The Political Discussion Thread

[garhkal]

I don't know why someone doesn't issue a bounty so high that no one would turn it down for killing ISIS members or leaders and proof of kills?

It would be nice to see. Big issue i do feel might arise there is would those Bounty hunters get 'left in the lurch' if they got captured?

And the richer give you Medicaid, and subsidise your local E.R.
Is that "your tax money"?

GF, i was more on about that since most of the poor (lower income brackets) don't pay taxes, what income they get is given to them from taxes collected. So when they DO spend, and pay taxes, its not really THEIR money they are spending. Its what they get from the tax payer..

Poor access to education based on wealth
Poor access to education based on colour
Poor access to education based on sexual orientation.

Poor access you say? Then why is it i can see 20+ different scholarship foundations for black males, more than that for black women (and most every OTHER minority group). but very few for whites (especially white males) to use, that are not also open for others to try for? So how can they have 'poor access'??

A growing trend of "I am too good for that job", but **** them damn immigrants taking our jobs

I will give you this one.

Me, I think that I would try to fight the ideology, and not throw around my military, but if that became a non option, I would start breaking the -bones- of the opposition.

And how can we fight their ideology? Is that NOT what the whole concept of "Winning hearts and minds" was about?

If worst came to worst, Yes, I would drop whatever it took to remove them, their powerbase, their followers etc off the planet, and I would feel no guilt about doing it because I would finally be playing by "their rules" and I have no issue playing the game I am presented with if I must.

Same here. I would not feel guilty one bit.

Because it's that double standard people like to live by... and it's not hilarious in a funny way, but hilarious in a face!palm way.

Sorry. I didn't understand that you were being sarcastic.

Well, if there's one thing we can agree on then it is the fact that the rest of world has severely underestimated the power and the threat that ISIS is displaying.

And imo the PINO in the white house STILL underestimates them.

My sister had a rather interesting explanation to give in reply to your university A and B example. She said that university A where you had to work hard for your degree, or in this example's case for your award, is in fact equal to the idea of same sex marriage. While in university B the straight couple is in luck cause they don't have worry about their degree or in this case marriage. If they want they'll get it without even having to lift a finger.

She has an interesting take on my 'example'.. I will have to think on it.

I don't want to be married in church... And I don't quite understand why anyone would, the way they have a habit of feeling better than, but I guess some folks just wanna have it all.

If i ever do get married, i will do all i can to push for a small (non church) wedding.

Ah, kinda what I wrote about the consent age in Belgium - if you're 18+ and the other party involved is younger than 16, you could potentially face trouble if a complaint was filed.

Our laws are already that way, where if i am 18, and you are 15, and we screw, i am technically guilty of statutory rape. The romeo and juliet laws were made for BF/GF who were already coupled up but have a few years age different, so when one DOES become an adult (18 or more) they are not considered to be violating that statutory rape law.

But you do care about it... cause you say it yourself that two of the judges apparently had a bias ruling. Doesn't that mean, you do care whether you're against it or not (the general you in this case)?

Cause to me, what they did was make an illegal ruling. THAT is what i care so much about. That and the furor that got raised in Indianapolis over the "RFRA" several months back, since its close to where i live and is where i go each year for Gencon.

If you tolerate it, you shouldn't say it waters down marriage. Or that two of the judges were biased in your opinion. It sorta sends out mixed signals. You know.

We seem to differ on what tolerating something is. I can tolerate say you wanting illegals to be given medical treatment, but still argue that doing so is wrong. I am accepting and acknowledging your viewpoint, even if i disagree with it.
THAT to be is tolerating it.

Long post, so will continue it in a 2nd.

[garhkal]

If you want to recuse everyone who thinks something should be legal, you also have to recuse everyone who thinks it shouldn't. A conflict of interest is where they have reason to vote one way, even if they don't actually think that is the legally correct decision. No conflict here.

It seems we disagree on what makes a conflict of interest.
To my way of reading both the dictionary definition and legal definition, if you have already shown a bias one way (whether by funding something, supporting it like in Kagans case where she performed same sex marriages), or cause of personal involvement (like in the examples i gave above several posts about the cop having a CoI if he has to investigate a case where a family member is a suspect/victim), then you have a conflict of interest.
Just having an opinion one way or the other does NOT make it a Conflict.

Note what I already said about there being a difference between the Government and the Courts. The Government can't create rules on the matter, but the court is simply enforcing constitutional rules that already apply. The Supreme Court did not create a right. They merely stopped pretending that it wasn't already one.

Which to me is a double take, since in the DOMA case they ruled that the fed has no involvement (or shouldn't) in regards to what is or isn't marriage.

Their idea of tolerance is that everyone should have to tolerate their views and actions on various topics, but they themselves shouldn't have to tolerate anyone else's views. Kind of a one way street there.

Hence why i keep saying the left is hypocritical in their stance of tolerance.

Those taxes were levied for express purpose of funding highway needs, and that is where it should spent.

Just like taxes raised from tobacco that are supposed to be for the health care OF the smokers of tobacco often get spent on everyone else.

We do not have a taxation problem. We have a spending problem.

Hence why i support a constitutional amendment for forcing them to only approve a balanced budget.

I get annoyed with people who say that. Mostly because they aren't any different then the other news stations being biased. Its just they are biased to a different political ideology.

Exactly Jel. MSNBC, CNN, HLN, NBC, CBS and Fox are ALL biased in one way or another, its just that Fox seems to be the only one that is right leaning, while the others are all left leaning.

Interesting bit in the comment-section which I hadn't even considered in my previous post:

My question for a business owner wanting to discriminate against a gay couple would be: will you discriminate against divorced people as well?

I have seen that asked often by those on the left, as an attempt to neuter the argument of religious freedoms. But it does have merit. If you say you follow the bible, and thus can't serve gays/lesbians, then you should also not serve divorcees.
but unlike with gays (i seem to be very good at identifying them), divorcees are much harder to spot.

And then there's also this bit in the comments - the author of comment does not hold the author in high regard - let's call it freedom of speach:

No sane gay or lesbian couple is going to want to be married by some preacher who doesn't approve of their marriage—and no one can force this issue. But Mr. Walsh elects to choose scare tactics and empty rhetoric to say this is just around the corner. I have to wonder just when this is going to happen. Again, not once has this occurred since marriage equality became the law in Massachusetts (and it hasn't occurred in any other state either).

Then why have so many gays and lesbian couples gone willingly (and imo deliberately) into bakeries/florists and other stores they KNEW were religious, to see if they could get cakes /flowers (or what ever)?

But another question remains: Why can't a gay couple simply go to a different vendor or church that does not object to the ceremony? Why do they insist on forcing people who object to gay marriage to participate, rather than going to a vendor for the service that does not object? That way, everyone is free to behave in accordance with their own beliefs, without stepping on anyone else's rights.

That has always been one of my gripes with the LBGT push. They seem to deliberately target those places, just to sue, to force them to comply, rather than go elsewhere. BUT you also never seem to see them doing it to non-christian religions like Sikhs, or Muslims.

Then again, all the big news channels put ratings above journalistic integrity.

Egads, we agree on something Brita.

1: Gay marriage is not a thing. Marriage is a thing. Excluding people from the ability the one they love is wrong. I don't see how people correlate this to polygamy (something i see so often) since it's not even remotely in the same corner. I don't see how people correlate this to bestiality (unless they want to imply gay people are beasts). We're all in this life to find happiness and it's stupid that we do our best to deny small groups of people this just because they're not mainstream.

The reason, is cause if gays and lesbians, say "Why shouldn't we be able to marry cause we love one another" is the exact same argument for polygamists saying "Why shouldn't we three who love one another be allowed to marry".

2: In an ideal pie-in-the-sky world there's plenty of places to have gay marriage, but if you happen to live in a neighborhood where there's none, well that sucks. Its ridiculous to expect them to move a long distance just to get married. I think it's wrong to force churches to marry gay couples if they're against it, but similarly i think it's wrong to deny gay couples marriage by having nobody (in an acceptable radius) willing to do it. Like all transitions it's something that goes with trial and error.

Who defines that acceptable radius? IIRC in the first instance i remember about a bakery getting sued, for not baking a cake for a gay wedding, there was 4 other bakers in their town.

3: Over here we've simply started a slow process of replacing/removing the people who don't want to perform gay marriage. On the other hand, it took about a decade before we started to deem it wrong to deny people the right to marry out of belief.

Your answer is to just 'remove and replace' those who feel gay marriage is wrong?
Where is the tolerance the LGBT community/left keep asking for?

Continued in a third post.

[garhkal]

Labour Party? Never! Their incompetence is staggering!

The Conservatives aren't any better..

Too true. Heck of the UK political parties, i feel they are all just as bad as the others.

How can people do this?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/...ndow/29695895/


If I had my way, they would do the exact same thing to her. Toss her out of a moving car's window, at the same speed she was traveling.

Agreed. Heck imo crimes such as this, should always get the same punishment dealt to the perp(s) as they dealt to their victims.

Well the world should get its **** together and eliminate them. NOW I don't want no stinking terrorists in charge.

Neither do i. And i always laugh at the fact the UK (along with most of Europe) and the US seems to bend over backwards to accommodate the Muslims who come here, but when we are in THEIR countries, we again, bend over backwards to not offend them 'cause they are our hosts.
Unlike Japan, which doesn't allow Muslims to visit/live there (from all i have read at least).



Now to get off the LGBT/Terror subject, here is something political that i saw on the news today that just makes my head itch..
Why is it in states like CA and others where its ILLEGAL for private citizens to use fireworks in the area of a town/city (and in some cases like Ohio, the whole state), do they then continue to sell fireworks in state?
Just like why i could never understand why many places STILL sell "bath salts" knowing they are illegal.

[Gatefan1976]

Don't know about current day Mormons, but shortly after the "gay wedding approvals" made the headline news, sure enough, polygamy news came next. And Mormonism got mentioned in the article(s) as well.

Source?

And really, the ONLY contact that the US has in polygamy is via the Mormons, so I cannot say I am surprised that they are mentioned.
In addition, the anti-polygamy laws were passed -specifically- to target the growing Mormon power and keep them out of government. it had -absolutely nothing- to do with some high handed moral position, no matter what bull you read. A short perusal of the O.T. will show you that God, really does not have a problem with multiple wives.
People were worried that "Mormon law" would replace the common law, a bit like they are worried about Muslim law doing the same thing now.

Legalizing polygamy may happen less than that -- maybe within the next year or two?
(Please see article to Montana {USA} polygamy lawsuit case below...)

Eh, so what?

So, the guy wants to sue if he doesn't get his way. News to be followed up after next week?

Don't you look at alternatives when you are told "no" sometimes?
Things like DOMA are a direct result of religious based political interference in the LAW, not a civil suit, but the common law.
How dare the religious, of any stripe, get uppity because someone else is being listened too?

Pretty much, if multiple marriages gets passed as law, it will make it much easier for Sharia Law to be enforced in the USA.

How?
Tell me, and everyone else here how giving civil rights to a group, -civil, not legal- has any bearing on adopting or replacing US common law.

Eventually, one version (USA law) or the other (Sharia Law) will take over the entire nation. That situation is looking to occur sooner, than later.

Umm, NO.
US law -already- runs the US, and not even the ebil libural leftie freaks want Sharia as it strips even more personal liberties than damn near anything the god bothering republicans could come up with.

Oh, and if polygamy marriage laws get passed as acceptable "law of the land," it's been rumored that pedophilia marriages will be the next *acceptable* law(s) to be passed, since Islam allows marriages to children under the ages of ten and even into toddler ages (as in sometimes being forced marriage contracts).

It's been rumoured that the ACA will create FEMA death camps.
I seen no evidence of Sharia taking over, or the ACA creating death camps.
Don't play in the "rumour pit", because the "rumours" I hear about Christianity could make you not only puke, but deny any further association with such a foul organization.

Yup, back to the dark ages of marrying the kids off young to older guys. In that sort of situation, it will be acceptable to 21 year olds to marry 13 year olds and younger, or 35 year old teachers to wed their teenage and younger students. Wonder what the outcries will be from those who have been prosecuted, fined, and/or imprisoned over the years for doing such things. Will they sue for freedom rights, too or what?

Errr.............. None because it will not happen?

If the Islamic State takes over more of the world, there might not be any gay marriages, unless such things end up done in secret. If that happens, will the gays start screaming discrimination all over again?

The LGBT community does not have to wait for Islamic state to be forced to hide their true identity, they have had to do it for hundreds, if not thousands of years based on another religious sect with dreams of world domination. I call their oppressors "Church going Christians", and "Bible Thumpers"
Don't pretend for a blessed second that enforcing Biblical Law on people is any better than enforcing Sharia law on them.
There are far, far more similarities in the "legal codes" of both religions than there are differences.

[Ukko]

Unlike Japan, which doesn't allow Muslims to visit/live there (from all i have read at least).

I was there in March, im certain i didnt imagine the muslims i saw.

[Gatefan1976]

I was there in March, im certain i didnt imagine the muslims i saw.

When it comes to you Ukko, I imagine -you- could imagine anything!!

[Coco Pops]

It would be nice to see. Big issue i do feel might arise there is would those Bounty hunters get 'left in the lurch' if they got captured?

That would of course be one of the real downsides of this. Hmmmm

I haven't said much about SSM because it's not really an issue that will affect me or my life. I just wish those people who do want to get married well.

As for all the other parties that want to make it their business why can't they just bugger off?

Wouldn't the solution be for gays to have their own churches since we have gay christians why not form a church? Problem solved. And yes the people who still want to make it their business should bugger off.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

That would of course be one of the real downsides of this. Hmmmm

I haven't said much about SSM because it's not really an issue that will affect me or my life. I just wish those people who do want to get married well.

As for all the other parties that want to make it their business why can't they just bugger off?

Wouldn't the solution be for gays to have their own churches since we have gay christians why not form a church? Problem solved. And yes the people who still want to make it their business should bugger off.

Separate but equal... Because that worked out so well last time..

[Annoyed]

in that case won't they also have to make imams perform gay marriages in their mosques?

That is a good question. Why are they exclusively targeting Christians who object upon the basis of religion. Why are Muslims and others given a pass?

[Annoyed]

Don't know about current day Mormons, but shortly after the "gay wedding approvals" made the headline news, sure enough, polygamy news came next. And Mormonism got mentioned in the article(s) as well.

The Mormon church is often first to come to mind when the topic turns to polygamy because in their early history, they did advocate and practice polygamy. The official Mormon church disavowed the practice in the 1890's I believe, but some non-affiliated offshoots still practice it.

[Annoyed]

Yes!

Then why don't we see that happening today?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

That is a good question. Why are they exclusively targeting Christians who object upon the basis of religion. Why are Muslims and others given a pass?

Because Christians are making the most noise about it..

[Annoyed]

Well the world should get its **** together and eliminate them. NOW I don't want no stinking terrorists in charge.

I would agree with the sentiment, but how would you go about actually doing it?

Have every nation suspend it's freedoms & civil rights and do house to house searches and arrest everyone of middle-eastern decent? Assemble a coalition via the U.N. and have the United States use it's military to completely destroy any nation or physical area rumored to be hosting them? Nuke the entire middle east into a giant glass bowl? While we certainly have the capability to do that, do you really think that would be well received internationally? Let alone the valid concerns about collateral damage/deaths.

I'm not asking these questions sarcastically; I don't have a practical, workable solution that I would be willing to carry out. The only solution I see working is the "glass bowl" option, but that is too horrific to think about.

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Gatefan1976
A growing trend of "I am too good for that job", but **** them damn immigrants taking our jobs

I will give you this one.

I do not grant that.

