USPol March presents the 8th Annual Debt Limit Fight: Fracas in the Caucus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPol March presents the 8th Annual Debt Limit Fight: Fracas in the Caucus

«‹›172 »

emdash: Oct 19, 2003; and?

hobbesmaster posted:

All regulatory agencies do this and they're not necessarily as friendly as you might think. The FAA for example has done a lot of airline and pilot unfriendly things lately for example.

hopefully they take the inevitable whining as a hint that they're doing the right thing, then

# ? Apr 1, 2015 01:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 05:49

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment I'm alive, I pray for death!

hobbesmaster posted:

USDA by far.

They're addicted to the very products they're supposed to regulate!!! :tinfoil:

# ? Apr 1, 2015 01:24

Warcabbit: Apr 26, 2008; Wedge Regret

Aerox posted:

If we pretend in hypothetical-land for a moment that these religious freedom bills stand as written - that businesses legally gain a right to refuse service to gays, what are the requirements of gay people in these scenarios? Do gays have to announce they are gay to businesses to allow them to exercise their religious freedom? Is the onus on the company to inquire about the sexual orientation of each and every customer? If a company finds out after the fact that a customer is gay and didn't disclose it, either because they lied or they just didn't announce their sexuality, does the company now have legal recourse for being "tricked" into violating their religious beliefs?

Oddly, the best analysis of the law itself, I found on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/cmhomer/posts/10105487786124479?pnref=story

quote:

CAROLYN�S OFFICIAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW INDIANA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM LAW

The problem with holding myself out as a religion constitutional law expert, and with being from Indiana, is that everyone expects me to have an informed opinion on SB 101. So having just read the law in depth over lunch (I have read no other commentary on it -- just the law itself -- everything else to my legal mind is irrelevant) here is a sketch of my thoughts:

BACKGROUND

It is undisputed that religious individuals often have religious beliefs that conflict with the law or government policy. As mild examples: Jewish children may want kosher public school lunches, Muslim mosques may want to play the evening call to prayer in violation of local noise ordinances, Sikh men may want to wear a turban in spite of military / police / bureaucratic dress codes to the contrary.

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause does NOT grant religious individuals an automatic right to engage in these religious practices. Instead, in a major case in 1990 involving the sacramental use of the drug peyote in Native American rituals, the Supreme Court held that no religious practice can trump a "generally applicable law." Otherwise religious individuals would create a "law unto themselves." In Justice Scalia's mind, that way lies chaos.

Because so many examples of religious freedom seem so harmless and non-threatening -- like my Muslim prisoner who wanted to grow a beard case from last year -- Congress in 1993 passed a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (�RFRA�). The point of the law was to create a process so that religious individuals would be protected when their religious beliefs conflicted with broad, overarching government law and policy. (Like the dress codes, noise ordinances, dietary restrictions, etc. described above.)

The Supreme Court quickly ruled, however, that Congress did not have the power to grant those religious exemptions nationwide. Religious freedom exemptions only applied to federal laws, not state ones. In response, a dozen states quickly passed �baby RFRAs� to copy the Federal protections. Indiana�s SB 101 is another one of these �baby RFRAs�.

The baby RFRAs have become more controversial in recent years. This is because of two powerful forces: (1) the ascent of the gay rights movement and the corresponding evangelical backlash, and (2) the extremely broad interpretation of the Federal RFRA adopted by the Supreme Court � most particularly in the 2014 Hobby Lobby case about mandatory contraception insurance coverage.

WHAT SB 101 DOES TO �PROTECT� RELIGION

Into that fray, Indiana�s RFRA (SB 101) is notable because it extends even further than the federal RFRA. The basic framework is the same: SB 101 says that a religious individual may assert in court that they should not have to follow an Indiana law or policy because it impedes their religious freedom. The individual must prove that the Indiana law �substantially burdens� their religious practice. (Merely making a religious practice �more inconvenient� is generally not judged to be a �substantial� enough burden.) If the religious individual can prove that their religious exercise is burdened, then they are entitled to an exemption -- unless the Indiana government can prove two things in response. (1) that Indiana has a very good reason to burden the religious practice and (2) Indiana had no other options except imposing that burden.

(A classic example � often litigated � of religion claims that don�t work is tax cases. Courts don�t like random people who say they shouldn�t have to pay any taxes because of their religion.)

Indiana�s RFRA (SB 101) is interesting / particularly controversial for two major reasons.

First, SB 101 expressly recognizes that for-profit businesses which �exercise practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by�the individuals�who have control and substantial ownership of the entity� qualify for religious exemptions. This means that there is NO Indiana regulation that a business cannot theoretically trump by saying their religion forbids compliance. What�s rightfully getting the most attention (because of the gay rights movement) is the risk that businesses will try to trump non-discrimination and employment laws. This is because, until the Hobby Lobby case, most people had understood the earlier federal and state RFRAs to only protect individuals or non-profit religious institutions, like churches and charities. But the Indiana RFRA now allows even for-profit corporations to exercise religion.

Second, the end of SB 101 throws in a cute line that says individuals cannot sue private employers under this law. This makes the law appear dreadfully imbalanced and unfair � a business has the right to enforce its religious mores on its employees, but its employees do NOT have the right to enforce their religion on the business.

WHY SB 101 ISN�T (QUITE) AS TERRIBLE AS THE MEDIA MAKES IT SOUND

All of that being said, there are three ways SB 101 limits how broad the religious �protection� for businesses will be. And as such, the �doomsday� scenarios everyone is reading about in the press are a bit overblown.

First, this law only protects a business�s purported religious exercise if the business affirmatively gets permission from a court. A business in Indianapolis can�t just put a sign up tomorrow that says �we do not hire gays here.� That would immediately prompt a discrimination lawsuit. (Indianapolis has an anti-discrimination ordinance.) Then there would be an entire, expensive, and by no means guaranteed successful, litigation process before a court could rule that the business is allowed to refuse to hire gays.

Now, it�s true that the state of Indiana and private individuals may be less likely to sue for regulatory violations because they know SB 101 might protect the business � but it�s also true that most businesses won�t consider it to be in their best interest to try and skirt regulations. Most businesses don't want to go through the rigmarole of defending their owners' religious beliefs in court, or dealing with the extensive negative press coverage. Most businesses are risk-averse and want to avoid the threat of litigation. In other words, the press attention that will be devoted to this issue is orders of magnitude greater than what will actually be happening on the ground.

Second � this is the most fascinating aspect of the whole thing to me as a religion law geek � SB 101 only protects a business who is actively �exercising� a practice that is �compelled or limited by� religious belief. This means that the religious belief cannot just be a preference -- it has to be theologically mandated. So, a business who suddenly changes course, or comes up with a fairly weak theological reason for its action? That is a ground in court to reject their exemption. By contrast, SB 101 protects ANY �exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief� for individuals and non-profits. So it will be harder for businesses to get exemptions than individuals. Indiana will require a much higher showing of religious conflict before it will protect businesses. (I am going to bracket the fact that this difference presents its own Constitutional problems � courts aren�t supposed to, under the Establishment Clause, evaluate theology.)

Third, SB 101 says that it does not �in any way address the Establishment Clause.� This is important, because it still remains an open question in the Federal Courts as to whether this sweeping of a religious exemption is even Constitutional. There is a long line of Supreme Court cases which hold that the Establishment Clause only allows the government to accommodate religious freedom if the accommodation does not �impose significant burdens on third-party non-beneficiaries.� In other words, you only have a right to get a religious exemption from a law if you're not hurting other people. Thus, my mild examples above � like a school girl who wants to wear a hijab in violation of the uniform dress code � are completely fine and understandable religious protections. But a major corporation that refuses service because two men walk in holding hands? That is where the religious protection crosses the line into discrimination against blameless third parties.

