OK I’m fairly cautious about the primary, was ambivalent in 2012 (if you put Obama on this stage would you be able to differentiate him at all either?), but gun policy aside (and he’s pretty good on background checks, assault weapons, etc), given his state:
1. Bernie Sanders was a *conscientious objector* during…
carpetboxer
carpetboxer
I’m fairly cautious about the primary, voted Green in 2012 (if you put Obama on this stage would you be able to differentiate him at all either?), but gun policy aside:
1. Bernie Sanders was a *conscientious objector* during Vietnam. He didn’t go to Canada, he didn’t fake a heart problem, he didn’t join the national…
Which positions you’re disputing are unclear.
deBoer’s not wrong...
do an open relationship, then
At least he’s mostly blaming the dude
Also Sorkin didn’t tell Mark Zuckerburg’s story, or the story of “Priscilla and Mark.”
There’s no scorned love origin story to Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg married his longtime girlfriend through college who’s an accomplished doctor.
Doesn’t fit Sorkin’s narrative.
You haven’t, and here we are. Have a good day too.
I’m not sure what you’re characterizing as my argument, as I was pointing out the dissonance between Rodrigue’s post here and her responses shutting down other critiques of her posts and/or other variegated ways people celebrate their relationships. “You should elope” is probably hyperbole used to dismiss the nuances…
Which is funny because Dick Cheney has been pro gay marriage for years, now.
gifs and syllables.
No, it was in response to people who don’t have wedding play money to agonize over and figured out sane ways to celebrate their relationships with out the insane mark-ups. Keeping a dress price around $1500 is a unique problem to have.
Her equivalent to “move to Canada” was “don’t read this wedding blog”
Again, that was not *my* argument, it was her argument. That’s how she shut down other discussions.
Genuinely confused as to what your point is :(
Exactly, except author is taking the role of her usual critics, in this particular scenario.
Her general response to critics which amounts to, “I can indulge in the wedding industrial complex if I want to, and it makes me happy, so don’t judge/read this blog”also applies to this particular extravagance.
Can’t this be reduced to, if you don’t want an extravagant, expensive wedding with inflated wedding-industrial-complex prices: don’t have one.
If you don’t want to indulge in a particular extravagance perpetuated by that complex: don’t have one.
I don’t understand because that’s generally your refrain to similar…
April is the cruelest month.
Right, but Paul didn’t make a leap interpreting scripture to spreading institutional Christianity, whereas existing patriarchal cultures adopted Buddhist tenets rather than the reverse. It doesn’t make sense to put them in the same category. Key differences include Buddhists not believing in hell or damnation or…
...the point is you’re not actually drawing out the No True Scotsman fallacy if you’re not actually interested in Buddhist texts/dialectic over the past millenia. Not mansplaining.