• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

510 posts in this topic

Remind me not to try to hitchhike through Denmark, I don't want to risk putting Hack in jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, me thinks the law has a very bad loophole, and it is growing bigger every single day.

And I thought it was a case of "do not help the enemy"

Curse you, Aliens Act!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty sad because these people are trying to get away from a bad situation, only to go to a country that not only takes the rest of their belongings, but also punishes those that try to help them, and I'm willing to bet if any of the refugees tries to stand up to this form of bullying they'll get accused of being a terrorist, arrested or shot and the government will be like "This is the reason why we have to do this!" And I'm not just talking about Denmark, this could easily be the case in the US or any country where there's a strong anti-muslim sentiment.

If you want to fight terrorism, stop treating all the refugees like they're all terrorists, maybe some of them will be more inclined to help point out the ones who actually are. If you make their lives hell, they may not become terrorists, but they likely wouldn't care if a terrorist went and bombed the people that tried to take whatever decency they had left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is politicians wanting to look like they're "doing something" about the problem.  

I'm pretty sure that bad guys have been mixed in with the Syrian refugees, but telling which from which is difficult because they're refugees and there are so few bad guys.  Last I heard about the Syrian refugees flooding into Germany, supposedly 18% were sympathetic to ISIS, but "sympathetic" doesn't mean "terrorist".  999 times out of 1000 it doesn't.

Identifying people has to be a nightmare.  Refugees aren't going to have all the nice paperwork that a proper immigrant would otherwise be expected to have and they aren't likely to be in the company of people who can say "yes, this guy is from my town."  That last part isn't proof anyway because it would be easy for a terrorist to bribe a few genuine refugees to say they've known him all their lives.

How to strain the problem cases out of a half-million refugees must be driving the anti-terror experts half-crazy.

One thing's for certain.  Governments are going to want to keep tabs on the refugees.  If the help these nice people were giving refugees had the effect of flying them under government radar, that would be a no-no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tobyc said:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/29/turnbull-rejects-new-zealand-offer-to-take-150-refugees-from-detention

The LNP's determination to choose  the least compassionate options imaginable continues.

I fail to see why refugees would just come to Australia if they're in New Zealand. They seem to think that the refugees would be determined to get New Zealand citizenship to settle in Australia.

https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Citizenship-Become-a-New-Zealand-citizen-Part-1?OpenDocument

According to the link, the refugees would need to stay at least 5 years before they have any possibility of gaining New Zealand citizenship. All that just to enter Australia? What precisely were the LNP thinking?

HarJIT likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australian Budget out. Here's the key points:

  • Deficit of $37.1B falling to $6B by 2019/20
  • GDP 2.5 per cent, unemployment 5.5 per cent, inflation 2.0 per cent
  • Small business tax rate falls to 27.5 per cent for more businesses
  • Small business tax rate eligibility turnover threshold increased to $10M, rising to $100M in 2019/20
  • Business tax to fall to 25 per cent by 2026/27
  • Upper limit for middle income tax bracket increased to $87,000
  • Crack down on multi-national tax avoidance
  • Diverted profits penalty rate of 40 per cent on multinationals
  • Superannuation changes including lifetime non-concessional contributions cap of $500,000
  • Increased superannuation flexibility for women and the elderly
  • Tobacco tax up by four annual increases of 12.5 per cent
  • Economy supported by defence spending on subs, frigates and patrol vessels
  • $50 billion infrastructure plan including rail and freight links

I like the tax cuts, and support the cut to super concessions for the wealthy. I also like the increase to flexibility in super for women and elderly and the stimulus spending.

Not sure how I feel about their economic targets though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain of the meaning of "superannuation" in this context. Could you enlighten me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ijuin said:

I'm not certain of the meaning of "superannuation" in this context. Could you enlighten me?

Australian version of retirement accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, Internet. You have clearly put your creativity (and Photoshop) to good use.

I blame how the light shines upon Dutton. It DOES look meme-y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

As far as restrooms are concerned (locker rooms and showers are a related but much more difficult issue) I've ended up going with what I think is a realistic view - based on the simple question of "how, and to what extent, do they plan to enforce it?".

There will be NO genitalia inspectors guarding restroom doors. ANYWHERE. Trans/fluid people who are currently presenting as whichever sex doesn't match their physical equipment will do what they've been doing for approximately forever: use the restroom that matches their presentation, and close+latch the (stall) door for privacy. Yes, it will be illegal, just as it has been; but no it will never (or almost never) be detected, just as it hasn't been. And so, it will in reality be no big deal - and this will become apparent as soon as those who earn their living by being offended on someone else's behalf pick a different someone else to be offended on behalf of.

And the perverts who expect to be able to go into the women's restroom with beards, or into the men's restroom while similarly-obviously female, and ogle or molest the people legitimately there, will stand out and be subject to prosecution. As they should be.

The overwhelming majority of trans people would really prefer that the world NEVER treat them as "trans" or give them any special consideration for being "trans" - but instead treat them as their gender. Except of course in those very limited situations where the physical plumbing is directly relevant to the treatment. (When it's the person beside you naked in bed, the plumbing usually matters. Ditto when it's the person on the gurney with a groin injury. When it's the person beside you with their pants down in the next restroom stall, or the person applying for a job as a cashier, not so much.)

