chyron8472

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

and may soon have the majority of the US Supreme Court

Soon? The Supreme Court has been a reliably Republican institution for generations!

The Warren Court has left the building, modern conservative Republicans have had at least a slim majority ever since. And Warren was a Republican too, just from the era when liberal Republicans existed. The problem for the Republicans is that as the Republican party races to more-and-more conservative positions, these lifetime Republican appointees on the court seem more liberal just by keeping to the same positions that got them nominated.

The court’s current swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, is a diehard Reagan Republican. Republicans own this thing already. The trick is that by today’s Republican standards, Reagan was a Communist Kenyan Muslim.

Was it conservative when it said gays have a Constitutional right to marry?

My understanding is that 1) conservatism values limited federal government; and 2) family law is traditionally left to the individual states. And therefore, if a state were to grant someone that right, the federal government would let them. What would be a federal issue is whether someone who is gay got married in one state but another state didn’t recognize it as legally legitimate.

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

darth_ender said:

I could never, ever be a Democrat, but why does the Republican Party have to suck so much?

Similarly, I could never, ever be a Republican, but why does the Democratic Party have to suck so much?

“I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.”
–Will Rogers

I’ve been looking at Fast RMX and Redout, trying to decide which was a better futuristic racing game to get on my Switch.

It seems music is where it hit for me. I was on the fence , but decided I will wait for Redout after I heard the soundtrack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUx9hKEd1KE

moviefreakedmind said:

That’s a very favorable description of Hillary. She was a horrible candidate. There are plenty of people who hate Trump that hated Hillary. Trump can be horrible, but you can’t treat people that saw the 2016 election as a contest between two hideously intolerable candidates (in different ways and to different extents, I know) as though they’re simpletons that watched too many Alex Jones videos. Trump’s victory is almost entirely to blame on Hillary.

Yes, but that doesn’t explain his victory in the Republican primaries.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I can still see why people voted for him against Hillary due to the view that Hillary was corrupt and Trump was the lesser of the two evils, but there is no Christian justification for it.

The Christian justification, as I understand it, is that he would appoint a bunch of far right wing judges to the Supreme Court who would undo all the evil laws like Roe v Wade.

So on that count, they’re at least one judge closer, and they may only need one more.

I sure hope selling their souls was worth it!

As a Christian, I see nothing Christian in Trump.

Nor I.

TV’s Frink said:

Since the Russia story is a witch hunt, I guess that makes Manafort a witch.

I wish someone would turn Trump into a newt.

TV’s Frink said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/evangelical-adviser-trump-nuke-north-korea_us_598a62b3e4b0449ed5066531

Robert Jeffress, head of the First Baptist Dallas megachurch, told CBN on Tuesday that a biblical passage in Romans allows rulers to use “whatever means necessary ― including war ― to stop evil.”

He said:

“In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un. I’m heartened to see that our president ― contrary to what we’ve seen with past administrations who have taken, at best, a sheepish stance toward dictators and oppressors ― will not tolerate any threat against the American people.”

Jeffress also said:

“When @POTUS draws a red line, he will not erase, move, or back away from it. Thank God for pres. who is serious ab. protecting our country.”

Ok then.

One could say the same about opposing communism. …So, the Vietnam War was a good idea?

You know, America doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to militarily forcing American policy on foreign countries against leaders we don’t like. I seem to recall it usually makes the natives mad.

What I want to know is–and I’m asking the conservatives and/or Republicans here–why in God’s name conservatives voted for Donald Trump. Not necessarily against Hillary, as she has more than enough obvious reasons to be thoroughly disliked–but in the primaries.

I know people liked him as a protest candidate against the status quo, but voting for a protest candidate is one thing; voting for Donald Trump is something completely different. So many people knew for the longest time that he cares little for anybody but himself, he’s short tempered, uneducated, listens to conspiracy theorists, and is generally out of touch with the common man.

This is a legitimate question, not a rant nor a flamebait.

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

chyron8472 said:

But that doesn’t give someone license to outright tell girls that they aren’t employed in certain jobs because get-over-it.

Warbler said:

Is that what I was doing?

No. That’s what whats-his-buckets that got fired from Google was doing.

really?

Yes. Hence the accusations by his coworkers of sexual harassment.

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

I am a father to a 2.5 year old daughter, and her preferences, while influenced by me, are so very obviously to me not altogether of my or my wife’s making.

As a parent, I grow increasingly annoyed at accusations that parents brainwash or wrongfully indoctrinate their kids.

Absolutely agree. But I believe the current thinking is that by the time the average child is 2 years old, their parents are no longer the primary external influence on them.

I think people who say so either don’t have kids or assume most kids are babysat by the TV all day. My wife and I are still the two people with whom my daughter interacts the most, by a long shot. At some point, yes that is true that we will not be the primary influence, but not so at two years old.

chyron8472 said:

But that doesn’t give someone license to outright tell girls that they aren’t employed in certain jobs because get-over-it.

Warbler said:

Is that what I was doing?

No. That’s what whats-his-buckets that got fired from Google was doing.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Is a boy more into sports because he has a penis or because his Dad liked sports and the other boys liked sports and they all looked down on him until he liked sports?

I’m guessing it’s the latter.

What about transgendered people? When they are young, aren’t they given the clothes and the toys of the gender everyone things they are and they sometimes reject them and prefer the toys and cloths of the other gender?

Often, yes.

Not sure what your point is, unless you’re just agreeing with me.

My point is that maybe there is something about what gender your brain is that affects what you like that don’t like. You said that maybe the only reason a boy likes sports is because his Dad did and how other boys would look down on him for not liking sports. If what you said is true, then a person born with the mind of girl but the body of a boy would still end up liking sports and the same would true of toys and clothes, yet we know it doesn’t work like that.

Newsflash: Some girls like football and Star Wars, some boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. A person with the mind of a girl but the body of a boy absolutely can end up liking sports and “boy” toys and clothes. You may think it doesn’t work like that but I guarantee you are wrong.

Newsflash: More boys than girls like football and Star Wars, more girls than boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. A person with mind of girl but the body of a boy tends to reject the boy clothes and toys the person is given and instead favors the girl cloths and toys the same is also true of sports. You may think it doesn’t work like that but I guarantee you are wrong.

Newsflash: Parents want their kids to conform to their preconceived stereotypes. If their kid is a boy, they’re more likely to try to get them to act like a boy. Kids see stereotypes of gender in media. They carry these throughout their life. Kids can also be bullied if they don’t like the “right” thing. You may think it doesn’t work like that but I guarantee you are wrong.

Do any of you have kids?

I am a father to a 2.5 year old daughter, and her preferences, while influenced by me, are so very obviously to me not altogether of my or my wife’s making. She likes pink. She likes yellow. But that’s not because we actively encourage it by pushing it on her. As a parent, I am learning how much of who God made her to be, as well as trying to train her in the ways I think is best for her.

As a parent, I grow increasingly annoyed at accusations that parents brainwash or wrongfully indoctrinate their kids.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Is a boy more into sports because he has a penis or because his Dad liked sports and the other boys liked sports and they all looked down on him until he liked sports?

I’m guessing it’s the latter.

What about transgendered people? When they are young, aren’t they given the clothes and the toys of the gender everyone things they are and they sometimes reject them and prefer the toys and cloths of the other gender?

Often, yes.

Not sure what your point is, unless you’re just agreeing with me.

My point is that maybe there is something about what gender your brain is that affects what you like that don’t like. You said that maybe the only reason a boy likes sports is because his Dad did and how other boys would look down on him for not liking sports. If what you said is true, then a person born with the mind of girl but the body of a boy would still end up liking sports and the same would true of toys and clothes, yet we know it doesn’t work like that.

Newsflash: Some girls like football and Star Wars, some boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. A person with the mind of a girl but the body of a boy absolutely can end up liking sports and “boy” toys and clothes. You may think it doesn’t work like that but I guarantee you are wrong.

Newsflash: More boys than girls like football and Star Wars, more girls than boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic.

But that doesn’t give someone license to outright tell girls that they aren’t employed in certain jobs because get-over-it. People can like what they do or dislike what they don’t. But that doesn’t excuse general meanness and bad attitude.

The point is, people should be made to feel welcome and respected in all walks of life, no matter their quirks. This man’s memo trivialized and belittled the women at his workplace. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t agree with his employer’s cultural viewpoints. He should have kept his mouth shut.

TV’s Frink said:

some boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic.

as my avatar may indicate

SilverWook said:

Okay, let’s keep it civil in here. Last time we had an abortion debate, it didn’t end well for some.

Sorry, SW.

darthrush said:

And remember that I make a clear distinction between leftists and liberals since they are two completely different things.

chyron8472 said:

Yes, please elaborate, darthrush. I really am interested in discussion about it.

I’d still like an answer to this.

JEDIT: That gif is in jest, but I really am genuinely curious.

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

Do you include me in your list of “self-righteous jerks”? You did say “I can’t engage with any of you.”.

I’m tired and irritable and not in the mood to put up with how liberals describe my views on abortion. You’re not part of that crowd. This thread is just not fun anymore, and this is why hardly post in it anymore.

Oh, shut up. We weren’t describing your views on abortion. We were discussing what labels regarding stance on abortion may (or may not) be more (or less) accurate in general, and our individual opinions of why they might or might not be accurate.

Now, instead of using liberal as an epithet and putting everyone of apparently opposing view in a box while complaining about how they put you in a box, why don’t you be an adult and actually try having an intelligent rational conversation.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Any guy who writes a ten page misogynist manifesto is probably an all around cad. Doubt this was the only reason they fired him.

But yeah of course Google is dumb, they should be hiring more people with regressive ideas about gender, that definitely makes sense.

It is only your opinion that it was a misogynist manifesto and it is only your opinion that the he has regressive ideas about gender.

Imo, it makes sense that gender could affect one’s personality, and that could have an affect on career choices. Gender has an affect on what movies people like(there is a reason the term “chick-flick” exists) and whether or not they are sports fans, doesn’t it? Lets say you were at an American football stadium while a game was going on, if you had bet whether there were more men or women there, which way would you bet?

It is only your opinion that it is not a misogynist manifesto. And whether someone is a sports fan or not is not limited to nor primarily influenced by their gender. Not that you’ve studied the statistics on such things, nor do you make the distinction between differing preferences for different sports. Yes, different people are predisposed to certain hobbies, jobs, and preferences based on things like gender, culture, upbringing, attitude, ambition, et al. But to pigeon-hole a subgroup of the culture and label them as what amounts to inferior is all kinds of weak sauce.

NeverarGreat said:

DominicCobb said:

Any guy who writes a ten page misogynist manifesto is probably an all around cad. Doubt this was the only reason they fired him.

But yeah of course Google is dumb, they should be hiring more people with regressive ideas about gender, that definitely makes sense.

Hey look, the Atlantic is now basically apologizing for jumping on the bandwagon and mis-characterizing the memo as ‘anti-diversity’.

Isn’t it, though? My understanding is that the memo claims that there are fewer women in the tech industry because they’re biologically disinclined to do so.

Rogue-theX said:

I am an ANCHOR man.

I remember listening to an NPR segment on abortion. There was this woman they interviewed about it who said she had regrets, and said she looks back on it and laments how little to no counseling there was. She said had she been provided with counseling beforehand, she might have changed her decision. They then talked on the segment about the whether policy should be made to make counseling mandatory beforehand. I don’t remember the consensus or if there even was one.

TV’s Frink said:

We aborted at 21 weeks because our baby would be stillborn no mater what.

What?! Wow, I’m so sorry.

Seriously. I’m a parent and I just can’t even…

I’m so sorry.

NeverarGreat said:

I expect that it would be difficult to be an evangelical and also be a liberal, since to be a liberal today generally means being pro-choice, pro gay marriage, and pro science. This is why there is such an anti-religious tone on the Left - the values which were fringe only a few decades ago have now become mainstream and to be religious and liberal is more and more an act of outright hypocrisy.

But pro-choice doesn’t inherently mean pro-abortion. Pro-choice means “leave the federal government out of it, thanks”; or “that’s between the mother, her God, and her doctor”; or “immoral and criminal are not the same thing”; or “this issue is supremely complicated so don’t make blanket decisions for everyone.”

Pro-science also doesn’t inherently mean anti-God. Pro-science can mean God is perfectly capable of creating a universe in a way that makes scientific sense, and we value spending time figuring out what it is.

And pro gay marriage, while a divisive topic, does not inherently mean one does not take issue with the lifestyle itself (though it does suggest so), but rather what one believes the government’s role should be.

It’s not just the left who is at fault for belittling the right as ignorant and backward. It’s also the fault of the right for demonizing the left’s opinion as though such issues were black and white.

TV’s Frink said:

There has been a recent (at least, in the news) fight on the left over abortion and if you have to be pro-choice to be part of the Democratic party. One side says you absolutely have to be, the other says that anti-abortion voices have to be included in order to win House seats and state legislations in Conservative states/districts, in order to then push pro-choice positions.

I heartily agree with the sentiment that the Democratic Party needs to move away from being perceived as the “pro-abortion” party. I personally have known people who are one-issue voters, where that one issue is abortion. And, despite how narrow and ignorant I feel that is, that means it’s important to those people. So the Democrats really need to move away from allowing themselves to be pigeon-holed on such an apparently important topic.

I am a human pretending to be a robot pretending to be a human pretending to be a robot pretending to be a marmoset attempting to be witty.