"Turn your schools into training camps for us"
Obama tried to continue that upward trend during his first term, but reality has set in
Stop lying. It was an intransigent Republican Congress that set in.
So? If you have chosen for the lesser evil, then it is still incumbent upon you to simply admit it, lest people mistrust your integrity.
Using a form of 'I detest the lesser evil but
After all, he could have posted a passionate attack on Little England and the Daily Heil who cause this poisoned atmosphere, but he didn't do so, now did he?,/P.
Perhaps this is an appropriate quote:
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
The day an art book containing reproductions of renaissance paintings with naked cherubs in them gets pulled for kiddie porn is the day I can see this concern. Until then it's just the usual libertard ranting.
In other words, you are perfectly fine with censorship and eavesdropping. That was what I said in the first place, wasn't it?
Anytime anyone uses the 'A but B' form, they mean they agree with B but just don't have the integrity to admit it explicitly.
A law making it illegal to photograph the "intimate parts" of women and children in public. What could go wrong? [Link to photograph of 'Manneken Pis' in Brussesl]
Yes, because a prohibition on the wilful taking of photographs of intimate parts of living human beings is the same as a prohibition on photographing statues.
Do you have to work at being this moronic, or does it come naturally?
No, Tim Cook should be praised because he stood up to the right-wing idiots and told them where to stuff it, instead of treating them like an equal partner in a sensible debate.
The right-wing thinktanks have been flooding debates with PR puff pieces (also known as 'lies') instead of facts, and it is high time they got called on it.
so because "white, libertarian men" decide they want to support something, does that automatically make it bad or wrong?
Not directly. However, since 'white, libertarian men' are without fail complete idiots, it is a good reason to treat anything they espouse with some extra levels of scepticism.
"Not using the actual proof, do you have any proof that these laws work?"
Fuck you. I'm not going to discuss things with people who start out by stacking the deck in their favour.
Does this skew social power in favor of minorities?
Yes, it does. Now my counterquestion: if that social power is heavily skewed against minorities, is it a bad thing to skew it to more of a balance?
Ever heard of the 'tu quoque' fallacy?
I don't. Why don't you provide a link to said debunking?
Because that's the logical endpoint of denying womens' agency.
It's not my fault your statement literally translates to "When a woman says no, she means yes." It's right there in your own words, so you might want to look up what strawman means.