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.
Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior? You don't have the right to hurt people just because you don't like what they think or say. Just like nobody else has the right to hurt you because they don't like who you are. Sticks and stones...
What should be done about Islamic clerics in the US who intentionally radicalize people who ultimately end up committing terrorist attacks? The cleric didn't do anything himself, but his violent ideology played a role in motivating the attacker.
If there is evidence that the cleric may be breaking the law he should be investigated and if he is found to be breaking the law he should be charged and prosecuting. Absent of any evidence of criminal activity the govts should leave the cleric alone same as anybody else. The law applies equally to everybody it's not applied selectively to different people.
Right, so advocating a policy of genocide isn't criminal according to the Brandenburg test in the US. It would probably qualify as hate speech, but that's more of a civil thing.
The Australians have pretty strict anti-terrorism laws according to which people can be charged with inciting violence. I believe something similar exists in the UK. To be clear, punching people over their beliefs is always puerile. In terms of recourse from your average citizen, they're either worth a bullet or they're not, which is why I'd like to see a legal basis for addressing incitement to violence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 14:22:28
... TBf you don't see many people trying to get into North Korea so maybe it's part of a rebranding exercise.
...just January 20th, 2017?
Not any other January 20th, but specifically that one.
And this was published on the 24th.
Feel retroactively patriotic.
Well, yeah - January 20, 2017 is, so far, the only day that Trump's been inaugurated as president. If we're allowed to have elections in 2020, and if Trump wins again, we'll probably see January 17, 2020 also be a "National Day of Patriotic Devotion."
Basically, it's a "Hail Trump" day for the tiny-handed buffoon's ego.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/24 14:32:01
AUSTIN — The Texas Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether the husbands and wives of gay city employees in Houston deserve spousal benefits, a surprising and rare about-face spurred by pressure from Gov. Greg Abbott and dozens of other top Republicans. "No city employee — whether heterosexual or homosexual — has a 'fundamental right' to receive employee benefits for his or her spouse," reads the lawsuit against Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. "It is perfectly constitutional for the government to offer benefits or subsidies to some married couples while withholding those benefits from others."
... ..separate but equal has worked so well in the past.
Very disappointed that Turner is supporting this discrimination, but I imagine it is in response to the political backlash against the HERO ordinance (centered around, you guessed it, bathrooms....). And while the former mayor certainly seemed to only be concerned with LGBT issues at the expense of other major concerns, I don't see the logic in spending resources defending this position. You see, Houston has serious financial issues, including pension liabilities, under maintained infrastructure (roads) and huge bills from capital expenditures (like the Superbowl).
Which seems to be a common theme in modern American politics- ignoring the nitty gritty stuff like budgets and financial issues, then clashing on peripheral social policies (like bathroom legislation).
I don't see where Turner is supporting this from the article. As mayor he's the one being sued.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 14:30:37
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Who determines what constitutes Nazi, bigoted or sexists behavior? You don't have the right to hurt people just because you don't like what they think or say. Just like nobody else has the right to hurt you because they don't like who you are. Sticks and stones...
What should be done about Islamic clerics in the US who intentionally radicalize people who ultimately end up committing terrorist attacks? The cleric didn't do anything himself, but his violent ideology played a role in motivating the attacker.
If there is evidence that the cleric may be breaking the law he should be investigated and if he is found to be breaking the law he should be charged and prosecuting. Absent of any evidence of criminal activity the govts should leave the cleric alone same as anybody else. The law applies equally to everybody it's not applied selectively to different people.
Right, so advocating a policy of genocide isn't criminal according to the Brandenburg test in the US. It would probably qualify as hate speech, but that's more of a civil thing.
The Australians have pretty strict anti-terrorism laws according to which people can be charged with inciting violence. I believe something similar exists in the UK. To be clear, punching people over their beliefs is always puerile. In terms of recourse from your average citizen, they're either worth a bullet or they're not, which is why I'd like to see a legal basis for addressing incitement to violence.
We do have laws against incitement to violence but I believe they are dependent on a more direct and immediate chain of causation. If a cleric is encouraging the congregation to go commit violence and then the congregation walks out of the mosque and starts violently rioting then the cleric could probably get charged with incitement. If the cleric preaches to the congregation (and the congregation is thousands of different people coming to different prayer times throughout the week) and one member of the congregation decides to plot and carry out a seemingly religiously motivated mass murder a month later can the authorities really show that the cleric was a primary cause to the violence? If the vast majority of the congregation didn't become murderous and the attacker had to spend time and resources on his own to prepare and carry out the attack is the cleric really responsible or was the attacker just deranged on his own?
