Page 10 of 647 FirstFirst ... 678910111213142060110510 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 9700
  1. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    Religious bigotry IS a problem. And it is a problem with very clear perpetrators - white, 'Christian' men in nearly every case - that are NOT the victims of bigotry themselves. Look at how many black churches get burned in America still, or all the horrific defacements at Jewish cemeteries, the shootings at mosques, the spread of lies about Judaism and Islam, not to mention other non-Christian faiths, at the hands of 'Christian' pastors and prea hers and talking heads, or the way Muslim politicians in America get treated by supposedly 'Christian' ones.

    More important than religious bigotry, though, is bigotry protected and encouraged by religious fervor. When your religion dehumanizes others, when your religion wants to get away with breaking laws - or creating laws - in order to freely abuse other citizens based on one interpretation of religious dogma, when your religion, the dominant religion of the nation, preaches conquest, hatred, blatant lies, and the eradication of all other faiths, that religion becomes a problem to be addressed.

    WHATEVER THAT RELIGION IS.

    That isn't bigotry against your religion, that is society saying rightly that your religion is toxic and has no place in the civilized world the rest of us are trying to live in. Many, MANY Christian's draw inspiration from Christ's teachings about community, love, justice, hope and support. They are not the issue, nor are they who I speak against when I rail about American, Christian excess and evil. Don't use your religion to justify bigotry or law-breaking, and it's not a problem to me what God or gods you worship.

    Also...

    How is 'Black Lives Matter' tied to religious bigotry? And what a shock that police unions boycotted someone criticizing their regular murdering of unarmed black men and the subsequent coverup and attempts to cast innocent men as 'thugs' or criminals. That freedom to murder black men is why Black Lives Matter started, and Ben & Jerry are doing just fine without the money of corrupt murderers and bullies, and the people that make excuses for them.

    Are there good, non-racist cops? Absolutely! There are many, maybe even most! But they are part of a system that demonizes victims, abuses it's power, closes ranks to protect corruption, and creates class traitors who turn on and police their own neighbors in order to protect the rich from the poor rising up.

    #ACAB isn't about literally all cops being bastards to a one. It is about the corruption inherent in the system, and judging those who take part in that corrupt system for doing so.
    If #ACAB isn't meant to be understood as a statement that All Cops Are Bastards, this does suggest a communication problem when statements aren't meant to be taken literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by jetengine View Post
    I suggested that Mets because (to be frank) Americas corporate system is a hell of a lot worse then here in the UK. Half the shit you guys do we'd never wven consider. So if 100,000 is what we can do, you guts will easily overshoot it.

    As for what kind of oversight I'd support ? Well how about listening to a fucking doctor? That'd be a good start. Only employ trained medical professionals for these assesments if you can since a bureaucrat cant even begin to understand half the issues some people have.

    Secondly make it as neutral as possible, as soon as a guy with an R next to his name becomes president you shouldn't have the system suddenly try to scrape every bit of cash it can by denying seriously ill people their money.

    I think the issue at core though is the same conservative talk piece though about the terror of the "Leech like benefits cheat" rather then the more realistic issue of "Rich people and companies that dont pay their tax". Apple or Amazon alone easily dwarf any number of benefits cheats.
    The British system has not killed 100,000 people.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    Does any cost/benefit analysis of nuclear power include how much it costs to keep nuclear waste safe from stuff like terrorists and earthquakes for 80,000 years? It seems like borrowing money from our ancestors to consider it "cheap" in any way. And the measures taken to protect it for tens of thousands of years also don't come without a carbon footprint.
    The point on nuclear energy is in response to people who see climate change as likely ending the world in the next 12-100 years.

