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.
Please tell me that this is a joke or that I'm missing something?
For the work-blocked:
Spoiler:
Arkansas passes law allowing rapists to sue victims who want an abortion
Activists say state's blanket ban on the safest form of second trimester abortion could be ruled unconstitutional
A pregnant woman's husband will have the power to stop her from having an abortion, even in cases of spousal rape, under a new law introduced in the US state of Arkansas.
Most second trimester abortions will also be banned by Act 45 - the Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act - which will make it possible for husbands to sue doctors who carry out abortions for civil damages, or get an injunction to block the termination.
The pro-life law, which was pushed through in just two months by the state's Republican government, prohibits all dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, in which the physician removes the foetus from the womb with surgical tools.
D&E procedures are the safest way for women to end their pregnancies after 14 weeks of gestation, according to the American Medical Association.
But the medical procedure will now become a felony in the southern state, punishable by a $10,000 fine or six years in prison.
This is despite 683 of Arkansas's 3,771 abortions being D&E in 2015, according to the state's health department.
A clause in the legislation also states the husband of a woman seeking an abortion, if he is presumed to be the baby's father, can file a civil lawsuit against the physician for monetary damages or "injunctive relief" ― a court order that would prevent the doctor from going ahead with the procedure.
The woman’s parents or legal guardians can also sue to stop the abortion, if she is a minor.
Although a husband cannot win money in cases of “criminal conduct” against his wife ― namely, spousal rape ― he could still sue to block her from having the abortion.
State Representative Andy Mayberry, who co-sponsored the bill, called D&E a “gruesome, barbaric procedure”, adding that the routine procedure “is one that no civilised society should embrace”.
Mr Mayberry is also the president of Arkansas Right to Life, a subsidiary of America's largest pro-life organisation, the National Right to Life Committee.
Karen Musick, co-founder of Arkansas Abortion Support Network, told The Daily Beast she could not fathom how the bill had become law.
“There is zero part of me that understands why a rapist or someone who got someone pregnant against their will, maybe incest, would have any right in that decision,” she said. “I cannot wrap my brain around the fact that there would be anyone who thinks otherwise.”
Holly Dickson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, told the Huffington Post the bill might not be constitutional.
“They created a whole new right ― the right of a husband or family member to sue a doctor on behalf of an adult patient,” she said. “I cannot begin to tell you what the intent was, but we have raised concerns about that provision and the entire rest of the bill, which is unconstitutional.”
The ACLU of Arkansas has said it plans to challenge the abortion law in court before it goes into effect later this year.
Six other states have passed nearly identical laws, and in all four states where the law was challenged ― Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia ― it was struck down by the courts.
The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe versus Wade protects a woman’s right to have an abortion up until the foetus would be viable outside the womb, around 22 weeks of pregnancy.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Wait a minute. Trump signs Executive Orders without fully understanding what he's signing?
John Adams must be surely be spinning in his grave
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
My main issues is the religious right will use this to take baby steps into forcing religion into law. Baby steps is how it always starts.
For what it's worth, in my life's experience, the religious right has always been quite overt in trying to force religion into law, particularly with issues of abortion, school prayer, and creationism in the classroom.
I'd rather they remain overt about it, because to the degree that I oppose this or that issue that they are trying to legislate, I'd rather know that they are trying to doing so, rather than these issues creep into law through subterfuge and deception.
And similarly if they are trying to nominate some kind of boogeyman, I'd rather they just be honest about it, rather than masking their support with code words and by simply preaching on those issues that their chosen one supports, all so that they can keep the IRS at bay.
Arkansas passes law allowing rapists to sue victims who want an abortion
Activists say state's blanket ban on the safest form of second trimester abortion could be ruled unconstitutional
A pregnant woman's husband will have the power to stop her from having an abortion, even in cases of spousal rape, under a new law introduced in the US state of Arkansas.
Most second trimester abortions will also be banned by Act 45 - the Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act - which will make it possible for husbands to sue doctors who carry out abortions for civil damages, or get an injunction to block the termination.
The pro-life law, which was pushed through in just two months by the state's Republican government, prohibits all dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, in which the physician removes the foetus from the womb with surgical tools.
D&E procedures are the safest way for women to end their pregnancies after 14 weeks of gestation, according to the American Medical Association.
But the medical procedure will now become a felony in the southern state, punishable by a $10,000 fine or six years in prison.
This is despite 683 of Arkansas's 3,771 abortions being D&E in 2015, according to the state's health department.
