Could you straw man any harder?
Fox and Dominion settle for $788 million
- Thread starter Ag3ma
- Start date
lyingcat.jpg
Children do not, in fact, "already know this stuff", and you can tell in the differences in teen pregnancy rates.
You know this, and I know this, and the first amendment of the untied states knows this, but Missouri House Bill 1364 does not know this
Maybe you should be telling this to the fucker that wrote it?
Oklahoma SB129 | 2023 | Regular Session
Bill Text (2023-03-01) Health care; prohibiting certain uses of public funds, public facilities, and public employees. Emergency. [Coauthored by Representative West (Kevin) (principal House author)]legiscan.com
I think that is part of something else because there's no reference to age at all in the text. I'd be against it based on how vague it seems to be (again, it feels like it's apart of something else) because it's too all-encompassing. Just based on reading, I don't actually think it's gonna do anything honestly because what health care providers are employed by the state anyway? Your doctor that refers you to another doctor that's a specialist in said treatments/surgeries aren't gonna be employed by the state. Even the public funds part of the bill seems very limiting as well and might not even apply state-assisted insurance (which I'm not even sure is technically a "public fund" by definition of the bill). But if it does include that, then I'd be against it.
Bullard files bill prohibiting genital mutilation of youth under 26 | Oklahoma Senate
OKLAHOMA CITY - Sen. David Bullard, R-Durant, recently filed Senate Bill 129, also known as the Millstone Act, to prohibit Oklahoma doctors from providing gender transition procedures or referral services relating to such procedures to anyone under the age of 26.
You have to remember the right wing media window - if you asked them for an example of why a "drag queen story hour" is a problem you are almost guaranteed to get a reference to that Mandinga Arts library event, despite not technically being a drag thing. If you don't know the event I'm talking about, just Google "rainbow dildo butt monkey" and it'll be the entire first page of results.
1) It says "Licensed, certified, or otherwise authorised by the laws of this state to administer health care in the ordinary course of the practice of his or her profession". All healthcare providers fit that description.
2) You've linked to the amended text. You can switch to the text as introduced along the tabs at the top. The original text, as introduced by the Republicans, read; "A physician or other healthcare professional shall not provide gender transition procedures to any individual under 26 years of age./ A physician or other healthcare professional shall not refer any individual under 26 years of age to any healthcare professional for gender transition procedures".
It might be more accurate to say...
"...by attending a UNMOVIC or IAEA press briefing, or reading a press release".
"...by speaking to the same sources who were leaking information and whistleblowing before the war even started".
"...by speaking to actual international relations, international political economy, and regional political experts, as opposed to political operatives masquerading as foreign policy experts".
"...by not deplatforming and blacklisting aforementioned individuals -- internationally-recognized weapons manufacture and inspection experts, and foreign policy experts alike -- for expressing entirely justified criticism of the war and its rationale".
"...by performing basic due diligence, regarding unsubstantiated claims of people long-proven to be untrustworthy and unreliable -- some of whose lack of credibility had been established as early as Vietnam -- with well-earned skepticism".
Oh, and I forgot one:
"...by not actively working for seven years to reframe, and eventually discredit, testimony and delivered documents from Iraqi defectors that Iraq had in fact ended its WMD programs and destroyed its stockpiles".
I must be slipping, that I'd forgotten Hussein Kamel until now. The, uh, let me just check my notes here...defector who apparently hoped to gain US support for a coup to install him, while simultaneously being an Iraqi double agent feeding the West misinformation about Iraq's WMD program. But despite this strange quantum superposition of political states, he was honor killed within 72 hours of returning to Iraq.
Whose testimony was simultaneously trustworthy because he admitted Iraq had a WMD program (which UNSCOM already knew), but untrustworthy because he admitted its stockpiles were destroyed (which UNSCOM already knew). That testimony, which was simultaneously a game-changer because it was a cooperative insider source on Iraq's WMD (which UNSCOM already knew, and the US sure as shit already knew as the US aided Iraq's WMD program prior to Desert Shield), but of limited value because he didn't provide proof of the existence of Iraq's secret weapons he said didn't exist. The testimony that was regarded by the US and UNSCOM to be so highly sensitive in hopes of bluffing Iraq, that he was doing interviews on CNN.
But, of course, I'm not talking about events from 2003. Nor 2004, 2005, 2006...no, I'm talking about events from 1995.
Not that it would stop the man's defection and testimony from being distorted and used by the Bush administration and the press to continue the big lie:
Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed - FAIR
On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that “raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist,” the magazine’s issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who...
fair.org
David Benioff and D.B. Weiss must have been in charge of CNN and a bunch of other news outlets in 2003, for the politico-media complex to have "kinda forgotten" on that scale about what they'd covered on their own outlets seven years prior about this precise subject.