  2. #137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Lensman View Post
    I'll answer question 1 from my perspective. From what I can find out it isn't just a question of selling someone a cake, but of making a specialty cake for them. This is moving towards a blurry line about where art begins and what counts as it. I think the owner in question has said he'd sell any couple a standard cake (correct me if I am wrong here), but he won't make a unique one for gay couples. I'm not sure where food can qualify as art in a legal sense, but we approaching the line where it can be construed that by requiring such can be requiring speech rather than just forbidding discrimination. I don't live there and would be unlikely to buy anything even if I did - I avoid certain places to eat because I disagree with their politics and/or business practices (I won't go to Chik-fil-a or Jimmy John's) - but I also can't say what the alternatives are for a LGBT couple that wants a cake. But that sums up the question at the heart of this - are we merely banning discrimination or have we crossed the line into compelling speech?

    Aaand I probably should have quoted Mets for this....
    You're right about the questions.

    There were also plenty of cakemakers in the area willing to make cakes for gay weddings, so there were alternatives available. One question is the extent to which that matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by InformationGeek View Post
    And now a word from the president apparently.



    This can't be real... can it? Please confirm to me this isn't real, because it feels real.
    It's real.

    https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trum...ection-1395515

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    No, I get you. However, I want to point out that if they operate a business specializing in wedding cakes, and then deny that service to someone for an inherent trait, that is discrimination and is illegal. Much worse if they are the only bakery in the area, as has happened in many small town situations. This Baker situation is, as I see it, not much different than denying service because of skin color, or racial heritage, or religious affiliation. If discriminating against gay people is ok when those other things are not, then we are saying that gay people are second class citizens, and that is profoundly un-American. And un-Christian, to boot.

    In many cases, the decision to deny service comes after initial discussions and payments are made. If they openly stated their bigotry, by say...putting up a sign that said 'We don't bake cakes for queers. God told us not to' that would solve a lot of problems. Everyone who bought a cake from them would know they are discriminatory douchebags hiding behind religion to excuse their bigotry, no one of conscience would patronize them, and they could bake only godly, Jesus-centric cakes for straights, like the Bible intended.

    MANY of those bakers have been exposed as bigots by newspapers and journalists - and bloggers - calling and ordering cakes for divorce parties, witch gatherings, and other 'sinful' things and most of those bakers were fine with making those cakes. It was ONLY the gay wedding cakes they objected to, and thus, it isn't about artistic license, or inspiration. It is about bigotry against gay people, and using Jesus as an excuse to hide behind.

    That said, I would never want to force an artist to create art under duress. But I stand behind forcing businessmen to follow the laws, if they intend to stay in business. So...
    The Colorado situation is a bit more complex in that the baker didn't exclusively make wedding cakes, although these accounted for a good chunk (not 50 percent, but close) of his business. He would be a willing to make cakes for gay people that weren't about wedding; He wouldn't make a cake for Steve & Dave's wedding, but he would make a cake for Steve passing the bar exam.

    We all agree that businessmen should be forced to follow just laws; the questions come to the merits of the specific law, as well as when a businessman is no longer an artist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zetsubou View Post
    Religious bigotry is a problem especially in a society of multiple religions. I am living in a society of different faiths and am already used to the sloppiness of religious tolerance.

    But a professional businessman must learn to never mix business with religion or politics. When Ben & Jerry ice cream company publicly supported the Black Lives Matter movement, the police unions boycotted Ben & Jerry's products.
    Is the decision to never mix business with religion or politics a suggestion or a law? Ben & Jerry facing a boycott is based on customer response, rather than any legal repercussions.

  3. #138
    Astonishing Member Tuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    2,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    It was ONLY the gay wedding cakes they objected to, and thus, it isn't about artistic license, or inspiration. It is about bigotry against gay people, and using Jesus as an excuse to hide behind.
    He won't bake cakes for Halloween either. While the issue was in court (or I guess it still might be), he stopped making wedding cakes altogether, at significant detriment to his livelihood.

    Another shop offered to bake the cake as soon as the story made the news. But no one was ever actually looking to get a cake there, as the guy was being used to create a test case in the first place. This is different than the issue of minorities not being served in the south in the 60s, because it's not the south in the 60s. A black customer who was turned away from lodging or a restaurant in the south in the 60s likely would find themselves with no options. A gay couple who can't buy a wedding cake from Baker A is going to have little trouble buying the cake from multiple competitors in the same market in the 21st century.

    The Civil Rights Act was always about liberal values coming to loggerheads with themselves. Which way to bend is contextual, not evergreen.

    If you recall, the court punted on the case by throwing it out on the grounds that the local body (don't recall what it was called) actually insulted the man's religious beliefs in its decision.

  4. #139
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    15,062

    Default

    It was interesting to see Kelly Ann on Meet the Press today. She supposedly was there to talk about the president's immigration policies, but kept trying to pivot to Omar. I appreciate that Chuck Todd was like, "I know what you're trying to do here, let's get back to the subject."

  5. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    Cool that you were ONLY referring to the last three years for your point about assassinations and attempts, whereas I was referring to a history full of this sort of thing and a prevalence for 'social justice warriors' to get shot for daring to try to change the world for the better. As you damn well know.

    1: This is about the bakers breaking the law. Period. When they did it, and whether those who denied wedding cakes to gay people in the 80's should have faced repurcussions or not (because gay people getting married and trying to buy wedding cakes openly in the 80's was such a big deal...) is not the point. The point is, the law is what it is, and these ignorant bigots are trying to get away with breaking said law TODAY, and hiding behind 'religious freedom' as a justification for ignorant bigotry and law breaking.

    2: Mike Pence has along history of anti-gay and anti-trans legislature and statements. His wife works at a school where gay people cannot get jobs nor can they send their child go said school (not that anyone SHOULD, but still...). Their religion, in addition to teaching that Christianity must conquer all, tells (or told) them that gay people are sinners whose blood should be upon them. Their faith teaches (or taught) that AIDS was punishment for the sin of being gay. That trans people are rapists and child molesters who must be kept out of public bathrooms. That trans people are sick. That gay people can be cured via torture. Donald Trump has enacted an anti-trans military policy to appease his religious zealot core voter who rant and rave on radio and at the pulpit and on whatever news program that's stupid enough to give them a platform that gay people are the cause of all civilization collapses, that queer people destroy families, that gay people deserve to be stoned to death for their sin. So maybe they don't wear a t-shirt with a slogan, and thus, you don't take them seriously, but they ARE saying these things in churches around the country. And they ARE getting their operatives into offices of power where they can enact 'godly' solutions to the 'ungodly' problem of 'faggotry'. And your party turns a blind eye to it all because hey...the bigots vote Republican.

    3: What trade offs are you imagining? Do you think that 'treat women equally' means men will be treated less equally? Do you imagine that 'treat black people like their lives matter' means that somehow white lives will matter less? Does 'gay people are not evil, repulsive sinners worthy of death and hell' mean to you that straight people will be rounded up and put into concentration camps? Or is it about cost? Is it worrisome to you that the cost of equality might cut into the constant need for war? Or the corporate handouts your party loves so much? Are you worried that enforcing social justice measures might infringe on cops' rights to shoot brown people and claim later that they thought acomb was a gun? Or that said measures might force bigots to shut the fuck up and stop spouting filth and lies about people based on their ignorance and fear?

    4: And the risks involved cost significant amounts of money in the long run to fix/prevent/regulate/pay off/cover up. If ALL you care about is short term, immediate financial costs, then yeah, maybe nuclear is the best. But if you care about everything ELSE that comes with such risky energy, then maybe taking an initial hit to the wallet for a long term payoff that doesn't potentially create a toxic wasteland might be better for everyone...?

    5: Your question is monstrous. There's no wiggle room, Mets. "If climate change is so existential, why can't we force women to become broodmares?' is an EVIL hot take, man. ''If women REALLY wanted to curtail climate change, they wouldn't fight so hard to not have to give birth to their rapist's babies' is not a serious policy. 'If liberals are serious about climate change, they should support Republicans in their offer tos to cut 10% of coal emissions over 30 years in exchange for making the Handmaid's Tale a reality'? Seriously? Shame on you. Forcing women to be pregnant, to bear children they do not want, to raise those unwanted children in homes filled with resentment and fear, causes those women untold emotional damage as their prospects dwindle to 'housewife', 'baby factory', or 'welfare queen', not to mention the emotional toll on all those unwanted children. But hey, climate change isn't REALLY the problem those shiny liberals make it out to be, so let's go nuts and throw out an abjectly monstrous caricature of a policy discussion to prove how seriously we take both topics, right?

    ---

    As for immigration, you know how I feel. Borders are imaginary lines that a bunch of (mostly white, almost entirely rich) men arbitrarily decided on to make their financial investments better and ensure that their enemies financial situation worsened. Borders exist to promote xenophobia, not security. Borders exist to keep people out, not keep people safe. America was founded on the concept of immigration, of multiple cultures coming together and working together to make a better world. Lofty, I know, and impossible seeming. But the Republican interpretation of borders is a return to xenophobia over security. So I say fuck borders, let anyone who wants in get in. If it costs money, divert some from our obscene 'defense' budget. Or stop spending tax money rewarding CEO's for defrauding the public and their employees. Tax the churches that repeatedly try to influence elections.

    If an immigrant breaks the law once they are here, deport 'em. Jail 'em. Treat them like criminals for committing criminal act. Seeking a better life in a nation that PROMISED THAT FOR DECADES is not a criminal act, despite how racist Republicans like Steve King, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and the rest try to frame it.
    I understand the distinction between recent assassinations, and the history of it. My point is that this isn't a one-sided thing where the only victims are those fighting for left-wing causes shot for trying to make the world a better place. It's worth noting JFK was killed by a communist, Harvey Milk was killed by a former Democratic colleague, Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian (Christian) upset at his support for Israel, etc. This doesn't mean we should take assassination lightly. We all have to accept that people who hold different views should not be victims of violence, even if we think their views will contribute to people dying/ failing to reach their potential.

    1. The timeline of the law matters, since the argument started before the Supreme Court recognized gay marriage as a national right.

    2. You are going to need to quote Mike Pence or his acknowledged religious mentors if your argument is that he thinks gay people deserve to be stoned to death.

    3. I'm not arguing about treating people differently, but about efforts to get equal outcomes.

    4. I get the argument against nuclear power, but it does seem that the left's main opposition is to cheap energy. We can discuss what type of "hit to the wallet" is acceptable.

    5. If you're concerned about rape and abortion, you can make sure the grand compromise includes exceptions for rape, as well as incest and situations in which the mother's life is in danger/ the baby would have severe health problems.

    I know your position on immigration. My interest is in why you think elected Democrats aren't openly discussing theirs.

  6. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    You've aligned yourself with a liar, Mets, and it shows in your posts.

    -----
    "The Democrats want to have no borders. They want to get rid of ICE." -- Donald Trump

    "Despite President Donald Trump’s repeated claims, Democrats are not advocating open borders, not even the ones who are calling to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    The small minority of Democrats in Congress calling for the end of ICE have all said they would like to have many of ICE’s functions redistributed to other, existing government agencies. None has called for abandoning border enforcement.

    Trump has for years wrongly accused Democrats of wanting open borders, but he has stepped up the frequency of that attack line as Democrats in recent weeks criticized his “no tolerance” policy that resulted in family separations at the border, and as some Democrats began calling for the abolishment of ICE.

    Here’s what Trump said during a July 1 interview on Fox Business with Maria Bartiromo:

    "Trump, July 1: The Democrats want to have no borders. They want to get rid of ICE. … Between Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, and getting rid of ICE, and having open borders — and the biggest thing, you have open borders. All it’s going to do is lead to massive, massive crime. That’s going to be their platform, open borders, which equals crime. I think they’ll never win another election, so I’m actually quite happy about it."

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump frequently, and inaccurately, accused Hillary Clinton of supporting open borders. As we wrote then, Clinton supported the 2013 Senate immigration bill, the so-called Gang of Eight bill, which in addition to providing a path to earned citizenship for those then in the country illegally, would have included significant investments in border security. The bill would have doubled the number of border patrol agents along the Mexican border, added 350 miles of new fencing, and added a host of security and technologies to prevent illegal immigration.

    In fact, every Democrat in the Senate voted for the bill. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, cited that bill in a tweet responding to Trump’s repeated claims about Democratic support for open borders.

    -----

    Despite Trump’s claim that Democratic “‘leadership’ wants to denounce and abandon the great men and women of ICE” — as he put it in a July 2 tweet — the number of Democrats in Congress calling for the abolishment of ICE is relatively small. Only one member of the Senate or House Democratic leadership — Warren — is among them.

    Schumer, for example, says he does not agree with the calls to abolish ICE.

    “ICE does some functions that are very much needed,” Schumer said. “Reform ICE — yes. That’s what I think we should do.”

    Sean McElwee, a political data expert whom the San Francisco Chronicle credits with creating the #AbolishICE hashtag in February 2017, provided us with his running list of government officials who support abolishing ICE. Although growing, the list includes five incumbent members of the House: Pramila Jayapal, Jim McGovern, Earl Blumenauer, Nydia Velazquez and Pocan.

    And from the Senate, just Warren and Gillibrand. According to the Hill, Sen. Bernie Sanders has called for ICE to be examined, but not fully abolished.

    https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/
    I've asked these questions for months and haven't gotten an answer: Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?

    I didn't say every Democrat openly calls for abolishing ICE, just that it's the party of the people calling for it. And the elected officials calling for it face no repercussions for doing so, which suggests that for the leadership it is an acceptable position. If the leadership were against calls to abolish ICE, they would respond to anyone who openly holds that position with a fervor reserved for elected officials who turned out to wear blackface in 1980s yearbooks, as long as the next in line isn't accused of multiple counts of sexual assault.

  7. #142
    Extraordinary Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I understand the distinction between recent assassinations, and the history of it. My point is that this isn't a one-sided thing where the only victims are those fighting for left-wing causes shot for trying to make the world a better place. It's worth noting JFK was killed by a communist, Harvey Milk was killed by a former Democratic colleague, Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian (Christian) upset at his support for Israel, etc. This doesn't mean we should take assassination lightly. We all have to accept that people who hold different views should not be victims of violence, even if we think their views will contribute to people dying/ failing to reach their potential.

    1. The timeline of the law matters, since the argument started before the Supreme Court recognized gay marriage as a national right.

    2. You are going to need to quote Mike Pence or his acknowledged religious mentors if your argument is that he thinks gay people deserve to be stoned to death.

    3. I'm not arguing about treating people differently, but about efforts to get equal outcomes.

    4. I get the argument against nuclear power, but it does seem that the left's main opposition is to cheap energy. We can discuss what type of "hit to the wallet" is acceptable.

    5. If you're concerned about rape and abortion, you can make sure the grand compromise includes exceptions for rape, as well as incest and situations in which the mother's life is in danger/ the baby would have severe health problems.

    I know your position on immigration. My interest is in why you think elected Democrats aren't openly discussing theirs.
    The MAGA bomber made all his assassination attempts in the Trump era.
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  8. #143
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    15,062

    Default

    Despite how I feel about Mayor Rahm, I appreciate what he said about the president's "We're going to send all the immigrants to the Sanctuary cities!" Rahm was like, "Ok!"

  9. #144
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,831

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I've asked these questions for months and haven't gotten an answer: Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?

    I didn't say every Democrat openly calls for abolishing ICE, just that it's the party of the people calling for it.
    You use this false strawman as a standard defense when the issues of racism or children being separated from their families is brought up even though the factcheck clearly states that only a small minority of non-leadership members of the Democratic party have even brought it up -- just like your "slippery slope" nonsense about why Congress shouldn't see the Mueller Report when you know we deserve to know the truth about Russian interference in our election.

    Just like you use "immigration limits" as an excuse to claim Democrats are for "open borders" when you know that's a lie as well -- they are dishonest arguments based on misleading rhetoric rather than actual factual proof as I cited when pointing out issues within the Republican party.

