Moiraine

This is scary as hell to me. It shouldn't be impossible to fire a professor but people appointed by an anti-science, anti-knowledge governor should not be allowed to make that decision. How could they possibly be qualified to judge a professor's value? http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2016/03/university_of_wisconsin_and_the_aftermath_of_destroying_professor_tenure.html?utm_content=inf_10_2641_2&wpsrc=socialedge&tse_id=INF_fc98c9a2a84d4850ba87359234bafa11 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-scott-walker-dismantled-wisconsin-s-environmental-legacy/

You're completely missing the point. I guarantee you Heidi does not like that photo of herself. In fact pitted against 100 photos of her that would be the one she likes the least. Regardless of how hot you think she is, it should be intuitively obvious what the point of the tweet was. But then people have attempted to tell you this already. I just see the beauty of both of them. I find it unsettling that you, a woman, are calling her out on her looks. They are both stunning in those pictures. You don't find it at all unsettling, and you know I'm not calling her out on her looks.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. He's a lawyer. He has red hair. That's why people don't like him. Now there may be things he's doing wrong but nobody on here actually knows what they are. They just have this "gut feeling" about him which stems from the fact that he's a lawyer who has red hair.

"This shouldnt be seen as something negative. People shouldnt make more of it than what it is."

This title scared me.

Yeah, he should. Because Reilly made everybody else on that highway share the risks of his poor decision making. Because Gregory was stoned only while walking? Or do you think he was behind the wheel of a car at some point too?Are you serious with this? Driving isn't nearly as impaired while high on marijuana as it is while drunk.Maybe the habitual smoker is a better driver, but for those that only dabble here and there, I'd confidently say they'd be worse than someone driving drunk at .15 Not to rain on any parades here, but there have actually been a lot of studies that have concluded being high from smoking weed behind the wheel isn't nearly as dangerous as being drunk behind the wheel. One of the main reasons is because stoners typically drive considerably slower than drunks. Stoners typically take less risks while drunks typically take more risks. I have to add that I really didn't know until yesterday. I read Moraine's post and thought it had to be wrong until I actually looked it up. i don't deny that, at all - when you're talking about the "stoner." For the recreational smoker, I would question that theory/study. The YouTube link below is a 5min video of a study on the effects of marijuana and driving. Which brings us back 'round to why it was brought up in the first place - Randy Gregory. He definitely qualifies as stoner. I didn't specify I was specifically talking about people who did it a lot, though. But the reply was about whether Reilly should be punished more severely than Gregory, and he should. We don't even know for sure that Gregory drove high, and even if he did, well we've talked about that already.

I don't think free college will ever happen but I don't think 1 or 2 are the way to do it. I think there are lots of things we spend too much money on which could go to something better, and I think college education is a something better. But it will never happen.

To whoever mentioned white on muslim or christian on muslim terrorism, my argument is when you have the power you don't need to resort to terroristic tactics. I don't see why the terrorists have to attack a bunch of civilians, and that makes them crazy and horrible (and uh... terrorists), but there will never be a large # of whites/Christians killing Muslims through the means of terrorism because there is just no need. We can use more PC methods. Although those kill civilians sometimes too. It's just accidental. I think we're coming from a better place and trying to do good but through our government we've killed thousands upon thousands of muslims.

You're completely missing the point. I guarantee you Heidi does not like that photo of herself. In fact pitted against 100 photos of her that would be the one she likes the least. Regardless of how hot you think she is, it should be intuitively obvious what the point of the tweet was. But then people have attempted to tell you this already.

lol You know whoever made it found the scariest picture he/she could find of Cruz's wife.

I said I prefer them, which means I hate them less.

Me either. This topic is an eye opener. I haven't been around racist language (not counting the internet) since my grandparents died. I did some a-hole things as a kid (when I was in 5th grade I loudly told a girl she smelled bad, and I still feel guilty about it) but I knew there were words I shouldn't use. I've always hated racist jokes and no one I hang out with tells them. Nor did anyone I hung out with in grade/middle/high school. Although, I hate "jokes" in general. I prefer witty banter and sarcasm.

It'd be nice if someone would point out that illegal immigration has been dwindling for years. The Mexican birth rate has gone down significantly in the past 35 years. And there is still high demand for unskilled workers that isn't being fulfilled. Anyhow, here's my thought on free college education. It's been mentioned above that everyone goes to college now including those who shouldn't, and I would agree if employment requirements were the same now as they were 20 years ago. The problem I see is there are many jobs now that require college degrees because they can. For instance, administrative assistant. It's very very rare that someone can get an admin. asst. job without a college degree. This is just one example. But it's kind of a chicken/egg thing. If everyone's getting a college degree that means there are a lot of stupid people out there with degrees. But the thing is we can't really go backwards at this point. Everyone is told to go to college now. That's not going to change. Lots of degrees aren't worth nearly what they used to be. I don't think the free college thing is all that crazy. We have free high school. A lot of college degrees now are what a high school degree was a few decades ago. Then there is the problem of these for profit crappy internet schools who post fake job statistics and lure people into paying craptons of $ for their degrees. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between a legit community college and one of those schools. All of that being said, I like the idea of making community college free.

Ya, I don't get it. And I'm honestly shocked that there are 2+ people in this topic accusing people of lying about not saying things like it.

No, maybe you should point them out. People saying they haven't used racist epitaphs aren't claiming they have no biases.You must be one of them. I am referring to the posts talking of biases and people using possible slurs in private talk between friends/family and some people act as though they never have. Ever referred to anyone as redneck, wetback, fence climber, hick, cracker, told a racial joke, laughed at a racial joke, etc. We all have our biases and have let things slide or just went along with it so as not to be singled out in our circle of family and friends. If any one says they havent then i too will call BS.Again this is being widened, as it was with Coach. Now it's not using racial slurs. It's letting them slide, going along with them, having biases. I've never used a racial slur. But I didn't call my grandparents out for using the N word. I just stopped talking.There are people out there who exist who've never used racial slurs. This isn't that radical of a claim. Hey, you're the one who took my post as meaning racial slurs. I clearly said bias. Just saying, dont twist the post to use as a basis for something i didnt say.And you're the one who still hasn't pointed out who was acting "holier than thou" before my reply. No one claimed they don't have biases. The claim I saw was people saying they didn't use racist words or jokes.

Yeah, he should. Because Reilly made everybody else on that highway share the risks of his poor decision making. Because Gregory was stoned only while walking? Or do you think he was behind the wheel of a car at some point too? Are you serious with this? Driving isn't nearly as impaired while high on marijuana as it is while drunk.

No, maybe you should point them out. People saying they haven't used racist epitaphs aren't claiming they have no biases.You must be one of them. I am referring to the posts talking of biases and people using possible slurs in private talk between friends/family and some people act as though they never have. Ever referred to anyone as redneck, wetback, fence climber, hick, cracker, told a racial joke, laughed at a racial joke, etc. We all have our biases and have let things slide or just went along with it so as not to be singled out in our circle of family and friends. If any one says they havent then i too will call BS.Again this is being widened, as it was with Coach. Now it's not using racial slurs. It's letting them slide, going along with them, having biases. I've never used a racial slur. But I didn't call my grandparents out for using the N word. I just stopped talking. There are people out there who exist who've never used racial slurs. This isn't that radical of a claim.

No, maybe you should point them out. People saying they haven't used racist epitaphs aren't claiming they have no biases.

Coach, I think the problem with your original statement is that you said everyone has done this. Then, several posts later, you said something like "whether racist or not." But when you originally said everyone has done this the only assumption to take was that you meant use racist slurs in a conversation. I have never done this even in a private conversation. My grandparents used racist words and whenever they started doing it I shut off and ignored them.

