Page 321 of 321 FirstFirst ... 221271311317318319320321
Results 4,801 to 4,808 of 4808
  1. #4801
    Astonishing Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4,207

    Default

    Last 5 business days:

    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  2. #4802
    Incredible Member SquirrelMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    817

    Default

    In more shitty news:

    Giant inflatable colon stolen in Kansas City



    I bet you all need some time to digest that piece of news, so I'll see myself out.

  3. #4803

    Default

    Three years ago on this date, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” we looked at former Oklahoma Congressional candidate Timothy Ray Murray, the challenger to Oklahoma Congressman Frank Lucas in 2014, who after only getting 5% of the vote in the primary race for that U.S. House seat, got online to claim that Lucas had actually been publicly executed while on a diplomatic visit to Ukraine in 2011, and theat he had been "replaced", somehow. Therefore, Murray wanted Lucas' votes ceded to him. Further questioning indicated that Murray believed the current Frank Lucas running around as an "automaton" created to keep up the ruse. This isn't the plot of a sci-fi movie, this isn’t a plotline from Westworld, and Murray is obviously in need of serious psychological analysis but has thankfully fallen off the face of the earth politically.



    In 2015, 2016, 2017, that we published our first two "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profiles of the U.S. House Representative from Montana’s At-Large Congressional District, Greg Gianforte , who after several big losses in trying to become the next Governor of Montana. having started Christian ministries that have bankrolled millions of dollars toward the construction of a the 20,000 square foot Dinosaur and Fossil Museum in Glendive, Montana, that asserts to its patrons that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and there’s no way the skeletal remains of dinosaurs on display are millions of years old, as scientific carbon-dating technology would have you believe. No, the curators assure people passing through that the fossils are but 4,300 years old (which would mean dinosaurs roamed the Earth around the time of the pharoahs) and that there’s no proof of evolution, whatsoever. Okay, maybe trying to willfully spread ignorance of science when you’re motivated by your faith on that subject doesn’t seem like it would be the most harmful thing, even in this day and age… it’s not like Greg Gianforte’s deeply held faiths are motivating him into any stupid policy decisions? Well, actually… he and his wife apparently lobbied the city of Bozeman, Montana to try and pass a city ordinance based on Indiana’s “religious freedom” laws that made it legal for Christians businesses to discriminate against the LGBT community. Gianforte is apparently dedicated enough to opposing LGBT rights that he also bankrolled the legal defense of Colorado baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakes, who wanted to refuse service to gay patrons (Phillips lost, of course), and further applauds Phillips for not opening his bakery on Halloween because “Christians should not promote Halloween”. If these bizarre policy calls based on his faith weren’t already troubling, there’s Greg Gianforte’s opinion on Social Security… we shouldn’t have it because he thinks “the concept of retirement is not biblical”, citing the fact that Noah built the Ark at the totally believable age of 600. Gianforte made a last ditch effort to beat Steve Bullock in the 2016 governor’s race by trying to gin up fears over Syrian refugees, and lying and claiming Bullock had been restricting gun rights (while he had actually EXPANDED gun rights in Montana as governor.) Gianforte got absolutely trounced by Bullock in their debate, showing little understanding of the law in many instances, and providing only tired and cliche Republican talking points devoid of facts. Gianforte, however, maintained support of Donald Trump even after he boasted about getting away with sexually assaulting women… which would pay off later.

    Because, just when we thought we had our last entry about Gianforte… Congressman Ryan Zinke was picked to be a member of Donald Trump’s Cabinet of Horrors, opening up a spot in Congress in a special election race that wouldn’t you know it, Gianforte would run for. And even though Montana still leans extremely to the right, and the Democratic candidate, Rob Quist, had some sketchy details in his background, it was nip and tuck as the last few days to that special election in Montana, with Donald Trump endorsing Gianforte, because he tolerated Trump’s sexual assault in the build up to the previous election. And… then things got weird. Weird even for a guy who thinks Jesus was fending of T-Rexes. You see, on the eve of the election, Greg Gianforte lost his goddamned mind, picked up a reporter from the Guardian, Ben Jacobs , body-slammed him and screamed at him.

    This is normally unacceptable behavior for a politician, and more fitting for how a heel WWE wrestler would resolve being confronted with questions they don’t like. Well, Gianforte was charged with assault, pleaded guilty to avoid jail time that would make him a rather ineffective Congressman, and then spent most of his few months in office dodging a court’s order that he still would need to take a mug shot. Spoiler Alert: He still had to get a mug shot.

    He still barely has the self-control to remain a functional member of society, let alone a Congressman:



    Greg Gianforte’s opponent in November is Kathleen Williams, a Democratic member of the Montana state legislature since 2010, and his strategy for holding onto his seat is a combination of parlaying anti-immigrant fear-mongering (which, Montana seems like it’s a hell of a long way away from Mexico, Greg), having Baron Dementia von F***stick come out to Missoula and celebrate his attack on a journalist, and lying his *** off about his opponent in a barrage of ads. Seriously, Kathleen Williams has openly stated that she feels Democrats need new leadership in Washington, and would like Nancy Pelosi to step aside and hand things off to a fresher face. Meanwhile, Gianforte is running ads claiming that Williams is a “Nancy Pelosi liberal, which shows you how much the truth matters to him. With any luck, the people of Montana are smart enough to boot this rage-fueled lunatic in about two weeks’ time.
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  4. #4804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panfoot View Post
    Oh well that makes perfect sense, reducing some regulations at the low cost of just a over a couple million peoples civil rights. It's laughable that you bring up ways for better protetions when arguing for something that does the exact opposite. I truly hope you don't have any LGBT members in you family, knowing a family member doesn't even think you deserve the same rights as them can really hurt.
    I think you're confusing several arguments. This is largely a discussion about the effect of a law on trans people, so jumping from that to a claim that I think LGBT people in general don't deserve rights is massive stretch. My concern is also on the mechanism of a particular law, and not about whether trans people have rights (they do and they should.) The number of people affected jumped in your summary to several million, when you noted earlier there were 1.4 million trans individuals in the US (many of whom live in states with robust protections, and many others who will not be in a position to benefit from this particular type of protection.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Allen View Post
    How??

    How can you determine sex?

    Explain that in a way that doesn't dehumanize the "various abnormalities"?
    In most cases, sex matches reproductive organs. Otherwise, sex can be determined by chromosomal testing (where XX is female, and XY is male.) Any cases where there is an ambiguity can be labeled as such, without it reflecting in any way on the humanity of the individual involved. This is an impersonal label- that's the point. And it's a category that has medical benefits (IE- determining who is at risk for prostate or cervical cancer.)


    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    So long as your party feels that it is not only okay but also necessary to cheat to win by repeatedly disenfranchising a large number of -- primarily black and latino -- voters you can't make any serious argument that your "party" wants to resolve things democratically.



    Mets, you support a lying, cheating, climate-change denying, record-deficit raising, blatantly racist, sexist, and homophobic white supremacist party and while this is your "democratic" right, as I've pointed out before, people might accept that choice but there's nothing that says we have to accept the lies and hypocrisy behind said choice.

    For someone who acts so concerned about "unintended consequences" of certain legislation, you constantly turn a blind eye when said legislation harms anyone outside of your "circle" -- at this point I don't expect better of you, but I likewise refuse to let you dodge the obvious.

    You support a party that is actively seeking to prevent people like me from voting, Mets -- maybe in your world that's fine, but in mine it just makes you someone who routinely votes to deprive me of my rights to be treated equally as an American citizen.

    -----
    "The current campaign against the VRA is the result of three key factors: a whiter, more Southern, more conservative GOP that has responded to demographic change by trying to suppress an increasingly diverse electorate; a twenty-five-year effort to gut the VRA by conservative intellectuals, who in recent years have received millions of dollars from top right-wing funders, including Charles Koch; and a reactionary Supreme Court that does not support remedies to racial discrimination.

    The push by conservatives to repeal Section 5 comes on the heels of what NAACP president Benjamin Jealous has called “the greatest attacks on voting rights since segregation.” After the 2010 election, GOP officials approved laws in more than a dozen states to restrict the right to vote by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, shutting down voter registration drives, curtailing early voting, disenfranchising ex-felons and mandating government-issued photo IDs to cast a ballot — all of which disproportionately target communities of color..."

    In Alabama, for example, Republicans targeted nearly every white Democrat in the state legislature for extinction but preserved the twenty-seven majority-minority districts in the House (even adding one more) as well as eight in the Senate in order to clear the maps with the feds. (At the time, the head of the Senate Rules Committee, Republican Scott Beason, referred to blacks as “aborigines.”)

    “If there’s no Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act] all those majority-black districts are now vulnerable,” says Jim Blacksher, a longtime voting rights lawyer in Birmingham. “And there is no question in anybody’s mind what will happen next.”