    You'll do anything but just admit the truth about your lying, corrupt, racist, homophobic, islamophobic, warmongering, fiscally irresponsible party: you can't defend them on their record so -- just like Trump -- you have to exaggerate and make things up about "Democrats" ("open borders", "abolish ICE") to try to shift the argument away from the truth about the Republican party.
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 10:19 AM.

  10. #145
    BANNED
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    .

    We all agree that businessmen should be forced to follow just laws; the questions come to the merits of the specific law, as well as when a businessman is no longer an artist.

    Is the decision to never mix business with religion or politics a suggestion or a law? Ben & Jerry facing a boycott is based on customer response, rather than any legal repercussions.
    A suggestion. Using religion or politics is a bad business decision, even if most of your customers are straight people.


    But a baker might perceive that losing one or two gay customers does not affect his business.

  11. #146
    Incredible Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    I've asked these questions for months and haven't gotten an answer: Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?

    I didn't say every Democrat openly calls for abolishing ICE, just that it's the party of the people calling for it. And the elected officials calling for it face no repercussions for doing so, which suggests that for the leadership it is an acceptable position. If the leadership were against calls to abolish ICE, they would respond to anyone who openly holds that position with a fervor reserved for elected officials who turned out to wear blackface in 1980s yearbooks, as long as the next in line isn't accused of multiple counts of sexual assault.
    The question I have is does there need to be a limiting principle? After all, the process to get into the country is slow, be it through seeking asylum or seeking to immigrate for other, less urgent reasons. Reforming the process will only make these things faster, but still lengthy. What would be wrong with saying we let people in as fast as we can process them? I donít understand how racist quotas about how much we can take from individual countries is any better than that. I understand weíre tryinf to justify racist immigration policies that have been staples of this franchise of American politics for a long while but it isnít justified. We canít continue to state that there are certain TYPES of people we donít want. Should we apply additional scrutiny to hotbeds? Sure. But it has to be only additional scrutinyónot quota systems. I would like to see people actually defend these proposals instead of asking people demanding fair practice to justify their stance. It is high past time people that preach for unjust, unfair, and immoral policies are on the defensive about them. Just because it is the status quo doesnít mean that it is justifiable out of hand.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  12. #147
    Extraordinary Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    7,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    Latest Attacks On Ilhan Omar Show That Anti-Muslim Hate Isnít A Partisan Issue

    As members of the GOP perpetuate anti-Muslim harassment toward the congresswoman, Democratic leadership has been eerily silent. My take: Democrats never had to deal with a Muslim in that level of government and don't know how to handle Omar who so far, has refused to toe the party line. One thing's for certain, being tepid in their defense of Omar lends credence that Democrats are leaving her out to dry and be savaged by Republicans, and that's wrong. Meanwhile....

    **********

    Rashida Tlaib Slams Democrats For Silence On Trumpís Islamophobic Attacks On Ilhan Omar

    The Michigan congresswoman has a message for Democratic leaders: Donít celebrate diversity while ignoring Islamophobia. Good to know someone is defending Omar when Dems won't, which is just what Trump and Republicans want.

    **********

    Trump Declares ĎAbsolute Rightí To Send Undocumented Immigrants To Sanctuary Cities

    In a baseless tweet Saturday night, Trump ordered for undocumented immigrants to be moved for political retaliation. My take: Trump is hoping that all those imaginary rapists and killers he rants and raves about will wind up in sanctuary cities to raise hell so he can puff out his chest and boast about how he was right about the "evils" of illegal immigrants.

    **********

    Conservatives Are Trying To Claim Pete Buttigieg Isnít Actually A Christian

    Evangelical leaders want to discredit the kind of progressive Christianity that the Democratic mayor advocates. Lemme guess, those blatant hypocrites who openly support a two-time divorcee and known adulterer as president have their collective panties in a bunch because Mayor Pete is gay.

