Ten oz

Wasn't Ronald Reagan a Hollywood Actor; isn't Arnold Schwarzenegger as well? Donald Trump is a reality TV star and Kid Rock is running as a Republican in MI. I never understood the well worn claim that the entertainment industry as a whole is all a specific thing socially or politically. Mr. Hollywood royalty Charleston Heston was the face of the NRA. All entertainment celebrities aren't the same. You can't lump Jesse "the Body" Ventura's libertarianism in with Martin Sheen's left-wing activism.

Wow, can't remember ever giving you a plus one before....

I have been talking about social media. I referenced social media specifically in the First post you quoted. My online anonymity follow by circulation comments were meant in context to be referencing social media; standard news media is not anonymous and social media is the way average citizens circulate info in 2017. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I said media rather than social media simply to be inclusive but I am primarily taking about social media as it is what Russia primarily used to interfere in 2016 and I did mention that already. Not that we are clear can you answer the question?

I don't see anyway to conclude the discussion regarding "your Excellency". I think if a person was fired for not calling someone that, provided the title wasn't fitting as previously described, they could make a legal complaint. It is a theoretical suit against a theoretical demand. Election laws absolutely do not prevent foriegn govts from using social media to promote propaganda. Election laws only cover watch those associated with campaigns do. Foriegn actors, anyone, can create all the Twitter and Facebook accounts they won't and promote any and all stories, conspiracies, ideologies, and etc they want.

1 - Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws. Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm I think it can be argued that demanding to be called 'your excellency" without appropriate reason (governors, ambassadors, and Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops typically use the title) is offensive conduct as it is demands the use of an epithet which could lead a work environment where a reasonable person feels mocked or ridiculed. If someone were fired from a job for calling their supervisor/employer ma'am or sir rather than "your excellency" I believe they would have grounds for a harrashment suit unless that supervisor or employer met the standard criteria for being call "your excellency". 2 - So we should ignore things the President says since he has proven himself to be an empty loud mouth? I agree but it is tragic all the same. 3 - You are answering questions with challanges yet I have advocated nothing. I am asking if there should be limitations if/when speech is assisting promotion of foriegn propaganda designed to negatively impact the country? Currently there are none.

1 - True but even still employers find themselves at the center of numerous harrassment and discrimination lawsuits ever year. Any supervisor who demands being called "your excellency" is begging for trouble. Within a professional environment I think most people accept an obligation to be professional. One should call their boss ma'am or sir. Those are nuetral professional ways to address individuals. For the sake of structure within a team a variety of titles might be applied like "Chief", "Lead", "Director", "Point", and etc. These are just titles and not representations of a persons individual values. Calling someone by their professional title isn't a display of individual aduration. If I ever met President Trump I would call him "Mr. President"; that is his title and using it is not an endorsement. 2 - Yet the President still pondered it openly all the same. The executive branch has also been openly hostile to different media outlets and to an extent has attempted to punish them by banned cameras at press briefings and usual access to the administration. So I think the question is valid. This administration is doing what it can regardless of what's spelled out in the 1st Admendment. 3 - U.S. Constitutional rights only apply to those who are residents of the U.S.. However there is anonymity online and I think people would like to keep it that way. Not only that but if a citizen searches out foriegn propaganda and then circulates it aren't they (the citizen) protected by the 1st admendment to have the ability to do so? Which is why I referenced a death pact. Should freedom of speech be unfettered to the point on allowing our sovereign demise; foriegn aggressors to manipulate our society to the extent of influencing elections and policy? It is a difficult question to answer as many things in society are manipulated by disinformation and lies. From the climate change debate to taxes there is a lot of fake information out there and we obviously cannot and shouldn't trust the govt's to filter what information citizens can and cannot access. At the same time it is the govt's job to protect citizens from foriegn attack. So there is a real balancing act here.