My personal view is that the broadest read of SB 101 in providing protection to businesses is blatantly unconstitutional. If the ACLU of Indiana needs me to help write those arguments, I will gladly volunteer. Pragmatically, however, I think the most common uses of the law are going to be for individuals, churches, and charities with legitimate, yet relatively minor, grievances. Those claims I support in their fullest.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 01:30

PupsOfWar: Dec 6, 2013

Best way to combat new Indiana law: become fiqh schlar, find a decaying Indiana factory town in which to implement sharia law

# ? Apr 1, 2015 01:41

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

That Indiana miscarriage case is a good counter example when people always say that we have to give extreme benefit of the doubt in situations like when cops kill people or the Zimmerman case (I remember a few lawyers writing up overly long essays on what those cases HAD to be not guilty). It seems like when the Justice system wants to gently caress you it has plenty of ways to do it with or without a strong case.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 01:51

Rhesus Pieces: Jun 27, 2005

PupsOfWar posted:

Best way to combat new Indiana law: become fiqh schlar, find a decaying Indiana factory town in which to implement sharia law

You don't even have to go that far, just open a mosque, put up some minarets and play the call to prayer. When someone drags you into court over a noise ordinance, use the new law in your defense.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 01:52

Xibanya: Sep 17, 2012; Clever Betty

Big shocker, noted rich jerks the Koch brothers backing AstroTurf campaign against net neutrality.

quote:

Many of the critical statements from American Commitment's past email petitions began arriving in lawmakers' inboxes en masse earlier this month. To solicit support, the group used display ads that asked visitors to sound off against the FCC's net neutrality rules. Those messages were then delivered March 5-10 in the House and March 8-15 in the Senate, according to Kerpen.

All of those messages -- mostly pre-written by American Commitment -- slammed the FCC for treating the Internet like a public utility. Some of the emails called on Congress to "pass language in an upcoming must-pass vehicle that blocks any move by the FCC" to continue down its path. Another derided net neutrality supporters as "extremists." A third criticized Obama for having "publicly instructed the FCC, which is supposed to be an independent agency, to reduce the Internet to a government-controlled utility."

Speier's office noted the similar emails and then calculated that about 98 percent of the messages had come from constituents that her office had never heard from before. The congresswoman's team set about trying to reply to some senders, and a few of the constituents replied that they had never signed up to send emails criticizing net neutrality.

http://politi.co/1GdSMh7

Watch nobody mention this ever again as it fades into the news cycle abyss.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 02:14

Freakazoid_: Jul 5, 2013; Buglord

I was too shy to register until two years ago, but I had been reading the forums off and on since the iraq invasion, which is about when I started forming actual political opinions. For as much poo poo as D&D gets, it's better than most other political forums. I regret not registering sooner.

I remember what I was doing on 9/11. I started my day chatting in newgrounds chat and a guy pointed out the burning WTC building. I turned on the tv just in time, as a few minutes later that second plane hit. I thought the first plane was just an accident, but the way that second plane came in, I just knew it was a terrorist attack. Of course I supported our actions until the iraq invasion, but on that day I was more frustrated that I couldn't find an online game that wasn't talking about it.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 02:25

Lyapunov Unstable: Nov 20, 2011

Toasticle posted:

Sorry but you're not a D&D vet if you didn't post during the era of FAAQ, FoodMotivated, Ferretball (he can tell Muslim women by the musky smell of their vaginas), VoiceOfReason, Czar the human/whale hybrid and getting to see pictures of a mod fingering his rear end in a top hat. Or watching all the libertarian posters get more and more mocked and given puppy avatars before they all left in a huff. The rest I've thankfully blocked out.

McCain does have an impressive dick though. VoiceOfReason angrily screaming for pages about how Kerrys Purple Heart couldn't be real because his extensive knowledge of physics writing video games proves the shrapnel could not pierce skin and getting his name changed to VoiceOfTreason and his meltdown is burned into my brain.

Or the glory of Qalnar(?)

happyelf and TAK... what ever happened to happyelf?

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:17

Mo_Steel: Mar 7, 2008; Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together; Fun Shoe

Joementum posted:

Quote of the night, "Today's passage of HB1228 threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold. For these reasons, we are asking Governor Hutchinson to veto this legislation." ~ Doug McMillon, Walmart CEO.

Are companies typically so overt about this sort of thing, or is this high-profile law pushing a new trend? Because I feel like it's the sort of thing that shareholders are typically against (shut up = no backlash, say something = risk some backlash) and I don't recall third party companies weighing in on non-economic focused bills (compared with say minimum wage laws); but I'm also aware I could have blinders and these sorts of statements about laws are commonplace and just pass unseen except for big social instances.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:21

Slate Action: Feb 13, 2012; by exmarx

Hutchinson isn't going to back down given that he already said he would sign the bill, right? The fanatics would vote against him in droves.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:23

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Mo_Steel posted:

Are companies typically so overt about this sort of thing, or is this high-profile law pushing a new trend? Because I feel like it's the sort of thing that shareholders are typically against (shut up = no backlash, say something = risk some backlash) and I don't recall third party companies weighing in on non-economic focused bills (compared with say minimum wage laws); but I'm also aware I could have blinders and these sorts of statements about laws are commonplace and just pass unseen except for big social instances.

I think the brouhaha over Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby have changed the ground rules.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:23

Lyapunov Unstable: Nov 20, 2011

Toasticle posted:

Ok now it's bugging me, who was the douchebag who got mocked about his 5000 couch again?

llamasex?

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:25

Dubstep Jesus: Jun 27, 2012; by exmarx

Accretionist posted:

And man, I know women who've gotten abortions or miscarried late. The idea of them having to undergo antagonistic and demeaning scrutiny or gently caress, being imprisoned and made felons? Fuckity gently caress gently caress gently caress. This story makes me angry.

My closest friend has had two miscarriages and has some pretty severe PTSD because of them. Laws like this make my stomach churn.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:30

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Can't post for 6 hours!; Young Orc

The great PronHaul r :evil:

ution on the mid 2000's was a great time for D&D.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:34

Jerry Manderbilt: May 31, 2012; No matter how much paperwork I process, it never goes away. It only increases.

kill you are parents will never get old.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:35

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Seems like a good fit for the chat thread

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:36

TLM3101: Sep 8, 2010

Lyapunov Unstable posted:

happyelf and TAK... what ever happened to happyelf?

happyelf... That rings a bell. Did he use to wish people a "happy plane day" every 11th of September post 2001?

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:37

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Lyapunov Unstable posted:

llamasex?

nope, FaaQ

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:42

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

Kalman posted:

Not even close. It's probably the FCC.

(But yes, there is a legal requirement to allow the regulated industry - and everyone else - to weigh in, and the regulated industry tends to provide more useful and more trustworthy feedback, since they actually know wtf they're talking about.)

ironic because this is the same public comment that gave us net neutrality

e: in fairness, admin law is something that the layman knows absolutely nothing about and is kinda a shame that it's the case

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:43

Karnegal: Dec 24, 2005; Is it... safe?

In 9/11 stories. I was 16 at the time and out of the country on a cruise ship in the Caribbean, so it's never really felt particularly real to me. When I first saw it on the onboard TV in my room, I thought it was a movie. The next day we had a US gunboat escort and some of the islands (the Grand Kayens among others) wouldn't let us dock. Oddly enough, we flew back into BWI with no real issue a few days after the attack having been out of the country.

It's crazy how much shitter air travel has become in the name of "safety" since then. Flying back from Argentina a few months ago our bags went through security then once we were in the cleared area they checked us again before boarding and made us chuck any food or drink we had bought in the supposedly clear area. It wasn't clear why, but the guy implied it was because of heightened security on the US end.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:45

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment I'm alive, I pray for death!

TLM3101 posted:

happyelf... That rings a bell. Did he use to wish people a "happy plane day" every 11th of September post 2001?

He was a rabid pro-PLO poster back before acknowledging that maybe, juuuust maybe Israel real does do some shady-rear end poo poo was acceptable.

No, really. There was a time when blanket-acceptance of whatever flowed from the Knesset was par for the course here, long long ago. :corsair:

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:46

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

I have to admit the avatar someone gave him of Arafat peeing on his googley eyed elf was pretty great.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 03:48

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Mo_Steel posted:

Are companies typically so overt about this sort of thing, or is this high-profile law pushing a new trend? Because I feel like it's the sort of thing that shareholders are typically against (shut up = no backlash, say something = risk some backlash) and I don't recall third party companies weighing in on non-economic focused bills (compared with say minimum wage laws); but I'm also aware I could have blinders and these sorts of statements about laws are commonplace and just pass unseen except for big social instances.

It's Wal-Mart: pretty much noone who shops there is going to be able to stop shopping there to protest this.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 04:11

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

Bel Shazar posted:

I think the brouhaha over Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby have changed the ground rules.

In general there's been a ton of vocal public outcry regarding overt discrimination recently. Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby being the center of media attention for a time just further cemented it. Obviously we haven't been able to see a total reversal (otherwise the Hobby Lobby decision would have never occurred or been overturned and the Indiana bill would have been laughed out of court for being a gigantic violation of Constitutional and potentially human rights), but gay rights and greater disdain for religious law harming others has become tasteful enough for major companies and corporations to publicly support.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 04:14

ohgodwhat: Aug 6, 2005

Karnegal posted:

In 9/11 stories. I was 16 at the time and out of the country on a cruise ship in the Caribbean, so it's never really felt particularly real to me. When I first saw it on the onboard TV in my room, I thought it was a movie. The next day we had a US gunboat escort and some of the islands (the Grand Kayens among others) wouldn't let us dock. Oddly enough, we flew back into BWI with no real issue a few days after the attack having been out of the country.

I was on a cruise to Bermuda that arrived back in NYC on 9/10. I wanted to wake up early to see the skyline as we came in to dock, but I slept in thinking I'd always be able to see it later.

I was pretty young, surrounded by other young shitheads and remember talking about blowing poo poo up and turning the middle east into glass.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 04:15

sat on my keys!: Oct 2, 2014

I was 9, nearly 10 when 9/11 happened and I was home sick from school. I remember my mom called from work (my dad was home) and told us to turn on the TV and then just hung up. Then we stayed up for 16 hours just watching the BBC and CNN.

I remember being really confused because I was old enough to understand what a war was but terrorism was pretty new for me (I don't remember the OKC bombing at all). I didn't understand where Afghanistan was so we had a lesson in school for all the fifth graders about the geography of Central Asia.

I always felt like it was the invasion of Iraq rather than 9/11 where everything went wrong but that's probably because I was more "aware" at that point (by then I had found out about internet left wingerism and begun annoying my parents).

# ? Apr 1, 2015 04:21

Kellsterik: Mar 30, 2012

Two things I very distinctly remember from being a kid right after 9/11:

-Overhearing that my friend's family was Mormon, remembering a scary picture of a woman in a burqa on the news and thinking "aren't those the people we're supposed to be keeping an eye out for?" (ie Muslims, not Mormons)

-Wondering if the FBI would contact the makers of Osmosis Jones for information during the anthrax scare, because the villain of that movie was an anthrax virus and presumably they would have done research about it.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 04:22

Zeno-25: Dec 5, 2009; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

I distinctly remember how I felt about at least one thing on 9/11. I was as aware of politics as a new high school freshmen could be, and the Clinton Impeachment had left an earlier impression.

I was glad that Bush and the Republicans had won instead of Gore because I knew the military response would be far bigger. :downs:

During passing periods that day, I remember the halls were dead silent. 4k students at the school. So eerily, painfully silent. The school didn't have antenna or cable TV despite having a TV in each room, and this was before kids had cell phones, so the only new source of info the whole day was the occasional classroom with a radio. I wondered for hours just what it all looked like, since I knew what the WTC was at the time. For a few months afterwards, emergency vehicle sirens would make me think of 9/11.

Zeno-25 fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Apr 1, 2015

# ? Apr 1, 2015 04:48

Samurai Sanders: Nov 4, 2003; Pillbug

I guess Arkansas just passed a religious freedom bill similar to Indiana's but I can't make myself get angry about it, because to me Arkansas was already firmly in the "hosed" category in this regard.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 04:56

Karnegal: Dec 24, 2005; Is it... safe?

Samurai Sanders posted:

I guess Arkansas just passed a religious freedom bill similar to Indiana's but I can't make myself get angry about it, because to me Arkansas was already firmly in the "hosed" category in this regard.

Yeah, I actually go to Indiana poliswhereas Arkansas is in the why teh gently caress would I ever go here catagory.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 05:00

VikingofRock: Aug 24, 2008

Okay here are my contributions to USPol story time:

On :911:

I was in middle school, and I had woken up early in order to play Pharaoh when my parents called me down to watch the TV. The first plane had hit, and we were still watching when the second plane came in a little bit later and it became clear it was a terrorist attack. I remember the guy I walked to school with coming down the hill shouting "It's World War 3!" but I think I wasn't sure whether to believe him. School was really eerie that day and I remember people watching the skies nervously at recess. Most of the teachers just had the TV on instead of teaching, and I remember a few kids saying "Cool!" at the footage and then the teachers getting mad at them. I was definitely against the Iraq war when it came around (and got interviewed by the local news channel at the big pre-invasion protest), but I remember thinking that George Bush had no choice but to go to war with Afghanistan. Also I think I had a truther phase but I like to pretend I didn't.

I first got linked to SA from pointlesswasteoftime.com, and I really liked the Comedy Goldmine and Photoshop Phridays. In particular the one where someone gave Atticus Finch a guitar was really good. I lurked GBS D&D and LP, and eventually signed up because I was tired of sections of the forums getting closed to non-registered accounts. Pretty good use of :10bux:

, and D&D is definitely the best political forum I've found online. I don't think anything else has even been close.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 05:40

Teddybear: May 16, 2009; Look! A teddybear doll!
It's soooo cute!

I was in 6th grade-- they didn't even tell us, just cancelled all after school stuff and had us bring a letter home to our parents. Last period a teacher said "oh yeah some dudes crashed a plane into New York or something."

We were not a highbrow institution.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 05:54

Good point keep talkin: Sep 14, 2011

I was 7 at the time. I remember all my family members being really serious and worried, but I wasn't sure what the big deal was since it was just a building. I didn't fully get the significance till a couple years later.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 06:03

Bastard Tetris: Apr 27, 2005; L-Shaped; Nap Ghost

Goddamn I'm an old goon. I was in college, and my roommate was a Palestinian named Osama who came to my college because the IDF blew up the university.

I was pretty much a clueless college freshman republican until I saw our response to 9/11.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 06:06

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

I was always disappointed we didn't get a grave and foreboding speech over the loudspeaker. We didn't get anything. In fact, my rear end in a top hat History teacher saw the news on his computer and didn't loving tell us.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 06:10

Good Citizen: Aug 12, 2008; trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump

They pushed a boat into the middle of the commons area of campus and turned the radio inside all the way up. I have no idea how that occurred to someone as the best option. I stayed long enough to hear some official from college admin say classes were cancelled

(None of these stories are ever interesting)

# ? Apr 1, 2015 06:11

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

When 9/11 happened I immediately knew it was perpetrated by that "beardy Iraqi dude" (much like today, I was dumb) I had read about on the terrorist most wanted list a few nights prior. That is my 9/11 throwback thursday

# ? Apr 1, 2015 06:13

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

Good Citizen posted:

(None of these stories are ever interesting)

You're loving right they aren't, and yet we have this stupid derail every month or two. I don't understand at all how people's personal experience of 9/11 has anything to do with USPol March, and I wish people would take it to the chat thread or make another thread if they want to talk about it. All of us have personal experiences of 9/11 we could talk about, but almost nobody has an experience of it that anyone else would ever care about.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 06:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 05:49

Teddybear: May 16, 2009; Look! A teddybear doll!
It's soooo cute!

We're all killing time until the April thread gets posted? It's an elaborate April Fools joke? We're up late and bored? I dunno, take your pick.

# ? Apr 1, 2015 06:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPol March presents the 8th Annual Debt Limit Fight: Fracas in the Caucus

«‹›172 »