You're assuming that everyone who is trans can pass 100% above suspicion as being the gender they identify as.  That's about as big an assumption as the people who assume all women have hourglass figures.  The people these laws are aimed at are the trans women with Adam's apples, who are tall and muscular and have big hands, whose voices are deep or sound like a falsetto no matter how much they work to modulate them, and so on.

Not everyone who's trans can afford several dozen surgeries and thousands of dollars every month in hormones and other medications. Some who can afford them are afraid to have them, or don't feel like they should have to have them just to make a few other people better able to pretend people like them don't exist.  And some are so masculine in body structure that nothing will ever allow them to pass.

Of course, there are also plenty of cis-women who have a masculine build, or have PCOS-given facial hair, or otherwise will wind up accused of being men trying to use the women's room by these jerks.  If all else fails, maybe a few lawsuits from them will help damp down this nonsense?

HarJIT likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2016/05/10/kirralie-smith-waleed-aly/

The woman mentioned in the article has made accusations that can be PROVEN to be just plain wrong, AND contradicted her accusation at the end.

As a Muslim, I don't know which is worse, the extremist elements within my religion, or the anti-Islam people like her who make baseless and factually wrong accusations.

Myranuse likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Well, I seem to recall the Dixie Chicks sacrificing a huge segment of their market, income, and exposure because they refused to change or be silent about their politics....

The Dixie Chicks were not facing criminal charges for what they did. They were targets of opportunity by the radical right.

A member of The Dixie Chicks made an unkind remark about W at a time when those speaking most loudly for the right wing were demanding absolute conformity.  This made them convenient targets for the neo-con thought police to brand as heretics and, metaphorically, burn at the stake.

If you want to impress the need to tow the line on the conservative base, being outraged at a Black Rapper for comments made at the Apollo isn't going to do much. But condemning cute white girls for a comment at the Grand Ole' Opry will get the attention of rednecks everywhere.

Simply apologizing for that comment would only have furthered the publicity for those who condemned them.

They could have diffused the situation faster if they had performed at a political rally for a conservative politician who publicly disagreed with George W. Trouble is, most of the prominent professional politicians on the right had already been intimidated and would not say much against W at that point.

They might have taken the opportunity to appeal to a more left wing audience. But they would not step that far from the conservative base that makes up the largest subset of Country Music fans.

Or they could have released an incredible new album of sufficiently high quality that would make most fans just forget about anything non-musical they did. Much like the Beatles after John Lennon's "Bigger Than Jesus" remark. Unfortunately, the Chicks were not as good as the Beatles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Hillary Clinton has locked the Democratic nomination for president, my social media is filling up with posts like "Ugh, Hillary, she's so terrible," and "Bernie can still win if 90% of the superdelegates vote for him! #FeelTheBern #NotOverYet" and "The two-party system is broken! Vote Green! No Hillary or Trump!" and the occasional "Well, I'm not happy about this, but I guess I'll vote for Hillary. #LesserOfTwoEvils #NeverTrump" and I'm just sitting here like, seriously, am I the only one in my circle of friends who actually likes Hillary Clinton and is legitimately happy to vote for her? :icon_confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My general opinion of the election has been that, on the Democratic side, it's a nice change to be able to vote for the Greater of two Goods instead of the lesser of two evils.  I'm saddened that so few other people seem to be able to look at it that way.  I had my preference, but would be happy to vote for either of thm ithe general election.

Troacctid likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas I'm looking at choosing between a candidate I don't want to support because I don't believe they mean what they say, and a candidate I don't want to support because I do believe they mean what they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

Whereas I'm looking at choosing between a candidate I don't want to support because I don't believe they mean what they say, and a candidate I don't want to support because I do believe they mean what they say.

Which—assuming you mean Clinton and Trump respectively—is pretty ironic, when you consider that, according to Politifact, Hillary Clinton scores slightly above average on honesty (and better than any of the other candidates in the race), whereas Donald Trump is the #1 most dishonest politician they've ever rated, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Troacctid said:

Which—assuming you mean Clinton and Trump respectively—is pretty ironic, when you consider that, according to Politifact, Hillary Clinton scores slightly above average on honesty (and better than any of the other candidates in the race), whereas Donald Trump is the #1 most dishonest politician they've ever rated, ever.

Well, a lot of his campaign promises range from expensive, to logistically impractical, and downright impossible.

I mean really, cutting taxes already puts a hole in the federal budget. How big and how damaging to the general operation of the government depends on how much. There is also his plan to ban muslims from entering America. How could that possibly be enforced? Even if it's to keep terrorists out, did it occur to him that maybe, terrorists may forge documents and don disguises so they don't sound or appear muslim? I think he also promised to bring the federal budget back to surplus? I'm not sure how that's going to happen with the massive tax cuts I believe he was promising.

Oh, there's also that thing with Trump University.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it looks like Hilary vs Trump, I am sorta glad I really don't have transportation so I have more or less valid reason to not vote.

Yes, I could get a mail in ballet, but Oklahoma makes that harder than it should be.  Believe it or not that started as an anti Republican tactic.  Oklahoma being a safe Republican state is fairly new.  They just never fixed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago, I voted "early" in what used to be called absentee voting but now you just needed to show up to one of a few "early voting" sites.  No excuse for an absentee ballot was needed.  After that, the Manatee County (FL) election supervisor sent me a form letter asking if I would like to get mail ballots for every election up to the 2016 November General Election.  They even included a prepaid response postcard.

I thought this was going to be very convenient for me.

Who knew the Faustian price I would pay for that "convenience" would be the horrible choices offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now