aphid

Merriam-Webster (a dictionary) says; Definition of sexism 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women 2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex Definition of sexist : based on or showing sexism Simple Definition of dictionary : a reference book that contains words listed in alphabetical order and that gives information about the words' meanings, forms, pronunciations, etc. Perhaps Mr. Trump could use one? Perhaps you've heard of the term "sexist pig." Honestly no, I have not. Perhaps it is a unique phrase from your area. Perhaps you mean, colloquially; a sexual pig. Possibly the simpler abbreviated form; a pig. Or, as in my neighborhood; a (derogatory, not honourific) f**king pig. How a connection was drawn from what I posted and your apparent concern about an ex-President's sexual activities escapes me. I entered this thread simply to correct the wrongful application of a word. (Full Disclosure: I don't give a nut that a politician of any stripe got a hummer/face in his/her office and is subsequently too embarrassed to publicly admit it. But that isn't remotely related to anything I posted.)

Merriam-Webster (a dictionary) says; Definition of sexism 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women 2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex Definition of sexist : based on or showing sexism Simple Definition of dictionary : a reference book that contains words listed in alphabetical order and that gives information about the words' meanings, forms, pronunciations, etc. Perhaps Mr. Trump could use one? Don't think so As you are entitled to think. Personally, I prefer my political candidates to enjoy a better understanding and command of the English (or French, up here) language. Equally important to me (again, up here) is that the constituency not so quickly forgive sloppiness of speech. I'm not sure how that applies to the questionable interpretation/application of a word that I was specifically addressing. NPR used the term years ago with no one crying about it. Seems of little or no issue now either As for words There are those here (is it a world forum after all) that use the C*** word and think nothing of it I am not one of them as I think it is one of most disgusting terms there is. Especially when aimed at women. So be it. That said, different parts of the world and different parts of a city view words differently based on the culture they live in. This thing with Trump is just another spun up controversy that is being used against him. It will stick to him just like all the other "trumped up" (sorry, I could not help myself) issues that have been raised. And if he drop from the top, the same bs will be used against the new top runner. It is what the left here does! AND Those who use sloppy language will be vilified differently based on what party they represent. But I guess wanting to see all 54 US states is not an issue to some. Again, based on party affiliation. For your edification, my entire initial post and subsequent reply were addressing the incorrect application of the word "sexism". I apologize for apparently not being more easily understood. As to the balance of your reply, I frankly don't give a nut about Mr. Trump*, the right or the left. How you may have come to a contrary conclusion from my post(s) such that it was even worthy of your expanded commentary escapes me. (*Full disclosure: I do think Trump's a bombastic egotistical buffoon, but funnier than hell. Great comedy with no price for admission.)

Merriam-Webster (a dictionary) says; Definition of sexism 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women 2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex Definition of sexist : based on or showing sexism Simple Definition of dictionary : a reference book that contains words listed in alphabetical order and that gives information about the words' meanings, forms, pronunciations, etc. Perhaps Mr. Trump could use one? Don't think so As you are entitled to think. Personally, I prefer my political candidates to enjoy a better understanding and command of the English (or French, up here) language. Equally important to me (again, up here) is that the constituency not so quickly forgive sloppiness of speech. I'm not sure how that applies to the questionable interpretation/application of a word that I was specifically addressing.

Merriam-Webster (a dictionary) says; Definition of sexism 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women 2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex Definition of sexist : based on or showing sexism Simple Definition of dictionary : a reference book that contains words listed in alphabetical order and that gives information about the words' meanings, forms, pronunciations, etc. Perhaps Mr. Trump could use one?

Are there some accidental typo's in here? 5000 shows at 2500 attendees totals 12,500,000. Or am I missing something? 5000 accidental shootings at gun shows annually? Can you provide the ATF report that states this? John

Do you have supporting information for these claims? 200,000 more rapes per year if not deterred by armed women in the USA? Holy crap...

Reading what he has in the past said about himself and his belligerent responses to criticisms, he bears a remarkable similarity to that current newsmaker with the bad toupee...

One of the talking-heads on CNN this morning said, "This shows the underlying fear in America." I would suggest a more appropriate assessment is that it shows the underlying ignorance in America (and parts of Canada too).

Now your talking! One gun every two years. I could live with that! Reading, while it may be fundamental, is nothing compared to understanding, which is imperative. I understand your love of guns. Would that you could afford others with dissimilar affections an equal courtesy... John

Haven't you been paying attention? It's Obama's fault.

How about: Show ID to buy a gun....show ID to vote. What could be more fair? With the corollary: "One person, only one vote. One person, only one gun". Fair?

