It’s OK, I don’t understand what you are saying either Garfield but we still like you in an faceless stranger, internet kind of way.
I was trying to avoid going too off topic but hey, we’re already there so if Apple selling Iphones was a net gain to the Mullahs, they’d be banned by the current sanctions. The Knesset also approved of Apple’s policy and signed off on their expansion and purchase of an Israeli tech company sealed by Cook visit there 2 months back so being all sides of the aisle agree, it’s not even political, it just is.
So the introduction of Cook to this debate a bit dubious, claiming a gay CEO of one of the world’s largest company’s is supporting one of the worst regimes, killing his own in the context of this Act seems like a smear, to support the notion that perhaps discrimination against gays isn’t all that misguided. I don’t think that is your intent Garfield, I think you are again repeating the latest talking points which are blowing up on the blogosphere. We all read propaganda, the trick is reading between the lines.
A more apt analogy in introducing Iran to this debate would be this Act has a commonality with Iran’s religious based, anti-gay policy as far as the States sanctioning and allowing intolerance. Why the last time I recall the US backing an Iranian introduced proposal at the UN was Bush denying gay rights groups at the UN, a proposal that was also supported by Cuba and Sudan, now there’s some odd bedfellows, have to wonder about the company you keep on an issue, eh?
All tongue and cheek, but a fine example of the other end and a counter of needlessly introducing Cook and Iran. Yes, about the same sort of a smear (association, w/ nasty regimes) but by calling it out for what it is, it’s in example as I don’t truly believe backers of this Act also back Cuba, Iran and Sudan