When do we get to call you guys intolerant, bigots, etc.?
Who is this "we" and "you guys" you are talking about? The "you guys" that are very vocal about thier stance on a particular issue is rarely the same "you guys" that are just as vocal the next month, when another hot topic issue comes up. You gave two specific examples in your post, but neither one has much to do with the viewpoint of a random person on slashdot.
The mainstream media ignores Joe Biden's retardation but jumps on Akin? Um, yeah . . that's the mainstream media and anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention knows to take the new yellow journalism with a grain of salt. Go vent your frustration at CNN or FoxNews forums if you want. You're preaching to the choir here.
A political party sees an issue as more than just black and white and so might have differing views when specific issues are addressed? Say it ain't so! Even if you completely missed the last century of government and you don't know that political parties have been throwing around hypocrasies and double standards for quite a while now, you should be able to realize a simple truth. Printing your own gun and copying someone's music CD is not quite the same thing.
If printing your own gun becomes legal, or stays legal, what have you, and then the Pirate Party says it is against people using a particular gun design because it has a copyright, then that would be a double standard. If the Pirate Party says it should be illegal to print your own gun, then no, that is not a double standard. That is two standards for two different things. Either way, if you have issues with political parties, take it up with them. Refer to my earlier statement about preaching to the choir.
Just to be clear, I'm not against you speaking your mind. But from the quoted bit from your post, you don't seem to be distinguishing your audience (us) from the people you have issues with (msm and political parties).
I'm the AC from above and you got awful close...
We still don't know about Ryan, but the evidence now seems to indicate that, for Akin, the answer may be that only "forcible" rapes are "legitimate." This, IMHO, is a repugnant view and we should be probably inquire to make sure that the GOPs VP nominee doesn't believe it too.
Ryan cosponsored the bill, either he agrees with Akin or sponsors bills he does not understand. Logic + availiable evidence = conclusion.
Or he's a politician that made a compromise in order to get a co-sponsor for his person hood bill. Or lot's of other reasons that none of us really know the circumstances of . .
I'm not a Ryan or Akin supporter, but I think your is a gross oversimplification of the possibilities.
1) any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2) anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim
3) any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.
There is no limitation in this definition that precludes the use of cultural norms, and there's no requirement that any type of weapon should necessarily affect everyone equally. Your use of an entirely private and made up definition for the word "weapon" in a public forum is what is illogical here.
I don't see how someone could be arrested for spreading rumours. Isn't one person's "spreading rumours" another person's "spreading the word about an imminent threat"? It's not thier fault that an attack hasn't actually happened (yet). Or is the actual charge "knowingly spreading false rumours, in order to cause a panic" or something like that?
Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.
