• jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:53 PM
    Why pretend it's an either or? As for Trump "isn't going to be" he might plan to run in 2024. Regardless, my point is now proven.
    84 replies | 745 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:18 PM
    I haven't seen a post where he Invisible Man said that governors have no role in the matter.
    84 replies | 745 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:46 PM
    This belongs here: https://www.aarp.org/home-family/friends-family/info-2021/dog-sniffing-coronavirus.html enior Living Facilities Call In the Dogs to Sniff Out COVID-19 Studies show the canine sense of smell can detect the coronavirus, plus residents enjoy the visit by Robin L. Flanigan, AARP, February 22, 2021 | Comments: 2 Dog sniffing the used masks on January 18, 2021 in Bolzano, Italy. ALESSIO COSER/GETTY IMAGES
    10 replies | 299 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    10 replies | 299 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:58 PM
    So do you absolve Dr. Fauci for his role in promoting the lockdowns? Edit: And clicking on your link I do not see where anyone said that the governors had no role in the lockdowns.
    84 replies | 745 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:52 AM
    COVID and #MeToo at the same time? A black female democrat prosecutor is taking on Cuomo? Our current VP is a black female democrat prosecutor? Nobody sees the connection? Cuomo is being taken out politically. That couldn't happen to a more deserving guy mind you.
    6 replies | 159 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:48 AM
    https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/spl/rachel-levine-pennsylvania-nursing-homes-data-joe-biden-senate-confirmation-20210225.html HARRISBURG — During a federal confirmation hearing Thursday, former Health Secretary Rachel Levine was questioned about the ongoing data discrepancies in Pennsylvania’s public reports on nursing home coronavirus deaths and cases. Levine, who was nominated by President Joe Biden to serve as assistant health secretary, oversaw the Pennsylvania Department of Health through the first year of the pandemic, which has killed thousands of people in long-term care facilities. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) said Levine had assured her that Pennsylvania had accurately reported deaths in these homes, unlike New York, where the attorney general found that the Cuomo administration had undercounted fatalities by the thousands. But Collins questioned that claim, citing Spotlight PA reporting from September 2020 that found weekly reports released by the state health department were consistently missing death and case data for more than 100 of the state’s 693 nursing homes.
    2 replies | 97 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:46 AM
    LOL. It sure sounded like it. Boss move on Rand's part. Many feminists have been speaking out against female genital mutilation for years. Absolutely! And not because she is transgender but because of positions she's taken on this issue. There is no "nuance" at issue here. Either kids should be able to make that decision without their parents consent or they shouldn't. I don't know. But Senator Susan Collins questioned her about discrepancies in the reporting of PA nursing home deaths. That's the issue that has Andrew Cuomo in hot water.
    34 replies | 861 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    34 replies | 861 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:32 AM
    I don't know who told you that. Trump certainly tweeted against Georgia supposedly opening "too early." That in itself shows the governors had a say. Trump certainly gave a bully pulpit to Dr. Fauci by having Fauci on the presidential COVID task force and never replacing him with someone competent. And after Bob Woodward's leak about Trump privately telling him "I knew this was bad in January...but I didn't want people to panic", I have no idea why anybody is still trying to defend Trump's COVID record. It's time to move on. I agree.
    84 replies | 745 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:22 AM
    I disagree based on the historical evidence. Gab was taken off the Apple and Google stores while Trump was still flying high on Twitter. So there is a market for Twitter alternatives separate from Trump.
    38 replies | 756 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:51 AM
    jmdrake replied to a thread Noem at CPAC in U.S. Political News
    Desantis per capita COVID numbers are worse than California's. And he's prioritizing seniors get a vaccine that is killing seniors. Right now proper COVID response is the #1 issue. Not only did she take the pro-freedom approach but she has the numbers on her side. The only thing the media will be able to say is "Well SD is such a small and sparsely populate state without a big tourist industry that those results can't be replicated." But that also hits home the importance of continued federalism.
    19 replies | 679 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:38 AM
    jmdrake replied to a thread Noem at CPAC in U.S. Political News
    "We focused on hospital capacity. Dr. Fauci said on our worst day we would have 10,000 hospitalized. Instead our worse day was 600. Dr. Fauci is wrong a lot." She can compare and contrast her record on COVID with that of (former) media darling Andrew Cuomo. She didn't mandate masks, she didn't mandate businesses shut down, she didn't mandate nursing homes take COVID positive patients, she didn't mandate her health officials cook the numbers. And the results speak for themselves. Edit: Still watching. She brought out that Stephonopolis brought her on right after Andrew Cuomo and asked Cuomo to give HER advice on handling COVID! That's a TV ad right there! And no, Cuomo won't be running in 2024. He'll be lucky if he's still governor. (Yeah I said it. He's in that much trouble now!) But what she needs to do is run against the media. That was Donald Trump's strength.
    19 replies | 679 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    02-27-2021, 04:07 PM
    We have yet to see what the result of the Covid-19 vaccines is going to be. How many vaccine related deaths are we going to see in the next couple of years?
    31 replies | 594 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    1 replies | 118 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 09:37 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread Potato Head in U.S. Political News
    Wasn't there already a Mrs. Potato head? And isn't the whole point that you can give it your own makeover? I'm glad I'm no longer able to have kids.
    39 replies | 726 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 08:08 PM
    LOL. This is rich! Will Farcebook fakecheck Gov Cuomo?
    4 replies | 109 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 06:03 PM
    LOL. You're welcome and touche'! Here is my final response. I thought I laid out enough concerning stuff about the new law as it stands without going down the "A gay person can make you have sex with him" rabbit hole. It does concern me that religious affiliated institutions will have to deal with this. I've already seen it happen. When I first went to Vanderbilt there was a Christian Legal Society. I never joined but I had respect for them. They would offer to pray for you when exams were coming up, would have weekly worship services etc. My second year three women started the LGBT legal association. (Q hadn't yet arrived). I was cool with them too but didn't join them either for obvious reasons. ONE YEAR later I read in the paper that the Christian Legal Society lost its funding. Why? The fact that their bylaws required officers to have a personal faith in Jesus and lead worship services was considered "intolerant." (See: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/vanderbilts-religious-and-political-student-organizations-under-attack) Maybe that was just a coincidence. I dunno. But it seems the more "inclusive" our society becomes, the Christian views are being sidelined. I mean seriously there are so many flavors of Christianity, including Christian churches with gay pastors, that it's crazy that requirement that an officer be a believer is deemed "intolerant." Can I be over the chess club if I hate chess and never learned how to play it? And then there's the question of parents and children. We already have the James Younger case to deal with. How will this new law affect that? What about parents of "Q" children who take them to a conservative church where they hear fire and brimstone about the life they are considering? Yes the CRA doesn't directly affect that, but the Bob Jones University Case shows me how the law can be applied in ways it was never intended to be applied. So...just because I don't share one particular concern with you doesn't mean I don't have concerns.
    54 replies | 1001 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 05:45 PM
    My brain hurts reading this. As I was explaining to Anti Federalist, any interpretation of an amended Civil Rights Act is to look at how the current CRA is interpreted. It's not a thing of "Well I didn't discriminate against you for being black because I perceive you as being white even though you told me you were black." it's "I didn't discriminate against you for being black because I fired you for being repetitively tardy and that has nothing to do with you being black." Certainly if an employee is in the closet and there's no evidence that he informed his boss that he was gay, then that would be a pretty solid defense against a CRA claim. But the has EVERYTHING to do with the REASON the employee was fired and not some twisted interpretation of what the language you are referencing. If I have a legitimate reason for firing you and I never give any indication that I fired you for anything other than that reason and I fire other people that don't fit your protected class for the same reason then I have a rock solid CRA defense. If, on the other hand, I only fire gay people, or black people, or women, or some other protected class for that same reason, then I have a problem. Look at the other language in the definitions section of the act. 14) LGBTQ people often face discrimination when seeking to rent or purchase housing, as well as in every other aspect of obtaining and maintaining housing. LGBTQ people in same-sex relationships are often discriminated against when two names associated with one gender appear on a housing application, and transgender people often encounter discrimination when credit checks or inquiries reveal a former name. ^That is what the "perceived" language is talking about. Two people could be best friends, or it could be a man and a woman with the feminine or masculine names. Think "The Boy Named Sue" song by Johnny Cash. (In college I knew a young man named Wanda that was dating a young lady named Wanda). Someone seeing such an application might perceive this was a gay couple when it wasn't.
    54 replies | 1001 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 02:48 PM
    The point you and Madison320 keep missing is that individuals should not gain rights by virtue of being a part of a corporation that they do not have as individuals. But, by the definition of being a corporation, they do.
    38 replies | 756 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 02:34 PM
    Anti Federalist, this is how you push back. Rand is the boss. Rand Paul 2024. Everyone else is a waste of time.
    34 replies | 861 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 02:32 PM
    What? No. It's not saying you have to accept somebody's gayness. I mean...I have no idea why somebody would not accept somebody's gayness. Well...yeah I can. I have had to explain to more than one friend/family member that he or she was not gay. Why? Because he or she told me over and over again about this person or that person of the opposite sex that he or she was attracted to. I had to explain to that person that, by definition, if you like people of both sexes you aren't gay, you're bi. Everyone that I explained that too ultimately thanked me for helping them see that. Apparently, especially in the lesbian community, there is a stigma about being bi (I don't get that) so some bi people are in denial about that. Okay, back to what the language actually means. You can't discriminate against someone under this bill for liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for liking the opposite sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the opposite sex. So, under this law, a gay bar could not discriminate against a heterosexual bartender. And that shouldn't be a shocker. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents a black owned bar from discriminating against white bartenders on the basis of race.
    54 replies | 1001 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 02:22 PM
    Okay. I'm going to try to explain this one more time but I'll be brief with my brief. I) The "lack thereof" portion of the text protects the person with the lack thereof! It means the opposite of what you're thinking it means. Again, here is the whole sentence. Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender. So this means that in the context of the 1964 civil rights act, discrimination under that act is barred if it is: A) based on a person's actual or perceived romantic, emotion, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons based on gender or B) lack of sexual attraction on the basis of gender.
    54 replies | 1001 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 10:32 AM
    Egads! Thanks for the correction. Yeah I did a legal analysis on the wrong bill. Similar though. Okay. You know how they say "Don't pay attention to the guy behind the curtain?" Well...the definitions section of the bill is not the most important part. Sadly that's the part people look at. There are some people mad at Rand Paul for not supporting the "anti-lynching" bill, when all it did was to change the language of the hate crimes bill and say "We're going to call this lynching." Ironically there is language in the "anti lynching bill" that says if you assault a shop owner in a time of civil unrest you are guilty of a hate crime/lynching. So....technically some of the BLM/antifa protesters are guilty of lynching. But I digress. Back to your original question. Again this is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As such, everything I wrote previously still stands. So think of that in this context. The striking down of anti-miscegenation laws is analogous to the striking down of bans on gay marriage. An apartment complex that didn't allow interracial couples to rent from them would have fallen under the Fair Housing Act. Now an apartment complex that doesn't allow gay couples falls under the Fair Housing Act. Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status for banning interracial dating. Oakwood University may very well lose its tax exempt status for not allowing same sex dating. But nobody can sue someone for turning down sexual advances from Halle Berry or Naomi Campbell or Vanessa Williams or Beyonce' just because he doesn't like black women. By analogy nobody can sue someone for not being interested in dating someone of the same sex just because he's not into gays. Look at the text of what you keep quoting. Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.
    54 replies | 1001 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    18 replies | 449 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 06:23 AM
    And what exactly is that "real message?" Iraq WANTS cooperation with Iran. So does the legitimate Syrian government. Neither the government of Iraq, which WE installed, nor the government in Syria, which we helped create a terrorist organization to topple, want us there. So....why are we there? How could anything but a total pullout of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan be a "good move?" What's next? We start bombing Vietnam again?
    42 replies | 833 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 06:19 AM
    The ghost of John McCain.
    42 replies | 833 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 06:14 AM
    If you want to know what the bill really does you have to read the bill. Here it is: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text It's basically an amendment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It kind of seems redundant because the U.S. Supreme Court, even with its supposed 5-4 conservative majority, recently "amended" the 1964 Civil Rights Act in exactly the same way. So....this bill essentially changes nothing. It just puts the congressional rubber stamp on the SCOTUS action. Now the 1964 CRA has been around a long time. (Longer than I have been alive and according to my kids that's pretty old). Something I discovered in 1990, decades after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that there were still country clubs that barred black members. Shoal Creek country club was hosting the PGA in 1990 when this occurred. I then learned that the 1964 CRA does not cover all businesses. It just covers those considered "public accommodations." With that in mind, not only do you not have to be sexually or romantically attracted to LGBTQ, but if you REALLY want to you can, under the 1964 CRA, create your own all heterosexual, non-trans country club. So what happened to Shoal Creek? Well a few things. A national boycott of the sponsors of the PGA was organized. Also Shoal Creek is one county over from Birmingham Alabama which, who's police department had been contracted to provide security. Birmingham has a majority black population and at the time had its first black mayor. (And all subsequent mayors have been black). So there was pressure on the mayor to get out of the security contract. Ultimately the issue was resolved because Shoal Creek reversed its policy and got a token black person to join. (I bet he got a free membership). The PGA then changed its rules to explicitly require venues not discriminate on the basis of race. So this hypothetical non-LGBTQIA country club could legally exist, but it could face a social backlash in today's climate....which it would anyway regardless of this new bill. So what does change? Well...many years later in law school I read the Bob Jones University vs IRS case. BJU admitted blacks, but they had this asinine policy against interracial dating. Apparently they never read in the Bible where Miriam was struck with leporasy for complaining about Moses having a black wife. Anyhow the IRS stripped BJU of their tax exempt status over this. The SCOTUS sided with the IRS reasoning that the charity status was for promoting public policy, and all three branches of government had show support for the policy of desegregation. The POTUS had desegregated the military. The SCOTUS had struct down "separate but equal" in Brown v Board of Education. And Congress had passed the 1964 CRA. Reading that case sent chills down my spine. Up to that point I had supported LGBTQ rights. I still kind of do. I don't care who sleeps with who. And while I am certain BJU had no biblical grounds for its position against interracial dating, the SCOTUS ruling was not based on biblical grounds. I don't what places like Oakwood University, where I went for a couple of years in undergrad, to have to throw away their religious beliefs just to be able to participate in the Pell Grant program or to lose access to donors who want tax breaks. (Oakwood is so conservative that it kicked Brian McKnight out for getting his then girlfriend pregnant. He did marry her though and went on be nominated for 17 Grammy awards.) The silver lining to all of this is that the SCOTUS recently ruled that the "ecclessiastical exception" allows religious schools to fire teachers for any reason and that they are exempt in that regard from the 1964 CRA. Back to the whole "dating discrimination" thing. Researching Section 230, which many people here oppose, I ran across an interesting case. A "find a roomate" website was sued under the Fair Housing Act because it had "race" as a criteria one could select in...
    54 replies | 1001 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 10:26 PM
    That's a GOOD question! I am thinking you are talking about people you have relationships with right? Here's my thoughts. Make sure you keep the relationship front and center. Don't try to cross every bridge at the same time. Find common ground in areas where you disagree. That last part is SUPER important! It's easy to find common ground where you agree. Much tougher on the other side. Be patient. Be willing to table conversations and come back to them. Understand that "winning" means any incremental change in position no matter how small. And don't take anything personally. You have to be the adult.
    34 replies | 1601 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 08:51 PM
    The man's on top. That's misogenist. And he's to the right. That shows that hetorosexualism is right wing.
    34 replies | 1601 view(s)
More Activity

37 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Thanks, same here! I've been posting on another forum, and just occasionally popping in here. Anyway, I'm glad you're back!
  2. View Conversation
    Thanks! I'm getting a bit tired of arguing, though.... at least with those who seem impossible to get through to.
  3. View Conversation
    ....
  4. View Conversation
    haha! Thanks for letting me know, I just cleared out some space!
  5. View Conversation
    Thanks Annie! And it's great to see you! <3
  6. View Conversation
    I completely agree with you that Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. For what its worth, I don't believe Jews worship the same God as Christians anymore either.
  7. View Conversation
    Exactly, my beloved sister-in-Christ.
  8. View Conversation
    I'm going to be honest. I'm REALLY aggravated right now. I admire erowe1's ability to correct people with a completely cool demeanor, but at a certain point I just get ticked off. I honestly wanted to say a couple of things that were even more harsh than what I actually ended up saying. I just don't understand how most people can be so nonchalant about Terry's lying.
  9. View Conversation
    Well, you'd then be a 4-point Arminian (or 3 if you also believe in total depravity.) Either way, I'd just consider you a moderate Arminian, though I'm not going to try to force you to identify with any label. But, I consider pretty much everyone who doesn't believe in unconditional election to be "Arminian" in some sense. That probably isn't strictly accurate though
  10. View Conversation
    Spurgeon was an interesting one. He's not Calvinistic enough for the very "high" Calvinists, yet he's too Calvinistic for the Arminians I respect at the very least that you don't lie about Spurgeon. Many Arminians falsely claim that Spurgeon wasn't a Calvinist, and even insult his intelligence by claiming that he didn't know what Calvinism was when he was talking about it! To be sure, Spurgeon's "Calvinism" was very different than that of A.W. Pink. There's as much variety among us as there is among non-Calvinists
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 37
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
About Miss Annie

Basic Information

Signature


Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession.
~ George Washington

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,943
Posts Per Day
0.86
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
37
Most Recent Message
12-03-2015 12:59 AM
General Information
Last Activity
12-13-2020 08:33 PM
Join Date
10-22-2011
Referrals
1

21 Friends

  1. compromise compromise is offline

    Banned

    compromise
  2. Dr.3D Dr.3D is offline

    Member

    Dr.3D
  3. flynn flynn is offline

    Member

    flynn
  4. gwax23 gwax23 is offline

    Banned

    gwax23
  5. jmdrake jmdrake is offline

    Member

    jmdrake
  6. John F Kennedy III
  7. Kevin007 Kevin007 is offline

    Member

    Kevin007
  8. Leaning Libertarian
  9. lilymc lilymc is offline

    Member

    lilymc
  10. MrTwisted MrTwisted is offline

    Member

    MrTwisted
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 21
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
No results to display...
No results to display...

12-21-2017


08-05-2017


11-07-2016


11-06-2016


11-03-2016


10-30-2016


07-26-2016


03-12-2016