bobbyw24
Banned

Why are we aiding ISIS?

fascinating

Does anyone ever wonder how it is that people who were never Freemasons seem to know more about the organization than its members do?

IIRC, that was from 1980. The US Govt. has learned nothing. One thing Trump understood - the goal was to get the US military back inside our own borders.

Don't he doesn't need one

I was in an officer's bar drinking in Turkey when that was on big screen CNN, I had no idea what was going on.

.

Don't forget the sexual assault charges and, the the corruption don't forget the corruption...

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.

Those were ammo. ;)

If possible yea if not pass the ammunition. Always praise God though no ifs, ands, or buttts

If it is possible on your part, live at peace with everyone. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.

Reduce POTUS to pure executive with no policy prerogatives. All policy decisions are made in Congress and would require 3/4 super majority. Or perhaps policy is made a thing of the past. What good is a "law" if the policy is to not enforce it? Remove POTUS as CIC, leaving ALL military matters to... <DRUMROLL>... THE MILITARY! They decide how to prosecute war. They must concur with the diplomatic decision to go to war, which is to say that if Congress and the Executive say yea but the military says no, at the very least the dispute might go to an emergency hearing by the courts to decide. That sounds too prone to human failing, so I'm not at all sure that is what I would want, but at least this gives an idea of what I am thinking. Less power in everyone's hands, and way more horrific consequence for unamended violation. And if the president has no incentive to serve, make it easier to remove him. But if his main role becomes one of diplomacy, who'd want the job anyhow? My point is to de-ball "government" to the greatest degree possible. Make is possible for anyone to dispatch a government agent who acts in violation of those to whom they swear service. If a cop attempts to violate you and you shoot him stone-dead, you stand safe from prosecution. If you do so in error, you would stand to suffer severe punishment. The whole idea here is to make violation by ANYONE a very risk-laden and costly business. It is high time Americans grew the hell up because we are a race of toddlers in far too great a proportion. It is long time we cut the shit, engaged our good brains, and put in place a system of protection (note how I do not use "governance"). I have done this work over the course of many years of thinking carefully on the relevant matters. If Americans were actually interested in freedom, which I contend tey are not, this notion would have been investigated long ago. If someone like me can come up with solutions, then by all means so could smart people... if they wanted to. But they don't, so here we are. A new architecture of freedom is needed prior to taking material action against Themme. A new attitude is also needed, which is a far taller order. But after that, mass civil disobedience would bring Themme to their knees in short order, though I suspect the cost could nonetheless be high. I could easily see Themme unleashing multiple bioweapons on the world in their play to divert our attention in order to retain power. But if it came to that, then I would say we slaughter them and their families to the man as that reaction to our threat to their false power would be sufficiently beyond the pale to justify so hard-hearted a response. IMO, anyone willing to do such a thing, especially for such paltry a reason, should have their genetic line removed from the world without hesitation, compunction, or mercy. Some will balk at all this - fine. But if you are serious about freedom in the face of a Tyrant who would see you and all your posterity destroyed before allowing so much as a threat to his hegemonic rule, then you have to do what is needed and dispense with all equivocations, wanting to have without having to pay. Shit or get off the pot already.

Praise God and pass the Ammunition

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.

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.

Sure, only if your gun is unloaded.

The Count is gay, who'd have thought ?

All well and good, but this is not a first-tier problem. If we agree that some form of minimalist governing body is acceptable as being possibly the best practical alternative in a world of huge human populations, then the foremost consideration pursuant to the goal of keeping tyrants at bay is to institute a system of brute punishments for any governmental instrument that violates the rights of those to whom they swear oaths of good faith and service. When the consequence of the least unamended violation of one's rights is, say, twenty years at hard labor, the sentence of which may be augmented in the event of poor behavior, the brands of shenanigans we now witness daily would disappear in short order. Remove the power to legislate. We do not require legislation. We need principles such as those found in English common law. Apply those principles adeptly and honestly and justice is served without statute. These two measures alone would go a long way to removing tyranny. Leave me to write the Laws (principles) and architect the new order of freedom and America would be transformed in a very short time.

she is now just ashes, otherwise I'd pay to see you do necrophilia on a trans

my mother died last year

I will pay for the @TheTexan to date a trans,

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.

Anti Federalist, this is how you push back. Rand is the boss. Rand Paul 2024. Everyone else is a waste of time.

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.