ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Khoranth wrote:

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.

And religious institutions (almost exclusively catholic) are trying to force their views about abortion, gay marriages/unions and birth control by passing laws that directly target those persons just based on their belief, bypassing the well being of the affected person. It would be like Jehova's witness trying to force everyone else to adhere to their belief by trying to ban blood transfusion even if that saves about 4.5m lives annually.

Christians try to force themselves on others FAR FAR more than the opposite.

WOMEN need to stop deporting UNDOCUMENTED babies from their BODIES...! FACT

"

1453R wrote:

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

Some nice testimonials, but what you write isn't backed up by what the news, polls and studies have shown us.

"

1453R wrote:

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'.

Very limited restrictions that usually involve court battles, especially if if the subject is a public figure. They don't carry jail time either.

"

1453R wrote:

As basically the only person on the entire board arguing from the theoretical "progressive" standpoint? No, 'Freedom of Speech' would not be removed.

You are in the minority amongst 'progressives'. Take a look at some of the polls that have been conducted over the last 5 years. They do favor limiting freedom of speech.

"

1453R wrote:

2.) Who the hell wants to remove religious freedom? When was that even a thing?

At least since 1963. It has been a systemic movement.

As just one example We now have an educational system where in various incidents students are told they must read and write about the Koran, or visit a mosque, or recite Islamic prayers or be subject to discipline (and their parents are forbidden from excusing them from this) and the same students are prohibited from reading the Bible in class.

Reading the Bible is something protected by the US Constitution. Schools are not. Teachers have been prohibited from bowing their heads or even closing their eyes for a few seconds or risk being fired. One of those cases will likely be before the Supreme Court in the next year.

"

1453R wrote:

Nobody has ever once said that Christians can't be Christians.

Plenty of people, including government officials and organizations are doing so, in some cases systematically. Chaplains are being told they can't serve not because of anything they have said or done as a chaplain, but just because their faith might bias them.

I'm not sure what limited news sources you receive, but you have either been ignoring what has been happening, or are completely unaware of the reality the last 10 years.

"

1453R wrote:

3.) Second Amendment...have you met me?

Have you met the US Constitution? Shall not be infringed doesn't mean - hey whatever you feel makes sense is okey doke.

Look at what you just wrote

"

1453R wrote:

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.

Then you added:

"

1453R wrote:

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.

So, it is acceptable to continue the "impenetrable morass of bullfuckery" as long as it is done at the state level? How does that solve the original problem of having an "impenetrable morass of bullfuckery"?

That you imagine it is "their business" at the state level, and not a constitutional matter clearly shows you neither understand the Constitution's absolute supremacy as the law of the land, nor respect the second amendment. You like the parts that let you do what you want, but the rest is malleable in your thinking.

"

1453R wrote:

Clearly something is broken and we need to fix it

If you were a staunch 2nd amendment supporter, you would already have seen reams of statistics, looked at valid studies and know that what is broken isn't the result of not enough or incorrectly written gun laws.

Poor enforcement of EXISTING gun laws? - YES, that has been a problem, and there are numerous cases where proper enforcement would have prevented murders.

"

1453R wrote:

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.

Very Close. It was enacted so that states with smaller populations weren't put in a headlock by states with large populations.

"

1453R wrote:

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.

That you don't like the result doesn't mean the system isn't functioning. By default, the allocation of seats and votes alone prevents large population states from totally dominating elections and laws. The number of electoral votes in the house needs to be reduced to balance out the equation as a very small subset of states can still dominate the presidential election.

There was no victory stolen here. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin should have been easy wins for the DNC. They weren't because people were tired of being told things were great when the economy sucked. They were tired of being lied to by the press and their criticisms dismissed. They were tired of being called racist and stupid by media elitists and a government that showed no indications it was even aware of the problems Americans saw.

If the electoral college worked the way you stated it did - protecting against large cities and dense population centers - then Colorado would have gone to Trump. Washington state and Oregon would have as well. This is what the county elections looked like. The second image makes it even clearer how much a few concentrated population areas dominated the vote. Only one of them (Phoenix)went for Trump

"

faerwin wrote:

[The Catholic Church] are. . .passing laws

Are they, now?

The VATICAN is one of the BEASTS from the BOOK OF REVELATION...! They are SATANIC! TRUTH

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

[The Catholic Church] are. . .passing laws

Are they, now?

yes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state

"

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.

I guess it depends on who you count as "progressives" for this. There is probably some small subset of people who would want parts of what you're saying, but generally there is no conspiracy against religion and guns. The only real pushes I've seen against these is people being against using religion as an excuse to discriminate against people and wanting to require responsibility and safety from gun owners.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

1453R wrote:

2.) Who the hell wants to remove religious freedom? When was that even a thing?

At least since 1963. It has been a systemic movement.

As just one example We now have an educational system where in various incidents students are told they must read and write about the Koran, or visit a mosque, or recite Islamic prayers or be subject to discipline (and their parents are forbidden from excusing them from this) and the same students are prohibited from reading the Bible in class.

Reading the Bible is something protected by the US Constitution. Schools are not. Teachers have been prohibited from bowing their heads or even closing their eyes for a few seconds or risk being fired. One of those cases will likely be before the Supreme Court in the next year.

Proof please. As long as religious books are taught as mythology/literature I don't see the problem with having them read as part of history or english classes. If people are trying to read the bible instead of class or to argue against science obviously that shouldn't be allowed.

I'm interested to hear more about this case that you say exists. Hopefully it's a unanimous supreme court decision if your statement is accurate. Obviously children shouldn't be instructed to recite prayers in school.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

[The Catholic Church] are. . .passing laws

Are they, now?

yes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state

I don't see the Catholic Church passing any laws there.

"

Xavderion wrote:

I don't see the Catholic Church passing any laws there.

There is no legal, scientific, or moral basis for any abortion law save "the woman does whatever she deems best for her particular circumstance, advised but not controlled by medical professionals or those close to her" outside of religious opinion. No secular reasoning for restrictions on abortion exist. The push to ban abortion and force women to carry every single pregnancy to term - whether that pregnancy was, say...the result of a rape, or whether it severely threatens the woman's own life due to medical complications, or whether the woman is in a situation where she can manage to care for a baby - is purely and entirely coming from religious types.

Why religious types believe the potential life of an unborn individual somehow trumps the life of an existing person, I do not know. A woman who dies because of a baby she CAN'T carry to term and is not allowed to abort is a woman who will never have any other children. A child raised by a mother who hates that child because it's the child of a rapist is not going to be a Good Little Christian Boi. A child raised by a crackhead in a squat is not likely to make it to adulthood, and whatever life they live is not really going to be one for the history books.

I know why Catholics did it in the Dark Ages - demanding that Catholic housewives pump out twenty children and destroy their own bodies doing it was a means of combating severe infant/child mortality and attrition in an era where the best medical technique available was "pray really hard and hope for the best." But that's no longer the case, women don't need to destroy their bodies with blatantly unreasonable numbers of pregnancies anymore, and an existing person takes precedence over a theoretical person. Especially when the existing person is capable of producing more theoretical people later, when their situation improves, IF they're allowed to do what's best for them at a time when their situation has not yet improved.