That's "saying he is gay" in the same sense as describing a Gojira attack on Tokyo as "a delay in the morning commute."
But times change, and now all that document says is that he was gay and they didn't think they could get a sodomy conviction.... you're kidding right? The point of the lack of a pardon is they are refusing to make the change to the document. There is STILL a document on the books, unamended and un-appended with pardon, saying that Alan Turing was a sexual pervert who committed "gross indecency."
Sure if was still alive a pardon would actually be worthwhile, but since he isn't all it would do is make the current (and future) British feel better about themselves.
No, it would be a powerful statement about the importance of equal rights for homosexuals. It would be a powerful repudiation of the kind of laws and legal system that allowed the British police to pervert a report of burglary into "evidence of gross indecency" in the first place.
Having Gordon Brown make a public statement was one thing, but Gordon Brown's statement doesn't make a legal difference. A pardon would be an expression of the entire British government admitting that the laws under which homosexuals were persecuted were bigoted and invalid. That's an important statement that ought to be made, and the fact that they're refusing to make it is proof that the goal of equal human rights for all individuals is still not complete, even in progressive states like the UK.
But they feel ashamed about it so why would you want to do that?
Oh please. The laws themselves were repealed, which was good. But many people of that era DESERVE to be pardoned, whether dead or not, since their convictions were based on judicial bigotry and persecution.
And I concur, while pardoning him does not really wipe the evidence that it happened away it is still a step in that direction and not something that should be done. In a way, as a guilty man, he is a pioneering gay rights activist and that should be remembered not pardoned. It is no "crime" to be convicted of breaking an unjust law, and it can be considered a virtue.
Bullshit.
The issuance of a pardon can be done in the manner to indicate that the conviction should never have occurred because the law you were convicted under was unjust.
Which is better: An apology saying "well we're sorry you were convicted but you're still guilty", or a FULL apology acknowledging that the law was so unjust that it never should have existed, much less been the basis of criminal convictions?
Not only that - if Turing were alive today, do you have any question they would have granted the pardon long ago? If it would be important to grant the pardon to a living person, it's just as important to grant the pardon today, for the peace of mind of his family and for the improvement of society in the FULL acknowledgement that what happened, and the laws it happened under, never should have.
A man was harassed, persecuted, and driven to suicide by people enforcing an entirely unjust law. A pardon, posthumous or not, is in order.
Your "they said he was gay" is so far from the truth that it's ridiculous.
Re:Your right to what?
on
BTJunkie No More?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
And I am absolutely certain that MORE people would be creating derivations of classic, public domain works if Disney hadn't started raping the public domain and then trying to sue everyone who used the same public domain works that they'd ripped off.
No amount of extension in copyright will cause Walt Disney to rise from the grave and create more. A de-extension in copyright WOULD cause a host of new creators to start creating works "derivative" of classic Disney movies, of classic novels (think Lord of the Rings, or Animal Farm, or a thousand other novels and characters from the 1920s-50s).
Society is poorer, not richer, for the monster that Copyright has become today.
The Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006. From 1994 to 2000, they had a go-along-to-get-along Democrat president who vetoed none of their economic foolishness, not even the Glass-Steagall repeal.
From 2000 to 2006, they controlled the entire Legislative and Executive branches. The economic crash started in 2006 while those boobs were still in office.
I'm comfortable, having seen them in control of economic legislation for more than a decade leading up to the crash, blaming them for their actions.
This is the basic problem with DRM. It treats every customer as if they were a criminal.
Pirated game: always works. Non-pirated game: customers suffer through shit like this.
And the companies wonder why things like no-CD cracks have been rampant basically forever? I mean fuck, we wound up hand-rewriting the stupid "black text on dark fucking red" sheets from games like Zak McCracken in the old days, and it wasn't a question of piracy, it was just so we didn't have to stand under a 300W floodlight to read the goddamn sheet!
Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters.
Except in a system where every vote is plurality takes all (sometimes called "first past the post"), even a 10% share (which Libertarians poll at but rarely get) is unnoticed by the main parties. They're not worried about attracting Libertarian votes, they're worried about getting 45%+1 out of the 90% who vote for one of the two main parties, and they don't give a shit about the rest.