A clause in the legislation also states the husband of a woman seeking an abortion, if he is presumed to be the baby's father, can file a civil lawsuit against the physician for monetary damages or "injunctive relief" ― a court order that would prevent the doctor from going ahead with the procedure.
The woman’s parents or legal guardians can also sue to stop the abortion, if she is a minor.
Although a husband cannot win money in cases of “criminal conduct” against his wife ― namely, spousal rape ― he could still sue to block her from having the abortion.
State Representative Andy Mayberry, who co-sponsored the bill, called D&E a “gruesome, barbaric procedure”, adding that the routine procedure “is one that no civilised society should embrace”.
Mr Mayberry is also the president of Arkansas Right to Life, a subsidiary of America's largest pro-life organisation, the National Right to Life Committee.
Karen Musick, co-founder of Arkansas Abortion Support Network, told The Daily Beast she could not fathom how the bill had become law.
“There is zero part of me that understands why a rapist or someone who got someone pregnant against their will, maybe incest, would have any right in that decision,” she said. “I cannot wrap my brain around the fact that there would be anyone who thinks otherwise.”
Holly Dickson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, told the Huffington Post the bill might not be constitutional.
“They created a whole new right ― the right of a husband or family member to sue a doctor on behalf of an adult patient,” she said. “I cannot begin to tell you what the intent was, but we have raised concerns about that provision and the entire rest of the bill, which is unconstitutional.”
The ACLU of Arkansas has said it plans to challenge the abortion law in court before it goes into effect later this year.
Six other states have passed nearly identical laws, and in all four states where the law was challenged ― Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia ― it was struck down by the courts.
The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe versus Wade protects a woman’s right to have an abortion up until the foetus would be viable outside the womb, around 22 weeks of pregnancy.
Without researching (no need to) this will not survive judicial review.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Wait a minute. Trump signs Executive Orders without fully understanding what he's signing?
John Adams must be surely be spinning in his grave
Shocking (shockingly utterly expected) that is.
More importantly, these EOs are almost nonissues, just like the ones with Obama were not meaningful. The real issues have to be addressed with legislation, and I see absolutely nothing starting on the executive side in regards to legislation on: *medical *structural unemployment *education reform (aka improving both higher education and tech schools, not destorying same). *structural physical development-aka infrastructure. *taxes and regulations. *Real laws to promulgate domestic capital spending and employment. (double depreciation, wacking H-1B visa program abuses, etc. )
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/06 13:32:57
-"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!
My main issues is the religious right will use this to take baby steps into forcing religion into law. Baby steps is how it always starts.
For what it's worth, in my life's experience, the religious right has always been quite overt in trying to force religion into law, particularly with issues of abortion, school prayer, and creationism in the classroom.
I'd rather they remain overt about it, because to the degree that I oppose this or that issue that they are trying to legislate, I'd rather know that they are trying to doing so, rather than these issues creep into law through subterfuge and deception.
And similarly if they are trying to nominate some kind of boogeyman, I'd rather they just be honest about it, rather than masking their support with code words and by simply preaching on those issues that their chosen one supports, all so that they can keep the IRS at bay.
With the current government majority, they will keep the IRS at bay, while reaping the benefits. This is really just a step in the direction of removing Church/State separation.
With the current government majority, they will keep the IRS at bay, while reaping the benefits. This is really just a step in the direction of removing Church/State separation.
For my part, i think tying tax exemption to free speech compromise is just a bad idea. The government should not be mucking about with free speech. The simple solution would be removing tax exemption from churches entirely, then this issue just goes away.
I also think you might take some heart in that the GOP primary nomination of Trump is a actually a strong signifier of a steep decline of the sway and persuasiveness that the religious right had previously held amongst Republicans. The religious right did have it's representatives running for office. Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, and others who are beholden to and/or allied with the religious right were soundly defeated by Trump.
Despite his new found piety on abortion, Trump is probably the furthest choice away from the religious right that they had to choose from on their menu.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/06 13:49:25
Arkansas passes law allowing rapists to sue victims who want an abortion
Activists say state's blanket ban on the safest form of second trimester abortion could be ruled unconstitutional
A pregnant woman's husband will have the power to stop her from having an abortion, even in cases of spousal rape, under a new law introduced in the US state of Arkansas.
Most second trimester abortions will also be banned by Act 45 - the Unborn Child Protection From Dismemberment Abortion Act - which will make it possible for husbands to sue doctors who carry out abortions for civil damages, or get an injunction to block the termination.
The pro-life law, which was pushed through in just two months by the state's Republican government, prohibits all dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures, in which the physician removes the foetus from the womb with surgical tools.
D&E procedures are the safest way for women to end their pregnancies after 14 weeks of gestation, according to the American Medical Association.
But the medical procedure will now become a felony in the southern state, punishable by a $10,000 fine or six years in prison.
This is despite 683 of Arkansas's 3,771 abortions being D&E in 2015, according to the state's health department.
A clause in the legislation also states the husband of a woman seeking an abortion, if he is presumed to be the baby's father, can file a civil lawsuit against the physician for monetary damages or "injunctive relief" ― a court order that would prevent the doctor from going ahead with the procedure.
The woman’s parents or legal guardians can also sue to stop the abortion, if she is a minor.
Although a husband cannot win money in cases of “criminal conduct” against his wife ― namely, spousal rape ― he could still sue to block her from having the abortion.
State Representative Andy Mayberry, who co-sponsored the bill, called D&E a “gruesome, barbaric procedure”, adding that the routine procedure “is one that no civilised society should embrace”.
Mr Mayberry is also the president of Arkansas Right to Life, a subsidiary of America's largest pro-life organisation, the National Right to Life Committee.
Karen Musick, co-founder of Arkansas Abortion Support Network, told The Daily Beast she could not fathom how the bill had become law.
“There is zero part of me that understands why a rapist or someone who got someone pregnant against their will, maybe incest, would have any right in that decision,” she said. “I cannot wrap my brain around the fact that there would be anyone who thinks otherwise.”
Holly Dickson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, told the Huffington Post the bill might not be constitutional.
“They created a whole new right ― the right of a husband or family member to sue a doctor on behalf of an adult patient,” she said. “I cannot begin to tell you what the intent was, but we have raised concerns about that provision and the entire rest of the bill, which is unconstitutional.”
The ACLU of Arkansas has said it plans to challenge the abortion law in court before it goes into effect later this year.
Six other states have passed nearly identical laws, and in all four states where the law was challenged ― Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia ― it was struck down by the courts.
The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe versus Wade protects a woman’s right to have an abortion up until the foetus would be viable outside the womb, around 22 weeks of pregnancy.
Without researching (no need to) this will not survive judicial review.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Wait a minute. Trump signs Executive Orders without fully understanding what he's signing?
John Adams must be surely be spinning in his grave
Shocking (shockingly utterly expected) that is.
More importantly, these EOs are almost nonissues, just like the ones with Obama were not meaningful.
The real issues have to be addressed with legislation, and I see absolutely nothing starting on the executive side in regards to legislation on:
*medical
*structural unemployment
*education reform (aka improving both higher education and tech schools, not destorying same).
*structural physical development-aka infrastructure.
*taxes and regulations.
*Real laws to promulgate domestic capital spending and employment. (double depreciation, wacking H-1B visa program abuses, etc. )
I thought Trump had a plan for the first 100 days? A flurry of action to repair the nation's woes?
If you know your history, you'll know that in his early days, FDR didn't just fire off Executive Orders, he had legislation ready to go before the House.
Now obviously, FDR was a master statesman, and Trump is not, but like you, I'm surprised he hasn't given Congress at least something by now...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Reading the NYT article:
1. It feels true.
2. It sounds just like I thought it would.
3. Kim Kardashian is sitting in the WH. No one's actually running the country.
Pence needs to push out Bannon and start taking over. How do you do that? Accidents happen.
I was hopeful that Trump would be like Jackson, who was coockoo an belligerent and also "shook things up" but he was seriuosly in charge.
This NYT makes Trump out to be Fat Elvis gone bad...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/06 14:07:41
-"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: Reading the NYT article:
1. It feels true.
2. It sounds just like I thought it would.
3. Kim Kardashian is sitting in the WH. No one's actually running the country.
Pence needs to push out Bannon and start taking over. How do you do that? Accidents happen.
There's bound to be a grassy knoll in Washington
I joke of course.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Frazzled wrote: Reading the NYT article:
1. It feels true.
2. It sounds just like I thought it would.
3. Kim Kardashian is sitting in the WH. No one's actually running the country.
Pence needs to push out Bannon and start taking over. How do you do that? Accidents happen.
There's bound to be a grassy knoll in Washington
I joke of course.
Now I am sure there were many bad monarchs in your history. How did you catch the proper ministers to manage them? Thats what we need now.
-"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: Reading the NYT article:
1. It feels true.
2. It sounds just like I thought it would.
3. Kim Kardashian is sitting in the WH. No one's actually running the country.
Pence needs to push out Bannon and start taking over. How do you do that? Accidents happen.
There's bound to be a grassy knoll in Washington
I joke of course.
Now I am sure there were many bad monarchs in your history. How did you catch the proper ministers to manage them? Thats what we need now.
