equality blooms with spring

[melon]

I won't call you that but that's how that post came across.

Maybe you won't, but I will.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well just trying to abide by the Interference rules and all-but go right ahead

Don't think that would be against the rules but who knows, it can be a bit confusing...or maybe I was just trying to be overly generous and less ANGRY and humorless and liberal.

 

[AliEnvy]

CANOE -- CNEWS - Good News: Gay penguins raising chick

BERLIN - A German zoo says a pair of gay male penguins are raising a chick from an egg abandoned by its parents.

Bremerhaven zoo veterinarian Joachim Schoene says the egg was placed in the male penguins' nest after its parents rejected it in late April.

The males incubated it for some 30 days before it hatched and have continued to care for it.

The chick's gender is not yet known.

Schoene said the male birds, named Z and Vielpunkt, are one of three same-sex pairs among the zoo's 20 Humboldt penguins that have attempted to mate.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species.

The zoo said in a statement on its website that "sex and coupling in our world don't always have something to do with reproduction."

 

[BVS]

Oh NOES the gay agenda is going to corrupt little penguin babies!!! This must be stopped, we all know the male penquins will just want to fondle the chick once it's hatched.

Do you think there are fundie/ homophobic PETA members?

 

[martha]

OMG.

What if children visiting the zoo get confused?

 

[BVS]

FOX supports the SANCTITY of marriage:

I Married a Stranger -

"She never meets him until the actual moment when they say 'I do,'" a source close to the project told The Reporter. "It's like the big scene that comes after an entire season of The Bachelor, only this is in every episode."

Report: Fox developing 'I Married a Stranger' arranged marriage series - Reality TV World - News, information, episode summaries, message boards, chat and games for unscripted television programs







I guess this doesn't actually change the definition of that everchanging word 'marriage' so the sanctity is still in tact.

GO Fox
Go conservatives

 

[nathan1977]

FOX supports the SANCTITY of marriage:

GO Fox
Go conservatives

I would like any conservatives who actually think this show is a good idea to raise their hands.

My guess: not many.

I'm guessing you'll find a lot more network executives who think people will watch a train wreck.

And you might be right on that score.

 

[BVS]

Yes but if you were honest about the sanctity of marriage, and not just the definition of the word this would outrage you.

To me, this just makes the hypocrisy louder...

 

[nathan1977]

Yes but if you were honest about the sanctity of marriage, and not just the definition of the word this would outrage you.

After "Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire", "Joe Millionaire," and "Married With Children", raging against Fox for trashing the sanctity of marriage is kind of like getting mad at Crazy Uncle Joe for rubbing up against people on the street -- pointless.

But yes, this kind of show pisses me off.

I am however taking the suggestion of many on this board, and will not be watching.

 

[phillyfan26]

I think it's grasping for straws to say that this show is a reflection of the hypocritical nature of conservatives on the issue of marriage.

 

[BVS]

I think it's grasping for straws to say that this show is a reflection of the hypocritical nature of conservatives on the issue of marriage.

My point wasn't that this show is a reflection of their hypocrisy, my point was that if they were truly trying to protect the sanctity of marriage why aren't they speaking out against other things beyond two women getting married? Why aren't they trying to change divorce laws, or attack shows like this? I think it shines a light on the fact that it's not really about the sanctity of marriage, it's about homophobia.

And the fact that it was on Fox is just extra

 

[nathan1977]

my point was that if they were truly trying to protect the sanctity of marriage why aren't they speaking out against other things beyond two women getting married? Why aren't they trying to change divorce laws, or attack shows like this?

Trying to change divorce laws -- or change Fox programming -- is like swatting at flies. My wife and I however regularly counsel couples who are going through incredibly difficult times. It seems to be more constructive.

Not everyone has to resort to histrionics to try to make a positive change.

 

[BVS]

Trying to change divorce laws -- or change Fox programming -- is like swatting at flies. My wife and I however regularly counsel couples who are going through incredibly difficult times. It seems to be more constructive.

Not everyone has to resort to histrionics to try to make a positive change.

But spending millions on Prop h8te isn't like swatting at flies?

It's positive change?

The church could have actually saved lives with that $$$. I'm sure Jesus is proud.

 

[nathan1977]

But spending millions on Prop h8te isn't like swatting at flies?

Fox doesn't give a rip about what I watch or don't watch, so I'm not going to waste my time. Boycotts against the media are generally ineffective anyway. There are, however, an awful lot of people who apparently believe that using the power of representative government is effective, and they are apparently correct. Prop 8 opponents are going to harness this power in 2010. More power to them.

The church could have actually saved lives with that $$$. I'm sure Jesus is proud.

I'm sure Jesus has much to say to both sides.

 

[BVS]

Fox doesn't give a rip about what I watch or don't watch, so I'm not going to waste my time.

Right, TV doesn't care about their ratings...

I'm sure Jesus has much to say to both sides.

Yes, but one side commits their sins while evoking his name.

 

[nathan1977]

Right, TV doesn't care about their ratings...

Such shows have a very targeted demographic. I am not it. Neither are a lot of people. Probably the ones who consider such programming offensive.

Yes, but one side commits their sins while evoking his name.

Everyone invokes His name to justify their position, one way or the other. One of the reasons I don't bother to quote scripture when the topic comes up.

 

[Irvine511]

i don't use any deity -- Jesus, Allah, or Zeus -- to justify my position on this topic.

 

[diamond]

Gays decry Obama's stand on gay marriage case
By LINDA DEUTSCH and LISA LEFF – 1 day ago

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Gay rights groups expressed dismay with the Obama administration Friday over its championing of the Defense of Marriage Act, a law the president pledged to try to repeal while on the campaign trail.

The government filed a motion late Thursday to dismiss the case of Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, who are challenging the 1996 federal act. The law prevents couples in states that recognize same-sex unions from securing Social Security spousal benefits, filing joint taxes and other federal rights of marriage.

U.S. Department of Justice lawyers argued that the act — known informally as DOMA — is constitutional and contended that awarding federal marriage benefits to gays would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

"The president made very explicit and emphatic campaign promises that he opposes DOMA and would provide leadership calling on Congress to repeal it," said Jennifer Pizer, marriage project director for Lambda Legal. "This brief is not consistent with that promise."

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Friday that the department is abiding by its standard practice of defending existing law and that the filing doesn't mean Obama has changed his mind about wanting to see gay couples win federal recognition.

"Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system," Schmaler said.

More than four months into his first term, Obama has been under growing pressure from gay rights activists who supported his candidacy to move forward on repealing DOMA and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents gays from serving openly in the military.

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobbying group based in Washington, called on Obama to reassure his supporters by sending Congress a bill to lift the federal marriage law.

"The Administration apparently determined that it had a duty to defend DOMA in the courts. The President has just as strong a duty to put his principles into action," Solmonese said in a statement.

In the papers, Justice Department lawyers said federal court was not the right venue to tackle legal questions raised by Hammer and Smelt, who got married in California last year during the five-month window in which the state sanctioned same-sex unions.

Lambda Legal's Pizer said the government's stance in some ways marks an improvement from Justice Department positions taken on the Defense of Marriage Act when George W. Bush was president.

The brief acknowledges that gay couples who tie the knot in the six states where same-sex marriages are permitted are legally married and does not cite the oft-used argument that children fare better in households headed by a married man and woman, Pizer said.

At the same time, it repeated several arguments made under Bush, including the argument that a union between a man and a woman is "the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage."

The Obama administration will have more opportunities in coming weeks to weigh in on the subject. Another challenge to DOMA brought on behalf of married couples in Massachusetts and a lawsuit seeking to overturn California's gay marriage ban under the U.S. Constitution are making their way through the courts.

where's the outrage!?

 

[Irvine511]

where's the outrage!?

not everyone listens to Glen Beck and thinks that OUTRAGE! is the best way to go about discussing issues.

yes, broadly speaking, "the gays" are frustrated with Obama right now. it's nice that he's not outwardly hostile like the Bush administration, but it would also be nice if we actually got the change we voted for and saw the end of DADT, DOMA, and the extension of rights on a federal level, as well as ENDA and hate crimes stuff (as mixed feelings as i have on those).



i went to the DC Pride parade yesterday evening and i thought of you when the musclebears all dressed in leather went by on the float and waved while "if you seek Amy" blasted from the speakers.

the whole scene just screamed, "DIAMOND!!!" and i could hardly stand it.

 

[diamond]

and who signed DOMA

 

[intedomine]

where's the outrage!?

I am angry, if he pledged to do what needs to be done in the name of human decency, and he's failing to do it, he should be held accountable. Like a promise, in the year of election. C'mon Obama, you're better than that.


"traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage"

Only because our ancestory were white, male, power-driven, manipulative pricks who didn't give women, homsexuals and animals an inch. The tyranny of that tradition. May it no longer be recognised in such a disgraceful version.

 

[financeguy]

....In practice, homophobia seems to mean any actions or words that displease certain homosexuals. Not your average, everyday garden-variety gays, but the denizens of the organized gay lobby. There is, in fact, a specialized organization, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), that has taken upon itself the role of guardian and monitor of the gay community's image. The recipient of big money from the Hollywood Left, and boasting a network in virtually every major city in the country, GLAAD's hypersensitive antennae scan the skies for signs of homophobia in the media. In regular alerts to its members, and in the pages of gay newspapers from coast to coast, GLAAD publishes the addresses and phone numbers of transgressors, and urges its supporters to complain.

Such groups as People for the American Way and other left-oriented "civil liberties" organizations pull in millions of dollars from liberals worried about the much-vaunted threat of the so-called Religious Right. This myth of neo-Puritan fundamentalists intent on ransacking America's libraries, and purging all traces of sexuality from public life, is central to the demonology of modern liberalism, the bogeyman at the center of their worst nightmare. How ironic, then, to contemplate the implications of an epistle from San Francisco's GLAAD that denounced the March-April 1994 issue of the Video Librarian for daring to recommend Gay Rights, Special Rights, a video distributed by the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). The following quote from the Video Librarian reviewer is GLAAD's idea of rampant homophobia:

"It would be easy to dismiss Gay Rights, Special Rights as another rabid, right-wing piece of propaganda, except for the serious and valid argument at its core: Should gays and lesbians be accorded minority group status and thereby gain civil rights protections?"

This attempt at a balanced discussion is considered so self-evidently homophobic that Al Kielwasser, local GLAAD guru, did not even bother to explain why he thought it was so. Readers were merely urged to "send much-needed feedback" to the publisher of the Video Librarian.

Clearly, the intent of GLAAD is to make sure that the nation's libraries are cleansed of material they consider potentially harmful. But why stop with such obviously partisan polemics as the TVC video? Why not extend the proscription of anything deemed anti-gay to the local library's current inventory of books? Just think: we could build a bonfire in which the works of Freud, and all the saints in heaven, would be consigned to the flames. It would be as good an excuse as any to torch the complete works of, say, Norman Podhoretz or Pat Buchanan - and even the books of some gay writers whose loyalty to the cause might be found wanting.

All expressions of the idea that homosexuality is in any sense a choice are immediately and vehemently protested by GLAAD as "homophobic," in spite of the considerable dissension on this subject not only among reputable scientists, but also among gays themselves. In the absence of any scientific proof for the gay determinist hypothesis, articles in the press suggesting another view would advance our knowledge of this area by at least carrying the discussion forward. But if the gay ayatollahs of GLAAD have anything to do with it, then those articles will never be published and there will be no discussion. As an example of their dogmatic hectoring, a June 1995 missive from GLAAD berated syndicated gossip columnist Liz Smith for referring to Chastity Bono's "sexual preference":

"Of course, most mainstream journalists have begun to use the more accurate terminology, 'sexual orientation.' 'Preference' carries the unfortunate implication that lesbians and gay men can be changed; it's a term that appeals to the homophobic imagination, in which evil queers prefer immorality over righteousness."

In it's perpetual attempts to intimidate editors, writers, publishers, and movie producers, GLAAD is representative of that curious anomaly of the new millennium: the illiberal liberal. The irony, and the great danger, is that GLAAD is endorsed and subsidized by alleged proponents of "free expression" and openness -- whose money is going to subsidize a new and politically correct version of the Library Police.

In 1980, GLAAD's campaign against the movie Cruising demonized this realistic drama as heterosexist propaganda dedicated to the proposition that, as gay film historian Vito Russo put it, "homosexuality is not only contagious but inescapably brutal." The militant movie mavens of GLAAD reached a crescendo of shrillness in the controversy over Basic Instinct, an elegant movie about a murderess with lesbian tendencies. GLAAD's moral and aesthetic standards are sub-moronic: if a gay character in a movie or television drama is portrayed in a less than flattering light, or even ambiguously, it is GLAAD's cue to get out the picket signs.

This campaign to sanitize homosexuality in the movies soon expanded to include an organized effort to inculcate GLAAD's view of the subject in public school textbooks. In California, GLAAD chapters were urged to attend meetings of the State Board of Education's ad hoc "Committee on Hate/Violence," which is, we are told, "an important platform of curriculum reform." The strategy is to piggyback onto the current campaign against racially-motivated "hate crimes" in the public schools: "Given the committee's focus, the public can demand the Board's attention to the role that textbooks can - and must - play in combating homophobia. After all, unless the Board of Education begins to spend tax dollars on books that include fair and accurate information about lesbians and gays, our schools will continue to teach a curriculum of hate and violence."

What could be clearer than this clarion call for state-subsidized gay propaganda aimed at children? As a parent put it at a meeting of the Queens (New York) School Board Distict 28, in reference to the imposition of New York City's infamous "Rainbow Curriculum": "Remember that the Children of the Rainbow [teacher's manual] specifically tells teachers that in all subjects they are to mention the gay and lesbian lifestyle. This means that in math, reading, and writing, our children will have to hear about this. And remember, this is the first grade." The whole process, he correctly concluded, amounts to "indoctrination."

These parents want to know why homosexuality must be discussed in the schools at all. Gay activists answer: because we are victims. Violence against homosexuals is endemic in this society, and it is the responsibility of the public schools to prevent this by promoting "tolerance."

Christian fundamentalists and other advocates of traditional morality, in opposing social engineering projects such as New York City's "Rainbow Curriculum," declared that homosexuals were trying to recruit innocent young children into their ranks. But they needn't have worried. For the insipid and defensive propaganda of the tolerance brigade would only serve to repulse the very students who might be inclined toward homosexual behavior. What budding young homosexual would not sneer in derision upon being told he has to do a book report on Daddy's Roommate or Gloria Goes to Gay Pride? Such drivel would not recruit anyone, not even the likeliest candidates, and instead would have the opposite effect. Deprived of the aura of rebellion and the forbidden, the allure of homosexuality would practically vanish. Stripped of its otherness, homophilia would soon lose a good deal of its erotic charge, at least for a great many potential practitioners. The irony of the gay activist agenda in the schools is that its full implementation would eventually result in considerably fewer homosexuals. Perhaps GLAAD and the fundamentalists - who have more in common than is at first apparent - can get together on this one.

What a troubling article, must have been a bigot that wrote it.

 

[BVS]

What a troubling article, must have been a bigot that wrote it.

What is the point of this?

Is it troubling because he's gay, or because he doesn't fit in a particular mold, or just because you are trying to prove some ironic point?

 

[melon]

What a troubling article, must have been a bigot that wrote it.

Who, pray tell, did write it? I see you've conveniently omitted the source.

 

[BVS]

Who, pray tell, did write it? I see you've conveniently omitted the source.

Justin Raimondo

Justin Raimondo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[melon]

Justin Raimondo

I should've figured. He's fairly unhinged.

Raimondo is openly gay, but as a libertarian, he believes the government should refrain from adopting laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays. He believes gays have a right to discriminate against non-gays. He also is against gay marriage, both mocking the idea that gays should adopt a heterosexual model of sexual and emotional relationships, and noting that as a libertarian he opposes "State incursion into such private matters." He also has written that after years of persecution by the state gay rights activists want to "use the battering ram of government power" to actively intervene on behalf of homosexuals.

Right. Now let's see Justin write a "libertarian" argument in favour of racial segregation.

Would he state that the government should refrain from adopting laws that would prohibit discrimination against blacks? Does he believe that blacks have a right to discriminate against non-blacks? Does he believe that everyone from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King, Jr. used the "battering ram of government power" to actively intervene on behalf of blacks?

Would he, as a "libertarian," support the repeal of the Reconstruction Amendments, which ended slavery and, at least in principle, guaranteed the equal rights of men of all races, but were only ratified because the North forced the former Confederate states to ratify them as a condition for readmission into the Union--that is, they were amendments that were not approved by popular sentiment, but only due to the strong arm of government?

Will you do that for us, Justin, as you are clearly high on principle?

Frankly, I make no secret that I despise him and everything he is tied with ideologically.

 

[financeguy]

I should've figured. He's fairly unhinged.

Right. Now let's see Justin write a "libertarian" argument in favour of racial segregation.

Would he state that the government should refrain from adopting laws that would prohibit discrimination against blacks? Does he believe that blacks have a right to discriminate against non-blacks? Does he believe that everyone from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King, Jr. used the "battering ram of government power" to actively intervene on behalf of blacks?

Would he, as a "libertarian," support the repeal of the Reconstruction Amendments, which ended slavery and, at least in principle, guaranteed the equal rights of men of all races, but were only ratified because the North forced the former Confederate states to ratify them as a condition for readmission into the Union--that is, they were amendments that were not approved by popular sentiment, but only due to the strong arm of government?

It isn't really up to Justin to make such an argument. When you are in the minority (actually, a minority within a minority within a minority, in Raimondo's case, i.e., a gay conservative who disagrees with most of mainstream - read neo - conservatism), you have to pick your targets carefully. But, a libertarian black conservative could well make the argument you've outlined above, and I'm sure some have (with the exception of repealing the anti-slavery laws, and I'm sorry to say that even bringing that up strikes me as hyperbolic, unless you can find an article from Justin advocating that government shouldn't enforce laws against gay bashing assaults, or even an article stating that he doesn't believe government is entitled to enforce basic rights in law. I would also make the point that most libertarians are not minarchists, and few libertarians would argue against government enforcement of basic rule of law based, to a large extent, on equality of opportunity under the law - actually, most libertarians are firm supporters of that principle).

When we think about it, there are many occasions when the majority is wrong. A few years ago, the majority of bankers didn't think their banks would have to be kept alive by government bailouts. A few years ago, the majority of home owners didn't think their homes would decline in value.

Not that long ago, the majority didn't have a problem with legislation outlawing gay sex. I think we can safely say they were wrong, right? Now, even right wing Christian conservatives wouldn't usually argue for actually recriminalising all homosexual sex. Indeed, we remember the comments from the famous Joe the Plumber when he said that he had no problem with what homosexuals do in private, or something like that.

Now, I think it's safe to say the majority of US gays are in favour of legalised gay marriage. On the other hand, we have a minority of US gays who are against. The fact that the former are in the majority does not make their arguments right. And the fact that some 'arguments' against gay marriage are motivated by homophobia does not make all the arguments against gay marriage wrong. That, as I understand it, is the broader narrative Raimondo is hinting at.

Frankly, I make no secret that I despise him and everything he is tied with ideologically.

So, actually, from your point of view, you think my ironic comment in the other thread, implying that the writer of the quote I posted must be a bigot, is actually true. Raimondo is a bigot. This out gay man who has devoted his life to libertarianism and the anti-war cause is really a bigot. Hmm.

 

[melon]

Now, I think it's safe to say the majority of US gays are in favour of legalised gay marriage. On the other hand, we have a minority of US gays who are against. The fact that the former are in the majority does not make their arguments right. That, as I understand it, is the broader narrative Raimondo is hinting at.

I'm not sure why he's reducing this to a "majority/minority" argument, when, really, the merits of any cause define the worthiness of it, not the status of those arguing it. The fact that Justin happens to be gay doesn't change the fact that I think this argument falls on very faulty logic. I quite strongly side, philosophically, with John Locke on this issue, particularly when it comes to inalienable rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Where his logic really falls apart is where he thinks that the right of majority to deprive minorities of their inalienable rights trumps that of the minority's rights to live according to those rights. It's completely farcical when one looks at any number of countries where the "majority" sees fit to not only deny rights to its minorities, but to also abuse them, silence them, and sometimes even kill them. But hey...let's tell those people in Darfur that they are silly to demand equality, when we really should be telling them that they have the equal right to attack and kill their oppressors instead! But I guess that also throws a wrench into his hard-line anti-war stances.

So, actually, from your point of view, you think my ironic comment in the other thread, implying that the writer of the quote I posted must be a bigot, is actually true. Raimondo is a bigot. This out gay man who has devoted his life to libertarianism and the anti-war cause is really a bigot. Ho hum. Interesting.

Objectively speaking, judging the merit or lack thereof of his statements on the basis of his personal background would be a logical fallacy. If I read his blog and knew nothing at all about him, I would most certainly think he was a raving lunatic who wasn't all there. The fact that he is a "bigot" can be surmised solely on the basis of what he writes, and his downright archetypal depiction of the gay rights movement as some kind of deviant menace fits the definition perfectly. I'm also pretty sure that some Jews might find his conspiracy theories about their involvement in the U.S. government rather anti-Semitic, as well.

I would also question his motives for being anti-war too. Is it out of some larger benevolence toward the greater of mankind, or some kind of self-indulgent nativist isolationism? Considering his past association with Pat Buchanan, a case could most certainly be made with the latter, and I would hardly see it as being some kind of virtue worthy of praise.

 

[financeguy]

It's completely farcical when one looks at any number of countries where the "majority" sees fit to not only deny rights to its minorities, but to also abuse them, silence them, and sometimes even kill them. But hey...let's tell those people in Darfur that they are silly to demand equality, when we really should be telling them that they have the equal right to attack and kill their oppressors instead! But I guess that also throws a wrench into his hard-line anti-war stances.

The libertarian conservative anti-war movement isn't saying that we should tell the people in Darfur that they are silly to demand equality. What it is saying that we should politely tell them it is none of our business - which, frankly, it isn't. Underlying the mainstream media analysis of Darfur is the neocon/liberal idea that the US/West should be the world policeman, and underlying that is essentially imperialism and colonialism - even when well intentioned. It's the old Kipling thing of the white man's burden.

Are you in favour of an international military intervention in the Sudan? What form should it take? Let's hear what forces should be involved and what the mission objective is. Let's hear the plans for the new Sudanese government. Incidentally, a lot of these conflicts you refer to have their roots in Western colonialism and interventionism. So the solution is to be more Western colonialism and interventionism?

The fact that he is a "bigot" can be surmised solely on the basis of what he writes, and his downright archetypal depiction of the gay rights movement as some kind of deviant menace fits the definition perfectly. I'm also pretty sure that some Jews might find his conspiracy theories about their involvement in the U.S. government rather anti-Semitic, as well.

This isn't argument. It's just labelling someone you don't agree with.

 

[melon]

The libertarian conservative anti-war movement isn't saying that we should tell the people in Darfur that they are silly to demand equality. What it is saying that we should politely tell them it is none of our business - which, frankly, it isn't. Underlying the mainstream media analysis of Darfur is the neocon/liberal idea that the US/West should be the world policeman, and underlying that is essentially imperialism and colonialism - even when well intentioned. It's the old Kipling thing of the white man's burden.

Then, frankly, by that logic, I think I can safely say that heterosexuals have no business telling the gay community what to do.

Are you in favour of an international military intervention in the Sudan? What form should it take? Let's hear what forces should be involved and what the mission objective is. Let's hear the plans for the new Sudanese government. Incidentally, a lot of these conflicts you refer to have their roots in Western colonialism and interventionism. So the solution is to be more Western colonialism and interventionism?

This argument is based on a presumption that we live in some kind of separate snow globes, and the last thing we need is some outsider to come inside--thus, implicitly, smashing and ruining it irrevocably. "Colonialism" may be the popular spectre to reference these days, and I will agree, for one, that colonialism was capable of causing harm. On the other hand, I can think of few cultures today that have existed without any external influences of any kind. A short summary of the history of Sudan, for instance, reveals a series of external forces on the area from a series of Egyptian invasions, both ancient and modern, Christian kingdoms, Islamic invasions, Turkish Ottoman rule, and eventually, as the spoils of WWI, under British control. So even if we take the British out of the equation here, there is no romanticist "unspoilt" Sudanese culture, free of foreign influence, and, as such, to claim that all of Sudan's problems, for instance, are the result of "colonialism" is downright simplistic.

Honestly, there is no quick ideological answer to this question. The United Nations, in principle, should exist to resolve this problem, and its member nations should choose to intervene or not based on consensus. In practice, as many would argue, the United Nations is heavily ideologically driven, and, as such, cannot achieve an unbiased consensus on anything. Whether the United States should get directly involved or not would hinge on what it could achieve and what the international support for such an overture would be. But frankly, this is not an issue in which the U.S. would achieve much of any support domestically or internationally, and nor can it really afford it. A nearly bankrupt U.S. has probably done more to help achieve isolationism than any ideological plea.

This isn't argument. It's just labelling someone you don't agree with.

Hardly. I'd say it depends on whether an objective definition of "bigotry" can be crafted. If possible, it would likely ensnare much of the far-right and far-left equally, and Raimondo sits quite comfortably within the far-right.