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.
2016/03/19 00:26:25
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Grey Templar wrote: If I am running a business there should be nothing which compels me to serve a particular customer.
We've been down that road before. And people seriously need to read the laws of the land. You're not allowed to deny service in public accommodations based on sex. Federal law says it. Oregon Law says it. At this point most states have a public accommodations law. So no. They had no right to deny service. We've been down that road before. We already know where it goes.
I still think its wrong to force someone to do something which deeply violates their religious beliefs.
It has more to do with contract rights than religious views. Ultimately the only action the bakers were asked to undertake was to bake a cake which clearly wasn't a violation of their religious views. Baking the cake didn't make the bakers gay and baking isn't a gay activity.
The issue is if the government has the power to infringe on your right to contract as you see fit. Do I have the right to be the sole determiner of who I chose to contract my labor? Can I agree to work or not work for whomever I want? Do I get to choose who I take on as clients for services I offer or who I choose to whom I sell the goods I produce?
Doing away with the institutionalized racism of segregation needed to be done but it didn't have to include the erosion of a foundational principle of individual liberty.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/03/19 00:52:40
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I thought this was a good little interview...gave me a driveway moment
"Washington Post reporter Robert O'Harrow dissects Trump's acquisition of the Taj Mahal casino/hotel, which went into bankruptcy a year after it opened."
I still think its wrong to force someone to do something which deeply violates their religious beliefs.
I agree, which is why it's important to remember the missing piece of the puzzle: the law doesn't say that Sally the Baker has to bake a wedding cake for gay weddings, it says that Sally's Bakery, LLC, a distinct legal entity, has to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Businesses exist independently of their owners and workers, even when they are all the same person. If Sally doesn't want to personally bake a cake, even for a legitimate reason, she either needs to come up with an excuse (hey, I'm booked that weekend), or have another employee or contractor take care of it. Does that sound crappy? It's the price you pay for being a commercial entity.
And that leads the other issue: these are not only corner cases, but they feature people that seem, frankly, pretty committed to becoming martyrs. That's fine, but there's a million ways to get rid of a client or customer you don't want to do business with that don't involve saying "I don't do gay weddings."
And finally, this is really mean and judgmental, but most people don't believe the "being party to a gay wedding violates my beliefs" line. We just don't. You may really think that, but we're all pretty much assuming you're just bummed you can't say "no homo."
2016/03/19 01:05:12
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I still think its wrong to force someone to do something which deeply violates their religious beliefs.
I agree, which is why it's important to remember the missing piece of the puzzle: the law doesn't say that Sally the Baker has to bake a wedding cake for gay weddings, it says that Sally's Bakery, LLC, a distinct legal entity, has to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Businesses exist independently of their owners and workers, even when they are all the same person. If Sally doesn't want to personally bake a cake, even for a legitimate reason, she either needs to come up with an excuse (hey, I'm booked that weekend), or have another employee or contractor take care of it. Does that sound crappy? It's the price you pay for being a commercial entity.
And that leads the other issue: these are not only corner cases, but they feature people that seem, frankly, pretty committed to becoming martyrs. That's fine, but there's a million ways to get rid of a client or customer you don't want to do business with that don't involve saying "I don't do gay weddings."
And finally, this is really mean and judgmental, but most people don't believe the "being party to a gay wedding violates my beliefs" line. We just don't. You may really think that, but we're all pretty much assuming you're just bummed you can't say "no homo."
You're also missing another key part of the picture. The law is clear that in the case of Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships(which I believe the bakery in this case was) they are legally indistinct from the owner. Sally's Bakery is for all legal purposes the same as Sally the Baker.
So no, businesses do not always exist independently of their owners. And we're all aware that businesses were recently given all the rights of personhood in a recent controversial court ruling. So either way, religious rights were violated.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
You're also missing another key part of the picture. The law is clear that in the case of Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships(which I believe the bakery in this case was) they are legally indistinct from the owner. Sally's Bakery is for all legal purposes the same as Sally the Baker.
So no, businesses do not always exist independently of their owners. And we're all aware that businesses were recently given all the rights of personhood in a recent controversial court ruling. So either way, religious rights were violated.
I'm pretty sure that the LLC, PLLC, INC, Co. or whatever would say otherwise... which is exactly what Polonius said....
To my knowledge, the only legal way in which to discriminate against a person or a group of people is to open your business as a "Private Club," though I'm sure those dakkaites with more legal training can verify or deny this.
2016/03/19 01:20:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Grey Templar wrote: I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.
She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.
If she could, she'd have Citizens United overturned.
Now, before everyone jumps in and screams "BUT CORPORATION AIN'T PEOPLE!", please do research what Citizens United was truly about.
Whembly we have been over it, sure it wasn't about people. But it allowed for corporations to pour millions of dollars into the political election process.
To my knowledge, the only legal way in which to discriminate against a person or a group of people is to open your business as a "Private Club," though I'm sure those dakkaites with more legal training can verify or deny this.
(to expand) This is true under federal law, but not necessarily all state laws. There was a men's club in Minnesota (or maybe Oregon... not sure), but they got sued by women, and the state SCOTUS ruled that because the activities of the club included making money via local businesses, that they could not bar women from membership per the state's public accommodations law.
Something like that anyway... There's going to be some differences state to state on exactly what kinds of things a 'public accommodation' can and can't do as far as denying services, and what constitutes a 'public accommodation.' The Oregon law, under which said Christian bakers were sued, is pretty much a copy paste job of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964/1968 rolled into one law. The Federal law exempts private clubs and religious groups. I think a few states do not exempt private clubs at all.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/19 01:28:57
Ok, I don't know if this is a true story or not, but evidently Trump's bodyguards almost got into a rumble with a bunch of Rolling Stones' roadies back in 1989. Funny story nonetheless.
Grey Templar wrote: I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.
She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.
If she could, she'd have Citizens United overturned.
Now, before everyone jumps in and screams "BUT CORPORATION AIN'T PEOPLE!", please do research what Citizens United was truly about.
Whembly we have been over it, sure it wasn't about people. But it allowed for corporations to pour millions of dollars into the political election process.
The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States
Grey Templar wrote: I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.
She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.
If she could, she'd have Citizens United overturned.
Now, before everyone jumps in and screams "BUT CORPORATION AIN'T PEOPLE!", please do research what Citizens United was truly about.
Whembly we have been over it, sure it wasn't about people. But it allowed for corporations to pour millions of dollars into the political election process.
The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States
So... you'd rather a group people are prevented to have a say 60-90 before the elections?
That's what the case boiled down to.
The government actually argued that they have the power to ban books!
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/19 02:49:58
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Grey Templar wrote: I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.
She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.
If she could, she'd have Citizens United overturned.
Now, before everyone jumps in and screams "BUT CORPORATION AIN'T PEOPLE!", please do research what Citizens United was truly about.
Whembly we have been over it, sure it wasn't about people. But it allowed for corporations to pour millions of dollars into the political election process.
The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States
So... you'd rather a group people are prevented to have a say 60-90 before the elections?
That's what the case boiled down to.
The government actually argued that they have the power to ban books!
So you argue that goldman sachs should be able to donate millions of dollars to candidates?
I know you have a hard on to see HRC destroyed but this is ridiculous whembly
Grey Templar wrote: I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.
She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.
If she could, she'd have Citizens United overturned.
Now, before everyone jumps in and screams "BUT CORPORATION AIN'T PEOPLE!", please do research what Citizens United was truly about.
Whembly we have been over it, sure it wasn't about people. But it allowed for corporations to pour millions of dollars into the political election process.
The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States
So... you'd rather a group people are prevented to have a say 60-90 before the elections?
That's what the case boiled down to.
The government actually argued that they have the power to ban books!
So you argue that goldman sachs should be able to donate millions of dollars to candidates?
I know you have a hard on to see HRC destroyed but this is ridiculous whembly
As long as we're aware where it comes from... yeah.