This article is for the Trump defenders and anybody who still thinks Trump isn't a thin-skinned, morally-bankrupt ass that would rather blatantly lie to anyone and, logic would deduce, be gladly branded a liar before he can even begin to accept a reality where he isn't the most loved. The absolute lack of intellectual integrity necessary to not only exist in this kind of bubble, but constantly seek to manufacture it, should disqualify him to be dog catcher.
... TBf you don't see many people trying to get into North Korea so maybe it's part of a rebranding exercise.
...just January 20th, 2017?
Not any other January 20th, but specifically that one.
And this was published on the 24th.
Feel retroactively patriotic.
Well, yeah - January 20, 2017 is, so far, the only day that Trump's been inaugurated as president. If we're allowed to have elections in 2020, and if Trump wins again, we'll probably see January 17, 2020 also be a "National Day of Patriotic Devotion."
Basically, it's a "Hail Trump" day for the tiny-handed buffoon's ego.
Right; a Hail Trump day that was announced four days too late for anyone to celebrate if they wanted to. He just signed himself a Gold Star Certificate, and he forgot the actual gold star.
Or maybe he just wanted the certificate.
I can't believe how much of the time he's spent in office so far has been used on ego-stroking bullcrap. I mean, I can, because of course it has (and, in all honesty, it's probably better than him trying to do things), but seriously? He starts the job after a weekend off, officially writes a Good Job Buddy card, and sends his press secretary out to argue about the size of his...crowds.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The Australians have pretty strict anti-terrorism laws according to which people can be charged with inciting violence. I believe something similar exists in the UK. To be clear, punching people over their beliefs is always puerile. In terms of recourse from your average citizen, they're either worth a bullet or they're not, which is why I'd like to see a legal basis for addressing incitement to violence.
We have laws for inciting a criminal offence, yeah. They vary state by state, because like yourselves we have a federal system and states decide their own criminal codes.
I don't think the genocide thing would qualify, by my understanding. It isn't enough to argue that an illegal act is a good idea in the abstract. You actually have to actually incite oeople, call them to take the criminal act. It can be to specific individuals, or it can be to people in general, but it must involve an actual call to action.
Its a law that doesn't get used too often.
“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.
sebster wrote: I don't think the genocide thing would qualify, by my understanding. It isn't enough to argue that an illegal act is a good idea in the abstract. You actually have to actually incite oeople, call them to take the criminal act. It can be to specific individuals, or it can be to people in general, but it must involve an actual call to action.
Actually I don't believe it does. The laws don't get used often as you said, but I believe one case they were successfully used was against a person who published on a website denying the holocaust. According to wikipedia the federal "Racial Discrimination Act 1975"
The Act makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."
But as you say, individual states also have their own laws, but several of them are "vilification" and "vilification" doesn't have to mean a specific call to action, it can be inciting hatred, contempt. ridicule and that sort of stuff.
That's why we've had people speaking out against our laws, because even though they aren't necessarily used all that frequently and often get thrown out even when they are sought to be used, they do linger close to the whole "oppression of free speech" and border on the line of having a right to not be offended.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 16:03:00
LordofHats wrote: I would agree people do not have a fundamental right to receive employee benefits, but people do have a fundamental right to equality. The government cannot extend spousal benefits to some couples and then not to others for arbitrary reasons.
Kilkrazy wrote: The obvious rebuttal is that gay marriage isn't "real" marriage so gay "partners" are not legally spouses and do not have spousal rights.
That is why this Texas scheme is an attack on gay marriage.
Oh Traditional Marriage, the uniting of a family between two fiefdoms to end conflict or combine wealth/land, which sometimes happened between males too.
d-usa wrote: I always marry for huge tracks of land.
Not me. I'd rather... just... sing!
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I swear to god the check marks for a dictator are being checked off one at a time.
I've never seen a more dubious execution of the country's wants and needs from a single president and a lapdog republican party that wants to prove how ineffective the government is by demoralizing it and destroying it.
Freezing New officers, beillegerent attacks on those who offer dissent, and want to control what the media says with their own facts. Ugh this is horrible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 18:00:17
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/24 18:09:42
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 18:21:28
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BigWaaagh wrote: This article is for the Trump defenders and anybody who still thinks Trump isn't a thin-skinned, morally-bankrupt ass that would rather blatantly lie to anyone and, logic would deduce, be gladly branded a liar before he can even begin to accept a reality where he isn't the most loved. The absolute lack of intellectual integrity necessary to not only exist in this kind of bubble, but constantly seek to manufacture it, should disqualify him to be dog catcher.
Committee approves Carson to full Senate after entire committee falls asleep during hearing (ok I made the last part up...or did I????)
