Leaderboard

So we've arrived at 'Go Back Where You Came From'. Happy 4th of July, 'Murica!

But that's ACTUAL harm. The new conservative legal standard is that imaginary harm trumps actual harm. For example, if someone is fired for being black, a real white American might fear that they would lose THEIR job if the black was re-hired. And those fears are what the courts now protect against.

Because the relevant bit of the law has to do with what Joe posts on dz.co.....not worth the energy. I'm sure as fuck not lazy, maybe a bit sleepy and I did have a beer with dinner. Either way, arguing with you on the Interwebs makes about as much sense as trying to teach my cat to play piano.

This is the "fuck your feelings" group. They have no objective other than to rile logical, sensical people into a frenzy. It's beyond fucking childishly boring and moronic. Thankfully, the majority of the planet understands that being, just that, and nothing more. Yawn. The lawsuit against Harvard and the response of the Arizona political leadership are the sensical responses. Arizona AG Kris Mayes: “Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity. “If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.” Also trust the next generation. The young ones coming into voting are not tolerant of this insanity.

But it also happens to be corrupt.

The 303 decision shows how absolutely horrifically dysfunctional the American Justice system is and how SCOTUS, if not corrupt, is very ideologically driven. You may agree with the decision, but the process it has taken and the facts around the case should make you very very worried for the system.

Get a Hemmingway cat, that might help.

I answered your hypothetical about Imam's performing a gay wedding with a direct question...."All of them" is a bs response. A quick Googling would inform you that not all Imam's oppose same-sex weddings any more than all Priests/Pastors/Rabbis/Official Spaghetti-Monster Representatives do. Your answer of "All of them" is just another demonstration of ignorance.

Sort of, defiling a butcher shop with non-halal meat and offal might cause an actual transfer of material that cannot be absolutely avoided. Of course, it's still absolute bullshit but like not grinding peanut flour in a grist mill for allergy reasons there is a point to be made. The question is simply at what stage does society stop accommodating bullshit religious reasons for denying service to individuals simply because they belong to a group. Here we have a service offered to the public at large being denied to a group that has created no harm to society unless you believe that better restaurant service and better delicatessens are a harm. Also, let's not forget that they paid in equal measure for the infrastructure that made the website designers business possible including, but not limited to, creating the internet. And you have the undiluted gall to say Bill is being obtuse.

That's what trolls do.

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=cecr I've given my thoughts. Let me leave you with one final thought. When people lay blame for their problems on others they surrender the ability to solve them for themselves. Government cannot, has not, and will not solve this problem. The only people who can are the individuals.

So now he’s your hero? My point is the vast majority of the government’s attempts to fix the problem have only succeeded in making it worse

Yet another lie. You said the Republicans couldn’t have done it without the Dems actions. The above is yet another source which proves you wrong. Why can’t you just admit that instead of continuing to dig the hole deeper? The claim that it’s somehow the Dems fault anyway is like the rest of what you said - a deeply disingenuous opinion that doesn’t hold up to the lowest level of scrutiny. So you and your source agree that Senate Republicans refused to do their constitutional duty throughout the whole of Obama’s presidency?

Thanks for demonstrating once again that Republicans are allergic to taking responsibility for anything they do. There’s always someone else to blame.

Since Brent is on my ignore list I have no idea of the details of his gloating. Notwithstanding. . . . The need by the right is about ensuring that Americans they don’t know and don’t like will suffer. They consider it a win when black and brown people suffer. A win for men when women suffer. A win for old, rich people when younger, poorer people suffer. Zero sum game, you lose therefore we win. And our current Supreme Court has become the favored weapon.

What principles are those? The only real principle that built your country is kill and subjugate for money.

lol. some days this site comes through. if anyone wonders: kouta = aussie for excellent https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kouta

I hope you are trolling for the sake of spirited conversation, but I fear you are not.... Yielding to the lower jumper is NOT OBSOLETE! In fact, your suggestion is dangerous and I encourage jumpers to disregard it. The reasons we yield to the lower jumpers are simple. First, jumpers in the pattern are (correctly) focused on their landings, which dictates giving primary attention to what is BELOW them. Jumpers are ALWAYS responsible to clear the area in their flight path - like clearing the area to the left or right AND below before making a turn. This includes pattern flight and final approach. Second, it is often impossible to see traffic above us because our canopies block much of the view. Yielding to the higher jumper simply doesn't make sense and much of the time would be impossible because of the blocked view. It also distracts from the mission at hand - clearing the flight path ahead and below, and landing safely. The "low person has the right of way" is a basic premise in all of aviation. CFR 92.113.g states in part "When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way...". Additionally, the USPA Skydiver's Information Manual agrees with this rule. SIM Section 6-1.C.3.c states "the low person has the right-of-way both in freefall and under canopy". Deciding on our own to buck accepted practices leads to confusion, and that leads to problems. As for high performance canopies and the jumpers who fly them, they are ALWAYS responsible to yield to lower traffic. This makes perfect sense. The higher jumper has the best field of view of the jumpers below them, they can monitor lower traffic without looking away from their flight path, they have more altitude to make an avoidance maneuver if necessary, and it's consistent with aviation and skydiving norms. I am a former high performance canopy jumper (and still have a rate of descent faster than many others) and can say in practice that yielding to the lower jumper works. When I am descending faster than the jumpers below me, I have the best opportunity to observe what they are doing and have the best field of view to decide how to avoid conflict. There are a lot of great ideas out in the field. Suggesting lower jumpers attempt to yield to traffic above them is a really, REALLY bad idea. My suggestion to other jumpers - no disrespect intended - is to COMPLETELY ignore your advice.