• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

dvdneal said:
Sadly planner is not a listed occupation
Click to expand...

Better? :a:

political%20Nimby.jpg
 
Just bitching about Kansas. It's states like this that make you a democrat. You really can't balance the state budget on the backs of the people. Not having an income tax has killed the budget and most of the legislature still refuses to have any kind of income tax. Maybe because they all own a business of some kind and are just looking out for their own interest.:-@
 
Awesome! The Donald is running for president! He is so amazing that I can't contain my excitement! He is going to win in the largest landslide ever! He will fix the economy, solve global warming, eliminate terrorism, and establish trade with space aliens! He might cure cancer too! All within the first 100 days. He will begin by telling all the heads of departments "You're Fired" and hire new people using reality TV.




:r:











Ok... In reality, the only appropriate question is why? Obama has a better chance at a 3rd term.
 
michaelskis said:
Awesome! The Donald is running for president! He is so amazing that I can't contain my excitement! He is going to win in the largest landslide ever! He will fix the economy, solve global warming, eliminate terrorism, and establish trade with space aliens! He might cure cancer too! All within the first 100 days. He will begin by telling all the heads of departments "You're Fired" and hire new people using reality TV.
Click to expand...



That is pretty much how I imagine Donald Trump's vision would be.
 
At this point, we might as well persuade Dan to run for president. He would do a better job than any of the ones currently running plus he would move the nation's capital to Buffalo.
 
The GOP Primary Race would make a great reality show. Such characters, egos, & $$$$. Can't miss opportunity for the networks.

Wait...could it already be a reality show that's being filmed right before our eyes?

If it wasn't real, it would be great comedy. Unfortunately it is real, which is tragic.
 
Planit said:
The GOP Primary Race would make a great reality show. Such characters, egos, & $$$$. Can't miss opportunity for the networks.

Wait...could it already be a reality show that's being filmed right before our eyes?

If it wasn't real, it would be great comedy. Unfortunately it is real, which is tragic.
Click to expand...

Already a staged production. The bit players run a grift on the faithful and play for future cushy wingnut welfare consulting jobs. The corporate media comply for the advertising revenue, the reporters and pundits who show proper deference are showered with food, drink, and the opposite sex (or the same sex). Isn't that how the premise of Idiocracy began?
 
Yeah

michaelskis said:
Awesome! The Donald is running for president! He is so amazing that I can't contain my excitement! He is going to win in the largest landslide ever! He will fix the economy, solve global warming, eliminate terrorism, and establish trade with space aliens! He might cure cancer too! All within the first 100 days. He will begin by telling all the heads of departments "You're Fired" and hire new people using reality TV. .
Click to expand...

But will he stop the garbage ambulanches? Brondo! Its got electrolytes!
 
The Donald. All I gots to say is if the Donald gets elected, the White House is going to be so classy. He'll tear down that eyesore. Put up a 50 story building, all reflective glass on the outside with a giant "Trump" on da outside facade. Sell all those old portraits inside and get some classy sports art to hang on the walls. Then he'll file for bankruptcy and flip the place. He's done it before. You know he wrote dat "Art of the Deal."

And none of those old, motherly First Ladies either. He get one of those hot models you find on the inside page of the New York Post. Not a day over 30 she'll be. And with knockers you could bounce a quarter off of. Maybe a hot blonde from one of those countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. They're a bunch of commie bastards but their women are hot.

Classy, I'm telling yah. 100 percent.
 
michaelskis said:
Awesome! The Donald is running for president! He is so amazing that I can't contain my excitement! He is going to win in the largest landslide ever! He will fix the economy, solve global warming, eliminate terrorism, and establish trade with space aliens! He might cure cancer too! All within the first 100 days. He will begin by telling all the heads of departments "You're Fired" and hire new people using reality TV.

.
Click to expand...

He would bring a level of class and elegance to the White House. Would we still call it the "White House" after Trump paints it gold?
 
I watched a clip of Jeb slow jam the news with Jimmy Kimmel the other day. It is funny... I am still not voting for him in the primary.
 
michaelskis said:
Slow day for SCOTUS news.


I wonder how this ruling will be applied when it comes to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't affect it, as I understand it. SCOTUS affects civil marriage status not religious status.

The State has to recognize your marriage, but the Church doesn't have to bless the marriage.

But for the Catholic Church as an employer and provision of benefits...rock meet hard place.
 
Last edited:
mendelman said:
Shouldn't affect it, as I understand it. SCOTUS affects civil marriage status not religious status.

That State has to recognize your marriage, but the Church doesn't have to bless the marriage.

But for the Catholic Church as an employer and provision of benefits...rock meet hard place.
Click to expand...

This is one case that I have mixed feelings. I think churches should have their own position to recognize marriage, but I also think that everyone should be treated equal.

I don't like that it took a SCOTUS ruling, but I don't like how states did not recognize it.
 
michaelskis said:
This is one case that I have mixed feelings. I think churches should have their own position to recognize marriage, but I also think that everyone should be treated equal.

I don't like that it took a SCOTUS ruling, but I don't like how states did not recognize it.
Click to expand...

Churches do have their own position to recognize marriage.

However, couples have their right to not recognize a church.
 
michaelskis said:
What if that church is an employer, such as a Catholic school?
Click to expand...

As an employer the church already recognizes marriages that aren't catholic. If you're a baptist or atheist janitor at a catholic school the church as an employer doesn't refuse to recognize your marriage.
 
michaelskis said:
What if that church is an employer, such as a Catholic school?
Click to expand...

Not that any of this is right, but I figure if your company (Catholic School is a company - also Hobby Lobby) wants to do things because of religious reasons than all your employees must practice the same religion. If the Catholic Schools hired nothing but Catholics and taught only Catholics I really wouldn't care so much. If you hire someone outside that religion than you can't really discriminate on their religion because it doesn't meet yours.
 
"Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think that Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

Really, Justice Scalia? Did you bother to read what your intern wrote before you signed your dissent opinion? What happened to sound reasoning and critical thinking? You are an embarrassment to The Bench.
 
From the dissent of Justice Thomas:

"...human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away."

Really, Justice Thomas? That is some twisted way of thinking. Another embarrassment to The Bench.
 
I was really surprised about Scalia and Thomas' dissent opinion. Anyone can see those two have it for each other really bad. I could totally see Thomas divorcing his white wife, marrying Scalia and taking his last name. Or maybe hyphenating it. Thomas is definitely the bottom. :p I am sure Justice Ginsberg would be glad to officiate the ceremony.
 
Today's editorial told everyone to give the Kansas Governor a hug. He's had a rough couple weeks. Obamacare becomes legal and the state has to set up an exchange, gay people can get married (of course we're still looking into that), the state court ruled his education funding as illegal, it just keeps hitting the poor guy. :D Granted, he's still going to tie judicial decisions to judicial funding and work to get puppet judges into the right places.
 
Something kind of cool from Friday...

I was at a state municipal league board meeting when the gay marriage decision came out. One guy stepped out of the room for about five minutes. He came back in and raised his hand, requesting an excused absence for the remainder of the meeting. The stated reason from the teary eyed man: "I need to meet my partner at the county clerk back home before they close so we can get our marriage license. I'm getting married tonight!" Everyone applauded and he got several hugs on the way out of the room.

Not many things can draw a tear from my eye. But a grown man tearing up as he publicly announces that he is sprinting home to marry the love of his life will apparently do it. There were a lot of people in the room wiping eyes on sleeves.
 
dvdneal said:
Not that any of this is right, but I figure if your company (Catholic School is a company - also Hobby Lobby) wants to do things because of religious reasons than all your employees must practice the same religion. If the Catholic Schools hired nothing but Catholics and taught only Catholics I really wouldn't care so much. If you hire someone outside that religion than you can't really discriminate on their religion because it doesn't meet yours.
Click to expand...

I am just thinking along the lines of spousal benefitss. I am friends with a gay guy who teaches history at a catholic school in Michigan. He and his partner will now get married next month on the beach.

My thought on all of this is as long as the ruling does not limit religious freedoms, then I think it was the right thing to do. Although I would have rather it come from the sates instead of SCOTUS.
 
michaelskis said:
Although I would have rather it come from the sates instead of SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I think we can probably all agree that it would have been preferable to have this come through the legislative process--that is pretty much the ideal in any democracy. Unfortunately, SCOTUS exists to deal with those times where the legislative process fails and/or there are issues that are crossing state borders. If you were to really dig into the very base legal issue, it comes down to the fact that some states were refusing to recognize marriages from other states. That is what I think really turned this into a judicial issue instead of letting it play a bit longer in the legislative process. At its most fundamental under the Constitution, SCOTUS exists to prevent tyranny of the majority--to attempt to mitigate the human flaw in democratic processes. In this case, the flaw was the inability of legislators to separate their religious beliefs from the secular role of government. In their role as legislators, their bible is the Constitution, not the good book. In fact, I've believed for a long time that elected officials should swear on a copy of the Constitution rather than the Bible. After all, it is the Constitution that they are swearing to uphold, protect & defend.

Also, I once again feel compelled to apologize for my state for having produced Rick Perry & Ted Cruz. :-$
 
michaelskis said:
I am just thinking along the lines of spousal benefitss. I am friends with a gay guy who teaches history at a catholic school in Michigan. He and his partner will now get married next month on the beach.

My thought on all of this is as long as the ruling does not limit religious freedoms, then I think it was the right thing to do. Although I would have rather it come from the sates instead of SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

That's the thing for me. If a religious employer hired nothing but people of the same religion, these issues of religious/employer problems wouldn't come up because the belief system is the same (theoretically and I'm sure churches can't discriminate on hiring practices like that). I like Hobby Lobby as an example. They refuse to give selected health coverage, like birth control, to women, but it's okay for men based on religious preference. I'm okay with your religion not wanting to hand out birth control, or whatever, but as a company you are pushing your religious beliefs onto me as an employee and that I would feel violates my first amendment rights. Now if a company wants to selectively provide, or not, certain health care programs, that's up to the company and it's my fault for working for a company that doesn't provide the benefits I want. Like working for a company that doesn't provide benefits, but with Obamacare I guess that's changed now. And I know the insurance argument goes deeper, I just think there should be a separation of religion and companies and government. They tend to have different roles in my life.

Suburb Repairman said:
I think we can probably all agree that it would have been preferable to have this come through the legislative process--that is pretty much the ideal in any democracy. Unfortunately, SCOTUS exists to deal with those times where the legislative process fails and/or there are issues that are crossing state borders. If you were to really dig into the very base legal issue, it comes down to the fact that some states were refusing to recognize marriages from other states. That is what I think really turned this into a judicial issue instead of letting it play a bit longer in the legislative process. At its most fundamental under the Constitution, SCOTUS exists to prevent tyranny of the majority--to attempt to mitigate the human flaw in democratic processes. In this case, the flaw was the inability of legislators to separate their religious beliefs from the secular role of government. In their role as legislators, their bible is the Constitution, not the good book. In fact, I've believed for a long time that elected officials should swear on a copy of the Constitution rather than the Bible. After all, it is the Constitution that they are swearing to uphold, protect & defend.

Also, I once again feel compelled to apologize for my state for having produced Rick Perry & Ted Cruz. :-$
Click to expand...

It would have been better if people could actually act properly and figure out equality for themselves as a state, but we all knew that wasn't going to happen. Now we have to spend the next few years listening to obsolete politicians argue to undermine the authority of the court that they put into place. Sorry, sometimes the constitution is clear and sometimes the bible has nothing to do with it. Especially if we have freedom of religion which means other faiths exist in our country that might accept equality.

And don't feel bad, it's just your guys made it to the national stage. Mine are just nationally ridiculed like Gov. Brownback. The rest just get kicked off the agricultural committee and are proud that one of the biggest farm states has no representation.
 
There's always some ass that needs to push the limits. Now Walmart will have to make a list of banned flags and there will be no cake for anyone.
 
dvdneal said:
That's the thing for me. If a religious employer hired nothing but people of the same religion, these issues of religious/employer problems wouldn't come up because the belief system is the same (theoretically and I'm sure churches can't discriminate on hiring practices like that). I like Hobby Lobby as an example. They refuse to give selected health coverage, like birth control, to women, but it's okay for men based on religious preference. I'm okay with your religion not wanting to hand out birth control, or whatever, but as a company you are pushing your religious beliefs onto me as an employee and that I would feel violates my first amendment rights. Now if a company wants to selectively provide, or not, certain health care programs, that's up to the company and it's my fault for working for a company that doesn't provide the benefits I want. Like working for a company that doesn't provide benefits, but with Obamacare I guess that's changed now. And I know the insurance argument goes deeper, I just think there should be a separation of religion and companies and government. They tend to have different roles in my life.
Click to expand...

So for the separation, let someone else offer the government required benefits, and leave religious teaching to the church.
 
i'm just saying that a company shouldn't push a religious agenda. If it doesn't want to provide birth control just say so, don't hide it under freedom of religion. If the law requires it, the shut up and provide it. Now if your company happens to be all Jewish (I can't pick on just the Catholics) I could see a religious exemption of some kind because your employees wouldn't expect birth control or whatever. Granted that gets into a whole different argument over how not providing basic health care affects me indirectly through taxes, etc., but it doesn't necessarily violate someone's rights and it isn't pushing a religious agenda on me. Just the people that already accept that agenda.
 
Just going to mention that a single payer system would avoid this entire discussion about religious freedom pertaining to healthcare.
 
JNA said:
HEADLINE - Walmart Apologizes for Making ISIS Cake for Man Denied Confederate Flag Design
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walm...cake-man-denied-confederate/story?id=32103721
Click to expand...


"I went back yesterday and managed to get an ISIS battleflag printed. ISIS happens to be somebody who we're fighting against right now who are killing our men and boys overseas and are beheading Christians," Netzhammer said.

As opposed to some people we fought a hundred fity years ago, killed our men, enslaved a race of people, and killed prisoners of war because they were Negroes.

Not exactly apples and oranges, I guess, just sort of appleoranges.

dvdneal said:
There's always some ass that needs to push the limits. Now Walmart will have to make a list of banned flags and there will be no cake for anyone.
Click to expand...

I've had the cake from Walmart, denying people cake is a public service. :p
 
otterpop said:
"I went back yesterday and managed to get an ISIS battleflag printed. ISIS happens to be somebody who we're fighting against right now who are killing our men and boys overseas and are beheading Christians," Netzhammer said.

As opposed to some people we fought a hundred fity years ago, killed our men, enslaved a race of people, and killed prisoners of war because they were Negroes.

Not exactly apples and oranges, I guess, just sort of appleoranges.


I've had the cake from Walmart, denying people cake is a public service. :p
Click to expand...

So do you think Walmart making an ISIS cake is ok if they are not willing to do a confederate flag?

OR

Should Walmart get to make policy regarding what they will and will not put on a cake?
 
Sounds like a states rights issue! or more like an issue the bakery lady needs to handle. I'd have to say I'm with Otter, Walmart should just stop selling cakes. I think it just comes down to the bakery person. If you bring in a picture, they'll put it on the cake. It's one thing for you to be a racist bastard, all they're doing is putting it on a cake for you. It's different to actually sell flags and other decorations. It's not like they sell belt buckles with Isis logos on them. They just sell blank cakes, what you ask them to put on it is on you and if the person behind the counter doesn't want to make you a rainbow flag, Isis, of any other cake that's against their religion or beliefs then so be it. Walmart can fire them or not. You can always go to Piggly Wiggly and see if they'll make you a racist cake.
 
michaelskis said:
So do you think Walmart making an ISIS cake is ok if they are not willing to do a confederate flag?

OR

Should Walmart get to make policy regarding what they will and will not put on a cake?
Click to expand...

It is clear, even from that article, that the ISIS flag cake was likely against some kind of Walmart bakery policy. I know they have a policy, because that policy often prevents you from putting rude/insulting things on a retirement/"I quit" cake (not that I know:-$:a:). It is quite clear that the bakery associate, who is likely paid only slightly above minimum wage, had no idea that was the ISIS flag. It is likely he/she doesn't even know what ISIS is. He/she was probably too busy trying to figure out how to afford to put food on the table to care about world events on the other side of the world, which, honestly, is common in lower income brackets. That guy was an asshole for pulling a gotcha on the poor bakery associate. He is the villain here, not Walmart and certainly not that Walmart associate.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
. . . It is quite clear that the bakery associate, who is likely paid only slightly above minimum wage, had no idea that was the ISIS flag. It is likely he/she doesn't even know what ISIS is. He/she was probably too busy trying to figure out how to afford to put food on the table to care about world events on the other side of the world, which, honestly, is common in lower income brackets. That guy was an asshole for pulling a gotcha on the poor bakery associate. He is the villain here, not Walmart and certainly not that Walmart associate.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Until a couple days ago when there was an article about how a CNN reporter at a gay Pride parade mistook an ISIS flag for a flag depicting sex toys, I didn't know ISIS had a flag.
 
I don't get the slogan "Heritage Not Hate" for the Confederate Flag...its heritage was hate...hate for the Union, Abraham Lincoln and the ending of slavery. Because of this traitorous heritage 700,000 Americans lost their lives all because of the false belief that the Southern economy would fail if they had to pay for labor.
 
Yes

Brocktoon said:
I don't get the slogan "Heritage Not Hate" for the Confederate Flag...its heritage was hate...hate for the Union, Abraham Lincoln and the ending of slavery. Because of this traitorous heritage 700,000 Americans lost their lives all because of the false belief that the Southern economy would fail if they had to pay for labor.
Click to expand...

True.

They would have a better argument for history, not hate. The flag belongs in a museum.
 
dvdneal said:
Sounds like a states rights issue! or more like an issue the bakery lady needs to handle. I'd have to say I'm with Otter, Walmart should just stop selling cakes. I think it just comes down to the bakery person. If you bring in a picture, they'll put it on the cake. It's one thing for you to be a racist bastard, all they're doing is putting it on a cake for you. It's different to actually sell flags and other decorations. It's not like they sell belt buckles with Isis logos on them. They just sell blank cakes, what you ask them to put on it is on you and if the person behind the counter doesn't want to make you a rainbow flag, Isis, of any other cake that's against their religion or beliefs then so be it. Walmart can fire them or not. You can always go to Piggly Wiggly and see if they'll make you a racist cake.
Click to expand...

That is what one county in Michigan is trying to pull. The county courthouse will no longer be doing any marriages what so ever. They claim that there is nothing in the laws that require them to marry people. I think it is a cheap way out, however I don't think that anyone should be required to have a 'license' to get married.
 
I've never really been a Jim Carrey fan, but now I'm not at all.

California just passed the law to require / mandate vaccinations. Jim tweets out "California Gov says yes to poisoning more children with mercury and aluminum in mandatory vaccines. This corporate fascist must be stopped."

He and all his scientology friends are pushing this line. Did you see what happened in Disneyland a few months back with the measles outbreak? Hello??
 
michaelskis said:
That is what one county in Michigan is trying to pull. The county courthouse will no longer be doing any marriages what so ever. They claim that there is nothing in the laws that require them to marry people. I think it is a cheap way out, however I don't think that anyone should be required to have a 'license' to get married.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree it's just a cheap way out. I'm hoping all the residents will just get out to the courthouse and demand ALL marriage. Personally I don't see the need for a marriage license outside of religious ceremony. Why should I get a tax break because I'm married and you're just living with a girlfriend for the last ten years. I can understand group rate insurance, but it's not about marriage, it's about getting a group rate. I can understand employers not wanting to subsidize insurance for groups that aren't family, but if you're living together for a few years and maybe have kids together your a family to me and no piece of paper will change that. If you want to argue death benefits, just get a will. Otherwise just look at common law and the fact that you've been together for years. Same goes for divorce/splitting up.

Planit said:
I've never really been a Jim Carrey fan, but now I'm not at all.

California just passed the law to require / mandate vaccinations. Jim tweets out "California Gov says yes to poisoning more children with mercury and aluminum in mandatory vaccines. This corporate fascist must be stopped."

He and all his scientology friends are pushing this line. Did you see what happened in Disneyland a few months back with the measles outbreak? Hello??
Click to expand...

The part I wondered about was how they would enforce that on groups with religious freedom like Christian Scientists. You know, legitimate religions since the 1800s that have legitimate religious reasons for not wanting medical intervention. The case was figured out years ago in court. Is California just going to get slammed by a prior case? In the case of Jim Carrey, he's just an ass. scientology is a fiction book, not a religion. I've always wondered what they offer because you seriously can't believe in Xenu. If you do, just start following the spaghetti monster. At least his noodley appendage teaches that pirates are cool. Yes, kids should get vaccinated against Disneyland, but I will make an exception for real religious beliefs.
 
dvdneal said:
I'd have to agree it's just a cheap way out. I'm hoping all the residents will just get out to the courthouse and demand ALL marriage. Personally I don't see the need for a marriage license outside of religious ceremony. Why should I get a tax break because I'm married and you're just living with a girlfriend for the last ten years. I can understand group rate insurance, but it's not about marriage, it's about getting a group rate. I can understand employers not wanting to subsidize insurance for groups that aren't family, but if you're living together for a few years and maybe have kids together your a family to me and no piece of paper will change that. If you want to argue death benefits, just get a will. Otherwise just look at common law and the fact that you've been together for years. Same goes for divorce/splitting up.
Click to expand...

There are other benefits like adoption, but if a person can demonstrate that they have been together for years (mortgage, car insurance, rental lease...) then that should suffice for this stuff.

My wife's aunt has been with her fiancée for about 10 years now. They will never officially get legally married because then she would lose her alimony from her ex husband who is loaded. They have been living together as a family all this time, but they don't want to make it legal because she wants to screw over her ex. He could prove common law, but common law is not recognized in MI.
 
JNA said:
What is your opinion on "celebrity" endorsement of a candidate ?

Like this one -
Kim Kardashian Endorses Hillary Clinton
http://www.people.com/article/kim-kardashian-commonwealth-club-hillary-clinton-ladoris-cordell


Check out this list - Celebrity endorsements for 2016
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/240032-celebrity-endorsements-for-2016
http://www.businessinsider.com/2016-celebrity-endorsements-2015-5
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on the celebrity. I would call Stephen Hawking or Neil deGrasse Tyson celebrities at this point, and I would trust their judgement in supporting a candidate. If anything, Kim Kardashian supporting Clinton makes her look that much worse in my opinion. Very rarely would I say the endorsement of a politician by a mainstream celebrity like an actor, sports figure, or singer would matter to me one bit.
 
Back
Top