2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

3,751 to 3,800 of 7,079 << first < prev | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | next > last >>

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to take your guns.

Dont frisk me bro!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

All I can say is if I acted like that in warzone I would be spending many years in Leavenworth and rightly so.

Yet with police deaths and crime in general at an aall time low somehow police are under seige and responding as if everyone owes them obedience and their first duty is to come home alive.

It is personally offensive to me on a professional level.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I find Cruz's policies to be completely odious, but still, I felt a weird sense of admiration for him refusing to endorse Trump at the RNC. Thankfully, I no longer feel that conflict.

(I guess Cruz's immune system rejected the spine graft after all.)

Liberty's Edge

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Chest cameras seem to have a high failure rate at stressful moments.

Yep, but the proliferation of cameras will continue to grow. The day is coming when police camera feeds will be transmitted back to a command center and monitored in real time... so they'll always know when a camera is off or an officer is in a high stress situation.

On the other side, the spread of cell phone videos will be nothing compared to when 'passive recording' becomes accepted. Think about all the times you have seen something you wanted a photo or video of, but by the time you got your cell phone it was gone. That's how something like GoPro or Google Glass will eventually achieve mass acceptance... automatically recording everything you look at and then deleting it after an hour or so... unless you specify to keep it. People want more videos of their cats doing crazy things... the technology WILL come to pass.

Police and prosecutors are still failing to hold officers accountable to the same laws as citizens in many cases... but not as many as they used to. Some have been prosecuted and convicted for their crimes. More and more that will become the norm as video evidence becomes more and more common. Eventually the culture will change to adapt to this new reality and we'll have a better police force.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

I find Cruz's policies to be completely odious, but still, I felt a weird sense of admiration for him refusing to endorse Trump at the RNC. Thankfully, I no longer feel that conflict.

(I guess Cruz's immune system rejected the spine graft after all.)

It must have been a graft, he obviously didn't grow one of his own. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

I find Cruz's policies to be completely odious, but still, I felt a weird sense of admiration for him refusing to endorse Trump at the RNC. Thankfully, I no longer feel that conflict.

(I guess Cruz's immune system rejected the spine graft after all.)

It must have been a graft, he obviously didn't grow one of his own. :)

Have you ever seen the "Dark Harvest" episode of Invader Zim?

"You shpeak craziness, Earth boy! More organsh meansh more human."


Don't even recognize the name, but don't hold my age and lack of hipness against me, okay?


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to take your guns.

Oh good, because Stop and Frisk was just such a great idea...


Hitdice wrote:
Don't even recognize the name, but don't hold my age and lack of hipness against me, okay?

If you're in the U.S., you can watch it on Hulu. "Dark Harvest" is the second half of season 1, episode 4. If you like twisted demented cartoons, you'll likely enjoy the whole series.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Chest cameras seem to have a high failure rate at stressful moments.

Oddly enough, we are aware of that, which is why several proposals have been suggested in the past fifty posts that would provide negative consequences to cops and departments with failure-prone cameras.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to take your guns.
Oh good, because Stop and Frisk was just such a great idea...

I appreciate the sarcasm you deployed there, Cap'n Battletoad. :)

For the record (for whomever cares): Stop and Frisk is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to take your guns.
Oh good, because Stop and Frisk was just such a great idea...

I appreciate the sarcasm you deployed there, Cap'n Battletoad. :)

For the record (for whomever cares): Stop and Frisk is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Yeah, but Stop and Frisk applies to urban criminals and thus won't affect the good real Americans who vote on gun issues.

As usual, Trump's being more blatant than most, but this doesn't register as "gun grabber" to most who care about such things.


thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to take your guns.
Oh good, because Stop and Frisk was just such a great idea...

I appreciate the sarcasm you deployed there, Cap'n Battletoad. :)

For the record (for whomever cares): Stop and Frisk is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Yeah, but Stop and Frisk applies to urban criminals and thus won't affect the good real Americans who vote on gun issues.

As usual, Trump's being more blatant than most, but this doesn't register as "gun grabber" to most who care about such things.

