Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tiruin]

"Hey, you're at risk of losing all of your rights against discrimination based on your sexuality and the US might be falling back several decades in its gay-policies? Grow a fucking pair, dude!"

That's not all or what he's saying or what he's even saying, and part of it comes from frustration. So *bop*. No, Dozebôm. Guidance is always better than authoritarian 'get over it' themed crude commentary. And miscommunication won't help that, even if reframing the idea may give a point of reference in a way.

I'm frustrated too after talking with people who have actually said what I paraphrased. So I was perhaps too hasty to demonize him, sorry.

What is he saying anyway? That he's annoyed by the "I AM OFFENDED!" people? Yeah, those people are annoying.

(And how was I authoritarian?)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I was referencing the idea of 'grow a pair' or something as authoritarian. It's usually something said when frustrated though. Not you. I'm just REALLY REALLY tired due to thesis works lately so my words are a bit jumbled in their structure. And he's usually referring to the feeling of being targeted or such, because of what seems to be an in-group/out-group dissonance in the feeling of statements and words. It's not what's occurring here but that's a usual feeling that happens which is best alleviated with communication alongside other people, especially the people who seem like they're fighting you or anything on that theme (they're not, in this thread).

Though I am confused too in what he's saying because his statements to me are...taken more from a context that I'm not in and stuff like that. But that goes with specificity--I've no idea who he's referring to when 'people' are mentioned about several points of frustration in his post. I hope he's alright though, because it seems like I've unintentionally aggravated him

Just found this:
Trump asks 'Hamilton' cast who 'harassed' Mike Pence to apologize.

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

D-did Trump just ask for a "safe space"? Is this the real life?

Or is it just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide election
Can't escape electoral college reality

Side note: It's always hilarious when conservatives adopt liberal concepts they have previously derided.   In this case, it's especially amusingly hypocritical.

Pointing it out to them will only result in blathering offended nonsense, sadly.

Woah, Twitter accounts and the like. o_O
Isn't there a clause of separation of church and state--which duly applies to Pence enacting his ideas regarding 'religion' in that context towards people? Since 'religion' can also be, and pretty much generally is, towards the benefit towards everyone regardless of physical or superficial characteristics like skin color or gender or whatever, and rather a lot less on fundamentalism or limitation of marriage or stuff? Coming from what is internationally mentioned about Pence anyway.

[Max™]

Just found this:
Trump asks 'Hamilton' cast who 'harassed' Mike Pence to apologize.

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

D-did Trump just ask for a "safe space"? Is this the real life?

Or is it just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide election
Can't escape electoral college reality

Side note: It's always hilarious when conservatives adopt liberal concepts they have previously derided.   In this case, it's especially amusingly hypocritical.

Pointing it out to them will only result in blathering offended nonsense, sadly.

Also, anybody who feels like taking the Time influential whatever poll, check and make sure what you click is what it actually registers.

The first time it happened, much to my amusement, was Clinton. I clicked no, the No bar was highlighted, but it filled up the Yes bar and moved to the next one. This happened a few more times.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://time.com/4570237/person-of-the-year-poll-2016/

I voted no for everyone but the Khans and CRISPR folks, it flipped my vote on several but when I cleared the cookies and noscript permissions to reload it has them shown properly except Clinton, I have no clue which one was actually recorded though.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Isn't there a clause of separation of church and state--which duly applies to Pence enacting his ideas regarding 'religion' in that context towards people?

Unfortunately, the Establishment Clause and related jurisprudence is only as powerful as the people in government choosing to respect it. Trump has shown willingness to discard it, Pence is outright any enemy of it and wants a Christian state, and Congress. God, Congress. They're separated by about that same distance, too.

Since 'religion' can also be, and pretty much generally is, towards the benefit towards everyone regardless of physical or superficial characteristics like skin color or gender or whatever, and rather a lot less on fundamentalism or limitation of marriage or stuff?

Is this a joke? Practically every shitty idea in American politics is justified by "God wills it". Or at least it was, I don't know what the hell is going through the minds of the committed secular right anymore. There's nothing universalizing about religion other than its commitment to spreading.

[smjjames]

In what context? Yes, there is a clause for separation of church and state, but it's fuzzy around the edges. Mainly it's just having the Church not being directly involved in government affairs. And also porous, like spongy porous.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

In what context? Yes, there is a clause for separation of church and state, but it's fuzzy around the edges. Mainly it's just having the Church not being directly involved in government affairs. And also porous, like spongy porous.

Erm, there's "no state religion" for starters. What if it was forbidden to eat pork in the US? Would that be a violation?

[Max™]

Wait, checked on the missus' computer, it was my color scheme screwing over the bars (they load as fully grey on my colors instead of the red/grey with the inferior color scheme Time uses), but it still doesn't explain the Hillary flip.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

In what context? Yes, there is a clause for separation of church and state, but it's fuzzy around the edges. Mainly it's just having the Church not being directly involved in government affairs. And also porous, like spongy porous.

That is definitely not true. Nothing about law is ever so simple. Many of the people in government believe in enforcing religiously-tasked agendas without the name tag on, that doesn't mean they aren't violations.

[smjjames]

Isn't there a clause of separation of church and state--which duly applies to Pence enacting his ideas regarding 'religion' in that context towards people?

Unfortunately, the Establishment Clause and related jurisprudence is only as powerful as the people in government choosing to respect it. Trump has shown willingness to discard it, Pence is outright any enemy of it and wants a Christian state, and Congress. God, Congress. They're separated by about that same distance, too.

Since 'religion' can also be, and pretty much generally is, towards the benefit towards everyone regardless of physical or superficial characteristics like skin color or gender or whatever, and rather a lot less on fundamentalism or limitation of marriage or stuff?

Is this a joke? Practically every shitty idea in American politics is justified by "God wills it". Or at least it was, I don't know what the hell is going through the minds of the committed secular right anymore. There's nothing universalizing about religion other than its commitment to spreading.

I don't think Trump actually cares about religion (unless it's Mammon or Baal or one of those gods of money/greed) and is willing to use it to his own ends.

In what context? Yes, there is a clause for separation of church and state, but it's fuzzy around the edges. Mainly it's just having the Church not being directly involved in government affairs. And also porous, like spongy porous.

Erm, there's "no state religion" for starters. What if it was forbidden to eat pork in the US? Would that be a violation?

Pfft, do you think the Republicans, bastions of 'get government the bleep outta my life', would do that? Let alone their consistuencies allowing it. Also, the farm lobby.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, there are still people in the Republican party who think the states should be allowed to decide if you can be imprisoned for having sex with someone who has the same equipment as you, so. Their "small government" shtick is a bunch of rhetorical bullshit to justify cutting whatever they feel like.

[smjjames]

Doze's pork example was probably a poor example though for what he was trying to say.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Isn't there a clause of separation of church and state--which duly applies to Pence enacting his ideas regarding 'religion' in that context towards people?

Unfortunately, the Establishment Clause and related jurisprudence is only as powerful as the people in government choosing to respect it. Trump has shown willingness to discard it, Pence is outright any enemy of it and wants a Christian state, and Congress. God, Congress. They're separated by about that same distance, too.

Since 'religion' can also be, and pretty much generally is, towards the benefit towards everyone regardless of physical or superficial characteristics like skin color or gender or whatever, and rather a lot less on fundamentalism or limitation of marriage or stuff?

Is this a joke? Practically every shitty idea in American politics is justified by "God wills it". Or at least it was, I don't know what the hell is going through the minds of the committed secular right anymore. There's nothing universalizing about religion other than its commitment to spreading.

I don't think Trump actually cares about religion (unless it's Mammon or Baal or one of those gods of money/greed) and is willing to use it to his own ends.

In what context? Yes, there is a clause for separation of church and state, but it's fuzzy around the edges. Mainly it's just having the Church not being directly involved in government affairs. And also porous, like spongy porous.

Erm, there's "no state religion" for starters. What if it was forbidden to eat pork in the US? Would that be a violation?

Pfft, do you think the Republicans, bastions of 'get government the bleep outta my life', would do that? Let alone their consistuencies allowing it. Also, the farm lobby.

Unless you're gay, or pregnant, or...

also MSH is a ninja

[TheBiggerFish]

Just found this:
Trump asks 'Hamilton' cast who 'harassed' Mike Pence to apologize.

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

D-did Trump just ask for a "safe space"? Is this the real life?

What

The heck

2016.

[Blaze]

As someone who works in a service industry (meaning all of them), it could be considered unprofessional to single out one of your guests/customers; whatever your intentions. They might have had good intentions, but maybe he was just there for a relatively quiet show (in the figurative sense).

Nevertheless, that's still an interesting choice of words from Trump.

[Rockphed]

So, if your situation is going to go back 40 years because of the orange one, blame Obama for not getting those things codified into law when he had a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a majority in the house.

As far as I'm aware, this was never. Unless I'm mistaken the the most power the democrats have had in government for 20 years was 111th Congress where they had both parts of congress with a not quite filibuster proof coalition in the Senate and the White House, a period of two years during which you're essentially saying that they should have solved every issue in the US that'd been addressed over the past eight years. I suppose, in a way, you're right, not trying to jam though more laws over this time probably turned out to be a mistake, although these were the first two years of Obamas presidency, I don't think he (I certainly didn't) expected as much obstructionism as we have learned is now the new normal.

You are, indeed, mistaken.  From July 7th 2009 to August 25th 2009 and from September 25 2009 to Feb 10 2010, the democrats had 58 senators plus two independents who caucused with the democrats.  No, it didn't last 2 years, but they could have pushed through simple legislation designed to do what you are afraid Trump will destroy if they had only had the will to do so.  The reason Obamacare was passed with reconciliation was because Scott Brown, a republican, was elected as Senator from Massachusetts with the express promise to be the 41st vote to filibuster Obamacare.  Note that in both houses, not one Republican voted for Obamacare.

In what context? Yes, there is a clause for separation of church and state, but it's fuzzy around the edges. Mainly it's just having the Church not being directly involved in government affairs. And also porous, like spongy porous.

Actually, the line is only one way, in the opposite direction you are stating.  The 1st amendment says that the government cannot set up a state religion and that it cannot outlaw the practice of religion.  It says nothing at all about religions meddling in the government.

[Frumple]

Though last I paid attention legal precedent has been fairly consistent about allowing the latter being de facto setting up a state religion, which counts so far as the restriction goes. Line goes both ways by nature of one way necessitating the other, more or less.

Of course, that's fairly regularly attacked in attempts to undermine the situation as is, but that's the religious right for yeh.