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 October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope
Not making any friends with the Catholics
All the catholics I know think she's a despicable piece of shit so I don't know how this changes anything.
His response is basically "Cool story, the pope can say whatever he wants. Good for him, but we've got laws" and this is inflammatory in your mind how?
When you dont side with god when your country was founded "under god' religious faithful are going to have a problem with the president deviating from the pope's position.
That awkward moment when you don't know the original Pledge of Allegiance?
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
Is anyone else absolutely outraged that the Pope met with that piece of shit?
No. She isn't a great person, but the Pope meets with murders and other criminals.
Fair enough, although I feel like that meeting will be looked at as more supportive than anything else, especially for those who want to consider fueling the fire of what she did/ wants to keep doing. I think it adds more ammunition.
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
Is anyone else absolutely outraged that the Pope met with that piece of shit?
Not outraged, but it might be number one on my list-of-things-Pope-Francis-did-that-I-don't-agree-with.
Yeah, I think that's a better way to put it. Same here.
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
Is anyone else absolutely outraged that the Pope met with that piece of shit?
Not outraged, but it might be number one on my list-of-things-Pope-Francis-did-that-I-don't-agree-with.
The video suggests it was a private meeting, so does anyone know what was said during it? Maybe he was like "yo man, you gotta be nice to people - even if you don't like what they're doing".
This doesn't really diminish the pope in my eyes though. It's ok to disagree with some of his opinions/beliefs. I'm still overwhelmingly in favor of his global vision and goals.
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
All the catholics I know think she's a despicable piece of shit so I don't know how this changes anything.
His response is basically "Cool story, the pope can say whatever he wants. Good for him, but we've got laws" and this is inflammatory in your mind how?
When you dont side with god when your country was founded "under god' religious faithful are going to have a problem with the president deviating from the pope's position.
The Pope implicitly railed against almost every Republican position, from climate change to the death penalty to economic policy. The idea that the White House has suddenly alienated Catholics is ridiculous and shows us how incredibly biased you are.
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
Is anyone else absolutely outraged that the Pope met with that piece of shit?
The Pope is very conservative on plenty of issues (freedom of speech with regards to blasphemy, contraception, abortion, gay marriage, etc.). People tend to forget that because he's not a complete idiot when it comes to climate change and social redistribution.
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
Is anyone else absolutely outraged that the Pope met with that piece of shit?
Not outraged, but it might be number one on my list-of-things-Pope-Francis-did-that-I-don't-agree-with.
The video suggests it was a private meeting, so does anyone know what was said during it? Maybe he was like "yo man, you gotta be nice to people - even if you don't like what they're doing".
This doesn't really diminish the pope in my eyes though. It's ok to disagree with some of his opinions/beliefs. I'm still overwhelmingly in favor of his global vision and goals.
I would have hoped he visited Kim Davis to tell her to be tolerant ect but while the Vatican hasn't commented on the visit Davis has said he was supportive of her.
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
Is anyone else absolutely outraged that the Pope met with that piece of shit?
Not outraged, but it might be number one on my list-of-things-Pope-Francis-did-that-I-don't-agree-with.
The video suggests it was a private meeting, so does anyone know what was said during it? Maybe he was like "yo man, you gotta be nice to people - even if you don't like what they're doing".
This doesn't really diminish the pope in my eyes though. It's ok to disagree with some of his opinions/beliefs. I'm still overwhelmingly in favor of his global vision and goals.
I would have hoped he visited Kim Davis to tell her to be tolerant ect but while the Vatican hasn't commented on the visit Davis has said he was supportive of her.
Kinda sad if it is true.
While I agree with you, if I look at it from the perspective of the pope, things like dealing with climate change and challenging the worship of riches is right in line with the teachings of Jesus. At the same time, things like gay marriage and abortion are biblical no-nos.
Pope Frank is a relatively progressive dude, but he's still a religious leader.
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
Is anyone else absolutely outraged that the Pope met with that piece of shit?
Not outraged, but it might be number one on my list-of-things-Pope-Francis-did-that-I-don't-agree-with.
The video suggests it was a private meeting, so does anyone know what was said during it? Maybe he was like "yo man, you gotta be nice to people - even if you don't like what they're doing".
This doesn't really diminish the pope in my eyes though. It's ok to disagree with some of his opinions/beliefs. I'm still overwhelmingly in favor of his global vision and goals.
I would have hoped he visited Kim Davis to tell her to be tolerant ect but while the Vatican hasn't commented on the visit Davis has said he was supportive of her.
Kinda sad if it is true.
While I agree with you, if I look at it from the perspective of the pope, things like dealing with climate change and challenging the worship of riches is right in line with the teachings of Jesus. At the same time, things like gay marriage and abortion are biblical no-nos.
