awesome possum Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 And the sharks continue to circle Chris Christie: At this point, even if Christie wriggles away without indictment or impeachment, most of the people around him will be tainted. Presidential aspirations aside, you could see NJ Democratic legislators flipping him off; after all, why should they fear a lame-duck governor whose term is marred by all of these scandals? Spoken like a true bully Still reeling from the demise of Arizona’s “right-to-discriminate” bill, Michele Bachmann said last week that she is tired of gay people “bullying” her and the American people. “There’s nothing about gays in there, but the gay community decided to make this their measure,” Bachmann said. “And the thing that I think is getting a little tiresome is the gay community have so bullied the American people and they have so intimidated politicians that politicians fear them and they think they get to dictate the agenda everywhere. Well, not with the Constitution you don’t.” She added that gay people and “activist judges” are trying to take away her freedom: “If you want take away my religious liberties, you can advocate for that but you do it through the constitutional process and you don’t intimidate and no politician should give away my religious liberties or yours.” Gosh, isn't it about time the gay community stops bullying that poor woman? You would think that trying to make the world a better place through sheer stupidity and nastiness would be more well received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Another Obamacare "victim" who appeared in ads for the Kochs has had her claim debunked: When journalists looked into her claim, Boonstra identified the new plan she chose on the Obamacare exchanges: a so-called "gold" plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, per the Detroit News. Her old plan cost $1,100 per month, which adds up to $13,200 a year in premiums alone -- before co-pays, out-of-pocket costs and drug expenses. Her new plan costs $571 per month, which adds up to $6,852 per year. Her out-of-pocket costs are maxed at $5,100, which means a maximum cost of $11,952 per year. That means her new plan cannot cost her more for treatment than her old plan. In other words, Boonstra would save at least $1,248 under Obamacare. When the Detroit News told her this, Boonstra was in disbelief, saying it "can't be true." "I personally do not believe that," she told the paper. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/julie-boonstra-obamacare-victim-would-save-money I don't doubt that there are some people being presented with difficulties by the change to Obamacare, but Jesus Christ this is some lame, stupid shit. How many people are out there making these kinds of mistakes where they refuse to even investigate their options because they've been hornswoggled by right wing propaganda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 One day I hope someone accidentally spills some water on Michelle Bachmann and she melts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I don't doubt that there are some people being presented with difficulties by the change to Obamacare, but Jesus Christ this is some lame, stupid shit. How many people are out there making these kinds of mistakes where they refuse to even investigate their options because they've been hornswoggled by right wing propaganda? I know! You figure there have to be actual Obamacare "victims", but the right-wing noise machine is either too lazy to look for them, or else they fear that the real "victims" won't be very sympathetic. I suspect most of those are young men who were underinsured, and that demographic isn't going to tug many heartstrings. So they have to hunt for people - women, mostly - who are older and have some serious chronic condition, who are exactly the kind of people the Affordable Care Act helps. Not that the consumers of Crazy care very much; facts are concerns for urban, liberal eggheads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 NPR piece: How the Christie Administration blocked any oversight of the Port Authority, while using it as a fund for construction projects it wanted and enriching private clients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eira Seren Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 The closeness of Congress to the people is debatable, but that doesn't change the fact that Congress has willingly given up that power and the Executive does not want to give it back. And that, at the end of the day, Congress itself is so dysfunctional that this trend has been ongoing for ... well, since the founding of the US basically and shows no real chance of changing, but that it's also the only way most shit gets done. Which is why it happens. The US Congress, regardless of it's closeness, is setup to encourage the abandonment to it's powers to the executive due to it's inability to act. Dysfunctional it is. https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1948126_838590756167573_1813336814_n.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 They are coming for the Christians, Ramsay Gimp. Its all true! http://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/police_help_ohio_churches_stage_mock_arrests_to_sh.php Sure, take the most ridiculous example from the opposing side and extrapolate that to represent everyone who disagrees with you Look, it's really simple. The state should not forbid any consenting adults from marrying. The state also shouldn't compel anyone to photograph a wedding (absent a contractual agreement or something). That's the only reasonable, common-sense view on the matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Sure, take the most ridiculous example from the opposing side and extrapolate that to represent everyone who disagrees with you Look, it's really simple. The state should not forbid any consenting adults from marrying. The state also shouldn't compel anyone to photograph a wedding (absent a contractual agreement or something). That's the only reasonable, common-sense view on the matter If you are so concerned about the plight of wedding photographers with Bronze Age