Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 9 minutes ago, Savannah said: Does it offend you that he was right or that he pointed out that he was right and didn't want congratulations? Anyone offended by such a thing probably doesn't have a care in the world, it's a complete non issue. Using a massacre as a moment to pat yourself on the back is always the sane reaction. You're right. I'll stop clutching my pearls now. It's not weird or offensive in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wedge Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 This may have been noted, but on Sunday's Meet the Press, Chuck Todd pressed Reince Priebus about the National Security Council decision to not make the Chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Advisor permanent seats. Priebus insisted the Chairman and NSA were welcome to come to the meetings any time they wanted to. This is mealy-mouthed from Priebus, but if I were the Chairman or the NSA, I would show up to EVERY damned meeting, invited or not. Priebus said it was okay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Also, the prediction that somewhere, sometime, someone is going to commit a terrorist attack is completely useless and in no way worthy of praise. I could just as easily say that at some point during the next four years Americans will be killed by white nationalists, or by tornadoes. When these tragedies occur, I'm sure everyone will be tripping over themselves to congratulate me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 6 hours ago, Toth said: Given the current climate, I'm starting to think the new Star Trek show should have a female Arab captain to remind people that... well, people are people. And Star Trek has a history of pushing current and future problems into the spotlight by showing a society that has grown past silly rhetoric of hate and fear. Hum, somehow an image just popped into my mind in which your captain and Klingon captain engage in a shouting contest. "Qapla!" "Allahu akbar!" "QAPLA!!!" Ok, I am probably the only person who finds that idea somewhat funny. But seriously now, Hollywood moving away from the stereotypical Muslim terrorist might be a better step into the right direction (regards to Homeland). But as long as the Muslim suicide bomber works (and sells) so well, there's little chance of that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 24 minutes ago, Commodore said: She didn't say she disagreed with the OLC's assessment (in fact she never made any legal arguments about the order, just her opinion that it wasn't "wise and just"), and if she did and felt she couldn't comply, she should have resigned. Otherwise, what's the point of the OLC? The OLC's assessment was that the EO itself in how it was written, was a legal document. It didn't make an assessment on whether the content of the order violated the constitution. As we saw from her hearing when Sessions questioned her on this very nature, I think she has the ability to put pause on her staff while she investigates the constitutionality of the law. I agree that her legal argument for not following along was limited and unpersuasive. I do thinks she has the right to direct her staff on which laws they want to defend and if she feels she needs to determine if it's unconstitutional or not before defending it, I think that's her call. And it's the President's call on whether he fires her, which he did. That being said, the issue mostly with everything here is the way he fired her. He called her actions a "betrayal" which is untrue and it's a propaganda message that suggests if you go against this president, you will no longer have a job. To add to that, he says she was terrible, not tough on borders or immigration and tries his best to destroy her credibility. It was very Trump so not a surprise but it suggests an expectation of complete and utter loyalty to anything Trump says, no matter how wrong he is, instead of hiring people for their capabilities/experience/resumes. That, at least, should worry you even if you disagree with what Yates did and agree with her firing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 49 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Iraqi General Leading Counterterror Operations Against ISIS Says He's Been Banned From Visiting Family in U.S. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/31/iraqi_general_gen_talib_al_kenani_says_muslim_ban_keeping_him_from_visiting.html For the love of God. Is there no end to the stupidity of this blanket action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 53 minutes ago, Commodore said: Disagree, the unelected DoJ has no constitutional authority independent from the elected Executive/Legislative branches, for good reason. The AG can't pick and choose which (legal) laws/orders to enforce. She's drawing a salary from the taxpayer (not to mention her oath of office) to enforce the law. Her own legal office said it was a lawful order, and she never said otherwise in her statement. By this logic Nixon's AG was in the wrong for refusing to fire the Special Prosecutor investigating Watergate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily Valley Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Lany, essentially if someone in my department objects to working with me for "religious reasons", I can be fired. All federal contractors could object to hiring LGBT people and impose discriminatory hiring / firing practices. It effectively shoves LGBT people back in the closet. It is still hard enough to prove you were denied employment for discriminatory reasons, this would give people carte blanche to say things like, "God hates you, you're fired," or "God hates you, get out of my restaurant." 3 hours ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said: The supreme court has already ruled on this issue, so getting rid of gay marriage will not be done legally. It's the other parts that worry me though, allowing the discrimination and denial of rights that everyone else has. What kind of effect with that have on the LGBTQ community? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 One has to wonder why an omnipotent, benevolent god would create so many things he hates. Hang in there, Lily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Lily Valley said: Lany, essentially if someone in my department objects to working with me for "religious reasons", I can be fired. All federal contractors could object to hiring LGBT people and impose discriminatory hiring / firing practices. It effectively shoves LGBT people back in the closet. It is still hard enough to prove you were denied employment for discriminatory reasons, this would give people carte blanche to say things like, "God hates you, you're fired," or "God hates you, get out of my restaurant." oh, I know! I was being rhetorical. I have even bigger fears for the emotional well being of our LGBTQ community. My son attempted suicide once as teen, and I know this is a major issue with many already, and I fear it getting to epidemic proportions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily Valley Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said: oh, I know! I was being rhetorical. I have even bigger fears for the emotional well being of our LGBTQ community. My son attempted suicide once as teen, and I know this is a major issue with many already, and I fear it getting to epidemic proportions. Gah, sorry. I've got a bad cold and this week has been eye-opening. You wouldn't believe some of the weird shit my friends have said to me. ! ! While I am relieved that the equal opportunity act will stay in place, I think that there's a good chance the religious freedom shit could be enforced or sent back to the states. This would undermine the order and the supreme court ruling the same way that "states rights" have undermined Roe V. Wade. If I have to move out of state, do I live in the same America that everyone else does? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 6 minutes ago, Lily Valley said: Gah, sorry. I've got a bad cold and this week has been eye-opening. You wouldn't believe some of the weird shit my friends have said to me. ! ! While I am relieved that the equal opportunity act will stay in place, I think that there's a good chance the religious freedom shit could be enforced or sent back to the states. This would undermine the order and the supreme court ruling the same way that "states rights" have undermined Roe V. Wade. If I have to move out of state, do I live in the same America that everyone else does? I think not. I think FADA (or whatever name they are calling it now) is the biggest bunch of horse shit around. I will NEVER understand the logic behind it. Just how does it infringe upon a person's religion to have a gay person working in the same building? or for them to be married? or be able to shop locally? I really just don't get it. If your religion tells you that God says it is bad to be gay, then don't be gay, and leave the rest of us alone. I will full on rebel if any such thing is passed. The armed rebellion starts here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 FADA - First Amendment Defense Act Why does the First Amendment need a law to defend it? I realize this may be over simplistic, but the Constitution and Amendments supersede any laws. What is the point unless the law is expressly NOT something within the First Amendment? Please discuss the First Amendment Defense Act which is neither about the First Amendment nor an act related to Defense. Discuss. /CoffeeTalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Commodore said: Disagree, the unelected DoJ has no constitutional authority independent from the elected Executive/Legislative branches, for good reason. The AG can't pick and choose which (legal) laws/orders to enforce. She's drawing a salary from the taxpayer (not to mention her oath of office) to enforce the law. Her own legal office said it was a lawful order, and she never said otherwise in her statement. She actually said that she was unsure if it was lawful or not. It was pretty clearly stated. The AG does not have constitutional authority in that way, but they are expected to both uphold the constitution and (per the Sessions hearing) give their legal advise. Again, we have a crazy amount of examples of this happening in the past where the AG refused to implement an order done by POTUS or others on its legal grounds. What we haven't had is someone being fired for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 50 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said: I think FADA (or whatever name they are calling it now) is the biggest bunch of horse shit around. I will NEVER understand the logic behind it. Just how does it infringe upon a person's religion to have a gay person working in the same building? or for them to be married? or be able to shop locally? I really just don't get it. If your religion tells you that God says it is bad to be gay, then don't be gay, and leave the rest of us alone. I will full on rebel if any such thing is passed. The armed rebellion starts here. Exactly, the logic is totally backwards. Also, these laws always have an undertone of "only applies to Christians." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Exactly, the logic is totally backwards. Also, these laws always have an undertone of "only applies to Christians." 54 minutes ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said: I think FADA (or whatever name they are calling it now) is the biggest bunch of horse shit around. I will NEVER understand the logic behind it. Just how does it infringe upon a person's religion to have a gay person working in the same building? or for them to be married? or be able to shop locally? I really just don't get it. If your religion tells you that God says it is bad to be gay, then don't be gay, and leave the rest of us alone. It's an intellectual slight of hand. Allegedly it's supposed be about "freedom". Yeah, the freedom to discriminate against other people, making their lives miserable. It's complete bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Hasn't the supreme court already ruled that you can't use freedom of religion as an excuse for discrimination? That sort of logic was absolutely applied to not allowing interracial couples to eat at restaurants. "My religion forbids it!" did not hold up. I don't see how throwing gay couples out of restaurants would be any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Sean Spicer press conference. With just a few phone calls he has shaved billions off the price of the new fighter jet. Here in Canada, it has been regularly reported that the price of the F35 has been steadily dropping. So who is lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Shades of the Andrew Johnson catastrophic attempt to reign! But there's no one with the stature of Grant in D.C. to counter this -- thank you do-nothing Dems. As the overarching purpose of all of this is sledge hammering the federal government out of existence and keeping them in charge forever, their best strategy so far is keeping 'em coming, one after another, all the time, destabilizing everything. Thus we are in a constant state of instability, in which we actually do nothing -- like McClellan in The War of Rebellion / Civil War. So then, what we must do, is keep in mind these words of, at that time, General Grant: Quote Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command, and try to think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do. As quoted in "Campaigning with Grant" (December 1896), by General Horace Porter, The Century Magazine. We know that they are going to destroy everything, so constantly being shocked that sky is falling -- hey, it's already fallen, it is civil war (check the criteria for such categories). Our last civil war was also a revolution -- i.e. it restructured the economy and legal structures by emancipation of slavery. This one -- just war, it seems, at least so far. But then the war of the rebellion didn't begin exactly with the objective of emancipation in mind at the highest levels either. But it got there. So we need to think very hard about what we are going to do and what our objectives are. We particularly need to think about the army -- which Grant had in the palm of his hand, and he was on the side of the angels. We don't have that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Wikipeda say this about FADA Quote The bill provides that the federal government "shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."[1] So lets parse this out a bit. As per the discussion, it can broadly discriminate against LBGT+ but it also says "marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage" So, sexually active single people, gay or straight can be discriminated against simply because they aren't married. So slut shaming becomes the law of the land? This provides for pharmacists to deny selling birth control to single women, and other abuses to single, sexually active women would be allowed. Oh course, this would apply to men as well. Also it says "shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief". So if I read this right, my landlord or employer could kick my secular ass to the curb because I don't believe in gods, or, say for example, a Southern Baptist could do the same to a Quaker because they think Quakers are of the devil? Really? Is this what this means? ffs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.