Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2017, 09:21:42 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 614
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats, gun to your head: Your top choice for 2020 nomination right now? on: June 06, 2017, 10:12:32 am
Holy f-ck, angus actually is that legitimately clueless. So embarrassing.

Now I'm clueless as well as sexist?  I should put that in my signature.

At this point you're being hateful.  Internet bullying.  I don't know what crawled up your ass and put you in the mood to pick a fight with me, but I'm in a reasonably good mood and I'm not going to let you ruin it so I won't take any more of the bait.  Good day.

2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas Middle School Says Student Called ‘Ape’ And ‘Slave’ Wasn’t Bullied on: June 06, 2017, 10:02:39 am
Apparently they were assigned some community service and something called "re-teaching" happened.  The father has a problem with the fact that they didn't use the word "bullying."  He's a lawyer so he probably has some training in manipulating people with words.  I tend to agree with him.  It's just a word, but given that it's so emotionally charged these days it's an important label.  If the children are made to understand that they are being bullies, then they'll probably think twice about it.

The father also pointed out that these children are probably learning bigotry at home.  (I'm paraphrasing.)  He might be right, but it's hard to say.  He told the reporters that he also asked the mother of the girl involved in two of the incidents to meet with him, but that she wouldn’t.  That was probably a good move, because it'll make the mother nervous enough to handle her daughter.  It could backfire, though.  Many bullies are bullied at home.  That's where they learn it.  If she's being smacked around and humiliated by her parents, making Mama nervous could make matters worse. 

I don't think the schools should squash every bit of creativity and freedom in the students--and sometimes it seems like that's what they're doing--but I do think that if a student is being such a jerk that it creates a hostile learning environment for another student, then you have to involve the parents of the abusive child, and the school psychologist.  The point isn't to embarrass or torture the child--I disagree with kneejerk suspension policies and "three strikes" rules--but to make them understand that they're hurting others and, ultimately, themselves unless they can learn social skills.
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas Middle School Says Student Called ‘Ape’ And ‘Slave’ Wasn’t Bullied on: June 06, 2017, 09:35:10 am
Is this on a real news site somewhere? It's a little too much to believe.

The same story is reported in the Austin American-Statesman.

I don't find it hard to believe, but then I have a 12-year-old who attends a public school.  Lots of bullying happens in school.  I hear about it every day.  I think that in most cases the children don't really mean harm because they're young and ignorant, and usually not much harm is done.  Clearly the student at Tippit Middle School was bothered and she told them to stop.  The school even issued a report saying the girl "was a victim of more than one incident of racially harassing conduct," so I don't think it's a question of whether this happened.

I have noticed that children start to think about ethnicity quite a bit at that age.  My son has started to specifically describe classmates as "this black boy" or "this Asian girl" and the like.  And it's not just him.  I hear it from his mates as well.  He also has commented that someone asked him, "what is your nationality?" and he asked, "what do you mean?" and the other child said, "you know, like Italian or Puertorican or Mexican or Indian..."  There's not necessarily anything wrong with noticing ethnicity, but it is noteworthy that the children do start to think about such things at this age.  

I also think they're starting to study the history of society in more detail than they did in elementary school.  They read "Diary of a Young Girl" and learn about the Shoah.  They read about the westward expansion of the US and the corresponding destruction of the native cultures.  They read about the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the Middle Passage.  They learn that for many decades after Jefferson wrote that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" planters were still enslaving millions in this country.  They need time to process such unsettling information.  

I think the girl's father mainly is dissatisfied with the handling of the matter by the school.  He says it was a teachable moment, and he's right.  Here's a very interesting quote from the father:  "It makes me feel like the school district is sweeping this under the rug.  Georgetown ISD has had a least a few suicides in the last five years resulting from bullying. … I don’t have that concern for my daughter, but I’m sure other parents didn’t think their kids were suicidal either."
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Congressman: "Hunt them, kill them. For all that is good, kill them all." on: June 06, 2017, 09:12:28 am
Dude has a facebook page.  This is from his page:

Quote
all of Christendom… is at war with Islamic horror. Not one penny of American treasure should be granted to any nation who harbors these heathen animals. Not a single radicalized Islamic suspect should be granted any measure of quarter. Their intended entry to the American homeland should be summarily denied. Every conceivable measure should be engaged to hunt them down. Hunt them, identity them, and kill them. Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all.