Well-earned and healthy scepticism regarding the political and propaganda narratives fabricated/exaggerated to smear the targets of invasion and grease the slide to war. If only it was consistent. Que sera.
Alas, such was not the case. Rather, the press provided proven liars unfettered airtime to spout known falsehoods. In return, the press not just refused to push back, but went the extra mile attacking those liars' critics and attempting to discredit the very information disproving war hawks' claims. Including information the same outlets had published for years.
Running out of steam and room to argue already? I would have expected more than "reality and facts are boo-ring!", ironically enough mirroring much of the pro-war dismissal of...well, reality and fact...during the run-up to the war itself.
Damn, I hadn't even talked about the Rumsfeld leaks yet.
Yep, now apply those observations and criticisms consistently.
Elsewhere, when the press provides proven liars unfettered airtime to spout known falsehoods, and the state & press both attack those liars' critics (but also murder and imprison them) and discredit any information that disproves the war hawks' claims, you've been uncritically repeating the smears and falsehoods that greased the slide into war. Just so long as the press liars, state propagandists and other assorted corporate shills are wearing the right colour badges.
Can't even view that because
Also, why is your link objectively better and the "real" truth when there's studies that say opposite?
Declining tropical cyclone frequency under global warming - Nature Climate Change
Detecting change in tropical cyclones is difficult from observational records. Here a reconstruction using reanalysis data of annual cyclone numbers shows they have declined globally and regionally over the twentieth century.
www.nature.com
The actual fact is that weather is very complex and we don't understand it fully and the data and studies we do have are inconclusive.
Can you actually science any less harder?
The GOP has infected European news sites?!?!lyingcat.jpg
Children do not, in fact, "already know this stuff", and you can tell in the differences in teen pregnancy rates.
You know this, and I know this, and the first amendment of the untied states knows this, but Missouri House Bill 1364 does not know this
View attachment 8711
Maybe you should be telling this to the fucker that wrote it?
.Bullard files bill prohibiting genital mutilation of youth under 26 | Oklahoma Senate
OKLAHOMA CITY - Sen. David Bullard, R-Durant, recently filed Senate Bill 129, also known as the Millstone Act, to prohibit Oklahoma doctors from providing gender transition procedures or referral services relating to such procedures to anyone under the age of 26.oksenate.gov
Sweden puts brakes on treatments for trans minors
Sweden, the first country to introduce legal gender reassignment, has begun restricting gender reassignment hormone treatments for minors, as it, like many Western countries, grapples with the highly-sensitive…
So teens don't know about gay people?"'Drag queen', a male or female performer who adopts a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup"
A guy can dress like a woman and read kids a book...
Why? I don't live in Oklahoma
C. Gender transition procedures shall not be provided or referred for in the following situations:
1. By or in a health care facility owned by the state or a county or local government; or
2. By a health care provider employed by the state or a county or local government.
"Citing evidence Western press had full, free, and public access to information disproving the rationale for invading Iraq, doesn't address the issue of whether the press knew the rationale for invading Iraq was false! The press only published almost all of that information years before the Bush administration went sniffing around, how could they possibly have known?"
Oh you're just trying to defend these guys again.
Right, got it.
Just never mind, say, this strange and terribly inconvenient discrepancy:
Weird, that. Western press was more than happy reporting upon pervasive and growing right-wing extremist and neo-Nazi influence in Ukraine across all levels of government and the military. At least, right up until February 24th, 2022, at which point it was never actually true and was just Rooskie Propaganders! or something. I mean shit, this was such a thing Ukrainian stand-up comedians were joking about it, as well as US interference in Ukrainian politics and use of the country as a proxy power against Russia.
I'm sure that asshole, whomever he was, now has a comedy-infotainment show on RT where he can put a satirical spin on Rooskie Propaganders! Kinda like if Pravda made The Daily Show, you know?
Shit, David Benioff and D.B. Weiss must still be in charge of the American politico-media complex. They sure seem to have "kinda forgot" about all that reporting about Ukraine before 24 February, 2022, just like they "kinda forgot" about all the reporting about Iraq before the passage of UNSCR 1441.
This is, 100%, the equivalent of those bankrupt American warhawks screeching that anyone against the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan is "defending" evil Saddam or Al Qaeda.
You'll employ /identical/ arguments to the ones you've decried and condemned, if it's expedient.
Is now the time I comment on the irony you're saying this while still trying to insinuate that, as I'm opposed to US interference in Ukraine, I'm defending Russia and Putin?
