You should google labour anti semitism and see how many hits you get.
General / Off-Topic Sorry from AMERICA!!!!
- Thread starter CMDR MadRaptor
- Start date
- Status
Assuming it's not a fake link for phishing, www.gop.com goes to the official RNC, https://secure.gop.com/donate is legit, and the blurb definitely sounds Trumpian:
.
Twice now in this thread you've used "other people do it as well", as if that's some kind of rebuttal.
That's the excuse you give the teacher when you've used a naughty word at school. Adults are responsible for their own behaviour. You can't point at others and demand that because someone else is racist and despicable that makes it ok.
It's most likely some scam/phishing, like the TV Ad (from Texas) that Becks postet.
It's probably even legal, since there's so little regulation on those things - you can just attach yourself to any campaign and run your own little money making scheme.
Televangelists and "pre approved" credit cards are some of those "can't belive that's still a thing" things. Same with "share this message and you'll ..."
-sigh-
-facepalm-
We still like the US of A. But guys - if there's a traffic jam reported on the radio and you can't see it - that's not "fake news" .. you're most likely the looney at the front slowing everyone behind you down.
I'm just pointing out that two can play at that game. Or are you insinuating that I'm racist because I'm pointing out things that you don't like to see?
Last edited:
Two can play at what game?
What makes you think I support that doddering old fool Corbyn? The man is as toxic to the UK as Theresa May is.
I've been reading up on him for a bit now...
Gorsuch is an originalist, like Scalia. This means they take the WORDS in the constitution and legal decisions very literally and with a mind to the original intent when it was written. This is the typical conservative justice. They do not believe that current influences on morality or culture should have any bearing on the interpretation of the law as it was written previously. Personally, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with this approach, as long as it is balanced with other judges taking an interpretive approach. Both are valid ways to discuss the constitution.
Now, he has not made any decisions on LGBT rights or , so we don't have anything to go on there. He did rule in favor of Hobby Lobby's exemption from the ACA mandate for birth control access. It is expected that he will not be good for women's health, in the long run.
As for his character, I think America will find him a lot more reasonable than Scalia. Gorsuch is an excellent writer and makes very strong opinions. While just as conservative as Scalia was, he is known to be open to persuasion as long as that persuasion uses the constitution well. His temperament is moderate. Further, Sotamayor and Kagan have both expressed respect for the nominee. Clerks who worked for him are regularly promoted up to the high court and are received well by all of the justices.
It still stands that President Obama had already chosen a justice who was not even given a hearing. The blatant disrespect for the President is not something that should be forgotten, but falling on that sword to stop Gorsuch confirmation is political suicide.
Last edited:
Just read it, but he seems to be against Obamacare, since it forces christian employees to indirectly support abortions by paying healthcare for their employees.
No idea why or where churches attained the right to have "employees", but that's manmade law, which did not take healthcare into account.
You can fully run a non-profit organization without employees, based on voulunteers.
So yea, in some regards he might be more dangerous than Scalia. Bit like the new pope. Walesa and Ratzinger were old school pomp&glory, so easy to dismiss. The new "half reform" guys - old doctrines in nicer and more modest bling.
I wonder what the situation would be if there was a government funded program (say expanded Medicaid) that provided birth control.
Could somebody decline to pay some taxes because they would be used for something against their religion?
Where does that rationale stop? If you are a quaker can you object to your taxes being used for military spending, what about a Rastafarian objecting to taxes spent on anti marijuana enforcement?
You could argue there is a difference between taxes and being forced to buy health insurance for employees.
OK, could an employer object to the employee using their wages to pay for birth control or an , or a gay wedding or a pig roast or anything they object to?
Well, in a "free market", a "christian" employer could simply create a "christian" health insurance and have all it's employees covered by that.
Of course, you cannot force them to create a health insurance (freedom an somesuch), so everyone has to be blocked from access to one because of .. reasons (mainly .. errmm.. FREEDOM AND SOMESUCH!).
There's always "reasons".
(did I mention that a shwip-relative of mine is pastor of the "Cowboy Church" [squeeeee] .. they're nice enough fellas, really but ... http://www.cowboychurch.net/oklahoma.html )
Last edited:
Yet, none of these religious groups seem have had a problem paying taxes to a government that sanctioned torture and calculates acceptable limits of civilian casualties. It is a bunch of bull, really. They cherry pick these issues that are highly emotional yet ignore the obvious ways our government is undeniably evil.
It is all under the guise of religious freedom...However, in this case, their religious freedom flies in the face of running effective government. As a society, we need to provide birth control. We just have to with as many people that we have living in poverty it is completely backwards to not give them the, very affordable, means of avoiding unwanted and expensive pregnancy. (it ends up costing us alot more money in food stamps, WIC and Medicaid)
I mean, really, the hypocrisy is too much to handle sometimes. I grew up in the Catholic church and the number of people in my congregation that adopted the children of unwanted pregnancy could be counted not with one hand but with a stub where a hand used to be. I grew up hearing all this about how charity can replace government intervention...yet all I see churches doing is horde money, cars and gold.
Last edited:
This should have blown everyone's mind:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
(184 pages, too much text, too much "lawspeak" I guess)
Citizens United SCOTUS ruling.
" The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations." .... ...... ........... :|
-sigh-
Last edited:
This still gets me angry. This is literally the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court. This was the beginning of the end of fair elections in the USA.
Last edited:
So, Trump says some things about Black History Month.
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/a-full-transcript-of-donald-trumps-black-history-month-1791871370
[hehe]
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/a-full-transcript-of-donald-trumps-black-history-month-1791871370
[hehe]
He really likes to say "Fake-News", he can barley speak for longer without saying it
You should look at your own post. Nothing but slogans and decrying "the other side".
You accuse others "emotionalism", whatever that neologism is supposed to mean, but your own contribution is like a football chant. Care to try that again? This time with some actual though involved.
Because Google hits are the highest form of proof. Should we do some Trump googling, or Conservative for that matter then?
What a ridiculous thing to say.
It is the language and attitude of bullies and abusers. "Your opinion is too emotional"...or..."unwarranted faith"
These are methods for belittling opposition without using any real facts or points that can be debated. It is weak, small and not worth a reply.
Last edited:
- Status