so what do you call it when the UN condemns the US for our embargo on Cuba, or our failures in the middle east, or our war in Iraq? Or our drone strikes in Pakistan?

is the UN anti-american, too? those bastards.


The UN condemns people. That's what they do. Being a nation full of Jewish people doesn't preclude a state of criticism.

[Edited on June 20, 2011 at 7:31 PM. Reason : ]

6/20/2011 7:21:28 PM

Quote :

"Again, the priests and rabbis aren't issuing the marriage certificates."

They issue the ability to get one, you can't get one without them.

Quote :

"absurd public criticism of them most certainly is"

So asking that they allow their citizens to marry regardless of religion or ethnicity, is "absurd"? Every other civilized country in the world is "absurd"?

6/20/2011 7:37:42 PM

Quote :

"They issue the ability to get one, you can't get one without them. "

And they are doing so as a religious entity, first, foremost, and solely. Ergo, NOT a state representative, no matter how hard you try to argue otherwise

Quote :

"So asking that they allow their citizens to marry regardless of religion or ethnicity, is "absurd"?"

Again, show me where such a marriages is forbidden. You still have yet to do so.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 11:22:54 AM

Quote :

"And they are doing so as a religious entity, first, foremost, and solely. Ergo, NOT a state representative"

Their exclusive ability to grant these state privledges makes the a state representative.

Quote :

"Again, show me where such a marriages is forbidden."

I've linked to the wikipedia article, you can find it there.

6/21/2011 1:12:25 PM

It's fantastically ironic that Obama, a person that received a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, has kept us in the two wars, one of which has been escalated substantially, and he has initiated conflicts in Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan. Sorry, but there's just no defending this guy, and I think most "liberals" with a conscience have come to that grim realization.

6/21/2011 1:15:43 PM

Having voted for him I can say that he should've amended his campaign slogan to:


"Change you can count on, but you don't want."

6/21/2011 1:19:00 PM

http://www.gallup.com/

Approval rating dropped 4 points today, Disapproval increased 5 points

6/21/2011 2:11:49 PM

Quote :

"Their exclusive ability to grant these state privledges makes the a state representative."

despite the fact that they do nothing for the state, and perform exclusively religious duties. see the flaw in your logic? of course you don't, you're an idiot.

Quote :

"I've linked to the wikipedia article, you can find it there."

and NOWHERE did it say they couldn't get married. I'm sorry that you are incapable of reading.

^^ what change, exactly, has occurred? Same economic trouble. Same wars. Same domestic spying. Same cowtowing to big business.

6/21/2011 2:28:09 PM

Quote :

"It's fantastically ironic that Obama, a person that received a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, has kept us in the two wars, one of which has been escalated substantially, and he has initiated conflicts in Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan. Sorry, but there's just no defending this guy, and I think most "liberals" with a conscience have come to that grim realization."

And the alternative for "liberals" is?...........Repealing the Civil Rights Act or theocracy? Yay!

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2011 2:33:32 PM

When you have to misrepresent the other side, you know you've lost.

6/21/2011 2:40:47 PM

i know, right? I mean, just the other day I was reading the pamphlet from the RNC talking about how they wanted to put negroes in the back of the bus, where they belong.

6/21/2011 2:55:48 PM

If a State voted that way, what would stop them in Ron Paul's universe? Oh that's right, black people should just move to a more tolerant state, right?

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2011 3:10:46 PM

So, you're actually saying that you think segregation would be reinstated if Ron Paul were President? In the year 2011?

On the theocracy issue, during the last debate Ron Paul literally said "the Constitution says no theocracy." I know you think that southern states will revert to 1964 if the federal government would let them, but you're wrong. Not that it would matter, though - there's zero political will to repeal the Civil Rights Act, and the President would have no authority to initiate that himself.

It's about priorities. Do you want the U.S. to continue murdering and bombing innocent people around the world? If so, then Obama is your man. If not, then start thinking about the things that matter rather than focusing on non-issues.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 3:21:59 PM

Rand Paul stated within the past year that he did not approve of the parts of the Civil Rights Act(Title II and Title VII) that prevent businesses from discriminating against individuals based on race. I've met many who agree with him. Segregation is more popular now than you think.

6/21/2011 3:26:09 PM

I wasn't stating that Ron Paul was for theocracy...every other GOP candidate is what I referring to with that. Sorry for the confusion.

And it wasn't my contention that segregation would be re-instituted only IF a state voted that way without Federal oversight what would stop them? But it was my contention that the Civil Rights act would probably be repealed. Is that not a justified claim.

So nothing a President would like to do is possible legislatively speaking? Good to know.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

6/21/2011 3:27:09 PM

Quote :

"Rand Paul stated within the past year that he did not approve of the parts of the Civil Rights Act(Title II and Title VII) that prevent businesses from discriminating against individuals based on race. I've met many who agree with him. Segregation is more popular now than you think."

I agree with that completely, and I think racism is terrible. Segregation was something that was actually perpetuated by the state. Public institutions should never have been segregated, and it was wrong to do so.

It's also wrong to discriminate in a place of business. I do not think that discrimination against certain races would take hold again if the Civil Rights act were amended. Why? Because hardly anyone in a position of power was alive to experience segregation. We're all used to going to stores where anyone is allowed, and the backlash of putting a sign up that said "No blacks" would be so severe that no one would try it.

It shouldn't be illegal to put up a sign that says "No blacks," though, no matter how wrong it is. It's not my building. It's not my business. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, go for it. You won't be in business long.

Quote :

"And it wasn't my contention that segregation would be re-instituted only IF a state voted that way without Federal oversight what would stop them? But it was my contention that the Civil Rights act would probably be repealed. Is that not a justified claim?"

Ron Paul, as a Congressman, has not been introducing legislation to repeal the Civil Rights act. What makes you think that Congress would take up the task of repealing it if he were President? There's literally no chance of that ever happening. That's why it's a non-issue.

Your question is, "What would stop the states from doing x?" The representatives and the people in those states would. There's not a single state that would be able to implement blatantly racist, discriminatory laws in 2011. If only the same could be said for the federal government; the war on drugs has ravaged black communities and is largely to blame for the cycle of poverty that exists in those communities.

Quote :

"So nothing a President would like to do is possible legislatively speaking? Good to know."

The President is the commander-in-chief, and they would be able to immediately implement foreign policy changes. Congress would be unable to stop them. So, you can guarantee that if Ron Paul were elected, there would be a noticeable reversal in foreign policy.

The President has veto power. The President could veto any bill unless Congress were able to override the veto.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 3:39:51 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/barack-obama-and-pentagon-split-on-afghanistan

Quote :

"Barack Obama is set to reject the advice of the Pentagon by announcing on Wednesday night the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan by November next year, in time for the US presidential election. The move comes despite warnings from his military commanders that recent security gains are fragile. They have been urging him to keep troop numbers high until 2013. The accelerated drawdown will dismay American and British commanders in Kabul, who have privately expressed concern that the White House is now being driven by political rather than military imperatives."

Its all a fucking political game to this fucking idiot

Not to mention the 30,000 troops that he would remove to fulfill his campaign promises are the same damn troops he ordered there, or am I mistaken?

Quote :

"The Associated Press reported that Obama could announce 10,000 troops to be brought home by the end of the year, and a further 20,000 next year – all of the 30,000 extra troops he ordered to Afghanistan as part of the "surge" in 2009. That would still leave about 70,000 troops, with all combat troops scheduled to leave by 2014, provided that Afghan forces are ready to take over."

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 6:05 PM. Reason : fuck this guy]

6/21/2011 6:02:29 PM

Yeah, this was pretty disappointing. My only correction:

Quote :

"Its all a fucking political game to this fucking idiot"

6/21/2011 6:09:43 PM

Quote :

"It shouldn't be illegal to put up a sign that says "No blacks," though, no matter how wrong it is. It's not my building. It's not my business. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, go for it. You won't be in business long. "

hahaha
ha
ha

you are so naive. The gov. will inevitably get involved and there will be rules encouraging equality inevitably.

Do you think people who would put up that sign, and be successful, wouldn’t be creating an atmosphere of violence and hostility? Do you think it’s fair for the gov. to tolerate open hostility and a threatening atmosphere to an entire class of people…?

6/21/2011 6:47:42 PM

Quote :

"you are so naive. The gov. will inevitably get involved and there will be rules encouraging equality inevitably."

There's nothing inevitable about government involvement. The government was responsible for fostering racism and discrimination in the first place.

Quote :

"Do you think people who would put up that sign, and be successful, wouldn’t be creating an atmosphere of violence and hostility? Do you think it’s fair for the gov. to tolerate open hostility and a threatening atmosphere to an entire class of people…?"

I'm saying there's no way that business would be successful in 2011. It would create such a strong public outcry that the enterprise would fail. Believe it or not, most southerners are not racist. Things have changed. Liberals have a tendency to say, "Oh, those stupid rednecks! We'll tell them how to be a good person, since they're too ignorant to figure it out on their own!" Guess what? Not everyone with a southern accent wants to re-segregate. In fact, hardly anyone (including racists) would support that. Get real.

You could just as easily make the case that people shouldn't be able to have a sign on the front of their house that says, "No blacks." That would clearly be a violation of free speech, though. If all it takes to justify outlawing something is, "it makes people feel threatened," then we've got a lot of work to do, because I feel threatened every time Congress is in session.

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 7:03 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 7:01:18 PM

Quote :

"The government was responsible for fostering racism and discrimination in the first place."

Does the government influence people or do people influence the government? It seems you have this question all figured out.

6/21/2011 7:07:13 PM

Politicians learned long ago that they could pit one group against another for their own personal gain.

6/21/2011 7:26:32 PM

So then you actually think that racism is entirely the creation of government and that racists, in no way, used the government to fulfill their own agenda?

6/21/2011 7:32:19 PM

Racism is natural. I can guarantee that, if you were white and had never seen a black person, you would be shocked upon seeing someone with black skin and you would probably not treat them like a "normal white person." The government has strengthened racism at times or straight up institutionalized it, but this was always because there was a racist majority to pander to.

6/21/2011 7:40:56 PM

So you give no credit whatsoever to the government simply trying to reflect it's people's values, even if they are racist?

6/21/2011 7:51:50 PM

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/top-10-new-orwellian-euphemisms-for-the-war-in-libya/240734/

Quote :

"10) A multilateral hazing rite to initiate Libya into the fraternity of free nations. 9) Operations abroad characterized more by their energy than any animus toward what I'll refrain from calling the enemy. 8) The U.S. military's unconventional audition for the upcoming season of Robot Wars. 7) A live ammunition training exercise meant to ensure the preparedness of American troops should they ever need to drive a North African dictator from power. 6) Stimulus spending to create or preserve jobs for hard-working Americans who happen to work in munitions factories. 5) A variation on the successful beer summit held with Professor Gates that shows deference to Libyan cultural taboos surrounding alcohol by substituting Predator drones. 4) A non-hostile military engagement to which the Pottery Barn rule is obviously inapplicable -- the French wouldn't even stoop to breaking things in such a store. 3) A support mission where America is a mere pit crew to the NASCAR drivers of NATO. 2) A determination to lend France and Britain sufficient munitions and refueling capability to give their efforts a new lease on life. 1) An overture to the Libyan people of hope and regime change."

[Edited on June 21, 2011 at 8:10 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2011 8:09:49 PM

Quote :

"If a State voted that way, what would stop them in Ron Paul's universe? Oh that's right, black people should just move to a more tolerant state, right?"

well, if it's specifically unConstitutional, then we have this little thing called "the judiciary" to handle it. If not, then who cares? People will leave such a fucked up state in droves, and the problem will solve itself.

Quote :

"Rand Paul stated within the past year that he did not approve of the parts of the Civil Rights Act(Title II and Title VII) that prevent businesses from discriminating against individuals based on race. I've met many who agree with him. Segregation is more popular now than you think."

that has NOTHING to do with segregation being popular an EVERYTHING to do with the fact that some of the CRA overreached Constitutional bounds with respect to an individual and his private property.

Quote :

"Do you think people who would put up that sign, and be successful, wouldn’t be creating an atmosphere of violence and hostility?"

yes. towards themselves.

Quote :

"Do you think it’s fair for the gov. to tolerate open hostility and a threatening atmosphere to an entire class of people…?"

Are we now wanting the federal government to police people's thoughts and turn everything into a god damned unicorn ranch? jesus. Orwell was right about you people.

Quote :

"The government has strengthened racism at times or straight up institutionalized it"

Exactly. It was Jim Crow. Now it's Affirmative Action. It's legal for a black man to open a business and hire only black women. It's illegal for a white man to open a business and hire only white men and women.

6/22/2011 1:16:45 AM

This is just delicious

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=13900390

Quote :

"Former Vice President Al Gore is going where few environmentalists — and fellow Democrats — have gone before: criticizing President Barack Obama's record on global warming."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-22/obama-gets-30-of-americans-certain-to-support-re-election-in-economy-poll.html

Quote :

"Only 30 percent of respondents said they are certain to vote for the president and 36 percent said they definitely won’t. Among likely independent voters, only 23 percent said they will back his re-election, while 36 percent said they definitely will look for another candidate. "

http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/21/obama_versus_osama_guess_who_the_egyptians_prefer

Quote :

"Now, the bad news: the American president's standing has never been worse in Egypt, plummeting since 2008, when he received a 25 percent favorability rating, to 12 percent in 2011. Even Osama Bin Laden, the late al Qaeda leader, was more popular this year, with a 21 percent favorability ranking. The Iranian leader fared worse, dropping from 21 percent favorability rating in 2008 to a miserable 5 percent. "

6/22/2011 9:21:05 AM

Quote :

" Do you think it’s fair for the gov. to tolerate open hostility and a threatening atmosphere to an entire class of people…? "

Like say the rich?

6/22/2011 9:40:44 AM

Quote :

"Like say the rich?"

I agree, the rich suffer more than any other group. If you want to pick a downtrodden group, it's not the poor, the elderly, the homosexuals, the blacks, the sick, the handicapped, any of those, it's the rich. It's unbelievable that they manage to make it through each day with the kinds of pains they have to endure. It's a downright shame that they don't have charities or scholarships or anything trying to help them. Thank goodness for the Republican party, who is willing to look out for these sad, helpless, suffering few who are so ignored and looked down upon by the rest of the country.

6/22/2011 9:57:37 AM

hahah, and that is exactly what I said. Or just pointing out the "open hostility" that is not only tolerated by the govt but encouraged.

Sorry I dont jump on the band wagon of the looters. The fact that someone is more productive is reason alone to hate them right.

Maybe we can get the govt, both parties, out of the way of picking winners and losers. (companies and individuals)

btw, if it wasnt for the truely exceptional we wouldnt have the high SOL we enjoy today. The same SOL that is going to fall bc the GOVT, not those evil companies, couldnt control their spending and will ruin the currency. Then you want to talk about the poor. Who do you think trying to inflate our way out of the debt will effect most? Default is coming, just as the sun will rise tommorrow. The only question is do we default openly or try to inflate around it.

6/22/2011 10:18:55 AM

Let me get this straight. Obama sent 30,000 extra troops after he came into office. Now he is claiming to be ending the war by bringing 30,000 troops home? When will the other 70,000 come home? This is bullshit.

6/22/2011 1:02:41 PM

I got a good laugh out of that too. Then I thought about the actual human consequences, and I realized that Obama is playing politics with human lives being used as pawns.

There's still a strong sense of overconfidence among Obama supporters, but he's quickly losing steam. No one is inspired by him. He's failed on so many levels. Democrats are criticizing his incompetence regularly. The GOP may, and probably will, nominate a real loser, but I think is Obama is really positioning himself to be a one-term president.

6/22/2011 1:14:41 PM

Obama is cutting and running in Afghanistan. We should be sending more troops there instead of negotiating with the Taliban like cowards.

6/22/2011 1:33:43 PM

Quote :

" The fact that someone is more productive is reason alone to hate them right."

This implies that the rich are the most productive, which is questionable. But it's kind of hard to feel sorry for them simply because they have so much more than everyone else. But I don't want to redistribute their money due to any social justice, I want to do it because I believe it is the most effective way to use our resources.

Quote :

"btw, if it wasnt for the truely exceptional we wouldnt have the high SOL we enjoy today"

If it wasn't for everyone else, the "truly exceptional" wouldn't be able to become "truly exceptional". You can't make something out of nothing.

[Edited on June 22, 2011 at 8:38 PM. Reason : ]

6/22/2011 8:36:57 PM

It's said when someone reaches the point where the associate someone's value as a human with their income :-/

6/22/2011 9:43:35 PM

actually MONEY is a great way to assess value. Be it of a good, service, worker, etc. Esp when it is voluntarily exchanged and without coercion.

6/22/2011 10:35:55 PM

So what you're saying is that Sookie and The Situation are likely to be better human beings that the rest of us?

That you think Donald Trump would make a better best friend that your current best friend?

That's pretty sad.

6/23/2011 12:40:55 AM

That's not value. You can't assign value to human "goodness" or human action in general.

6/23/2011 1:33:30 AM

Quote :

"I'm saying there's no way that business would be successful in 2011. It would create such a strong public outcry that the enterprise would fail. Believe it or not, most southerners are not racist"

Most southerners do not practice Islam, but there are such religious establishments in the South.

A fair portion of small towns throughout this nation are rife with racism, not just in the South. I can think of two villages, in upstate New York and Colorado, where a subtley segregated business would thrive. There are already businesses who disallow customers wearing certain religious/ethnic clothes. Even without actually travelling to other places, the mere fact that businesses can shimmy right up to the line of racial segregation and profit from it should tell a reasonable person that discrimination will occur if it's allowed. Ron Paul is either naive or crazy. Also, it speaks very poorly of his character: the fact that he is so vocal about an issue that is both morally contentious and lacking in practical worth. Repealing the civil rights act is not going to make anyone better off. It doesn't deserve one whit of attention from a congressman while there are thousands of more important issues.

6/23/2011 9:39:24 AM

Quote :

"So what you're saying is that Sookie and The Situation are likely to be better human beings that the rest of us?"

geez, way to totally miss the point.

To SOMEONE, yes, they clearly have more value to them than you and I. Or else they would be paying us that kind of money. Everyone has their own set of values and has opinion of what X is worth to them.

6/23/2011 10:11:14 AM

Are the ones responsible for nearly collapsing our economy with their bogus securitization schemes part of the productive and exceptional class?

They truly deserve their tax cuts.

6/23/2011 5:16:49 PM

House rejects measure to continue US role in Libya

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – The House has voted down a measure giving President Barack Obama the authority to continue the U.S. military action against Libya. The vote was 295-123 on Friday. The congressional action has no immediate effect on American involvement but represents a repudiation of the commander in chief. The vote marks the first time since 1999 that either House has voted against a military operation. The last time was over President Bill Clinton's authority in the Bosnian war. House Republican leaders pushed for the vote, with rank-and-file members saying the president broke the law by failing to seek congressional approval for the 3-month-old war. Some Democrats accused the GOP of playing politics with national security."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110624/ap_on_go_co/us_us_libya

Really, Obama, what's the deal? You think this is a military dictatorship? Obama is a neo-conservative. This clown has to go.

[Edited on June 24, 2011 at 1:19 PM. Reason : ]

6/24/2011 12:56:22 PM

^did you post that for the ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh factor?


The House can vote for whatever, the Senate says no and even if the Senate said yes Obama will not sign.....it is like the GOP thinks that anything that passes or fails in the House is law....lol.....wastes alot of time......when it will go nowhere outside the House.

[Edited on June 24, 2011 at 10:20 PM. Reason : w]

6/24/2011 10:19:29 PM

Quote :

"They truly deserve their tax cuts"

People dont deserve what they earn?

(and that wise govt didnt have anything to do with that near collapse huh)

6/24/2011 10:56:35 PM

A spokesman for the Federal Reserve said he'd get reelected.

6/25/2011 11:14:24 AM

Quote :

"A State Department lawyer arrived on Capitol Hill Tuesday with two difficult tasks: Convince a Senate committee that the Obama administration didn’t need Congress’s approval for its military operations in Libya. Then: Convince the Senate to give Obama that approval anyway. He didn’t seem to make a lot of headway on either front."

lolwut

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/obama-adviser-makes-case-to-senate-panel-for-involvement-in-libya/2011/06/28/AG450FpH_blog.html

6/28/2011 1:07:02 PM

Quote :

"The House can vote for whatever, the Senate says no and even if the Senate said yes Obama will not sign.....it is like the GOP thinks that anything that passes or fails in the House is law....lol.....wastes alot of time......when it will go nowhere outside the House."

So...yes, we have a military dictatorship. Good to know.

6/28/2011 1:16:31 PM

House rejects measure to continue US role in Libya
House rejects measure to stop funding the US role in Libya

This is all political gaming, prompted by the lateness of Obama's war approval request, the lack of direction in NATO's mission, the severe polarity of today's politics, and the fogginess of what constitutes "war" when there are no troops on the ground. Are we at war with every nation that we hit with predator strikes?

I'm definitely disappointed with Obama for not taking care of this technicality when he had the chance.

6/28/2011 3:35:02 PM

Quote :

"People dont deserve what they earn?"

They deserve jail sentences. As for their taxes, they should pay more.

6/28/2011 4:16:51 PM