morality, you are free to lobby for a bill that exempts wedding photographers. Others have pointed out that the bill's pernicious effects would be most keenly felt in many vital areas of life, that don't have anything to do with wedding cakes or wedding photos. To keep arguing that this is about some goddamn cakes or wedding photos continues the bad-faith argumentation you seem to wish others to avoid. In short, please stop perpetuating the Cake Lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Robert Reich's take on the CIA situation:Breaking news: Today, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee that oversees the CIA, accused the CIA of searching her committee's computers to find out how staff obtained an internal CIA review more critical of Bush era's interrogation and detention program than the CIA has openly admitted. "I have grave concerns that the CIA's search may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the Constitution," Feinstein said. "Besides the constitutional implications, the CIA's search may also have violated the Fourth Amendment, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as Executive Order 12333, which prohibits the CIA from conducting domestic searches or surveillance."This is a big, big deal. That one of the CIA's staunchest defenders on Capitol Hill is now attacking the Obama Administration's CIA for trying to intimidate a congressional committee charged with overseeing the CIA is evidence enough that "the Agency" is quite literally out of control. You and I and every other member of the public should demand accountability, and the truth -- not only about what happened during W's interrogation and detention program, but what the CIA is up to right now and why the current White House is allowing this to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 eta: Ah, thanks for that Suttree! =-=-= I'm curious as to the exact limit the presumably Libertarian position extends. Is okay to discriminate when one is baker? A pharmacist? Lawyer? Teacher? Is it legally okay to discriminate based on race? Height? Favorite baseball team? Should this discrimination only be allowed when it comes to service, or also employment of undesirables? In general I've also not seen why the coercion of the market is somehow justified, but actions by the state are evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Sure, take the most ridiculous example from the opposing side and extrapolate that to represent everyone who disagrees with you Look, it's really simple. The state should not forbid any consenting adults from marrying. The state also shouldn't compel anyone to photograph a wedding (absent a contractual agreement or something). That's the only reasonable, common-sense view on the matterNo it isnt. The state is not compelling anyone to photograph a wedding. Stop lying. People are not businesses. And businesses exist at the behest of the state. Get over it.Your twisted worldview allows for corporate entities to compel it's workers do immoral things or go without services just because some poor old business might have to be near the gays. Or give birth control to some "sluts". And that's all cool with you because at least it's not the state.Say you run a photography studio. What would you say to an employee who refused to photograph a gay wedding? Would it be justified to say that maybe that person doesn't need to be doing that job? Could you fire them? Why is it a stretch to say there are some things where society gets to say if that's your attitude, we don't want you doing business in our society? What kind of fool wants to concede that power for some purely theoretical liberty points?How many freedomz do we lose when a pharmacist is compelled to give prescribed medicine that is against their religeon. How does that compare to that persons right to get adequate medicine? This is not some hypothetical, but very real cases when someone claims their religeon freedom trumps another person's right to access a business.Not to mention you keep narrowing down the scope to minimalize the effect of you bigotry. You keep trying to make it about wedding cakes when it is clearly about all businesses within several states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 No it isnt. The state is not compelling anyone to photograph a wedding. Stop lying. People are not businesses. And businesses exist at the behest of the state. Get over it. I'm having a hard time telling if you are a Bolshevik or a Fascist. When will you guys quit playing with definitions? Freedom is not slavery, war is not peace. Owning a business does not make this photographer an "unperson" who must do whatever the state wants. Are you seriously claiming the state isn't compelling anyone to photograph a wedding? I'd back off that claim with some dignity now if I were you... eta: Ah, thanks for that Suttree! =-=-= I'm curious as to the exact limit the presumably Libertarian position extends. Is okay to discriminate when one is baker? A pharmacist? Lawyer? Teacher? Is it legally okay to discriminate based on race? Height? Favorite baseball team? Should this discrimination only be allowed when it comes to service, or also employment of undesirables? In general I've also not seen why the coercion of the market is somehow justified, but actions by the state are evil.Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. It is legal for most businesses to discriminate based on height or favorite baseball team, and I fail to see how that is morally "better" than discriminating based on race or sexuality. We've already established numerous times that I support the right to private discrimination, but there are many people that generally don't agree with me on that who are still disturbed by this case What "coercion"? If I am walking down the sidewalk, and you ask me to take a picture of you with my phone and I say "no I'm busy" or even a spiteful "no way, Nigger" how the fuck am I coercing you? On the other hand, if you put a gun to my head and force me to take the picture (as the lesbian couple is asking the government to do in this case) you are undeniably guilty of coercion If you are so concerned about the plight of wedding photographers with Bronze Age morality, you are free to lobby for a bill that exempts wedding photographers. Others have pointed out that the bill's pernicious effects would be most keenly felt in many vital areas of life, that don't have anything to do with wedding cakes or wedding photos. To keep arguing that this is about some goddamn cakes or wedding photos continues the bad-faith argumentation you seem to wish others to avoid. In short, please stop perpetuating the Cake Lie. "Bronze age morality"? So refusing to photograph a gay wedding is the same as stoning gays to death, exiling them to the desert, etc? I'm starting to see why this is so easy for you guys - you demonize anyone with a different view into backwards, "bronze age" caricatures in order to justify bullying them. And when they offer some mild resistance, you just scream "hate! bigotry!" and hope it sticks. I also think it's pretty funny how you guys mock the photographer for allegedly playing the victim, when the lesbian couple are much more guilty in that regard. They are entitled, melodramatic busybodies with no class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 "Bronze age morality"? So refusing to photograph a gay wedding is the same as stoning gays to death, exiling them to the desert, etc? I'm starting to see why this is so easy for you guys - you demonize anyone with a different view into backwards, "bronze age" caricatures in order to justify bullying them. And when they offer some mild resistance, you just scream "hate! bigotry!" and hope it sticks. Well, the "hate the gays" parts of the Bible do go back that far. Since these alleged Christians must have missed the Classical Age updates from Jesus about loving one another and refraining from judgment, I'm going to stand by my Bronze Age assessment. And you're still sticking with this photography canard. Not at all surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Florida election is too close to call: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-florida-congressional-election-winds-up-20140311,0,4618886.story#axzz2vgrZlbEm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I'm having a hard time telling if you are a Bolshevik or a Fascist. ... I'm starting to see why this is so easy for you guys - you demonize anyone with a different view into backwards, "bronze age" caricatures in order to justify bullying them. And when they offer some mild resistance, you just scream "hate! bigotry!" and hope it sticks. It's clearly much easier to demonize people with a different view as "Bolsheviks" and scream "Fascist!" and hope it sticks. "Statist," "Authoritarian," and of course "Communist" or "Socialist" also work too. As well as "Nazis." For extra bonus points you can use every single one of these handy thought-circumvention terms all at once because that's the right [wing] thing to do lately too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Well, the "hate the gays" parts of the Bible do go back that far. Since these alleged Christians must have missed the Classical Age updates from Jesus about loving one another and refraining from judgment, I'm going to stand by my Bronze Age assessment. How do you know she doesn't love gays? I also saw no judgement in her emails to them. Not that any of that matters - her religion doesn't have to fit with your ideal of "Jesus the hippy Democrat" to be legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 It's clearly much easier to demonize people with a different view as "Bolsheviks" and scream "Fascist!" and hope it sticks. "Statist," "Authoritarian," and of course "Communist" or "Socialist" also work too. As well as "Nazis." For extra bonus points you can use every single one of these handy thought-circumvention terms all at once because that's the right [wing] thing to do lately too. In the specific case of Bloodrider, it's true. He is explicitly authoritarian, and his twisting of language is very "Newspeakian". I wasn't throwing those labels at all of you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 How do you know she doesn't love gays? I also saw no judgement in her emails to them. Not that any of that matters - her religion doesn't have to fit with your ideal of "Jesus the hippy Democrat" to be legitimate. I'd think people who claim to be followers of Christ should actually pay some attention to what Christ preached. Also, for someone pretending to be interested in avoiding reductionist arguments, you're pretty adept with it yourself. Staying on this wedding photography canard, whining about reductionist stereotypes while throwing "Bolshevik" and "Jesus the hippy Democrat" at people -- I guess all these high-minded rules you want are for other people to follow. Poor form. But no reason to expect any better of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I actually do think that we'll make more progress if we don't try to morally label [too much]. It is legal for most businesses to discriminate based on height or favorite baseball team, and I fail to see how that is morally "better" than discriminating based on race or sexuality. Can you give examples where businesses can choose to discriminate based on height or favorite sports team?What "coercion"? If I am walking down the sidewalk, and you ask me to take a picture of you with my phone and I say "no I'm busy" or even a spiteful "no way, Nigger" how the fuck am I coercing you? I don't even see the relevance.On the other hand, if you put a gun to my head and force me to take the picture (as the lesbian couple is asking the government to do in this case) you are undeniably guilty of coercion Lethal force is being employed? I suspect not. In any case, I didn't say it wasn't coercion. I asked why coercion via market forces is okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 exiling them to the desert, etc? Ah nice, I see you've finally given over on your single minded photography focus. Glad to see the real world ramifications of such a law are finally dawning on you. In this case say a gay couple is driving through AZ desert and the only gas station in miles refuses service on the basis of their sexual orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.