Elizabeth Warren like the rest of the liberal elite are laughing at their supporters as they live the 1% high life.
I call Urban Legend as to Obamacare sooooo bad http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/obamacare-charts-stats-health-care-reform Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People shouldn't vote for either of the two bullshit fascist parties that we are given to choose from. Do you want a national security police state in a blue flavor or a red flavor?
Neither. But let's be accurate: blue police state, closer to socialist (think communist USSR) red police state, closer to fascist (think Nazi Germany) If you're rich, you tend fascist (keep your hands offa my stack, Jack). Poor, you tend socialist(share the wealth) One weird thing about US politics: the number of poor tea party types who vote along with the rich; and the number of rich Hollywood types, who vote along with the poor, both voting against their presumed interests. Personally, I'd prefer a democratic socialist state such as Netherlands, Iceland, Norway, Sweden. None of which has a national security police. But then, I'm no 1%'er and don't have a lot to lose in a high tax welfare state. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think this is some very disjointed logic you have. Try to stick to individual beliefs to attack rather than some strawman PC liberal. "It's OK for lefties to bash Christian evangelist nut jobs, and rightly so, but if they make any remark defending Israel against Hamas terrorist Palestinians, they will be crushed by the opposite of islamaphobes, the old "not all Muslims are terrorists" and "Israel bombs innocent babies" wing of the far left." I mean evangelists who preach hate and who manipulate people into giving money they don't have like televangelists are shitty and deserve the bashing they get. Especially these massive mega churches who make crazy profits essentially robbing old people and get to live in their mega mansions tax free. But it's alright to bash evangelists and feel that Israel may be somewhat more culpable in the whole situation even if Hamas is indeed a terrorist organization who does fucked ip shit and also fuels the conflict greatly. The two aren't really inherently connected because they are disliked for different reasons. I can't speak for other liberal people but I don't dislike evangelists because they have faith and like religion. They can do whatever the fuck they want I don't care, until they start to shit that greatly affects my life like elect anti weed, anti abortion, etc politicians who do a piss poor job at managing our government because they are more focused on social issues than balancing a budget. In the other case Israel very clearly threw the first stone and is a little more to blame for the whole conflict, and I say this as a Jew that's been on birthright not that that makes me an expert or anything. Historically, it's very ironic too because the Jewish militant groups that formed early on as a resistance more to the British empire than Palestine at this point used tactics that would 100 percent be recognized as terrorism and later were used against Israeli settlements such as bombing British workplaces killing tons of civilians. So I agree with you at this point it's very hayfield and mccoys blood will keep spelling and neither can take the moral high ground but I would say one is much more in a position to actually enact change. Palestine has very little chance to make any kind of significant change because they can't take down the wall, without Israel's permission. This means that Palestinians as a whole would need to quell all the built up anger and repression from losing their homelands that causes them to launch missiles for years on end and essentially beg the global community. I think we all know this won't happen and I think it's why only real change can come from Israeli side. They have to take down the wall/establish two states and take the short term bump in violence to enable long term peace. I just don't see any other reasonable solution. If Palestinians can grow up in a state where they have control and economic freedom alongside Israel I think there will be much less incentive to launch bombs at each other. Just my .02 though. "But that is not PC; PC defends Muslim freedom of religion but not Christian ( baking cakes for gay weddings anyone?" Come on dude really? You're trying to tell me that there are people who think Muslim bakers should be able to deny gays but not Christians, because you would be hard pressed to find someone like that and it seems like that's what you are implying. Also this freedom of religion shit is very wacky cognitive dissonance on the part of heterosexual business owners. The idea that making a cake is such artistic license that it means they are getting involved in a wedding or somehow showing approval is beyond stupidity. First off, let's be real all wedding cakes are the fucking same. They're always white and like multiple layers with kind of a circular shape. No ones asking these guys to have like a big dick cake or two guys fucking on top of cake, because those things could definitely be denied for obscenity regardless of sexuality. All they're asking is you make a cake same as you would for any heterosexual couple show up on their wedding day and give the cake to the event organizer or whatever like you would for any other wedding. Like what are these cake bakers doing at these weddings that is so involved, are they hanging out after they drop off the cake? The law is very clear, if you provide a service for a heterosexual couple and that same service is applicable to a homosexual couple then you must supply that service to both types of customer as a public licensed business. "So the message of the left, seems to be, that refusing to bake cakes for gays, is not a religious freedom issue, it's solely a discrimination issue. Yet drawing cartoons of the so called Prophet is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a religious freedom issue. Sorry, I do support gay marriage, but lighten up on the fanatics who do not." It's a balance of religious freedom and discrimination, not everything is so black and white as you make it. We have many amendments and two that clash in this case are the equal rights amendment and freedom of religion. So you have to weigh both and say which is more infringed upon by the decision. So in the case of the baker as I was saying providing a wedding cake is really not a big deal and would be almost an identical process for homosexual couples as straight ones. There is no real major involvement in dropping off a cake at a wedding and in my opinion doesn't constitute forcing someone to participate in a homosexual marriage because they are not actively there partaking in it. I think questions about wedding photographers is a much trickier question since there is such active involvement in the actual wedding. So in the case of the baker I think the obvious ruling is that the 14th amendment rights of the couple is being violated pretty plainly well their first amendment rights are only minority being infringed upon because they really aren't an active participant in the wedding in any substantial ways. I think most in the left believe in a reasonable balance between religious liberty and discrimination and simply don't want religious liberty used as a tool to discriminate against people. Now as for the photo contest I agree some in the left have had a very stupid reaction, but I also think some are spot on. A lot have said look she can do whatever she wants and that is her right as an American. That being said its not what she should be doing. If she truly wanted to spread awareness then she would go about spreading it in a way that isn't putting a giant target on her and her supporters back. Once again it's all about should vs could. She absolutely is within her right to do this but she should just consider doing events that advocate against terrorism without the drawing contest. To me it seems the women wants the spotlight much more than she's about getting any real message out there.
