LOCKED: Disgusted with progressives

posted by gut

I sincerely hope the first woman POTUS is a Republican

Nicki Haley hopefully. The women the democrats would want to put up there are absolutely horrid (Harris specifically)

posted by jmog

I watched that whole hour and a half long session. She gives her whole background and transition from being a liberal democrat to being a conservative. 

 

 

 

Wisdom attainment. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/24/calexit-gets-go-ahead-to-start-collecting-signatures.html

Could you imagine the liberal crap storm if the first woman POTUS was not only a republican but also black?

If it was Condoleezza Rice or this Candace Owens in a few cycles?

Our POTUS believes executing political opponents with flame throwers and anti-aircraft guns makes you a "very honorable" dictator.

posted by iclfan2

Nicki Haley hopefully. The women the democrats would want to put up there are absolutely horrid (Harris specifically)

I'd vote for Haley. I honestly don't know much about Harris to have a very good opinion.

One thing I'd never do, though, is vote for a woman based on novelty. 

California now going to ban certain religious views, going all out in its radical assault on Christianity.  The sooner these jackasses are purged from the United States, the better. 

https://pjmedia.com/faith/calif-law-would-ban-christian-books-against-homosexuality-transgenderism-as-fraudulent/

http://www.californiafamily.org/2018/assembly-votes-to-violate-the-1st-amendment/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/california-progressives-launch-another-attack-on-free-speech/

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/snopes-sneaky-liar-californias-bill-ban-christian-lgbt-talk/

posted by QuakerOats

California now going to ban certain religious views, going all out in its radical assault on Christianity.  The sooner these jackasses are purged from the United States, the better. 

https://pjmedia.com/faith/calif-law-would-ban-christian-books-against-homosexuality-transgenderism-as-fraudulent/

http://www.californiafamily.org/2018/assembly-votes-to-violate-the-1st-amendment/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/california-progressives-launch-another-attack-on-free-speech/

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/snopes-sneaky-liar-californias-bill-ban-christian-lgbt-talk/

 

 

 

I agree that this is a stupid bill.  I don't agree with your characterizing it as banning certain religious beliefs.  My first suspicion is that when you google this bill, almost everything that comes up is right wing news and commentary sites.  When you look to get some straight facts on the bill, you see that prohibits providers from advertising and engaging in sexual orientation change therapy for a fee.  It adds this service to the existing ban on advertising fraudulent services. 

Now I agree that this bill is a waste of time considering the challenges that state faces.  But the fear mongering of it being a Big Brother thing is preposterous.  

We are already on the slippery slope; this radical bill adds a ton of grease to the slide.  

The banning of any type of speech, expression, book etc... is totally outrageous. 

posted by QuakerOats

We are already on the slippery slope; this radical bill adds a ton of grease to the slide.  

The banning of any type of speech, expression, book etc... is totally outrageous. 

The bill is banning the promotion and sale of something they deem as fraudulent.  If there was a flier that advertised the services of a brothel, it would not technically be legal in CA either.  I don't know that you can make the leap from that to banning speech and expression.  Don't get me wrong, I  think the bill is stupid.  But it's not quite the terror you are projecting it to be.  

posted by QuakerOats

We are already on the slippery slope; this radical bill adds a ton of grease to the slide.  

The banning of any type of speech, expression, book etc... is totally outrageous. 

Slippery slope is known as a logical fallacy. Thanks for admitting you're full of shit!

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

The bill is banning the promotion and sale of something they deem as fraudulent.  If there was a flier that advertised the services of a brothel, it would not technically be legal in CA either.  

I don't think a state legislature should be mandating treatment standards for gender dystopia.  That is best left to the certifying or governing board or association.  Accountability, then, is really for a jury to decide after listening to expert witnesses on both sides to determine if said service was misrepresented or fraudulent.

And while sexual orientation therapy would be, at best, controversial for a small minority of medical practitioners, I imagine there are doctors who legitimately believe in it and patients who legitimately seek out the service.  So it would appear what CA is actually doing here is attempting to ban valid, even if perhaps very alternative, treatments that don't align with certain social agendas.

Heck, psychiatry itself, and many of its treatments and drugs prescribed are controversial in terms of effectiveness and validity.  I don't think the state has any business meddling in that.  If a patient is not satisfied, much less harmed, they can sue for malpractice.  The market itself will quickly put these "frauds" out of business.

posted by jmog

They did him no favors, but the fault is still the liberal left that called him racial epithets like Uncle Tom.

Any namecalling is always the fault of the namecallers, sure.  I was merely speaking to how the RNC almost paraded him in the news for a bit.

I mean, it didn't last long (it never does), but parading the newest shiny pet doesn't help lend credibility to the pet.
 

posted by jmog

I love Ben Carson as a person, humble, compassionate man that loves him mom, his wife, his whole family, loves God, and loves people. He is a self made man that dug himself out of poverty (obviously with his mom's help).

I don't think he was/is a very good politician and I disagreed with a lot of his policies.

However, to be 100% honest, I probably would have voted for him solely based on the fact that he was the best overall human being from both parties. I didn't agree with a lot of his policies, but maybe he would have got some 'smarter' politicians in there to help mold his political thinking.

I do know we wouldn't have had this crap storm we have now if he was in there, no talk of Stormy Daniels/Russia, or Email/Clinton Foundation/Uranium One if he was in office.

Sure.  But we'd be making a bigger deal of this $11K dinner table or whatever.  Still, the scandals wouldn't be huge shots to him as a moral person.  The guy does seem to be a man of scruples.
 

posted by gut

I sincerely hope the first woman POTUS is a Republican, because it will expose liberals once and for all for what they are - shaming, bullying, brainwashing or whatever term you want to use for basically disenfranchising potential voters by taking away choice because of bullshit identity politics.

I do think it would demonstrate them as more blindly partisan than they would prefer to claim they are.  GOP is, too, but I think that's less of a secret.  This would "out" the DNC.
 

posted by Heretic

Slippery slope is known as a logical fallacy. Thanks for admitting you're full of shit!

I don't understand why people continue to try to use the notion of a "slippery slope" to make arguments.
 

posted by gut

Heck, psychiatry itself, and many of its treatments and drugs prescribed are controversial in terms of effectiveness and validity.  I don't think the state has any business meddling in that.  If a patient is not satisfied, much less harmed, they can sue for malpractice.  The market itself will quickly put these "frauds" out of business.

It's amazing how things like that would actually take care of themselves if they were left to.

posted by gut

I don't think a state legislature should be mandating treatment standards for gender dystopia.  That is best left to the certifying or governing board or association.  Accountability, then, is really for a jury to decide after listening to expert witnesses on both sides to determine if said service was misrepresented or fraudulent.

And while sexual orientation therapy would be, at best, controversial for a small minority of medical practitioners, I imagine there are doctors who legitimately believe in it and patients who legitimately seek out the service.  So it would appear what CA is actually doing here is attempting to ban valid, even if perhaps very alternative, treatments that don't align with certain social agendas.

Heck, psychiatry itself, and many of its treatments and drugs prescribed are controversial in terms of effectiveness and validity.  I don't think the state has any business meddling in that.  If a patient is not satisfied, much less harmed, they can sue for malpractice.  The market itself will quickly put these "frauds" out of business.

I agree with all of your points.  I think the bill is horrible and should not have even been introduced.  I was just pointing out how right wingers have used it to promote fear by claiming it will outlaw Christian books.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

The bill is banning the promotion and sale of something they deem as fraudulent.  If there was a flier that advertised the services of a brothel, it would not technically be legal in CA either.  I don't know that you can make the leap from that to banning speech and expression.  Don't get me wrong, I  think the bill is stupid.  But it's not quite the terror you are projecting it to be.  

Not only ban such, but no doubt levy fines and worse.  I look forward to the beatdown on constitutional merits. 

posted by QuakerOats

Not only ban such, but no doubt levy fines and worse.  I look forward to the beatdown on constitutional merits. 

I'm interested to see how many of these yahoos there are in CA with legal standing to be a plaintiff.

posted by Heretic

Slippery slope is known as a logical fallacy. Thanks for admitting you're full of shit!

A slippery slope argument is not a per se fallacy like a strawman, appeal to authority, etc. It depends on the evidence.

Did anyone else not find Michelle wolf’s “roasting” funny at all? Like I get that’s why she was there and peopl need to relax that she insulted Sarah hucklebee sanders because that was the whole point of her being there, I just didn’t find anything she said funny at all. And libs are literally on the floor laughing. 

I do find it funny that if the roles were reversed, and someone was up there saying those things to a democratic woman, there’d be OUTRAGE!

posted by SportsAndLady

Did anyone else not find Michelle wolf’s “roasting” funny at all?...And libs are literally on the floor laughing. 

Didn't watch and have no intention of doing so.  But your point seems to hold with liberals in general - if you think someone is intolerant of something you believe, then it's ok to bully them.  A lot of political comedy these days seems aimed at stroking the liberal superiority complex, and not really jokes just angry personal attacks.  

posted by gut

Didn't watch and have no intention of doing so.  But your point seems to hold with liberals in general - if you think someone is intolerant of something you believe, then it's ok to bully them.  A lot of political comedy these days seems aimed at stroking the liberal superiority complex, and not really jokes just angry personal attacks.  

Which is exactly what it was--calling her a liar and making fun of her name. And everyone was DYING. lol