ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [387] -- Fighting Or Following?

[ Posted Friday, April 15th, 2016 – 16:53 PDT ]

Believe it or not, it was a fairly quiet week on the Republican campaign trail. That's news in a sort of "man bites dog" (or, at the very least, "rabid attack dog refuses to bite") sort of way. In fact, the biggest news from the Republican side this week was Paul Ryan definitively refusing to be the Republican nominee this year. Ryan delivered a speech (called "Shermanesque" by every political reporter in existence) which essentially said: "Man, you couldn't pay me to be the GOP nominee this year -- no thanks, but I'll see you all bright and early for the 2020 contest!" This is a smart move indeed for Ryan, since it is looking more and more like Republicans don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the White House this particular year. So we're ignoring all the "but that's what he said about the speakership" tease articles, and we're taking Ryan at his word. No how, no way is Ryan going to be the nominee this year.

Ryan's got enough problems right now as it is, since he hasn't really gotten anything done in the House this year. Just like John Boehner before him, the Tea Party extremist faction is holding everything hostage and gumming up the works. Ryan truly wanted to live up to his billing as the "one man who could unify the party" (see: his election as Speaker of the House), but so far he is falling far short. Ryan swore that his House would be different, and that Republicans would start actually passing bills that laid out their plans for the future so the public could view the specifics (with awe, of course). So far, that hasn't happened. There's a Puerto Rico crisis that needs some action, but Ryan is heading back to the drawing board even though time is of the essence. Today, Ryan just missed a big deadline for passing a budget framework bill. This isn't even squabbling about the details, this is just the overview which sets how much will be spent -- and the Tea Party has now torpedoed Ryan's efforts to get something (anything!) passed before the deadline.

Good thing it didn't shut the government down again, because Ryan is proving that the problem wasn't in fact John Boehner, but instead the "take no prisoners" faction of the Republican Party itself. Since this is a largely unsolvable problem, we don't expect Ryan will be able to make good on any of his grand promises to prove to be the "party of ideas." Maybe the Democratic optimists are right and this will only help them retake the House this year, who knows?

The only other presidential campaign news this week from the GOP side was Ted Cruz being rudely ignored at an appearance in New York (the video is hilarious), and both Cruz and John Kasich making the rounds of late-night television. Donald Trump was pretty quiet all week, but then he really can afford to be because he's about to dominate the New York primary next Tuesday.

The Democrats had a somewhat livelier week, with a handy Verizon strike to join in. Bernie Sanders spoke to the crowd, and later Hillary Clinton showed up on a picket line as well. Solidarity!

Bernie had a good week on the hustings, pulling in a whopping 27,000 people to a rally in Washington Square Park, and chalking up his first Senate endorsement to boot. But the week was capped off by the final Democratic debate, held in Brooklyn. We jotted down some snap reactions to this last night, and today the prevailing conventional inside-the-Beltway thinking seems to indicate that people thought Hillary won the early portion of the debate, while Bernie closed stronger. Your mileage may vary, as they say.

We thought that while both candidates looked a lot sharper than they had in earlier debates (both look fully capable last night of taking on the Republicans, to put this another way), Hillary Clinton showed a disconcerting fondness for following rather than leading. In multiple answers, Hillary was essentially saying: "If Democrats in Congress agree to do that, then I'll sign it." This is a mighty passive approach to the presidency, especially for someone currently using "Fighting for us" as a campaign slogan. Does "Fighting for us" mean she'll come in after the battle's won and take a bow? Maybe her slogan should be: "You lead, I'll follow right along afterwards," perhaps? As we said, this was disconcerting, and we're going to address the issue further in the talking points.

Speaking of fighting for us, there are some people out there getting arrested this week to protest the shocking lack of voting rights protections in America right now, and the scourge of money in politics. They may not have gained much mainstream media coverage, but Democracy Spring is indeed out there fighting for everyone's rights, and they deserve applause (and a lot more media attention) for doing so.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

Former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders deserves at least an Honorable Mention this week, for being a founder of a new organization: Doctors For Cannabis Regulation. This is a group of more than 50 doctors, including "faculty members at some of the nation's leading medical schools," which will fight for the legalization of marijuana -- both medical and recreational. As the news article explains:

The group -- which is announcing its formation Monday, under the name Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR) -- is endorsing the legalization of marijuana for adult recreational use, a break from the position of the American Medical Association, the largest organization of doctors in the country. DFCR argues that the prohibition and criminalization of marijuana use does more harm to the public than good. Citing hundreds of thousands of annual marijuana arrests, racial and economic disparities in marijuana enforcement, and the role of prohibition in keeping marijuana prices high and lucrative to violent drug dealers, the physicians say that creating a legal and regulated marijuana market is the best way to ensure public safety, combat the illicit drug trade and roll back the negative consequences of strict enforcement policies on disadvantaged communities.

The new group will join others who have realized that the entire War On Weed is now and has always been counterproductive and destructive, such as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an organization made up of criminal justice professionals who have seen the bad effects of the War On Weed in their careers. We're not sure that having a former Surgeon General call for outright legalization is a tipping point in any way, but it certainly shows that at least some doctors out there are getting tired of blindly accepting propaganda over science.

However, there was one Democrat who was even more impressive last week, which has earned him the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards (who recently beat out diaper-enthusiast David Vitter for the top spot in the state), made a bold stand in the ongoing battle over legislation preserving the right of citizens to discriminate in the marketplace. Here's the story:

Gov. John Bel Edwards on Wednesday signed an executive order extending protection to state employees and contractors against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It also bans state agencies from discriminating in the services they provide.

"While this executive order respects the religious beliefs of our people, it also signals to the rest of the country that discrimination is not a Louisiana value, but rather, that Louisiana is a state that is respectful and inclusive of everyone around us," he said in what may have been an oblique reference to other Southern states such as Tennessee, Mississippi and North Carolina.

That's pretty impressive (and progressive) for any state in the South. It's also reassuring for those who were initially distrustful of Edwards, since he doesn't exactly agree with all of the progressive agenda. But in this instance, he certainly stood up for nondiscrimination and he did the right thing in a very timely manner. While other states contemplate following the path of North Carolina, they are closely watching the reaction (almost universal disapproval) from the business community and from other states. Some governors have vetoed similar measures after watching the backlash North Carolina instantly received. So one Southern governor standing up and moving his state in exactly the opposite direction was precisely what was needed right about now. Because it was only an executive order, it is limited, but the legislature can always correct that in due time. Rather than waiting for that to happen, Edwards went right ahead and did what he personally could do.

For his bold action, John Bel Edwards is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. We would also like to say that we sincerely hope that all of the conventions, concerts, and other tourist business which is turning away from North Carolina at the moment would immediately announce that they are relocating all their economic benefits to Louisiana, instead. Because that would send a clear signal to any other state contemplating such laws: Doing so will cost you, big time.

[Congratulate Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards on his official state contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

The Democratic National Committee had what they considered a brilliant plan for some street theater on Equal Pay Day -- sell lemonade outside a Metro station and charge men $1.00 and women 79 cents, to get people to focus on wage disparity. What might have been a good idea, however, turned into a minor fiasco. They forgot to get a permit, they set up next to a stand selling Krispy Kreme donuts, and it was a cold morning. So they left after an hour, after having sold a grand total of 20 cups of lemonade. A snarky Washington Post article concluded that the only thing achieved was: "inadvertently confirming the oft-leveled charge by Republicans that Democrats wouldn't even know how to operate a lemonade stand."

Ouch. But their hearts were in the right place, so we just can't see giving them a snarky award for their efforts. Instead, we're going to give the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week -- for the second time in a row -- to Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Last week, DiFi won for co-chairing a sham hearing on marijuana, where only the "Lock them all up!" side was allowed to speak. This week, DiFi wins another MDDOTW for co-sponsoring a piece of legislation that would make it mandatory for all information companies to unlock any consumer's data whenever the government wished. This is her response to Apple, a company located within Feinstein's home state. Feinstein, predictably, jumped straight to "The terrorists are going to kill us all!" in defending her proposed bill:

The bill we have drafted would simply provide that, if a court of law issues an order to render technical assistance or provide decrypted data, the company or individual would be required to do so. Today, terrorists and criminals are increasingly using encryption to foil law enforcement efforts, even in the face of a court order. We need strong encryption to protect personal data, but we also need to know when terrorists are plotting to kill Americans.

Remember way back when Dianne Feinstein was shocked that the C.I.A. was spying on members of her own task force? Boy, those were the days. Feinstein is selective in her outrage, saving it only for people she personally knows, apparently. For the rest of us, her motto has long been: "Big Brother loves you!" (or something awfully close to that). This week's bill is in fact the latest in a long line of actions DiFi has taken in strong support of letting the N.S.A. pretty much do whatever it feels like with any data under the sun. Except her employees' data, of course.

Thankfully, at least one Democrat (Ron Wyden of Oregon) has already denounced Feinstein's bill, stating unequivocally: "It makes Americans less safe," and: "If this dangerous anti-encryption legislation reaches the Senate floor, I will filibuster it. Period." In fact, we're going to just go ahead and award Wyden an Honorable Mention this week for doing so, while we hand DiFi her second Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week in a row.

[Contact Senator Dianne Feinstein on her Senate contact page, to let her know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 387 (4/15/16)

The first three of these are just regular garden-variety talking points this week. The last four, however, are all directed at Hillary Clinton.

There's a reason for this, and the reason is that Clinton is still quite likely to be the Democratic nominee, and she has now laid out what it will take for her to enact a truly progressive agenda: Congress is going to have to lead. She admitted this at least twice in the debate last night, once on scrapping the cap on earnings for Social Security withholding and once on the "Fight For $15" issue. In both cases, she admitted that she would indeed "follow" on the issue by signing bills that made it to her desk -- but that she had no intention of actually leading on either issue.

To be charitable, you could call this an echo of F.D.R.'s (possibly fictional) line: "I agree with you, now go out and make me do it." What it means, though, is that even with a President Hillary Clinton and a Democratic Senate, the real push for bold progressive changes may have to come from other Democrats. So we've constructed four talking points for other Democrats to immediately begin using, in the hopes that when the time comes, Hillary will indeed follow their lead. If others are going to have to do the heavy lifting, here are some talking points that will help.

 

1
   Paying the price

We still think this is a great idea.

"I would encourage all those businesses and corporations and tourists who are now reconsidering spending their dollars in North Carolina to consider instead coming to Louisiana. Instead of enshrining bigotry in law, Louisiana is moving in exactly the opposite direction. I would hope that any socially-conscious business would take note, and immediately announce plans for expansion within Louisiana, moving their conventions from North Carolina to the Pelican State, and rescheduling their tourist events to bring all of their economic benefits to a state that truly cares about equality. I hear New Orleans is a nice place to have a convention, and a great place to visit!"

 

2
   Paul Ryan flailing and failing

The media hasn't really noticed this one, but it's so embarrassing it's worth bringing up.

"I see that Paul Ryan is no more able to convince his House Republicans to get anything done than John Boehner was. Ryan had a big fanfare of announcing he was going to prove to the country that Republicans had solid ideas for a better future, and that he'd be doing this by actually putting budget bills on the floor for Republicans to vote on. This would prove, by the 2016 election, that Republicans were capable of presenting solid plans. He even promised an Obamacare replacement. But not only is that as non-existent as ever, today Ryan missed his first big budget deadline. Instead of passing the overall spending bill, the Tea Partiers once again proved to be the tail wagging the House Republican dog. No wonder Ryan announced this week that he was not interested in being nominated president -- he can't even handle the job he's currently got!"

 

3
   Fighting voter suppression

Finally, an issue that all Democrats (even both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns) can united behind.

"The Democratic Party and the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are all suing the state of Arizona over the disgraceful fiasco of last month's primary election. In Maricopa County, voters had to wait in lines for up to five hours, because the Republican county official responsible for elections decided to cut the number of polling places by an astounding 85 percent from 2008. The reduction in polling places was most notable in areas with poor and minority residents. Usually Republicans are a bit more subtle about their efforts to suppress voter turnout, but this really is as blatant as it gets. Hopefully this lawsuit will mean that by November, we will see a lot fewer problems in Maricopa County on election day. This isn't the only example of Republicans trying to suppress the vote in this election cycle, but it certainly was the worst."

 

4
   Scrap the cap!

And now we move on to the progressive part of the program. I explained the "scrap the cap" idea a long time ago (with charts!) -- the Social Security tax is the most regressive in the entire tax code. It taxes all earnings up to a certain amount (roughly $120,000), and then all income over that amount is not taxed. Even Bernie Sanders hasn't totally gotten on board the "scrap the cap" bandwagon, as his plan would still leave an indefensible "donut hole" so that people making between $120,000 and $250,000 would get a big tax break for no apparent reason. Hillary Clinton wouldn't even admit to supporting the idea last night (she was flat-out against it, back in 2008). It's time to move past all of this waffling and just make it a flat tax for everyone. Yes, a flat tax is regressive. But nowhere near as regressive as the way it stands now.

"To fix Social Security once and for all, and to provide a hike in benefits, there is one simple solution. Collect Social Security taxes on every dollar that every worker earns. Period. Right now, every firefighter, every teacher, every nurse, and every cop on the beat who makes less than $120,000 a year pays a flat 6.2 percent into Social Security. But someone who makes $150,000 is paying less than five percent. It gets worse as the incomes skyrocket, too -- at $250,000 you are paying less than three percent, and at $750,000 less than a single percent. Someone making five million bucks a year pays less than one-tenth of one percent into Social Security. Just by scrapping this cap altogether, enough money would be generated to assure Social Security's solvency for 75 years and even allow for more generous benefits to be paid out. The time has come. Scrap the cap."

 

5
   Deschedule!

Hillary Clinton has been noticeably averse to even mentioning the word "marijuana." She's not alone in this -- plenty of Democrats are timidly waiting on the sidelines to see what happens next. But now that Bernie Sanders has become the only major presidential candidate to ever address the issue specifically, the time for standing on the sidelines is over.

"In the last debate of the primary season, Bernie Sanders said the following, and I quote: We've got to have the guts to rethink the so-called 'War on Drugs.' Too many lives have been destroyed because people have possessed marijuana -- millions. Which is why I believe we should take marijuana out of the federal controlled substance act. Unquote. Bernie's right. Marijuana activists have been fighting hard for decades to get marijuana reclassified on the controlled substance schedules. But with four states already having legalized recreational marijuana -- and possibly many more to come, this election cycle -- it is now time to hand over federal marijuana control to the same department that handles alcohol and tobacco. It's the only thing that makes any sense anymore. Marijuana must be descheduled, not just rescheduled. Every sane person can see this is the direction the country is headed. The federal government has stuck its head in the sand for far too long. Times are a-changing. Federal law must also change, to reflect this new reality."

 

6
   Continue Obama's sentencing reform

Bernie was right about this last night, too, when he pointed out that this actually is an achievable goal.

"President Obama is to be commended for taking the lead on sentencing reform. A new report shows that 26,000 federal drug offenders have gotten reduced sentences under Obama's new policy. This effort needs to be continued under the next president, and we need to examine all the laws passed in the War On Drugs hysteria of a few decades ago, in order to modify the most excessive. Most Democrats now know the War On Drugs 'lock them all up' mentality causes more harm than it helps, and Republicans are getting on board because they see the massive amounts of money which can be saved with more humane policies. This is a rare area of agreement, so Democrats need to push the issue hard after the election, to force the next president to continue Obama's efforts."

 

7
   $15 -- period.

This one was the most painfully obvious last night.

"The movement to create a living wage for all American workers everywhere is not called 'Fight for $12, or maybe better if we can get it somehow.' It is called 'Fight for $15' for a reason. America has to end the insane policy of mandating a minimum wage which almost requires the worker to be supplemented by food stamps in order to eat. This is nothing short of corporate welfare, because it shifts these costs from the corporations to the taxpayers. Nobody working full-time should be eligible for benefits, because their wages should be high enough to live on. Period. This means fifteen bucks and hour, and nothing less. If this is the minimum wage across America, it will create an absolutely level playing field because no business anywhere will be able to get away with paying less. We need to fight for a living wage for all. We need to accept nothing less, and Congress needs to make that crystal clear to the next president. Fifteen dollars and hour. Period."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

318 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [387] -- Fighting Or Following?”

  1. [1] 
    neilm wrote:

    It taxes all earnings up to a certain amount (roughly $120,000), and then all income over that amount is not taxed.

    Yes, because that is the point where the future benefits maxes out. Currently the system works on a proportional mechanism, with a floor for people who paid nothing in.

    If you tax somebody who is earning $5M/year on the whole amount, then these people will be getting $250,000/year social security when they retire (I'm making the numbers up, but the concept is correct). Currently the max benefit is $35,000/year (or something like that).

    I assume you are proposing that not only do we change the collection rules, but also change the payout rules so that any tax paid in over $120,000 is a tax rather than a deferred benefit. If so, you need to state this clearly.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    I hate this nannybot - can't think what the last post tripped it for.

    Summary: $120,000 cap -> $30,000 max benefit

    Either: $5,000,000 in -> $1,250,000/year SS benefits or you change the system so it is just a regular tax.

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    Today's anecdote: Young white couple walking in park with baby in carriage.

    What do they think of the election season so far?

    Both smiled, and thought for a minute.

    Young man gave me words: "Polarizing. Chaotic. Hostile."

    Young Woman: "Yeah. Although I don't follow politics closely but I can tell."

    Young man: "They don't seem serious."

  4. [4] 
    Pastafarian Dan wrote:

    Regarding Hil's leadership style (or lack thereof)on these issues, perhaps the following is appropriate... "Don't be Afraid, I'm Right Behind You. (Using You As a Shield)"

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    "Nobody working full-time should be eligible for benefits, because their wages should be high enough to live on."

    Exactly.

    In a previous thread Michale made the argument that Burger Flipper shouldn't make the same income as cops. They shouldn't.

    Burger Flippers should make $15/hour and Cops should make MORE.

    Not only are the people making current minimum wage underpaid, tiers of people making above minimum wage are underpaid. Lots and lots of Americans are underpaid. They need raises too. To keep up with inflation/expenses minimum wage should be about $22/hour and anyone now less than that should get a raise. If you're making $22/hour now, you are underpaid.

  6. [6] 
    Paula wrote:

    Nobody working full-time should be eligible for benefits, because their wages should be high enough to live on.

    Exactly.

    Michale made the point in previous thread that Burger Flippers shouldn't make the same as Cops. He's right.

    Burger Flippers should make $15/hour. Cops should make MORE.

    Not only are people currently earning minimum wage underpaid, tiers of people making MORE than minimum wage are underpaid.

    To reflect changes in inflation/expense, minimum wage should be almost $22/hour.

    If you are making $22/hour now, you're underpaid.

    A large percentage of Americans need a raise.

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    I'm glad FDR's "make me do it" was included in this week's Friday Talking Points". It popped into my mind during the debate, when Clinton made her "then there's Congress" remark. I thought about it again when you mentioned Clinton's "disconcerting tendency" towards following rather than leading. I was all set to draft a comment citing FDR's Make Me Do It political strategy, but there it was at the beginning of the talking points proper. Nice job of digging deep into what can motivate frustrating political behavior!

  8. [8] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Several disparate comments.

    While a budget is a non-binding doc, not passing it takes reconciliation off the table. Using reconciliation requires a budget.

    A group of retired NFL players and Constance Therapeutics are teaming up to study whether Med Marijuana can help them.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/14/ex-nfl-players-rally-behind-medical-marijuana.html

    Edwards, in LA, basically repealed a Jindal Exec Order. It wasn't a from nothing thing. Jindal had already legalized discrimination in LA. Edwards undid that.

  9. [9] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    There's a big problem with such a "scrap the cap" donut hole. It disincentivizes in a bad way. There should not be solid line cut offs. Instead, every tax benefit should phase in and phase out.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is a smart move indeed for Ryan, since it is looking more and more like Republicans don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the White House this particular year.

    Unless, of course, one takes into account the all but assured indictment of Hillary Clinton and /or senior staff...

    Then it will be Democrats who don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the White House this particular year.

    The announcement is fast approaching... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale made the point in previous thread that Burger Flippers shouldn't make the same as Cops. He's right.

    "Could you speak into my GOOD ear?? I could have sworn I just heard you call me 'Ace'??"
    -Ace Ventura

    :D

    Burger Flippers should make $15/hour. Cops should make MORE.

    And, in the perfect Democrat Party utopia, they would...

    On the other hand, in a perfect Democrat Party utopia, all cops would be in jail, so......

    :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    S2,

    Edwards, in LA, basically repealed a Jindal Exec Order. It wasn't a from nothing thing. Jindal had already legalized discrimination in LA. Edwards undid that.

    Actually, Jindal's order protected the rights of religious people.

    Rights that are guaranteed in the.. yunno.. US CONSTITUTION...

    But why let FACTS intrude on good old-fashioned political bigotry.. :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the other hand, in a perfect Democrat Party utopia, all cops would be in jail, so......

    How apropos that I would say that and then read this:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/14/my-message-for-cops-at-7-eleven.html?intcmp=hplnws

    I wish the Left Wingery would think about that the next time they want to disparage and denigrate LEOs...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    neilm wrote:

    I wish the Left Wingery would think about that the next time they want to disparage and denigrate LEOs...

    This is the little right-wing-bubble that makes you realize this is politics for entertainment only.

    The left wing is not anti-cop - the left wing is anti-bad-cop.

    As pathetic a caricature would be to claim that all right wingers want to let cops kill on a whim.

    You can do better than this Michale. Lazy.

  15. [15] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm -

    Sorry, comment restored!

    Pastafarian Dan -

    Hey, long time, no hear from! Hope His Noodly Appendage has blessed you in the meantime...

    Heh.

    :-)

    -CW

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    The left wing is not anti-cop - the left wing is anti-bad-cop.

    Despite ALL the facts to the contrary... :D

    No, seriously... You are correct.. The Left Wingery is anti-BAD-cop..

    The problem is is that the Left Wingery thinks that ALL cops are bad cops..

    I could find tons of statements from the Left Wingery that state this explicitly..

    But what would be the point?? Ideological slavery and bigotry is far FAR stronger than facts and reality..

    As pathetic a caricature would be to claim that all right wingers want to let cops kill on a whim.

    Which is EXACTLY the caricature that the Left Wingery uses..

    As I said, the facts that support this are overwhelming..

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hate this nannybot - can't think what the last post tripped it for.

    One way to find out.. Post each paragraph separately and see which one trips the NNL filter... :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    I could find tons of statements from the Left Wingery that state this explicitly..

    WHAT DO WE WANT!!!??? DEAD COPS!!!
    WHEN DO WE WANT THEM!!! NOW!!!

    -The Left Wingery

    'nuff said...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    A snarky Washington Post article concluded that the only thing achieved was: "inadvertently confirming the oft-leveled charge by Republicans that Democrats wouldn't even know how to operate a lemonade stand."

    "I don't care who you are, that right thar was funny as hell.."
    -Larry The Cable Guy

    :D

    The bill we have drafted would simply provide that, if a court of law issues an order to render technical assistance or provide decrypted data, the company or individual would be required to do so. Today, terrorists and criminals are increasingly using encryption to foil law enforcement efforts, even in the face of a court order. We need strong encryption to protect personal data, but we also need to know when terrorists are plotting to kill Americans.

    And your refutation of this is.... ????? What exactly???

    It used to be that the Left Wingery was hysterical about privacy, but acknowledged that there ARE times when privacy takes a back seat to public safety..

    "GET A WARRANT" was the battle cry of the privacy fanatics back then...

    NOW, not even a WARRANT satisfies the privacy junkies..

    If there ever was a case against giving an inch, they take a mile, THIS proves it beyond any doubt..

    Ya'all should ask yourselves one question..

    Would you support unbreakable encryption if YOUR daughter was a kidnap victim and her life hangs by whether or not authorities can crack the encryption on a device???

    What sane person WOULD support unbreakable encryption for terrorists or child molesters???

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/04/15/fight-for-15-protesters-invade-fast-food-restaurant-invite-worker-to-go-on-strike-listen-to-her-instant-response/

    Ya see??

    Americans just want to work and get a fair wage...

    It's only the professional agitators and hysterical activists who are pushing this felgercarb....

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What is a fair wage, Michale?

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is a fair wage, Michale?

    You tell me what a LIVING wage is first...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    A living wage is the minimum necessary to live and access the basic necessities of life.

    A fair wage must be better than that, no?

    Do you think the current national minimum wage is a living wage? Is it a fair wage. Do you believe that there should even be a national minimum wage?

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    A living wage is the minimum necessary to live and access the basic necessities of life.

    So, a single mom with 4 kids will make more money than a single guy that lives with his parents..

    In other words, "To each according to their needs"

    How will that work, exactly??

    A fair wage must be better than that, no?

    No...

    Wages are NOT determined by the needs of the employee. PERIOD...

    Wages are determined by the nature of the job and the requirements to perform the job... PERIOD..

    You are not talking about wages...

    You are talking about welfare...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you believe that there should even be a national minimum wage?

    Nope...

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There you go.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exactly...

    :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html?_r=0

    Comments???

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:
  30. [30] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    So, The Orange Thing says that he's the most fabulous whiner. I suppose we're going to have so much whining we'll get sick of the whining. I have to say I already am. I thought he was supposed to be the super businessman, the strong organizational leader, the winner. Instead, he has no idea what he's doing, his top campaign staff doesn't bother to register to vote, and by comparison, he's allowing Lyin' Ted the Canadian Cuban to look like the smart professional guy who gets things done. If making the best deals is the answer to all our problems, why hasn't he made a deal to solve his own? Instead, he whines fabulously.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would you like some cheese with yer whine?? :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill

    Thanks for posting this article Michale - I'd missed this issue. Interesting sponsors for this bill.

    This is one of these simple moral decisions (of course our citizens should be allowed to take a foreign government to court if they participate in killing our citizens on our soil!) coupled with reciprocal downsides (everybody else will be able to take our government to court in their country if we kill their citizens on their soil).

    Given that we have the most active killer drone program in the world, this leaves us on a moral 'sticky wicket'.

    The whole divestment of $750B nonsense is an empty threat, the impact on our economy, the dollar or our financial stability would be negligible, with a short spike in interest rates as the Saudi's lost their shirts dumping high quality bonds on a strong market at cut rate prices. To avoid the losses the Saudi's would have to adopt a phased approach to selling their assets which would be barely noticeable.

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The actions taken by Saudi Arabia in recent months and years is very interesting. They are acting like the winds of change are blowing but like they can withstand and resist that change.

    They will soon discover that the winds of change are a force to be reckoned with and the sooner they come to that realization, the better off they and their dangerous neighbourhood will be.

  34. [34] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    I said this the other day.
    Fair/Living wage should take into account the taxpayer. A full-time work week should cover the basics for one adult and one dependent.

    Rent, Food, Clothes, Educational Supplies (presumably for the child dependent), transportation costs (esp for to and from work). None of these being extravagant at the minimum wage level.

    Gov't should then cover general Health Care, Education (incl Higher Ed), some retirement safety net, anything else needed by the population as a whole that is too expensive to include in the cost of goods sold.

    As consumers, we should expect that if something requires 40 hrs of labor (or 30 or 48 or whatever we define as FT wee), the the cost should reflect that.

  35. [35] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Concerning Louisiana, the redefinition of religious freedom has got to stop. You do not get to push your religious beliefs on anyone else. Ever!

    If you require tax benefits (sidewalks, sewers, electricity, plumbing, roads, the Internet, etc), then in the public sphere you are required to treat everyone equally and your business is required to provide services to all people.

    Your religion be damned!!!

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Concerning Louisiana, the redefinition of religious freedom has got to stop. You do not get to push your religious beliefs on anyone else. Ever!

    But it's perfectly acceptable to push Left Wing morality on others??

    If I am a christian baker and a gay couple forces me to bake them a cake that violates my religion, how am *I* forcing my religion on THEM!??

    THEY came to me.. If they didn't want anything to do with my religion, then they should go somewhere else..

    Let me repeat what I posted in a previous commentary..

    It's all about mutual respect..

    Let me give you an example of how things SHOULD be..

    Gay Person: I realize you are a christian bakery, but I really like your products and I am hoping I could have you cater my wedding to my gay partner.

    Business Owner: I respect your beliefs and your lifestyle, but I also have my own beliefs that I must respect so I am going to have to respectfully decline to provide the service you desire.

    Gay Person: I understand and I would not want to put you in a position where you must compromise your beliefs. I'll go elsewhere. Thank you for your time...

    You see how easy it is???

    MUTUAL RESPECT...

    That's the name of the game..

    Now, let's look at how things go when the Left Wingery agenda is at work...

    Gay Person: Yo!! I am gay and I demand you cater my gay wedding!!! I don't give a rat's ass about your beliefs!!! You will accede and accept MY beliefs and MY beliefs only or else I will destroy you and your business!!!!

    You see the difference in the two approaches..

    Ya'all support the latter approach..

    I support the former approach...

    And *I* am in the wrong??

    I don't think so...

    Your religion be damned!!!

    And THERE it is...

    Ya'all respond with EXACTLY that disrespect and then turn around and DEMAND respect...

    Well, here's MY response..

    "YOUR LIFESTYLE BE DAMNED!!"

    And so it goes and so it goes...

    It's all about mutual respect..

    If you WANT respect, then BE respectful...

    It's THAT simple....

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fair/Living wage should take into account the taxpayer. A full-time work week should cover the basics for one adult and one dependent.

    Rent, Food, Clothes, Educational Supplies (presumably for the child dependent), transportation costs (esp for to and from work). None of these being extravagant at the minimum wage level.

    And if those things were constant throughout the country then you would have a valid case..

    But they are not so you don't..

    Under YOUR system you pay ONE person one wage and another person a completely different wage for the exact same job...

    That's utterly and completely ridiculous...

    That's the problems you create when you believe that the needs of the employee have ANYTHING to do with wages... That's not wages, that's welfare..

    Under MY system, it's the job that dictates the wages.....

    A lower wage for menial tasks such as flipping burgers and mopping floors...

    And a higher wage for dangerous jobs or jobs requiring education, etc etc...

    It's not rocket science..

    Michale

    What could be simpler???

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanks for posting this article Michale - I'd missed this issue. Interesting sponsors for this bill.

    Welcome..

    I have ta admit, I am torn...

    I have always thought the kooks who whine and cry about Saudi involvement in 9/11 are just a step up from those nuts who claim Bush and the Mossad were the architects of 9/11...

    We're there some Saudi's who had a hand in 9/11?? Probably..

    We're they part of the Saudi Government?? Possibly..

    Does that mean that the Saudi Government was complicit in 9/11?? Not at all...

    All it is is taking a bunch of dispirited facts and trying to weave a conspiracy.... No different than nutballs trying to blame Mossad..

    On the other hand, the Obama Administration is siding with Saudi... So that makes me wonder. :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Given that we have the most active killer drone program in the world, this leaves us on a moral 'sticky wicket'.

    I'll believe that when ya'all actually start holding Obama accountable.. :D

    Until such time, SILENCE GIVES ASSENT... :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL, Liz...

    We're there some Saudi's who had a hand in 9/11?? Probably..

    We're they part of the Saudi Government?? Possibly..

    Have a ball...

    :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Joshua, time for another apostrophe lesson. Heh.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We are they!

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    We are there!

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What were you saying, Michale?

    Sorry, I just can't resist. I'm not that strong.

    :-)

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    hehehe :D

    We're = Were

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hopeless.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Absolutely... :D

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    huh?

  49. [49] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Michale [37]:

    I don't object to earning different wages for different jobs. We're discussing the minimum. That is, what a person should earn for full-time work in an unskilled, non-dangerous job.

    If they're working full time and if they are supporting one child, then they should not need the taxpayer to provide housing assistance, food assistance, tax credits, etc.

    Simple as that.

    Other jobs requiring higher-level skills or that are dangerous should command higher pay and better benefits, no one doubts that (we're not communists, after all).

  50. [50] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    If they support more than one dependent, then they might need more gov't assistance, but that shouldn't be on the employer or the consumer.

  51. [51] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Religion:

    There are so many places to go here.

    First stop: Discrimination has nothing to do with their religion.

    They don't seem to have a problem with adulterers (Newt, Sanford, Kim Davis, others), despite this being a commandment violation.

    They don't have problem baking a cake for someone's second (or fourth) marriage, though that violates Judeo-Christian beliefs.

    They believe we are all sinners but somehow the sinner they dislike is the only sinner they want to discriminate against.

    This is simply hiding their "yuck factor" behind some religion.

    They've done this before. Native Americans had no soul. African-Americans were not God's children. It's utter BS and has no place in the public sphere.

    Jews and Muslims do not eat pork. Should their businesses be allowed to refuse to do business with someone who does eat pork? Should Mormons, Muslims, or 7th Day Adventists be allowed to investigate someone and then refuse to do business with them if they drink alcohol? I say no.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    S2,

    I don't object to earning different wages for different jobs. We're discussing the minimum. That is, what a person should earn for full-time work in an unskilled, non-dangerous job.

    But what ya'all seem to be talking about is earning different wages for the exact same job..

    If ya'all are pushing the "living wage" meme then it's completely illogical that a single mom with 4 kids would make the same amount as the single guy that lives at home with his parents....

    If it's a "living wage" ya'all want, then the single mom MUST earn 5 times as much as the single guy for the exact same job...

    And THAT is completely unweildy...

    That is why it's completely illogical to tie wages to need... Wages tied to need is welfare..

    The ONLY factor to determine wages is the job itself..

    Other jobs requiring higher-level skills or that are dangerous should command higher pay and better benefits, no one doubts that (we're not communists, after all).

    OK.... OK....

    Tell ya what.. You increase the pay for paramedics and police officers FIRST...

    THEN I'll support $15 p/h for burger flippers and floor moppers..

    Howz that?? :D

    If they support more than one dependent, then they might need more gov't assistance, but that shouldn't be on the employer or the consumer.

    So you DO see the logic of not tying wages to need... I knew ya had it in ya!! :D

    So why should the consumer or employer be on the hook for even 1 dependent??

    If you want more money, work more hours or more jobs....

    I fail to see the issue...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Again, though, I think the better argument is the tax argument. If you take advantage of the tax base by using our roads, our electrical grid, our Internet, etc, then you owe the taxpayer certain behaviors.

    Gay people do not pay lower taxes so that they don't support those who discriminate and hide it behind their religion. They pay the same taxes to support the same services as everyone else.

    They have the right to expect the same service from businesses that everyone else gets.

    If someone truly believes that their religion doesn't allow them to serve such a community (but somehow allows them to serve other sinners), then they can go off grid. If they're not willing to do that then they don't really take their religion seriously enough to make sacrifices for their beliefs. They just want an excuse to discriminate.

    I'm sorry if you're offended, Michale, but I have no respect for such people.

  54. [54] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Michale [52]:

    I never said it was individual need. Again, we are not communists [Godfather].

    I said we, as a society, define a level of need for one plus a dependent, and minimum wage is set to cover those costs.

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, though, I think the better argument is the tax argument. If you take advantage of the tax base by using our roads, our electrical grid, our Internet, etc, then you owe the taxpayer certain behaviors.

    And what is OWED is taken out in taxes..

    Gay people do not pay lower taxes so that they don't support those who discriminate and hide it behind their religion.

    And there is the crux of the issue.. You think people who follow their religion are evil and are "hiding" behind their religion...

    There is no mutual respect...

    You DEMAND respect and tolerance FROM religious people but you are unwilling to respect the religious people or tolerate THEIR beliefs..

    Because you refuse you be respectful and tolerant, you have absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to demand respect and tolerance from others..

    I'm sorry if you're offended, Michale, but I have no respect for such people.

    "Offended you are??
    A shit I not give."

    -Yoda

    :D

    Seriously, how could I be offended???

    I am not gay and I am not religious..

    Without a dog in the hunt, I am above the petty crap and the hatred and the bigotry and call it objectively...

    And, objectively speaking BOTH sides are guilty of intolerance and hatred and bigotry...

    But, the religious people have a slight edge..

    It's call the United States Constitution... And the VERY first right of the VERY FIRST Amendment is the free exercise of religion..

    Objectively speaking, that's a huge plus....

    I don't much like it because, as I said, I am not religious..

    But I *AM* objective so I gots to call things as they are...

    Michale

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awwww crap!!!!!

    I'm sorry if you're offended, Michale, but I have no respect for such people.

    "Offended you are??
    A shit I not give."

    -Yoda

    :D

    Seriously, how could I be offended???

    I am not gay and I am not religious..

    Without a dog in the hunt, I am above the petty crap and the hatred and the bigotry and I call things objectively...

    And, objectively speaking, BOTH sides are guilty of intolerance and hatred and bigotry...

    But, the religious people have a slight edge..

    It's call the United States Constitution... And the VERY first right of the VERY FIRST Amendment is the free exercise of religion..

    Objectively speaking, that's a huge plus....

    I don't much like it because, as I said, I am not religious..

    But I *AM* objective so I gots to call things as they are...

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I said we, as a society, define a level of need for one plus a dependent, and minimum wage is set to cover those costs.

    No matter the job???

    Like I said.. That's not a job.. That's welfare... When you are given money regardless of the job you have, that's welfare..

    I have yet to see ANYONE refute the claim that wages should be determined by the job and the job only...

    Probably because it's such a common sense and self-evident position, no one CAN refute it with logic...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jews and Muslims do not eat pork. Should their businesses be allowed to refuse to do business with someone who does eat pork?

    No, but according to you they MUST serve pork to anyone who wants it...

    The problem with your bigotry of religion is it is not consistent..

    You castigate christians because they won't serve gays..

    You castigate athiests because they offend Islam...

    I would have more respect for ya'all's position if it wasn't so blatantly obvious that it's borne of political and ideological bigotry...

    Ya'all demand tolerance but ya'all are intolerant..

    Where is the logic??

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Er, um, I'm not sure I understand Michale [55-58]. Seems like a bunch of gibberish.

    No one ever said a Jew or Muslim needs to own a business that serves pork. Said that if they own a business, say package delivery, they can't not deliver packages for people who eat pork.

    Did you not read carefully?

    Not calling for work-welfare, saying that as consumers, if we need 40 hrs of labor (and I can mess with that number), then we need to pay a certain amount.

    I then defined that amount. That's the amount that keeps the taxpayer off the hook for the basic living expenses of one adult and one dependent.

    And, yes, no matter the job!!!

    Other jobs can pay more.

    I added that there are some costs of life that the business and consumer need not cover in the price of goods. Specifically, health care, education, retirement security, and a few others.

    These costs belong to all of us and may need to be supplemented by the taxpayer.

    I also do not recall "castigat[ing] atheists because they offend Islam." As an atheist, I have my own negative views of the religious, admitted, but I do not let that affect my public existence.

  60. [60] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Hey CW:

    Got eaten again. Won't rewrite, assume you'll release.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    There have been DOZENS of "exposes" done where people went into Muslim bakeries and asked to have a gay wedding cake made.. They were refused and it was FILMED....

    Where was the outrage from the Left Wingery???

    NON-EXISTENT...

    A gay hair stylist refused to do the hair of a Republican governor...

    The Left Wingery treated the gay guy as a hero!!

    A landlord in Boston refuses to rent to anyone who supports Trump...

    So please... Give me a break on the crocodile tears of discrimination against gay people..

    The Left Wingery is perfectly OK and perfectly happy and perfectly willing to encourage discrimination, hatred and intolerance...

    As long as it's the RIGHT people who are the targets...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    No, but according to you they MUST serve pork to anyone who wants it...

    If they own a diner with bacon on the menu, then, yes, they must treat everybody equally. Simple as that. If they don't want to serve bacon take it off the menu. This is where your argument falls down, because we are not talking about bacon, we are talking about who gets the bacon - and they are choosing who they serve bacon to - that is the problem.

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    If they own a diner with bacon on the menu, then, yes, they must treat everybody equally.

    A bakery doesn't have a gay wedding cake on the menu..

    They were FORCED to create one..

    A Muslim restaurant MUST serve pork...

    To NOT carry bacon is discriminatory..

    But hay.. I'll play yer game..

    A Jewish bakery MUST make a NAZI Birthday cake..

    A black bakery MUST make a KKK Birthday cake..

    Right???

    A gay hairdresser MUST do the hair of ANYONE who wants it done..

    A landlord MUST rent to ALL comers, regardless of who the renters support for President..

    RIGHT???

    You see, the problem with ya'all's cries of DISCRIMINATION is that it is not applied consistently...

    Which means, it's NOT about discrimination...

    It's ALL about the ideological agenda...

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    The bakery has "custom cakes" on the menu.

    I've been to many Middle-Eastern restaurants. They do not serve pork.

    If you allow for custom, then you have to serve the needs of the customer. Certainly if you benefit from the taxpayer.

    Michale: You should not assume you know what I think or group me with any large group which doesn't actually exist. Your straw men arguments are nonsense.

    What actually happens is someone gets extreme on the left and then they get slapped down. You conveniently ignore that.

    The very fact that you know about some hairdresser or landlord shows that to be true.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've been to many Middle-Eastern restaurants. They do not serve pork.

    That's discriminatory because I LOVE pork...

    Of course, I could always go somewhere else where my pork order is welcome..

    But I want a muslim restaurant to serve me pork. They cannot refuse based on their religion..

    That's discriminatory to me..

    Michale: You should not assume you know what I think or group me with any large group which doesn't actually exist. Your straw men arguments are nonsense.

    They are only "nonsense" because you can't refute the very logical and very rational arguments..

    What actually happens is someone gets extreme on the left and then they get slapped down. You conveniently ignore that.

    Of course, you can provide examples, right???

    {{{chiiirrrrpppppp}}} {{{chirrrrrrppppppppp}}} :D

    The very fact that you know about some hairdresser or landlord shows that to be true.

    But they did NOT get slapped down...

    No one here condemned any of that.. (Possibly JM, but can't swear)... The hairdresser was heralded as a hero by the Left Wingery...

    So, it's clear that the Left Wingery doesn't have a problem with discrimination and intolerance in and of themselves..

    It's only a problem for the Left Wingery when it comes from the Right Wingery...

    Discrimination and intolerance is A-OK when it comes from the Left..

    As the facts clearly show...

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way...

    If Weigantians don't condemn the hairdresser and the landlord as forcefully and as insistently as they condemn christians, that's bigotry, hypocrisy and a hate crime...

    "That is an Earth fish. Very traditional in China. You arrest me, that's a hate crime!"
    -Mr Wu, MEN IN BLACK

    :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    3

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, it's clear that the Left Wingery doesn't have a problem with discrimination and intolerance in and of themselves..

    It's only a problem for the Left Wingery when it comes from the Right Wingery...

    it's like everything else.. Citizens United... Campaign Finances.... Disenfranchising Voters.... Domestic Surveillance... Drone Programs....

    Everything....

    When the Right Wingery does it, it's catastrophic... It's horrendous.... It's End Of The World stuff...

    When the Left Wingery does it.....

    {chhiiirrrrrrrpppppppp} {chhhhiiiiirrrrrrrrrpppppppp}

    It's cricket city...

    Don't bother trying to deny it.. The facts are too blatant and too prevalent to mount ANY kind of argument, let alone a serious and rational argument...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-steph-curry_us_57129b46e4b06f35cb6fc97f?utm_hp_ref=politics

    Could somebody please tell Cruz that if he wins the White House, nothing like this is going to happen. For that reason alone, he is disqualified in my eyes ;)

  70. [70] 
    neilm wrote:

    Don't bother trying to deny it.. The facts are too blatant and too prevalent to mount ANY kind of argument, let alone a serious and rational argument...

    This is the problem - some people on both sides think they are so right that there isn't even a point to a discussion.

    These people are wrong.

    Don't be wrong Michale ;)

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Listen to Neil, Michale. :)

  72. [72] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    neilm [69]:

    We all do the lizard-brain thing with regards to "other." But when we give in and use that as a license to discriminate? Then we are 100% wrong.

  73. [73] 
    Speak2 wrote:

    Allowing oneself to lose one's humanity: BAD!

  74. [74] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael,

    There are no "gay wedding cakes", there are just wedding cakes. The bakery that sells wedding cakes do not have to change the recipe one bit for their cakes to be eaten at a wedding for a gay couple. There is no "gay marriage", there is only marriage. I have a problem with people saying that we are fighting for "gay rights" because that makes it sound as if gays are asking to be treated special or differently than straight people...and that is just not the case!

    If I am a christian baker and a gay couple forces me to bake them a cake that violates my religion, how am *I* forcing my religion on THEM!??

    What is your religion? People claim that it violates their religion, but I know of no religion that instructs their followers that if you own a business, you should avoid doing business with certain people who you believe are committing a very specific sin. Why these people are not forced to demonstrate that their religion actually teaches what they claim is being violated seems idiotic to me. If a person says that their religious beliefs requires that they discriminate against another, then they should have the burden of showing that to be the case.

    For Christians, there are actually no verses in the Bible that address homosexuality, as it relates to an individual's sexual orientation, as the concept and term "homosexuality" were not in existence until the late 19th century. That means that either the Bible they use somehow contained a word that no one would know the definition for for almost 1800 years, or that their Bible is not an accurate translation of the original text. So how did homosexuality become the worst sin that a person could commit? (Side note: if "homosexuality" is a sin, then by that logic "heterosexuality" would also be a sin. A "sin" must be an action verb -- we are intentionally doing "something" that displeases God. No one says, "I want to go homosexuality". So that entire argument that being gay is a sin is a fallacy.)

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    This is the problem - some people on both sides think they are so right that there isn't even a point to a discussion.

    Aww right.. Aww right..

    Let's discuss how Trump would be a great president. Or how Obama is on the bad side of Atilla the Hun... :D

    Once again, I show the double standards at work.. :D

    Liz,

    Listen to Neil, Michale. :)

    Oh, I always do..

    Michale

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    There is no "gay marriage", there is only marriage. I have a problem with people saying that we are fighting for "gay rights" because that makes it sound as if gays are asking to be treated special or differently than straight people...and that is just not the case!

    But the problem is, it's EXACTLY the case..

    If I beat you up, it's assault..

    If I beat you up because you're gay, it's assault AND a hate crime...

    That's a special right under the law..

    A landlord can choose NOT to rent to someone because they don't like them... No one says boo...

    But if a landlord doesn't rent to someone because they are gay, THAT is prosecutable.. THAT is special rights..

    Being gay is a PROTECTED class of people.. It sets that group apart from other people for special treatment..

    It's ALL about special rights...

    What is your religion?

    I have no religion...

    People claim that it violates their religion, but I know of no religion that instructs their followers that if you own a business, you should avoid doing business with certain people who you believe are committing a very specific sin.

    So, what you are saying is that a business owner should provide services to ALL comers regardless of ANY consideration??

    Is THAT really what you are saying???

    For Christians, there are actually no verses in the Bible that address homosexuality, as it relates to an individual's sexual orientation, as the concept and term "homosexuality" were not in existence until the late 19th century. That means that either the Bible they use somehow contained a word that no one would know the definition for for almost 1800 years, or that their Bible is not an accurate translation of the original text. So how did homosexuality become the worst sin that a person could commit? (Side note: if "homosexuality" is a sin, then by that logic "heterosexuality" would also be a sin. A "sin" must be an action verb -- we are intentionally doing "something" that displeases God. No one says, "I want to go homosexuality". So that entire argument that being gay is a sin is a fallacy.)

    I don't know enough about the bible or religion to argue the point..

    But I believe what you are saying is that christians around the world are wrong..

    And yet, I am fairly certain that christians around the world could quote verse and line and "prove" exactly why YOU are wrong..

    So, what makes them wrong and you right??

    We're talking about TOLERANCE and RESPECT..

    Why FORCE someone to do something that the are morally adamant about NOT doing??

    Is that tolerance?? Is that respect??

    No.. It's not.. Not at all..

    I have said it before and I'll say it again..

    If the gay activists want respect, they need to BE respectful..

    If the gay activists want tolerance, then they need to BE tolerant..

    And being respectful and being tolerant means accepting the fact that there are people who just don't like what they do..

    And trying to FORCE acceptance of what they do is as wrong as any discrimination you can come up with...

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    So, what you are saying is that a business owner should provide services to ALL comers regardless of ANY consideration??

    So, why didn't you condemn the gay hairdresser when he refused to do the hair of a GOP governor BECAUSE she's the GOP governor??

    Why didn't you condemn the landlord who refuses to rent to ANYONE who supports Trump??

    Both cases are blatant and PROVABLE discrimination..

    Yet no one here says boo about THAT discrimination??

    How come??

    Because THAT discrimination is perfectly acceptable to you because the people who are discriminated against "deserve" it...

    So, obviously, the problem is NOT discrimination.. Discrimination is perfectly acceptable when it comes FROM the Left Wingery...

    It's all about the ideological agenda...

    Tolerance FOR me but no tolerance FROM me...

    Respect FOR me, but no respect FROM me...

    That's the Left Wingery way.... It's also the Right Wingery way, but that's another topic.. :D

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    We all do the lizard-brain thing with regards to "other." But when we give in and use that as a license to discriminate? Then we are 100% wrong.

    Stylist to anti-gay marriage governor: No haircut for you
    usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/23/10488531-stylist-to-anti-gay-marriage-governor-no-haircut-for-you

    This Landlord Won't Rent to Trump Supporters
    usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-21/colorado-landlord-refuses-to-rent-to-donald-trump-supporters

    You were saying???

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Sorry, I missed this one..

    A living wage is the minimum necessary to live and access the basic necessities of life.

    OK.. So basically a "living" wage is as individual as the employee..

    So, tell me how exactly ya'all are going to apply a "living" wage on a national scale??

    Answer: You can't...

    So, the ONLY logical solution is to pay wages ACCORDING TO THE JOB and then let welfare take over the "living" part...

    I am still gabberflasted that ya'all ACTUALLY believe that an employee's "needs" should determine wages and the type of job is irrelevant....

    That is so alien a concept, it's mind-boggling...

    And, as has been aptly proven, it's COMPLETELY unwieldy...

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that your assertion that, if we pay employees more, that will mean less in taxes, is a completely bogus assertion...

    If employers have to pay employees more, the employers that DO survive will simply raise the prices of goods and services to compensate for the increased wages.. So tax payers will STILL pay more....

    And, for the employers that DON'T survive, then all the employees of that employer will go on welfare because they no longer have a job and tax payers will STILL foot the bill....

    So the idea that tax-payers will pay less is a mirage...

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Does an employer need employees?

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does an employer need employees?

    All things being equal, yes..

    And THAT is my point..

    If an employer doesn't treat the employees right or tries to low-ball wages or expect too much work for low wages.... Then said employer won't GET any good employees and his business will suffer....

    THAT is the incentive to provide good pay for employees...

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    What ya'all don't understand is jobs like flipping burgers are NOT jobs that are SUPPOSED to provide a "living"...

    They are entry level positions designed for kids or some such..

    They are not DESIGNED to provide a living.... They are not careers... They are just jobs...

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    They are not DESIGNED to provide a living.... They are not careers... They are just jobs...

    It's like if you are going to buy a car to race... You don't buy a YUGO, you buy a car that's DESIGNED for racing..

    And you CERTAINLY don't get into the car designers face and DEMAND that they make the YUGO a race car...

    That's just moronic...

    So it is with employment..

    You don't take a job designed for a high school kid who lives with his parents and expect that the job will support you and a family of 5...

    And you SURE as hell don't demand that the employer of that job give you wages that WILL support you and a family of 5...

    That's just moronic...

    If you want a job that is a career and supports you and a family of 5, here is a mind-blowing concept..

    EARN IT

    Whoooaaaaaaa!!! Whatta concept, eh!?? :D

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "If I beat you up, it's assault..
    If I beat you up because you're gay, it's assault AND a hate crime...
    That's a special right under the law..
    A landlord can choose NOT to rent to someone because they don't like them... No one says boo...
    But if a landlord doesn't rent to someone because they are gay, THAT is prosecutable.. THAT is special rights..
    Being gay is a PROTECTED class of people.. It sets that group apart from other people for special treatment..
    It's ALL about special rights..."

    No, actually it is NOT. That's EQUALITY. Those groups were set apart to begin with because they have historically been singled out and been made to suffer egregious discrimination without any recourse until only recently. So the scale has to tip the other way temporarily to redress past wrongs.

    It also works, or at least it is supposed to, if you are a white man who suffers discrimination because you are white, for example. We had a case here, of a black manager who ran a fast food restaurant, who wanted an all black employee workforce. Any white college kid, who came in with a job application, this manager threw the application into the trash as soon as the white kid left. That was a clear case of someone black practicing ant-white discrimination. He could not stop other white managers being rotated thru his store and observing what was going on. When corporate found out what he was doing, the black manager was fired. The restaurant itself ended up closing.

    It is NOT special rights, to spell out, that a specific class of people, need to be ensured that they get treated EQUALLY.

  86. [86] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "They are not DESIGNED to provide a living.... They are not careers... They are just jobs...You don't take a job designed for a high school kid who lives with his parents and expect that the job will support you and a family of 5...And you SURE as hell don't demand that the employer of that job give you wages that WILL support you and a family of 5..."

    And if you have been a corporate manager for the last 30 years, and you were just let go from your job do to downsizing? And you do still have a family to support? And you are not old enough to retire yet? Yet no one will hire you because they think that at 55 years old you are too old? or you are in your 60's, retired, can't make ends meet on social security alone? And flipping burgers is the only job you can find? What then?

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, actually it is NOT. That's EQUALITY.

    How is it equal when beating up a gay person is a HARSHER punishment than beating up a regular person??

    That is the DEFINITION of inequality...

    A gay person is MORE protected than a regular person..

    Again, the DEFINITION of inequality...

    So the scale has to tip the other way temporarily to redress past wrongs.

    So, like affirmative action and it's -racism to respond to racism-, this is inequality to address inequality..

    Ok, fine.. There is a certain logic to that...

    But don't try and sugarcoat it and say it's equality, when it clearly is not..

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "How is it equal when beating up a gay person is a HARSHER punishment than beating up a regular person??"

    Don't you think that because the gay person was beaten up more severely than an ordinary person was precisely because they were gay in the first place... don't you think that that should carry a harsher punishment? Should the fact that the assault was more brutal carry a bigger penalty?

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if you have been a corporate manager for the last 30 years, and you were just let go from your job do to downsizing? And you do still have a family to support? And you are not old enough to retire yet? Yet no one will hire you because they think that at 55 years old you are too old? or you are in your 60's, retired, can't make ends meet on social security alone? And flipping burgers is the only job you can find? What then?

    Have you ever heard the old saying, "Life ain't fair"

    Why should an employer be penalized and lose profit because Joe Schmoe had some bad luck??? Maybe Joe Schmoe should have planned for such a possibility by putting money away...

    But Joe was greedy and wanted to spend that money on toys and a new Ferrari...

    It's complete foolishness to expect the Yugo designer to make a car that is the equivalent of a Ferrari simply because Joe Schmoe HAD a Ferrari but can't afford a Ferrari any more...

    You can come up with just about any hard-luck story you want.. But it still won't change that fact that it's ludicrous to tailor wages to a person's need...

    That's NOT how the job market works here in the US.. Maybe in Cuba or North Korea where citizens are told what they need and given things according to that designated need..

    But that's not how it is here in the US.. You take a job and the pay is what the pay is.. You ALWAYS have the option of saying, "Screw you! I ain't workin' for that low!!"...

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't you think that because the gay person was beaten up more severely than an ordinary person was precisely because they were gay in the first place...

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    don't you think that that should carry a harsher punishment?

    Not for being gay... If a person uses their fists vs uses a weapon, THAT should entail harsher punishments...

    And, guess what?? It DOES....

    The Matthew Sheppard case is a PERFECT example of the utter moronicness of the gay activists and hate crime laws...

    That case epitomizes the FACT that, with hate crime charges, it's ALL about special rights...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Don't you think that because the gay person was beaten up more severely than an ordinary person was precisely because they were gay in the first place...

    Assumes facts not in evidence.."

    Actually, in cases where a hate crime is charged, it is VERY evident. Since the perpetrators themselves usually supply such evidence through their own statements, either because of that they say during the attack itself, or because of what they say in statements given afterwards when they try to justify their actions.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, in cases where a hate crime is charged, it is VERY evident. Since the perpetrators themselves usually supply such evidence through their own statements, either because of that they say during the attack itself, or because of what they say in statements given afterwards when they try to justify their actions.

    The mere fact that some scumbag beat up a gay person BECAUSE they were gay doesn't prove that, if the scumbag had beat up the person anyways, that it would have been not as bad..

    Hate crime crap is ridiculous.. If you are assaulting someone, HATE has already been established..

    EVERY assault is a "hate" crime...

    The idea that it's somehow worse because the victim is gay is stoopid...

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "The mere fact that some scumbag beat up a gay person BECAUSE they were gay doesn't prove that, if the scumbag had beat up the person anyways, that it would have been not as bad..

    Hate crime crap is ridiculous.. If you are assaulting someone, HATE has already been established.."

    So you don't see that singling someone out and targeting someone because they were just walking down the street holding hands minding their own business merits any kind of special concern? Even though the assault takes place place while someones yells "fags" at them? Just like defacing a Jewish cemetery by breaking headstones with Stars Of David on them and spraying swastikas all over the place, is no big deal either?

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you don't see that singling someone out and targeting someone because they were just walking down the street holding hands minding their own business merits any kind of special concern?

    Nope...

    People are morons.. Beating up someone because they are gay is just as stoopid as beating up someone because they have blue eyes or wear glasses or talk funny...

    The idea that ONE group gets special protections and the blue eyed glasses wearing funny talking people are on their own is totally ridiculous...

    Just like defacing a Jewish cemetery by breaking headstones with Stars Of David on them and spraying swastikas all over the place, is no big deal either?

    I never said it was "no big deal"...

    It IS a "big deal"...

    I simply maintain that it's not a SPECIAL big deal...

    That's the point ya'all miss...

    Assaulting someone is bad.. Assaulting someone because they are gay?? It's just as bad.. No more, no less...

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    neilm wrote:

    This is the problem - some people on both sides think they are so right that there isn't even a point to a discussion.

    Aww right.. Aww right..

    Let's discuss how Trump would be a great president.

    Michale: I'm happy to discuss how great a president Trump would be, in fact I think about it a lot.

    I even took a test to see how Trump would be for me:

    http://freetrumpscore.com/

    My Free Trump ScoreTM is

    634 - VERY BAD PERSON, SAD!
    Projected fate: DIPLOMATIC ENVOY TO ISIS

  96. [96] 
    neilm wrote:

    I was hoping for Ambassador to Mexico (Piñata stand in), but got beheading duty instead.

  97. [97] 
    neilm wrote:

    The idea that ONE group gets special protections and the blue eyed glasses wearing funny talking people are on their own is totally ridiculous...

    By this logic, child abuse isn't because children are just smaller version of adults. Do you ever think this thru Michale?

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    By this logic, child abuse isn't because children are just smaller version of adults.

    Being a child is a legal standing..

    Being gay is a lifestyle choice...

    Even if it were NOT a choice, there is a huge difference between a defenseless child and an adult...

    Further, I am constrained to point out that you are completely whacked when you say that a child is just a small adult.. :D

    A dwarf or a midget is a "small adult".. A child is a child...

    Do you ever think this thru Michale?

    Always..

    However, I admit I don't always account for every inanity that is possible... :D

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    My Free Trump ScoreTM is

    634 - VERY BAD PERSON, SAD!
    Projected fate: DIPLOMATIC ENVOY TO ISIS

    hehehe THAT's funny!!! :D

    768 - GREAT PERSON, THE BEST
    Projected fate: LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP AT MAR-A-LAGO

    "Yea... I can live with that.."
    -Keannu Reeves, THE REPLACEMENTS

    :D

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    neilm wrote:

    Being gay is a lifestyle choice...

    Nope. Not even close.

    Being a child is a legal standing..

    So discrimination against kids is not OK (at least we are making some progress), but against women it is? Or the elderly?

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Being gay is a lifestyle choice...

    Nope. Not even close.

    Yep... You just don't accept the science that supports it..

    Even if we disregard the science....

    I have known many MANY gay people in my 54 years on this planet including family.. I know alternate lifestyles intimately.. My lovely wife is bisexual...

    And I can personally attest to the fact that gay people turn it on and off like a light switch...

    Being gay is no different than being a WOB or a greaser or a sosh...

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    768 - GREAT PERSON, THE BEST
    Projected fate: LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP AT MAR-A-LAGO

    Seems unfair that a great person would be forced to belong to Mar-a-Lago. At an elevation of only 14' it will be underwater soon.

  103. [103] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yep... You just don't accept the science that supports it..

    Please, please post the 'science' - you usually try to fast talk your way out of posting real science links, but just this one time don't resort to "look it up for yourself".

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please, please post the 'science' - you usually try to fast talk your way out of posting real science links, but just this one time don't resort to "look it up for yourself".

    There are thousands and thousands of papers that explain the psychological aspects of "being gay"...

    Too numerous to list..

    But, like the Global Warming con, I know you don't accept any science that goes against the ideological agenda..

    So, it's really a waste of my time to do the research...

    Don't you agree??

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, it's been well established here in Weigantia that being gay *IS* a choice..

    The only point of contention is how much of a choice it is...

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seems unfair that a great person would be forced to belong to Mar-a-Lago. At an elevation of only 14' it will be underwater soon.

    Yea, the Left Wingery has been saying that for decades...

    And yet.. It's still there.. :D

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    Reason #1 Trump would be a great President: The Gold Standard

    If Trump can beat Hillary (unlikely), there is just as good or a better chance that Cruz would also win (i.e. if there was some real scandal, not Benghazi!!! or Benghazi 2 - The Email Server!!!). Cruz just re-iterated his support for putting the dollar back on the gold standard. This is such a bad idea I don't even know where to start. But at least Trump isn't that stupid.

    Reason #2 Trump would be a great President: End of the Republican Party as we know it - there would be a battle between the evangelical wing nuts and the North-East establishment as to whose hand-puppet Trump would be after he got bored working (I give him until March 2017 before he goes off on vacation). The establishment will completely outmaneuver the evangelicals (the establishment know how the rest of the power structures work and they run most of them). This would result in Cruz and the evangelicals splitting away to form a regional party strong in the South, dividing the conservative vote for a generation.

    Reason #3 Trump would be a great President: Late night comedy will be so much better than with Hillary. It has been a bit dull since idiot-boy and the evil Cheney gave us great material, but there is not doubt that from a late show entertainment perspective, Trump would be the Greatest President Of All Time.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Trump can beat Hillary (unlikely),

    Right there, your theory goes off the rails..

    Because Bozo the Clown will be able to be an indicted Hillary... D:

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because Bozo the Clown will be able to be an indicted Hillary... D:

    AT :D

    grrrrrrr :D

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww right.. I give up.. Need more beer... :D

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And, it's been well established here in Weigantia that being gay *IS* a choice..

    The only point of contention is how much of a choice it is...

    BEING gay is absolutely NOT a lifestyle choice, it's a biochemical imperative. for various genetic and developmental reasons, gay people feel attracted to members of their own sex, not members of the opposite sex. Who you're attracted to is not a choice. Did you CHOOSE to love your wife, or was that just how you naturally felt?

    ACTING gay in public (i.e. gay people expressing love in public the same ways straight people do) IS a choice. And that choice comes with many dangers. the reason protected classes (such as LGBT) exist in law is because those classes of people NEED to be protected from people who want to hurt, kill, bully and otherwise harm them. the stats on that are unequivocal.

    JL

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ok, the research: there are 3 components of sexual orientation, attraction, behavior and identity.

    the attraction part is ABSOLUTELY not a choice.

    The behavior part is somewhat of a choice. You can act on your attraction freely, or find ways of acting contrary to your attraction; i.e. you can choose to do what makes you happy and fulfilled or do what makes you miserable and depressed. deciding between fulfillment and suicide is TECHNICALLY a choice, but it's not a very good one.

    The identity part is the most choice-like of the three components. That's about what you call yourself, and what group you decide to be part of. a person who is attracted to the same sex and/or has sex with the same sex can choose to identify as straight if he or she wants, but in western culture that's essentially choosing to lie. other cultures have more fluid group identity, where sexual behavior isn't really part of group identification.

    which brings us back to whether being gay is a choice. the answer, depending on which domain we're talking about, is either hell no, none to speak of, or not in this culture.

    JL

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    BEING gay is absolutely NOT a lifestyle choice, it's a biochemical imperative.

    Yes. That is what SOME science indicates..

    Other science says it's psychological....

    Which side you come down on is determined by one's ideological bent or one's grasp of common sense...

    . the reason protected classes (such as LGBT) exist in law is because those classes of people NEED to be protected from people who want to hurt, kill, bully and otherwise harm them.

    What about the people who want to hurt people who wear glasses?? Or talk funny...

    What makes gay people so special that they need special protection??

    People are going to hurt people.. It's the human condition.. By setting certain groups for special protection, ya'all are fostering the very inequality ya'all claim to be against...

    Michale

    Michale

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    What makes a gay person more in need of protection than a guy with glasses???

    ANSWER: The Democrat Party agenda...

    Michale

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    What makes a gay person more in need of protection than a guy with glasses???

    ANSWER: The Democrat Party agenda...

    Bruce Jenner proved that beyond a shadow of any doubt....

    Michale

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    No one wants to cite the Matthew Shepard case.....

    Geee.. I wonder why that is!??? :D

    The problem for ya'all is the Shepard case epitomizes the total lunacy and hysterical moronic-ness of the gay activist community... Screaming HATE CRIME!!!! at the drop of a dime...

    It's EXACTLY the same as the black activist community screaming RACISM!!!! at the drop of a dime...

    hmmmmmmmm

    BOTH are Democrat Party staples...

    I think I am sensing the common denominator here.... :D

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Which side you come down on is determined by one's ideological bent or one's grasp of common sense...

    there ARE no sides on the primacy of biological aspects of attraction. the only uncertainty left is on the finer points of which genetic predisposition or developmental stage may result in brain differences between people of different sexual preferences, which have long been observed and documented on MRI and PET scans. are you trying to intentionally muddy the issue, or have you just not done the reading? the national academy of sciences has a more exhaustive and technical library, but here's a good summation of the research:

    http://brainblogger.com/2015/05/14/homosexuality-in-the-brain/

  118. [118] 
    Paula wrote:

    For those of you trying to convince Michale that sexual orientation is inherent and not "a choice" -- don't bother. There is no argument that will move him, certainly not science or research, of all things. He knows what he wants to believe.

    Better use of time involves continuing to support and work with activists and to reach out to people who aren't like Michale. He will never admit he's wrong on this question -- you will never obtain that satisfaction from him.

    He exemplifies the problem. He will not be part of the solution.

    We know a percentage of Americans think like him. We peel off those who can be reached. The rest need to be marginalized and kept from holding power.

  119. [119] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    People are going to hurt people.. It's the human condition.. By setting certain groups for special protection, ya'all are fostering the very inequality ya'all claim to be against...

    ideally, the law would protect everybody who was picked on, and punish everybody who intentionally hurts others. but again, you're promoting a logical fallacy, in this case the false analogy. the reason protected classes exist is because they need the protection. the proof of that need for extra legal protection is borne out by the percentages of those groups who are harassed, bullied, beaten, raped and killed by members of dominant social groups, relative to the norm. nerds with glasses and other "normal" people who are not a member of a protected social class don't get harassed, bullied, beaten, raped or killed nearly as often as those with non-dominant race, color, religion, national origin, age, body type, disability or sexual orientation.

    these are facts, and they are undisputed.

    JL

  120. [120] 
    Paula wrote:

    [118] these are facts, and they are undisputed

    I've said this before and I don't mean it as snark -- I don't think Michale understands the concept of facts. Seriously.

    All he will do is come back and say "huh uh, THESE are the facts" and he'll go off on a non-sequitur or claim someone, somewhere HAS disputed your points. Or he'll just repeat that human nature is such that people harass others and there's just nothing to be done about it.

    I believe -- not claiming this as fact, merely opinion -- he's an authoritarian. Authoritarians like bullying. They don't want it to be against the law. Michale has spoken out consistently against the very notion of a hate-crime.

  121. [121] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula,

    disagree completely. michale has shown over time that on occasion he will accede to reason; you just have to be patient about laying out the factual evidence and be willing to backtrack when he forgets stuff you've already pointed out and re-hashes previously disproved arguments.

    yes, some folks are very stubborn about accepting that their opinions are factually incorrect, but discontinuing discourse and trying to "marginalize" those people for their illogical and factually unsupported opinions does nothing but divide society further.

    JL

  122. [122] 
    Paula wrote:

    [120] I will be happy to be proven wrong in this case. You can show me how it's done.

  123. [123] 
    Paula wrote:

    Just to clarify, I mean "marginalize politically" in the sense of defanging them and getting their leaders out of power. In terms of trying to reach out to people and try to find common ground -- that's good. And will work with some.

    But letting them make decisions that affect the rest of us. No.

  124. [124] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If a gay man tries to steal your wallet and you beat him up, it is not a "hate crime". If you physically assault a person simply because you think that they are gay, it is a "hate crime". Even if the person you thought was gay ends up being straight, it is still a "hate crime". And "hate crimes" include if a gay man physically assaults a straight man simply because he is straight.

    So being gay is a lifestyle choice? Do you remember when you chose to be attracted to women and swore off men? Are you constantly finding yourself having to resist being sexually turned on by men? So you are sexually attracted to men, but are choosing not to act on it, is that it? That is how "choosing" works.

    And tell me why I chose to be gay when I grew up in a Southern Baptist home and was raised to believe that my soul would go to Hell for being gay? Why would anyone choose to be an outcast and face such resentment? I prayed to God constantly to take away my being gay, because as hard as I wanted to be straight, I couldn't force myself to be as sexually attracted to women as I am men. I gave up a West Point appointment out of fear of it being discovered that I was gay! Again, why would anyone choose to be gay in this world? Who chooses to have less rights and legal protections intentionally? The day that I accepted the fact that I was created this way was one of the greatest days of my life. Ignorance, not sexual orientation, is a choice.

  125. [125] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale, I think that the gay hairdresser was wrong not to provide services to someone simply because they are straight! Oh wait, that wasn't it. The person had done something specifically that the hairdresser had disagreed with that affected them, personally. Should you have to give a haircut to the man accused of killing your mom?

    I do think that the landlord was wrong to refuse to rent to Trump supporters, based solely on that. But political affiliation is not a protected class, and it is a choice.

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    For those of you trying to convince Michale that sexual orientation is inherent and not "a choice" -- don't bother. There is no argument that will move him, certainly not science or research, of all things. He knows what he wants to believe.

    I come down on the side of it's a choice because of my personal experiences with gay people...

    There IS science to support the born that way side and there is science to support the it's a choice side..

    So, I go with my personal experiences...

    The difference between ya'all and me is that I acknowledge ALL the science...

    Not just the science that supports my opinion..

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    the reason protected classes exist is because they need the protection.

    So, gay people need protection but people with glasses DON'T need protection..

    And this is the case because gay people are "special"??

    Once again, under the guise of EQUALITY, you PROVE the inequality..

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    So being gay is a lifestyle choice? Do you remember when you chose to be attracted to women and swore off men?

    Yes I do.. Do you want the details?? :D

    And tell me why I chose to be gay when I grew up in a Southern Baptist home and was raised to believe that my soul would go to Hell for being gay?

    I am not a psychiatrist and don't have the desire to delve into your history.. But I am willing to bet that a psychiatrist COULD find out the psychological reason..

    Now, you tell me why there are "gay" people who are only gay when it suits their purposes? Several people I know were gay, then not gay, then gay again and then not gay...

    Seems like a choice to me...

    The person had done something specifically that the hairdresser had disagreed with that affected them, personally. Should you have to give a haircut to the man accused of killing your mom?

    So, what you are saying is that business owners have the RIGHT to refuse service.. But ONLY for the reasons that suit your agenda... Hokay.. :D

    I do think that the landlord was wrong to refuse to rent to Trump supporters, based solely on that. But political affiliation is not a protected class, and it is a choice.

    So, it's OK to discriminate against a person, as long as that person makes a CHOICE to support someone you don't like...

    OK... So you agree that discrimination is perfectly acceptable under conditions that your agenda warrants..

    Which is what I have been saying all along..

    I am glad we can agree... :D

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    I've said this before and I don't mean it as snark -- I don't think Michale understands the concept of facts. Seriously.

    I can see why you might be confused.. You see, I accept facts that are NOT run thru a ideological filter..

    Let me give you an example..

    It is a FACT that there is science that supports the theory that being gay is a choice... I acknowledge this because I have no ideological filter. Just as I acknowledge that there is science that supports the idea that being gay is genetics..

    Ya'all ignore the facts that does not support ya'all's ideological bent..

    Another example...

    It's a FACT that there is science that disproves the human caused global warming theory... Ya'all don't acknowledge these facts because of your ideological filter..

    So, you see, I do know FACTS.. But I know ALL the facts... Not just the ones that support my opinions..

    So, that's where the confusion is.. :D

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, what you are saying is that business owners have the RIGHT to refuse service.. But ONLY for the reasons that suit your agenda... Hokay.. :D

    Business owners either have the right to refuse service or they do not...

    Business owners MUST serve all comers or not...

    Pick a side and stick with it.. :D

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Michale has spoken out consistently against the very notion of a hate-crime.

    And WHY did I speak out against the notion of a hate crime??

    Because it's ridiculously redundant..

    If there is an assault, "hate" is pretty much established.

    What hate crime laws do is carve out special protections for a certain group..

    It's as if you are saying, "Beating someone to a pulp is perfectly acceptable. But beating a GAY person to a pulp is very bad.."

    THAT is the message that hate crime legislation sends..

    Now, don't get me wrong. I completely understand and agree with the concept that attacks on certain people or groups are WORSE. For example, the President of the United States. Yes.. Even THIS president.. :D Attacks on cops as well..

    So I understand and agree with the idea of carving out special protections for individuals and groups. But those are not "hate crime" protections and those are CERTAINLY not based solely on who the group enjoys sex with...

    It's funny.. The Left Wingery goes on and on about how people are all the same, people are people, etc etc etc but then the Left tries so hard to separate people into different groups..

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    This is the problem - some people on both sides think they are so right that there isn't even a point to a discussion.

    OK, let's have the discussion...

    It's clear that the Left Wingery doesn't have a problem with discrimination and intolerance in and of themselves..

    It's only a problem for the Left Wingery when it comes from the Right Wingery...

    it's like everything else.. Citizens United... Campaign Finances.... Disenfranchising Voters.... Domestic Surveillance... Drone Programs....

    When the Right Wingery does it, it's catastrophic... It's horrendous.... It's End Of The World stuff...

    When the Left Wingery does it.....

    {chhiiirrrrrrrpppppppp} {chhhhiiiiirrrrrrrrrpppppppp}

    It's cricket city...

    Why is that???

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:
  134. [134] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I come down on the side of it's a choice because of my personal experiences with gay people...
    There IS science to support the born that way side and there is science to support the it's a choice side..

    as i mentioned before, it's not a pure dichotomy. because there are three distinct aspects of sexual orientation, there's a lot of confusion by lay people like yourself about which is which. however, there is ZERO recent science to suggest that the ATTRACTION component of sexual orientation is a choice, and HARD science (i.e. brain scans, blood work, DNA mapping, twin studies) indicating that it comes almost exclusively through genetics and epigenetics (in-utero development, hormones, endocrine system).

    I am not a psychiatrist and don't have the desire to delve into your history.. But I am willing to bet that a psychiatrist COULD find out the psychological reason..

    because it's no longer my profession, sometimes i forget to mention that my doctorate is in educational and developmental psychology. the american psychological association has adapted its views to account for new research that proves the BEHAVIOR and group IDENTITY aspects of orientation to be an interaction between the genetics of attraction and early socialization. the APA says:

    Research has shown that feeling positively about one's sexual orientation and integrating it into one's life fosters greater well-being and mental health. This integration often involves disclosing one's identity to others; it may also entail participating in the gay community. Being able to discuss one's sexual orientation with others also increases the availability of social support, which is crucial to mental health and psychological well-being.

    http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

    so, the term "choice" is not really appropriate for any domain of sexual orientation. individuals may behave in ways consistent or inconsistent with their biology, and they may identify as a member of groups supportive or destructive to their mental health. but the idea that the entire gestalt may be a "choice" is recognized by all psychological and psychiatric organizations as patently ridiculous.

    So, gay people need protection but people with glasses DON'T need protection..

    Everybody needs protection, but some classes of people need more protection than others, because there is ironclad proof that they are endangered more than others. incidentally, police officers as you mentioned are another good example.

    some gay people have glasses, and some straight people have glasses. either groups of people with glasses can get contact lenses. people (gay or straight) who slouch can learn not to without dire psychological consequences.

    cops, regardless of whether or not they wear glasses, can't do their jobs without being more in harm's way than other members of society, and are thus entitled to extra legal protections. LGBT people, regardless of whether or not THEY wear glasses, cannot openly behave in the way their brain chemistry dictates without being more in harm's way than other members of society, and are thus entitled to extra legal protections.

    everyone deserves protections, but some people need it more than others. we may all be created equal, but we are not all treated equally by society.

    JL

  135. [135] 
    Paula wrote:

    [125] Michale: I come down on the side of it's a choice because of my personal experiences with gay people…

    You place your "experience" over the experience of someone who is actually gay (Listen). You say Listen's experience is probably psychological and are comfortable then dismissing it as a "choice".

    Over to you JL.

  136. [136] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale re: "facts".

    You say there are competing theories about sexual orientation. You discount the "fact" that the preponderance of professional belief is that sexual orientation is NOT a choice.

    There are competing theories about climate change. Not only do you discount the "fact" that the preponderance of professional belief is that human activities have contributed to climate change, you discount the "fact" that there's an entire cottage industry of scientists who have been paid to make the climate change-denial claims.

    In both cases you see competing information and decide to go with the least-supported positions held by people who are also conservative.

  137. [137] 
    Paula wrote:

    [130] It's as if you are saying, "Beating someone to a pulp is perfectly acceptable. But beating a GAY person to a pulp is very bad.."

    THAT is the message that hate crime legislation sends..

    No. Only you are saying "beating someone to a pulp is perfectly acceptable".

    Straw man.

  138. [138] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    So you are just a self-loathing closet case, is that it? Well, you wouldn't be the first...

    As for business owners having the right to refuse service -- yes, they do! The catch is that they can't refuse service based on discrimination. The baker could have said that they were already booked for the days the couple requested, and that would have been it. It is the desire to be holier-than-thou and telling the person why they won't help them that these business owners are guilty of. Plus, what people try to ignore in this story are the key facts: the baker agreed to make a cake, but then changed her mind without letting the couple know until the day of the wedding when they went to pick up their cake. The baker intentionally tried to ruin their big day simply out of spite! Had she not waited, they could have found a replacement. I am all for businesses posting on their front doors whether they discriminate or not to prevent the religious freedoms of store owners from being disrespected!

  139. [139] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael,

    It is strange that you defend the bakery for refusing the gay couple's business, but you are raving about the gay hairdresser doing it -- all the while calling everyone else "hypocrites".

  140. [140] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula and NYPoet22,

    Thank you both for your input in this discussion on sexual orientation. It is always a pleasure to have knowledgeable, compassionate allies in this debate!

    -Russ

  141. [141] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Unless the research has changed from last time Michale brought up his cut and paste gay argument up, if you are trying to make a binary opposition argument that homosexuality can only be genetic or choice chances are you are wrong. There are genetic/hormonal paths as NYPoet22 brought up and a certain chunk of specifically male homosexuals fit that description. Last time I looked in to it, a genetic path for lesbians had not been found, and some lesbians are known to flip back and forth. There are also many edge cases where hormonal imbalances probably kick in later in life as well as people who are just dogs and will screw anything that moves and some that don't. It's very complex without any easy, defined answers.

    On the other hand, ListenWhenYouHear's path is far from the first time I have heard that story. If Christians want to prevent homosexuality, maybe they should ditch the fire and brimstone conservative stuff as it seems to create more homosexuals than any other social structure...

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    It is strange that you defend the bakery for refusing the gay couple's business, but you are raving about the gay hairdresser doing it -- all the while calling everyone else "hypocrites".

    Apparently, you are not "LISTENING"... :D

    I defend the baker's right to refuse service..

    I also defend the gay hairdresser's right to refuse service..

    What I am "raving" about is the fact that YOU support the hairdresser and condemn the baker..

    ALL because of your ideological agenda....

    I know you won't acknowledge this comment because it shows you how WRONG you are and how correct I am about this issue...

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Paula wrote:

    [139] Russ, :-)

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    You place your "experience" over the experience of someone who is actually gay (Listen).

    And if Listen could be ideologically objective about the issue, he would make a reliable witness and I could take what he says at value...

    But, as I have just proven beyond ANY doubt, Listen (and ya'all incidentally) are motivated SOLELY by ideology..

    Which is why you condemn the baker and make a hero of the gay hairdresser when they, in fact, did the EXACT same thing...

    Exercised their right to refuse service..

    That's why I can't take anything ya'all say at value..

    Because ya'all have PROVEN that ideology governs EVERYTHING you say...

    Michale

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thank you both for your input in this discussion on sexual orientation. It is always a pleasure to have knowledgeable, compassionate allies in this debate!

    TRANSLATION:

    As long as you agree with everything I say, yer my heroes..

    :D

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    As for business owners having the right to refuse service -- yes, they do! The catch is that they can't refuse service based on discrimination.

    And the gay hairdresser discriminated against the GOP governor...

    Ya'all have said it yerselves..

    If you are in business, you HAVE to serve all customers regardless of any other consideration..

    Ya'all really need to pick a story and stick with it..

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you are in business, you HAVE to serve all customers regardless of any other consideration..

    So the gay hairdresser and the Colorado landlord are DISCRIMINATING...

    But THAT is perfectly OK with ya'all because the people being discriminated against DESERVE it...

    They are Republicans after all..

    Bigotry at it's finest.. :D

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    Paula wrote:

    {143] And if Listen could be ideologically objective about the issue, he would make a reliable witness and I could take what he says at value...

    But, as I have just proven beyond ANY doubt, Listen (and ya'all incidentally) are motivated SOLELY by ideology..

    Um, no, you haven't proven anything -- you've made one of your typical conflations and then anointed your argument as successful all by your self.

    And saying Russ should be "ideologically objective" about his sexual orientation is kind of breathtaking in it's arrogance and myopia. It's like telling women they should rejoice at their pregnancy after being raped -- these men don't know what they are talking about on so many levels and they belong as far from law-making authority as possible.

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Fine.. If "russ" can't be objective about the discussion then any discussion is pointless because it's nothing but a big wallow in sentiment and emotionalism...

    "Any position taken in emotionalism is almost always the WRONG position to take."
    -Michale

    :D

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    Paula wrote:

    [148] Dodge. You don't address the argument, you attack the arguer by claiming he is "not objective", "emotional" and "sentimental". His experience as a gay man is not credible to you while your experience of knowing some gay or bisexual people makes your judgement on the matter superior.

    Nonsense.

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    [148] Dodge. You don't address the argument,

    There IS no "argument".. There is only, as you yourself concede, rampant emotionalism..

    If one can't be objective about the debate, it's nothing but a shouting match...

    His experience as a gay man is not credible to you while your experience of knowing some gay or bisexual people makes your judgement on the matter superior.

    Yes. Because his argument is nothing but emotionalism..

    "What makes you fell that Dr Dehner is wrong and you are right."
    "Because she FEELS.. Her estimation is clouded by her feelings and emotions."

    -STAR TREK, Where No Man Has Gone Before

    Nonsense.

    That is also an emotionally based opinion.. And as such, there is no logical response possible..

    Other than that one, I spose.. :D

    When ya'all can make an argument free of hysterical emotionalism, only THEN will you have a valid argument...

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    More Left Wingery bigotry..

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/11-year-old-dancing-trumps-banned-school-talent-show-complaints-video/

    Once again proving... Despite many MANY denials, the Left Wingery is just as bigoted as they accuse the Right Wingery of being..

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    "What makes you fell that Dr Dehner is wrong and you are right."
    "Because she FEELS.. Her estimation is clouded by her feelings and emotions."
    -STAR TREK, Where No Man Has Gone Before

    Grrrrr

    It's BLASPHEMOUS to mess up a Trek quote.. :D

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    When ya'all can make an argument free of hysterical emotionalism, only THEN will you have a valid argument...

    So, just about every argument you have posted on this site is invalid? Considering your level of hysteria and use of appeal to emotion, careful of blanket statements. Someone might hold up a mirror...

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, just about every argument you have posted on this site is invalid? Considering your level of hysteria and use of appeal to emotion, careful of blanket statements.

    I would ask you to PROVE that..

    But we all know what a useless request THAT would be.. :D

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Once again proving... Despite many MANY denials, the Left Wingery is just as bigoted as they accuse the Right Wingery of being..

    Or maybe just your inability to read. From your link:

    Whether the complainant was offended because of pro or anti-Trump sentiments is unclear, though a similar skit performed by Wellesley grade-schoolers acting as Donald Trump and Marco Rubio was also nixed from the night show, apparently because a parent found it disparaging to the Republican Party.

    Are you sure it was Left Wingery complaining, because the article sure isn't...

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/276696-white-house-signals-veto-on-saudi-9-11-bill

    Looks like The Messiah is going to protect the Saudis...

    Now the Left Wingery fall to like good little sheeple and toe dat line!! :D

    OBAMA: TOE THAT LINE!!!
    LEFT WINGERY: SO SAY WE ALL

    :D

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I would ask you to PROVE that..

    But we all know what a useless request THAT would be.. :D

    As someone whose typical proof is a link to a google search, you are one to talk...

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you sure it was Left Wingery complaining, because the article sure isn't...

    It's Trump... Of course it was the Left Wingery complaining.. Remember?? Hitler, Satan, Mussolini??

    But of course you equivocate to hell and back because it's Left Wingery bigotry after all.. :D

    Can't have people knowing the facts.. :D

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    And I suppose the landlord who refused to rent to Trump supporters..

    THAT's equivocal too, right Bashi???

    I'll give ya this. At least when it comes to your bigotry, ya'all are DEFINITELY transparent..

    Too bad with nothing else though.. :D

    Michale

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    As someone whose typical proof is a link to a google search, you are one to talk...

    Really???

    156
    151
    132
    77
    28

    Not a GOOGLE Search Link among them..

    In addition to transparency, I also admire consistency..

    And you, Bashi, are completely consistent in your bullshit claims.. :D Kudos

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Dude. Read the article you posted. Or even the little bit of it I quoted. It was unclear whether the dance was pro or anti-Trump but another skit was not allowed because it was disparaging to the Republican Party.

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    The boys in the article did a similar number with a different face..

    Not a problem whatsoever..

    But when they did it with a TRUMP face??

    All of the sudden, BIG PROBLEM...

    Even YOU, Bashi, can put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4... Right????

    Michale

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dude. Read the article you posted. Or even the little bit of it I quoted. It was unclear whether the dance was pro or anti-Trump but another skit was not allowed because it was disparaging to the Republican Party.

    Like I said.. OF COURSE you equivocate... You have to protect your Left Wingery...

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/18/another-hillary-clinton-coughing-fit-morning-show-interview/

    Trump is going to wipe the floor with Hillary in a debate...

    I can picture it now..

    TRUMP:"Hillary, are you a crook?"
    HILLARY:"{{cough}} {{cough}} {cough cough}"

    It's going to be quite the show!! :D

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:
  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://tinyurl.com/j8qza39

    heh

    "It's funny cuz it's true!"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dude. Read the article you posted. Or even the little bit of it I quoted. It was unclear whether the dance was pro or anti-Trump but another skit was not allowed because it was disparaging to the Republican Party.

    And when you couple this show of anti-Trump bigotry with all the other anti-Trump bigotry going on with campuses all across the country, a pattern of bigotry emerges..

    I know, I know.. You have to equivocate and spin things...

    Ya'all JUST can't admit that ya'all are as bigoted and intolerant as Republicans are accused of being...

    It's that simple...

    OK, done for the night.. We just finished all 9 seasons of BIG BANG THEORY.. Now we got to catch up with 11.22..63 and THE 100 and AGENTS OF SHIELD... :D

    I look forward to reading all your spin, your equivocations and exclamations of "THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!" in the morning. :D

    Michale

  169. [169] 
    Paula wrote:

    [150] Michale
    There IS no "argument".. There is only, as you yourself concede, rampant emotionalism..

    I didn't concede anything. Rampant emotionalism are your words and I disagree with you.

    You are trying to argue 3 things. First you are asserting that sexual orientation is a "choice" and try to support that contention by saying there exists psychologists who believe that, and furthermore, that in your personal experience people can "turn it on and off". You've decided the minority of pscyhes who take that position are right, and the majority of psyches who disagree are wrong. You then say your personal experience of the behavior of others -- not detailed, generalized -- bolsters the position of the minority of psychologists. You then accuse everyone here who disagree with you as being biased, emotional, etc. As part of that you make the claim that your personal experience with non-heterosexuals should be given greater weight than the actual experience of non-heterosexuals.

    I will address your second and third arguments separately, next.

  170. [170] 
    Paula wrote:

    "your personal experience with non-heterosexuals should be given greater weight than the actual experience of non-heterosexuals."

    More accurately, you personal INTERACTIONS with non-heterosexuals should be given greater weight and the actual experiences of non-heterosexuals.

  171. [171] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    To wade in here....

    M- I would love to see your position clarified some more.

    Given the rather vague wording on the legislation for some of these bills it is entirely possible to see groups other than gays being discriminated against.

    Let us assume that a shop called nothing more than "joe's shop and sundry goods" happens to be run by a "christian" whose religion not only claims the person is committing a mortal sin by providing services to gays, but to blacks, browns, and yellows as well. I ask is it acceptable for that shop owner to also not provide services to those ethnic groups or is it just ok when limited to the Gay ones?

    On the other hand, What if I go shopping at "Joe's" with my gay friend, because he has far better design sense than me, and I, a heterosexual Caucasian gets denied service because the shop keeper thinks I am gay... So I decide to sue for discrimination against the shop owner. Am I the one in the wrong? or is it the shop keeper? At what point does the burden of proof shift of proving the discriminatory behavior is in fact a religious belief and harm will have been suffered by serving me kick in? What is the threshold of acceptable proof? or is it more a case of ,being like many of your arguments, a because I said so thing?

    Let's further assume that there is another shop that has the same selection of items called "john's shop and sundry good's" but "John's" quality is not as high as Joe's". Both shops are identifying to the public exactly the same, the difference is that "John's" serves everyone. Given that in a majority of the cases of "gay" discrimination the action that is discriminatory usually happens after the selection process and at the time of ordering, do I not have the right to be upset that Joe was not upfront from the beginning of the process by informing me and my friend that he felt we were gay and as a result he would be unable to help us? Is it not disingenuous for Joe to not inform the public of his beliefs before we decide to shop in his establishment, or, is he afraid that he would loose business from people like me who would not support a business with a religious belief structure that I find to be personally repulsive? If these are in closely held religious beliefs why should the owner not be compelled to warn me, who holds vastly different beliefs, of their policy of non-service due to religion?

    Let's assume that my gay friend (whom you can't readily identify as gay) purchases from "Joe's" and a picture of the product appears in a newspaper article and my friend is identified as gay, so, Joe decides to sue since he has been morally harmed and his religious rights have been violated. Is it right for the shopkeeper to sue after the fact? Likewise, would I not have right to sue if say I made my purchase from Joe and my friend went to purchase the exact same thing but was denied because he was black and as such my right to not shop in his store was violated causing me great moral harm and anxiety because of his deceptive practice of not identifying his policies publicly?

    When do my beliefs receive protection from a person forcing their belief structure on me by not publicly identifying theirs? Where does the rabbit hole end?

    I find your use of the "Colorado Landlord" to be a dunsel. As a landlord in California were I to make that proclamation AND follow through on it, I would be in violation of the law (and ,well, my personal beliefs as well) ....who you vote for is a personal matter and has no impact on how you will take care of my property. The guy in Colorado is now somewhat screwed as he has made the proclamation and if he does refuse to rent to a person who happens to be a Trump supporter but also happens to have poor credit and poor references, it will not matter because he will be getting sued for the discrimination and the fact that the person was a high risk prospective tenant will go by the wayside.

    Have fun....

  172. [172] 
    Paula wrote:

    Second: you are arguing against the concept of hate-crimes. If I am understanding you, you seem to be saying that all violence is hateful, therefore there's no need to single out certain types of violence and labeling them hate-crimes and the act of designating certain crimes as hate-crimes is a de facto devaluation of the victims of violent acts NOT designated as hate crimes. This is a separate argument from the 'who's right about sexual orientation" question.

    I am not going to write a treatise on this as I have work to do, but I will summarize a few key points.

    There's plenty of violence that occurs wherein the perps have no actual animus against their victims -- robbers assaulting easy targets, shooters shooting anyone who crosses their path, etc.

    There's violence that occurs between people who know one-another and getting into a conflict. Domestic violence, two drunk guys getting in fights in a bar, gang conflicts, etc.

    Then there's violence wrought on people who have been deliberately targeted because of something about who they are and no other reason. They are unknown to the perps personally but belong to a class of persons the perps have chosen to hate. Gay and Transgender people are frequently targeted. Young white male gun-nut goes into a church in Alabama and shoots nine people because they are black. A guy visiting from India is beaten because his attackers think he's Moslem. These are hate-crimes.

    If you can't tell the difference there's nothing to say.

    But maybe you can tell the difference, just don't believe it matters.

    The concept of designating certain acts as hate-crimes is to use the force of law to discourage them. These are acts that are done purely to express hate; purely out of a desire to harm an "other", without either the disinterested "profit-motive" of one class of crimes, or the "crime of passion" element of another class. Obviously I'm being broad here.

    When a perp is found guilty of a hate-crime they will receive a stiffer sentence. I believe that is appropriate. You may disagree on that. But I find it "harder to forgive" people who make a point of harming people who are "different" purely because they can.

    And hopefully some amount of deterrence results. But even if it doesn't I support stiffer sentences for hate-crime perps.

  173. [173] 
    Paula wrote:

    Third: you are making your broken-record argument that lefties do it too!.

    To that end you bring up singular examples of what you see as discrimination perpetrated by someone not-republican, and on that basis dismiss all discrimination.

    In your argument: a lefty refused to rent a room to a political opponent (or whatever it was) therefore it is OK for righties to discriminate against gay people, or black people, or Muslims, etc.

    Your constant attempts to prove that lefties are all hypocrites is really a way to grant yourself (and your rightwing cronies) a pass on every rotten thing you all do/think. You never deal with the dirty deed -- you just try to find a corresponding dirty deed by a lefty, throw your hands in the air and say "everybody does it" and conveniently forget what actually was done.

    You are a perfect example of the righty who is never responsible for anything. Everything is someone else's fault.

  174. [174] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Dang it I am late to the Minimum Wage party...

    I am surprised no one has pointed out that Michale himself is a beneficiary of the minimum wage floor and the subsequent rises in the median wages paid as a result of the minimum wage increases...that is until the 1980's but even then the increases in the 80's still lead to a rise in median wages but just not a pace to enable everyone in the bottom and middle to keep up with the rate of inflation. Then we hit the mid 90's and that is when you see the increase of wage stagnation accelerate as the very small increases that did not keep up with inflation resulted in smaller increases for the median wages.

    It is short but I like it....

    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42973.pdf

  175. [175] 
    Paula wrote:

    [169] Great comment!

  176. [176] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    To that end you bring up singular examples of what you see as discrimination perpetrated by someone not-republican, and on that basis dismiss all discrimination.

    yes, the "tu quoque" logical fallacy, also known as the appeal to hypocrisy.

    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

  177. [177] 
    Paula wrote:

    [174] What a great link! thanks!

    And it's exactly right — represents the basis of many of Michale's arguments.

  178. [178] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @paula [175]

    thanks. see also:

    - anecdotal fallacy
    - moving the goalpost
    - shifting the burden of proof
    - noble effort fallacy
    - where there's smoke there's fire
    - false dichotomy
    - false analogy
    - argumentum ad ignorantium
    - argumentum ex silentio
    - cherry picking/card stacking
    - pars pro toto fallacy
    - simple truth fallacy
    - name calling
    - sophism

  179. [179] 
    Paula wrote:

    Yep: I was looking at all of them. I've seen lists like this before but this site did the best job I've seen of defining and giving examples. Will use in future discussions! :-)

  180. [180] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The boys in the article did a similar number with a different face..

    And some reason you are keeping the "different" face a secret? It was the principal of the school. Though it's a classic example that what you posted was a fact but another fact conveniently left out completely changes the situation.

    All of the sudden, BIG PROBLEM...

    A big problem, but for who? Someone complained. You jumped to conclusion that it is the "Left Wingery". The article states it is unclear whether it was a pro or anti Trump sentiment that was complained about and another skit was cancelled because it was disparaging to the Republican Party. It could have just as easily been the "right wingery" complaining. Conservatives hate Trump as much or more than the left. At least until after the conventions...

    Like I said.. OF COURSE you equivocate... You have to protect your Left Wingery...

    What? I don't have to, I can read...

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    I find your use of the "Colorado Landlord" to be a dunsel. As a landlord in California were I to make that proclamation AND follow through on it, I would be in violation of the law (and ,well, my personal beliefs as well) ....who you vote for is a personal matter and has no impact on how you will take care of my property. The guy in Colorado is now somewhat screwed as he has made the proclamation and if he does refuse to rent to a person who happens to be a Trump supporter but also happens to have poor credit and poor references, it will not matter because he will be getting sued for the discrimination and the fact that the person was a high risk prospective tenant will go by the wayside.

    So, we are in perfect agreement that the Colorado landlord IS discriminating against Trump supporters..

    Yet not a SINGLE Weigantian has condemned that discrimination...

    Nay, it's been argued by all Weigantians that it's NOT discrimination..

    What you have done, thank you very much :D, is shown that I am dead on ballz accurate regarding the hypocrisy and bigotry.. :D

    Michale

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nay, it's been argued by all Weigantians that it's NOT discrimination..

    Clarification. It's been argued by ALL Weigantians save one.. Well, 2 now.. :D

    Michale

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    - anecdotal fallacy
    - moving the goalpost
    - shifting the burden of proof
    - noble effort fallacy
    - where there's smoke there's fire
    - false dichotomy
    - false analogy
    - argumentum ad ignorantium
    - argumentum ex silentio
    - cherry picking/card stacking
    - pars pro toto fallacy
    - simple truth fallacy
    - name calling
    - sophism

    And if I was the only one who used those you would have a point..

    But I am not, so you don't.. :D

    Michale

  184. [184] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michael,

    What I am "raving" about is the fact that YOU support the hairdresser and condemn the baker..

    But the only person bringing up the gay hairdresser and the landlord is you! No one has championed either one. I did point out that the hairdresser refused service in response to an action that the customer committee that hurt the hairdresser, but you are the one that keeps pointing to them and saying that the rest of us aren't condemning them for their actions. It is a little hard for us to condemn people that we are not discussing. You completely ignore the fact that I said I thought the landlord's actions were wrong, because then you cannot whine that we refuse to admit that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

    It is odd to me that you say your wife is bisexual, but then point to one guy you know who chose to be gay, then chose to be straight, and so on as "proof" that being gay is a choice. What you describe is a bisexual man. And since you said you do remember when you chose to be heterosexual instead of homosexual, I would love to hear your story!

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    The court, with four conservative justices and four liberals, seemed divided along ideological lines during 90 minutes of arguments in the case brought by 26 states led by Texas that sued to block Obama's unilateral 2014 executive action that bypassed Congress.

    Liberal justices voiced support for Obama's action. The conservatives sounded skeptical. A 4-4 decision would be a grim defeat for Obama because it would uphold lower court rulings that threw out his action last year and doom his quest to revamp a U.S. immigration policy he calls broken.
    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fate-obamas-immigration-plan-hands-u-supreme-court-041425066.html

    Looks like yer guy's legacy is in trouble! :D

    Yea yea, I know my track record for predicting SCOTUS rulings.. :D

    Michale

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    Listen,

    But the only person bringing up the gay hairdresser and the landlord is you!

    And THAT is my point..

    If you are truly against discrimination, you are would condemn the landlord and the hairdresser as GT has done..

    But ya'all don't even SEE it as discrimination...

    THAT'S my point...

    It is a little hard for us to condemn people that we are not discussing. You completely ignore the fact that I said I thought the landlord's actions were wrong, because then you cannot whine that we refuse to admit that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

    I don't recall you saying the landlord's actions were wrong.. I DO recall you saying it's not discrimination because a Trump supporter has a "choice".. Whatever relevance that has..

    It is odd to me that you say your wife is bisexual, but then point to one guy you know who chose to be gay, then chose to be straight, and so on as "proof" that being gay is a choice.

    Actually I have known guys AND girls who were gay.. Then they weren't, then they were.. I knew one guy who was gay/not gay several times a day!!

    And I never said it was "proof".. If I did it was probably in jest.. :D Or I misspoke..

    What it IS is evidence to support my opinion that being gay is a choice...

    I can readily admit that I MIGHT be wrong about that..

    Can YOU do the same?? Can YOU admit that being gay MIGHT be a choice??

    I bet you can't.. And that DOES "prove" who the close-minded one is between us.. :D

    And since you said you do remember when you chose to be heterosexual instead of homosexual, I would love to hear your story!

    OK, but remember. You asked for it! :D

    It was summer, 1968 and I was living in Pasadena, CA.. I remember thinking how great it would be to be nekkid in bed with Judy Robinson from Lost In Space. :D

    Mind you, at the time I didn't know WHY it would be great. I just knew it would be great.. :D

    Michale

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    And since you said you do remember when you chose to be heterosexual instead of homosexual, I would love to hear your story!

    OK, but remember. You asked for it! :D

    It was summer, 1968 and I was living in Pasadena, CA.. I remember thinking how great it would be to be nekkid in bed with Judy Robinson from Lost In Space. :D

    Mind you, at the time I didn't know WHY it would be great. I just knew it would be great.. :D

    "A wise man once said. Don't ask questions you don't want to know the answer to."
    -Agent J, MEN IN BLACK 3

    :D

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale said:
    Yet not a SINGLE Weigantian has condemned that discrimination...

    Nay, it's been argued by all Weigantians that it's NOT discrimination..

    From my comment (124)
    I do think that the landlord was wrong to refuse to rent to Trump supporters, based solely on that.

    Michael, do you think the baker was wrong for not telling the couple up front that she would not make their cake, and waiting until the day they went to pick it up before telling them that she had a change of heart?

    I would not have an issue with the baker being up front with them from the beginning regarding her supposed religious conflict, but the way she chose to do it is what I take issue with.

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    And some reason you are keeping the "different" face a secret?

    I am not keeping the different face a secret. It was in the article. An article you claim to have read...

    But it's interesting that you think that's relevant.. Does it change your mind about my initial comment??

    What? I don't have to, I can read...

    And yet, you thought that the different face point was a "secret"... :D

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    From my comment (124)
    I do think that the landlord was wrong to refuse to rent to Trump supporters, based solely on that.

    Ahhhhh, but then you equivocated to mitigate the discrimination...

    I do think that the landlord was wrong to refuse to rent to Trump supporters, based solely on that. But political affiliation is not a protected class, and it is a choice.

    So, I call this one a push.. :D

    Michael, do you think the baker was wrong for not telling the couple up front that she would not make their cake, and waiting until the day they went to pick it up before telling them that she had a change of heart?

    Abso-frakin'-loutly!!

    That was a shit thing to do...

    I would not have an issue with the baker being up front with them from the beginning regarding her supposed religious conflict, but the way she chose to do it is what I take issue with.

    Thank you for that clarification. We are in complete agreement on that particular case...

    But the case I had in mind was in Oregon (I think, it's been a while)... The gay couple in question KNEW that the baker they were going to was a christian and they KNEW that the baker would refuse. But they went there anyways..

    That tells me that it was all for the publicity...

    And THAT is wrong.. THAT is discrimination.

    And destroying someone's lives and livelihood for political grandstanding??

    THAT is a shitty thing to do... As shitty as the baker who waited until the delivery date...

    Michale

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    GT,

    I am surprised no one has pointed out that Michale himself is a beneficiary of the minimum wage floor and the subsequent rises in the median wages paid as a result of the minimum wage increases...that is until the 1980's but even then the increases in the 80's still lead to a rise in median wages but just not a pace to enable everyone in the bottom and middle to keep up with the rate of inflation.

    I believe it was JL and LISTEN who pointed out that condemning an action does not preclude one from BENEFITING from that same action...

    I would further point out that that was then and this is now... I did a lot of stoopid things in the 80s..

    I do a lot of stoopid things today.

    You want a list?? :D

    Michale

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    Your constant attempts to prove that lefties are all hypocrites is really a way to grant yourself (and your rightwing cronies) a pass on every rotten thing you all do/think. You never deal with the dirty deed -- you just try to find a corresponding dirty deed by a lefty, throw your hands in the air and say "everybody does it" and conveniently forget what actually was done.

    Not at all..

    I am simply proving beyond any doubt that, when ya'all complain about Right Wingery discrimination, that ya'all have absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to do so..

    My point has NEVER been that it's right or it's wrong. As I have proven with bigotry, some discrimination is perfectly acceptable, some is not. Just as some bigotry is perfectly acceptable, some is not..

    My point has always been to show you that there is ANOTHER side to every story ya'all tell..

    Take TRUMP and his racism.. Ya'all went on and on hysterically emotional about Trump's "racism".. I show up and calmly point out that there IS no racism from Trump... I show you the OTHER side of your story..

    Trump and his encouragement of violence.. Hysterical to the ends of the earth.. But I say, "hold on a sec.. What you are looking at is encouragement to self-defense".. Once again, the OTHER side of your story..

    And so on and so on and so on..

    My points are often NOT to pass judgement on the various issues..

    My points are often to show ya'all that YA'ALL don't have the right to pass judgement..

    Of course, I do so with love in my heart and a song on my lips... :D

    "Berta, how do you wash my underwear??"
    "As I do everything around here. With love in my heart and a song on my lips."

    -Two And A Half Men

    :D

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken

    I'll take my personal observations and experiences over your science any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

    :D

    Michale

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    POP QUIZ, hotshots...

    U.S. Troops Get Closer to Iraqi Front Lines After Obama Move
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-18/u-s-troops-get-closer-to-iraqi-front-lines-after-obama-decision

    THE HYSTERICAL OUTCRY FROM THE LEFT WINGERY IS:

    _____ Deafening...

    _____ NON-Existent...

    Michale

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just for sheets and greens, I would like to offer ya'all a primer for how to deal with things when the NNL Filter kicks in..

    For those of ya'all who are 7 DAYS fans, NNL of course refers to NEVER NEVER LAND, the code-name for Area 51...

    First off, if you have a link in your comment and it's whisked away, there's a great chance that THAT is the problem.. Try replacing the full hyperlink with a TINY URL hyperlink (www.tinyurl.com)..

    Speaking of hyperlinks (but technically a moderation issue, not an NNL issue) you can evade the Multi-Link moderation filter by stripping the 'http' part of the link and it will display as straight text. I put the text in italics to differentiate it from other text.. Also keep in mind that you can't type in wwwDOT.... The software converts that to a hyperlink...

    If you have a multi-paragraph comment, try posting individual paragraphs and zoom on the one paragraph that is causing the problems...

    If you really want to get your point across, try re-wording the paragraph.. The NNL Filters seem to act like the Obelisk in Star Trek TOS THE PARADISE SYNDROME.. A specific order of consonants and vowels triggers the filter. Try mixing things up..

    If you really REALLY want to get your point across, create a .JPG of your comment and then post a link to it.. :D

    This ends this Weigatnian PSA... BEEEEEEP

    :D

    Michale

  196. [196] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And if I was the only one who used those you would have a point..

    But I am not, so you don't.. :D

    And that's why I gave "tu quoque" its own post; as evidenced above, that's definitely your logical fallacy of choice.

  197. [197] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "I'll take my personal observations and experiences over your science"

    Thank you for acknowledging your inferior evidentiary support.

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    And that's why I gave "tu quoque" its own post; as evidenced above, that's definitely your logical fallacy of choice.

    fal·la·cy
    ?fal?s?/Submit
    noun
    a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.

    It's NOT a fallacy because my argument IS a valid argument..

    To whit, if ya'all complain ONLY about discrimination from/against a group and IGNORE discrimination from/against a group, THAT is hypocrisy based in bigotry..

    I fail to see the "fallacy" part of that argument...

    Thank you for acknowledging your inferior evidentiary support.

    As the article I posted as a companion to my acknowledgement shows beyond doubt, personal observation and experimentation is superior, not inferior, evidentiary support..

    :D

    Michale

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    My point has NEVER been that it's right or it's wrong. As I have proven with bigotry, some discrimination is perfectly acceptable, some is not.

    Let me qualify that by changing "acceptable" to "understandable"...

    Michale

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the death spiral continues...

    UNITEDHEALTH TO TRIM ACA EXCHANGES TO 'HANDFUL' OF STATES

    UnitedHealth, the nation's biggest health insurer, will remain in public health insurance exchanges in only a handful of states next year after expanding to 34 this year.

    CEO Stephen Hemsley told analysts Tuesday morning that the company cannot continue to broadly serve the market created by the Affordable Care Act's coverage expansion due in part to the higher risk that comes with its customers.
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITEDHEALTH_ACA_EXCHANGES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-19-09-14-34

    TrainWreckCare is simply unsustainable.. Even WITH a mandate...

    Who could have possibly predicted this...

    Oh wait... I know! :D

    I am not one to toot my own horn and say, "ToldYaSo".....

    Oh, who am I kidding!!??

    BEEP BEEP

    :D

    Michale

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was going thru the comments because someone said, to whit, that there can be instances where a gay person is attacked NOT because they are gay and that attack wouldn't be a hate crime..

    The Matthew Shepard PROVES that assertion completely and utterly wrong..

    The Matthew Shepard case became a cause celebre for the gay activist community.. It was prosecuted and persecuted up and down the line has the epitome of a Hate Crime..

    Of course, the FACTS prove beyond any doubt that it WASN'T a hate crime at all. It was a fight between drug dealers over a drug deal that went sideways...

    THAT is the problem with hate crime legislation. It's a POLITICAL agenda... Not a criminal matter...

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    THAT is the problem with hate crime legislation. It's a POLITICAL agenda... Not a criminal matter...

    A hate "crime" is a politically motivated "thought crime"...

    Nothing more...

    Michale

  203. [203] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I am not keeping the different face a secret. It was in the article. An article you claim to have read...

    I would say a validated claim considering I mention who the different face is in the very next sentence...

    But it's interesting that you think that's relevant.. Does it change your mind about my initial comment??

    Well, if you had bothered to finish the paragraph that question would have been answered.

    And yet, you thought that the different face point was a "secret"... :D

    Playing an imbecile?

  204. [204] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Since the conversation has reached terminal logic velocity.

    Time for something completely different....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZCm9o-9Ukc

  205. [205] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I am simply proving beyond any doubt that, when ya'all complain about Right Wingery discrimination, that ya'all have absolutely NO MORAL FOUNDATION to do so..

    Is anyone capable of having a moral foundation, Michale?

    I mean, seriously, this non-serious line of yours has gone beyond ridiculous.

  206. [206] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Since the conversation has reached terminal logic velocity.

    That's a novel way to shut the "discussion" down. I like it! :)

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously, this non-serious line of yours has gone beyond ridiculous.

    Let me put it to you this way...

    Do you think a Republican has a MORAL foundation to castigate Democrats for disenfranchising voters??

    Of course you wouldn't..

    It's the same concept..

    Michale

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    Time for something completely different....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZCm9o-9Ukc

    OK, that took 2 mins 54 seconds of my life and I want them back!!!

    :D

    Michale

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a novel way to shut the "discussion" down. I like it! :)

    Until anyone can address the points in #201, #192, #161, #132 etc etc etc....

    This discussion is FAR from shut down...

    Unless, of course, ya'all want to concede the points. :D

    THAT will shut down the discussions..

    Michale

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh.. And #200 is a pretty good comment as well. :D

    Michale

  211. [211] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It has long since dawned on me that you are not here for a serious discussion of any issue, Michale.

    Though, I haven't really figured out what your purpose here really is, other than to frustrate the hell out of me. :)

  212. [212] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't read most of your comments anymore, Michale, beyond a quick scroll-through ...

  213. [213] 
    Paula wrote:

    [192] Michale:
    My point has NEVER been that it's right or it's wrong. As I have proven with bigotry, some discrimination is perfectly acceptable, some is not. Just as some bigotry is perfectly acceptable, some is not..

    My point has always been to show you that there is ANOTHER side to every story ya'all tell..

    If that is your point you generally fail. You don't convince people very often. Occasionally, somewhere in the loads of crap you post you have a nugget of something worth discussing. But you bury such points in so much utter, utter garbage I (and others -- see Elizabeths 211, 212) stop taking your seriously.

    And re: [183] -- you are guilty of practically every single one of them. Not all in this thread, although several. But in the course of your many threads you swim in logical fallacies.

    Bottom line, you don't prove anything to me because you refuse to take your own arguments seriously.

    My own belief is that you cling tenaciously to your "everybody does it" mantra because it enables you to excuse things that aren't excusable.

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    It has long since dawned on me that you are not here for a serious discussion of any issue, Michale.

    The problem with that attitude is that you define "serious" as whatever you agree with.. :D

    As such, "serious" loses all meaning..

    Though, I haven't really figured out what your purpose here really is, other than to frustrate the hell out of me. :)

    Heh... :D

    I don't read most of your comments anymore, Michale, beyond a quick scroll-through ...

    That's kewl... You don't know what yer missing.. :D Months from now, I'll say, "ya see! I called it dead on ballz accurate!!!" and you'll be like, "Whaaa??? When!?? Where!!???"...

    :D

    Michale

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    If that is your point you generally fail.

    Says the person who refuses to SEE any other side, save their own.. :D

    And re: [183] -- you are guilty of practically every single one of them. Not all in this thread, although several. But in the course of your many threads you swim in logical fallacies.

    As do ya'all.. But, of course, you can't admit that..

    I can.. That's the difference that makes ALL the difference..

    Bottom line, you don't prove anything to me because you refuse to take your own arguments seriously.

    No... I don't prove anything to you because your mind is made up and nothing can change it...

    Not facts.. Not reality... Not nuttin...

    My own belief is that you cling tenaciously to your "everybody does it" mantra because it enables you to excuse things that aren't excusable.

    I don't cling to any mantra...

    It's simply a statement of fact that, in MUCH of our discussions, everybody DOES "do it"... The problem is, is that ya'all are so blinded by ideological slavery that you can't SEE it...

    Can you admit that you COULD be wrong and I COULD be right??

    Of course you can't...

    Point proven...

    AGAIN....

    Michale

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how many of you ALWAYS end up making the discussion about me personally..

    While I am flattered and, to be perfectly honest, I love it.... It DOES prove one thing beyond any doubt..

    The reason ya'all almost always make everything about me is because you can't address the points I make..

    But, seriously.. It does flatter me... :D

    Michale

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    The issue of TrainWreckCare is a perfect example of what I am talking about..

    TrainWreckCare is a DISASTER.. It's in a death spiral that simply gets worse and worse and worse..

    Do ya'all acknowledge that I was right and ya'all were wrong??

    Of course not.. Ya'all cling to the fantasy that my comments are "not serious" when, in fact, my comments are, more often than not, dead on ballz accurate...

    The ONLY reason my comments are "not serious" in ya'all's eyes is SOLELY and COMPLETELY because ya'all disagree with them..

    But, as TrainWreckCare proves... As the Nuclear Shellcacking of 2014 proves...

    My "non serious" comments are usually dead on ballz accurate... :D

    Michale

  218. [218] 
    goode trickle wrote:
  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aprapos, no?

    Apropos, too!! :D

    hehehehehehe

    Sorry, but a spelling lame seemed most appropriate and not "ridiculous" at all.. :D

    Michale

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, but a spelling lame seemed most appropriate and not "ridiculous" at all.. :D

    Awwww who am I kidding..

    It was ridiculous... My apologies.. :D

    Michale

  221. [221] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Dang it!!! Crap like that happens when your phone uses more Spanish custom words than the English built in ones....

    Damn you autocowrecks!!!!

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dang it!!! Crap like that happens when your phone uses more Spanish custom words than the English built in ones....

    Damn you autocowrecks!!!!

    hehehehehehe Now THAT's funny... :D

    Michale

  223. [223] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's funny how many of you ALWAYS end up making the discussion about me personally..

    Oh, it's not at all about you PERSONALLY. You're likable enough. Or, is that ... your likable enough. Heh. Sorry, couldn't possibly resist.

    It's about how you operate, Michale, that leaves me wondering about what it is you are hoping to accomplish here.

  224. [224] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's about how you operate, Michale, that leaves me wondering about what it is you are hoping to accomplish here.

    "To the journey..."
    -Harry Kim, STAR TREK:VOYAGER, Endgame

    :D

    Not going to comment on #217

    How can I be A> "ridiculous" and 2> Dead On Ballz Accurate???

    Seems to me that you should examine what you label "ridiculous"....

    And why... :D

    Michale

  225. [225] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Until anyone can address the points in #201, #192, #161, #132 etc etc etc....

    201 - Shepherd's killers and one of their girlfriends claimed to have killed him because he was gay, perhaps thinking that saying so would make them seem less culpable. Later they recanted, and it was claimed that they had pretended to be gay, so... maybe it was a hate crime and maybe it wasn't. in either case, you have yet to establish any pertinence to the present discourse.

    192 - Two separate reports of overt anti-black racist statements have been made against trump by individuals who were in his presence when he made them. his other bigoted statements are on video record, and your extended use of the tu quoque fallacy does not make trump's words any less anti-mexican, anti-muslim, racist or sexist.

    nobody at a trump rally was in fact violent other than his supporters, actions which he actively encouraged. claims of aggression on the part of roughed-up protesters and reporters is the tu quoque fallacy exercised by trump himself. trump encouraged real violence that really occurred, and justified it by claiming imaginary violence on the part of the victims - video evidence bears these facts out.

    161 - sorry, i can't figure out what on earth you're talking about.

    132 - agree completely. in this case the hypocrisy you're appealing to actually exists. the exception that proves the rule?

    193/198 - anecdotal fallacy and moving the goalposts. you claimed there was science supporting your point of view on sexual orientation. upon the realization that you were completely out of your depth on the science, you retreated to personal anecdotes and claimed that science was wrong. of course. all science whose results disagree with you MUST be wrong.

    apparently you didn't read the article you posted, or the other article it references, because not one of gobry or wilson's arguments on the fallibility of modern science is even remotely applicable to studies on the genetics and epigenetics of human sexuality.

    further, the anecdotes you referenced were cherry-picked to reference bisexual individuals, conveniently the only part of the LGBT spectrum which by definition does permit a choice in the gender of the mate one is seeking. sometimes your logical fallacies are piled on so thick it's difficult to make out which of them is dominant at any given time.

    JL

  226. [226] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Elizabeth said,
    "Is anyone capable of having a moral foundation, Michale?I mean, seriously, this non-serious line of yours has gone beyond ridiculous."

    Michale answered,
    "How can I be A> "ridiculous" and 2> Dead On Ballz Accurate???Seems to me that you should examine what you label "ridiculous"...."

    As you can see, I labeled your discussion style ridiculous, not your "Dead On Ballz Accurate" assertions. :)

  227. [227] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    and then of course, the argumentum ex silentio - or if you will, the "crickets" argument. if nobody says anything about a given statement or argument, the fallacious assumption that they must therefore accept your point of view as correct or valid.

  228. [228] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, THAT's ridiculous!

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    201 - Shepherd's killers and one of their girlfriends claimed to have killed him because he was gay, perhaps thinking that saying so would make them seem less culpable. Later they recanted, and it was claimed that they had pretended to be gay, so... maybe it was a hate crime and maybe it wasn't. in either case, you have yet to establish any pertinence to the present discourse.

    The facts clearly show that it was a drug deal gone bad...

    This is well documented...

    But, of course, the facts mean very little in cases such as this..

    - Two separate reports of overt anti-black racist statements have been made against trump by individuals who were in his presence when he made them.

    Hearsay.. Not admissible..

    At least, they wouldn't be admissible if we were talking about a person with a '-D' after their name..

    his other bigoted statements are on video record, and your extended use of the tu quoque fallacy does not make trump's words any less anti-mexican, anti-muslim, racist or sexist.

    We have already established that Trump is bigoted. But no more than Hillary or Sanders or you...

    193/198 - anecdotal fallacy and moving the goalposts. you claimed there was science supporting your point of view on sexual orientation. upon the realization that you were completely out of your depth on the science, you retreated to personal anecdotes and claimed that science was wrong. of course. all science whose results disagree with you MUST be wrong.

    There IS science to support the claim that being gay is not genetic...

    But you won't accept it so it makes no sense for me to waste my time getting it to you..

    apparently you didn't read the article you posted, or the other article it references, because not one of gobry or wilson's arguments on the fallibility of modern science is even remotely applicable to studies on the genetics and epigenetics of human sexuality.

    Ahhh So it's applicable to ALL the science EXCEPT the "science" that supports your agenda.. :D

    Do you even HEAR yourself??

    Michale

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    As you can see, I labeled your discussion style ridiculous, not your "Dead On Ballz Accurate" assertions. :)

    Ahhhh So, what you are saying is that I am only ridiculous when I am wrong..

    But, since you never EVER concede when I am right.....

    Well, you can do the math.. :D

    Michale

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    and then of course, the argumentum ex silentio - or if you will, the "crickets" argument. if nobody says anything about a given statement or argument, the fallacious assumption that they must therefore accept your point of view as correct or valid.

    Let me put it this way...

    Lets say that I post 100 comments of various assertions... Not too far-fetched, eh??

    And on each and every comment, everyone here responds how wrong I am...

    But then, on the 101st comment, I make an assertion and no one responds at all..

    Since everyone responds to EVERY comment when I am wrong, a logical inference can be made that, when no one responds, it means I am right...

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    But logic is something that is in very VERY short supply around here...

    Michale

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    132 - agree completely. in this case the hypocrisy you're appealing to actually exists. the exception that proves the rule?

    Dood.. I listed like a half dozen things!! :D

    The EXCEPTION is when the Left Wingery ISN'T hypocritical! :D

    Michale

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:

    nobody at a trump rally was in fact violent other than his supporters,

    That is factually and demonstrably false..

    And I would PROVE it if knew there was a snowball's chance in hell you concede that... :D

    trump encouraged real violence that really occurred, and justified it by claiming imaginary violence on the part of the victims - video evidence bears these facts out.

    Yea??? Show me...

    The ONLY encouragement of violence from Trump you have mentioned was when Trump advocated someone to knock someone down if said someone was about to commit assault..

    As I have pointed out (and there has been no contention) that is not encouragement to violence, that is encouragement to self-defense...

    If that is all you have then you have nothing...

    Michale

  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    nobody at a trump rally was in fact violent other than his supporters,

    Well, except the guy who jumped the security line, tried to attack Trump and had to be body slammed by Secret Service..

    You see how easy it is for me to refute your claims with FACTS?? :D

    Michale

  235. [235] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not that it will make an iota of difference in your opinion.....

    Bernie’s Vicious Vanguard Instigates Violence Against Trump
    investors.com/politics/editorials/bernies-vicious-vanguard-instigates-violence-against-trump/

    Trump supporters, protesters clash after Chicago rally postponed
    cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-chicago-protests/

    The FACTS clearly show that the Left Wingery is just as violent as ya'all accuse Trump supporters of being...

    As I said, not that it will make a BIT of difference...

    Ya'all's minds are made up and no amount of FACTS, no amount of REALITY, will change your minds...

    Trump is Hitler, Stalin and Lucifer all rolled into one and the totality of the Left Wingery is as pure as the driven snow...

    Michale

  236. [236] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "Simple logic"

    No, simple truth fallacy. Look it up.

    As to my grasp of science, it's not magical, I do what is known as "reading." The faulty science in the article you posted was based not on "all" science but on specific faults, which I read about, none of which has ever been levelled at the mri or twin studies or any of the other specific studies that have established types of human attraction as biologically based. Gobry never claimed that the faults he found applied to all science, just certain studies, of which he gave examples.

    In order to make a valid claim, the factual basis of the claim must be somewhere within the broad side of a barn of being accurate. Your habit seems to be throwing around assertions and skipping the step of questioning whether or not the assertions have some chance of being inaccurate.
    JL

  237. [237] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But logic is something that is in very VERY short supply around here...

    If by "around here" you mean your comments, then you are absolutely ... what is your phrase? ... oh, yeah - "Dead On Ballz Accurate!"

    Indeed.

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    If by "around here" you mean your comments,

    Nope, that's not what I mean..

    Let me give you a recent example.. Like from 10 mins ago..

    JL made the claim that "NOBODY" at Trump Rallies is violent EXCEPT Trump supporters.

    I have *PROVEN* that to be unequivocally and absolutely FASLE..

    But, no one chooses to address that and concede the point...

    Ya'all just write it off as a "fallacy" or "ridiculous" or "not serious"...

    You see the point??

    Ya'all resort to personal ad hominem attacks because you refuse to address the FACTS...

    Michale

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    As to my grasp of science, it's not magical, I do what is known as "reading." The faulty science in the article you posted was based not on "all" science but on specific faults, which I read about, none of which has ever been levelled at the mri or twin studies or any of the other specific studies that have established types of human attraction as biologically based. Gobry never claimed that the faults he found applied to all science, just certain studies, of which he gave examples.

    Yes, Gobry DID apply the faults to the SCIENCES in general, giving a few examples that were not the totality of what his article applied to..

    Just because the science that supports your agenda wasn't mentioned doesn't mean Gobry's article was not applicable..

    The problem outlined is not specific sciences, but rather the political nature of ALL sciences...

    Which you would concede if it didn't show your faith in (ONLY SOME) science to be misplaced...

    Like everyone else, you cheery pick what supports your agenda and ignore what doesn't support your agenda..

    Michale

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your habit seems to be throwing around assertions and skipping the step of questioning whether or not the assertions have some chance of being inaccurate.

    Yea???

    TRUMP IS A RACIST!!!
    -Weigantians

    Point proven, 'nuff said.... :D

    Michale

  241. [241] 
    Michale wrote:

    Although still a proponent of homosexual
    activism, Spitzer has been attacked unmercifully by former admirers for this breach of the
    ideology that people are “born gay and can’t change.”

    After he was roundly attacked by homosexual activists, who accused him of providing
    ammunition for conservatives to challenge the gay rights/civil rights comparison based on
    immutability, Byne denounced the “false dichotomy: Biology or Choice?” and stated that he was
    also skeptical of environmental theories of sexual orientation. He wrote: “There is no compelling
    evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation,” and that he would never “imply that
    one consciously decides one’s sexual orientation.”14 But the fact remains that Dr. Byne has
    poked gaping holes in the most influential studies purporting to prove that homosexuality is

    http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf

    Apparently, the VERY problems that Gobry cited as problems in science apparently ARE present in your "science".... apparently.. :D

    I know, I know.. You can't concede you are wrong and I am right.. I understand...

    Michale

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study

    Note the terminology..

    influenced

    some impact

    no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved

    played a role

    involved

    limited and variable impact

    The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay.

    not completely determinative

    other environmental factors involved

    This is from the article that SUPPORTS the gay activist agenda... But it's filled with qualifying terminology that is no more "scientific" than rolling the dice or throwing darts at a dart board..

    You can deny it all you want, but the FACTs are clear...

    There is an element of CHOICE in being gay or not being gay..

    As I said at the beginning of this long debate, the ONLY point of contention is how much of it IS choice..

    You think it's very little choice and have the science to back it up..

    I think it's very MUCH a factor of choice and I have the science to back it up...

    So, when the science cancels itself out, the only thing left to go on is personal experiences and observations..

    And *MY* personal experiences and observations clearly indicate that choice is the overriding factor in those who choose to be in the gay lifestyle...

    You can disagree.. Fine. I have no problem with that.. But you cannot logically and rationally question my motivations...

    Well, ya'all can.. And often do.. But that says more about ya'all than it does about me.. :D

    Michale

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    201 - Shepherd's killers and one of their girlfriends claimed to have killed him because he was gay, perhaps thinking that saying so would make them seem less culpable. Later they recanted, and it was claimed that they had pretended to be gay, so... maybe it was a hate crime and maybe it wasn't.

    The book contends that Shepard’s murder was more likely a crime sparked by a drug deal gone wrong: Shepard was a known meth dealer and was supposed to have taken in a drug shipment worth $10,000 that night. He and McKinney, a 22-year-old bisexual hustler, were both meth users and had sex with each other on previous occasions, and McKinney was desperate to get the drugs or the money, or both.

    In short, Shepard’s homosexuality likely played little, if any, role in the crime.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/author-shepard-murder-case-became-hate-crime-not-d/?page=all

    It wasn't a hate crime. That much is clear...

    in either case, you have yet to establish any pertinence to the present discourse.

    The pertinence is how ya'all and the Left Wingery in general are so hysterically quick to judge, solely and completely based on ya'all's political ideology...

    In other words, the willingness to brand Trump a racist with absolutely NO FACTS to prove it....

    .... is the same willingness to brand Matthew Shephard a gay hero/martyr when he was nothing more than a scumbag drug dealer.....

    ..... is the same willingness to ignore ALL the science that disproves or contradicts the human caused global warming theory...

    ..... is the same willingness to ignore all the science that indicates being gay is a choice....

    .... is the same willingness to believe that George Zimmerman was a racist that stalked a boy and killed him in cold blood....

    ..... is the same willingness to believe that Officer Darren Wilson was a racist who shot Michael Brown while Brown had his hands in the air.....

    ALL of those instances is proof positive that ya'all leap to hysterical accusations SOLELY based on ya'all's political ideology and COMPLETELY ignoring the FACTS...

    There's yer "pertinence" to the present discourse....

    Michale

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Really Big One
    An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest. The question is when.

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one

    Now THIS has no pertinence to anything..

    It's just a helluva good read..

    Michale

  245. [245] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale [241] [242]

    I think you should just back way from arguing science issues. Your "proof" is not just bad but painful...

    [241]: I find it interesting that you link only to the file but not it's source. Hiding something? Lets see:

    CWA. I wonder who that is. Communications Workers of America? No, wrong logo. California Waterfowl Association, probably not. Ah here we are: Concerned Women for America, yup logo matches up. Now who are they: a conservative Christian women's activist group who opposes abortion, sex education, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, pornography, and feminism. Now who is this author: ah, the draftsman of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. This is not just biased but by far the single most biased thing you have ever posted. And that is saying something. It's also 16 years old and from a non-science organization by a non-scientist. The research nypoet22 mentioned is much more recent.

    Now on to [242]. You just confirmed what nypoet22 has bee arguing. Good job. [slow clap]...

    From the article:

    While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb. "Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice," said Bailey. "We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved."

    In other words, they found strong correlation between certain genes and homosexuality but it is not an on off switch (it usually isn't in biology). They then theorize hormones and other factors in the womb play a part, but that research is not within the constraints of this specific paper. Look for more research on these details in future papers...

    Note the terminology..

    This is standard science terminology. Much like law, the first few college science courses are mainly to teach you the language of science. Terms have specific meanings that again like law sound much more inflammatory when taken out of context...

  246. [246] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved."

    Thank you for proving my point.. :D

    Michale

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know your ideological slavery won't allow you to concede the point.

    But it was really nice of you to post the relevant section of that "science"... :D

    Michale

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    As with human caused global warming, it's a POLITICAL issue.. Not a scientific issue...

    I know, I know.. Ya'all can't concede that... Which simply proves my point...

    Until ya'all can address ALL the science and not just the science that supports the ideological agenda, it will ALWAYS be a political issue...

    Michale

  249. [249] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Still playing an imbecile, eh?

    But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved."

    Which if you bothered to read the entire paragraph, you would know "environmental factors" means hormonal and other conditions of the growing fetus in the womb.

    Thank you for proving my point.. :D

    What, your inability to comprehend written English?

    Until ya'all can address ALL the science and not just the science that supports the ideological agenda, it will ALWAYS be a political issue...

    Is that the "science" from extremely biased political groups or the science that proves the opposing point of view. Heh...

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still playing an imbecile, eh?

    Still resorting to childish personal attacks when backed into a logical corner.... eh? :D

    Is that the "science" from extremely biased political groups or the science that proves the opposing point of view. Heh...

    You are confused. It's your "science" that is politically biased..

    This has been proven beyond any doubt...

    Michale

  251. [251] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which if you bothered to read the entire paragraph, you would know "environmental factors" means hormonal and other conditions of the growing fetus in the womb.

    YOU posted it..

    "DOOOYYYYYYYY"
    Vanillope Von Schweetz, WRECK IT RALPH

    :D heh

    If you would have thought it was relevant, you would have posted the entire paragraph..

    Apparently, even YOU didn't think it was relevant..

    Michale

  252. [252] 
    Michale wrote:

    I honestly don't know why ya'all insist on trying to debate this.. Ya'all have already conceded that you can't admit that ya'all could be wrong, so any debate is pointless..

    When one is close-minded and refuses to accept ANYTHING but their own ideologically induced view of "facts" and "reality" as ya'all have conceded that you are....

    What's the point of discussing it??

    Michale

  253. [253] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note...

    http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2016/04/19/clinton-gone-flint-forgotten/83266508/

    Isn't it funny how everyone from Weigantians on up to Hillary Clinton wanted to talk about Flint, MI..

    It was Flint, Flint, Flint, Flint.. Day in, day out, Flint this and Flint that...

    Right up until the Michigan Primary.....

    After that???

    {{chhhiiiirrrrrrppppp}} {{{chirrrrrrrrpppp}}}

    Flint MI disappears from the news cycle....

    Hillary's not talking about FLINT... Weigantians are not talking about FLINT.....

    It's uncanny... It's AMAZING...

    Or is it just run o the mill, same ol same ol politics as usual.... :^/

    Yea.....

    Michale

  254. [254] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Still resorting to childish personal attacks when backed into a logical corner.... eh? :D

    Now normally it would be an ad hominem, I agree, but with the complete lack of reading comprehension you are showing (or possibly just being childishly obstinate), I'm afraid it's not a "childish personal attack" but quite descriptive.

    Of course it should read "the imbecile", eh? Heh...

    Ah google, a double edged sword.

    You are confused. It's your "science" that is politically biased..

    This has been proven beyond any doubt...

    Well, something has been proven beyond a doubt, but that's not it...

    YOU posted it..

    I did. The entire paragraph from your link. There it is in the comments [245]. Which you would have known had you read the link you posted.

    If you would have thought it was relevant, you would have posted the entire paragraph..

    Apparently, even YOU didn't think it was relevant..

    I really wanted my use of "imbecile" to be an ad hominem, I really did, but when you post something like this...if you want to twist someone's words, probably ought to read them first...

  255. [255] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Hillary's not talking about FLINT...

    Well, except for her victory speech last night?

  256. [256] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now normally it would be an ad hominem, I agree, but with the complete lack of reading comprehension you are showing (or possibly just being childishly obstinate), I'm afraid it's not a "childish personal attack" but quite descriptive.

    As usual, you justify the unjustifiable...

    How liberal of you...

    Well, except for her victory speech last night?

    The mayor is fretting the fading of the intense national attention the city received in February and March will hurt Flint’s chances of capturing those federal funds Clinton boasted of delivering but that still haven’t arrived.

    Yea.. Like you, Hillary talks a lot...

    But it's always the same old bullshit...

    Michale

  257. [257] 
    Michale wrote:

    I really wanted my use of "imbecile" to be an ad hominem, I really did, but when you post something like this..

    Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response and must therefore resort to childish personal attacks and immature name-calling..

    Your concession of my superior argument is appreciated, albeit irrelevant...

    Michale

  258. [258] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you have to call your opponent names to "win" a debate???

    You have already lost....

    Michale

  259. [259] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The mayor is fretting the fading of the intense national attention the city received in February and March will hurt Flint’s chances of capturing those federal funds Clinton boasted of delivering but that still haven’t arrived.

    Ask Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee why that is...

    Thank you for your concession that you have no logical or rational response and must therefore resort to childish personal attacks and immature name-calling..

    It's not a personal attack when demonstrably true. And boy did you demonstrate! Twice!

    Your concession of my superior argument is appreciated, albeit irrelevant...

    You disproved your own argument. I just pointed it out by reading the links you posted to back it up.

  260. [260] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not a personal attack when demonstrably true.

    That's sad that you think so...

    You disproved your own argument. I just pointed it out by reading the links you posted to back it up.

    Yea.. That's your claim.. But it's based on ideological slavery, so it's not a valid claim...

    Michale

  261. [261] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ask Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee why that is...

    It wasn't Lee who said the funds would be there.. It's Hillary..

    Of course, because you are blinded by a hysterical ideological agenda, you can't acknowledge the facts...

    But it's typical of the Left Wingery.. Promise all sorts of stuff, but then fail to deliver..

    Michale

  262. [262] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, it's typical of the Right Wingery too...

    Be nice when President Trump takes office.. :D

    Michale

  263. [263] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    That's sad that you think so...

    Not half as sad as self congratulating a "victory" as way to gloss over poor reading skills.

    Yea.. That's your claim.. But it's based on ideological slavery, so it's not a valid claim...

    More copypasta?

  264. [264] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It wasn't Lee who said the funds would be there.. It's Hillary..

    And what was Hillary's exact promise?

    Of course, because you are blinded by a hysterical ideological agenda, you can't acknowledge the facts...

    But it's typical of the Left Wingery.. Promise all sorts of stuff, but then fail to deliver..

    More copypasta...does it come with a pesto sauce?

  265. [265] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    Note that I was not calling you an imbecile but that you were playing the imbecile. Which is not really an ad hominem. I was accusing you of playing dumb (which I hope you were) but switching out dumb for a...sharper term.

  266. [266] 
    Michale wrote:

    Note that I was not calling you an imbecile but that you were playing the imbecile. Which is not really an ad hominem. I was accusing you of playing dumb (which I hope you were) but switching out dumb for a...sharper term.

    You tap dance better than Biga... And THAT says something..

    But I know what you meant and YOU know what you meant...

    Michale

  267. [267] 
    Michale wrote:

    When all is said and done, here is what it all boils down to...

    Until ya'all can address ALL the science and not just the science that supports the agenda, ya'all will be a slave to your ideology...

    Nothing more...

    Michale

  268. [268] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since we haven't talked about it in forever...

    "Nowhere in [the Constitution] does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential [nominees] a vote."
    -Harry Reid

    :D

    Michale

  269. [269] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The book contends that Shepard’s murder was more likely a crime sparked by a drug deal gone wrong.

    which book? you're the law enforcement expert, so i believe your opinions in those areas carry extra weight. if your professional judgment based on all you've read and seen is that the attack on shepherd wasn't based on his sexual orientation, i'll accept that opinion is more likely to be the case.

    is the same willingness to ignore all the science that indicates being gay is a choice

    psychology on the other hand is one of MY areas of expertise, and i would hope my professional opinion carries a little weight in this area. I've probably read about ten times more studies on human development than you or anyone else here. thanks to recent advancements in brain imaging, hormone chemistry, DNA mapping and cross-cultural social psychology, the body of research on sexual orientation is at this point unequivocal. if you insist on giving equal weight to an a priori assumption based on data from fifty years ago and your limited anecdotal knowledge, i find that both foolish and insulting.

    JL

  270. [270] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    close italics

  271. [271] 
    Michale wrote:

    which book? you're the law enforcement expert, so i believe your opinions in those areas carry extra weight. if your professional judgment based on all you've read and seen is that the attack on shepherd wasn't based on his sexual orientation, i'll accept that opinion is more likely to be the case.

    Given Shepard's history and the evidence, there was not hate crime in the sense that ya'all define hate crime..

    Shepard was killed during a drugged craze by one of Shepard's drug clients.. This is what the evidence shows...

    Just like the evidence that showed George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense. Just like the evidence that showed Michael Brown viciously attacked Officer Darren Wilson and went for Wilson's gun...

    Facts are not biased, bigoted or racist. They're just facts...

    psychology on the other hand is one of MY areas of expertise, and i would hope my professional opinion carries a little weight in this area. I've probably read about ten times more studies on human development than you or anyone else here. thanks to recent advancements in brain imaging, hormone chemistry, DNA mapping and cross-cultural social psychology, the body of research on sexual orientation is at this point unequivocal. if you insist on giving equal weight to an a priori assumption based on data from fifty years ago and your limited anecdotal knowledge, i find that both foolish and insulting.

    Far be it from me to be insulting! :D

    Yes, your assessment should be given more credibility and weight than mine on this issue..

    And I readily admit that I could be 1000% wrong and that being gay is 10000% genetic with absolutely NO CHOICE in any part of being gay...

    So, I could be wrong... Given my personal experiences, I don't think I am...

    But I could be...

    Could you??

    Michale

  272. [272] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, I could be wrong... Given my personal experiences, I don't think I am... But I could be... Could you??

    of course i could. true practice of scientific method requires that all conclusions remain in question, if only infinitesimally. those views that come closest to being completely without doubt are called laws. those that are almost universally accepted as true but retain a sliver of doubt are called theories. views with any higher level of doubt are called hypotheses.

    the trouble with these definitions is that they're frequently misused in lay conversation. for example, darwin's view on evolution is still technically considered a theory, but it's so close to being a law it's often referred to that way.

  273. [273] 
    Michale wrote:

    of course i could.

    My faith in humanity is restored.. :D

    the trouble with these definitions is that they're frequently misused in lay conversation. for example, darwin's view on evolution is still technically considered a theory, but it's so close to being a law it's often referred to that way.

    Funny you should mention that as I was just thinking that very thing myself recently..

    If the "theory" of being borne gay (and the THEORY of Human Caused Global Warming incidentially) was even on the same planet as the "theory" of evolution, then I would have a much easier time believing it...

    But it's not so I can't... Maybe in a hundred years when our science has growed up, it might be.. :D

    Michale

  274. [274] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Facts are not biased, bigoted or racist. They're just facts...

    But in this case are they facts? The head of investigations and lead investigator of the case dispute much of that book and specifically he was some sort of drug kingpin or even a drug dealer...

    If the "theory" of being borne gay (and the THEORY of Human Caused Global Warming incidentially) was even on the same planet as the "theory" of evolution, then I would have a much easier time believing it...

    Not only are these theories on the same planet, they are interconnected. The article you linked to had an interesting bit about the genes that are linked to homosexuality likely survived the process of evolution by making the women who carried them more fertile.

    Try reading the article rather than being a "slave to your ideology" or other copypasta du jour that furthers your political bias or whatever you are trying to do with your silly proclamations and grandiose announcements of "victory" that most readers are more likely to snicker at than agree with...

  275. [275] 
    Michale wrote:

    But in this case are they facts? The head of investigations and lead investigator of the case dispute much of that book and specifically he was some sort of drug kingpin or even a drug dealer...

    Did he?? The investigating officer in the George Zimmerman shooting put MANSLAUGHTER in the charge slot of the sheet... But that doesn't necessarily mean anything...

    My point?? You can nit pick at individual innuendos but when one views the overall big picture, the facts become clear..

    Not only are these theories on the same planet, they are interconnected.

    Again, you miss my point...

    The support for the theory of evolution is infinitely more than the support for the theory of BornThatWay/HumanCausedGlobalWarming..

    Once BTW/HCGW evidence rises to that of evolution, then I'll consider it...

    Not until then..

    Michale

  276. [276] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/21/Get-Ready-Huge-Obamacare-Premium-Hikes-2017

    So much for the AFFORDABLE part of the Affordable Care Act..

    Anyone ready to concede that ObamaCare is, indeed, TRAINWRECKCARE???

    Anyone??? Anyone??? Beuhler??? :D

    Michale

  277. [277] 
    Paula wrote:

    [276] Anyone ready to concede that ObamaCare is, indeed, TRAINWRECKCARE???

    No.

    [274] Bashi:Try reading the article rather than being a "slave to your ideology" or other copypasta du jour that furthers your political bias or whatever you are trying to do with your silly proclamations and grandiose announcements of "victory"

    He won't. Good posts!

  278. [278] 
    Michale wrote:

    [276] Anyone ready to concede that ObamaCare is, indeed, TRAINWRECKCARE???

    No.

    OK.. Then point to the AFFORDABLE part of the Affordable Care Act?? :D

    Betcha can't... :D

    He won't. Good posts!

    I do.. The problem (for ya'all anyways) is that I read the ENTIRE article... :D

    Michale

  279. [279] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said...

    All you have to do is prove that there is enough factual evidence to support your pet causes as there is to support evolution...

    Once ya'all do that, I'll be happy to concede the point..

    But not until then...

    Michale

  280. [280] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really —but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.
    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

    By jove, I think he's got it!!! :D

    Michale

  281. [281] 
    Michale wrote:

    He won't. Good posts!

    Just like you won't read the article about how TrainWreckCare premiums are going thru the roof..

    Right?? :D

    Michale

  282. [282] 
    Paula wrote:

    [281] Michale: I read it. As it proceeds it becomes clear the headline is practically click-bait -- you have a woman asserting premiums are going to spike dramatically next year, and then a bunch of stuff about why that's probably not true. For example.

    Benjamin Wakana, a Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson, said on Thursday that changes in health care insurance rates are “not a reliable indicator” of what typical consumers on average will pay. “Marketplace consumers would do well to put little stock in those initial numbers,” he said in an email.

    I read articles all the time about the state of the ACA. We'll see what actually happens.

  283. [283] 
    Michale wrote:

    Benjamin Wakana, a Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson, said on Thursday that changes in health care insurance rates are “not a reliable indicator” of what typical consumers on average will pay. “Marketplace consumers would do well to put little stock in those initial numbers,” he said in an email.

    Of course, the Obama Administration rep would say that.. Do you expect them to actually TELL THE TRUTH about Obamacare/??

    You DID read how a MAJOR health insurance provider is dropping TrainWreckCare in all but a small handful of states, right??

    How can ANYONE claim that TrainWreckCare is a success???

    Michale

  284. [284] 
    Paula wrote:

    [283] "You DID read how a MAJOR health insurance provider is dropping TrainWreckCare in all but a small handful of states, right??"

    Funny you should ask that:
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/aca-critics-shouldnt-cheer-the-unitedhealth-news-too-much

    Steve Benen is the blogger for Rachel Maddow -- he used to be at Washington Monthly which has an excellent blog. Couple quotes from the article:

    There’s a dedicated team of officials and activists who are always on the lookout for bad news about the Affordable Care Act. This week, they seemed to find some.

    UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest private insurer, announced Tuesday that next year, it would scale back its participation in ACA exchange marketplaces. Starting in 2017, UnitedHealth will be “down to a handful of states.”

    “A ha!” anti-healthcare forces declared. “We knew it! The market is failing! Obamacare is a disaster! We were right all along!”

    They should probably take a deep breath, because while the UnitedHealth announcement certainly isn’t good news, it’s not evidence of a crisis, either.

    More

    The Washington Post article on this highlighted a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation that found the impact on consumers is likely to be relatively modest: “Even if United exited all states, most marketplace enrollees would still have the ability to choose between three or more insurers. An average health plan used as a benchmark would be about 1 percent more expensive if United had not participated in 2016.”

    But what about what this says about the larger system? TPM’s Tierney Sneed reported yesterday that this week’s announcement is “not the sky-is-falling, death-spiral fever dream that conservatives are making it out to be.”

    Article goes on to explain UnitedHealth has been a small player in the individual markets -- it wasn't suited for the Exchanges, which are geared to individuals and single families and not groups.

    No one here has ever claimed the ACA was perfect. I see it as a work in progress. But your constant assertions of DISASTER!!!!!! just make you look both uninformed, completely partisan, and prone to hysterics. Tell me, do you keep a full supply of smelling salts on hand? Or do you prefer to burn feathers under your nose?

  285. [285] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's simply amazing..

    You can spin disastrous news into news that sounds almost pleasant! :D

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/aca-critics-shouldnt-cheer-the-unitedhealth-news-too-much

    AGAIN.. OF COURSE msnbc is going to say it's no big deal..

    That's just like the Obama Administration saying it's no big deal..

    But what do sites like FORBES and BLOOMBERG and ECONOMIST say??

    It's a disaster...

    You quote the Administration and the Administrations propaganda machine and THAT's your "proof" that everything is awesome.. :D

    Inadvertently, I am sure, but you prove my point for me...

    TrainWreckCare is living up to it's moniker... All but a handful of Exchanges have gone down the tubes, Health Insurance Companies are dropping TrainWreckCare left and right...

    But, by all means. Continue to fiddle while Obamacare burns...

    It just makes the final collapse of that monstrosity all the more enjoyable for those who KNEW it was going to happen..

    Michale

  286. [286] 
    Paula wrote:

    :-)

  287. [287] 
    Michale wrote:

    You still have yet to point to the AFFORDABLE part of TrainWreckCare...

    You can't because it doesn't exist..

    That right there proves that TrainWreckCare is a failure of epic proportions...

    EPIC FAIL..

    Michale

  288. [288] 
    Michale wrote:

    Amid rising drug and health care costs and roiling market dynamics, the spokesperson for the nation’s health insurers is predicting substantial increases next year in Obamacare premiums and related costs.

    Without venturing a specific percentage increase, Marilyn Tavenner, the president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said in an interview with Morning Consult that the culmination of market shifts and rising health care costs will force stark increases in health insurance rates in the coming year.

    Related: More Bad News for the Remaining Obamacare Co-ops

    “I’ve been asked, what are the premiums going to look like?” she said. “I don’t know because it also varies by state, market, even within markets. But I think the overall trend is going to be higher than we saw previous years. That’s my big prediction.”

    If Tavenner is right, Obamacare will jump dramatically—last year’s premium for the popular silver-level plan surged 11 percent on average. Although Tavenner didn’t mention deductibles, in 2016, some states saw jumps of 76 percent, while the average deductible for a 27-year-old male on a silver plan was 8 percent.

    Affordable, my arse!

    :D

    Michale

  289. [289] 
    Paula wrote:

    Michale: "IF Tavenner is right…"

    We'll see. I'm not sweating it.

  290. [290] 
    Michale wrote:

    You didn't finish the quote...

    last year’s premium for the popular silver-level plan surged 11 percent on average. Although Tavenner didn’t mention deductibles, in 2016, some states saw jumps of 76 percent, while the average deductible for a 27-year-old male on a silver plan was 8 percent.

    You are correct. We WILL see... :D

    Michale

  291. [291] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "It just makes the final collapse of that monstrosity all the more enjoyable for those who KNEW it was going to happen"

    @Michale,

    Regardless of whether or not it happens, I don't think the collapse of human beings' ability to treat their sicknesses without going broke is anything to enjoy. Not even in the hypothetical.

  292. [292] 
    Paula wrote:

    [291]:Regardless of whether or not it happens, I don't think the collapse of human beings' ability to treat their sicknesses without going broke is anything to enjoy. Not even in the hypothetical.

    Yep.

  293. [293] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Remember everyone, Michale's comments make it perfectly clear that he takes no small amount of pleasure from other peoples' misfortune. That goes especially for anyone who has spent any time in Weigantia and even more so if it means that his country suffers.

    He's probably just putting on an act. :)

  294. [294] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth: He's probably just putting on an act. :)

    We can only hope.

  295. [295] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  296. [296] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of whether or not it happens, I don't think the collapse of human beings' ability to treat their sicknesses without going broke is anything to enjoy. Not even in the hypothetical.

    Of course there is nothing good about that..

    BUT....

    Maybe Democrats (and ya'all incidentially) should have thought about that BEFORE ya'all spawned this abortion called **AFFORDABLE** Care Act...

    No one seemed to care about those "human beings" back when it mattered, eh???

    It's funny how the welfare of Americans is only in play when it suits the Democrat Party agenda..

    Crocodile tears, people.. Crocodile tears...

    Michale

  297. [297] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of whether or not it happens, I don't think the collapse of human beings' ability to treat their sicknesses without going broke is anything to enjoy. Not even in the hypothetical.

    I am also constrained to point out that TrainWreckCare won't prevent people from going broke due to illness or injury...

    It simply means that Americans have to pay MORE up front costs..

    I won't even bother mentioning the FACT that Obama and Democrats had to blatantly and constantly LIE about TrainWreckCare and had to use parliamentary tricks and backroom deals to get it to pass..

    Finally, since ya'all want to talk about the welfare of the American people (when it suits ya :D).....

    It's ALSO a bona fide fact that the American people do not want, did not want and never have wanted TrainWreckCare....

    "None of these facts are in dispute, Mr President!!!"
    -Klingon Ambassador, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

    Michale

  298. [298] 
    Michale wrote:

    Com'on people!!!!

    Let's drag this puppy up to 300 comments!!! :D

    Michale

  299. [299] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Crocodile tears, people.. Crocodile tears...

    seriously? you say how much you will enjoy it if the insurance exchanges come crashing down, harming millions of people. AND when called on this insensitivity to human suffering, you're accusing the rest of us of... what exactly? equal insensitivity for thinking the obamacare exchanges might reduce the uninsured (which factually speaking they have), and saving thereby lives?

    to paraphrase: the rest of weigantia are just as bad for wanting obamacare to work (and thereby save people) as you are for wanting it to fail (and thereby hurt people).

    most transparently ridiculous tu quoque fallacy ever.

    now if that doesn't get us to 300, i don't know what will.

    JL

  300. [300] 
    Michale wrote:

    seriously? you say how much you will enjoy it if the insurance exchanges come crashing down, harming millions of people. AND when called on this insensitivity to human suffering, you're accusing the rest of us of... what exactly? equal insensitivity for thinking the obamacare exchanges might reduce the uninsured (which factually speaking they have), and saving thereby lives?

    How many times were ya'all told that ObamaCare was a train wreck and wouldn't come CLOSE to doing ANYTHING ya'all claimed it would???

    But ya'all supported it anyways because Obama The Messiah said so...

    Where was your compassion for Americans then???

    to paraphrase: the rest of weigantia are just as bad for wanting obamacare to work (and thereby save people) as you are for wanting it to fail (and thereby hurt people).

    What part of IT CAN'T WORK do you not understand???

    It's FLAWED... It ignores basic reality.....

    Ya'all are epitomizing insanity..

    Doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result..

    OBAMACARE **CAN'T** WORK.......

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale

  301. [301] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you have any compassion for the millions of Americans who were PROMISED over and over and over and over again that if they liked their health plan they could KEEP their health plan??

    You slam me for my lack of compassion..

    Where was yours for THOSE Americans??

    Taaa daaaaaaaa

    Michale

  302. [302] 
    Michale wrote:

    The point being is simple..

    The time to be compassionate about Americans and their HealthInsurance problems is *BEFORE* they are lied to and sandbagged into a total clusterfrak....

    Wouldn't you agree???

    Michale

  303. [303] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    move the goalposts much? my point here, and my ONLY point, is that you wrote you would ENJOY watching if the obamacare exchanges failed.

    maybe you're wrong and maybe you're right, but nobody should ENJOY heathcare failing.

  304. [304] 
    Michale wrote:

    move the goalposts much?

    Not at all.. YOU were the one that brought up the suffering of the American people..

    I simply pointed out that the suffering of the American people should have been your consideration BEFORE they were forced into this trainwreck called Obamacare..

    Don't get mad at me because I still kicked it thru the uprights after YOU moved the goal posts..

    my point here, and my ONLY point, is that you wrote you would ENJOY watching if the obamacare exchanges failed.

    No, your point was the suffering of the American people..

    maybe you're wrong and maybe you're right, but nobody should ENJOY heathcare failing.

    Let me put it this way... If there is a bad plan that is causing people heartache and misery... Well, wouldn't YOU be happy when it fails???

    Michale

  305. [305] 
    Michale wrote:

    maybe you're wrong and maybe you're right, but nobody should ENJOY heathcare failing.

    Ya'all enjoy when Republican plans fail, even though the American people get hurt in the process...

    What makes ya'all so special??

    Michale

  306. [306] 
    Michale wrote:

    What makes ya'all so special??

    That should have been said with a ":D".... My apologies..

    Michale

  307. [307] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i can only speak for myself, but i tend to be pretty somber when the failure of a republican plan results in people getting hurt. as to other weigantians, it's hard to believe we were all grinning in our chairs when we found out about abu ghraib, when the bush admin bungled katrina clean-up, when the great recession hit in '07, and as the iraq war turned into a massive quagmire.

    many of us warned very early on that bush's policies would have horrific impacts, and pleaded with our democratic congresscritters to fight tooth and nail against them (the dems rolled over as a matter of course, leading to CW nicknaming his MIDOTW award "the golden backbone"). but as these policies turned into the disasters we knew they would become, i don't recall experiencing an ounce of enjoyment on any of our parts.

    i happen to believe obama's insurance exchanges will muddle through, and most folks will be slightly better off as a result. but if the disaster you've been predicting since its passage in 2010 actually does come to pass, i'd implore you to respect the people who its collapse would injure and not cheer too loud.

    JL

  308. [308] 
    Michale wrote:

    it's hard to believe we were all grinning in our chairs when we found out about abu ghraib, when the bush admin bungled katrina clean-up, when the great recession hit in '07, and as the iraq war turned into a massive quagmire.

    If you say so... :D

    many of us warned very early on that bush's policies would have horrific impacts, and pleaded with our democratic congresscritters to fight tooth and nail against them...

    And many from the Right & Center warned Democrats about the dangers and pitfalls of TrainWreckCare...

    i happen to believe obama's insurance exchanges will muddle through, and most folks will be slightly better off as a result.

    You DO realize that most have already failed...

    but if the disaster you've been predicting since its passage in 2010 actually does come to pass, i'd implore you to respect the people who its collapse would injure and not cheer too loud.

    Let me put it this way...

    I'll respect those people as much as ya'all respected the people who lost their health plans that they liked and those who are paying tons more for less coverage...

    Howz that? :D

    Michale

  309. [309] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ya'all enjoy when Republican plans fail, even though the American people get hurt in the process...

    no, we don't - and if you're going to make that accusation you'd best provide some actual proof. in order for an appeal to hypocrisy to be a valid argument, the other side has to have actually done the same thing, apples to apples. on various issues you have a habit of appealing to hypocrisy that doesn't exist, citing examples that are insufficient or don't align, and seem to believe you've made a point, when in fact it's just the same logical fallacy (tu quoque) over and over.

    "insufficient facts always invite danger"
    ~Spock, star trek S1:E22 (space seed)

    JL

  310. [310] 
    Michale wrote:

    no, we don't - and if you're going to make that accusation you'd best provide some actual proof.

    Proof??

    All the glee expressed at the failure of the Republican Congress to get things done for the people of this country...

    Michale

  311. [311] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    All the glee expressed at the failure of the Republican Congress to get things done for the people of this country...

    for all their bluster and bellyaching, the republican congress hasn't actually managed to take away anyone's healthcare, and you still haven't provided a citation to substantiate your claims. as to the question of obamacare's "failed already" status, i think that's still up for debate.

    http://tinyurl.com/zkhjuwl

  312. [312] 
    Michale wrote:

    Granted that's not a tangible "hurt" as you are probably referring to...

    But it's close enough to make my point a valid point...

    Michale

  313. [313] 
    Michale wrote:

    as to the question of obamacare's "failed already" status, i think that's still up for debate.

    I know you do... :D

    That's part of my point.. :D

    Michale

  314. [314] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://tinyurl.com/zkhjuwl

    Behind a pay wall.. :(

    Michale

  315. [315] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    it's by michael cohen at the boston globe. title is, "obamacare: an unheralded success."

    from the text of the article:
    "Six years after the ACA took effect, it has, perhaps more than any law passed in the previous five decades, narrowed income inequality, saved lives, and reduced financial anxiety."

    seems to me like the debate is still in full swing.

    Granted that's not a tangible "hurt" as you are probably referring to....

    thank you for acknowledging that the two things you're comparing are not the same. that being the case, i don't understand why you think the comparison is still valid.

    JL

  316. [316] 
    Michale wrote:

    Man arrested, charged with threatening to bomb Trump rally
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/24/man-arrested-charged-with-threatening-to-bomb-trump-rally.html?intcmp=hplnws

    Well, I am sure glad that it's only TRUMP supporters who are violent!!

    :D

    Michale

  317. [317] 
    Michale wrote:

    Man arrested, charged with threatening to bomb Trump rally
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/24/man-arrested-charged-with-threatening-to-bomb-trump-rally.html?intcmp=hplnws

    "Dood looks like a lady...."
    -AeroSmith

    :D

    Michale

  318. [318] 
    Michale wrote:

    Woops!! Wrong thread... DOH!!!!

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.