You're referring to Cuba, a major outpost of communism in the Western hemisphere that aided attempts to overthrow governments around the world? Who could possibly object to the spread of murderous communist governments?
Batista was a U.S. puppet, and his cronies (who are now a significant voting block in FL) lost a lot of money and power when Castro came in. They want it back, and they want it back BAD. The U.S. will murder, commit terrorism, or do anything else to accomplish this goal.
The most shameful incident (IMHO) came in 1976, when a CIA agent blew up a civilian Cuban airliner, killing 78 innocent people. And said CIA agent is still living free (and protected) in the U.S. to this day. The U.S., my country, openly committing terrorism for petty economic ends. Fucking pathetic.
Castro was a Soviet puppet, and his cronies (who are now a significant power block in Cuba) gained a lot of money and power when Castro came in. They want to keep it, and they want to keep it BAD. The Cuban communists will murder, commit terrorism, jail the opposition, or do anything else to accomplish this goal.
It is hard to pick the most shameful incident, but surely Che's bloodbaths must be considered.
Cuba is a police state and Che was its co-founder. Cubans “love” him the same way Romanians “loved” Nicolae Ceausescu and East Germans “loved” Berlin Wall architect Erich Honecker
You know what happens to Cubans who display open hatred of Che?
They get arrested.
When he was still alive, they were executed or herded into slave-labor camps.
So yeah, everyone “loves” him. It’s required by law. Woe to those who disobey State Security.
The human spirit is a powerful force, though, and some Cubans can’t take it. A million and a half fled to the United States to escape the instruments of Che Guevara’s repression, many across the Florida Straits where the odds of survival are no better than two out of three. Others resisted at home, especially during the 1960s, the decade of global rebellion.
In his book Che Guevara: A Biography, Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering "several thousand" executions during the first year of the Castro regime. Felix Rodriguez, the Cuban-American CIA operative who helped track him down in Bolivia and was the last person to question him, says that Che during his final talk, admitted to "a couple thousand" executions. But he shrugged them off as all being of "imperialist spies and CIA agents."
Vengeance, much less justice, had little to do with the Castro/Che directed bloodbath in the first months of 1959. Che's murderous agenda in La Cabana fortress in 1959 was exactly Stalin's murderous agenda in the Katyn Forest in 1940. Like Stalin's massacre of the Polish officer corps, like Stalin's Great Terror against his own officer corps a few years earlier, Che's firing squad marathons were a perfectly rational and cold blooded exercise that served their purpose ideally. His bloodbath decapitated literally and figuratively the first ranks of Cuba's anti-Castro rebels.
Oh, and here are more of the people that you label as Batista "cronies," which ordinary people would refer to as people fleeing violent oppression.
On this day in 1980, Cuban President Fidel Castro proclaimed in Havana that any Cuban who wished to immigrate to the United States could board a boat at the nearby port of Mariel. During the ensuing months, some 125,000 Cubans fled to Florida in about 1,700 packed boats, at times overwhelming the U.S. Coast Guard and immigration authorities.
In short, your position resolves to a claim that you have a Constitutional right to protected secret communications directly with terrorists of the bomb, shoot, and poison to kill masses of people variety. No doubt you will also be surprised to learn that the Founding Fathers would not have agreed with that.
They were revolutionaries, or rebels to the British crown, not terrorists. I will also add that assertion that pops up from time to time is tediously stupid. Really, you can't think of any differences between the social-political order that America's Founding Fathers intended to establish compared to the minions of Bin Laden? Really?
In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, gay men protested attempts to close down bathhouses and strenuously opposed efforts by health officials to trace those infected with the virus. Until now, those advocates, driven by concerns about privacy and the stigma associated with the disease, have successfully fought off efforts to impose a traditional public-health model for tackling the spread of the virus.
Being against gay marriage is being anti-gay. You can't oppose certain rights only for members of a certain group and not be against that group in effect, even if you believe so with all your heart.
People that are underage are not allowed to marry. Does that mean that society is against young people? No. People that are too closely related are not allowed to marry. Does that mean that society is against relatives? No. People that are insane may not be allowed to marry. Does that mean that society is against insane people? No. I think we can see that your line, "You can't oppose certain rights only for members of a certain group and not be against that group in effect, even if you believe so with all your heart" is simply wrong, even if you believe it with all your heart.
Retaining marriage as an institution joining men and women is not "anti-gay" but recognition of what the true foundation of society is and the stakes involved.
Hopefully there aren't many gangs going around forcing people to engage in homosexuality to "hook" them.
The hypothetical isn't as far fetched as it may seem. There are people that face similar choices today. There is a subculture among some deaf people that values their identity as deaf people and plays a role in trying to dissuade some deaf people that could gain hearing through various medical means from doing so. Cultural reinforcement can be a powerful thing and it is something that has almost certainly resulted in higher death rates among gay people.
So you can't conceive of overly broad definitions beings used, or spurious charges made to harass people and force them to defend themselves in court at considerable cost, or to silence views someone finds disagreeable? I understand your concern since it isn't hard to find examples of agitation for terrible deeds, but I don't think your knowledge of history is completely adequate.
I'm sure you believe all that with all your heart. Of course that doesn't make it true.
You know in some countries adults, even in their 50s and older, marry children as young as 9 years old. Is that something you can oppose? Are you against those groups?
You're talking about hate speech laws, right? The right to threaten violence against a group, specifically.
So called "hate speech" laws is one example, yes. But violence, no. Violence has nothing to do with much of the sanctioned speech. Are you narrowing your understanding to the easy to defend case? Surely you know that the scope of "hate speech" laws is far broader than that?
I don't seek balance between tolerance and oppression so that argument won't fly with me.
Well then you should carefully measure your stand on this since we can already see in Europe, and its starting in the US, the use of various speech laws by gay activists to hammer others and deprive them of rights. Various Islamists have been doing something similar in Canada resulting in fear and self-censoring. There are many people that claim to be tolerant but who in fact favor oppression as long as it is the right people being oppressed. "Of course we can silence the 50% on behalf on the 1%."
You're missing the point. The question is, what does "being a dick" really mean? Gay rights activists fiercely resisted the use of standard epidemiology tools to contain contagious disease outbreaks and that helped AIDs to spread and kill more gay people than it might otherwise have killed. Who are the "dicks" there?
Slashdot Mirror
You're referring to Cuba, a major outpost of communism in the Western hemisphere that aided attempts to overthrow governments around the world? Who could possibly object to the spread of murderous communist governments?
Batista was a U.S. puppet, and his cronies (who are now a significant voting block in FL) lost a lot of money and power when Castro came in. They want it back, and they want it back BAD. The U.S. will murder, commit terrorism, or do anything else to accomplish this goal.
The most shameful incident (IMHO) came in 1976, when a CIA agent blew up a civilian Cuban airliner, killing 78 innocent people. And said CIA agent is still living free (and protected) in the U.S. to this day. The U.S., my country, openly committing terrorism for petty economic ends. Fucking pathetic.
Castro was a Soviet puppet, and his cronies (who are now a significant power block in Cuba) gained a lot of money and power when Castro came in. They want to keep it, and they want to keep it BAD. The Cuban communists will murder, commit terrorism, jail the opposition, or do anything else to accomplish this goal.
It is hard to pick the most shameful incident, but surely Che's bloodbaths must be considered.
The Truth About Che Guevara
Cuba is a police state and Che was its co-founder. Cubans “love” him the same way Romanians “loved” Nicolae Ceausescu and East Germans “loved” Berlin Wall architect Erich Honecker
You know what happens to Cubans who display open hatred of Che?
They get arrested.
When he was still alive, they were executed or herded into slave-labor camps.
So yeah, everyone “loves” him. It’s required by law. Woe to those who disobey State Security.
The human spirit is a powerful force, though, and some Cubans can’t take it. A million and a half fled to the United States to escape the instruments of Che Guevara’s repression, many across the Florida Straits where the odds of survival are no better than two out of three. Others resisted at home, especially during the 1960s, the decade of global rebellion.
CHE GUEVARA
In his book Che Guevara: A Biography, Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering "several thousand" executions during the first year of the Castro regime. Felix Rodriguez, the Cuban-American CIA operative who helped track him down in Bolivia and was the last person to question him, says that Che during his final talk, admitted to "a couple thousand" executions. But he shrugged them off as all being of "imperialist spies and CIA agents."
Vengeance, much less justice, had little to do with the Castro/Che directed bloodbath in the first months of 1959. Che's murderous agenda in La Cabana fortress in 1959 was exactly Stalin's murderous agenda in the Katyn Forest in 1940. Like Stalin's massacre of the Polish officer corps, like Stalin's Great Terror against his own officer corps a few years earlier, Che's firing squad marathons were a perfectly rational and cold blooded exercise that served their purpose ideally. His bloodbath decapitated literally and figuratively the first ranks of Cuba's anti-Castro rebels.
Oh, and here are more of the people that you label as Batista "cronies," which ordinary people would refer to as people fleeing violent oppression.
Castro launches Mariel boatlift, April 20, 1980
On this day in 1980, Cuban President Fidel Castro proclaimed in Havana that any Cuban who wished to immigrate to the United States could board a boat at the nearby port of Mariel. During the ensuing months, some 125,000 Cubans fled to Florida in about 1,700 packed boats, at times overwhelming the U.S. Coast Guard and immigration authorities.
I guess anyone that wan
And what about Castro's atrocities? Free pass, I guess .... at least for the crowd here.
Well then, maybe you'll be interested in the experiences of this American.
The Lost World, Part I
The Lost World, Part II
Perish the thought.
Occupy Leaders Apparently Involved in Bridge Bomb Plot, Suspects Named
‘Occupy Wall Street’ Doc Accused Of Stockpiling Bomb-Making Materials, Weapons
In short, your position resolves to a claim that you have a Constitutional right to protected secret communications directly with terrorists of the bomb, shoot, and poison to kill masses of people variety. No doubt you will also be surprised to learn that the Founding Fathers would not have agreed with that.
They were revolutionaries, or rebels to the British crown, not terrorists. I will also add that assertion that pops up from time to time is tediously stupid. Really, you can't think of any differences between the social-political order that America's Founding Fathers intended to establish compared to the minions of Bin Laden? Really?
Really? This is news to you? It isn't hard to track down.
Gays Debate Radical Steps to Curb Unsafe Sex
In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, gay men protested attempts to close down bathhouses and strenuously opposed efforts by health officials to trace those infected with the virus. Until now, those advocates, driven by concerns about privacy and the stigma associated with the disease, have successfully fought off efforts to impose a traditional public-health model for tackling the spread of the virus.
Being against gay marriage is being anti-gay. You can't oppose certain rights only for members of a certain group and not be against that group in effect, even if you believe so with all your heart.
People that are underage are not allowed to marry. Does that mean that society is against young people? No.
People that are too closely related are not allowed to marry. Does that mean that society is against relatives? No.
People that are insane may not be allowed to marry. Does that mean that society is against insane people? No.
I think we can see that your line, "You can't oppose certain rights only for members of a certain group and not be against that group in effect, even if you believe so with all your heart" is simply wrong, even if you believe it with all your heart.
Retaining marriage as an institution joining men and women is not "anti-gay" but recognition of what the true foundation of society is and the stakes involved.
It's not rape if they're legally married under their law, is it? I didn't think so.
I'll give you a +1 finesse at avoiding that one.
Hopefully there aren't many gangs going around forcing people to engage in homosexuality to "hook" them.
The hypothetical isn't as far fetched as it may seem. There are people that face similar choices today. There is a subculture among some deaf people that values their identity as deaf people and plays a role in trying to dissuade some deaf people that could gain hearing through various medical means from doing so. Cultural reinforcement can be a powerful thing and it is something that has almost certainly resulted in higher death rates among gay people.
So you can't conceive of overly broad definitions beings used, or spurious charges made to harass people and force them to defend themselves in court at considerable cost, or to silence views someone finds disagreeable? I understand your concern since it isn't hard to find examples of agitation for terrible deeds, but I don't think your knowledge of history is completely adequate.
The Internet Saved My Tongue
I'm sure you believe all that with all your heart. Of course that doesn't make it true.
You know in some countries adults, even in their 50s and older, marry children as young as 9 years old. Is that something you can oppose? Are you against those groups?
You're talking about hate speech laws, right? The right to threaten violence against a group, specifically.
So called "hate speech" laws is one example, yes. But violence, no. Violence has nothing to do with much of the sanctioned speech. Are you narrowing your understanding to the easy to defend case? Surely you know that the scope of "hate speech" laws is far broader than that?
Behavior is a choice. Impulses and interest may or may not be at various levels.
Suppose it was determined that homosexuality in humans was the result of a viral infection, and that a cure was possible. Would you oppose that?
I don't seek balance between tolerance and oppression so that argument won't fly with me.
Well then you should carefully measure your stand on this since we can already see in Europe, and its starting in the US, the use of various speech laws by gay activists to hammer others and deprive them of rights. Various Islamists have been doing something similar in Canada resulting in fear and self-censoring. There are many people that claim to be tolerant but who in fact favor oppression as long as it is the right people being oppressed. "Of course we can silence the 50% on behalf on the 1%."
You're missing the point. The question is, what does "being a dick" really mean? Gay rights activists fiercely resisted the use of standard epidemiology tools to contain contagious disease outbreaks and that helped AIDs to spread and kill more gay people than it might otherwise have killed. Who are the "dicks" there?
so if the CEO is an avowed bigot, then the rest of the company is seen that way too.
By your logic since Apple's CEO is gay then Apple is a gay company?
The original lawsuits and opposing Prop 8 isn't much different, despite your spin.
Making him CEO will give him the wealth of hundreds of ordinary people which he could donate to further anti-gay-rights causes.
Gee, in 500,000 years that might almost balance out Apple's gay CEO.
... a few people have done horrible things wielding nothing but opinions and words.
Letters to the editor?
It's April 1st, not "jump the shark" day.
It's just the latest Chik-Fil-A.
Well then, it looks like a rosy future for Mozilla.
Chick-Fil-A Sales Soar In 2012 Despite Bad PR
The correlation of forces.
I find your lack of anti-tank brigades most unfortunate. . . for you.
The power of a man in a Darth Vader costume is insignificant compared to the power of a Russian tank army.