Hopefully they get rid of the POW/MIA Flags too.
I don’t mean for this to come off as ignorant or accusatory; I’m curious: how come you feel that way about POW/MIA flags?
What a waste of time. Sometimes I’m ashamed to even admit that I’m American.
Nationalists ruin nations
It’s also giving 1.8 billion dollars in weapons to Israel. Fuck every single dem who voted for genocide, and the few republicans who didn’t vote for it because it was insufficiently genocidal.
This was included in a funding bill. If that wouldn’t pass the government would shut down. You can blame Republicans for those extra things added.
the government would shut down
Good. A government that needs to commit genocide to even function shouldn’t exist.
Imagine trying to use that as an excuse to fund genocide.
You can blame Republicans
Biden has been bypassing congress to send “israel” weapons faster.
I’ve been hearing this excuse for like a decade now.
Shutting down the government to refuse weapon sales to Israel would be a good thing, goddammit. I’d feel that maybe there’s a shred of humanity left in those ghouls if they had.
Yeah, let’s hurt others for your own protest. Maybe you should do your own hunger strike?
People are missing the forest for the trees but you are right.
If Republicans force this through on every bill then at some point it would have to pass. You can’t just shut down the US government indefinitely in the real world.
removed by mod
We’re ad-hom’ing comments based on their instance now? Cool cool cool…
removed by mod
Time to start raising the Wrath flags.
I read that as “Welsh flags” at first and thought “a little unorthodox, but ok… Let’s have some dragons up in this bitch!”
I read it as “Wraith Flags” and wondered how Colonel John Sheppard has been doing.
Important note for those who dont want to read the actual article: the ban is essentially saying only some flags can be bought with federal funds and then hung up officially, and the pride flag isn’t one of them. It also doesn’t prohibit personal displays, so while they can’t be on flag poles or bought with federal funds, they can still be displayed. Interestingly, the bill also bans the confederate flag. It’s still just bigotry being forced by the GOP but there’s always more context than a headline can provide.
And the State Department can do whatever it wants. Why would Congress have oversight of a routine maintenance issue for the Executive Branch? They can fly all the pride flags they want and no one can stop them.
The House’s budget power only exists until the item is purchased. It’s actually not very strong. Literally how are they going to enforce this? The Justice Department will be defending the State Department. The House will have… who?
The House will have… who?
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch…
The House should be about to pass laws that curtail the rights of the executive branch. This is a key part of the system of checks and balances.
Another two steps back.
Lol. Literally got my comment removed for saying “not really.”
Stay censored, lemmy!
Go back to reddit :)
Not really.
Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line for non-government related symbols to be shown? What types of non-government related symbols should be allowed, and which ones shouldn’t?
Perhaps each symbol could be evaluated individually based on what it is meant to represent? I don’t know why that’s such a difficult thing to imagine.
I’ve seen those black “POW/MIA” flags next to US flags all of the time and I’ve never once seen a single ammosexual conservative freak complain about it, despite their cult of personality centering around someone who literally belittled prisoners of war for being caught.
I’ve never heard of anyone complaining about that. I see the “pride” flag to be as offensive as the black POW/MIA flag.
Perhaps each symbol could be evaluated individually based on what it is meant to represent?
Which criterea do you propose should be used in such an evaluation to determine whether the government should display a specific symbol?
Am I being tasked with creating a protocol for evaluating which symbols the government should display? Like what do you think you’re accomplishing with this line of questioning? It’s not my fucking job or expertise to come up with that criteria, there are much smarter people who could do that.
I know you think you’ve made some powerful rebuttal here, but you really haven’t.
There is no set of reasonable, ethical criteria that could possibly make displaying a rainbow flag offensive. It just doesn’t exist. If you’re upset by seeing a pride flag, then that’s 100% your problem.
That’s like getting mad at seeing the California flag flying next to the US flag because you just hate that CA exists. Fucking dumb.
Am I being tasked with creating a protocol for evaluating which symbols the government should display? Like what do you think you’re accomplishing with this line of questioning? It’s not my fucking job or expertise to come up with that criteria, there are much smarter people who could do that.