Pope Frank is a relatively progressive dude, but he's still a religious leader.
Yeah, even though I think Davis is an asshole, I don't fault the Pope one bit for meeting with her, or believing that she should be given a religious exemption. That is, after all, what he is there for, to advocate for his religion. This woman, even though she may misunderstand the point of Christianity, was having a well-publicized religious crisis, so it would make sense for him to see her.
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
All the catholics I know think she's a despicable piece of shit so I don't know how this changes anything.
His response is basically "Cool story, the pope can say whatever he wants. Good for him, but we've got laws" and this is inflammatory in your mind how?
When you dont side with god when your country was founded "under god' religious faithful are going to have a problem with the president deviating from the pope's position.
Ugh, I've wondered for a while but now I am convinced that sheep is just trolling this thread. In no way was this inflammatory, and it's really the only response one could expect from the President if you present him with this news. The Pope has met with criminals before, so he can kiss her feet for all I care.
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
Is anyone else absolutely outraged that the Pope met with that piece of shit?
Not outraged, but it might be number one on my list-of-things-Pope-Francis-did-that-I-don't-agree-with.
The video suggests it was a private meeting, so does anyone know what was said during it? Maybe he was like "yo man, you gotta be nice to people - even if you don't like what they're doing".
This doesn't really diminish the pope in my eyes though. It's ok to disagree with some of his opinions/beliefs. I'm still overwhelmingly in favor of his global vision and goals.
I would have hoped he visited Kim Davis to tell her to be tolerant ect but while the Vatican hasn't commented on the visit Davis has said he was supportive of her.
Kinda sad if it is true.
While I agree with you, if I look at it from the perspective of the pope, things like dealing with climate change and challenging the worship of riches is right in line with the teachings of Jesus. At the same time, things like gay marriage and abortion are biblical no-nos.
Pope Frank is a relatively progressive dude, but he's still a religious leader.
Yeah, even though I think Davis is an asshole, I don't fault the Pope one bit for meeting with her, or believing that she should be given a religious exemption. That is, after all, what he is there for, to advocate for his religion. This woman, even though she may misunderstand the point of Christianity, was having a well-publicized religious crisis, so it would make sense for him to see her.
i was listening to some conservative catholic program about this and their spin was that the pope's central message for his visit was Religious Freedom (to discriminate). whether this is true or just an appropriation, we'll be seeing a lot more of this argument.
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
All the catholics I know think she's a despicable piece of shit so I don't know how this changes anything.
His response is basically "Cool story, the pope can say whatever he wants. Good for him, but we've got laws" and this is inflammatory in your mind how?
When you dont side with god when your country was founded "under god'
This part is a flat out fucking lie.
religious faithful are going to have a problem with the president deviating from the pope's position.
They're going to have a much larger problem with republican's deviating from the pope's position on a whole lot of shit then huh? If we're going by your pope scorecard its basically Republicans - 1 Democrats - Everything else. So, when do we start taxing at 99%, end all usage of fossil fuels and switch to only green technology, put up a massive carbon tax, dismantle capitalism, end the death penalty, etc? The pope said to do it, it's a done deal!
Are you actually under the assumption that catholic's follow the pope's every word? I'll shatter that notion for you then. They don't really give a shit what he says about some things. Catholics are going to have sex before marriage and use condoms regardless if it makes the pope cry blood.
the idea that someone (almost always morally or racially depraved) is out there taking advantage of you is a pretty powerful primitive political intuition. not surprised about that stuff.
my grandma is a buddhist and nice to everyone. would recommend.
On October 01 2015 03:48 whatisthisasheep wrote: The White House commented on Kim Davis's meeting with the Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj4LQsanZPM Not making any friends with the Catholics
All the catholics I know think she's a despicable piece of shit so I don't know how this changes anything.
His response is basically "Cool story, the pope can say whatever he wants. Good for him, but we've got laws" and this is inflammatory in your mind how?
When you dont side with god when your country was founded "under god' religious faithful are going to have a problem with the president deviating from the pope's position.
Then perhaps they can go found a new country on the basis of anti-religious freedom, where everyone will have to believe in god? Or they can stop being whiney little shits and realize that "freedom of religions" and "freedom of speech" only extend to the person, not their ability to harm another person, and not to hateful speech.
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has strengthened his lead at the top of the USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll while two other outsider candidates, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, have gained ground over rivals with electoral experience.
Jeb Bush, who was second to Trump two months ago in the USA TODAY survey, has tumbled to single digits and fifth place. The third-place finisher last time, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, suspended his campaign this month.
"Unfortunately, I'm leaning toward Trump, only because he's a non-political figure," said Ginger Mangam, 58, a customer service representative from Little Rock who was among those surveyed. Asked about his lack of electoral experience, she replied, "I don't think it's a problem; I think it's a message."
