Official Skatz 10 Million Views Thread

[discount ugg boots]

–Super hot WAGs
–Wow! Check out this hottie
–Ally is one sexy babe
–Gigi Hadid’s metal boobs
–Wow! Dakota Johnson is red hot
–Pamela Anderson nip slip
–Abby Dowse is hot Bimbo
–OMG! They are so pretty!
–Stormy Daniels gets shamed
–Twins?



More...

[discount ugg boots]

Sara Sampaio Is A True Hottie (TMZ)
Amanda Bynes Is Back, And Is Four Years Sober (DLISTED)

Amber Heard Is Pretty (TooFab)
Madison Beer Selfies Her Ginormous Braless Cleavage! (Popoholic)

Bella Thorne Tongue Action (MoeJackson)

Sammi Hanratty Boom Batty (WWTDD)
Hailee Lautenbach Has The Perfect Bikini Body (Egotastic)

Not The Nicest Booty (TMZ)



More...

[discount ugg boots]

Guess This Bikini Body? (TMZ)
Lady Gaga Has Won Her First Major Award For ?A Star Is Born? (DLISTED)

Catherine Zeta-Jones on ‘Open Relationship’ with Michael Douglas (TooFab)
Olivia Culpo Leaving Very Little To The Imagination (Popoholic)

More Jessica Simpson Boobies (MoeJackson)

Lindsay Lohan Wants To Lick Rappers Now (WWTDD)
How Is Olga Safari Not The Most Famous Actress In The World? (Egotastic)

Daniel Toss married a super hot piece
Super busty Asian
Super hot ans skinny model



More...

[discount ugg boots]

Nicole Murphy Belongs In A Bikini (TMZ)
Lindsay Lohan?s Reality Show Has A Title (DLISTED)

Babes Without Makeup! (TooFab)
Megan Fox Is The Sexiest Lara Croft And Indiana Jones! (Popoholic)

More Jessica Simpson Boobies (MoeJackson)

Demi Rose‘s Big Booty Goodness (WWTDD)
Fatty In A Bikini (Egotastic)

Daniel Toss married a super hot piece
Super busty Asian
Super hot ans skinny model



More...

[VaughnP]

This is great. Can't wait until these faggots start getting prosecuted for not disclosing their advertising. That and rampant tax evasion.

[Hillbilly Jim]

'Fact: there's not a pub in the land suitable for your whingeing child'
I love kids, but there are some special places where they just shouldn't be seen, nor heard, writes Sophie Donaldson

It's a crisp Sunday afternoon in November. The last of the autumn leaves are like dying embers against an icy blue sky. After a bracing walk by the river you decide to make a pit-stop in one of your favourite pubs.

It's a warm pub, and just that; they don't do bar snacks, or cocktails, or karaoke. It's lined with dark wood and feels like you are stepping into a cosy, low-lit womb. There are two televisions but the volume is turned way down low.

Apart from the televisions, the only other gentle hubbub is from the patrons who, if they are speaking at all, do so in murmurs. The rest sit - with their Sunday Independents, naturally - enjoying a quiet pint.

It is perhaps how you intend on spending this very Sunday, and is how I spent mine last week. After taking an ease on two tall stools, we too sat sipping our drinks, using our 'inside' voices and generally enjoying the perfect Full Stop to the weekend.

Then, halfway through our drinks, an unruly screech ripped through the pub. It was, to the surprise of nobody, the underage patron who had come through the door a few minutes earlier - in a pram.

I have nothing against young children. I think. Mostly that they are very cute. I love to see them in their natural habitat - running around parks chasing pigeons, squawking in wonder at a petting zoo, or dozing on the shoulder of a doting parent.

But they are not so great in pubs, because pubs are not suited to their needs. Of course it's not their fault. Small children don't have a favourite watering hole - unless it's the free refills at their local Burger King. Their parents, on the other hand, certainly do.

One of the truisms about parenthood is that you will sacrifice nearly everything for your children - and that goes for your quiet nights at the pub.

Except, for a lot of parents, it doesn't. They may have a baby, but no matter! Prams are mobile. They are still young people and have the right to socialise in a public house just as much as the rest of us.

In this case, dad sat po-faced defiantly, or obliviously, sipping his pint, as baby continued to wail despite his wife's best attempts to shush him. The child was clearly bored and uncomfortable, given he was propped up on a high booth against a hard table edge with nowhere to crawl or squirm, as is the want of babies.

But it is not the physical circumstances that made their sudden appearance in our Sunday sanctuary so jolting, but the social ones. We childless folk do not take to loitering in playgrounds, cider in hand, intent on also enjoying the swings. We do not attend those play centres with the bouncy ball-filled pits, half a bottle of wine deep, ready to enjoy ourselves like every other paying customer.

We understand that just because we can doesn't mean we should, and not just because of the worried looks and raised eyebrows we'd incur. It's just common decency to acknowledge that your enjoyment does not supersede that of the people around you, or that because you have made a lifestyle choice that inhibits you from enjoying certain activities, you are not entitled to inflict the result of your decision-making upon the rest of us.

It's not that children shouldn't be outlawed from all pubs. There are plenty of spots where mum and dad can enjoy a drink while bribing their bundle with chicken goujons. If it has a kids menu and changing tables in the bathrooms, it's fair to assume it's a child-friendly place.

If it's mostly made up of hard, shiny surfaces and you can hear a clock ticking and the median age of its customers is 64, it's best to move on.

Perhaps that's what irked me so much about last Sunday's scene. It wasn't that there was a child in a pub, but that it was in that particular pub they had chosen.

Had we decided on an establishment with a row of high-chairs stacked against one wall we'd hardly have the grounds to complain - or in our case, collect our belongings and move into the second bar under the pretence that our seats by the door had suddenly become draughty.

We weren't the only ones who suddenly caught the fictional chill - a few minutes later a couple in their 40s followed suit. Perhaps they had come to this very place to escape the chaos of their own domestic arrangement, or perhaps not. Either way, it was so obviously a place for adults, a place of solitude, solace and measured imbibing - not a place for children.

Among parents and the childless alike, this is likely to be an unpopular opinion. There's nothing worse than a non-parent with the gall to suggest how to raise youngsters, nor anything more cruel than denying hardworking families the opportunity to let their hair down. Even worse is a person who appears to dislike children.

I am bracing myself for the proverbial flinging of dirty nappies my way, but even if my indulgences are put to one side, the fact remains, there's not any sort of pub that's suitable for children.

I think most parents would agree that the pub environment is not conducive to child-rearing; but when you have spent two days emitting nonsensical sounds rather than whole words, when there's still dried gunk on your lapel and Peppa Pig's theme song trills on loop in your head, it's understandable that a pint is perhaps far easier to swallow than the truth.

[VaughnP]

[Hillbilly Jim]

In-depth coverage of Marc Lamont Hill Fired
bing.com/news
Dr. Marc Lamont Hill (? Gilbert Carrasquillo/WireImage)​
CNN fires Marc Lamont Hill over pro-Palestine comments

Hill was dropped Thursday after he made comments during a UN speech about boycotting Israel and calling for a 'free Palestine from the river to the sea.'

Newsweek on MSN.com ? 3h
CNN drops Marc Lamont Hill after anti-Israel remarks at UN spark backlash
CNN drops Marc Lamont Hill after anti-Israel remarks at UN spark backlash
Fox News ? 5h
CNN fires contributor Marc Lamont Hill after comments about Israel in speech
CNN fires contributor Marc Lamont Hill after comments about Israel in speech
syracuse.com ? 4m
CNN fires Marc Lamont Hill in wake of remarks criticizing Israel and calling for a ‘free Palestine’
CNN fired Marc Lamont Hill on Thursday after the longtime contributor made comments about Israel duri…

The Washington Post ? 5h
CNN Fires Marc Lamont Hill Over Controversial Anti-Israel Comments
CNN Fires Marc Lamont Hill Over Controversial Anti-Israel Comments
Algemeiner ? 6h
CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill dropped over anti-Israel comments made at the United Nations
CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill dropped over anti-Israel comments made at t…
dailymail.co.uk ? 4h
Watch: CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill Fired After Calling to ‘Free Palestine From River to the Sea’
CNN has fired news commentator Marc Lamont Hill after he endorsed the elimination of the State of I…

Jewish Press ? 4h
CNN fires Marc Lamont Hill after uproar over UN speech attacking Israel
CNN fires Marc Lamont Hill after uproar over UN speech attacking Israel
The Washington Times ? 5h
Marc Lamont Hill fired from CNN
Marc Lamont Hill fired from CNN
Philadelphia Tribune ? 3h
Group calls for firing of CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill for 'virulent anti-Semitism'
Group calls for firing of CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill for 'virulent anti-Semitism'
The Hill ? 10h
CNN Fires Marc Lamont Hill, Twitter Going Ballistic Over The News
CNN Fires Marc Lamont Hill, Twitter Going Ballistic Over The News
Hip-Hop Wired ? 1h

See all
See more news of Marc Lamont Hill Fired
Watch: CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill Fired After Calling to ‘Free ...
Jewish Press
3 hours ago ? “Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN,” a spokesperson for the cable news network said, according to Fox News.. Speaking Wednesday at …

CNN Fires Marc Lamont Hill - mediaite.com
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusiv...rc-lamont-hill...
CNN severed ties with contributor Marc Lamont Hill on Thursday, following comments the university professor made about Israel and Palestine in a speech at the United Nations. “Marc Lamont Hill ...

Images of marc lamont hill fired
bing.com/images
Image result for marc lamont hill firedImage result for marc lamont hill firedImage result for marc lamont hill fired
See more images of marc lamont hill fired
Liberal Analyst Marc Lamont Hill Fired From Fox News ...
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/confirme...ill-fired-from...
Mediaite has confirmed Marc Lamont Hill has been fired from Fox News Channel. The liberal commentator was a regular on the network, most recently appearing as a …

CNN fires Marc Lamont Hill after remarks criticizing ...
The Washington Post
4 hours ago ? CNN fired Marc Lamont Hill on Thursday after the longtime contributor made comments about Israel during a U.N. speech. Hill, a media studies …

Videos of Marc Lamont Hill fired
bing.com/videos
Marc Lamont Hill UN Speech That Got Him Fired From CNN21:55
Marc Lamont Hill UN Speech That Got Him Fired From CNN
YouTube ? 1 hr ago ? 104 views
CNN Drops Marc Lamont Hill After Israel Remarks0:55
CNN Drops Marc Lamont Hill After Israel Remarks
MSN
CNN anchor Marc Lamont Hill dropped over anti-Israel comments0:41
CNN anchor Marc Lamont Hill dropped over anti-Israel comments
Mail Online
See more videos of Marc Lamont Hill fired
Marc Lamont Hill fired from CNN | News | phillytrib.com
http://www.phillytrib.com/news/local...ired-from-cnn/...
Nov 27, 2018 ? Marc Lamont Hill, a Philadelphia native and professor of media studies and urban education at Temple University, was fired from his position as …

Fox News FIRES Marc Lamont Hill, Liberal Analyst | HuffPost
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/...ews-fires-marc...
Mar 18, 2010 ? Liberal Fox News analyst Dr. Marc Lamont Hill has been fired, News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch revealed at a shareholder's meeting Friday. Murdoch made the announcement after being asked about Hill…

CNN fires contributor Marc Lamont Hill over Israel remarks ...
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...d/ct-cnn-fires...
Nov 29, 2018 ? CNN fired Marc Lamont Hill on Thursday after the longtime contributor made comments about Israel during a United Nations speech. Hill, a media studies professor at Temple University, had drawn ...

CNN Fires Marc Lamont Hill After Anti-Israel Comments
breitbart.com
5 hours ago ? CNN fired contributor Marc Lamont Hill Thursday following his apparent call for the destruction of the state of Israel and his defense of violence by Palestinians during an …

Marc Lamont Hill - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Lamont_Hill
Marc Lamont Hill (born December 17, 1978) is an American academic, journalist, author, activist, and television personality. He is a Professor of Media Studies and Urban Education at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He was the host of the syndicated television show Our World with Black Enterprise and hosts the online Internet-based HuffPost Live.

Employer: Temple University
Occupation: Academic, commentator, activist, television host, author
Alma mater: Morehouse College, Temple University, University of Pennsylvania
Nationality: American
Life and career ? Books
Related searches for Marc Lamont Hill fired
who is marc lamont hill
marc lamont hill wife
dr marc lamont hill fired
dr marc lamont hill
marc lamont hill family
marc lamont hill mediocre negroes
lamont hill bio
news commentator fired this week
1
2
3
4
5

[Hillbilly Jim]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Culture

Hoshi seems to start to disappear in this second season Enterprise episode that I?m covering on the podcast today.



More...

nooooo not hoshi

[Hillbilly Jim]

Sorry, AOC Is Right

Washington Post blogger Glenn Kessler has had his ego wounded over the past few months because his style of amateurish fact?checking has been mocked by a number of public figures, most prominently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Because Kessler?s blog is mostly a place for him to work out his personal beefs, he has decided to frequently accuse AOC of lying when she isn?t.

The most recent example of this behavior was yesterday when Kessler awarded the congresswoman three Pinocchios on his inscrutable truth scale for making the following remark:

I think it?s wrong that (1) a vast majority of the country doesn?t make a living wage, I think it?s wrong that (2) you can work one hundred hours and not feed your kids. I think it?s wrong that (3) corporations like Walmart and Amazon can get paid by the government, essentially experience a wealth transfer from the public, for (4) paying people less than a minimum wage.

Kessler concedes that (2) is accurate. But he says the other three claims are inaccurate. But they really aren?t.

The Majority of the Country Doesn?t Make a Living Wage
To determine whether this is true, you need to first define a living wage, and then second determine how many people receive less than it. Kessler decides to use the MIT Living Wage calculator and a two-adult, two-child family to define a living wage:

The MIT Living Wage calculator, run by Amy Glasmeier, a professor of economic geography and regional planning, says the living wage in the United States was $16.07 per hour in 2017, before taxes, for a family of four (two working adults, two children). That means both adults together would need to make at least $32.14 before taxes to cover basic necessities.

From this paragraph, he concludes that the living wage is $16.07 per hour. But the actual living wage here is clearly $32.14, i.e. the hourly wage a full-time worker would need to make in order to comfortably sustain a family of four. Glenn decides to divide that in half because he wants to say two adults might be working full time. But why would you do that anymore than you would divide it by 2.5 on the assumption that one of the kids also has a part-time job?

You can combine multiple below-living-wage jobs in order to get a total family income above a particular income threshold, but each particular job still pays less than a living wage as it is ordinarily understood.

Once you have defined the living wage amount, you need to determine whether the majority of workers receive less than it. Kessler cites Brookings? Ryan Nunn, whose analysis of the Current Population Survey says that 32.3 percent of full-time workers receive an hourly wage below $16.07. But that same calculation from Nunn shows that at least 80 million of around 115 million full-time workers (70 percent) receive an hourly wage below $32.14, which again is the living wage necessary for a full-time worker to support a family of four.

Kessler?s mistakes go beyond using $16.07 instead of $32.14, though. He also errs in deciding that someone receives a living wage provided they make $16.07 per hour without any regard for how many hours they work. Someone who receives $16.07 per hour or even $32.14 per hour does not make a living wage if they only work ten hours a week. And of course getting enough hours is a struggle for some people, with the rise of just-in-time scheduling practices by employers.

It would be reasonable to argue that it is not necessary for each individual worker to make enough to support a family of four on their wages alone. After all, a social-democratic society would kick in a lot of stuff like free health care, free child care, and a child allowance that would make individuals much less dependent on wage income to make ends meet. But insofar as we are trying to determine whether most workers make a living wage so defined, they clearly do not, and AOC is thus clearly correct.

Less Than the Minimum Wage
Kessler says that Amazon and Walmart do not pay less than the minimum wage. Kessler?s argument here is initially just clear pedantry, deciding that ?the minimum wage? refers to the statutory minimum wage, rather than ?the living wage,? even though that?s what is being talked about throughout the rest of the statement.

But what?s funny here is that Kessler is even arguably wrong to say Amazon pays the statutory minimum wage. The company no doubt pays its statutory employees an amount above the state and federal minimums. But Amazon has a lot of people who work for it in varying ways that are independent contractors, and some of them do not make the minimum wage. Most prominently, Amazon?s Mechanical Turk workers do not make the minimum wage. But also some of Amazon?s last-mile delivery drivers work as independent contractors for third-party firms that do not always pay the minimum wage. Amazon logistics contractor XPO seems to get sued for this behavior rather frequently.

So AOC is even right on the most pedantic interpretation of minimum wage.

Companies Benefit From Wealth Transfer
Kessler takes on AOC?s other claim ? that companies like Amazon and Walmart in effect receive a wealth transfer from the means-tested benefits received by their workers ? by saying that:

Even if Ocasio-Cortez were right about the minimum wage, her contention that those companies are benefiting from a wealth transfer is dubious. Economic theory generally assumes all costs and benefits of labor-related taxes and benefits are borne by labor ? i.e., the worker, not the employer. So wages would be largely unaffected if taxes went up or public assistance went up. And the worker would still get paid the same, even if they had to carry the burden of new taxes or received enhanced benefits.

The problem here is that, if we are going to use economic theory to settle this debate, then it is true that benefits like Medicaid and food stamps do not benefit the employers of those that receive them. But that same economic theory says that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is also received by low-wage workers, does benefit employers by permitting them to pay lower wages than they would without the EITC. The EITC allows low-wage employers like Amazon and Walmart to save on wages because of its phase-in structure, which differs from the structure of benefits like food stamps and Medicaid.

So once again, AOC is technically correct on this narrow point. And Kessler is wrong.