Fanboy Central

For the Fanboys of the White Sox


    Stormy Daniels

    Share
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 834
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Stormy Daniels

    Post by blondy28 on Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:58 pm

    Something tells me that the Nina Hartley's Box board is going to be hopping soon.  

    It's nice to see the evangelical leaders have given Trump "a mulligan" on this one.
    avatar
    cream919
    Getting to be a Fanboy

    Posts : 351
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by cream919 on Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:16 pm

    Fucking evangelical bastards. Shame on them and their followers who embrace this sick fuck. You know this country is going to hell when churches become part of the problem.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy

    Posts : 886
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by alohafri on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:39 pm

    cream919 wrote:Fucking evangelical bastards. Shame on them and their followers who embrace this sick fuck. You know this country is going to hell when churches become part of the problem.

    When the Catholic Church makes statements against abortion and the left goes nuts. "Take away their tax-free status!" When the Catholic Church supports some kind of path toward citizenship (or at least legality), and the right goes nuts. "Take away their tax-free status!"


    Yet when the Evangelical nuts support the president's right to sleep with anyone he wants to, and it's crickets.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 834
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by blondy28 on Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:20 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    cream919 wrote:Fucking evangelical bastards. Shame on them and their followers who embrace this sick fuck. You know this country is going to hell when churches become part of the problem.

    When the Catholic Church makes statements against abortion and the left goes nuts. "Take away their tax-free status!" When the Catholic Church supports some kind of path toward citizenship (or at least legality), and the right goes nuts. "Take away their tax-free status!"


    Yet when the Evangelical nuts support the president's right to sleep with anyone he wants to, and it's crickets.

    I'm in favor of tax free status being revoked for churches on principle, not politics.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1041
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:57 pm

    blondy28 wrote:

    I'm in favor of tax free status being revoked for churches on principle, not politics.

    Or maybe remove the deduction for donating to things like Churches or other things that are not specifically a charity, such as the local symphony orchestra or the corner church.  Have never been against donations to non-profits, but they aren't necessarily charities or charitable donations.  Churches DO charity work with some of their revenues, and it would make sense to me if we could deduct the percentage of revenues that the church designates for charity, but otherwise it feels to me like donations to those organizations are usually because we derive some sort of use or enjoyment from those things.  Just doesn't strike me as a charitable donation, even if I highly support making those kinds of donations.

    if we did it this way, then pastors and preachers and priests could take political stands all they wanted and it wouldn't really matter.  Let them take whatever stance they want.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1041
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Sat Jan 27, 2018 9:50 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    cream919 wrote:Fucking evangelical bastards. Shame on them and their followers who embrace this sick fuck. You know this country is going to hell when churches become part of the problem.

    When the Catholic Church makes statements against abortion and the left goes nuts. "Take away their tax-free status!" When the Catholic Church supports some kind of path toward citizenship (or at least legality), and the right goes nuts. "Take away their tax-free status!"


    Yet when the Evangelical nuts support the president's right to sleep with anyone he wants to, and it's crickets.

    Does the left go nuts when the Catholic Church makes statements against abortion?  I assume that I fall under the description of "the left" and not only does it not bother me in the least when the Cath church or any other religion speaks out against abortion, but I almost expect it and accept it from them as a reasonable stance to hold. Maybe this puts me in some kind of minority but the pro-life movement is something I don't find the least bit bothersome.  I also am not sure that the right goes nuts over a path to citizenship.  Ted Cruz does.  And some of the alt-right does.  Maybe when you call them "the right" you're referring to the harder core members.

    Definitely agree with your take on the evangelical nuts.
    avatar
    cream919
    Getting to be a Fanboy

    Posts : 351
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Location : Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by cream919 on Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:45 am

    I recall in the early 70's a friend of mine invited me to go to a local and very large Baptist church he attended. I accepted his invitation and I'll never forget how there was this huge table full of pamphlets and brochures just as you walked in the door and every single fucking one of them political in nature. Railing against the Kennedys...hell I recall one them claiming that Henry Kissinger was the "anti-christ" and all the proof was inside the pamphlet...I shit you not. 

    And there you have it my friends. This was back in the days when Nixon was still president and these fundamental right wing evangelical churches were preaching and promoting these goofy-assed and WRONG political bullshit beliefs of theirs back then!!! Talk about fake news??? Is it any wonder this country is the way it is with these far right conservatives and alt.right assholes?? They're fucking brainwashed...this nonsense has been drilled into them from the pulpit all their lives and they wouldn't know what common sense was if it jumped up and bit them in the ass. Back then I didn't give much of a shit about such things...I was young and very naive I suppose. Now when I look back on it I'm just appalled that smart people could be so STUPID.

    I'm with you Blondy. If they wanna pound politics at the pulpit make them pay taxes!!! Fuck these people!!!!
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy

    Posts : 886
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by alohafri on Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:36 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    cream919 wrote:Fucking evangelical bastards. Shame on them and their followers who embrace this sick fuck. You know this country is going to hell when churches become part of the problem.

    When the Catholic Church makes statements against abortion and the left goes nuts. "Take away their tax-free status!" When the Catholic Church supports some kind of path toward citizenship (or at least legality), and the right goes nuts. "Take away their tax-free status!"


    Yet when the Evangelical nuts support the president's right to sleep with anyone he wants to, and it's crickets.

    Does the left go nuts when the Catholic Church makes statements against abortion?  I assume that I fall under the description of "the left" and not only does it not bother me in the least when the Cath church or any other religion speaks out against abortion, but I almost expect it and accept it from them as a reasonable stance to hold. Maybe this puts me in some kind of minority but the pro-life movement is something I don't find the least bit bothersome.  I also am not sure that the right goes nuts over a path to citizenship.  Ted Cruz does.  And some of the alt-right does.  Maybe when you call them "the right" you're referring to the harder core members.

    Definitely agree with your take on the evangelical nuts.

    Have you never read the Tribune comment pages? It may be the lunatic fringe of both sides, but if it is, the lunatic fringe is growing. Some of these people make Kark look reasonable.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1041
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:06 pm

    alohafri wrote:


    Have you never read the Tribune comment pages? It may be the lunatic fringe of both sides, but if it is, the lunatic fringe is growing. Some of these people make Kark look reasonable.

    Admittedly, I don't read the Trib comment pages.  Used to read both Chi papers religiously.  Maybe the kind of person that writes into the comment section is typically more fringey, but you'd think many people would say that weirdos like us, on message boards talking about politics, are pretty fringey, too.  You must have a few lib or conservative friends you occasionally are able to delve into political talk with...Lord knows I have a few.  Are those people bothered much by the pro-lifers (if they are libs) or by a possible path to citizenship (if they are GOP)?  

    Most of my conservative friends are GOP for purely tax/financial reasons.  They want less taxes and less regs.  They are fine with Trump cuz they will take the means to get the ends.  Most of my lib buddies are libs because of social reasons, i.e. racial equalities, abortion rights, minimum wages, healthcare, voting rights.  Those libs don't usually mind pro-lifers except for the kooks marching outside of the clinics and harassing teens and young women trying to just get in the door.  And those conservatives don't seem too concerned about immigration issues, except in certain extreme cases.  I don't know too many pro lifers in my circle...either that or they don't talk about it very much.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy

    Posts : 886
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by alohafri on Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:53 pm

    Those libs don't usually mind pro-lifers except for the kooks marching outside of the clinics and harassing teens and young women trying to just get in the door. 


    John Brown did much worse in the name of ending slavery.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1041
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:09 pm

    alohafri wrote:Those libs don't usually mind pro-lifers except for the kooks marching outside of the clinics and harassing teens and young women trying to just get in the door. 


    John Brown did much worse in the name of ending slavery.

    Point taken, and a good point you make at that.  Of course, he also was hung for his actions.  If that's not the definition of sacrificing for one's principles, then nothing is.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 834
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by blondy28 on Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:09 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    alohafri wrote:


    Have you never read the Tribune comment pages? It may be the lunatic fringe of both sides, but if it is, the lunatic fringe is growing. Some of these people make Kark look reasonable.

    Admittedly, I don't read the Trib comment pages.  Used to read both Chi papers religiously.  Maybe the kind of person that writes into the comment section is typically more fringey, but you'd think many people would say that weirdos like us, on message boards talking about politics, are pretty fringey, too.  You must have a few lib or conservative friends you occasionally are able to delve into political talk with...Lord knows I have a few.  Are those people bothered much by the pro-lifers (if they are libs) or by a possible path to citizenship (if they are GOP)?  

    Most of my conservative friends are GOP for purely tax/financial reasons.  They want less taxes and less regs.  They are fine with Trump cuz they will take the means to get the ends.  Most of my lib buddies are libs because of social reasons, i.e. racial equalities, abortion rights, minimum wages, healthcare, voting rights.  Those libs don't usually mind pro-lifers except for the kooks marching outside of the clinics and harassing teens and young women trying to just get in the door.  And those conservatives don't seem too concerned about immigration issues, except in certain extreme cases.  I don't know too many pro lifers in my circle...either that or they don't talk about it very much.

    I know the GOP promotes themselves as the "less regulation" party, but actually, they're kinda super regulationy.  Kinda like them promoting themselves as "fiscally conservative".  That's also bullshit.

    I don't necessarily put minimum wage or wage equality in the social issue category.  I put it in the economic category.  I put healthcare in the economic category, too.  And most democrats I know are actual fiscal conservatives...certainly more than the phony GOP.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1041
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:02 pm

    blondy28 wrote:

    I know the GOP promotes themselves as the "less regulation" party, but actually, they're kinda super regulationy.  Kinda like them promoting themselves as "fiscally conservative".  That's also bullshit.

    I don't necessarily put minimum wage or wage equality in the social issue category.  I put it in the economic category.  I put healthcare in the economic category, too.  And most democrats I know are actual fiscal conservatives...certainly more than the phony GOP.

    Well, they certainly seem to like regs when it comes to limiting personal freedoms.  

    Fair point regarding min wage and healthcare as economic issues.  Always felt like they could go either way.  They only reason I go social rather than economic is my belief that we have a "right" to a living wage if we work full time, and I view healthcare and medicine as something that ought to be a right.  They definitely have major economic implications, too.

    You're right about many Dems being fiscal conservatives.  Like I noted earlier, most of the Dem voters I know are that way for social issue reasons, and not for liberal economic reasons.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy

    Posts : 886
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by alohafri on Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:12 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    alohafri wrote:Those libs don't usually mind pro-lifers except for the kooks marching outside of the clinics and harassing teens and young women trying to just get in the door. 


    John Brown did much worse in the name of ending slavery.

    Point taken, and a good point you make at that.  Of course, he also was hung for his actions.  If that's not the definition of sacrificing for one's principles, then nothing is.

    They said you was hung! 


    And they was right.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Fanboy

    Posts : 886
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 51
    Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by alohafri on Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:14 pm

    blondy28 wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    alohafri wrote:


    Have you never read the Tribune comment pages? It may be the lunatic fringe of both sides, but if it is, the lunatic fringe is growing. Some of these people make Kark look reasonable.

    Admittedly, I don't read the Trib comment pages.  Used to read both Chi papers religiously.  Maybe the kind of person that writes into the comment section is typically more fringey, but you'd think many people would say that weirdos like us, on message boards talking about politics, are pretty fringey, too.  You must have a few lib or conservative friends you occasionally are able to delve into political talk with...Lord knows I have a few.  Are those people bothered much by the pro-lifers (if they are libs) or by a possible path to citizenship (if they are GOP)?  

    Most of my conservative friends are GOP for purely tax/financial reasons.  They want less taxes and less regs.  They are fine with Trump cuz they will take the means to get the ends.  Most of my lib buddies are libs because of social reasons, i.e. racial equalities, abortion rights, minimum wages, healthcare, voting rights.  Those libs don't usually mind pro-lifers except for the kooks marching outside of the clinics and harassing teens and young women trying to just get in the door.  And those conservatives don't seem too concerned about immigration issues, except in certain extreme cases.  I don't know too many pro lifers in my circle...either that or they don't talk about it very much.

    I know the GOP promotes themselves as the "less regulation" party, but actually, they're kinda super regulationy.  Kinda like them promoting themselves as "fiscally conservative".  That's also bullshit.

    I don't necessarily put minimum wage or wage equality in the social issue category.  I put it in the economic category.  I put healthcare in the economic category, too.  And most democrats I know are actual fiscal conservatives...certainly more than the phony GOP.

    I don't disagree. They are in favor of things like "states' rights" where it suits them and in favor of a strong central government when it suits them. But naturally the talking heads ignore either when it suits them.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 834
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by blondy28 on Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:39 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:
    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    alohafri wrote:


    Have you never read the Tribune comment pages? It may be the lunatic fringe of both sides, but if it is, the lunatic fringe is growing. Some of these people make Kark look reasonable.

    Admittedly, I don't read the Trib comment pages.  Used to read both Chi papers religiously.  Maybe the kind of person that writes into the comment section is typically more fringey, but you'd think many people would say that weirdos like us, on message boards talking about politics, are pretty fringey, too.  You must have a few lib or conservative friends you occasionally are able to delve into political talk with...Lord knows I have a few.  Are those people bothered much by the pro-lifers (if they are libs) or by a possible path to citizenship (if they are GOP)?  

    Most of my conservative friends are GOP for purely tax/financial reasons.  They want less taxes and less regs.  They are fine with Trump cuz they will take the means to get the ends.  Most of my lib buddies are libs because of social reasons, i.e. racial equalities, abortion rights, minimum wages, healthcare, voting rights.  Those libs don't usually mind pro-lifers except for the kooks marching outside of the clinics and harassing teens and young women trying to just get in the door.  And those conservatives don't seem too concerned about immigration issues, except in certain extreme cases.  I don't know too many pro lifers in my circle...either that or they don't talk about it very much.

    I know the GOP promotes themselves as the "less regulation" party, but actually, they're kinda super regulationy.  Kinda like them promoting themselves as "fiscally conservative".  That's also bullshit.

    I don't necessarily put minimum wage or wage equality in the social issue category.  I put it in the economic category.  I put healthcare in the economic category, too.  And most democrats I know are actual fiscal conservatives...certainly more than the phony GOP.

    I don't disagree. They are in favor of things like "states' rights" where it suits them and in favor of a strong central government when it suits them. But naturally the talking heads ignore either when it suits them.

    I'm in favor of what makes sense.  As I've said many times, I'm not in favor of bigger government...I'm simply in favor of considering ALL of the viable options when considering policy, rather than taking the position that government shouldn't be considered as a matter of  "keeping government small".  I think Rob's position differs from mine in that he comes from a position of personal freedoms (e.g., people should be able to discriminate in their businesses, etc.).   I might take that position if I had any kind of faith in the free market system sorting things out, but I don't...at least not in this day and age.  It certainly did a better job of it when I was growing up.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1041
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:54 pm

    blondy28 wrote:


    I'm in favor of what makes sense.  As I've said many times, I'm not in favor of bigger government...I'm simply in favor of considering ALL of the viable options when considering policy, rather than taking the position that government shouldn't be considered as a matter of  "keeping government small".  I think Rob's position differs from mine in that he comes from a position of personal freedoms (e.g., people should be able to discriminate in their businesses, etc.).   I might take that position if I had any kind of faith in the free market system sorting things out, but I don't...at least not in this day and age.  It certainly did a better job of it when I was growing up.

    Part of my holding of this position stems from my belief that there's no way to really discern clearly what ought to be allowed and what ought not be allowed...for example, whether making a cake for a gay wedding is considered to be creating art, and what if I have to make a cake for a Trump group, or a Nazi group with a swastika on it.  Seems to me that we ought to just be able to associate with and serve who we wish.  Gets muddled when I'm trying to hire sexy chicks to serve chix wings and some hairy assed dude comes in wanting to be a waiter in the same place.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 834
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by blondy28 on Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:11 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:


    I'm in favor of what makes sense.  As I've said many times, I'm not in favor of bigger government...I'm simply in favor of considering ALL of the viable options when considering policy, rather than taking the position that government shouldn't be considered as a matter of  "keeping government small".  I think Rob's position differs from mine in that he comes from a position of personal freedoms (e.g., people should be able to discriminate in their businesses, etc.).   I might take that position if I had any kind of faith in the free market system sorting things out, but I don't...at least not in this day and age.  It certainly did a better job of it when I was growing up.

    Part of my holding of this position stems from my belief that there's no way to really discern clearly what ought to be allowed and what ought not be allowed...for example, whether making a cake for a gay wedding is considered to be creating art, and what if I have to make a cake for a Trump group, or a Nazi group with a swastika on it.  Seems to me that we ought to just be able to associate with and serve who we wish.  Gets muddled when I'm trying to hire sexy chicks to serve chix wings and some hairy assed dude comes in wanting to be a waiter in the same place.

    In theory, I agree with you.  I could let the cake thing go, but then that makes your point...where do you stop?  What if you live in a small town in Wyoming (you know...the state where Matthew Shepherd was beaten and left for dead because he was gay) and there is only one grocery store for 60 miles and one gas station, and they find out you're gay and they refuse to sell you gas or food.  And the only doctor in the podunk town decides he doesn't treat gays.  And the fire department...what if they believe gays should burn in hell, so they refuse to put the hose on their burning down house?  And no, you can't say government has different rules than private business, if this is about "religious freedom", which Trump is in favor of.  I mean, if Betsy Devos is OK with it in schools, why not fire departments?  And no, gay people picking up and moving is not an acceptable solution...cuz then the next town decides they won't let them buy food or gas, then they find another town.  I know...you think there are enough areas of this country that would welcome them, but for shitssake, with 80% of the Republicans saying Trump represents their values, I'm not convinced of that anymore.
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1041
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:00 pm

    blondy28 wrote:


    In theory, I agree with you.  I could let the cake thing go, but then that makes your point...where do you stop?  What if you live in a small town in Wyoming (you know...the state where Matthew Shepherd was beaten and left for dead because he was gay) and there is only one grocery store for 60 miles and one gas station, and they find out you're gay and they refuse to sell you gas or food. 

    Probably need to not live in that area.  You've made this point before and it's a great point and warrants further consideration.  In fact, your having made this point is the primary reason I sometimes pause in expressing my existing opinion about letting people choose those with whom they associate.  If we'd never have, as a nation, passed the Civil Rights Act, do you think things would be better right now than they were back in the '60's?  Do you think that the country would mostly be serving those folks now due to just having socially evolved?  

    And the only doctor in the podunk town decides he doesn't treat gays.  And the fire department...what if they believe gays should burn in hell, so they refuse to put the hose on their burning down house?  And no, you can't say government has different rules than private business, if this is about "religious freedom", which Trump is in favor of. 

    Oh, but I CAN say gov't has different rules.  Gov't has no business sponsoring discrimination or allowing it within the ranks.  If you are a gov't official, you accept your job as it's described or you don't hold that job.  That goes for bigot Kim Davis, or any gay-hating fireman or doctor.  Not to mention that in the case of docs and firemen, they ought to be held to a standard of not being able to pick and choose when someone's personal safety is at hand.  


    I mean, if Betsy Devos is OK with it in schools, why not fire departments?  And no, gay people picking up and moving is not an acceptable solution...cuz then the next town decides they won't let them buy food or gas, then they find another town.  I know...you think there are enough areas of this country that would welcome them, but for shitssake, with 80% of the Republicans saying Trump represents their values, I'm not convinced of that anymore.


    that's the tricky part....the possibility of gays needing to up and move around the country.  I mean, they'd basically have to stay in higher population towns where there's some acceptance of them and willingness for them to exist.  Wouldn't want to see it have to be like this, but it's just so damn gray to determine if I have to sell gay dude a coke but I don't have to bake him a cake or take his wedding photo, but I have to make him a pizza but I don't have to make him a pizza if it's for his wedding because that means I'm being forced to be a part of his ceremony.  Jesus fucking Christ why can't people just be nice?????
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 834
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by blondy28 on Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:27 am

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:


    In theory, I agree with you.  I could let the cake thing go, but then that makes your point...where do you stop?  What if you live in a small town in Wyoming (you know...the state where Matthew Shepherd was beaten and left for dead because he was gay) and there is only one grocery store for 60 miles and one gas station, and they find out you're gay and they refuse to sell you gas or food. 

    Probably need to not live in that area.  You've made this point before and it's a great point and warrants further consideration.  In fact, your having made this point is the primary reason I sometimes pause in expressing my existing opinion about letting people choose those with whom they associate.  If we'd never have, as a nation, passed the Civil Rights Act, do you think things would be better right now than they were back in the '60's?  Do you think that the country would mostly be serving those folks now due to just having socially evolved?  

    No, I do not the country would be mostly serving those folks.  

    And the only doctor in the podunk town decides he doesn't treat gays.  And the fire department...what if they believe gays should burn in hell, so they refuse to put the hose on their burning down house?  And no, you can't say government has different rules than private business, if this is about "religious freedom", which Trump is in favor of. 

    Oh, but I CAN say gov't has different rules.  Gov't has no business sponsoring discrimination or allowing it within the ranks.  If you are a gov't official, you accept your job as it's described or you don't hold that job.  That goes for bigot Kim Davis, or any gay-hating fireman or doctor.  Not to mention that in the case of docs and firemen, they ought to be held to a standard of not being able to pick and choose when someone's personal safety is at hand.  

    Why?  State's rights.  Freedom.    

    I mean, if Betsy Devos is OK with it in schools, why not fire departments?  And no, gay people picking up and moving is not an acceptable solution...cuz then the next town decides they won't let them buy food or gas, then they find another town.  I know...you think there are enough areas of this country that would welcome them, but for shitssake, with 80% of the Republicans saying Trump represents their values, I'm not convinced of that anymore.


    that's the tricky part....the possibility of gays needing to up and move around the country.  I mean, they'd basically have to stay in higher population towns where there's some acceptance of them and willingness for them to exist.  Wouldn't want to see it have to be like this, but it's just so damn gray to determine if I have to sell gay dude a coke but I don't have to bake him a cake or take his wedding photo, but I have to make him a pizza but I don't have to make him a pizza if it's for his wedding because that means I'm being forced to be a part of his ceremony.  Jesus fucking Christ why can't people just be nice?????

    How can a kid control where he grows up?  So a nice, white, straight Evangelical couple lives in a small town, but "bam", they have a gay son.  Now you've got everyone moving so Jethro can be a bigot...cuz "freedom".
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1041
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:30 am

    Pam, it's not that I don't agree with all of your points.  I do.  You're correct on almost all of your comments on this.  You know there's nothing that disgusts me more than discrimination against gays, blacks, whomever, for any reasons.  I'm just struggling to figure out how to make laws and policies in this realm into something that's objective, without endless room for lawsuits and wiggle room to claim one's artistic license or some kind of religious freedom to discriminate against the gays.  

    And to top it all off, if you were hired to come and do photos for some kind of Nazi group, or religious group that wishes to jail or kill gay people or black people, would you want the freedom to refuse that on some kind of personal or religious grounds?  Yes, that's a VERY far flung example, but you can imagine how far flung can evolve or warp into commonplace by just changing one descriptor. 

    Keep in mind that in the eyes of some of these fanatics, a gay person is as awful a blight on this earth as we might see a Nazi as a blight on the earth.  Who am I to demand that my preferences are legit and the Nazi guy's whacked out beliefs are not legit?
    avatar
    sharpy
    Getting to be a Fanboy

    Posts : 463
    Join date : 2017-05-10

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by sharpy on Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:48 pm

    Nice discussion. People have moved b/c of discrimination and prejudice since this country was formed. Why do you think people came to the Americas initially? or How the west was settled? people running from where they were. Gays have moved from small towns to, initially San Francisco, but now to many bigger and more inviting cities. Non gays have moved out of small towns as well b/c of lack of opportunity, or b/c they didn't feel like they belonged. The Unabomber grew up in Chicago and moved to the rural sticks of Montana - had his reasons. So I don't see where moving is not an acceptable alternative. As for kids - grow up and leave. Like millions have - b/c they were gay. because they wanted to make it big on broadway, for whatever reason. Is any of this "right"? or "fair" ...fuck no. But that's the Christian nation we live in.  When billy grahams kid says Trump is the hand of God b/c how else could he win when he pissed everyone off unless God made it so, morals, ethics and the Golden Rule don't really exist in this country and never will. (that's like saying Hitler or Stalin were God's choices b/c they were such vile human beings how else could they win without God's help?) Get over the thought and the dream that people are "basically good"  and make due with the chickenshit given us all. And in reality, if you want to be a powerbroker? Millionaire? big shot? you take the chicken shit given you and pile it on the guy next to you. If you could live with yourself after doing so. Most of us can't, which is basically what saves any sort of society. 
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 834
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by blondy28 on Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:50 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:Pam, it's not that I don't agree with all of your points.  I do.  You're correct on almost all of your comments on this.  You know there's nothing that disgusts me more than discrimination against gays, blacks, whomever, for any reasons.  I'm just struggling to figure out how to make laws and policies in this realm into something that's objective, without endless room for lawsuits and wiggle room to claim one's artistic license or some kind of religious freedom to discriminate against the gays.  

    And to top it all off, if you were hired to come and do photos for some kind of Nazi group, or religious group that wishes to jail or kill gay people or black people, would you want the freedom to refuse that on some kind of personal or religious grounds?  Yes, that's a VERY far flung example, but you can imagine how far flung can evolve or warp into commonplace by just changing one descriptor. 

    Keep in mind that in the eyes of some of these fanatics, a gay person is as awful a blight on this earth as we might see a Nazi as a blight on the earth.  Who am I to demand that my preferences are legit and the Nazi guy's whacked out beliefs are not legit?
     
    So if you had your druthers you'd have just waited to see how that whole segregated school, riding in the backs of buses, having separate drinking fountains  thing would have shaken out without legislation?
    avatar
    SoxIlliniRob
    Fanboy

    Posts : 1041
    Join date : 2017-05-05
    Age : 52
    Location : Saint Charles, IL

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by SoxIlliniRob on Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:02 pm

    blondy28 wrote:

     
    So if you had your druthers you'd have just waited to see how that whole segregated school, riding in the backs of buses, having separate drinking fountains  thing would have shaken out without legislation?

    Segregated schools...no.  No discrimination of any kind via the gov't or public services would be allowed under President SoxIlliniRob.  Same thing with public drinking fountains if they are property of the gov't, be it fed, state, or local.   

    Buses...probably yes.  Not because I like that and find it fair, but because I'm, to a fault, a creature of objectivity and dislike subjectivity when it comes to laws and rights.  It's damn tricky to dictate who is allowed to ban whom.  I can ban a loud, drunk person from my bus, or a person with no shirt, but I can't ban a gay person, or a black person.  And what if the black person is being loud and drunk?  Or the gay dude is wearing no shirt?  It gets messy.  I just lean toward letting businesses decide who they wanna serve, and then we have the power of social media and picketing and boycotting if we think it's being done in an unfair manner, sort of like how we can refuse to patronize Chik Fil A, or Hobby Lobby, or WalMart or Home Depot.  Again, the idea of discriminating against these people disgusts me, but if we want the right to not bake cakes for skinheads with Swastika tattoos or for the Mike Pence Jail-the-gays Club meeting, then I have to be willing to let the Christian baker refuse to make a homosexual cake.
    avatar
    blondy28
    Fanboy

    Posts : 834
    Join date : 2017-05-06

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by blondy28 on Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:09 pm

    SoxIlliniRob wrote:
    blondy28 wrote:

     
    So if you had your druthers you'd have just waited to see how that whole segregated school, riding in the backs of buses, having separate drinking fountains  thing would have shaken out without legislation?

    Segregated schools...no.  No discrimination of any kind via the gov't or public services would be allowed under President SoxIlliniRob.  Same thing with public drinking fountains if they are property of the gov't, be it fed, state, or local.   

    Buses...probably yes.  Not because I like that and find it fair, but because I'm, to a fault, a creature of objectivity and dislike subjectivity when it comes to laws and rights.  It's damn tricky to dictate who is allowed to ban whom.  I can ban a loud, drunk person from my bus, or a person with no shirt, but I can't ban a gay person, or a black person.  And what if the black person is being loud and drunk?  Or the gay dude is wearing no shirt?  It gets messy.  I just lean toward letting businesses decide who they wanna serve, and then we have the power of social media and picketing and boycotting if we think it's being done in an unfair manner, sort of like how we can refuse to patronize Chik Fil A, or Hobby Lobby, or WalMart or Home Depot.  Again, the idea of discriminating against these people disgusts me, but if we want the right to not bake cakes for skinheads with Swastika tattoos or for the Mike Pence Jail-the-gays Club meeting, then I have to be willing to let the Christian baker refuse to make a homosexual cake.

    I get it.  Of course, gay people are born that way and can't change...skinheads can, so they can always change who they are to get that cake.   Do you think pray-away-the-gay camps should be legal?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Stormy Daniels

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 12, 2018 9:02 pm