Isn't that also the stuff extreme jihadists preach?  The irony is delicious. 
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats, gun to your head: Your top choice for 2020 nomination right now? on: June 05, 2017, 10:44:59 pm
What you wrote about Gillibrand "sucking the right dick" was sexist and uncalled for.

It was called for, and it was hardly sexist.  I know that the site allows very young people (and foreigners) to post, but most show some prescience and some understanding of the English language, so I'll not belabor that point.  For your benefit, I'll explain that it's called a metaphor.  A metaphor can be defined (according to m-w.com) as:  "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them"

This concept should not be confused with a direct comparison, usually called a simile, which generally uses a preposition such as "like" or "as."  I'll give you some examples which you will probably also call sexist, in order to get your attention and hopefully get you to remember this lesson:

direct statement:
"Your sister is ugly!"

simile (direct comparison):
"Your sister looks like a dog!"
{Here, I mean no offense to dogs, in general}

Metaphore (implied comparison):
"Your sister is a dog!"

Implied metaphor (one step further removed):
"Your sister chases parked cars!"

All of those statements are meant to insult your sister's appearance (and probably, by extension, you, and probably also to goad you into fisticuffs), but there are subtleties and nuances in them.  In each case, the writer intends to convey the message with different levels of directness.  (He also assumes that you have studied the language well enough to appreciate their differences.)

You may be still in high school, university, or grad school, so I won't necessarily expect you to appreciate it, but unless you're independently wealthy, you'll understand one day the concept of sucking the dick of the boss.  (Here, I'm speaking metaphorically, in case that wasn't immediately obvious to you.)  We working-class schmucks--and yes, I consider myself "working class."  I have never really appreciated the way that some gringos have appropriated the british use of that term.  In my estimation, it doesn't matter whether you're a janitor, a cardiologist, a truck driver, a professor, a lawyer, or a politician, if you work for a living, in the sense that you aren't independently wealthy, then you're working class.  That is, whether you're white- or blue-collar working class, if you work for a living because if you don't work then you can't afford to live, then you're working class--know what it's like to suck a dick.  (again, I'm using a metaphor)  Now, I like to swim against the stream, and I'm something of a nonconformist.  Have been as long as I can remember.  Maybe that's why I'm still making slightly less than six figures even though many of my colleagues with far fewer publications than I and far less postdoctoral experience than I and far worse evaluations than I have been promoted.  Fuck 'em.  I don't care much to suck the dick.  But that's my problem, isn't it?  Anyway, we all know what the pressure to suck the dick is like.  Maybe it's pressure from a senior law partner to attend his or her wedding.  Maybe it's pressure from a dean to serve on a committee.  Maybe it's pressure from a store manager to always work the evening shift.  Men are not excluded from sucking this dick.  Neither are black people or people with spanish sirnames.  It's not a sexist thing, or an ethnic thing, or a homophobic thing.  We all get presented with a big dick that we are expected to suck.  Now, I haven't served political office, but I am aware, just as I am sure most posters here are aware, that all freshman congressmen(women) are expected to suck that big dick till they almost choke.  There are committee assignments, photo ops, expectations to vote for certain bills (quid pro quo), etc.  This is the norm in their game, and it's really not so different from the norm in the game that most of us who loathe politicans also play, but on a less high-stakes scale.  This will be the case regardless of whether the politician in question has male or female genetalia, and the sooner your realize that, the sooner will be your opportunity to understand the way the world works.


 
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Death threats, alleged intimidation cause Democrat to drop Congressional bid on: June 05, 2017, 09:33:00 pm
Quote
Weaver said she was told by her supervisor of the connection between her candidacy and the budget cut, and that the supervisor, in turn, was told by a state legislator.

positively orwellian.  

or dystopian.

many candidates receive intimidation, personal and familial, but cuts to a section of the state's budget as disincentive strikes me as being worthy of a court-ordered investigation, assuming that an independent judiciary branch still exists.  

I wonder if it isn't a fabrication.  The article doesn't mention any attempt to contact the supervisor, or any mention of the supervisor's name.  I hope it's a fabrication.  The alternative seems worse.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats, gun to your head: Your top choice for 2020 nomination right now? on: June 05, 2017, 09:05:08 pm
STOP ARGUING ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON!!!



Okay, I'll stop, but I didn't start it.  Kiss
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats, gun to your head: Your top choice for 2020 nomination right now? on: June 05, 2017, 08:35:34 pm

Posts like there are why I won't stop talking about sexism.

Now to answer the OP, Hillary Clinton (normal).

WTF?  Sexism?! 

First, I had no idea that you don't stop talking about sexism--I guess I hadn't paid enough attention to your posts, but you can be goddamned sure that I'll pay attention to them now.  Be careful what you wish for.  Secondly, I don't understand why "posts like these" have anything to do with it. 

In the next breath you go on to mention that you will support Clinton?!  You support a candidate who hired thugs and bullies to silence women her husband harassed when she was First Lady of Arkansas because she put his--and, as we now know, her own--political careers ahead of justice and ahead of the benefit of the people.  The fact that you would support Hillary Clinton, a candidate I do not support for any office at any time under any circumstances, tells me that you and I are on different frequencies. 

You seem deluded, or confused.  Perhaps you misinterpreted me.  Perhaps I misinterpreted you.  From my perspective, it seems that you really, really need to get over this kneejerk reaction to anyone who points out flaws in a candidate who happens to be female.  It is okay not to vote for a woman.  It doesn't make you a sexist.  It is also okay not to vote for a black guy, or a guy with a Spanish last name, or a gay dude, or a disabled, Jewish, lesbian, one-eyed, former child porn star, confined to a wheel chair because of some debilitating disease and who just lost her parents to a terrorist attack.  It's okay.  You will continue to offend voters until you understand that there are those of us who treat women exactly like we treat men--and yes, I treat women exactly like I treat men; I'm no more or less rude to someone because of his or her sex; I'm an equal-opportunity asshole.  You cannot scream SEXIST! every time someone says he will not support a particular female candidate.  Your attitude, in fact, is arguably more sexist than mine.  After all, you are exhibiting what George W. Bush called, in 2000, "the soft bigotry of low expectations."  Mine is egalitarian.  I am not a feminist, nor a masculinist.  I have certainly voted for female candidates.  I voted for Ann Richards, for example, for governor of Texas when she won.  I strongly supported a candidate who came to my department about three years ago who happened to be a woman--not because she was a woman and not in spite of the fact that she was a woman--but because she was the best candidate at the time.  I lobbied forcefully, at the expense potentially of my own career, and turned a 4-4 vote into a 6-2 vote for her, and we ended up hiring her.  Again, not because she was a female, but because she was the best among those we interviewed.  I have also voted for females for Mayor and for US Representative.  I would consider any candidate for President regardless of gender, so long as he or she is someone with good judgment, or at least what I consider to be good judgment. 

You can call me a sexist, if it makes you feel better about yourself or about your cause, but it is comments like yours that turn people against your causes.  I can assure you that it is not because Clinton is a woman that I didn't vote for her, any more than it was because Trump was a man that I didn't vote for him.  I can't stand either of them.  I regard them both as being manifestly unfit for the office of President of the United States.  It had nothing to do with their genders.  Of course I'd prefer to vote for a Democrat or a Republican, but sometimes those parties nominate horrible people, so those of with enough dignity refuse to support either of them.  Clinton has as many flaws as Trump.  Different ones, to be sure, and she has a much better resume and is, at least on paper, much better prepared for the job as president, but she is creepy.  Frankly, you could do much better.  I tried to help you.  I am a registered Democrat and I did my best to see that you nominated someone better, but to no avail.  You nominated a flawed candidate that I could not support.

Gillibrand has a decent understanding of the law, and I have no knowledge of her engaging in the sorts of unethical activities that Hillary Clinton engaged in, but she does not excite me.  I'd say the same things I said about her if she happened to be a male, ceteris paribus.

Sometimes a candidate does not appeal because of what he or she says or does, or doesn't say or do, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, and it's okay to point that out.

9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats, gun to your head: Your top choice for 2020 nomination right now? on: June 05, 2017, 07:14:54 pm
James Stavridis has an impressive resume.  How is his public speaking? 

I'm a registered Democrat--not a particularly loyal one, and certainly not one to attend party functions or try to "get involved" and nominate people, but--I could support Stavridis, at least until he does something really stupid or unless someone charismatic and radical comes along.  Bernie is getting a little too old to do that and Cory Booker has too many closet skeletons.  There is the state senatorial candidate, Joe Sestak, who would win my vote in the primary if he ran, but I doubt he would win anyone else's vote.  Hell, he couldn't even defeat that tired old huckster Katie McGinty, who lost handily to Pat Toomey.  (I'll admit that I didn't vote for McGinty or Toomey in the general election.  Democrats have a long history of nominating Democrats who make me want to vote for either third party or independent candidates.  This is because they like to ask you to nominate candidates while they have a gun pointed at your head.  Although it was metaphorical on the part of the OP, I really appreciate it, because it really describes that party's thought process.)

Consider also Amy Klobuchar (sp?).  She has decent public speaking skills, and although she's also a lawyer--which is sometimes a deal-killer for me--she has a forthrighness and an humble manner.  She also has some fairly respectable ideologies and has exhibited good judgment. 
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats, gun to your head: Your top choice for 2020 nomination right now? on: June 05, 2017, 06:51:27 pm
Kirsten Gillibrand.  

She's a lawyer from a family of lawyers.  Also, she's tired, boring, and stale.

yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, she has worked dilligently as a US senator,  she served on all the right committees, and she has sponsored some fairly important legislation, but why apply the Peter Principle at the first opportunity?  

I'd probably vote to re-elect her as US senator were I a resident of New York, but I seriously doubt I could support her in a primary election for US president.

And yes, I'd probably also say that if you held a gun to my head.  At least I hope I would, because it's the truth.

This is not how the Democrats are going to win the presidency:  Hey Democrats, what if you had a gun pointing at your head, whom would you nominate?

11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: New Trump advisor: scientist who says climate change is real, and good for USA on: June 05, 2017, 08:08:25 am
This scientist accepts climate change is real, but says it's good for the USA.

That it will also increase the USA's agricultural potential, as more of northern USA warms and becomes good farmland.


LOL. 

Hard to tell whether he's serious.  He's a physicist at Princeton so he's probably serious.

This really needs to be discussed with maps.
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Liberal Professor perfectly describes why white voters love Trump on: June 05, 2017, 07:47:26 am

6. Different classes see food in radically different ways


I agree with some of the analysis, but this one is just silly.  Every animal sees food in the same way.

We may eat different things--I like really spicy food, and I probably consume far too much alcohol, coffee, and red meat--and we may have different methods of preparation, but we all share a primordial lust for food.

The author of the linked article says that some see food as a way to show off their sophistication while others see it is a way to be traditional.  This is over-analysis.  Both groups need food to survive and both groups use the dinner table as a venue for discussing things.  (Their discussions might be different, but that's really beside the point.)


Also, I agree with this post completely:

There are a few good points buried in there, but the format evokes a kitchen-sink listing of stereotypes and platitudes more than a serious research hypothesis.

it is rare that I agree with antonio's analysis, and noteworthy enough to justify the edit.

13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump, a Presbyterian, just discovered that Presbyterians are Christians on: June 05, 2017, 07:22:39 am
I was a hopeless case

Gospel.


I also had the impression that there are many flavors of presbyterians.  Perhaps one of our resident religious scholars can expound on them.  (Where's Ernest when you need him?)
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Trump, a Presbyterian, just discovered that Presbyterians are Christians on: June 05, 2017, 07:07:58 am
To be fair, we use the word "evangelical" in a strange way.  It's greek and it just means "good news."  In Germany, for example, evangelische is mainline protestant.  In the movie Sophie Scholl, when the SS interrogators ask her about her religion, you can clearly hear her say "Ich bin Evangelische" but the English subtitles read "I'm Lutheran."  We have used the word Lutheran to mean Evangelical and the word Evangelical to mean bible thumper.  Evangelicalism, properly defined, is a doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in the atonement of the Christ.  Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, etc., are all evangelical christians.  Even conservative Presbyterians can be regarded as confessional evangelicals with calvinist roots. 

I think Donald Trump already knew that Presbyterian is one of the many flavors of Christian, but I don't think he has ever had the intellectual curiosity to learn the etymology of the term evangelical.  This hardly distinguishes him from his fellow countrymen.

15  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: If you went to college, what did you major/minor in? on: June 04, 2017, 08:37:52 pm
How is it that some of you post that there's no such thing as a major in your university, then in the same breath you post a particular concentration (in other words, a major)?


16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Mattis affirms US commitment to Taiwan, outrages PRC on: June 04, 2017, 07:22:06 pm
“The Department of Defence remains steadfastly committed to working with Taiwan and with its democratic government to provide it the defence articles necessary, consistent with the obligations set out in the Taiwan Relations Act, because we stand for the peaceful resolution of any issues in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait,”

Good.  It's about 40 years too late, though.  We stopped calling Taiwan "The Republic of China" in the mid-70s. 

It's better to be honest with ourselves.  We respect the nationalists, especially those who set up government in Formosa and maintain it, but we really, really like being able to buy cheap trinkets at The Dollar Tree.  A one-dollar shower curtain means more to the average gringo than containment of communism or human rights, and any swinging dick on the street can tell you that. 

Mostly this is just Mad dog barking.  If he really means it, good for him, but I think he's just barking.

17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Do you know any "electoral oddballs"? on: June 04, 2017, 02:28:55 pm
In other words, people with an unusual or contradictory voting history. For example, my father was a Nader/Romney voter.

I'm a Nader/Romney voter as well, I suppose.  I voted for Ralph Nader for president in 2000 and Mitt Romney in 2012.  Did your father vote for Obama in 2008 and for Bradford Lyttle in 2016?  I did.  So I'm an Obama/Lyttle voter and a Nader/Romney voter!  Smiley

18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: HRC - "Trump/Sanders capitalized on anger, I beat both, 3rd party ppl are crazy" on: June 03, 2017, 05:09:16 pm
The mandate is defined by the electoral college margin.

I'm not sure that's the orthodoxy among political scientists and historians.  At least it wasn't when I was in school.  I remember Doctor White (who was not white) talking about this in my freshman history class.  He defined a mandate the way our textbook did:  55% or more of the popular vote going to one candidate defined a mandate.  He called it a rare thing.  I haven't looked up the statistics, but I suspect that he was right.  I don't remember any time in my adult life that a candidate got 55% or more of the popular vote.  We're in a time when mandates are just not happening, at least according to the textbook definition.  According to Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, the last time a presidential candidate had a mandate was in 1984, at which time I was in the eleventh grade (reading "1984" for a class assignment, as it turns out.)


19  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: What Happened to all the Political Moderates? on: June 02, 2017, 06:14:49 pm
You're on fire with the great posts, Goldwater.

I fell in to a burnin' ring of fire
I went down, down, down
And the flames went higher
20  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Would you ever shot a man in Reno just to watch him die? on: June 02, 2017, 10:28:47 am
only if he charges the mound after I hit him with a baseball.
21  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: What Happened to all the Political Moderates? on: June 02, 2017, 08:28:56 am
After doing my homework I've concluded that Johnson couldn't really be considered a moderate...

Johnson is definitely not a moderate.  

This is why I have often complained that there ought to be three, not just two, metrics on those political quiz websites.  They have done a pretty good job separating the Left/Right aspect from the Anarchy/Authority aspect, so that you can compare how far left or right a person's politics lie--and Johnson was very far left--but there really should be a foreign policy metric as well.

On a Hardball interview about 15 years ago, Chris Matthews was interviewing Al Sharpton, and he asked Sharpton who his favorite president is.  Sharpton replied, "Johnson.  Well, except for the Vietnam War, I would have to say Johnson."  It's hard to think of Johnson and only think of the Great Society.  We also think of the war.  

If you could separate into three spheres of thought, domestic economic policy, cultural norms, and foreign policy, then you could better analyze the question.  You could say, who is the farthest left or who is the farthest right without letting either the cultural aspect or foreign policy come into it.  Of course, there are those who will argue that foreign policy is affected by, and affects, one's socioeconomic policy agenda, but too many assumptions have to be made to make that fit neatly into the algorithm.  Is the war a result of the desire to keep the sea lanes open for free trade?  Is power projection a means of protecting one's investment or is it the result of a desire to keep the citizens safe?  Do sanctions result from a humane desire or do the result from a punitive desire?  Did the president get good advice before committing troops?  We would need to know the answers to these questions and more if we were to capture foreign policy within either of the other two categories.  By creating a separate category, such questions need not be answered.  Indeed, they could be avoided altogether since domestic economic policy would stand alone separate from the rest.

(For example "Are you a globalization junkie?" is a question that could stand alone.  Globalization can be motivated from the left or from the right.  It can stem from a desire to ensure an even playing field, or it can stem from a desire to benefit US corporations.  We do not need to probe further in this question which is the case because foreign policy is separated, the Left/Right questions can probe those important distinctions with other questions in another part of the test.)


Anyway, what happened to the moderates?  They lost in primary elections.  Because of the system that has existed for nearly 50 years, it is difficult for moderates to win intraparty contests.  Primary contests used to be decided by a process that was cynically referred to as secretive meetings in smoke-filled rooms.  Those secretive meetings in smoke-filled produced contests between Nixon and Kennedy, between Dewey and Truman, etc.  You wouldn't have a candidate such as GW Bush emerging.  They would look at his resume and note that his greatest accomplishment was selling Alex Rodriguez for 25 million dollars.  Not really presidential qualifications.
22  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Leftists only: which election would you rather have lost? on: June 01, 2017, 07:51:05 pm
2016.  Well, I'm not a leftist, but trying to think as a leftist I voted for 2016. 
23  General Politics / Economics / Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income on: May 31, 2017, 08:02:02 pm
horrible idea, on many levels.

I prefer a situation in which if someone wants Tea, Earl Grey, then he walks over to the food replicator and orders it and it appears.  No money changes hands, no tips are expected.  This is the result of a very advanced economy and it will only come about with technological efficiency and motivation.  Government policies which guarantee money in one's pockets not only do not facilitate that end, but they work against it in at least two ways:  they propagate the inherent value of the barter system and they provide without motivation or inspiration for the betterment of mankind.

Maybe I'm a closet socialist.  I don't think I am, but I might be.  Or maybe I'm an unabashed objectivist.  I don't think I am, but I might be.  But the idea of a legally-guaranteed universal basic income would, or at least should, offend both of those groups, precisely because the idea of providing free to the great unwashed masses the crutches of capitalism does not seem to be a good way to advance the economy.

24  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Opinion of mainstream media on: May 31, 2017, 06:14:26 pm
Excellent.  It serves a useful function.  In fact, it serves at least three useful functions:  it provides to the public information, it moves products by selling advertising time, and it provides jobs.
25  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Who should be paid more: a soldier or a teacher? on: May 31, 2017, 06:03:59 pm

I was born rather late to my dad - when he was 33.


"born ... for"

You were "born to" your mother, "born for" your father.  (You can also apparently say "born of" when referring to your mother, as in "born of the Virgin...")

And not late.  My father was 30 when I was born, and I was 37 when my son was born, the average of 30 and 37 is 33.5, so 33 is pretty close to the average from my familial perspective.  I also have many colleagues who had their first child in their mid-30s.  It's called family planning.  Now that we know what causes pregnancy, we can exercise some control over it.  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 614


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines