vicdan wrote:here is the HR-1913, the bill in question. The only things is says about protected sex- or gender-related categories is listing "sexual orientation, gender identity" as being subject to this law. The term "sexual orientation" has a perfectly well-defined meaning -- it includes, homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality. Nothing more, nothing less.
Dude, when the fuck are you planning to do even the most basic fact-checking on the insane shit you post?
So fucking google for the bill!Tomas wrote:Your provided link not working...
What utter BS. sexual orientation excludes pedophilia by definition. That language would have indeed been inflamatory -- it's like saying "President Bush is not a pedophile, honestly, i swear!" This is semantic jujitsu.A different take:
249-175 House vote gives child molesters hate crime shield
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/v ... s_176.html
Who said it's gentler?PS - Your new, improved (kinder/gentler) avatar, naw.
The old photo much better fits you :-)
Tomas wrote:Planetary Quandaries Solved: Saturn Is Young
Cuzzi said, “There are two reasons to believe the rings are young: First, they are bright and shiny like something new. It’s no joke.”
Carl G wrote:And Santa, please remember, I've been very good this year.

The face and cranium of the fossil have features found in both early and modern human species....[it] shows the continuity of the evolutionary record, so in that sense it is a link [between Homo erectus and modern humans]," said Scott Simpson
Tomas wrote:.
California regulators find pot smoke causes cancer
-snip-
The listing only applies to marijuana smoke, not the plant itself.
-Click URL for complete article-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2275895/posts
Carl G wrote:Tomas wrote:.
California regulators find pot smoke causes cancer
-snip-
The listing only applies to marijuana smoke, not the plant itself.
-Click URL for complete article-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2275895/posts
That is a bullshit unsubstantiated story, a one-paragraph scare headline blurb without any studies quoted whatsoever.
Peru's Machu Picchu was an Inca pilgrimage site and a scaled-down version of a mythic landscape, according to a controversial new study. (...) Magli argues that certain structures at Machu Picchu symbolize important landmarks of this journey. For instance, a disorderly pile of stones represents the underground "void" that the first Inca traveled through.
Researchers have what they say is the first direct proof of a very old idea: that when we use a tool—even for just a few minutes—it changes the way our brain represents the size of our body. In other words, the tool becomes a part of what is known in psychology as our body schema
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Machu Picchu Is Mini Re-creation of a Mythic Landscape?
It reminds me of some of the better theories about the early Giza structures, the way a pilgrim could make some kind of mythic journey between and underneath the structures as symbolic initiation of some kind, education of who they were.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests