Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

In more news on the stupidity of the left..
This mom deserves the 'worst mom in the year' award.!

http://constitution.com/disgusting-p...ngs-worst-mom/

Mike Pence supports Conversion Therapy. He diverted funds that could have prevented an outbreak of HIV into a Conversion Therapy program.

Do you know what they do there? They torture kids. The 50% death rate is considered successful because there are fewer gay people in the world. Those who survive are irreparably broken.

[aretood2]

In more news on the stupidity of the left..
This mom deserves the 'worst mom in the year' award.!

http://constitution.com/disgusting-p...ngs-worst-mom/

I'm sure she's done worse.

[SoulReaver]

Mike Pence supports Conversion Therapy. He diverted funds that could have prevented an outbreak of HIV into a Conversion Therapy program.

on the other hand FH could use some conversion :/

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

on the other hand FH could use some conversion :/

Electro-shock therapy. Abuse, both physical and verbal. Designed to make children hate everything about themselves. To be repulsed by what they're attracted to. To utterly and irreversibly break them. Stage one of "conversion therapy" has a 50% death rate. Suicide is still considered successful treatment because there are fewer gay people in the world.

Stage Two is about rebuilding the children, some as young as 13, in the way the torturers think best fits society. Robots that aren't heterosexual. But tortured to the point where their attraction to the same gender makes them sick. Gives them flashbacks to the abuse.

Ever seen "A Clockwork Orange"? Same idea, only the real life version is far more extreme. With far more damaging, irreversible effects.

That's what the new Vice President of the United States wants to do to children.

Land of the Free. Home of the Brave.

[Annoyed]

But isn't political incorrectness one of the defining goals of the far right like Trump? After all, not doing or saying racist things is the definition of political correctness. What else do you expect when you wage war against it? People singing Kumbaya My Lord around a monument to Martin Luther King Jr.?

Either you're playing some sort of game, hoping to trip me up, or you really misunderstand what people like myself want.
If it is the latter, let me try to clarify. Since you use MLK as an example, I'll use race to elaborate, along with the educational system.

I do not advocate racist/misogynous behavior, ethnic slurs or the like, nor do I advocate that behavior.

If I did, I wouldn't have chosen a female for a primary care doctor 30 years ago, nor would I have accepted a black surgeon to repair shoulder injuries 20 some odd years ago. Both doctors came with excellent references, educations and such. Both were more than qualified according to the research I was able to do at the time and that was the basis of my decision. Gender/Race had nothing to do with it. In fact, I didn't even know the surgeon was black until after I selected him, and I never even considered changing my mind when I met him face to face for the initial consultation.

That's not "political correctness" as I see it. Racist attitudes and behavior really are unacceptable. Political correctness is the tendency of the left to suppress expression of ideas that they disagree with or that might make someone uncomfortable.

Put the damn cards on the table, as they exist. If someone is pissed or doesn't like them, too freakin' bad.
No special exemptions/exceptions for anyone, period. You do NOT have the right to never be offended.

I don't press on this too much, but how many examples of educational institutions suppressing right-oriented viewpoints has garhkal pointed out? That is a good example. Allow and even encourage EVERYONE to express their ideas. If the idea is trash, let the audience decide that and accord that opinion all the value that it is due. But that isn't the way it works. In many situations, if you try to express an idea that is unpopular with some one or some group, you are suppressed via the tool of political correctness.

Many on the left like to equate opposition to amnesty and such for illegal immigrants as racist. In my mind, race has nothing to do with it. We have an immigration system that has the same rules for EVERYONE, regardless of where they are emigrating from. There is no racial bias in those laws at all. Nor is there bias in the application of those laws. They apply to everyone, equally.

That's all I want. Adherence to the law. By everyone. Treat everyone equally. I don't care if you're black, white, yellow or fly around in spandex tights and a cape. Enter this country via the official processes only. If you break those laws, you should expect to be hunted down and deported, regardless of where you come from or what race you are. But I will grant that enforcement might be a problem with the guy in the spandex and cape. This is no less than anyone should expect for breaking any law; they should expect to be caught & prosecuted.

