As opposed to... what? Not voting? Giving up? Pretending we’re in a fantasy universe where we can somehow vote in enough independants that both the dems and GOP become minorities?
Notintheface0
notintheface0
Actually Obama signed 276 executive orders, or about 34 per year. However compare that to Rooseveldt’s 307 per year for over 12.11 years (yes... he ran the equivalent of more than 3 terms) giving a total of 3728 and its not a lot.
“The country wasn’t based on executive orders. Right now, Obama goes around signing executive orders. He can’t even get along with the Democrats, and he goes around signing all these executive orders. It’s a basic disaster. You can’t do it.”- Donald Trump
In this case, if a religious agency is against placement in a certain type of home and is not being publicly funded, how do we tell them they have to go against their religion and do this? The what I do in my own company and home is my own business mentality.
They CHOSE to close because they couldn’t discriminate.
Why? Because I don’t think people should waste their time having the same circular arguments over and over again with hateful extremists? To answer your question below, even though it wasn’t addressed to me, I’m not afraid of hearing anyone’s ideas. I’m not going to be convinced by their bullshit. But some people will…
Go to bed? Someone’s projecting.
“The bill now heads to the desk of Republican Alabama Governor Gov. Kay Ivey. It is unclear whether Ivey plans to sign the bill into law.”
Is it, though? Is it unclear?
Actually we get treated poorly by almost all of our major industries thank you very much! We’ve just decided to treat government like a business as well, hence its new hostile attitude towards its citizens.
No really it’s not. The resting of power from the powerful via violent mobs is basically what the US was founded on.
this is what we’ve been doing for the last 40 years and as a result, the right wing has complete control of almost every legislative body in the united states
It’s important to distinguish between “free speech” and “political speech”. The former is that general concept that anyone can say whatever they want (although it’s not clear whether this can actually be read as the right to make people listen to what you have to say), and the latter is what the 1st Amendment…
In the USA, speech is free. One can say what one wants to.
More bluntly: “Where you arrested? No? Then your free speech wasn’t violated.”
The alt right is effectively hacking democracy. Control the information the right set of voters receive and they’ll elect any piece of shit we put in front of them. Use “free speech” to get repugnant beliefs a place in the marketplace of ideas and claim that protesting those repugnant beliefs is undemocratic and…
One more time, EVERYONE say it with me:
Or, alternately as the article explains, don’t feel giving space to the speech of people who have been proven empirically wrong has any value. Saying Murray is wrong is not meant in the ethical/moral sense (though he’s wrong there, too), it means he’s wrong in the empirical scientific sense (as in everything he…
I also enjoy the idea that one can “debate” with an Ann Coulter or a Richard Spencer.