Estrogen-like chemicals in soy don't have feminizing effects on men at intake levels equal to (or greater than) those of Asian males.
Messina, M.; Soybean isoflavone exposure does not have feminizing effects on men: a critical examination of the clinical evidence, Fertility and Sterility , Volume 93 , Issue 7 , 2010, Pages 2095 - 2104 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378106
And soy can lower the risk of prostate cancer.
Lin Yan, Edward L Spitznagel; Soy consumption and prostate cancer risk in men: a revisit of a meta-analysis, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 89, Issue 4, 1 April 2009, Pages 1155–1163, https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/89/4/1155/4596781
Been staying away from anything estrogen my whole life and T levels are above average for a male my age. Also cancer will get you whether you're healthy as a horse or eat Mcdonalds for breakfast lunch and dinner. It got me 5 years ago. If I wasn't in the shape I am in I would of been done. Docs gave me 1 yr, I said F..k you and kept living. I get screened every six months now so if it does happen again we will get it really early. Cancer does not discriminate.
Well, here you have it. Donald Trump is at least now starting to lay the groundwork for declaring himself not only above the law, but that he is the law itself:
"If the President does it, it's not illegal"- Richard Nixon
At this point, as it is currently constructed, I am still confident the Supreme Court would rule against him in the matter of forcing him to testify. If either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg are replaced, I am not even remotely sure.
Estrogen-like chemicals in soy don't have feminizing effects on men at intake levels equal to (or greater than) those of Asian males.
Messina, M.; Soybean isoflavone exposure does not have feminizing effects on men: a critical examination of the clinical evidence, Fertility and Sterility , Volume 93 , Issue 7 , 2010, Pages 2095 - 2104 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378106
And soy can lower the risk of prostate cancer.
Lin Yan, Edward L Spitznagel; Soy consumption and prostate cancer risk in men: a revisit of a meta-analysis, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 89, Issue 4, 1 April 2009, Pages 1155–1163, https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/89/4/1155/4596781
Been staying away from anything estrogen my whole life and T levels are above average for a male my age. Also cancer will get you whether you're healthy as a horse or eat Mcdonalds for breakfast lunch and dinner. It got me 5 years ago. If I wasn't in the shape I am in I would of been done. Docs gave me 1 yr, I said F..k you and kept living. I get screened every six months now so if it does happen again we will get it really early. Cancer does not discriminate.
I'm glad for you to have survived cancer for 5 years. But research shows no ill effects on men from eating soybeans (at least at normal human consumption levels - anything consumed greatly in excess can have deleterious health effects, even water).
@Zaghoul: Any advice for a vegan diet? I've vacillated on my diet and the rules have been shifting for a while as I'm adjusting (semi-vegetarian: wild-caught herbivores, humanely raised animals or their products, and brainless critters are okay). Part of my problem is that I hate preparing food. I think my protein intake is low and much of it comes from hummus (which I've been eating less of) and goat cheese.
These days my diet is predominantly blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, bananas, figs, goat cheese, hummus, almond milk, cereal (a low-sugar but still sugary brand), and whole wheat bread eaten plain, plus some extremely dark chocolate (85% cacao seems ideal) fairly often, as well as various leftovers from the family. I've thought about eating more shellfish, but it seems rather expensive. I basically never go to restaurants.
My advice would be to be careful on your sugar intake. A lot of "healthy" foods, including vegan, are actually the opposite due to high sugar/glycemic load.
I'd suggest adding wild caught fish a few times a week to your diet. Fish is very fast to prepare, pan fried is usually just a few minutes.
Bake it with extra virgin olive oil and squeezed lemon juice. Yummmm
Yep, baking is quick too and requires little work (I like to add fresh herbs).
Germany should expel this guy tomorrow. In one of his first acts, he DEMANDS Germany cease all their business operations in Iran. Now in his official capacity as a DIPLOMAT he is flat-out admitting he is going to be actively working against the sitting government of the country he is a GUEST in?? If I'm Merkel I send this guy on the first flight back to the States after reading this, in the luggage bay preferably.
This is a report of an interesting study on the length of Thanksgiving visits in the US. Comparing 2015 with 2016 using anonymous mobile phone records for 10 million people, the study found a significant drop in the length of visits. The effect was considerably greater in areas, such as Florida, targeted by a lot of political advertising.
