Why Putin isn't any worse than Obama

[aBBYS]

If you live in Europe or America, chances are you hear a lot of anti-Russia propaganda each day in the news. Which is ironic, because this propaganda often claims that Russian media is not "free" and completely controlled by Putin. But western media is also controlled by certain interests. How many of of you have heard media saying something positive about Putin last six months?

Yeltsin made Russia into a capitalist state during the 90s, and many business people made maximum use of privatisation during this time. At the end of the 90s, the living standard in Russia was very poor and people suffered. Under Putin's direction, the economy has recovered, pensions has increased, living standards has increased. Many people in Russia actually likes Putin as a leader, but I bet western people only hear about ***** Riot, ***** Riot, ***** Riot, demonstrants in jail, demonstrants in jail, no free media, no free media, Putin hates gays, Putin hates gays. Am I right?

Because western media only brings up the bad side of Russia and Putin all the time. And sometimes then even change the truth into a lie, like when they make westerners think that Putin hates gay people. He does not. He's just against gay propaganda, with parades and such. It's not illegal to be gay in Russia.

This video brings up a few interesting points and explains them in a short, easy way:

When the US "saves" a country from a dictator, what does it REALLY do? Here's what:

First, the US gives a lot of money to rebels or demonstrants with the same agenda as them in different countries, or give them education how to organize themselves.

Second, they claim that it was the will of the people.

Third, when the country in question is all war-torn, the let the world bank lend them lots and lots of money - and dictate the conditions which affects the country's culture a lot.

Fourth, the country doesn't stand a chance of paying back this money (which the US and Europe are well aware about), so western companies start to exploit the country's natural resources (oil, gas, minerals etc) as an alternative method of pay. These details are very rarely communicated in western news, it's all about the kind Obama going around the world, helping poor people get their freedom. Which media was biased now again?

Look at countries which the west has "liberated". Iraq. Afghanistan. Egypt. How are these countries today? They're in total chaos, because democracy doesn't solve anything if there isn't stability first.

I'm not saying Putin is great, but he's no worse than Obama. But Putin is important - he's the only world leader today who dares to stand up to Obama and not follow the western ideals and the western way of living. And for that he's painted like the devil in western media.

 

[EmbersToAshes]

While I agree that listening to the media too closely can be dangerous, I should probably highlight that flyers have been handed around in the Ukraine marked with the Russian seal demanding that Jewish citizens pay to register with the pro-Russian separatists or face having their possessions and homes removed from them.

That is just terrifying. I can't comprehend how anybody could possibly maintain a view like this after the abominations we've seen in the past.

I also have a question - is the reference to 'gay propaganda' a reflection of your own opinion, or more a reference to Putin's views? I don't want to disagree out of the box without knowing if you were simply quoting.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Remember that one time when Obama gassed an Opera House with poison and then refused to disclose the agent when asked by hospitals who were treating the patients resulting in approximately a hundred and thirty deaths due to developing fatal symptoms from gas exposure.

 

[Lythium]

The fact that you think a gay pride parade is propaganda speaks volumes to me.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The fact that you think a gay pride parade is propaganda speaks volumes to me.

Homosexuals have attempted to mislead the public into accepting their sexually questionable practices by calling themselves gay making us believe that being 'gay' is gay. This 'gay' parade operates under a similar premise of misinformation by using bright colors, dancing, and happy 'gays' being gay at a 'gay' event therefore leading the less educated to be confused by the flaw of ambiguous word choice. There has been notable break though on the part of Putin when it comes to our military policy of "Don't Gay, Don't Gay" as there is noticeably less ask and tell among the gays serving in dire straights.

 

[aBBYS]

While I agree that listening to the media too closely can be dangerous, I should probably highlight that flyers have been handed around in the Ukraine marked with the Russian seal demanding that Jewish citizens pay to register with the pro-Russian separatists or face having their possessions and homes removed from them.

That is just terrifying. I can't comprehend how anybody could possibly maintain a view like this after the abominations we've seen in the past.

I also have a question - is the reference to 'gay propaganda' a reflection of your own opinion, or more a reference to Putin's views? I don't want to disagree out of the box without knowing if you were simply quoting.

Putin has already said he has no control or contact with the pro-Russian separatists in east Ukraine - they act on their own. Of course, the western society immediately say that's false, but what proof do they have? They're just assuming the worst, as usual.

As you know, gay propaganda is not legal in Russia. The reason for that is because Russia wants to keep the view of the core family model intact, and since no one actually knows why people are/become homosexuals, no one can say for sure that gay propaganda doesn't affect young people to become gays. As for my personal opinion on the subject - it doesn't belong on this forum.

Remember that one time when Obama gassed an Opera House with poison and then refused to disclose the agent when asked by hospitals who were treating the patients resulting in approximately a hundred and thirty deaths due to developing fatal symptoms from gas exposure.

Remember that time Obama used drones in Afghanistan which killed innocent little children, and then say "ooops, we apologize for their inaccuracy"? Remember when Obama used mass surveilance on the WHOLE WORLD with the NSA, and then wanted Snowden's head for being a "traitor" (he exposed the truth)?

Do you want me to go on?

The fact that you think a gay pride parade is propaganda speaks volumes to me.

I was just stating that gay propaganda is defined as, for example, HBTQ parades in Russia. You have to understand that not everyone loves that. Most people in Russia think that law is GOOD, contrary to what westernes might believe.

 

[EmbersToAshes]

Putin has already said he has no control or contact with the pro-Russian separatists in east Ukraine - they act on their own. Of course, the western society immediately say that's false, but what proof do they have? They're just assuming the worst, as usual.

As you know, gay propaganda is not legal in Russia. The reason for that is because Russia wants to keep the view of the core family model intact, and since no one actually knows why people are/become homosexuals, no one can say for sure that gay propaganda doesn't affect young people to become gays. As for my personal opinion on the subject - it doesn't belong on this forum.


Remember that time Obama used drones in Afghanistan which killed innocent little children, and then say "ooops, we apologize for their inaccuracy"? Remember when Obama used mass surveilance on the WHOLE WORLD with the NSA, and then wanted Snowden's head for being a "traitor" (he exposed the truth)?

Do you want me to go on?



I was just stating that gay propaganda is defined as, for example, HBTQ parades in Russia. You have to understand that not everyone loves that. Most people in Russia think that law is GOOD, contrary to what westernes might believe.

Of course people can disagree with homosexuality and consider gay rights parades propaganda. That's their decision. It doesn't make the stance any less repulsive to me however, and the vast majority of modern society. The very fact that you even consider the possibility that homosexuality could be a choice beggars belief.

I in no way agree with Obama's stance on Snowden, and I thought it was disgusting. The fact that such a surveillance ring could even be justified was horrendous. However, I simply can't place it on par with Putin's gas attacks, breach of international law regarding Ukraine and what is potentially his stance on Jews and Homesexuals. There is no parity there.

You state that the West presume Putin's insinuations that he has no control over Pro-Russian Seperatists. I argue that in you presuming the opposite, you place yourself in the exact same position - you lack proof. My argument towards the general west's belief however, could be supported by Putin's past display of questionable moral code, examples of which have been mentioned above.

Nobody should be seizing territory from anybody any more without the right to do so. This is the 21st century. After seeing the path Hitler led Germany down by doing the same thing, you would think that Putin would know that himself. The USA aren't perfect - they've done and do some truly awful things that the West do not agree with quite so entirely as you would state. However, that is not a justification for Putin's actions in the Ukraine, and at this point he should be considered a serious threat, especially considering his unwillingness to back down.

 

[aBBYS]

What do you define as "modern society"? The west? :-)

Let me ask you this question: do you know why some people become/are gays? I can answer that question for you - because no one knows. And since no one knows, how can you be so sure that people can't turn into gays during their teenage years, for example? You have no idea. I'm not saying I'm sure that it can happen, but I consider it a possibility.

I think there is, if you take drones and other stuff into consideration. The US and Obama likes to take on the role as world police, go around the globe telling societies "this is how a society should work" and "these are the correct values, because we say so". That attitude is completely disgusting and very typical of the US and EU.

And the US breached international law when they invaded Iraq. They're very good at blaming Russia for this, but they aren't better at all themselves.

Let's just say neither you or I have any idea about that, because we don't. But if you claim something, you need proof to back it up. And since the west claims these pro-Russian separatists are under Putin's control, THEY will have to prove it. Not the other way around.

What are you talking about? The Crimean people VOTED in favour for rejoining Russia. More than 80 % of the people who were allowed to vote voted, and among those over 95 % voted YES for rejoining Russia. It was not invasion - "invasion" is just a propaganda word the west uses in order to make Putin look like Hitler. And judging from your post, they're pretty successful at that.

 

[EmbersToAshes]

What do you define as "modern society"? The west? :-)

Let me ask you this question: do you know why some people become/are gays? I can answer that question for you - because no one knows. And since no one knows, how can you be so sure that people can't turn into gays during their teenage years, for example? You have no idea. I'm not saying I'm sure that it can happen, but I consider it a possibility.

I think there is, if you take drones and other stuff into consideration. The US and Obama likes to take on the role as world police, go around the globe telling societies "this is how a society should work" and "these are the correct values, because we say so". That attitude is completely disgusting and very typical of the US and EU.

And the US breached international law when they invaded Iraq. They're very good at blaming Russia for this, but they aren't better at all themselves.

Let's just say neither you or I have any idea about that, because we don't. But if you claim something, you need proof to back it up. And since the west claims these pro-Russian separatists are under Putin's control, THEY will have to prove it. Not the other way around.

What are you talking about? The Crimean people VOTED in favour for rejoining Russia. More than 80 % of the people who were allowed to vote voted, and among those over 95 % voted YES for rejoining Russia. It was not invasion - "invasion" is just a propaganda word the west uses in order to make Putin look like Hitler. And judging from your post, they're pretty successful at that.

It was an invasion. Russia had no legal grounds to enter the Crimea. Had 100% voted yes they'd've still had no right until they were within the law. Russia acted on their own and proved that they have little respect for international law, and deserve sanctioning to hell and back as a result.