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: [Its an interesting legal argument as there are situation where more benefits are effectively given, but I don't think it will hold in court. This impacts a whole variety of issues, not just their weird thing about targeting "Dem Gayz" so expect it will get rocked back quickly. Even if not, nothing keeping the employer from voluntarily providing benefits which most majors do now (example-Apple providing LBGT spousal benefits before marriage was legal).
.
Strangely enough, my brother's previous employer is involved in a rather long and drug out lawsuit over anti-heterosexual discrimination. Back in the mid 1990's they started offering same-sex spousal benefits (I am supportive of this) even though gay marriage wasn't legal. Then gay marriage became legal, but the company never changed its policy. Some people at the company tried to get their girlfriends/boyfriends on company health care and were denied because they were not married, however there were two non-married gay partners allowed to be on the company health care (as the 1990's policy allowed this).
This does violate the equal protections policy, and in my opinion the company should either allow all non-married partners (regardless of sexual orientation) or remove all non-married people from their health care plan.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 18:42:32
I've heard of these types of claims. Was it resolved?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BigWaaagh wrote: This article is for the Trump defenders and anybody who still thinks Trump isn't a thin-skinned, morally-bankrupt ass that would rather blatantly lie to anyone and, logic would deduce, be gladly branded a liar before he can even begin to accept a reality where he isn't the most loved. The absolute lack of intellectual integrity necessary to not only exist in this kind of bubble, but constantly seek to manufacture it, should disqualify him to be dog catcher.
While I agree that Trump is VERY full of himself and not able to accept facts he doesn't like, I would find it to be fully within reason to ballpark 500,000 to one million illegals voting. I linked to a news article a few months back where 2000 illegal voters from just 8 rural Virginia counties self-admitted to voting illegally. As these counties have both relatively low populations, and low populations of Hispanics and there are roughly 3,200 counties in the US, 500,000 to one million sounds about right. Not that there are any real hard numbers to rely on, and I'd be happy to see numbers that state otherwise.
Pryor appeared to have an edge because he is a protege of Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s choice for U.S. attorney general. Pryor has been an outspoken critic of abortion rights and gay rights, which won him admirers on the right, but also made him a target for liberals and Democrats. He once described the Roe vs. Wade decision as “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”
I see the party of small government strikes again!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/24 18:53:13
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Frazzled wrote: I've heard of these types of claims. Was it resolved?
I'm unsure. I heard about the trial from my brother, as he kept in contact with an old friend that worked there. Last I heard the judge kept granting extensions and delays that lasted more than a couple years. Honestly, I wonder why they'd even fight it. The lawsuit itself must be costing them more money than any change to the policy could cost.
BigWaaagh wrote: This article is for the Trump defenders and anybody who still thinks Trump isn't a thin-skinned, morally-bankrupt ass that would rather blatantly lie to anyone and, logic would deduce, be gladly branded a liar before he can even begin to accept a reality where he isn't the most loved. The absolute lack of intellectual integrity necessary to not only exist in this kind of bubble, but constantly seek to manufacture it, should disqualify him to be dog catcher.
While I agree that Trump is VERY full of himself and not able to accept facts he doesn't like, I would find it to be fully within reason to ballpark 500,000 to one million illegals voting. I linked to a news article a few months back where 2000 illegal voters from just 8 rural Virginia counties self-admitted to voting illegally. As these counties have both relatively low populations, and low populations of Hispanics and there are roughly 3,200 counties in the US, 500,000 to one million sounds about right. Not that there are any real hard numbers to rely on, and I'd be happy to see numbers that state otherwise.
Just so we're clear, I decided to go through your posting history to find this "news article".
PJ Media (originally known as Pajamas Media) is an American online media company and operator of an eponymous conservative news, opinion and commentary collaborative blog that was founded in 2004. Its majority owner is technology entrepreneur, billionaire, and angel investor Aubrey Chernick.
And while we're at it, here's a lovely tidbit about J. Christian Adams:
After leaving the Justice Department, Adams became a contributor to Pajamas Media. He has been a guest commentator for Fox News, Rush Limbaugh's DailyRushbo.com, the Heritage Foundation, Newsmax TV and other conservative media. On June 28, 2010, The Washington Times published a guest commentary by Adams in which Adams accused the Justice Department of racial bias by dropping the New Black Panthers case. Subsequently, Adams accused Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez of lying under oath in investigative hearings before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. On July 6, 2010, Adams testified before the Commission on Civil Rights that the Justice Department's decision was driven by racial bias against white Americans.
This is the "New Black Panthers case" in question.
So, in other words, it's not an actual news article so much as it is a blog posting.
But even then, if illegals are voting--as has been said time and time again, they shouldn't be on the voter rolls.
