MeanMrMustard

Joined

• started 67 topics
• posted 3,910 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by MeanMrMustard

• 
  72

  Since Democrats Are All About the “Children” why does ABORTION Not Bother Them?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if everything is supposed to be about the lives of children, how can they hypocritically fight to take babies and kill them?

  what about the children and their quality of life?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  What does the abortion issue have to do with the care and responsibility of nurturing living children ?

  That is like saying, “What does the healthcare issue have to do with people getting medical care?”
  
  
• 
  37

  Help: Anyone identify Gary Breaux's ring?

  by Fay Dehr in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  can anyone identify this ring?

  (ideally, a link to a page on the internet with photo and description).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  It is clearly the logo of the dreaded “Kerfuffles”. The ring has an undisputed “K” on its side, surrounded gold, and in the middle a red stone, indicating his rank in the elite group. To obtain a red stone, it means he would have had to slay his former master.
• 
  37

  Help: Anyone identify Gary Breaux's ring?

  by Fay Dehr in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  can anyone identify this ring?

  (ideally, a link to a page on the internet with photo and description).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  It is the unmistakable clear insignia of “the kerfuffles” - an elite force of fighting JWs, capable of killing a man with a single blow. “The Kerfuffles” also have a strong web presence, often involved in doxing of exJWs. I hope you didn’t search that image... that would have activated the algorithm.
• 
  27

  Eye-brow Wigs ... are a thing?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  ... and apparently justin trudeau wears them.

  also, they can come off or slip down while you are doing a press-conference to a global audience.

  what a god awful embarrassment this fool is, he should stick to his indian costume dress-up and dancing routine.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g46km4da3yw.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Here is a better revision. Now the post has a much deeper meaning:

  Simon and the Watchtower have a lot in common. If they don't like a conclusion they attack the person or institution making the claim instead of addressing the claim itself. And instead of providing facts to support the claims they make - they simply resort to disparaging the motives of anyone who disagrees with them.

  It's a cheap and dishonest move. And one that needs to be called out more often on theses forums.

  
  
• 
  27

  Eye-brow Wigs ... are a thing?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  ... and apparently justin trudeau wears them.

  also, they can come off or slip down while you are doing a press-conference to a global audience.

  what a god awful embarrassment this fool is, he should stick to his indian costume dress-up and dancing routine.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g46km4da3yw.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Wow.

  Do you buy the “bad lighting” excuse people are saying about this?

  Ha ha. There is bad lighting - the lights are on.
  
  
• 
  27

  Eye-brow Wigs ... are a thing?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  ... and apparently justin trudeau wears them.

  also, they can come off or slip down while you are doing a press-conference to a global audience.

  what a god awful embarrassment this fool is, he should stick to his indian costume dress-up and dancing routine.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g46km4da3yw.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  I fixed it!

  Simon Coded Logic and the Watchtower have a lot in common. If they don't like a conclusion they attack the person or institution making the claim instead of addressing the claim itself. And instead of providing facts to support the claims they make - they simply resort to disparaging the motives of anyone who disagrees with them.
  It's a cheap and dishonest move. And one that needs to be called out more often on theses forums.
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  What happens when some Westboro Baptist Church type group orders a "god hates gays" cake from a gay baker - can they refuse?

  This was one of the sticking points that got the Colorado case overturned. There were three previous cases of a man asking bakers to create anti-gay cakes, with some scriptures on the top of the cake. The bakers refused because it upset their moral convictions. The Colorado Human Rights council upheld the baker’s right to do this... but as soon as the shoe was on the other foot......
  

  This is also why I think the case could still go either way. The court didn’t even get to the point where they might debate the constitutionality of the case. Rather, the blatant inconsistency just made it clear they had to overturn the decision.
  
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @Diogenesister:

  After the Civil War and during reconstruction, before the racists took control of the state governments again, there was a period of time when blacks and whites interacted without laws mandating segregation. There were blacks that held high offices in all levels of government (senators, governors, etc). There was a black Governor of Louisiana of all places (where “separate but equal originated later”). Here is a list:

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_officeholders_during_Reconstruction

  In any case, around the end of reconstruction, the Democrats got control of the local governments again and the Jim Crow laws started in earnest. Things like poll taxes or literacy tests helped keep blacks from the polls.
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  I found the video below interesting. It’s an hour long, but Woods goes through all of the opinions on the case.

  Near the end he takes a position closer to freedom of association instead of private property - although those two freedoms/rights are closely related.

  He makes a good point: why can’t we just base our interactions on the simple principle that we don’t initiate violence if someone doesn’t want to interact? And why would you want to enter into a business relationship if the other party doesn’t want to? This is similar to the point I made earlier - if you force bakers to interact, they will make you a horrible cake.

  There are some interesting points made about the 14th amendment near the beginning.

  https://youtu.be/PtT5W3odfjk
  
• 
  286

  Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

  it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

  it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  To my point much earlier, look at Jim Crow laws, the GOVERNMENT enforced required segregation to hold back the market from NOT discriminating.

  
  

  The usual narrative given to us is that society was permeated with racists, and the benevolent government stepped in and used the force of law for good, squashing all those segregationist dreams. In fact, it was the exact opposite.

  Walter Williams used to make this point quite well. He would point out that you don’t need laws if society is segregating voluntarily. The Jim Crow laws came about from racist Democrats wanting to push back against the natural integration caused by free market voluntarism.