Leilin

At least for the mediums, yes.

And that, Sarah, is why I don't mind when movies portray us as comical. To be frank, we are.

This is because, despite the whining of politicians, the ability of a company to provide jobs has not one floor, but two 1. The amount of money the company has to hire people 2. The demand for the company's product. Number Two seems to be the one that most forget, as they are still whining at the top of their lungs that there aren't enough tax cuts for the rich. No company will hire when it doesn't have to. Until demand for products is increased (which is done, by the way, by increasing circulation of money in the poor and middle class, since the rich do not, historically, spend as much of their money in public markets), hiring does not increase because it would be stupid to hire another person to do a job that your current staff already manages without issue.

*facepalm* Alright guys. The thread had a good start. The one man derp brigade is here. I'm out.

Which, in his position, seems to be always, unless gay people are involved.

No. It wasn't. It's ridiculous to even think that when reading the bill. It was designed SPECIFICALLY to prevent the federal government and courts from stepping in when states make laws that infringe on individual liberties. In the law, he specifically cites Roe V Wade as something the law is designed to overturn, you know, that case where federal courts overrode a state ruling that limited individual rights? He OVERTLY provides that interpretation in his own writing. There is no second way to read this. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the actual text of the bill? ... and the TEA party tells us that you can most definitely support Paul and have not the slightest inkling of what it means to be a Libertarian, moreover since Paul himself frequently misuses the term. And you're right. Paul's change of opinion on DADT to the right side of the issue is a good thing. (There is only one right side to that issue. Sorry, ignorant bigots. Pick another issue). But it doesn't excuse the fact that a person who favors state rights over the individual is NOT a Libertarian by the strict definition of the word.

You mean this tenth amendment? I'll bold the part that libertarian philosophy focuses on. The tenth amendment is NOT a right for the states to oppress people's individual liberties and writing off things like that and DADT is explaining away HUGE holes in Paul's philosophy. You cannot support those things and be a Libertarian. It is not a matter of positive and negative connotation. It is a matter of definition. To a Libertarian, individual liberty is paramount. Libertarians DO NOT sponsor or vote for bills preserving the rights of states or federal agencies to infringe on individual liberty. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The power to discriminate, by the way, is prohibited both to the Federal and to the State, assuming one isn't daft enough to think that our constitution doesn't promote the concept that "all men are created equal." (You know? From that pesky declaration?)

Quick addendum: Before I said "Federalist." I meant "Anti-Federalist."

Then you should pay attention to his actual votes and sponsorships, rather than what he calls himself to rope in gullible people. For example, the "We the People" act, which Paul sponsored, would have given states the right to legislate religious practice, upheld national antisodomy laws, and state defense of marriage acts, all of which are anti-liberterian concepts. It would also have stripped individuals the right to challenge any such laws in federal courts. Literally every piece of that bill is an intention to give states the power to legislate and limit individual civil rights. There are further implications of that awful act, but let's just be glad that it, as one of many examples of utter two-faced tripe that Paul has put out, did not pass. Furthermore, Paul supported the DADT repeal. Guess what? That's an antilibertarian concept! The government has no place legislating the sexual practices of the people, either on the federal or the state level. Thinking of Paul as a Libertarian only comes from one of three things: 1. Cognitive dissonance. He has CONSISTENTLY supported state rights over the individual. That is very directly not libertarian. 2. Not paying attention. 3. Not knowing what a Libertarian is (Clue: It doesn't mean "Republican.")

This would be the crux of my issue with it as well. Handing that much power to the government without provision for burden of proof is dangerous.

If you at any point hold state's rights to higher regard than individual rights, you are not a Libertarian. Period. The word for what Paul is is "Federalist."

Since it was overwhelmingly supported by Congress as well, my support of all of them has gone down equally. ... and Paul was the bottom of that rung anyway. The one thing I hate more than the average false politician is a fake Libertarian.

Have a good week, Terry.

So far, I'm pretty happy with the active ultra. The texture of the brief is actually quite nice as well and the velcro, yeah. ridiculously strong. I did exactly what Duck warned about and, despite that, the diaper held up (thank goodness). Still haven't worn the second one. Of course, was worn with doublers. I'm adventurous, but I don't relish the idea of laundry.

Oh wow. You're right. No more secure plus. O_O

*gasp* You mean all liquids don't react to SAP in the same way? Next thing, you'll be telling me that Salt Water is more dense than normal water.

I will note that despite that, however, the material on the lining of the diaper has most definitely changed. Perhaps we'll see some real competition appear from Bambino soon. Due to issues with the company itself, ABU doesn't fulfill that role for myself, and for many others, considering their ridiculously shady business practices. There is a simple truth that competition is good (I firmly believe that without it, the current Bambino lines other than the original would not have been released) and breeds creativity. As to Bambino running out of stock, the truth is likely much simpler: Diapers must be purchased in a production sense in bulk. They don't just run off a bunch whenever somebody orders some like it's a copy machine. More likely, the Bels are in between scheduled shipments (sizes OTHER than the cases are still in stock) and they're only selling the smaller volumes until the next run arrives. Especially in a niche market, this is often how things go. Since I've got about ten diapers left, I've ordered a sample of Active Ultra to see if they fit my needs. If they do not, I will probably order more Molicare for the time being.

I'm sorry, but if you don't order from them, how do you know any of this? I have in my possession three different runs of Bambino over two years, not including the Bellissimos in my possession. The cut, including that of the teddy, is completely unchanged. The ONLY bambino product that has a different cut is the Bellissimo.

*grump* Bellissimo are out of stock right when I need to make a new order. Bad.

And, for that price, they're marginally more effective than wearing two pairs of underwear on top of one another. Woot! The Secure Plus (Not X-Plus), which has no Bambino alternate, used to be a great diaper. I don't really know how good they are now, but now they have green hearts on them. XD

If you haven't tried Dry 24/7 yet, they're quite good, if not a bit big for named size most of the time.

I just found it amusing.

I am, but I'm not leaving WOW for it. Playing both.

When it's the well-documented truth, that's the opposite of "trumping up" crimes. Like their product if you will, but their ties and refusal to break ties with pedophilic elements are repeated and egregious.

Obama has already said he will veto if it hits his desk.