Jump to content
maryjanewhatsername

2018 - 2019 United States Government Shutdown

Recommended Posts

Adorkable
7 minutes ago, AlissaGoesRAWR said:

Of course it doesn't read that way — it's Fox news, and they're interpreting the proposals in a way that panders to people like Trump.

Yes, the courses would be narrower than a world religions class, which is why it's drawing criticism, but I really don't think any lawmaker would be stupid enough to introduce a bill that specifically indoctrinates students in a religion. If you look at the

orth Dakota, for example, it's called "Bible studies," lumped in with sections of the law already pertaining to social studies. They also have something called "North Dakota studies." I think "studies" is a term that's being taken out of context both by anti-religious people who are offended and Bible-thumpers who are happy about us "returning to our roots."

The Florida bill and the Indiana bill specifically say the instruction must be objective and Indiana also describes world religion courses.

Again, not saying I agree with this idea being so emphasized because, as @Tre's Busted Drumkit said, I think it would inevitably turn into indoctrination in some cases because our country is so heavily biased toward Christian religions. And just because the saw says instruction must be objective doesn't mean the law would be followed. The bills are being pushed by religious groups that obviously have more than history and literacy as a goal. But it's a bit more complicated than just saying it's flat-out unconstitutional because it involves religion.

I never said it was unconstitutional simply because it was based on religion. And yes, I fully understand that it is more complicated.   However, I do think there is a big difference when you bring in a course specifically geared towards any religions identifying text. While some teachers may very well teach it as Tre's Busted Drumkit's teacher taught it, as a piece of literature. I fear that many others will use it as an indoctrination. It brings up a whole series of questions, if the law passes how do structure the course? Who monitors that it doesn't turn into some Christian sing a long.

Tre's Busted Drumkit's teacher taught one section and he wouldn't even give the kids the bible, only the text they were studying. My girls had a whole section on how many religions affected history. 

Even with the words in the bill, it is still teaching one religions text 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maryjanewhatsername
5 hours ago, Tre's Busted Drumkit said:

 this is coming from someone who went to high school in northern Florida (the redneck part). 

I feel this in my soul since I live in South-Western Idaho. Rednecks and close-minded hicks are what I deal with everyday. 

 

2 hours ago, AlissaGoesRAWR said:

Of course it doesn't read that way — it's Fox News, and they're interpreting the proposals in a way that panders to people like Trump.

Yes, the courses would be narrower than a world religions class, which is why it's drawing criticism, but I really don't think any lawmaker would be stupid enough to introduce a bill that specifically indoctrinates students in a religion. If you look at the bill text in North Dakota, for example, it's called "Bible studies," lumped in with sections of the law already pertaining to social studies. They also have something called "North Dakota studies." I think "studies" is a term that's being taken out of context both by anti-religious people who are offended and Bible-thumpers who are happy about us "returning to our roots."

The Florida bill and the Indiana bill specifically say the instruction must be objective and Indiana also describes world religion courses.

Again, not saying I agree with this idea being so emphasized because, as @Tre's Busted Drumkit said, I think it would inevitably turn into indoctrination in some cases because our country is so heavily biased toward Christian religions. And just because the saw says instruction must be objective doesn't mean the law would be followed. The bills are being pushed by religious groups that obviously have more than history and literacy as a goal. But it's a bit more complicated than just saying it's flat-out unconstitutional because it involves religion.

(Also, you can always use a browser's incognito mode to get past a paywall, as much as it pains me to say it because it's why I'll be unemployed someday.)

Also the amount of research in this makes me so happy. I'm totally going to all the links and becoming educated! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disappearing-Shawn
On 1/29/2019 at 3:28 PM, WhiteTim said:

Trump doesn’t even want a wall not really 

I’ll show y’all why 

this man here 

Was prepared to suck a dick for some Evian water for a music festival 

is Trump prepared to suck a dick for the wall? Has he even made an offer to suck a dick for the wall? Nope? Well see he’s not committed to the wall 

Mr. King is a regular at my store. lmao It's pretty hard to look him in the eye after watching the documentary.

 

*Edit*

Not in a negative way, of course. I find it funny. He's actually a very nice guy, and his family members that I've met are as well!

Edited by AlissaGoesRAWR
Please remove photos from quotes.
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhiteTim
26 minutes ago, Disappearing-Shawn said:

Mr. King is a regular at my store. lmao It's pretty hard to look him in the eye after watching the documentary.

 

*Edit*

Not in a negative way, of course. I find it funny. He's actually a very nice guy, and his family members that I've met are as well!

Tell him he’s a hero 

he’s now my financial advice forever 

“if you’re not willing to do a Andy you don’t need it” 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ryan
16 hours ago, AlissaGoesRAWR said:

(Also, you can always use a browser's incognito mode to get past a paywall, as much as it pains me to say it because it's why I'll be unemployed someday.)

OMG THANK YOU!!!!!!! You just saved me so much strife and I feel dumb for not having known that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tre's Busted Drumkit
2 hours ago, Ryan said:

OMG THANK YOU!!!!!!! You just saved me so much strife and I feel dumb for not having known that.

Did you hear that? That was the sound of a nameless, faceless intern, somewhere out there in the wide world of print media, being laid off because someone got around the paywall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlissaGoesRAWR
3 hours ago, Tre's Busted Drumkit said:

Did you hear that? That was the sound of a nameless, faceless intern, somewhere out there in the wide world of print media, being laid off because someone got around the paywall.

No, that was probably just me.

 

5 hours ago, Ryan said:

OMG THANK YOU!!!!!!! You just saved me so much strife and I feel dumb for not having known that.

Ha, no problem. I would rather people just be informed at this point if they're not going to pay anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ryan
4 hours ago, Tre's Busted Drumkit said:

Did you hear that? That was the sound of a nameless, faceless intern, somewhere out there in the wide world of print media, being laid off because someone got around the paywall.

 

47 minutes ago, AlissaGoesRAWR said:

Ha, no problem. I would rather people just be informed at this point if they're not going to pay anyway.

I honestly find it very hard to wrap my head around paying for news in this day and age. Like, aren't we at the point where ad-revenue should be the model moving forward for these news organizations? Very local papers I can see being subscription based because of the local market that  they are specifically catering to. In my opinion, national organizations are very different. I know this doesn't really belong in here, but it is Trump's America afterall, so fuck all the rules, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlissaGoesRAWR
30 minutes ago, Ryan said:

I honestly find it very hard to wrap my head around paying for news in this day and age. Like, aren't we at the point where ad-revenue should be the model moving forward for these news organizations? Very local papers I can see being subscription based because of the local market that  they are specifically catering to. In my opinion, national organizations are very different. I know this doesn't really belong in here, but it is Trump's America afterall, so fuck all the rules, right?

Considering he never shuts up about the "fake news media," I've decided it's on topic. :lol: 

Yeah, I personally think that trying to get people to pay for subscriptions online is a very print-centered way of thinking (but my old white man bosses disagree). I think we need to look toward driving up views as much as possible to secure better advertising, as well as sponsors, events, etc. to bring in revenue in other ways. Today, with all the misinformation and knee-jerk reactions that people have to social media posts that they don't vet, we can't shut anyone out and keep them uniformed.

Plus, I work for a paper and I don't even subscribe to anything besides my own. What does that say? It's a flawed model. But advertising isn't easy to figure out, either, because so many people aren't willing to pay for ads because of social media.

What's funny is you'd think people would be more likely to subscribe to local content, as you said, but when people were trying to show support for the news industry and journalists following Trump's election they all flocked over to the New York Times and gave their subscriptions to them. Which is a nice gesture, but doesn't really affect the people living in your community or reporters who are making very meager paychecks. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Billie Hoe

I just remembered that I did the survey @AlissaGoesRAWR (I think) posted here on donaldjtrump.com about dishonest media (the one with leading questions, unsurprisingly) and apparently they've signed me up for the newsletter, because I just checked my mail and saw this absolute gem :lol:

The subject was "A GIANT AND ILLEGAL HOAX" in all caps.

tumblr_pmolucrGHU1w9swdvo1_1280.png

tumblr_pmolucrGHU1w9swdvo2_1280.png

tumblr_inline_pmolaz4BZT1uih05v_1280.jpg

is this what his supporters see on a regular basis?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maryjanewhatsername

Latest rumor/news: $1 billion ended up being approved for some sort of border protections (the fucking wall) in order to stop a government shutdown from happening again. I can't wait until they run into the portion that is private property owned by Cards Against Humanity and can't fully finish the wall and get pissed. The whole thing is so childish and stupid, it won't help anyway. Sigh, the troubles of being an American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhiteTim
1 hour ago, maryjanewhatsername said:

Latest rumor/news: $1 billion ended up being approved for some sort of border protections (the fucking wall) in order to stop a government shutdown from happening again. I can't wait until they run into the portion that is private property owned by Cards Against Humanity and can't fully finish the wall and get pissed. The whole thing is so childish and stupid, it won't help anyway. Sigh, the troubles of being an American.

Trump still has to sign off and he doesn't like this deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beerjeezus

Is it possible to expropriate land in public interest in the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adorkable
27 minutes ago, Beerjeezus said:

Is it possible to expropriate land in public interest in the US?

Sort of. The government can take the land but the owner needs to be compensated. 

4 hours ago, WhiteTim said:

Trump still has to sign off and he doesn't like this deal

He would be a bigger idiot than we know he is if he doesn't. Even Mitch McConnell is telling him to sign it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maryjanewhatsername
12 hours ago, Beerjeezus said:

Is it possible to expropriate land in public interest in the US?

Kinda. Just frowned upon and the owner has to be okay with it. He's dumb for not taking this offer, though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tre's Busted Drumkit
18 hours ago, maryjanewhatsername said:

Latest rumor/news: $1 billion ended up being approved for some sort of border protections (the fucking wall) in order to stop a government shutdown from happening again. I can't wait until they run into the portion that is private property owned by Cards Against Humanity and can't fully finish the wall and get pissed. The whole thing is so childish and stupid, it won't help anyway. Sigh, the troubles of being an American.

Last I read, it's about $1.3 billion, and it's to be used for vehicle barriers, not a wall. DHS can use eminent domain to seize land if they want to, but that would be a political nightmare for both sides. I'm expecting something on Monday from Trump about how he's found a way to fund the rest of the wall without Congressional involvement. Which is illegal. Possibly unconstitutional. But who knows? We'll see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Billie Hoe

So I guess now that the Native Americans have no more land left to be "seized" by the government, doing so would suddenly be a political disadvantage for them... lol. Don't wanna piss off your own people as long as they're a couple shades lighter I guess 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maryjanewhatsername
14 minutes ago, Billie Hoe said:

Don't wanna piss off your own people as long as they're a couple shades lighter I guess 

Never read something that describes the US so accurately in my fucking life :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trotsky
On 2/13/2019 at 6:20 AM, maryjanewhatsername said:

Latest rumor/news: $1 billion ended up being approved for some sort of border protections (the fucking wall) in order to stop a government shutdown from happening again. I can't wait until they run into the portion that is private property owned by Cards Against Humanity and can't fully finish the wall and get pissed. The whole thing is so childish and stupid, it won't help anyway. Sigh, the troubles of being an American.

 

I love the fact that Cards Against Humanity actually bought a plot of land, but even though they have lawyers I'm not optimistic about their chances if the feds bring an eminent domain claim against them. But they say it's just to make it as time consuming and difficult for a wall to be built so in that they should be successful.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
o_O

you know how REM don't want the orange turd to use their music. he liked a meme that used their music. i wish they can sue his ass and the ones actually responsible for that meme. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maryjanewhatsername
4 hours ago, o_O said:

the orange turd

CRYING. :lol: I think this is how most Americans feel about the current president :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
o_O
14 hours ago, maryjanewhatsername said:

CRYING. :lol: I think this is how most Americans feel about the current president :rolleyes:

i call him Tweeto. (cheeto and Tweets) lmao. also #presidentasshole works too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×