The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

I don't think he needs to, nor do I think he should.

Trump is resentful & who knows chances are there will be a fortuitous "new development" from the FBI (good excuse to reopen the case) just wait & see

morally maybe it'd be wrong to pardon her but it's only to prevent a greater immorality

Well, at least we now know what kind of crime is serious enough to get deported by this administration.

what are you talking about

[Falcon Horus]

new subtopic - what do people think of Obama's recent sanctions against the ruskies?

I say it's a big fat middlefinger -- actually, it's probably not fat enough.

It depends how long it takes for trump to undo everything that Obama is doing now. I would -imagine- that Obama is playing the long game with trump to a degree by doing things like this. The more time it takes for trump to undo everything Obama has done, the less time he has to work on his other agenda's and we have already seen that hardcore trump supporters are willing to get vocally upset if he seems to wind back on his campaign rhetoric. (see their response to not charging Hillary as a prime example)

Interesting theory.

Right, I just dunno -when- 2017 "ends"

I imagine fiscal year... but that would be weird.

It's believed that Obama wants to stir up enough trouble that Russia will plunge the USA into WWIII.

I thought you said Hillary Clinton would send you into WWIII?

Actual land that was legally purchased and later given over to the Russian gov't is being taken over by Obama's executive orders (or however he's doing it) and the Russians living there are being kicked out (or deported).

What land?

Nevermind, found it, and my hunch to assume it was Alaska was even correct.

Why Russia Sold Alaska To The United States (in 1867)
In 1867, Russia sold the territory of Alaska to the U.S. for $7.2 million. A mere 50 years later, the Americans had earned that amount back 100 times over. How could the imperial officials have given up such a choice parcel?

[...]the Crimean War broke out, and Britain, France and Turkey stood against Russia. It became clear that Russia could neither supply nor defend Alaska — the sea routes were controlled by the allies’ ships. Even the prospect of mining gold dimmed. There was a fear that the British might block Alaska, and then Russia would be left with nothing.

Tensions between Moscow and London grew, while relations with the American authorities were warmer than ever. Both sides almost simultaneously came up with the idea of selling Alaska. So Baron Eduard de Stoeckl, Russia’s envoy in Washington, opened talks with U.S. secretary of state William Seward on behalf of the tsar.

[...]on March 30, 1867, in Washington, D.C., the parties signed the agreement to sell 1.5 million hectares of Russian property in America for $7.2 million, or about 2 cents per acre ($4.74/km2) — a purely symbolic sum.

What Russians though?

Russia took Crimea, which was never part of the USA.

Trump may be just *saying* that, because the gov't often will tell the public one story, but the real deal work is done a completely different way.

And you're clearly okay with being lied to, or conned then.

There you go, you're talking about experiencing *comfort* in having an "electric" bike for transport. We don't have "electric" bikes over here for transport.

Nor do we. Unless you use your bike for more than recreational purposes, the purchase of an electric one is just not in the budget.

Our one bike is all human powered, and I just drove it down to the drugstore and back up the hill, and I'm positively dead. I need to bike more.

[Falcon Horus]

No one is trying to start World War 3

But it would be so much fun!

By the way can a bakery have a sign saying "no black people" in its window?

Sure, he can... though it wouldn't be up long.

Then why all the stores/facilities that are pushing no smoking period, just in case someone can't stand it/is asthmatic, or the whole Nut allergies issue? Ever rented a car in the past 10 years, and seen ANY that allowed you to smoke in the rental? I remember some back in the 90s even into around 2004 area that did. After 2005, none even had ashtrays. Most i have been have had prominent no smoking stickers in.

I don't know about the rules in the USA, but smoking is not allowed in public buildings, pubs, cafes, taverns, restaurants, on public transport (bus, train, plane), rentals, workplaces...

If you can't figure out why there would be no-smoking stickers in rentals, then it's fairly pointless for anyone to explain it to you why they would be in there.

Heck, even Uber is getting into that, with banning both the DRIVER and passenger from smoking.

Guess what, it's NOT HEALTHY!!

You want to smoke in your car, go ahead, but not in a rental that multiple people have to use.
In your house -- it'll stink up the place but it's your house.

HOWEVER where i have issues, is how its often seen / used the way it is, to punish anything Christian, but you never see/hear it being used against other religions.

Like?

Plz, different examples than the bakers this time.

