US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7620

On May 24 2017 07:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
One wonders...

On May 24 2017 06:48 Mohdoo wrote:



First of all, sorry for being rude earlier. I'll try not to be rude anymore.

Second, are you saying your belief that homosexual sex is unethical is grounded in all of those three things individually? Meaning there is a marriage component (are you saying you believe sex should be reserved for marriage), a legal component, and a societal component?

If you are saying pre-marital sex is unethical on its own, it makes sense why 2 dudes would be bad if you also believe 2 dudes shouldn't be married. I understand that the bible defines marriage as 1 man 1 woman, but is that why you also see it as bad for society? When 2 men are in a committed, long term relationship in all the same ways an identical hetero couple are, is the societal component still present? Is there a unique societal contribution specific to same sex, committed sex?

On May 24 2017 07:26 Gahlo wrote:

Bruh, tell me what the first I in ISIS stands for.

On May 24 2017 07:37 Danglars wrote:

So I wanted to separate what my personal views are and what kind of legal framework should be adopted and what may or may not be harmful for society. The homosexual sex bit is grounded in the teachings of the Hebrew Bible, the revealed word of God. I don't have very much to add about ethical considerations there, other than to clarify that most Christians treat marriage and society as a bigger secular subject than homosexual sex and society. There's redemption for sin, etc etc. I'm not here to posit and discuss the ethics of the sexual act--this isn't a venue for religious and moral discussions of that kind. My point of contention is the laws surrounding who marries and why the state is involved, which is concerning legally and societally.

If you thought I was going to take up arguments relating to sexual relationships, I'm sorry for giving that impression. Common law marriages and long-term homosexual relationships are not a big political concern for me as far as what I will argue and disagree forcefully. Civil unions and tax benefits, for example, are not things I am opposed to. When justices say the constitution says no state has the power to form its traditional marriage laws, its usurping its constitutionally defined limits and proving the separation of powers doctrine and tenth amendment lie in tatters.

On May 24 2017 07:49 LegalLord wrote:
I want to hear more about the radical alt-left conspiracy from Hannity.

On May 24 2017 07:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Your argument that legal framework should adopt the Hebrew Bible, the revealed word of God as the laws surrounding who marries and why the state is involved, which is concerning legally and societally, on the basis that Christians exists is quite frankly bizarre.

On May 24 2017 08:15 Slaughter wrote:
The fetish for need of those on the right for people to say radical islam is one of the stupidest and most puzzling things.

On May 24 2017 07:45 biology]major wrote:


ask obama not me, if you were listening to him you would think ISIS was a secular terrorist group that enjoys blowing themselves up for the fun of it

On May 24 2017 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:

Its a common tactic to pick an 'enemy of the state' and use fighting that enemy as a way to set yourself apart from your opponents and get elected.
Its easier when you name that enemy something catchy like 'radical islam'.

On May 24 2017 08:15 Slaughter wrote:
The fetish for need of those on the right for people to say radical islam is one of the stupidest and most puzzling things.

On May 24 2017 07:59 Tachion wrote:

A website called Media Matters posted this, basically implying that people should do to him what the Starcraft community did to Idra and go after the sponsors.

On May 24 2017 08:21 Tachion wrote:

I think it's more along the lines of a (over)reaction to what they perceive to be the unduly PC culture of the left.

On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.

We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.

On May 24 2017 08:25 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Idk why its behind a paywall, but it is so I can't really grab the text.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

But it sounds like theyre fucking mad.

We’re Seth Rich’s parents. Stop politicizing our son’s murder.

The writers are the parents of Seth Rich, who was killed in the District in 2016.

Imagine living in a nightmare that you can never wake up from. Imagine having to face every single day knowing that your son was murdered. Imagine you had no answers — that no one has been brought to justice and there were few clues leading to the killer or killers. Imagine that every single day, with every phone call you hope that it’s the police, calling to tell you that there has been a break in the case.

Imagine that instead, every call that comes in is a reporter asking what you think of a series of lies or conspiracies about the death. That nightmare is what our family goes through every day.

Our beloved son Seth Rich was gunned down in the early hours of July 10, 2016, in his Washington, D.C., neighborhood of Bloomingdale. On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Seth had dedicated his life to public service, and he told us that he wanted to work on the campaign’s effort to expand voter participation because he loved our country dearly and believed deeply in the promise of democratic engagement. Seth had been walking around, calling friends, family and his girlfriend, pondering the broader picture of what the job change would mean. He wondered how he would pick up and move to New York City for four months, the strain that might put on his relationships, and how it would all affect the life he had built for himself in Washington.

The circumstances of what happened next are still unclear. We know that Seth was abruptly confronted on the street, that he had been on the phone and quickly ended the call. We also know that there were signs of a struggle, including a watchband torn when the assailants attempted to rip it off his wrist. Law-enforcement officials told us that Seth’s murder looked like a botched robbery attempt in which the assailants — after shooting our son — panicked, immediately ran and abandoned Seth’s personal belongings. We have seen no evidence, by any person at any time, that Seth’s murder had any connection to his job at the Democratic National Committee or his life in politics. Anyone who claims to have such evidence is either concealing it from us or lying.

Still, conservative news outlets and commentators continue, day after painful day, to peddle discredited conspiracy theories that Seth was killed after having provided WikiLeaks with emails from the DNC. Those theories, which some reporters have since retracted, are baseless, and they are unspeakably cruel.

We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else. Indeed, those who have suggested that Seth’s role as a data analyst at the DNC gave him access to a wide trove of emails are simply incorrect — Seth’s job was to develop analytical models to encourage voters to turn out to vote. He didn’t have access to DNC emails, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee emails, John Podesta’s emails or Hillary Clinton’s emails. That simply wasn’t his job.

Despite these facts, our family’s nightmare persists. Seth’s death has been turned into a political football. Every day we wake up to new headlines, new lies, new factual errors, new people approaching us to take advantage of us and Seth’s legacy. It just won’t stop. The amount of pain and anguish this has caused us is unbearable. With every conspiratorial flare-up, we are forced to relive Seth’s murder and a small piece of us dies as more of Seth’s memory is torn away from us.

To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you. We don’t think you are monsters, and we don’t think you are terrible people. We know that so many people out there really do care, don’t know what to think and are angry at the lack of answers.

We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth’s memory and legacy for their own political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare. We ask those purveying falsehoods to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son’s murder.

On May 24 2017 08:23 Wulfey_LA wrote:


Well Rightists can't come out and just say "we oppose pluralism". So they pick talismanic fights where liberals try to meekly stick up for pluralism. If the last 3 pages haven't demonstrated this clearly enough, there isn't an easy or consistent way to extricate the Muslim/Islam factor from Jihadist terror. This is a weak point for pluralism and the rightists know it. It got Trump elected without him having to come out and say "let's end pluralism".

Of course he cucked out his followers for a gold chain, an all male sword dance, and getting to touch an orb. Everything Trump abandoned every single campaign promise to say non-pluralistic and mean things about Muslims during his trip to Saudi Arabia. It all ended up being agitprop.

On May 24 2017 08:27 biology]major wrote:


I'm surprised he didn't lose half of his base for not saying radical islamic terrorism. How they spin it to be him being tough on terror is beyond me.