KatAa
KatA
KatAa

No apology for us n-words? Oh.

Right? A big news day for sleepy blondes.

Is a .gov website good enough for you?

Cost of vaccinations is rarely the factor- the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to pay for vaccinations and eliminates cost-sharing (like co-pays or deductibles) for them. And if a child is uninsured, the federal government runs the Vaccines for Children program, which gives free vaccines to doctors who serve

Sounds like she's ready to be CEO of Yahoo

Not saying you're wrong, but isn't extreme fatigue also a symptom of not eating (enough)?

Except that the law isn't mandating a medical procedure. It's affirming that children who haven't undergone the procedure can be prevented from attending school.

You 100% have the right to not vaccinate your child due to religious beliefs. You DO NOT have the right to have your child attend public school if he/she is un-vaccinated. Don't want to vaccinate? Then off to home-school/ private school you go.

I got into a fight at work about vaccines again this week. My boss telling me parents should have a "choice" to vaccinate their kids because he knows a family who's son is Autistic and that they started noticing symptoms after he had shots when he was 18 months (which is right around the time Autism symptoms start to

I'm also willing to bet that they didn't have snipers when they went to arrest the actual white robbers.

Cody Oakes, 25, an operations manager for J.P. Morgan, had been ready to walk out the door with a duffel bag in his hand to go to football practice. (He plays quarterback and wide receiver for the Bellingham Bulldogs, a semi-pro team.) He'd noticed heavily armed police in camouflage marching down the road.

Can he sue the women for the false accusation? Lawyer friends, please chime in.

My issue is with the hyperbole and catch phrases for such a serious and somber story. It takes away the power when the author inserts herself in so much of someone else's tragedy.

There's no vitriol. People with real experience on how these investigations take place have pointed out (politely) that there is no misconduct on the part of the cop who made the statement and that not every trans person who gets murdered is a hate crime, and yet she continues to obtusely make the same point over

He seemed to be saying "We don't know if it happened for that specific reason. In hate crimes, we make that determination when a specific reason is in evidence. We'll have to investigate further." I don't think it's fair to immediately assume he's biased or discriminatory.

It is BEYOND OBVIOUS what this person means by "Hate Speech" is nothing more than speech SHE HATES. This person Kat is just too frail & emotional for the real world civil rights.

You're missing the point, it's not about the feeling of "hate" it's about the primary motivation for the crime being the victim's association with a group that is the basis for something being called a "hate crime". In this case it is possible and not yet determined (which is why they said there is yet no

I honestly don't see what's so horrific about what he said—it sounds as though he is leaving it open as to whether or not this is a hate crime. I thought he was actually equating it to a crime where someone is targeted because he is "gay, black, Hispanic, etc." But maybe I'm reading it wrong.

In the same article a person from GLAAD also says that he's not sure it's a hate crime and that it's despicable regardless. I would have read both comments as having the same point. That at this stage in an investigation the circumstances and the motive have not been uncovered yet. If they are early in an