    He calls Section 5 “the most important sea anchor against the ongoing, uninterrupted, virulent white-supremacy culture that still dominates this state.”

    https://www.thenation.com/article/wh...ng-rights-act/
    I think you're responding to points I haven't made. I didn't claim that Republicans want the issue of civil rights for transgendered people to be decided democratically. They likely want to handle it any way that gets the policy goal they want, which is the same way Democrats went about it. To avoid this, the democratic process seems to be a useful compromise, especially in a situation that is driven by the application of a law passed by Congress in 1972.

    Voting rights is a larger discussion, although the differences in effects are likely to be on the margin.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  5. #4805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Godzilla2099 View Post
    What do you guys think of this 'caravan' of 7,000 people making their way from Central America to the United States?

    This actually disturbs me the most

    - The sheer amount of people: Where will they go? How will they work? Education? No background checks

    - The timing: The timing of this before the midterms? I hardly believe this is a coincidence, but if yes, the GOP just got everything handed back to them in a big red bow.

    - The organization: How was this planned? Where are they staying and how are these people being taken care of?

    - What will happen? I'm a registered Democrat but in no way will take one extreme or side over the other. If these people want in, they should do it legally. Force is never the option
    I'm guessing the timing of the caravan is determined by circumstances outside the US. It sure as hell isn't going to help Democrats, despite right-wing conspiracy theories, and it seems like there's too much potential for any Republicans involved to be caught.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    But you have to respond in some way. Look at what "ignoring the bully" did for John Kerry.
    It's unclear. Kerry did pretty well considering the circumstances (he was running against an incumbent war-time President.) Negative campaigns lower turnout, and Beto would need high turnout among people who don't usually vote in order to have a shot. It's an unfortunate reality that establishment candidates benefit from negative campaigns in multiple ways: by damaging their opponent's reputation, and by depressing turnout among swing voters.

    Quote Originally Posted by BeastieRunner View Post
    Aren't they seeking asylum from dictators?
    This gets messy. The overwhelming majority of Asylum applications are rejected, so while most of them may be seeking asylum, a relative few will be seen to be meeting the requirements.

    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...asylum-claims/

    Has there been a 1,700 percent increase in asylum claims? The numbers stack up.

    But the claims of gaming the system are less supported.

    Trump is talking about "credible fear" cases, which is spelled out in the Refugee Act of 1980. It's available for people unable or unwilling to return to their home country "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."

    Migrants who are apprehended or unable to enter the country legally can claim "credible fear" in order to get a hearing before an immigration court.

    The Homeland Security Department tracks cases in which a decision to grant a hearing has been made, which differs only slightly from the number of all claims made.

    In 2007, 5,171 people claimed credible fear and had their cases reviewed.

    In 2016, it was 91,786.

    That represents a 1,675 percent hike, basically as Trump claimed.

    Between 60 and 80 percent of those cases were approved for further court review. Overall, 20 percent of applicants were ultimately granted asylum in fiscal year 2017, the Homeland Security Department told us.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  6. #4806
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I think you're responding to points I haven't made. I didn't claim that Republicans want the issue of civil rights for transgendered people to be decided democratically. They likely want to handle it any way that gets the policy goal they want, which is the same way Democrats went about it. To avoid this, the democratic process seems to be a useful compromise, especially in a situation that is driven by the application of a law passed by Congress in 1972.
    Correct -- because you keep dodging the fact that your party routinely engages in voter suppression, especially against African-Americans: you can't claim to support the "democratic process" while simultaneously supporting a party that routinely and illegally seeks to subvert said democratic process through blatantly racist policy and action -- as well as via allowing for and even promoting illegal Russian influence in our elections.

    Not without looking like a complete hypocrite, that is.

    The larger issue is your apparent completely subjective disregard for the rights of others -- I think it's clear to everyone here that if it were your rights that were being attacked, you wouldn't be so quick to accept such morally destitute behavior from your Republican representatives.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; Today at 03:54 PM.

  7. #4807
    Astonishing Member Panfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    2,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I think you're confusing several arguments. This is largely a discussion about the effect of a law on trans people, so jumping from that to a claim that I think LGBT people in general don't deserve rights is massive stretch. .
    An effect of a law on trans people that involves their rights and would only result in damage to them. That's not a jump at all, that's exactly what it is.

  8. #4808
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    Anyone still "owning" the party that locks baby in cages and plans a trans genocide deserves to be shouted down. Fuck civility in the face of fascism.
    My hero, right here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •