10-17-2016, 07:47 AM | #2552 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Trump is almost certainly not responsible for it, though.
This is closer in spirit to "Jews did WTC".
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
10-17-2016, 12:06 PM | #2553 |
Golden Wang of Justice
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,936
|
"Animals representing HRC" doesn't mean that they are her direct operatives, just people who want her to win. Unless he said something else?
__________________
Mozz's Van, named after Bulbagardens creditor, was a hidden forum section where staff members could share pictures of their tiny penises and engage in homosex. Sadly, HAVA media, Bulbagardens new corporate overlord, forced it's closure. Can't have porn on a children's website. |
10-17-2016, 12:20 PM | #2554 | |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
Quote:
Needless to say, of course, Donald has no business injecting himself into this case in such a manner by flinging baseless accusations around on Twitter. So who's to say that when a bomb goes off in Berlin, a hypothetical President Trump wouldn't immediately take to Twitter and say something like "It was the ragheads who done went and did this, we gots to bomb Mecka to show them that #MAGA"?
__________________
|
|
10-17-2016, 12:27 PM | #2555 |
A New and Original Person
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
|
Relatedly, Trump said the reason they blew up the office is because he's winning. Yeah. This level of delusion would be a lot more funny if it wasn't for the terrifying prospect that Trump is drinking so much of his own Koolaid that he enters 100% denial after losing and refuses to concede the election, and fights the results.
|
10-17-2016, 12:45 PM | #2556 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
I agree with Mozz on this one tbh, think you have to be really trying to read that as Trump saying Clinton had anything to do with it (even to the level of tacit support). Still highly irresponsible to start saying these things before we get any official word on it of course, even if he's almost certainly right on this one.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
10-17-2016, 12:46 PM | #2557 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Trump trying to pander to fundamentalist Christians. Just after a huge Hindus-for-Trump event. In which he said "I love Hindu!"
It's like a "Find everything wrong with this image!"
__________________
Spoiler: show |
10-17-2016, 01:37 PM | #2558 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Trump, being hypocritical and contradictory? Like saying how he'll try to protect LGBT people but then supports passing the FADA (First Amendment Defense Act) which will make LGBT discrimination legal?
Yeah, who would have thought.
__________________
|
10-17-2016, 02:00 PM | #2559 |
Getting married! :D
|
Hypocritical and contradictory?
Surely he must be talking about Krishna.
__________________
|
10-17-2016, 04:13 PM | #2560 |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
I shouldn't have used the word "ragheads" in referring to a hypothetical Trump tweet and I apologize for doing so.
While I can easily see it being the case that Trump himself doesn't think that Secretary Clinton had anything to do with the bombing, tacit or otherwise, I still believe that what he said will have the effect of planting that idea in the minds of his supporters.
__________________
|
10-18-2016, 07:52 AM | #2561 | ||
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/2802/text The bill is actually quite short compared to some others I've read, and is written in accessible language (probably so that Republican lawmakers can read it :^)). It's...3 pages at most, imo, there's really no excuse to go and read through it yourself. The concern laid out in the bill is that something like a Catholic school, in taking a public political stance against gay marriage, will receive government backlash. The Act is designed to prevent such action from happening, which will protect both their right to practice their religion and their right to peaceful protest. At worst it does nothing, since those rights are constitutionally protected. At best, it prevents a lengthy government process and massive court pain-in-the-ass to declare each type of government action individually unconstitutional. Trust me, LGBT rights does NOT want this; that leads to some really unpleasant rulings that could expand the power of the religious Right to protest against or even prevent gay marriage on religious grounds. Please don't be suckered into the propaganda that says that the FADA is some kind of anti-LGBT hate bill. It's not even an anti-LGBT bill. Specifically: Quote:
The FADA does not allow religious organizations to discriminate against LGBT individuals in any way, shape, or form. While that discrimination is (arguably) not unconstitutional, it is illegal in most of the cases that this bill addresses. As a Catholic I do support the passage of this bill. As an LGBT person, I am totally indifferent. If half the country would be happier with this bill in place, and I would remain completely unaffected, then why am I complaining?
__________________
|
||
10-18-2016, 10:18 AM | #2562 | |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Shuckle I did read through it. Let's take a look at some other parts, shall we?
Quote:
There is a reason why bills keep coming up to amend the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender alignment, and its because our discrimination is, as you say, technically not unconstitutional. Passing this bill essentially doubles down on that and will serve as a barrier to legislation protecting LGBT people for years to come, because, again, we really don't have any protection that isn't in state laws. By its own definition, this law could supersede those laws because they don't offer equal or greater protection in the virtue of its own language.
__________________
|
|
10-18-2016, 03:41 PM | #2563 | ||||
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
What the FADA says is basically, "Removal of government benefits is the same thing as legal punishment." Think of it through the lens of discrimination against black people or LGBT people. If you tell your doctor you're trans, and let's say, idk, it goes on a record somewhere and the government knows about it. And let's say you were entitled to government benefits before this due to your life situation (pretend you're disabled and receiving disability SS), but the government removes your access to those benefits after your "registration" as a trans person. Is this government discrimination? FADA legislates that removal of benefits is government discrimination in the specific case of holding controversial religious beliefs. Honestly I'm glad that our country might consider needing FADA because it means we've moved so far in the right direction that churches and other traditional institutions are afraid that the government is going to punish them for holding views that finally go against the grain for the first time ever. Now, if you wanna see an anti-LGBT hate bill that was actually passed: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/doc...9/HB1523SG.htm Laws are tricky business, and while a few words in a law CAN mean a lot, in this case it's just a CYA for churches so that the government can't bend 'em over and give 'em the fiscal cane just because they forgot to specify that they can act according to their religious beliefs too instead of just holding those beliefs quietly. Can you see how HB1523 has extremely strong discriminatory language compared to the FADA? Quote:
Quote:
If you read through the text of the bill, some of it really isn't objectionable. I'm whatever with allowing people like disc jockeys to say "No I don't feel comfortable doing a gay wedding" and I think everyone rational agrees that people have at least some control over who their clients are. I wouldn't feel comfortable playing music for a couple's wedding who constantly fights, or is abusive or cruel to me. But as you sort of piece the whole thing together... It doesn't just include gays and lesbians. Oh no. That would be too small in scale. No, if you get pregnant as a single woman, you could find yourself out on the streets without any kind of government assistance or any kind of job. And it's aaaaall protected under good ol' HB1523 Quote:
Nope! It's going to hurt the people who have proof of having had sex outside of the confines of marriage. Which pretty much means "women who get pregnant." But Shuckle, just because that's a hate bill doesn't mean the FADA isn't also a hate bill! In order for a bill to allow discriminatory action, it has to be way more specific about it. "Can act in accordance with religious beliefs" would have to specify "Can discriminate according to religious beliefs," and the bill might even need to specify what kinds of discrimination would be allowed. Instead "Acting" is limited to the expression of those religious beliefs ex. protesting, refusal of religious services like marriage, public condemnation of gay marriage, etc. In order for it to have any reach beyond that scope, it would have to have real and specific teeth like "Acting, for example: denying charitable services, denying religious services." Since that's not specified, "Acting" can only mean "Acting in a manner consistent with the religious belief that gay marriage shouldn't happen" which pretty much is limited to denying marriage ceremonies to gay couples and peaceful public protest. I can't really think of any more examples off the top of my head but it's all tame shit, you can't come up with anything crazy that this bill would led churches or Catholic schools do. They can't even kick out gay kids from Catholic school since the kid's not actually getting married so no religious beliefs are being violated :^)
__________________
Last edited by Shuckle; 10-18-2016 at 03:47 PM. |
||||
10-18-2016, 03:49 PM | #2564 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
And I'm so sorry for nerding out on you all.
