The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

Sounds like confirmation bias.
The article told both sides of the story, no more. The fact is, someone running a "sting" would have no legal basis to sue as they were going in under false pretences. If a LGBT person did choose to sue, they could, so I utterly reject the notion that the law itself is biased. That no one may have -yet- is utterly irrelevant, and it's not like you to miss that distinction Tood.

I'm not speaking to the law, I am speaking to people's actions. No one has acted against Muslims, but they have against Christians. In essence, this points how people, not the law, are treating these two groups differently. There hasn't been any backlash against the Muslim owners like there has been against the Christian owners. That no one may have yet done anything is entirely my point and relevant. Take the Washington State Attorney General, how many Muslims has he sued on behalf of his state vs Christians?

Your argument is no different than Trumps "It's not a ban, it's a ban" argument. On paper, it's not a Muslim ban, but the intent of it was to ban Muslims so that betrays its true nature. By the letter of the Law, Christians aren't being targeted. But by actions of both government officials and activists, they are. If the Washington State Attorney General knew about a Muslim owner who did the same and didn't take action, then that would be a violation of the equal protection clause. Because his action would be discriminatory. It'd be no different than a cop only pulling over black people for speeding but never pulling over white people for speeding.

If it's what you want, it's small government, see the example of staying out of peoples rights by telling woman weather they can have an abortion.
Government so small it can fit...............................

The child be damned.

[Gatefan1976]

I'm not speaking to the law, I am speaking to people's actions.

Then let us deal with that instead. Garkhal was speaking to the LAW, and I call BS on his argument because the law, as it stands makes utterly no distinction on religion, but bigotry.
Do you care to argue that?
If not, let's talk about the people instead.

No one has acted against Muslims, but they have against Christians. In essence, this points how people, not the law, are treating these two groups differently.

Well, given I only did a cursory search, I cannot completely agree with that, but with the information in hand right now, sure, I will accede the point.

There hasn't been any backlash against the Muslim owners like there has been against the Christian owners. That no one may have yet done anything is entirely my point and relevant. Take the Washington State Attorney General, how many Muslims has he sued on behalf of his state vs Christians?

Ok, so we are dealing with purely people now, so we need to deal with the -motivations- of people. If I spent 16 years telling you that "arguing with a pagan would get you put in the wicker man", and I could point to examples of -Christians- being put in said wicker man, would you be so......... eager to defend your POV over a cake if the cost could be a good burning?
Since 9/11, Americans have been indoctrinated to see Muslims as "all bad", and LGBT people, well hell, they will throw them off a building, we will just tell you, you can't be married, or I won't bake a cake for you, SO DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT US!!
We just marginalize you, we don't kill you............ (anymore)
Islam contains within it the same hatred of "the other" as it's brother, and don't even try to tell me otherwise, because I can read a book.
As usual, I restate I do not fear Christians, I do not fear Muslims, I am -concerned- with nutjobs, no matter where they get their inspiration.

Your argument is no different than Trumps "It's not a ban, it's a ban" argument. On paper, it's not a Muslim ban, but the intent of it was to ban Muslims so that betrays its true nature.

Oh really?
I can cite more than ZERO examples of bigotry from Christianity towards LGBT rights, can trumps travel ban on "potential terrorists" do the same?
I'll wait. If not, they are not the same as one has a basis in fact, the other does not.

By the letter of the Law, Christians aren't being targeted. But by actions of both government officials and activists, they are.

Why are you going back to the law, I thought we were talking about people and their motivations?
Make up your mind.

If the Washington State Attorney General knew about a Muslim owner who did the same and didn't take action, then that would be a violation of the equal protection clause. Because his action would be discriminatory.

Correct.
Where am I arguing that they should not?
You do realise that without a complaining witness or victim, the law has some serious limits, right?
Women got the crap kicked out of them for hundreds of years -literally- by their husbands, but the law ignored that as well because the women were too afraid to complain to the law, or were simply not allowed to -by law-.
Again, we come back to the notion of the victim being afraid of the -perceived- oppressive force.

It'd be no different than a cop only pulling over black people for speeding but never pulling over white people for speeding.

Correct.

The child be damned.

Excuse me?
I give a damn about the -child-, which is why I feel that abortion should not be an option when the -potential- child can exist independent of it's mother, like damn near every pro choice person, and exceptions to that should be -rare- and -reasoned-, and on a circumstance basis, not some inviolate "rule"

[Gatefan1976]

Hey Garkhal, and others who have signed up to defend your homeland in the military:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/26/po...-donald-trump/

Fake news though I am sure.

[Gatefan1976]

And the fall of absolute monarchy along with the abolition of serfdom.

What exactly are you talking about?

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, it's all minority democrats holding up the filling of over 2000 positions in government...........
http://www.timesrepublican.com/news/...ary-withdraws/

No one with half a brain wants to be part of this crap-fest, unless they can correct it. I'm generally not one for military views, but the only competent choices so far have been military people.

[garhkal]

Banning people from coming? That went down well.

How many times MUST WE SAY IT WAS NOT A ****ING BAN. It was a temporary HALT...

Building a wall
Expanding the police and INS/ICE
Expanding the military
Building up nuclear stockpiles (that's a good one, it broke the USSR before)
How are you paying for this? Smaller taxes?

And how many BILLIONS each year do we spend catering to the illegal invaders in our country? IF BY building the wall for say 20 billion, beafing up INS/ICE/Border patrol etc, we get RID of those here, AND stop new ones coming in, it will PAY FOR itself in 8-12 years, since we spend what, 3 bil a year or so on them..
But i will say you got me on the building up nuke stockpiles. THOUGH i do agree, we do need to revamp/repair/replae the old as HELL systems we have in those silos...

You do realise that things like PP is exercising personal responsibility, right?

I am sorry, but how is PP doing a DAMN thing to 'exercise personal responsibility'? when a large part of their mission is to abort babies?

What do you think the left offers?

Take a look at the leftist run college campuses which did all those protests, then had MORE Protests to get the schools to CANCEL or delay testing, cause the little darlings were too bumbed out from doing all the protests in the first place, that they didn't bother studying for their frikken exams...
It also creates a bunch of do nothing but whine and protesters, people who can't stomach being told "no", or "earn it" etc..

I'm not saying that as some kind of "liberal elite", but an honest question. Do you think that they know what is best for your country?

I think they are more concerned with what's best for THEM. And the past 10+ years they have seen them getting shat on by the government.

Again, no one really knows.

And why is that? Do you honestly think that the govt has been bothered to actually Look INTO IT over the past 20+ years? IMO no they have not.

Such terrible things like the Paris climate agreement, something -everyone- would have to go with, not just the US you mean?

And you honestl believe nations like China, Pakistan/india and such will actually adhere to the deal they sign??

The article told both sides of the story, no more. The fact is, someone running a "sting" would have no legal basis to sue as they were going in under false pretences. If a LGBT person did choose to sue, they could, so I utterly reject the notion that the law itself is biased. That no one may have -yet- is utterly irrelevant, and it's not like you to miss that distinction Tood.

One of those bakeries (IIRC a pizza shop actually) was only sued, cause of a simple news piece where a press lady asked them "WOULD you serve a gay wedding, and the owner said No". NOT that he actually refused someone, just that a question got asked and answered, but not to the satisfaction of the LGBTQ community.. And IIRC it WAS reported that she went in KNOWING that, the answer she got, was what she was gonna get. How was that NOT a Sting??

I'm not speaking to the law, I am speaking to people's actions. No one has acted against Muslims, but they have against Christians. In essence, this points how people, not the law, are treating these two groups differently. There hasn't been any backlash against the Muslim owners like there has been against the Christian owners. That no one may have yet done anything is entirely my point and relevant. Take the Washington State Attorney General, how many Muslims has he sued on behalf of his state vs Christians?

Your argument is no different than Trumps "It's not a ban, it's a ban" argument. On paper, it's not a Muslim ban, but the intent of it was to ban Muslims so that betrays its true nature. By the letter of the Law, Christians aren't being targeted. But by actions of both government officials and activists, they are. If the Washington State Attorney General knew about a Muslim owner who did the same and didn't take action, then that would be a violation of the equal protection clause. Because his action would be discriminatory. It'd be no different than a cop only pulling over black people for speeding but never pulling over white people for speeding.

Then you also get into the # of cases the Anti-Christian commie lovers union (ACLU) and Freedom from Religion (well just Christianity), have gone after school, towns and such all over America for daring to have the 10 commandment, pics of jesus, crosses etc on 'government land (in the school or on a public sidewalk near the court house etc), all cause it "Violates the separation of church and state (which is NOT IN THE constitution), but have not once, done the same when schools and universities, etc, install things like Muslim foot baths, or the like.
So why is there all these suits for one religion being 'put into schools' (etc), but not when another religion is there??

ITS cause of that i keep saying that there is a war against Christianity!

[Gatefan1976]

How many times MUST WE SAY IT WAS NOT A ****ING BAN. It was a temporary HALT...

Your own SCROTUS called it A ****ING BAN
He did not even care what you called it.
I was hoping you were the intelligent one, I need to apologise to some people.

And how many BILLIONS each year do we spend catering to the illegal invaders in our country? IF BY building the wall for say 20 billion, beafing up INS/ICE/Border patrol etc, we get RID of those here, AND stop new ones coming in, it will PAY FOR itself in 8-12 years, since we spend what, 3 bil a year or so on them..

I answered that question, have you forgotten how to read?
Also, now you are accepting that Mexico will not pay, YOU will, so I guess that's some acceptance of reality.

But i will say you got me on the building up nuke stockpiles. THOUGH i do agree, we do need to revamp/repair/replae the old as HELL systems we have in those silos...

Pity it was not a "gotcha" question.
I'm sure they too will pay for themselves.

I am sorry, but how is PP doing a DAMN thing to 'exercise personal responsibility'? when a large part of their mission is to abort babies?

Did you take some artillery blasts to the head?
Less than 5% of PP's spending is on abortion (you can look this stuff up).
Of those abortions, there are strict guidelines on how and when they can happen. The VAST majority of PP's work is actually on womans health.

Take a look at the leftist run college campuses which did all those protests, then had MORE Protests to get the schools to CANCEL or delay testing, cause the little darlings were too bumbed out from doing all the protests in the first place, that they didn't bother studying for their frikken exams...

Why bother, I can just look to the Republican congress who wanted to cancel and delay everything, because the poor little darlings were too bummed out from loosing to a black man.
Those "poor darlings" will have to live with the decisions made TODAY about their future, whereas the knobs making those decisions will be long dead before they can try to redress the damage done.

It also creates a bunch of do nothing but whine and protesters, people who can't stomach being told "no", or "earn it" etc..

Protesting -is- doing something you knucklehead.

I think they are more concerned with what's best for THEM. And the past 10+ years they have seen them getting shat on by the government.

What's best for them?
Talk to those responsible for screwing their future when -they- were the butthurt snowflakes.

And why is that? Do you honestly think that the govt has been bothered to actually Look INTO IT over the past 20+ years? IMO no they have not.

I gave you the most recent research available, sorry if it did not agree with your views, need a safe space?

And you honestl believe nations like China, Pakistan/india and such will actually adhere to the deal they sign??

More likely than the US will, and that is the greatest shame of all.

One of those bakeries (IIRC a pizza shop actually) was only sued, cause of a simple news piece where a press lady asked them "WOULD you serve a gay wedding, and the owner said No". NOT that he actually refused someone, just that a question got asked and answered, but not to the satisfaction of the LGBTQ community.. And IIRC it WAS reported that she went in KNOWING that, the answer she got, was what she was gonna get. How was that NOT a Sting??

Proof?

Then you also get into the # of cases the Anti-Christian commie lovers union (ACLU) and Freedom from Religion (well just Christianity), have gone after school, towns and such all over America for daring to have the 10 commandment, pics of jesus, crosses etc on 'government land (in the school or on a public sidewalk near the court house etc), all cause it "Violates the separation of church and state (which is NOT IN THE constitution), but have not once, done the same when schools and universities, etc, install things like Muslim foot baths, or the like.
So why is there all these suits for one religion being 'put into schools' (etc), but not when another religion is there??

The right to own a rifle is not in the constitution either, but hey.

Go back to church, you will feel better, and at least you would have a basis for your rage. "Who's Garkhal is it anyway, where the rage is manufactured and the facts don't matter"
I'll give you 1000 hail Mary's for your bull****.

ITS cause of that i keep saying that there is a war against Christianity!

No, it's because you don't want to know.

[Falcon Horus]

Maybe you should read Gatefan's article...especially the last two paragraphs. It's pretty clear that people are going after Christians only and leaving Muslims alone.

Maybe I should, but it was late and I had a headache so I didn't.

If it's what you want, it's small government, see the example of staying out of peoples rights by telling woman weather they can have an abortion.
Government so small it can fit...............................

I was thinking of a word that starts with a V... yes, it's woman-related.

How many times MUST WE SAY IT WAS NOT A ****ING BAN. It was a temporary HALT...

Syrians halted indefinitely -- I'd say that's a ban.

Sidenote: The White Helmets documentary won the Academy Award for Best Documentary. Sadly, the maker wasn't allowed into the US to pick up his Oscar.

I am sorry, but how is PP doing a DAMN thing to 'exercise personal responsibility'? when a large part of their mission is to abort babies?

Less than what Fox News would like you to believe.

It also creates a bunch of do nothing but whine and protesters, people who can't stomach being told "no", or "earn it" etc.

You too don't want to listen to actual facts -- what does that make you?

And you honestl believe nations like China, Pakistan/india and such will actually adhere to the deal they sign??

Yes, China for sure.

Pakistan and India, probably slower.

The US, at this point, not at all.

ITS cause of that i keep saying that there is a war against Christianity!

A war against Christianity?

Really?

[Ian-S]

Sidenote: The White Helmets documentary won the Academy Award for Best Documentary. Sadly, the maker wasn't allowed into the US to pick up his Oscar.

Typical cherrypicking of facts to make a story sound better, if you read past the headlines you'll find they were issued with visas, but were turned back at the border due to the passports not being able to be verified. The cameraman also choose not to go as he wanted to carry on working in Syria.

But hey, media says big bad Uncle Sam banned them, so that's the story we'll run with, it doesn't fit the narrative to say 'Uncle Sam gave them visas but because their passports were invalid they were refused entry'. (Just like if they turned up at Brussels's airport with invalid passports, they'd be refused entry too, but oh you know, never let the facts get in the way of a good story etc.).

[Annoyed]

And people wonder why Trump is going on the warpath against the media. I can't really say that I blame him.

[Falcon Horus]

Typical cherrypicking of facts to make a story sound better, if you read past the headlines you'll find they were issued with visas, but were turned back at the border due to the passports not being able to be verified. The cameraman also choose not to go as he wanted to carry on working in Syria.

No mention of the media, and yet, that's what you're going with.

I know why they were turned back -- issues with the papers. It still means he wasn't allowed to go and pick up his Oscar himself. The result is the same.

The director of Best Foreign Film, the Iranian one, was first denied access, then given access and then declined himself. What's the media saying there? Or doesn't it fit the narrative enough.

[Annoyed]

No mention of the media, and yet, that's what you're going with.

I know why they were turned back -- issues with the papers. It still means he wasn't allowed to go and pick up his Oscar himself. The result is the same.

The director of Best Foreign Film, the Iranian one, was first denied access, then given access and then declined himself. What's the media saying there? Or doesn't it fit the narrative enough.

And whose fault is it that he didn't get his passport in order? Isn't it the responsibility of the person traveling to be sure his papers are in order?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

A war against Christianity?

Really?

A war against the Christian right to deny gay people basic goods and services, to stop two men or two women marrying (it makes god angry, and causes extreme weather). The Christian right to deny other people equal rights..

You know how this works

Rights are a finite resource. Giving equal rights to all means less rights for the Christians (Republicans who claim a war on Christianity is a real thing when they're not allowed to discriminate)

They're also the same people who, when hearing Jesus healed the sick and fed the poor for free get offended because it doesn't fit with their version of Christianity. I hear he had issues with rich people too. Something about trying to force a rich guy on a camel through the eye of a needle, I don't know how well that would work, do you know how hard it is to thread a needle? Camels are a lot bigger

If Garhkal ever read a Bible or learned what Christianity is meant to be, he wouldn't be so quick to use it as a shield to defend what Trump is doing.

[garhkal]

I answered that question, have you forgotten how to read?
Also, now you are accepting that Mexico will not pay, YOU will, so I guess that's some acceptance of reality.

If anything it seems you are the one with a reading comprehension.
Let's try it again. Your car leaks 2 galons of gas every 1k you drive costing you around $50 a mo, since you drive a lot. Yet you could get a full refit on the gas line for $240.. How long will making said repair take to pay off??
THAT'S what building the wall, and expanding our INS/IRS/BP units will do for us..
As for paying. At no point did i say Mexico is not. I said how much it would cost..

The right to own a rifle is not in the constitution either, but hey.

Being the 2nd amendment was wrote WHEN rifles were mostly all we had for use, HOW can you say "owning one is not in the constitution?"

Go back to church, you will feel better, and at least you would have a basis for your rage. "Who's Garkhal is it anyway, where the rage is manufactured and the facts don't matter"

AS i am AGNOSTIC< i don't attend church.

No, it's because you don't want to know.

Give me proof and i will know.. What you showed, as both Annoyed and Artood said, proves nothing..

[pscard]

I hear he had issues with rich people too. Something about trying to force a rich guy on a camel through the eye of a needle, I don't know how well that would work, do you know how hard it is to thread a needle? Camels are a lot bigger

Mark 10:24-26
24 And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
26 They were even more astonished and said to one another, “Who then can be saved?”…