Republicans are a joke (1 Viewer)

[tommyboy]

I worry about it because this is what the people that run our country want. It won't last long until they change the courts in their favor...

Never happen

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

that law won't last too long, wouldnt' worry about it.

It's the thought that counts.

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

 

[Mister CIA]

Would not leave a child alone with this guy.

 

[jon_mx]

While I'm not particularly supportive of the title of this thread, this seemed the most appropriate place to put this

https://www.good.is/articles/texas-prevents-non-christian-adoption

Even though i consider myself strongly fiscally conservative, this is the reason i could never vote R as they stand now.  

On one hand, the argument they often make is that the government shouldn't be in the business of charity and other things because churches will make up that slack.  On the other hand churches move right into discrimination proving exactly why the government needs to be the controller of certain facets of society

The title of the article is misleading.  It is titled:  

Texas Passes Bill To Prevent Non-Christians From Adopting Kids

That is not what the law does.  Non-Christians can still adopt kids.  What the law does is protect private organizations from lawsuits.  My understanding is that what the law does is if a Christian organization only wanted to serve christian families they could without fear of lawsuits.  That is very different than what the title implies.  Now you can debate if such practice is right, but the issue should be presented without the false spin.      

Of course let's just stick to how much of a joke Republicans are and ignore Democrats getting manipulated with propaganda, since we all know they are far too superior to fall for misleading information from questionable sources. 

 

[The Z Machine]

I really don't have an issue with this, as long as there are reasonably equivalent avenues for non-Christians, or gay Christians, or others that may be discriminated against. If those don't exist, then there's an issue.

 

[sporthenry]

Only, in deep red states, those alternative options are far and few between.

Well that I can believe. And even if not intended to discriminate, it sure seems to have that affect no matter what mental gymnastics you put yourself through to justify it. 

 

[kface]

The title of the article is misleading.  It is titled:  

Texas Passes Bill To Prevent Non-Christians From Adopting Kids

That is not what the law does.  Non-Christians can still adopt kids.  What the law does is protect private organizations from lawsuits.  My understanding is that what the law does is if a Christian organization only wanted to serve christian families they could without fear of lawsuits.  That is very different than what the title implies.  Now you can debate if such practice is right, but the issue should be presented without the false spin.      

Of course let's just stick to how much of a joke Republicans are and ignore Democrats getting manipulated with propaganda, since we all know they are far too superior to fall for misleading information from questionable sources. 

Does the bill prevent non-christians from adopting kids?  Yes it does.  Your specious argument is so awful and getting so tiresome.  Let's just go back to white only restaurants then as well, because you know what that  means african-american's are still free to do what they want.  No harm because they can still ride the 'black bus' right?  After all, they can still ride the bus, just not this one.

Being able to adopt a kid is a fundamental right and so important to many families.  To limit that access in a deep red state is absolutely atrocious.

 

[NREC34]

Don't we want the kids to go to heaven?

C'mon guys. 

 

[jon_mx]

Does the bill prevent non-christians from adopting kids?  Yes it does.  Your specious argument is so awful.....

Blah, blah, blah....just because the arguement is not on your side, you have to side track in hyperbolic characterization against me.  This is exactly why discussions suck-### around here.  Instead of admitting the title is clearly misleading by any reasonable definition of 'prevent'.  If you want to make the back of the bus arguement, fine.  But damn it, admit basic facts.   You are not being any different than Trump when you can't.  

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Blah, blah, blah....just because the arguement is not on your side, you have to side track in hyperbolic characterization against me.  This is exactly why discussions suck-### around here.  Instead of admitting the title is clearly misleading by any reasonable definition of 'prevent'.  If you want to make the back of the bus arguement, fine.  But damn it, admit basic facts.   You are not being any different than Trump when you can't.  

Is it possible that the bill could result in non-Christians not being allowed to adopt kids?

 

[squistion]

Is it possible that the bill could result in non-Christians not being allowed to adopt kids?

It goes beyond that:

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/10/texas-freedom-to-serve-childen-act-lgbt-adoption/

According to experts, the act not only allows adoption and foster care agencies to prevent children from being placed in same-sex households but would permit them to subject youth to anti-LGBT counseling, including conversion therapy. Advocates in the state warned about a similar measure under consideration last year.

The passing marks a win for a fresh strategy from a Republican right that has yet to notch many anti-LGBT victories on its belt. Although the American Civil Liberties Union warned that over 200 pieces of discriminatory legislation targeting the LGBT community may fall under consideration this year, very few of those laws have or are expected to pass. The few bills that have managed to get through state legislatures each share a single intent: preventing the creation or support of families led by same-sex couples.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

It goes beyond that:

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/10/texas-freedom-to-serve-childen-act-lgbt-adoption/

According to experts, the act not only allows adoption and foster care agencies to prevent children from being placed in same-sex households but would permit them to subject youth to anti-LGBT counseling, including conversion therapy. Advocates in the state warned about a similar measure under consideration last year.

The passing marks a win for a fresh strategy from a Republican right that has yet to notch many anti-LGBT victories on its belt. Although the American Civil Liberties Union warned that over 200 pieces of discriminatory legislation targeting the LGBT community may fall under consideration this year, very few of those laws have or are expected to pass. The few bills that have managed to get through state legislatures each share a single intent: preventing the creation or support of families led by same-sex couples.

BUT THATS NOT WHAT JON MX SAYS!

 

[joffer]

Blah, blah, blah....

Good stuff as always

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Assuming this data is correct (sources below the map) this is a pretty good indicator of 

1. People voting against their own self-interests

2. The GOP absolutely bending over their constituents.

http://ahcacoverageloss.com/

Hint: click on each district for numbers and name of rep

 

[tommyboy]

It's the thought that counts.

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

I have no idea. Is that even a real story? Hard to believe

 

[flapgreen]

Some of you guys need to get a life 

 

[Apple Jack]

It's the thought that counts.

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

They are morons.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

According to Politifact, of the statements they checked, the only 100% true thing Cruz has said involved something about toilet seats.

I can't imagine anyone calling Ted Cruz a liar. But on the other hand he does seem to know a lot about toilets.

 

[jon_mx]

BUT THATS NOT WHAT JON MX SAYS!

Nothing I said was in anyway contradicted by squissy's post.  It was just Squisy with the usual cut and paste job without really understanding the point.  

 

[rockaction]

I love how people totally missed the point that this movement towards farming out charitable functions to churches and the like was largely bipartisan, if not largely Democrat intellectuals that had G.W.'s ear. 

Jesus.  

 

[Steve]

I love how people totally missed the point that this movement towards farming out charitable functions to churches and the like was largely bipartisan, if not largely Democrat intellectuals that had G.W.'s ear. 

Jesus.  

They just don't get it

 

[parasaurolophus]

I really don't have an issue with this, as long as there are reasonably equivalent avenues for non-Christians, or gay Christians, or others that may be discriminated against. If those don't exist, then there's an issue.

I think it also depends on how intertwined with the government the private agencies are. If social workers are giving preference to these agencies, i have a big problem with it. 

But if it is just a private agency choosing to not represent a gay couple, i think the free market takes care of these situations. The backlash and cyber attacks that can follow such discrimination are pretty harsh. 

 

[jon_mx]

I love how people totally missed the point that this movement towards farming out charitable functions to churches and the like was largely bipartisan, if not largely Democrat intellectuals that had G.W.'s ear. 

Jesus.  

They missed the point because the source they had it from was very misleading, and they still don't seem to get it, or they don't want to get it and admit how far off they were.  They all wanted to believe Texas banned same sex adaption.  To what extent that private organizations change their practices we will see.  I seriously doubt it changes anyone's current practices, it just eliminates the threat of lawsuits.  It could actually open the door to pro-gay organizations expanding and creating more opportunity for gay adaption.  

 

[squistion]

They missed the point because the source they had it from was very misleading, and they still don't seem to get it, or they don't want to get it and admit how far off they were.  They all wanted to believe Texas banned same sex adaption.  To what extent that private organizations change their practices we will see.  I seriously doubt it changes anyone's current practices, it just eliminates the threat of lawsuits.  It could actually open the door to pro-gay organizations expanding and creating more opportunity for gay adaption.  

It codifies discrimination against LGBT couples based on religious beliefs making it state sanctioned.

It could actually open the door to pro-gay organizations expanding and creating more opportunity for gay adaption. 

It is absurd to suggest this will help the LGBT community in any way and I defy you to find one pro-gray organization that thinks it is a good idea or will create more opportunities for gay adoption. From the ThinkProgress:

https://thinkprogress.org/texas-lgbtq-adoption-discrimination-cfb7a417e63d


Texas advances bill allowing discrimination against LGBTQ kids and families



It’s the broadest “license to discriminate” legislation any state has ever considered.


Texas House lawmakers voted early Wednesday morning to approve a broad “license to discriminate” bill for child placement and protection agencies. Among other things, the bill would allow foster and adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex families and allow agencies to subject LGBTQ children under their care to “religious education.”

[...]

Because the state does not offer nondiscrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation, this would guarantee that adoption agencies can refuse to serve same-sex families — or any family with LGBTQ members — and continue to receive taxpayer funding from the state.

 

[jon_mx]

It codifies discrimination against LGBT couples based on religious beliefs making it state sanctioned.

It is absurd to suggest this will help the LGBT community in any way and I defy you to find one pro-gray organization that thinks it is a good idea or will create more opportunities for gay adoption. From the ThinkProgress:

https://thinkprogress.org/texas-lgbtq-adoption-discrimination-cfb7a417e63d


Texas advances bill allowing discrimination against LGBTQ kids and families



It’s the broadest “license to discriminate” legislation any state has ever considered.


Texas House lawmakers voted early Wednesday morning to approve a broad “license to discriminate” bill for child placement and protection agencies. Among other things, the bill would allow foster and adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex families and allow agencies to subject LGBTQ children under their care to “religious education.”

[...]

Because the state does not offer nondiscrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation, this would guarantee that adoption agencies can refuse to serve same-sex families — or any family with LGBTQ members — and continue to receive taxpayer funding from the state.

All fear-mingrring bull crap.  There are about 50 adaption agencies in Texas.  They all have different policies.  Most in fact are not Christian base.  Most are inclusive.  Each are required to disclose their requirements and policies.  This rule will not change anything except for protecting policies already in place.  

 

[squistion]

All fear-mingrring bull crap.  There are about 50 adaption agencies in Texas.  They all have different policies.  Most in fact are not Christian base.  Most are inclusive.  Each are required to disclose their requirements and policies.  This rule will not change anything except for protecting policies already in place.  

If that were true no LGBT organizations would be against it, as it would a complete waste of their time to oppose something that wouldn't change anything. And contrary to what your claim, there will be an actual change in legally allowing adopted gay kids to be subjected to "converstion therapy" which has been proven to be ineffective and actually harmful to LGBT youth.

However, the overall main change is codifying state sanctioned religious discrimination against LGBT folks in adoption (not adaption as you keep calling it).

 

[HellToupee]

adoption (not adaption as you keep calling it).

All kidding aside you have some real peculiarities to you

 

[jon_mx]

If that were true no LGBT organizations would be against it, as it would a complete waste of their time to oppose something that wouldn't change anything. And contrary to what your claim, there will be an actual change in legally allowing adopted gay kids to be subjected to "converstion therapy" which has been proven to be ineffective and actually harmful to LGBT youth.

However, the overall main change is codifying state sanctioned religious discrimination against LGBT folks in adoption (not adaption as you keep calling it).

They are against it because it takes their ability to sue private organizations for these practices.  Most of the Christian organizations already only service Christian families and require education.   

 

[squistion]

They are against it because it takes their ability to sue private organizations for these practices.  Most of the Christian organizations already only service Christian families and require education.   

Wait, how many suits and under what grounds are they being brought now? They are not violating any current laws or statutes in Texas by servicing Christian only families or discriminating against LGBT folks (that isn't illegal in Texas) so nothing is really being taken away. Is there any current law in Texas that prohibits such discrimination?

However this new law codifies discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation for these organizations and makes it state sanctioned. The problem is, if they want to be able to privately discriminate against non-Christians or gay people, fine, but if they do so they shouldn't receive state funding or official licensing. And being able to legally subject LGBT kids to conversion therapy is barbaric and beyond the pale (yet not one complaint about that from anyone here, so I guess that is acceptable to the bill's supporters).

 

[jon_mx]

Wait, how many suits and under what grounds are they being brought now? They are not violating any current laws or statutes in Texas by servicing Christian only families or discriminating against LGBT folks (that isn't illegal in Texas) so nothing is really being taken away. Is there any current law in Texas that prohibits such discrimination?

However this new law codifies discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation for these organizations and makes it state sanctioned. The problem is, if they want to be able to privately discriminate against non-Christians or gay people, fine, but if they do so they shouldn't receive state funding or official licensing. And being able to legally subject LGBT kids to conversion therapy is barbaric and beyond the pale (yet not one complaint about that from anyone here, so I guess that is acceptable to the bill's supporters).

You seem to get it in the first paragraph.  But then you fall back to some of the same rhetoric in paragraph two.  So you understand what is going on, but you are hard-wired to have to provide the spun-up arguments to make it sound much worse than it is.  But an improvement on being a bit more precise.  So that is good.  

 

[MaxThreshold]

All kidding aside you have some real peculiarities to you

Love it when they start correcting spelling errors - that's when everyone knows you have won debate/argument. 

 

[squistion]

Love it when they start correcting spelling errors - that's when everyone knows you have won debate/argument. 

Making the same spelling error repeatedly, shows at the very least a lack of attention to detail, which diminishes any argument one is trying to make (if you really want people to take you seriously). And isn't it kind of hard to convince anyone that you have taken the time to be informed about what you are talking about when you couldn't be bothered to take the time to get the words right you are using? Typing in haste, we all make spelling/grammatical errors from time-to-time, but there really is no excuse to misspell the same word again and again and again...

 

[MaxThreshold]

Making the same spelling error repeatedly, shows at the very least a lack of attention to detail, which diminishes any argument one is trying to make (if you really want people to take you seriously). And isn't it kind of hard to convince anyone that you have taken the time to be informed about what you are talking about when you couldn't be bothered to take the time to get the words right you are using? Typing in haste, we all make spelling/grammatical errors from time-to-time, but there really is no excuse to misspell the same word again and again and again...

Oh ####!  I wasn't even playing any games and it seems I have now won too!  Cool!  I'll just add that right to my score:

MaxThreshold - 4567

Squistion - 0

 

[Toe Cutter]

Making the same spelling error repeatedly, shows at the very least a lack of attention to detail, which diminishes any argument one is trying to make (if you really want people to take you seriously). And isn't it kind of hard to convince anyone that you have taken the time to be informed about what you are talking about when you couldn't be bothered to take the time to get the words right you are using? Typing in haste, we all make spelling/grammatical errors from time-to-time, but there really is no excuse to misspell the same word again and again and again...

Do you talk to pigeons like this?

 

[jon_mx]

Oh ####!  I wasn't even playing any games and it seems I have now won too!  Cool!  I'll just add that right to my score:

MaxThreshold - 4567

Squistion - 0

Cutting and Pasting has a tendency to reduce the number of spelling errors.  

 

[MaxThreshold]

If the contest was about sounding uninformed and illiterate at times, that does seem like it would be the correct score.

Yeah....you've read a post and got it all wrong once again.   I can't even give you an "A" for effort.

 

[Toe Cutter]

If the contest was about sounding uninformed and illiterate at times, that does seem like it would be the correct score.

What is wrong with you?

 

[MaxThreshold]

What is wrong with you?

like most liberals, he thinks he is a lot smarter than he actually is.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

What is wrong with you?

What's right with him?

 

[squistion]

What is wrong with you?

Says the guy who took a cheap shot at Tim and his wife after he shared personal information about her to get help on this board.

Shame on you!

 

[Toe Cutter]

Says the guy who took a cheap shot at Tim's and his wife after he shared personal information about her to get help on this board.

Shame on you!

Wat?

 

[MaxThreshold]

He's dedicated to his notebook, pigeons, aliases, and reported pepople. Not bad for a 60 year old dude.

Uh-oh.  spelling error.

Squistion is going to lose his ####.  going to send him into an even further hysterical state than he's already been in for the last 6 months.  Good job, TC. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

He's dedicated to his notebook, pigeons, aliases, and reported pepople. Not bad for a 60 year old dude.

Uh-oh.  spelling error.

Squistion is going to lose his ####.  going to send him into an even further hysterical state than he's already been in for the last 6 months.  Good job, TC. 

 

[squistion]

Wat?

Mods please do ISP address check for Toe Cutter with BeaverCleaver/Phase of the Game/Fantasy Football Fairy/Mr Fantasy aliases.

TIA.

 

[Toe Cutter]

Mods please do ISP address check for Toe Cutter with BeaverCleaver/Phase of the Game/Fantasy Football Fairy/Mr Fantasy aliases.

TIA.

Seriously...what is wrong with you? 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Mods please do ISP address check for Toe Cutter with BeaverCleaver/Phase of the Game/Fantasy Football Fairy/Mr Fantasy aliases.

TIA.

You accused Steve of being the BC the other day.  Are you going to harass every new poster this way and take potential business away from Joe and David?

 

[Toe Cutter]

You accused Steve of being the BC the other day.  Are you going to harass every new poster this way and take potential business away from Joe and David?

He has no life. He has his notebook, his pigeons and reporting people. 

 

[squistion]

Seriously...what is wrong with you? 

Your always new assumed identities seem to have a short shelf life. The over/under on this one is 90 days and I take the under...

You are obviously an alias account. So which one?

As Hell Toupee says, come clean!

 

[Toe Cutter]

Your always new assumed identities seem to have a short shelf life. The over/under on this one is 90 days and I take the under...

You are obviously an alias account. So which one?

As Hell Toupee says, come clean!

What is wrong with you? 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Your always new assumed identities seem to have a short shelf life. The over/under on this one is 90 days and I take the under...

You are obviously an alias account. So which one?

As Hell Toupee says, come clean!

Who is Dedfin an alias of?  He was referencing things from around here from day one but has been here less than a year.  Why aren't you trying to solve that case, detective?