Actually Stop and Frisk would be pretty strongly opposed by people for whom gun rights are an issue, for two reasons: 1) the anti-gun-grabber mentality lends itself well to opposing individual liberty infringements of this kind (notice that I'm referring specifically to this kind, and not across the board) and 2) It's a policy from New York, which along with California is axiomatically opposed in alignment to gun-rights supporters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Actually Stop and Frisk would be pretty strongly opposed by people for whom gun rights are an issue,

This is demonstrably counterfactual. The NRA, which pretty much defines "people for whom gun rights are an issue," has never taken a position against stop-and-frisk policing. Not now, not while the lawsuit was happening, and not while it was official New York City police doctrine.

And in particular, the NRA has not bothered to take a position against either Trumps' endorsement of stop-and-frisk now, nor has it bothered to take a position against his suggestion that someone stopped and frisked should have their weapons confiscated (as pointed out, without due process and in violation of the Second Amendment).

Or, more tersely, no. It not only wouldn't be, but it hasn't been.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to take your guns.
Oh good, because Stop and Frisk was just such a great idea...

I appreciate the sarcasm you deployed there, Cap'n Battletoad. :)

For the record (for whomever cares): Stop and Frisk is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Yeah, but Stop and Frisk applies to urban criminals and thus won't affect the good real Americans who vote on gun issues.

As usual, Trump's being more blatant than most, but this doesn't register as "gun grabber" to most who care about such things.

Actually Stop and Frisk would be pretty strongly opposed by people for whom gun rights are an issue, for two reasons: 1) the anti-gun-grabber mentality lends itself well to opposing individual liberty infringements of this kind (notice that I'm referring specifically to this kind, and not across the board) and 2) It's a policy from New York, which along with California is axiomatically opposed in alignment to gun-rights supporters.

So, I take it that Stop and Frisk is actually opposed by such people? I haven't really seen the gun rights groups speaking out against it.

Gun rights people tend to be tough on crime people as well. (note the "tend", there are certainly exceptions.)

They'd be opposed to it, if they thought it would apply to them, but the framing around Stop and Frisk doesn't lend itself to that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

So, I take it that Stop and Frisk is actually opposed by such people? I haven't really seen the gun rights groups speaking out against it.

There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usually see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.) That's one reason, for example, that the idea that noncitizens have constitutional rights is controversial in some circles -- that, and the fact that it costs money to educate immigrant children that could be saved by simply throwing them out of the public schools.

The idea that constitutional rights only apply to whites has an equally long pedigree. Even when the actual law has changed (or case law has changed), that doesn't actually change people opinions. Similarly, religious freedom seems only to apply to Christians, and sometimes to Jews. A number of cities/counties have refused to allow mosques to be constructed, while allowing local Christian communities to build all the churches they want..... (See also here.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:


There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)

There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)
There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.

That's slightly different, as the courts have recognized. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you either a soapbox or an audience, nor does it guarantee you freedom from consequences for your speech.

Similarly, freedom of the press only applies to people who actually have presses of their own; you can't force the New York Times (or even Paizo) to publish something that they don't want to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)
There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.

Feel free to talk smack about the evils of liberalism. Expect argument. :)

I do find it interesting that you lump "Christianity" and "conservatism" together with "misogyny". Are you saying there's a connection? Or just that they're things leftists talk smack about?

As for Christianity, I believe most liberals in the US are Christian. Though they tend to be of different branches than conservatives.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)
There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.

That's slightly different, as the courts have recognized. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you either a soapbox or an audience, nor does it guarantee you freedom from consequences for your speech.

Similarly, freedom of the press only applies to people who actually have presses of their own; you can't force the New York Times (or even Paizo) to publish something that they don't want to.

insert xkcd "here's the door" comic here

this should be entertaining.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)
There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.

That's slightly different, as the courts have recognized. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you either a soapbox or an audience, nor does it guarantee you freedom from consequences for your speech.

Similarly, freedom of the press only applies to people who actually have presses of their own; you can't force the New York Times (or even Paizo) to publish something that they don't want to.

insert xkcd "here's the door" comic here

this should be entertaining.

Make sure to read the hover text as well, people.

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant.... O. Quest


Way to go Tim Kaine. Let's dismiss the Challenge Accepted crowd. facepalm

Get out the vote works. Don't let half your registered voters sit on their butts. Your opponent isn't going to.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)
There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.

That's slightly different, as the courts have recognized. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you either a soapbox or an audience, nor does it guarantee you freedom from consequences for your speech.

Similarly, freedom of the press only applies to people who actually have presses of their own; you can't force the New York Times (or even Paizo) to publish something that they don't want to.

insert xkcd "here's the door" comic here

this should be entertaining.

Make sure to read the hover text as well, people.

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant.... O. Quest

The nice thing about freedom of speech is that it isn't picky. ;)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So, I take it that Stop and Frisk is actually opposed by such people? I haven't really seen the gun rights groups speaking out against it.

There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usually see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.) That's one reason, for example, that the idea that noncitizens have constitutional rights is controversial in some circles -- that, and the fact that it costs money to educate immigrant children that could be saved by simply throwing them out of the public schools.

The idea that constitutional rights only apply to whites has an equally long pedigree. Even when the actual law has changed (or case law has changed), that doesn't actually change people opinions. Similarly, religious freedom seems only to apply to Christians, and sometimes to Jews. A number of cities/counties have refused to allow mosques to be constructed, while allowing local Christian communities to build all the churches they want..... (See also here.)

I recall a few years ago a few cases of Muslim objection in the work place. One was about handling pork products as a cashier at grocery stores, and another about providing taxi service to people with alcohol. Basically, Muslims wanted to be exempt from those things due to their religious freedom. The overwhelming response was "this is America so shut up, bag my groceries, and drive me home." Well now that some Christians have an issue with gay marriage, they dont like being told "this is America so shut up, bake my cake, and take my wedding photos."


Turin the Mad wrote:

Way to go Tim Kaine. Let's dismiss the Challenge Accepted crowd. facepalm

Get out the vote works. Don't let half your registered voters sit on their butts. Your opponent isn't going to.

I'm not sure what you're saying. What you think Kaine did wrong, if that's what you think.

Who the "Challenge Accepted crowd" is, for that matter.

He's right. The Libertarians aren't going to win. Convincing people that voting for them is throwing your vote away is a get out the vote tactic.

From everything I know, the Democrats have a far larger and more organized GOTV campaign than the Republicans - more offices, more staff, better data.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I do find it interesting that you lump "Christianity" and "conservatism" together with "misogyny". Are you saying there's a connection? Or just that they're things leftists talk smack about?

Just things that leftists often talk smack about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

Way to go Tim Kaine. Let's dismiss the Challenge Accepted crowd. facepalm

Get out the vote works. Don't let half your registered voters sit on their butts. Your opponent isn't going to.

I'm not sure what you're saying. What you think Kaine did wrong, if that's what you think.

Who the "Challenge Accepted crowd" is, for that matter.

He's right. The Libertarians aren't going to win. Convincing people that voting for them is throwing your vote away is a get out the vote tactic.

From everything I know, the Democrats have a far larger and more organized GOTV campaign than the Republicans - more offices, more staff, better data.

He comes across as dismissive in the "you don't matter" tone that sent Trump all the way to the nomination while providing hefty amount of the steam behind Bernie Sander's campaign.

"[We] can't win, eh? Challenge accepted."

Is it likely that the Libertarian ticket will win? No, it isn't. Is it impossible for them to win? No it isn't. Unlikely, even incredibly unlikely, is not the same thing as impossible.

Blaming votes for candidates other than the primary opponent is based in false logic, to me. Such votes are not the same thing as a vote for that candidate. They votes went where they went. Blame the rest of your own party that didn't get off their butts and vote. There are tens of millions who don't vote, they're just as much to 'blame' as those who did.

Or the losing campaigns could suck on that bitter lollipop of defeat, figure out what went wrong and do better the next time, in the mid-terms, etc.

RE: GOP's apparent, utter lack of GOTV, I'm surprised. But then, locally speaking, the most we see is a mailbox full of expensive kindling with rare exception.


Turin the Mad wrote:


Is it likely that the Libertarian ticket will win? No, it isn't. Is it impossible for them to win? No it isn't. Unlikely, even incredibly unlikely, is not the same thing as impossible.

Formally, no. Rationally, yes, it is.

