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.
1. I am not saying we look through everyone's documents and begin rounding up and deporting people if their parents were illegal. I meant going forward, this law should be looked into again. 2. Like Mercy13 pointed out, it'll take a massive mandate of the population to reverse this, which is why it's unlikely.
That said, just cause something is unlikely doesn't mean we shouldn't have a discussion on it. If you acknowledge that this country has a problem with illegal immigration, then components of this issue, including citizenship on birth, should be examined.
On August 18 2015 01:44 Deathstar wrote: Look you're going too far with what I said.
1. I am not saying we look through everyone's documents and begin rounding up and deporting people if their parents were illegal. I meant going forward, this law should be looked into again. 2. Like Mercy13 pointed out, it'll take a massive mandate of the population to reverse this, which is why it's unlikely.
That said, just cause something is unlikely doesn't mean we shouldn't have a discussion on it. If you acknowledge that this country has a problem with illegal immigration, then components of this issue, including citizenship on birth, should be examined.
"No, it won't apply to people like me, that's be ridiculous. What I mean is that for people not like me we should have different rules."
On August 18 2015 01:44 Deathstar wrote: If you acknowledge that this country has a problem with illegal immigration
The only problem the U.S. has with illegal immigration is the discrimination faced by illegal immigrants and the counter-productive exclusionary policies it has to deal with them.
On August 18 2015 01:44 Deathstar wrote: If you acknowledge that this country has a problem with illegal immigration
The only problem the U.S. has with illegal immigration is the discrimination faced by illegal immigrants and the counter-productive exclusionary policies it has to deal with them.
And people not being realistic about how to solve the problem. Or letting flat out racism dictate their policies and ideas. Like people demanding mass deportation, but not understanding that is will be super expensive and they will just come back. But then they demand securing the border, not understanding that the reason the reason people are coming over is that there is no legal route for them to do so. And we suck at deporting people correctly. There is that amazing story for 10 years ago where they deported an mentally handicapped 18 year old who was an american citizen.
On August 18 2015 01:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Holy shit...
I love LWT.
What do you think the chances would be that these televangelists could ever be prosecuted for fraud, if they couldn't hide behind their bullshit religious and faith-based claims?
On August 16 2015 23:29 Deathstar wrote: I found this neat article on common core written in 2014. Here are some excerpts. I graduated HS before I even knew what the words common core were, but this is a very interesting path the government has took. It's a scientific approach to incrementally improving the education system.
My fears were confirmed by the Common Core tests. Wherever they have been implemented, they have caused a dramatic collapse of test scores. In state after state, the passing rates dropped by about 30%. This was not happenstance. This was failure by design. Let me explain.
The Obama administration awarded $350 million to two groups to create tests for the Common Core standards. The testing consortia jointly decided to use a very high passing mark, which is known as a “cut score.” The Common Core testing consortia decided that the passing mark on their tests would be aligned with the proficient level on the federal tests called NAEP. This is a level typically reached by about 35-40% of students. Massachusetts is the only state in which as many as 50% ever reached the NAEP proficient level. The testing consortia set the bar so high that most students were sure to fail, and they did.
In New York state, which gave the Common Core tests last spring, only 30% of students across the state passed the tests. Only 3% of English language learners passed. Only 5% of students with disabilities passed. Fewer than 20% of African American and Hispanic students passed. By the time the results were reported in August, the students did not have the same teachers; the teachers saw the scores, but did not get any item analysis. They could not use the test results for diagnostic purposes, to help students. Their only value was to rank students.
When New York state education officials held public hearings, parents showed up en masse to complain about the Common Core testing. Secretary Duncan dismissed them as “white suburban moms” who were disappointed to learn that their child was not as brilliant as they thought and their public school was not as good as they thought. But he was wrong: the parents were outraged not because they thought their children were brilliant but because they did not believe that their children were failures. What, exactly, is the point of crushing the hearts and minds of young children by setting a standard so high that 70% are certain to fail?