I apologize if my probing came off as accusatory — this was not my intent. I’m simply curious if you perhaps had a framework that you had considered as a solution to the issue that you are describing. I have no issue at all with the recognition and discussion of issues, but I believe that degrading something simply because of its shortcomings, without the suggestion of an alternative, or a possible solution, is non-constructive. It is often the case that there are downsides to the systems in place — and it is certainly important to be aware of them — but it is also often the case that, despite their downsides, they are the current best solutions. One can, for example, look at democracy. There exists a metaphor that says “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner”. It can certainly happen that the majority makes a decision to the detriment of the minority, but, despite its shortcomings, democracy is possibly the most moral solution as, even if its decisions are to the detriment of a minority, the people must always have a say in the laws that govern them. Through the recognition of these shortcomings, however, a well-structured government can implement checks, and balances in an effort to reduce these “negative” outcomes. These mediations are only arrived at through the discussion of shortcomings, but one would simply not have democracy if they only belittled it.
I know you think you’ve made some powerful rebuttal here, but you really haven’t.
I am trying to word my comments in a way that doesn’t antagonize, and I am not, in the slightest, seeking “gotcha” moments. I only wish to have a discussion on the issue that you pointed out. I apologize if I wasn’t successful to that end.
There is no set of reasonable, ethical criteria that could possibly make displaying a rainbow flag offensive. It just doesn’t exist. If you’re upset by seeing a pride flag, then that’s 100% your problem.
I would, perhaps, reword the question to ask whether a government should be involved in cultural issues. I have no doubt that there are people who truly believe that the pride flag is evil and/or offensive, but removing the pride flag, and any other symbols, from government buildings needn’t be interpreted as a surrender to bigotry but, instead, the taking of a position of non-involvement.
That’s like getting mad at seeing the California flag flying next to the US flag because you just hate that CA exists. Fucking dumb.
Ha, yeah, that’s bigotry for you. That being said, I would still argue that the flying of California’s flag is fundamentally different than the display of a cultural symbol — of course, this is dependent on context, and what the intent of flying flags on flag poles actually is.
Ones that support his agenda should be shown.
Ones that do not support his agenda should not be shown.
This is how biases and tribalism work.
Yeah my agenda of (checks notes) thinking people shouldn’t be persecuted for existing.
A dire slippery slope for sure.
Oh nooo scawwy wainbow
Maybe the US’s adversaries could learn from this and go the opposite way to improve LGBT rights instead. Would decrease western govs’ ability to pinkwash imperialism, spread atrocity propaganda etc.
So far, the only governments I can think of that seem to have realized this and vastly improved LGBT rights accordingly have been the GDR (which would’ve likely spread to the rest of the socialist states) and Cuba.
Wait I have the right emoji for that, lemme just…
There !
🤮
deleted by creator
Should note this is not permanent. It’s only for the extent of the spending bill, which is until October, and can be easily removed from the spending bills after the election, when hopefully we have a more blue congress that won’t need to make these shitty concession just to fund the damn government.
more blue
Lol
deleted by creator
NOTHING to do with Gaza and was about Ukraine
Blue MAGA lmao
BlueAnon 👁️
Yeah, because the alternative was a government shutdown
A shutdown of the government currently committing a genocide in Palestine? Hell yeah
This is no excuse to fund genocide.
Just saying that there’s a reason why Democrats voted for it.
Also a government shutdown has major impacts on their own country’s population and they are the people they need to worry about first and foremost.
You know it doesn’t have to be that way right? The government could be funded at a base level automatically just by a simple majority in the senate and the house. But the Democrats love the excuses so that idiots like you will support them anyway.
But it’s not how it works right now and they need to deal with the system as it is now until it doesn’t work this way anymore. Voting against it wouldn’t change the system in place.
Should’ve voted no then. Would likely stop the genocide in a few weeks/months if the US government stops functioning and can’t maintain its colony in Palestine anymore. It would also give the working class an opportunity for revolution to establish a system that doesn’t require genocide to function.
But of course, liberal “democracies” and the two-party system just represent the interests of the capitalist class. Just wish liberals and conservatives would acknowledge that and stop defending the two parties, and spend that time and effort organizing against it.
Simple majority can change it, and historically there have been plenty of options for democrats to do such a thing, but they never seem to want to put provisions in place to help people for some reasons.
You realize a shutdown wouldn’t impact weapons transfers or the execution of military strategy right?
deleted by creator