I'm curious: raised Protestant myself, what is this "true believer" stuff you speak of? Obviously then, there must also be such a thing as an "untrue believer"? People whine that there is a "war against Christianity" from their perception. I can only suggest that from my own porch, I am not the least concerned with whatever faith (or none) anybody else follows. Until the moment they become an irritant or a nuisance to me. Like Jehovah's Witnesses who come uninvited to my door to interrupt my breakfast. Or the Hare Krishna's who pester me on the street to buy their flowers. Or the Yoga nutbars who fill the entire damned packing area every morning. It's not a war. I just don't want to nuisanced by anybody's proselytizing. To think it is exclusive to you "true believers" and it's implied martyrdom is simply delusional and shockingly arrogant. Just my opinion. John

As shocking as it might seem, it's not always about the money. I can assure you that within our reasons for not emigrating, the comparison of our respective wages is typically the least among them. Most of us are pretty darned happy with being and remaining Canadian. With modestly different values. We do like coming for a visit though. And jumping at your DZ's. Vive la différence. John

Even of you intended to be humourous, Ken, I can give you plenty of first-hand information and evidence that refutes that statement. But hell, let's just give them another piece of paranoid fantasy to hold over us in the future. Forgotten this bullshit allegation already? Fourteen years later and many are still repeating this nonsense. source: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/editorials/The-US-should-take-cover-the-Canadians-are-coming-323523771.html John ETA: link

Indeed, upon further reflection I must agree with you. I found the bigotry, arrogance and misogyny so overwhelmingly repugnant that I fully appreciated turning my back to them in search of cleaner air. I'm also aware that as a foreigner, some regulars here have suggested we don't enjoy the privilege of sharing our opinions regarding U.S. news or policies. Again, my apology. (It's a Canadian thing. We do that.) Kindest regards, John

What is that adage? The insane think the rest of the world is crazy. Perhaps it is your view that should be labeled as needing to be broader? I concede you might be correct. I may be sadly incapable of appreciating the nuances of bigotry and misogyny apparently allowable for a braggart basking in the glow of his egocentric buffoonery. And apparently acceptable as well for any who believe he is appropriate for the highest office in your country. My apology. I'll try harder next time. John

The larger and sadder issue (my opinion only) is that far too many Americans believe either of these bombastic and bumbling candidates. And from my experience in the Bent Prop bar just yesterday, while nobody said they "supported these gentlemen, they surely enjoyed that these men (notably Trump) were only saying publicly what they wished they were able to. I thought I chose my acquaintances with a broader world-view but I now see I may have been sadly mistaken. But Berlusconi never had access to a large red button. John

If they are to be treated exactly as civilians, what about "accessory (to murder) after-the-fact"? Or is that just a Hollywood-type of law? If they are such a large organized group with a hierarchical structure, could they use any of the federal RICO or gang statutes against them? How about hate-crime laws?

I patiently await the rebuttals as well.

I would enjoy one of those also. John

Ahem... as a citizen of a large portion of the above-mentioned continent, I would like to add that while we too have our share of intellectually-stunted ignorant bigots, my country is officially committed to receiving upwards of 25,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict. In fairness though, I do concede that Canadians weren't likely intentionally intended to be included within the scale of your statement. John

You are correct, Ken. BTW: you coming down for the Invasion in Jan. at Eloy? John

(I was going to post this in the Bonfire, but figured it would probably end up over here in short order) This week Labute Penitentiary, a medium security prison in Deacon County Texas, announced it will be recognizing the Second Amendment right of all its prisoners. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed just because an individual is in jail!"(Warden Lyle Wyatt, Labute Penitentiary) http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/player.html?t=y&autoPlay=true&clipIds=2678623589

Thank you. John

Please excuse my ignorance. I was raised in a home where we cooked our steaks only over an outdoor grille. The broiler oven was used for roasts. (Incidentally, we only ever indulged in top cuts of grain-fed Canadian beef - and for much of it, from our own very pampered Herefords) I have quite honestly never watched steaks cooked on a stove / in a cast pan. I'm sure I've been served these many times over the years, just never have seen it done and never gave it any thought. It certainly looks to be a good idea when it's cold and rainy or even snowing outside. I'm willing to give it a try. I always choose custom-ordered and cut tenderloin steaks from the butcher (well, sometimes rib-eye) in 1.25" - 1.5" thicknesses. I age them myself sealed air tight for about 5 days, the last day at room temperature. I prepare only med/rare and medium. I use a meat thermometer and remove when the centre achieves just shy of 135 degrees, then let them rest for about 2 1/2 to 3 minutes. When using a cast iron skillet or an electric fry pan, what temp is appropriate to begin with? Thank you. John