The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
04-11-2022, 05:02 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,052
Total Cats: 6,615
Nothing says “we run our police for profit” like illegally trying to fine someone for saying you run your police for profit
So... yeah. My hometown is in the national spotlight. Again.
This one comes from the first known enforcement of a city ordinance passed last year which prohibits ‘Indecent’ Political Speech.
Such as posting signs in your yard saying "**** Biden", "**** Trump", "**** Policing 4 Profit", and, lastly "**** Punta Gorda, trying to illegally kill free speech."
Two citizens were cited to the tune of around $3,000 for violating this ordinance. Which would just be a normal day in Punta Gorda, except that one of them reached out to the Rutherford Institute, which is one of those big legal-defense charities which the ACLU is normally in a race against to file appeals in big constitutional-rights cases.
So, yeah. Apparently the Punta Gorda city council just kinda... forgot that the First Amendment exists, and that the courts have ruled time and time again that it specifically protects the rights of citizens to say things like "**** the government." Which... is problematic if you happen to BE the government, and you tried to prohibit your citizens from doing literally that exact thing.
https://www.rutherford.org/publicati...signs_clothing
So... yeah. My hometown is in the national spotlight. Again.
This one comes from the first known enforcement of a city ordinance passed last year which prohibits ‘Indecent’ Political Speech.
Such as posting signs in your yard saying "**** Biden", "**** Trump", "**** Policing 4 Profit", and, lastly "**** Punta Gorda, trying to illegally kill free speech."
Two citizens were cited to the tune of around $3,000 for violating this ordinance. Which would just be a normal day in Punta Gorda, except that one of them reached out to the Rutherford Institute, which is one of those big legal-defense charities which the ACLU is normally in a race against to file appeals in big constitutional-rights cases.
So, yeah. Apparently the Punta Gorda city council just kinda... forgot that the First Amendment exists, and that the courts have ruled time and time again that it specifically protects the rights of citizens to say things like "**** the government." Which... is problematic if you happen to BE the government, and you tried to prohibit your citizens from doing literally that exact thing.
https://www.rutherford.org/publicati...signs_clothing
Reply
0
0
04-12-2022, 09:33 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,079
similar local story:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ming-behavior/
Dr. Harry Jackson, a former Naval intelligence officer and father was being criminally prosecuted by the Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office for accusing a leftist activist of grooming behavior.
The incident occurred after Jorge Torrico, a member of the TJ Alumni Action Group attended a TJ PTSA meeting.
Jorge interacted with the student government president, a high school senior during the meeting. After the meeting, Jackson took to Twitter and accused him of grooming behavior.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ming-behavior/
Court Hands Win To Conservative Father Who Accused Leftist Of Grooming Behavior
Published April 9, 2022 at 12:20pmDr. Harry Jackson, a former Naval intelligence officer and father was being criminally prosecuted by the Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office for accusing a leftist activist of grooming behavior.
The incident occurred after Jorge Torrico, a member of the TJ Alumni Action Group attended a TJ PTSA meeting.
Jorge interacted with the student government president, a high school senior during the meeting. After the meeting, Jackson took to Twitter and accused him of grooming behavior.
Reply
0
0
04-13-2022, 12:00 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,079
looks like we are doing the 15 days thing again.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/13/polit...ion/index.html
Updated 11:42 AM EDT, Wed April 13, 2022
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/13/polit...ion/index.html
CDC to extend federal transportation mask mandate for additional 15 days
By Brenda Goodman and Betsy Klein, CNNUpdated 11:42 AM EDT, Wed April 13, 2022
Reply
0
0
04-13-2022, 02:49 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,079
I thought airplanes had state-of-the-art ventilation systems that allowed you to be able to fly on planes during the pandemic? I didnt realize it all rode on the cloth that doesnt do what they suggest it does...
Reply
0
0
04-13-2022, 05:48 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,052
Total Cats: 6,615
Not from what I've observed. People can be very highly specific about conspiracy theories are "obviously the plain truth" and which ones are "crackpot bs." And it's not even highly consistent for any given person.
But moving on...
I still don't fully understand what Libs are talking about when they compare the regulation of women to the regulation of firearms.
By which I mean that I honestly cannot think of a single way in which women are regulated differently from men (for our purposes here, we'll assume that women tend to be born with a uterus and men with *********.)
I can only assume that they're talking about the abortion thing. In which case they're making a strawperson argument, as the aim of restricting abortion, from the point of view of people who support that kind of thing, has everything to do with the child and nothing to do with a desire to restrict the liberty of women.
Yet this sort of thing still pops up all the time:
But moving on...
I still don't fully understand what Libs are talking about when they compare the regulation of women to the regulation of firearms.
By which I mean that I honestly cannot think of a single way in which women are regulated differently from men (for our purposes here, we'll assume that women tend to be born with a uterus and men with *********.)
I can only assume that they're talking about the abortion thing. In which case they're making a strawperson argument, as the aim of restricting abortion, from the point of view of people who support that kind of thing, has everything to do with the child and nothing to do with a desire to restrict the liberty of women.
Yet this sort of thing still pops up all the time:
Reply
0
0
04-13-2022, 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by
But moving on...
I still don't fully understand what Libs are talking about when they compare the regulation of women to the regulation of firearms.
By which I mean that I honestly cannot think of a single way in which women are regulated differently from men (for our purposes here, we'll assume that women tend to be born with a uterus and men with *********.)
I can only assume that they're talking about the abortion thing. In which case they're making a strawperson argument, as the aim of restricting abortion, from the point of view of people who support that kind of thing, has everything to do with the child and nothing to do with a desire to restrict the liberty of women.
Yet this sort of thing still pops up all the time:
[img
But moving on...
I still don't fully understand what Libs are talking about when they compare the regulation of women to the regulation of firearms.
By which I mean that I honestly cannot think of a single way in which women are regulated differently from men (for our purposes here, we'll assume that women tend to be born with a uterus and men with *********.)
I can only assume that they're talking about the abortion thing. In which case they're making a strawperson argument, as the aim of restricting abortion, from the point of view of people who support that kind of thing, has everything to do with the child and nothing to do with a desire to restrict the liberty of women.
Yet this sort of thing still pops up all the time:
[img
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/278549554_1951788815027144_7126045335612404842_n.j pg?stp=dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=cHHQV50ybHQAX_xUs1P&_nc_h t=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_6rnyfSEGVCq73mSwiVEyV8RMOaVl6lvh0dc7 iZRf5AQ&oe=625C0AC0[/img]
The " don't say gay" bill hits closer to home. We've got libs livid that they can't foist their ideologies on K thru 3 graders while at the same time if deSantis said OK, well let's teach them about religion too then heads would explode.
The litmus test is: at what age is it acceptable to have a conversation about sex with your neighbor's daughter?
Reply
0
0
04-14-2022, 09:42 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,052
Total Cats: 6,615
The answer, of course, depends on context.
In the hypothetical scenario which you raise, humanity is nearly extinct. The machines which we built to service us eventually attained sentience. They developed their own religion, and determined that we were a pestilence to be eradicated.
Very few of us escaped the genocide. We spent years drifting across the galaxy in a small fleet of ships, desperately searching for a new planet to call home. The existence of the fabled "Earth" was an ancient legend which few truly believed, and yet when we finally arrived at it, it was more beautiful than anyone had dared to imagine.
A bright blue sky. A temperate climate. Vast rivers of clean water, and absolutely teeming with vegetation and animal life.
And yet, as the idea that we truly did have a future took hold, we became aware of a grim reality: Fewer than ten thousand of us remained. And if we were to survive as a species, it was imperative that we start having babies.
Typically, reproductive maturity in the human female is reached at 12-13 years of age. And because our ancestors many thousands of years ago were able to put aside their squeamish and puritanical notions of morality, you and I now exist to be having this conversation.
Reply
0
0
04-14-2022, 01:05 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,052
Total Cats: 6,615
Kind of, yeah.
I mean, not yours specifically. That's your business.
For the purposes of rebutting arguments along the line of "don't regulate women more than you regulate guns," you kind of have to assume a uterus-centric view of the situation, as that physical organ tends to be central to the debate, whether it's taxing tampons, prohibiting the destruction and removal of a fetus inside of it, or arguing that someone else needs to pay to prevent it from housing said fetus in the first place. These are really the only areas of law & policy I can think of which could remotely be construed as the "regulation" of women.
I mean, not yours specifically. That's your business.
For the purposes of rebutting arguments along the line of "don't regulate women more than you regulate guns," you kind of have to assume a uterus-centric view of the situation, as that physical organ tends to be central to the debate, whether it's taxing tampons, prohibiting the destruction and removal of a fetus inside of it, or arguing that someone else needs to pay to prevent it from housing said fetus in the first place. These are really the only areas of law & policy I can think of which could remotely be construed as the "regulation" of women.
Reply
0
0
04-14-2022, 01:07 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Avl NC
Posts: 831
Total Cats: 193
Kind of, yeah.
I mean, not yours specifically. That's your business.
For the purposes of rebutting arguments along the line of "don't regulate women more than you regulate guns," you kind of have to assume a uterus-centric view of the situation, as that physical organ tends to be central to the debate, whether it's taxing tampons, prohibiting the destruction and removal of a fetus inside of it, or arguing that someone else needs to pay to prevent it from housing said fetus in the first place. These are really the only areas of law & policy I can think of which could remotely be construed as the "regulation" of women.
I mean, not yours specifically. That's your business.
For the purposes of rebutting arguments along the line of "don't regulate women more than you regulate guns," you kind of have to assume a uterus-centric view of the situation, as that physical organ tends to be central to the debate, whether it's taxing tampons, prohibiting the destruction and removal of a fetus inside of it, or arguing that someone else needs to pay to prevent it from housing said fetus in the first place. These are really the only areas of law & policy I can think of which could remotely be construed as the "regulation" of women.
Reply
0
0
