Story #1

 

http://www.statepress.com/2012/03/12/senate-judiciary-committee-endorses-controversial-contraceptive-bill/

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.

 

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

 

“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the  Soviet Union,” Lesko said. “So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”

 

Lesko said this bill responds to a contraceptive mandate in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law March 2010.

 

“My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion,” Lesko said. “All my bill does is that an employer can opt out of the mandate if they have any religious objections.”

 

Story#2

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornography-222833811.html

Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States.

 

"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."

 

The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."

 

Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.

 

"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."

10 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

Lived in LA for 17 years and witnessed first hand the results of a left/far left government,

There has not been a left wing government in the US since FDR, there has never, ever been a far left government. I'd have thought that as a Scot you would have access to what those things actually mean. You know, healthcare free at the point of use, unionism, state railways and buses, council houses, state owned energy, free nursery, cooperatives, state education, free higher education, disability allowance, and a focus on ever decreasing income inequality through taxation on wealth. Not just a couple of those, all of them, and that would get you to a basic social democracy, still a long way from socialism. Distributive policies that have been proven worldwide to reduce crime and homelessness (not socialism). I suspect that this is in large part why folk from across Europe and the wider world are looking on in horror. The overton window, as it's called, is so far right in the US that the arguments aren't even on the same planet. Biden is about as far left as David Cameron, which is to say, not remotely. I guess that thirty years in the US has somewhat clouded your view. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your political position, I'm saying that you are demonstrably/factually incorrect when you use the term left wing to describe US government at federal or state level. It's important because it leaves a gaping hole in the purview of the US citizen. There's this weird dichotomy where folks pine for the "better times" of the fifties and sixties (Trump voters in the US, reform voters here). They are pointing to a time that is so far left (huge taxation for example) that it's no longer in their frame, because of the eclipse of neoliberal politics, which is the only offering in the UK and US in the last fifty years.

Edited March 6, 20251 yr by RicoS321

13 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

There has not been a left wing government in the US since FDR, there has never, ever been a far left government. I'd have thought that as a Scot you would have access to what those things actually mean. You know, healthcare free at the point of use, unionism, state railways and buses, council houses, state owned energy, free nursery, cooperatives, state education, free higher education, disability allowance, and a focus on ever decreasing income inequality through taxation on wealth. Not just a couple of those, all of them, and that would get you to a basic social democracy, still a long way from socialism. Distributive policies that have been proven worldwide to reduce crime and homelessness (not socialism). I suspect that this is in large part why folk from across Europe and the wider world are looking on in horror. The overton window, as it's called, is so far right in the US that the arguments aren't even on the same planet. Biden is about as far left as David Cameron, which is to say, not remotely. I guess that thirty years in the US has somewhat clouded your view. Again, I'm not disagreeing with your political position, I'm saying that you are demonstrably/factually incorrect when you use the term left wing to describe US government at federal or state level. It's important because it leaves a gaping hole in the purview of the US citizen. There's this weird dichotomy where folks pine for the "better times" of the fifties and sixties (Trump voters in the US, reform voters here). They are pointing to a time that is so far left (huge taxation for example) that it's no longer in their frame, because of the eclipse of neoliberal politics, which is the only offering in the UK and US in the last fifty years.

Would left leaning be more appropriate? Can you clarify if I can use the terms huns and victims, or am I factually wrong there too when I reference those here?

Your patronizing attitude is all too common in the US too and what has scared many people to go to trump and the republicans. Its the scolding, canceling, and though police that people have had enough of, getting slammed for simply sharing a thought or daring to speak up and share an honest opinion. It’s also why I dont really talk politics any more.
I don’t need someone to try to educate me or talked down to me, I just answered a question. I also don’t think anyone here gives two shits about the fifties and sixties, you’re off the mark there. I think a lot of people just want a stronger economy, better housing prices, improved immigration and the border, affordable cars, being able to buy a normal shopping, less war, less wasteful spending, less government bureaucracy, less fentanyl, less crime and inner city, particularly sanctuary city, chaos, and less trans and DEI nonsense. We simply want a government the appears to understand and connect with the majority of people and their issues, and focus on what matters to average Americans. When you talk as you do most people here would just shut you out because it doesn’t come across as a friendly discussion, more a condescending lecture that we don’t really relate to or feel particularly relevant, and we’re sick of that.

im not disagreeing or debating your political position, its your attitude and approach. All too common and what has possibly caused an over reaction in a different direction. And the left aren’t changing, and are simply making their situation worse.

Left leaning a few decades ago meant left of centre politically,or more on the Socialist side of the fence,but it seems to have widened out (esp among the younger generation) in the last 5 or 10 years,to encompass your opinion on LGBTQ rights,climate change,race etc,although a lot of the younger element on that side of the fence,do also still seem to describe themselves as Socialist,...occasionally Marxist at times

8 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

Would left leaning be more appropriate?

Not really, no. The people you are saying are left leaning are not, they are to the right of centre. 

 

8 hours ago, OrlandoDon said:

Your patronizing attitude is all too common in the US too and what has scared many people to go to trump and the republicans. Its the scolding, canceling, and though police that people have had enough of, getting slammed for simply sharing a thought or daring to speak up and share an honest opinion. It’s also why I dont really talk politics any more.

I don’t need someone to try to educate me or talked down to me, I just answered a question. I also don’t think anyone here gives two shits about the fifties and sixties, you’re off the mark there. I think a lot of people just want a stronger economy, better housing prices, improved immigration and the border, affordable cars, being able to buy a normal shopping, less war, less wasteful spending, less government bureaucracy, less fentanyl, less crime and inner city, particularly sanctuary city, chaos, and less trans and DEI nonsense. We simply want a government the appears to understand and connect with the majority of people and their issues, and focus on what matters to average Americans. When you talk as you do most people here would just shut you out because it doesn’t come across as a friendly discussion, more a condescending lecture that we don’t really relate to or feel particularly relevant, and we’re sick of that.

im not disagreeing or debating your political position, its your attitude and approach. All too common and what has possibly caused an over reaction in a different direction. And the left aren’t changing, and are simply making their situation worse.

It's not patronising to correct someone. I was pointing out an inaccuracy, that's fairly fundamental in the position you hold, and one that's very common in the UK. I've not given you my political position (I can if you like). It certainly wouldn't be voting for Biden, and if I wanted the things that you want, I absolutely wouldn't have voted Trump. It's frustrating, because about 80% of what you say you want - including controlled immigration - are made significantly more likely by actual left wing policies. Instead of fighting for an actual left wing party, a significant portion of both UK and US are voting for grifters like Trump, whilst the middle class professionals vote for sudo-socially-progressive charlatans, happy to throw around apparently socially progressive policies safe in the knowledge that they've already solved the world's economic problems - for themselves and their class. It adds up to me that someone would vote for Trump because they've lost sight of what left wing actually means. As I stated in my first post - and other conversations we had recently on the topic (where you used terms like socialism) - that isn't a criticism of your voting decision or intent, it's a criticism of a system that has polluted politics so massively that you can't even picture anything that isn't neoliberal, corporatist oligarchy, run by absolute cunts like the Tesla fucker.

My only criticism of you was the fact that you use terms like left when you must know from your time in Scotland that they're not left at all? You even used "far left", which just backs up the point - you genuinely think there are communists in the multimillionaire US senate? It's absolutely ludicrous - McCarthyism, basically. I will apologise though, as the criticism isn't helpful. It was more from a place of disbelief/bewilderment that things have become so detached from reality. I should know better.

2 hours ago, Elgindon said:

Left leaning a few decades ago meant left of centre politically,or more on the Socialist side of the fence,but it seems to have widened out (esp among the younger generation) in the last 5 or 10 years,to encompass your opinion on LGBTQ rights,climate change,race etc,although a lot of the younger element on that side of the fence,do also still seem to describe themselves as Socialist,...occasionally Marxist at times

I don't think climate change sits with race and LGBTQ rights. One is backed by overwhelming volumes of science, grounded in fairly simple - and undeniable - physics.

Otherwise, I agree. Economically progressive <> socially progressive (I'm not particularly sure what the second one means, or where its boundaries lie), and economic progressiveness must always come before social, which takes time if at all desirable. However, the answer to that isn't Reform, or Donald Trump, very clearly. The strangest part being, that those that vote for the former wouldn't be willing to overlook a few progressive policies, and a character like Corbyn*, holding their nose to vote for demonstrably economically progressive policies, but they would sabotage economically progressive policies by voting for the moreso odious character that apparently prioritises social conservativism. To the extent that there is a generational element (and I think that is overblown), what intrigues me most is the generation that benefited from huge social welfare, fair house prices, free education and relative wealth equality, are comfortable to deny that for future generations to prevent social progressiveness. 

I'm ultimately getting involved in a fight that I have no dog in here though, I just find it interesting. I don't actually believe in nations (apart from for fitba purposes) or national governments as a concept, and think that they are time-limited and can only exist in a period of abundant energy. In my opinion, it shouldn't be possible, or desirable, to manage human needs at the level of the state and I think that will always lead to what we have playing out before us. I think that democracy is a fairly unnatural state of affairs, a somewhat nebulous concept, and I don't think that it has too many decades left. 

*I didn't vote for Corbyn, but not because he was an upper middle class London cunt. 

Edited March 7, 20251 yr by RicoS321

4 hours ago, Elgindon said:

Left leaning a few decades ago meant left of centre politically,or more on the Socialist side of the fence,but it seems to have widened out (esp among the younger generation) in the last 5 or 10 years,to encompass your opinion on LGBTQ rights,climate change,race etc,although a lot of the younger element on that side of the fence,do also still seem to describe themselves as Socialist,...occasionally Marxist at times

Dunno if it's the same in all westernised countries. But there's a section of the currently emerging generation of adults in Australasia who seem to ignore social class positioning, there is a growing tendency to ignore discrimination based on your current social class. Possibly the only exemption in this is those brought up with a silver spoon in their mouth, cos they still stuck to their own. 

Whether this also exists in USA beneath the political comedy gala that the rest of the world gets to see pretty much everyday on TV or not ... I'd love to know.

1 hour ago, Reekie_Red said:

Dunno if it's the same in all westernised countries. But there's a section of the currently emerging generation of adults in Australasia who seem to ignore social class positioning, there is a growing tendency to ignore discrimination based on your current social class. Possibly the only exemption in this is those brought up with a silver spoon in their mouth, cos they still stuck to their own. 

Whether this also exists in USA beneath the political comedy gala that the rest of the world gets to see pretty much everyday on TV or not ... I'd love to know.

It depends what you mean by ignoring social class? Do you mean that there is increased mixing between classes as if they are a single class? Or do you mean that people ignore that classes exist, and thus ignore inequality? If it's the latter, then in the UK, class is still a thing but the discussion is probably on the sidelines. Starmer, for example, will bring up that his father was a toolmaker, and all parties will pretend to be the friend of the working man, but the actual policies on the ground are as thin as possible. I guess that's because the working class have been hollowed out by offshoring of industry, so the actual working class are simply on another continent (bloody foreigners), or majority immigrants. In the US, there always seems to have been a pretending that there is no class divisions (the American dream etc), and that upward mobility is available to all regardless of circumstance, despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to that not being the case. Of course, that upward mobility was historically impossible for all but a relative handful of black people up until the sixties and seventies as the ending of segregation took hold. That's why things like DEI exist there, and why inequality is discussed in terms of race. But because inequality actually exists over class lines, resentment builds up for policies surrounding race rather than income level. I suspect that the same is true with indigenous folks in Australia and New Zealand (and obviously the US). Structural racism exists in all three countries (and the UK), but it's no longer rooted in "actual" racism (not to say racism is solved!), rather you have an existing issue where people in lower classes happen to be majority ethnic minority, but the barriers to mobility are now the same for all ethnicities. Social mobility and terrible working conditions are as great an issue for working class white people as working class black people. Presenting the problem along race lines is a mistake. Possibly a deliberate one (divide and conquer). A good illustration in the UK would have been stabbing victims in London, which occur more regularly in areas with higher proportion of ethnic minority. You could take that as black people stab one other because they're black and it's in their culture. Yet the same thing occurred in deprived areas of weegieland, predominantly white. The issue is, and always has been, that you experience significantly more crime in areas of deprivation. 

Why, then, would class be ignored? Because the last thing anyone I'm charge wants is an empowered working or lower class. Almost all western media is owned by the billionaire class. If not, then it's run by the managerial professional middle class. It is much easier for them and their business to have the lower classes divided and blaming one another. A working class white person in a poor neighbourhood has far more in common with a working class brown person in a similar situation, yet the majority (in this case white) will side with a charlatan like Farage, because they've been primed to hate the other. Middle class professionals - like me - have no real skin in the game either way, and so can virtue signal 'til our heart's content, because it makes no difference to us whether our charity victims are poor black or white people. 

The most predictable public break up in history is underway.  
 

 

55 minutes ago, Kowalski said:

The most predictable public break up in history is underway.  
 

 

Hilarious. Trump really is thick as shite. Everyone in the galaxy could see that coming before they even met. What an embarrassment of a nation (as most nations are). Two of life's absolute losers involved in a playground slagging match. Who'd have thought that volume of money (handily accrued from daddy) wasn't a good barometer for wisdom? Or a metric of anything really, other than the game of money. What a pair of charlatan cunts.

Yep a pair of cunts. Hope they both lose. 
 

Musk could really bring Trump down. 

I was kinda hoping Trump would just pass away from obesity, COVID, tanning oils. But if this is his downfall from the POTUS Pedestal, this is waaaaaay better.

Now, where's that popcorn?

6 hours ago, Reekie_Red said:

I was kinda hoping Trump would just pass away from obesity, COVID, tanning oils. But if this is his downfall from the POTUS Pedestal, this is waaaaaay better.

Now, where's that popcorn?

The far right always tear themselves apart. This is the world “righting” itself 😂

The whole Epstein files saga is something else isn't it?  

8 hours ago, tlg1903 said:

The whole Epstein files saga is something else isn't it?  

Should be what brings Trump down and probably many others. 

27 minutes ago, Kowalski said:

Should be what brings Trump down and probably many others. 

The US public voted for him when he was a known rapist. Why would a predilection for children be different?

It's another distraction. 

Trump to meet Starmer in 'oil capital' Aberdeen https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czry2zgk4y3o

3 hours ago, RicoS321 said:

The US public voted for him when he was a known rapist. Why would a predilection for children be different?

It's another distraction. 

I would say this is a bit different because trump made some big promises on Epstein in the build up to the election.  Also even plenty of the MAGA mob hate the idea of people getting away with things just cos their rich.  One of the big reasons folks voted for trump because they were sick of the political class having different rules to themselves and now Trump is basically getting with the programme when he promised he wouldn't.  

@OrlandoDon what's the mood like on the ground out there amongst Trump voters? 

We're in the "doubling down" era, people would rather make excuses for Trump/Boris/Farage than admit they were wrong.

If they're going to overlook his behaviour towards his own daughter, they're not going to give a toss about some random child from a broken home.

Batshit crazy.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Kowalski said:

Batshit crazy.

 

 

Fucking hell, that is desperate. 

4 hours ago, Kowalski said:

Batshit crazy.

 

 

I read that as he was at every party Epstein ever had. 

11 hours ago, tlg1903 said:

I would say this is a bit different because trump made some big promises on Epstein in the build up to the election.  Also even plenty of the MAGA mob hate the idea of people getting away with things just cos their rich.  One of the big reasons folks voted for trump because they were sick of the political class having different rules to themselves and now Trump is basically getting with the programme when he promised he wouldn't.  

@OrlandoDon what's the mood like on the ground out there amongst Trump voters? 

From what understand, the Epstein list is so much bigger than trump and they simply cannot release it. Whether it be Trump, Bill Clinton and his world buddies, world royalty including Prince Andrew, big pharma pinup bill gates, oil tycoons, world billionaires etc, the list won’t get released. too many powerful people simply won’t allow it.

I don’t think that many people care. I don’t anymore. Politics got so toxic that I had to walk away. I do feel common sense is taking over in certain areas and that is a plus, but I know others here don’t share my views so I’m not going into it. Got wrapped up so much in the Biden shitshow, even now with auto pen drama and questions behind who was in fact running the country, the chaos with ICE where the democrats are defending /supporting/ funding illegal immigrants and criminals, I’m just enjoying life and paying as little attention as possible. Ignorance is bliss. Selfish I know.

Excited about our season, more concerned about our lack of preseason competitive games - from such a high of the cup final I think we missed a real opportunity to play 2-4 glamor’ friendlies with decent crowds.

Edited July 16, 20251 yr by OrlandoDon

The Epstein stuff is so bad they’re releasing information about Trump‘s health for the first time!

Difference between the Epstein stuff and other accusations is the MAGA cultists all believe they exist and Trump spent last 4 years shouting about releasing them to play to the narrative. To suddenly say they don’t exist means he is now going against the beliefs of the MAGA crowd. Going to be a tough sell. 

Out of interest, because I’ve had a mental week with work and not paid any attention to the news this week: 

1) who the fuck is this cunt Charlie kirk?

2) Why should I or anyone care?

3) as far as I can see, he loved guns, said people are sacrificial and got shot by one, poetic no? 
 

These are genuine questions, I know very little about this person.