Unfortunately, in the twitter comments that someone linked, you can see that he still staunchly believes that Trump was the best pick, and that a vote for democrats is a vote to "trans the kids."
Republicans have been primed to treat their own suffering as a trial they need to overcome, and that was done specifically so they wouldn't vote in everyone's best interests even if it's clearly also in their own best interests.
Long gone are the days where something being against the law essentially meant it couldn't be done. You can scream that the things they're doing are illegal, but at this point it doesn't even matter; the law has lost its relevancy, and won't stop or even slow down the people in charge.
While that's true, they still believe you're lesser if you're different. The jewish person in the anti-semetic group and the trans person calling for the end of trans healthcare will still be the first on the chopping block if the goals of those groups come to fruition. They're like pets to them - animals that aren't on the dinner table only because they serve a better purpose alive than dead.
Where is this? I need to make sure I go there if I'm ever in the area!
It's a statement comparing 2 objects that are forbidden to modify. Guns are forbidden due to their ability to kill even more people through modification, video game systems are forbidden due to their ability to hurt company profits through piracy.
People are pointing out the huge moral difference between the bases for those two similar rules, and how one cannot compare them fairly as being equivalent unless they also believe those bases are equivalent.
If it made sense it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory. All it takes is one guy claiming some private good-guy billionaire has been funding the real US this whole time and they'd eat it up, throwing it at anyone who doubts them as if it's some undeniable fact.
Your "non-sequitur" is trying insinuate that a person's innate sexual orientation toward certain genders mirrors an innate sexual response to certain body parts, which I don't disagree with. I find women beautiful, and in the right circumstances, I have a sexual response to that beauty. The difference lies between simple attraction and horniness.
I'm attracted to a beautiful woman wearing clothes that compliment her beauty. Do I immediately get a hard on? No. Do I become unable to function as a result of seeing her? No. Whatever reaction I have toward her beauty is my own circumstance to handle - she is under no obligation to change herself based on my reaction. I'm attracted to her, but seeing women wearing well-fitting clothes is a normal part of my day, so I don't find it overtly sexual. It can become sexual if the woman starts flirting with me, for example, but just wearing nice clothes doesn't make me horny, because most women wear nice clothes simply because they want to.
I see my wife topless all the time, and while I think she's beautiful, I don't get horny at every sight of her, nor should I. Most of the time she just doesn't want to deal with putting a shirt on - she's not trying to turn me on, and I'm not getting tuned on. This is a normal example a woman comfortable with being topless in a non-sexual situation, and a man, used to seeing that woman topless, not having a strong reaction to it. This is how all men, regardless of sexual orientation, would see breasts if women were as comfortable not wearing a shirt around men as my wife is around me. If my wife were to start teasing me and trying to turn me on, I would start getting horny, because that's the appropriate time for a person to have a sexual response to another person's body.
"Not even hard" and "costs as much as a car" aren't mutually exclusive when it comes to the field of medicine, especially in the US. Many drugs cost pharmaceutical companies pennies to manufacture, but they still sell them for hundreds per pill simply because they can. Medical equipment often employs similar price gouging for no other reason than to profit as much as possible from people who have little choice but to pay.
Letting go and forgiving are 2 different things. Letting go is allowing yourself to move on from what happened, which is good. Forgiving is saying that they are no longer accountable for what happened, which is good if they've realized that they did you wrong and have made steps to prevent it from happening in the future, but otherwise is just letting them off the hook for something they'll likely continue to do.
Forgiveness is a gift you give to someone to show they've grown as a person, and shouldn't be given to someone who hasn't grown enough to realize what they did was wrong. In that event, absolutely allow yourself to let go and move on, but to not give the other person the gift of forgiveness if they haven't earned it.
The thing is that it hurts the employer just as much as the workers if everyone quits, so if you unionize first, then threaten to stop working, then you've got someone who can negotiate with the employer so that you don't have to quit and you get paid enough to not make you want to quit.
I'm in the middle of getting inspections for selling my house and thought I had some appointment I forgot about, haha!
My only regret is only being born with 7 fingers to give...