Favourite latest post by previous poster

[Flake]

I'm spoiled, I suppose, although the other two don't apply.

[Flake]

From a 1970s Irish school textbook

[Flake]

Hairy salt of the earth lumberjacks promising us better lives and deep tissue massages with light piano chiming in the background. This is what America needs.

[Flake]

1906: Pure Food and Drug Act
1909: Ratify 16th Amendment (income tax)[
1912: Ratify 17th amendment (direct election of Senators)
1914: Clayton Anti-Trust Act
1917: Ratify 18th Amendment (Prohibition)
1917: Declare war on Germany (WWI)
1920: Ratify Treaty of Versailles
1924: Immigration Act
1930: Smoot-Hawley Tariff
1933: Agricultural Adjustment Act: Nay
1933: National Industrial Recovery Act
1935: National Labor Relations Act
1935: Social Security Act
1937: Court Packing Plan
1938: Fair Labor Standards Act
1940: Lend-lease Program
1941: Declare war on Germany/Japan (WWII)
1944: GI Bill
1947: Taft-Hartly Act
1947: National Security Act
1949: North Atlantic Treaty
1950: Declare War on Korea
1951: Ratify 22nd Amendment
1954: Censure Joe McCarthy
1957: Civil Rights Act
1958: Landrum-Griffin Act
1958: National Defense Education Act
1960: Civil Rights Act
1964: Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
1964: Civil Rights Act
1964: Economic Opportunity Act
1965: Voting Rights Act
1965: Social Security Act (Medicare)
1968: Flag Protection Act
1972: Equal Right Amendment
1973: War Powers Act
1977: Panama Canal Treaty
1979: Establish relations with China
1981: Reagan Tax Cut
1984: National Minimum Drinking Age Act
1986: Immigration Reform and Control Act
1987: Robert Bork's nomination to Supreme Court
1990: Children's Television Act
1991: Force against Iraq (Operation Desert Storm)
1993: NAFTA
1993: Brady Bill
1994: Violence Against Women Act
1994: Federal Assault Weapons Ban
1996: Welfare Reform
1996: Line Item Veto
1996: Defense of Marriage Act
1997: Communications Decency Act
1998: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
1998: Copyright Term Extension Act
1998-99: Impeachment/conviction of Bill Clinton
2001: Bush Tax Cut
2001: Force against Afghanistan
2001: USA PATRIOT Act
2001: No Child Left Behind Act
2002: Homeland Security Act
2003: Force against Iraq
2003: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
2005: John Roberts' nomination
2006: Samuel Alito's nomination
2006: Stem Cell Research Bill
2008: Bank Bailout
2008: New START
2009: Auto Bailout
2009: Stimulus Package
2009: Fair Pay Act
2009: Sonia Sotomayor's nomination
2010: Obamacare
2010: Repeal of DADT
2010: DREAM Act
2010: Elena Kagan's Nomination
2010: Dodd-Frank
2011: JOBS Act
2011: NDAA
2011: Force Against Libya
2012: SOPA
2013: Manchin-Toomey
2013: Force Against Syria
2013: Gang of 8 Immigration Reform
2013: ENDA
2014: Iran sanctions
2014: Gillibrand bill

[Flake]

Hot diggity

Pls stop

[Flake]

As white male atheist aged 18-29 living in a suburban area in the Pacific Northwest, I don't think I'm statistically allowed to agree with the political message behind this post.

But are you cis male or trans male

Don't worry, it's happened to me before.

-skip me and go to goldwater-

[Flake]

B-b-but FL-13 means a 2014 GOP landslide

[Flake]

Here we go with prostitution! Your thoughts?

[Flake]

I'm sure you love your MSNBC.

[Flake]

It's not 2004 guys.

[Flake]

Too little too late.

[Flake]

An atheistic pro-life argument is can most certainly be formulated.  I, at a young age, subscribed to one.  However, I am pro-choice now because of a few key reasons.  Note: (I'm against any form of abortion that involves extracting a viable infant and killing it anyway, but things like partial-birth abortion are so rare I find it negligible when talking about the issue in general)

1. I fail to see how it is something that can be regulated by the government.  It's not like abortion didn't happen before Roe v. Wade.  It did, and the outcome was often horrifying.  

2. I very much understand that it is a living homo sapien.  I also understand that it has never seen a thing, barely heard a thing, barely felt a thing, and has an "experience" that is so limited that it is unimaginable.  I'm not willing to give this life form a status equal to myself, or my friends, or my family.  I would consider this to be true up until the 3rd trimester or so.  

3. I'm not a woman.

EDIT: and hell... I really just don't care about this for the most part.  It does not horrify me when I hear about a woman getting an abortion.  I do not judge it.  I do not ask why or worry why.  For me, it's so so so so so damn personal that my judgment has absolutely no place. 

[Flake]

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.

The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.

I wouldn't really call it discrimination. A standard marriage is basically a contact between two people, while a group marriage is a similar contract involving a larger number of people, so it requires different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, what you are saying, is that group marriages have a different set of standards than other marriages, as it requires, in your words, a different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, by this logic, group marriages are not treated the same as other marriages, as they require a different set of rules and regulations, your words.   

...Yes? I'm not really sure what your point is. Group marriages are different monogamistic marriages, that should be obvious to everyone. The argument is about whether or not these different groupings should have the same legal rights as traditional monogamistic marriages.

[Flake]

HE'S A BIG FASCIST MEANIE

[Flake]

Dear lord, Bushie's walk score is 3? I can't even fathom what that's like. My cottage which doesn't even get cell service has a higher walk score.

Also,

If Mexico Joe's sells Mexican food, and Joeseppi's sells Italian food, does that mean Eskimo Joe's sells Inuit food? Like seal blubber? I wonder if such a restaurant could do well here, we do have a small Inuit population.

Indeed, they specialize in native Inuit meals, like:

[Flake]

.

[Flake]

He is named in honor of this guy I know on Facebook.

[Flake]

This guy is disgusting.

[Flake]

If we could make it mandatory that he'd never, EVER get banned, I'd support it

[Flake]

There is no rational argument against it. Opponents complain about the "bigot" label, but obviously opposition to SSM is based an erroneous bias against gay people.  A stupid argument is that disliking gays is OK while disliking blacks is bad, since opposition to homosexuality is supported by "legitimate religious values".  Actually, people can use religious scripture to justify racism or anything else as well.  Homosexuality does not threaten people or society.  People have the right to oppose it personally, and no one is going to force churches to teach that gay marriage is OK, but trying to impose scripture-based hateful values on neighbors they don't even know is repulsive.

Are all opponents of SSM bigots?  I suppose that most SSM-opponents are not exactly like the virulent segregationists of the Jim Crow South, since most SSM-opponents (at least in the US) don't condone violence against gays.  Some people who may oppose SSM are still willing to be friends with me, regardless of my orientation.  They are not bad people overall; we are all probably guilty of mild bigotry at one point or another.

However, opposition to gay marriage is very difficult to respect at all.  It's not like holding different views on economic issues or even abortion (you can actually say abortion harms someone).  Trying to stop the right of gays to get married is rooted in nothing but the belief that gays are so inferior to straights that society's laws must put gays "in their place".  Sorry, but that's bigotry.

I would like to stay single myself, but that should not be for the government to decide.  Society has no business declaring that straights are superior to me.

Not all people who vote to ban gay marriage are bad people on balance, but when people vote for these bans, they are at least oblivious to the fact that passing these bans results the following message from society to struggling, bullied LGBT youth:  

"You're gay, you're not normal, there is something wrong with you, your classmates should not be nice to you, you're not worth it."

This is often the message heard by gays thinking about suicide.

[Flake]

I don't understand the problem to force people to join a union seriously...

[Flake]

1. As a minister-in-training, this definitely belongs at the top of my list: the way the modern Republican Party uses politics not only to force religion in public affairs, but to twist the Christian gospels so far beyond their context thereby decimating how Christianity is perceived as a whole, and fighting to base public policy not even on the egalitarian, righteous society envisioned by Jesus and the gospels, but on some human-fabricated vision of Christofascism.

2. Their displacement of policy for effective welfare with corporate interests. (Granted, this could easily be said for both parties, but most Republicans seem to have outright abandoned fixing present housing, employment, and health care policies for the better whereas Democrats don't know what they're doing or where they're going half the time.)

3. Tea Party.

I'd include other things like social policies and national security/foreign policy issues, but those are either not pressing issues right now or there is little difference, sad to say, on where the parties stand.

[Flake]

AYE

[Flake]

Yes, telling people to keep in mind the advantages they have had in life and put in the effort to try and understand the viewpoints of historically marginalized groups is going to lead to some sort of queer matriarchal communist tyranny if we don't have more brave rich white men summon the courage to speak truth to feminists and gay activists and black student groups.

Also, "this viewpoint" is being articulated constantly. Arguing that racial and gender disparities don't exist in America, completely ignoring historical context and its continuing impact on social and economic conditions in this country, telling marginalized groups that their views and demands are too radical, these have been a thing for a long time. Random Princeton freshman who is calling for genocide of Palestinians and decrying the oppression foisted on white kids who can't say the n-word in his free time is not the first person to say that America is a meritocracy and if you disagree you have a victim complex.

[Flake]

I agree with the point about Snowstalker, but Adam is far better than he used to be.