Yes, I would consider modern society to be a western one - it is, after all, the society I belong to, and clashes with beliefs in other parts of the world. When those beliefs extend to believing that gay people have a choice in becoming gay, and that Jews should be registered and monitored, however, I feel morally safe enough to consider that a viewpoint I want to part of. The west does a lot of horrible things - but it does a lot more good, and is largely free from discrimination. Why anybody would harbor hate or disapproval at somebody's sexuality is beyond belief. I'd like to link you to this article as a form of proof that Homosexuality is genetic:

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080705070356AAqBDWh

It's fully sourced, don't worry - not just some dude answering a yahoo question.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

@ aBBYS

Spoiler

Wiretapping on American citizens should have been expected after the introduction of the Patriot Act in 2001. There was no indication or rational reason for surveillance to be recalled in the United States and the trend rationally continued from the Bush administration although I believe that surveillance of the American people happened even well before the Patriot Act was made public. Framing it as an Obama thing is incredibly childish though. It's not like Obama orchestrated the organization to perform it's duties, but rather he stepped into a system that already existed.

Regarding Snowden, you are delusional if you don't believe that he is a high risk security issue to America. This is just objective truth coming from me and I think frankly the man is an hero for sacrificing a nice six figure job for a private security firm and a cushy lifestyle in order to do what he thought was right. However, there is no doubt that his spread of intel on American operations is a security thread and despite my respect he should honestly be issued a drone warrant, although again President Obama stated to the press that he was not considering sending a drone for his 'head' when he was making international tours at the time of the Prism news leak.

Also in our broad review of the issue, we skim past the fact that the searches were authorized by the FISA Court. There is a system of checks and balances put in place that are not merely run by some individual. It's a truth that our legal system tries to run hand in hand with our nation's security and peacekeeping forces. Without the close liaison between the two forces, there would be restrictions on drug busts, arms dealers, and finding the probable cause necessary to put some big time dealers behind bars. If it wasn't for a clause for warrantless search considering exigent circumstances it would be impossible for a lot of busts to happen with people using burners and man-to-man talks in order to be discreet and untrackable.

There are certain elements of our system that I dislike. There are major flaws, for instance there is significant pressure by politics to push the police to come to a bust when an election cycle comes up when a big focus has been on reducing crime or homicide has gone up in a big city. This often results in exaggeration of the results that get scooped up by the media and praised when in fact the string leads much higher than that. I also fine issue with the Prism program directly trying to obtain information from big time private sector companies like Yahoo and Google, with one CEO of a small time security firm being jailed for not cooperating because the government rolled up a small past demeanor and turned it into a criminal case.

On the flip side, I personally don't care about an Afghan child. I don't really care about American citizens, but Rand made it clear that the government wasn't going to send drones after its own people. I believe that our president has passed the most drone attacks so far and I agree with its implementation of being used to kill high profile targets. I do believe that 'mistakes' will be made, however I don't believe that Obama is signing off an executive order to kill little children in foreign countries because that spells of bad PR and relations for the United States. Unless the child was so high-profile target with a background in oil and Al-Qaeda I don't see how the costs of killing him merit anything really for the President. However, fighting in a war and expecting no casualties is incredibly naive. Much like assuming Obama is to blame for the death of a child due to a drone is linked to being Obama's fault. That's just classic Fox rhetoric come on.

Again there are things I don't like about how our President pretends that he just discovers these circumstances. How he pretends he just figured out Prism existed from his own television set. This surprise was also shown in the President's surprise at the ATF gunwalking scandal where he just discovered the program and also claimed executive privilege. This isn't an Obama thing, the Bush administration is also popularly known for using executive privilege to skirt the issue. My issue is that we're making such a thing become an American thing in which our Commander in Chief is setting a precedent of zero responsibility. I couldn't personally care if their reactions resulted in the murder of someone else, I'm just upset that our leaders are cowards for being afraid of the public backlash and the irrational wave of questions that will come of their moral integrity which is unwarranted.

Aside from there being injustice existing in both countries, it doesn't make both countries analogous otherwise all countries would be analogous. Our problems as a nation run deep and farther than these glitz and glamor scandals. Yes, the US is bad, shame on us. Yes, we too use puppet regimes and gave funding to Osama bin Ladin who was running a coup against a regime we dislike iirc. You could list our atrocities list, however Obama isn't Putin. That's a fact. Also one more thing, while Obama couldn't be pegged down as having individual responsibility in either of those circumstances, Putin was largely responsible for how the Moscow situation was conducted being the one who authorized the use of gas during the crisis and at the very least had no issue with the agent remaining undisclosed to the general public.

 

[aBBYS]

It was an invasion. Russia had no legal grounds to enter the Crimea. Had 100% voted yes they'd've still had no right until they were within the law. Russia acted on their own and proved that they have little respect for international law, and deserve sanctioning to hell and back as a result.

Yes, I would consider modern society to be a western one - it is, after all, the society I belong to, and clashes with beliefs in other parts of the world. When those beliefs extend to believing that gay people have a choice in becoming gay, and that Jews should be registered and monitored, however, I feel morally safe enough to consider that a viewpoint I want to part of. The west does a lot of horrible things - but it does a lot more good, and is largely free from discrimination. Why anybody would harbor hate or disapproval at somebody's sexuality is beyond belief. I'd like to link you to this article as a form of proof that Homosexuality is genetic:

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080705070356AAqBDWh

It's fully sourced, don't worry - not just some dude answering a yahoo question.

It was not. It was the will of the people, which you obviously don't care about when you write like that. You say that even if 100 % of the Crimeans had voted yes, it would still be an invasion? Is that how you view democracy? Democracy=people's opinions. Besides, the overthrown of the previous Ukrainian government wasn't exactly legal (according to Ukrain law) either, but the west had no problems with that - and you know why? Because this is how they work - they go all around the globe and give money to protesters with the same agenda as them. The US and EU are chock full of hypocrites.

It's not hate. Just because you don't tolerate propaganda of something doesn't mean you hate it. And that Yahoo page is full of assuming things - there's no proof there. There are IRL examples of men first creating a family with a woman, THEN he turns gay. Lots of examples of people like that. How is that genetic?

 

[EmbersToAshes]

It was not. It was the will of the people, which you obviously don't care about when you write like that. You say that even if 100 % of the Crimeans had voted yes, it would still be an invasion? Is that how you view democracy? Democracy=people's opinions. Besides, the overthrown of the previous Ukrainian government wasn't exactly legal (according to Ukrain law) either, but the west had no problems with that - and you know why? Because this is how they work - they go all around the globe and give money to protesters with the same agenda as them. The US and EU are chock full of hypocrites.

It's not hate. Just because you don't tolerate propaganda of something doesn't mean you hate it. And that Yahoo page is full of assuming things - there's no proof there. There are IRL examples of men first creating a family with a woman, THEN he turns gay. Lots of examples of people like that. How is that genetic?

Of course there are - Elton John was married before coming out as gay. You seem to ignore the fact that many homosexual's married in the past down to a societal pressure to be 'normal'. That's not to say that they weren't gay. It's to say they felt persecuted enough to have to hide it. It's curious - you present somebody who disagrees with homosexuality with proof, which, let's face it, the fact that homosexuals share the same chromosome groupings, and yet they still choose to ignore it.

The point is, the vote was on a subject that wasn't up for debate. It wasn't a vote one way or the other. The Crimea was and is Ukranian land by law. Russia should have democratically listened to the vote and began to make political and social moves to reacquire said territory within the bindings of the law. They didn't. They stormed in and took it. That's not how democracy's work.

It would seem your view on democracy is rather skewed. The laws exist for a reason and should be followed. We don't just take when we want something, even if the territory in question may support that. Law is law and Putin broke it - he deserves the book thrown at him, for this and his other atrocities.

 

[aBBYS]

But Elton John didn't have any children, and his marriage with Renate Blauel in the 80s was just a cover up for publicity. How do you know it is like that? That's just pure speculation on your part. I'm not saying those studies are false, what I'm saying is that their results are not proof that homosexuality is purely genetical. They're doing serious studies, but also assuming things based on the results. You can't say for sure homosexuality are only genetics based on those studies. It's impossible.

What do you need a debate for? Isn't it enough when people tell you what they want? Do you need a media debate which sways people in different directions because media is agenda driven? This vote was the most pure democratic thing they could've done - they went straight to the Crimean people, asking them what THEY wanted. And then Russia acted. I think only four people were killed in all - compare that to when the US went into Iraq - without the mandatory of the UN.

Or maybe it's your viewed that is skewed? However, I'm very used to western people acting like you are now. "We're the best, be like us, think like us, have the same definitions as us" etc. And this is where Putin truly shines - he doesn't back down because of some sanctions, he stands strong for all of Russia against the imperialism that the US often describes as "interests in national security".

I don't think we'll ever agree on this - we have way different viewpoints and definitions.

 

[EmbersToAshes]

But Elton John didn't have any children, and his marriage with Renate Blauel in the 80s was just a cover up for publicity. How do you know it is like that? That's just pure speculation on your part. I'm not saying those studies are false, what I'm saying is that their results are not proof that homosexuality is purely genetical. They're doing serious studies, but also assuming things based on the results. You can't say for sure homosexuality are only genetics based on those studies. It's impossible.

What do you need a debate for? Isn't it enough when people tell you what they want? Do you need a media debate which sways people in different directions because media is agenda driven? This vote was the most pure democratic thing they could've done - they went straight to the Crimean people, asking them what THEY wanted. And then Russia acted. I think only four people were killed in all - compare that to when the US went into Iraq - without the mandatory of the UN.

Or maybe it's your viewed that is skewed? However, I'm very used to western people acting like you are now. "We're the best, be like us, think like us, have the same definitions as us" etc. And this is where Putin truly shines - he doesn't back down because of some sanctions, he stands strong for all of Russia against the imperialism that the US often describes as "interests in national security".

I don't think we'll ever agree on this - we have way different viewpoints and definitions.

You're entirely wrong. When it's found that homosexuals have a certain genetic pattern that straight people do not, you can only call that one thing. Proof. If the proof can only be considered an assumption, then 'proof' of anything in itself is impossible. A spade is a spade. When one group of people with a certain sexual preference have a unique chromosomal ordering, and the same is not found in those with the opposing sexual preference, it's proof. You can twist that to fit your beliefs however you want but it doesn't make it any less true.

In the end, whatever your view, the law is the law. Democracy is definite and legally bound, and Russia decided to reject that in favour of storming in and taking what they want. It's not democratic because it is illegal. You can't take a different stance on what democracy is because democracy is absolute in law. Russia acted undemocratically and deserve every sanction under the sun, whether you agree with his morality or not. Wrong is wrong.

 

[aBBYS]

Yes, solid proof is very difficult to achieve regarding the body. That's why research and studies CHANGE ALL THE TIME about food, health and our brains. Because you can never be 100 % sure when it comes to the human brain - it's way too complex to just lift out a few genes and call it a day. This is the same.

So, with your logic and your definitions, what do you call the event when US went into Iraq? When they gave lots of weapons to rebels in Syria? When the US do things without the mandatory from the UN and against national law, what is that accordin to you?

 

[EmbersToAshes]

Yes, solid proof is very difficult to achieve regarding the body. That's why research and studies CHANGE ALL THE TIME about food, health and our brains. Because you can never be 100 % sure when it comes to the human brain - it's way too complex to just lift out a few genes and call it a day. This is the same.

So, with your logic and your definitions, what do you call the event when US went into Iraq? When they gave lots of weapons to rebels in Syria? When the US do things without the mandatory from the UN and against national law, what is that accordin to you?

The US, in my opinion, were entirely in the wrong for what they did regarding Iraq. My own country, the UK, we're equally wrong in supporting it. I in no place state that the US's actions have been entirely moral. I am simply stating that Putin's actions both in the past and present have been immoral and illegal in places and is entirely unjustifiable.

That's proof, I'm afraid. Genetic structure is our building blocks - homosexuals are built one way, and straight people another. That is there, on paper, and in each and every person. There's no two ways about that, whether you choose to argue that proof is impossible one way or another. You don't like homosexuality and therefore you will clearly argue to the moon and back that it's impossible to prove either way.

I will not be baited into another argument with you in which I end up with another infraction. You're clearly trying to lead this down that road and therefore I'm ending this with you right now. You seriously need to consider whether airing your potentially offensive views on homosexuality and feminism are appropriate on a board that welcomes all of the above.

 

[aBBYS]

And what about if outside factors can influence the genes? It's well known that some things in the body, like some deceases, lie in us latently until something triggers them. This could be the case with homosexuality as well. The point is - WE DON'T KNOW. Genes alone are not proof - just as little proof as "fat genes" and such are proof in their respective area. But I suppose you won't listen.

I haven't even told you my views on homosexuality, this is a thread about Russia and Putin. And I only follow a debate that your started with post #2.

 

[EmbersToAshes]

Your argument is invalid - if your assertion were true latent genes associated with homosexuality would be found in many straight men - those who had not been 'triggered', as you say.

You started this argument by posting a purposefully provocative stance on homosexuality by implying that gay men and women 'choose' to be gay. I refuse to play a part in your baiting.

Edit: This simply isn't the forum for posting provocative views on homosexuality and feminism. Do you intend to rile people up? You're doing a superb job at it, and it's highly inappropriate.

 

[aBBYS]

Your argument is invalid - if your assertion were true latent genes associated with homosexuality would be found in many straight men - those who had not been 'triggered', as you say.

You started this argument by posting a purposefully provocative stance on homosexuality by implying that gay men and women 'choose' to be gay. I refuse to play a part in your baiting.

Edit: This simply isn't the forum for posting provocative views on homosexuality and feminism. Do you intend to rile people up? You're doing a superb job at it, and it's highly inappropriate.

What can I say? I don't think it matters what I say, you won't listen anyway, will you?

How is it provocative just because you don't agree with it? With that logic, I could call your stance very provocative, but I don't because I'm not like that.

So... this forum does not welcome you if you have different ideals and views than what is western standards? That in itself could be borderline racism towards Russia and Russian people, but I won't be like you and go that far.

Since you seem to become all angry about this, I'll quit the discussion with you here and now - as it doesn't lead anywhere anyway.

 

[Gameboi834]

It was the will of the people, which you obviously don't care about when you write like that. You say that even if 100 % of the Crimeans had voted yes, it would still be an invasion? Is that how you view democracy?

If the "will of the people" wanted to jump off a cliff would you, too?

Just because something has popular support doesn't make it legal, or, more importantly, moral.

 

[aBBYS]

If the "will of the people" wanted to jump off a cliff would you, too?

Just because something has popular support doesn't make it legal, or, more importantly, moral.

Hah hah, come one now. :-) You know what I'm saying, don't you? The Crimean vote was a rare case of direct democracy, as opposed to representive democracy some people here think is the only form of democracy.

And I would like to repeat that the overthrow of the previous Ukraine government wasn't legal either, but few people in the west question that...

I would also like to repeat that I don't think either Obama or Putin is great, but I do think Obama is getting a lot of undeserved praise, and that Putin gets a lot of undeserved hate. And this is most likely because of western media who sees Russia as a threat because they dare to stand up to the combined superpower that is the US and EU.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

@ EmbersToAshes @ aBBYS

As far as I'm aware, there is no research that has shown that the human genome has gene sequences that lead one to be disposed towards homosexuality.

 

[EmbersToAshes]

@ EmbersToAshes @ aBBYS

As far as I'm aware, there is no research that has shown that the human genome has gene sequences that lead one to be disposed towards homosexuality.

If you take a read of the sources linked from that yahoo link I posted earlier (the sources, to clarify, are medical sites - not 'some dude on yahoo answers) seen to suggest that there is indeed a genetic pattern present amongst homosexuals.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

If you take a read of the sources linked from that yahoo link I posted earlier (the sources, to clarify, are medical sites - not 'some dude on yahoo answers) seen to suggest that there is indeed a genetic pattern present amongst homosexuals.

Time to read and review. Note that I'm starting my reading with the ncbi.nlm.nih works and then going through each of the other works due to my impression of the reputation of the site being from most respected to least. This however, does not hold any indication of my actual respect for any of the research performed.

First article: "Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic."

http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/01/1...ic-utero-hormonal-causation-of-homosexuality/

Peter's summary of the scientific article, which I couldn't access seems to have covered the bias involved in the a supposedly huge case study and researchers intentionally throwing out data that went against the grain of their hypothesis. When I'm able to access a copy I'll do my own critique, however Peter's analysis of the data seems to be fair and dismissive of the nature of the research.

Second article: "The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation."

From what I skimmed, this appears to be a meta research paper. In other words, this is a paper on other's people research involving no experimentation on the part of the scientists writing and instead serving as a collective commentary to the work done by others. Some meta-research papers shed an amazing level of analytical insight into research avenues, however other ones are simply there to pad the CV involving no actual work from the researchers in question. This reminded me of the latter category, especially when the analysis and conclusion section contained the following:

A conservative conclusion regarding these data is that while INAH-3 is larger in heterosexual men than in heterosexual women, and possibly smaller in homosexual men, structurally speaking this within-sex difference may not be very large at all.

The report goes on to conclude despite stating that the difference 'may not be very large at all' indicating that the meta-data in the research stated could be a complete waste of time.

The available evidence gives us clues as to the neural network underlying a sexual orientation in men, including anterior hypothalamic regions (INAH-3), and cortical regions such as the parietal lobes.

Note again how this research paper rephrases the INAH-3 data that is mentioned earlier despite having explained that a conservative estimate is indicative that there is little difference in between these two structure. This indicates that the paper is pandering for a direction to argue when they have already argued that a conservative estimate is indicative of there being nothing of value to observe in these structures between homosexual and heterosexual men.

This paper was written by a psychologist. No wonder he had to rely on a meta-case study instead of doing his own molecular research. The twin study was also likely done by psychologists. Another study with more pandering for a slice of respect and dignity given to their counterparts with backgrounds in molecular and biochemical sciences. Jesus.

 

[Lore]

I feel like this thread is slowly starting to become circular in it's logic.

A lot of people feel that aBBYS is wrong, but that's arguments, to close the thread since you guys are being civil. aBBYS, bring up some sources in your arguments, and I'll leave the thread open. That's all you need to do.

 

[aBBYS]

I feel like this thread is slowly starting to become circular in it's logic.

A lot of people feel that aBBYS is wrong, but that's arguments, to close the thread since you guys are being civil. aBBYS, bring up some sources in your arguments, and I'll leave the thread open. That's all you need to do.

Sources to what, exactly?

 

[EmbersToAshes]

Time to read and review. Note that I'm starting my reading with the ncbi.nlm.nih works and then going through each of the other works due to my impression of the reputation of the site being from most respected to least. This however, does not hold any indication of my actual respect for any of the research performed.

First article: "Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic."

http://www.peter-ould.net/2008/01/1...ic-utero-hormonal-causation-of-homosexuality/

Peter's summary of the scientific article, which I couldn't access seems to have covered the bias involved in the a supposedly huge case study and researchers intentionally throwing out data that went against the grain of their hypothesis. When I'm able to access a copy I'll do my own critique, however Peter's analysis of the data seems to be fair and dismissive of the nature of the research.

Second article: "The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation."

From what I skimmed, this appears to be a meta research paper. In other words, this is a paper on other's people research involving no experimentation on the part of the scientists writing and instead serving as a collective commentary to the work done by others. Some meta-research papers shed an amazing level of analytical insight into research avenues, however other ones are simply there to pad the CV involving no actual work from the researchers in question. This reminded me of the latter category, especially when the analysis and conclusion section contained the following:



The report goes on to conclude despite stating that the difference 'may not be very large at all' indicating that the meta-data in the research stated could be a complete waste of time.



Note again how this research paper rephrases the INAH-3 data that is mentioned earlier despite having explained that a conservative estimate is indicative that there is little difference in between these two structure. This indicates that the paper is pandering for a direction to argue when they have already argued that a conservative estimate is indicative of there being nothing of value to observe in these structures between homosexual and heterosexual men.

This paper was written by a psychologist. No wonder he had to rely on a meta-case study instead of doing his own molecular research. The twin study was also likely done by psychologists. Another study with more pandering for a slice of respect and dignity given to their counterparts with backgrounds in molecular and biochemical sciences. Jesus.

All in all, a rather mixed bag, haha. Still, some definite support in there for the belief that homosexuality is genetic, rather than a choice. I wasn't actually sure you were going to read it - I appreciate that you did.

Sources to what, exactly?

Perhaps some sources supporting your assertion that homosexuality is a choice?

I'd probably skip the church as a reference point.