Yes, there are jobs which citizens won't touch for $5.00 an hour. However, if $20.00/HR & benefits were offered, you would be overrun with applicants in an hour. With our porous borders and current approach of encouraging illegal immigration, corporations are using illegal/immigrant labor to undercut the labor market and avoid paying wages that a job is worth.

And imo the PINO in the white house STILL underestimates them.

I see you won't dignify the current occupant of the White House with the title of President either.
I prefer the term " LSoS" (Lying Sack of Shiznit) but I can live with PINO. =)
As far as underestimating ISIS, well, I disagree. Since I think the LSoS is actually a Muslim himself, regardless of the picture he paints for public consumption, I strongly suspect that he understands them very well. And may in fact be a closet supporter. Anything that tears the U.S. down is good in his eyes.

If i ever do get married, i will do all i can to push for a small (non church) wedding.

I used to say the same thing while I still entertained the possibility of finding a wife and getting married.
However, be practical. This is a fight you can't win. You won't get a say in the matter. In our society, the wedding is, always has been and always will be the wife's show. If you're really lucky, she won't even invite you. If you are invited, just roll with the punches and let it play out.

Cause to me, what they did was make an illegal ruling. THAT is what i care so much about. That and the furor that got raised in Indianapolis over the "RFRA" several months back, since its close to where i live and is where i go each year for Gencon.

This is actually the bigger sticking point for me, not that gay marriage is now legal, but the government violated the rules in order to do it. Are there legitimate objections to gay marriage? Absolutely. But for me, the big stinkbug in the room is the government is pulling law out of its arse rather than abiding to what is written in the Constitution (Or amending it, SoulReaver) Those who have been reading my posts over the past 6 months or so know that adherence to the Constitution is a big thing for me. In all matters, not just this issue.

Just like taxes raised from tobacco that are supposed to be for the health care OF the smokers of tobacco often get spent on everyone else.

Our government is so addicted to spending money that it does not have that it will get it anyway it can. It's like giving a homeless guy 10 bucks to buy a meal, the guy goes and buys a pack of cigarettes or a six-pack, and then comes back to you asking for more money so he can get some food. Get lost, jackass, go eat your cigarettes is the only acceptable response.

Hence why i support a constitutional amendment for forcing them to only approve a balanced budget.

That doesn't help. Unlike the federal government, which is not required to balance its budget, the states are required to balance their budgets. The article I cited regarding misdirected highway funds was strictly a state level issue from NY State. So requiring a balanced budget is not the answer. The problem isn't that the governments can't take in enough money, they already take in far too much. The problem is that they spend too much.

Exactly Jel. MSNBC, CNN, HLN, NBC, CBS and Fox are ALL biased in one way or another, its just that Fox seems to be the only one that is right leaning, while the others are all left leaning.

This is an interesting topic in its own right. Logically, the major news organizations, being business entities, would be expected to lean to the right; Republicans tend to kiss business backside far more than those on the left would claim to. (in reality, they are both kissing business arse). But almost all of the networks and news operations are very heavily biased to the left.

My theory regarding this is this: Many of the solutions to problems proposed by those on the right would be very effective at solving the problem if enacted. But many times, those solutions appear, at least on the surface, to be hard hearted and cold, often requiring the people affected by a problem to take actions to pull themselves out of their problems themselves, rather than depending upon others to do so for them.
These solutions take time to play out, as changes in behavior do not always grant immediate rewards.

But the on the surface, even though a solution is the right thing to do to solve the problem long term, it appears to be hard hearted and unfeeling.

My suspicion is that people in the journalism field do not wish to appear to be hard hearted and unfeeling, so they choose the easy, feel good solution offered by the left.

[Annoyed]

And now for another shining example of the current administration's attitude towards the United States.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/02/pr...#ixzz3evvskxfk

Enjoy Independence Day while you still can. If President Obama gets his way, this could be the last Fourth of July worth celebrating.

New ground-level ozone standards being pushed by Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency would result in widespread bans on fireworks shows, backyard grilling and other Independence Day traditions.

Just another part of the LSoS's agenda of "fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

Destroying it is his real intention, if you ask me.