Senate GOP wants to do something before midterms, they just don't know exactly what.
Ted Cruz and some Republican guy from Tennessee are passing out a survey.
The areas under consideration include taking another stab at repealing and scaling back Obamacare; trying for Round 2 of tax cuts; eliminating or reining in the Consumer Financial Protection Board; defunding Planned Parenthood and other anti-abortion rights measures; instituting work requirements for federal welfare programs; expanding gun rights; instituting budget reforms; and more.
Truly awful stuff from the GOP must be stopped, vote Democrat.
The last two days we have reached a crossroads with Trump. This morning he has flat-out declared and reserved the right to pardon himself. I'm not sure the Constitution was written with this man in mind AND a complicit Congress. In the end, the institutions everyone assumes will protect us may fail utterly. Even Nixon, in the end, resigned rather than destroy the Republic.
The last two days we have reached a crossroads with Trump. This morning he has flat-out declared and reserved the right to pardon himself. I'm not sure the Constitution was written with this man in mind AND a complicit Congress. In the end, the institutions everyone assumes will protect us may fail utterly.
This is the end of Democracy as we know it in America. It ends with Trump and his Republican enablers. How can things continue like this?
I'm trying to imagine the media and public reaction if Hillary Clinton had declared a right to pardon herself, but I don't think anyone has to imagine too hard.
Of course, technically I suppose Trump CAN pardon himself. That is an absurd oversight in a document written by people overthrowing the rule of a king. I don't see how government can function with any legitimacy when the head of that government straight-up declares himself above the law.
I'm trying to imagine the media and public reaction if Hillary Clinton had declared a right to pardon herself, but I don't think anyone has to imagine too hard.
Of course, technically I suppose Trump CAN pardon himself. That is an absurd oversight in a document written by people overthrowing the rule of a king. I don't see how government can function with any legitimacy when the head of that government straight-up declares himself above the law.
And 44 presidents had no problem with that - obviously your democratic republic is broken if your leader is above the law. Maybe the other ones actually like believed in America and liked America. This President doesn't give damn about America only cares about himself and his own whims and power.
Also today, the Supreme Court ruled for the bigoted colorado baker. We're really making bigots great again. The ruling was 7-2 in favor of people who believe in fairy tales to be able to discriminate. I guess we need to start our own religion as stupid as that sounds. Because if you do, you can just ignore laws of men and society. Supreme Court what a joke. What kind of standard is "your nutty beliefs in magic men in the sky and fairy tales shall not be infringed by the real world" which is what they are basically saying. This is just ridiculous. America is done. There can't be turning back from this, can there.
... Wait a minute of course it's not the end. It is dire news but also a call to action. Millennials and Gen Xers need to take power from baby boomers. Get out and vote. Run for office.
These guys don't believe in America, only their own greed. The Koch brothers, Mercers and other Billionaires run america they must be stopped.
It's an uphill climb but it has to be done otherwise we're well on our way to third world banana Republic status - like a lot of other countries. Damn. Canada better start thinking about building a wall too because there is going to be a flood of refugees.
We are definitely at a precipice, will we let ourselves be pushed off the cliff? We all good with that?
I'm trying to imagine the media and public reaction if Hillary Clinton had declared a right to pardon herself, but I don't think anyone has to imagine too hard.
Of course, technically I suppose Trump CAN pardon himself. That is an absurd oversight in a document written by people overthrowing the rule of a king. I don't see how government can function with any legitimacy when the head of that government straight-up declares himself above the law.
How many times do I have to repeat it? On the one hand, as written a sitting President can pardon himself *but* the 25th Amendment is the better way to go: President declares himself unfit, appoints VP as Acting President, Acting President issues a pardon, then restores former President back into office.
*************
That SCOTUS ruling should be viewed as a win for business owner's rights, not "making bigots great again". If a business owner does not have the right to refuse to service to people for whatever reason then the business owner really isn't the business owner anymore--the government is. The market will take care of business owners who turn away paying customers, though--negative reviews will lead to fewer sales, word of mouth leads to fewer customers, and so on until the business owner goes out of business. The other argument I have heard before is "but what if the bigoted business owner is the only person in that business in a small town?". That is what we call "a business opportunity"--become the competition and drive them out of business.
*************
I have been to Pecos--a decent enough little town. Don't blame mass trials on Pecos or even Texas, though--immigration is a Federal issue and that system has been broken for a long time.
