Let's address this latest shitstorm on the media:
Some creep harasses a mentally ill stripper with her kids in front of a mall. But then she calls him a nigger.
Who's in the wrong, the stripper or the dude? Shes Puerto Rican, is she still allowed to say the nigger word? Nobody knows! And the media is reaping the benefits.
Your fortune: Good news will come to you by mail
>Some creep harasses a mentally ill stripper with her kids in front of a mall.
Not even what happened. What a great start to the thread.
HOLY SHIT THE OP POST IS DUMB ON A MYTHICAL LEVEL
He did absolutely nothing wrong, she's fucking human trash.
>DUMB ON A MYTHICAL LEVEL
What happened to simply calling OP a faggot?
YOU CALLED WOMAN TRASH, YOU'RE MISOGYNIST SCUMBAG
Do we really want this thread? Containment theory doesn't work on the internet. In the SYM threads at least people say their piece and usually leave it at that rather than drag things out pointlessly.
Every new news story I think my opinion of the media can't get any lower. And time and time again I am proven wrong.
Some completely random, unimportant person used the word nigger.
WOW CAN YOU BELIEVE IT
PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS
IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
Please let a lot of CEOs be Christian Scientists, please let a lot of CEOs be Christian Scientists, please let a lot of CEOs be Christian Scientists...
In case you hadn’t heard, Hobby Lobby won its SCOTUS case. Corporations (and thus employers) now have a religious exemption to providing contraception coverage via healthcare plans.
On the bright side, the justices said their ruling doesn’t immediately apply to other forms of health services (e.g. blood transfusions) to which your employer might object.
They still provide birth control pills, just not post-conception birth control. Only something like 4 of the 20 offered birth control plans were discussed in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
Such court cases are to be expected, ACA conflicts with many many laws already on the books, especially the spirit of said laws, because no one bothered to even fully read the ACA before passing it.
The ruling is far more disturbing than whatever pills Hobby Lobby is able to lop off of their insurance. The SC ruled that "closely held" corporations can A) have a religious affiliation, and B) use that affiliation to avoid laws it doesn't like. Not only did they give that out, but they didn't bother defining "closely held", so it opens up a lot of companies to argue promoting their own brand of religious bullshit. I'm sure publicly-traded companies could try to pull something if they really wanted to, though they would likely fail whatever definition is ultimately given to "closely held".
>Anti-Marijuana groups getting BTFO by Colorado and Washington
>Washington's first recreational dispensary opened last Tuesday and closed Thursday because it was out of stock.
>Crime rates plummeting in Colorado
>Drug agencies, law enforcement, etc basically the entire US legal system going nuts and trying to up their lying game in face of the truth but getting BTFO
>Tons of States looking to follow suit with decriminalization
>36.4 million in pure tax revenue for Colorado just on marijuana sales
>Banks clear to handle money
>Canada and especially BC disgusted with being less progressive on ANY subject than the US are desperate for decriminalization
>75% of anti-marijuana lobbying is coming from sectors directly involved with policing it
>Experts explain it as "Without a reason to throw as many people, especially black people in jail police in the US will be totally incapable of justifying their bloated budgets."
Well we may be stymied and losing ground in the fight for reproductive rights but the war on drugs is all but dead and dying slow, embarrassed and constantly proven wrong and idiotic.
Eh no, this is still just another abortion kerfuffle, which is a hot topic because people don't have a consensus when as to when life begins. Only a quarter of America even thinks abortions should be legal in any circumstances, so it's natural that the other three quarters of the citizenry complain when they're taxed or otherwise forced to pay for what they consider to be murder.
It doesn't apply to other laws, or even to other laws pertaining to birth control, that's a slippery slope fallacy. If it did apply to all laws, the other 16 types of birth control that still must be supplied wouldn't exist.
A good read on the "religious freedom" side of the decision:
It's not an abortion kefuffle. This is an economic kerfuffle. It is granting an unfair advantage to "religious" corporations by allowing them to pay their workers less than secular businesses do for the same work, by granting them immunities to laws regarding worker compensation in the form of insurance. The SCOTUS has turned the RFRA into an unconstitutional law by making this ruling, by making it a law that grants economic benefits to adherents of a specific religion.
Even if it *were* actually about abortion (which it's not--this is entirely a cynical ploy to save money on Hobby Lobby's part), it wouldn't matter because "when life begins" doesn't even figure into it. Three of the four devices that Hobby Lobby objected to, don't prevent implantation of fertilized eggs, they prevent the fertilization of eggs in the first place. The last one does the same in all clinical trials that have been observed, but the science is still out as to whether there are any circumstances where an egg might become fertilized and prevented from implanting.
Hobby Lobby has been informed of this, and they more or less stated that they don't care. And the Supreme Court agreed that science doesn't matter--the fact that these devices OBJECTIVELY AND PROVABLY DO NOT CAUSE ABORTION does not matter to this case in their eyes.
So can regular people be exempt from laws they don't feel like following or is it just corporations?
If they're rich enough, or are born into politically powerful families. So not regular people, I guess.
That's mostly what this case is about: Corporate (or rather, Plutocratic) Supremacy. We've gone from "corporations can exist only for a particular purpose, for a limited period of time, and their owners are still liable sometimes" to "corporations are separate people from their owners when it benefits the owners, and the owners themselves when it benefits the owners".
Interesting read. A lot of the (specific) issues could be resolved without touching the hot potato of religion: If we had national healthcare, employers' objections would not matter. If, rather than enforcing morality through the law, we protected against harm, religious exemptions wouldn't matter; whether wine is essential or not to Catholic practice is irrelevant if there is no prohibition, likewise for weed for Hindus/Sikhs/Rastafarians and peyote for Native Americans. If (consensual, adult) polygamy is permitted for all people, it wouldn't matter if they're Mormon or Muslim, and believe it's divinely sanctioned, or polyamorous atheists who believe its natural and healthy. A freer society would have less friction between religion and law.
Still, as the author points out, religion always runs awful of the law unless its more or less in charge of it. Ultimately, the conclusion of Employment Division v. Smith, that a neutral law of general application does not violate free exercise, is the most sensible legal conclusion, and Hobby Lobby/Connestoga rulings make no sense outside of either Christian supremacism or Corporate cronyism on the part of the court.
In other words: this Supreme Court is generally worthless when it comes to this area.
Maaaaaan FUCK ISREAL
So, am I being paranoid, or is anyone else suspicious of how the whole deal with Russia and Ukraine started right after the Olympics, which helped direct attention to it, and events that could ramp it up are occurring as we approach the United State's next presidential election? I'm just saying, no matter what goes down I don't want to get a president who puts dealing with foreign countries ahead of reforming economic and security policies.
Also, I don't really know quite what's going on over in Russia to make them worried about their border, but if they're dealing with a lot of violent crime it might help to look at less violent ways to prevent it. If it works I suggest a lot of places try it, saw a video on what http://cureviolence.org/ is doing and their method seems fairly promising. Being less tough on homosexuality could help too, since I mean really that just sounds like a waste of effort.
>Being less tough on homosexuality could help too, since I mean really that just sounds like a waste of effort.
That's not going to happen any time soon. Russia wasn't exactly a shining beacon of LGBT friendliness before the ‘gay propaganda’ laws went into effect, after all.
>I got the next presidential election date off by two years because ???
Oh, alright then. I thought it was odd I was hearing to little about it.
Certain news channels won't shut up trying to guess who's running in 2016, so you've probably heard plenty about it while at the airport or doctor's office.
This shit right here
A pro-incest campaigner is facing jail over sick cartoon pictures of Bart Simpson having sex with his sister Lisa and mother Marge.
Other images showed Bart having sex with his teacher Mrs Krabappel as well as his best friend Millhouse having sex with his mother.
The pictures included sex scenes between relatives including characters from cartoons such as The Simpsons and King of the Hill.
All of the images were cartoons, sketches, drawings or CGIs. None were actual photographs.
The images were seized from his home in February last year.
The jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict after less than 40 minutes.
Recorder Simon Medland QC branded the images ‘filthy, obscene and very disturbing’ telling Smith he should ‘expect imprisonment’.
Smith, who was convicted on nine counts of possessing prohibited images, will be sentenced on August 29 at Carlisle Crown Court.
man, that's a whole new level of "stop liking what I don't like"
The UK made drawn images part of their child porn laws over a decade ago. Good ol' nanny state. They tried to do that here in the states, and some states do have it on the book, but the federal attempt was struck down by the SC.
I said this before in old /baw/ (and maybe even here) but the drawn porn thing has only come up once in Australian court (with The Simpsons again), and it was ruled that if it was or was representative of a human or a legal person it was CP. If it's of an underaged anthro animal/plant/food/sheet of paper/etc., than it is legal. At least it's simple and they allow some stuff.
I guess it would always depend on the judge and jury though (ie. you gonna get v& no matter what).