zapatos

Yes to the first, No to the second.

So only 55% (or whatever constitutes the ruling party) has any say at all? All others don't even attend budget discussions? I thought you were implying that the House was the opposition of the Senate.

It doesn't need "permission of the opposition", it needs compromise between two different bodies; one that is built with state's priorities in mind, and one that is built with the people's priorities in mind.

Just want to be clear. Do you have doubts that Trump is responsible for "a number of regulations that have been loosened or eliminated, that put people at greater risk"?

I'll be very disappointed in the Democrats if they agree to spend $5.6 billion simply because it is politically advantageous. I'm disappointed that anyone thinks this is a good idea. We need better government, not more of the same crap we've got now. Democrats need to base their decision on what they deem to be best for Americans, not what is best for them.

-- This whole discussion is predicated on what someone said who is not on this forum.

Lots of places. Just pick up a newspaper or read comment sections. Here is an example. https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/11/16/america-revisits-political-correctness/#6f1de2102de7

Yes

Are you suggesting that storing food is the same as agriculture?

Are you suggesting spiders can learn agriculture?

Not before they evolve a brain capable of learning agriculture.

That one seems to be wrong too. https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

Actually I believe they found that those who knew they were being prayed for did worse than those who did not know they were being prayed for. They suspected it had something to do with high expectations. Other than that I believe the study found there was no benefit to prayer.

Hmm, seems I heard this before.

Can I ask who you think is doing that? I'm afraid that we may be misinterpreting what people are trying to say.

Conversely, it seems to me that some are going to great lengths to label it as the simple use of a harmless identifier. The thing about institutionalized racism and sexism is that those who participate in it often have no idea they are doing so. So it behooves us to examine our behaviors when called out by others to make sure we didn't overlook something.

Is that all there is to it? I didn't know it was so simple.

A "wall" and "border security" should not be used interchangeably.

The US government is shut down over a symbol (the "wall") that to Trump represents the basis of his presidency ("build that big, beautiful wall to make our country great again!"), and that to Democrats represents an "immoral" (see Pelosi) departure from American values. To paraphrase an analogy I heard on NPR, it is like Trump asking for the Confederate Battle Flag to fly over the Capitol, and by compromise he'd be willing to use a somewhat smaller Confederate battle flag. It is not something either side feels they can budge on.

Your argument seems to be "as long as people still commonly use the term, it is okay to keep using the term". Of course this will mean no one will ever need to stop using "woman" as a derogative term. (As an aside, if you want to see my wife pissed off, say something like "you play like a girl" in front of her.) And had we followed that argument, we would still be saying "stupid black" and "stupid jew". As far as "getting your point", yes, I absolutely get your point. People are taking something he said and making the most of it. Politics as usual, and typical bullshit. It's wrong. But there are two separate things you are talking about here: The first is the use of the term "woman" in a negative way, and the second is how politicians (and others) exaggerate or lie to take advantage of someone or something. The problem I have with your argument is that you seem to be conflating the two. You are going down the path of accepting the use of "woman" as a perjorative in part because what the other side did was even worse. From my perspective both are wrong. I'm not sure why you are conflating the two.

+1 - Very good post.

He did? Can you provide some sort of citation? I'd love to read about that. I'm not even sure what a "spiritual mind" is.

Intuition is based on 'feelings' instead of reason. I would be shocked it intuition wasn't met with questioning.