Yes, it's true we have had some great Prime Minsters and Ministers over the years:
Cromwell, Pitt the Elder, Pitt the Younger, Palmerston, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill etc etc
but you guys have had great Presidents over the years as well. Unfortunately, you're in a down turn right now, but in 4 years time, It'll be different....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/06 14:17:45
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Frazzled wrote: Reading the NYT article:
1. It feels true.
2. It sounds just like I thought it would.
3. Kim Kardashian is sitting in the WH. No one's actually running the country.
Pence needs to push out Bannon and start taking over. How do you do that? Accidents happen.
There's bound to be a grassy knoll in Washington
I joke of course.
Now I am sure there were many bad monarchs in your history. How did you catch the proper ministers to manage them? Thats what we need now.
Yes, it's true we have had some great Prime Minsters and Ministers over the years:
Cromwell, Pitt the Elder, Pitt the Younger, Palmerston, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill etc etc
but you guys have had great Presidents over the years as well. Unfortunately, you're in a down turn right now, but in 4 years time, It'll be different....
Maybe two. I expect the Democrats will attempt to impeach as soon as they regain power, regardless of the stated reason.
-"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!
I'm rambling a bit OT here, but it's American history,
I would argue that Pitt the Elder deserves a statue from Congress for his handling of the French and Indian War.
Yes, it's both British and American history, but he transformed the war in Britain's favour, and had he not done so, you guys would be speaking French!
The horror
Also, had he not been ill and been able to command a majority in our commons, I very much doubt the American Revolution would have happened. That's how good he was. And he was sympathetic to the American colonies' demands for more powers, home rule if you will.
Yes, you named an American city after him, but a statue is needed here IMO
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I would argue that Pitt the Elder deserves a statue from Congress for his handling of the French and Indian War.
Yes, it's both British and American history, but he transformed the war in Britain's favour, and had he not done so, you guys would be speaking French!
Speak for yourself gringo. New Spain kicked France's ass in every engagement they fought.
Viva Me! Viva Me!
-"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!
With the current government majority, they will keep the IRS at bay, while reaping the benefits. This is really just a step in the direction of removing Church/State separation.
For my part, i think tying tax exemption to free speech compromise is just a bad idea. The government should not be mucking about with free speech.
Again, there is no free speech issue here, there is nothing saying that churches cannot say what they want. They are however going to lose the *privilege* of being tax exempt if they engage in such activity.
Just like a drivers license is a privilege and will be revoked if one refuses a test during a DUI stop in many states, and that isn't against one's 4th or 5th amendment rights even if they never charge one with a DUI.
It's an awkward state of affairs all around, but ultimately it is what exists and the government isn't going to come in and arrest anyone over saying what they want to say.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
With the current government majority, they will keep the IRS at bay, while reaping the benefits. This is really just a step in the direction of removing Church/State separation.
For my part, i think tying tax exemption to free speech compromise is just a bad idea. The government should not be mucking about with free speech.
Again, there is no free speech issue here, there is nothing saying that churches cannot say what they want. They are however going to lose the *privilege* of being tax exempt if they engage in such activity.
Just like a drivers license is a privilege and will be revoked if one refuses a test during a DUI stop in many states, and that isn't against one's 4th or 5th amendment rights even if they never charge one with a DUI.
It's an awkward state of affairs all around, but ultimately it is what exists and the government isn't going to come in and arrest anyone over saying what they want to say.
I wasn't trying to suggest they are not free to speak. What I'm suggesting is by using the carrot of tax exemption, the government is in effect bribing these organizations into compromising their speech. I don't even thing that was ever the intention, but I think it's the effect.
It is kind of telling IMO that so many churches are willing to compromise their speech for some extra money. FWIW, I'd have greater respect for a church for speaking it's mind and paying the tax, than compromising their principles for "thirty pieces of silver", as the saying goes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/06 14:51:11
Prestor Jon wrote: Obama chastised SCotUS with a disputed summation of a ruling on national television at the state of the union address
Obama said "with all due deference to separation of powers", and then criticising the decision that was made. What Obama did still wasn't good, as it opened the door for justices to respond and defend their decision, opening a partisan debate between the presidency and supreme court. It was good that the SC maintained discipline that time.
But it was minor compared to Trump's response. He didn't say he disagreed with the decision, he directly attacked the judge and his qualifications. I believe it is impossible that you cannot understand how different those two things are.
and we handled it fine.
"Our democratic institutions haven't collapsed yet so everyone should just assume they will be fine forever and never express concern about the erosion of accepted practice" is a really, really horrible way to safeguard a liberal democracy.
Our democracy has survived far worse than Trump so I am not that fearful that Trump is going to have much if any adverse effect on our govt. It's unfortunate that he isn't going to try to roll back all the expansion of the executive branch's power that the last few decades of presidents have created (with the willingly aid of Congress) but I don't foresee Trump setting new precedents which is some solace in the face of continuing existing bad policies. The worst aspect of Trump's tantrum over the ruling against his EO is the way the administration, GOP and media like Fox News are supporting the narrative that PotUS can do whatever they want to immigration in the name of "national security" without over sight by Federal courts. "National security" is the Republicans' go to excuse for running roughshod over peoples' constitutional protections and the limits of separation of powers/checks and balances. However, the courts will decide where the boundary lies with the limits of Trumps EOs the system will do its job and limit Trump. In order for Trump to really change the system he needs the cooperation of Congress and favorable rulings in Federal court and he's too much of a wild card/liability to get all of that help.
Prestor Jon wrote: Our democracy has survived far worse than Trump so I am not that fearful that Trump is going to have much if any adverse effect on our govt.
So far, President Trump really hasn't had much effect on government at all. The most impactful EO he's signed so far has been stuck in the courts. The rest don't really change much in the day-to-day life of most Americans.
Fundamental changes will have to come out of Congress and that really won't start until all these appointments clear the Senate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/06 15:28:56
It is kind of telling IMO that so many churches are willing to compromise their speech for some extra money.
Have you seen Televangelists?
Televangelists are too easy of a target. $$$$$$
I feel that doesn't matter. They are a huge example of religion being use to subjugate and turn people into money farms.
Subjugate, I'd have to know what specifically you mean by that. People can easily turn the channel; no-one is forcing anyone to watch a TV religion show.
But I agree they're seeking to bilk the credulous out of their cash.
I said they were too easy a target, because they represent to me amongst the very worst manifestations of religion. And I don't want to be accused of judging the whole by the worst behavior of the fringes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/06 15:45:20
It is kind of telling IMO that so many churches are willing to compromise their speech for some extra money.
Have you seen Televangelists?
Televangelists are too easy of a target. $$$$$$
I feel that doesn't matter. They are a huge example of religion being use to subjugate and turn people into money farms.
Subjugate, I'd have to know what specifically you mean by that. People can easily turn the channel; no-one is forcing anyone to watch a TV religion show.
But I agree they're seeking to bilk the credulous out of their cash.
I said they were too easy a target, because they represent to me amongst the very worst manifestations of religion. And I don't want to be accused of judging the whole by the worst behavior of the fringes.
This is the political thread. I would proffer your discussion is more appropriate to religion threads or other forums where religious topics are discussed. Else this thread will very quickly get hammered.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
It is kind of telling IMO that so many churches are willing to compromise their speech for some extra money.
Have you seen Televangelists?
Televangelists are too easy of a target. $$$$$$
I feel that doesn't matter. They are a huge example of religion being use to subjugate and turn people into money farms.
Subjugate, I'd have to know what specifically you mean by that. People can easily turn the channel; no-one is forcing anyone to watch a TV religion show.
But I agree they're seeking to bilk the credulous out of their cash.
I said they were too easy a target, because they represent to me amongst the very worst manifestations of religion. And I don't want to be accused of judging the whole by the worst behavior of the fringes.
This is the political thread. I would proffer your discussion is more appropriate to religion threads or other forums where religious topics are discussed. Else this thread will very quickly get hammered.
Agreed. This is a tangent of the tax exemption issue. I won't pursue it any further.
Peregrine wrote: Yes, our democratic institutions survived, but doing that kind of thing is like playing Russian roulette. You might get away with it in a particular case, but if you do it enough you're eventually going to break something.
LordofHats wrote: While Obama disputed the court over a decision he doesn't like might be some sour grapes, it's not really comparable to some of rhetoric we're seeing from Trump, and what some Republicans have been saying for decades now.
Just asking - if you guys were to write an article on Trump, how much of the piece would you commit to his attack on the judge that ruled against him? I ask because it is certainly worth mentioning, maybe even including among the bigger points, but I think it would be unlikely to be the major point, certainly not the only point.
But a strange thing happens in debates on forum, things aren't given priority by their importance, but by how willing both sides are to argue on any particular point. Prestor Jon has made an argument that Trump's attack was bad but nothing too serious, and the three of us are disagreeing wth him. This is all fair enough, everyone is making their points according to their own points of view, and as far as I can see everyone is making their points honestly. No complaint there.
