Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
He comes off as someone who's, ermahgawd, he believes in God so he's going to install a Theocracy here!!!

That's why you're impossible to reason with. The man goes on record saying he wants to run the country on his version of Christianity and you sit there and roundly deny it.

There is just no getting through you to.

A) that's not theocracy.

B) you're implying that Christianity is a bad, bad thing

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You just told us what you would do.....

Yeah, *in this case*.

Bit different than what scooty espousing.

No it isn't, but keep on living in your fantasy world.

Nice of you to share your opinion.

Hey come on guys. It's okay to be gay, as long as you don't do anything gay

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?

https://www.frontiersmedia.com/frontiers-blog/2016/02/08/michigan-senate-passes-bill-that-makes-anal-sex-punishable-by-15-years-in-prison/

Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.

A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.

Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”

It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.

One of the problems I've always had with the idea of these kinds of laws is, how the bloody fething hell are they to be enforced? Are they gonna send a DHS "agent" to every house to monitor activity? Do residents need to install security cameras in all rooms of their housing where sexual activity may take place?

Yeah... I can't even...

Run the country on his brand of Christianity, with theocracy meaning running the country in the name of god(s). Yeah whembly quit kidding yourself you are being obtuse on purpose because you got a persecution complex going on.

Just ignore the troll.

 Ustrello wrote:
Run the country on his brand of Christianity, with theocracy meaning running the country in the name of god(s). Yeah whembly quit kidding yourself you are being obtuse on purpose because you got a persecution complex going on.

Nah man...

It's really the anti-Republican fervor here...

Unless you want to label the Reagan or both Bush's administration a "theocracy".

It feels like splitting hairs here... but Whembly is kind of correct:

A Theocracy is a system of governance in which Priests hold the political power and rule in the name of their deity.... Unless Cruz has been ordained in some gak hole church that we don't know about, he doesn't fit the bill here.


Of course, if we just stick with dictionary.com's definition, yeah Cruz fits the bill as he has said repeatedly that "God is higher than the SC" and things to that effect. And it's his willful ignorance of the constitution where it doesn't suit him combined with his religious fervor that make me want to vote for any human being that runs against him.


Edit: Also, when you have Republicans pulling stupid gak like the ones in Michigan did... passing legislation to deal with the anal sex "problem" in the state as opposed to fixing actual problems like, ohh, I don't know... fixing the fething water supply. Yeah, you're gonna see a lot of anti-republican sentiment. Republicans have earned that much.

I think the argument can be made that Republicans in general pander to religious fervor, which includes people with Theocratic leanings. Cruze has made many of the same claims most Republican candidates make. We could call that 'theocracy' if we want, but if that's what we're going to call it then yeah, it applies to Reagan and Bush who made a lot of the same claims.

Of course hindsight being hindsight we also know Reagan and the Bushs were just talking the talk and their administrations were are most, no more theocratic than those that came before them, or in the case of Clinton, after them. Especially in an environment where some loonies have forced Republican hopefuls further right, should we really be surprised that that's the kind of talk we're seeing? It's reason to dislike Cruze to be sure, but I see no reason to pretend that if elected we'd find ourselves living under the United Church of America, with ISIS style killing squads walking the streets shooting all the gays and abortion doctors.

Besides, Republicans have had plenty of luck terminating (hehe) abortion rights as it stands without a theocracy. Regulating them out of business works just as well.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think the argument can be made that Republicans in general pander to religious fervor, which includes people with Theocratic leanings. Cruze has made many of the same claims most Republican candidates make. We could call that 'theocracy' if we want, but if that's what we're going to call it then yeah, it applies to Reagan and Bush who made a lot of the same claims.

Of course hindsight being hindsight we also know Reagan and the Bushs were just talking the talk and their administrations were are most, no more theocratic than those that came before them, or in the case of Clinton, after them. Especially in an environment where some loonies have forced Republican hopefuls further right, should we really be surprised that that's the kind of talk we're seeing? It's reason to dislike Cruze to be sure, but I see no reason to pretend that if elected we'd find ourselves living under the United Church of America, with ISIS style killing squads walking the streets shooting all the gays and abortion doctors.