Heck, the NYPD now allows Sihks to wear turbans as their official police hat, and have a beard.

It's been okay in the UK for years.

OR is it only when its Christians wanting to do something, that these nuts come out and scream "Violation of separation of church and state"??

Do Christian cops want to wear a cross around their neck? Or something else?
Give me an example to work with here.

Will eventually we see Padeophillia, necrophillia etc also lose its "mental issue" descriptor??

Can you be any more predictable?

Okay, lets look into pedophillia -- Inside the Mind of a Pedophile

Of course, the problem with pedophellia is that it centers around a sexual act between an adult and a child without mutual consent.

Homosexuality is something that usually occurs between two consenting adults, or teens (same as heterosexual teens and adults).

Next, necrophellia -- Sexual Attraction to Corpses: A Psychiatric Review of Necrophilia
And again, the problem here, is consent.

The authors review 122 cases (88 from the world literature and 34 unpublished cases) manifesting necrophilic acts or fantasies. They distinguish genuine necrophilia from pseudonecrophilia and classify true necrophilia into three types: necrophilic homicide, "regular" necrophilia, and necrophilic fantasy. Neither psychosis, mental retardation, nor sadism appears to be inherent in necrophilia. The most common motive for necrophilia is possession of an unresisting and unrejecting partner. Necrophiles often choose occupations that put them in contact with corpses. Some necrophiles who had occupational access to corpses committed homicide nevertheless. Psychodynamic themes, defense mechanisms, and treatment for this rare disorder are discussed.

There are several though that can.

Point them out to me please.

Hm.. Significant linkage.. Many studies back in the 60=70s sayd "we have significant linkage for XYZ being good, but now 30 years later, we have OTHER studies saying the exact opposite.."

That's called research.

Look at Jurassic Park -- at the time of the first film the dinosaurs were accurate for what we knew of them. Today we know that most had feathers, which basically means the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park or no longer accurate representatives of their real life forefathers and mothers.

As in the Dictionary definition for 100s of years.

Okay... let's see what the dictionary says:

* Merriam-Webster:

Definition of marriage:
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

* Cambridge Dictionary:

marriage noun (TWO PEOPLE)
?
B1 [ C or U ] a legally accepted relationship between two people in which they live together, or the official ceremony that results in this

* Dictionary.com:

noun
1. (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times.

2. Also called opposite-sex marriage. The form of this institution under which a man and a woman have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc (See also traditional marriage (def 2)). This institution expanded to include two partners of the same gender, as in same-sex marriage; gay marriage.

3. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock:

4. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.

5. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.

6. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.

7. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

* Bible Study Tools Dictionary

Marriage
An intimate and complementing union between a man and a woman in which the two become one physically, in the whole of life. The purpose of marriage is to reflect the relationship of the Godhead and to serve him. Although the fall has marred the divine purpose and function of marriage, this definition reflects the God-ordained ideal for marriage from the beginning.

Note: the text is a page long so to read the rest of the definition click the link.

* Collins Dictionary:

Definition of marriage
noun
1. the state or relationship of living together in a legal partnership

2.
a. the legal union or contract made by two people to live together
b. (as modifier) ? marriage licence, ? marriage certificate

3. the religious or legal ceremony formalizing this union; wedding

And thus, it looks like your definition only fits with the Bible dictionary.

DO you give to charities you don't support? BY Your being there, it is seen as condoning it/supporting it.

Charities tend to help people, and helping people is supposed to be good. What charities, pray tell, would I not support?

Yes, but not all can. Just look at the whole Nut allergy thing, and how many places no longer let you have nuts cause of others there having allergies.. HECK i have know some schools prohibiting kids bringing in PB&J sammies, just in CASE someone may have a nut allergy...

I know someone who's deadly allergic to apples -- even touching someone's hand who just ate an apple is enough to spark a reaction.

These people have at all times, an epi-pen at hand, in case of emergency.

Hetrosexual male.. Attracted to females.

But how do you know? How are you so sure that is who you are? Ever given that any thought?

