• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Wow. This could be bad.

9190FC18-1813-4751-BA7B-2E2F28A2C44C.jpegD39ACB0A-7A79-43A4-AC49-373AD1222CAD.jpeg

Crooked President giving Russia a back door and a free pass into Syria. There’s your “happy birthday,” Putin!

Not securing ISIS prisoners - brilliant.

And pander to a country where your hotel is.

It’s worse than the swampiest swamp that ever swamped.

Lord, bring back a normal, decent, rational President, please. This is awful.
 

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Random thought. If the Supreme Court decides not to protect sexual orientation, will a gay boss be able to fire a straight employee for no reason other than their orientation?
Yes.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Random thought. If the Supreme Court decides not to protect sexual orientation, will a gay boss be able to fire a straight employee for no reason other than their orientation?
That would logically follow. But we’re not moral degenerates who would do that. (Or I could take out 3 of them tomorrow.)

What’s next - people who support abortion? Women who had one? Fire them, too? It’s against somebody’s beliefs, right?
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
The list looks like one I have come across in other forms before. It's always "this group(ethnic, religious) thinks and does this dumb thing while MY group handles the same situation in a superior way.
Lists like that just generalize.
Fun fact - I got one of those weird orange warning bands for my post that you quoted, apparently because I called Stamps "Sweetums".

Two takeaways here.

1. I have to stop looking at my ignored content.

2. These mods aren't messing around.

;)
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
That author is obnoxious. She wonders why people don't get along with those they disagree with, in an article in which she claims that liberals hate anyone who isn't a liberal, while claiming conservatives love everyone and would never ever express disdain for the "other side". It's basically "liberals bad, conservatives good, now everyone should just get along".

After all that, she then calls liberals narcissistic, which is stunningly ironic and demonstrates a remarkable lack of self-awareness.

To put it more simply, if you're going to make the case that we should all get along with those who have different political viewpoints, it doesn't work if you put down the other side while saying so.
I literally posted Ellen’s own clip where she said she received major backlash/criticism/attacks. Do you think it was not liberals who were doing the attacking?
 

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
Random thought. If the Supreme Court decides not to protect sexual orientation, will a gay boss be able to fire a straight employee for no reason other than their orientation?
It should be noted that this is existing federal policy. And because the lawsuit deals with the interpretation of the CRA, it will have no effect on existing or future state laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Essentially, those in favor of anti-discrimination laws can only win or come out neutral with this lawsuit.
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
It should be noted that this is existing federal policy. And because the lawsuit deals with the interpretation of the CRA, it will have no effect on existing or future state laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Essentially, those in favor of anti-discrimination laws can only win or come out neutral with this lawsuit.
There are 3 lawsuits. We'll have to wait on the rulings before declaring "those in favor of anti-discrimination laws can only win or come out neutral with this lawsuit".
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Oh wow. Suddenly people are paying attention to Turkey.

There’s American troops in Syria... stop your Orange Man Bad tunnel vision for a second, and think about your fellow countryman... the ones who are fighting for you.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Wow. This could be bad.

View attachment 417033View attachment 417032

Crooked President giving Russia a back door and a free pass into Syria. There’s your “happy birthday,” Putin!

Not securing ISIS prisoners - brilliant.

And pander to a country where your hotel is.

It’s worse than the swampiest swamp that ever swamped.

Lord, bring back a normal, decent, rational President, please. This is awful.
The Kurds are going to suffer badly once the Turkish army moves in. After all they did to fight ISIS, they deserve the international community’s support and protection. And they’re not the only ones who are going to pay the price: an ISIS resurgence would have devastating consequences for the region and for the world at large.
 

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
There are 3 lawsuits. We'll have to wait on the rulings before declaring "those in favor of anti-discrimination laws can only win or come out neutral with this lawsuit".
The lawsuit(s) are not constitutional matters, and therefore their result will not be applicable to state law. They revolve around EXPANDING the power of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law.

Whatever the outcome, you will not have less anti-discrimination policies than are in effect right now.

FWIW, I actually think the anti-discrimination side has a strong argument, as strong as you're going to get, in the context of the CRA.
 

OneofThree

Well-Known Member
Let me explain (why I should have to is absolutely freaking beyond me, but) how this works with soveriegn nations: Assad needs or wants help on his 10 acres, he picks up the phone and asks for, and authorizes it.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Let me explain (why I should have to is absolutely freaking beyond me, but) how this works with soveriegn nations: Assad needs or wants help on his 10 acres, he picks up the phone and asks for, and authorizes it.
I don’t understand what you mean. The region of Syria in question isn’t under Assad’s control.
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
The lawsuit(s) are not constitutional matters, and therefore their result will not be applicable to state law. They revolve around EXPANDING the power of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law.

Whatever the outcome, you will not have less anti-discrimination policies than are in effect right now.

FWIW, I actually think the anti-discrimination side has a strong argument, as strong as you're going to get, in the context of the CRA.
You're kidding, right? This is all about letting people deny service to LGBTQ people for "religious belifs".

On the surface, I am absolutely fine with this. Deny me. I don't want your homophobic cake anyway. However, it opens up a discriminatory door that could get serious when a doctor wants to deny me, etc etc, etc.
 
Top Bottom