|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 10 2014 03:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The couple who allegedly shot and killed two Las Vegas police officers and then killed another person Sunday before killing themselves have been identified as Jerad and Amanda Miller, according to multiple news reports.
While neighbors had already pegged the couple as supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who has been facing off with the federal government in recent months, a review of what appears to be Jerad Miller's Facebook page reveals someone who has long harbored extreme anti-government views and saw the Bundy Ranch standoff as a possible start to a revolution.
The page is attributed to Jerad Miller, with the same unusual spelling of the Vegas shooter's first name and who is listed as married to an Amanda Miller from Las Vegas. Going back to 2012, it is almost entirely filled with violent rhetoric based around a strong Second Amendment advocacy and extreme opposition to the federal government.
"The dawn of a new day," Miller posted on June 7, the day before the shootings. "May all of our coming sacrifices be worth it." Source
Well this has been a bad couple weeks for a lot of people.
Bystander Joseph Robert Wilcox, 31, who was carrying a concealed weapon inside the store, spotted Jerad Miller and told a friend he would confront him, according to authorities. As he neared Jerad, he was shot in the ribs by Amanda and later died, McMahill said.
Source
After SPU it's important to remind ourselves what happens when heroism goes wrong. Not sure if this guy's family is going to get the monetary 'thank you' since the shooters ended up just taking themselves out moments later.
Totally shocked some alleged tweakers would hear the Bundy related rhetoric, and go and shoot some 'oppressors'.... Who could of possibly seen that coming??
|
Audit Finds 13 Percent Of VA Schedulers Told To Falsify Data
A nationwide audit of hundreds of medical facilities run by the Veterans Affairs Department finds that more than 57,000 veterans have been waiting 90 days or longer for an initial medical appointment.
Perhaps more stunning, the internal audit found that 13 percent of schedulers said they received instructions from supervisors to falsify data so the centers could meet performance goals.
Specifically, the anonymous survey asked schedulers: "Do you feel you receive instruction from the facility to enter a desired date other than the date a Veteran asks to be seen?"
Thirteen percent said yes, and the report notes that while the reasons for answering yes varied, schedulers at 90 clinics said they were doing so "in order to improve performance measures."
The Associated Press reports:
"The audit is the first nationwide look at the VA network in the uproar that began with reports two months ago of patients dying while awaiting appointments and of cover-ups at the Phoenix VA center. Examining 731 VA hospitals and large outpatient clinics, the audit found long wait times across the country for patients seeking their first appointments with both primary care doctors and specialists.
"The audit said a 14-day target for waiting times was 'not attainable,' given growing demand for VA services and poor planning. It called the 2011 decision by senior VA officials setting it, and then basing bonuses on meeting the target 'an organizational leadership failure.'
"The audit is the third in a series of reports in the past month into long wait times and falsified records at VA facilities nationwide. The controversy forced VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to resign May 30. Shinseki took the blame for what he decried as a 'lack of integrity' in the sprawling system providing health care to the nation's military veterans."
Source
Ouch...
|
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb refused to issue a stay on Monday against her recent ruling to allow same-sex marriages in Wisconsin.
On Friday, Crabb struck down the state's ban on gay marriage, calling it "unconstitutional." It was the 14th federal ruling against state marriage bans since last June, when the Supreme Court ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.
Source
|
"federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from?
|
On June 10 2014 07:05 Nyxisto wrote:
"federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from?
DOMA is from the mid 90's.
Long Title: An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage
|
On June 10 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2014 07:05 Nyxisto wrote:
"federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from? DOMA is from the mid 90's. Long Title: An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage
But what exactly needs traditional marriage protection from? I don't understand the argumentation. Are gay people converting straight people into evil homosexual relationships as of late? Who is attacking marriage?
|
On June 10 2014 08:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 07:05 Nyxisto wrote:
"federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from? DOMA is from the mid 90's. Long Title: An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage But what exactly needs traditional marriage protection from? I don't understand the argumentation. Are gay people converting straight people into evil homosexual relationships as of late? Who is attacking marriage?
DOMA prevented the term "marriage" from including homosexual marriages. Not sure what about that you don't understand.
|
On June 10 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2014 08:06 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 07:05 Nyxisto wrote:
"federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from? DOMA is from the mid 90's. Long Title: An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage But what exactly needs traditional marriage protection from? I don't understand the argumentation. Are gay people converting straight people into evil homosexual relationships as of late? Who is attacking marriage? DOMA prevented the term "marriage" from including homosexual marriages. Not sure what about that you don't understand.
which also happens to exclude them from federal marriage benefits, which I don't understand, because why would anybody support something like that?
|
On June 10 2014 08:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 07:05 Nyxisto wrote:
"federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from? DOMA is from the mid 90's. Long Title: An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage But what exactly needs traditional marriage protection from? I don't understand the argumentation. Are gay people converting straight people into evil homosexual relationships as of late? Who is attacking marriage?
Hahaha... You have no idea... Ever since the bill first came up people were asking 'defense' against what? Over a decade later and we still don't have a clue. Good luck getting any comprehensible response to that question.
|
On June 10 2014 08:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 08:06 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 07:05 Nyxisto wrote:
"federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from? DOMA is from the mid 90's. Long Title: An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage But what exactly needs traditional marriage protection from? I don't understand the argumentation. Are gay people converting straight people into evil homosexual relationships as of late? Who is attacking marriage? DOMA prevented the term "marriage" from including homosexual marriages. Not sure what about that you don't understand. which also happens to exclude them from federal marriage benefits, which I don't understand, because why would anybody support something like that?
Some people have values and beliefs that differ from your own. Did you not know that?
|
On June 10 2014 08:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2014 08:33 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 08:06 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 07:05 Nyxisto wrote:
"federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from? DOMA is from the mid 90's. Long Title: An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage But what exactly needs traditional marriage protection from? I don't understand the argumentation. Are gay people converting straight people into evil homosexual relationships as of late? Who is attacking marriage? DOMA prevented the term "marriage" from including homosexual marriages. Not sure what about that you don't understand. which also happens to exclude them from federal marriage benefits, which I don't understand, because why would anybody support something like that? Some people have values and beliefs that differ from your own. Did you not know that?
I didn't know that this would entitle me to discriminate people based on those values, the Supreme court apparently didn't think so either.
|
On June 10 2014 08:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2014 08:33 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 08:06 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 07:05 Nyxisto wrote:
"federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from? DOMA is from the mid 90's. Long Title: An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage But what exactly needs traditional marriage protection from? I don't understand the argumentation. Are gay people converting straight people into evil homosexual relationships as of late? Who is attacking marriage? DOMA prevented the term "marriage" from including homosexual marriages. Not sure what about that you don't understand. which also happens to exclude them from federal marriage benefits, which I don't understand, because why would anybody support something like that? Some people have values and beliefs that differ from your own. Did you not know that?
Of course pretty much everyone knows that. Most people agreed that in America we should not legislate those religious beliefs designed to discriminate though.
|
On June 10 2014 08:50 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2014 08:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 08:33 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 08:06 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 07:05 Nyxisto wrote:
"federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from? DOMA is from the mid 90's. Long Title: An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage But what exactly needs traditional marriage protection from? I don't understand the argumentation. Are gay people converting straight people into evil homosexual relationships as of late? Who is attacking marriage? DOMA prevented the term "marriage" from including homosexual marriages. Not sure what about that you don't understand. which also happens to exclude them from federal marriage benefits, which I don't understand, because why would anybody support something like that? Some people have values and beliefs that differ from your own. Did you not know that? I didn't know that this would entitle me to discriminate people based on those values, the Supreme court apparently didn't think so either.
Prior to DOMA homosexuals were already discriminated against. DOMA was trying to preserve that status quo.
|
On June 10 2014 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2014 08:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 08:33 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2014 08:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 08:06 Nyxisto wrote:On June 10 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2014 07:05 Nyxisto wrote:
"federal defense of marriage act" Did some terrorists try to nuke marriages or where did that name come from? DOMA is from the mid 90's. Long Title: An Act to define and protect the institution of marriage But what exactly needs traditional marriage protection from? I don't understand the argumentation. Are gay people converting straight people into evil homosexual relationships as of late? Who is attacking marriage? DOMA prevented the term "marriage" from including homosexual marriages. Not sure what about that you don't understand. which also happens to exclude them from federal marriage benefits, which I don't understand, because why would anybody support something like that? Some people have values and beliefs that differ from your own. Did you not know that? Of course pretty much everyone knows that. Most people agreed that in America we should not legislate those religious beliefs designed to discriminate though.
Historically, no. Public support for homosexual marriage is a recent thing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
shows how terrible public morality is.
|
no no no! the 19th century folks had it all figured out!
|
Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that
|
United States43971 Posts
On June 10 2014 09:12 Roswell wrote:
Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that
Given lesbians can I'm assuming it's a public health thing rather than a homophobia thing. Similar to how sub-Saharan Africans can't give blood and African Americans can.
|
On June 10 2014 09:11 Nyxisto wrote:
no no no! the 19th century folks had it all figured out!
100 years from now they'll be saying the same about us 
|
On June 10 2014 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2014 09:11 Nyxisto wrote:
no no no! the 19th century folks had it all figured out! 100 years from now they'll be saying the same about us
Yes, that's why I'd encourage people to stop discriminating gay people legally and to stop building gay therapy centers in texas
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
