I think the panic comes from the media's use of "mutant kid" photos... it invokes an immediate "WTF?!" reaction that is not at all mitigated by scientific discussion or relevant information.
That said, I'll speak from personal experience - any kind of disorder, defect or trauma that results in your child having brain abnormalities is setting you up for a long fucking road. If you can avoid it, or be scared enough by the media to not put your unborn child at risk, I'm fine with it. You don't need to go to Rio that badly.
Gary Johnson: 86% Jill Stein: 81% Clinton: 72% Trump: 54% Apparently I side with Trump on military and foreign policy issues. Since what he says changes 180 degrees on a day to day basis, I'm not sure whether this is true at the moment or not. I do know that, despite being a libertarian, I am very much against their stance on foreign policy/military.
Hillary 86% Jill Stein 82% Gary Johnson 73% I'm surprised at this result. I didn't think I'd be in that much agreement with any of the candidates, never mind the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. And I side with Trump on no issues - no surprise there
Jill Stein - 95% Hillary Clinton - 88% Gary Johnson - 83% Donald Trump - 52% I expected to be in agreement somewhat with Hillary and Johnson, primarily in social, science and environmental issues, but had no idea I'd be that aligned with the green party... Does that make me a hippy?
Hillary Clinton - 98% Jill Stein - 96% Gary Johnson - 74% Donald Trump - 13% Interesting. I didn't think I'd be in agreement with Clinton so strongly since my views on gun control and foreign policy diverge from her stances, but the test only asked a single question about gun control and none on the particular foreign policy stances with which I disagree. I'm also looking at the individual answers and some of them don't seem to make sense. For example on the Planned Parenthood question my answer was the same as "Hillary's" answer but the quiz said my view was most in line with Stein's and Trump's. Huh? Especially weird since Trump and Stein's answer are different in some significant ways. I think that quiz has some flawed methodology.
Trump - 91% D Castle (Who?) - 77% G Johnson - 73% HRC - 51% J Stein (Who?) - 24% I know I lean further Right on things like immigration but I figured some of the Left leanings I have (Planned Parenthood, legalize weed, science etc) would've evened it out a little. Wow. I really don't know what to say.
I answered every question. I say this because the percentages changed depending on the depth of the questioning. The order stayed the same. These results really don't surprise me at all. I've always thought of myself as more of a Libertarian. Gary Johnson - 84% Donald Trump - 74% Jill Stein - 63% Hilary Clinton - 59%
I read this morning on a German site that Balcony Man is being prosecuted now for uttering "Hate speech" at the shooter. The punishment is going to be even more harsh because the shooter is now dead and the charge carries the extra penalty of "Hate speech against the deceased." Germany is so screwed. http://www.tz.de/muenchen/stadt/amo...r-thomas-salbey-bleibt-straffrei-6635817.html
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found that the Gadsden Flag ("Don't tread on me") is racist. This is getting ridiculous. Before long anything created before ....say 2000...is going to be found racist because it was created in an environment that wasn't diverse enough. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ead-on-me-hat-could-be-racial-harassment.html
I don't get this line of thinking. Just because something was acceptable back in the day, doesn't make it acceptable now. Up until 1967, it was against the law in southern states for a black and white couple to marry.
To be fair, for all of his conservative rantings on Immigration and some Women's Health issues, Trump is fairly liberal when it comes to social issues. Which makes a lot of people, who would be fine with his other nonsense, uncomfortable.
With this new flag story where is the racial component? I honesty don't see your connection to known racial discrimination to this flag. It wasn't connected culturally to the confederacy? Gadsden was a slave holder? Is everything pre civil illegitimate because racism?
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. He had slaves. That's null and void now too. It's retarded logic, but that's not even what it was about. They banned it because the current Tea Party movement has racist undertones, apparently. Unlike Black Lives Matter, which has racist overtones, but that's fine. What a time to be alive.
What about the Company John Hancock who uses a facsimile of his signature? They need to change their logo, I reckon.
I wasn't talking about the flag, I was speaking in generalities. As to your point, sure. Why wouldn't it be? Shouldn't we be making determinations on how racist stuff was based on the current definition of it? Shouldn't we be making determinations on all things past and present based on our current understanding of things? Being dismissive because "that's how things were" or because it makes people feel a certain way isn't helpful.
It depends. Historical context is an important thing to understand and recognize. The best one I hear parroted is "Why didn't they abolish slavery during the signing of the Declaration?" Well because the Southern states were already on the fence, and never would have gotten on board with full abolition and the northerners knew it. Is that an justification for slavery or make it okay? No. But we should try to understand ideas and decisions based on the time in which they were made. That allows for a perspective on culture and how it has evolved over time. Hindsight bias is easy, but it's also lazy and myopic. Now things like slavery itself can be judged negatively because the motives and perspectives of the time were agreeably flawed and evil. It's obvious based on the fuzzy and inconsistent logic that the school banned it because of a current political statement, rather than some hamfisted protest against someone many people never heard of.
And apparently iPhone is taking the "pistol" emoji out and replacing it with a squirt gun. Something about people wanting them to "stop weaponizing the iphone." And death threats via emoji or emoticons or whatever are admissible in court. Seriously people, stop being fucking pussies. You know why we can't have nice things? Because social media gives every self-entitled sheltered asshole who's never encountered true adversity or hard work a microphone and tells them they have a right to an opinion. Yes, you do have the right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean it should get equal weight as the opinion from someone who has actually experienced life and knows which battles are worth fighting.
Is this the kind of thing you were referring to Revenge? Anyone see this? And I tried to find a source other than Breitbart, or Fox, or the Daily Caller, but I could find no other mainstream news organization covering this story. http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016...nt-vp-suspended-alllivesmatter-facebook-post/ "The vice president of the University of Houston Student Government Association (SGA) has been suspended after a furious reaction to her social media posting that #AllLivesMatter." She eventually was forced into a lengthy suspension along with a lot of other ridiculous punishments. I blame the Universities for not standing up to this crap and letting them get away with it. All she said was All lives matter while cops were laying dead in the street. What the actual fuck?