Just look up the discussion on this site about Dan Cathy and his position on Same-Sex marriage.
Someone who happened to say something that you disagree with? We can't have that!
Saying that represents bigotry and intolerance, that his freedom is being censored was treated as the true wrong.
I'll just note here that he wasn't speaking in his capacity as an officer of Chick-Fil-A when he spoke. That's why I consider the boycott of Chick-Fil-A a case of opportunistic bigotry.
Especially since I've found in my experience that complaining about the racism accusations is mostly crying wolf.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Accusations of racism have gotten so common that they have lost their punch. It's good that you have heard the story about "crying wolf". Then you have a good chance of recognizing gratuitous accusations of racism in the future.
Captured on the tapes, Graham agreed with Nixon that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with Nixon. He went considerably beyond that in offensive remarks characterized as anti-Semitic by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and evangelical author Richard Land.
Two observations to make here. First, Nixon wasn't exactly wrong. Second, Graham probably was there to provide advise and comfort. One such strategy is to draw out and emotionally connect to a person by agreeing with them on trivial things.
No offense, but I prefer the Andrew Jackson approach. Lose an election and spend the next four years campaigning to win the next one. Too bad the Republicans didn't have anyone with the balls to do that.
See, that's the false equivalency I was talking about.
Well, you're correct, except about the false part. Look up the meaning of equivalency. There's nothing fake about it here.
Sorry, but it's nowhere NEAR as comparable. Especially when Republicans accuse Democrats of being hateful because of a stand against bigotry and intolerance.
I imagine it's not because of the stand, but because of the irrational hate and vitriol that sometimes accompanies that stand. For example, I've been accused of racism merely because I advocate for a fiscally conservative government.
I support space development, but this is expensive trip that goes up befiefly and down.
[...]
Wake me up when they actually get people into orbit do international travel with suborbitals.
Well, how does one get to that point? As I recall, the modern jetliner wasn't just built one day. It was dependent on many decades of prior development. In a similar fashion, your sexy applications are going to come from less ambitious activities rather than magically appear out of thin air.
Yes, and like Florida. I can't imagine why you think one should never have conventions in the Southeast because of hurricane season. After all, Florida isn't the only state to get them. North Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas get roughly half as many hurricanes each.
No, it means that without *unanimous* agreement among Democrats, nothing will get passed
Ok, so you don't understand politics then. It's not that hard to get that many votes. Keep in mind that they could have pulled in several republicans and eliminated the need for unanimous agreement. They just failed due to incompetence.
Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:
NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.â Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring âoeThis is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitorsâ In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."
In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction."
In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown âoeinto jail.â In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
A 2008 report found that 'climate blasphemy' is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.
In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called 'Climate Criminals' who are committing 'Terracide' (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to 'shut down' climate skeptic's testimony at hearing.
There's also numerous acts of intimidation in addition to the money quotes above.
In addition, I personally have gotten such threats. I've taken a lot of controversial views (for example, Fukushima) and been accused of all sorts of things. But the AGW people are loopy in a way that no one else has been. What follows is a reply when I asserted that there were massive biases inherent in current climate research and failed to back down.
Think about what a defective disgusting human being you are. You demand that the world take your fucking folk theories of science seriously while you deride , debase, pursue, accuse and slander actual hardworking, men and women who have done the real, hard work required to have an opinion worth listening to. People who have lived their lives with zero expectation of fame or power or even big money, but rather have courageously pursued the truth wherever it leads them , however unhappy that place may be.. You accuse them of lying, of power seeking of having ambitions to control the world and why? Because you don't like the message they're bringing you. Shoot the messenger much? You're the fucking lowest dirtiest kind of human on this planet, no different than the Nazis who chased the Jewish scientists out of their Third Reich. You're a low life nothing attempting to raise himself up into a position of authority over subjects you have zero knowledge of in order to achieve your preferred political ends and suppress inconvenient truths.
How's it feel to play the role of the most despicable character in every history from Roman times onwards? How's it feel to be a completely worthless, unaccomplished ignorant human being , noisily proclaiming your superiority over people whose a
Just get the one damn vote you need to get that filibuster proof majority. It's sheer incompetence that the Democrats couldn't overcome the Republican filibuster. I agree with the original poster. They were given opportunity on a golden plate and they fucked it up.
Yes, that's pretty crazy. What's more useful to a political party? A slightly smaller risk that weather inconveniences you at your convention? Or strengthening your standing in a swing state?
Do these morons not realize they planned this during a period that is usually the peak of hurricane season?
I don't see the stupidity here. They're constrained by the political calendar. Unless, of course, you think it's ok to shove the US elections back a few months so that the Republicans can have a convention in Florida without having to worry about hurricanes.
If things get rained out, they can always hold the convention elsewhere. And if things aren't rained out, then they can hold the convention as planned.
You know 911 truthers? They didn't happen. They were a lie generated by the mandarins of the Obama administration to retcon history and cover up the alarming rise of conspiratorialism.
Interesting how propaganda works. It's not clear whether the original poster thought that filibuster proof is a "solid majority" or not. But three repliers did and they all characterize the first poster as either lying or making something up. That's an interesting though unhealthy uniformity of thought.
just because we call them "laws of physics" doesn't mean the physical universe is always going to obey them
it's worth keeping in mind that we call "laws of physics" that not because we expect the physical universe to obey rules we made up, but because the universe obeys them. If the universe should end up having more complex structure to it than we currently expect, then the new models will become the new "laws of physics", to stay that way unless something better in turn comes along.
I invite you to visit any number of message boards and count the number of death threats vs. liberals vs. death threats against conservatives and see if it supports your assumption.
I invite you to actually do that. First, I think you'll find that almost no one actually makes death threats. And a good portion of those that do are weapon-grade crazy with little to no identifiable political leaning.
For those advocating some sort of societal violence or collective punishment, though generally those fall far short of death threats, I wager they tend to be more left than right. There's been a lot of advocates for imprisonment for holding the wrong beliefs in the AGW debate, for example. OTOH, there's a lot of people unnaturally ticked off about Muslims and I've run into a couple of advocates for deliberate nuclear war and genocide. That's pretty hardcore as these things go.
And I hope Obama wins not because I like him but because I want 4 more years of his policies. When he starts a war with Iran and Libya it will destroy the perception that he is a "peace prize" winner. I want Obama to leave in 2016 with the same bad reputation as Bush had in 2008. He may be democrat but he is nowhere near as good as our last democrat president Clinton.
I guess crazy is out in force tonight. So what's the idea here? To create some sort of destructive feedback where increasingly worse candidates are elected?
Dems only had a supermajority in the senate for four months
One vote shy of a supermajority is still a solid majority. It's only due to the rank incompetence of Democrat leadership of that time that the US wasn't saddled with a vast amount of bad law.
And I see the usual pathetic whining about filibusters. I wonder if you'll keep singing that tune when there are solid Republican majorities which are thwarted by filibusters?
Oil drilling and fraking has been approved at a faster rate under obama than Bush II.
Even now, Obama has to follow the law sometimes. And fracking is a major technology development that really kicked in over the past few years so yes, we would expect more approvals for oil drilling than in the recent past before fracking became a big thing. One would have to be a much larger obstacle than Obama currently is to prevent a surge in oil drilling approvals.
you assert that an entire country of millions of people hasn't seriously thought about the license fee since it was implemented in 1922.
It's like a car wrapped around a tree. That doesn't happen when everything is working correctly. One doesn't need to know the details of the decision to fund the BBC in this way. The mere fact that it happened, indicates a problem.
But that's the point - the BBC is independent of the government very specifically. The money collected for running it is not from or collected by the government.
It most certainly is collected by government through both the law establishing the licensing fee, the government body that sets the fee, and the actual enforcement of nonpayment.
The TV licence is very definitely not a "stealth tax" in any sense of the definition whatsoever. It is not part of the government.
The TV license is not a "stealth tax" because it is overt. I do consider it a variation of a property tax since it is imposed by government fiat (on owning a working TV) not by contract.
Slashdot Mirror
Just look up the discussion on this site about Dan Cathy and his position on Same-Sex marriage.
Someone who happened to say something that you disagree with? We can't have that!
Saying that represents bigotry and intolerance, that his freedom is being censored was treated as the true wrong.
I'll just note here that he wasn't speaking in his capacity as an officer of Chick-Fil-A when he spoke. That's why I consider the boycott of Chick-Fil-A a case of opportunistic bigotry.
Especially since I've found in my experience that complaining about the racism accusations is mostly crying wolf.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Accusations of racism have gotten so common that they have lost their punch. It's good that you have heard the story about "crying wolf". Then you have a good chance of recognizing gratuitous accusations of racism in the future.
Captured on the tapes, Graham agreed with Nixon that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with Nixon. He went considerably beyond that in offensive remarks characterized as anti-Semitic by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and evangelical author Richard Land.
Two observations to make here. First, Nixon wasn't exactly wrong. Second, Graham probably was there to provide advise and comfort. One such strategy is to draw out and emotionally connect to a person by agreeing with them on trivial things.
No offense, but I prefer the Andrew Jackson approach. Lose an election and spend the next four years campaigning to win the next one. Too bad the Republicans didn't have anyone with the balls to do that.
See, that's the false equivalency I was talking about.
Well, you're correct, except about the false part. Look up the meaning of equivalency. There's nothing fake about it here.
Sorry, but it's nowhere NEAR as comparable. Especially when Republicans accuse Democrats of being hateful because of a stand against bigotry and intolerance.
I imagine it's not because of the stand, but because of the irrational hate and vitriol that sometimes accompanies that stand. For example, I've been accused of racism merely because I advocate for a fiscally conservative government.
I support space development, but this is expensive trip that goes up befiefly and down.
[...]
Wake me up when they actually get people into orbit do international travel with suborbitals.
Well, how does one get to that point? As I recall, the modern jetliner wasn't just built one day. It was dependent on many decades of prior development. In a similar fashion, your sexy applications are going to come from less ambitious activities rather than magically appear out of thin air.
There is no reason to tolerate intolerance. Absolutes are for fools.
I'm sorry but you can't handle that level of rank hypocrisy. Give it to me and I'll make sure it gets a good home.
It is rather obvious once one thinks about it, isn't it?
Yes, and like Florida. I can't imagine why you think one should never have conventions in the Southeast because of hurricane season. After all, Florida isn't the only state to get them. North Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas get roughly half as many hurricanes each.
Ok, so it's that antenna rather than the TV that gets taxed. I still think it's insane.
No, it means that without *unanimous* agreement among Democrats, nothing will get passed
Ok, so you don't understand politics then. It's not that hard to get that many votes. Keep in mind that they could have pulled in several republicans and eliminated the need for unanimous agreement. They just failed due to incompetence.
If you can't look at Congress now and see anyone better suited to be President than the current candidates
Since they're not running, then they aren't better suited.
"There's been a lot of advocates for imprisonment for holding the wrong beliefs in the AGW debate"
Prove it, asswipe.
I call bullshit
Here's a pretty good rebuttal.
Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:
NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.â Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring âoeThis is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitorsâ In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."
In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction."
In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown âoeinto jail.â In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
A 2008 report found that 'climate blasphemy' is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.
In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called 'Climate Criminals' who are committing 'Terracide' (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to 'shut down' climate skeptic's testimony at hearing.
There's also numerous acts of intimidation in addition to the money quotes above.
In addition, I personally have gotten such threats. I've taken a lot of controversial views (for example, Fukushima) and been accused of all sorts of things. But the AGW people are loopy in a way that no one else has been. What follows is a reply when I asserted that there were massive biases inherent in current climate research and failed to back down.
Think about what a defective disgusting human being you are. You demand that the world take your fucking folk theories of science seriously while you deride , debase, pursue, accuse and slander actual hardworking, men and women who have done the real, hard work required to have an opinion worth listening to. People who have lived their lives with zero expectation of fame or power or even big money, but rather have courageously pursued the truth wherever it leads them , however unhappy that place may be.. You accuse them of lying, of power seeking of having ambitions to control the world and why? Because you don't like the message they're bringing you. Shoot the messenger much? You're the fucking lowest dirtiest kind of human on this planet, no different than the Nazis who chased the Jewish scientists out of their Third Reich. You're a low life nothing attempting to raise himself up into a position of authority over subjects you have zero knowledge of in order to achieve your preferred political ends and suppress inconvenient truths.
How's it feel to play the role of the most despicable character in every history from Roman times onwards? How's it feel to be a completely worthless, unaccomplished ignorant human being , noisily proclaiming your superiority over people whose a
Just get the one damn vote you need to get that filibuster proof majority. It's sheer incompetence that the Democrats couldn't overcome the Republican filibuster. I agree with the original poster. They were given opportunity on a golden plate and they fucked it up.
Yes, that's pretty crazy. What's more useful to a political party? A slightly smaller risk that weather inconveniences you at your convention? Or strengthening your standing in a swing state?
Do these morons not realize they planned this during a period that is usually the peak of hurricane season?
I don't see the stupidity here. They're constrained by the political calendar. Unless, of course, you think it's ok to shove the US elections back a few months so that the Republicans can have a convention in Florida without having to worry about hurricanes.
If things get rained out, they can always hold the convention elsewhere. And if things aren't rained out, then they can hold the convention as planned.
You know 911 truthers? They didn't happen. They were a lie generated by the mandarins of the Obama administration to retcon history and cover up the alarming rise of conspiratorialism.
Interesting how propaganda works. It's not clear whether the original poster thought that filibuster proof is a "solid majority" or not. But three repliers did and they all characterize the first poster as either lying or making something up. That's an interesting though unhealthy uniformity of thought.
just because we call them "laws of physics" doesn't mean the physical universe is always going to obey them
it's worth keeping in mind that we call "laws of physics" that not because we expect the physical universe to obey rules we made up, but because the universe obeys them. If the universe should end up having more complex structure to it than we currently expect, then the new models will become the new "laws of physics", to stay that way unless something better in turn comes along.
I invite you to visit any number of message boards and count the number of death threats vs. liberals vs. death threats against conservatives and see if it supports your assumption.
I invite you to actually do that. First, I think you'll find that almost no one actually makes death threats. And a good portion of those that do are weapon-grade crazy with little to no identifiable political leaning.
For those advocating some sort of societal violence or collective punishment, though generally those fall far short of death threats, I wager they tend to be more left than right. There's been a lot of advocates for imprisonment for holding the wrong beliefs in the AGW debate, for example. OTOH, there's a lot of people unnaturally ticked off about Muslims and I've run into a couple of advocates for deliberate nuclear war and genocide. That's pretty hardcore as these things go.
And I hope Obama wins not because I like him but because I want 4 more years of his policies. When he starts a war with Iran and Libya it will destroy the perception that he is a "peace prize" winner. I want Obama to leave in 2016 with the same bad reputation as Bush had in 2008. He may be democrat but he is nowhere near as good as our last democrat president Clinton.
I guess crazy is out in force tonight. So what's the idea here? To create some sort of destructive feedback where increasingly worse candidates are elected?
Dems only had a supermajority in the senate for four months
One vote shy of a supermajority is still a solid majority. It's only due to the rank incompetence of Democrat leadership of that time that the US wasn't saddled with a vast amount of bad law.
And I see the usual pathetic whining about filibusters. I wonder if you'll keep singing that tune when there are solid Republican majorities which are thwarted by filibusters?
Oil drilling and fraking has been approved at a faster rate under obama than Bush II.
Even now, Obama has to follow the law sometimes. And fracking is a major technology development that really kicked in over the past few years so yes, we would expect more approvals for oil drilling than in the recent past before fracking became a big thing. One would have to be a much larger obstacle than Obama currently is to prevent a surge in oil drilling approvals.
It's nothing to do with 'owning a working TV'.
[...]
*except* live broadcast TV
you assert that an entire country of millions of people hasn't seriously thought about the license fee since it was implemented in 1922.
It's like a car wrapped around a tree. That doesn't happen when everything is working correctly. One doesn't need to know the details of the decision to fund the BBC in this way. The mere fact that it happened, indicates a problem.
But that's the point - the BBC is independent of the government very specifically. The money collected for running it is not from or collected by the government.
It most certainly is collected by government through both the law establishing the licensing fee, the government body that sets the fee, and the actual enforcement of nonpayment.
The TV licence is very definitely not a "stealth tax" in any sense of the definition whatsoever. It is not part of the government.
The TV license is not a "stealth tax" because it is overt. I do consider it a variation of a property tax since it is imposed by government fiat (on owning a working TV) not by contract.
The BBC became the Licensing Authority with responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system in 1991.