Politics Episode 7: Remake of Episode 4

[pmp10]

''The most recent report, published mid-May, had already flagged up the Czech Republic – along with Austria, Hungary, and Poland – as having major problems.''

So what did Austria do to warrant flagging by Brussels?

[redneckdevil]

 

 

 

 

.

 

and actually, the first amendment very much protects your right to be associated with the kkk. is some situations where the Court has decided strict scrutiny test is met when police keep records o' associations with various gangs AND fringe christian groups, but is same level of protection. christianity don't get a free pass. for the purposes o' the Constitution, christianity is no more special than the kkk.

 

HA! Good Fun!

The 1st Amend protects the freedom to associate. It does not shield from criticism for associations. No one can stop Mr. Smith from joining the Klan. But we can sure rake him over the coals for it. Or they could kiss his butt and fall all over themselves explaining it away like they did for a certain Senator I remember.

similarly, we can rake mr. smith over the coals for arguably bigoted statements, regardless o' whether or not he uses christianity as his defense. bernie did not ask 'bout religion. again, review the video. mr. vought used religion as the only explanation for his comments w/o actual explanation or illumination. take the same exact situation but replace with mr. smith. have mr. smith make the exact same statement. mr smith notes the deficiency of muslim faith. mr. smith observes the problem w/the islamic faith is Not simple one o' deficient theology and that muslims is "condemned." mr. smith defends his actions and words, as do many kkk members, by invoking christianity. simple invoke religion should have senators falling over themselves in an effort to kiss mr. smith's butt?

 

change situation. political appointee mr. asfour makes comments which suggest women is a deficient gender and as such require the protection of men. bernie questions mr. asfour 'bout statements. mr. asfour observes how women is 'posed to be treated with "dignity and respect." when bernie asks what mr. asfour meant 'bout the deficiency o' the feminine gender, all mr. asfour will respond with is a declaration o' his islamic faith.

 

can keep this up all day.

 

religion is not quite the sacred cow gd believes it to be. we frequent question Prospective public officials 'bout specific religious beliefs which might make them unfit to do their jobs. invoke catholicism, judaism, branch davidianism, or satanism as an explanation for any questionable behavior or action does not have those with questioners necessarily falling over themselves. sure, Congressmen do often fall over themselves when christianity is invoked, but reason is 'cause most voters is christian. the logical gymnastics is political rather than Constitutional.

 

is some logic gymnastics being performed here as well. not wanna see folks fall over themselves for christianity when they clear would not do so for other belief systems.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Correct me if I'm wrong but islamicphobia is about a religion correct? Because correct me if I'm wrong, but Bernie used Isla islamicphobia as the reason for outrage, so since religion can be the cause of outrage, but religion can't be the answer or reason to said outrage towards a religion?

I'd agree with ya if Bernie didn't repeatedly say islamicphobia as the reason what he wrote was wrong.

 

Also would this be a example of discrimination of religion in work place?

 

Basically I got that since one person believes the ending to Grimm fairy tales, it is oppression towards the ones who like mother goose fairy tales better...

Edited June 12, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Gromnir]

BREAKING NEWS:

U.S. appeals court rules against Trump’s revised travel ban. Details to come.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps islamophobia is a flavor of bigotry.  it does not require a religious origin.  can accuse an atheist of islamophobia, yes?  nothing inherent religious 'bout the bigotry. flawed syllogism. 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Gromnir

[rjshae]

Hasn't AG Sessions already been accused of lying under oath? Apparently we're going to hear the "truth" from him. Or at least the truthiness.

[Raithe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6PFNcON1OU

[Volourn]

"So what did Austria do to warrant flagging by Brussels?"

 

had the gall to  think outside of the EU group think project.  EU like all Nazi organizations LOATHE that.

[Malcador]

 

It's like an all hands at a weird startup

[Gromnir]

video

 

It's like an all hands at a weird startup

as usual, the simpsons did it better.  what could go wrong with a room full of sycophants and toadies?

 

 

sadly, gonna need wait 3.5 years before our mr. burns gets kicked out of his big house.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Valsuelm]

You know the biggest difference between you guys and me? My response would be exactly the same whether the candidate were christian, muslim, or the lord high bishop of the church of Volurn....

 

But there differences between the three!

 

Priests of Volourn get +3 on rolls vs Nazis.

 

It's not a bad class choice.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

You know the biggest difference between you guys and me? My response would be exactly the same whether the candidate were christian, muslim, or the lord high bishop of the church of Volurn. Who he prays to when he bows his head has exactly nothing, nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job. Sanders is the one who made this an issue. It was an ugly tactic by an angry little man.

 

So he "thinks" non-Christians are all going to hell. Are they? No? Then who cares what he thinks. Don't believe in hell? Then who cares what he thinks. Can he crunch numbers and will he report any wrongdoing he sees? That is really all that matters.

My response is exactly the same regardless of whether the candidate is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, or atheist: if the candidate is set on making a public statement condemning other groups on a total non-basis - if it's a Christian saying Muslims have a "deficient" theology or that all non-Christians are "condemned", or an atheist calling Christians "idiots" or "ignorant" and denouncing all religions, or a Muslim calling non-Muslims infidels or whatever - and then repeatedly reinforcing that statement when later questioned about it with the lame excuse of "Well, as a Christian...", it's going to raise some serious red flags for me on their ability to treat and serve all types of Americans equally. I one hundred percent agree with Bernie Sanders on his final statement: I'm not sure we need any more kinds of these candidates who evidently set on condemning and looking down upon entire groups of Americans for no other reason besides their stinking religion. As you literally just put it yourself a few posts ago, "[We] are heading down a dark road when [we] start judging people on what is going on in their heads." That's exactly what this candidate did, and it's why some of us would feel uncomfortable with him when it concerns a not insignificant amount of people on a total non-basis.

 

I genuinely do not understand why everyone is up about this....

 

Because a lot of people have been brainwashed to knee jerk react negatively to home grown religious peoples, particularly Christians.

 

The best part of all of this is Bernie wasn't even remotely sincere in his line of questioning or criticism, yet he successfully stoked the fire. Good job evil politician.

[Valsuelm]

 

Isn't propaganda grand?

 

 

Anyone who thought Brexit was going to happen without an illegitimate fight, was mistaken. May's call for election had predictably fabricated results.

 

My prediction is Brexit will not happen, unless there's blood on the streets, and at that point war won't be far behind.

 

Blood on the streets and war is on the horizon, but probably a little further out than the timeline Brexit needs to occur in.

 

 

[Bartimaeus]

 

It's like an all hands at a weird startup

Reminds me of the silly "what're you thankful for" type-gatherings you'd do in the first couple of years of school, and maybe during Sunday school as well. They were kind of weird back then, but for kids, it makes a little sense to do it: supposed to encourage you to think about what you have and help you realize that you should have some appreciation for it. For grown men that are supposed to governing our country, on the other hand...and furthermore, to direct most of it towards Trump...

Edited June 13, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Ben No.3]

 

Do you know Feuerbach? Or Freud, for that matter?

 

Yes and yes. Feuerbach had an interesting notion that man created God rather than than the reverse. That people see good in themselves and project it outwardly in our minds as coming from a benevolent supreme being. Not a theory I'd buy into myself.

There's more to it. The idea that man created god, more specifically, an image of God, is shared both. Their reasoning is different.

Feuerbach assumed that religion is in a way like a tool to make philosophical progress easier: The god(s) created by a specific society are a projection of the state of the human mind. "Outsourcing" that makes it simpler to reflect about it. There's also a development... for example, Greek and Roman gods are representatives of certain characteristics, Christianity then is representative of human ideals.

Freud saw more of a parental thing, of course. According to him, we long for a sense of all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good protection that we had in earliest childhood from our father (or rather, we perceived that we had it). This need is deeply ingrained, and especially if you were brought up to be religious, Freud thinks that you will project this imagine of your father into god during adolescence and after, as you get more independent and as you realise that your father can in fact not do all of this.

 

Mind you, although implying gods non-existence, it does certainly not prove it.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Raithe]

Hm, so who noticed this bit and what do you think it's effect will actually be?

 

The 9th circuit decreed that Trump's twitter feed must be taken seriously

 

 

 

Buried in a footnote in the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ unanimous opinion upholding the bulk of the injunction blocking Donald Trump’s travel ban, there is a moment of reckoning in which the panel addresses whether the president’s tweets constitute binding statements of executive intent.

 

In making a determination that the second version of the executive order exceeds the statutory authority granted to the president, the panel finds that the order “does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The panel then drops a footnote to add the following observation about the president’s actual intentions in enacting the order:

 

Indeed, the President recently confirmed his assessment that it is the “countries” that are inherently dangerous, rather than the 180 million individual nationals of those countries who are barred from entry under the President’s “travel ban.” See Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (June 5, 2017, 6:20 PM),

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871899511525961728

(“That’s right, we need a TRAVEL BAN for certain DANGEROUS countries, not some politically correct term that won’t help us protect our people!”) (emphasis in original).

 

Put aside for a second the legal glory that lies in that “emphasis in original,” a parenthetical that does so much work while doing nothing at all. What’s really vital is that the footnote also does away with the claim that such tweets should be ignored or swept aside, noting a CNN piece that reported “the White House Press Secretary’s confirmation that the President’s tweets are ‘considered official statements by the President of the United States.’ ”

 

The question of how seriously the courts should be taking the president’s informal and spontaneous tweets is a serious one, and—as was discussed on this week’s Amicus podcast—a question that hasn’t thus far been treated with great rigor. In a new article on presidential speech and the courts, Cardozo Law School’s Kate Shaw notes that the judicial branch shouldn’t take casual presidential comments too seriously. She argues, however, that there is a subset of cases in which presidential speech reflects a clear manifestation of intent to enter the legal arena, among them cases touching on foreign relations or national security and those in which government purpose constitutes an element of a legal test. Based in part on Sean Spicer’s assurance that Trump’s tweets are official statements, the per curiam panel of the 9^th Circuit has just ruled that the president’s Twitter commentary clearly falls in the category of speech that belongs in the legal arena.

 

What does it mean that courts may now begin to take the president’s tweets seriously? Beyond the implications for the travel ban, the notion that Trump’s Twitter feed is its own binding constitutional stream of consciousness invites all sorts of other delightful legal interventions. For one thing, the somewhat charming letter sent last week by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University now looks like a more serious complaint. The letter, which was sent by the Knight Institute’s Executive Director Jameel Jaffer, argues on behalf of a group of Twitter users that the First Amendment precludes him from blocking people on social media. The letter, which at least implies that it may be followed with a lawsuit, describes the Trump Twitter feed as a designated public forum and a curated series of official statements. Thanks to the 9^th Circuit, that characterization now has more teeth.

 

The finding by the 9^th Circuit also gives some force to another fanciful enterprise, the daringly named COVFEFE Act, a piece of legislation introduced Monday by Rep. Mike Quigley, a Democrat from Illinois. The Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement Act amends the existing Presidential Records Act to include “social media,” a move that could make it illegal for the president to delete his tweets.

 

We’ve been told by the White House at various points to take the tweets seriously, to take them seriously but not literally, and to take them not at all seriously. The courts now seem to have decided to go with door No. 1.

 

I know what you’re thinking here, so let’s just say it aloud: Why are the federal courts wasting valuable time looking at the president’s Twitter feed when they could be assessing his executive authority? And why are legal journalists writing about it? One might answer those questions with yet another question: Why is the president wasting time he could be spending making the country safer by tweeting threats at the federal courts?

 

Your move, Mr. President. We’d submit that tweeting “see you in court” isn’t helpful given that the courts have now made plain that they see you, too.

 

 

 

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Wake me up when the Supreme Court affirms the 9th circus decision.

[HoonDing]

"It's like an all hands at a weird startup :p"

 

all tiny hands

[Guard Dog]

I have to stop paying attention to this stuff. Democrats, Republicans, Trump, all of it is just appalling. It's like walking into a room full of screaming monkeys fighting and hurling feces at each other. You didn't want any of these monkeys. You didn't ask for them to be there. They aren't even your monkeys. But you know you will have to clean up the mess.

 

Yeah... it is a lot like that.

[Gromnir]

I have to stop paying attention to this stuff. Democrats, Republicans, Trump, all of it is just appalling. It's like walking into a room full of screaming monkeys fighting and hurling feces at each other. You didn't want any of these monkeys. You didn't ask for them to be there. They aren't even your monkeys. But you know you will have to clean up the mess.

 

Yeah... it is a lot like that.

save during wartime, the Elected fed government tends to look like a cage filled with p00p throwing monkeys, and as a libertarian, gd is no doubt more suspicious o' the government when it is actual working efficient.  ineffectual fed is the bestest protection o' individual state rights.

 

we look at such silliness as is going on in washington and often forget the fed is working as designed.  you got an unpopular President who is unable to create meaningful support in Congress.  lack o' a President with Congressional and public support almost guarantees the legislative branch will fail to pass laws with genuine national impact.  the courts, largely unconcerned by politics and instead dedicated to the legal philosophies, further act to prevent sweeping unilateral changes.  the career bureaucrats, also insulated from the fecal flinging primates by practical concerns rather than Constitutional protections, roll their eyes at the silliness and go on with business as usual to the best o' their ability.  this is exact how is 'posed to work.  

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[Malcador]

I have to stop paying attention to this stuff. Democrats, Republicans, Trump, all of it is just appalling. It's like walking into a room full of screaming monkeys fighting and hurling feces at each other. You didn't want any of these monkeys. You didn't ask for them to be there. They aren't even your monkeys. But you know you will have to clean up the mess.

 

Yeah... it is a lot like that.

Well at least the civil service is working.

[Guard Dog]

 

I have to stop paying attention to this stuff. Democrats, Republicans, Trump, all of it is just appalling. It's like walking into a room full of screaming monkeys fighting and hurling feces at each other. You didn't want any of these monkeys. You didn't ask for them to be there. They aren't even your monkeys. But you know you will have to clean up the mess.

 

Yeah... it is a lot like that.

save during wartime, the Elected fed government tends to look like a cage filled with p00p throwing monkeys, and as a libertarian, gd is no doubt more suspicious o' the government when it is actual working efficient.  ineffectual fed is the bestest protection o' individual state rights.

 

 

You are correct about that part. The times I was most nervous under Obama was when he had a Dem majority in the House and a Dem super majority in the Senate. After 2010 and they lost the House I slept a lot better. He wasn't completely castrated, but close enough. Right now Trump has both the House and the Senate but fortunately we does not have the wherewithal to lead them anywhere. And they can't seem to get out of their own way no matter what he does. If the Senate flips in 2018 we can all relax.

 

But in this post I was more commenting on this http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/12/politics/ruddy-robert-mueller-white-house/index.html

 

The best thing to do is leave this alone and stop feeding it. It will die on it's own.

 

Or maybe it all is a witch hunt: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/robert-mueller-stocks-staff-democrat-donors/

 

Plus could you even imagine a play where a "Barack Obama like" Ceaser is assassinated receiving wide acclaim? http://variety.com/2017/legit/news/julius-caesar-opening-trump-like-play-1202463844/

 

I'm not so much worried about what the government is doing right now. Although you do make a good point when they are distracted at least they are not f-----g anyone over. I'm just weary of the antics of the monkeys.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Namutree]

 

My response is exactly the same regardless of whether the candidate is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, or atheist: if the candidate is set on making a public statement condemning other groups on a total non-basis 

He didn't condemn anyone. He said that they are condemned; not that he condemns them.

 

 

if it's a Christian saying Muslims have a "deficient" theology or that all non-Christians are "condemned", or an atheist calling Christians "idiots" or "ignorant" and denouncing all religions,

Apples to oranges comparison. A Christian saying some one is condemned is not an insult, he's saying that they've been sentenced. An athiest calling Christians "idoits" or is simply an insult. 

 

a Muslim calling non-Muslims infidels or whatever 

There is nothing wrong with that. Infidel just means non-Muslim (in Islam). I know that wasn't precisely your point, but I figured people should know this.

 

and then repeatedly reinforcing that statement when later questioned about it with the lame excuse of "Well, as a Christian...",

You're right, his religion should have no bearing on his religious views. Totally lame excuse. What's next? Is going to say he believes in God? I bet he'll use that lame "Well, as a Christian...", excuse again; as if Christianity means anything, has any dogma of any kind, or that being a Christian is supposed inform your views.

 

it's going to raise some serious red flags for me on their ability to treat and serve all types of Americans equally.

 

 

Regardless, there shall be no religious test. Sander's questioning was extremely inappropriate. What was expressed were strictly theological views. The only question Bernie should have asked is if he was referring to his religious beliefs or his political beliefs. As soon as it was made clear that it was the former; the questioning should have stopped.

 

 

 I one hundred percent agree with Bernie Sanders on his final statement: I'm not sure we need any more kinds of these candidates who evidently set on condemning and looking down upon entire groups of Americans for no other reason besides their stinking religion.

Good thing he didn't do that. He was referring to their condemned status; not that he was condemning them. God does the condemning. This is Christianity 101.

 

 

 He's the one that's making the public statements of condemnation, right?

 

No.

 

Maybe it actually doesn't have any bearing on his ability to do his job in a fair and competent manner...but nevertheless, it is rather gross and ill-appearing.

 

The notion that people can put their religious views aside is understood as secularism. If you want a government where people with certain religious views are not allowed to hold office, that's fine, but that isn't America. Sanders should move elsewhere if he thinks evangelical Christians should not be allowed to hold office if they express their religious beliefs. So far we lack blasphemy laws, have freedom of religion, and have no religious test for office; gotta admit, I like it that way. 

[Valsuelm]

Wow! A steel skyscraper completely engulfed in flames and burning for over 6 hours. It hasn't collapsed!! How could this be?!!?
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4601902/Huge-inferno-West-London-tower-block.html

 

 

[HoonDing]

dunno maybe no airliner flew into it

[BruceVC]

 

Wow! A steel skyscraper completely engulfed in flames and burning for over 6 hours. It hasn't collapsed!! How could this be?!!?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4601902/Huge-inferno-West-London-tower-block.html

 

 

It has got to be one of the worst demonstrations of ignorance to still suggest in 2017 that  9/11 is a conspiracy theory committed  by the USA  to itself 

[BruceVC]

I am watching this fire in London live  and the one Sky News reporter  interviews one of the residents who tells the reporter 

 

" I watched a women jump from about the 12th floor to avoid death by fire " 

 

 

The reporter says " was she injured after jumping " ........seriously? What kind of question is that...what answer was the reporter expecting 

 

" no she was fine after jumping from the 12th floor "