Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Wisconsin Virtue Signaling Bill

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
    In the big inning?
    The one where Eve stole first and Adam stole second. Cain struck out Abel. And the Giants and the Angels were rained out.



    Tennis was also mentioned in the Bible.

    When Joseph served in Pharaoh's court.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by kccd View Post

    Why then focus specifically on sporting events?
    Why not demand the anthem be sung before concerts, or before PTA meetings or church services?
    tradition.png

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

    In the big inning?
    PerZackly

    Leave a comment:


  • kccd
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    If religion or national identity does not bind a peoples what does?
    Why then focus specifically on sporting events?
    Why not demand the anthem be sung before concerts, or before PTA meetings or church services?

    And since when does religion bind us as a people? What religion would that be?
    Last edited by kccd; 05-16-2021, 07:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I've given up on all sports except baseball. It's the only one you find in the Bible.
    In the big inning?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    I've given up on all sports except baseball. It's the only one you find in the Bible.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
    Running back the tangent, the point is that legislated patriotic gestures make voluntary patriotism look counterfeit.
    I think it is fair to describe this as virtue signaling from the right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

    His very public meltdowns lead me to suspect he more often used humor to mask posts that were otherwise indefensible.
    Running back the tangent, the point is that legislated patriotic gestures make voluntary patriotism look counterfeit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    That rodent posted a lot of stuff in order to see what sort of reaction he'd get. More than once it was hard to tell just how serious he was, especially if there is any truth to the rumors that he did a stand-up comedy bit.
    His very public meltdowns lead me to suspect he more often used humor to mask posts that were otherwise indefensible.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

    Long before your arrival here, a notoriously meh rodent once advocated against using public funds to provide for the public welfare, because it eliminated the opportunity for Christians to fulfill their Christian duty of providing aid to the poor.

    Mut. mut.
    That rodent posted a lot of stuff in order to see what sort of reaction he'd get. More than once it was hard to tell just how serious he was, especially if there is any truth to the rumors that he did a stand-up comedy bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Juvenal
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
    This screams blatant unconstitutional compelling of speech. It doesn't matter if the venues were built/upgraded with taxpayer funds. You can't use that as an excuse to suddenly try and tie strings after the fact to the money.
    Long before your arrival here, a notoriously meh rodent once advocated against using public funds to provide for the public welfare, because it eliminated the opportunity for Christians to fulfill their Christian duty of providing aid to the poor.

    Mut. mut.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    It's completely constitutional. It's an incentive package and therefore has zero compulsion. And before you argue access this is the basis for virtually all grants and especially education programs. The Court does not consider it regulatory so as long as anyone can apply it meets the constitutional burden.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    I think there's a case there if they decide to, but there's a big PR negative if they try.
    Wrt to Georgia, so many folks here are livid at them for being drawn so readily into the hoax that I'm not so sure about that.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Again I agree that nobody should be compelled to play the anthem nor even be forced to stand for it, but as my father once told me after declaring he was going to fire someone that worked under him, and I pointed out that he didn't have any reason to fire him (aside for just not liking him for a stupid reason), "I can always find a reason to fire someone."

    They can always find another reason to cut off the tax breaks and other favorable treatment they get even though everyone knows the real reason.

    And here in Georgia, after Coke and Delta jumped on the fraudulent "Jim Crow 2.0" bandwagon after the state actually made it easier to vote (but harder to cheat), they were threatened with having their favorable treatment status stripped and it looks like the legislature will likely do so during the next session. Interestingly, none of those who voiced an objection have, AFICT, ever brought up free speech.
    I think there's a case there if they decide to, but there's a big PR negative if they try.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    As I said, it's (to me) an obvious unconstitutional law to compel speech. If someone refuses, stripping them of tax breaks because of it, would probably still end up breaking the 1st. Just because the government does not HAVE to let you have something (such as a tax break), it's still unconstitutional to strip that as a means of compelling speech.

    So, if someone wanted to do this, they'd essentially have to do it with a wink and a nudge over some other reason.
    Again I agree that nobody should be compelled to play the anthem nor even be forced to stand for it, but as my father once told me after declaring he was going to fire someone that worked under him, and I pointed out that he didn't have any reason to fire him (aside for just not liking him for a stupid reason), "I can always find a reason to fire someone."

    They can always find another reason to cut off the tax breaks and other favorable treatment they get even though everyone knows the real reason.

    And here in Georgia, after Coke and Delta jumped on the fraudulent "Jim Crow 2.0" bandwagon after the state actually made it easier to vote (but harder to cheat), they were threatened with having their favorable treatment status stripped and it looks like the legislature will likely do so during the next session. Interestingly, none of those who voiced an objection have, AFICT, ever brought up free speech.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 05:10 AM
3 responses
16 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:03 PM
2 responses
23 views
1 like
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 07:35 PM
5 responses
42 views
0 likes
Last Post Starlight  
Started by seer, 07-31-2021, 06:01 PM
22 responses
126 views
1 like
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by rogue06, 07-31-2021, 09:05 AM
2 responses
35 views
2 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X