I'm trying to imagine the media and public reaction if Hillary Clinton had declared a right to pardon herself, but I don't think anyone has to imagine too hard.
Of course, technically I suppose Trump CAN pardon himself. That is an absurd oversight in a document written by people overthrowing the rule of a king. I don't see how government can function with any legitimacy when the head of that government straight-up declares himself above the law.
How many times do I have to repeat it? On the one hand, as written a sitting President can pardon himself *but* the 25th Amendment is the better way to go: President declares himself unfit, appoints VP as Acting President, Acting President issues a pardon, then restores former President back into office.
*************
That SCOTUS ruling should be viewed as a win for business owner's rights, not "making bigots great again". If a business owner does not have the right to refuse to service to people for whatever reason then the business owner really isn't the business owner anymore--the government is. The market will take care of business owners who turn away paying customers, though--negative reviews will lead to fewer sales, word of mouth leads to fewer customers, and so on until the business owner goes out of business. The other argument I have heard before is "but what if the bigoted business owner is the only person in that business in a small town?". That is what we call "a business opportunity"--become the competition and drive them out of business.
*************
I have been to Pecos--a decent enough little town. Don't blame mass trials on Pecos or even Texas, though--immigration is a Federal issue and that system has been broken for a long time.
The situation you describe with the 25th and the VP is basically a technicality to accomplish the same outcome, except that method implicates two people in dictatorial conduct instead of one.
The cake shop case was a foregone conclusion with this court. I honestly hope we see a move by certain businesses in blue states to refuse service to people they know are conservative or Christian, not only to prove a point, but to see if this religious liberty argument actually applies to anyone but Christians. Someone needs to INVENT a religion that claims to discriminate against a non-marginalized group and have it taken to court. If religion is going to be used as this kind of shield for pretty much anything, a over-the-top example needs to be made to show how ridiculous it actually is.
I'm trying to imagine the media and public reaction if Hillary Clinton had declared a right to pardon herself, but I don't think anyone has to imagine too hard.
Of course, technically I suppose Trump CAN pardon himself. That is an absurd oversight in a document written by people overthrowing the rule of a king. I don't see how government can function with any legitimacy when the head of that government straight-up declares himself above the law.
The President technically can pardon himself. The reason for not doing that of course is that the President cannot stop an impeachment in the same way - and personally I think many Republicans in Congress would not support Trump pardoning himself if it became clear he was guilty of something serious.
I'm trying to imagine the media and public reaction if Hillary Clinton had declared a right to pardon herself, but I don't think anyone has to imagine too hard.
Of course, technically I suppose Trump CAN pardon himself. That is an absurd oversight in a document written by people overthrowing the rule of a king. I don't see how government can function with any legitimacy when the head of that government straight-up declares himself above the law.
How many times do I have to repeat it? On the one hand, as written a sitting President can pardon himself *but* the 25th Amendment is the better way to go: President declares himself unfit, appoints VP as Acting President, Acting President issues a pardon, then restores former President back into office.
*************
That SCOTUS ruling should be viewed as a win for business owner's rights, not "making bigots great again". If a business owner does not have the right to refuse to service to people for whatever reason then the business owner really isn't the business owner anymore--the government is. The market will take care of business owners who turn away paying customers, though--negative reviews will lead to fewer sales, word of mouth leads to fewer customers, and so on until the business owner goes out of business. The other argument I have heard before is "but what if the bigoted business owner is the only person in that business in a small town?". That is what we call "a business opportunity"--become the competition and drive them out of business.
*************
I have been to Pecos--a decent enough little town. Don't blame mass trials on Pecos or even Texas, though--immigration is a Federal issue and that system has been broken for a long time.
The situation you describe with the 25th and the VP is basically a technicality to accomplish the same outcome, except that method implicates two people in dictatorial conduct instead of one.
The cake shop case was a foregone conclusion with this court. I honestly hope we see a move by certain businesses in blue states to refuse service to people they know are conservative or Christian, not only to prove a point, but to see if this religious liberty argument actually applies to anyone but Christians. Someone needs to INVENT a religion that claims to discriminate against a non-marginalized group and have it taken to court. If religion is going to be used as this kind of shield for pretty much anything, a over-the-top example needs to be made to show how ridiculous it actually is.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
"In so doing, the ALJ rejected Phillips’ First Amendment claims: that requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion."
