That it's ok for Iran to lie and get nuclear weapons because the US did bad stuff?

On some other planet where even Mossad admits Iran wasn't running a nuclear weapons program?

Wow, you're such a friendly moron I can't resist writing back.

If you say so.

A) continue the sanctions, even after they already achieved their goal
B) Military intervention.. yet again.

Or.....

C) Stop being imperialistic shitbags

As a signatory to the NPT, Iran already had the right to enrich uranium to any levels. And as even Mossad has been willing to tell you, for quite some time....Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

Given the fact that Iran hasn't attacked another country in a couple hundred years, how does it many a wit of sense that the sanctions aren't being placed on the U.S. and Israel instead. The U.S., because it's ignoring the disarmament provisions of the NPT, and Israel for possessing ~200 nukes and a penchant for launching first strikes upon it's neighbors.

Pretty much as I said: Hillary is a freakshow, and she is far out right-wing. All the fascism you could want, from signing the TPP to expanding the police state. Like Obama, the key is to ignore the words coming out of their mouths, the false promises to their base, and look at what they do.

If you believe the words coming out of her mouth now that she's on the campaign trail, I have to ask if you think pron stars are naturally blonde and big boobed.

and no one is ever wrong on the internet.

O'RLY.

God you just failed so hard. The amount of arrogance you show when you post so aggressively when you do it makes it all the more funny. If you didn't always post like such an ass then you could at least get away with it just being an honest mistake, we all make them, but the way you blah blah blah blah The way you desperately try and salvage with the chairman thing whilst still demonstrating you don't know what powers a chairman has

To paraphrase Churchill: at the end of the night, I fucked up on a date. At the end of the week, you're a fuckup who can't read and has no idea what power a chairman has. I'll speak slowly and use small words:

To start with, Gates was Ballmer's boss. You do know that the CEO answers to the board of directors, yes? You also know that Microsoft hasn't lost their dominance because Ballmer picked the wrong release date for Office 2010 or hired a slacker for Marketing, yes?

They've been left behind by their lack of vision. Vision can come from the CEO - but it can also come from the Board. You know, the people in charge of the overall welfare of the company, not just day to day operations? At any number of times, Gates could have called up Ballmer to talk about how to get ahead of this iPod thing. Or this Amazon thing. Or this iPhone thing. Or this Facebook thing - which at one point Microsoft could have bought for a couple billion, couch money for them. Acquisitions that would be approved by.....the Board of Directors. Chaired by Bill.

But none of that happened, because Gates has no more vision than Ballmer, not because he no longer had a powerful position at the company.

Which was my point from the beginning.

leaves you such a massive laughing stock when you get it so badly wrong as you frequently do

So frequently, eh? Can you even name the last time? I like to know what I'm talking about, as I don't suffer fools gladly, and there are a lot of fools around here. Like people who don't bother to take two seconds to read that Gate's retirement was already mentioned, and have no idea WTF they're talking about when it comes to corporate executives.

So how about you, Xest? Still writing third rate propaganda demanding harsh action on Iran, when the NPT allows them to enrich uranium at any level they choose, and for the nuclear weapons program that even Mossad says they don't have?

Not precisely. You need to work on your history. First of all, this was the result of policies implemented in the 90s - when Clinton was in office.

You need to work on your projection, the conservative tendency to ignore real facts for favored talking points. Case in point:

I remember in the 90s the parade of corporate execs being called before congress (and Mr Frank specifically) to be publicly pilloried for 'racism' of 'redlining' districts - ie, calling out low-income areas as not-worth-the-risk-of-loaning to.

You mean calling out racism. Ending redlining had jack to do with subprime loans, but stopped banks from redlining applications because of a person's race. And you do know that Frank was in the minority all the way from the 1994 midterms to the 2006 midterms, yes? Which means if you want to throw stones at Congress, that necessitates throwing them at Republicans first, yes?

But no, you'd rather repeat stupid BS about Dems rather than hit them for things they've actually done. Like Clinton repealing Glass-Steagall, or pushing the sales of $500,000 to be free of capital gains - a one-two combo that encouraged subprime loans and house-flipping. That actually happened, and actually had a great deal to do with the subprime mess.

But the Bush White House for 6 years

The six years he had a Republican Congress?

there were problems on the horizon without significant structure reform of GSEs like Fannie Mae

Fannie And Freddie weren't pushing subprime loans. Private banks were. Again.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and their subprime loans...when you were in charge of the relevant committee

Private banks were pushing subprime loans, not Freddie or Fannie. And Republicans controlled Congress until 2007 and the White House until 2009. But do go on beating the dead horse of Barney Frank, while ignoring Obama's bank bailouts right under your nose.

On the left you've got a choice between Hillary and Bernie

Hillary is a nightmare right-wing freakshow. If she's on the left, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro were conservative, pro-business Republicans on the right.

Saying being fond of Nazi swastikas and rebel flags are inclusive of each other is like saying flying a gay pride flag means you back militant black power guerillas.

The only connection between those dots is the crap in your brains.

slavery was enshrined in the US constitution from day one

Annnnnd? Why was it enshrined in the Constitution? To make the South happy.

maybe the US flag is also racist?

The U.S. was built on racism - just ask all the native tribes massacred to make those 50 states. But what was the Confederate Flag about? The Confederacy. What was the Confederacy about? A group of states leaving the union. Why did they want to leave the union? Slavery.

The one is rather more explicit than the other.

instead of spewing hate at a third of the nation, maybe you should pause to think on what you say.

And I'm sure there are some Germans, who get all pissy when someone objects to flying a big swastika flag next to their house. "It's about heritage, not hate! It's not a symbol of war and oppression, because the autobahn is pretty sweet, right?"

They'd be full of crap, too.

WTF are you talking about. Denying that the racist Dixicrats moved, en mass, to the Republican party is as pointless as denying that water is wet. Just ask Zombie Thurmond. Just ask Zombie Reagan.

. I don't work for Yahoo or ever have, but I'm a fan of Marissa Mayer. Silicon Valley needs more women like Marissa, and less like Ellen.

Mayer ended work-from-home for Yahoo employees at the same time she built a private day care for her own kids next to her office. She also got all pissy when a man complimented her looks, then did a "come fuck me spread" for Vogue. She might not be a dooshcannon like Pao, but she's at least a dooshpistol.

The facts of the case painted the firm as pretty sexist

You misspelled allegations. It doesn't help Pao's case that she gave horrible reviews to other female employees of the firm.

"The bad reviews I received were horrible sexism, but the bad reviews I gave to other women were totally deserved! Totally!"

"Offense is never given, it's only ever taken."

-Unknown

"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."

Brigham Young

Any second grader can tell you that's painfully facile.

I'm not a big fan of punitive damages payable to the victim.

Uh, why? Comcast wasn't harassing the people of the state, it was harassing this specific individual.

. I'm also not a big fan of people landing a huge payday because of a small "jackpot"

So you want the fine to be utterly meaningless as a deterrent to future action by Comcast? Let me guess: you also don't like class action lawsuits, to rule out many people getting smaller amounts of money, on the other end of the scale.

In the end the customer always pays.

Facile, as prices are already set to maximize revenue, and this sum is pocket money for a corporation this size.