Anthony Edelen, 37, a small-business owner from Vermillion, S.D., likes what he hears from Trump and Fiorina. "I just want somebody who is going to move our country in a direction different from where it is currently," he said in a follow-up interview.
The shifting landscape underscores an electorate that is fed up with politics-as-usual and willing to embrace contenders who promise to shake things up. Some presidential hopefuls with significant political experience — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham among them — have failed to gain traction and score at 1% or below, a standing that may make it harder for them to raise money and command a spot on stage in televised debates.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has risen to fourth place, backed by 9% of those surveyed.
The poll of 380 likely Republican primary voters, taken Thursday through Monday, has a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points. The full sample of 1,000 likely voters has an error margin of +/-3 points.
Some political analysts, including those in the latest USA TODAY GOP Power Rankings, see Trump as beginning to lose ground while scrutiny on him as a potential president intensifies. Still, he continues to lead the field at 23%, up 6 points from the survey in July. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, and Fiorina, an ex-CEO, tie for second at 13%, both big jumps from the last poll. That means about half of the GOP electorate back candidates who have never served in elective office.
No other candidate breaks into double digits. Rubio is at 9%, Bush at 8%, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 6% and Ohio Gov. John Kasich at 2%. Not a single respondent backs former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum or former New York governor George Pataki.
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump has strengthened his lead at the top of the USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll while two other outsider candidates, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, have gained ground over rivals with electoral experience.
Jeb Bush, who was second to Trump two months ago in the USA TODAY survey, has tumbled to single digits and fifth place. The third-place finisher last time, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, suspended his campaign this month.
"Unfortunately, I'm leaning toward Trump, only because he's a non-political figure," said Ginger Mangam, 58, a customer service representative from Little Rock who was among those surveyed. Asked about his lack of electoral experience, she replied, "I don't think it's a problem; I think it's a message."
Anthony Edelen, 37, a small-business owner from Vermillion, S.D., likes what he hears from Trump and Fiorina. "I just want somebody who is going to move our country in a direction different from where it is currently," he said in a follow-up interview.
The shifting landscape underscores an electorate that is fed up with politics-as-usual and willing to embrace contenders who promise to shake things up. Some presidential hopefuls with significant political experience — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham among them — have failed to gain traction and score at 1% or below, a standing that may make it harder for them to raise money and command a spot on stage in televised debates.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has risen to fourth place, backed by 9% of those surveyed.
The poll of 380 likely Republican primary voters, taken Thursday through Monday, has a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points. The full sample of 1,000 likely voters has an error margin of +/-3 points.
Some political analysts, including those in the latest USA TODAY GOP Power Rankings, see Trump as beginning to lose ground while scrutiny on him as a potential president intensifies. Still, he continues to lead the field at 23%, up 6 points from the survey in July. Carson, a retired neurosurgeon, and Fiorina, an ex-CEO, tie for second at 13%, both big jumps from the last poll. That means about half of the GOP electorate back candidates who have never served in elective office.
No other candidate breaks into double digits. Rubio is at 9%, Bush at 8%, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 6% and Ohio Gov. John Kasich at 2%. Not a single respondent backs former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum or former New York governor George Pataki.
Isn't only being 10% ahead of Fiorina a pretty big loss for Trump relative to before the debates? That's even technically within their margin of error. I mean he gained relative to their poll in July but that was ages ago.
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
I'm very open-minded, but I also know how to actually run things, and how to intelligently assess arguments; and having people in a position who show that they are not interested in having an actual debate or in running things is not helpful. If you see more of it from the Democrats, there are several possible reasons: 1) democrats are less tolerant. 2) Republicans are crazier/doing less reasonable thing 3) both sides do it similarly but you're simply more aware of the bad things done by the other side, which is also quite a common occurrence.
I don't think congresspeople should do things that would, if they were in a court of law, be grounds for contempt citations, let alone perjury. The ones more about sticking it to the other side than compromise and tolerance have been the Republicans for several years now.
Do not lie, I never said I'd only allow opinions I like and agree with, that you assert otherwise means you're strawmanning or failing to read what is written. I would be willing to disallow opinions that have no basis in reality. While diversity of opinion is nice, one of the purposes of government is to filter out the crazy stupid, and make decisions based on reality. There does need to be a place for the crazy stupid, so they can at least be heard, and I'm not quite sure where that should be, but Congress isn't the place for it.
edit: also, other people keep writing responses better than I do my only consolation is that I have good enough judgement to recognize that.
I apologize if I misunderstood you, or continue to do so, but you said:
I would be willing to disallow opinions that have no basis in reality.
Exactly which opinions are those?
You implied in your first and second paragraphs that you think those opinions, the "crazy-stupid ones" are being held by people in Congress. I assume you're not talking about Democrats here, so it's probably mostly the Tea-Party, conservative types, right? Okay, so are you saying you just don't want them in Congress, or were you actually suggesting something be done to keep those opinions out?
You said these were better responses, so I assume you've endorsed what's said in them:
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
Having spoken with a 6th circuit judge who did prior voter apportionment work as an attorney, you're arguing with a phantasm here. zlefin is not advocating that we silence the voices of dissent and opposition, he's pointing towards a troubling phenomena through which our form of representative government is changing for the worse. That's why your "oh, our system is so nice, don't break it" bit is nostalgic red herring fishing; never before has Congress continuously been rated this poorly and had this degree of "stickiness" to its seats. Furthermore, if you think that our nation's principles require an unbending obedience in the face of winner take all voter apportionment and redistricting, you need to check your history book (and not one circulated in Texas public schools, cowboy).
With that in mind, we ought to look at ways of bettering the accountability of our elected officials instead of waving away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic. Such are a poor substitute for an actual assessment of our democracy's health.
Furthermore, if you think that our nation's principles require an unbending obedience in the face of winner take all voter apportionment and redistricting, you need to check your history book (and not one circulated in Texas public schools, cowboy).
With that in mind, we ought to look at ways of bettering the accountability of our elected officials instead of waving away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic. Such are a poor substitute for an actual assessment of our democracy's health.
I probably should check my history books more often, but I was wondering exactly what this all means? It seems to be saying that Congress has gotten so out of hand, so far off the deep end, that there is no option but to be willing to "[wave] away concerns with wishy washy gesticulations towards outdated notions of founding father logic."
Bettering accountability sounds nice, and I think gerrymandering is definitely something we can look at, but you weren't very specific, even with those. My problems with the sentiment being expressed is that you're dancing around the specifics of who gets the axe and what kind of changes we'll be making.
On September 30 2015 07:31 zlefin wrote: ...pity that the system lacks better mechanisms for truly throwing the bums out.
This kind of thinking has always worried me, and I do see it from both sides occasionally, but I definitely have seen much more of it from the Democrats. And I think anyone who feels this way needs to take a step back and ponder what they are suggesting.
Any time you want the political system changed in such a way as to silence the voices of dissent and opposition, you should be especially careful to keep in mind the principles upon which this nation was founded: tolerance of a diversity of opinion. It is very difficult for any society to function properly for as long as ours has, and I think we should all be loathe to move away from that proven success into uncharted territory, especially when oftentimes it seems more about sticking it to the other side than an actual desire for compromise and tolerance.
It is not very tolerant to say that you're only going to allow the opinions you like and agree with to have a place in the conversation.
Nothing wrong with different opinions and dissent but congress should be in the businesses of governing and there are currently people in there who, by their actions, seem to have no such intentions. And they are indeed a problem.
voting 50 times to repeal Obamacare despite knowing it cannot succeed is not the purpose of Congress. Its a 5 year old throwing a tantrum.
The vast majority of the Republicans in Congress voted on those bills. Is it the vast majority that need to be kicked out, or is it just a few trouble-makers? And are we talking about forming PACs and running attack-ads and getting the vote out against them; or are we talking about opening up the books and changing the actual structure of Congress/elections? And if we're talking about actual changes to the law, with the stated intent of disallowing some of the opinions held by and actions taken by sitting Congressional representatives, exactly what changes are you suggesting? That isn't something to be discussed lightly; so if you're saying we need to do it than you need to point out specific guidelines for how far this thing will be allowed to go.
Are we discussing a few simple bills and rule changes to bring the order back, or are we talking about opening up the Constitution and passing some amendments? I'm only asking because it seems like you have all hinted at possibly the latter, but definitely the former. If that is what you're saying, then yes, I think that is a rather extreme position, and no, I was not lying when I said you wanted to ban opinions you didn't like. You seem to be suggesting that you should get to pick which opinions your opposition is allowed to have, or at least, which opinions they are allowed to bring to government. That if they have certain opinions you disagree with, that's fine, but all these other ones are just too much. There's a thin line very thin line between that and tyranny, and I don't think I trust anyone to tread it. Better to err on the side of caution and use the system as it was intended.
On October 01 2015 07:20 hunts wrote:Or they can stop being whiney little shits and realize that "freedom of religions" and "freedom of speech" only extend to the person, not their ability to harm another person, and not to hateful speech.
The first amendment protection of freedom of speech does indeed apply to most hateful speech. There is a narrow exception where speech obviously intended to incite violence is not protected.
EPT
my only consolation is that I have good enough judgement to recognize that.