The only thing "racist" about this is that at this point in time, the majority of illegal immigrants and residents are either Hispanic or Black in their ethnic makeup, so the racist brush is very convenient when I and people who think like I do simply want all immigrants to adhere to the same laws every other immigrant adheres to.

That is not racist behavior on my part. But it is real convenient for those who support this illegal behavior to portray it as such because racist behavior is wrong. So here, we have people trying to portray people who simply advocate adherence to the law by everyone as being racist, in essence attempting to silence them by misrepresenting their views as being racist in origin, which we agree is unacceptable. A pretty good example of using "political correctness" to silence opposition. Which is the real purpose of any of this politically correct BS.

Another example from academia would be the growing trend in to eliminate ABCDEF grading, competition in gym classes, academic competitiveness such as the valedictorian of a class, so as to avoid hurting the feelings of or offending those who do not win.

There are winners and there are losers in almost every aspect of life in a free society. What good does it do to hide the facts of life from youngsters because their feelings might be hurt or they might take offense? If you ask me, it actually harms them. Politically correct BS yet again.

Sorry about the magnum opus response, but it's a complicated topic and I wanted to make my views clear.

[jelgate]

Electro-shock therapy. Abuse, both physical and verbal. Designed to make children hate everything about themselves. To be repulsed by what they're attracted to. To utterly and irreversibly break them. Stage one of "conversion therapy" has a 50% death rate. Suicide is still considered successful treatment because there are fewer gay people in the world.

Stage Two is about rebuilding the children, some as young as 13, in the way the torturers think best fits society. Robots that aren't heterosexual. But tortured to the point where their attraction to the same gender makes them sick. Gives them flashbacks to the abuse.

Ever seen "A Clockwork Orange"? Same idea, only the real life version is far more extreme. With far more damaging, irreversible effects.

That's what the new Vice President of the United States wants to do to children.

Land of the Free. Home of the Brave.

Sounds like teenagers to me.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Sounds like teenagers to me.

Except the part where they're being tortured..

[jelgate]

Have you met teenagers?

[aretood2]

Either you're playing some sort of game, hoping to trip me up, or you really misunderstand what people like myself want.
If it is the latter, let me try to clarify. Since you use MLK as an example, I'll use race to elaborate, along with the educational system.

I do not advocate racist/misogynous behavior, ethnic slurs or the like, nor do I advocate that behavior.

If I did, I wouldn't have chosen a female for a primary care doctor 30 years ago, nor would I have accepted a black surgeon to repair shoulder injuries 20 some odd years ago. Both doctors came with excellent references, educations and such. Both were more than qualified according to the research I was able to do at the time and that was the basis of my decision. Gender/Race had nothing to do with it. In fact, I didn't even know the surgeon was black until after I selected him, and I never even considered changing my mind when I met him face to face for the initial consultation.

That's not "political correctness" as I see it. Racist attitudes and behavior really are unacceptable. Political correctness is the tendency of the left to suppress expression of ideas that they disagree with or that might make someone uncomfortable.

Then why is it that people who rile against Political Correctness have a nasty tendency to say things like "I didn't know Mexicans could be that smart"? Or a President Elect that questions the impartiality of a Judge because he has Mexican heritage? That's no different than if you would have question the effectiveness of the black surgeon because he probably got his degree through affirmative action. And while you don't do it, it means little to those who have it done to them. And when they cry foul you have "Anti PC" people lined up to tell them why they should shut up and not complain.

Put the damn cards on the table, as they exist. If someone is pissed or doesn't like them, too freakin' bad.
No special exemptions/exceptions for anyone, period. You do NOT have the right to never be offended.