But I think this creates a weird kind of effect on a structural level. Because it is the thing we debate, it becomes the thing appears to become important. And because people generally only bother to defend stuff when some kind of defense is possible this means a lot of Trump's absolute, undeniable screw ups just minimised just because they don't get discussed past the original mention, while the more contentious stuff appears to be more important because that's what gets debated back and forth. It ends up with discussion focusing on the more ordinary, run of the mill bad stuff in Trump's presidency, not the unacceptably terrible parts.
I don't think this is the normal state of affairs, simply because presidents don't normally screw up anywhere near this often. Something similar happened as Trump bumbled through first the primary and then the general. He screwed up in his campaign so often, getting basic facts wrong and repeating the mistakes even after correction, getting caught up in dozens of scandals both big and small. This was not normal, even for previous candidates who came to be seen as jokes. Dukakis looked like a goof sitting in a tank - one screw up that sank his campaign. This election cycle Johnson became a punchline after getting Alleppo confused and he was just a minor candidate. Trump didn't know what the nuclear triad was and it got lost and forgotten about within a week as the next two or three screw ups came along. Consider Trump bragging about molesting women, after a couple of feeble attempts at a locker room defence the right wing by and large just stopped trying to defend it, because it was fairly obviously indefensible. But then in just no longer addressing it at all, the attempts by the left to keep coming back to Trump bragging about molestation became a kind of background noise. Compare that to Romney's 47% comment, which dominated that campaign, despite being nowhere near as bad on any level. It was almost because it was partially defensible that people attempted to defend and so it became an outsized issue on that campaign - the comments came to be seen as much more than just a single line of pandering to a wealthy fundraising group.
I'm not sure there's a solution to this. I'm not even sure it's anything more than a Trump thing. But it is interesting to see how so much of the debate naturally falls to areas where Trump there is at least soem defence for what Trump did.
I think the big reason why Trumps bumbling campaign didn't hurt him is media coverage. Go check out medi reports from Republican friendly sources that would likely be the gonto media for aTrump supporters and Republicans and see how they covered Trump. Look at the narratives that came from them Trump isn't a real politician he's a plain spoken tel it like it is guy, Trumps scandals are generated from mud slinging from the Dems, etc. You also have to factor in the difference in the method of campaigning. Trump was drawing large crowds to stadium rallies, his stops were events that people wanted to attend he created a cult of personality that fed people's desire to be at events that fed into their own need for social media fuel. Then you have Hillary either avoiding media down the stretch or being investigated by the FBI which got coverage across the board so it pulled attention away from Trump. It also made it easier to spin a narrative that Trump scandals were bad but not bad like FBI investigations and Congressional hearings bad. The greater freedom afforded by the internet is a big positive for the US and the world but it's not without some negatives chief amongst them the ease in which one can create an afffirming echo chamber and how people can create any information they want to construct and put it out for public consumption.
In regards to this specific thread I think what we're seeing is a lack of Trump support on Dakka. Posters like me and others who didn't like Trump as a candidate and didn't vote for him and don't agree with all of his actions so far are going to pick and choose our moments to disagree with arguments/complaints against Trump. I'm never going to try to argue the point that Trump is a good president but I will argue the point that Trump won't be the straw that breaks the camels back in regards to our system of governance and civil order. I will argue the point that not everything that people object to that Trump does is worthy of national outrage or is unprecedented or the worse ever or will destroy our nation. So we can not have much debate about some of Trumps negatives because there might not be much disagreement about the perception that those particulars about the Trump administration are bad.
Authoritarian Leaders Greet Trump as One of Their Own
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Kim Jong-un might seem an unlikely player in the global jockeying to get on the new American president’s good side, given the North Korean leader’s implied threats as recently as New Year’s Day to launch nuclear missiles at the United States.
But Mr. Kim apparently sees in President Trump “a good opportunity for him to open a kind of compromise with the new American administration,” North Korea’s highest-ranking defector, Thae Yong-ho, said in an interview with CNN last week.
The bromance between President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Mr. Trump is the most prominent example of a trend that has swept the world, instilling new hope for a strongman-friendly America in countries like the Philippines, Turkey or Egypt, and among nationalists in many other places who hope to follow in Mr. Trump’s footsteps and gain political power.
Many appear to see a Trump presidency as an opportunity to engage with a like-minded leader who has stated nationalist aims. Others may hope for respite from criticism over their human rights records or authoritarian tendencies. Some, like Mr. Kim and Mr. Putin, might see an opportunity to further their national aims in a new geopolitical order.