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
I've only just quickly skimmed the decision, but it does appear to be specifically about religion. A lot of the rationale for overturning the Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision was the fact that they displayed hostility to the religious convictions of the baker and "the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral towards religion."
I agree that in practice the Supreme Court might be able to sidestep the problem by declaring that a particular set of beliefs was not in fact a religion. However, I think @jjstraka34 is onto something here. Rather than just invent a religion I think civil rights groups could find an existing one with a particular set of beliefs that could be used to expose the problems with this ruling. For instance you could use hinduism and refuse to bake a cake celebrating a rodeo ...
That SCOTUS ruling should be viewed as a win for business owner's rights, not "making bigots great again". If a business owner does not have the right to refuse to service to people for whatever reason then the business owner really isn't the business owner anymore--the government is. The market will take care of business owners who turn away paying customers, though--negative reviews will lead to fewer sales, word of mouth leads to fewer customers, and so on until the business owner goes out of business. The other argument I have heard before is "but what if the bigoted business owner is the only person in that business in a small town?". That is what we call "a business opportunity"--become the competition and drive them out of business.
Except, when you know, an entire city does it and starts putting signs in the windows that read "No Gays Allowed"
That's never happened in the history of the United States and doesn't go against Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
I've only just quickly skimmed the decision, but it does appear to be specifically about religion. A lot of the rationale for overturning the Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision was the fact that they displayed hostility to the religious convictions of the baker and "the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral towards religion."
I agree that in practice the Supreme Court might be able to sidestep the problem by declaring that a particular set of beliefs was not in fact a religion. However, I think @jjstraka34 is onto something here. Rather than just invent a religion I think civil rights groups could find an existing one with a particular set of beliefs that could be used to expose the problems with this ruling. For instance you could use hinduism and refuse to bake a cake celebrating a rodeo ...
Well whoopdy do! It's a wedding cake. You're free to bake your own or find somebody else. How did this make it all the way to SCOTUS? I swear to god people are working themselves up just for something to whine about.
Oohhh no, the big bad immigrants are crossing the border and stealing our jobs -Build a wall! Oh, sob, that fellow won't bake me a wedding cake - Supreme Court, punish him! Get a life people. There hasn't been a better time in human history to be alive and all we do is piss and moan about the things that separate us. Oh, and about this end of the world, end of democracy crap! Sorry, not buying it from either side of the spectrum...
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
I've only just quickly skimmed the decision, but it does appear to be specifically about religion. A lot of the rationale for overturning the Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision was the fact that they displayed hostility to the religious convictions of the baker and "the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral towards religion."
I agree that in practice the Supreme Court might be able to sidestep the problem by declaring that a particular set of beliefs was not in fact a religion. However, I think @jjstraka34 is onto something here. Rather than just invent a religion I think civil rights groups could find an existing one with a particular set of beliefs that could be used to expose the problems with this ruling. For instance you could use hinduism and refuse to bake a cake celebrating a rodeo ...
Well whoopdy do! It's a wedding cake. You're free to bake your own or find somebody else. How did this make it all the way to SCOTUS? I swear to god people are working themselves up just for something to whine about.
Oohhh no, the big bad immigrants are crossing the border and stealing our jobs -Build a wall! Oh, sob, that fellow won't bake me a wedding cake - Supreme Court, punish him! Get a life people. There hasn't been a better time in human history to be alive and all we do is piss and moan about the things that separate us. Oh, and about this end of the world, end of democracy crap! Sorry, not buying it from either side of the spectrum...
I'd venture to guess that attitude stems from the fact that before now, we have never had a President come out and publicly declare his right to pardon himself. Hell, even if past Presidents had THOUGHT this (and there is no indication either Nixon or Clinton did so in their darkest hours) they sure as hell didn't just announce to the whole world they were above the law (well, Nixon tried, but was foiled by the Supreme Court, and knew when his goose was cooked). And in the last 48 hrs, we've received info about a memo from the President's lawyers saying it is impossible for a President to obstruct justice, Guiliani basically claiming Trump could murder someone and not be prosecuted, and the man himself saying he absolutely has the right to absolve himself of any crime. If that is the case, then democracy is indeed dead.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
The key words in Kennedy's decision are "sincere religious beliefs". How are we measuring this guy's sincerity exactly?? I bet all the money in my checking account sight unseen I would romp this guy in a test of biblical trivia. My guess is, ANY Christian's claim of "sincere beliefs" would be respected. Would this apply to Native Americans, or Muslims or (especially) any odd religion that isn't the same as the majority of the members of the court?? Do we have even the basic parameters of what a "sincere belief" is?? Because if we don't, this could (and should) stand for nearly any reason in any profession. Shouldn't the word "sincere" have some meaning?? If the strength of his belief in his religion is the primary focus, shouldn't we at least have some barometer as to how one PROVES they are sincere?? Of course, that is the whole trick. You CAN'T prove this, so it's just a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone.
Trump's phone call with Macron described as 'terrible'
Washington (CNN)A call about trade and migration between US President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron soured last week after Macron candidly criticized Trump's policies, two sources familiar with the call told CNN.
"Just bad. It was terrible," one source told CNN. "Macron thought he would be able to speak his mind, based on the relationship. But Trump can't handle being criticized like that." A short White House readout of last Thursday's call said the conversation was focused on trade and immigration....
Perhaps Macron should consider talking to Ivanka, with Paris being the worldwide capital of fashion there's so much he could put in the balance and it seems more productive to talk to her to sway US politics than to her father.
Yes it is a stupid cake - yet Conservative action groups felt it should be appealed all the way the the goddamn Supreme Court. They could have easily given up without a court fight, much less a court fight all the way to the Supreme Court. The other side has to defend itself (Coloardo). It takes a lot of money to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before.
It's not about religion, per as, it's about how many people would get pissed off. I guarantee you if you started your own religion of only a few people and tried to get away with anything you'd be labeled a cult and get Waco'd. Why should a government piss off millions of people for one couple whining about their fucking wedding cake? I just don't see this your way, sorry...
That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
If I had to venture an educated guess, I'd say my fundamentalist parents wouldn't frequent a Muslim bakery or ask a known gay to do anything for them. They'd have Chic-fil-A cater for them and have a friend at church make the cake.
If I had to venture an educated guess, I'd say my fundamentalist parents wouldn't frequent a Muslim bakery or ask a known gay to do anything for them. They'd have Chic-fil-A cater for them and have a friend at church make the cake.
Yes it is a joke. The ruling is a joke. Let's put a church on every corner and move out all the taco trucks.
Comments
Also cancer will get you whether you're healthy as a horse or eat Mcdonalds for breakfast lunch and dinner.
It got me 5 years ago. If I wasn't in the shape I am in I would of been done. Docs gave me 1 yr, I said F..k you and kept living. I get screened every six months now so if it does happen again we will get it really early. Cancer does not discriminate.
"If the President does it, it's not illegal"- Richard Nixon
At this point, as it is currently constructed, I am still confident the Supreme Court would rule against him in the matter of forcing him to testify. If either Anthony Kennedy or Ruth Bader Ginsburg are replaced, I am not even remotely sure.
What a load of crap. The clown has done nothing except gamesmanship. How many press conferences has he held? 1.
He does scripted interviews on Fox and he does campaign rallies.
Houston Chronicle
https://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/texas-border-mass-trial-immigration-illegal-photo-12952189.php#photo-15024110
Germany should expel this guy tomorrow. In one of his first acts, he DEMANDS Germany cease all their business operations in Iran. Now in his official capacity as a DIPLOMAT he is flat-out admitting he is going to be actively working against the sitting government of the country he is a GUEST in?? If I'm Merkel I send this guy on the first flight back to the States after reading this, in the luggage bay preferably.
Ted Cruz and some Republican guy from Tennessee are passing out a survey.
The areas under consideration include taking another stab at repealing and scaling back Obamacare; trying for Round 2 of tax cuts; eliminating or reining in the Consumer Financial Protection Board; defunding Planned Parenthood and other anti-abortion rights measures; instituting work requirements for federal welfare programs; expanding gun rights; instituting budget reforms; and more.
Truly awful stuff from the GOP must be stopped, vote Democrat.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/03/gop-senators-conference-survey-election-618648
Of course, technically I suppose Trump CAN pardon himself. That is an absurd oversight in a document written by people overthrowing the rule of a king. I don't see how government can function with any legitimacy when the head of that government straight-up declares himself above the law.
Also today, the Supreme Court ruled for the bigoted colorado baker. We're really making bigots great again. The ruling was 7-2 in favor of people who believe in fairy tales to be able to discriminate. I guess we need to start our own religion as stupid as that sounds. Because if you do, you can just ignore laws of men and society. Supreme Court what a joke. What kind of standard is "your nutty beliefs in magic men in the sky and fairy tales shall not be infringed by the real world" which is what they are basically saying. This is just ridiculous. America is done. There can't be turning back from this, can there.
These guys don't believe in America, only their own greed. The Koch brothers, Mercers and other Billionaires run america they must be stopped.
It's an uphill climb but it has to be done otherwise we're well on our way to third world banana Republic status - like a lot of other countries. Damn. Canada better start thinking about building a wall too because there is going to be a flood of refugees.
We are definitely at a precipice, will we let ourselves be pushed off the cliff? We all good with that?
*************
That SCOTUS ruling should be viewed as a win for business owner's rights, not "making bigots great again". If a business owner does not have the right to refuse to service to people for whatever reason then the business owner really isn't the business owner anymore--the government is. The market will take care of business owners who turn away paying customers, though--negative reviews will lead to fewer sales, word of mouth leads to fewer customers, and so on until the business owner goes out of business. The other argument I have heard before is "but what if the bigoted business owner is the only person in that business in a small town?". That is what we call "a business opportunity"--become the competition and drive them out of business.
*************
I have been to Pecos--a decent enough little town. Don't blame mass trials on Pecos or even Texas, though--immigration is a Federal issue and that system has been broken for a long time.
The cake shop case was a foregone conclusion with this court. I honestly hope we see a move by certain businesses in blue states to refuse service to people they know are conservative or Christian, not only to prove a point, but to see if this religious liberty argument actually applies to anyone but Christians. Someone needs to INVENT a religion that claims to discriminate against a non-marginalized group and have it taken to court. If religion is going to be used as this kind of shield for pretty much anything, a over-the-top example needs to be made to show how ridiculous it actually is.
"In so doing, the ALJ rejected Phillips’ First Amendment
claims: that requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding
would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise
his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and
would violate his right to the free exercise of religion."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
As an interesting point, that document has 156 mentions of the word religion or religious. Hence, I would disagree with your claim, @Balrog99
I agree that in practice the Supreme Court might be able to sidestep the problem by declaring that a particular set of beliefs was not in fact a religion. However, I think @jjstraka34 is onto something here. Rather than just invent a religion I think civil rights groups could find an existing one with a particular set of beliefs that could be used to expose the problems with this ruling. For instance you could use hinduism and refuse to bake a cake celebrating a rodeo ...
That's never happened in the history of the United States and doesn't go against Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Oohhh no, the big bad immigrants are crossing the border and stealing our jobs -Build a wall! Oh, sob, that fellow won't bake me a wedding cake - Supreme Court, punish him! Get a life people. There hasn't been a better time in human history to be alive and all we do is piss and moan about the things that separate us. Oh, and about this end of the world, end of democracy crap! Sorry, not buying it from either side of the spectrum...
Perhaps to these activist lunatics, it is more than a cake. Hmm, what's their motive. Can't you see that?
If people don't have a problem with what's going on, then they are part of the problem because you are being silent and allowing it to go on. People should ask themselves would you let Hillary get away with this crap? Talk of pardoning herself, being caught and having to change her lies daily. Totally fine? Come on.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Now is the time. The government as we know it is under attack, even more obviously than before. That's the point. Christians want to do whatever they want and excuse it. They would turn around and be no end to the whining and tears if a Muslim, Jew, or Othodox Gay or whatever wanted to not bake a cake for a Christian couple. Wouldn't they? That's why this stupid cake stupid Supreme Court is so stupid. It caters to one (large) group's fantasy. It overthrows the rule of law because "the magic man in the sky told me to".
Trump's phone call with Macron described as 'terrible'
Washington (CNN)A call about trade and migration between US President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron soured last week after Macron candidly criticized Trump's policies, two sources familiar with the call told CNN.
"Just bad. It was terrible," one source told CNN. "Macron thought he would be able to speak his mind, based on the relationship. But Trump can't handle being criticized like that."
A short White House readout of last Thursday's call said the conversation was focused on trade and immigration....
Perhaps Macron should consider talking to Ivanka, with Paris being the worldwide capital of fashion there's so much he could put in the balance and it seems more productive to talk to her to sway US politics than to her father.