The people that I personally think are evil are the ones that pay politicians to enact policies which help only corporations and hurt other people. By "hurt" that includes health. For instance in the food industry there are laws now (or lack of laws) that allow the food safety inspections to either have a warning before they show up or allow the inspections to be done by the company itself. This is just one little example. Another is protecting companies that cause horrible pollution due to cutting corners. The politicians are also culpable. Not all people with a lot of $ try to pay politicians to do things that hurt other people. When you say draw a line I'm not sure what you mean but the above types of things I listed should not be legal. I realize you were probably just talking about taxes though. That being said, no they should not make the same income. But someone who makes a million should pay more in taxes than someone who makes $50k. They have extra $ they will never need in order to survive and will still have plenty of that even after they are taxed at a higher rate. For the person making $50k their taxes actually taking $ away from going toward their basic needs.

I don't think that a significantly different proportion of millionaires strive (or strived) for higher achievement or worked harder than do people in any other income bracket. I think a large proportion worked hard but lots of poor and middle class people work just as hard or harder. But socialism isn't a dirty word to me anyway. I think you're off base with the last paragraph except for those born to wealth. I've heard and heard of lots of well off people who think they should pay more taxes. You're implying that only poor people want the wealthy to be taxed more. There are lots of democrats who believe this wag and who have money.

Considering that I'm that concussion +20 years. I had 4 between the ages of 8-14, and I can tell you now that I"m 20 years later from my last I am encountering all sorts of problems. Depression, anxiety, I have a hard time focusing on things that I use to just dive into and enjoy. I can't watch movies without getting frustrated by sitting still. I can't enjoy video games any more except a few. I have a hard time with jobs that require a lot of concentration, I'm argumentative about everything, I have a hard time hanging on to relationships, and that is just 20 years. TBI is a huge problem, and your response is a slap in the face to someone who is dealing with it on a daily basis. No it isnt because im not talking about anyone eles concussion problems. Im talking about zd's. im going to assume that hes had the proper care and has made an educated decision to keep playing. You're expecting a 20 year old who is a competitor and grew up dreaming to play football and got offers from big Div I schools to make an educated decision about this. Is Darlington an expert on brain science and we just don't know about it? Things like this should not be up to the kids. yes, I do! He is not an idiot, he has been to numerous doctors, has had numerous tests. he is as educated as a person can be. It wasn't said or implied that he's an idiot.

Yep. It's a terrible idea. The other thing that would happen is the companies that pollute the most will just move their businesses to the states with the most lenient environmental laws. So states will have to decide between $ and their citizens' health.

Apparently people are either not supposed to argue or assume that the person they're responding to is incredibly oversensitive.

Considering that I'm that concussion +20 years. I had 4 between the ages of 8-14, and I can tell you now that I"m 20 years later from my last I am encountering all sorts of problems. Depression, anxiety, I have a hard time focusing on things that I use to just dive into and enjoy. I can't watch movies without getting frustrated by sitting still. I can't enjoy video games any more except a few. I have a hard time with jobs that require a lot of concentration, I'm argumentative about everything, I have a hard time hanging on to relationships, and that is just 20 years. TBI is a huge problem, and your response is a slap in the face to someone who is dealing with it on a daily basis. No it isnt because im not talking about anyone eles concussion problems. Im talking about zd's. im going to assume that hes had the proper care and has made an educated decision to keep playing.You're expecting a 20 year old who is a competitor and grew up dreaming to play football and got offers from big Div I schools to make an educated decision about this. Is Darlington an expert on brain science and we just don't know about it? Things like this should not be up to the kids. At some point in time people have to be responsible for the decisions and life they choose to lead. If we can send 17 year old kids into battle, which is far more dangerous than football, then we can let others make their own life decisions. The reason I don't like that comparison is because on one hand you're risking your life to protect your country and on the other you're risking your life to play a sport. Also, in the past I've seen lots of coaches let the players decide and it didn't end well. Burkhead came back too early because he was a fighter and hurt himself worse. It's happened other times but that's the first that comes to mind. I thought Martinez was the super obvious one. I didn't pick Martinez because his backup(s) stunk. Burkhead's backup was Abdullah, so the choice to stay off the field a couple more weeks wasn't as hard. It wasn't senior year Abdullah but he was good at the time.