BrianthePigEatingInfidel

I wonder what this means. Does this mean the child needs to be brought into conformity with the mores and behaviors of other children? If so, why is that necessarily a good thing? It sounds like "socialization" is a euphemism for making children into good little drones who don't think outside the lines set by the consensus-approved group standards.

If it's more than this, someone let me know, because when I hear the word "socialization," I can't help but think of some kind of Brave New World brainwashing.

Think about this. Christianity and Judaism have no problem with a secular government. Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

The concept of the separation of church and state does not pose a challenge to those religions.

Islam's holy texts, however, teach that the religion and the state are one. This is exemplified in the government of Iran, run by religious clerics, or Saudi Arabia, where all law strictly conforms to the religious law, Shari'a.

So here's the question. The concept of church/state separation obviously discriminates against religions that believe in church/state unity, and prevents the full expression of Islamic faith. So is this a contradiction? Does the principle violate itself here?

Is it some kind of worker exchange program?

The states, which created the federal government in the first place, by the very logic of what they had done must possess some kind of defense mechanism should their creation break free of the restraints they had imposed on it. Jefferson himself introduced the word “nullification” into the American political lexicon, by which he meant the indispensable power of a state to refuse to allow an unconstitutional federal law to be enforced within its borders.

Do you think the states should more aggressively nullify federal laws? Or do you think it should fall to juries to nullify attempts to enforce federal law?

The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.

Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to "please do not feed the animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.

Doesn't that seem somewhat contradictory?

Turkey was not Turkey until the Muslims invaded, conquered, and forced conversions by the sword. But they complain about Israel being taken by the Jews. At least they have a historical claim to the land. Where did the Turks come from?

How about this. Trade Israel for Turkey. Sounds fair.

End the Occupation. Of Byzantium.

Social Security is an intergenerational promise. Everyone collects a benefit with the promise that their children will cover their cost. It was that way from the very beginning, when the first recipients who paid nothing into it collected their very first benefits.

Of course there are people who say that they paid taxes into it, therefore they deserve it. But Social Security is not a savings account. Those taxes aren't paying into the individual's account. Those taxes are paying for the older generation, the generation currently receiving the benefit. Paying into it, as even the Supreme Court has rules, entitles one to nothing.

Social Security's very solvency depends on maintaining both sides of that promise. People who collect social security, people who draw from the well, without having any children to replenish it, are freeloading. And the fact that many people just barely have enough children to cover their own means that there isn't enough future surplus to cover those freeloaders.

So perhaps we should start looking at maybe defining benefits based on the number of children one has that add back into it. Childless people can still get some minimum benefit. They tend to have more in savings anyway. But the more children, the more you get.

Thoughts?

Every time I mention this birth control issue, everyone jumps on these main points:

1) Everyone uses, supports, and loves birth control

2) Women use it for more than just birth control

3) Hypocrisy, hypooooooocriseeeeeeeeeeeee!!

4) Viagra!!!!

5) The church has stupid beliefs about procreation

6) The cost of the birth control is cheaper than covering pregnancy

7) VIAAAAAAGRAAA And OLD MEN WITH BONERS!!

And a few other assorted stupidities and irrelevancies.

No. Maybe you haven't noticed this. But this all started when your piece of **** president dictated that everyone MUST provide this coverage, no matter how they felt about it.

Ok, maybe you think the church is stupid. I don't care. I'm an atheist. That's not the point though. The point is that you were not content to show the same respect for the bodies and minds of other people that you demand for yourselves. You enlisted the weapons of government, and employed fascist tactics to eliminate any diversity of conscience anywhere.

Insurance is not the only way to get birth control. And the employer is not the only way to get insurance. But that's not enough for you. Like that woman at Georgetown, you weren't content to simply let others live by their own values. You wanted to cudgel them into submission to your values.

And this is why this debate is going on. And this is why you are showing yourselves to be the fascist ***-holes you are.

You argue that I have no right to have an opinion on anything that has to do with "your body." But you insist that I be taxed to pay for what you do with your body. You insist on laws that force me as an employer to provide you the means to do anything you want with your body without consequence. You insist on giving federal money to organizations that provide abortions.

Fine. I don't care if you want to use birth control. I don't care that you are so selfish that you'd rather wipe out every species of frog and fish just so you can get rodded once a day. I don't care. But DON'T use the false argument about your body, while you're exploiting mine to serve your recreations. You don't get to claim "my body" while using the money and resources produced by other bodies.

I keep hearing that it is somehow a double standard for insurance to cover Viagra but not birth control.

The two are nothing alike. All organisms come in with this built--in feature called fertility. It is not a medical condition.

Erectile dysfunction IS, however a medical condition requiring treatment.

Saying that insurance should cover birth control is like saying insurance should cover haircuts.

If you want to be intellectually honest, you need to compare Viagra to fertility treatments. Or birth control to insurance-provided haircuts.

When women take birth control pills, a significant amount of the large doses of hormones end up in the water supply via urine. And fish and frogs are especially sensitive to pollutants in the water due to the permeability of their skin.

And research shows that fish and frog populations are crashing. The reason? The excessive estrogens in the water are causing the fish and frogs to be deformed, and males to turn into females.

So if women want to spend $1000 a year on birth control, how many EPA inspections should the regulations require them to undergo?

It turns out that our system of rights has been changed. Everything begins with the one axiom that a black man has an inalienable right to a sandwich, and the labor incidental thereto, whenever and wherever he finds a swinging door and an open sign.

And from this axiom, we can find that Catholic hospitals cannot decide what to provide in their insurance coverage, restaurants don't have the right to decide whether to allow smoking or not.

So it seems to me that everything is subject to this one test. If any action can potentially lead to a sandwichless black man in a restaurant, then it cannot be allowed.

How many other rights are subject to this limitation?

and if it is treated as an economic issue, then can government also regulate the negative externalities caused by birth control?

So it is said that when the government mandates birth control, it saves money. But there are also negative externalities. When there is greater access to birth control, there is more sex. More sex leads to more STDs. And there is a statistical correlation between increased use of birth control and the increased incidence of STD infections. And now there are completely resistant strains of disease.

Since people do respond to incentives, and prior to birth control, there was an incentive to not engage in risky and frequent sex, and now birth control has removed all those potentially negative incentives, should the government be able to regulate how many times a woman on birth control can have sex in a given year?

If it is reasonable to regulate pollution on that logic, then it seems perfectly logical to do this too.

Help me out if I'm wrong.

The USDA website says the following:

"Never thaw foods in a garage, basement, car, dishwasher or plastic garbage bag; out on the kitchen counter, outdoors or on the porch."

Why did they leave out other possible places, like rabbit hutch, inside a skull, on the bookshelf between volumes 12 and 13 of the Encyclopedia Britannica, or that mysterious drawer beneath the oven?

And I suppose the SUV is just fine, as long as it's not in the garage.

I have a solid white cat, and he's been begging me to color him blue. I don't want an kind of chemicals or anything permanent. Just something that will last a couple of weeks or so. Maybe food coloring?

I was a little skeptical when I heard about her book deal, and the possible conflict of interest, or at least the APPEARANCE of one.

But I thought she did a good job and was very fair and impartial. I am pleased. Agree? Disagree?

She has to strain to keep them covered.

For nearly 50% of the population to pay no taxes at all, yet have an equal say in how that money is spent? Is that really a good way to run a country, because those who pay the least have the least stake in the system.

Obama's tax plan will make that enormous imbalance even greater by putting over 50% those who pay no taxes.

One of them is the supposed loophole where corporations go overseas. Why doesn't he just lower their taxes? That's why they went overseas in the first place.

What's better, corporations staying overseas and paying higher taxes, or corporations coming back to the US because taxes are low, and paying workers here, who in turn will also pay taxes.

It seems like just lowing our corporate tax rate will be better, that way they won't need loopholes.