By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Obama signs bill to protect believers of faith, and non-believers globally

Ka-pi96 said:
Qwark said:

As long as he believes there is a god and he claims he is a christian he is in no way an atheist, besides he still goes to a reformed church, just not the traditional classical church. Since the whole deal about atheism is very simple you don't believe there is any god, he obviously still does. But OT does this bill mean I can be openly satanic in the US if I wanted to be :p.

I`m pretty sure you could before anyway. I mean... you might get lynched still, but the government won`t arrest you for it.

Such a shame even though I don't believe in the devil I like the phylosphy of modern atheistic satanism. An ideology in which man and woman are perfectly equal, you are not allowed to harm others when giving in to your temptations, but your temptations itself are not inherently sinful or evil. An ideology in which you are responsible for your own life and your goal should be to maximize its potention. Anyway I shall retain from the phase for the Glory of Satan for quite a while then, since I would probably still get lynched. 



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Around the Network
mutantsushi said:
DonFerrari said:
Good, sign an agreement that you won't reinforce.
Or are they going to nuke each and any country were religous/a-religious freedom isn't full?

It's not even that though.  Even an agreement establishes some international understanding of a goal.
This isn't an AGREEMENT, it's just airheads in Washington DC telling themself how good they are.
No other country gives a flying fuck about it.  Why should they?  It's fucking absurd.
On it's face it might be potential material for an international treaty.  Except it's a unilateral US "law".
And on those international treaties without enforcement mechanisms with automatic consequences,
US does not seem to feel them important enough to actually ENFORCE as the law of the land,
even though by the US Constitution they are, nobody actually takes them seriously.
e.g. Geneva Conventions.  All nuances aside, they require countries to educate their populace to them.
Great idea if you want people to follow thru on them.  Was I ever educated to them in public school?  Hell no.
Obvious material breach of the treaty.  But zero consequences.  That is just a minor one.
If legislators want to make public "calls" or "statements" for global policies they like, whatever.
But don't play make believe that doing so is actually establishing any legal protection for anybody.

But on political capital these guys will inflate their ego and approval rates, people are moron.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Ka-pi96 said:
hershel_layton said:

Horrible analogy. Simple horrible.

 

There's a difference between letting someone into your house and not letting someone enter the country due to their beliefs. Unless they're extremists or are revealed to be nazis, they should be allowed to enter the United States like any other human being. 

 

It's almost 2017. This bill should have been made decades ago.

There`s always gotta be an exception hasn`t there...

Some groups can be quite dangerous. Extremists should be an obvious case, and nazis bring societal unstability (in the form of increasing hate criminality) with them (although personally I disagree with categorically banning all of them from entering either). Muslims on the other hand aren't dangerous as a group, even though some individuals are. But you can't prevent access from all of them if, say, one in ten thousand is dangerous. What about those other 9,999? I think it's valid border case to prevent dangerous individuals from entering.



Is he trying to ban all Muslims or just people from areas like Syria where there is naturally going to be a higher chance of them being terrorists? Because if it's the latter that's just logical. It's like saying 90% of the attacks against us have been by mustached people we better start screening mustached people more. It just so happens that this one is a religion



I am Iron Man

Obama's words are sweet as honey to his followers, his actions on the other hand..

Is he still funding "moderate Islamists" in Syria & Libya and droning around the world? Which is not coincidentally the reason that an immigration pause from terror states is now required.

But his words are so sweet...



Around the Network

d



vivster said:
bunchanumbers said:
Doesn't matter. Trump will rip that thing up and install a Jesus or GTFO policy. Then Trump will change his name to Jesus.

That would never happen. I'm pretty sure Trump will change Jesus' name to Trump.

I wouldn't be shocked in the least if he says that Jesus' real last name is Trump and not Christ.



...and this does...what, exactly? Give the government the power to levy sanctions against countries with a track record of religious freedom abuses? They already had that ability under human rights violations.

If the US isn't willing to sanction Saudi Arabia for chopping off the hands of women who drive, this is a bill about as meaningful as outlawing hurricanes.



RolStoppable said:
MTZehvor said:
...and this does...what, exactly? Give the government the power to levy sanctions against countries with a track record of religious freedom abuses? They already had that ability under human rights violations.

If the US isn't willing to sanction Saudi Arabia for chopping off the hands of women who drive, this is a bill about as meaningful as outlawing hurricanes.

But the point of this thread is that Obama and Trump are fundamentally different. Obama is the guy who does things that sound good on the surface, but crumble when you think about them. Trump is... the other guy.

Have to wonder why they didn't use that one on the campaign trail.

"Vote Obama: He's Not Trump"



Jpcc86 said:
Do you ever feel Obama sometimes does/has done incredibly irrelevant things, yet everyone makes a big deal out of them? Yeah.

Yes, quite a lot actually.