The “right of women to do what they want with their bodies” was not explicitly stated.

You simply cannot keep or bear arms if you can’t legalky obtain them.

Just because I want to quibble about something, does anyone actually take her apology as genuine? How can you call Bialik’s apology “unequivocal” when she actively defended it post-publishing?

No, it isn’t. Saying “government exists to serve the people, not operate as a profitable business” is the worst kind of inane hot air. No shit.

completely turned a blind eye to policies that increased disparity and isolated the working class.

The country isn’t a business. It’s that simple. We don’t operate for a profit. We operate to serve the people.

Not really. There are people from the business world who are good at stealing other people’s work and claiming credit for it and monetizing it. That’s not really a skill that is transferable to governance.

The problem is that the Great Business Leader is invariably a trickle down Republican. Find a business leader who has been successful, and yet understands that government and business aren’t the same thing in addition to understanding that trickle down is bullshit, and they will be branded a Socialist before you can…

The myth of the Great Business Leader Who Will Run Government Like A Business never dies

Not sure why this is an issue. What makes a CEO unqualified to be chief executive? Donald Trump is a racist asshat, but that does not mean every CEO is a racist asshat.

I mean, the only definition of a “tech company” is one which is valued beyond any reasonable expectation of profitability. Say you’re in tech and some idiot angel investor with a boner for being hip will pour money into your sinkhole of a cash eating company faster than you can put together the capital calls.

Once a firearm is illegally obtained (i.e. by a person not legally permitted to have it) it is an illegal firearm. The fact that it started life as a legally purchased firearm proves the point that more laws won’t change the behavior of those that don’t respect the law in the first place.

Well, there are two sides. You are assuming she’s got an eidetic memory, which is a stretch.

No, he claims that the incident and words she quotes in such lovingly exacting detail may not have have happened in exactly that manner. I’m not sure why you have trouble accepting that she might be right, he made an inappropriate joke, without that being the exact joke made

I think because Asians are seen as the “model minority”, white folks don’t think it’s offensive to make fun of us.

So? Maybe they are. Yeah, it’s possible that David Cross said exactly that, and then forgot. It’s also possible he said something slightly different, or less offensive, and years of being worked up about it has slowly warped the memory in her mind from something slightly offensive to something extremely rude. Not sure…

Oh, this happens to me all the time, too. A few years ago I spoke to my father about something he made me do (not sexual or harmful, just a scary physical swimming challenge) when I was very young, and he vehemently denied that anything like that and would never do that to a young girl. Yeah—he may not remember it…

I think the top comment is the fact that the problem isn’t violence against women or harassment of women, it’s harassment of people. I don’t see how you take a tweet that starts “if all the WOMEN” and then claim it’s men who are being sexist by asking to be included. Sure, women are (vastly) disproportionately on the…

No one does not believe that the illegal sale, possession and use of firearms isn’t a massive problem. Rational people don’t think more laws will convince people without respect for the law from committing crimes.

No because then it would be considered a liberal set up.