    **********

    Laura Ingraham Laughs, Jokes While Covering Nipsey Hussleís Funeral

    The Fox News host played a clip of YGís anti-Trump song that featured the late rapper. Disgusting bitch. I'll readily admit I never heard of Mr. Hussle until he had been gunned down, but for Ignoramus to make jokes at his expense is just plain evil, but predictable for the sort of scum who foul the airwaves on Faux News.
    Ingraham's initial reaction was probably, "Oh, that's sad. I always liked when he went on game shows and recited his cute poems," and then she found out that the story wasn't about who she thought it was.

  13. #148
    Extraordinary Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    7,344

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zinderel View Post
    Anyone who thinks nuclear energy is the solution hasn't been paying attention to the world in the last 75+ years or so. Between Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island and Fukushima (which as I understand is STILL affecting the planet thanks to the ocean taking the toxic waste and radiation from that horror show global thanks to currents) - not to mention Lake Karachay (where spending an hour could be enough to kill you) and Russia's rumored Endgame plans for that toxic waste dump - we have plenty of evidence that nuclear energy is too risky to put all our ducks in that basket. And that is without mentioning that all the nuke testing pre- and post- WW2 have affected global health in measurable ways...there is evidence that radiation in the atmosphere, and in the food and soil and water, due to those tests may be responsible for the global obesity epidemic. Or at least a contributing factor. Who knew that irradiating our food, water, air and soil might have side effects!? Goddamn liberals, ruining everything for good, honest, God-fearing Americans with their science and their 'consequences for actions'...

    I'm SURE that all of this is cheaper to deal with than shifting to wind/solar/hydro power.../s
    I'll believe that nuclear energy is safe when the area around Kiev, Ukraine is habitable for humans again, and not fodder for horror movies.

  14. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarman View Post
    The question I have is does there need to be a limiting principle? After all, the process to get into the country is slow, be it through seeking asylum or seeking to immigrate for other, less urgent reasons. Reforming the process will only make these things faster, but still lengthy. What would be wrong with saying we let people in as fast as we can process them? I don’t understand how racist quotas about how much we can take from individual countries is any better than that. I understand we’re tryinf to justify racist immigration policies that have been staples of this franchise of American politics for a long while but it isn’t justified. We can’t continue to state that there are certain TYPES of people we don’t want. Should we apply additional scrutiny to hotbeds? Sure. But it has to be only additional scrutiny—not quota systems. I would like to see people actually defend these proposals instead of asking people demanding fair practice to justify their stance. It is high past time people that preach for unjust, unfair, and immoral policies are on the defensive about them. Just because it is the status quo doesn’t mean that it is justifiable out of hand.
    The term for an immigration system without a limiting principle is called open borders. There are intelligent people making that argument.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/o...migration.html

    https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/613590...iew-gdp-double

    I can debate the merits of it, and have given thoughts on it in the past. My point isn't about that, as much as it is the Democratic party's expressed position on limits to legal immigration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    I'll believe that nuclear energy is safe when the area around Kiev, Ukraine is habitable for humans again, and not fodder for horror movies.
    There are plenty of arguments that nuclear power has gotten significantly safer over the last few generations.

    https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/

    https://theconversation.com/nuclear-...eres-why-62207

    But if climate change were an existential threat, nuclear power would be a tremendous boon to mankind even if it were guarantee that fifty million people an year would die terribly.

  15. #150
    Incredible Member TheDarman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The term for an immigration system without a limiting principle is called open borders. There are intelligent people making that argument.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/o...migration.html

    https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/613590...iew-gdp-double

    I can debate the merits of it, and have given thoughts on it in the past. My point isn't about that, as much as it is the Democratic party's expressed position on limits to legal immigration.
    I think it is a little irresponsible to use the term “open borders” to describe a policy that already has a limiting mechanism. I mean, we could provide a principle but that seems counterproductive to our value system. If the effect is not so different from a policy with a principle as it is without it, it ends up being a difference without a distinction. When people think of “open borders”, they see a policy without any limit, either mechanical or otherwise. To say that a policy that simply doesn’t put down quotas is equal to the policy that has no limit seems to be irresponsible framing of the debate.
    With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posting Permissions

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