Yeah government is always getting in the way of the good stuff with those pesky laws. Why aren't rape and murder legal? Why do I have to stop at red lights when I wanna keep going?! WHAT ABOUT MY FREEDOMS?!?!
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, so I'm assuming it's not. This comment is like listening to conservative talk radio during the day.
You DID read where he said they abandoned the socialist ideas right?! They aren't socialists if they adopt socialist ideas to get into power and then abandon said socialist ideas.
The political right takes the opposite approach. Instead of preventing the expression of ideas, they prefer to use free expression to point out where they think that others are wrong, allowing any listeners/readers/viewers to come to their own conclusions.
President Trump is a good example of this. He doesn't push for the shutdown or silencing of media organizations that he questions the reporting of. Rather, he calls them out in public, often right to their faces. He presents his case, and lets everyone else make up their own minds.
Trump is a bad example of this. Tweeting "fake news" at everything isn't "using free expression to point out where they think others are wrong". It's setting up a mental barrier to critical thinking so you don't have to entertain another opinion, or even the truth these days. The political right is effectively regulating the speech, only internally through indoctrination. Also Trump may call out others in public (usually as a result of his own thin skin being pricked by WORDS), but don't you dare argue he presents a case. He presents a tweet about anything at most. He doesn't articulate anything. Defend his ability to not give a shit, but don't bend over backwards for the man at every corner. But I digress...
As a person who is on the political left who is all about free speech, I do know that we have a few overzealous goody two shoes who want to be very PC. There is nothing wrong with that as it's just a difference of opinion. However, regulating everything isn't the right approach. Alternatively, all of you "wahhhhh big gubment"/"all regulations are bad wahhhh" people are just as bad in the opposite direction. Would you be OK with a somebody shouting obscenities and hate words at children in a preschool? Probably not. There's a line to be drawn somewhere and it sure as fuck isn't at either end of the spectrum most of the time.
One more thing to think about since you're such a big proponent of free speech and I bet you're a big critical thinker. While some on the political left may want to be a bit excessive in their speech regulation, there's a reason why the political right is taking the opposite stance. Not only is it partisan, but it allows for the free flow of not only facts, but lies and slander, and that's what the political right is after. In a world where you're not required to tell the truth, why not just tell the truth that people want to hear? Why address anything with a well-thought-out reply when you can have a beautiful retort like "fake news" and end the conversation?
There's a reason Donald Trump and Republicans like "free speech"(unless you're a Democrat, Muslim or brown though, "fuck you" right?!?! All those black voters didn't just get knocked to "inactive" in Alabama recently for no reason) and it's not because they like to the the truth. It's because it lets the system keep on churning that much longer for the people who benefit from it the most which is not the lower/middle class.
Have you seen the members of the US Congress?!?! We basically pay them to twiddle their thumbs all day. Well... that and take juicy donations from the private sector. Everything in politics is a money and time sink. Hypocrisy is the flavor of the day.
The difference here is that in the end, they are SAVING the government money by not allowing them to build a big, dumb, ineffective wall. You say they are wasting the government's money by creating roadblocks. I say the government is wasting OUR money by trying to barrel through roadblocks. How about we stop building the wall and save everybody time and money?
Should the EFF stop their work because they are a "roadblock" to removing net neutrality? Maybe the ACLU and NAACP are also governmental roadblocks too? Get rid of them all and we have a well oiled machine that doesn't fail anybody!!!/s
As an American, I think we could do with less of the "any field you wish" garbage. I did that and now I have a degree that's useless other than the fact that it's a degree. I have a pretty good job considering, but it has nothing to do with what I went to school for. And here's the kicker. Their "free" degree probably takes them a lot further and gives them more useful skills than the degree I paid for.
I bet you also think "free" healthcare is bad too. Yeah it's in quotes. None of these things are free, but it's a good buzzword for people who want to jump on the hate train without realizing all the benefits such things can bring. I'd rather be in a society where critical thinking and higher intelligence was the norm than one where we try to keep everybody dumb and ignorant.
What you're asserting is that all liberals wanted Hillary as our candidate. Never mind that there was another candidate a lot of us preferred.
On top of that, not all liberals want to believe he is in bed with Russia, but when people act the way he has been acting and "forget" about all of their connections to Russia when questioned in an investigation, you have to at least wonder what's got them all out-of-whack. If there is nothing to hide, why worry?
And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades, long before Trump came along. And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world.
And yet, Trump can't even denounce Russia (but at least he is great at tweeting about Kaepernick). Instead of agreeing to the possibility Russia might have meddled in US affairs, Trump is more eager to hand out printouts of the election results and call liberals sore losers. Those aren't the actions of somebody who wants to prove they have no ties to Russia.
Hillary was a trash candidate, but don't let that fact blind you to the fact that Trump is not only trashy, but trashier.
But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this. It's laughable.
Maybe, but not as laughable as every Trump supporter ready to take it in the ass to defend Trump for EVERYTHING he does. At least a good portion of liberals have the balls to call out Hillary for her bullshit. If only conservatives could act the same way with Trump...
Let's not forget about the political witch-hunt known as Benghazi. I may not like her, but at least some of us can see it was a ploy by Republicans to harm a specific individual. Or how about when they spent 8 years accusing Obama of not being a US citizen? Both of them got through it. Trump will too if he has nothing to hide.
I drive BECAUSE it's cheaper. What you lose from driving is not money, but time. I make a trips across the US each year by car (18 hour drive each way) and it's always been cheaper than my cheapest flight. The trick is, don't pay for hotels. It costs nothing to sleep in your car.
Your postings are just poorly masked "if you disagree with me you are an evil bigot".
He wasn't disagreeing, just pointing out facts that any objective observer would note.
Its people like you that prevent real progress from happening because it is more important to you to be liberal than to actually help people. That ends up with hundreds of people being killed in Chicago violence every year and nothing done because Chicago is already "liberal" and "doing the right thing". So you just let mass murder continue because liberalism is FAR more important than actually helping anyone.
No no no. It's people like YOU who prevent real progress. When you hear something you don't like that doesn't fit perfectly into your worldview, it's easier to dismiss it than face the possibility you might have been wrong. Instead of trying to refute his arguments and present sound arguments of your own, you toss his opinions away in the blink of an eye and attack his character. Then you go about bringing up an unrelated topic to general drug use (gun violence in Chicago) as a way of... what? What were you even trying to do here? It appears you didn't really have a clear rebuttal in place but just let your emotions get the best of you.
If you REALLY want progress, fight back with some logic instead of all emotion.
He'll have to work very hard to be worse than the last two.
The worst? I know it's "in" right now to think of Obama as the devil and a lot of people dislike Bush, but let's step OUTSIDE of our echo chambers and reassess if they are actually the worst. I'm going to go ahead and say James Buchanan and Warren G. Harding are the worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Also, as much as I'm willing to give ol' Donald the benefit of the doubt, hard work is definitely not in his skill set.
A trick so illegal that the Supreme Court found Obamacare to be... legal.
The best part about the Trump presidency will be that we don't have to hear "Thanks, Obama." every time a Democrat farts. Maybe we can at least get to some common ground where we can at least accept Obama as a decent human being, even if you disagreed with every single stance of his (hard to believe). Can anybody seriously picture Trump and Melania reading books to children and having a good time?!?!
http://cdn.newsday.com/polopol...
As someone who is pro-choice, the biggest problem isn't with abortion itself, it's creating the environment where abortions become increasingly necessary.
Almost to a T, people who are pro-life support all the policies that increase the need for abortions. I support birth control and making it readily available to people who can't afford it. Places like Planned Parenthood who do A LOT MORE than just abortions. Pro-life supporters usually don't. I support spending my tax money on the impoverished, especially the children. In my experience, a lot of those who are pro-life are of the opinion most poor people are leechers of the system, regardless of how hard they work. They are not in favor of reaching out to that child after he is born, just making sure he is born. I'm in favor of universal healthcare and education. Things the child of a single mother could really use. Once again, I find more often than not, most pro-life supporters are not in favor of these things. Despite being pro-choice, I'm not for the death penalty in most cases. I find most pro-life supporters are in favor of it, however.
That being said... I'm not so fixed on this to be unable to see that not everyone agrees with me. Abortions being illegal (murder) except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, I could compromise on. I could also understand if the child is damaged in some way, brain dead or otherwise never going to live anyway. If a doctor certifies that this is the case, then fair enough, I can compromise there.
What about if the mother is financially unable to care for a child? What if she has mental health issues that would prevent her from being an adequate mother? What if she was using birth control and happened to be one of the rare cases where it failed? I'm gonna go ahead and assume those wouldn't be exceptions to the rule, but they should be.
Side note: My personal belief is that you do not have an abortion, even to save the life of the mother. You do not kill children for any reason whatsoever. I will not stand before God and tell him "I wanted my wife to live, so I killed my child to save her".
So you instead want to say "I wanted my child to live, so I killed my wife to save him/her."?!?! Neither is a desirable choice, but that just seems cold. You're talking about somebody you made vows with. Someone you promised to love for eternity. I couldn't do that to someone I claimed to love.
So what I usually see in a pro-life supporter is this: A person who fights the things that would help alleviate the need for abortions, but at the same time opposes all the policies that would help single mothers or orphaned children afterwards. It's like they read the part of the Bible that said "Thou shalt not kill." but completely glossed over "Love thy neighbor."
That is one of the problems of having "laws" written by courts...
As opposed to God? THANK GOD we have laws written by man. Otherwise, rape might be legal. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Just like gay marriage, what it really comes down to is people flexing their religious muscles. This is largely an issue that doesn't really have an effect on the people outside of those directly involved. Your day-to-day life isn't going to change just because Jane Doe down the street had an abortion anymore than it did because Adam married Evan and not Eve. If it's REALLY about the morality of killing unborn children, there is probably a lot of soul searching to be done for all the women and born children who we condone killing with our military.
To summarize, your arguments aren't any better than the points you are trying to defeat.
They are a lot better. He gave a reasoning for every answer. Even IF you were to consider his points invalid, he did a much better job of presenting his side. So they are objectively better.
Focussing on a single argument, even if I could argue on others:
Can you? You just said all of his arguments weren't any better. Why did you get lazy all of a sudden? Strut your stuff if it's so great. Tell us all the secrets.
But alas, you probably can't. You picked up on one bullet point, wrongly too if I may say so, and then proceeded to disregard all of his points. Did you READ any of the parent he was criticizing? The points were an average of less than 10 words a point it looks like. The counter arguments were at least one full sentence apiece. Still objectively better no matter which side you fall on.
It's bad journalism if Bill Nye said "Well for us, on my side of this, this is the result of climate change." and the resulting sentence becomes "This is the result of climate change." It was changed from an opinion to a fact by not including it all.
It is a weather EVENT not a 'climate event', the flood may have happened and may have been just as severe regardless if the climate is changing.
Weather is a subset of climate. Climate is the statistics of weather, usually over a 30-year interval. It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time.
The flood may have happened and it also may not have happened. Nobody could tell if it would be more or less severe because of climate change without an alternate timeline. That's why nobody is pointing to any one specific event (no, not even Bill Nye is doing it). He also cares about the aggregate. Did you watch the video? He isn't coming down as some hardliner.
What it sounds like to me is a knee-jerk reaction by somebody who doesn't like Bill Nye.
They don't want to believe they are racist, but they are. Because everyone is human. And practicing racism is a survival trait. There are parts of Detroit one does not go at night, and it is not because of the "White Super Predators". There are houses with bars everywhere in parts of NYC, and it is not because of "Women Super Predators".
Let me first off by complaining about your "White Super Predators" or "Women Super Predators". Predators here is the noun. Anything you add before that is an adjective used to describe predators. So what you said was that the super predators are white or women. But I know that's not what you meant, so I'll go on.
That's not about practicing racism. Danger comes from all races. If you don't go there because it's a bad neighborhood with a lot of crime, that doesn't make you racist. If you believe instead that the problem is much deeper and the root cause is the race of the people living there (i.e. all white people of the same nature in that area would make it safer or something), then that's racism.
Yes, racist and sexist, if you are not, good luck surviving.
Survived 30 years without them. Being a bigot is different than being racist or sexist. Being discriminatory is not a bad thing. Discriminating and blaming problems on race or sex though, that IS a bad thing.
Also, surviving? If that's all you're doing, you need to take a long hard look at your life. You should be thriving and not casting blame on others.
It would be STUPID of you not to comment about pharmacies. The great thing about free speech is I can say what I want.
That being said, let me say that even though I don't like guns, you making a comment about me probably never seeing or using a gun is wrong. Clearly you, just like policy makers, believe what you want to believe because it fits your ideology and/or personality. I don't handle nuclear waste but I'll be damned if I let somebody like you tell me I can't have an opinion about it that helps shape the future of our country in the right direction. Same with oil, abortion, contraception, etc.
Do you feel like politicians are extensively qualified to make judgements on any of these topics? If you feel that way, but not the same about gun legislation, I call bullshit. You just want to get angry because I don't want you to have a toy that ends peoples lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah government is always getting in the way of the good stuff with those pesky laws. Why aren't rape and murder legal? Why do I have to stop at red lights when I wanna keep going?! WHAT ABOUT MY FREEDOMS?!?!
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, so I'm assuming it's not. This comment is like listening to conservative talk radio during the day.
You DID read where he said they abandoned the socialist ideas right?! They aren't socialists if they adopt socialist ideas to get into power and then abandon said socialist ideas.
The political right takes the opposite approach. Instead of preventing the expression of ideas, they prefer to use free expression to point out where they think that others are wrong, allowing any listeners/readers/viewers to come to their own conclusions.
President Trump is a good example of this. He doesn't push for the shutdown or silencing of media organizations that he questions the reporting of. Rather, he calls them out in public, often right to their faces. He presents his case, and lets everyone else make up their own minds.
Trump is a bad example of this. Tweeting "fake news" at everything isn't "using free expression to point out where they think others are wrong". It's setting up a mental barrier to critical thinking so you don't have to entertain another opinion, or even the truth these days. The political right is effectively regulating the speech, only internally through indoctrination. Also Trump may call out others in public (usually as a result of his own thin skin being pricked by WORDS), but don't you dare argue he presents a case. He presents a tweet about anything at most. He doesn't articulate anything. Defend his ability to not give a shit, but don't bend over backwards for the man at every corner. But I digress ...
As a person who is on the political left who is all about free speech, I do know that we have a few overzealous goody two shoes who want to be very PC. There is nothing wrong with that as it's just a difference of opinion. However, regulating everything isn't the right approach. Alternatively, all of you "wahhhhh big gubment"/"all regulations are bad wahhhh" people are just as bad in the opposite direction. Would you be OK with a somebody shouting obscenities and hate words at children in a preschool? Probably not. There's a line to be drawn somewhere and it sure as fuck isn't at either end of the spectrum most of the time.
One more thing to think about since you're such a big proponent of free speech and I bet you're a big critical thinker. While some on the political left may want to be a bit excessive in their speech regulation, there's a reason why the political right is taking the opposite stance. Not only is it partisan, but it allows for the free flow of not only facts, but lies and slander, and that's what the political right is after. In a world where you're not required to tell the truth, why not just tell the truth that people want to hear? Why address anything with a well-thought-out reply when you can have a beautiful retort like "fake news" and end the conversation?
There's a reason Donald Trump and Republicans like "free speech"(unless you're a Democrat, Muslim or brown though, "fuck you" right?!?! All those black voters didn't just get knocked to "inactive" in Alabama recently for no reason) and it's not because they like to the the truth. It's because it lets the system keep on churning that much longer for the people who benefit from it the most which is not the lower/middle class.
Have you seen the members of the US Congress?!?! We basically pay them to twiddle their thumbs all day. Well ... that and take juicy donations from the private sector. Everything in politics is a money and time sink. Hypocrisy is the flavor of the day.
/s
The difference here is that in the end, they are SAVING the government money by not allowing them to build a big, dumb, ineffective wall. You say they are wasting the government's money by creating roadblocks. I say the government is wasting OUR money by trying to barrel through roadblocks. How about we stop building the wall and save everybody time and money?
Should the EFF stop their work because they are a "roadblock" to removing net neutrality? Maybe the ACLU and NAACP are also governmental roadblocks too? Get rid of them all and we have a well oiled machine that doesn't fail anybody!!!
