OK dick, you found me out.

I DIDN'T WATCH THE VIDEO! I CONFESS!

I now stand corrected in my orthopedic shoes.

Ya happy now?

SORRY EVERYONE! I'M AN ASSHOLE!

figured since you went easy on me I'd be rough on myself. I know you would respect that. ; )

Let’s pretend for a second, this policy was also enforced by Obama’s administration (it looks like it wasn’t, but for the sake of argument).

It was an appalling thing to do and Obama should be ashamed. There. Happy now?

Now we all agree that it’s a fucking disgrace and whoever did/does it is a bad person.

Can we stop excusing the asshole who’s doing it right now?

@Payback, @newtboy you're missing the point.

It doesn't matter if rape is worse than groping... we need to start drilling into people that neither is acceptable.

The sentence for these crimes is different and that's correct. (So no, a shoplifter isn't Bernie Madoff)

But as far as I know, none of the accused has been sentenced to anything.

But public shaming as a minimum? I'm fine with that.

And Aziz Ansari doesn't deny what happened, he's just "sorry she feels that way".

"Does this go both ways? If a man has a bad date, or bad sex..."
There's a difference between bad sex and being pressured into sex. Even if it's not rape, it's still not cool.

"I hope that girl you had a bad date with in high school doesn't come back to show you the error of your position by adding your name to the "me too" list, destroying your career, family life, and future with no recourse to prove your innocence...all because she didn't orgasm.....but I do hope you see the error."

If she came back said I was crap in bed, I would probably shrug and say "hey I was a teenage boy, they're all crap at sex". If she said, I pressured her into sex, I would deny it vigorously.

"Being weird is the same as being a rapist?!? Jesus fucking Christ, I always thought you were rational. "
Come on, newt, you know that's not what I said. I said "stop being weird, gropey or rapey". If I said "stop eating bacon, doughnuts or sugar", would you think I meant that bacon, doughnuts and sugar are the same?

First, I like weird people on a day to day basis. Second, there's nothing wrong with consensual weirdness.

But in context, it's pretty clear what I was talking about. But if you must have it spelt out, don't
- force people to watch you masturbate
- meet people (especially younger members of the opposite sex that work for you) in a dressing gown in your hotel room
- make sexually explicit remarks to strangers

But to reiterate, yes, there are degrees of violation. Rape is worse than groping and groping is worse than exposure. There, happy now?

Now that we're all agreed on that, can we focus on stopping the problem instead of this pointless grading of offences?

This really isn't difficult. If you can't tell whether another person is enthusiastic about sexual activity with you... maybe relationships aren't for you.

I am so happy now.

I lived in Turkey for four years, and after a while I noticed that Turks didn't respond well to my smiling. They didn't understand it as a friendly signal, and it actually caused friction. I never asked about it, but I somehow caught on that they thought I was stupid. I thought about it, and it made perfect sense to me that it was stupid to smile at things that shouldn't make you happy.

So I stopped smiling in stores and restaurants, with coworkers, and even with Turkish friends. My interactions with people improved noticeably.

After four years, I moved back to Canada, where I continued not smiling for no reason. I've never been able to get back into the habit. I just feel stupid and unnatural smiling for no reason. People smile at me just because they see me, and they smile politely. I can't smile back. I just raise my eyebrows.

People now tell me constantly that I'm too sad, that I should smile more that I'm not happy. Now, there's some truth to that -- I do suffer from depression -- but that predates living in Turkey and it's only since then that anyone's accused me of being sad, or even noticed that I don't smile as much as I should. I've had to train my friends out of referring to me as grumpy.

My job is teaching English as a Second Language to students from all over the world. My Western students -- particularly the Latinos -- tell me daily (literally) that I don't smile enough. My East Asian and Eastern European students have never said a word in that direction. I just realized the divide now after watching this video.

OMG! YES! YES! YES! I can die happy now. Thanks

Yes. Yes, I am.

And thank you!!!! It was fun!
In reply to this comment by lurgee:
are you happy now

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.

Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:

1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?

2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?

"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington"

3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?

4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?

5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?

7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?

>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Presumably, these "certain groups" are the same people who blew up WTC7.


Presumably, you're a disgusting human being:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^lantern53:
I still prefer a confused right to lifer than a crystal clear abortionist.

Fuck you, I love abortionism. I aborted 15 kids before breakfast.
Too many damn people on the planet anyway, so let's start by deleting anyone we can.
Yeah, that's right I am pro-death. Particularly yours.
Happy now?

And FWIW, a dumb one too. Everyone knows WTC7 blew itself up. *eyeroll*

>> ^lantern53:

I still prefer a confused right to lifer than a crystal clear abortionist.


Fuck you, I love abortionism. I aborted 15 kids before breakfast.

Too many damn people on the planet anyway, so let's start by deleting anyone we can.
Yeah, that's right I am pro-death. Particularly yours.

Happy now?