Random Politics & Religion #14

There was a Norwegian woman a few years ago as well

Free press. >.>

Not even touching the dumb politicians who can't be bothered to educate themselves.

Does that make three publicized cases of this then, or am I confusing the last time it was international news? I would have sworn it was a British woman last time I heard about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Gali
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Marte_Dalelv

Normally, I'm on board with this general sentiment

But when his own party thought he was too racist to be a judge - in the 80s! - maybe the correct response really is "whoa, maybe this guy shouldn't be the Attorney General of the United States, ya think?"

Stop being so cravenly PC, Rooks.

Well ***. Clearly I conflated one with the other, but that does make 3.

***'s sake, Dubai.

YOU EDITED THAT; I SAW YOU USE THE WRONG FORM OF "TO"!!

Are you saying this in you admin character or another of your personalities?

...rainbow tag doesn't like quotation marks, huh?

Just going to leave this here:

http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Jeff_Sessions_Civil_Rights.htm

No, it's super finicky. It's kind of an obnoxious thing to deal with, really.


If I show up as "Rooks", it's admin-mode. Any other ID you see in here is me just partaking in the discussion.


I'm on the record as saying I'll fix typos if asked, so I can fix my own too. What always happens though, is people start shaking their fist in the air or talking about angels getting their wings or what not, so I just leave their typos as is

Probably tons of cases that don't get picked up by the media and then the cases that aren't reported because it's such a shithole to assaulted women

Yeah. That's sort of the implication. You know for every time it happens to one international traveler with the clout to get the world out it's happening far, far more frequently to people without the ability to fight back.

Yes, but really when we're being reasonable, clearly you have to see that...

He sounds like a very open-minded, thoughtful individual!

Said absolutely no one.

Rooks pointed it out.

I suggested maybe Rooks was being too politically correct.

We've had these discussions before. There are no logical arguments for, say, a Muslim ban or marriage inequality. That's where this call for understanding ultimately breaks down since it's hard to trace some lines of thinking back to an attitude that doesn't stem from a fundamental belief that certain groups are inferior to others and don't deserve the same treatment.

Which is where everything falls apart, because the people who want them see them as perfectly logical and reasonable. Muslim terrorists are too big a danger to our freedom and Muslim communities, intentionally or otherwise, clearly represent a place where these terrorists can hide out and plot against America.

As for gay marriage, there's no question. Men and women were made to be together, men and men were not. It's right in the Bible. Marriage came from God in the very beginning. Not man. You can't pervert that!

...you see why this is all very difficult.

The only inferior group is us deplorables on FFXIAH !

I'll sign that legislation.

When people say that Math and numbers are racist, it really loses its effect. Great job on calling everything and everyone you don't like racist. It means absolutely nothing now.

I don't know I've ever heard that math and numbers are racist, but I've certainly heard that objective weights and measurements are fatphobic, so some fat activist psycho made this.

Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act
- Agreed to this. The courts should care about violence against PEOPLE, not just Women. Men get *** in court, and family court is essentially a shake down these days. If a woman so much as breaks a nail or bruises her hand while beating her husband with a hammer in most cases the male will still get the book thrown at him.

Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration
- Disagreed to this. Burning the flag is a ***thing to do, but should be an upheld right nonetheless.

Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage
- Disagreed to this. While I think marriage shouldn't be anything the government even gets involved with, it should be open to homosexuals, transexuals, dragonkin, spriggankin, whatever.

Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes
- Agreed to this for mostly the reason 'hate crime' is a silly construct anyway. If it's a crime regardless of what the perpetrator felt, then it's a crime.

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping
- Disagreed, government and law enforcement should go through rigorous efforts to get this type of privilege.

Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business
- Agreed, make it equal for all, what's with propping up people based on race or gender? That's just as racist as beating down other based on race or gender.

In the SJW world, to acknowledge differences is to pick sides. It's only allowed when the result soils the majority.

It's not very tolerant or open minded to be incapable of seeing anything but your own predujices in the genesis of people's beliefs. Just sayin.

I will legit challenge you on he notion that you have to shill the Bible if you insist on observing the differences between heterosexual and homosexual unions.

Do you even see that your prejudice is in full display?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing.

I am going to explain that the theory here is that by giving them additional funding that's what makes it fair, otherwise they're starting from a position of weakness.

Again. I'm not supporting. Just explaining the theory.

So, I heard a little earlier on the radio a caller who was concerned about Trump's promise to create jobs. Why? Because more jobs means more businesses and more businesses means MORE POLLUTION.

McLol.

Without religion there is no basis on outrage for the topic. The physical differences are obvious, but from a legal and societal standpoint there is no valid basis for denying two people in love the right to equal rights under the law.


You have never seen my prejudice on full display Nausi, and you never will. I would never get myself that satisfaction, let alone you.