The financial cost of implementing Common Core has barely been mentioned in the national debates. All Common Core testing will be done online. This is a bonanza for the tech industry and other vendors. Every school district must buy new computers, new teaching materials, and new bandwidth for the testing. At a time when school budgets have been cut in most states and many thousands of teachers have been laid off, school districts across the nation will spend billions to pay for Common Core testing. Los Angeles alone committed to spend $1 billion on iPads for the tests; the money is being taken from a bond issue approved by voters for construction and repair of school facilities. Meanwhile, the district has cut teachers of the arts, class size has increased, and necessary repairs are deferred because the money will be spent on iPads. The iPads will be obsolete in a year or two, and the Pearson content loaded onto the iPads has only a three-year license. The cost of implementing the Common Core and the new tests is likely to run into the billions at a time of deep budget cuts.
... In the present climate, the Common Core standards and testing will become the driving force behind the creation of a test-based meritocracy. With David Coleman in charge of the College Board, the SAT will be aligned with the Common Core; so will the ACT. Both testing organizations were well represented in the writing of the standards; representatives of these two organizations comprised 12 of the 27 members of the original writing committee. The Common Core tests are a linchpin of the federal effort to commit K-12 education to the new world of Big Data. The tests are the necessary ingredient to standardize teaching, curriculum, instruction, and schooling. Only those who pass these rigorous tests will get a high school diploma. Only those with high scores on these rigorous tests will be able to go to college.
No one has come up with a plan for the 50% or more who never get a high school diploma. These days, a man or woman without a high school diploma has meager chances to make their way in this society. They will end up in society’s dead-end jobs.
Some might say this is just. I say it is not just. I say that we have allowed the testing corporations to assume too much power in allotting power, prestige, and opportunity. Those who are wealthy can afford to pay fabulous sums for tutors so their children can get high scores on standardized tests and college entrance exams. Those who are affluent live in districts with ample resources for their schools. Those who are poor lack those advantages. Our nation suffers an opportunity gap, and the opportunity gap creates a test score gap.
Sure, Common Core could undoubtedly be better, and the interview rightfully points out that the US's overfocus on testing is doing more harm than good. But I guess my main problem with criticism of the Common Core is that nobody has proposed a viable alternative. Here's an exerpt from the interview that you skipped:
It is good to have standards. I believe in standards, but they must not be rigid, inflexible, and prescriptive. Teachers must have the flexibility to tailor standards to meet the students in their classrooms, the students who can’t read English, the students who are two grade levels behind, the students who are homeless, the students who just don’t get it and just don’t care, the students who frequently miss class. Standards alone cannot produce a miraculous transformation.
I do not mean to dismiss the Common Core standards altogether. They could be far better, if there were a process whereby experienced teachers were able to fix them. They could be made developmentally appropriate for the early grades, so that children have time for play and games, as well as learning to read and do math and explore nature.
And this is something that I completely agree with. But I haven't heard a coherent argument from a policy maker to put forward such an alternative to Common Core. The main problem with Common Core is not the core itself, it is its intricate link with the focus on testing, making it an integral part of the education, which testing isn't (as people have argued throughout pages). Testing is to see how well the education is going.
Standardized testing is a good thing at the END of the curriculum:
Now, given that this is simply a fact of life, the question becomes whether it is the school's job to perform this "rating" of students, or there should be some seperate something that does that. Universities often have separate entrance exams, but in general I see nothing wrong with schools performing this secondary task. Thus their job becomes: educating students, and providing a (certified) ranking of how educated they are when they leave. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I think there is definitely a problem with the same institution that educates students saying how well they are educated.
Hopefully, evaluating a student for credentials and educating them can be separated. That way enough effort might be put into the evaluating that the weaknesses of standardized testing (too simple, not testing what is really important) can be reduced.