If you were in debt to the tune of $50,000 [and had only $500 to your name] and you asked me for financial advice, my advice would NOT be to head to the local roulette wheel. While it's not formally impossible to turn $500 into $50,000 at the table, the odds against it make it a practical non-starter. And the overwhelmingly more likely outcome will put you in a worse position than simply staying the hell out of the casino would.

For people who prefer the Libertarians to Trump, but Trump to Clinton, voting Libertarian is roughly the same situation. While it's not formally impossible for the Libertarian candidate to win, the odds against it are actually substantially lower than your chances of winning a hundredfold at roulette.

So you've got one chance in 1000 (about) of improving your situation, and 999 chances out of that same thousand of making the situation marginally worse by depriving Trump of your support in a very close race with Clinton.

Of course, I say that who shouldn't. If you prefer Trump to Clinton, then by all means, vote for Johnson, Stein, or Harry the Hamster. Anyone to deprive Trump of your marginal support.


When the message is "vote doesn't matter anyway", why not spin that wheel? ;)


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:


Is it likely that the Libertarian ticket will win? No, it isn't. Is it impossible for them to win? No it isn't. Unlikely, even incredibly unlikely, is not the same thing as impossible.

Formally, no. Rationally, yes, it is.

If you were in debt to the tune of $50,000 [and had only $500 to your name] and you asked me for financial advice, my advice would NOT be to head to the local roulette wheel. While it's not formally impossible to turn $500 into $50,000 at the table, the odds against it make it a practical non-starter. And the overwhelmingly more likely outcome will put you in a worse position than simply staying the hell out of the casino would.

For people who prefer the Libertarians to Trump, but Trump to Clinton, voting Libertarian is roughly the same situation. While it's not formally impossible for the Libertarian candidate to win, the odds against it are actually substantially lower than your chances of winning a hundredfold at roulette.

So you've got one chance in 1000 (about) of improving your situation, and 999 chances out of that same thousand of making the situation marginally worse by depriving Trump of your support in a very close race with Clinton.

Of course, I say that who shouldn't. If you prefer Trump to Clinton, then by all means, vote for Johnson, Stein, or Harry the Hamster. Anyone to deprive Trump of your marginal support.

Holy Bejeezus Orf, electionbettingodds has quicker refresh than 538. :)


Turin the Mad wrote:

"[We] can't win, eh? Challenge accepted."

Is it likely that the Libertarian ticket will win? No, it isn't. Is it impossible for them to win? No it isn't. Unlikely, even incredibly unlikely, is not the same thing as impossible.

It's also not impossible for me to win. Millions of people could spontaneously decide to write my name in the ballot.

But it's not going to happen.

Turin the Mad wrote:
RE: GOP's apparent, utter lack of GOTV, I'm surprised. But then, locally speaking, the most we see is a mailbox full of expensive kindling with rare exception.

Trump isn't interested in running an actual campaign. He's running a media campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
When the message is "vote doesn't matter anyway", why not spin that wheel? ;)

Because that's not the message. It's not what he said.

Kaine wrote:
Casting a vote, a protest vote, for a third-party candidate that's going to lose may well affect the outcome. It may well lead to a consequence that is deeply, deeply troubling.

The message is: Your vote matters, that's why you shouldn't waste it.


Religious Building Sidebar

What if?:
This is a somewhat radical idea that I have come to embrace over the last several years, particularly in reference to Christianity: what if we got rid of the "church" buildings altogether? If one examines the New Testament, there's never a mention of a dedicated building for worship, other than the use of the preexisting structure of the temple in Jerusalem. If the church is, indeed, more the membership than the structure (or entirely so, as I believe personally), what, then, necessitates the existence of these buildings?

This suggestion is twofold in origin:

1) If the first century Christians didn't need them, why would 21st-century Christians need them?
2) I am of the unpopular opinion, according to the majority opinion in my local fellowship, that the sense of entitlement "Christianity" has appropriated, especially in this nation, is more than a bit unfortunate, perhaps to the point of even working against some of the basic claims of the faith.

But, anyway, back to the general topic.

1) Go vote!
2) Don't shoot at me, and I won't shoot you back!
3) Maintain the 4th.

4) We need our police to not be so scared; why haven't we sufficiently developed/disseminated high impact nonlethal instruments that might have prevented some of these deaths, as in Tulsa and Charlotte? Sure, escalation is a thing, but I think that more versatile nonlethals could be developed and applied in these situations. Meh. Idealism.