I... I just really like laws |
10-18-2016, 04:13 PM | #2565 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
|
|
10-18-2016, 04:18 PM | #2566 | |||
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
There is, in fact, no real specific protection ever listed in FADA. It doesn't say "the right to peaceful protest" or anything as such. By your argument, because it only lists one specific example, saying "we dun like this", that's the only thing protected. It wouldn't cover denying marriage ceremonies, because that's never mentioned. Even beyond the one example, nothing is ever actually listed as something that shouldn't be discriminated against. Now, this could mean the law is literally toothless and so will do absolutely nothing. It could also mean, depending on what happens this election and in the coming Supreme Court nomination, that the law gets massively abused to cover any sort of discriminatory action, because it doesn't mention anything specific. After all, where is the wording that says "this does not cover denying employment or terminating employment based on blah blah blah"? Obviously you can't make a blacklist, because the different ways one could be discriminatory is sort of endless. I'd like to bring your attention to one more part of the law, the really concerning part to me. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
10-18-2016, 06:45 PM | #2567 | ||||||
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
I agree it could stand to be more specific - and it would relieve a lot of the headache of explaining the law!!! - but it could always get amended between now and passing, especially if it wants support from the Democrats who look poised to take Congress atm. Quote:
The stuff in this Act would happen anyway, just slower and more agonizingly and with way more liberal outrage. If you like being outraged I guess??? I know I don't. Quote:
Quote:
TBH the only reason it will probably get abused at least a few times is because leftwingers like you guys are really trumping (lol) up the significance and the danger of this specific law. Many people are going to make the connection of FADA = It's legal to beat up trans people if you say it was religiously motivated, and that isn't actually related to the direct text of the law. See also: "Obamacare is socialized healthcare! It's going to ruin this country! Affordable Care Act? Yeah I'm okay with that." tl;dr: law does not grant the protections you think it does, despite its vague wording. Will be abused, but the abuse will not actually be legal or covered by the law. I'm not saying you don't make good points, because those are important thoughts to make when considering the law. Buuuuut your good points basically boil down to "Someone could abuse the word "Act" to do whatever they want!" and that just won't be true no matter what. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||||
10-18-2016, 09:44 PM | #2568 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
|
I mean the part about not superseding state laws is a small and practically irrelevant comfort because if those state laws go away or are never instated (red states are not going to want to implement such laws let's be honest) then that clause is entirely unarmed for those states. Either way I simply do not trust this. To me, it reeks of attempted ass-covering and if we give that the inch it will spring up and take the ell. As someone who is trans and whose future lies ahead of them in a field with several jobs lying with government contractors, I'd rather stay safe and not give the inch.
__________________
|
10-18-2016, 10:45 PM | #2569 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Shuckle, please never use ":^)" again.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
10-18-2016, 11:24 PM | #2570 |
A New and Original Person
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
|
Hey Deo, wanna do us all a favor and make this emote a bannable offense?
|
10-18-2016, 11:42 PM | #2571 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
I will second this, but, and I say this emphatically, don't quote me on that.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
10-19-2016, 12:05 AM | #2572 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
I don't know about a ban, but we could always look into using vBulletin's word censorship feature to auto-replace all instances of ":^)" with "Vote for Hillary Clinton! #ImWithHer"
Something tells me that would put a stop to it faster than Trump can say "rigged" :> |
10-19-2016, 12:40 AM | #2573 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Vote for Hillary Clinton! #ImWithHer
Trump managed to effectively go back on all the things I was going to vote for him over (moderate political stance, effective strategy, image/PR control, persuasive ability, ability to find/hire a competent cabinet, ability to choose the correct people to assist him). I'm still not going to talk about him like he's the antichrist but yeah he lost my moderate vote. Trump started out with an excellent strategy but completely failed to account for the Democrat's ability to respond and utterly frustrate the strategy he had prepared. He won the Republican primaries in an outright landslide but failed against a prepared opponent. I'm not sure where the entire forum is objecting to this idea because he really did have a great strategy in primaries: 1. Get the initiative on all media attention, sucking time and energy away from the other candidates 2. Mock the inevitable missteps of the Republican candidates 3. Use general demagoguery to appeal to the wide voter base and get people to agree with him by "saying what needs to be said" None of this applies to Hillary. She: 1. Practically has the media in her pocket, and even if she doesn't it's hard to argue that news sources wouldn't favor her over even someone like Kasich or Carson 2. Is made of fucking iron and doesn't make those mistakes - and in fact is taking advantage of Trump's mistakes to draw fire away from her own gaffes like the leaked emails 3. Is reaching out to specific demographics and shutting Trump out of those areas, limiting his ability to reach communities like the black or Hispanic voting blocs. Was it easy? Yes. Did it happen intentionally? Also yes. Did it stump the Trump? Three for three. Oh come on it was funny and you know it. It's like homophobes are rationalizing why they oppose gay marriage and then suddenly they realize that their own rules keep them from doing anything about actual gays. "If only we had found something that let us kick that one flamboyantly gay boy out of school," moans the headmaster before draining another shot of whiskey. "L-Lazbons? What are those? No no no, the Bible only forbids dude-on-dude anal, and that's exactly what that little boy is going to do in like a year, but we're powerless to stop it. Another sinner, down the drain." Another shot. "If only we could still beat the kids." The priest sitting next to him looks up, suddenly bright eyed. "I have an idea I think you're gonna LOVE."
__________________
|
10-19-2016, 12:53 AM | #2574 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
|
10-19-2016, 12:58 AM | #2575 | |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Quote:
I never felt you were a troll, but using that emote is self admission of trolling. So in your case it's discrediting of almost everything you said. To me this is comparable to advocating an anti-zionist view then dropping a anti-semetic joke.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|