Besides, Republicans have had plenty of luck terminating (hehe) abortion rights as it stands without a theocracy. Regulating them out of business works just as well.

Agreed.

Now, any other predictions on New Hampshire's Primary?

I didn't know this, but some polling stations actually opens at midnight. It ends at 7pm ET.

 whembly wrote:
A) that's not theocracy.

You're right, Whembly.

B) you're implying that Christianity is a bad, bad thing

No, I'm implying that governing a country on the principles of a holy book is a bad thing. You know, something Cruz has made pretty clear that he wants to do and surrounded himself with people that also are proponents of that idea.

But just keep putting your head in the sand and blaming "anti-Republican" fervor.

 whembly wrote:
I'm still a Rubio fanboi... if you don't like Cruz, then you'd really REALLY hate Rubio as he's even further right to Cruz.

Discussing whether Rubio or Cruz is more right wing is like when my wife asks about which shade of red I’d prefer for the new cushions. Both cushions are red. Maybe if we put them next to each other and stared for several minutes we could see some kind of difference. But ultimately they’d both end up looking exactly the same on the sofa.

Policy direction under Cruz or Rubio would be exactly the same. There’s a difference in personal demeanour, but that doesn’t really matter compared to what they’d actually do in office. And that’s kind of the story for the whole Republican field. There’s still a dozen of them left, so you get a choice, I guess, but on any kind of policy the differences are minimal. Probably even worse, the differences aren’t even debated in any kind of sensible way. It’s just denouncement, attacking each other for deviating from a list of absolutely held values. They don’t discuss or debate the ways in which tax cuts might not always work, they just attack each other for not following tax cuts at every possible opportunity, and so on.

A few people are toeing the rule 1 line and need to address their posts. Similarly, posts made almost entirely out of 1 letter misspellt words can be considered spam, and will be. Everyone just cool your jets a bit.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:It feels like splitting hairs here... but Whembly is kind of correct:

A Theocracy is a system of governance in which Priests hold the political power and rule in the name of their deity.... Unless Cruz has been ordained in some gak hole church that we don't know about, he doesn't fit the bill here.

Well...

Of course, if we just stick with dictionary.com's definition, yeah Cruz fits the bill as he has said repeatedly that "God is higher than the SC" and things to that effect. And it's his willful ignorance of the constitution where it doesn't suit him combined with his religious fervor that make me want to vote for any human being that runs against him.

Am I being loose with the term "theocracy?" Sure, but I think it's fair to say that most people except for Whembly seems to understand exactly what myself and others are saying.

LordofHats wrote:I think the argument can be made that Republicans in general pander to religious fervor, which includes people with Theocratic leanings. Cruze has made many of the same claims most Republican candidates make. We could call that 'theocracy' if we want, but if that's what we're going to call it then yeah, it applies to Reagan and Bush who made a lot of the same claims.

Of course hindsight being hindsight we also know Reagan and the Bushs were just talking the talk and their administrations were are most, no more theocratic than those that came before them, or in the case of Clinton, after them. Especially in an environment where some loonies have forced Republican hopefuls further right, should we really be surprised that that's the kind of talk we're seeing? It's reason to dislike Cruz to be sure, but I see no reason to pretend that if elected we'd find ourselves living under the United Church of America, with ISIS style killing squads walking the streets shooting all the gays and abortion doctors.

Besides, Republicans have had plenty of luck terminating (hehe) abortion rights as it stands without a theocracy. Regulating them out of business works just as well.

Make no mistake, I don't believe that, if elected, Ted Cruz would or could transform the United States into an actual to the word literal theocracy, but that's besides the point. He (and his supporters) are more than happy to use the government (that they hate) to enforce their religious beliefs and values on the country.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
He (and his supporters) are more than happy to use the government (that they hate) to enforce their religious beliefs and values on the country.

Sure, and we can call that theocratic if we want to, but I think that's being a little hyperbolic.

 LordofHats wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
He (and his supporters) are more than happy to use the government (that they hate) to enforce their religious beliefs and values on the country.

Sure, and we can call that theocratic if we want to, but I think that's being a little hyperbolic.

Yeah, no common definition of theocracy matches the hyperbole on display here.

And when Hats and Dreadclaw agree on something, some place freezes over.

 LordofHats wrote:
And when Hats and Dreadclaw agree on something, some place freezes over.

What about me?

Don't you wuv me anymore?

 LordofHats wrote:
And when Hats and Dreadclaw agree on something, some place freezes over.

When you have the Birther/Truther levels of "Cruz is an undercover priest bringing about an American Taliban Theocracy" that is going to get called out

 Ustrello wrote:
Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?

https://www.frontiersmedia.com/frontiers-blog/2016/02/08/michigan-senate-passes-bill-that-makes-anal-sex-punishable-by-15-years-in-prison/

Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.

A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.

Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”

It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.

I can't believe someone said that in 2015. That's almost a parody of being out of touch. Anal and oral are so common that there are probably fewer sexually-active 18-35year olds who haven't done one or both than who have.

 whembly wrote:

What about me?

You and I do agree on things from time to time

When you have the Birther/Truther levels of "Cruz is an undercover priest bringing about an American Taliban Theocracy" that is going to get called out

I'm an equal opportunity smarty pants, so I have to call out that isn't what people are saying.

Responding to hyperbole with hyperbole never helped anyone (though it makes good comedy ). It's how this line of discussion probably came about to begin with.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?

https://www.frontiersmedia.com/frontiers-blog/2016/02/08/michigan-senate-passes-bill-that-makes-anal-sex-punishable-by-15-years-in-prison/

Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.

A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.

Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”

It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.

I can't believe someone said that in 2015. That's almost a parody of being out of touch. Anal and oral are so common that there are probably fewer sexually-active 18-35year olds who haven't done one or both than who have.

Pointless and a waste of tax payer dollars.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

When you have the Birther/Truther levels of "Cruz is an undercover priest bringing about an American Taliban Theocracy" that is going to get called out

I'm an equal opportunity smarty pants, so I have to call out that isn't what people are saying.

Responding to hyperbole with hyperbole never helped anyone (though it makes good comedy ). It's how this line of discussion probably came about to begin with.

But is it hot enough to melt steel beams, Obama's birth certificate, or the Separation of Church and State?

LordofHats wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
He (and his supporters) are more than happy to use the government (that they hate) to enforce their religious beliefs and values on the country.

Sure, and we can call that theocratic if we want to, but I think that's being a little hyperbolic.

Someone who has made it perfectly clear that he wants to run the country using a holy book can rightfully be called 'theocratic.' The United States has a secular government and people like Ted Cruz and his inner circle want to change that, even if just a little.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Yeah, no common definition of theocracy matches the hyperbole on display here.

This is funny, coming from someone who followed this statement up with this:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
When you have the Birther/Truther levels of "Cruz is an undercover priest bringing about an American Taliban Theocracy" that is going to get called out

Though I haven't seen anyone claim that Cruz himself wants to usher in a Christian Taliban, some of the people he brags about endorsing him do.

Someone has to undo the 8 years of forced Islamization and executive sharia orders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Oh look Michigan republicans are ignoring the lead in the water crisis and instead going after gay people. Then again are we really surprised that they are?

https://www.frontiersmedia.com/frontiers-blog/2016/02/08/michigan-senate-passes-bill-that-makes-anal-sex-punishable-by-15-years-in-prison/

Despite the Supreme Court rendering anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, Michigan is one of more than a dozen states that still has a sodomy ban on the books. It also has one of the worst – not only does it ban anal and oral sex for gay couples, it also bans the acts between straight partners, and even equates them to bestiality.

A new package of bills designed to keep pets out of the hands of animal abusers includes an update to the text of the ban, but leaves the restriction on consensual sex between humans intact.

Republican Senator Rick Jones’ SB 219 updates the ban to read: “A person who commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature either with mankind or with any animal is guilty of a felony.”

It’s that “with mankind,” that’s with issue, and technically leaves straight and gay couples practicing anal and oral sex at risk of a prison sentence of up to 15 years – or even up to life if the offender is a “sexually delinquent person.” Obviously, that’s all wildly unconstitutional.

I can't believe someone said that in 2015. That's almost a parody of being out of touch. Anal and oral are so common that there are probably fewer sexually-active 18-35year olds who haven't done one or both than who have.

They learned the hard way what happens if the wrong stuff gets in the wrong pipes, they are just being careful now.

So it looks like Hillary is getting the rug pulled from under her again.

If Clinton loses tomorrow, does she go into panic mode? Does she pander to young people by promising free gak?

Not sure what to make of the GOP right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the Bernie Sanders supporters here I have a question,

I agree the US needs reform when it comes to wall street, but some of his other economic plans do not seem realistic.

Do you you think companies would be willing to stay in the US if they are facing 15 dollar minimum wage and higher taxes?

To what extent would that result in staying here or taking a short term hit by moving shop overseas? Lower taxes, lower minimum wage probably less legal boundaries. That will result in a loss of jobs and tax revenue which was needed to fund a lot of the promises he has made.

I like Bernie, I think he is a great guy who is passionate and only wants to help his fellow Americans. I don't think he has a great grasp on economics and how much global economics have impacted industry.

Granted, This based on my very limited knowledge of economics and would love if someone could educate me on the matter of Bernie's tax plan and how it would impact American jobs and growth.

 Piston Honda wrote:


Do you you think companies would be willing to stay in the US if they are facing 15 dollar minimum wage and higher taxes?

The problem isn't the $15/hr wage, nor is it the higher taxes.... It's the tired old belief in "Trickle down" that has kept things in such a way as they are now. There are numerous economists and experts in the field of making ludicrous amounts of money who are saying that $15/hr would make EVERYONE more money.

The idea that paying actual corporate taxes and "living wages" will drive business out of the US is simply a scare tactic used by people who, for whatever reason, love Trickle Down economics.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Love Trickle Down economics.

Because it's a convenient narrative that allows the wealthy to justify hoarding wealth, corporations to justify corporate tax breaks, and politicians to pander to the rich while pretending they're helping the poor.

It's the trifecta!

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Love Trickle Down economics.

Because it's a convenient narrative that allows the wealthy to justify hoarding wealth, corporations to justify corporate tax breaks, and politicians to pander to the rich while pretending they're helping the poor.

It's the trifecta!

Then how do you explain the poor people who are in love with the idea... guys like my next door neighbor are definitely NOT 1% card carrying members.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Piston Honda wrote:


Do you you think companies would be willing to stay in the US if they are facing 15 dollar minimum wage and higher taxes?

The problem isn't the $15/hr wage, nor is it the higher taxes.... It's the tired old belief in "Trickle down" that has kept things in such a way as they are now. There are numerous economists and experts in the field of making ludicrous amounts of money who are saying that $15/hr would make EVERYONE more money.

The idea that paying actual corporate taxes and "living wages" will drive business out of the US is simply a scare tactic used by people who, for whatever reason, love Trickle Down economics.

So the idea is, the Americans, the consumers that we are, would spend more money on goods and services if there was more money in their pockets?

Not against a living wage. I guess my inner liberal says if you bust your ass and work 40+ hours in a week you should be able to live comfortably, shouldn't have to worry about food or medicine and all that. My inner libertarian says you earn what you are worth. Perhaps not realistic?

However, I don't want to see a major economic crisis or companies leaving in droves. Again, not saying this will happen, just a concern.

In the end, I want what is best for everyone and have no clue how you go about doing that.

 Piston Honda wrote:
I like Bernie, I think he is a great guy who is passionate and only wants to help his fellow Americans. I don't think he has a great grasp on economics and how much global economics have impacted industry.

Yeah, I like Sanders as well, and agree his policies are way beyond what's practical. Thing is, though, I think Sanders knows that, and he's just saying it anyway. A look at his health policy is probably the biggest tell, there's no way anyone involved in that document honestly believed in his final costings.

I think his whole campaign started as a means to change the Overton window, and he never really expected to get this far. This left him with a choice of moderating his positions back to something that's sensible, and maybe even achievable, or just saying feth it and telling people as many incredible things as possible. Sanders chose the latter, and now we've got talk of a $15 minimum wage and a 77% top tax rate.

I can't blame him, really. After all, look how far Trump went with his hundred foot wall that the Mexican government would pay for, and however many clowns one-upping each other on tough they would be on ISIL.