And they're entrenched. Gerrymandering has made it even LESS necessary to have a majority. Look at Texas: Republicans are maybe 35% of the electorate, but thanks to careful gerrymandering they control 2/3 of the state legislature and 2/3 of the congressional delegation, and careful disenfranchisement - witness their neutering of early-voting this year after they realized enhanced access to the polls meant democrat voters, who actually have to work on election day rather than being greedy lazy assholes, went and voted on the available weekend days and almost threw a number of the GOP-constructed "52/48" districts to the Dems - takes care of the rest.
"Obama's socialist policies are ruining America!!"
"Really? Which ones?", I ask.
Of course, I very rarely get a conherant answer.
There's not a coherent answer, because to most of them, "socialism" is defined as "taxation." Public schooling? According to the Big Fat Oxycontin Whore Show (on your local hate radio station, 10am-1pm central, featuring Rush "I got away with tax fraud and prescription fraud because I'm rich and politically connected" Limbaugh), that's "a bastion of librulizm" and "socialist indoctrination." Medicare, welfare? "Handouts to greedy people who don't want to work" (my 70 year old grandmother is on medicare assistance after falling down the stairs and breaking her back; everyone I know on welfare is out of work thanks to the Retardican and Bush's stupid economic policies putting us into a depression while lazy, non-working assholes like Mitt Romney got tax breaks).
Oh, and don't forget, "socialism" also encompasses their social views. They want "abstinence only education" and restricted access to birth control. They insist on this despite study after study showing that the end result of abstinence only education and restricted access to birth control is... pregnant teen moms raising kids alone, condemned to a life of poverty. "Government should get out of people's lives"... except when it comes to entering their bedroom and monitoring who they sleep with, who they love, who they want to raise kids with, who is and isn't allowed to adopt on the basis of sexuality, and anything else where the right wing wants to enforce their religious beliefs on the rest of society.
"Obozo wants SOPA and PIPA so he can ban all right-wing blogs and make the LSM the only source of news again" - Rush "the Big Fat Lying Oxycontin Whore" Limbaugh.
I still say you're a bunch of fucking lunatics. Come back to earth once in a while, away from the echo chamber, and realize that those of us in the middle are not "communists", we are not "socialists", we're just trying to live our lives and not get raped too bad by the corporatocracy that you right wing morons keep trying to grant more and more power to.
God forbid we have SANE economic policies... no, a social safety net, taking care of the poor and infirm and elderly, taking care of those who lose jobs when inhuman assholes like you ship entire industries overseas, making sure we clean up the environment because our kids are paying for it with their health (witness the urban asthma epidemic; more than 20% of kids in urban areas are getting diagnosed with asthma these days!)? Oh no, to fucking morons like you that's "socialism" and "a welfare state."
And don't get me started on your fucking retarded tax policies. Someone who sits on his ass after raping businesses in bankruptcy scams like Mitt Romney can get away with paying an effective 14% tax rate, while I pay double that rate making less than 1/100th of what he does and working my ass off to do it, and you call that "fair"?
The Tea Party is a collection of fucking retarded loonies too stupid to understand that the assholes running the group are ripping them off and lying to them.
In this event, the problem is that Bain (or other Corporate Raider) still makes money while everyone else winds up with losses. The employees are screwed - not just out of a job, but out of any stock portfolio or retirement benefits package they might have accrued. Non-Corporate-Raider stockholders wind up with the stock tanking when it otherwise would not have. Banks or credit agencies wind up getting nothing or nearly nothing back after bankruptcy court as well, leading to their charging other clients more in terms of services, fees, and penalties to try to make up the difference.
Mitt Romney didn't "make" millions of dollars, we should call it like it is: he STOLE millions of dollars in bankruptcy fraud schemes.
My understanding is that you buy a failing company and then figure out how to turn it around.
Proving you lack understanding.
The Bain Capital / Corporate Raider model works thusly:
Step 1: Buy original company for low value (generally by acquiring seasonal debt and then calling it in early, or acquiring 50%+1 of stock and then enacting a hostile takeover). Step 2: Enter original company into a set of "contracts" with the Corporate Raider company. These contracts will transfer all sale-able assets or profits from sale of same (Cash-On-Hand, Patent Portfolio, Copyright Portfolio) to the Corporate Raider while insisting the the original company spend as little money as possible on maintenance, research, new product generation, etc. Within a couple of years, the original company's balance sheet will be a mess of debt, while the Corporate Raider company will keep all the profits. If it was a "hostile takeover", owners of the remaining 49% of stock will be left with nothing, since at no time in this deal will the profits transferred to Corporate Raider company be seen as dividends to original company. Step 3: Spin off original company back to "independent" status, and then allow bankruptcy court of the now-stripped company to wipe out the company and erase all the debts that the Corporate Raider transferred onto the original company's balance sheets. When the company goes bankrupt, the remaining stockholders will also see the effect of their investment wiped out.
It's a scam. It's a form of abuse of the bankruptcy laws. And it's how Romney the Raider made his money.
That doesn't sound like a good business model. That it buy low and sell at a loss... Those are for cases that they couldn't turn around.
You are unfamiliar with the corporate raider model of business? Step 1: Buy original company, generally in a hostile takeover (e.g. "leveraged buyout."). Step 2: Sell off company assets and transfer all monies to "parent company" (corporate raider), leaving nothing but debt in original company. Step 3: Leave remaining debt in original company, spin it back off into "independent" status, and let the debt be taken care of by bankruptcy court.
It's abuse of bankruptcy proceedings, really. And Romney made his millions off of this type of scam.
As for the rest, you're just a fucking idiot. I encourage you to take a latino friend to a Tea Party rally to see firsthand the things those racist fucking retards do and say to him. I've seen it firsthand myself, it was the final straw that made me say to hell with the so called "conservative" movement.
The companies that Romney was said to "strip and sell" were companies that were on the verge of collapse.
Bullshit. They bought up companies to strip assets from, nothing more. Most of the companies bought by Bain were doing well enough on their own.
So they buy the companies, make them profitable and then sell them.
No, what Bain did was buy up the companies, strip the assets for sale and the IP portfolio for sale, and then shut down anything that didn't sell. This is what Bain actually did, and you're a fucking liar.
The republican party is not racists however they are #1 with racists (to paraphrase The Simpsons).
You don't get to be #1 with racists without dog-whistling racism all day long. Republican policies are, and have been since they welcomed the Dixiecrats with open arms, racist. You honestly think they'd be screaming about shutting down "the border" if the majority of "illegals", as the racist repubs like to call them, were white-skinned canadians?
You have a problem with facts, you want to vilify the republicans you are just as bad as the republicans are to the democrats.
Oh bullshit and go fuck yourself. The Republicans are fucking lunatics who think that shutting down free breast cancer exams for low income women is "justified" if they can "get" Planned Parenthood - just the latest example of the GOP, modern home of racism, misogyny, and inhumanity.
Except that no, Mormonism is much like Scientology in that they keep a large laundry list of things "not to be discussed with outsiders."
If you look at their wiki you'll see the following disclaimer plastered all over: "Important note: Members of FAIR take their temple covenants seriously. We consider the temple teachings to be sacred, and will not discuss their specifics in a public forum."
The moment a religion starts trying to hide what it says from you, that's when you realize they're up to no good.
Being a "vulture capitalist" who makes millions of dollars by ruining the lives of others, destroying viable companies as part of a firm whose mantra was "strip and sell", is not wholesome. Dodging taxes and exploiting loopholes is not wholesome. Supporting a party with racism as a key platform plank is not wholesome. Supporting a party that wants to go to war with the world and waste lives is not wholesome.
Whether you are pro-choice or not, the LDS Church is not pro-choice, and yet Romney was pro-choice as governor, vehemently so. So that would not make him a "wholesome Mormon modeling good Mormon behavior."
The problem with Romney is he's not wholesome at all. He's a stellar example of what's wrong with the Republican Party today - an amoral, evil asshole who's wearing a Fred Rogers suit.
That's no surprise. They have no confidence in the US Air Force's ability to deliver a bomb to a 100-meter wide stationary target twice in succession without missing.
Yes, but Iran is dangerously Shi'a (specifically, Ithn‘ashariyyah, sometimes called "Twelvers"). Shi'a Twelvers have this crazy thing about an end-of-the-world scenario where the rest of the world loses a world war and then the Shi'a establish a Global Khalifah with the demi-messianic "Twelfth Imam" as its head. And as near as we can tell, both the Ayatollah and his puppet Ahmadamnnutjob are both "true believers."
It's kind of like how those insane fuckers from the Tea Party tend to believe that if there aren't Jews in Israel, then the end times can't come because the endtime war has to start with Jews in Jerusalem, etc.
Iran is mostly Persians, but it's not the racial entanglement that's the problem, it's the religious entanglement - Iran maintains Hamas and Hezbollah and the Syrian government as puppet states, keeps shipping weapons to the minority-but-violent Shi'a groupings in Syria and Lebanon as well as Hamas (one thing you don't hear too often, though it is true, is that Hamas is mostly Shi'a while the main PLO/Fatah/Al-Aqsa-terrorist group is mostly Sunni).
In a slightly serious side note... someone PLEASE get the Joint Chiefs of Staff some goddamn viagra so they can go back to comparing dick sizes rather than having to argue and waste taxpayer money on who has bigger munitions...
Slashdot Mirror
How is that not saying he is gay?
That's "saying he is gay" in the same sense as describing a Gojira attack on Tokyo as "a delay in the morning commute."
But times change, and now all that document says is that he was gay and they didn't think they could get a sodomy conviction. ... you're kidding right? The point of the lack of a pardon is they are refusing to make the change to the document. There is STILL a document on the books, unamended and un-appended with pardon, saying that Alan Turing was a sexual pervert who committed "gross indecency."
Sure if was still alive a pardon would actually be worthwhile, but since he isn't all it would do is make the current (and future) British feel better about themselves.
No, it would be a powerful statement about the importance of equal rights for homosexuals. It would be a powerful repudiation of the kind of laws and legal system that allowed the British police to pervert a report of burglary into "evidence of gross indecency" in the first place.
Having Gordon Brown make a public statement was one thing, but Gordon Brown's statement doesn't make a legal difference. A pardon would be an expression of the entire British government admitting that the laws under which homosexuals were persecuted were bigoted and invalid. That's an important statement that ought to be made, and the fact that they're refusing to make it is proof that the goal of equal human rights for all individuals is still not complete, even in progressive states like the UK.
But they feel ashamed about it so why would you want to do that?
Oh please. The laws themselves were repealed, which was good. But many people of that era DESERVE to be pardoned, whether dead or not, since their convictions were based on judicial bigotry and persecution.
And I concur, while pardoning him does not really wipe the evidence that it happened away it is still a step in that direction and not something that should be done.
In a way, as a guilty man, he is a pioneering gay rights activist and that should be remembered not pardoned.
It is no "crime" to be convicted of breaking an unjust law, and it can be considered a virtue.
Bullshit.
The issuance of a pardon can be done in the manner to indicate that the conviction should never have occurred because the law you were convicted under was unjust.
Which is better: An apology saying "well we're sorry you were convicted but you're still guilty", or a FULL apology acknowledging that the law was so unjust that it never should have existed, much less been the basis of criminal convictions?
Not only that - if Turing were alive today, do you have any question they would have granted the pardon long ago? If it would be important to grant the pardon to a living person, it's just as important to grant the pardon today, for the peace of mind of his family and for the improvement of society in the FULL acknowledgement that what happened, and the laws it happened under, never should have.
A man was harassed, persecuted, and driven to suicide by people enforcing an entirely unjust law. A pardon, posthumous or not, is in order.
No, they didn't say he was "gay."
He reported the burglary of his home to police, and the british police used it as an opportunity to get him to admit to a homosexual relationship, then used that as the basis of a charge of "gross indecency", and the resulting conviction was used to force him to decide between jail or chemical castration.
Your "they said he was gay" is so far from the truth that it's ridiculous.
And I am absolutely certain that MORE people would be creating derivations of classic, public domain works if Disney hadn't started raping the public domain and then trying to sue everyone who used the same public domain works that they'd ripped off.
No amount of extension in copyright will cause Walt Disney to rise from the grave and create more. A de-extension in copyright WOULD cause a host of new creators to start creating works "derivative" of classic Disney movies, of classic novels (think Lord of the Rings, or Animal Farm, or a thousand other novels and characters from the 1920s-50s).
Society is poorer, not richer, for the monster that Copyright has become today.
You are joking, right? You obviously don't live in the USA.
The Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006. From 1994 to 2000, they had a go-along-to-get-along Democrat president who vetoed none of their economic foolishness, not even the Glass-Steagall repeal.
From 2000 to 2006, they controlled the entire Legislative and Executive branches. The economic crash started in 2006 while those boobs were still in office.
I'm comfortable, having seen them in control of economic legislation for more than a decade leading up to the crash, blaming them for their actions.
Are you kidding?
This is the basic problem with DRM. It treats every customer as if they were a criminal.
Pirated game: always works.
Non-pirated game: customers suffer through shit like this.
And the companies wonder why things like no-CD cracks have been rampant basically forever? I mean fuck, we wound up hand-rewriting the stupid "black text on dark fucking red" sheets from games like Zak McCracken in the old days, and it wasn't a question of piracy, it was just so we didn't have to stand under a 300W floodlight to read the goddamn sheet!
Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters.
Except in a system where every vote is plurality takes all (sometimes called "first past the post"), even a 10% share (which Libertarians poll at but rarely get) is unnoticed by the main parties. They're not worried about attracting Libertarian votes, they're worried about getting 45%+1 out of the 90% who vote for one of the two main parties, and they don't give a shit about the rest.
And they're entrenched. Gerrymandering has made it even LESS necessary to have a majority. Look at Texas: Republicans are maybe 35% of the electorate, but thanks to careful gerrymandering they control 2/3 of the state legislature and 2/3 of the congressional delegation, and careful disenfranchisement - witness their neutering of early-voting this year after they realized enhanced access to the polls meant democrat voters, who actually have to work on election day rather than being greedy lazy assholes, went and voted on the available weekend days and almost threw a number of the GOP-constructed "52/48" districts to the Dems - takes care of the rest.
"Obama's socialist policies are ruining America!!"
"Really? Which ones?", I ask.
Of course, I very rarely get a conherant answer.
There's not a coherent answer, because to most of them, "socialism" is defined as "taxation." Public schooling? According to the Big Fat Oxycontin Whore Show (on your local hate radio station, 10am-1pm central, featuring Rush "I got away with tax fraud and prescription fraud because I'm rich and politically connected" Limbaugh), that's "a bastion of librulizm" and "socialist indoctrination." Medicare, welfare? "Handouts to greedy people who don't want to work" (my 70 year old grandmother is on medicare assistance after falling down the stairs and breaking her back; everyone I know on welfare is out of work thanks to the Retardican and Bush's stupid economic policies putting us into a depression while lazy, non-working assholes like Mitt Romney got tax breaks).
Oh, and don't forget, "socialism" also encompasses their social views. They want "abstinence only education" and restricted access to birth control. They insist on this despite study after study showing that the end result of abstinence only education and restricted access to birth control is... pregnant teen moms raising kids alone, condemned to a life of poverty. "Government should get out of people's lives"... except when it comes to entering their bedroom and monitoring who they sleep with, who they love, who they want to raise kids with, who is and isn't allowed to adopt on the basis of sexuality, and anything else where the right wing wants to enforce their religious beliefs on the rest of society.
The fact that this is moderated "flamebait" is proof that facts do, in fact, make a lot of people angry.
Nothing's worse than throwing their own hypocrisy in their faces.
Why? The article is a severe distortion of the facts.
Ah yes, I remember your arguments well:
"Obozo wants SOPA and PIPA so he can ban all right-wing blogs and make the LSM the only source of news again" - Rush "the Big Fat Lying Oxycontin Whore" Limbaugh.
I still say you're a bunch of fucking lunatics. Come back to earth once in a while, away from the echo chamber, and realize that those of us in the middle are not "communists", we are not "socialists", we're just trying to live our lives and not get raped too bad by the corporatocracy that you right wing morons keep trying to grant more and more power to.
God forbid we have SANE economic policies... no, a social safety net, taking care of the poor and infirm and elderly, taking care of those who lose jobs when inhuman assholes like you ship entire industries overseas, making sure we clean up the environment because our kids are paying for it with their health (witness the urban asthma epidemic; more than 20% of kids in urban areas are getting diagnosed with asthma these days!)? Oh no, to fucking morons like you that's "socialism" and "a welfare state."
And don't get me started on your fucking retarded tax policies. Someone who sits on his ass after raping businesses in bankruptcy scams like Mitt Romney can get away with paying an effective 14% tax rate, while I pay double that rate making less than 1/100th of what he does and working my ass off to do it, and you call that "fair"?
The Tea Party is a collection of fucking retarded loonies too stupid to understand that the assholes running the group are ripping them off and lying to them.
Precisely!
A tax on all books (in the form of generic, most-products "sales tax") is not invalid because it is nondiscriminatory.
A tax on all books that had to do with math would be invalid. As would a tax on all books written by right-wing or left-wing pundits.
The issue is a discriminatory tax intended to impact a product based on the content of speech.
No, he's another lunatic who thinks that taxing speech doesn't violate the 1st amendment.
Thanks, but you missed one part.
Company is successful, Bain makes money;
In this unlikely event, correct.
company goes under, Bain still makes money.
In this event, the problem is that Bain (or other Corporate Raider) still makes money while everyone else winds up with losses. The employees are screwed - not just out of a job, but out of any stock portfolio or retirement benefits package they might have accrued. Non-Corporate-Raider stockholders wind up with the stock tanking when it otherwise would not have. Banks or credit agencies wind up getting nothing or nearly nothing back after bankruptcy court as well, leading to their charging other clients more in terms of services, fees, and penalties to try to make up the difference.
Mitt Romney didn't "make" millions of dollars, we should call it like it is: he STOLE millions of dollars in bankruptcy fraud schemes.
My understanding is that you buy a failing company and then figure out how to turn it around.
Proving you lack understanding.
The Bain Capital / Corporate Raider model works thusly:
Step 1: Buy original company for low value (generally by acquiring seasonal debt and then calling it in early, or acquiring 50%+1 of stock and then enacting a hostile takeover).
Step 2: Enter original company into a set of "contracts" with the Corporate Raider company. These contracts will transfer all sale-able assets or profits from sale of same (Cash-On-Hand, Patent Portfolio, Copyright Portfolio) to the Corporate Raider while insisting the the original company spend as little money as possible on maintenance, research, new product generation, etc. Within a couple of years, the original company's balance sheet will be a mess of debt, while the Corporate Raider company will keep all the profits. If it was a "hostile takeover", owners of the remaining 49% of stock will be left with nothing, since at no time in this deal will the profits transferred to Corporate Raider company be seen as dividends to original company.
Step 3: Spin off original company back to "independent" status, and then allow bankruptcy court of the now-stripped company to wipe out the company and erase all the debts that the Corporate Raider transferred onto the original company's balance sheets. When the company goes bankrupt, the remaining stockholders will also see the effect of their investment wiped out.
It's a scam. It's a form of abuse of the bankruptcy laws. And it's how Romney the Raider made his money.
That doesn't sound like a good business model. That it buy low and sell at a loss... Those are for cases that they couldn't turn around.
You are unfamiliar with the corporate raider model of business?
Step 1: Buy original company, generally in a hostile takeover (e.g. "leveraged buyout.").
Step 2: Sell off company assets and transfer all monies to "parent company" (corporate raider), leaving nothing but debt in original company.
Step 3: Leave remaining debt in original company, spin it back off into "independent" status, and let the debt be taken care of by bankruptcy court.
It's abuse of bankruptcy proceedings, really. And Romney made his millions off of this type of scam.
As for the rest, you're just a fucking idiot. I encourage you to take a latino friend to a Tea Party rally to see firsthand the things those racist fucking retards do and say to him. I've seen it firsthand myself, it was the final straw that made me say to hell with the so called "conservative" movement.
The companies that Romney was said to "strip and sell" were companies that were on the verge of collapse.
Bullshit. They bought up companies to strip assets from, nothing more. Most of the companies bought by Bain were doing well enough on their own.
So they buy the companies, make them profitable and then sell them.
No, what Bain did was buy up the companies, strip the assets for sale and the IP portfolio for sale, and then shut down anything that didn't sell. This is what Bain actually did, and you're a fucking liar.
The republican party is not racists however they are #1 with racists (to paraphrase The Simpsons).
You don't get to be #1 with racists without dog-whistling racism all day long. Republican policies are, and have been since they welcomed the Dixiecrats with open arms, racist. You honestly think they'd be screaming about shutting down "the border" if the majority of "illegals", as the racist repubs like to call them, were white-skinned canadians?
You have a problem with facts, you want to vilify the republicans you are just as bad as the republicans are to the democrats.
Oh bullshit and go fuck yourself. The Republicans are fucking lunatics who think that shutting down free breast cancer exams for low income women is "justified" if they can "get" Planned Parenthood - just the latest example of the GOP, modern home of racism, misogyny, and inhumanity.
Except that no, Mormonism is much like Scientology in that they keep a large laundry list of things "not to be discussed with outsiders."
If you look at their wiki you'll see the following disclaimer plastered all over:
"Important note: Members of FAIR take their temple covenants seriously. We consider the temple teachings to be sacred, and will not discuss their specifics in a public forum."
The moment a religion starts trying to hide what it says from you, that's when you realize they're up to no good.
Except that Romney is doing it wrong.
Being a "vulture capitalist" who makes millions of dollars by ruining the lives of others, destroying viable companies as part of a firm whose mantra was "strip and sell", is not wholesome.
Dodging taxes and exploiting loopholes is not wholesome.
Supporting a party with racism as a key platform plank is not wholesome.
Supporting a party that wants to go to war with the world and waste lives is not wholesome.
Whether you are pro-choice or not, the LDS Church is not pro-choice, and yet Romney was pro-choice as governor, vehemently so. So that would not make him a "wholesome Mormon modeling good Mormon behavior."
The problem with Romney is he's not wholesome at all. He's a stellar example of what's wrong with the Republican Party today - an amoral, evil asshole who's wearing a Fred Rogers suit.
That's no surprise. They have no confidence in the US Air Force's ability to deliver a bomb to a 100-meter wide stationary target twice in succession without missing.
I agree with them on that point at least.
The bites only happen if you ask really nicely, though.
http://deepintheheart.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/the-end-times-dominionism-american-politics-the-tea-party-and-a-sovereign-god/
I know a lot of these people. Get around the Evangelicals and they don't even try to hide it.
Yes, but Iran is dangerously Shi'a (specifically, Ithn‘ashariyyah, sometimes called "Twelvers"). Shi'a Twelvers have this crazy thing about an end-of-the-world scenario where the rest of the world loses a world war and then the Shi'a establish a Global Khalifah with the demi-messianic "Twelfth Imam" as its head. And as near as we can tell, both the Ayatollah and his puppet Ahmadamnnutjob are both "true believers."
It's kind of like how those insane fuckers from the Tea Party tend to believe that if there aren't Jews in Israel, then the end times can't come because the endtime war has to start with Jews in Jerusalem, etc.
Iran is mostly Persians, but it's not the racial entanglement that's the problem, it's the religious entanglement - Iran maintains Hamas and Hezbollah and the Syrian government as puppet states, keeps shipping weapons to the minority-but-violent Shi'a groupings in Syria and Lebanon as well as Hamas (one thing you don't hear too often, though it is true, is that Hamas is mostly Shi'a while the main PLO/Fatah/Al-Aqsa-terrorist group is mostly Sunni).
Crap, did we wander into Congress again? ;)
In a slightly serious side note... someone PLEASE get the Joint Chiefs of Staff some goddamn viagra so they can go back to comparing dick sizes rather than having to argue and waste taxpayer money on who has bigger munitions...