Or perhaps having a openly gay senator and promoting gay marriage are two totally different things?
Not when homophobia is involved. It would be like Alabama electing a black senator in 1950, just a few years after passing a new round of Jim Crow laws.
All of them, including (especially) entitlements and defense.
How about...no. "Entitlements" are we why have a middle class that can weather a recession. And in the case of Social Security, has never contributed one cent to the federal deficit.
Being a middle class worker, I'm tired of half my extra contract work money going to the federal government and being called a bigot for saying anything about it.
Tell us again how your standard of living is independent of the society in which you live.
Georgia does have a Nuclear Missile Base (google will be your friend for this one). And the local rednecks will over run the base and send a missile to YOUR storefront and make for a REALLY BAD DAY.
As if seceding states would be able to keep their federal toys.
If you think that it's just a coincidence that secession talk got started after the election of the first black president, and then made a resurgence after his re-election, I have some shares in a sweet New York bridge to sell you...
The entire purpose of Voter ID is to disenfranchise voters likely to vote Democratic. Because the problem it seeks to address - 'Mickey Mouse' trying to vote at the polls, simply does not exist. The cases voter ID proponents like to point to are invariably either petition fraud, or people casting an absentee ballot and then voting in person as well. Neither of which are preventable by requiring ID's to vote.
You want to talk in-person voting fraud - 'Mickey Mouse' - you're talking a dozen cases over 10 years and over 600 million votes cast. And to prevent that, we're going to spend hundreds of millions across the country that will raise barriers to voting for the poor.
Not in modern times, at any rate. Republicans mocked liberals like Streisand for saying they'd leave the country if Bush was re-elected. Obama won in 2008, and all of a sudden Texas and Alaska start talking about secession.
If you insist on using Bill O'Reilly nutpicking and pretend three yahoos on USENET make a movement, I'll just ask which Democratic Governors and members of Congress started talking about withdrawing from the union after 2000 or 2004.
It was racism that caused Americans to secede from the British crown. It was racism that caused the Yugoslavians to secede from the Soviet Union (just ask Trotsky!) It was racism that caused Indians to secede from Britain -- that racist jerk Gandhi needs to be put in his place! It is racism that causes Tibetans to want independence from China. It is racism that Indonesia is no longer a Dutch colony. Oh, and I bet you Prince Pedro was being racist when he decided to secede from Portugal, too.
Did the Ygoslavians, Indians, Tibetans, Indonesians and Pedro want to secede because Britain/USSR/China just re-elected a black president?
The parent's claim that Microsoft is strong arming people into a Walled Garden
The parent made a couple dozen points on Microsoft and Windows 8, only one of which was the "locked in app store".
Thanks for keeping it relevant.
Thanks for doubling down on the slight of hand, where you again compare mobile to desktop operating systems.
You're honestly bringing up something which hasn't had an update in over a year? And comparing to a system which has been out for double that, and systems which receive regular updates?
You're honestly ignoring the fact that you were wrong on "only three years of updates", or honestly ignoring why XP has gotten updates for as long as it has?
1) Because XP was a disaster, security wise. 2) The Longhorn/Vista debacle
I dunno, could you be more an ignorant pawn for palestinian terrorists if you tried?
Get fucked, racist terrorist projectionist. You want to talk terrorism, lets talk about the hundreds of assaults from the IDF into Gaza in just the two years preceding their latest invasion. Let's talk about top Israelis wanting "level Gaza" and bomb it back to the "middle ages".
If either of them declare "war" war, then Israel gets to take the gloves off instead of having to worry about faked videos of injured people in Palestine.
Could you be a bigger racist shitsack if you tried?
no leftists are in favor of the combined arab aggression that wishes israel off the map (more accurately, all jews dead).
Hmm, maybe you should consider your own advice:
get fucking real and stop the paroting of bullshit talking points.
The "wipe Israel off the map" is just such a bullshit talking point. It's a well known willful mistranslation by the press were Iranians were calling for an end of the apartheid regime in Israel.
Same as the ANC called for the end of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
And all the bullshit being said about Israel's destruction is just that bullshit. That's just rhetoric from some folks who have no skin in this conflict - like Iran
Except that's another myth. Iran has never called for Israel's destruction. They've called for an end to Israel's apartheid regime.
Same as the ANC called for the end of South Africa's apartheid regime before it ended in in the 90's.
It seems to me that in 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza and gave the Palestinians self-rule there. This was a test of the Palestinians and they failed spectacularly.
You fail history, spectacularly. Israel never surrendered control of Gaza - the "withdrawal" was really about slicing millions of eligible Palestinian voters out of any potential electorate. It's not a "withdrawal" when you control all borders and the sky above a territory, or bomb it indiscriminately when it strokes your fancy.
Nevermind that you're engaging in a sad farce by awarding credit to Israel for withdrawing from Gaza in the first place, because Israel has no claim to the occupied territories. Not Gaza, not the West Bank, and not Jerusalem.
there is no chance for peace with the Palestinians for the next generation or several generations and the best we can hope for is to keep the lid on the situation until the Palestinians mature politically, give up their bullshit religious extremism and take a more realistic attitude.
Oh, blow it out your ignorant bigoted ass. Israel deliberately starves the Palestinian people, keeps them under Apartheid conditions, kills whatever Palestinians they feel like, and periodically bomb what little land they've left for Palestinians back into the stone age.
And then they'll deny basic supplies like concrete or wheelchairs to rebuild the area. Because that's how they roll.
One of the things I am most amused by is the explicit reference to Israel's threat to cut off Palestinian internet access as the trigger for their actions. The death of multitudes of innocents on both sides isn't enough reason to take action, but if a Palestinian can't check his email, it's war!
Don't be obtuse. Cutting off internet access has nothing to do with "blocking email", and everything to do with Israel preventing Paleistinains from communicating with the outside world. Like on topics like, oh, say, shelling a tent filled with mourners before the current breakout in hostilities.
That, combined with the stance they took and the targets they are choosing, is a pretty clear indicator of their scope and level of maturity.
Assassinating the Hamas official who had been in charge of enforcing a cease fire, or indiscriminately bombing government facilities run by Hamas? Does one have to ask what the response would be from Israel or the United States if Hamas was bombing government facilities in Israel because Hamas was annoyed that Israelis had elected a Likudnick government?
So, Hamas fires 200 rockets into Israel. Israel retaliates and "anonymous" cyberattcks their web sites. Yes, you are the villian if you do something about someone shooting rockets into your city.
So, you're ignoring the hundreds of IDF attacks into Gaza that preceded the rocket attacks. You're far from the only one to ignore those atrocities and pretend the current round of events started with Hamas firing gunpowder rockets with no guidance systems.
Every time an issues likes this comes up liberals love to paint Israel as the villian
Because they are the villain. They are literally forcing Palestinians to live under Apartheid. Top Israeli officials are openly talking about wanting "level" Gaza and bomb it back to the "middle ages". They just boasted about building an additional 1200 settlements on land stolen from Palestinians.
Which, by the way, consists of all of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem.
No, he wouldn't. Israel is very quick to complain about what is being fired out of Gaza, but never say what they've been firing into Gaza on a regular basis: bombs and missiles and tank shells and bullets. They've killed nearly 200 civilians in the last couple years, yet they're acting in self-defense when Hamas retaliates with gunpowder rockets, which even the IDF will tell you, when asked, are more of a psychological than military threat.
Because, in Israel, you have a greater chance of being killed by a bus than by a rocket fired by Hamas. Not car accidents total, but accidents involving buses.
Holy verbosity, Batman. You could have saved a whole lot of time and typing:
Around 1900, a Zionist movement picks up steam, where people of Jewish faith or decent resettle to Palestine. Then, WWII and the Holocaust happen. More Jews flee to Palestine, where they are welcomed, and western nations get a serious liberal guilt complex when they find out that all those Jewish refugees they denied asylum to were sent off to die in concentration camps.
So, calls begin for a "Jewish state". Britain, who had added parts of the old Ottoman Empire to it's colonial empire after WWII, proposed to give some of Palestine to the native population to the native Muslim population and some to Jews to form a new Israel.
Now, here's the crux of the issue: the Brits wanted to give 56% of the land to 30% of the population. A 30% that was made up almost entirely of immigrants or the recent children of immigrants. The native Muslim population, rightfully, dismissed the proposal as unjust nonsense. It would be like proposing to give most of Florida to the minority population of Cuban ex-pats.
The Jewish immigrants go full Honey Badger (they don't give a shit), and declare an independent state of Israel. People who had lived in the area for centuries as opposed to six months were naturally pissed at the idea, and war broke out. The natives lost, and the Zionists won. So the latter went before the U.N. and asked for recognition of statehood in 1948, and the rest is history.