Otherwise, it becomes an "Incumbent Protection Act"... which was what McCain-Feingold (BCRA) was really about.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/19 03:04:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Grey Templar wrote: I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.
She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.
If she could, she'd have Citizens United overturned.
Now, before everyone jumps in and screams "BUT CORPORATION AIN'T PEOPLE!", please do research what Citizens United was truly about.
Whembly we have been over it, sure it wasn't about people. But it allowed for corporations to pour millions of dollars into the political election process.
The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States
So... you'd rather a group people are prevented to have a say 60-90 before the elections?
That's what the case boiled down to.
The government actually argued that they have the power to ban books!
So you argue that goldman sachs should be able to donate millions of dollars to candidates?
I know you have a hard on to see HRC destroyed but this is ridiculous whembly
As long as we're aware where it comes from... yeah.
Otherwise, it becomes an "Incumbent Protection Act"... which was what McCain-Feingold (BCRA) was really about.
So you are saying that a company board of 10 or 20 has an equal voice to the actual people.
Grey Templar wrote: I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.
She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.
If she could, she'd have Citizens United overturned.
Now, before everyone jumps in and screams "BUT CORPORATION AIN'T PEOPLE!", please do research what Citizens United was truly about.
Whembly we have been over it, sure it wasn't about people. But it allowed for corporations to pour millions of dollars into the political election process.
The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States
So... you'd rather a group people are prevented to have a say 60-90 before the elections?
That's what the case boiled down to.
The government actually argued that they have the power to ban books!
So you argue that goldman sachs should be able to donate millions of dollars to candidates?
I know you have a hard on to see HRC destroyed but this is ridiculous whembly
As long as we're aware where it comes from... yeah.
Otherwise, it becomes an "Incumbent Protection Act"... which was what McCain-Feingold (BCRA) was really about.
So you are saying that a company board of 10 or 20 has an equal voice to the actual people.
?
Not sure I follow... but yeah.
How do you feel about Unions engaging in speech?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/19 03:10:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Grey Templar wrote: I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.
She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.
If she could, she'd have Citizens United overturned.
Now, before everyone jumps in and screams "BUT CORPORATION AIN'T PEOPLE!", please do research what Citizens United was truly about.
Whembly we have been over it, sure it wasn't about people. But it allowed for corporations to pour millions of dollars into the political election process.
The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States
So... you'd rather a group people are prevented to have a say 60-90 before the elections?
That's what the case boiled down to.
The government actually argued that they have the power to ban books!
So you argue that goldman sachs should be able to donate millions of dollars to candidates?
I know you have a hard on to see HRC destroyed but this is ridiculous whembly
As long as we're aware where it comes from... yeah.
Otherwise, it becomes an "Incumbent Protection Act"... which was what McCain-Feingold (BCRA) was really about.
So you are saying that a company board of 10 or 20 has an equal voice to the actual people.
Grey Templar wrote: I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.
She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.
If she could, she'd have Citizens United overturned.
Now, before everyone jumps in and screams "BUT CORPORATION AIN'T PEOPLE!", please do research what Citizens United was truly about.
Whembly we have been over it, sure it wasn't about people. But it allowed for corporations to pour millions of dollars into the political election process.
The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States
So... you'd rather a group people are prevented to have a say 60-90 before the elections?
That's what the case boiled down to.
The government actually argued that they have the power to ban books!
So you argue that goldman sachs should be able to donate millions of dollars to candidates?
I know you have a hard on to see HRC destroyed but this is ridiculous whembly
As long as we're aware where it comes from... yeah.
Otherwise, it becomes an "Incumbent Protection Act"... which was what McCain-Feingold (BCRA) was really about.
So you are saying that a company board of 10 or 20 has an equal voice to the actual people.
Just look at the top 10 groups and the last two columns.
What do you see?
I think you missed the point.
Unions donate large amounts of money because they're able to collect large amounts of money from their members, whom the union represents.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/03/19 03:22:53
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Just look at the top 10 groups and the last two columns.
What do you see?
I think you missed the point.
Unions donate large amounts of money because they're able to collect large amounts of money from their members, whom the union represents.
Exactly, I am pretty sure I am okay with nurses, teachers and laborers having their voices heard more than some schmucks sitting in a board room because they want to de regulate everything so they can make a few more million each and screw over everyone else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/19 03:24:29
Just look at the top 10 groups and the last two columns.
What do you see?
I think you missed the point.
Unions donate large amounts of money because they're able to collect large amounts of money from their members, whom the union represents.
Exactly, I am pretty sure I am okay with nurses, teachers and laborers having their voices heard more than some schmucks sitting in a board room because they want to de regulate everything so they can make a few more million each and screw over everyone else.
You can't state on the one hand, say it's okay for Unions to engage in the political process and on the other denounce Corporate spending in the political sphere.
Doesn't compute.
Fact of the matter, the Citizen United ruling allowed a more liberalized funding streams for PACs / SuperPACs.
Which benefited organizations like those Union groups as well...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/19 03:29:41
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/19 03:32:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Just look at the top 10 groups and the last two columns.
What do you see?
I think you missed the point.
Unions donate large amounts of money because they're able to collect large amounts of money from their members, whom the union represents.
Exactly, I am pretty sure I am okay with nurses, teachers and laborers having their voices heard more than some schmucks sitting in a board room because they want to de regulate everything so they can make a few more million each and screw over everyone else.
You can't state on the one hand, say it's okay for Unions to engage in the political process and on the other denounce Corporate spending in the political sphere.
Doesn't compute.
Fact of the matter, the Citizen United ruling allowed a more liberalized funding streams for PACs / SuperPACs.
Which benefited organizations like those Union groups as well...
When those groups represent millions of people instead of hundreds it is more palatable
There's a pretty strong story going around that Republicans have told Obama they'll confirm Garland in the lame duck congress, if a Democrat wins the presidency. Which is a bit like telling the enemy you'll surrender if they defeat your army and take your capital. But more importantly it shows how completely dishonest the Republicans are in refusing confirmation hearings, it was never about 'letting the people decide', it was just about hoping that a Republican would win the presidency and pick someone different.
Anyhow, I said a few pages back we were seeing the first signs of Republicans rationalising Trump as the lesser of two evils, in order to turn up and vote like they always do. That rationalisation appears in full force now.
It makes me wonder if there could possibly be a candidate horrible enough that they wouldn't all fall in line.
skyth wrote: It's also a basic, fundamental, rule of business that you don't hire someone unless you have no other choice. That is why consumers, rather than businesses, create jobs.
Yes, and it's a basic, fundamental reality that people need an income to spend money. That's why it's chicken and the egg, whatever sales the business have is either expenditure that goes to suppliers or employees or is profit. Either way it is spent by employees, it becomes demand. You and Capt Jake are arguing different sides but you're both making the same mistake, picking one side of the mechanic and claiming that's the only side that matters.
Only says you. The tax system, as current, is based around wealth changing hands.
No, the US system isn't based around wealth changing hands. It is based by default on income. When you sell an asset you aren't taxed on the sale price, you're taxed on the sale price less the purchase price - how much the asset grew over it's life, which is it's profit, a form of income.
The issue, of course, is that the US system deviates from that default position regularly, because it is a bad, inconsistent tax system.
Besides, I don't see any better way of addressing the wealth gap. It's already getting worse and worse as time goes on.
Higher marginal tax rates. That should be obvious, even if I hadn't mentioned it multiple times in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jmurph wrote: The problem with not taxing transfers of wealth as income is that if you only define income as income from earnings and property, you leave out a lot. Would investment income qualify? Dividends? Appreciation?
Yes, dividends, rent, interest, capital gains... these are all income. This is clearly defined in existing tax codes. Your question isn't a real question.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Some mutability is good, but not to the level that Clinton waffles around.
So it's just "flip flopper!" again. That was pretty boring about half way through 2004. Come on, this is only fun when everyone puts in effort. If you're going to invent reasons to hate someone, show some imagination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I'm always surprised that "she's ambitious" is considered a drawback.
You have to be a narcissist and ambitious to think that you would be the best person to become POTUS. How many people thought that God Himself chose them for the job this time around?
Personally I only want aimless, lazy drifters for President.
I think the 'she's ambitious' thing is an emotional reaction, a vague and fairly poorly thought through reaction against Clinton, because as you say obviously everyone who goes runs for President is hardworking. Except Fred Thompson, who was by all reports a lazy gak.
Anyhow, I think the real thing that's driving that dislike of Clinton is that she's a bulldog. When she fights she fights to win. That 70s legal case is a decent example - she has to give a defense because she's the appointed lawyer, but she didn't just give a good defense, she fought to win. I can see how that can mean people won't like someone.
Of course, being President isn't about being liked. Carter was a true gentleman, and the presidency didn't really work out for him. On the other hand Johnson got real stuff done, and the basic reason is that if you didn't fall in to line like he wanted you to, he fethed you over good and proper. Clinton has given every indication of being the second kind. Not as much as Johnson, not by a long shot, more like a less genial version of her husband, or perhaps just like her husband, if her husband had had another 24 years in Washington before he got the job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Religious freedom is simply the dogwhistle for being anti-gay rights, and I don't buy it.
538 did an interesting bit that looked at how often 'gay marriage' was used in the past set of primaries by Republicans. Its dropped massively this time around, replaced by 'religious freedom'. Because exactly as you said religious freedom is a dog whistle for people pissed off that gay people are allowed to marry now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: And those people didn't have a leg to stand on. Nowhere in the Bible does it say blacks are inferior or anything, it says the exact opposite actually.
Being gay on the other hand is a well documented affront against God.
I don't think you realise the path you're wandering down here. I mean, you're just plain wrong about racism have less of a place in the bible than homophobia, but that debate is both irrelevant and boring. The bigger issue here is that by arguing that one thing is religious freedom because it is in the bible, while another thing isn't, you're inviting the courts to open your book and decide for you what your religion does and doesn't say. That's the opposite of religious freedom.
That's why if someone says 'I think my religion requires me to be a racist jerk' we have to say 'you're wrong, but you have the same religious protections as someone who thinks their religion doesn't make them a jerk'. Because the alternative is state sanctioned religion.
This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2016/03/19 06:48:27
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/03/19 07:39:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The new testament says you should cut off your hands and gouge out your eyes if they should lead you astray. And I am pretty sure there has only been one perfect man in Christianity. And there are a lot of christians out there who are whole bodied. So citing something as being well documented in the bible is not a good reason for something
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/19 07:41:44
Its a great source. But funnily enough when you speculated a while back that oil and gas money was behind the Democrat's support of closing coal mining, and I used opensecrets to show you oil and gas money goes 91% to Republicans. You didn't respond.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/03/19 11:03:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
2016/03/19 12:42:22
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
" It is a metric mathematical scientific algorithm of tyranny that is extremely sophisticated and can even predict the future."
Trump's Press Secretary people! Wake up sheeple! OTHER BUZZWORDS!!!!!!
I will admit, in my early 20s I may have thought Jones was telling the truth for about a month. Then I realized he was a snake oil peddler, a demagogue and had a messiah complex haha.
I've seen Trumpette's cite Infowars enough to not be surprise by this lol.
They only people I've ever met that other than Trumpettes that can not be shifted from their views are people who are deeply religious and conspiracy theorists. The deeply religious at least makes sense to me but Trumpettes are too similar to conspiracy theorist for my own comfort. Of course, most that I know and have met hold a fair few conspiracy theory beliefs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/19 12:49:58
2016/03/19 14:39:52
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Its a great source. But funnily enough when you speculated a while back that oil and gas money was behind the Democrat's support of closing coal mining, and I used opensecrets to show you oil and gas money goes 91% to Republicans. You didn't respond.
I missed that and I admitted that I was speculating...
