GOOGLE Lists GOP NC Senator As 'BIGOT'

a reply to: Justoneman

I am not sure what you mean specifically.

Generally I don't think progressive legislation fits in federal law. However people label some things as progressive I consider classical liberal.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: toysforadults
do they get government money at Google?

That's a big 10-4!

Google’s true origin partly lies in CIA and NSA research grants for mass surveillance

qz.com...

Very true.

I worked as an electrician building a goole campus... when the fiber enters the campus, it passes through a room that is watched "off site". The blueprints to that room are blacked out. A very nice gentleman in a black suit told us where to run each wire, cable, pipe, etc.

At one point, i was looking at the equipment, and a security guard came in and said he received a call from Wahington...i lingered too long looking...i needed to move along or be arrested.

At the time, i could not tell my family or anyone where i was working or what we were building.

Oh, and if you were caught with some much as a 1" piece of copper in your pocket when you left for the day, it was a federal charge of theft.

To get in, you walked through 2 security gates, and bomb sniffing dogs.

And to do work in the server farms, you had a 10 year homeland security background check.

a reply to: luthier

No, I am just pointing out that with any person, religious or secular, their morality is going to necessarily inform how they will vote and what they will support. Ergo, all law is morality of one for or another.

Not to mention, what are laws except rules telling all of us what it is and isn't good to do? Doesn't that go back to the first and basic sets of laws wherever they came from? Be it Hammurabi or the 10 Commandments? People want to scoff at the latter because of the story behind them, but the intent was no different than Hammurabi's code -- to lay down a framework of rules within which all citizens would be constrained to act in order to form a properly functioning society.

But one is purely "moral" and the other is not?

Don't make me laugh.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: luthier

are you defending Google?

that's mind blowing

I guess perception is an important thing to bring up.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

No, I am just pointing out that with any person, religious or secular, their morality is going to necessarily inform how they will vote and what they will support. Ergo, all law is morality of one for or another.

Not to mention, what are laws except rules telling all of us what it is and isn't good to do? Doesn't that go back to the first and basic sets of laws wherever they came from? Be it Hammurabi or the 10 Commandments? People want to scoff at the latter because of the story behind them, but the intent was no different than Hammurabi's code -- to lay down a framework of rules within which all citizens would be constrained to act in order to form a properly functioning society.

But one is purely "moral" and the other is not?

Don't make me laugh.

It is not constitutional to try and control contracts based on religion.

a reply to: luthier

You're right. We should scrap those murder laws right away!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

You're right. We should scrap those murder laws right away!

Murder laws are social contract theory. Which is what the founders used to design the constitution.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

You're right. We should scrap those murder laws right away!

Murder laws are social contract theory. Which is what the founders used to design the constitution.

Yes, but they are also in the 10 Commandments and part of religion. You said yourself -- we should not use religion to control contracts.

I guess the entire constitution is unconstitutional as per your own reasoning.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

You're right. We should scrap those murder laws right away!

Murder laws are social contract theory. Which is what the founders used to design the constitution.

Yes, but they are also in the 10 Commandments and part of religion. You said yourself -- we should not use religion to control contracts.

I guess the entire constitution is unconstitutional as per your own reasoning.

Once you stop knee jerking you may adjust your argument.

It makes zero sense.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

You're right. We should scrap those murder laws right away!

Murder laws are social contract theory. Which is what the founders used to design the constitution.

Yes, but they are also in the 10 Commandments and part of religion. You said yourself -- we should not use religion to control contracts.

I guess the entire constitution is unconstitutional as per your own reasoning.

Once you stop knee jerking you may adjust your argument.

It makes zero sense.

So does yours in my mind.

Why don't you just admit that you have an allergy to the merest hint of anything religious and we'll get along better.

half of the arguments I read on here are scripted straight from the MSM

scary

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: luthier

You're right. We should scrap those murder laws right away!

Murder laws are social contract theory. Which is what the founders used to design the constitution.

