h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]

What good does it do? When was the last time they did good? The current Russian state and NATO can both burn as far as I’m concerned.

You seem to be under some kind of belief that people should be ashamed of an accurate assessment of NATO, and that it is some sort of mistake to stand by it. This is weird

It seems they also have a tendency to consider NATO as cartoons villains

If NATO did not want to be considered cartoon villains, they shouldn’t be so cartoonishly evil.

Never get on board a helicopter, and never go on board a plane if you just pissed off a guy famous for offing his political enemies. Come on guy, that’s politics 101.

It’s worse than that, because a company bylaw also gives every GOOG stock a set value of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a cent and a binding part of their issuance is the clause that they can demand to buy them back for that price at any time. Google can drop like pocket lint and instantly buy all GOOG stock back.

You really thinks that if I don’t think the gulag archipelago is about the yeltsin government then I haven’t read it? That’s just sad dude. That’s just really, really sad.

I have. But unlike a book about Boris Yeltsin’s systemic hollowing out of the russian economy and the facilitation of this by the Americans, its hardly relevant.

Although if we are bringing up the gulag archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is not on your side on the issues. Especially not issues like the yeltsin government, the west’s influence on Russia and Russian sovereignty.

Sun yat-sen thought makes it way to lemmy

Actually you only need 50 senators and then you just put in 50 judges. And oh hey what’s this, the DC statehood bill passed the house?

Actually doing something would be easy. But they don’t actually want to.

Google stock is literally worthless and does not represent an actual stake in the company for example

Dumb questions here. Why are they hiring a British lawyer and testifying in front of the US congress? Like i understand the actual why of that second one, but it’s not like the house of representatives in the US has any actual power to save the guy that they would exercise. Like would a British lawyer have any more luck in getting him out than a Hong Kong lawyer? Are they worried no one will take the case?

“No u” isn’t the argument you think it is. But given your arguments so far, I’m hardly surprised this where you ended up.

Using testimony of discrimination as evidence of acceptance is a novel strategy.

I mean that’s just completely false

No, it’s completely right and quoting a bit about how im right is an odd choice.

Again. What I said was this

ALL it does is say that Texas can’t say a New York marriage is invalid because the people involved are of the same sex.

To which you respond with the text of the law stating that the law bans any government employee from not recognizing a marriage from another state on the grounds that its a gay marriage. At this point you are either trolling or acting in such bad faith you may as well be.

I pointed out that the specific law you talk about does not in fact “Protect same sex marriages”, the act does absolutely nothing to stop states from banning same sex marriage, and that even if it did that it only covers a tiny aspect of queer discrimination. The act does not demand that states accept queerness, it does not demand that all states allow or protect gay marriage, it does not prevent states from banning same sex marriage, it does none of that. ALL it does is say that Texas can’t say a New York marriage is invalid because the people involved are of the same sex.

You have done nothing to address the argument actually.

You can indeed point to millions of queer US citizens and have them tell you the stories of the discrimination they have faced at the hands of the US government.

'So if Saudi Arabia passed the “Homos are humans too, I guess” act, which didn’t actually do anything, you would consider this proof that Saudi Arabia is accepting of LGBTQ people?

Legalising same sex marriage is an acceptance of queerness.

Even if that were true, same sex marriage is legal because of a court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, not this act.