And note that is from California, which is generally one of the more progressive states in the "not murdering gay people" department.
California is the state of Reagan, it has large, large sections that are far more conservative than other people would suspect. Said nutcase is from Orange County, an extremely conservative area.
Michigan just banned sodomy despite the fact that have a whackton of real and devastating problems that are costing people their lives.
No they didn't. It banned folks who had sex with animals from getting another pet. The bit about "banning sodomy" is made up based on someone's misinterpretation of the wording of the law. That Michigan did NOT just ban sodomy is one of the very few issues that Michigan Democrats and Republicans agree on.
I've never understood the appeal for this. I mean, it's the afterlife. I would assume that STD's are no longer an issue. I would think that two ridiculously attractive whores would be preferable.
Or maybe we've really misunderstood the true meaning of this. Perhaps Islam is really opposed to martyrdom. It could be such a bad thing in Islam that if you do so, you will nagged for all eternity by 72 women with whom you can never have sex.
It's meant to appeal to very young men who don't have any sexual prospects at all even in a society that greatly values men over women. It's supposed to turn the tables, instead of many men competing for the hand of few women, in the afterlife it would be the opposite.
Might sound dumb to us, but for the impoverished goat-fucker who has little value above his ability to strap a bomb to his chest, it's tempting.
They hope to be spared if Muslim extremists take over. They would't (be spared), of course. The Muslim extremists would say "thank you for your support. You made the whole world feel guilty and bend to our whims. Now you will be a martyr!" At that point, the SJWs who aren't completely inept would see the error in their ways and plead for their lives, but the extremists would just say "No no it's okay, being a martyr is good, you will be with Allah soon. ALLAH AKBAR" *CHOP*CHOP*CHOP* *scream*sob*gargle*
I don't think that would actually happen, because I believe they would be the type to quail and submit. The funny thing about the Muslim extremists is that they're harsher on what they would consider failed Muslims (IE, anyone not as extreme as them) than folks from other religions. There are Christians living in ISIS-controlled lands who are not under that much risk, because ISIS's interpretation of Islam demands either full conversion, or else 'submission.' That is, they pay a tithe, acknowledge ISIS's dominion over them, and... that's it. If they don't pay, the men are executed, and the women and children sold into slavery.
So I'm suspecting that the jizya will get paid pretty quickly.
The two are equivalent in this case. The ballot proposal is for a bill that would change the law.
Those are not at all equivalent. A bill needs to be introduced in the legislature by a representative.
A ballot proposal has pretty much one requirement: that someone pay the $200 filing fee. After that, he'd have to get a minimum number of signatures for it to be on the ballot. The only thing that happened was McLaughlin did not win a motion demanding it to be on the ballot after he failed to meet the minimum threshold.
So literally, it's one guy who put up $200 to bring notoriety to his hate speech, and he didn't really get anywhere other than free publicity from the outraged.
ISIS is not a de facto state. That's utter nonsense.
Of course it's not nonsense, but leaders of other countries are trying to fight a propaganda war that gets harder if other people think they're a country. Just because Western countries don't want to recognize them doesn't mean they aren't a de facto state. They tend to bring more order and rule to the areas they occupy than the previous weak countries whose land they stole.
Land that you can take, land that you can keep, that's how countries have been formed as long as there has been civilization. The US did it as well throughout the 1800s with the doctrine of Manifest Destiny (it's God's Will that the US occupy the lands to the Pacific Ocean), stealing the lands of the American Indian, and naturally, the Mexican American war. Conquest is a time-honored way of solidifying your hold on land. Not something the US has done recently, the last I could remember was the late 19th century with the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.
Matthew McLaughlin is the real deal, and you can read his proposal for the Sodomite Suppression Act on the California Attorney General website. Now, it's not anything introduced in the legislature (no legislator wanting to keep his job would be so stupid), it's just one guy trying to get attention for the cause who was willing to pay the $200 filing fee.
I thought at first this a Jonathan Swift style satire, but after reading through McLaughlin's WordPress site I have to think he's actually a true believer. He was also pushing for an initiative twelve years ago to have all California public school students read the King James Bible in literature classes (with students being able to opt-out).
Re:Ding-Dong, the witch is dead.
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Joe does not look like he has a fake tan, and I think his hair is real.
Re:Can you put a lid on the mysogonistic crap?
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
It is funny how liberals are all for protecting certain "women" from "Microagressions" from the GOP, but dish out the most vile comments when it suits them. Would they call Hillary half the names they've called Hillary?
They're trolls, not liberals. Well, there can be a certain amount of overlap, but they are explicitly posting most of that crap for the sole reason that it is inflammatory.
She thinks that Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and the Emirates are our allies, while Russia is an adversary. She's still locked in a time warp in the 80s,
I... what? Are you saying Russia is not an adversary? If Carly is locked in the 80s, then that's pre-Putin thinking there. Russia IS an adversary, in no small part because Putin has tried to bring Russia back into a more cold-war power balance, with Russia exerting its influence over Eastern Europe, by force if necessary.
I'd agree with Saudi Arabia, they are "in name only" allies. Turkey, Qatar, and the Emirates are US allies, at least compared to all the other non-Jordanian countries in that section of the world.
Re:Hasn't she always been polling at below 5%?
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
She's trended above 5% before, which is why she was in the major debates, as opposed to the under-card. She hasn't polled high enough to be in the last few debates, which is what's happening to Carson now as well.
Censorship is about removing information upon order of a government. This does not happen here at all. "Right to be forgotten" only obliges databases indexers to remove things, not the original websites. And it's not the government who asks for it, it's the very person mentioned in the case.
If a law requires it, and a law enforces it, then it is government censorship. It doesn't matter if the request comes on behalf of a private individual.
Re:And there was much rejoicing!
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
You're kidding, right? I'm starting to think the whole network is run by the Democrats, as spelled out on the NoAgendaShow. Bush and Rubio are the only guys those jerks ever promote. They're firmly establishment, and spend as much time bashing Trump and Cruz as they do Bernie Sanders.
Fox did a great job radicalizing the base, until they elected guys who couldn't be as easily controlled. Trump isn't beholden to them, so they're not fond of him. Carson never had much going on. Cruz is hated by just about everyone, for many good reasons. Rand Paul is too Libertarian for a corporate power like Fox to be too wild about. That leaves Bush and Rubio, maybe Christie, who they'll support as long as they don't make the same mistakes against conservatism that GWB did.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Being able to win the Republican primary and being able to beat the Democrats in the general election are two very different things. Ironically, being better at the first these days means you're worse at the second.
Lack of voter participation in the primaries really matters. You have to appeal to the extremes in a primary because they're the ones who turn out. Then for a general election, you have to shift more towards the middle, or at least appear to.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
He wants to have america have a "spiritual rebirth" and he's making Bushlike pronouncements from aircraft carriers.
Are you sure you're not confusing Rand Paul with Ted Cruz? Sure, Paul gave a campaign speech on an aircraft carrier to make himself look tough, but Cruz is the Dominionist here talking about spiritual rebirths.
Re: Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
The best thing about Sanders's economic policy is that it's utterly fantastic, impossible thinking, entirely ungrounded in reality. Which means Congress won't go for it unless it's a Democrat majority, so that's a NOOP.
Oh. Uhhhh.. huh. That's actually an interesting way of looking at it. Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders might be the best candidate for the Libertarians, because he's aligned more with that crowd on the only issues that as President he would have much chance of enforcing.
I have the feeling that this is too simple of an outlook, as a president has a lot of ways of getting things done outside of Congress. And if somehow the Democrats got congressional control back in '16 or '18 (stranger things have happened) then the plan REALLY backfires.
Why do you think China would care if the US counterattacks after a NK attack? China doesn't want NK refugees or any fallout entering China. That's pretty much what they care about. China and NK aren't exactly "friends."
If NK attacked the US with nuclear weapons, there is nothing that would stop us from responding in kind. If whomever was President at the time didn't have the balls to counter attack, they'd likely be impeached until someone who would was in office.
There will be retaliation, it just won't be nuclear. Whatever we might think of US military leadership, they're not that stupid, and firing nukes at NK would be a pretty stupid action.
The US is perfectly capable of taking out North Korea completely through conventional means. If NK launched a nuke, the US would probably be joined by China. Not responding with a nuke would give the US a high moral ground of the sort it hasn't had since World War II (or maybe Afghanistan). The US's allies in the region would hate the US dropping one on NK, since dropping a nuke is like peeing in a public pool; fallout won't just stop at the border. Nuclear weapons are flashy, but they're not exactly practical or desirable from the US's perspective.
This is a poor analysis. The DPRK would quickly lose any conventional war with the US/SK, but they are much stronger than Iraq, and have the ability to inflict massive casualties. Within the first hour of war, literally millions of people would be killed in Seoul, as it is within artillery range of the DMZ. And does the North Korean government know this? Absolutely, and they have thousands of bunkers right along the border, ready to rain death on Seoul.
I like to think that the US has been paying very close attention to the situation in Israel, not just for the obvious reasons, but as a testbed for the practicality of a "shield" system capable of destroying incoming rockets. Conventional wisdom 15 years ago was that at the time such systems just weren't functional, but the Iron Dome has been pretty successful in the last five years. Expect to see something similar on the Korean border, capable to taking out any nuclear-armed missile. Seoul can only be a smoldering hole if the payload can actually get there.
I think it's a just a good reason why a lot of reasonable people don't want to browse the site below the threshold of 1 (or 0). Too many dickweeds who think their trolling says something.
Though I'd love a setting where replies to -1 threads get filtered out as well. I've seen, over the decades, that trolls can be easy to ignore. A less-easily-solved problem is the people who feed them and keep their trolling efforts alive.
The use of strong encryption in no way implies that you are "guilty" of anything or have "done something wrong."
The FBI under Hoover learned that everyone is "guilty" of something, whether it's illegal or not, and that it's very helpful to have such information on-hand.
Slashdot Mirror
And note that is from California, which is generally one of the more progressive states in the "not murdering gay people" department.
California is the state of Reagan, it has large, large sections that are far more conservative than other people would suspect. Said nutcase is from Orange County, an extremely conservative area.
Michigan just banned sodomy despite the fact that have a whackton of real and devastating problems that are costing people their lives.
No they didn't. It banned folks who had sex with animals from getting another pet. The bit about "banning sodomy" is made up based on someone's misinterpretation of the wording of the law. That Michigan did NOT just ban sodomy is one of the very few issues that Michigan Democrats and Republicans agree on.
I've never understood the appeal for this. I mean, it's the afterlife. I would assume that STD's are no longer an issue. I would think that two ridiculously attractive whores would be preferable.
Or maybe we've really misunderstood the true meaning of this. Perhaps Islam is really opposed to martyrdom. It could be such a bad thing in Islam that if you do so, you will nagged for all eternity by 72 women with whom you can never have sex.
It's meant to appeal to very young men who don't have any sexual prospects at all even in a society that greatly values men over women. It's supposed to turn the tables, instead of many men competing for the hand of few women, in the afterlife it would be the opposite.
Might sound dumb to us, but for the impoverished goat-fucker who has little value above his ability to strap a bomb to his chest, it's tempting.
He's always been a Christian. Sure, you get protestants who say that THEIR way is the true Christian way, but Catholics are Christians, yes.
They hope to be spared if Muslim extremists take over. They would't (be spared), of course. The Muslim extremists would say "thank you for your support. You made the whole world feel guilty and bend to our whims. Now you will be a martyr!" At that point, the SJWs who aren't completely inept would see the error in their ways and plead for their lives, but the extremists would just say "No no it's okay, being a martyr is good, you will be with Allah soon. ALLAH AKBAR" *CHOP*CHOP*CHOP* *scream*sob*gargle*
I don't think that would actually happen, because I believe they would be the type to quail and submit. The funny thing about the Muslim extremists is that they're harsher on what they would consider failed Muslims (IE, anyone not as extreme as them) than folks from other religions. There are Christians living in ISIS-controlled lands who are not under that much risk, because ISIS's interpretation of Islam demands either full conversion, or else 'submission.' That is, they pay a tithe, acknowledge ISIS's dominion over them, and... that's it. If they don't pay, the men are executed, and the women and children sold into slavery.
So I'm suspecting that the jizya will get paid pretty quickly.
The two are equivalent in this case. The ballot proposal is for a bill that would change the law.
Those are not at all equivalent. A bill needs to be introduced in the legislature by a representative.
A ballot proposal has pretty much one requirement: that someone pay the $200 filing fee.
After that, he'd have to get a minimum number of signatures for it to be on the ballot. The only thing that happened was McLaughlin did not win a motion demanding it to be on the ballot after he failed to meet the minimum threshold.
So literally, it's one guy who put up $200 to bring notoriety to his hate speech, and he didn't really get anywhere other than free publicity from the outraged.
ISIS is not a de facto state. That's utter nonsense.
Of course it's not nonsense, but leaders of other countries are trying to fight a propaganda war that gets harder if other people think they're a country. Just because Western countries don't want to recognize them doesn't mean they aren't a de facto state. They tend to bring more order and rule to the areas they occupy than the previous weak countries whose land they stole.
Land that you can take, land that you can keep, that's how countries have been formed as long as there has been civilization. The US did it as well throughout the 1800s with the doctrine of Manifest Destiny (it's God's Will that the US occupy the lands to the Pacific Ocean), stealing the lands of the American Indian, and naturally, the Mexican American war. Conquest is a time-honored way of solidifying your hold on land. Not something the US has done recently, the last I could remember was the late 19th century with the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.
Matthew McLaughlin is the real deal, and you can read his proposal for the Sodomite Suppression Act on the California Attorney General website. Now, it's not anything introduced in the legislature (no legislator wanting to keep his job would be so stupid), it's just one guy trying to get attention for the cause who was willing to pay the $200 filing fee.
I thought at first this a Jonathan Swift style satire, but after reading through McLaughlin's WordPress site I have to think he's actually a true believer. He was also pushing for an initiative twelve years ago to have all California public school students read the King James Bible in literature classes (with students being able to opt-out).
Joe does not look like he has a fake tan, and I think his hair is real.
It is funny how liberals are all for protecting certain "women" from "Microagressions" from the GOP, but dish out the most vile comments when it suits them. Would they call Hillary half the names they've called Hillary?
They're trolls, not liberals. Well, there can be a certain amount of overlap, but they are explicitly posting most of that crap for the sole reason that it is inflammatory.
I'm waiting to hear your stunning takedown of his accurate points.
She thinks that Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and the Emirates are our allies, while Russia is an adversary. She's still locked in a time warp in the 80s,
I... what? Are you saying Russia is not an adversary? If Carly is locked in the 80s, then that's pre-Putin thinking there. Russia IS an adversary, in no small part because Putin has tried to bring Russia back into a more cold-war power balance, with Russia exerting its influence over Eastern Europe, by force if necessary.
I'd agree with Saudi Arabia, they are "in name only" allies. Turkey, Qatar, and the Emirates are US allies, at least compared to all the other non-Jordanian countries in that section of the world.
She's trended above 5% before, which is why she was in the major debates, as opposed to the under-card. She hasn't polled high enough to be in the last few debates, which is what's happening to Carson now as well.
Censorship is about removing information upon order of a government. This does not happen here at all. "Right to be forgotten" only obliges databases indexers to remove things, not the original websites. And it's not the government who asks for it, it's the very person mentioned in the case.
If a law requires it, and a law enforces it, then it is government censorship. It doesn't matter if the request comes on behalf of a private individual.
You're kidding, right? I'm starting to think the whole network is run by the Democrats, as spelled out on the NoAgendaShow. Bush and Rubio are the only guys those jerks ever promote. They're firmly establishment, and spend as much time bashing Trump and Cruz as they do Bernie Sanders.
Fox did a great job radicalizing the base, until they elected guys who couldn't be as easily controlled. Trump isn't beholden to them, so they're not fond of him. Carson never had much going on. Cruz is hated by just about everyone, for many good reasons. Rand Paul is too Libertarian for a corporate power like Fox to be too wild about. That leaves Bush and Rubio, maybe Christie, who they'll support as long as they don't make the same mistakes against conservatism that GWB did.
Being able to win the Republican primary and being able to beat the Democrats in the general election are two very different things. Ironically, being better at the first these days means you're worse at the second.
Lack of voter participation in the primaries really matters. You have to appeal to the extremes in a primary because they're the ones who turn out. Then for a general election, you have to shift more towards the middle, or at least appear to.
He wants to have america have a "spiritual rebirth" and he's making Bushlike pronouncements from aircraft carriers.
Are you sure you're not confusing Rand Paul with Ted Cruz? Sure, Paul gave a campaign speech on an aircraft carrier to make himself look tough, but Cruz is the Dominionist here talking about spiritual rebirths.
The best thing about Sanders's economic policy is that it's utterly fantastic, impossible thinking, entirely ungrounded in reality. Which means Congress won't go for it unless it's a Democrat majority, so that's a NOOP.
Oh. Uhhhh.. huh. That's actually an interesting way of looking at it. Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders might be the best candidate for the Libertarians, because he's aligned more with that crowd on the only issues that as President he would have much chance of enforcing.
I have the feeling that this is too simple of an outlook, as a president has a lot of ways of getting things done outside of Congress. And if somehow the Democrats got congressional control back in '16 or '18 (stranger things have happened) then the plan REALLY backfires.
Won't happen. One word: China.
Why do you think China would care if the US counterattacks after a NK attack? China doesn't want NK refugees or any fallout entering China. That's pretty much what they care about. China and NK aren't exactly "friends."
If NK attacked the US with nuclear weapons, there is nothing that would stop us from responding in kind. If whomever was President at the time didn't have the balls to counter attack, they'd likely be impeached until someone who would was in office.
There will be retaliation, it just won't be nuclear. Whatever we might think of US military leadership, they're not that stupid, and firing nukes at NK would be a pretty stupid action.
The US is perfectly capable of taking out North Korea completely through conventional means. If NK launched a nuke, the US would probably be joined by China. Not responding with a nuke would give the US a high moral ground of the sort it hasn't had since World War II (or maybe Afghanistan). The US's allies in the region would hate the US dropping one on NK, since dropping a nuke is like peeing in a public pool; fallout won't just stop at the border. Nuclear weapons are flashy, but they're not exactly practical or desirable from the US's perspective.
This is a poor analysis. The DPRK would quickly lose any conventional war with the US/SK, but they are much stronger than Iraq, and have the ability to inflict massive casualties. Within the first hour of war, literally millions of people would be killed in Seoul, as it is within artillery range of the DMZ. And does the North Korean government know this? Absolutely, and they have thousands of bunkers right along the border, ready to rain death on Seoul.
I like to think that the US has been paying very close attention to the situation in Israel, not just for the obvious reasons, but as a testbed for the practicality of a "shield" system capable of destroying incoming rockets. Conventional wisdom 15 years ago was that at the time such systems just weren't functional, but the Iron Dome has been pretty successful in the last five years. Expect to see something similar on the Korean border, capable to taking out any nuclear-armed missile. Seoul can only be a smoldering hole if the payload can actually get there.
I think it's a just a good reason why a lot of reasonable people don't want to browse the site below the threshold of 1 (or 0). Too many dickweeds who think their trolling says something.
Though I'd love a setting where replies to -1 threads get filtered out as well. I've seen, over the decades, that trolls can be easy to ignore. A less-easily-solved problem is the people who feed them and keep their trolling efforts alive.
Do you have any way to actually counter his arguments other than loudly yelling nonsense?
The police DOES NOT CARE about winning the "hearts and the minds" of the populace.
Doesn't sound like you know any police officers, or much about the police in general other than "big government" stereotypes.
The use of strong encryption in no way implies that you are "guilty" of anything or have "done something wrong."
The FBI under Hoover learned that everyone is "guilty" of something, whether it's illegal or not, and that it's very helpful to have such information on-hand.