Then i guess there's way too many parents who just 'accept what their kids are saying then, based on the # of news stories i have seen just this year alone, where "Mom or dad, accept and encourage their 4-7 yr old in recognizing their NEW gender identity"//

Hey, here's a thought... Kids cannot transition until they are 16 (or 18, I don't know the age in the US, in Belgium it's 16). So, let's allow them to discover who they are as human beings. Let them be free to develop themselves without prejudice, without saying you can't do that cause you're a boy/girl. You can't dress up as Elsa cause you're a boy or as Luke Skywalker cause you're a girl.
And maybe, it's a phase and they find themselves and are happy with who they are. And when it's not, no damage was done and they grow up to be happy adults in a free world where they can be who they want to be. Joe can be Joe, and Joe who felt more like Jane every day can be Jane. And Jane who didn't know how she felt can be whomever they like to be -- Jane one day, Joe the next.

I don't know, but what I do know is this: if ever there would be kids in my life, they can be whomever they want to be. Live their life however they want it to be. Explore, be free, be children, be loved... be awesome!

[Gatefan1976]

Trump is resentful & who knows chances are there will be a fortuitous "new development" from the FBI (good excuse to reopen the case) just wait & see

morally maybe it'd be wrong to pardon her but it's only to prevent a greater immorality

Is that a good enough reason in this case?

[SoulReaver]

Is that a good enough reason in this case?

obvious if you consider the alternative

[garhkal]

I guess the best "test" concerning church and state is weather or not the clothing/affectation presents a challenge to the interests of the state in this case.

SO why then, would a group of students (lets say) holding an AFTER school book club where they read the bible, be 'challenging the interests of the state' or affecting anyone else??

I would question weather you are getting the full story. the 4-7 year old may have gone to psychologists or paediatricians -before- mum or dad accept or encourage their new identity. If one of my kids felt that way, it's what I would do, and no matter what, they are my kids and how they identify or who they love will not change how I feel about them.

That they MIGHT have. however when the news seems to DOTE over stories like that, things such as "how they even found out their 'sexual identity, whether quaks have been talked to etc" get ignored... To tell a 'story the news site wants to it seems..

The ones you are calling "black power ones" are often held in places to attract maximum media coverage.
The white power ones, yeah, not so much.

Exactly.. Those being done to garner more attention (thus are more likely to actually be asked to help cater etc) are the black power (BLM) ones.. Not so much the white power rallys..

I don't know about the rules in the USA, but smoking is not allowed in public buildings, pubs, cafes, taverns, restaurants, on public transport (bus, train, plane), rentals, workplaces...

If you can't figure out why there would be no-smoking stickers in rentals, then it's fairly pointless for anyone to explain it to you why they would be in there.

So discrimination is OK, as long as it's the right group being discriminated against (in this case smokers)..

Guess what, it's NOT HEALTHY!!

It may not be healthy. BUT its still a legal product.

Like?

Plz, different examples than the bakers this time.

How's about those schools in NYC and out in CA which did those 'wear a burka day'. BUT yet some of thsoe SAME schools caved into the FFRA and ACLU when they just got "THREATENED" with being sued (not actually sued) to stop after school prayer meets..
YET those same FFRA groups didn't sue or even peep up one iota when it came to the burka day activities...
SO why is it ok to honor one religion, but not another?

Do Christian cops want to wear a cross around their neck? Or something else?

Yes, and from what i have heard (admittedly its mostly word of mouth), they have been told no you can't. Others complain that its 'effectively you pushing your christian religion'. So to ME its setting a double standard.. Uniform regs can be 'relaxed' for religion X, but not for religion Y..

And thus, it looks like your definition only fits with the Bible dictionary.

And how many of those Online dictionary sites YOU use, are 'edited' for modern times / PCness??
Lets take my Oxford American concise dictionary (Printed in 2006).
Marriage The formal union of a man and a woman, often typically recognized by law by which they become man and wife.

Or my 2002 Webster's new world thesaurus.
Marriage the State of being married / The act of Marrying at a wedding.
Married being husband and wife / .b being husband and wife.

Charities tend to help people, and helping people is supposed to be good. What charities, pray tell, would I not support?

That's not what i was trying to get at Falcon. I was saying that generally you give to something you support, yes?? So by logical extension, you attend/condone something you support. That's why many Christian bakers/florists/etc do not wish to 'Cater' a gay wedding, cause it to THEM, is seen as supporting/condoning it.

But how do you know? How are you so sure that is who you are? Ever given that any thought?

Cause i have lived my life that way, and when 'sexual urges' hit i seek out a gal to get them tended to.. Not a guy.

