Mrebo

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Freedom means that people are going to be intolerant.

What do you honestly care about freedom? You see no problem with the sitting American president allowing one of the world’s most oppressive dictators to meddle in our elections. Do not, for one second, act as though you care at all about American freedoms.

What a silly and erroneous response. I expect more from you.

Why? It’s pretty typical of my commentary.

Yeah when you get worked up but you can do better.

I don’t see much reason to respond to your post beyond this since it doesn’t even have anything to do with what we’re talking about. We’re talking about discrimination, not intolerance, which are separate issues.

Discrimination is a manifestation of intolerance.

Yes, but once intolerance manifests itself in discrimination, it becomes illegal. This is a very basic concept.

But that is what we are discussing! Discrimination is not always illegal. The basic concept is generally true, but not always. The real target, ultimately, is the intolerance itself, which can manifest in all manner of ways that would be difficult to end without destroying freedom.

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

Anyone who voted based on comments other people made deserve the shitty country they have. Voting shouldn’t be like a YouTube comment section.

The argument that it makes sense to vote for someone based on the fact that some people that have nothing to do with our government have said things that are ridiculous blows my mind. I can’t imagine voting for a candidate based on what irrelevant citizens say.

I count on Frink missing the point. My jab at Frink shouldn’t be taken so seriously. But the sneering attitude is a turn off to many people who try to engage in good faith.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-putin-helsinki-summit/index.html

Thoughts:

Conservatives got mad at Obama for blaming America and being overly conciliatory to hostile nations (including Russia), so this reverse is darkly amusing.

Oh my God. Is that really how you’re interpreting this? People aren’t mad at Trump for being conciliatory to Russia. They’re mad at him for being treasonous! Even if you disagree with that assessment, don’t fucking lie about why they’re mad at him!

The target of my comment were conservatives who support Trump. You can tell that because that is who I wrote about. I said nothing about the people who are mad at Trump. You can tell that because I wrote nothing about them. I’m saying that Trump supporters are showing inconsistency. You can tell that because that was what I actually wrote.

You were implying a false equivalence to the criticisms of Obama and Trump. The criticisms of those two men in relation to this are totally different.

Do we want more Cold War?

Do we want an illegitimate president? Trump has been alienating all of our allies since he took office so why do you suddenly care about diplomatic relations?

Okay. Strange that an open-ended question about a realistic possibility is met with accusations.

It’s obvious that that was your implication. If I say that my next door neighbor is a murderer and then follow that up with the statement, “Do I really want the police prowling around my neighborhood?” then that implies that I’m at least considering that it’d be better to leave the murderer in place rather than face that situation.

There are areas of our country that don’t want the police around even where there are murders going on. These are complex issues.

Obviously we need to face the Russia situation. I’m not sure what we do, whether we go back to a Cold War situation or what. Events have been pushing us in that direction well before Trump. And yes, the politics now makes it more difficult. I’m not talking about Trump, just what can our country do about Russia.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Freedom means that people are going to be intolerant.

What do you honestly care about freedom? You see no problem with the sitting American president allowing one of the world’s most oppressive dictators to meddle in our elections. Do not, for one second, act as though you care at all about American freedoms.

What a silly and erroneous response. I expect more from you.

I don’t see much reason to respond to your post beyond this since it doesn’t even have anything to do with what we’re talking about. We’re talking about discrimination, not intolerance, which are separate issues.

Discrimination is a manifestation of intolerance.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

Mrebo said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-putin-helsinki-summit/index.html

Thoughts:

Conservatives got mad at Obama for blaming America and being overly conciliatory to hostile nations (including Russia), so this reverse is darkly amusing.

But does it really even matter anymore?

Do we want more Cold War?

And I find it amusing how you’ve tied yourself in a rhetorical knot to avoid simply stating something to the effect of ‘liberals want more war’, since that would get you laughed out of the room.

Have we not laughed him out of the room already?

I’m starting to think Putin has a pee tape of Mrebo as well.

Your posts help me understand why people voted for Trump.

Which ones?

The superficial, sarcastic, and personal ones. Hard to narrow it down I guess.

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

Mrebo said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-putin-helsinki-summit/index.html

Thoughts:

Conservatives got mad at Obama for blaming America and being overly conciliatory to hostile nations (including Russia), so this reverse is darkly amusing.

But does it really even matter anymore?

Do we want more Cold War?

And I find it amusing how you’ve tied yourself in a rhetorical knot to avoid simply stating something to the effect of ‘liberals want more war’, since that would get you laughed out of the room.

Have we not laughed him out of the room already?

I’m starting to think Putin has a pee tape of Mrebo as well.

Your posts help me understand why people voted for Trump.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-putin-helsinki-summit/index.html

Thoughts:

Conservatives got mad at Obama for blaming America and being overly conciliatory to hostile nations (including Russia), so this reverse is darkly amusing.

Oh my God. Is that really how you’re interpreting this? People aren’t mad at Trump for being conciliatory to Russia. They’re mad at him for being treasonous! Even if you disagree with that assessment, don’t fucking lie about why they’re mad at him!

The target of my comment were conservatives who support Trump. You can tell that because that is who I wrote about. I said nothing about the people who are mad at Trump. You can tell that because I wrote nothing about them. I’m saying that Trump supporters are showing inconsistency. You can tell that because that was what I actually wrote.

Do we want more Cold War?

Do we want an illegitimate president? Trump has been alienating all of our allies since he took office so why do you suddenly care about diplomatic relations?

Okay. Strange that an open-ended question about a realistic possibility is met with accusations.

If the Republican Congress had any principles or any love for this country then they would immediately impeach this treacherous bastard.

Cool.

NeverarGreat said:

Mrebo said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-putin-helsinki-summit/index.html

Thoughts:

Conservatives got mad at Obama for blaming America and being overly conciliatory to hostile nations (including Russia), so this reverse is darkly amusing.

But does it really even matter anymore?

Do we want more Cold War?

And I find it amusing how you’ve tied yourself in a rhetorical knot to avoid simply stating something to the effect of ‘liberals want more war’, since that would get you laughed out of the room.

What rhetorical knot? It was an honest question. It may dictated by events or there may be some creative way out of it. Liberals don’t have a monopoly on distrusting Russia.

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

Oh hey Frink. Getting the facts right isn’t apologetics.

Puggo, the quote is also in the articles I linked. The context and the understanding is what’s missing from the current discussion. Thus the NYT expressed a different understanding 2 years ago.

dahmage, that’s true. But asking someone to engage in future hacking is different from asking for information that’s already in the hands of shady people.

Consider that asking someone to steal the Pentagon Papers = bad; wanting them published = less bad.

You sound like you’re grasping for reasons why Trump’s public call for Russia to get directly involved in American politics, through shady means and for sinister purposes, isn’t really as bad as it sounds. It’s like you’re saying “If you think about it, he didn’t really say what you think he said, and so he’s really not that bad a guy. Especially compared to Obama.”

I mean, seriously? Come on.

Whatever it “sounds like,” it was the NYT that originally recognized that Trump wasn’t asking Russia to hack the Democrats. As I said: what Trump said was inappropriate and encouraging to our adversaries to do bad things.

This is simply a matter of accuracy and honesty and not what it “sounds” like I’m trying to say. When my posts are not so selectively read, this is all very clear. The fact that the NYT now asserts that Trump was directly asking for the Russians to hack the Dems, contrary to what the NYT previously understood shows an agenda at work. My attempt to be clear about what actually happened while at the same time recognizing Trump was wrong isn’t apologetics or whatever else.

Oh hey Frink. Getting the facts right isn’t apologetics.

Puggo, the quote is also in the articles I linked. The context and the understanding is what’s missing from the current discussion. Thus the NYT expressed a different understanding 2 years ago.

dahmage, that’s true. But asking someone to engage in future hacking is different from asking for information that’s already in the hands of shady people.

Consider that asking someone to steal the Pentagon Papers = bad; wanting them published = less bad.

dahmage said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

There is no comparing Obama’s relationship with Russia versus Trump’s. They are in a completely different league. Obama never publicly called on Russia to hack into an opponent’s system.

Neither did Trump, to be accurate. At the time of Trump’s statement the server was wiped but believed to have been hacked before that point.

Accordingly the NYT, at the time, described Trump as saying that “he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen.”

Notice use of the past tense. Also the DNC also had already been hacked at that point.

Trump’s comments were inappropriate and encouraging of bad behavior by foreign adversaries, but it was understood, at the time, that he was asking for release of materials already presumed stolen because of negligence by Clinton.

Now that the context is forgotten, the NYT claims, “Donald J. Trump made a direct appeal to Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails and make them public.”

So now we’ve shifted to a future request for hacking, rather than a request to publish what was already hacked, only because people are ignoring the context.

Obama didn’t have the depth of business ties. And Obama most certainly never openly trusted Putin’s word over his own intel.

If you want hypocrisy, look no further than Fox News’ vitriol when Obama floated the idea of meeting with North Korea.

I don’t care to relitigate all of Obama’s failures with Russia, but the inconsistency of many on both sides is distressing.

I am not sure there is any difference between requesting someone to perform a hack, or to release data from a hack they already performed.

There’s a huge difference.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

There is no comparing Obama’s relationship with Russia versus Trump’s. They are in a completely different league. Obama never publicly called on Russia to hack into an opponent’s system.

Neither did Trump, to be accurate. At the time of Trump’s statement the server was wiped but believed to have been hacked before that point.

Accordingly the NYT, at the time, described Trump as saying that “he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen.”

Notice use of the past tense. Also the DNC also had already been hacked at that point.

Trump’s comments were inappropriate and encouraging of bad behavior by foreign adversaries, but it was understood, at the time, that he was asking for release of materials already presumed stolen because of negligence by Clinton.

Now that the context is forgotten, the NYT claims, “Donald J. Trump made a direct appeal to Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails and make them public.”

So now we’ve shifted to a future request for hacking, rather than a request to publish what was already hacked, only because people are ignoring the context.

Obama didn’t have the depth of business ties. And Obama most certainly never openly trusted Putin’s word over his own intel.

If you want hypocrisy, look no further than Fox News’ vitriol when Obama floated the idea of meeting with North Korea.

I don’t care to relitigate all of Obama’s failures with Russia, but the inconsistency of many on both sides is distressing.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-putin-helsinki-summit/index.html

Thoughts:

Conservatives got mad at Obama for blaming America and being overly conciliatory to hostile nations (including Russia), so this reverse is darkly amusing.

But does it really even matter anymore?

Do we want more Cold War?

It’s well and good to not tolerate intolerance. But that doesn’t mean it always can or should (let alone must) be abolished by law. Criticism and boycotts are two avenues for fighting intolerance.

Freedom means that people are going to be intolerant. We can do things like require all adoption agencies to not discriminate, but then deal with the repercussions of fewer agencies.

Force every bakery to make cakes and maybe there are fewer bakeries or maybe they donate a portion of their proceeds to a conservative organization that opposes gay marriage.

I see no logical end point in the quest to force people to not be intolerant, without abolishing the rights described in the US’s First Amendment.

When does Enterprise get good? The theme song, writing, acting (etc) of the few episodes I watched bored me.

Random thought I had: with transporter and replicator technology, would be possible to pull off some great heists, like stealing the Mona Lisa replacing it with replica.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

Love old school Justice League.

I prefer the Super Friends myself.

They’re a great incarnation of that era. The Super Powers figures were spectacular. Nice to see coffee representing that happy time.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

flame,

Of course it’s a flame. When people condemn someone for an immutable characteristic, they tend to get flamed. What’s wrong with flaming something that is terrible?

Can’t tell if joking.

No, I’m not. I don’t think that certain opinions are worthy of respect, and those views should be attacked with vitriol.

I think that most people’s religions are repugnant and immoral, but you don’t see me out and about preaching that they’re morally bankrupt and hellbound and bane of the country. You don’t see me out discriminating against people. Why can’t they abstain from that shit too? Whenever someone’s religion starts affecting innocent people, then it’s the religious person that needs to change. Society and everyone in it shouldn’t have to regress in order to wait for all these fundamentalists to catch up with the Civil Rights Act.

Well as I said before, it’s because people disagree. People hold fundamentally different views than you and are equally convinced that they are right.

Of course. I know that, I’m saying that I do not care one little tiny bit about religious people’s “right” to discriminate. The right to discriminate and refuse service to people because of immutable characteristics is not a right that I value.

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

Parents can do whatever they want, but a third-party private adoption service can’t discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics if they have state contracts.

Then those religious organizations may opt to not be involved in adoptions. I don’t know enough about the landscape of the foster system and adoption but I gather it’s not in a great place as it is.

It’s horrible, and keeping kids in that system in order to wait for parents that are less gay to adopt them is repugnant.

I have heard that the adoption process is rigorous. On the one hand that can minimize the risk of putting a kid in a bad situation, on the other hand it can discourage many people. I think the vast majority of kids in the system are there and would be there even if there were no discrimination. I really can’t imagine that there aren’t many kids available for adoption outside of religious adoption agencies.

moviefreakedmind said:

Holy shit that’s funny. I thought he was saying that Collipso’s statement that calling homosexuality sinful was a flame post. Just say flametitan, then I won’t be confused next time.

Okay, moviefreakedmind.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

flame,

Of course it’s a flame. When people condemn someone for an immutable characteristic, they tend to get flamed. What’s wrong with flaming something that is terrible?

Can’t tell if joking.

I think that most people’s religions are repugnant and immoral, but you don’t see me out and about preaching that they’re morally bankrupt and hellbound and bane of the country. You don’t see me out discriminating against people. Why can’t they abstain from that shit too? Whenever someone’s religion starts affecting innocent people, then it’s the religious person that needs to change. Society and everyone in it shouldn’t have to regress in order to wait for all these fundamentalists to catch up with the Civil Rights Act.

Well as I said before, it’s because people disagree. People hold fundamentally different views than you and are equally convinced that they are right.

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

Parents can do whatever they want, but a third-party private adoption service can’t discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics if they have state contracts.

Then those religious organizations may opt to not be involved in adoptions. I don’t know enough about the landscape of the foster system and adoption but I gather it’s not in a great place as it is.

Excellent. Hope she’s doing well.

Love old school Justice League.

Just ordered a Dell XPS13 for my SO who has used Macs for awhile now. Much better value, plus it’s not a Mac.

flametitan said:

Mrebo said:

flame,

Do you think private adoptions should be unlawful? Do you think parents shouldn’t be able to discriminate in who they give their baby to?

We’re talking about a state funded, public service. Private adoptions are another can of worms. Nevermind that the reason at least a portion of the kids in these services to begin with are there because their parents lost said legal custody.

Curious what you think of that other can of worms.

Like chyron said, maybe they shouldn’t have licenses but apparently they fill an important role.

why can’t religious people put away their religion long enough to provide a service?

Because they’re exercising their religiois freedom. Various community services and help provided to people emanates from religious belief.

I’m sorry I think religious freedom should not trump the rights of others to be able to raise loving families of their own.

Generally it doesn’t. State and other secular agencies as well as private adoptions are all avenues open to anyone.

I’m sorry for all these oppressed Christians who have to offer services to people they think go against their religion.

There are limits but free exercise of religion means people are going to have the right to do things that deeply offend others who think differently. It’s inevitable.

I’m sorry I think I deserve the same respect and dignity as everyone else because I am fundamentally human like the rest of you.

The question is whether we can force everyone to behave as we would like.

Religious freedom is nonsense.

This is the crux (punintended) of your argument.

Every day we have to deal with people we disagree with. In every other case we tell the person to grin and bear it.

This is an argument either side might make.

Why should you get a free pass in this case because a book tells you not to be gay? The same book also speaks of dietary restrictions and of days of required fasting and prayer, but we don’t judge when someone doesn’t follow them.

People don’t need to be consistent to be sincere, at least as far as government limiting religious freedom is concerned.

chyron8472 said:

.

I still don’t get it.

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

or crèche as we say in America

We do? I don’t say that.

Google:

crèche
kreSH/Submit
noun
noun: crèche; plural noun: crèches
1.
NORTH AMERICAN
a model or tableau representing the scene of Jesus Christ’s birth, displayed in homes or public places at Christmas.
2.
BRITISH
a nursery where babies and young children are cared for during the working day.

We also say “crayfish” - or at least right-thinking Americans do.