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 July 09 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote: We know a lot about her.
And nothing that indicates any violent/ terrorist tendencies. Unless I missed something here.
One is using her first amendment rights without any harm to anyone else, the other was a terrorist who killed people.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it.
You know less about the girl on the right and now she's a terrorist who killed people?
I was going off of what I read from Johnny. From the other stuff I read online, the best guesses are A) a terrorist who is still alive and active, or B) a terrorist who killed herself some years ago.
At any rate, unless you can show otherwise, it would seem safe to assume that the two are nothing alike. One picture is not enough.
On July 09 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote: We know a lot about her.
And nothing that indicates any violent/ terrorist tendencies. Unless I missed something here.
One is using her first amendment rights without any harm to anyone else, the other was a terrorist who killed people.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it.
You know less about the girl on the right and now she's a terrorist who killed people?
I was going off of what I read from Johnny. From the other stuff I read online, the best guesses are A) a terrorist who is still alive and active, or B) a terrorist who killed herself some years ago.
At any rate, unless you can show otherwise, it would seem safe to assume that the two are nothing alike. One picture is not enough.
But see? That's a stupid way to judge someone. And, just as with the above photo, the pictures aren't even that similar.
Edit again: we may have each been referring to the opposite person?
I dunno, but i think both girls are fine.
If the girl on the right is NOT a terrorist, or something similar, then sure.
But the entire reason that the meme was posted in the first place was to make a comparison- a radical Islamic terrorist with this Holly Fisher. That was the implication. If the girl on the right is not such a person, then whoever made the meme was being an (even bigger) idiot, and we would all be idiots for not recognizing it.
On July 09 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote: We know a lot about her.
And nothing that indicates any violent/ terrorist tendencies. Unless I missed something here.
One is using her first amendment rights without any harm to anyone else, the other was a terrorist who killed people.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it.
You know less about the girl on the right and now she's a terrorist who killed people?
I was going off of what I read from Johnny. From the other stuff I read online, the best guesses are A) a terrorist who is still alive and active, or B) a terrorist who killed herself some years ago.
At any rate, unless you can show otherwise, it would seem safe to assume that the two are nothing alike. One picture is not enough.
But see? That's a stupid way to judge someone. And, just as with the above photo, the pictures aren't even that similar.
Edit again: we may have been referring the opposite person?
No one is judging her for her posture. It's not the particular arrangement in space of her arm in a candid moment. She is knowingly embracing the symbols she has swathed herself in. Surely even you can see that.
The only difference between the picture on the right and the picture on the left is the particular brand of ethnic loyalty and the fact that the one on the left lives in an oppressive hegemonic terrorist nation while the one on the right lives in an oppressed occupied terrorist nation. What do you think Holly would do if a global caliphate had deposed a secular autocratic ruler in her Christian country, killed thousands of her countrymen, and left the country in shambles while the state's resources were being extracted by companies based in the caliphate?
From Holly's twitter: I'm not a terrorist, but my husband has killed a few. #ftw
On July 09 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote: We know a lot about her.
And nothing that indicates any violent/ terrorist tendencies. Unless I missed something here.
One is using her first amendment rights without any harm to anyone else, the other was a terrorist who killed people.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it.
You know less about the girl on the right and now she's a terrorist who killed people?
I googled 'Holly Hobby Lobby' and a few articles popped up. Here's what someone at Slate wrote:
Holly Fisher is a right-wing online agitator who posted the photo on the left above last week after a similarly in-your-face image taken in front of a Hobby Lobby went viral. Her pose was soon compared to the image at right of Reem Riyashi, a mother of two from Gaza who killed four people and herself with a suicide bomb in 2004. (It's not clear who first put together the side-by-side comparison, which has been widely distributed on social media.)
On July 09 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote: We know a lot about her.
And nothing that indicates any violent/ terrorist tendencies. Unless I missed something here.
One is using her first amendment rights without any harm to anyone else, the other was a terrorist who killed people.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it.
You know less about the girl on the right and now she's a terrorist who killed people?
I was going off of what I read from Johnny. From the other stuff I read online, the best guesses are A) a terrorist who is still alive and active, or B) a terrorist who killed herself some years ago.
At any rate, unless you can show otherwise, it would seem safe to assume that the two are nothing alike. One picture is not enough.
But see? That's a stupid way to judge someone. And, just as with the above photo, the pictures aren't even that similar.
Edit again: we may have been referring the opposite person?
No one is judging her for her posture. It's not the particular arrangement in space of her arm in a candid moment. She is knowingly embracing the symbols she has swathed herself in. Surely even you can see that.
The only difference between the picture on the right and the picture on the left is the particular brand of ethnic loyalty and the fact that the one on the left lives in an oppressive hegemonic terrorist nation while the one on the right lives in an oppressed occupied terrorist nation. What do you think Holly would do if a global caliphate had deposed a secular autocratic ruler in her Christian country, killed thousands of her countrymen, and left the country in shambles while the state's resources were being extracted by companies based in the caliphate?
Edit: That's not the only difference.
I'm not going to be dragged down this craphole with you, espeically when the chances are that the poster of the meme is NOT making the comparison you are.
They are comparing her to a radical, religious, and violent fundamentalist. I didn't see any greater commentary on hegemony floating around. Feel free to show me.
You are taking this in your own special way, which I suppose I should have expected. Not that your first post did anything to add any clarity to the matter.
On July 09 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote: We know a lot about her.
And nothing that indicates any violent/ terrorist tendencies. Unless I missed something here.
One is using her first amendment rights without any harm to anyone else, the other was a terrorist who killed people.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it.
You know less about the girl on the right and now she's a terrorist who killed people?
I was going off of what I read from Johnny. From the other stuff I read online, the best guesses are A) a terrorist who is still alive and active, or B) a terrorist who killed herself some years ago.
At any rate, unless you can show otherwise, it would seem safe to assume that the two are nothing alike. One picture is not enough.
But see? That's a stupid way to judge someone. And, just as with the above photo, the pictures aren't even that similar.
Edit again: we may have each been referring to the opposite person?
I dunno, but i think both girls are fine.
Yeah, nationalism , religious zeal and an affinity for armed combat don't sound like a very bad combination at all . Both of these girls are walking caricatures of their respective countries. The only thing the hobby lobby girl has going for her is that the Christian way of ruining her country doesn't involve suicide bombing.
I think the logical fundamentalist conclusion of any brand of religion is fairly obvious. I find the girl's comments under the picture to be the most interesting part.
Holly Fisher is a right-wing online agitator who posted the photo on the left above last week after a similarly in-your-face image taken in front of a Hobby Lobby went viral. Her pose was soon compared to the image at right of Reem Riyashi, a mother of two from Gaza who killed four people and herself with a suicide bomb in 2004. (It's not clear who first put together the side-by-side comparison, which has been widely distributed on social media.)
Do you believe everything you read on rt.com and ITAR-TASS? If not you should take the israeli nationalist propaganda with a 50 lb bag of salt. The vehemently pro-Israeli and pro palestinian holocaust camp often makes shit up. This video may or may not be true, but without an actual translator it doesn't stand on its own.
On July 09 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote: We know a lot about her.
And nothing that indicates any violent/ terrorist tendencies. Unless I missed something here.
One is using her first amendment rights without any harm to anyone else, the other was a terrorist who killed people.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it.
You know less about the girl on the right and now she's a terrorist who killed people?
I googled 'Holly Hobby Lobby' and a few articles popped up. Here's what someone at Slate wrote:
Holly Fisher is a right-wing online agitator who posted the photo on the left above last week after a similarly in-your-face image taken in front of a Hobby Lobby went viral. Her pose was soon compared to the image at right of Reem Riyashi, a mother of two from Gaza who killed four people and herself with a suicide bomb in 2004. (It's not clear who first put together the side-by-side comparison, which has been widely distributed on social media.)
Do you believe everything you read on rt.com and ITAR-TASS? If not you should take the israeli nationalist propaganda with a 50 lb bag of salt. The vehemently pro-Israeli and pro palestinian holocaust camp often makes shit up. This video may or may not be true, but without an actual translator it doesn't stand on its own.
I had to google rt.com and ITAR-TASS to know what they are. Not sure why you think I'm interested in Russian media...
House Republicans proposed deep new cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday to help pay for Western priorities including money to aid local governments and fight wildfires on federal lands.
The action came even as President Barack Obama sent Congress a $615 million emergency spending request to supplement wildland firefighting funds already approved for the 2014 fiscal year ending Sept. 30. And in his letter, the president challenged lawmakers to act on a bipartisan bill that would allow some portion of catastrophic fire costs in 2015 and future years to be covered by disaster funds, much as floods and hurricanes are today.
“This approach would provide funding certainty in future years for firefighting costs,” Obama wrote, “Free up resources to invest in areas that will promote long-term forest health and reduce fire risk, and maintain fiscal responsibility by addressing wildfire disaster needs through agreed-upon funding mechanisms.”
it's kind of puerile to say the american girl is more dangerous or some such. there is no need to go quite that far. just recognize the basic deficiency exhibited by close circuited thinking in each scenario and the harm they could cause.
Senior Republican senators are throwing their support behind House Speaker John Boehner's decision to sue President Barack Obama for allegedly failing to faithfully execute the law.
TPM put the question to numerous senators in the Capitol on Tuesday, and several of them suggested the House sue over the president's unilateral changes to Obamacare deadlines before and after the law's botched rollout.
"Sure, I think it's a good idea. He's violated law after law. How many times has he violated the Affordable Care Act?" Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said.
Asked for examples of Obama's overreach, McCain said, "The reversals of the Affordable Care Act in particular but a number of other measures that he's taken by executive fiat. He has abused his constitutional responsibilities."
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, No. 5 in GOP leadership, said he's "supportive of what Speaker Boehner is going to try to do in the House. There need to be quicker ways for members of Congress to intervene [once a president overreaches]."
Blunt told TPM there's a "very long list" of examples of Obama's overreach, "starting with all of the postponements, delays, rewriting of the Affordable Act Act. I don't think you have to look any further than that to find the first dozen or three-dozen of those kinds of overreaches." He also mentioned the president's new rules to combat climate change with pollution limits on coal-fired power plants.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the second-longest serving sitting senator and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, gave Boehner a thumbs-up but expressed reservations about the ability to achieve legal standing.
"It's an interesting principle. The standing is a very, very difficult thing for members of Congress. But he's come up with a unique way of getting standing. And look, there's something wrong with the president," Hatch said, echoing his colleagues' criticism about overreach. "So I'm open. All I can say is I'm open."
"Basically," he said, "having the House establish a right of action here is a unique, interesting way of approaching it. I'm not fully conversant with how they're going to do that. ... I think it's time the court allows standing in some cases. The president needs to live within the constraints as well and he's not doing it.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a former lawyer and rumored 2016 presidential contender, also praised Boehner's idea but said it may not bear fruit until Obama leaves office.
"At some point, something needs to happen," he said. "The president has continued to ignore the law, continued to unilaterally take upon himself unconstitutional powers, and someone needed to do something about it. So I agree that this needed to go to the courts. The irony is by the time some of this is resolved through the court system he may no longer be president."
Senior Republican senators are throwing their support behind House Speaker John Boehner's decision to sue President Barack Obama for allegedly failing to faithfully execute the law.
TPM put the question to numerous senators in the Capitol on Tuesday, and several of them suggested the House sue over the president's unilateral changes to Obamacare deadlines before and after the law's botched rollout.
"Sure, I think it's a good idea. He's violated law after law. How many times has he violated the Affordable Care Act?" Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said.
Asked for examples of Obama's overreach, McCain said, "The reversals of the Affordable Care Act in particular but a number of other measures that he's taken by executive fiat. He has abused his constitutional responsibilities."
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, No. 5 in GOP leadership, said he's "supportive of what Speaker Boehner is going to try to do in the House. There need to be quicker ways for members of Congress to intervene [once a president overreaches]."
Blunt told TPM there's a "very long list" of examples of Obama's overreach, "starting with all of the postponements, delays, rewriting of the Affordable Act Act. I don't think you have to look any further than that to find the first dozen or three-dozen of those kinds of overreaches." He also mentioned the president's new rules to combat climate change with pollution limits on coal-fired power plants.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the second-longest serving sitting senator and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, gave Boehner a thumbs-up but expressed reservations about the ability to achieve legal standing.
"It's an interesting principle. The standing is a very, very difficult thing for members of Congress. But he's come up with a unique way of getting standing. And look, there's something wrong with the president," Hatch said, echoing his colleagues' criticism about overreach. "So I'm open. All I can say is I'm open."
"Basically," he said, "having the House establish a right of action here is a unique, interesting way of approaching it. I'm not fully conversant with how they're going to do that. ... I think it's time the court allows standing in some cases. The president needs to live within the constraints as well and he's not doing it.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a former lawyer and rumored 2016 presidential contender, also praised Boehner's idea but said it may not bear fruit until Obama leaves office.
"At some point, something needs to happen," he said. "The president has continued to ignore the law, continued to unilaterally take upon himself unconstitutional powers, and someone needed to do something about it. So I agree that this needed to go to the courts. The irony is by the time some of this is resolved through the court system he may no longer be president."
With stunt after stunt and more money ($3.3 million) for the rest of this years Benghazi committee, than on the entire years Veterans affairs committee ($3.0 million) it couldn't be clearer what republicans are about in the house.
Senior Republican senators are throwing their support behind House Speaker John Boehner's decision to sue President Barack Obama for allegedly failing to faithfully execute the law.
TPM put the question to numerous senators in the Capitol on Tuesday, and several of them suggested the House sue over the president's unilateral changes to Obamacare deadlines before and after the law's botched rollout.
"Sure, I think it's a good idea. He's violated law after law. How many times has he violated the Affordable Care Act?" Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said.
Asked for examples of Obama's overreach, McCain said, "The reversals of the Affordable Care Act in particular but a number of other measures that he's taken by executive fiat. He has abused his constitutional responsibilities."
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, No. 5 in GOP leadership, said he's "supportive of what Speaker Boehner is going to try to do in the House. There need to be quicker ways for members of Congress to intervene [once a president overreaches]."
Blunt told TPM there's a "very long list" of examples of Obama's overreach, "starting with all of the postponements, delays, rewriting of the Affordable Act Act. I don't think you have to look any further than that to find the first dozen or three-dozen of those kinds of overreaches." He also mentioned the president's new rules to combat climate change with pollution limits on coal-fired power plants.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the second-longest serving sitting senator and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, gave Boehner a thumbs-up but expressed reservations about the ability to achieve legal standing.
"It's an interesting principle. The standing is a very, very difficult thing for members of Congress. But he's come up with a unique way of getting standing. And look, there's something wrong with the president," Hatch said, echoing his colleagues' criticism about overreach. "So I'm open. All I can say is I'm open."
"Basically," he said, "having the House establish a right of action here is a unique, interesting way of approaching it. I'm not fully conversant with how they're going to do that. ... I think it's time the court allows standing in some cases. The president needs to live within the constraints as well and he's not doing it.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a former lawyer and rumored 2016 presidential contender, also praised Boehner's idea but said it may not bear fruit until Obama leaves office.
"At some point, something needs to happen," he said. "The president has continued to ignore the law, continued to unilaterally take upon himself unconstitutional powers, and someone needed to do something about it. So I agree that this needed to go to the courts. The irony is by the time some of this is resolved through the court system he may no longer be president."
With stunt after stunt and more money ($3.3 million) for the rest of this years Benghazi committee, than on the entire years Veterans affairs committee ($3.0 million) it couldn't be clearer what republicans are about in the house.
Are you implying that Senate Democrats are any better?
On July 09 2014 09:03 IgnE wrote: We know a lot about her.
And nothing that indicates any violent/ terrorist tendencies. Unless I missed something here.
One is using her first amendment rights without any harm to anyone else, the other was a terrorist who killed people.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it.
You know less about the girl on the right and now she's a terrorist who killed people?
I was going off of what I read from Johnny. From the other stuff I read online, the best guesses are A) a terrorist who is still alive and active, or B) a terrorist who killed herself some years ago.
At any rate, unless you can show otherwise, it would seem safe to assume that the two are nothing alike. One picture is not enough.
But see? That's a stupid way to judge someone. And, just as with the above photo, the pictures aren't even that similar.
Edit again: we may have each been referring to the opposite person?
I dunno, but i think both girls are fine.
If the girl on the right is NOT a terrorist, or something similar, then sure.
But the entire reason that the meme was posted in the first place was to make a comparison- a radical Islamic terrorist with this Holly Fisher. That was the implication. If the girl on the right is not such a person, then whoever made the meme was being an (even bigger) idiot, and we would all be idiots for not recognizing it.
the christian conservative introvert would not put up a resistance to the fascist wolfstan when the revolution comes.
A judge has thrown out Insane Clown Posse’s lawsuit against the FBI, saying the government has every right to categorize the band’s fans as gang members. The suit stemmed from a 2011 report that the law enforcement organization had tagged Juggalos as a “loosely organized hybrid gang”—something both Juggalos and ICP members Shaggy 2 Dope and Violent J didn’t appreciate. ICP has tried to sue the FBI twice, asking to declare it illegal for the bureau to draw parallels between the Psychopathic Records crew and known criminal organizations.
According to the Associated Press, U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland dismissed the latest lawsuit because the FBI’s report on gangs “does not recommend any particular course of action for local law enforcement to follow.” Meaning that, just because the FBI report calls the Juggalos—or anyone else—a gang, it doesn’t meant it’s necessarily trying to crack down on them.
Of course, Juggalos aren’t taking the decision lightly. In a statement released by the ACLU, Violent J says that this isn’t “the end” to the case, adding that Psychopatic Records will “keep fighting to clear the Juggalo family name.” “While it’s easy to fear what one does not understand,” he concludes, “discrimination and bigotry against any group of people is just plain wrong and un-American.”
Though the future lawyer in me says something is not quite right here, my past experiences with Juggalos leads me to applaud the dismissal. Being sprayed by Faygo is not very fun.
Senior Republican senators are throwing their support behind House Speaker John Boehner's decision to sue President Barack Obama for allegedly failing to faithfully execute the law.
TPM put the question to numerous senators in the Capitol on Tuesday, and several of them suggested the House sue over the president's unilateral changes to Obamacare deadlines before and after the law's botched rollout.
"Sure, I think it's a good idea. He's violated law after law. How many times has he violated the Affordable Care Act?" Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said.
Asked for examples of Obama's overreach, McCain said, "The reversals of the Affordable Care Act in particular but a number of other measures that he's taken by executive fiat. He has abused his constitutional responsibilities."
Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, No. 5 in GOP leadership, said he's "supportive of what Speaker Boehner is going to try to do in the House. There need to be quicker ways for members of Congress to intervene [once a president overreaches]."
Blunt told TPM there's a "very long list" of examples of Obama's overreach, "starting with all of the postponements, delays, rewriting of the Affordable Act Act. I don't think you have to look any further than that to find the first dozen or three-dozen of those kinds of overreaches." He also mentioned the president's new rules to combat climate change with pollution limits on coal-fired power plants.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the second-longest serving sitting senator and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, gave Boehner a thumbs-up but expressed reservations about the ability to achieve legal standing.
"It's an interesting principle. The standing is a very, very difficult thing for members of Congress. But he's come up with a unique way of getting standing. And look, there's something wrong with the president," Hatch said, echoing his colleagues' criticism about overreach. "So I'm open. All I can say is I'm open."
"Basically," he said, "having the House establish a right of action here is a unique, interesting way of approaching it. I'm not fully conversant with how they're going to do that. ... I think it's time the court allows standing in some cases. The president needs to live within the constraints as well and he's not doing it.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a former lawyer and rumored 2016 presidential contender, also praised Boehner's idea but said it may not bear fruit until Obama leaves office.
"At some point, something needs to happen," he said. "The president has continued to ignore the law, continued to unilaterally take upon himself unconstitutional powers, and someone needed to do something about it. So I agree that this needed to go to the courts. The irony is by the time some of this is resolved through the court system he may no longer be president."
With stunt after stunt and more money ($3.3 million) for the rest of this years Benghazi committee, than on the entire years Veterans affairs committee ($3.0 million) it couldn't be clearer what republicans are about in the house.
Are you implying that Senate Democrats are any better?
EPT
. Both of these girls are walking caricatures of their respective countries. The only thing the hobby lobby girl has going for her is that the Christian way of ruining her country doesn't involve suicide bombing.