The historian Timothy Garton Ash, writing in The Guardian, called the Trump presidency “a new era of nationalism” in which “the nationalists are giving one another the Trumpian thumbs-up across the seas.”
The Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte, who called former President Barack Obama a “son of a whore” for the Obama administration’s criticism of an officially sanctioned assassination campaign against drug dealers in the Philippines, was quick to congratulate Mr. Trump on his election victory. The Philippine president said last week that Mr. Trump had sent him a message of support.
Mr. Duterte, who has threatened to break off relations with the United States, a longtime ally, and turn to China instead, made the announcement during an appearance at the Miss Universe pageant in Manila. (Like Mr. Trump, who owned Miss Universe until 2015, Mr. Duterte has long reveled in appearing in public with beauty queens.)
Mr. Duterte appeared unfazed by Mr. Trump’s order last week blocking refugees from the United States and curtailing immigration from some mainly Muslim countries, saying on Sunday that “I will not lift a finger” to help Filipinos facing deportation from the United States, according to The Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Even those who were contemptuous of Mr. Trump when he was a reality show star considered a long-shot to win the presidency have changed their tune.
In June, after Mr. Trump said he would bar Muslims from entering the United States, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey demanded that Mr. Trump’s name be removed from Trump Towers Istanbul. Mr. Erdogan, an Islamist, has arrested or fired 100,000 opponents and jailed 40,000 more after an unsuccessful military coup last summer.
After Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Erdogan shifted his stance. “I believe we will reach a consensus with Mr. Trump, particularly on regional issues,” Mr. Erdogan said this month during a meeting with Turkish diplomats. Some cracks appeared to show after Mr. Trump’s immigration order Friday: Mr. Erdogan called the move “frankly disturbing.” But he said he would still meet with Mr. Trump at an unspecified date and raise the issue then.
And the name of Trump Towers remains unchanged.
In Egypt, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who has smarted from American criticism about the country’s human rights record and about the military coup that brought him to power, appears to be welcoming Mr. Trump’s leadership. In December, after a phone call from Mr. Trump, Mr. Sisi agreed to delay a vote in the United Nations Security Council on Israeli settlements.
Mr. Sisi’s silence in the face of the executive order on refugees was conspicuous, despite widespread sentiment in the region that it was anti-Muslim.
In Kazakhstan, the country’s “president for life,” Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose poor human rights record is well documented, said Mr. Trump had called him in December and complimented him on the “miracle” he had wrought in his country over its 25 years of independence. Mr. Trump was apparently not referring to Mr. Nazarbayev’s 2015 re-election, which the Kazakh leader won with 97.7 percent of the vote.
Mr. Trump has also been lauded by nationalists in Europe, where his anti-immigration messages resonate on a continent that has been swamped with refugees from wars in countries like Syria and with economic migrants. Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, has welcomed Mr. Trump’s victory, as have far-right leaders such as Marine Le Pen in France.
Some of the enthusiasm by authoritarian leaders for Mr. Trump’s presidency seems to be linked to his stated inclination to overturn the world order. That may include rethinking alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or tackling long-running issues such as North Korea and its nuclear arms program — now overseen by Mr. Kim.
In reality, Mr. Kim is still a long way from becoming a friend of Mr. Trump, despite the assertions last week by Mr. Thae, the North Korean defector.
Mr. Kim’s anti-American statements have been belligerent even after the election of Mr. Trump, who responded to a supposed North Korean missile threat by posting on Twitter, “It won’t happen!” That led Jeffrey Lewis, a nonproliferation expert, to worry in the magazine Foreign Policy that “Donald Trump is already tweeting us into war with North Korea.”
However, Mr. Trump did suggest last year that if he were elected he might meet with Mr. Kim. The offer left the foreign policy establishment shuddering at what many would see as a serious breach of protocol, essentially acknowledging the leader of a state that the United States does not recognize.
“I would speak to him. I would have no problem speaking to him,” Mr. Trump said during an interview with Reuters in May.
The North Korean and American leaders may find other common ground. When Mr. Trump signed an executive order declaring Jan. 20, his inauguration day, as a “National Day of Patriotic Devotion,” social media feeds lit up with comparisons to declarations from North Korea’s regime of similarly named occasions.
For leaders like Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Sisi, the Trump presidency could provide a respite from criticism of their increasingly repressive governments, and it might even validate their tactics.
Like other authoritarian leaders, Mr. Erdogan has been a firm ally of the United States and a prickly critic of it. Turkey hosts American military bases and is a member of NATO. But many of Mr. Erdogan’s supporters blamed the United States for the attempted military coup, and Mr. Erdogan has chafed under human rights criticism from Washington of its crackdown on opponents and the news media.
Turkish officials have said they are hopeful that the American military will end its cooperation with Kurdish fighters in eastern Turkey. The Pentagon considers the Kurds to be valuable allies, while the Turks see them as terrorist supporters of Kurdish PKK rebels inside Turkey.
Turkey has reason to be hopeful. Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, published comments on Election Day calling for stronger support for the Turkish government. Mr. Flynn’s consulting company, Flynn Intel Group, had a contract at the time with a Turkish business association loosely affiliated with the Erdogan government.
Mr. Erdogan, who has jailed more journalists than any other leader in the past year, was almost gleeful after Mr. Trump shouted down the CNN reporter Jim Acosta at a news conference in January, responding to CNN and BuzzFeed reports on intelligence briefings regarding unsubstantiated allegations of Russian efforts to blackmail Mr. Trump.
“Those who carried out that game back then in Turkey have done him wrong again during the news conference,” Mr. Erdogan said after the event, referring to CNN. “And Mr. Trump put the reporter of that group in his place.”
Even with all the friendly words, it is unclear whether Mr. Trump and thin-skinned leaders like Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Duterte will be able to maintain their warm relationships.
In Manila, for example, Mr. Duterte’s appreciation of Mr. Trump’s support was qualified. He said he sent a reply to Mr. Trump, via Miss Universe organizers, complaining about his apparent exclusion from Mr. Trump’s inauguration. “I said tell him, ‘Friend, I didn’t go to the inauguration because I wasn’t invited.’”
I do think they are sort of barking up the wrong tree if they think he will try and join them. He wants to run the government like he was CEO, not dictator. I'm not even sure he really understands that congress had most of the power, and won't really until the D's can flip it.
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.
In regards to this specific thread I think what we're seeing is a lack of Trump support on Dakka. Posters like me and others who didn't like Trump as a candidate and didn't vote for him and don't agree with all of his actions so far are going to pick and choose our moments to disagree with arguments/complaints against Trump. I'm never going to try to argue the point that Trump is a good president but I will argue the point that Trump won't be the straw that breaks the camels back in regards to our system of governance and civil order. I will argue the point that not everything that people object to that Trump does is worthy of national outrage or is unprecedented or the worse ever or will destroy our nation. So we can not have much debate about some of Trumps negatives because there might not be much disagreement about the perception that those particulars about the Trump administration are bad.
This.
While I'm tickled pink with Trump's Gorsuch SCOTUS nomination... I can also recognize that the nascent Trump Administration has fumbled a bit.
With the current government majority, they will keep the IRS at bay, while reaping the benefits. This is really just a step in the direction of removing Church/State separation.
For my part, i think tying tax exemption to free speech compromise is just a bad idea. The government should not be mucking about with free speech.
Again, there is no free speech issue here, there is nothing saying that churches cannot say what they want. They are however going to lose the *privilege* of being tax exempt if they engage in such activity.
Just like a drivers license is a privilege and will be revoked if one refuses a test during a DUI stop in many states, and that isn't against one's 4th or 5th amendment rights even if they never charge one with a DUI.
It's an awkward state of affairs all around, but ultimately it is what exists and the government isn't going to come in and arrest anyone over saying what they want to say.
I wasn't trying to suggest they are not free to speak. What I'm suggesting is by using the carrot of tax exemption, the government is in effect bribing these organizations into compromising their speech. I don't even thing that was ever the intention, but I think it's the effect.
It is kind of telling IMO that so many churches are willing to compromise their speech for some extra money. FWIW, I'd have greater respect for a church for speaking it's mind and paying the tax, than compromising their principles for "thirty pieces of silver", as the saying goes.
To bring this back towards politics instead of religion/speech, this is the big problem with our tax code. Our tax code isn't about creating an efficient revenue stream to fund the necessary govt expenditures; instead it's twisted to push ad box social engineering programs created by our politicians in Congress. There are limits to what the Feds can do but they consistently use fetching with the tax code to get around those limits. The tax code is used to encourage and discourage certain behaviors that otherwise wouldn't fall under federal purview and thusly we get an overly complex and inefficient tax code that most Americans can barely understand.
Frazzled wrote: Reading the NYT article:
1. It feels true.
2. It sounds just like I thought it would.
3. Kim Kardashian is sitting in the WH. No one's actually running the country.
Pence needs to push out Bannon and start taking over. How do you do that? Accidents happen.
There's bound to be a grassy knoll in Washington
I joke of course.
My money is still on Kushner being the first to suffer a tragic accident. Not a lot of money, though.
-"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!