[Falcon Horus]

SO why then, would a group of students (lets say) holding an AFTER school book club where they read the bible, be 'challenging the interests of the state' or affecting anyone else??

The question in this case would be: who was complaining about it and why?

So discrimination is OK, as long as it's the right group being discriminated against (in this case smokers).

Except this has nothing to do with discrimination against smokers, this is about public health. It's no secret that smoking kills, even non-smokers can be effected by secondary inhalation. Also, cigarette smoke stinks up the place -- it's common sense not to stink up a rental which will be used by many different people. That's called proper courtesy to your fellow humans.

My sister's first studio was rented for years by a smoker. When she moved in, she had to repaint the walls, the ceiling and heating elements after cleaning them thoroughly. It took weeks for the smell of the smoke to dissapate from the chairs the dude left behind. It was, to say the least, utterly disgusting.

It may not be healthy. BUT its still a legal product.

Doesn't mean, you can smoke wherever you like.

How's about those schools in NYC and out in CA which did those 'wear a burka day'. BUT yet some of thsoe SAME schools caved into the FFRA and ACLU when they just got "THREATENED" with being sued (not actually sued) to stop after school prayer meets..
YET those same FFRA groups didn't sue or even peep up one iota when it came to the burka day activities...
SO why is it ok to honor one religion, but not another?

I can't find anything for the schools in NYC or CA, but I did find an article from a school near Boston:

'Hijab Day' at this school was canceled, but it got people talking

"Students from the Arabic Club at the public high school in the city of Medford, about a 15-minute drive north of downtown Boston, wanted to participate in “World Hijab Day” early this semester.

The annual event was created in 2013 to promote awareness and understanding of Muslim women who wear the headscarf as an expression of their faith. At Medford High, the plan was pretty straightforward.

Anyone interested, students or teachers, could participate by wearing a Muslim-style headscarf during the school day. The girls could wear a hijab, and boys could put on a turban. Then there would be an after-school assembly for discussion.

Students from the Arabic Club, some of them are Muslims but not all of them, went to the headmaster and got permission to host the event. The date was set for February 1.

But soon after Hijab Day was announced, the Medford public got wind of it. And there was a wave of phone messages, emails and social media posts directed at school and city officials.

The volume — and the tone — of the backlash took high school headmaster John Perella by surprise.

“There was a whole spectrum of responses, you know, from mildly concerned to, you know, people that completely got it wrong. They missed the whole boat, to what we were trying to do,” Perella says."

I think you'd be in the comment-group that completely misses the boat.

But by all means, complain about the Book Club reading the Bible and getting comments about, because OMG, those poor Christians getting oppressed.

Yes, and from what i have heard (admittedly its mostly word of mouth), they have been told no you can't.

Can't what?
Wear crosses -- I mean, those can be hidden underneath the clothes. I'm wearing a silver ring and a capricorn head on a gold chain around my neck at all times, yet always hidden. No one knows it's there.

Others complain that its 'effectively you pushing your christian religion'. So to ME its setting a double standard.. Uniform regs can be 'relaxed' for religion X, but not for religion Y..

How are the turban or hijab wearers pushing their religion on you?
Or anyone wearing a cross around their neck?

And how many of those Online dictionary sites YOU use, are 'edited' for modern times / PCness??

It's called updating with the times. You should try it, instead of staying stuck in the old ways.

I was saying that generally you give to something you support, yes?? So by logical extension, you attend/condone something you support.

Except that condoning and supporting are two different things:

to condone: to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless <a government accused of condoning racism> <condone corruption in politics>

F.e.: you condone the discrimination of LGBTQ's as you are not convinced they are worthy of the same rights you possess as a straight man, f.e. the right to marry the person they love.

to support: to agree with and give encouragement to someone or something because you want them or it to succeed

F.e.: I support the Michael J. Fox Foundation in their research to find a cure for Parkinson's Disease.

That's why many Christian bakers/florists/etc do not wish to 'Cater' a gay wedding, cause it to THEM, is seen as supporting/condoning it.

They are not supporting anyone, by missing out on a paycheck. You don't support a couple getting married in any way by catering to their wedding, except that you would like the wedding party to be a success and when it's a success it means word of mouth could get you more clients in the future.

And the only thing they do condone, is the discrimination on the basis of religion.

Cause i have lived my life that way, and when 'sexual urges' hit i seek out a gal to get them tended to.