Or are you still waiting for a "gotcha" moment from this post?
I admire your commitment to the schtick. But you're seriously trying to claim inconsistency where I'm advocating non-interventionism in both situations, and calling out Orwellianism in Western news media to manufacture consent for war in not one, but two different cases? Well, three given I made reference to the USS Maine and Spanish-American war in this very thread. Thus far I've been kind enough to not mention the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Vietnam, but I'm seriously reconsidering that kindness.
Last edited:
Oh, you're not explicitly defending them, that would be much too obvious; but you've certainly echoed fabricated shite from known liars and propagandists that were used to push the invasion.
A little like how quite a few war apologists in America wouldn't /explicitly/ endorse invasion, but would only shrilly decry how awful the governments of Iraq et al are in any conversation about the American invasion-- conveniently mirroring the lines that the warhawks drew up, and often even repeating their falsehoods.
Non-interventionism! No, you're advocating unilateral withdrawal of assistance from the defending power, and a removal of all barriers to intervention from the invading power. A little like the supposed "non-interventionism" of Britain and France during the Spanish Civil War, which managed to please both the right-wing nationalists and the more short-sighted of the pacifists, while allowing Italy and Germany to plunder the country and forcibly transform it in their own image.
It is indeed a kindness when you limit your wordcount, even a little.
Once again, otherwise known as "the Western media consensus before 24 February, 2022". Are we to understand Western media outlets as Russian propaganda before that point, who only miraculously saw the light once Russian tanks started rolling (and US defense contractors' stock prices exploded)?
We're to conflate the vaguely hawkish rhetoric of the Clinton administration which merely spoke of "regime change" without clear messaging as to what that meant, with the explicit calls for invasion by the Bush administration and neoconservatives following 9/11, for the sake of your argument?
Congratulations, you've discovered how non-interventionism works? It's awfully funny, because had the US never taken an interventionist stance in Ukraine dating back to the '80s but especially in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse, we almost certainly wouldn't be in this position to begin with.
You are aware the UK supported the Nationalists, and intervened in every way short of directly sending arms and troops to ensure their victory, yes? I mean, judging from your ill-conceived citation here, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you indeed have no clue what non-interventionism is, and are once-again relying on Bushian false dichotomies for wont of an actual argument.
Last edited:
Or the liars and propagandists of the Russian state media and its proxies, who fabricated invasion pretexts that are cheerfully repeated by the susceptible today.
Not at all, but that's a neat rhetorical distraction to shift focus and responsibility wholly away from the actual invader again. We're to draw moral equivalence between the American useful idiots that did the government's work for it by endlessly shifting any conversation about the bankruptcy of invasion onto how evil Saddam is, and the useful idiots who do.... well, exactly the same thing with Ukraine.
It's almost adorably gullible that you believe that flimsy pretext for imperial annexation. As if the Russian imperial designs on Ukraine just wouldn't have materialised if the big bad Americans had kept their hands to themselves.
I am indeed aware; You'll notice the scornful speech marks around "supposed".
You'll also be aware that the public position of "non-intervention" was crafted to appease those who thought the West should be keeping to ourselves. And what exactly did starving the Republicans of desperately-needed defensive support actually do? It didn't free Spain of outside coercion: it did exactly the opposite, laying the welcome mat for fascism to intervene unopposed. Non-intervention, yeah!
___
In short: you categorically do not want "non-intervention". Providing defensive arms at the express request of the elected government is not an aggressive "intervention" when the country is under invasion. What you want is purely unopposed intervention by one side-- and that's patently obvious by how you echo their talking points and warmongering lies.
So if ya want to hold the warmongering press narratives of the American media complex in sceptical disdain, then good! Absolutely go for it. But be consistent, for Bast's sake; do it out of genuine scepticism and principled opposition to the lies that drive a country to invasion, not just because they have the wrong flag.
Last edited:
My personal favorite example is The Gravel Institute. If you aren't familiar, the general concept is PragerU, but left wing. They published a video about Ukraine's neo-Nazi problem in February 2022 titled "How America Funded Ukraine’s Neo-Nazis", then took it down days later when Russia invaded, put it back up under a new title "America, Russia, and Ukraine’s Far-Right Problem" briefly defending it and then ultimately took it back down. Because their slick, well researched left wing propaganda had unfortunately become a right wing talking point.
The press had evidence from some organisations saying that Iraq had WMDs and evidence from other organisations saying Iraq didn't. Most of the press chose wrong.
We can just hope a load of those journalists learnt something. Unfortunately, even if they did they'll be retired soon enough so a new generation can make the same error.