Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Fivelives wrote:In other news, at least the Hobby Lobby did one thing right (even if it was only accidentally):

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07 ... -abortion/

I can see what they're trying to do there... but I can also imagine one or two things that could go wrong for your organisation if you decide to align with Satanists. Talk about "feeding the trolls"!

Members of the Temple of Satan are encouraging all women who share their belief in medical accuracy to seek their own exemption from these laws, even if they don’t personally identify as Satanists.

You gotta admit it shows what kind of world we're in when the satanists care more about women's health than some christians, specially when they pull shit like this: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/eu ... -1.1861745 (a polish friend pointed me towards this article days ago)

Florida being Florida: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ients.html

I honestly don't see a reason for a law banning doctors from asking about gun ownership - mainly because I don't see any profesionally relevant reason for a doctor to ask about that.
I find myself (wonderously) in agreement with the court majority on this; gun safety is not a medical concern.

all that being said, I don't see how anyone can be opposed to regulating gun safety... - like requiring guns to be under supervision if not under lock and key; a far cry from european gun safety laws, but as we've established those would generally be a no-go in the US - simply require that guns be locked up (unloaded and seperate from ammunition, and with the breechblock (yes?) detached from any relevant weapons while locked up) if not carried by a person allowed to do so, or in transit to and from a place of use (hunting for example, though basic gun safety in regards to hunting requires you to transport your firearm unloaded and secured).
If a concern is rasied against locking up the guns due to in-home self protection, just require a simple lock that would keep out a child, and allow 1 loaded magazine to rest next to the gun, so you can unlock your drawer/chest/whatever, insert magazine and load.
That would be a lot better than having doctors (who, mind you, have no obvious training in regards to dispensing gun safety advice) asking questions. I know, my doctor wouldn't be one I would accept as an authority on gun safety - and having a doctor tell you "guns can be deadly to children" is just... well superflous.. I would hope


Make exceptions for permits that are necessary (like, according to TV and film, LEOs like to keep a loaded gun in their bedroom drawer...).

Nooska wrote:I honestly don't see a reason for a law banning doctors from asking about gun ownership - mainly because I don't see any profesionally relevant reason for a doctor to ask about that.
I find myself (wonderously) in agreement with the court majority on this; gun safety is not a medical concern.

all that being said, I don't see how anyone can be opposed to regulating gun safety... - like requiring guns to be under supervision if not under lock and key; a far cry from european gun safety laws, but as we've established those would generally be a no-go in the US - simply require that guns be locked up (unloaded and seperate from ammunition, and with the breechblock (yes?) detached from any relevant weapons while locked up) if not carried by a person allowed to do so, or in transit to and from a place of use (hunting for example, though basic gun safety in regards to hunting requires you to transport your firearm unloaded and secured).
If a concern is rasied against locking up the guns due to in-home self protection, just require a simple lock that would keep out a child, and allow 1 loaded magazine to rest next to the gun, so you can unlock your drawer/chest/whatever, insert magazine and load.
That would be a lot better than having doctors (who, mind you, have no obvious training in regards to dispensing gun safety advice) asking questions. I know, my doctor wouldn't be one I would accept as an authority on gun safety - and having a doctor tell you "guns can be deadly to children" is just... well superflous.. I would hope


Make exceptions for permits that are necessary (like, according to TV and film, LEOs like to keep a loaded gun in their bedroom drawer...).

I'm ambivalent about Doctor's talking to new parents about gun safety. I agree it is out of their scope.

What concerns me more is squelching other doctors, such as mental health professionals, because they could potentially identify a case where a gun owner is no longer mentally capable of responsible gun ownership. I'd really prefer mentally unstable people like the Santa Barbara shooter be disarmed.

Wow this is so amazingly retarded.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-debate ... 57610.html

Seriously the feminist movement needs to go fuck itself. Oh but 20% of women have been sexually assaulted. No that's poll data and sexual assault is a pretty broad definition which can go from rape to someone kissing you when you don't want to. It's just retarded.

Sounds like something I've heard before...

Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrBC-BaLYes

In regards to the california thing, I find it deeply disturbing to require institutions (of any kind) to act on something that is not criminal.

It is definately discriminating (in the OTHER sense of the word) contrary to general jurisprudence, and I would be surprised if it was actually constitutional for the state to require another legal person to act (and punish) on a charge, that was a legal thing to do.

And I doubt very much that they want to change the penal code, as lifting the burden of proof is already hard with the current standard, lifting the burden (to a jury's satisfaction) in a case where there need not have been any actual direct notice (but could just in reality be a changed mind/regretting the act - which isn't uncommon in regard to rape accusations - at least we have had a LOT of cases surface in the media around here for several years) is going to be downright impossible.
Reasonable doubt and all.

The whole 'explicit consent' is just silly and unnecessary, since we have a perfectly working approach in other spheres of life already. For example, if I apply to a job and the interviewer tells me "we will call you soon", this clearly means that I'm hired and eligible to be paid. If I send your company a business proposal and you don't tell me "hell, no" within a reasonable 20-second timeframe, then the deal is sealed and your company is bound by the contract. I don't see why sexual relationships should be any different.

The part about inability to express consent while being drunk/intoxicated is particularly infuriating. Everyone knows that by choosing to get drunk, you irrevocably forfeit all human rights. A drunk person is just meat, and meat has no rights. Hell, the last time I saw a drunken person, I didn't even bother with the usual euthanasia and organ donation forms: I just rolled them then and there. It's just common sense!

And then there's another silly fictional construct: 'ongoing consent'. It doesn't exist, period. All decisions are final. If you decide to quit the Mafia, they'll kill you and your family. If you decide to cancel your WoW subscription, Blizzard will do the same (except they'll get your pets as well). And yet, for some reason, feminists don't get it. They're just like that aforementioned drunken guy, who woke up in the middle of the operation and started screaming and thrashing and trying to evade the consequences of his actions. The nerve of some people, I tell you.

Intimate acts, because the legal definition of sexual assault is more then just rape by the way, cannot be treated in the same way as a business contract.

You know what, even if they were like in the Australian proposition this California law proposal would still be fucking retarded because they state: Consent can be non-verbal, signs such as nodding your head or getting close can be considered consent.

I can just imagine someone accused of sexual assault in court: "I swear your honor I didn't force her to kiss me, she just leaned closed to me!"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/l ... sional-pay
This guy needs to EABODs

Well California went retard:
http://news.yahoo.com/california-passes ... 12755.html

Hey, you know I have a brilliant idea if you have problems with sexual assault in Universities because people are getting drunk/on drugs, how about cracking down on THOSE issues instead of ignoring them.

Io.Draco wrote:Well California went retard:
http://news.yahoo.com/california-passes ... 12755.html

Hey, you know I have a brilliant idea if you have problems with sexual assault in Universities because people are getting drunk/on drugs, how about cracking down on THOSE issues instead of ignoring them.

Next thing coming to california

Reading reactions to the speech on Twitter, and it sounds like Obama's finally gone full 'MURRICA! :/

KysenMurrin wrote:Reading reactions to the speech on Twitter, and it sounds like Obama's finally gone full 'MURRICA! :/

Not sure quite what you mean as I haven't heard the speech or read the reactions... but he's in his last two years and can't get reelected... it's time to go for broke!

What a bunch of horseshit.

My first reaction to how American can fight against terrorism is that America is the only country that sees a terrorist under every rock. Anyone they disagree with = terrorist. Reminds me of the very first episode of NCIS where a man was assassinated and they were tracking down the "terrorist" responsible. Newsflash bozos: It's an "assassin" not a "terrorist".

America helps with ebola - America can't even implement its own health care without having to worry about health care for the rest of the world.

America and "freedom" - I recently visited America, in the process going through airport security in Auckland, Los Angeles and Seattle. The contrast between the experience in Auckland vs LA and Seattle make a complete joke of any talk of "freedom". They might as well have been counting the change of each passenger and fitting them for custom underwear. Nice of them to put the notice in my suitcase that the TSA had a good rummage through my belongings even though it was nothing but clothes from Costco.

America the innovative - like no other country could be first to split the atom - oh wait.

I kind of feel bad for Brekkie since he's still in Germany (I think) but geez... can the US and the UK Intelligence Agencies stop pissing the Germans?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 91503.html

Well, sounds like the Scots decided to stay with the Brits after all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/world ... -vote.html

Arnock wrote:Well, sounds like the Scots decided to stay with the Brits after all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/world ... -vote.html

If it's nae British... It's crap!

On one hand, it's Buzzfeed, on the other hand... it actually happened.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrishamby/gove ... man-online

I hope that woman wins 10's of millions. Seriously. That goes so far beyond what consent could even be stretched to, and into the line of FUCKING CREEPY.

http://mashable.com/2014/11/13/esa-scie ... ist-shirt/

Guy helps lands a robot on a comet for the first time in history. Is criticized heavily for wearing a "sexist" shirt.

You know what, fuck the left, fuck the progressives. I used to be one for most of my life but with all the shit they do I've turned around and become a conservative.

I'll take religious crazy over progressive crazy any day.