Then why do you question the feelings of gays and/or transgenders?
Why are they less valid than your definition of what your gender is?

[Annoyed]

It's called updating with the times. You should try it, instead of staying stuck in the old ways.

Only if the new way is better than the old way. So far, most of it ain't.

[jelgate]

Its okay grandpa. We'll make sure the nurse stops stealing your pills

[Gatefan1976]

SO why then, would a group of students (lets say) holding an AFTER school book club where they read the bible, be 'challenging the interests of the state' or affecting anyone else??

The use of public land to promote a religion.
Wearing a cross doesn not promote a religion, bible study -does-

That they MIGHT have. however when the news seems to DOTE over stories like that, things such as "how they even found out their 'sexual identity, whether quaks have been talked to etc" get ignored... To tell a 'story the news site wants to it seems..

That is why you should always do your research.

Exactly.. Those being done to garner more attention (thus are more likely to actually be asked to help cater etc) are the black power (BLM) ones.. Not so much the white power rallys..

I must have been too subtle.
BLM is not conceived to promote "black power over whites", it is conceived to draw attention to the multiple cases of Black people being shot by the cops.
White power rallies are conceived to promote "white power" over all other groups.
You can call BLM a "black power" rally, but you would be wrong.

So discrimination is OK, as long as it's the right group being discriminated against (in this case smokers)..

Smoking can have a direct impact on others and the state has an interest in minimizing that impact.
As a smoker, I am more concerned with the draconian taxation of tobacco rather than being upset that I can't smoke in a place where I am surrounded by non smokers.

It may not be healthy. BUT its still a legal product.

Smoking does not "stop at you" however.

How's about those schools in NYC and out in CA which did those 'wear a burka day'. BUT yet some of thsoe SAME schools caved into the FFRA and ACLU when they just got "THREATENED" with being sued (not actually sued) to stop after school prayer meets..
YET those same FFRA groups didn't sue or even peep up one iota when it came to the burka day activities...
SO why is it ok to honor one religion, but not another?

They are not the same thing.

Yes, and from what i have heard (admittedly its mostly word of mouth), they have been told no you can't. Others complain that its 'effectively you pushing your christian religion'. So to ME its setting a double standard.. Uniform regs can be 'relaxed' for religion X, but not for religion Y..

Look into it more then, and get back to us.

And how many of those Online dictionary sites YOU use, are 'edited' for modern times / PCness??
Lets take my Oxford American concise dictionary (Printed in 2006).
Marriage The formal union of a man and a woman, often typically recognized by law by which they become man and wife.

Or my 2002 Webster's new world thesaurus.
Marriage the State of being married / The act of Marrying at a wedding.
Married being husband and wife / .b being husband and wife.

Language evolves, words evolve.

[SGalisa]

It's believed that Obama wants to stir up enough trouble that Russia will plunge the USA into WWIII. Actual land that was legally purchased and later given over to the Russian gov't is being taken over by Obama's executive orders (or however he's doing it) and the Russians living there are being kicked out (or deported).

Fun times (NOT). The folks tracking this stuff are counting down the days and hours for the new ADMIN team to take over. Add insult to injury, and there is an additional second added to this 2016 year, which makes the waiting process even longer..

And if you read that on Breitbart it's fake..... As per usual.

No one is trying to start World War 3

I haven't read more than probably 2 articles from Breitbart since "pizzagate" got started.
So, No -- the troublesome *war* info came from the reader's comment gallery from several different sources -- as an accumulation of various events Obama has been blaming Russia about. I don't dwell on remembering things that don't need to be stored in my brain's memory banks, so I don't remember where.

BTW, according to one news tracking site (courtesy of readers world-wide), both RT ~and~ Drudge Report sites apparently got "hacked" yesterday. Drudge announced it on his twitter account about his site being hacked. (It's being believed these sites being hacked had something to do with the headlines, and Obama expelling Russian diplomats, etc; and Russia not retaliating the same way as Obama is blaming Russia for the 2016 election hacking, etc.)

I thought you said Hillary Clinton would send you into WWIII?

Jeeze, I thought I had a bad short memory.. Hillary was 2ndary (back-up) to Obama's plan. He didn't want to finish off doing the (stirring the war threats) "deed" unless *it was necessary* because Hillary wouldn't win the election.. something along those words.

So, backing up for the record---- Obama has been stirring up trouble against Russia ever since he decided the USA and Russia were fighting on opposing sides and goals in Syria. Call it propaganda news or FAKE news. Either version, stoke the agitating fires as much as possible, even to the point of threatening going personally to WAR against Russia, and see how fast the Russian bear bites back. Game of chess and checkmate, except real people's lives are at risk on BOTH sides. Obama knows this, but apparently doesn't care, based on reader comments from various articles noting about world events then and now.

It's believed that Obama wants to stir up enough trouble that Russia will plunge the USA into WWIII. Actual land that was legally purchased and later given over to the Russian gov't is being taken over by Obama's executive orders (or however he's doing it) and the Russians living there are being kicked out (or deported).

What land?

Nevermind, found it, and my hunch to assume it was Alaska was even correct.

Wrong AGAIN.
Wrong part and coastline of the USA. Try Maryland, closer to the Washington, DC area. EAST coast USA, including Russian owned NY retreats.

"This Is The Russian "Retreat" In Maryland Which The US Government Just Confiscated"
by Tyler Durden
Dec 29, 2016 5:55 PM

As reported earlier today, amid the sweeping sanctions unveiled by Obama in response to Russian "hacking" of the elections, President Obama ordered the shut down, or rather confiscation, of a Russian-owned compound on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Obama gave Russia 72 hours to leave the 45-acre property, which the Soviet government bought in 1972.

Live video shot from NBC Washington on Thursday afternoon showed multiple unmarked cars on the perimeter of the property. Officials appeared to set up an antenna and lights at each entrance. Intelligence officials tell NBC News the property was used for work to monitor the National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland, and another NSA building on Kent Island.
. . .
Why the focus on the Maryland compound? Here is a brief history of the property in question, courtesy of Baltimore Sun.

The 45-acre site on the Eastern Shore waterfront near Centreville was purchased by the Soviet Union in 1972, a State Department official said...
. . .
Both were transferred from the Soviet government to the Russian Federation in 1995, according to property records.
. . .

Probably, Obama will give this property over to the Syrian/other {Muslim} immigrants he's been promising to do for the past year... and if *that* ~ever~ happens in these specific locations, Oooooo! 'twill be interesting...



For reinforcement to above article's Maryland data--

"Russian airlift: Moscow sends plane to ferry its 35 expelled diplomats and families out of U.S. as Putin REFUSES to retaliate against 'lame duck' Obama's punishment for hacking Hillary"
By Ashley Collman For Dailymail.com and Reuters
Published: 10:40 EST, 30 December 2016, Updated: 14:46 EST, 30 December 2016

* President Obama has given 35 Russian diplomats until New Year's Day to leave the U.S. as punishment for the country's 'meddling' in the election
* Kremlin announced Friday that they will be sending a plane for their diplomats, since many were having a hard time booking flights
* Also on Friday, Russian officials were seen hurriedly packing up their government residences in Maryland and New York
. . .
The expulsion of the 35 diplomats isn't the only part of President Obama's new round of sanctions. The president is also closing two Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York, while placing sanctions on six Russian individuals and five Kremlin-associated entities.

President Obama said the sanctions were in response to Russia's allegedly coordinated hacks on the Republican and Democratic National Committees, that resulted in leaks he says were aimed at swaying the U.S. election.

The Kremlin has repeatedly denied such hacks.
. . .

and one more article, just for additional annoyance.

"Opinion--Russians Attack 'Political Corpse' Obama... Lawmakers call Obama retaliation 'dangerous game'"
By Mikhail Klikushin, 12/30/16 8:17am
(Observer)

. . .
Russian think-tanks and academia agree. "The goal of the 44th U.S. president is to complicate things for the 45th one," Gevorg Mirzayan, a professor at Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, told Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper.

"This is very unusual," Mirzayan continued, "because usually when one's political opponents from another party arrive into the White House, the power is transferred with dignity. But instead of this, the current [U.S.] most important person, like a 'mad printer,' is creating laws and decrees with the goal to freeze the 'foreign affairs revolution' of the new administration. I believe that the personal antipathies of Obama, who believes 'Putin beat him on all fronts—including the elections' play a role here."

"Obama is setting as many traps as possible for Mr. Trump on [the] international field," echoed Alexander Domrin, a professor at the Russian High School of Economics.

