Politically Correct or Incorrect Bullshit Of The Day

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by seany65

No idea if this correct or not, but I think I vaguely remember reading something about Hilary helping to bring about the fence between Mexico and the US.

Is this correct?

I would have to say no.

The last time anyone named Clinton was concerned about the southern border, it was Bill.. 20 years ago. While she may have paid lip service to it then, she's certainly on board with the party line that is open to the invasion, amnesty and the potential for millions of new democrat voters.

Maybe you read that in "The Onion"?

[SanteeFats]

Here
Clinton was the primary sponsor of 16 bills that were enacted.




Link: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...clinton/300022


Gotten by a real quick search on Google guys, just saying.

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Here
Clinton was the primary sponsor of 16 bills that were enacted.

Link: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/mem...clinton/300022

Gotten by a real quick search on Google guys, just saying.

Interesting link..

I took a brief look at the 16 bills sponsored by Hillary that were enacted. 13 of them involved naming things after people.

For example: there was one that renamed a piece of a New York highway after Tim Russert. Another that named a post office in Babylon, New York as the Samuel Jacob Fletcher Post Office Building. Or maybe the one in Farmingdale, New York named in honor of Peter J. Ganci, Jr.

Compelling. Any one of those alone is worth a medal from Harvard.

You'll pardon me if those eluded my notice.

Just sayin.

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by Decadence

This reminds me of when they gave Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize.

I have far more respect for Arafat than Clinton, he didn't hide his objectives

[Decadence]

This one falls under "the shoe's on the other foot now.."

In Windsor, Ontario, a transgender female has filed a $50,000 complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, seeking compensation for "immense harm to my dignity" after a he/she/it was refused a Brazilian wax at Mad Wax, a local establishment.

The rub comes because the refusal was due to a Muslim employee refusing to provide the service, based on her religious convictions not to physically touch a man outside her family.

I'm curious to see what's going to happen... as this is Canada and not the United States.

With memories of a baker forced to cater a gay wedding despite religious convictions still fresh in my mind, I have to wonder: who has more political clout in this controversy? Who's the bigger victim?

Are they going to allow a transgender to be discriminated against and give the Muslim a pass or should they force the Muslim to perform the service regardless of intolerant religious conviction?

Personally, I find it odd that Muslim would take such a job knowing full well they'd eventually encounter a man who is "outside the family".

Given that, I say "bake that cake".

[Estreeter]

Originally Posted by Decadence

This one falls under "the shoe's on the other foot now.."

I wonder if "it" might have known the employee is a muslim and maybe knew there's a good chance of refusal and thought they could milk that

If I was a judge in a case like that I'd look for the slightest reason to have it thrown out of court .

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

I wonder if "it" might have known the employee is a muslim and maybe knew there's a good chance of refusal and thought they could milk that

If I was a judge in a case like that I'd look for the slightest reason to have it thrown out of court .

I'm against frivolous lawsuits all day long.

In this case, I'm not so sure... doing so would create yet another double standard for the Muslims. In both cases, the people involved had willingly engaged in a chosen profession... the baker and the waxist. In both cases, the aggrieved were people who embrace an alternate lifestyle.

If we're going to force Christians in a chosen profession to do something that goes against their beliefs, why don't the Muslims deserve the same treatment?

[philll_77]

Originally Posted by Decadence

This one falls under "the shoe's on the other foot now.."

In Windsor, Ontario, a transgender female has filed a $50,000 complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, seeking compensation for "immense harm to my dignity" after a he/she/it was refused a Brazilian wax at Mad Wax, a local establishment.

Sounds like a lawsuit chaser, if you read the following article.



http://windsorstar.com/news/local-ne...st-windsor-spa

[Thinkwell]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Again, it's not the nature of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge.

Very well put.




- - - - - - -





Until a few days ago, John Kaiman was the Los Angeles Times bureau chief in Beijing, and the president of the Foreign Correspondents' Club of China.

Then a woman, an American law student, issued a statement accusing him of forcing her to have sex (five years ago). She stated that he refused to leave her apartment after an evening out, and in the end the “easiest, least confrontational way forward was to place male satisfaction above my own desires and to go back to the bed… We had sex, and I felt gross for all of it."

On Twitter, Kaiman said he was "deeply sorry" and thought they "had talked through the issue as peers and friends." It had nothing to do with the Foreign Correspondents' Club, but he resigned his presidency because "it risks casting a shadow over the club."

Then another woman, also an American journalist, accused him of an act, posssibly rape, in September last year. The LA Times has now suspended him.

To her credit (in a way) this woman acknowledges that she was drunk, and so was Kaiman. After a party, they went to his flat. From her statement:

“I don’t remember what was going through my head as I went upstairs, whether I wanted to take a nap or get some water or maybe make out. I am certain I did not go up there to have unprotected sex with Jon.

“I am devastated by the fact that I was not more sober so that I could say with absolute certainty whether what happened that night was rape.”

My interpretation:

I don't remember clearly because I was drunk, and so was he. I hold him responsible for his own drunken behaviour, but I do not accept responsibility for mine.

I am devastated, not by regret or self-recrimination, or by shame at my behaviour, but by resentment and anger against the man who took advantage of me.

I have now revealed to the world that I am a woman who gets drunk and can then be laid. However, any man who does it in the future now knows that, in retaliation, I will ruin his career.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Thinkwell

To her credit (in a way) this woman acknowledges that she was drunk, and so was Kaiman. After a party, they went to his flat. From her statement:

You could have left it at: "I don't remember clearly because I was drunk, and so was he. I hold him responsible for his own drunken behaviour, but I do not accept responsibility for mine." Or more simply, "I am a woman."

Stormy Daniels is the type of woman who thinks, "I don't really want to have sex with him, but have led him to believe that I do. So, I best fuck him and get it over with." As she said, she never encouraged him to think there would be a second time.