I bold is the question I raised. The example atthe time was UC Berkeley but since that time wehave seen a much larger national discussions. psychological resident is asking the NFL to force players to stand for the anthem, President has pondered revoking NBC license, and more details have come out regardiong the manner in which Russian intelligence used social media to manipulate the 2016 election. All of these recent developments challange what the limits of free speech are and what expressions should be protected. 1 - Should an employer be able to force employees to participate in rituals meant to show individual aduration or respect? 2 - Should the executive branch be able to suspend or otherwise punish media? 3 - Should a nations govt (intellegence agencies) be able to intervene in media if that media is be exploited by foriegn aggressors to promote propaganda? If yes with what burdens or limits and if no does that make freedom of speech a death pact?

Objectification of women is a very real thing. As with many problems it simply isn't enough to change the law; attitudes broadly need to be changed. We have a sitting president who still won election after audio of him bragging about how easy it is to sleep with women when one is a celebrity. Donald Trump is 71yrs old and his wife is 47yrs old. The Sec of Treasury is 54yrs and married to a 36yr old. In society at larger, not merely Hollywood, the objectification of women is accepted. I think political figures like a Donald Trump are better examples of the problem than someone like Harvey Weinstein because political figures need public support and get it. Weinstein is just a backroom creep most know/knew nothing about till this scandal dropped. I know some people have a tit for tat partisan itch so I better be clear that this isn't a left vs right issue; Bill Clinton had sexual relations with a 24yr old in the Oval office, lied about it, and kept his job. Anthiny Weiner is heading to prison for sexting a minor. By in large society accepts that women sex objects. To a large extent dominance over women is viewed as part of what it means to be successful. Sayings like "women want him and men want to be him" encapsulate the attitude. Art reflects life. When we live in a society where the President publicly teases Boy scouts of America about the things old rich men do with young women on private yatchs why is Havery Weinstien even news?

"President Trump is due to sign an executive order Thursday morning intended to allow individuals and small businesses to buy a long-disputed type of health insurance that skirts state regulations and Affordable Care Act protections. " https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-to-sign-executive-order-to-gut-aca-insurance-rules-and-undermine-marketplaces/2017/10/11/40abf774-ae97-11e7-9e58-e6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.bd6541516a25 Back in July Trump said “It’ll be a lot easier,” “We’re not going to own it. I’m not going to own it. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. We’ll let Obamacare fail, and then the Democrats are going to come to us.” .Trump is attempting to force change by creating chaos. This seems to be his move on a wide range of things. Just apply pressure, undermine what is in place, and hope what follows is better or at least something that saves faces. Trump does this with foriegn policy too. Trump has already created chaos with North Korea. There is no clear way forward yet his rhetoric just becomes more and more incendiary. Trump does this on trade publicly questioning NAFTA. A country can't be ran this way though. If the ACA fails without an alternate in place millions will suffer. If a diplomatic solution isn't found with North Korea war will break out and millions will suffer. Trump's approach to forcing change through chaos with an eye towards negotiating over the rumble in ludicrous. The down stream effect might be catastrophic and Trump seems perfectly willing to risk that.

You may find it "ironic" that Canada is interested in encouraging people to reproduce yet have a healthcare system the provides contraception but I think that view distorts the purpose of what's provided. The majority number of women use birth control for reasons other than pregnancy avoidance. While condom use is important for STD protection which is critical to having a healthy population capable of reproduction. Bringing the importance of planned vs unplanned pregnancies into this only muddies the waters. It implies a direct relationship between a nations birth rate, outcomes, and the use of birth control. Can you provide a citation that such direct connections exist? "Among the reasons for using oral contraception other than the most obvious one are reducing cramps associated with periods, regulating periods, which for some women can prevent menstrual-related migraine headaches. Other uses include controlling endometriosis, a condition in which uterine tissue grows outside the uterus, and reducing bleeding due to uterine fibroid tumors. Some women also use birth control pills to control acne. In fact, the study found, most women who use the pill use it for multiple reasons. Only a minority — 42 percent — said they used it exclusively for contraception." http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/11/15/142358413/the-pill-not-just-for-pregnancy-prevention

Contraception serves more purposes than avoiding the opposite of "wanted children". This point really shouldn't have to made over and over again.

Unfortunately such research is against the rules: "The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studies a variety of public health threats every year, from infectious diseases to automobile safety. But for 15 years, the CDC has avoided comprehensive research on one of the top causes of death in the U.S.: firearms. While the CDC keeps surveillance data on gun injuries and deaths, it has not funded a study aimed at reducing harm from guns since 2001. The CDC estimates that firearms are one of the top five causes of death in the U.S. for people under the age of 65, so advocates of gun safety say the lack of comprehensive research is particularly glaring. The dearth of research funding goes back to 1997, when an amendment was added to an operations bill that passed in Congress with the language that the CDC will be barred from any research that will “advocate or promote gun control,” CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard told ABC News. Called the Dickey Amendment after Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas who served from 1993 to 2001, the amendment is often called a ban, but it did allow for research on injuries or deaths from firearms. However, Lenard pointed out that after the amendment, Congress cut funding for the CDC by the exact amount that had been spent on gun research in the year before. While that $2.6 million in funding was eventually restored, it was earmarked for traumatic brain injury research, according to a 2013 article in The Journal of the American Medical Association."

Why does all of this matter? Love, monogamy, and your ability to project honesty/trust aren't rooted in how talented your fiance is. It is about who you are and not who she is.

Really??? I think jealousy is the most likely reason but there may have been another. For all we know it was money related; he didn't want to pay her child support anymore. Money is a very common motive for murder. I see no value in over estimating motives we don't actually know or understand.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/clearances 14,610 people were killed in 2011 and over 5,000 went unsolved. Amongst those who were found guilt 5% on average plead not guilty. Of those who plead guilty some small percentage are not actually guilty and are later found innocent. Motive is often speculated. A person known to sell drugs gets killed and the motive is assumed to be drug related; that is no guarantee though. We all believe OJ Simpson killed Nicole out of jealousy but we really have no idea why he killed her. Same for Scott Peterson. We all asume he wanted to be with the women he was cheating with and/or didn't want to be a father but we really don't know. We just have ideas we accept. Granovetter's model is a terrific guide but ultimately cannot prove motive in a specific individual case. Only in cases where killers explain why (confesses, leaves manifesto, etc) can we ever really claim we know. Even then mental illness and mood altering medication may still have played a role unbeknownst to the killer themselves. In terms of preventing these things in the future I think it is most important to identify behaviors throughout a persons life than what their final motives may have been. Rather than getting caught up in what finally set off a Dylann Roof we should be identifying that White Nationalist groups are dangerous. In the case of Stephen Paddock we should be asking ourselves why a man was able to buy 33 guns plus numerous accessories in 12 months without drawing ANY suspicion. "Men who gamble are more likely to act violently towards others, with the most addicted gamblers the most prone to serious violence. A new study found that gambling in any capacity -- pathological, problem, or so-called casual gambling -- related to significantly increased risk of violence, including domestic abuse. " https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160906103311.htm

I reached my full height at 14yrs old. Most online sources indicate that males typically reach full height between 13-17yrs of age. I am sure some people continue to grow after that but it isn't common. I have not known anyone who continued to grow into their mid 20's.

It is reasonable to want to know why but it is unreasonable to be dissatisfied about how the investigation is going. A lot has already been revealed in a short period of time. The investigation is producing much as can be reasonably expected. As for preventative measures; for the first time in decades Republicans in Congress finally seem willing to act. That is huge. After Sandy Hook and San Bernardino absolutely nothing was done. Today Congress seems ready to outlaw bump stocks. While outlawing accessories which are designed circumvent the law in the first place seems like a no brainer it is actually a big deal Republicans are for it. It is a big deal because for the first time in my life time Republicans are acknowledging, even if only by default, bad intentions are associated with certian types of firearm purchases. Paddock bought 33 guns in the 12 months before the shooting and it wasn't considered suspicious because there has been an attitude in the U.S. that stockpiling weapons and weapon accessories is perfectly normal behavior (madness). Finally Republicans are acknowledginng that it isn't. That means in the future the FBI, ATF, DHS, and local PDs might actually be able to investigate those who are purchasing exotic accessories. Owning an armory of semi automatic weapons capable of easy convertion into fully automatic weapons might finally be formally (court issued warrants applicable) viewed as suspicious behavior. That is a huge step.

Unusual how; what are the police doing that posters keep vaguely implying this without explanation? As for the issue of motive I don't see anything unusual here. At least 10,000 people in the U.S. are murdered every year. We don't understand the motives of 90% of the killers. What was the motives of the Sandy Hook shooter other than he was crazy? Speaking of Sandy Hook conspiracies popped up that the whole thing was fake. It seems to me that withmany of these large tradegies people over analyze the details and draw odd conclusions. Not only do I think Paddock's motives might never be known I think it is unreasonable to assume they would be.

@Apex Anomally, telling us that you taught an eager group with notebooks and pencil in hand and that your fiance is Mensa seems like a grab for validatiion. Perhaps your history with women has nothing to do with your fiance's distrust. Perhaps she sees in you a constant need for validation that as a psychologist she understands can't be filled by any number of people muchless a single person. Your need for validation might be what drove your interested with picking so many women up in the first place? I recommend you consider what it is about you which can be changed rather than what she can be convinced of.

I understand what this post is implying? We know who the shooter was, what weapons he used, when he bought them, and etc.We know he had hotel reservations over seeing other venues in Chicago and Boston. We have seen interviews with his brother, store owner where he bought many of his guns, and people in Mesquite where he lived that saw him around town. There is already a Stephen Paddock wikipedia page up listing where he went to school and college, where he has worked, travelled, and etc. In my opinion an enormous amount of information has come out. As much information as could be expected. Unfortunately Stephan Paddock did not leave behind a facebook post explaining his actions. Paddock's motivations may never be fully understood or police ITs might find a deleted email to his brither explaining his actions. Either way it doesn't mean the police are behaving suspicious or doing anything unusual.

When being used for Endometriosis how is it "elective"? When being used for painful cramps how is it anymore "elective" that Motrin, Codeine, or any other of the various medications used to manage pain which are covered by insurance? When used for acne how is it anymore "elective" than traiz, tretinoin, or etc? You acknowledge that birth control is used from others things yet continue to call it elective with distinguishing between the various applications. Rather you are generalizing.

Investigators believe Paddock had scouted other venues. Federal investigators are looking into events in Chicago, Boston, and separate event in Las Vegas that took place a week before the massacre. Country music wasn't involved in any of the other events.

You keep repeating this despite it being provably untrue. As CharonY has already pointed out there are many reasons why a Doctor might prescribe someone birth control. As you will see in the survey I linked below pregnancy prevention is NOT the main cited reason for using birth control and hundreds of thousands who use birth control aren't even sexually active. You are using false claims to justify your position and whenever that is neccessary it means the position attempting to be justified is wrong. To your point: "The researchers examined data from the National Survey of Family Growth, a poll administered by the National Center for Health Statistics. In-person interviews of 7,356 women ages 15 to 44 were conducted between June 2006 and December 2008, with results being weighted to ensure the findings were nationally representative. Nationwide, about 11.2 million women ages 15 to 44, or 18 percent of all U.S. women, currently use oral contraceptive pills. Of these women, 86 percent report taking the pill for birth control. The other most commonly cited reasons for taking the pill are: reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31 percent); menstrual regulation (28 percent); treatment of acne (14 percent); and treatment of endometriosis (4 percent). Endometriosis is an often painful disorder in which tissue that normally lines the inside of the uterus grows elsewhere in the body, typically within the pelvic region, according to the Mayo Clinic. Furthermore, 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, primarily for non-contraceptive purposes. Fifty-seven percent said they use it to treat menstrual pain, 43 percent for menstrual regulation, and 26 percent for acne treatment" https://www.livescience.com/17061-oral-contraceptive-pill-guttmacher-survey.html

@ Waitforufo, how about we allow Doctors to decide which things their patients require. Rather than having lay people render judgements on the value of birth control, aroma therapy, and etc should not Doctors administering the care be empowered to decide what's best? Doctors have a very difficult job which often calls upon them to make life or death choices. They really do not need to added distraction of wondering about what is or isn't covered by their patients healthcare plans. If a Doctor want to prescribe birth control to a patient they should be able to and their reason for doing so is no ones business; Doctor patient privilege.

Yes I am sure about that. It isn't a secret. Politicians discuss it openly.