This is valid. But the whole point of standardized testing (rather than just testing) is to ensure that the educators only really have a role in administering the test, not creating nor even grading it. My issue with the way standardized testing is handled in the US is that a corporation whose main industry is to sell educational material, has somehow been put in charge of testing. Why not leave this with the department of education, or create a separate institution that does not operate on a for-profit basis? Here's John Oliver making some poignant points about it:
although I think that eventually digital education systems might be able to replace testing in general with ongoing monitoring to see whether students have understood a concept without ever explicitly testing for it, but that's both future music and an entirely separate story
It should ensure that regardless of whether you finish High School in rural Alabama or in suburban Seattle, passing the test at the end of your HS period means the same thing. Tying teacher performance to this grading is absurd and counterproductive. Tying school funding to it is equally absurd. Student performance tests are meant to measure student performance, not to weed out bad teachers.
Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it.
On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote: Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it.
What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later.
It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country.
On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote: Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it.
What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later.
It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country.
Like how Sciencetology just filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS gave them status as a religion? Yet no one thinks about it because no one sees them as anything other than a weird little thing Tom Cruise was into. Literally got what they wanted through legal attrition. The fact is that religion or tax free status isn’t bad, but it’s misused as much as the tax free status for non-profits. The difference is that non-profits have to stand on their own merits and can’t claim a war on religion every time someone points out their bullshit.
And it has nothing to do with religion itself, but with people using religion to gain unearned credibility.
I don't know, I think when you're claiming that religion operating as a business is the issue and not religion itself you need to take a long hard look at the history of religion. Religion is a business. They are selling a product, be it answers, forgiveness, meaning or salvation. Trying to distinguish between the two will take you to the funny places that Scientology has led us.
On August 18 2015 03:54 KwarK wrote: I don't know, I think when you're claiming that religion operating as a business is the issue and not religion itself you need to take a long hard look at the history of religion. Religion is a business. They are selling a product, be it answers, forgiveness, meaning or salvation. Trying to distinguish between the two will take you to the funny places that Scientology has led us.
Just treat them like every other non-profit in the country and it won't be a problem. Those function just fine the vast majority of the time. I belonged to a community church run by less than 200 people the majority of my life and it was fine. The problem is when you get these cults/religious compounds and frauds.
On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote: Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it.
What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later.
It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country.
there's one very big difference: an article in text I can skim directly, I can look at the opening sentence and see if the topic is of interest. I can scan a few more sentences as well. With a long video clip, I can't do that, and I can't know how long it'll take until the video gets to the point. Also, 20 minutes is a LONG clip, compared to the articles, which are generally 2-3 minutes to read. It's also just rude. edit add: its also much harder to usefully quote pieces of.
Those differences are enough to fully justify my complaint. As a side matter, I'm not fond of the random news article posting with no comments either. Its not so bad in this thread, where there's a lot of other talk, and the articles tend to be more on-point to the current discussion. But in some other threads its problematic, where half the thread ends up being just Stealth posting news articles and no one else saying anything.
On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote: Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it.
What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later.
It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country.
there's one very big difference: an article in text I can skim directly, I can look at the opening sentence and see if the topic is of interest. I can scan a few more sentences as well. With a long video clip, I can't do that, and I can't know how long it'll take until the video gets to the point. Also, 20 minutes is a LONG clip, compared to the articles, which are generally 2-3 minutes to read. It's also just rude. edit add: its also much harder to usefully quote pieces of.
Those differences are enough to fully justify my complaint. As a side matter, I'm not fond of the random news article posting with no comments either. Its not so bad in this thread, where there's a lot of other talk, and the articles tend to be more on-point to the current discussion. But in some other threads its problematic, where half the thread ends up being just Stealth posting news articles and no one else saying anything.
On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote: Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it.
What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later.
It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country.
Like how Sciencetology just filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS gave them status as a religion? Yet no one thinks about it because no one sees them as anything other than a weird little thing Tom Cruise was into. Literally got what they wanted through legal attrition. The fact is that religion or tax free status isn’t bad, but it’s misused as much as the tax free status for non-profits. The difference is that non-profits have to stand on their own merits and can’t claim a war on religion every time someone points out their bullshit.
And it has nothing to do with religion itself, but with people using religion to gain unearned credibility.
Of course it has something to do with religion itself. What other institution could drum up a cult so successful that people will literally give thousands of dollars they don't have away so that TV personalities can live a life of luxury?
To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. At that most basic level, religion is the perfect vehicle for con-artists like those Oliver discusses, because they hardly need to convince these people of anything, they just need to establish some form of perceived credibility that they speak for God. Once they are able to convince people that donations to them are donations to God, the rest is easy.
On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote: Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it.
What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later.
It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country.
Like how Sciencetology just filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS gave them status as a religion? Yet no one thinks about it because no one sees them as anything other than a weird little thing Tom Cruise was into. Literally got what they wanted through legal attrition. The fact is that religion or tax free status isn’t bad, but it’s misused as much as the tax free status for non-profits. The difference is that non-profits have to stand on their own merits and can’t claim a war on religion every time someone points out their bullshit.
And it has nothing to do with religion itself, but with people using religion to gain unearned credibility.
Of course it has something to do with religion itself. What other institution could drum up a cult so successful that people will literally give thousands of dollars they don't have away so that TV personalities can live a life of luxury?
To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. At that most basic level, religion is the perfect vehicle for con-artists like those Oliver discusses, because they hardly need to convince these people of anything, they just need to establish some form of perceived credibility that they speak for God. Once they are able to convince people that donations to them are donations to God, the rest is easy.
There are plenty of religions that don't do that and its not a problem. And if you got rid of religion, the con-artists would just find another way. You can claim the might be less effective, but plenty of con-artist have taken people without using religion. The absence of religion doesn't lead to less or more crime. Its just an easy scapegoat for people to point to when the real problems might be cultural. Its like when people claim that religions lead to violence, when the overwhelming majority of the people who practice that religion are not violent.
People love the argument "remove religion and this problem would go away" but you would still be left with the power/money hungry people looking to exploit others.
the problem isn't religious in the theological sense but what kind of treatment "religious freedom" in the US gets. This is fraud that actually endangers people's lives and the guys mentioned in the LWT show should be put behind bars.
On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote: Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it.
What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later.
It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country.
Like how Sciencetology just filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS gave them status as a religion? Yet no one thinks about it because no one sees them as anything other than a weird little thing Tom Cruise was into. Literally got what they wanted through legal attrition. The fact is that religion or tax free status isn’t bad, but it’s misused as much as the tax free status for non-profits. The difference is that non-profits have to stand on their own merits and can’t claim a war on religion every time someone points out their bullshit.
And it has nothing to do with religion itself, but with people using religion to gain unearned credibility.
Of course it has something to do with religion itself. What other institution could drum up a cult so successful that people will literally give thousands of dollars they don't have away so that TV personalities can live a life of luxury?
To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. At that most basic level, religion is the perfect vehicle for con-artists like those Oliver discusses, because they hardly need to convince these people of anything, they just need to establish some form of perceived credibility that they speak for God. Once they are able to convince people that donations to them are donations to God, the rest is easy.
There are plenty of religions that don't do that and its not a problem. And if you got rid of religion, the con-artists would just find another way. You can claim the might be less effective, but plenty of con-artist have taken people without using religion. The absence of religion doesn't lead to less or more crime. Its just an easy scapegoat for people to point to when the real problems might be cultural. Its like when people claim that religions lead to violence, when the overwhelming majority of the people who practice that religion are not violent.
People love the argument "remove religion and this problem would go away" but you would still be left with the power/money hungry people looking to exploit others.
Ok, so replace religion with Christianity in my post, because you're right there aren't really any other religions that get away with this. Or even call it American Christianity, since it seems to only afflict our country.
I do not doubt that once a con-artist, always a con-artist. But there is a marked difference between someone on the streets of New York trying to con you out of a $20, someone on Craig's List trying to con you out of $200, and someone on TV collectively conning thousands out of millions of dollars. Is it so wrong to want to demote these guys to small-time?
Sure, removing religion would make these particular cons go away (the megachurches, not the people behind them), but that does seem a bit of a drastic step, right? Which is why I didn't advocate for the removal of religion, you are putting words in my mouth. But it is disingenuous to say that this has nothing to do with religion, when the state of Christianity in this country allows this to happen on such a large scale. Plenty of con-artists have taken people without using religion, but have any of them done it on national television and made millions? If you can come up with a real example, I'm pretty sure I'd want to crack down on them as well. It's ridiculous, and religion should not provide a shield for these despicable human beings.
On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote: Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it.
What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later.
It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country.
Like how Sciencetology just filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS gave them status as a religion? Yet no one thinks about it because no one sees them as anything other than a weird little thing Tom Cruise was into. Literally got what they wanted through legal attrition. The fact is that religion or tax free status isn’t bad, but it’s misused as much as the tax free status for non-profits. The difference is that non-profits have to stand on their own merits and can’t claim a war on religion every time someone points out their bullshit.
And it has nothing to do with religion itself, but with people using religion to gain unearned credibility.
Of course it has something to do with religion itself. What other institution could drum up a cult so successful that people will literally give thousands of dollars they don't have away so that TV personalities can live a life of luxury?
To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. At that most basic level, religion is the perfect vehicle for con-artists like those Oliver discusses, because they hardly need to convince these people of anything, they just need to establish some form of perceived credibility that they speak for God. Once they are able to convince people that donations to them are donations to God, the rest is easy.
There are plenty of religions that don't do that and its not a problem. And if you got rid of religion, the con-artists would just find another way. You can claim the might be less effective, but plenty of con-artist have taken people without using religion. The absence of religion doesn't lead to less or more crime. Its just an easy scapegoat for people to point to when the real problems might be cultural. Its like when people claim that religions lead to violence, when the overwhelming majority of the people who practice that religion are not violent.
People love the argument "remove religion and this problem would go away" but you would still be left with the power/money hungry people looking to exploit others.
Ok, so replace religion with Christianity in my post, because you're right there aren't really any other religions that get away with this. Or even call it American Christianity, since it seems to only afflict our country.
I do not doubt that once a con-artist, always a con-artist. But there is a marked difference between someone on the streets of New York trying to con you out of a $20, someone on Craig's List trying to con you out of $200, and someone on TV collectively conning thousands out of millions of dollars. Is it so wrong to want to demote these guys to small-time?
Sure, removing religion would make these particular cons go away (the megachurches, not the people behind them), but that does seem a bit of a drastic step, right? Which is why I didn't advocate for the removal of religion, you are putting words in my mouth. But it is disingenuous to say that this has nothing to do with religion, when the state of Christianity in this country allows this to happen on such a large scale. Plenty of con-artists have taken people without using religion, but have any of them done it on national television and made millions? If you can come up with a real example, I'm pretty sure I'd want to crack down on them as well. It's ridiculous, and religion should not provide a shield for these despicable human beings.
I haven't watched LWT yet (I watch it this evening with my gf, so not clicking the link). However, I find it hard to believe that the protection for religions extends to outright fraud. Plenty of sects have been nailed and their leaders thrown in jail for fraud and tax evasion, including notables like Kent Hovind and even L. Ron Hubbard.
"A fool and his money are soon parted", and the likes of Bernie Madoff didn't need religion to swindle people out of billions of dollars.
EDIT: btw, I am all for removing the extra freedoms granted to "religious organizations", but I think this is a pretty flimsy reason for doing so. Do it because simply claiming you believe in a pie in the sky should not give you extra rights over someone who does not do so.
On August 18 2015 05:42 whatisthisasheep wrote: Trump has just confirmed he is a member of the Justice League. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUYE74Mz2wE Backlash from Marvel is soon to come.
Batman and justice league is DC comics not marvel.
I would like to hear exactly what people propose to do about "religion" in america instead of just vaguely calling for things.
EPT
