Logos385

That's pretty boss.

Oooh, rap discussion! Lyrically, Immortal Technique is the best out there.

What do you mean by legalize the Constitution?? And why do we need MORE government oil investment? We already have way, way more than we need... we are subsidizing some of the richest countries in the world. And why do you think he can see reason in both sides, when he is so steeped in his economic agenda that he is willing to ignore social issues entirely (i.e. Equal Right's Amendment)? And he proposes lowering taxes, which will increase our debt. I just don't see it : P.

Gotchya, I just found JJ to be reasonable, so I didn't think the reason for the law would be relevant. And it isn't- governments should not mandate vaginal penetration, I don't care about the reason, thus didn't feel the need to include it.

Plus, I'm sure JJ is perfectly able to research these things himself! : ).

But yes, thanks for the input, always nice to have a neutral voice keeping things in check.

That's fair, I would like to know what direction Paul would take that you are in support of.

Cool.

And actually, even though the initial bill applied to all employers, the bill that actually was enacted was amended to give an exemption to religious and/or moral interests. So there really isn't any religious issue there. Even though I personally would have championed the initial bill, that is not what ended up being enacted. I don't think an employer's religious view should affect the health care of an employee, especially as the employee's religion might be something else entirely. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and that's exactly what this law is. But I guess I can't get everything I want, eh?

Hahahaha, oh the television excuse : P. I blame unassailable cultural/ideological tradition.... propagated by parents, the media (TV! : P), and community. People need to listen more to their biological psychology, then maybe they would have some more morality!

That's exactly it JJbigscreeners, the idea behind the law is explicitly anti-woman. The only way an ultrasound inhibits abortion is if a woman is so ignorant that she does not realize that pregnancy means there is a baby in her. Thus, the Virginia legislature enacted an underhanded trick to attempt to play on what they believe to perpetuate society- overwhelming female ignorance. Casper, if you really think that a woman who is pregnant does not know that there is in fact a baby involved, then the law assists the pro-life cause.

And even then, a non-intrusive ultrasound would serve just as well.

No matter what reason, a government should not mandate vaginal penetration. I mean, come on.

Why go in a new economic direction when this one is working? ; ).

And I see what you mean about states' rights. That's always been a trouble area in American politics, it can be so hard to regulate with state borders often being ideological borders as well. Eh, just preference I guess.

What whole contraception thing? Are you referring to the mandate that explicitly excludes religion?

And yes, morality is always elusive in contemporary America, but I don't think religion is the answer- not saying you do either. Absolutely agreed on the judicial and police fronts!

I love discussing things like this too, especially with reasonable people! : ).

This whole not-delivering-on-promises thing is getting less and less true as time goes on. Obama is getting stuff done over time, as should be expected.

Paul is very against taxation, which reduces national debt. The majority of how he would propose debt reduction is with the cut of social programs, as he doesn't believe that is government's place. He also voted AGAINST the Equal Rights Amendment.

Abortion is an entirely different discussion, no need to start it here ; P.

And states vs. federal government? I'm NOT a fan of giving states significant power. Just look at Virginia... where a woman is forced to be vaginally penetrated against her will by the government. Not a great time to give states more power.

The economy is getting much, much better under Obama, including unemployment- how is there an attack on religion?

I agree on Santorum and Romney, and agree that Paul is very consistent. That is a point for him for sure. I just happen to disagree with most of his consistent views, haha.

I'm curious as to why you favor Paul over Obama? What has Paul done, not said or hoped for, but actually done, that is an attention grabber? Of the 620 measures Paul sponsored in Congress.... Four made it to the House floor. How many were signed into law? One! It was discussed for two minutes and was about the sale of a single Texas property.

Doesn't seem like he has successfully done anything of much note or importance : /.

But, I do want to know why you give him the edge over Obama, and how Paul could be equivalent to Obama in any way? They disagree on nearly ever key issue.

Thanks- I always assume people are fairly politically literate.... I guess I always assume Awlaki was a huge deal to everyone, when in reality, it didn't make that much of a national impact : /. Which is why I didn't explain the situation, nice call.

And yes, Paul was against this. And there is a bit more to the situation than you let on, but the summary was good and enjoyable : ).

I was explaining myself more clearly, as your response before didn't adequately address my point about connotation.

And no, that is not enough reason to offend someone's racial sensitivities, at least in my mind. Using a word that specifically denotes viewing someone as a lesser class of citizen and person simply because you can't entertain yourself? Not the best option. Try a hobby, those are fun.

Yes, you explicitly stated a definition, I understand that. But if you actually mean to call someone "ignorant," use the word "ignorant." However, if you mean to call someone ignorant AND racially offend them, use the N word.

The accepted connotation of a word is not assumption, it is reality. To assert that the N word means ignorant with no racial connotation is a fantasy.

Because the N word has a very specific, racial connotation. To think the N word is about race is rational, not ignorant.

I'm aware of the meaning of the word, but the definition of a word isn't the only thing that matters. Connotation matters too. If someone is ignorant, call them ignorant, no reason to make it about race. That is the definition of racism.

Been doing very well recently, despite not using Sharenator much. As a sophomore Undergrad I am already going to begin Physics research with the faculty, which is a huge deal for things like Grad School, etc. As for hobbies and such, I am well on my way to once again topping the UU Competitive Pokemon charts, and I'm getting into the Pokemon TCG. I have also started Rock Climbing and working out again. Everything is looking up!

PS. That rabbit is adorable.

You say it has been escalating, which is definitely something to be conscious of. However, if next time they throw a bottle you pull a gun? That would be escalating the situation to a point you just can't back down from. I'd be nervous about using what you're carrying, because once they know you have a gun, the whole dynamic changes.

Anywho, be careful. If the situation gets bad, get out of there. It may not be worth it. Best of luck to you.

If you're calling someone the N word, you are, by definition, racist enough to matter. You should think hard about what makes you think of other races differently, and then attempt to end that way of thinking. It furthers societal cooperation and health.