I'm not going to go though your whole laundry list of junk and complaints.
Because you have no response that isn't BS or more neocon lies. Case in point:
but remove a dictator who was choosing to harbor terrorists within Iraq's borders
But that talking point was known to be a baldfaced lie ten years ago, right up there with "Nigerian yellowcake", "aluminum tubes" and "mobile weapons labs". Repeating a lie that was debunked 10 years ago doesn't make it true, it makes one a more pathetic liar.
That was the stated goal, and in the end, that's what happened.
You left out the "torture and rape rooms", the other parts of the revisionist history. Because the invasion of Iraq was about WMD's and Saddams "ties to 911", neither of which existed.
OK, mistakes where made
"Mistakes" involving the deaths of a million people, millions of refugees, the theft of national resources, the torture of hundreds if not thousands, and the destabilization of a region. I say again, the neocon arrogance is simply breathtaking.
Please provide some credible references for this claim in regards to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
I don't know about Amnesty, but HRW is run by a bunch of former media executives, so they are Fox News plus Pravada times Korean Central Television on the subject of Venezuela. Any honest organization with Human Rights in the name would focus their attention for that country on it's horrific prison system.
But HRW doesn't care about Venezuela's prisons, they whine about crap like TV stations not getting their licenses renewed after they supported a freaking coup against an elected president.
That's like asking for evidence that water is wet, when the top three wingers on the court (Roberts, Alito and Thomas) have never ruled against a corporation in favor of the citizen, or for the citizen and against George W. Obama on matters of "national security". And Scalia is almost as bad. Throw in Kennedy or one of the rotating sellouts (Soto/Kagan/Ginsburg) and it's an easy 5-4 majority every time.
Crap comparison. H1B's are workers imported from the other side of the planet for the sole purpose of increasing the technically skilled labor pool for the benefit of corporations, to the detriment of the American worker.
Whereas "illegal immigrants" is a term used by the descendents of white invaders to describe the descendents of native inhabitants. Who have been fucked over by either 1) U.S. trade laws like NAFTA 2) CIA-backed death squads 3) CIA and State Department backing brutal dictators like Pinochet.
For the Mexican who's farm you put out of business with NAFTA-dumped crops, the Nicaraguan who lost half his family to Reagan-backed death squads, or the Chilean who's parents were dropped out of a helicopter over the ocean by Kissinger's BFF, the least you can do is let the poor bastard work at a McDonalds in Kansas City.
Enjoy your predator drones flown by an enemy that doesn't give a shit about holding territitory as long as it can kill your ass any time of the day or night, 'O clutcher of Tiger Stones.
Perhaps in dedicated MP3 players, if anyone still cares about that market... I think they had something like 70% of that at one time.
Not even then, since people were free to buy comparable products at comparable prices and then free to buy the same music at comparable prices from places other than the iTunes store.
You're saying that his peeling Crimea off Ukraine isn't a master stroke? Most people would.
Well, lets see. Before the coup, Russia had a military base on the Crimean peninsula and a secure route for transporting energy. After the vote in Crimea, Russia has...a military base on the Crimean peninsula and a secure route for transporting energy. But slicing Crimea out of the Ukrainian electorate is going to make it easier, not harder, for the junta to maintain power.
Not sure that's an outcome Putin would have wanted if you'd asked him about it six months ago.
OTOH, he had goaded NATO into tooling up
Again with the utterly-backwards-from-reality stuff. Since the fall of the USSR, NATO has expanded into former eastern block countries which is a naked act of aggression. Then there's the whole matter of the illegal, fascist, western-backed coup against Ukraine's elected government less than six months before the next elections that American Exceptionalists keep ignoring.
Your entire post is a tour force in willful ignorance and false equivilancies, but I'll just respond to the first point here.
This is more like the Church of England and it's inquisition, where heretics where hunted down and punished because they dared believe something different. The militant gay people think they have the right to tell other people what moral values they have to have.
More like it's no longer socially acceptable to be bigoted towards gays, any more than it is socially acceptable to be bigoted towards Jews or blacks. If this were 1960, would you be defending Eich if he had donated a thousand dollars towards defending Jim Crow?
How much stress are they going to have mounted at the top of your rear windshield or in a plexiglass shielded widget next to the license plate? And even if it goes out, you spent a couple bucks at NAPA to get a new one, just like getting a replacement blinker bulb.
Obama said that to get people like Eich to vote for him. After he was elected, he rightly threw them under the bus.
If by "throw under the bus" you mean "embrace" by pulling shit like: inviting superhomophobe Rick Warren to the inauguration, kicking a thousand gays out of the military under DADT when he could have issued a stop loss order the moment he was president, asked Congress to stall on repealing DADT, having the anti-discrimination language stripped from the repeal so President Perry will be free to resume discrimination the moment he takes office, comparing homosexual sex to bestiality in court briefs to defend DOMA, refusing to push ENDA and refusing to issue an anti-discriminatory executive order on federal contractors and employees?
Obama either was and is a homophobe or was and is eager to win support from homophobes. Not much a functional difference, just as Reagan might not have personally been a racist but he was sure happy to pander to them and use their language. What moves Obama has taken towards gay rights have been after the public has moved to the gay rights side, and after it became more politically costly for him to continue the discrimination.
Case in point: even a majority of Republican voters favored a repeal of DADT at the same time Obama was busy discharging them from the military.
But just wait 'til someone comes and wants to marry his horse, his bed or his imaginary friend. That's when we should start pondering whether we might really want to draw the line somewhere. At the very least, everyone involved should be a person.
Link for those still comparing a man marrying another man to a man marrying a dog, or in your case, a horse.
It would have been if it was a sincere apology made outside the context of this position, and before it blew up in his face. Contrast Hillary's non-apology for her Iraq vote (when asked she always blames Bush) to John Edwards, who in no uncertain terms said he was wrong to vote for the invasion of Iraq years before the 2008 election.
He pledged not to change Mozilla's current policies towards LGBT individuals. It wasn't enough, and the OKCupid thing happened in spite of his assurances that nothing was going to change under his leadership.
Uh huh. And if you were a black person working at an organization headed by David Duke, would you trust him not to covertly pass you up for promotion or place you on the layoff list? Hard to prove discrimination as long as Duke lays off a white person at the same time or leaves the white person on the other side of the cube in the basement at the same time.
That's utter bullshit. I'm sure blacks in the south would have loved if the only problem they had in the world was not being able to get the tax breaks and entitlements that come from a state recognized marriage.
Your bullshit and ignorance, since marriage rights extend far beyond tax breaks and "entitlements". To "trivial" issues like collecting Social Security benefits after your partner dies, the right to make medical choices for your spouse in the even of incapacitation, inheritance of property, and child custody.
Let's say you're a woman married to another woman. The house is in your wife's name, and she's the one who had the kids before getting in a car accident. Your homophobic in-laws can legally take over your wife's care, deny you even visitation in the hospital, seize custody of your kids, sell your house out from underneath you after she dies, deny you any inheritance from her estate, and to top it off you cannot collect the Social Security benefits your spouse has earned. All because your marriage wasn't legally recognized.
Did you hate the idea of putting businesses out of business and workers out of jobs because of consumer boycotts against legalized discrimination? If not, why not? Now before someone complains that Prop 8 isn't Apartheid, remember that not-even-a-boycott of a browser isn't remotely close to personal discrimination against Eich because he's a minority.
because we are ALL bigots at one point or another. So tell me, the last time that you avoided going to church on the weekend, where you not a anti-religious bigot?
It's seems the discrimination of homosexuals has been replaced by discrimination against anyone who opposes gay marriage.
It seems crap false equivalencies are all the rage these days. Do tell how not-even-a-boycott of a consumer product is on the same planet as legalized discrimination against a minority. If there was a not-even-a-boycott against Godfather's pizzas because of Herman Caine's harassment towards woman, would you be comparing it to Jim Crow?
Russia's ally, Syria, is currently in the midst of a civil war, partly due to the power-vacuum created when the US invaded Iraq.
Actually, it's almost entirely due to fighters trained or funded by Syria's enemies: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United States, etc. What's funny is how some of those fighters are Al Qaeda affiliates. What's funnier is how the U.S., which has unleashed a Global War of Terror over the last 1.5 decades to fight the boogyman of Al Qaeda, turns around and insists that the possibility that these Al Qaeda guys could get their hands on some sarin gas is some insanely implausible conspiracy theory. After a handful of cultists in Japan managed to make some on their own to release into a subway.
I mean, Fox-News-claiming-Bush-kept-us-safe-from-terrorist-attacks breathtaking. As in you cannot believe that someone just said something that brazen with a straight face.
No, they didn't, but it was obvious to everybody and clear from history that the USA wasn't interested in annexing Iraq into US territory.
Nah, they just forced Iraq to privatize it's oil industry and sell it off to for-profit foreign interests. Because America's record post WWII has been that of a rampaging imperialistic shitbag that has all the power of a British Empire without any of the responsibilities. Rather than setting up a colonial government, which might actually do shit like build roads and schools, you just overthrow dozens of governments, including democratically elected ones, to get those sufficiently subservient to your "national interests".
So the comparison to what Russia has done with part of Ukraine is a false one.
No shit. America got a million people killed in Iraq, created millions more refugees, and bombed the country into the stone age. Call us when Putin does the same or starts having 16 year old kids murdered on the other side of the planet from Moscow.
They split up a sovereign country, then annexed parts of it after invading it.
The hell they did. Any reason in particular you're ignoring the illegal, western-backed coup of Ukraine's democratically elected president less than 6 months before the next elections? Aside from all that, if Russia "invaded" Crimea by moving troops to a navel base covered under an existing treaty with Ukraine, than the United States has been busy invading western europe and Japan for over 60 years.
It takes some serious neocon balls (with a hefty dose of willful dumfuckery) to treat the self-appointed junta in Ukraine as a legitimate organization, while flatly ignoring the fact that the people of Crimea just overwhelmingly voted to join Russia. This is invariably countered with some BS about how this vote was done "at the end of a gun barrel", ignoring the fact that the the first things the junta did after sizing power was to strip Crimea of it's autonomy and start oppressing minorities. And ignoring the fact that the United States has 900 military bases throughout the world and special forces operating in more than half the world's countries.
Seems clear to me that Iraq remains it's own entity, despite the US winning decisive military actions in Iraq TWICE.
You mean after the Wikileaks cables showed Bush giving free reign to death squads, after the U.S. built military bases and a fortress of an embassy, and made it clear that it would re-invade on a moments notice from military bases in surrounding countries in the event of 'instability'?
Time and time again, the USA has taken territory it could have just kept for itself, but we insist on giving it back to puppet governments it set up after forcing the privatization of industries and infrastructure.
FTFY. Compare how many governments Russia has overthrown since the fall of the Soviet Union, and get back to us. How many countries has Russia bombed or invaded. How many people Putin is keeping in gulags, and force feeding them (which is torture), after they've been cleared for release since 2007? Is Russia violating the sovereignty of nations thousands of miles away from it by bombing innocent people inside them with impunity?
The United States lecturing modern Russia about imperialism is like Jack the Ripper lecturing Alec Baldwin on how to treat women.
The Bible specifically says that only certain regulations from the Old Testament are still in force.
You mean, the bullshit rationalizations Christofacists use to pick and chose which Old Testament sins still apply. Whining that this part of the Bible or the New Testament wipes out my sins but yours are still an affront to God. Why do you guys still try and argue this point after the Leviticus tattoo tore it to shreds is an open question.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you have no response that isn't BS or more neocon lies. Case in point:
But that talking point was known to be a baldfaced lie ten years ago, right up there with "Nigerian yellowcake", "aluminum tubes" and "mobile weapons labs". Repeating a lie that was debunked 10 years ago doesn't make it true, it makes one a more pathetic liar.
You left out the "torture and rape rooms", the other parts of the revisionist history. Because the invasion of Iraq was about WMD's and Saddams "ties to 911", neither of which existed.
"Mistakes" involving the deaths of a million people, millions of refugees, the theft of national resources, the torture of hundreds if not thousands, and the destabilization of a region. I say again, the neocon arrogance is simply breathtaking.
I don't know about Amnesty, but HRW is run by a bunch of former media executives, so they are Fox News plus Pravada times Korean Central Television on the subject of Venezuela. Any honest organization with Human Rights in the name would focus their attention for that country on it's horrific prison system.
But HRW doesn't care about Venezuela's prisons, they whine about crap like TV stations not getting their licenses renewed after they supported a freaking coup against an elected president.
+1 notable exception. Got another one, or was Kelo the only fish in the barrel?
A drone? What about any significant numbers of a fleet of drones? What are the hobbyist chances of taking down a spy satellite?
That's like asking for evidence that water is wet, when the top three wingers on the court (Roberts, Alito and Thomas) have never ruled against a corporation in favor of the citizen, or for the citizen and against George W. Obama on matters of "national security". And Scalia is almost as bad. Throw in Kennedy or one of the rotating sellouts (Soto/Kagan/Ginsburg) and it's an easy 5-4 majority every time.
Crap comparison. H1B's are workers imported from the other side of the planet for the sole purpose of increasing the technically skilled labor pool for the benefit of corporations, to the detriment of the American worker.
Whereas "illegal immigrants" is a term used by the descendents of white invaders to describe the descendents of native inhabitants. Who have been fucked over by either 1) U.S. trade laws like NAFTA 2) CIA-backed death squads 3) CIA and State Department backing brutal dictators like Pinochet.
For the Mexican who's farm you put out of business with NAFTA-dumped crops, the Nicaraguan who lost half his family to Reagan-backed death squads, or the Chilean who's parents were dropped out of a helicopter over the ocean by Kissinger's BFF, the least you can do is let the poor bastard work at a McDonalds in Kansas City.
Enjoy your predator drones flown by an enemy that doesn't give a shit about holding territitory as long as it can kill your ass any time of the day or night, 'O clutcher of Tiger Stones.
Not even then, since people were free to buy comparable products at comparable prices and then free to buy the same music at comparable prices from places other than the iTunes store.
Well, lets see. Before the coup, Russia had a military base on the Crimean peninsula and a secure route for transporting energy. After the vote in Crimea, Russia has...a military base on the Crimean peninsula and a secure route for transporting energy. But slicing Crimea out of the Ukrainian electorate is going to make it easier, not harder, for the junta to maintain power.
Not sure that's an outcome Putin would have wanted if you'd asked him about it six months ago.
Again with the utterly-backwards-from-reality stuff. Since the fall of the USSR, NATO has expanded into former eastern block countries which is a naked act of aggression. Then there's the whole matter of the illegal, fascist, western-backed coup against Ukraine's elected government less than six months before the next elections that American Exceptionalists keep ignoring.
Your entire post is a tour force in willful ignorance and false equivilancies, but I'll just respond to the first point here.
More like it's no longer socially acceptable to be bigoted towards gays, any more than it is socially acceptable to be bigoted towards Jews or blacks. If this were 1960, would you be defending Eich if he had donated a thousand dollars towards defending Jim Crow?
How much stress are they going to have mounted at the top of your rear windshield or in a plexiglass shielded widget next to the license plate? And even if it goes out, you spent a couple bucks at NAPA to get a new one, just like getting a replacement blinker bulb.
If by "throw under the bus" you mean "embrace" by pulling shit like: inviting superhomophobe Rick Warren to the inauguration, kicking a thousand gays out of the military under DADT when he could have issued a stop loss order the moment he was president, asked Congress to stall on repealing DADT, having the anti-discrimination language stripped from the repeal so President Perry will be free to resume discrimination the moment he takes office, comparing homosexual sex to bestiality in court briefs to defend DOMA, refusing to push ENDA and refusing to issue an anti-discriminatory executive order on federal contractors and employees?
Obama either was and is a homophobe or was and is eager to win support from homophobes. Not much a functional difference, just as Reagan might not have personally been a racist but he was sure happy to pander to them and use their language. What moves Obama has taken towards gay rights have been after the public has moved to the gay rights side, and after it became more politically costly for him to continue the discrimination.
Case in point: even a majority of Republican voters favored a repeal of DADT at the same time Obama was busy discharging them from the military.
Link for those still comparing a man marrying another man to a man marrying a dog, or in your case, a horse.
It would have been if it was a sincere apology made outside the context of this position, and before it blew up in his face. Contrast Hillary's non-apology for her Iraq vote (when asked she always blames Bush) to John Edwards, who in no uncertain terms said he was wrong to vote for the invasion of Iraq years before the 2008 election.
Uh huh. And if you were a black person working at an organization headed by David Duke, would you trust him not to covertly pass you up for promotion or place you on the layoff list? Hard to prove discrimination as long as Duke lays off a white person at the same time or leaves the white person on the other side of the cube in the basement at the same time.
Your bullshit and ignorance, since marriage rights extend far beyond tax breaks and "entitlements". To "trivial" issues like collecting Social Security benefits after your partner dies, the right to make medical choices for your spouse in the even of incapacitation, inheritance of property, and child custody.
Let's say you're a woman married to another woman. The house is in your wife's name, and she's the one who had the kids before getting in a car accident. Your homophobic in-laws can legally take over your wife's care, deny you even visitation in the hospital, seize custody of your kids, sell your house out from underneath you after she dies, deny you any inheritance from her estate, and to top it off you cannot collect the Social Security benefits your spouse has earned. All because your marriage wasn't legally recognized.
Did you hate the idea of putting businesses out of business and workers out of jobs because of consumer boycotts against legalized discrimination? If not, why not? Now before someone complains that Prop 8 isn't Apartheid, remember that not-even-a-boycott of a browser isn't remotely close to personal discrimination against Eich because he's a minority.
TSTRT
It seems crap false equivalencies are all the rage these days. Do tell how not-even-a-boycott of a consumer product is on the same planet as legalized discrimination against a minority. If there was a not-even-a-boycott against Godfather's pizzas because of Herman Caine's harassment towards woman, would you be comparing it to Jim Crow?
If not, why not?
You have that exactly backwards. He'd be a dunce not to see a US-supported junta setting up another future NATO base on his doorstep.
Actually, it's almost entirely due to fighters trained or funded by Syria's enemies: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United States, etc. What's funny is how some of those fighters are Al Qaeda affiliates. What's funnier is how the U.S., which has unleashed a Global War of Terror over the last 1.5 decades to fight the boogyman of Al Qaeda, turns around and insists that the possibility that these Al Qaeda guys could get their hands on some sarin gas is some insanely implausible conspiracy theory. After a handful of cultists in Japan managed to make some on their own to release into a subway.
I mean, Fox-News-claiming-Bush-kept-us-safe-from-terrorist-attacks breathtaking. As in you cannot believe that someone just said something that brazen with a straight face.
Nah, they just forced Iraq to privatize it's oil industry and sell it off to for-profit foreign interests. Because America's record post WWII has been that of a rampaging imperialistic shitbag that has all the power of a British Empire without any of the responsibilities. Rather than setting up a colonial government, which might actually do shit like build roads and schools, you just overthrow dozens of governments, including democratically elected ones, to get those sufficiently subservient to your "national interests".
No shit. America got a million people killed in Iraq, created millions more refugees, and bombed the country into the stone age. Call us when Putin does the same or starts having 16 year old kids murdered on the other side of the planet from Moscow.
The hell they did. Any reason in particular you're ignoring the illegal, western-backed coup of Ukraine's democratically elected president less than 6 months before the next elections? Aside from all that, if Russia "invaded" Crimea by moving troops to a navel base covered under an existing treaty with Ukraine, than the United States has been busy invading western europe and Japan for over 60 years.
It takes some serious neocon balls (with a hefty dose of willful dumfuckery) to treat the self-appointed junta in Ukraine as a legitimate organization, while flatly ignoring the fact that the people of Crimea just overwhelmingly voted to join Russia. This is invariably countered with some BS about how this vote was done "at the end of a gun barrel", ignoring the fact that the the first things the junta did after sizing power was to strip Crimea of it's autonomy and start oppressing minorities. And ignoring the fact that the United States has 900 military bases throughout the world and special forces operating in more than half the world's countries.
You mean after the Wikileaks cables showed Bush giving free reign to death squads, after the U.S. built military bases and a fortress of an embassy, and made it clear that it would re-invade on a moments notice from military bases in surrounding countries in the event of 'instability'?
FTFY. Compare how many governments Russia has overthrown since the fall of the Soviet Union, and get back to us. How many countries has Russia bombed or invaded. How many people Putin is keeping in gulags, and force feeding them (which is torture), after they've been cleared for release since 2007? Is Russia violating the sovereignty of nations thousands of miles away from it by bombing innocent people inside them with impunity?
The United States lecturing modern Russia about imperialism is like Jack the Ripper lecturing Alec Baldwin on how to treat women.
The response
Not all relationships are marriages, but all marriages are relationships.
You say that like it's not the position of the sort of Christofascists doing crap like.......passing gay marriage bans.
Yeah. They are.
You mean, the bullshit rationalizations Christofacists use to pick and chose which Old Testament sins still apply. Whining that this part of the Bible or the New Testament wipes out my sins but yours are still an affront to God. Why do you guys still try and argue this point after the Leviticus tattoo tore it to shreds is an open question.