The idea that there was something personal about America's new rounds of sanctions is widely shared. Andrei Krutskikh, ambassador-at-large for the Russian Federation, declared all accusations against Russia groundless—adding that the only reason for anti-Russian sanctions was Barack Obama’s personal hatred for Vladimir Putin.

Others believe that Obama, like a bad tenant, is trying to ruin everything in the apartment he no longer rents.
. . .

Interesting quote from the Russians there--to acknowledge that the departing president is supposed to be a sort of proverbial stepping stone to/for the next, incoming president, and not a stumbling block.. well, that's the assessment of many reader critics too on this whole Obama/Trump presidential issue.

[Coco Pops]

Hey what if Trump's own party and staff are actually trying to make him fail?

Then install Pence and Trump has to fall on his sword?

[mad_gater]

The use of public land to promote a religion.
Wearing a cross doesn not promote a religion, bible study -does-


That is why you should always do your research.

I must have been too subtle.
BLM is not conceived to promote "black power over whites", it is conceived to draw attention to the multiple cases of Black people being shot by the cops.
White power rallies are conceived to promote "white power" over all other groups.
You can call BLM a "black power" rally, but you would be wrong.



Smoking can have a direct impact on others and the state has an interest in minimizing that impact.
As a smoker, I am more concerned with the draconian taxation of tobacco rather than being upset that I can't smoke in a place where I am surrounded by non smokers.

Smoking does not "stop at you" however.


They are not the same thing.


Look into it more then, and get back to us.


Language evolves, words evolve.

the only way an after school bible study would be actively promoting the Christian faith on public school property is if students were being forcibly compelled to join it.....students are NOT being forcibly compelled to join such a club....students retain their freedom of choice to decide wheter or not to join such an after school club, so since students retain their freedom of choice to decide whether or not to join the club you can't argue that the club represents proselytizing

[SGalisa]

And you're clearly okay with being lied to, or conned then.

To which are you referring to -- news aspect or actual law-making..? ..Draw you/me a diagram..?

If you *read* what I wrote, you would know that I understand how the regulations are actually processed thru the legislative system. I may not be as well versed of an expert as some folks on this GW forum, but When I wrote---

Trump may be just *saying* that, because the gov't often will tell the public one story, but the real deal work is done a completely different way. I know how the regs get changed. For example, the State of California is famous for what they term as "repeal and replace". However, unless a Chapter, Article, or Subchapter is *completely overhauled*, usually the best way to identify the differences is to do a side-by-side paragraph/clause, etc. comparison. In most cases that I've seen, the majority of the original rule is still intact, with only a few rewritten changes scattered within.

As far as the Federal rules go, we're talking hundreds of VOLUMES of books for about 48 head office agencies. No one person can skim thru ALL of those volumes without someone within having decent head knowledge on what is where. Trump said months ago that he'd like to do away with the EPA (agency) and all of its regulations. Well, that's 37 VOLUMES of regulatory material and thousands of Parts, and subpart numbers just under EPA alone. That includes regulations under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Land Disposal, Solid/Liquid and Toxic/Hazardous Wastes/pollutants, etc.

It's not a willy-nilly random dump 2 and replace with 1 instead. It's a detailed sorting of what is what and where, etc. Theoretically, yeah, the regs can be repealed and replaced as a single entity, but GPO (gov't printing office) is going to be majorly PO'd about demanding overtime or hiring extra help, just to process the massive amounts of volumes that is being suggested as being changed. Then, there are the folks who READ the regs to translate where the compliance issues are.

That's mega hours worth of work.. Not to also mention the industries that have adjusted their work processes to be compliant with various sized mechanical parts and calibrations for keeping up with the detailed requirements of each specific regulation. Some machine part pieces are now obsolete. So, what is the point in tossing out millions of new tools and parts that are calibrated to certain specifications, when the old info and parts are now obsolete? That's "just biting your toes to spite your nose."

..that's exactly what I meant. I may NOT be a Court LAW (lawyer) expert, but I do *know* how the process basically works. In the business compliance field of certain regulatory matters, I've (verbally had to) talked to the actual agencies to seek clarification, too, at times, especially when there are typos in GPO's printed "Federal Register" (or CFR books). So, if the only lying or conning job being done is at the news reporting level -- (generic/general) public *you* are the ones who are not seeing the actual data, until it is "officially" published. By the time the data is published, it's too late to change in writing, except via an amendment correcting the incorrect data that was printed.

