The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

Yep should be fun yes I want directions

I found one thread which is still open which debates religion in some way or another --> A Discussion Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

[Annoyed]

Welcome to New York.
Government by the Rich & for the Rich, I guess.
And NY is a heavily Democratic state.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2167197

ALBANY — It’s smooth sailing for yacht owners under the state’s new budget.

The spending plan hammered out by Gov. Cuomo and legislative leaders Sunday night includes a sales tax break for the buyers of luxury boats and private planes.

Under the deal, sales tax would only be applied to the first $230,000 of a yacht’s purchase price. Anything above would be exempt.

The deal also exempts the sale of general aviation aircraft from any state sales tax.

[mad_gater]

Welcome to New York.
Government by the Rich & for the Rich, I guess.
And NY is a heavily Democratic state.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2167197

You'll find I'm no fan of NYS politics either (resident of the Buffalo area)

[SGalisa]

I found one thread which is still open which debates religion in some way or another --> A Discussion Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

Now, see what happened?


Wonders how long it will take before everyone now posting over there -- realizes that they are all conversing (about laws and media or whatever) in the "religion" thread and not this political one... Ooooops!

[Coco Pops]

Now, see what happened?


Wonders how long it will take before everyone now posting over there -- realizes that they are all conversing (about laws and media or whatever) in the "religion" thread and not this political one... Ooooops!

My bad........ That was my fault.

I'll post my comment here in this thread..

[Coco Pops]

OK on news how is it possible that media moguls are allowed to or can influence the way an election result can go by their control of things like newspapers and such?

We saw it here in Australia and are still seeing it as the majority of our papers are run by news.ltd and they are heavily biased towards the sitting government. In a democracy why is this even allowed and how can you stop it? Because of this the last election was won by the sitting govt. based on a relentless media campaign by these newspapers. Want to guess who owns them?

I have some thoughts on religion too but I'll shut my mouth for now till I see how this post goes.

============================

Also:

In Australia Data Retention has just about become law.

So basically 2 years worth of phone calls, emails, and web searches are going to be kept by the government. The excuse for this is "terrorism" and "security" which yeah I can sort of see but I don't believe this is the actual agenda.

Has the Patriot Act in the USA gone this far?

[Annoyed]

Copy of my reply in the other thread:

Ah and also in Australia Data Retention has just about become law.

So basically 2 years worth of phone calls, emails, and web searches are going to be kept by the government. The excuse for this is "terrorism" and "security" which yeah I can sort of see but I don't believe this is the actual agenda.

Has the Patriot Act in the USA gone this far?

Apparently not that far.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom...#United_States

The National Security Agency (NSA) commonly records Internet metadata for the whole planet for up to a year in its MARINA database, where it is used for pattern-of-life analysis. U.S. persons are not exempt because metadata are not considered data under US law (section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act).[43] Its equivalent for phone records is MAINWAY.[44] The NSA records SMS and similar text messages worldwide through DISHFIRE.[45]
Leveraging commercial data retention

Various United States agencies leverage the (voluntary) data retention practised by many U.S. commercial organizations through programs such as PRISM and MUSCULAR.

Amazon is known to retain extensive data on customer transactions. Google is also known to retain data on searches, and other transactions. If a company is based in the United States the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) can obtain access to such information by means of a National Security Letter (NSL). The Electronic Frontier Foundation states that "NSLs are secret subpoenas issued directly by the FBI without any judicial oversight. These secret subpoenas allow the FBI to demand that online service providers or ecommerce companies produce records of their customers' transactions. The FBI can issue NSLs for information about people who haven't committed any crimes.

NSLs are practically immune to judicial review. They are accompanied by gag orders that allow no exception for talking to lawyers and provide no effective opportunity for the recipients to challenge them in court. This secret subpoena authority, which was expanded by the controversial USA PATRIOT Act, could be applied to nearly any online service provider for practically any type of record, without a court ever knowing". The Washington Post has published a well researched article on the FBI's use of National Security Letters.[46]

The ability to do this without court supervision is rather disturbing.

[SGalisa]

Now, see what happened?


Wonders how long it will take before everyone now posting over there -- realizes that they are all conversing (about laws and media or whatever) in the "religion" thread and not this political one... Ooooops!

My bad........ That was my fault.

I'll post my comment here in this thread..

No problem. I thought reading it all was sort of amusing. It's not the first time I've seen specific conversations migrate to other topics. Been there and done that myself on other forum websites -- once, I think was accidental, whereas the rest was following the other lemmings off the cliff to enter into unknown subject lands. It usually worked out okay in the ultimate end.

I'm just surprised that no one else noticed where they all ended up (or never mentioned about it).
And honestly, I'm too tuckered out to bother with the "religion" topic (or that one in particular. Got enough stuff set aside for the prophecy topic, which I haven't been able to get to due to brain-burn/fog).

Was wondering if the new conversation on the alternate religion thread is what happens when "God" is taken out of religion -- that the subject becomes the religion of politics or the politics of religion. Something like that.

[Falcon Horus]

(sarc on) I think they just want to get closer to the sun and see how long the folks they send there will last before burning up that much faster.

Burning up will be the least of their problems... They'll sooner die from radiation poisoning than from burning in the sun's heat.

As far as I'm concerned, the important points the Tea Party folks make is a desire to return government to operating within the limits placed upon it by the Constitution. Yeah, there are various groups trying to hitch their wagons to this train, but the main focus of the core group has been a return to the Constitutional limits upon the federal government.

They probably have some good points... I skimmed through some of their points. Though not a follower I am.

If I read it right in my source then I'm a leftie, leaning towards the center of the political scale. Though plenty political parties to choose from in Belgium. I'm a member of one but do not restrict my voting for people on their list.

Regarding the Indiana & Arkansas laws, I agree with them.

Apparently the Governor of Arkansas doesn't. He wants the text to be changed before he'll sign it so there must be something about it. And he did mention before that he would sign the bill in his current state.

Like it or not, same sex couples do violate the religious beliefs and teachings of several major religions...

Excuse me?!?

..., and performing wedding services for same sex couple would violate those beliefs. The legislation protects those people from being forced to violate those beliefs by ordering that such services be performed by them.

See, that's what I don't get. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to. One doesn't need a law to hide behind to make it right. Just come out and say you feel uncomfortable about it. Nobody's gonna bite your head off for being honest. Honesty goes a long way. If a bakery feels uncomfortable putting two men on a wedding cake, he should just come out and say it, and perhaps point the happy couple to a different bakery who is more than willing to cater and earn the money.
Or, a flowershop feels uncomfortable to deliver flowers to a Muslim wedding because it's not Christian, or a black wedding, or the funeral of a Muslim or gay person or whatever...

However, as I was thinking this earlier, I realized that in the US it seems to be a sport to sue people left, right and center for the smallest of things. So, I guess having a law somewhere giving the right to discriminate makes it a whole lot easier and less likely to get sued. However in on itself needing a law in order to legally discrimante is really ridiculous as discrimination should never be a law. It just leads to bad situations (Nazi-Germany for example - bit extreme perhaps).

This in no way prevents same sex marriages or whatever, such a couple can simply go to another church who is willing to perform the ceremony or offer the service of their own free will.

It's kinda odd you say church, cause I wasn't aware that was possible. At least, it's not possible to wed in a church ceremony over here as gay couple. Not that I mind cause damn a short service will do just fine.

Is it possible for gay couples to be married by a pastor or minister in the US then? In a church? The actual building I mean.

It's really a reaction to the hypocritical attitude of many in the gay/lesbian lobbies.

Lobbies? You mean, like the Tea Party?

These lobbies demand that society accept and accommodate them and their beliefs, but they themselves make no attempt at respecting the rights and beliefs of others.

What beliefs are you referring to?

Cause as far as I'm aware they're just people like you and I, believing in God or Allah or whatever other deity is out there. They follow or don't follow religion like you and I. They live life, sometimes with the love of their life, sometimes alone. I don't think they're any different then straight people. I mean, they don't even look different from straight people.

They wish to use the power of government to force their beliefs upon others.

Isn't that the case for all lobbies? To use the power of government to force their beliefs upon others?

Like for example, denying the right to marry? Denying the right to health care? Denying equal rights?

The right to live one's life and operate one's business in accordance with their religious beliefs is just as important to them as the right to marry is to to the Gay/Lesbian folks.

It's funny you should say that cause I was under the impression that America was founded on the believe of freedom of religion. Separation between church and state. Democracy. Land of the free, and the brave?

Equality is all they ask.

Businesses, labor unions and other deep pocket interests. As I've been pointing out, the cost of campaigning is very high because it costs so much to get your message out via advertising and such. Politicians have to get this money from somewhere. They also have to look ahead to what they will do when they eventually leave office. Businesses, Unions and others will happily feed oodles of money and promises of future "consulting positions" to any pol who will vote their interests rather than the interests of their constituents.

Quid pro quo -- that's correct, right? You gave something and in return you expect something else.

I think we can agree that's how the world turns these days.

Was wondering if the new conversation on the alternate religion thread is what happens when "God" is taken out of religion -- that the subject becomes the religion of politics or the politics of religion. Something like that.

Sometimes politics is religion, and religion is politics. Look at IS - they live by Sharia law and want to create a state founded on that law, thus religion becomes politics. The US uses religion to create laws to discriminate. Separation of church and state is an illusion with more blurred lines than anyone would care to admit.

[SoulReaver]

Burning up will be the least of their problems... They'll sooner die from radiation poisoning than from burning in the sun's heat.

actually they'll die sooner from burning up in Venus' heat
(talk about flames of passion)

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Annoyed
Like it or not, same sex couples do violate the religious beliefs and teachings of several major religions...

Excuse me?!?

I'm an agnostic, so I'm not the best authority on the topic but 30 seconds with a google machine turns up the following from the Bible, which several religions use.
Leviticus 18:22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
For other variations, refer to http://biblehub.com/leviticus/18-22.htm

See, that's what I don't get. Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to. One doesn't need a law to hide behind to make it right. Just come out and say you feel uncomfortable about it. Nobody's gonna bite your head off for being honest. Honesty goes a long way. If a bakery feels uncomfortable putting two men on a wedding cake, he should just come out and say it, and perhaps point the happy couple to a different bakery who is more than willing to cater and earn the money.
Or, a flowershop feels uncomfortable to deliver flowers to a Muslim wedding because it's not Christian, or a black wedding, or the funeral of a Muslim or gay person or whatever...

However, as I was thinking this earlier, I realized that in the US it seems to be a sport to sue people left, right and center for the smallest of things. So, I guess having a law somewhere giving the right to discriminate makes it a whole lot easier and less likely to get sued. However in on itself needing a law in order to legally discrimante is really ridiculous as discrimination should never be a law. It just leads to bad situations (Nazi-Germany for example - bit extreme perhaps).

That's just it. In the US, various LGBT groups have been using the power of govt. to force institutions and businesses to perform services which are against their religious beliefs rather than simply going to another bakery, church or whatever. If a business, church or whatever wants to offer such services, fine, have at it. I don't care. None of my business.
But for a while now, these groups have been aggressively forcing people to violate the teachings of their religions via the power of government decree, which is a clear violation of freedom of religion. This is what this legislation is intended to stop, not alternative forms of marriage.

It's kinda odd you say church, cause I wasn't aware that was possible. At least, it's not possible to wed in a church ceremony over here as gay couple. Not that I mind cause damn a short service will do just fine.

Is it possible for gay couples to be married by a pastor or minister in the US then? In a church? The actual building I mean.

Again, a few seconds with a google machine:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...-sex-weddings/

Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.

That is just one of many hits for "churches forced to perform gay marriages"

Originally Posted by Annoyed
The right to live one's life and operate one's business in accordance with their religious beliefs is just as important to them as the right to marry is to to the Gay/Lesbian folks.

It's funny you should say that cause I was under the impression that America was founded on the believe of freedom of religion. Separation between church and state. Democracy. Land of the free, and the brave?

Equality is all they ask.

And in most states, they already have equality. There are few states left where gays can't legally marry. They are asking that their beliefs be placed above the beliefs of institutions whose religious values say that what they are doing is a sin, and that the power of government be used to enforce their demands.

[Britta]

Said religious people are asking that the power of government be used to enforce their beliefs. Just because you don't want to support something doesn't justify banning others from supporting it.

Besides, you're responsible for your own "sins", not those of others. Judge not lest ye be judged, yada yada yada.

[Annoyed]

Said religious people are asking that the power of government be used to enforce their beliefs. Just because you don't want to support something doesn't justify banning others from supporting it.

Besides, you're responsible for your own "sins", not those of others. Judge not lest ye be judged, yada yada yada.

"Said religious people" don't want to do anything. They simply don't want to perform a ceremony or provide a service that is at odds with their religious beliefs. They want to take no action at all. All they want is to be able to say " no thanks, I don't want to do this" and that is the end of it. Nowhere do they say that somebody else shouldn't provide the service or ceremony. But more and more, gays and lesbians pressuring government to force these people to act in a manner contrary to their religion. And that is in violation of the Constitution's protections regarding religion.

[DrDolche]

I have a simple question to all people here. Do you believe, in any way, shape, or form, that the Bill of Rights was intended to grant any form of regulatory power to the federal government?

I've often wondered about people taking things out of context and completely changing the intended meaning of one amendment in particular. When you read the preamble (statement of purpose, in case you didn't know) I think it becomes rather clear. The Bill of Rights was about further restricting the government and granted them no additional powers.

[Coco Pops]

I have a simple question to all people here. Do you believe, in any way, shape, or form, that the Bill of Rights was intended to grant any form of regulatory power to the federal government?

I've often wondered about people taking things out of context and completely changing the intended meaning of one amendment in particular. When you read the preamble (statement of purpose, in case you didn't know) I think it becomes rather clear. The Bill of Rights was about further restricting the government and granted them no additional powers.

I am not American.

But I do think the bill of rights actually puts limits on what the government of the day can do.

It also grants the citizen inalienable rights that can't be taken away.