I don't press on this too much, but how many examples of educational institutions suppressing right-oriented viewpoints has garhkal pointed out? That is a good example. Allow and even encourage EVERYONE to express their ideas. If the idea is trash, let the audience decide that and accord that opinion all the value that it is due. But that isn't the way it works. In many situations, if you try to express an idea that is unpopular with some one or some group, you are suppressed via the tool of political correctness.

But the reverse is true, as I mentioned above. Any instance of racism and complaints about it is responded by "Stop being PC and shut up. You complain too much. You're a race baiter. You hate white people. YOu just want money." or a distracter "But a white person was beat up in this other city".

Many on the left like to equate opposition to amnesty and such for illegal immigrants as racist. In my mind, race has nothing to do with it. We have an immigration system that has the same rules for EVERYONE, regardless of where they are emigrating from. There is no racial bias in those laws at all. Nor is there bias in the application of those laws. They apply to everyone, equally.

That's all I want. Adherence to the law. By everyone. Treat everyone equally. I don't care if you're black, white, yellow or fly around in spandex tights and a cape. Enter this country via the official processes only. If you break those laws, you should expect to be hunted down and deported, regardless of where you come from or what race you are. But I will grant that enforcement might be a problem with the guy in the spandex and cape. This is no less than anyone should expect for breaking any law; they should expect to be caught & prosecuted.

The only thing "racist" about this is that at this point in time, the majority of illegal immigrants and residents are either Hispanic or Black in their ethnic makeup, so the racist brush is very convenient when I and people who think like I do simply want all immigrants to adhere to the same laws every other immigrant adheres to.

That is not racist behavior on my part. But it is real convenient for those who support this illegal behavior to portray it as such because racist behavior is wrong. So here, we have people trying to portray people who simply advocate adherence to the law by everyone as being racist, in essence attempting to silence them by misrepresenting their views as being racist in origin, which we agree is unacceptable. A pretty good example of using "political correctness" to silence opposition. Which is the real purpose of any of this politically correct BS.

The theory is all fine, but the practice doesn't seem to match up to it. You have Arpaio who profiles Latinos, abuses his power, and all in the name of illegal immigration enforcement. On another side you have people vilifying Spanish culture, like what does that have anything to do with this? Oh yeah...that big "R" word. Actions do speak louder than words, and right now the actions I see in the country do not match your words at all. That's why people label your views as racist. It isn't because the views are racist, but because those who put it into practice do racist things with little to no backlash from people like you. If anything, Arpaio's popularity soared because of his racist practices.

Another example from academia would be the growing trend in to eliminate ABCDEF grading, competition in gym classes, academic competitiveness such as the valedictorian of a class, so as to avoid hurting the feelings of or offending those who do not win.

There are winners and there are losers in almost every aspect of life in a free society. What good does it do to hide the facts of life from youngsters because their feelings might be hurt or they might take offense? If you ask me, it actually harms them. Politically correct BS yet again.

Sorry about the magnum opus response, but it's a complicated topic and I wanted to make my views clear.

You'll find that this is mostly limited to the elite. But I've been hearing about it since I was in middle school but have yet to encounter it myself.

But my point is that usually, when people say political correctness, they don't mean that at all. They mean that they want to be able to say and do racist things again. That's what you are seeing. They saw someone win who said whatever they wanted and was unPC. Now they have carte Blanche to say and do as they please. The line between "Racism is wrong" and "No one has the right to not be offended" is very blurry. This is why it is very important for someone like Trump to watch what they say, because they are transmitting a word that has 5 different meanings to 7 different groups. And one of them, for example the KKK, gets the impression that PC means "Not racist" and takes it as a personal mission to come out and act.

Take Ben Carson when he moved into Maryland is a good example. One of his neighbors raised a confederate flag right after he moved in. The rest responded by raising American flags. That one neighbor removed his flag. But the message was clear. "We don't want you here, N****". I can list over a dozen such examples (violent and much more explicit) from one neighborhood in Chicago in his decade alone (And that's just the ones noteworthy enough to make the news). Now try to explain how that would send the same message if the first neighbor raised an American flag...It could only be done with the Confederate battle flag. Many people would say that wanting it gone is PC.

Yet people refuse to acknowledge that the CSA Battle flag does send a clear message to others like it was intended for Carson. And so when some asks to get it out of certain areas of honor, the backlash is "You're being PC". No, it's just a racist symbol. And if you want to change that, instead of shoving that flag down people's throats, you can simply say "Sorry man. It's not supposed to. Here is a sign of good faith." And maybe next time someone with a CSA flag is seen, it wouldn't be the same exact message.

Believe it or not, being a leader is about transmitting an accurate message. And Trump did not do that at all, and now we are seeing the aftermath. You can condemn it all you want, but it was your guy who provoked it by not understanding such a simple concept, or caring to understand it.

[Annoyed]

Don't have time to go thru it right now, but I will say this.
To me, the confederate flag has always represented rebellion from authority. Which is why it was so appropriate on the roof of the "General Lee" in "The Dukes of Hazzard".

Yes, I know, the trigger for the rebellion of the south against the north was slavery, and 160 or so years ago, I can easily understand the racial overtones and aspects. But I think the meaning of the flag has changed over time since slavery no longer legally exists in this country so that it.simply means rebellion today.

[Falcon Horus]

Mike Pence supports Conversion Therapy. He diverted funds that could have prevented an outbreak of HIV into a Conversion Therapy program.

Do you know what they do there? They torture kids. The 50% death rate is considered successful because there are fewer gay people in the world. Those who survive are irreparably broken.

It's the equivalent of throwing them off the roof.

on the other hand FH could use some conversion :/

Conversion to what? Sanity... I fear that button is broken, ever since birth.

[garhkal]

Hey, you know "good god fearing Republican parents" have done this for decades if their kid was gay, right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eived-gay.html

Now, which mother was worse were you saying?

The latter most definitely. Killing your son cause he was gay is more bad than just booting an 8 ur old out.

[Ian-S]

I like the way you slipped in the "no longer legally exists".

Does America have the same problem UK/EU has where certain jobs are made "self-employed" only and a flat rate paid per day which usually ends up with the poor working stiff taking home less than £2 an hour, essentially sidestepping minimum wage laws? Mostly happens to delivery drivers here.

[Annoyed]

It's getting really funny watching the left's contortions. They really have the mental attitude that they are entitled to the Presidency.

Voters target Electoral College members to switch their Trump ballots, elect Clinton

Voters upset that Republican Donald Trump had been elected president -- or think that the presidency was unfairly taken from Democratic rival Hillary Clinton -- are scrambling for ways to change the results.

Their major focus is trying to get members of the U.S. Electoral College to change their vote, arguing that Clinton should be the next president because 60.47 Americans voted for her, compared to 60 million for Trump.

The college is part of the Constitution and is composed of 538 members, with each state and the District of Columbia having one member, or electorate, for every senator or House lawmaker.

Trump won 290 of the so-called electoral votes, in the race to get a minimum 270.

This has no chance of succeeding; Hillary only got 228. They would have to get a whole lot of faithless electors to essentially sacrifice their own careers (who would ever believe a word they ever said in the future?) to get Hillary into the white house.

What a bunch of whiny, bed-wetting babies they are.

We had an election. Everybody knew the rules going in. The Democrats lost, and lost big. Yes, Clinton had a very slight edge in popular vote count. All that means is that Trump did a better job of playing the system to his advantage. Nothing stopped the Democrats from trying to do the same thing, and in fact they did. Both parties have done so for many years.

Wake up. You folks lost the election. (just as we did in 2008). It's time to go home, lick your wounds, and try to figure out how to do a better job next time.

[SoulReaver]

Conversion to what? Sanity... I fear that button is broken, ever since birth.

trust me luv I'll push the right buttons