And in things our President apparently won't have to deal with, Colombia's decades-old civil war is over. So that's good.

Silver Crusade

Pan, Muslim Taxi Drivers cannot refuse to give rides to blind or disabled people with service animals because this violates the Americans with disabilities act and transportation of booze more than likely be covered under the interstate commence clause. As far as Christians not wanting to participate in a gay marriage ceremony because it goes against their convictions are completely things. The gay couples can go to any number of different bakers or photographers that would be happy to take their money and leave the christian's that do not want to use their art to take place in a ceremony that goes against their Religious convictions alone with out being hounded by leftists in government that want to force their view point on everyone else.

Pan do you think a Music groups should be forced by the courts to let anyone use their music [as long a royalties are paid] by someone with a different Political view point than the group? How is this different than Christian backers or Photographers being forced to serve someone they do not wish to serve.

If a Muslim wants to work in the grocery industry they should understand at the time of hire that they will have too handle non halal foods unless they work in a Halal grocery store.


In other news; I apparently can make brownies but not discuss politics because my brain hurts when I try.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?


Irontruth wrote:
Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?

If they can make a religious argument for doing so, they can certainly try. Have to invent a new Bible for doing that, though. It'd be a HARD sell in New Jersey, either way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:

Pan, Muslim Taxi Drivers cannot refuse to give rides to blind or disabled people with service animals because this violates the Americans with disabilities act and transportation of booze more than likely be covered under the interstate commence clause. As far as Christians not wanting to participate in a gay marriage ceremony because it goes against their convictions are completely things. The gay couples can go to any number of different bakers or photographers that would be happy to take their money and leave the christian's that do not want to use their art to take place in a ceremony that goes against their Religious convictions alone with out being hounded by leftists in government that want to force their view point on everyone else.

Pan do you think a Music groups should be forced by the courts to let anyone use their music [as long a royalties are paid] by someone with a different Political view point than the group? How is this different than Christian backers or Photographers being forced to serve someone they do not wish to serve.

If a Muslim wants to work in the grocery industry they should understand at the time of hire that they will have too handle non halal foods unless they work in a Halal grocery store.

Ever live in a small town? Not every city is awash with bakers and photographers.

Dark Archive

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)
There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.

That's slightly different, as the courts have recognized. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you either a soapbox or an audience, nor does it guarantee you freedom from consequences for your speech.

Similarly, freedom of the press only applies to people who actually have presses of their own; you can't force the New York Times (or even Paizo) to publish something that they don't want to.

insert xkcd "here's the door" comic here

this should be entertaining.

Make sure to read the hover text as well, people.

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant.... O. Quest

So are you calling him an A#@H&$%?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?

I prefer to refuse to bake for people that don't like brownies. :p


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NenkotaMoon wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)
There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.

That's slightly different, as the courts have recognized. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you either a soapbox or an audience, nor does it guarantee you freedom from consequences for your speech.

Similarly, freedom of the press only applies to people who actually have presses of their own; you can't force the New York Times (or even Paizo) to publish something that they don't want to.

insert xkcd "here's the door" comic here

this should be entertaining.

Make sure to read the hover text as well, people.

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant.... O. Quest

So are you calling him an A#@H&$%?

Is that really what you took away from that exchange?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?

Can homosexual bakers refuse to bake cakes for Christian weddings?

Spoiler:
no


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Craig Bonham 141 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)
There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.

Did I miss something, or has nobody actually tried to force you to shut up? Because that is the only part where freedom of speech is relevant (I am referring to the general concept, not the specific legal right, because as per the XKCD comic the legal right only applies to the Government).

In short, you have the right to say what you want no matter how terrible it is, so long as you don't break any laws. You can even say completely bat&%$# insane things like that...just to pick a really silly example...that Hitler was right. It is your right to say that.

And if you do say that then I have the right to tell you that you are a terrible person. That is my right to freedom of speech.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
When the message is "vote doesn't matter anyway", why not spin that wheel? ;)

Because that's not the message. It's not what he said.

Kaine wrote:
Casting a vote, a protest vote, for a third-party candidate that's going to lose may well affect the outcome. It may well lead to a consequence that is deeply, deeply troubling.

The message is: Your vote matters, that's why you shouldn't waste it.

Spent the last few hours deeply ruminating on this. Silliness aside, deeper digging on what until roughly 2 1/2 hours ago was going to be my selected ticket to occupy the Oval Office has ended that vote. I was going to vote Libertarian. Now I will not.

I find myself with my one vote staring at an election featuring candidates that range from "uh, guys, how 'bout you quit eating the hallucinogenic mushrooms growing behind that log out back, mmmkay?" to "Dear God in Heaven, what have they done?!"

I will not vote for the trio of 'third parties' on my county's ballot because they appear to be collectively gobbling down those aforementioned mushrooms by the bushel.

I cannot bring myself to vote for Trump just to spite Hillary Clinton. This would be unconscionable in my mind.

Which leaves the Clinton-Kaine ticket. I knew Sean Smith at the "good acquaintance" level. Without going into unnecessary details, his death that night on 9/11/12 in Benghazi left its mark. It's only been 4 years, but dear God how things have developed since then. *sighs* Under almost all circumstances I do not talk about it online and pretty close to never with those I know IRL, including Missus Turin. Consider this one post to be the specific exception to the general rule.

For the first time the only acceptable candidate left by process of elimination is one that would otherwise have never entered into consideration.

I am at a complete loss as to how to process this.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:

Pan, Muslim Taxi Drivers cannot refuse to give rides to blind or disabled people with service animals because this violates the Americans with disabilities act and transportation of booze more than likely be covered under the interstate commence clause. As far as Christians not wanting to participate in a gay marriage ceremony because it goes against their convictions are completely things. The gay couples can go to any number of different bakers or photographers that would be happy to take their money and leave the christian's that do not want to use their art to take place in a ceremony that goes against their Religious convictions alone with out being hounded by leftists in government that want to force their view point on everyone else.

Pan do you think a Music groups should be forced by the courts to let anyone use their music [as long a royalties are paid] by someone with a different Political view point than the group? How is this different than Christian backers or Photographers being forced to serve someone they do not wish to serve.

If a Muslim wants to work in the grocery industry they should understand at the time of hire that they will have too handle non halal foods unless they work in a Halal grocery store.

If you dont own the rights to your music you dont get to dictate how its used.

Why must Muslims obey laws, but Christians get a pass because religion?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Folks, it might be a good idea to get this thread back on the topic of the 2016 US Presidential election and drop the off-topic religious liberty discussion.

This thread is already close to being closed completely. Off-topic arguments only make that more likely to happen.


Turin the Mad wrote:

For the first time the only acceptable candidate left by process of elimination is one that would otherwise have never entered into consideration.

I am at a complete loss as to how to process this.

For what it's worth, Turin, I'm sorry you're feeling so conflicted.

Vote for *the* best candidate, perhaps? As opposed to the last one standing? It may be easier for me to say that since i have no party affiliations and am convinced that the best candidates for each party were effectively eliminated from consideration long ago.

Act from a position of strength, rather than last resort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?

Can homosexual bakers refuse to bake cakes for Christian weddings?

** spoiler omitted **

They could... IF they refuse to bake any wedding cakes at all. At which point they don't provide the service to anyone and therefore no one could claim they are being denied due to considerations base on religion.

But that is a deceptive answer because the question presupposes that the homosexual bakers would not refuse a non-Christian.

And as a leftist I take some umbrage at the accusation that I "bash Christians", those that follow the teachings of Jesus Have my utmost respect. Those that try to claim a title without following the teacher get my contempt.

Again, it is the acts I judge. If you claim a faith and don't live up to the tenets then I don't owe you respect for the faith you claim.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

For the first time the only acceptable candidate left by process of elimination is one that would otherwise have never entered into consideration.

I am at a complete loss as to how to process this.

For what it's worth, Turin, I'm sorry you're feeling so conflicted.

Vote for *the* best candidate, perhaps? As opposed to the last one standing? It may be easier for me to say that since i have no party affiliations and am convinced that the best candidates for each party were effectively eliminated from consideration long ago.

Act from a position of strength, rather than last resort.

"Best" can have many meanings, one of which is "least worst".

3,751 to 3,800 of 7,079 << first < prev | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards