Joe Hates Fags

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm not sure why you enjoy stalking me, but yes, that is all correct. :wink:

And like Diemen alluded to, I think that something like Jindal/Palin would be an absolutely hilarious disaster of epic proportions... Jindal is a much, much better direction for the GOP at the moment. He's a smart, young, pragmatic conservative who doesn't focus his energy on hating gayz, although he is religiously conservative enough. And the fact that he's a minority doesn't hurt things, for better or for worse.

I'm not at all stalking you:| Don't pull that card, I asked you about that once before, months ago and you never answered me.

Well Jindal I think is a huge mistake as well, but to be honest I'm not sure what your party wants...
 
I'm not at all stalking you:| Don't pull that card, I asked you about that once before, months ago and you never answered me.

Don't mean to interject here, but when I read his post it struck me as being playful and/or sarcastic.

But, then again, sarcasm is not easily discernible on the Internet. Right?
 
It doesnt matter how "down" it has been before- there has never been a worse president, probably in the history of this country, than George W. Bush...

I must disagree. I've said it before- if you honestly think President Bush is the worst president in history, you either 1) don't know jack about history or 2) think it is bad that Bush has given God knows how much money in aid to Africa, liberated tens of millions of people from oppression, saw the capture of Saddam Hussein, kept this country safe, cut taxes, put more minorities in his cabinet than any president in history (which is something I believe Obama is lacking in...), and I could go on...

those tea parties were filled with such blatant stupidity by people who have zero perspective of the world or anything about this country!

How so? Give me examples. What is wrong with protesting out of control spending and bigger government and the fact that people who are not born yet owe hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to Obama and Congress? Why are these people "stupid?"

I'm a little surprised to see you making this 'not conservative enough' argument, though. You supported Rudy initially, then seemed pleased when McCain became the nominee instead. I don't recall you ever expressing a wish that someone like Huckabee or Romney should be the nominee. Are you now saying you believe they would have been better choices?

In my gut, I don't think the GOP ever stood a shot at winning last year regardless of the nominee. I voted for McCain, because by the time I voted on Super Tuesday, it was basically a lock for him. Though he wasn't my favorite, I did feel back then that there was a shot to bring in some independents and others. Looking back, I think we would have had an equal if not better shot at pulling it off it we had picked a nominee with stark differences to Obama, not blurry lines the way it was with McCain. Maybe that's just Monday-morning quarterbacking though.

OMG TEH GAYZ ARE TEH ANTICHRIST bigotry.

Umm... who is saying this?


letting people like Joe the Plumber be their public voice is downright embarrassing...

So him speaking anywhere in public means that the GOP is designating him their official spokesman? Can I then say that someone like Janeane Garofalo is the Democratic Party spokesperson? I disagree with his comments on the first page of this thread, too, for what's it worth. Bet you didn't see that one coming.

For people to take 2861U2 as a representative of conservative opinion is really quite hilarious, as this dude, in his entire posting history on FYM has never given voice to a single genuine conservative opinion or thought process.:lol::lol:

My opinion and beliefs are not less valid because I spend less time on this forum then, say, you. For the sake of the Democratic Party, I sure hope some people in this forum aren't supposed to be taken as serious "representatives" of liberalism...

wasn't part of Obama's landslide victory due to McCain's picking a know-nothing like Palin?

Absolutely not. If Palin wasn't on the ticket, McCain would have lost much worse.


but the debt was created by Bush. people in their 20s know this. the debt is Bush's fault -- cutting taxes, creating wars of choice over falsehoods, and increasing entitlement spending. and you're doomed, absolutely doomed, when it comes to social issues.

Bush's debt is NOTHING compared to Obama's, and even you must admit that. As for the social issues, I'm not so sure. The numbers of pro-life vs. pro-choice are pretty split, and as for gay marriage, most polls I see are opposed to it.
 
he also believes in exorcism, and castration.

and his response to the SOTU was historic, in a bad way.

Jindal seems a reasonable executive and manager, and i have no doubt that beneath all that manufactured down-homeness he's a smart guy. but he's not yet ready for prime time. 2016?
He is also a creationist, hates volcanic monitoring, and is generally anti-science.

I'd rather vote Democratic.
 
Absolutely not. If Palin wasn't on the ticket, McCain would have lost much worse.

Maybe if the election were held right after her convention speech, but otherwise I completely disagree with you. I can't tell you how many conservatives I know who would've voted for McCain but simply couldn't because of what an immensely poor choice they thought Palin was for veep.
 
I really dislike Jindal.... and really, really, really dislike Palin...

I dont think Jindal would have that good of a chance running for president.

and Palin was the reason McCain lost... well a major reason. If it was Mccain/ Romney it might have been a different story.
 
I must disagree. I've said it before- if you honestly think President Bush is the worst president in history, you either 1) don't know jack about history or 2) think it is bad that Bush has given God knows how much money in aid to Africa, liberated tens of millions of people from oppression, saw the capture of Saddam Hussein, kept this country safe, cut taxes, put more minorities in his cabinet than any president in history (which is something I believe Obama is lacking in...), and I could go on...



How so? Give me examples. What is wrong with protesting out of control spending and bigger government and the fact that people who are not born yet owe hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to Obama and Congress? Why are these people "stupid?"

ok...here goes...

No other president has had a blatant disregard for the rest of the world and the constitution than W. The war in Iraq was a mistake, and the amount of lies that came out of that administration was appaling. Other than that, we tortured people, got rid of Habeus Corpus, lost the respect of almost every other country in the world, let down our education system, health care, there was hardly any regard towards environmental issues, Katrina was a disaster, Abu Gharib was a disaster, the tax cuts did not help the economy, we wiretapped citizens... etc... I could go on. George W. was embarrassing.

The people in the tax parties argued for "NO MORE TAXES" which is a moronic thing to say. Not only that, but Obama's taxes have not even gone into effect yet, so they are arguing against Bush's taxes. :doh:
Obama is not a socialist, and the people at that rally have no idea that most of them will get tax cuts under Obama as well. And to say that the democrats want "larger government" is a republican talking point that is totally false. Republicans want government as big- but just in different places. Republicans want bigger government in military, intruding to support "family values" and more. Telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, who they can and cannot marry, what scientists can and cannot research based on religious beliefs, etc... is more of an intrusion of government than anything the democrats want if you ask me. so yes, the people at the tax parties are just pawns of republican talking points and fox news. What other option do we have other than spending for our economy? what is the GOP solution? for me, and this is my opinion, the GOP mostly represents a General Opposition to Progress. this is all just my opinion, so dont get offended or take it personally.
 
I must disagree. I've said it before- if you honestly think President Bush is the worst president in history, you either 1) don't know jack about history or 2) think it is bad that Bush has given God knows how much money in aid to Africa, liberated tens of millions of people from oppression, saw the capture of Saddam Hussein, kept this country safe, cut taxes, put more minorities in his cabinet than any president in history (which is something I believe Obama is lacking in...), and I could go on...

So who do you think is the worst president in history? Of the 20th century?

2. One by one!
a) Probably his only redeeming quality of his eight years. He has still, however, turned a blind eye to the conflict in Darfur. Actually, he's mere presence in office has made Darfur into the biggest debacle of the 21st century. I seem to remember reading that the reason Darfur refused help from the United States was because W was in office and they were morally opposed to him. Let's repeat that, the Sudanese government would rather have anarchy in Darfur than allow W to send in troops and fuck it all up.

b) He didn't liberate people from oppression. He introduced a whole new generation to new oppression. Our office has dealt with an Iraqi woman who says that she is more afraid of Iraq now than she was while Saddam was in office. From what I understand, this is a general feeling among most Iraqis. They've replaced one dictator with thousands of thugs and suicide bombers. At least the ones that killed you 10 years ago wore a uniform. Now it's a 12-year-old boy who blows himself up in the marketplace.

c) Here's what I don't get about Saddam. He was a horrible dictator. What is the difference between Saddam, or the leader of North Korea, or Iran, or Cuba, or any of the other impoverished countries in Africa? Our main reason for storming into Iraq was to prevent him from getting WMDs... which he never had. So now the new reason was to "give freedom to the Iraqi people." Why only for Iraqis? They aren't the only ones suffering from oppression. They weren't even the worse. See a)!
So when is the W administration going to fess up and say the sole reason for toppling Saddam Hussein was to get back at him for what he did to W's daddy? Or seizing his oil? Honestly, I will accept either (or both) apologies.

d) No he didn't. You can't claim he has kept this country safe when 9/11 happened nearly a year into his presidency. Imagine if you were a foreman of a factory re-interviewing for a job. "I've kept all the employees safe under my watch... except for that time that Jones got his arm cut off and the binding machine exploded into a million pieces, where Dolores lost her right eye. BUT STILL, NOTHING ELSE HAS HAPPENED AFTER THAT, AM I RITE?"

e) I'm still no economist, but aren't the tax cuts partially to blame for our extreme debt? It obviously didn't prevent a market meltdown, it actually encouraged it. Remember after 9/11? Spend! Everyone needs to spend to show the terrorists we ain't afraid! And spend we did. And when the government let us become welfare queens with the first stimulus package, we spent that too. So all the squirrels who didn't pack away nuts last winter panicked, and the shit hit the fan.

f) This is starting to bother me. Are presidents supposed to one-up each other in the promotion of minorities now? Well I've got a little Guatemalan serving as secretary of the interior. It's a much smaller country than Mexico. I win. We get it. Bush wasn't afraid of minorities. It's the equivalent of saying, "I've had a black man over to my house for dinner." You honestly think Obama is opposed to promoting minorities because he's somehow racist? How would they have treated him if he had filled the Cabinet with a majority of black people? "Of course he fills it with black people, he's not willing to listen to the white majority of the country!"
 
put more minorities in his cabinet than any president in history (which is something I believe Obama is lacking in...), and I could go on...

Great! Now we know that we can count on you when Obama puts in a Latina lesbian on the Supreme Court. :hyper:
 
How so? Give me examples. What is wrong with protesting out of control spending and bigger government and the fact that people who are not born yet owe hundreds of thousands of dollars thanks to Obama and Congress? Why are these people "stupid?"
The problem was is that it wasn't about this, some may have said it was about this, but it wasn't. Look at the tea party thread in here. Several came in the thread, including you supporting the tea parties, but not one could explain what it truly was about... not one. Instead we got signs and speaches about immigration, racial slurs against the president, homophobia, etc... None of which had to do with what you said it was about, it was just an extreme right bitch fest, and a very poor one at that. Even if it was about spending, not one person on your side has an alternative... The rest of the world saw a bunch of uninformed idiots with signs.



So him speaking anywhere in public means that the GOP is designating him their official spokesman? Can I then say that someone like Janeane Garofalo is the Democratic Party spokesperson? I disagree with his comments on the first page of this thread, too, for what's it worth. Bet you didn't see that one coming.
Janeane Garofalo was never invited to campaign stops, turned into a commercial, or asked to be a spokesperson at a left wing convention...


My opinion and beliefs are not less valid because I spend less time on this forum then, say, you. For the sake of the Democratic Party, I sure hope some people in this forum aren't supposed to be taken as serious "representatives" of liberalism...
I think you missed his point, he said nothing of how much time you spent here.



Bush's debt is NOTHING compared to Obama's, and even you must admit that. As for the social issues, I'm not so sure. The numbers of pro-life vs. pro-choice are pretty split, and as for gay marriage, most polls I see are opposed to it.
Bush's debt can never and will never pay itself back.

Now as far as "Obama's debt" only history will tell if it's productive debt, but at least in theory it will produce jobs, infastructure, and stabilization.
 
So who do you think is the worst president in history? Of the 20th century?

2. One by one!
a) Probably his only redeeming quality of his eight years. He has still, however, turned a blind eye to the conflict in Darfur. Actually, he's mere presence in office has made Darfur into the biggest debacle of the 21st century. I seem to remember reading that the reason Darfur refused help from the United States was because W was in office and they were morally opposed to him. Let's repeat that, the Sudanese government would rather have anarchy in Darfur than allow W to send in troops and fuck it all up.

b) He didn't liberate people from oppression. He introduced a whole new generation to new oppression. Our office has dealt with an Iraqi woman who says that she is more afraid of Iraq now than she was while Saddam was in office. From what I understand, this is a general feeling among most Iraqis. They've replaced one dictator with thousands of thugs and suicide bombers. At least the ones that killed you 10 years ago wore a uniform. Now it's a 12-year-old boy who blows himself up in the marketplace.

c) Here's what I don't get about Saddam. He was a horrible dictator. What is the difference between Saddam, or the leader of North Korea, or Iran, or Cuba, or any of the other impoverished countries in Africa? Our main reason for storming into Iraq was to prevent him from getting WMDs... which he never had. So now the new reason was to "give freedom to the Iraqi people." Why only for Iraqis? They aren't the only ones suffering from oppression. They weren't even the worse. See a)!
So when is the W administration going to fess up and say the sole reason for toppling Saddam Hussein was to get back at him for what he did to W's daddy? Or seizing his oil? Honestly, I will accept either (or both) apologies.

d) No he didn't. You can't claim he has kept this country safe when 9/11 happened nearly a year into his presidency. Imagine if you were a foreman of a factory re-interviewing for a job. "I've kept all the employees safe under my watch... except for that time that Jones got his arm cut off and the binding machine exploded into a million pieces, where Dolores lost her right eye. BUT STILL, NOTHING ELSE HAS HAPPENED AFTER THAT, AM I RITE?"

e) I'm still no economist, but aren't the tax cuts partially to blame for our extreme debt? It obviously didn't prevent a market meltdown, it actually encouraged it. Remember after 9/11? Spend! Everyone needs to spend to show the terrorists we ain't afraid! And spend we did. And when the government let us become welfare queens with the first stimulus package, we spent that too. So all the squirrels who didn't pack away nuts last winter panicked, and the shit hit the fan.

f) This is starting to bother me. Are presidents supposed to one-up each other in the promotion of minorities now? Well I've got a little Guatemalan serving as secretary of the interior. It's a much smaller country than Mexico. I win. We get it. Bush wasn't afraid of minorities. It's the equivalent of saying, "I've had a black man over to my house for dinner." You honestly think Obama is opposed to promoting minorities because he's somehow racist? How would they have treated him if he had filled the Cabinet with a majority of black people? "Of course he fills it with black people, he's not willing to listen to the white majority of the country!"

Dag.
 
when we talk about "liberating" people from "oppression," is this what we mean?


Iraqi Gays Face Gruesome Torture/ Murder Technique
By: DOUG IRELAND
04/30/2009


Yanar Mohammed, a leading Iraqi feminist leader, played the critical role in keeping the gruesome new torture/murder technique to light.
As the murder campaign targeting Iraqi gays intensifies, a leading Arabic television network last week revealed the use of a horrifying new form of lethal torture against Iraqi gay men - anti-gay Shiite death squads are sealing their anuses with a powerful glue, then inducing diarrhea, which leads to a painful and agonizing death. The use of this stomach-turning new torture was first reported by the Al Arabiya network, which is headquartered in the United Arab Emirates and was alerted to the story by a leading Iraqi feminist and human rights activist.

Yanar Mohammed, president of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), told Al Arabiya that the torture substance "is an Iranian-manufactured glue that, if applied to the skin, sticks to it and can only be removed by surgery. After they glue the anuses of homosexuals, they give them a drink that causes diarrhea. Since the anus is closed, the diarrhea causes death. Videos of this form of torture are being distributed on mobile telephones in Iraq."

Al Arabiya said its reporter confirmed the use of this anal torture by "visiting the Baghdad morgue in Bab-al-Moazaam in central Baghdad, where Neman Mohsen, the medical examiner, confirmed they have the bodies of seven homosexuals in the morgue. He said, 'We were not able to identify the culprits, who dumped the bodies in front of the morgue and fled without being seen.'" A two-person team from Human Rights Watch (HRW) currently in Iraq to investigate persecution of LGBT people has also confirmed the use of this form of torture. In a widely-circulated email from Iraq, the head of HRW's LGBT desk, Scott Long, said he and his colleague had gathered evidence which confirms the Al Arabiya report and that HRW would make its own detailed report after the organization's two staffers return to the United States next week.

OWFI's Mohammed, the woman responsible for gathering information about the use of this sadistic anal torture and passing it on to Al Arabiya, told Gay City News that "the story was so horrific that when I first heard it from gay friends I didn't believe it. But then I investigated and found it was really true that the anuses of gay men were being glued shut." Speaking by telephone from Toronto, where she was on a brief visit to relatives before a scheduled return to Iraq next week, Mohammed told this reporter that, "Fortunately, Al Arabiya has a very good human rights reporter, to whom I told what I had found, and he was able to confirm it by visiting the morgue."

She said that "many older women in my organization were quite opposed to taking up the question of the persecution of homosexuals and didn't understand why it was important. But I firmly believe that misogyny and homophobia are two sides of the same coin, and that we had a duty to speak out against the persecution of gays in Iraq, which is so little known that I was surprised by the extent of it when I began to look into it."

Mohammed, 49, is well known for her courageous human rights work. She co-founded OWFI in Baghdad in June 2003 in the wake of the U.S. invasion and occupation, and the organization has led campaigns against so-called honor killings, the abduction of women, and trafficking in women and children. She also co-founded Iraq's first feminist newspaper, Al Mousawat (Equality), which has been published quarterly for the last three years. Trained as an architect, Mohammed told Gay City News she has abandoned that profession to work full time for OWFI. She has received numerous awards for her work for women's rights and human rights, including the Eleanor Roosevelt Global Rights Award given by the US Feminist Majority Foundation.

Ali Hili, the 33-year-old gay Iraqi exile who coordinates the association Iraqi LGBT, which is headquartered in London but has members and informants throughout Iraq, told Gay City News that he has also been able to confirm the use of lethal anal torture. "We have had reports, increasingly over the last four or five days, about the use of this technique not just in Baghdad but in smaller town and cities all over Iraq," Hili said by telephone. "We have reports on seven young men who have been through this horrible experience in which they were arrested in the south of Iraq and had their anuses sealed, or 'locked' as the torturers say. Our sources told us that hospitals all over Iraq's southern region have received so many cases of similar incidents where men have had their anuses glued, but that what makes the situation even worse and more lethal is that they have been refused treatment in hospitals when they sought it because of homophobia."

As of this week, Hili and Iraqi LGBT have documented 617 cases of assassinations of LGBT people since a death-to-all-gays fatwa was issued by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the spiritual leader of all Shiite muslims in Iraq, in 2005. The murder campaign of "sexual cleansing" of homosexuals has intensified in recent months, with 70 new killings since December alone (see this reporter's April 16-29 article, "Iraqi Gay Murders Surge; World Finally Takes Note").

Now, Hili says, "I have just received word of seven new murders of gays in one week, last week." He provided Gay City News with the names and towns of origin of the most recent victims of the anti-gay-death squads. They are Abbas Mosa, 33, from Al Hay; Saeed Majeed, 27, from Al Samawa; Jabar Khothayer, 19, from Al Dewaniya; Majed Alawi, 41, from Al Hindiya; Hazim Hussein, age unknown, from Al Najaf; Mohammed Qasim, 25, from Al Dewaniya; and Rama Sabri, 19, from Al Mohanawiya.

At the same time, the Iraqi news website niqash.org reported last week that "Al-Baghdadiya, a satellite television channel based in Cairo... broadcast a report on April 7 saying that 20 young men accused of homosexuality were taken to Ibn al-Nafis hospital in Baghdad with mutilated genitals."

Hili told Gay City News that much of the most recent wave of assassinations appears to be the work of the Mahdi Army, the militia led by fundamentalist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. He said that one of Iraqi LGBT's informants "is connected to high-ranking religious within the Mahdi Army, and he has been told of a campaign to target anyone who is suspected of being gay." Increasingly, Hili said, leaflets and "Wanted" posters are appearing with lists of men targeted to be killed for what are called "crimes against morality," meaning homosexuality. A list of Iraqi LGBT members to be eliminated is also circulating, Hili said, and he's been told his own name is at the top of this list.

Hili also said that pharmacists have been reporting to the police about male customers who were regularly buying female hormones and cosmetic creams. In one such recent instance, two of these supposed transgendered men were arrested and taken to an unknown location, and have not been heard from since.



i wonder how Joe The Plumber feels?
 
how else am i supposed to react to a quote where he says that he wants to keep his children away from me?

if that isn't hate, i don't know what is.

Irvine, there is a lady in my neighborhood. Who gives countless hours to coaching children's softball teams, soccer teams, etc. She does all of this for free and out of the goodness of her heart. She is openly gay. Everyone knows and no one cares. She is wonderful with children.
 
Irvine, there is a lady in my neighborhood. Who gives countless hours to coaching children's softball teams, soccer teams, etc. She does all of this for free and out of the goodness of her heart. She is openly gay. Everyone knows and no one cares. She is wonderful with children.




and this is how gays achieve equality -- by acting and being equal to their straight friends and neighbors. :up:
 
when we talk about "liberating" people from "oppression," is this what we mean?
Here's the (English) text version of the Al Arabiya story: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/04/25/71416.html

The one note of hope--if I can call it that--that I might find in this story lies in that a major network like Al Arabiya picked it up. One shocking story isn't going to provoke radical change, but it could become part of a growing process of media attention there to the reality of extraordinarily cruel 'vigilante' persecution of gays, which over time might in turn open people's eyes to the inherent brutality in the social system itself vis-à-vis gay people, in something like the way the disturbing footage of violence against black people peacefully organizing for their rights awakened so many here back in the 60s. Iraqi society is basically still quite traditional and conservative, significant progress on gay rights elsewhere has historically followed significant progress on women's rights, and they're really not there yet either, although well ahead of some of their neighbors. (The Ba'athists formally rejected criminalization of homosexuality, but there was never a concerted attempt to change popular attitudes, and eventually, even under Ba'athist rule, it wound up being criminalized anyway in concession.)

But this story is definitely going to be shocking to most sensibilities, not just because of the status of the groups doing this and what their free rein says about conditions in Iraq, but also because of its utter depravity. Even in a society where extemely severe punishments of 'offenses against public morality' are widely approved of, the repulsively obsessive nature of this 'method' of execution, the participatory vengefulness clearly driving it, is deeply offensive to the belief that justice, however harsh, is to be delivered impartially and by the legitimate authorities.
 
when we talk about "liberating" people from "oppression," is this what we mean?

What the fuck is wrong with people? I mean seriously. I mean, you're sitting home, dead tired after a long day of cutting off baby girls' clitorises, and you think "you know what we could do to those gays? We could glue their anuses shut and then give them diarrhea."

Wow, executing Saddam has done wonders for Iraq. Bravo, Dubya.
 
Instead we got signs and speaches about immigration, racial slurs against the president, homophobia, etc...

You realize that any signs like that accounted for probably one-half of one percent of everyone there, right? I certainly didn't see any where I was.

And I hope you feel that same way about the vile signs we've seen at protests over the last 8 years, things like:

"Fire KKKarl Rove"

"Terrorist and Murderer"

"Osama Bin Bush is in the White House"

"Another 4 years of terrorism"

"Bush is more evil than Bin Laden"

"World's #1 Terrorist"

"Bush = Hitler"

And of course, my personal favorite...

bush_hitler.jpg
 
I agree there are quacks on both sides, and protests will bring out the quacks. But the overall message of anti-war protest were known. The Tea Parties, it was not. For even the legitimate speakers at the tea parties had mixed signals and no unifying agenda. I heard speakers here at the Texas tea party talk about sucession, I posted video in the other thread where local politicians were talking about immigration, the one I went to(with Glen Beck) had people talking about everything from Abortion to gay marriage. There was no sense of message or that these people had any clue as to what the alternative to stimulus was...

I asked in the tea party thread and you know what I got? One person was so informed they just made up all these new taxes that have not occured, others ignored, and only one person attempted to answer what the alternative would be, and he is by far more conservative than you fiscally and even he admitted that bail outs were necessary.

You guys just came off as disingenuous. I would have believed in your conviction if you had protested Bush spending and bailouts, but you didn't. I would have believed in your conviction if you actually engaged into conversations as to what the alternatives were, but you didn't. You decided to protest the same exact thing Bush was doing, only when "the liberals" took over. It would have been just as hypocritical if Clinton had waged major wars, but folks only started protesting when Bush got into office...
 
What the fuck is wrong with people? I mean seriously. I mean, you're sitting home, dead tired after a long day of cutting off baby girls' clitorises, and you think "you know what we could do to those gays? We could glue their anuses shut and then give them diarrhea."

Wow, executing Saddam has done wonders for Iraq. Bravo, Dubya.

As if that didn't happen while Saddam was still there. :huh:
 
The fact that the US government will not make gay rights an issue because of domestic political liability is a fucking outrage.
 
As if that didn't happen while Saddam was still there. :huh:

Well yeah, I'm sure it did...but apparently the great wave of liberation and reform that was supposed to sweep over Iraq didn't turn out as planned.
 
Back
Top Bottom