The Political Discussion Thread

[DigiFluid]

Ooh, did you hear, Bob Rae's not running for the Liberal leadership! Yippee!

Yaaaaay *party*

[lordofseas]

Oh sorry about that...I mean not responding. As such this response might be a bit hackneed but I have to try anyways.

I'm just thinking that they were so close to finding a good and actual solution to the problem but then mandating that priests have to help and point them in the direction of another priest who will marry them? I mean have to? So ok then I guess whats the punishment?

I am also uncomfortable, in that light, that gays can 'chose' the church that will marry them. What will happen if no priests at that establshment wants to marry the gay couple in question? Will they be sued?

So yeah its just basically looking like, yep you religious people can have your freedom to marry whoever you want but you only if you can find someone else who will marrry them. And this is being applauded.

Recall. This only applies to the Church of Denmark, the state run Church. Catholic churches won't have to do squat (as usual). It's only the Church of Denmark that this applies to. An individual priest can refuse and be fine, but the local bishop must arrange for another priest at the church. Denmark's a pretty small country, so you could have one priest go from one end to the other no problem. It wouldn't be too expensive either.

Yaaaaay *party*

Wait, which political party do you support? :/

[Col.Foley]

Recall. This only applies to the Church of Denmark, the state run Church. Catholic churches won't have to do squat (as usual). It's only the Church of Denmark that this applies to. An individual priest can refuse and be fine, but the local bishop must arrange for another priest at the church. Denmark's a pretty small country, so you could have one priest go from one end to the other no problem. It wouldn't be too expensive either.



Wait, which political party do you support? :/

So this law is really whacked.

Wait must? why? What will the 'punishment' be?

[Goose]

Recall that in the article, it does mention that most of the Church of Denmark is in favour of gay marriage. But yes, I do agree with you in that it's odd that a member of the clergy who does not support gay marriage still has to help a gay couple find a priest who will marry them.

As for your concern about churches getting sued if they refuse to marry a gay couple, then no, they can't be sued. There is no legal obligation for any church (aside from, apparently, the Church of Denmark) to perform gay marriages, and even if that part of the law is challenged in the courts, the precedence in the ECHR is to come down on the side of freedom of religion.

[Ukko]

Egypt election news

[Womble]

Egypt election news

6 VPs = no actual power in the position. These are symbolic appointments of token representatives, like that lone Zoroastrian in the Iranian parliament.

Here's a video of Morsi's campaign rally. That's the program he ran on. His "yes we can".

[lordofseas]

6 VPs = no actual power in the position. These are symbolic appointments of token representatives, like that lone Zoroastrian in the Iranian parliament.

Here's a video of Morsi's campaign rally. That's the program he ran on. His "yes we can".

Well, Egyptians were there before the Jews. :|

[Womble]

By "Egyptians", I assume you mean the Copts rather than the Arabs. And by "here", I assume you don't mean Jerusalem. Otherwise you'd be wrong twice, and we all know how that ends.

[SoulReaver]

it could go either way and depending on the new regime's "good faith"

so headlines in the next few months could be anything
from
'Egyptian president abolishes the death penalty'
to
'First stoning for adultery since elections carried out in Tahrir Square'



oo I just can't wait to see how this plays out

[lordofseas]

By "Egyptians", I assume you mean the Copts rather than the Arabs. And by "here", I assume you don't mean Jerusalem. Otherwise you'd be wrong twice, and we all know how that ends.

*shrug* Don't really care. Sarcasm is a glorious tool.

[Naonak]

Back in Amurca, the Republican Party of Texas have finally straight-up admitted that they oppose critical thinking.

[DigiFluid]

US Supreme Court upholds healthcare reform

[The Flyattractor]

Wow. I am shocked...no not really.

[DigiFluid]

From the CNN article on the same:

Here are the big main points out of the ruling:

• Court rules 5-4 to uphold individual mandate
• Court says the requirement to have insurance is a tax, and is constitutional.
• Court says on Medicaid that the federal government may not take Medicaid from states that refuse to take part. (That is a limited ruling, without striking it down. In the ruling the court offered the government a way to remedy this potential problem.)
• Court vindicates, affirms Presidential and congressional power in an important issue like health care

[lordofseas]

Good for Obama, bad for Romney slightly.

[DigiFluid]

It's not bad for Romney at all. Romney holds all positions simultaneously.

[lordofseas]

It's not bad for Romney at all. Romney holds all positions simultaneously.

It would be funny if it wasn't true.

[The Flyattractor]

It's not bad for Romney at all. Romney holds all positions simultaneously.

Proof of statement?

[DigiFluid]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=romney+flip+flops

Okay, that was glib. But in all seriousness, you can pretty much pick any given political subject and find he's said completely opposing things on it, and most of them fairly recently. But the best ones are the "I don't recall what I said but I stand by it" ones The man really has no firm positions, on anything. It'd be laughable, if it wasn't so frightening that this man is actually a Presidential candidate.



edit; Another fun one. Sure, some of them are evolutions of position. That happens, peoples' opinions change. But the real gems are the ones (and there are indeed a fair few of them) where he insists he's always held this position, cut to clip where he says he supports the exact opposite position.

[mad_gater]

From the CNN article on the same:

Here are the big main points out of the ruling:

• Court rules 5-4 to uphold individual mandate
• Court says the requirement to have insurance is a tax, and is constitutional.
• Court says on Medicaid that the federal government may not take Medicaid from states that refuse to take part. (That is a limited ruling, without striking it down. In the ruling the court offered the government a way to remedy this potential problem.)
• Court vindicates, affirms Presidential and congressional power in an important issue like health care

so just because it's a tax it must be constitutional.....lovely logic......

I believe we Americans fought a bitter and bloody revolutionary war back in 1776 because we were getting taxes levied against us willy-nilly.....as I recall the tyrannical British monarchy used similar logic to justify all these taxes too..."I'm the king and I'm levying these taxes and you little peasants can't say $hit".....

all hope for anything resembling a free society is lost if the government can compel you to buy a particular product