Yes, but they are also in the 10 Commandments and part of religion. You said yourself -- we should not use religion to control contracts.

I guess the entire constitution is unconstitutional as per your own reasoning.

Once you stop knee jerking you may adjust your argument.

It makes zero sense.

So does yours in my mind.

Why don't you just admit that you have an allergy to the merest hint of anything religious and we'll get along better.

I don't care about getting along. I care about discussing things without absurdity.

The constitution and foundation of the country was based on classical liberal ideas. They used moral philosophy from this without religion. In fact many of the founders were extremely cynical of religion. Not God or the bibles teaching but religion.

Making legislation that is for your personal religion is against the principles of the country as much as forcing progressive legislation down people throats.

originally posted by: toysforadults
half of the arguments I read on here are scripted straight from the MSM

scary

Fox or msnbc?

a reply to: luthier

OK, it's early. I've had no caffeine. I'll try again.

Your argument is that nothing religious has anything to do with the law, but my argument is that you cannot make that line except as a convenient excuse for why you don't want X or Y person in the legislature (bigotry at the end of it all) or why you won't support X or Y law without actually discussing it's merits one way or the other.

This excuse is most frequently used against candidates perceived to be conservative or against laws around things like abortion.

My point is that making a law based on religion looks far different than making a law informed by personal morality. Check out most of the Middle Eastern nations to see what I mean. They live their religion every day through law -- church and state are the same thing.

That's different than a person with a religious background supporting a law. Believe it or not, Christianity has very little to say about abortion. A legislator coming from that background is being morally informed based on a belief that life is sacred which dovetails with the Founders' declaration that we all have a right to our life. That isn't dogma; that's just what a lifetime of morality from the church teaches - life is sacred and respect it wherever it is found.

No legislator is yet passing laws mandating that all persons in the US take communion, attend church on Sunday, convert to Christianity or pay a tax, etc., which would be true religious laws.

So it seems more to me that you do not like morality from certain quarters more than it is that you don't like religious laws because there aren't haven't actually been any. In which case, we circle back to whose morality we're talking about. You seem to prefer secular morality which is to say, your version of it and what your version of it to inform the laws that govern how we all must behave, meaning you want your morality shoved down everyone's throat.

Yes?

originally posted by: toysforadults
half of the arguments I read on here are scripted straight from the MSM

scary

Do you have an example from the MSM?

a reply to: ketsuko

What I am saying is that this woman wants to take away gay people's rights. She wants special laws for gays.

You find that appropriate? That even though gay people have done no wrong, they should have different laws than strait people?

It doesn't matter if it is religious or just a personal intolerance.

Should churches be forced to change their doctrine. No..this is purely a secular concept in society.

Maybe a religious status should be created so that people know the convictions of a business owner are high enough to effect their policies towards employees.

Believe it or not there are lots of atheists against abortion because of the social contract.

I think Sean Hannity should initiate a search engine.


Since Google is partisan, might as well have an opposing view.

So when an image of Bernie Sanders or Warren comes up, it can just say "Communist", "Freedom hater".

Or when Obama images are searched for, "Liar" and "Muslim" can appear underneath the image.


I'm sure everyone here can accept that if you think Google did nothing wrong.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The only one that would make sense is liar.

Bigot is a general term that means intolerance for beliefs.

Elizabeth Warren would fit that as well

Despite the size of Sean's head, I don't think he is smart enough with computers to create a search engine.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

The only one that would make sense is liar.

Bigot is a general term that means intolerance for beliefs.

Elizabeth Warren would fit that as well

SMH

It's sad when people see nothing wrong with this.

It's even sadder when you agree that we need partisan "truth" engines.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

The only one that would make sense is liar.

Bigot is a general term that means intolerance for beliefs.

Elizabeth Warren would fit that as well

SMH

It's sad when people see nothing wrong with this.

It's even sadder when you agree that we need partisan "truth" engines.

It's pretty sad that you have to resort to making a strawman since I said I didn't think the search engine should do this.