Politics 2017 Part 3

[Zoraptor]

Such relationship is seen indefensible for said 30 years old because they are in position where they can easily manipulate and control said 14 years old.

 

IIRC the boy was 12 when the relationship started, he was 14 when it was discovered/ she was prosecuted. Not that that invalidates the rest of the post of course, it rather reinforces it.

[Volourn]

"That said, I can't really imagine 14 year old me would have had any issues with banging my hot English teacher. "

 

It's not up to the teenager to make the mature choice. It is up for the 30 year old. That's the issue to me. Everyone knows that teens are basically going into heat. Again, it is up the adult to say no.

 

It doesn't matter if the teacher is male or female. Or if the student is male or female. The situation is the ame. And, no, none of this 'girls are fragile little snowflakes and boys are horny little toads'.  That kind fos exist insulting B.S. is exactly that - especially since by most studies girls tend to mature earlier than boys to begin with - both physically and emotionally (so the experts say).

 

If you are 30 year old adult (and teacher at that) and your teen student is hitting/flirting on/with you... just say NO.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Volourn

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why wasn't "Summer of '42" banned, that's all I want to know.

[Longknife]

I haven't been back here in a while and serious question: how can you guys keep going...?

 

I've become so jaded with it all. There's sooooooo much misinformation from both sides it's absolutely absurd. Not to quote Alex Jones (<---idiot) but this really has become "info wars" with both Republicans and Democrats spouting absolute nonsense to fit their agenda, and the divide between the two is bigger than ever. Republicans hating Democrats and vice versa as both blindly vote for their party without thinking twice...? That's always been an issue, but now it's worse than ever and extremely toxic. "Respect" is all but forgotten.

 

Just today I've seen a false flag story of some Turks in Germany celebrating a wedding by blocking traffic in the street and playing with gas pistols (still incredibly dickish) being sold as Islamists "showing their dominance" with actual guns, and I also briefly took part in a conversation before being banned from it entirely. My crime? Made one comment only: I said harassing people with nonstop preaching of how Trump is Satan and demanding others be your audience is not a good way to recruit political allies as it's instead more likely to annoy people and alienate them. This obviously makes me a Republican and an avid Trump fan, so I was barred from discussion. The latter one even resulted in an unneccesary off-colored remark about my disability. I'm a big boy so it doesn't bother me, but still wtf how you gonna make fun of someone for being disabled for SLIGHTLY disagreeing with your political methods??

I'm at an absolute loss and have been for months. I'm at the point I think it's truly impossible for politics in the USA to get any better. It's depressing to watch.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Longknife

[Raithe]

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

True, but if they had to burn him on the stake I would prefer it to be over something legit.

 

The things he said obviously came from personal experience and relate to a particular situation. While I find the comments distasteful and disagree with the notion that confused "gay?" teenagers should engage in relationships with older men - instead of going to their parents first, it is painfully obvious that he was in no way condoning pedophilia. 

 

I suspect they wanted to disassociate with him rather than have him and Trump appear at the same conference, so, ironically enough - it was his own crowd that did him in.

The whole brouhaha over his remarks seems pretty artificial to me. It's pretty sad that the topic in question is such a taboo that just sharing his personal perspective automatically has him labelled as a pedophilia apologist (despite the fact that pedophilia specifically refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children, which doesn't reflect the case he described).

 

Dropping him from conferences and cancelling his book contract is exactly the kind of persecution that "the left" is accused of in favor of PC. While I find it hilarious that "the right" are getting their collective panties all bunched up in exactly the same way, it's hard to dispute that this has all the looks of a character assassination.

 

 

I think he miscalculated American political culture. While you can say a lot of extreme things there, it is fundamentally more conservative and set in its ways (regardless of whether those ways are Republican or Democrat) than modern Britain or Europe. He was "good" while the alt-right was needed to propel Trump, but with his behavior (rude, gay, openly critical of the gay community, in an interracial relationship, his style of dress etc.) he crossed so many less-than-visible lines he probably had a ticking bomb on him from the start.

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, he just did himself in. Breitbart had whole sections just about him, and Breitbart is probably now the most influential US website.

 

What fathers build, the sons piss away: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/massive-744975-cracks-true.html

[213374U]

No, he just did himself in. Breitbart had whole sections just about him, and Breitbart is probably now the most influential US website.

 

Ah. So who's the Daedalus in this story then? Bannon?

 

Your comment about Breitbart's influence is just another point for Guard Dog's "ban the internet" initiative, I reckon.

Edited February 27, 2017 by 213374U

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't see this as an Icarus story. This is a guy undone by his own nature.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

I think you and I were having two different conversations. You are pointing at the past and trying to tell me how much better things are now. I'm pointing at now and trying to tell you how much worse they are than they should be.

if you don't like the now, then change it.  is only bad 'cause we let it be bad.  patriot act were voted overwhelming bipartisan.  the ordinance preventing your little girl lemonade stand?  weren't a demagogue who implemented.  is nothing preventing you from getting changed. you are part of heavy handed government, so fix it.

 

and yeah, val's argument sucked.  we got far more functional freedom today than 100 or even 50 years ago.  has government become too protective and invasive in specific situations?  sure it has, and we rail 'gainst such, but use patently wrong and utter ridiculous appeals to the past is not gonna help. just realize it is the saame democracy we spoke o' earlier which makes it possible for government to do stoopid stuff such as patriot acts and little girl lemonade stand prohibitions.  such democracy is also available to you if you wanna change.  

 

fix the problems.  we made the problems.  now fix.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Changing it is EXACTLY why we discuss politics on boards like this. And I daresay it does have some small effect. 10 years ago as far as I remember I was the ONLY one on this board making Libertarian arguments. With the occasional exception of everyone's favorite lawyer from California, particularly where speech is concerned. Today there are quite a few folks who, if not all the way on board are at least considering the merits of the libertarian philosophy. I'd call that a win. The whole point of a discussion isn't to convince someone you are right, it's to make them at least think about your argument.

 

And it's worked on me too. I've had m opinions changed by things folks on this board have argued to me. Once by Enoch no less and he and I couldn't even agree if rain was wet.

 

Other than talking to people the only other options are voting and I've never failed to do that... at least not in November. I may have sat out some special elections though. And run for office. No way in hell am I doing THAT again.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Drowsy Emperor]

I don't see this as an Icarus story. This is a guy undone by his own nature.

 

He lived off of saying controversial things. It was never an issue up until it was decided overnight that its time for it to become an issue. 

[pmp10]

I haven't been back here in a while and serious question: how can you guys keep going...?

Aren't you even a bit curious where things are heading?

Middle-ground in politics has been slowly disappearing for a while now.

This thread may be a glimpse into political future of US. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I don't see this as an Icarus story. This is a guy undone by his own nature.

 

He lived off of saying controversial things. It was never an issue up until it was decided overnight that its time for it to become an issue.

 

Most of it was only controversial to the left. It's true he also said a lot of sexual things, but that was OK with Breitbart (I think the founder was a bit of a gay rights champion), and conservatives accepted it because they loved how he bashed the left. He just finally went too far to ignore for people on his own side.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

I don't see this as an Icarus story. This is a guy undone by his own nature.

 

He lived off of saying controversial things. It was never an issue up until it was decided overnight that its time for it to become an issue.

 

Most of it was only controversial to the left. It's true he also said a lot of sexual things, but that was OK with Breitbart (I think the founder was a bit of a gay rights champion), and conservatives accepted it because they loved how he bashed the left. He just finally went too far to ignore for people on his own side.

 

 

As I said, that's how its presented. I personally think he just outlived his usefulness. Even without the comments I have a hard time believing they would let him speak at the same gathering Trump would speak, now that he's president. Its completely inappropriate

[Agiel]

Prediction: The contents of the new immigration ban Executive Order to supersede the one judged as unconstitutional by courts have already been leaked to lawyers so that when it is signed, it will immediately get slapped with lawsuits.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Agiel

[Gromnir]

trump narcissism is so profound, he actually thinks the oscar mix-up last night were 'cause o' hollywood's preoccupation with him.

 

...

 

*sigh*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Enoch]

 

 

 

I don't see this as an Icarus story. This is a guy undone by his own nature.

 

He lived off of saying controversial things. It was never an issue up until it was decided overnight that its time for it to become an issue.

 

Most of it was only controversial to the left. It's true he also said a lot of sexual things, but that was OK with Breitbart (I think the founder was a bit of a gay rights champion), and conservatives accepted it because they loved how he bashed the left. He just finally went too far to ignore for people on his own side.

 

 

As I said, that's how its presented. I personally think he just outlived his usefulness. Even without the comments I have a hard time believing they would let him speak at the same gathering Trump would speak, now that he's president. Its completely inappropriate

 

Well, since when has "completely inappropriate" stopped this President from doing anything?

 

More generally, I think WoD has the pulse on this one.  Keep in mind where the votes and money that support far-right cultural policies in the U.S. come from.  It's mostly older religious folks.  Homosexuality isn't something that this demographic is all that hip to, but it's mainstream enough that they're willing to accept (and be entertained by) a (figurative) bomb-throwing in-your-face gay provocateur who targets things that they hate more.  So long as he was taunting feminists, academics, trans folks, aspects of gay culture, etc., he was entertaining and a promising avenue toward more youth interest in conservative causes.  

 

Needless to say, though, implied support of sex with children is a huge no-go with this crowd.  Even if that wasn't what he really meant, etc., etc., this particular audience isn't too far removed from the days when the common understanding of "sexual deviants" drew no distinction between folks who were simply gay and folks who were into 7-year-olds.  Any suggestion of crossing that particular line is especially damning with a good hunk of their support/audience, even if they'd still love to have an advocate like him out there making headlines.  

Edited February 28, 2017 by Enoch

[Guard Dog]

 

Just sayin'

[Namutree]

 

Just sayin'

He was pro-TPP; Trump timeline is best timeline.

[Chilloutman]

 

to be fair, I don't think any religious school would be much different...

Edited February 28, 2017 by Chilloutman

[Malcador]

Seems like not much point in posting then.

 

Ah, finally Canadian politics has something interesting - even if it is some Reform-type. https://www.facebook.com/KellieLeitchMP/videos/1314609118576466/

 

Still wonder what on earth Canadian values are, should be a laugh riot whatever they come up with.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

 

to be fair, I don't think any religious school would be much different...

 

That's completely typical of any religious school. The science teacher likely does not have the educational background to really effectively teach about evolution. You get that all over the US in Christian schools.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Just sayin'

I think I saw that whino panhandling on the street the other day.

[213374U]

That's completely typical of any religious school. The science teacher likely does not have the educational background to really effectively teach about evolution. You get that all over the US in Christian schools.

Is it, though? And what do you mean that science teachers don't have the educational background to effectively teach evolution? Aren't HS science teachers supposed to be, uh, scientists themselves?

 

Regardless, it appears that not all religions are created equal when dealing with the fact that we're descended from tadpoles swimming in filth.

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-the-question-of-evolution/

 

The video reminded me of something I was reading the other day, a thorough "refutation" of evolution from an epistemological standpoint, by a Muslim "scholar" (quotation marks because he's considered a fraud by some Muslims apparently) who was trained in a US university.

 

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm

 

Funny thing is, it's a reply to a question from an actual Muslim biologist, of all people, trying to come to terms with the fact that evolution is kufr. Richard Dawkins may look like a bit of a man on a mission of late, but I have massive respect for the man and ultimately he's trying to fight against the idiocy that is the idea that "I'm entitled to my opinion".

[Hurlshort]

 

That's completely typical of any religious school. The science teacher likely does not have the educational background to really effectively teach about evolution. You get that all over the US in Christian schools.

Is it, though? And what do you mean that science teachers don't have the educational background to effectively teach evolution? Aren't HS science teachers supposed to be, uh, scientists themselves?

 

 

Not at private schools. They are not held to the same standard as public schools when it comes to credentialed teachers.