ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

Let's say hypothetically 1453R has his way and there is a constitutional convention. What exactly do you think "progressives" would try to do to "reset our country's identity into oblivion."

To start with freedom of speech would be severely curtailed to only include politically correct speech. The right to religious freedom would get chucked out the window, and the second amendment would be gone faster than an incursion. The electoral college would get tossed and the US would become a mob mentality nation within 20-30 years.

That's just for starters.

That wasn't REAL communism...! If I was in charge I'd bring in REAL COMMUNISM...

EXACTLY what LEFTISTS think...! FACT

"

1453R wrote:

Travel bans targeting Muslim-majority countries, because Muslims aren't Christians and therefore they are terrorists.

Yep, targeting all those muslims in North Korea and Venezuela, while conveniently NOT targeting MOST of the countries in the world with the highest populations of muslims.

Very obviously a blanket muslim ban, checkmate uneducated trumpists!

*le fuk drumpft!*

Anyone else see this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiXSy0eBZmM

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

Let's say hypothetically 1453R has his way and there is a constitutional convention. What exactly do you think "progressives" would try to do to "reset our country's identity into oblivion."

To start with freedom of speech would be severely curtailed to only include politically correct speech. The right to religious freedom would get chucked out the window, and the second amendment would be gone faster than an incursion. The electoral college would get tossed and the US would become a mob mentality nation within 20-30 years.

That's just for starters.

Sure. I've got a couple of minutes before punch-in. Let's take this bait for a bit.

1.) "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean "you can say literally anything you want." We already have laws against defamation, perjury, fraud, slander/libel, and many other things that constrain 'Free Speech'. People these days take the idea of Free Speech to mean "I can be as big an assbagging blowhard as I want, be as offensive and vicious as I like, and you should have to just sit there and listen to me!" As I have said many, many times before, freedom of speech means you're allowed to express opinions contrary to what a given government may desire, to organize protests and show dissent. That does not give you the right to force other people to listen to your opinions, nor does it impart a duty on other citizens to agree with offensive assbags who're using 'Freedom of Speech' to do nothing but spew toxic bullshit.

As basically the only person on the entire board arguing from the theoretical "progressive" standpoint? No, 'Freedom of Speech' would not be removed. It's a vital, fundamental and intrinsic right of any people who remotely aspire to be free. I would likely even extend FoS protections to the private sector to an extent, expand its protections. That doesn't mean hate speech laws are "Anti-Freedom of Speech", it means you can't walk into a public square and go on a frothing anti-gay rant, or go online and flood Twitter with a bunch of neo-Nazi propaganda attempting to incite violence, and get away with it scot-free.

You want to call me nasty names on the Internet because I'm a nonbinary atheist that believes in strong government controls on The Engines of Capitalism? Go for it. I can ignore you, rebut you, or leave. You (theoretically) try and incite people in my area to mob up and lynch me? That's a hate crime. Trust me, I hate the current climate of overly-PC nonsense as much as the next guy. Off-color remarks that wouldn't have been worth much more than an eye roll twenty years ago are blown so wildly out of proportion by the Internet that it's doing real damage to people.

Nobody wants that.

2.) Who the hell wants to remove religious freedom? When was that even a thing? Nobody has ever once said that Christians can't be Christians. What I am saying is that Christians don't get to run the fucking government, and use that power to suppress other religions in their endless war to eradicate every other creed on the planet and get us all enslaved by the Giant Invisible Space Man. Separation of Church and State is an extremely important principle of this government; getting lingering Christian bias and control out of the system is not "removing religious freedom", it's repairing issues that GET IN THE WAY of religious freedom.

You want to be a frothing-mouthed Bible-thumping evangelical, be my guest. I'm not going to listen to you, or associate with you if I have any choice, but you are absolutely free to do you, and I would never want otherwise. Just like the Muslims are free to do them, the Jews are free to do them too, the Scientologists are free to be delusional conman bait, the New Wavers are free to do whatever it is they do between bong sessions, the crazed cultists are allowed to chant in pseudo-Latin in basements, and everyone in general is allowed to believe in whatever version of the Giant Invisible Space Man they prefer.

Christianity is not being persecuted. It is, for the first time in the history of this country, being told to obey the same bloody-fuck rules as every other religion people in this country are absolutely free to practice. If you don't like that? Now you know how it feels. Jesus was responsible for the Golden Rule; this should really not be as surprising as it is.

3.) Second Amendment...have you met me? Have you read anything I've written in OT for, like...the last year? I currently own four rifles - one of which is also a shotgun - one straight-up shotgun, and three pistols, one of which is a pistol in name only because it's one of those legal-loophole 'stabilizer brace' guns that acts like an SBR without needing a tax stamp. Used to own significantly more, but I've traded a few in recently to snag some New Shinies. This current crop will absolutely not be the last I own, still on the hunt for a PMR30 that isn't disgustingly overpriced. I love my guns, heading out to the range for some target games or to break out a New Shiny is probably my favorite warm-months outdoorsy thing.

I'm for a federal-level set of gun laws to eliminate confusion, because gun law in this country is a tangled, impenetrable morass of bullfuckery that neither makes sense nor works. Clearly something is broken and we need to fix it, but no. Banning everything forever is not any kind of solution, and people who think that are idiots. An across-the-board set of rules, common to everywhere and both easily understood and easily enforced, makes life easier for firearms enthusiasts and safer for scaredy-cat assholes. If states want to add their own drek on top of that baseline because Commiefornia refuses to trust its own citizens, fine. That's their business. But a global baseline is required so everyone knows the rules, and can easily understand what is and is not legal. Including cops, who need the shit slapped out of them and to have their fuckin' pistol privileges taken away until they stop hosing down black people for no reason whatsoever.

4.) The electoral college is not doing its job anymore. it was put in place to ensure that large cities and dense population centers didn't completely dominate the polls and leave sparsely populated rural areas high and dry, i.e. the same reason we have a Senate as well as a House of Reps, and why the Senate takes priority over the House of Reps. The electoral college is not performing that task anymore. It's become nothing more than a shitty political shell game that allows blithering idiots like Trump to end-run the system and steal a victory they did not earn.

Frankly, I don't know as we need an electoral college to ensure that the New Yorks and Los Angeles's and Chicagos of the country don't get to have any power or opinion. Because that's what the electoral college means, by the way - we're trading the Big Cities having undue influence over the Presidential election for the Rural Farmlands having undue influence over the election. If you live in a Big City, your vote empirically and demonstrably is not as valuable as the same vote cast from Bumfucknowhere, Idaho. You are, by law and definition, a second-class citizen whose desires are considered lesser to the desires of Farmer Bill in Idaho. Does that sound terribly American?

We have a Senate already that ensures the country's rural areas don't get auto-shafted. The President's job is execution of the law, not formulation of it, and the formulation part is where we need strong checks on City vs. Farmland. Presidents that lose the popular vote but win anyways because of electoral shenanery, then proceed to spend four years making giant asses of themselves, do no one any good.

What we should be looking at, rather than retaining the electoral college, is redoing the entire election process completely. Instant runoff, and/or other systems designed to avoid a two-party Binary Bullshit Race, in place of First Past the Post. Nobody wanted to vote for Grump or Shillary last time, but people did anyways because they were terrified of one or the other winning so threw their support behind the lesser of two evils. We got the greater evil anyways, but we should not have had to do that, should we?

Until we dismantle the core systems that led to the Dem/Repub split in the first place, shit won't get better. If that means no more electoral college, it means no more electoral college. If the electoral college is replaced with a better system that means strong representative voting and no two-party Bullshit Factory, doesn't that mean the rural areas are getting better representation too and thus we don't need an EC?

Anyways. Back to work, sadly. Let's see what the next round of Fuck That 1453 Thing sounds like, always an amusing slow-day pastime.

wrong.

There are people that want Christians to perform acts that are against our faith, such as create in this case, wedding cakes that are artistically, gay, even though the cake company is against gay weddings as traditional valued Christians.

Serving gays is one thing, as no one is saying refuse normal service to gays or anyone else... but demanding that someone create a gay themed wedding cake regardless of their values, is wrong.

THIS people do demand of Christians, and it doesn't stop at wedding cakes.

Thankfully the Supreme Court sided with the Christians on this case recently and the court is only getting more and more conservative with Trump's picks... not to mention the courts in the rest of the land.

Hollywood liberals lmao

"

Templar_G wrote:

wrong.

There are people that want Christians to perform acts that are against our faith, such as create in this case, wedding cakes that are artistically, gay, even though the cake company is against gay weddings as traditional valued Christians.

Serving gays is one thing, as no one is saying refuse normal service to gays or anyone else... but demanding that someone create a gay themed wedding cake regardless of their values, is wrong.

THIS people do demand of Christians, and it doesn't stop at wedding cakes.

Thankfully the Supreme Court sided with the Christians on this case recently and the court is only getting more and more conservative with Trump's picks... not to mention the courts in the rest of the land.

Pardon me, broheim. Kinda already covered this, in exhaustive detail

To recap: in my original post - the very first one, before eight pages of argument - I came down on the side of caution in regards to a business owner's decision to withhold services; that it was better to err on the side of No than Yes. I.e. Mr. Cakesman was indeed permitted to refuse service to Mr. and Mr. Marriagebros.

That said? Futile as it ever is with you, allow me to correct a few misconceptions in your latest bilge:

1.) There was no "gay themed" wedding cake involved. Two men walked into the store, asked about a wedding cake, and were immediately turned down. The design of the cake was never brought up, the cake's 'theme' was never mentioned. For all any of us know, there wasn't going to be any homosexual symbology on it whatsoever. Mr. Cakesman simply refused to make a cake for the event at all, stating that his faith wouldn't allow him to support that event. He was willing to sell baked goods to the gay couple, said he'd sell them cookies or brownies or make them birthday cakes or whatever, but he could not in good conscience make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

No matter how neutral that cake may or may not have been, as he was unwilling to even entertain the idea.

2.) The Supreme Court decision did not rule in favor of homophobia or discrimination, as you suggest. The Supreme Court decision struck down the Colorado court decision on the grounds of improper procedure, stating that the court had openly disrespected Mr. Cakesman's religion and shown a level of hostility which was unbecoming of and unacceptable from a court of law. The opinion was written in a way that made it pretty clear that the Supreme Court was not overturning previous precedent leaning towards open service, and in fact made it kinda plain that if this sort of case came up in front of them again and there was no improper procedure from a lower court next time? They'd probably rule differently.

3.) The only thing people are 'demanding' of Christians is that they obey the same laws everyone else does, including not being a spiteful asshole when you turn someone away. Yeah, businesses are increasingly under pressure to not be dickbags and throw homosexuals, non-Christians, or minority races out the door with a sneer and an insult. Again - that's because you shouldn't be a dickbag. You want to refuse service to someone? As a business owner, that's your prerogative - but that doesn't give you permission to belittle and disrespect them, especially openly in public. Now sure, public precedent says you can't turn people away for no reason, and that grinds some folks' gears because they want a 'No Gays' sign in their window. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that they should be allowed - nay, required - to do that...and they can deal with the loss of business that results from them openly displaying their decision to be intolerant fuckbuckets.

Anyways. If ye want more? Whole threadful of more. Admittedly it's not your cuppa tea, what with being something resembling a discussion and not just a bunch of anti-everything Trumpist rhetoric, but hey. It's there if you want it.

It isn't just weddings. The progressives tried to force nuns to buy people birth control, abortion ect, but the nuns won at the supreme court, thank goodness.

Trying to force nuns to break their religious beliefs is about as sick & twisted as it gets.