People who work in compliance areas with the various laws (including me) can see the actual pre-publications (which I/messenger just send off to other coworkers); but even those pre-pubs are not completely official, until they show up in the recorded CFR and Federal and State Registers. I won't bother boring anyone about how many errors I have found over the years from inconsistent "official" info..DC hated it when my calls got added to their list of their own ut-oh's.. Years ago, when I didn't even know the in's/out's of the gov't regs, and when I heard their experts say "Oh, it's *you* again.." (ugh!) *grin* ..I realized I had somehow become famous for calling them out on their errors.. (But hey, if they want to get the info right, someone *has* to point it out! I'm just glad that over the years there's been a few other peeps who have also made calls -- before I let enough time lapse for the corrections to come thru, that unless something was urgently critical, I learned to wait so that I was not adding to their complaint "oops! must correct data boo-boo" list, pronto..! =)

Besides, if people (authorized legal Agencies) who write the regulations outright lie in the written LAW or rulings they are sending off to GPO (the official printing site), those exact words in the rulings are actually USED in the USA Court of LAW and can come back to haunt them. Technical typos and errors requiring clarification get some grace period and are NOT considered outright false/deceptive info--Kind of difficult if given specifications for building machinery parts, too. But If someone is lying in the printed material, the Court system can penalize those who wrote the words in the first place -- and THAT includes all 8 years of whatever President Obama (and other authority previous persons) has signed and allowed to be established as LAW.

Generally speaking, lying about what a regulation does is often due to misinterpretation issues. Not outright lying. Clarification notices usually follow for "official" printed law materials. AFAIK, News reporting misinterpretations do not follow the same level of "Court" criticism, unless a lawsuit has been formed.

[garhkal]

The question in this case would be: who was complaining about it and why?

In some cases it was someone not even associated with the school, that chief butthead, Michael Weinstein.
Or in some cases, (such as that recent one concerning the school bus driver playing christian music) it was a parent feeling that the school allowing it, amounted to 'establishing a religion'.
Which to ME is pure bupkis.
Just like a county court house allowing a manger scene to be placed outside for xmas is not establishing a religion, or a naval base having on its electronic sign out by the main gate "God bless", is not the military establishing a religion...

Except this has nothing to do with discrimination against smokers, this is about public health.

If i don't want to cater to your gay marriage, cause to me it is akin to condoning your immoral behavior, That is discrimination. BUT saying 'sorry but you can legally purchase this product, but have few if any spaces outside your own home (and evn that is not sacroscant anymore in certain areas) is Not discrimination?
Strange. I thought discrimination was defined as "discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit."
Certainly qualifies as being discriminatory based on that...

My sister's first studio was rented for years by a smoker. When she moved in, she had to repaint the walls, the ceiling and heating elements after cleaning them thoroughly. It took weeks for the smell of the smoke to dissapate from the chairs the dude left behind. It was, to say the least, utterly disgusting.

Just like someone who say had 4 dogs/cats in the prior home, would be seen as utterly disgusting to new tenants who have a kid who's allergic to the fur..

Doesn't mean, you can smoke wherever you like.

So as i said, discrimination's ok as long as its the right group discriminated against.

How are the turban or hijab wearers pushing their religion on you?
Or anyone wearing a cross around their neck?

To me it's not. Just like say a store having a 'god bless, and thanks for shopping' sign is not pushing it. BUT i have read news stories of the FFRA and ACLU 'sending warnings to businesses and such if they don't remove that sign, "cause it violates XYZ they will get sued" certainly seems that people feel ANYTHING out in public that's of the christian faith, is "christianity pushing itself on others...
Hell, even though i am agnostic, i have said god bless when someone sneezes. AND i have had some (atheist) get their nickers in a twist cause of me saying that...

It's called updating with the times. You should try it, instead of staying stuck in the old ways.

Based on some of the stupidy they have 'updated' to, cause its "Cool in pop-culture", i would rather give it a pass..

Except that condoning and supporting are two different things:

Not to many its not (based on what i see/hear)

Then why do you question the feelings of gays and/or transgenders?

Cause A) they are basing it just on a feeling, not genetics physiology. AND what they are basing it on, used to be for a log time, seen as a mental disorder.