Why Are Republicans WRONG about EVERYTHING?

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1961 - 1980 of total 1997 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

WBraun

climber

Mar 30, 2015 - 07:17pm PT

This is for you politards

Politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice.
You don’t. You have no choice.

You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land.
They own and control the corporations.

They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls.

They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies,
so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear.

They got you by the balls.
They spend billions of dollars every day lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want.
Well, we know what they want – they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.

But I’ll tell you what they don’t want – they don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking…
They want obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork.

And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits,
the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.

And now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your f*#kin’ retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street.

And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later ’cause they own this f*#kin’ place.

It’s a big club and you ain’t in it.

You and I are not in the big club…

The table is tilted folks.
The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice… Nobody seems to care.

That’s what the owners count on. They don’t give a f*#k about you. They don’t care about you at all!

The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their azholes every day,
because the owners of this country know the truth…

It’s called the American Dream, ’cause you have to be asleep to believe it.

~George Carlin

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber

SLO, Ca

Mar 30, 2015 - 07:32pm PT

Indiana is about to get a big dose of free market capitalism. Vote how you choose, but if you want a modern educated force and the companies that can pay I am pretty sure the anti-gay stance is a loser. I guess there is still that chicken restaurant and hobby lobby.

SweetWilliam

Boulder climber

TheSand,Man

Mar 31, 2015 - 06:45am PT

You are wrogn ricky. That silver fox guy govornor said the same thing and hes wrong too. The other ones have gay people as class that cant be discriminated, the hossier law doesnt and thats the difference. its not the same hoss.

Craig Fry

Trad climber

So Cal.

Mar 31, 2015 - 09:04am PT

No one owns me
I am completely independent and skeptical of everything except verifiable facts.

Basically if it's been put out as a Republican Talking Point, from Fox News or Rush, you can bet it's based on lies, misinformation or right wing think tank propaganda.
Facts are the Right Wings worst enemy, they can only get so many people to believe it, but now that the right wing own almost all the media, almost everything we hear is biased towards right wing viewpoints.

We are all screwed until enough of us protest the power of the right wing politicians and media.

The law in Indiana is different for 2 reasons
The most important difference is that the Fed. law and the other 19 states say that THE GOVERNMENT can't discriminate against people's religious beliefs and practices.

The Indiana law say that a person has the right to discriminate because of their religious beliefs, AND a Person is defined as a Business, Corporation or natural person.

Second, the states that have adopted the Fed. law also have discrimination protections for LGBTs, the Indiana law does not, so you are able to discriminate against them.

So in other words, Mike Pence is Lying and misleading us about the law.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Mar 31, 2015 - 11:59am PT

I was wondering how long it would take for this thread to morph from politics to metaphysics.

John

rottingjohnny

Sport climber

mammoth lakes ca

Mar 31, 2015 - 12:09pm PT

Next stop...mentalphysics..

lostinshanghai

Social climber

someplace

Mar 31, 2015 - 12:35pm PT

Just to add to George Carlin’s words if he was alive today:

They can see you, read and listen as well, in fact they can see where you were yesterday, a month and even 11 months ago.

Ksolem

Trad climber

Monrovia, California

Mar 31, 2015 - 03:29pm PT

Regarding the Indiana law, It does not say that a person or business can discriminate against gays (or any other group for that matter.) Unless of course you think that a person or business declining to take part in a function or event is discrimination. Those same people or businesses cannot refuse service at their restaurant, flower shop, gym, whatever. There is great precedent there going back to the anti segregation laws of the 1950's - 60's. But since when can the Government compel a person or business to be part of an event to which they are opposed. If that were the case in the 1960's a Black businessman could be compelled to serve food at a KKK rally.

Finally, the law only comes into play in those situations where civil action is taken. Speaking for myself, If I had a wedding coming up, to a member of the same sex, and a deeply religious florist declined to be part of the wedding, turning down a good gig to be true to her beliefs, I'd say thanks and move on. Do you really want your florist to be there by force of law? But in those cases where a lawsuit is filed the new law serves as a guideline to the courts. At least that's my take from the various sources out there (not Fox.)

On a personal note I think that the guys who sued her, possibly destroying a 70 yr. old woman's retirement, are cruel and doing so much more harm her than she did them, if any.

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber

SLO, Ca

Mar 31, 2015 - 05:32pm PT

There is no legitimate religious reason to discriminate against gays. It's a bullshit excuse for bigotry.

Craig Fry

Trad climber

So Cal.

Mar 31, 2015 - 05:46pm PT

It's the Modern day Jim Crow,
it's about protecting the Christian bigot's insecure and convoluted religious beliefs that must be protected by law.

here's the problem, just like what the African Americans suffered - there may be no options open to you in your town, everybody is a good right wing Christian and part of the local KKK.

What we are seeing is pulling the hood off the modern day bigot, and they will deny every charge until pigs fly out their ass.

the original "religious freedom restoration act" was enacted to allow Native Americans to legally use peyote as part of their religious practice.

It was about having the Gov. allow for your religious practices so they were Not Illegal...
There was nothing about a person having icky feelings getting SEPCIAL Privileges because of their religious beliefs, and a Person IS Now a Corporation according to this law.

That's what's it come to, Someone has an icky feeling, so they Now they need to be Protected.

we all know the second that the Satanist's or Muslim's ask for their special discrimination rights, it will all be over.

It was all about giving Right Wing Christians special protection, No One Else....

And Jeb Bush agrees 100%.

TGT

Social climber

So Cal

Mar 31, 2015 - 06:40pm PT

It's the Modern day Jim Crow,

Yeah, that's why Chuckie Schumer and Teddy Kennedy were instrumental in producing the same federal law in it's federal version and Bill Clinton made a big production out of signing it.

Obama even voted for the Illinois version when in the state legislature in one of the exceptional instances where he actually showed up to cast a vote and didn't vote, "present".

Let's pass a law that Muslims have to serve pork and atheists have to perform baptisms while we are at it.

This is all phony outrage. Something "progressives" have ingrained in their genes.

Hell, No problem with opening an Apple store in a country that hangs gays to slowly strangle from cranes in the public square.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/03/apple-bashes-indiana-but-gladly-does-business-with-countries-that-execute-gays/

rottingjohnny

Sport climber

mammoth lakes ca

Mar 31, 2015 - 06:57pm PT

Crankloon , politard , stoopid cut and paste pussy , yada , yada, yada .....

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Mar 31, 2015 - 09:57pm PT

[quote]What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?
By Garrett Epps

No one, I think, would ever have denied that Maurice Bessinger was a man of faith.
And he wasn’t particularly a “still, small voice” man either; he wanted everybody in earshot to know that slavery had been God’s will, that desegregation was Satan’s work, and the federal government was the Antichrist. God wanted only whites to eat at Bessinger’s six Piggie Park barbecue joints; so His servant Maurice took that fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1968 decided that his religious freedom argument was “patently frivolous.”
Until the day he died, however, Bessinger insisted that he and God were right. His last fight was to preserve the Confederate flag as a symbol of South Carolina. “I want to be known as a hard-working, Christian man that loves God and wants to further (God’s) work throughout the world as I have been doing throughout the last 25 years,” he told his hometown newspaper in 2000.
Growing up in the pre-civil-rights South, I knew a lot of folks like Maurice Bessinger. I didn’t like them much, but I didn’t doubt their sincerity. Why wouldn’t they believe racism was God’s will? We white Southerners heard that message on weekends from the pulpit, on school days from our segregated schools, and every day from our governments. When Richard and Mildred Loving left Virginia to be married, a state trial judge convicted them of violating the Racial Integrity Act. That judge wrote that “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents … The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
Related Story

Should Corporations Have the Same Religious Freedoms as People?
That’s a good background against which to measure the uproar about the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law by Governor Mike Pence last week. I don’t question the religious sincerity of anyone involved in drafting and passing this law. But sincere and faithful people, when they feel the imprimatur of both the law and the Lord, can do very ugly things.
There’s a factual dispute about the new Indiana law. It is called a “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 1993.* Thus a number of its defenders have claimed it is really the same law. Here, for example, is the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack: “Is there any difference between Indiana's law and the federal law? Nothing significant.” I am not sure what McCormack was thinking; but even my old employer, The Washington Post, seems to believe that if a law has a similar title as another law, they must be identical. “Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA,” the Post’s Hunter Schwarz wrote, linking to this map created by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The problem with this statement is that, well, it’s false. That becomes clear when you read and compare those tedious state statutes. If you do that, you will find that the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.
What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.
Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”
Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down.
So, let’s review the evidence: by the Weekly Standard’s definition, there’s “nothing significant” about this law that differs from the federal one, and other state ones—except that it has been carefully written to make clear that 1) businesses can use it against 2) civil-rights suits brought by individuals.
Of all the state “religious freedom” laws I have read, this new statute hints most strongly that it is there to be used as a means of excluding gays and same-sex couples from accessing employment, housing, and public accommodations on the same terms as other people. True, there is no actual language that says, All businesses wishing to discriminate in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, please check this “religious objection” box. But, as Henry David Thoreau once wrote, “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
So—is the fuss over the Indiana law overblown?
No.
The statute shows every sign of having been carefully designed to put new obstacles in the path of equality; and it has been publicly sold with deceptive claims that it is “nothing new.”
Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business; but the pain exclusion inflicts on its victims, and on society, are far worse than the discomfort the faithful may suffer at having to open their businesses to all.
As the story of Maurice Bessinger shows us, even dressed in liturgical garments, hateful discrimination is still a pig.
* This article originally stated that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed in 1990. We regret the error.

This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/[/quote]

dirtbag

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Apr 2, 2015 - 04:06pm PT

Yes!

dirtbag

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Apr 2, 2015 - 04:31pm PT

And Btw, a lot of right wing idiots are making Chamberlain-Hitler comparisons.

These same dipshits compared Hussein to Hitler shortly before the Iraq war, and guess what? They were not right.

TGT

Social climber

So Cal

Apr 2, 2015 - 04:36pm PT

Not!

LAUSANNE, Switzerland — Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country’s leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Zarif bragged in an earlier press conference with reporters that the United States had tentatively agreed to let it continue the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear bomb, as well as key nuclear research.

Zarif additionally said Iran would have all nuclear-related sanctions lifted once a final deal is signed and that the country would not be forced to shut down any of its currently operating nuclear installations.

Following a subsequent press conference by Secretary of State John Kerry—and release of a administration fact sheet on Iranian concessions—Zarif lashed out on Twitter over what he dubbed lies.

“The solutions are good for all, as they stand,” he tweeted. “There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on.”

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber

Apr 3, 2015 - 06:44am PT

TGT posted

Yeah, that's why Chuckie Schumer and Teddy Kennedy were instrumental in producing the same federal law in it's federal version and Bill Clinton made a big production out of signing it.

Completely wrong. The federal bill prevents the federal government from allowing people to exercise their own religious liberties. In this case, one of the primary motivators was Native Americans taking peyote as part of a religious rite. The bills being introduced in states today protect people who want to exercise their religious beliefs ON OTHER PEOPLE which is exactly what segregationists claimed they were doing.

Sadly, none of this legislation is actually necessary since it is still totally legal to discriminate (or, if you're Mike Huckaby, I guess you would discretionate) against gays in most states in our country.

TGT, et al posted:

OBAMA IS FLYING US INTO THE MOUNTAIN JUST LIKE THAT GERMAN SUICIDE GUY (and other absurdly tasteless things)

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good

The framework deal requires Iran to surrender some crucial components of its nuclear program, in part or even in whole. Here are the highlights:

-Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges
-Iran will give up all but its most rudimentary, outdated centrifuges: its first-generation IR-1s, knock-offs of 1970s European models, are all it gets to keep. It will not be allowed to build or develop newer models.
-Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium: it will hold on to only 300 kilograms of its 10,000 kilogram stockpile in its current form.
-Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core than cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.
-Iran would simply not have much of its nuclear program left after all this.

"When I was doing my non-proliferation training at Monterey, this is the type of inspection regime that we would dream up in our heads," he said. "We would hope that this would be the way to actually verify all enrichment programs, but thought that would never be feasible."

"If these are the parameters by which the [final agreement] will be signed, then this is an excellent deal," Stein concluded.

Only in in the conservative echo chamber is a non-proliferation grad student's wet dream considered a "bad deal." If Reagan had gotten this kind of deal FOX news would use it as the benchmark for "complete surrender" for decades to come. Let's see what lengths Republicans are willing to go to to screw it up.

*edit*

Oh hey, shocker. FOX is leading with "Obama got played" and has a clip from their news channel with someone lying through their teeth about the deal.

crankster

Trad climber

Apr 3, 2015 - 07:10am PT

One, they hate anything that makes the President look good.
Two, they want war. A display of US force of any kind. Shoot now, aim later.
Three, It’s the neocons’ war in Iraq that gave Iraq to Iran, paving the way for ISIS.

Why would anyone vote for these idiots?