Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

And the VA atty general, felt left out, and volunteered info that he dressed up in black face in college.  I hope their are pictures then, as I have no idea why he would be dumb enough to admit this.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Badger said:

And the VA atty general, felt left out, and volunteered info that he dressed up in black face in college.  I hope their are pictures then, as I have no idea why he would be dumb enough to admit this.

 

 

 

 

Pre-emptive apology. He's in the succession line after the Lt Governor, and there's probably a picture somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given all the facts, I really can't see any way to look at Alabama's Corrections decision excluding the imam, as anything but religious discrimination. Clearly the court saw the same. What the state government does next will show where their principles really lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray and an accomplice abducted, raped, and stabbed to death a 15 year old girl. So, part of me doesn't really care if he gets to " die with a measure of spiritual comfort." At least he isn't getting raped and stabbed to death.

 

The other part of me thinks the state is just being petty and that the request isn't unreasonable. There's no real reason to deny it, and we're supposed to treat prisoners humanely. I think that last part is important. Not so much for the prisoners, but that we don't lower justice to the level of vengeance. The state shouldn't be in the vengeance business IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

Pre-emptive apology. He's in the succession line after the Lt Governor, and there's probably a picture somewhere.

 

Well, the 4th in line is a Republican.  So, I figure the chances all go down would be non-existant.  Extreme measures will be taken to save at least one of the 3.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

That's offensive and seems a clear Constitutional violation. Not a good look for the Court.

Oh, it's an excellent look from the POV of Evangelical conservatives.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Oh, it's an excellent look from the POV of Evangelical conservatives.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Those praising this in the name of their religion are being incredibly short sighted. While I think Christianity is not going anywhere soon, there are more 'nones' in American demographics when it comes to religion every year: People who are atheists, agnostics, 'spiritual but not religious', or of a less populated religion but don't wish to come out just yet. Add to that those who are openly of a non Christian faith, and it's entirely possible that in a 100 years, while Christianity won't be gone, it will be a 'large minority' or LESS. 

 

Now that we've set the precedent of religions being somewhat interchangeable, well, the shoe might end up on the other foot. If we still have the death penalty in a hundred years, some Christian fellow being put to death might have to accept the state handing him over to whatever Hare Krishna ,Wiccan Priestess, or yes, Imam is handy and convenient for said State.  The Right to Freedom of Religion just took a hard blow here, and sadly, some very short sighted morons are cheering it on.

 

Speaking as a person who tries to honor Christ (Terrible at it but hey), I just want to wipe the dirt from my sandals and walk away from this at this point, but this is my country and I'm stuck with them. 🙄

So for me, I offer up Thoughts, Prayers... oh, and VOTING as much as I can as ineffective as that feels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hermit, your point is valid; but the people who are cheering this decision are very often also highly motivated to keep that demographic from changing as you anticipate, by whatever draconian measures are necessary.They won't accept that their efforts are inevitably doomed to failure in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wcw43921 said:

 

I'm no psychologist but I'd guess true narcissists have no desire for pets, unless it's a 'trophy' animal (like a prize winning horse or a tiger, etc).

 

As to the question, sadly, Trump answered that 3 years ago as you can see below.

 

https://youtu.be/iTACH1eVIaA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good contrast between the Sanders plan for single payer with how it works (with private insurance) in other countries.

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/12/18215430/single-payer-private-health-insurance-harris-sanders

Quote

The Sanders plan permits supplemental private insurance, the type that covers things that the public system doesn’t. But because the public insurance plan pretty much covers everything, it’s difficult to see what role it would play.

Here’s the thing: None of our peer countries have built a health care system like this. Canada, France, England, Australia, and the Netherlands all run health care systems that have gaps in coverage.

Not one of our peer countries has found a way to provide health care that covers all benefits at no cost to patients — the price is just prohibitive. Instead, most provide free or low-cost access to core medical services while asking patients to kick in something for the parts the government can’t afford.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Passing on a request emailed me by our esteemed Dean Shomshak:

 

LL: AOHell is refusing to load the forum reply field today, so could you please post this to the politics thread? I'd like it posted before the discussion moves on too far.

 
Re: Pariah's incredulity on supposed Originalists blatantly violating the Establishment clause:
 
As I've posted before, some legal scholars think Originalism was always a fraud. But this is a different argument. To many Evangelicals, the SCOTUS did make an Originalist ruling.
 
Here I can actually speak from something close to personal experience, based on the chain email rants my conservative uncle in Texas used to forward me. One perennial was the list of supposed quotes by Founding Fathers about how the USA was Christian, Christian, only and fundamentally Christian, and so all those secular liberals needed to "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!" (Sic; and not just in caps, but in extra-large font.)
 
How to reconcile this with the Establishment Clause? Ah, the Founders intent was only that Congress could not establish one Christian sect above others.
 
I have not personally read any Evangelical celebrations of this ruling. I think it is a plausible speculation, though, that many will celebrate it as tacit acknowledgement of "Christian America."
 
Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

 

Unlikely. Objectively, this is one of the good decisions he's made, even if it's probably on accident. (On accident, because he's just doing it to buck a trend and doesn't like dogs, but not because he realizes that it's a bad idea to get a pet just for the photo ops.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...