Also, court orders are followed by homophobic bakers but not by Islamic extremists. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell if someone will attack often until it's too late and having Muhammad's drawing contests isn't going to change that. Saying we shouldn't care about one issue because of another is a common fallacy used in politics that doesn't really hold a lot of substance. We can denounce the behavior of ISIS/attention seekers like Pam Geller/ and Bakers who don't serve gay couples simultaneously.
Iran is going to receive billions of dollars because the US froze pre-1979 Iranian bank accounts in the US and had freezes on Iranian funds in other countries. This is not a shock to anyone who knows anything about Iran. I thought that was one of the first things people learn when they read about the 1979 revolution. "limiting Iran's capabilities for creating major mayhem in the region" Claims to have read agreement. Makes dubious claims about what the deal actually contains. If you have read the deal, cite specifics. It is also very easy to tell whether or not Iran is trying to build a bomb, since it is not easy to build a nuclear weapon discreetly. The US and USSR both knew of the exact location of and how many devices South Africa had built. The US just released documents from this year spelling out how much they knew about the Israeli program for decades. Also, your garden variety right wing groups were desperately clamoring for Bergdahl's release prior to realizing Obama was releasing him. That is some next level hypocrisy.
It is also hypocritical when people say they are concerned about Christians getting killed in Iraq and Syria, and then do not even give a flying fuck about ISIS lynching Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, or ISIS beheading civilians.
From the Washington Post comments: The Corporate Media loves the Citizens United mistake: all of that billionaire money heading straight to the media's bottom lines. Bernie would do what he could to turn that off... so why would the media cover him seriously? Has anyone actually watched the "News" programs these days? A little bit of weather (local), maybe some horrific car incident somewhere in the country, a mention of the weather again (local), a celebrity piece, a section on news, maybe a tidbit of some international happening, the latest on the Trump silliness.... there is not discussion on Bills roaming the halls of Corporate Congress, no mention of what's happening in the government that will affect everyone's lives, no mention of product quality (remember Monsanto's rBST scam in Florida in the 1990s?). That's all shut down, because those are not "ratings promoters." The News is gone.
Hypocrisy.. not a unique thing to humans, but humans do it best. Almost feels hypocritical to call out hypocrisy though.
If this country wants to see any real change I think it's starts with our media. We need people who grow up and want to become professional journalists who are beholden to good information over ratings. Do you think that it would be beneficial for the FCC to reinstate the fairness doctrine among other abandoned regulations on cable news? I wasn't around when it existed but from what I read many say the gutting of news regulation helped agitate the explosion of infotainment and the 24 hours news circle jerk we have going on.
Attack the messenger much? Epidemy? Did you mean epitome? Facts are facts, propaganda is propaganda. but certain conservative people can't figure out which is which. By the way, I keep trying to remind people that on a weed forum, you should be in favor of liberals who are in favor of legalizing weed. Conservative republicans are not. What is wrong with some of you people? I don't fucking get how weed smokers can be right wing nut jobs. It is against your interests. I for one, am strongly in favor of legal recreational weed, and consider people who support a conservative, anti liberty, anti civil rights agenda my sworn enemies. Especially tea party tards who can't spell. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure you want to? http://www.barenakedislam.com/category/beheadings-graphic Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually I'm more moderate than anything else. But keep your illusions. Maybe it will help you sleep at night clutching that semi-automatic and wrapping yourself in that confederate flag. Don't forget to count those riches you will never have even though you vote along with the 1% whose main interest is to keep you poor and keep them rich.
What other animal preaches one thing , but does the opposite? Not sure I get you Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk