Heck just being outted as gay, lesbian or even transsexual can bring you a lot of problem, even in western democracy like the US.
Or it can get you on the front page of every magazine, and revive your seriously fading celebrity.
A small part of me wanted to see this go down, just to watch the shitstorm that resulted and see the Republicans claim that it wasn't their fault.
None of this is their fault. This whole unpopular law (among people, as opposed to elites) is the fault of Democrats.
We didn't want this, and the fact that your little provision that is designed to force states into setting up exchanges backfired on you should mean just that: that it backfired on you. You shouldn't get to have the Supreme Court rewrite the law for you to mean the opposite of what it says and of what it's architect bragged that it meant.
You give the verbal offer and *then* do the background & reference checks?
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. WTH?
Hopefully the verdict is in before he gives notice at his old job
The actual architect of the law, as well as some other people involved with the writing, specifically stated at the time the law was being written that the purpose of the tax credit only applying to State exchanges was to force uncooperative states to comply with the law.
Well
We've always been at war with Oceana
Why is it necessary to add random chemicals? How can that be "cheaper"?
It's cheaper to not have food spoil. It's cheaper not to transport and store parts of food that everyone cuts off and throws away. It's cheaper to synthesize ascorbic acid than it is to extract it from fruits, and the ascorbic acid is identical. Etc.
... that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The philosophy with these "free" lunches is puzzling in any case.
Are WIC, plus food stamps, plus ADC/TANF/FIP/whatever they are calling it now, combined, not enough to provide food for kids to brown bag it?
If they are designed to be enough, that is, to include lunch. then why can't the parents just, you know, send lunch?
Or is the premise here that poor parents must also be abusive and not willing to feed their children?
And before you get mad at me, I didn't design all these programs. I'm just asking a logical question.
The question may really be whether we can get past paid trolls, FUD, and finger pointing in order to act wisely in a timely manner
In other words, "the question is whether we can get past people who don't agree instantly with me. We just need to put aside our differences and agree with me. "
It's just misdirection. Yes, you should be mad, but not at robots and meanie rich people.
It wasn't a giant leap in robots that turned the recession of 2008 into the depression of 2009-?. Any more than it was a giant leap in robots that did it in the 1930s.
Think it through.
... I don't care if they get him on phony charges of tax evasion or something. Or 15-life for jaywalking.
Somehow I doubt that The Sharia States of America would care much about free speech. Or any of the other hot causes that their allies here claim to care about. They'd be too busy executing accused gays and anyone who's neighbor said they had a negative thought about Mohamed.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Ideally, the world's population would be small enough that everyone could live somewhere with a nice climate but also with easy access to water.
See, that's the part you are missing. CA has a "nice climate" because not much water falls from the sky.
It's called a "trade off". Life is full of them.
equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome.
Yep. We used to have a nifty word called "aptitude".
If opportunity were to be magically made really equal, then the only remaining differences in outcome would be due to aptitude.
We know for sure that aptitude for various tasks is not spread equally among individuals - that's why we have things like the Scholastic Aptitude Test, for Pete's sake.
Is aptitude for all tasks spread equally among groups? Genders? Racial groups? We don't know, and we sure aren't going to be allowed to study it. But if it isn't, then there will always be differences in outcome, unless you create Procrustean regulations that force an entirely artificial outcome, artificially benefiting some groups and penalizing others.
Intolerant is baking a cake for a person that's on their fourth marriage while refusing to bake one for a lesbian couple that is finally able to marry after twenty years together.
Utter nonsense. You wouldn't support forcing someone to bake an "I love Hitler, I hate Jews" cake for a neo-Nazi rally. But you support forcing someone to bake a cake for your favored event. Because you, of course, are self-evidently right.
You're all about the force, as long as it is forcing them to do what you want. That makes you the tolerant one?
until you want to shape the lives of others with rules or demands originated from your beliefs, at that point, kindly shut the fuck up and go back to whatever hole you crawled out of.
Mmm. So I assume that includes people who seek out some obscure pizza restaurant, ask them if they hypothetically would cater an event they abhor, and then unleash a carp storm on them for not joining the latest groupthink?
And I assume it includes those who would fine others for not baking celebratory cakes for events they consider wrong?
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