Until we get to 1967, anyway. Israel started a war of choice after Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran to ships heading to Israel, with a sneak attack on the Egyptian Air Force. It was in this war when Israel massively expanded their territory, from the West Bank to Gaza and Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
Thing is, under international law, you cannot keep land won by conquest. Meaning that settlements on all the above territories are illegal and should be returned to the Palestinians. So, now Israel is playing a waiting game. They just want to wait it out, under the security provided by the American veto pen in the U.N., until any discussion of returning land involves taking it from someone's great-great-great grandchild and giving it to someone else great-great-great grandchild.
It was funny, then, that the "it's been too long" reasoning didn't apply to Jewish descendents trying to get back assets from Swiss banks held from WWII, just a few years ago. And of course if humans lived 500 years, Israel would still be hunting for Nazi war criminals 400 years from now. Because that's how they roll.
Now, though, they're basically running Apartheid II, and periodically finding some excuse to bomb the shit out of the Palestinians or some new excuse to avoid real peace talks, all the while they continue to build settlements on illegally held land.
Except your counter-example is obviously false, on three levels: Lincoln was dealing with a freaking civil war, not a one-time attack that only happened due to his gross negligence and incompetence. An civil war explicitly planned for in the Constitution, which allows the suspension of habeas corpus in the event of invasion or rebellion. And while such a suspension should have been approved by Congress as that power is listed in Article I, not Article II, you can't say that a mass secession of states doesn't amount to a qualifying "rebellion".
Secondly, your counter-example ignores justification. No one would shouting "police state" over porno scanners or freaking out over a watch at the airport if reality was closer to 24, and a terrorist attack was aimed at America (with WMD's!) every other Tuesday. Joseph McCarthy wouldn't have become a pariah if there actually were a small army of communist spies actually implanted in the federal government.
Finally, you also ignore permanence. Habeas corpus was restored at the end of the Civil War. But more than 10 years after the last terrorist attack, more than a year after Bin Laddin's assassination, the worst of Bush's policies are still in effect, plus a bunch of new ones: porno scanners, kill lists, and assassinations of American citizens.
He tried, but congress wouldn't approve any funds to relocate the prisoners.
Wait - the President can start a war without Congress (Libya) but cannot transfer a few hundred prisoners without their approval?
Laughable.
Gitmo is still open because Obama never intended to end what made Gitmo, Gitmo: endless detention without trials, or if you're lucky, a military kangaroo court. He was going to move it to a SuperMax in Illinois. As if a Democratic Congress would have overridden the veto of their new president just after he was sworn in.
The university has no business even expressing an opinion as to the fitness of the speaker.
Teabagger douchebag: Universities are engaging in censorship! Free speeech! Tubesteak: No, they're not. They let Coulter speak, just criticized the choice. Teabagger douchebag: Universities have no right to free speech!
Do you guys have any sense of logical consistency purged in a special ceremony, or do you have to practice at it, or what?
Cute, comparing Microsoft's desktop support to Apple's mobile support. A first generation iPod will still be recognized by iTunes and will still sync newly purchased music. Good luck with that PlaysForSure, though.
Apple operating systems receive updates for about 2-3 years.
They're still releasing security updates for Leopard, a six year old operating system. You know, the same kind of updates that XP and now Windows 7 get.
Especially since DX10 was almost certainly developed on XP, as Microsoft was screwing around with Longhorn/Vista at the time. Not the first time they've pushed forced obsolescence on gamers...the Age of Empires III installer demanded XP, but you could install it on 2000 with a simple command line switch....
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. It does. Which is why wingers get all poutraged when anyone does it.
Not when homophobia is involved. It would be like Alabama electing a black senator in 1950, just a few years after passing a new round of Jim Crow laws.
How about...no. "Entitlements" are we why have a middle class that can weather a recession. And in the case of Social Security, has never contributed one cent to the federal deficit.
Tell us again how your standard of living is independent of the society in which you live.
As if seceding states would be able to keep their federal toys.
If you think that it's just a coincidence that secession talk got started after the election of the first black president, and then made a resurgence after his re-election, I have some shares in a sweet New York bridge to sell you...
The entire purpose of Voter ID is to disenfranchise voters likely to vote Democratic. Because the problem it seeks to address - 'Mickey Mouse' trying to vote at the polls, simply does not exist. The cases voter ID proponents like to point to are invariably either petition fraud, or people casting an absentee ballot and then voting in person as well. Neither of which are preventable by requiring ID's to vote.
You want to talk in-person voting fraud - 'Mickey Mouse' - you're talking a dozen cases over 10 years and over 600 million votes cast. And to prevent that, we're going to spend hundreds of millions across the country that will raise barriers to voting for the poor.
Not in modern times, at any rate. Republicans mocked liberals like Streisand for saying they'd leave the country if Bush was re-elected. Obama won in 2008, and all of a sudden Texas and Alaska start talking about secession.
If you insist on using Bill O'Reilly nutpicking and pretend three yahoos on USENET make a movement, I'll just ask which Democratic Governors and members of Congress started talking about withdrawing from the union after 2000 or 2004.
Did the Ygoslavians, Indians, Tibetans, Indonesians and Pedro want to secede because Britain/USSR/China just re-elected a black president?
The parent made a couple dozen points on Microsoft and Windows 8, only one of which was the "locked in app store".
Thanks for doubling down on the slight of hand, where you again compare mobile to desktop operating systems.
You're honestly ignoring the fact that you were wrong on "only three years of updates", or honestly ignoring why XP has gotten updates for as long as it has?
1) Because XP was a disaster, security wise.
2) The Longhorn/Vista debacle
Two problems Apple has not had. Honestly.
Get fucked, racist terrorist projectionist. You want to talk terrorism, lets talk about the hundreds of assaults from the IDF into Gaza in just the two years preceding their latest invasion. Let's talk about top Israelis wanting "level Gaza" and bomb it back to the "middle ages".
Could you be a bigger racist shitsack if you tried?
Hmm, maybe you should consider your own advice:
The "wipe Israel off the map" is just such a bullshit talking point. It's a well known willful mistranslation by the press were Iranians were calling for an end of the apartheid regime in Israel.
Same as the ANC called for the end of the apartheid regime in South Africa.
And for the same reasons.
Except that's another myth. Iran has never called for Israel's destruction. They've called for an end to Israel's apartheid regime.
Same as the ANC called for the end of South Africa's apartheid regime before it ended in in the 90's.
For the same reasons.
You fail history, spectacularly. Israel never surrendered control of Gaza - the "withdrawal" was really about slicing millions of eligible Palestinian voters out of any potential electorate. It's not a "withdrawal" when you control all borders and the sky above a territory, or bomb it indiscriminately when it strokes your fancy.
Nevermind that you're engaging in a sad farce by awarding credit to Israel for withdrawing from Gaza in the first place, because Israel has no claim to the occupied territories. Not Gaza, not the West Bank, and not Jerusalem.
Oh, blow it out your ignorant bigoted ass. Israel deliberately starves the Palestinian people, keeps them under Apartheid conditions, kills whatever Palestinians they feel like, and periodically bomb what little land they've left for Palestinians back into the stone age.
And then they'll deny basic supplies like concrete or wheelchairs to rebuild the area. Because that's how they roll.
Don't be obtuse. Cutting off internet access has nothing to do with "blocking email", and everything to do with Israel preventing Paleistinains from communicating with the outside world. Like on topics like, oh, say, shelling a tent filled with mourners before the current breakout in hostilities.
Assassinating the Hamas official who had been in charge of enforcing a cease fire, or indiscriminately bombing government facilities run by Hamas? Does one have to ask what the response would be from Israel or the United States if Hamas was bombing government facilities in Israel because Hamas was annoyed that Israelis had elected a Likudnick government?
So, you're ignoring the hundreds of IDF attacks into Gaza that preceded the rocket attacks. You're far from the only one to ignore those atrocities and pretend the current round of events started with Hamas firing gunpowder rockets with no guidance systems.
Because they are the villain. They are literally forcing Palestinians to live under Apartheid. Top Israeli officials are openly talking about wanting "level" Gaza and bomb it back to the "middle ages". They just boasted about building an additional 1200 settlements on land stolen from Palestinians.
Which, by the way, consists of all of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem.
No, he wouldn't. Israel is very quick to complain about what is being fired out of Gaza, but never say what they've been firing into Gaza on a regular basis: bombs and missiles and tank shells and bullets. They've killed nearly 200 civilians in the last couple years, yet they're acting in self-defense when Hamas retaliates with gunpowder rockets, which even the IDF will tell you, when asked, are more of a psychological than military threat.
Because, in Israel, you have a greater chance of being killed by a bus than by a rocket fired by Hamas. Not car accidents total, but accidents involving buses.
Holy verbosity, Batman. You could have saved a whole lot of time and typing:
Around 1900, a Zionist movement picks up steam, where people of Jewish faith or decent resettle to Palestine. Then, WWII and the Holocaust happen. More Jews flee to Palestine, where they are welcomed, and western nations get a serious liberal guilt complex when they find out that all those Jewish refugees they denied asylum to were sent off to die in concentration camps.
So, calls begin for a "Jewish state". Britain, who had added parts of the old Ottoman Empire to it's colonial empire after WWII, proposed to give some of Palestine to the native population to the native Muslim population and some to Jews to form a new Israel.
Now, here's the crux of the issue: the Brits wanted to give 56% of the land to 30% of the population. A 30% that was made up almost entirely of immigrants or the recent children of immigrants. The native Muslim population, rightfully, dismissed the proposal as unjust nonsense. It would be like proposing to give most of Florida to the minority population of Cuban ex-pats.
The Jewish immigrants go full Honey Badger (they don't give a shit), and declare an independent state of Israel. People who had lived in the area for centuries as opposed to six months were naturally pissed at the idea, and war broke out. The natives lost, and the Zionists won. So the latter went before the U.N. and asked for recognition of statehood in 1948, and the rest is history.
Until we get to 1967, anyway. Israel started a war of choice after Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran to ships heading to Israel, with a sneak attack on the Egyptian Air Force. It was in this war when Israel massively expanded their territory, from the West Bank to Gaza and Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
Thing is, under international law, you cannot keep land won by conquest. Meaning that settlements on all the above territories are illegal and should be returned to the Palestinians. So, now Israel is playing a waiting game. They just want to wait it out, under the security provided by the American veto pen in the U.N., until any discussion of returning land involves taking it from someone's great-great-great grandchild and giving it to someone else great-great-great grandchild.
It was funny, then, that the "it's been too long" reasoning didn't apply to Jewish descendents trying to get back assets from Swiss banks held from WWII, just a few years ago. And of course if humans lived 500 years, Israel would still be hunting for Nazi war criminals 400 years from now. Because that's how they roll.
Now, though, they're basically running Apartheid II, and periodically finding some excuse to bomb the shit out of the Palestinians or some new excuse to avoid real peace talks, all the while they continue to build settlements on illegally held land.
Except your counter-example is obviously false, on three levels: Lincoln was dealing with a freaking civil war, not a one-time attack that only happened due to his gross negligence and incompetence. An civil war explicitly planned for in the Constitution, which allows the suspension of habeas corpus in the event of invasion or rebellion. And while such a suspension should have been approved by Congress as that power is listed in Article I, not Article II, you can't say that a mass secession of states doesn't amount to a qualifying "rebellion".
Secondly, your counter-example ignores justification. No one would shouting "police state" over porno scanners or freaking out over a watch at the airport if reality was closer to 24, and a terrorist attack was aimed at America (with WMD's!) every other Tuesday. Joseph McCarthy wouldn't have become a pariah if there actually were a small army of communist spies actually implanted in the federal government.
Finally, you also ignore permanence. Habeas corpus was restored at the end of the Civil War. But more than 10 years after the last terrorist attack, more than a year after Bin Laddin's assassination, the worst of Bush's policies are still in effect, plus a bunch of new ones: porno scanners, kill lists, and assassinations of American citizens.
Wait - the President can start a war without Congress (Libya) but cannot transfer a few hundred prisoners without their approval?
Laughable.
Gitmo is still open because Obama never intended to end what made Gitmo, Gitmo: endless detention without trials, or if you're lucky, a military kangaroo court. He was going to move it to a SuperMax in Illinois. As if a Democratic Congress would have overridden the veto of their new president just after he was sworn in.
Teabagger douchebag: Universities are engaging in censorship! Free speeech!
Tubesteak: No, they're not. They let Coulter speak, just criticized the choice.
Teabagger douchebag: Universities have no right to free speech!
Do you guys have any sense of logical consistency purged in a special ceremony, or do you have to practice at it, or what?
Fandroid throwing stones in a glass house?
Cute, comparing Microsoft's desktop support to Apple's mobile support. A first generation iPod will still be recognized by iTunes and will still sync newly purchased music. Good luck with that PlaysForSure, though.
They're still releasing security updates for Leopard, a six year old operating system. You know, the same kind of updates that XP and now Windows 7 get.
Especially since DX10 was almost certainly developed on XP, as Microsoft was screwing around with Longhorn/Vista at the time. Not the first time they've pushed forced obsolescence on gamers...the Age of Empires III installer demanded XP, but you could install it on 2000 with a simple command line switch....
It's the definition of an urban legend. Scientists running around screaming about a new ice age?
Never. Happened.