Search Results: in between

it would seem logical. someone who's jacked at 18 and loves life isn't thinking about how to maximize their wealth. by the time they're aging out of peak sexual value, they've hit 30 and don't have the drive to do anything bigger. my proof for all this is how it appears paradoxical or ironic when you see someone rich who has muscles, who's tall, good looking, really good mannered, patient, friendly. And I'm not talking about guys who make 300k a year. although it might be the case for them too. I'm primarily talking about the guys who always wanted to be filthy rich like Bill Gates and Warren buffet. Steve Jobs seemed less concerned with money overall than creating new technology. I'd put him somewhere in-between Bill Gates and a star QB. goes to show men who are rich who don't have shit genetics can actually accomplish a lot, because it isn't and never was about the money.

Earlier this year, Luigi Mangione assassinated Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare and upon seeing this picture, the Left immediately claimed him as one of their own

Luigi Mangione became a heartthrob sex symbol for feminists to lust after because he's such a hot and sexy bad boy and feminists are "great judges" of moral character

Meanwhile when photos of Thomas Matthew Crooks (the boy who almost assassinated Trump) and Tyler Robinson made it to the internet, the Left immediately denounced them because they were too unattractive. Thomas Matthew Crooks looks like an incel so the Left immediately framed him as a Republican, same goes for Tyler Robinson

yet the Left had no hesitation with claiming Luigi Mangione as one of their own and many openly celebrated Luigi as their champion and the only difference between Luigi versus Crooks and Robinson is obviously physical attractiveness

so, if Luigi had assassinated Charlie Kirk instead, would the Left claim him as their own?

Girls, I think this will be an interesting debate, so cast your opinion given the following scenario:

If you're in a relationship and live together, assume that he works full-time Monday to Friday and works 40+ hours a week, he leaves for work early morning, and doesn't get home till 6/7pm in the evening and is the higher earner. She on the other hand works part-time, and doesn't get home until 2, 3pm in the afternoon, and earns less than him.

Who's taking care of household chores during the week, like laundry, cleaning, and hoovering, given that you (the woman) have an extra 20 hours Monday to Friday than he does.

Weekends don't count here, since it should be fair game taking care of things together, and weekends pose a good opportunity for him to do a few things whilst she does a few less. And, time for both to do something together, like shopping.

What are your thoughts? The poll answers are in the woman's context as if she was answering. Since there's a 3-4 hour gap between them getting home, picking answer C would technically mean she gets to relax until he gets home.

between Koreans and Italians that is