfriend, i'm 6'6, i'm a man and i'm also white. so bring on the *positive* discrimination
maybe we should just burn a flag... probably get more press coverage that way... and we won't freeze our balls off...
I would burn my boxers... but they might give off poisonous gases...
Oh yeah and that positive discrimination is complete bull. Oh, your company is over X number of employees, so you need to have at least one female, at least one disabled person, at least X% of black/asian people or whatever. It is crap! What if (shock horror) the best applicant for a job is a white male with no disablity? Well, according to the government that doesn't matter. We should hire the person belonging to a minority, because ... well, we just should. B****CKS!!! F*** OFF YOU POLITICALLY CORRECT PIECE OF S***!!!
*ahem*
so, whens this burning boxer shorts thing then?
Oh yeah and that positive discrimination is complete bull. Oh, your company is over X number of employees, so you need to have at least one female, at least one disabled person, at least X% of black/asian people or whatever. It is crap! What if (shock horror) the best applicant for a job is a white male with no disablity? Well, according to the government that doesn't matter. We should hire the person belonging to a minority, because ... well, we just should. B****CKS!!! F*** OFF YOU POLITICALLY CORRECT PIECE OF S***!!!
*ahem*
so, whens this burning boxer shorts thing then?
well it's all POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION now isn't it? man that's a load of BS it's just racism and sexism and every other form of ism in the book but of course that's allowed. i mean a woman says
*oh men are useless they don't do anything worthwhile they should be flown to their own island while we carry on with our lives*
and then she's applauded and heralded as a independant woman.
a man says
*women are useless they can't do anything let's pack them all of to their own island and let us get on with our lives and money*
now he's heralded as a chauvanist and sexist pig.
now where's the equality in that?
now in my opinion MJ should get everything seeing as he's the one who's actually gone out and earned it himself and that includes getting custody of his kids seeing as he'll be able to keep them in the living they've become accustomed to. his wife can't afford to so she shouldn't get them it's that simple. she wasn't out on the court earning millions so no money for her in my opinion.
call me sexist ladies i don't care i'm expressing my opinions i'm what's called a new independant male so who's with me? let's go out in the street and burn our boxer shorts and let's actually get EQUALITY in it's true sense (or let's just campaign seeing as it's january and it's pretty cold to go around with no boxers on)
*oh men are useless they don't do anything worthwhile they should be flown to their own island while we carry on with our lives*
and then she's applauded and heralded as a independant woman.
a man says
*women are useless they can't do anything let's pack them all of to their own island and let us get on with our lives and money*
now he's heralded as a chauvanist and sexist pig.
now where's the equality in that?
now in my opinion MJ should get everything seeing as he's the one who's actually gone out and earned it himself and that includes getting custody of his kids seeing as he'll be able to keep them in the living they've become accustomed to. his wife can't afford to so she shouldn't get them it's that simple. she wasn't out on the court earning millions so no money for her in my opinion.
call me sexist ladies i don't care i'm expressing my opinions i'm what's called a new independant male so who's with me? let's go out in the street and burn our boxer shorts and let's actually get EQUALITY in it's true sense (or let's just campaign seeing as it's january and it's pretty cold to go around with no boxers on)
yeah, I think it is a load of bull that one half of a marriage can claim half the stuff when the other hals has been the one working for it, and earning it. I personally think that MJ (and most sport stars) get overpaid by far too much, but that is a different issue. If MJs wife never lifted a finger to make her own living, why should she get all his stuff? I think it is a load of bull, and all those feminists should realise that equality means everyone is equal, not that everyone is equal when it suits you. It is a bit like racism nowadays, it is okay when a black person is racist, but it is wrong when a white person makes a comment even resembling racism. Now I'm not saying that racism should be allowed, I'm saying that black people should not get away with racism, just as white people shouldn't.
Basically, it is just stupid. It sucks, and eqaulity should become a reality, not a term politicians use to keep minorities happy, while going against the majority.
Basically, it is just stupid. It sucks, and eqaulity should become a reality, not a term politicians use to keep minorities happy, while going against the majority.
Page: