[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2016-November-30, 09:43, said:

Alan Greenspan was a Rand acolyte.

Yes.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2016-November-30, 09:43, said:

Alan Greenspan was a Rand acolyte.

Indeed. Thanks for the correction. Wasn't BB Greenspan's hand-picked and personally trained successor? (Just checking...)

[kenberg]

Although I did not say that Bernanke was a brilliant economic mind. we can get past that since I did cite him in a positive way. As I recall, I quoted him as saying we have to do something about the debt over the long run, and I said I thought that this was obvious. I am pretty sure I did not say it was brilliant. At any rate, Bernanke is one of a large number of people that know more about economics than I do. This means we treat is thoughts with respect, but not as godlike edicts.

As far as I know, Ayn Rand didn't know any more about economics than I do. She had strongly held beliefs. We can all have strongly held beliefs. That's easy.

Abrupt change of focus:

If I were to relate my thoughts about Trump to any fictional setting, i think it would be A Face in the Crowd.
https://en.wikipedia...the_Crowd_(film)

Quote

Upon its original release, A Face in the Crowd earned somewhat mixed reviews, one of them from Bosley Crowther of The New York Times. Though he applauded Griffith's performance ("Mr. Griffith plays him with thunderous vigor ..."^[11]), at the same time, he felt that the character overpowered the rest of the cast and the story. "As a consequence, the dominance of the hero and his monstrous momentum ... eventually become a bit monotonous when they are not truly opposed."^[11] Crowther found Rhodes "highly entertaining and well worth pondering when he is on the rise", but considered the ending "inane".^[11]

One critic who had only praise for the movie was Francois Truffaut; in his review in Cahiers du Cinéma, he called the film "a great and beautiful work whose importance transcends the dimensions of a cinema review".^[12]

Over the decades critical opinion of the film has warmed considerably. A Face in the Crowd has a 92% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 24 reviews

I particularly focused on "As a consequence, the dominance of the hero and his monstrous momentum ... eventually become a bit monotonous when they are not truly opposed."

A portrayal in movies can be monotonous. Real life is another story.

[jonottawa]

 barmar, on 2016-November-30, 03:05, said:

Where do you get this idea? These are refugees trying to escape a barbaric regime.

Are they any more "opportunistic" than the Irish who came to America in the 19th century to escape the potato famine? They just want to find a better place to raise their families. This has been the American Dream for centuries.

These are people who have already fled poor/war-torn countries. They aren't trying to escape. They're looking for the biggest sucker they can find & they found it here (and in Sweden, UK & Germany.) Let them move to an equally poor but less 'barbaric' country if what they're trying to escape is barbarism and they're not willing to fight. (Western countries could easily finance such a program.)

'Pure hatred': Translator reveals how Muslim refugees want to 'Islamize' Germany

People work hard and build nations for their posterity.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Not so that some random person out of the 7 billion+ souls on the other side of the globe decides that 'Hey that's a better place to raise my family because I don't have to work if I move there and they'll give me a nice place to live and lots of free stuff and pay for me to have as many babies as I want.' Comparing this attitude to the brutal conditions in Ireland and the brutal conditions the Irish experienced in America is insulting. The Irish would have REJOICED at the living conditions in a Turkish refugee camp.

Anyway, I can already tell you and I won't see eye to eye on this so have the last word.

[jonottawa]

 y66, on 2016-November-29, 20:28, said:

The Ayn Rand thing is old news bordering on necro. I think it's more relevant to point out, as Jon Stewart pointed out on Charlie Rose two weeks ago, that "Trump is not draining the swamp. Ryan and McConnell are the swamp."

You think it's somehow "more relevant to point out" the obvious fact that Donald Trump doesn't get to choose who the House Speaker & Senate Majority leader are because?

[jonottawa]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

Go have a read of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It espouses freedoms and rights in what is (in translation) modern language and seems perfectly reasonable and indeed easier to understand and more freedom oriented than the US Constitution. Then look at how the country is run...with 'free elections' of course.

...

The Sky is Falling!

...

A Constitution is a political instrument of no value whatsoever unless people with power want it to have value. For all of the foregoing reasons, I am not the least bit optimistic. In fact, I am terrified, since the US is an example for many nations. Plus, the trump depression, which seems entirely probable but not in the next couple of years, will wreak havoc.

Fact check rating: GATLINBURG! (That's one level beyond PANTS ON FIRE!)

This post was pretty 'creative' even by Mike's standards.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

Go have a read of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It espouses freedoms and rights in what is (in translation) modern language and seems perfectly reasonable and indeed easier to understand and more freedom oriented than the US Constitution. Then look at how the country is run...with 'free elections' of course.

It couldn't happen here. The claim of so many over so long.

Nobody who lives in a country with a constitution with a NOTWITHSTANDING clause (which basically means that the government can ignore or override many sections of the constitution) should be trashing other country's constitutions or systems of government. The United States Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) is the greatest legal document ever written (particularly when you consider when it was written) & only a fairly recent tradition of judicial activism by the Court's regressive left wing has imperiled it, and imperiled the greatest nation in the history of our planet in the process.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

Look at the McCarthy era. With Hoover in charge of the FBI and Eisenhower sitting on the sidelines, the US Congress treated the Constitution with contempt.

The McCarthy era was a response to a massive number of communists/Marxists infiltrating America during the Cold War, when capitalist America faced an existential struggle against Communist Soviet Union. Back then we took that sort of thing seriously, and it's good that we did. It might have bought us an extra decade or two of liberty and prosperity.

Were some constitutional rights infringed on in certain cases? Yes. Do most countries not have a police powers (state of emergency) type clause in cases such as this? I would assume so, though I'm not an international legal expert. Were the violations of the Constitution by Lincoln during the Civil War (which set the precedent that the federal government can occasionally ignore the Constitution because reasons) orders of magnitude more egregious? Certainly.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

Look at the Japanese internment or the Dredd decision of the SCOTUS.

Canada interred Japanese too. It was an understandable reaction at the time. Again, nations fighting existential wars tend to (understandably) be more pragmatic & authoritarian for the duration of the conflict. Self preservation trumps 'Muh civil rights.'

If you want an incomprehensible Supreme Court decision, I'd go with Roe LONG before I got to Dred Scott (not to be confused with Judge Dredd.) A court decision can be legally valid even if it's morally wrong. I could probably find dozens of crazy moonbat Canadian SC decisions too, but I don't really want to rustle my own jimmies unnecessarily so I won't bother.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

Your country has the profoundly bizarre, in my opinion, practice of selecting justices to your SCOTUS explicitly on the basis of political affiliation. Now Trump gets to pick at least one and possibly up to 4 more Justices.

If you want to talk 'profoundly bizarre': Canada has the QUEEN (as in hereditary monarch) of a foreign country that isn't even a sovereign country anymore as its official head of state (& on all our currency.) So careful with the rocks in that glass house of yours, Mike.

Now, as for Mike's inaccurate misrepresentation of SCOTUS appointments: Supreme Court nominees used to be selected (regardless of the party of the President) based on who the most experienced and qualified nominee was who would do his best to interpret the Constitution based on original intent and precedent. Republicans STILL generally approach it that way. It's the Democrats who mucked all that up and politicized the process.

As for the current court, SCOTUS has been a mess since Bush v. Gore. That seemed to open the floodgates to some of the most dreadful decisions (Citizens United, Obergefell v Hodges) since Roe. Horrible appointees like Sotomayor (wise Latina) & Ginsburg (publicly attacking Trump, an offense that should have gotten her thrown off the bench) certainly didn't help. Trump's (list of) potential nominees are highly experienced, qualified & respected and I hope he has the opportunity to make SEVERAL appointments (why stop at 4? I'm hoping for 6.)

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

When it is permissible to make sure that your appointments will rule as you want, before appointing them, the check afforded by the SCOTUS is illusory.

If a president appoints qualified justices who will interpret the constitution based on precedent and on the framers' intent, then the check afforded by the SCOTUS is very REAL. President Trump will do that.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

When major media, including online and mainstream media, fawn over Trump and legitimize the most abhorrent raving white nationalists, as Bannon has done for years, why do you think that anyone in power will protect your rights?

If anyone reading this truly believes that the major media (mainstream media) fawns over Donald Trump, the most unfairly and viciously vilified major party nominee (and now President-Elect) in my lifetime (really of all time, but Goldwater perhaps comes close,) please seek professional help. Seriously. Or at least delete your Facebook account and turn off your regular source of 'news' for the next month & TRY to deprogram yourself. If you want to see 'mainstream media' fawning over a politician (or promoting a specific ideology,) please tune in to the CBC. Or read almost any of their stories on the Internet and then read the comments almost uniformly blasting the transparently biased coverage in the story.

For Mike, a Swedish person who wants to preserve & protect the centuries-old (and almost universally highly admired and respected) Swedish nation, society, culture & people from hordes of Muslim economic migrants is an 'abhorrent raving white nationalist'. For me, that person is someone whose rights need to be protected. I'm not sure where Bannon would fall on that, but if he agrees with me, then he would indeed be someone in power who 'will protect your rights.' (Unless you mean imaginary (invented by the regressive left) 'rights', of course.) Genocide and ethnic cleansing (remember Bosnia? Or Tibet?) used to be things we opposed once upon a time.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

Police officers and military personnel are generally selected, and self-selected, to be amenable to hierarchical control. Indeed, boot camp and police academies, to a less fearsome extent, are intended to break down the personality of the recruit and to rebuild it to be obedient.

This has real value when it comes to preparing people to kill other people. Most of us recoil from the idea of killing others. Most of us are terrified of getting into a fight against people armed with lethal weapons. Military commanders need to know that their orders will be obeyed, so recruits are rigorously conditioned to obey.

Police officers are generally psychologically assessed: at least in the larger departments that can afford it. There is considerable self-selection in the hiring process but screening isn't just to weed out psychopaths: it is also intended to maximize the likelihood that the recruit will be a good, which means obedient, police officer, for the same, but diluted, reasoning as applies to the military.

So Trump will appoint 'law and order' and aggressive law enforcement and armed forces leaders, while stacking the SCOTUS with those who see the world his way.

Trump will indeed promote law & order, as every president before Obama & hopefully every president after Obama did/will. Enforcing law & order is the primary duty of ANY government. He will doubtless appoint a SecDef who will do what he can to undo the damage inflicted on the once-great US military by Obama (and to a lesser extent Dubya) & make America's military proud, mighty, feared and respected again. All of that is GOOD news.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

Meanwhile Congress may be tempted by the same rationalizations as the von Pappen deputies in the Reichstag in the 1930's.

I don't think for one moment that Trump is Hitler. I don't think he has any kind of agenda beyond 'winning' and getting sycophantic adulation.

If Mike doesn't think Trump is Hitler then why bring up von Papen? Oh, just to be melodramatic, I see.

[jonottawa]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

But those around him are far more sinister, especially Bannon, and they know how to play him. Putin does as well, and you can be sure that many around the world are paying attention to how successful the Russians have been. There can be little doubt but that Putin, through Assange but also through a very careful and now increasingly documented fake news campaign on FB and elsewhere, swung enough votes to get his useful idiot in the White House.

Trump loves to listen to praise, and he listens to it avidly from all accounts. This is a man who, according to his ghostwriter, starts each day reading the 'good' stuff printed or published about him: he has staff whose main job is to find this stuff and have it ready for him.

At the same time he personally watches shows such as Good Morning America and SNL and then spends hours tweeting when his feelings are hurt.

He is going to be a pawn in the hands of some very nasty people who do not have the interests of American democracy in their hearts, and there is NO institutional power capable of resistance unless by some miracle enough republicans grow a sense of decency.

More sanctimonious melodramatic armchair psychoanalysis and conspiracy theories, oh my! Move over Keith Olbermann, Dr. Phil and Alex Jones, here comes Barrister Mike!

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

Look at how the leading lights of the republican party have reacted since the election. Ryan is groveling, because he is terrified that Trump will seek his revenge, and there goes both his status as Speaker and any chance of being President in the next 8-12 years. If Trump and his handlers destroy democracy in the next 4 years, then Trump or his anointed successor will defeat Ryan for the republican candidacy while if Trump crashes and burns, and the electorate swings against him decisively, no republican who licked his boots has any chance.

To the extent Ryan is groveling it's because he's a traitor who tried to defeat Trump and now will have to deal with a President Trump. I'm curious to see if Ryan helps Trump pass Trump's 100 day agenda (or instead keeps promoting his own Randian/Libertardian #BetterWay.) I certainly don't think it's a foregone conclusion that he will, (he might well sabotage efforts behind the scenes) though I obviously hope he does. I don't trust Ryan or like Ryan but obviously President Trump will have to find a way to work with him if it's possible. Pence might help here. Romney in cabinet would (presumably) help enormously as well.

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

So the calculus for republican politicians now is simple. If one wants to cling to power and privilege, and ensure a lucrative career as a lobbyist later, one has to kneel before the Leader and do whatever he wants. Look at Romney, sucking up to him. Look at the way Christie sold out. Look at Cruz....look what Trump did to him and his wife, and see how Cruz knuckled under.

Romney is 'sucking up to him' because he's another traitor who tried even HARDER to defeat Trump & in spite of that Trump (being the forgiving and benevolent leader that he is) is still giving him serious consideration to be Secretary of State (absent the betrayal, he'd obviously be tapped for the nomination already.) My inclination is of course to not want Mitt anywhere near this administration (or perhaps in a portfolio like VA where he can bring his vaunted organizational prowess to bear without shaping policy) but it's not like the Republican bench is all that deep (especially once you exclude all the war criminals & neo-cons) & you'd like a household (and fairly popular) name at State if possible. Mitt is one of those folks who needs EXTREME VETTING & President Trump's giving him a close look.

When McCain ran against Dubya, Dubya's campaign knowingly spread a dirty lie in South Carolina that McCain (who had just won the NH primary) had fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman (much like Bill Clinton seems to have ACTUALLY done.) Dubya won the South Carolina primary and the rest is history. McCain endorsed Dubya that year.

This year, Hillary colluded with the DNC to rig the primary against Bernie. Bernie STILL almost beat her (and likely would have won without the collusion.) Bernie endorsed Hillary. So PLEASE spare me this claptrap about how mind-boggling it is that people who signed a pledge to support the nominee supported the nominee. That's what politicians DO. The UNUSUAL STORY is that some of them (Jeb, Kasich) broke that pledge, not that most of them (Christie, Rubio and even eventually Cruz (who dished it out every bit as good as he got it) and Fiorina) demonstrated integrity by honoring their commitment.

Goofy and melodramatic language aside, the 'calculus' for ALL politicians is simple when a new president is elected. You show respect and deference to a new president of your party. What president was that NOT true for, pray tell?

 mikeh, on 2016-November-29, 17:45, said:

A Constitution is a political instrument of no value whatsoever unless people with power want it to have value. For all of the foregoing reasons, I am not the least bit optimistic. In fact, I am terrified, since the US is an example for many nations. Plus, the trump depression, which seems entirely probable but not in the next couple of years, will wreak havoc.

For someone who thinks a constitution should be interpreted so liberally that it is essentially meaningless, Mike sure seems to 'want it to have value' all of a sudden. Mike's philosophy is 'it doesn't matter what the words are or what the original intent was, ABORTION RIGHTS!' or 'it doesn't matter what the words are or what the original intent was, GAY MARRIAGE!'

It's the regressive left who destroyed the constitution & if Trump does what Mike's so fearful he will do, it's on THEM.



It's funny, because I think one of Trump's biggest mistakes is that he truly wants to govern in the middle & by rejecting his gracious overtures the regressive left will force him to instead be the boot that America's ass sorely needs. So keep fear-mongering, please! Keep rioting in the streets. Keep burning the American flag. Keep demonizing police officers, whistle-blowers, soldiers, patriots and Trump supporters (sorry if that's redundant.) Keep contesting the results of a historic landslide win. Keep exposing yourselves for what you truly are. Let me know how that works out for you.

I wish I had the time to parse all of Mike's posts like this but I hope I've demonstrated (with this rebuttal and my other lengthy rebuttals) that he repeatedly injects a significant amount of 'hot air' into his commentary. I think someone smart enough to be a partner in a law firm PROBABLY does that sort of thing deliberately (and not inadvertently,) but I could be wrong, I often am. I prefer discussions with people who don't repeatedly try to get away with those sorts of shenanigans. (Especially when they tend to make really LENGTHY posts and then (if you bother to make the effort to fact-check them) ignore the rebuttals that shred their misrepresentations.) That's why I generally try to make my case as concisely & unhistrionically as possible.

On the bright side, I'd like to give Mike a little crrredit. He made a LENGTHY post without once misusing the words bigot or bigotry! Way to go, Mike! Baby steps.

Let's all pray that Mike gets well again soon. And that our beloved Gatlinburg (another disastrous response to a disaster from Obama & his administration) rebuilds. And that President Trump is half as effective at Making America Great Again as Mike is afraid he will be. Amen.

[mikeh]

Jeez. Do you think jon has a little bit of an obsession with me?

Fortunately we live several thousand kilometres apart

But enough of poking the bear in the cage. He is now, belatedly, on ignore. I had to give up: I couldn't bring myself to read all of his ravings.

I have been contemplating using the ignore on him earlier, but it was amusing, in a sad and somewhat horrifying way, to read his screeds. It has now crossed over into being disturbing, especially his apparent fixation on me.

[jonottawa]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-29, 19:23, said:

That's because you're not a woman. Any woman that finds Sharia the least bit appealing should have her head examined.

If you lived in a desperately poor/primitive country with a weak government (or no government) I think you'd see it differently. When you consider the alternative (and no, the alternative in an environment of extreme scarcity will NOT be 2nd wave feminism, sorry.) It beats some kind of Mad Max existence where the strong prey on the weak. It's well suited for the environment in which it has historically thrived.

[jonottawa]

If anybody else is planning to have a hissy fit if I reply to one of their posts, please let me know now so that I don't risk offending you. TIA

[Kaitlyn S]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-30, 14:26, said:

If anybody else is planning to have a hissy fit if I reply to one of their posts, please let me know now so that I don't risk offending you. TIA

Maybe you should precede your post with a trigger warning?

BTW, I loved that one cartoon where the girl calls the guy an a**hole until she finds out he's Muslim

[Winstonm]

On little further thought about right-wing fanatics, i.e., the American Taliban.

Perhaps it is because I live in extremely red Oklahoma, nearby very red Texas, and am perhaps more sensitive because of that closeness to the goings-on in Texas, but today I read that the Texas legislature once again passed a law to make it more difficult to have an abortion, especially for the poor and lower middle classes. This time they are requiring all aborted fetuses to be disposed through either burial or cremation. This makes about 197 (I'm exaggerating on purpose) attempts to place hardships on woman and circumvent current abortion laws, each attempt thwarted by SCOTUS. Between voter suppression bills and anti-abortion bills the Texas Republicans have shown themselves to be if nothing else relentless in their attempts to circumvent law and impose their morality as state-sponsored mandate.

Their relentless pursuit - unabated by repeated losses - is like a hoard of locusts - a plague, if you will, and as such not a group that can be reached by appeals to reason or even cajoled, but a pestilence to be eradicated before the world as we know it is devoured.

I understand that this kind of talk will not sway their minds - but I have yet to see a locust change its mind.

[jonottawa]

 Winstonm, on 2016-November-30, 15:35, said:

Their relentless pursuit - unabated by repeated losses - is like a hoard of locusts - a plague, if you will, and as such not a group that can be reached by appeals to reason or even cajoled, but a pestilence to be eradicated before the world as we know it is devoured.

I understand that this kind of talk will not sway their minds - but I have yet to see a locust change its mind.

I've watched Hoarders many times but I've never seen a hoard of locusts.

Anyway, given what I'm normally called around here, I will take 'locust' as a compliment, thank-you.

As for your post, what it lacks in logic it more than makes up in enthusiasm.

 Winstonm, on 2016-November-30, 15:35, said:

Between voter suppression bills and anti-abortion bills the Texas Republicans have shown themselves to be if nothing else relentless in their attempts to circumvent law and impose their morality as state-sponsored mandate.

Requiring voter ID is not 'voter suppression'. It's what every civilized democracy on earth does, including very poor countries like India and Mexico.

As for circumventing law, I'm not sure how passing laws circumvents laws. It would be just as accurate to say that Democrats have been relentless in their attempts to impose their 'morality' as state-sponsored mandate.

[onoway]

One example of an attitude which helps bridge the gaps and makes the world a better place for everyone
https://www.facebook...53003404704073/ so refreshing to see someone doing something positive for others less fortunate in life for whatever reason.

There was another video as well the other day about a white policeman who responded to a suicide call from a young black teenager. When he got to know the situation he went well out of his way to make the young man's - and his family's - life better. When the policeman was asked why he said " because I could". Those are probably way more typical of most police than the ones running scared and/or trigger happy and it's nice to see those videos getting shared. The video about that has apparently prompted people from all over to voluntarilly send donations, nobody was asked for anything, they just wanted to help out.

That's the America that Trump can't touch because those people are generous, confident souls who don't need to hide behind the shallow skirts of skin color as in any way denoting value as a human being. And I believe that that is the world that most people would prefer to live in. How to get there are just details, but Trump definitely has the wrong playbook.

[jonottawa]

 onoway, on 2016-November-30, 15:46, said:

... That's the America that Trump can't touch ...

Correction:

That's Trump's America. If you wish to join us, that's up to you.

[Al_U_Card]

 jonottawa, on 2016-November-30, 14:26, said:

If anybody else is planning to have a hissy fit if I reply to one of their posts, please let me know now so that I don't risk offending you. TIA

The beauty of diverse opinions. They help illuminate issues from both sides. Thanks to all that express their positions in thoughtful and not abusive ways. It really helps to provide perspective. Abandoning the exchange is most unfortunate as it limits one to one's own viewpoint. Thanks for keeping the discourse civil, as hard as that may be.
I see that Trump is looking at another vampire squid alumnus for Treasury... not my favorite origin but I'll wait and see the direction taken before forming an opinion.

[mikeh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-30, 15:09, said:

Maybe you should precede your post with a trigger warning?

BTW, I loved that one cartoon where the girl calls the guy an a**hole until she finds out he's Muslim

Of course you would.

Imagine that same cartoon with the word 'Muslim' replaced by the word 'Christian'.

Is it still as funny? Why not?

Islam and Christianity are very similar. Most of the beliefs of the one are found in the other. Details differ. Christians have had different notions, over the centuries, as to the divinity of Jesus and, even when taken as divine, the nature of the relationship between God the father, Jesus the son and that weird Holy Ghost thing. Islam accepts that jesus wsa divinely inspired: he is the second holiest human, being the penultimate prophet of god.

Women and gays are both treated with contempt in the foundational documents of Islam and Christianity, as with their common source, Judaism (which in turn is based on earlier superstitions and beliefs, and so on, ad almost infintum). Women are property in both religions, and gays are to be killed in both.

So the attitudes that are set out in your cartoon, and attributed to the guy being muslim, are precisely the attitudes held by a non-trivial number of proudly American Christians.

If you still find the cartoon funny, when substituting 'Christian' or 'Jew' for 'muslim' then maybe yoy aren't racist. Try it and see.

[Al_U_Card]

Substitute funny with pathetically typical and have a fill in the blank for the creed in question.
The issue was the hypocrisy of the individual that allows their opinion to be molded by the label being used. That was the real humor and the interchangeability of the operators makes that pretty clear.

[Kaitlyn S]

 mikeh, on 2016-November-30, 16:32, said:

Of course you would.

Imagine that same cartoon with the word 'Muslim' replaced by the word 'Christian'.

Is it still as funny? Why not?

I can't answer that last question because the answer to the first question is "Very."

The whole cartoon is about the indignant woman that all of a sudden becomes apologetic when she thinks she might be being politically incorrect. The actual religion makes little difference, although TBH fewer people would "get it" if you replaced Muslim with Christian... I just happen to be one of those fewer.

And personally I find it very unChristlike how these supposed Christians treat gays. What ever happened to "Love thy brother as thyself"?

[mikeh]

 Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-30, 16:55, said:

I can't answer that last question because the answer to the first question is "Very."

The whole cartoon is about the indignant woman that all of a sudden becomes apologetic when she thinks she might be being politically incorrect. The actual religion makes little difference, although TBH fewer people would "get it" if you replaced Muslim with Christian... I just happen to be one of those fewer.

And personally I find it very unChristlike how these supposed Christians treat gays. What ever happened to "Love thy brother as thyself"?

As to the last: the bible wasn't big on masturbation either