Predicto Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 C'mon. This has to be a misquote of Rudy's statements. he didn't mention 9/11 a single time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Is banning AP classes in OK on the roadmap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Was interesting to watch the twitter feeds of so many during Netanyahu's speech yesterday. Then after. Felt like a lot of elected officials talked about standing with Israel more than they talk about standing with America. I'm Jewish and have family over there in Israel. Yeah, he's probably going to win reelection. But he def seems more popular here. Oh, and we have this coming out today. Never felt like the conservative movement cared about Jews here. Seems they love the Jews over there though. Is that a hint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 It's the weird evangelical Christian obsession with Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It's the weird evangelical Christian obsession with Israel. Not really. For Jesus to return, Irsael must be in Jewish hands. Everything evangelicals believes about the end of times and return of Jesus Christ is tied to what happens with Israel. Of course, they don't mention that once Jesus has returned; the Jews are expected to follow Christianity. At least that is my understanding but I could be dead wrong about that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Not really. For Jesue to return, Irsael must be in Jewish hands. Everything evangelicals believes about the end of times and return of Jesus Christ is tied to what happens with Israel. Of course, they don't mention that once Jesus has returned; the Jews are expected to follow Christianity. At least that is my understanding but I could be dead wrong about that part. I know and that's why it's bizarre and totally weird. Foreign policy being driven for some people by essentially myths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 #920 - Don't copy Indiana Salesforce CEO Says Company Is ‘Canceling All Programs’ In Indiana Over LGBT Discrimination Fears Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff says he doesn’t want his employees subjected to discrimination as part of their work for the San Francisco-based company, and he is cancelling all required travel to the state of Indiana following the signing of a religious freedom law that some say allows business to exclude gay customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Here's another proposal by a Republican. http://www.kpho.com/story/28620533/az-senator-church-attendance-should-be-mandatory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 The GOP is unfixable because the majority of the GOPers are nut jobs wanting to impose their values on the rest of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 The GOP is unfixable because the majority of the GOPers are nut jobs wanting to impose their values on the rest of the country.I concur, only because of Ted Cruz's comment the other day,...(paraphrasing)"I'll work with anyone who wants to expand liberty"... Damn near rolled off the couch laughing. You mean, as long as we follow your version of liberty? Which means treating my medical/reproductive issues as you see fit? Nah...I'll take my chances with someone else, thanks for playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 GOP pollster: Candidates seen as antigay will never win voters under 30 http://news.yahoo.com/gop-pollster-candidates-seen-antigay-never-win-voters-171303136.html (Christian Science Monitor) At a Monitor breakfast Tuesday, GOP pollster Whit Ayers praised Indiana’s political system for adapting “remarkably quickly” to the “value conflict” that has erupted over its new religious freedom law, which opponents say discriminates against the gay community. The state’s top legislators say they will adjust the law so that discrimination is no longer an issue. While a majority of Americans support gay marriage, nearly three-quarters of Republicans do not, according to Gallup. That’s not true for young Republicans, however. More than 60 percent of Republican voters under 30 do support gay marriage, said Ayers, the founder and president of North Star Opinion Research. Indiana’s Republican Gov. Mike Pence has come under scathing criticism for his defense of the law. Several potential GOP presidential candidates have expressed their support for Governor Pence, including Jeb Bush, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, whom Mr. Ayers is advising. “We’re headed to the point where a political candidate who is perceived as anti-gay at the presidential level will never connect with people under 30 years old,” Ayers said, citing the rapidly changing views on same-sex marriage in America. That said, gay rights is at the bottom of the list of issues for Republican voters, competing with climate change, he pointed out. (more at link) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 While I agree with the articles premise, I disagree with their conclusion that the Indiana law in "anti gay". If it gets spun that way, it will certainly have an affect. I don't think it will once the dust settles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 While I agree with the articles premise, I disagree with their conclusion that the Indiana law in "anti gay". You think there's a different law that's recently come about, that people want businesses to be able to exempt themselves from, by claiming religious justification? In fact, could you point us at the Republican who's selling these laws based on anything other than permitting cake bakers and photographers to ignore anti-discrimination laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Let's not forget the caterers, florists, servers, bartenders... ...and plumbers, auto mechanics, hair stylists, landscapers, tailors, shoe salesmen... ...and even doggy daycare owners. (I say this thanking I don't know who that my business owner is a gay Jewish man who weighs about 400 pounds. I doubt there will be ANY of this nonsense, even if GA does go in this direction.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 While I agree with the articles premise, I disagree with their conclusion that the Indiana law in "anti gay". If it gets spun that way, it will certainly have an affect. I don't think it will once the dust settles. Why do you think they suddenly passed this law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 You think there's a different law that's recently come about, that people want businesses to be able to exempt themselves from, by claiming religious justification? In fact, could you point us at the Republican who's selling these laws based on anything other than permitting cake bakers and photographers to ignore anti-discrimination laws? Why do you think they suddenly passed this law? Oh I think it's clear why Indiana passed the law. They want to allow shop owners from providing services they are opposed to providing. Same sex wedding cakes, bacon in a kosher deli etc. I don't think "supporting" the law from a Federal pov will hurt any potential GOP candidate. Correct me if Im wrong, but doesn't this law simply mirror the laws in 20 other states that have been enacted since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was found Uncostitutional on the State level because Congress didn't have the authority, but remains legal on the Federal level? The RFRA was near unanimous and signed by Clinton. Serious ? , does this particular law do something more than the others and the Federal one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Correct me if Im wrong, but doesn't this law simply mirror the laws in 20 other states that have been enacted since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was found Uncostitutional on the State level because Congress didn't have the authority, but remains legal on the Federal level? The RFRA was near unanimous and signed by Clinton. Serious ? , does this particular law do something more than the others and the Federal one? The same law that just allowed a milti-billion-dollar corporation to exempt itself from providing health insurance to it's employees, because of it's corporate religion? Looks like it does a lot more than allow businesses to refuse to serve things that aren't on the menu. And I'll point out that there's a difference between the two examples you tried to equate, there. One is a business choosing not to serve something (to anyone) that the business doesn't have, in the store. The other is a refusal to serve something which the business is in the business of serving, to a certain class of customer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Pretty sweet deal, you can't refuse me service because of my religion but I can refuse you service because of my religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Pretty sweet deal, you can't refuse me service because of my religion but I can refuse you service because of my religion. Instead of ....freedom for me, but not for thee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Kilmer, Your attempts to claim that the GOP isn't passing these laws, right and right, for the purpose of encouraging discrimination against gays, might have better traction if the same people weren't also doing things like passing state laws whose sole purpose is to overturn local ordinances that make it illegal for businesses to discriminate against gays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'm not defending the GOP at all. I'm saying I don't think Jeb bush support of the gov signing the bill is any different than Bill Clinton signing it on the federal level when it relates to the overall political importance. I think it hurts mike pence. But not Jeb nationally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Now, there, you may be right. I think the party officially endorsing discrimination hurts the party. But might not hurt individual candidates. Especially the ones who have alibis. (Assuming they can make it through the primaries without taking a position.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I think the party officially endorsing discrimination hurts the party. But might not hurt individual candidates. Especially the ones who have alibis. (Assuming they can make it through the primaries without taking a position.) But don't you think that they'll all (GOP candidates) have to take a position, especially after the "George Grilling" that Pence took? And when they do have to have a serious answer, another Todd Akin Moment is waiting. Btw, I had to LOL when Pence said, "I could've handled it better this weekend" in his presser today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 It would be easy for them to say " I support what Bill Clinton supported and signed into law". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 It would be easy for them to say " I support what Bill Clinton supported and signed into law".Walking the fine line between what they believe is right, and what the hard-core conservative right believes is right...two different things. This is the "rock & a hard place" they always seem to put themselves in. (Yes, they built this.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.