 

[EmbersToAshes]

Sorry, accidental. Please delete.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

@ Lore

aBBYS doesn't have a consistent or a cogent point to make. He has no meter of objectivity. He just wants to make outlandish points to get attention and see who bites. Then he turtles behind bits and pieces of western corruption and political failure which there is too many anecdotes of in order to substantiate the case that he's not making. aBBYS isn't interested in trying to prove that there is a rational tie-in between Obama and Putin. That's his hook to piss you off and make you comment on the topic at hand. He has no real argument or point he's trying to construct because he doesn't care about how his building looks. He's more interested in attacking other people's houses when they move in to attack his clown base.

 

[EmbersToAshes]

@ Lore

aBBYS doesn't have a consistent or a cogent point to make. He has no meter of objectivity. He just wants to make outlandish points to get attention and see who bites. Then he turtles behind bits and pieces of western corruption and political failure which there is too many anecdotes of in order to substantiate the case that he's not making. aBBYS isn't interested in trying to prove that there is a rational tie-in between Obama and Putin. That's his hook to piss you off and make you comment on the topic at hand. He has no real argument or point he's trying to construct because he doesn't care about how his building looks. He's more interested in attacking other people's houses without having an actual base.

In complete agreement. So far since he's joined he's made comments that are potentially offensive to both women, feminists and homosexuals. How is any of this appropriate for a forum? Are we not all equals here? It would seem his sole arguments so far across all of his threads is that the West are awful, Women are inferior to men and therefore should be objectified and homosexuality is a choice.

I really don't understand how he is still here. It's beyond inappropriate and clearly baiting.

 

[aBBYS]

@ Lore

aBBYS doesn't have a consistent or a cogent point to make. He has no meter of objectivity. He just wants to make outlandish points to get attention and see who bites. Then he turtles behind bits and pieces of western corruption and political failure which there is too many anecdotes of in order to substantiate the case that he's not making. aBBYS isn't interested in trying to prove that there is a rational tie-in between Obama and Putin. That's his hook to piss you off and make you comment on the topic at hand. He has no real argument or point he's trying to construct because he doesn't care about how his building looks. He's more interested in attacking other people's houses without having an actual base.

- Please show me what "outlandish" points I've made.

The rest of what you're saying is just gibberish. My point is that Putin isn't any worse than Obama, and that western media always paints the worst possible picture of Putin as soon as they can - which of course affects people.

Instead of talking in riddles, please tell me what I've written that is so crazy.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The key difference between Putin and Obama is that Putin is a good politician, whereas Obama is a bad one.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The key difference between Putin and Obama is that Putin is a good politician, whereas Obama is a bad one.

Obama saved the U.S. financial market from complete meltdown. I don't care about anything else. People will argue that the bailouts were an obvious decision, however trusting Geithner to implement his austerity measures to lull investors into a fake sense of confidence with our financial market was a ballsy move and not a call that you would expect anyone to make given the lack of support in the White House cabinet. People fail to realize that in a faux-democratic regime like the United States, the alternative Presidential choice was going to be McCain. Few people are aware that McCain suspended his own campaign and made a huge fanfare to discuss what should be done about the crisis. Some people know that McCain had absolutely no tangible plan whereas Obama was at least developing as many connections as he could during the campaign to Paulson and other influential members within Wall Street in order to move the country forward once he was elected.

Attack my clown base so I can argue about something entirely different citing some other piece of news I actually bothered to read about drone attacks, abortion clinics, or some other bad event in the United States where I will make an irrational tie in to it being similar to Russia and how Russia and America are closer than we would like to admit because the propaganda which I have yet to mention or explain the sources for are giving up a misrepresentation of each other.

Find someone else to pull down with your pathetic shenanigans. I entertained you with my opinion in post #10. However, I'm not as gullible as embers to try to try to drag someone as stubborn as you into a middle ground where an actual conversation can take place as if you were an actual human being and not some D-grade troll.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

You're funny.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

You're funny.

What's actually funny is that I voted for McCain since I identified him as being a moderate. I then switched to Obama afterwards in the next cycle. I don't think I'll ever vote Republican again with the idea that Rubio and Christie are front runners. **** Christie. ****ing pig.

 

[aBBYS]

@ aBBYS

Spoiler

Wiretapping on American citizens should have been expected after the introduction of the Patriot Act in 2001. There was no indication or rational reason for surveillance to be recalled in the United States and the trend rationally continued from the Bush administration although I believe that surveillance of the American people happened even well before the Patriot Act was made public. Framing it as an Obama thing is incredibly childish though. It's not like Obama orchestrated the organization to perform it's duties, but rather he stepped into a system that already existed.

Regarding Snowden, you are delusional if you don't believe that he is a high risk security issue to America. This is just objective truth coming from me and I think frankly the man is an hero for sacrificing a nice six figure job for a private security firm and a cushy lifestyle in order to do what he thought was right. However, there is no doubt that his spread of intel on American operations is a security thread and despite my respect he should honestly be issued a drone warrant, although again President Obama stated to the press that he was not considering sending a drone for his 'head' when he was making international tours at the time of the Prism news leak.

Also in our broad review of the issue, we skim past the fact that the searches were authorized by the FISA Court. There is a system of checks and balances put in place that are not merely run by some individual. It's a truth that our legal system tries to run hand in hand with our nation's security and peacekeeping forces. Without the close liaison between the two forces, there would be restrictions on drug busts, arms dealers, and finding the probable cause necessary to put some big time dealers behind bars. If it wasn't for a clause for warrantless search considering exigent circumstances it would be impossible for a lot of busts to happen with people using burners and man-to-man talks in order to be discreet and untrackable.

There are certain elements of our system that I dislike. There are major flaws, for instance there is significant pressure by politics to push the police to come to a bust when an election cycle comes up when a big focus has been on reducing crime or homicide has gone up in a big city. This often results in exaggeration of the results that get scooped up by the media and praised when in fact the string leads much higher than that. I also fine issue with the Prism program directly trying to obtain information from big time private sector companies like Yahoo and Google, with one CEO of a small time security firm being jailed for not cooperating because the government rolled up a small past demeanor and turned it into a criminal case.

On the flip side, I personally don't care about an Afghan child. I don't really care about American citizens, but Rand made it clear that the government wasn't going to send drones after its own people. I believe that our president has passed the most drone attacks so far and I agree with its implementation of being used to kill high profile targets. I do believe that 'mistakes' will be made, however I don't believe that Obama is signing off an executive order to kill little children in foreign countries because that spells of bad PR and relations for the United States. Unless the child was so high-profile target with a background in oil and Al-Qaeda I don't see how the costs of killing him merit anything really for the President. However, fighting in a war and expecting no casualties is incredibly naive. Much like assuming Obama is to blame for the death of a child due to a drone is linked to being Obama's fault. That's just classic Fox rhetoric come on.

Again there are things I don't like about how our President pretends that he just discovers these circumstances. How he pretends he just figured out Prism existed from his own television set. This surprise was also shown in the President's surprise at the ATF gunwalking scandal where he just discovered the program and also claimed executive privilege. This isn't an Obama thing, the Bush administration is also popularly known for using executive privilege to skirt the issue. My issue is that we're making such a thing become an American thing in which our Commander in Chief is setting a precedent of zero responsibility. I couldn't personally care if their reactions resulted in the murder of someone else, I'm just upset that our leaders are cowards for being afraid of the public backlash and the irrational wave of questions that will come of their moral integrity which is unwarranted.

Aside from there being injustice existing in both countries, it doesn't make both countries analogous otherwise all countries would be analogous. Our problems as a nation run deep and farther than these glitz and glamor scandals. Yes, the US is bad, shame on us. Yes, we too use puppet regimes and gave funding to Osama bin Ladin who was running a coup against a regime we dislike iirc. You could list our atrocities list, however Obama isn't Putin. That's a fact. Also one more thing, while Obama couldn't be pegged down as having individual responsibility in either of those circumstances, Putin was largely responsible for how the Moscow situation was conducted being the one who authorized the use of gas during the crisis and at the very least had no issue with the agent remaining undisclosed to the general public.

That's like saying it's not Obama's fault that Guantanamo is still open - he could've taken action, but he has not. Just because you didn't start something doesn't mean you can't end it.

And why do you think Snowden fled to Russia? Because he knows he's in grave danger - maybe even his life - if he returns to America.

Sure, countries need to protect themselves, but spying on whole populations in other countries via secret negotiations with other governments - without people's knowledge? That's just not right - and Obama knew this was going on. But he didn't make any changes until Snowden revealed the secrets.

No, but drones have lower accuracy than manually piloted aircraft - this is well known and Putin himself said that although he believes that drones will be a vital part of the future, Russia will ever use them as the US does. Obama is well aware of the relatively low accuracy of the drones, he's well aware that innocent lives will be lost because of this - yet he keeps sending them on new missions.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

What's even more funny is that you seem to think that it makes a difference whether a republican or a democrat becomes president when they are in fact one and the same party. You can vote Clinton, Bush, Christie or whoever else throws his hat into the ring - it won't matter in the slightest.

Your previous post also implies that it's within the president's decision and power how to handle business of the financial market. That's dangerously naive. It's the other way round.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

What's even more funny is that you seem to think that it makes a difference whether a republican or a democrat becomes president when they are in fact one and the same party. You can vote Clinton, Bush, Christie or whoever else throws his hat into the ring - it won't matter in the slightest. Your previous post also implies that it's within the president's decision and power how to handle business of the financial market. That's dangerously naive. It's the other way round.

You're an idiot if you apply a single model of thinking to every new situation. Especially when that situation was the 2008 financial crisis.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

... did you even understand my post?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The Clinton Administration also brought Robert Reich into play as labor secretary. A man who spent time documenting and discussing the rising income disparity in America and using his time in the White House to continue gathering information and resources to map trends in the separation and the influence of income disparity on American politics. It matters. Lobbyists and other forces have a remarkably influence on politics given their lack of restrictions in terms of corporations like Bank of America putting their income into tax havens and requiring to pay nothing along with their tax rate going from 70% to 35% within the span of the late 1940s and 1980 America. It was Ronald Reagan who slashed rates down to 28 percent which quickly became the new status quo on what the wealthiest had to pay back to the government. Individual men made a difference and make a difference.

Yes I understood the ignorant comment you made you jaded prick.