Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

I want to walk that joke back, I should have thought more than 5 seconds before posting it

lol

http://barbwire.com/2015/04/02/0900-indiana-meets-the-big-gay-borg/

Update: The revised language has now been released, and it’s even worse than we thought. The new language forces Christian bakers to bake cakes in violation of their faith and conscience.

Baker Lives Matter

I may never read a sentence more glorious than "The new language forces Christian bakers to bake cakes in violation of their faith and conscience," in the rest of my lifetime.

wtf is that pastor even talking about, "carving happy faces on the sores"?

― Treeship, Friday, March 11, 2016 1:01 PM (14 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

He's saying there's gross gay stuff happening that are sores in america/culture and people are trying to forcefully make it seem like something to be happy about?

hey man, you bake the cakes, what we do with them once they leave your store is our own business

"I'd like a cake that says, 'THIS BAKER SUPPORTS SATAN' and the law says you have to do it!"

oh it's a metaphor xp

All kidding aside, whether or not it was intended as such by the Star Trek writers, the Borg collective is a chillingly appropriate metaphor for Cultural Marxism, the driving force of the LGBT movement. What we know as “political correctness” is simply the “group-think” of the Marxist hive mind.

Ulster (where else?) beat you to it.

So, America, is resistance to the LGBT Borg futile? Marxist regimes have been overthrown before. (And even Jon-Luc Picard eventually defeated his Borg opponents). I guess the outcome of this battle depends on how much we the not-yet-assimilated want to avoid becoming mindless slaves to the Collective.

maybe they missed the episodes where there were plenty of people the borg had no interest in assimilating

any body butt rump

"in closing, i'd like to say that i really like star trek and i have no idea how much we as a nation want to avoid becoming mindless slaves. Also, thanks to Janet for bringing her famous date-nut bread; it's $1.25 a slice and all proceeds go toward fighting the Collective. It's gluten free so please buy some on your way out. See you next Woden's Day."

Jesus never would have given baked goods to someone he didn't like...

oh wait.....

i think there was something called The Last Supper....?

oh yeah, Jesus comes out and say "Someone here will betray me, hey Judas, you want the first piece of bread?"

so yeah Jesus himself gives bread to somebody he knows will betray him. and he still does it.

i guess no place for forgiveness in modern "Left Behind" style Christianity.

you are bad at reading the bible

cool plz point out how i am bad at it rather than just saying "you are bad at it". cos i can just throw that back at you and we'll be here all day.

Judas received the sop in John 13. i'm curious as to how else you read that.

I think most if not all of what I’m about to say is obvious to folks itt, so don’t take it as me trying to “reveal” anything. I just need to register a response to what I see as a deafening silence in the msm today.

So the big post-debate headline seems to be that Decorum Has Been Restored. Last night too everyone was gushing afterward about how disciplined everyone was, how restrained Trump was, and how substantive a debate the moderators orchestrated.

Meanwhile, the Great Whitewashing of racially-charged mob violence slips by unnoticed. Not a peep about the fact that nobody has dared directly confront Trump on his promotion of violence (on the same night at Fayetteville he had pined for the good old days when they used to treat protesters “very, very rough” so they wouldn’t come back so easily).

Jake Tapper did bring up the issue, but in the blandest terms. He distanced himself from it (attributing the critique to Clinton) and cast it as a matter of “tone.”

He then let Trump get away with an answer that pretty much justified the violence (the beautiful passion of my supporters; we have some protesters who are bad dudes).

Tapper then asked Cruz about whether he was concerned that “these kind of scenes” potentially hurt the GOP for the general election (again: no ethical import, it’s only a matter of electability). Cruz blurted out one quick remark about how “we need to show respect to the people” because they’re the ones “we’re working for” and (yes, Ted?...) well, we’ve had a President who for the past seven years who has acted like an Emperor above the law etc. Cruz went on to blather about how Trump asks his people to pledge their support to him but he’s got it backward, etc,

Tapper: Thank you, senator.

Now it’s Kasich’s turn: Governor Kasich, do you worry about the scenes of violence at some of these rallies affecting the Republican party's chances in November? Kasich: (I’ll paraphrase, bc running out of time): well I’m worried about violence at rallies period. But you know what Jake, I think people are worred, they’re worried about their jobs, they’re worried about trade deals. But the thing is we need to unite around these issues not divide.

Tapper: Thank you governor.

Senator Rubio? I know you want to say something.

Rubio goes on to talk about how he’s concerned about violence in general in this society and btw the first people that are facing that violence are our law enforcement officers. Of course people are angry, every institution in America has been failing us for the better part of 20 years or 30 years. Leadership is about using the anger to motivate us, not to define us. Then anecdote about his grandfather born in 1899 and the man on the moon and *bell rings* Americans can do anything and our principles etc.

Thank you senator. *applause*

Onto the next question (“The math suggests that it possible that not one of you will reach the magic number of 1,237 delegates before the Republican convention, which would mean a contested convention….”).

How restrained. How civilized. All presidential candidates on a debate stage are allowed to justify and tacitly enable assaults on (mostly black) protestors, and the next day we all congratulate them because they didn’t make dick jokes. Got it.

otm

Judas received the sop in John 13. i'm curious as to how else you read that.

this isn't the thread for it but you have a penchant for removing biblical things from context (as displayed on other Xtianity-specific threads). There's loads of instances of Jesus being a forgiving sort in the NT, including his treatment of Judas, but that particular passage is mostly irrelevant to the (obviously batshit insane) pastor's point.

revive some other thread if you really want to argue about this

xp

in other news:

https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/708120011039068160

― Οὖτις, Friday, March 11, 2016 12:28 PM (59 minutes ago)

i mean...leaving aside the whole "kill the gays" thing, which is pretty bad

what the fuck is up with this dude's voice/stage presence?

haha yeah he is def unhinged, all that arm-flapping, leaping about the stage. altho tbf that's not that unusual for tent-revival-style preachers

i know krugman is becoming unpopular since he's not on the bernie train but i'm glad he is giving free trade v. protectionism a close look:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/opinion/trade-and-tribulation.html

between this and other reading i've done what seems to be true so far is that a. free trade has minimal benefits and minimal drawbacks, b. the link between free trade agreements and job loss are overblown (outsourcing is more impacted by other things than free trade agreements - cf china where lots of manufacturing has gone even tho we don't have an agreement with them), c. that there may be climate change + credibility repercussions for not enacting said agreements / reneging on old ones. i'm not 100% sure about any of this but it does seem a little bit like the case against free trade is a little overstated culturally?

collardio on fire

yeah well we can deal with beatings and corpses discussed in mild tones, but plz no naughty bits

this isn't the thread for it but you have a penchant for removing biblical things from context (as displayed on other Xtianity-specific threads)

the Bible, midrashic tradition, and Jesus Himself have a penchant for removing things from context and deploying them in new contexts. The entire New Testament is basically this, and it doesn't mean to end to tradition of seeing how a remark - however small, however wrenched from context - might apply to the needs of a given person or congregation.

imo but also ithoot (in the humble opinion of tradition.)

Krugman on trade agreements:

Why, then, did we ever pursue these agreements? A large part of the answer is foreign policy

bingo!

it's a more sophisticated version of the mcdonald's theory of geopolitics, right?

"To understand what's been happening this presidential primary season, consider Michigan, where voters turned out in huge numbers for Sanders and Trump. According to Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis data, the inflation-adjusted annual median household income in Michigan fell by about $14,000 a year — down to about $52,000 — from 1999 to 2014.

That same time period played out very differently for corporations. From 1999 to 2014, U.S. annual corporate profits after taxes shot up by about 250 percent, to nearly $1.7 trillion.

So, yes, businesses did much better, allowing Washington thought-leaders to, in effect, say: "See, we were right! We promoted the ideas that have kept America's GDP ranked No. 1 in the world, even though China has four times our population."

But outside of Washington, millions of Americans are not living in a Big Picture or a Framework. They are living in houses that have lost value, in cities where they don't trust the water pipes and where companies can suddenly announce they are moving jobs to other countries."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/11/469990052/millions-of-voters-are-sending-a-message-our-economic-framework-is-rotten

@MSNBC
Hillary Clinton: The Reagans, particularly Nancy, helped start "a national conversation" about HIV and AIDS.

xp but maybe the solution isn't making the pie smaller, it's just making sure that it's being redistributed at heavier, more equitable, levels?

xp: oh dear lord

Jesus fuckin Christ

Who will say anything to be president?

wtf Hillary

seriously that is gross

excerpt from the national conversation

Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement—the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?
MR. SPEAKES: What’s AIDS?
Q: Over a third of them have died. It’s known as “gay plague.” (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it’s a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?
MR. SPEAKES: I don’t have it. Do you? (Laughter.)
Q: No, I don’t.
MR. SPEAKES: You didn’t answer my question.
Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President—
MR. SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)
Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I don’t know anything about it, Lester.
Q: Does the President, does anybody in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s been any—
Q: Nobody knows?
MR. SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.
Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping—
MR. SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he’s had no—(laughter)—no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.
Q: The President doesn’t have gay plague, is that what you’re saying or what?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I didn’t say that.
Q: Didn’t say that?
MR. SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn’t you stay there? (Laughter.)
Q: Because I love you, Larry, that’s why. (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKES: Oh, I see. Just don’t put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)
Q: Oh, I retract that.
MR. SPEAKES: I hope so.
Q: It’s too late.

idg why she'd say something so dumb + ahistorical - like not even getting what the expected political gain is. who is the targeted constituency for whitewashing reagan's record on HIV? it's obv not conservatives. it's certainly not liberals. it's def not anyone who knows anything about the topic.

sounds stupidly reactive to me and myopic in the sense that she probably discussed HIV with nancy when she was the first lady and this is her personal take.

hope to god she's trying to stick a needle in the old woman by even bringing it up

but i really doubt it.

If there is a shred of meaningful LGBT activism left, I know a candidate who is going to have some blood thrown on her in the near future...

not seeing this in her twitter feed fwiw

quote not coming up on google searches either

wait, i think MSNBC twitter is quoting her right now, speaking at nancy's funeral? amirong

It's still in the MSNBC feed

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/708363242737766401

ah here it is, said on live TV

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/708363242737766401

xposts