As an American, I think we could do with less of the "any field you wish" garbage. I did that and now I have a degree that's useless other than the fact that it's a degree. I have a pretty good job considering, but it has nothing to do with what I went to school for. And here's the kicker. Their "free" degree probably takes them a lot further and gives them more useful skills than the degree I paid for. I bet you also think "free" healthcare is bad too. Yeah it's in quotes. None of these things are free, but it's a good buzzword for people who want to jump on the hate train without realizing all the benefits such things can bring. I'd rather be in a society where critical thinking and higher intelligence was the norm than one where we try to keep everybody dumb and ignorant.
And it's something that the Russians have been doing for decades, long before Trump came along. And they're still doing it, right now, here and in many countries around the world.
And yet, Trump can't even denounce Russia (but at least he is great at tweeting about Kaepernick). Instead of agreeing to the possibility Russia might have meddled in US affairs, Trump is more eager to hand out printouts of the election results and call liberals sore losers. Those aren't the actions of somebody who wants to prove they have no ties to Russia. Hillary was a trash candidate, but don't let that fact blind you to the fact that Trump is not only trashy, but trashier.
But all liberals can say in order to explain away their terrible choice of a losing candidate is that somehow it was Trump working with the Russians on this. It's laughable.
Maybe, but not as laughable as every Trump supporter ready to take it in the ass to defend Trump for EVERYTHING he does. At least a good portion of liberals have the balls to call out Hillary for her bullshit. If only conservatives could act the same way with Trump ...
Let's not forget about the political witch-hunt known as Benghazi. I may not like her, but at least some of us can see it was a ploy by Republicans to harm a specific individual. Or how about when they spent 8 years accusing Obama of not being a US citizen? Both of them got through it. Trump will too if he has nothing to hide.
I drive BECAUSE it's cheaper. What you lose from driving is not money, but time. I make a trips across the US each year by car (18 hour drive each way) and it's always been cheaper than my cheapest flight. The trick is, don't pay for hotels. It costs nothing to sleep in your car.
Your postings are just poorly masked "if you disagree with me you are an evil bigot".
He wasn't disagreeing, just pointing out facts that any objective observer would note.
Its people like you that prevent real progress from happening because it is more important to you to be liberal than to actually help people. That ends up with hundreds of people being killed in Chicago violence every year and nothing done because Chicago is already "liberal" and "doing the right thing". So you just let mass murder continue because liberalism is FAR more important than actually helping anyone.
No no no. It's people like YOU who prevent real progress. When you hear something you don't like that doesn't fit perfectly into your worldview, it's easier to dismiss it than face the possibility you might have been wrong. Instead of trying to refute his arguments and present sound arguments of your own, you toss his opinions away in the blink of an eye and attack his character. Then you go about bringing up an unrelated topic to general drug use (gun violence in Chicago) as a way of ... what? What were you even trying to do here? It appears you didn't really have a clear rebuttal in place but just let your emotions get the best of you.
If you REALLY want progress, fight back with some logic instead of all emotion.
He'll have to work very hard to be worse than the last two.
The worst? I know it's "in" right now to think of Obama as the devil and a lot of people dislike Bush, but let's step OUTSIDE of our echo chambers and reassess if they are actually the worst. I'm going to go ahead and say James Buchanan and Warren G. Harding are the worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Also, as much as I'm willing to give ol' Donald the benefit of the doubt, hard work is definitely not in his skill set.
A trick so illegal that the Supreme Court found Obamacare to be ... legal.
The best part about the Trump presidency will be that we don't have to hear "Thanks, Obama." every time a Democrat farts. Maybe we can at least get to some common ground where we can at least accept Obama as a decent human being, even if you disagreed with every single stance of his (hard to believe). Can anybody seriously picture Trump and Melania reading books to children and having a good time?!?!
http://cdn.newsday.com/polopol...
That being said... I'm not so fixed on this to be unable to see that not everyone agrees with me. Abortions being illegal (murder) except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, I could compromise on. I could also understand if the child is damaged in some way, brain dead or otherwise never going to live anyway. If a doctor certifies that this is the case, then fair enough, I can compromise there.
What about if the mother is financially unable to care for a child? What if she has mental health issues that would prevent her from being an adequate mother? What if she was using birth control and happened to be one of the rare cases where it failed? I'm gonna go ahead and assume those wouldn't be exceptions to the rule, but they should be.
Side note: My personal belief is that you do not have an abortion, even to save the life of the mother. You do not kill children for any reason whatsoever. I will not stand before God and tell him "I wanted my wife to live, so I killed my child to save her".
So you instead want to say "I wanted my child to live, so I killed my wife to save him/her."?!?! Neither is a desirable choice, but that just seems cold. You're talking about somebody you made vows with. Someone you promised to love for eternity. I couldn't do that to someone I claimed to love. So what I usually see in a pro-life supporter is this: A person who fights the things that would help alleviate the need for abortions, but at the same time opposes all the policies that would help single mothers or orphaned children afterwards. It's like they read the part of the Bible that said "Thou shalt not kill." but completely glossed over "Love thy neighbor."
That is one of the problems of having "laws" written by courts...
As opposed to God? THANK GOD we have laws written by man. Otherwise, rape might be legal. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 Just like gay marriage, what it really comes down to is people flexing their religious muscles. This is largely an issue that doesn't really have an effect on the people outside of those directly involved. Your day-to-day life isn't going to change just because Jane Doe down the street had an abortion anymore than it did because Adam married Evan and not Eve. If it's REALLY about the morality of killing unborn children, there is probably a lot of soul searching to be done for all the women and born children who we condone killing with our military.
To summarize, your arguments aren't any better than the points you are trying to defeat.
They are a lot better. He gave a reasoning for every answer. Even IF you were to consider his points invalid, he did a much better job of presenting his side. So they are objectively better.
Focussing on a single argument, even if I could argue on others:
Can you? You just said all of his arguments weren't any better. Why did you get lazy all of a sudden? Strut your stuff if it's so great. Tell us all the secrets. But alas, you probably can't. You picked up on one bullet point, wrongly too if I may say so, and then proceeded to disregard all of his points. Did you READ any of the parent he was criticizing? The points were an average of less than 10 words a point it looks like. The counter arguments were at least one full sentence apiece. Still objectively better no matter which side you fall on.
It is a weather EVENT not a 'climate event', the flood may have happened and may have been just as severe regardless if the climate is changing.
Weather is a subset of climate. Climate is the statistics of weather, usually over a 30-year interval. It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. The flood may have happened and it also may not have happened. Nobody could tell if it would be more or less severe because of climate change without an alternate timeline. That's why nobody is pointing to any one specific event (no, not even Bill Nye is doing it). He also cares about the aggregate. Did you watch the video? He isn't coming down as some hardliner. What it sounds like to me is a knee-jerk reaction by somebody who doesn't like Bill Nye.
They don't want to believe they are racist, but they are. Because everyone is human. And practicing racism is a survival trait. There are parts of Detroit one does not go at night, and it is not because of the "White Super Predators". There are houses with bars everywhere in parts of NYC, and it is not because of "Women Super Predators".
Let me first off by complaining about your "White Super Predators" or "Women Super Predators". Predators here is the noun. Anything you add before that is an adjective used to describe predators. So what you said was that the super predators are white or women. But I know that's not what you meant, so I'll go on. That's not about practicing racism. Danger comes from all races. If you don't go there because it's a bad neighborhood with a lot of crime, that doesn't make you racist. If you believe instead that the problem is much deeper and the root cause is the race of the people living there (i.e. all white people of the same nature in that area would make it safer or something), then that's racism.
Yes, racist and sexist, if you are not, good luck surviving.
Survived 30 years without them. Being a bigot is different than being racist or sexist. Being discriminatory is not a bad thing. Discriminating and blaming problems on race or sex though, that IS a bad thing. Also, surviving? If that's all you're doing, you need to take a long hard look at your life. You should be thriving and not casting blame on others.
It would be STUPID of you not to comment about pharmacies. The great thing about free speech is I can say what I want. That being said, let me say that even though I don't like guns, you making a comment about me probably never seeing or using a gun is wrong. Clearly you, just like policy makers, believe what you want to believe because it fits your ideology and/or personality. I don't handle nuclear waste but I'll be damned if I let somebody like you tell me I can't have an opinion about it that helps shape the future of our country in the right direction. Same with oil, abortion, contraception, etc. Do you feel like politicians are extensively qualified to make judgements on any of these topics? If you feel that way, but not the same about gun legislation, I call bullshit. You just want to get angry because I don't want you to have a toy that ends peoples lives.
I don't get it. Does this mean we need to do opium to make friends?