Jaxom 1974 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: Nope. It's still @Jaxom 1974's fault. Damn it! At least I got to see the Cubs win the World Series before the World ends... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Quote Spells ~vs~ prayers! How awesome is that? Will the witches have enough power to make a difference? Will the Evangelicals pray hard enough? Stay tuned....... https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/23/witches-mobilize-to-cast-a-binding-spell-on-president-trump/21720593/ I'm pretty sure demons and devils are magic resistant though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said: Spells ~vs~ prayers! How awesome is that? Will the witches have enough power to make a difference? Will the Evangelicals pray hard enough? Stay tuned....... I can't help but think of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Swordfish said: We've already lost ours in fear of the Cadillac tax. They are moving us to CDHP's and eliminating all other types of plans. So you're paying more for less I'm guessing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 15 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: I'm pretty sure demons and devils are magic resistant though. Really the only demon is Bannon so if witches knock out POTUS Bobblehead then I would say that would be a plus. The fun part is any minor boo-boo gets to be claimed by the witches, but if nothing happens, the Fundies can get all happy clappy about "the power of prayer". Everybody wins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 LOL. Republican Party: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/ Quote Since the election of President Trump, Republican lawmakers in at least 18 states have introduced or voted on legislation to curb mass protests in what civil liberties experts are calling “an attack on protest rights throughout the states.” From Virginia to Washington state, legislators have introduced bills that would increase punishments for blocking highways, ban the use of masks during protests, indemnify drivers who strike protesters with their cars and, in at least once case, seize the assets of people involved in protests that later turn violent. The proposals come after a string of mass protest movements in the past few years, covering everything from police shootings of unarmed black men to the Dakota Access Pipeline to the inauguration of Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/upshot/economists-have-been-demoted-in-washington-thats-a-bad-idea.html Quote Academic economists have received a demotion. The Trump administration has been filling out its cabinet and, unlike in the Obama administration, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers will not be part of it. The council has long been the home of the economics profession in Washington, and this move softens the loudest policy voice that academics have. The problem with a lot of business types making policy advice is that many of these guys are convinced what's good for them is good for everyone else. Take people like Bernie Marcus as an example. And then of course, none of them have any kind of paper trail which expresses their ideas and views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mance Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 From Virginia to Washington state, legislators have introduced bills that would increase punishments for blocking highways, ban the use of masks during protests, indemnify drivers who strike protesters with their cars and, in at least once case, seize the assets of people involved in protests that later turn violent. But if you and a hundred of your closest (white, christian, republican) friends want to carry out an armed occupation of a federal facility, steal and destroy government property, desecrate sacred relics, and terrorize some locals...well, you know, they'd be fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Because there's no federal goverment, y'know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 6 hours ago, OldGimletEye said: LOL. Republican Party: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/ good the imprimatur of "protesting" should not be license for blocking thoroughfares and streets, trespassing, destroying property, disrupting the speech of others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 15 minutes ago, Commodore said: good the imprimatur of "protesting" should not be license for blocking thoroughfares and streets, trespassing, destroying property, disrupting the speech of others Aren't those things illegal already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 46 minutes ago, Commodore said: good the imprimatur of "protesting" should not be license for blocking thoroughfares and streets, trespassing, destroying property, disrupting the speech of others Hey, you know, I'm not a fan of political violence, the willful destruction of property, or the breaking of reasonable laws designed to promote public order. But, it would seem to me, that you are of the opinion that the Republican Party here is entitled to a presumption of acting in good faith. I believe it is deserving of no such presumption. In fact, I'd say it deserves a presumption of dishonesty beyond what would be expected of a normal political party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said: Hey, you know, I'm not a fan of political violence, the willful destruction of property, or the breaking of reasonable laws designed to promote public order. But, it would seem to me, that you are of the opinion that the Republican Party here is entitled to a presumption of acting in good faith. I believe it is deserving of no such presumption. In fact, I'd say it deserves a presumption of dishonesty beyond what would be expected of a normal political party. Oh now, OGE, I think you're being just a bit too critical of the R's here. They're just avid fans of Roose Bolton and think his suggestion of 'A peaceful land, a quiet people' should apply to those silly libertards and their nonsensical protests. /snarky snark snark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Has anyone followed the DNC chair election? It was surprisingly competitive, but in the end Perez prevailed 235-200. Quote The election in part has been a proxy war between Sen. Bernie Sanders' allies and those more closely aligned with Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama. The Vermont senator endorsed Ellison early, and the progressive organizations that backed Sanders during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary have all followed suit. Perez's progressive bona fides haven't been questioned, but he's seen by the left as less in touch with its activist base. Interestingly enough, the right was rooting for Ellison, but it looks like they didn't get their wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Commodore said: good the imprimatur of "protesting" should not be license for blocking thoroughfares and streets, trespassing, destroying property, disrupting the speech of others Protests don't cause destruction of property, people do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Commodore said: good the imprimatur of "protesting" should not be license for blocking thoroughfares and streets, trespassing, destroying property, disrupting the speech of others But hang on a moment. Won't these laws in turn disrupt the speech of the protestors? It's almost as if you only care about disrupting the free speech of people you agree with. But that can't be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 32 minutes ago, Altherion said: Has anyone followed the DNC chair election? It was surprisingly competitive, but in the end Perez prevailed 235-200. Interestingly enough, the right was rooting for Ellison, but it looks like they didn't get their wish. Perez immediately appointed Ellison deputy chair. Good move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Hermit Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Trump's new National Security Adviser is against using the term "radical Islamic terrorism" for basically the same reason Obama was. This after years of Republicans claiming Obama's refusal to use the term was hurting the efforts to fight terrorism. In addition to Trump's Secretary of Defense being against torture this is more proof that the right's tough guy rhetoric is bullshit solely meant to inflate their own egos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Red Hermit said: Trump's new National Security Adviser is against using the term "radical Islamic terrorism" for basically the same reason Obama was. This after years of Republicans claiming Obama's refusal to use the term was hurting the efforts to fight terrorism. In addition to Trump's Secretary of Defense being against torture this is more proof that the right's tough guy rhetoric is bullshit solely meant to inflate their own egos. Well of course they're going to disagree with Trump, they got where they are by being competent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 So much for supporting the troops; Quote Imagine you are a member of the United States military deployed on the front lines confronting ISIS or other terrorist threats. Suddenly you get a desperate phone call from home — Immigration and Customs Enforcement has arrested your family and they’re facing deportation. Think it can’t happen? Think again. Think Trump. The Trump administration’s draconian and hastily drafted immigration orders rescind a key protection for military families so that now even military spouses and children can be rounded up and deported. This will weaken our armed forces. It will harm thousands of military families. And it’s wrong. ......................................... Instead, it casually dispenses with exercises of executive discretion based on a “specified class or category of aliens.” The administration either did not know or did not care that one of these specified classes included military families. That may be good politics for the red states, but it’s terrible national security policy for the United States, and a slap in the face to thousands of deployed troops with immigrant roots. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-utbg-trump-military-deport-fletcher-20170224-story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.