Scruff McGruff posted:

Why did I touch the poop. I stopped engaging this guy years ago but he somehow dragged me back in.

Fulchrum posted:

Check 6 posts up from you.

quote:

Newly obtained emails reveal a seemingly close relationship, during and after work hours, between an EPA office and influential environmental groups — showing a top agency official encouraged one such group to write an anti-coal report and even invited members to a summer bash featuring an “ice luge” for liquor shots.

The emails, originally turned over to a congressional committee and obtained by FoxNews.com, show communications to and from former EPA policy administrator Michael Goo, in the Office of Policy. While some deal with policy matters, others concern parties in 2011 and 2013 aptly named “Goofest.”

Among the attendees to at least one of them was League of Conservation Voters official Tiernan Sittenfield, according to the emails. Goo emailed Sittenfield afterward to ask whether she had indeed attended, which she apparently had.

In a May 6, 2011, email, Goo appears to share with Sierra Club’s John Coequyt internal EPA data on establishing emissions standards under the Clean Air Act.

Goo appears to suggest in a Dec. 9, 2011, email to Dave Hawkins, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, that his group produce material to help in EPA efforts to further regulate coal-fired plants.

quote:

A Toledo Municipal Court judge who refused to marry a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs said Wednesday that he will seek an advisory opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court on whether he can “opt out of the rotation” for performing marriages.

“On Monday, July 6, I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment. The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best,” Judge C. Allen McConnell, a Democrat, said in a statement, according to Toledo News Now.

“The court has implemented a process whereby same-sex marriages will be accommodated. I will continue to perform traditional marriages during my duties assignment. I am also seeking advisory opinion from the Supreme Court of Ohio at this time as to whether or not I can opt out of the rotation. Upon receipt of the advisory opinion from Supreme Court, I will abide by its decision,” McConnell added.

And in a twist to what some critics suggested was an intolerance to gays and lesbians that interfered with his duty, McConnell has said the nation’s civil rights struggle inspired him to rise from a coal miner’s son to a lawyer and judge who championed decent housing for all.

The fact that McConnell has been a leader in Toledo’s NAACP, Urban League and Legal Aid Society may surprise his detractors on the marriage question.

But the dust-up in Toledo is an example of decisions facing court clerks and magistrates from Kentucky to Alabama to Arkansas who say the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage across the nation is in conflict with their sincere religious beliefs.

quote:

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) says that if his First Amendment Defense Act fails to pass, “religious individuals and institutions could lose everything from tax-exempt status to government contracts, government employment and things like that.”

Lee and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) introduced the bill in June that would bar the federal government from imposing penalties on individuals, businesses, and religious organizations acting “in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

“The whole point of religious freedom is that people ought to be able to live, believe and worship as they see fit without interference by the government, whether that interference be economic or otherwise,” Lee continued.

“I view this as something that is necessary to protect the American people against one of the most pernicious forms of discrimination that exists, which is discrimination by government against people based on their religious belief.”

quote:

It’s true that today the rich are richer than ever. And the wealth gap between rich and poor has grown. Now the top 1 percent own more assets than the bottom 90 percent! But focusing on this disparity ignores the fact that over time, the rich and poor are not the same people. Oprah Winfrey once was on welfare. Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton was a farmhand.

When markets are free, poor people can move out of their income group. In America, income mobility, which matters more than income inequality, has not really diminished.

Economists at Harvard and Berkeley crunched the numbers on 40 million tax returns from 1971-2012 and discovered that mobility is pretty much what The Pew Charitable Trusts reported it was 30 years ago. Today, 64 percent of the people born to the poorest fifth of society rise out of that quintile — 11 percent rise all the way into the top quintile. Meanwhile, 8 percent born to the richest fifth fall all the way to the bottom fifth. Sometimes great wealth makes kids lazy and self-indulgent, and wrecks their lives.

Also, the rich don’t get rich at the expense of the poor (unless they steal or collude with government). The poor got richer, too. Yes, over the last 30 years, incomes of rich people grew by more than 200 percent, but according to the Congressional Budget Office, poor people gained 50 percent.

quote:

Maggie Gallagher — Let’s admit the good news: The free market is working fine, unless one believes it is necessary to the human dignity of gay people not to be exposed from time to time to the reality that a lot of people do not believe same-sex unions are marriages. There is no systematic effort to make sure bakeries shame gay couples or try to deny them the accoutrements of a lovely ceremony. There are only the small, sporadic acts of conscience by deeply religious people who are seeking, not to punish or oppress gays and lesbians, but to live their own lives as they choose.
But to the regulatory state this is intolerable. People like Melissa and Aaron Klein must be suppressed. They must pay $135,000 — which reaches into their personal property, not just the business assets — in damages for the “harm” of not making a gay wedding cake. And they were tried not in a court of law but by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry.

Civil litigation is another arm of the regulatory state. The Southern Poverty Law Center just successfully used consumer-fraud law to put a small Jewish nonprofit out of business. The judge in this case ruled that in the state of New Jersey a nonprofit that uses the word “disorder” in a psychological or emotional sense to describe same-sex attraction is per se committing consumer fraud. Talk about chilling speech.

When government is this broad and vast, it becomes a fell weapon in the hands of people shameless enough to exploit it to punish people and views with which they disagree.

quote:

Nearly 20 years ago, New York Times columnist William Safire wrote, “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our first lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation – is a congenital liar.”

Younger folks probably have little to no memory of the lies Safire had in mind, though some might have heard about Hillary Clinton’s infamously implausible explanation for how she managed to make a 10,000 percent profit in cattle futures simply by reading the Wall Street Journal.

Suffice it to say that she’s been honing her craft for decades. And that’s turning into a problem for her, perhaps her biggest problem.

After ducking the press for months, Clinton sat down for an interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar. It was a savvy choice. Keilar covers the Clinton campaign and has every incentive not to offend her famously vindictive sources 16 months before the election.

The most discussed deception came in an exchange about her e-mails. Clinton declared emphatically that, “You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions that are – I’ve never had a subpoena. . . . Let’s take a deep breath here.”

Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), chair of the committee investigating the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack, promptly produced a copy of the subpoena.

Team Clinton says she was responding to a specific allegation that she deleted e-mails that were under subpoena. It’s a legalistically plausible defense given Keilar’s muddled question and Stakhanovite effort to avoid asking meaningful follow-ups.

Still, it was a classically Clintonian way of lying: Make a sweeping, definitive-sounding statement, and then when called on it, release a fog of technicalities.

Julio Cruz posted:

Latinos also tend to be much more religious which goes hand-in-hand with conservatism.

Fulchrum posted:

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Anybody run into this nonsense?

Soonmot posted:

I touched the poop. Not going to share the whole thing because it's spread out over a couple of replies, this is just the very end where I threw up my hands and said "gently caress it". These people may be goons, I have no idea where or why I added the normally non offensive OP to my facebook. But yeah, bring back segregation as long as it's not state enforced, I guess. I'm black, the guy I'm arguing with is red.

Fulchrum posted:

Fulchrum posted:

quote:

When markets are free, poor people can move out of their income group. In America, income mobility, which matters more than income inequality, has not really diminished.

inkblot posted:

Ah yes, the ever popular "let the market sort it out" retort. Let's not think whether or not the people looking for whatever services, be they cakes or whatever, live in an area where if everyone could just decide to not serve gay people they wouldn't. Oh, but I hear the words already: "Well then you could just open a cake shop and be the one person to actually serve the gay people and rake in all the cash, the market wins again!" Right. Because in areas where everyone is allowed to not serve gay people and this has become a problem your "Gays Welcome!" store won't have issues with the local community. Tell me how starting a local business with the intent of becoming a pariah goes. Oh the store got vandalized? Again? Well I'll be!

Fake Edit: hahaha holy poo poo I missed the first picture which was literally my entire bit here. Yeah, the local bakers will "petition the mayor". Hahaha, have fun cleaning broken glass and bricks out of your cakes.

Nth Doctor posted:

Nowhere else to vent this. My church somehow picked up a Pro-Life protestor this morning. Thanks, buddy. My four year old really needed to see your graphic pictures this morning.

VitalSigns posted:

E: Also, you blacks are greedy and lazy and you sell your integrity to the highest bidder, okay will you vote for us now?

Thump! posted:

Pretty literal use of preaching to the choir here.

Nth Doctor posted:

I appreciate the joke, but we're actually a pretty liberal congregation. I'm still mystified as to why he chose us... Our big leftist thing had been same sex marriage, and we're stayed out of the Choice debate.

Service is over, and he appears to have left.

Nth Doctor posted:

I appreciate the joke, but we're actually a pretty liberal congregation. I'm still mystified as to why he chose us... Our big leftist thing had been same sex marriage, and we're stayed out of the Choice debate.

Service is over, and he appears to have left.

quote:

If you're a Muslim read this love is real

Why do we sleep in the masjid but stay awake in parties ?
Why is it so hard to talk to Allah but so easy to gossip?
Why is it so easy to ignore a Godly text message but re-send the nasty ones?
Are you going to send this to your friends or are you going to ignore it ?
Allah said: "If you deny me in front of your friends, I will deny you on the day of Resurrection" if each muslim says astaghfirullah wa atubu ilaih 3 times now and forwards it, In a few seconds billions will have said it and it may calm Allah's anger inshallah. You've got nothing to loose so pass on..
📌Get up when you listen to the azaan, just like when you hear your phone ringing.

📌Read the Qur'an carefully, like you read your text.

♣ Fear Allah, like you fear death

♠ Remember death, like you remember your name

♦How many minutes does it take for each prayer

🍇"FAJR" 4/6 Minutes

🍇"ZUHR" 6/8 Minutes

🍇"ASAR" 6/8 Minutes

🍇"MAGHRIB" 5/7 Minutes

🍇"ISHAA" 7/10 Minutes

🍒Total 28/39 Minutes per day out of 24hours?🍒

♥ Let think about it do we really have time for Allah?

80% people will not forward this message, I hope you will.
The signs of Qiyamah.....

- Homosexuality
- People speaking ill of others' ancestors
- Clothing that shows off most of the body
- No more stars in the sky
- People Disappearing
- Tall buildings
- Appearance of Imam Mahdi. 👤
- Appearance of Dajjal.👹
- Descending of Prophet Isa (A.S.).👤
- Appearance of Yajooj Majooj👥
- The rising of the sun from the west after which the doors of forgiveness will be closed.
- The Dab'bat al-Ard will emerge from the ground & will mark all the true Muslims
- 40 days of fog🌁 that will kill all the true believers so that they do not have to experience the other signs.
- A huge fire🌋will cause destruction.
- Destruction of the Kabah.
- The writing in the Quran will vanish.
- The trumpet will be blown the 1st time & all animals 🐅🐉 & kafirs left will die & all mountains & buildings will crumble.
The 2nd time the trumpet will be blown all of Allah's creation 🌐 will resurrect & meet on the plains of Arafat for their judgment.
- The sun will lower itself with the earth.🌞
Our Prophet S.A.W. said, 'Whoever delivers this news. to someone else, I will on the Day of Judgment make for him a place in Jannah..🚪
Let's just see if shaytan stops this one.

Send this to all Muslims on your contact list. If you ignore it, just remember that Muhammad S.A.W said, 'If you deny me before man, I will deny you in to
💖

Pleasing Shape posted:

I want to see the Muslim version of Left Behind.

Nth Doctor posted:

I appreciate the joke, but we're actually a pretty liberal congregation. I'm still mystified as to why he chose us... Our big leftist thing had been same sex marriage, and we're stayed out of the Choice debate.

Service is over, and he appears to have left.

quote:

- The trumpet will be blown the 1st time & all animals 🐅🐉 & kafirs left will die & all mountains & buildings will crumble.

quote:

I have long believed that the Civil War was about States' Rights. While (and REDACTED loves to mention this) they are typically used historically in the furtherance of oppression, they are also the ultimate bulwark against it. It's one of those double edged swords. And there is no denying this was what the Civil War was about - from the North's perspective. The North was unconcerned with abolishing slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation - President Lincoln's famous "freeing of the slaves" - was not meant to free the slaves. Lincoln put it out there ONLY effecting the states in rebellion. In other words, it was a carrot/stick bribe. "Come back to the Union and you get to keep your slaves, like the few slave states remaining in the Union will get to." Indeed, slavery remained legal in those border states that sided with the North.

To the North, which has been historically whitewashed into a champion of freedom and equality, the war was not about slavery, but was rather about the power of the Federal government. Lincoln understood this very well, as did the Congress at the time (as evidenced by their Reconstruction attitudes towards the South, which they initially wanted to treat as a defeated nation and carve up amongst themselves.)

The issues in Texas were, as we've also discussed, a bit different than the rest of the South in that slavery wasn't the only or major reason for Texas' secession. An unsecured border with Mexico and the state having to basically handle its own security and military needs was a major issue as well, so was the feeling of disconnect with Washington and that the Federal government was usurping - wait for it - States' rights.

Don't forget that this was not too many decades removed from when Texas was actually its own country.

But let me address it point by point:

quote:

5) The inauguration speeches.

Show me a textbook that lists both Lincoln's address and that of his Vice-President. Too hard? How about Washington's and his? No? So basically, because the VP makes a better case for the modern day progressive's view of Civil War history than Davis' own, his should be mentioned because it strengthens their view...but this same standard hasn't applied to any other Pres/VP pairing in any other history book, now has it?

When you apply a standard to a single situation and not others, to make a point, that's called a double standard. When you simply apply the same standard to all cases, points be damned, it is using a single standard. When it comes to honesty and history, single standards are generally better. I agree they can miss nuance, but I'd rather see the declarations of secession than the VP's speech.

.

4) KKK and Jim Crow removed from the history books.

This I actually do find a problem with, for the same reasons I dislike removing the Confederate battle flag (but you seem okay with that) and other things. I don't like the idea of removing history. History is a funny thing in that we think we know it all, but we do not. We ALWAYS have an incomplete picture, and it's always clouded by biases.

As such, I prefer giving as much information as possible and equipping students with the reasoning skills to try and deduce what they believe the truth was from this information. The KKK wasn't as big of an issue the further west one went, but it was still a real issue, and Jim Crow laws were definitely dangerous to the cause of freedom.

On the one hand, like #5, progressives want to blow them up to more important than everything else and give them more proportion than history would grant them. On the other hand, they did quite clearly exist, and censoring them out of history is dangerous, imo. I will note to you, though, that a lot of older people actually have respect for the KKK because, apparently, they did some vaguely useful things. However, to me, whatever useful things they did don't matter if they also hung and burned people. I don't condone witch hunts and skapegoating, past or present.

.

3) The Civil War was about...slavery or Sates' Rights?

I think I've made my point clear on this - it was about both. I firmly believe it was more about self-government, that is, States' rights/10th Amendment/etc. The Federal government then had overstepped its bounds, just as it has far more since.

I think the actual truth is that it was different things to different people. In the US Revolution, some fought for independence, others fought for a new nation founded on their ideals, others fought because they just hated the British. There is no one reason that wars are fought on the person to person level. And often, even at the state level, there is more than one reason.

The Civil War is no exception. It wasn't fought for a single reason, either, particularly in Texas, which is clear by Texas' declaration of secession. States Rights featured prominently (as it did in Davis' inaugural address.) As much as progressives want to insist otherwise, it was the chief reason for the Civil War.

The FORM IT TOOK was that the Southern states wanted to keep slavery, this is very true. But that doesn't mean the entire war was fought for SLAVERY AND ONLY SLAVERY. Or was the US Revolution fought because the Founders wanted some representatives in the British Parliament? Of course not.

.

2) Segregation/etc., no big deal?

This is number 4 again, but with even more progressive drivel attached. This is also the traditional (READ: Pre-1990s) view of these events. When I was a kid, Brown v BoE was cited as a case of...well, that famous quote "separate but equal isn't equal".

It didn't have to do with the plight of the black people in this country at the time, nor did it have as a key focus "insurmountable educational burdens". Unlike the recent ruling on gay marriage (right outcome, wrong reason), the Supreme Court in Brown didn't fancy themselves arbiters of social justice. The fancied themselves arbiters of the law.

And to them, separate things were not, and could not be, equal. And, in practice, these separate schools never were - which seems to be what the curriculum is saying. The historical ruling at the time matches what this curriculum is pushing, which makes what the article you posted's author's desires obviously revisionist history.

(It should also be noted that Brown was an interesting case in particular since the Supreme Court actually stalled and "reheard" the case as they tried to convince the Justices that were initially going to dissent to join and make the decision unanimous, fearing that a dissent could be used for years against the case - note that this was NOT done with the recent ruling on marriage, which is also why that ruling will be contentious, as will the marriages, for decades to come.)

[ASIDE: Heh, look at that! Me doing what you do and treating as a parallel issue to civil rights issues. It'd be a lot easier for me to see it that way if...]

.

1) These textbooks will be used across the country! OH NOES!!! Non-progressive ideology will be before the masses, breaking the stranglehold that progressive ideology has had over youth indoctrination through the school systems!!

This isn't even a reason "Texas' new textbooks are nuts"!

This is a reason to OPPOSE them, but there's nothing in them being used widely that says they're WRONG.

Seriously, this is a reason?

Please tell me you can understand why this shouldn't even be on that list!

quote:

So, to recap:

5) Treating the Confederacy's founding the same way that other nation foundings are treated (not quoting the VP's inaugural address) is bad!

4) Cutting out the KKK and Jim Crow history of Southern attempts at segregation is bad (this is the one thing I agree with - and strongly.)

3) Only progressive ideological revisionist history should be taught regarding the Civil War's reasons for starting!!

2) Only progressive ideological revisionist history should be taught regarding the post Civil War's state of the country!!

1) Only progressive ideological revisionist history should be taught in schools!!

.

That's what your article was.

Tell me, is there anything NOT related to the Civil War/Segregation that you have a problem with in these textbooks, or is that it?

quote:

quote:

REDACTED your a dick still...the civil war was about slavery, to impose the change ....you had states fighting each other to see who would impose their will....the slavers lost. End of story...

REDACTED, you can be a dick sometimes.

The US Civil War was about States' Rights and their fear of the Federal government's power if it tipped too much to one side (of course, had it tipped to their side, the South would have been totally fine with that - people usually are when things are unfair but in their favor.)

It wasn't about "imposing a change". Historically, the North didn't even care about slavery at the time, and Lincoln's goal was never to outlaw slavery, just to keep the country as a single Union.

The South lost, and States' Rights diminished. From that time to the present, the Federal government has grown larger and cemented greater and greater power in the public and private spheres than it was ever intended to under the Constitution.

quote:

"[D]oes segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. ...

"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system." ...

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."

.

Now...where does that say "insurmountable educational burdens" to black people?

The issue, at the time, was equality - what it should ALWAYS be. Not the revisionist progressive ideology of feeling and identity politics.

quote:

quote:

vernacular changes, insurmountable educational burderns and "detrimental effect upon the colored children " are the same thing.

No, they're not.

The wording is pretty clear - if you have a child thinking he's inferior, he isn't as driven to study and try his best.

This is an example of emotional/personal limitation, not institutionally imposed limitation.

They weren't saying that the "colored children" had educational burdens they couldn't overcome. They were saying that the segregated landscape made things harder (and thus unequal) for them - not impossible for them.

Thump! posted:

I figured as much, but I couldn't let the chance slip by. I'm guessing that if you aren't calling for the stoning of homosexuals and unwed mothers then you're basically the devil in that guy's eyes.

Sounds like he follows the teachings of Jeezus pretty well.

Nth Doctor posted:

Yeah, he really knows Jeezus, alright.
Our (gay, married) associate pastor went out and introduced himself to the guy. He even invited him in for worship which apparently took the guy by surprise.

It turns out he hadn't left, earlier. He moved from the driveway to the major street corner with another guy with a sign.

Pleasing Shape posted:

I want to see the Muslim version of Left Behind.

aeglus posted:

Pretty sure he's the one that isn't posting on other forums about this dude on facebook. This seriously isn't the way to go. Like I said, troll and make them care because they're pissed off and annoyed. Right now that person is you.

aeglus posted:

I think it's great people post the stuff here when you see it, but once you join in as someone arguing with all the dumb people then you need to do it in a better way.

edit: not trying to poo poo on the thread, just I think people have to realize arguing with people set in their ways is extremely difficult regardless of their viewpoint, but when it comes to conservatives then it is extremely difficult because the view is I'M OPPRESSED despite it being anything but

Fulchrum posted:

What's the Muslim equivalent of Nicolas Cage?

gradenko_2000 posted:

In reaction to this article: http://www.houstonpress.com/news/5-reasons-the-new-texas-social-studies-textbooks-are-nuts-7573825




REDACTED, you can be a dick sometimes.

The US Civil War was about States' Rights and their fear of the Federal government's power if it tipped too much to one side (of course, had it tipped to their side, the South would have been totally fine with that - people usually are when things are unfair but in their favor.)

It wasn't about "imposing a change". Historically, the North didn't even care about slavery at the time, and Lincoln's goal was never to outlaw slavery, just to keep the country as a single Union.

The South lost, and States' Rights diminished. From that time to the present, the Federal government has grown larger and cemented greater and greater power in the public and private spheres than it was ever intended to under the Constitution.

Fulchrum posted:

Amused to Death posted:

The entire counterpoint to this is going to the Texas letter of secession and hitting ctrl+f "slave"(or just saying "I stopped reading when you had no idea wtf was going on with the emaciation proclamation")

VitalSigns posted:

How the gently caress do you bitch and bitch endlessly about states' rights, and then turn around and slam Lincoln as a slavery-lover because he asked for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery in the Union states instead of doing it by military decree.

That's the biggest self-own ever. "Slavery is so evil that anyone who cares more about constitutional process than ending it by any means necessary is evil, where's your Lincoln now liberals...also secession to protect states' rights from unconstitutional usurpation is important enough that we can tolerate a little slavery"