Who are you voting for in November? Romney or Obama?

[TheRascalKing]

It's been used to refer to any major scandal since Nixon's mess. Iran-Contragate, Monicagate...

[Vigilante]

I'm voting Obama.. But you honestly want to know where my opinion stands? America is nothing more than a large collaboration of idiots.. or mostly idiots. Because only idiots would have trouble making up their mind on two polar opposite ideologies over the course of a hundred years +. Not only that, but that we exist as a single solitary union, yet the few hundred million or so people that make up the United States are a bunch of whinny bitches who actually believe they can "vote" one man their leader and have him/her fix all of their person problems with the United States and how it's run.. People vote for the president that thinks the most like they do.. If you think Obama is an idiot, and Obama won by a landslide.. *cough* then again, let's also remember.. this is the same country that voted for George Bush for two terms.. We passed on Gore.. (I don't give a shit about the technicalities of Florida and Ohio, it should have been a landslide)..

The main problem with America is that we can't just vote for a president and put our faith in a guy.. All this negativity is the driving force of our slump.. Negative people don't want to hire.. negative vibes make us fearful of an economic collapse.. Are you really that fucking stupid.. It's a fucking illusion.. money.. the system.. it all.. You take all of your cues from the media and have fell victim to letting it craft your perception of the world for you.. And they have you by the balls with fear tactics.. The only thing broken with the American Machine is the way we think.. Spread a little optimism.. piss off about the economy, and just do what you got to do..

[mizled]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

What does that have to do with what I said?

this

Besides, the Nobel Committee is far less impressed by the black president thing. Unlike the United States, they live in the 21st century with the rest of the world.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by mizled

this

Are you implying all white people are racist or something?

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Besides, the Nobel Committee is far less impressed by the black president thing. Unlike the United States, they live in the 21st century with the rest of the world.

Do they?

Out of curiosity, when's the last time Norway (home of the Norwegian Nobel Committee that awards the peace prize) had a black king or prime minister? How about females?

Just wondering.

[TheRascalKing]

Norway has not had a large number of black native born citizens for hundreds of years like the USA has. You can't compare Norway to the USA, most black Norwegians are immigrants. And they have had a female PM, Gro Harlem Brundtland. If a black person junps into into the royal family and there's a kid, they'll be in the line of succesion to the throne. Scandinavia and Western Europe certainly has a better social equality history than the US, they laugh at our ignorance when it comes to gay rights, racism and reproductive choice.

Shut the hell up, Redcorn.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Norway has not had a large number of black native born citizens for hundreds of years like the USA has. You can't compare Norway to the USA, most black Norwegians are immigrants. And they have had a female PM, Gro Harlem Brundtland. If a black person marries into the royal family they'll be in the line of succesion to the throne. Scandinavia and Western Europe certainly has a better social equality history than the US, they laugh at our ignorance when it comes to gay rights, racism and reproductive choice.

Shut the hell up, Redcorn.

Wow, one whole woman! They certainly are pushing the social equality with that kind of representation! This statistic about Gro was particularly delightful:

"This cabinet was internationally renowned for its large percentage of female ministers. Eight of the eighteen total were female."

Sounds like you're telling me that racial minorities don't get represented because they're not worthy of marrying into the royal family, and the excuse that "it's not like the USA". Did Norway kick all the blacks and asians and middle-easterners out? Probably not, or Breikvik wouldn't have added racism to his murderous little bitch-fit.

Note: What the hell is a redcorn?

[TheRascalKing]

Stop trolling, Iehovah. Like I said, you can't compare African-Norwegians to African-Americans. It still stands, Europe has a better record when it comes to social equality and justice than the US. Norway never had Jim Crow laws, for one thing, and LGBTQ people and women aren't treated as second class citizens by denying them equal rights and curbing their reproductive freedom. They look at us rightfully as cavemen.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Do they?

Out of curiosity, when's the last time Norway (home of the Norwegian Nobel Committee that awards the peace prize) had a black king or prime minister? How about females?

Just wondering.

Do you know to count? Because it doesn't seem like you can, and that's relevant to your question.

Just wondering.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Stop trolling, Iehovah. Like I said, you can't compare African-Norwegians to African-Americans.

You're switching topics to Europe from Norway to change the dynamic of the argument, but *I* am the one trolling? Fuck off, retard.

Norway never had Jim Crow laws, for one thing, and LGBTQ people and women aren't treated as second class citizens by denying them equal rights and curbing their reproductive freedom. They look at us rightfully as cavemen.

Yet like everyone else in the USA and Europe, they had no problem with slavery. I don't think either of us believes they magically went from being slaves to being treated as equals there anymore than they did here.

As for the rest.
1.
Norway - Gender-neutral marriage didn't become legal in Norway until 2009.
USA - Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004.
2.
Norway - The Gender-equality Act was passed in 1978.
USA - The equal rights amendment was passed in 1923.
3.
Norway - Women got the right to vote in 1910.
USA - Women got the right to vote in 1920.

Doesn't look like Norway is really the leader of civil rights that you crack it up to be, troll.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Do you know to count? Because it doesn't seem like you can, and that's relevant to your question.

Just wondering.

Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

Just wondering.

[mizled]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Are you implying all white people are racist or something?

No, I'm implying that the Nobel committee is a bunch of old white people.

Try to stay on topic here, ok?

[mizled]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Stop trolling, Iehovah. Like I said, you can't compare African-Norwegians to African-Americans. It still stands, Europe has a better record when it comes to social equality and justice than the US. Norway never had Jim Crow laws, for one thing, and LGBTQ people and women aren't treated as second class citizens by denying them equal rights and curbing their reproductive freedom. They look at us rightfully as cavemen.

Four of the five Nobel committees are actually Swedish.

Just sayin'.

[Morb]

I'd vote for a sofa cushion over Obama, so Romney it is.

Actually, Romney is about as interesting as a sofa cushion, so there you go. And at least a sofa cushion isn't devoted to turning America into something that isn't recognizable as America anymore (not that it isn't probably too late for that now anyway, but you gotta fight the good fight).

[Nightshade]

Romney

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Morb

And at least a sofa cushion isn't devoted to turning America into something that isn't recognizable as America anymore (not that it isn't probably too late for that now anyway, but you gotta fight the good fight).

How has Obama been devoted into turning America into something that isn't recognizable as America anymore? And how would Romney differ?

The biggest achievement of Obama's presidency has been the Affordable Care Act, and not only was that a Republican idea, but the candidate you're supporting, Romney, passed the same thing in his state. So...

[Morb]

Originally Posted by Rust

How has Obama been devoted into turning America into something that isn't recognizable as America anymore? And how would Romney differ?

The biggest achievement of Obama's presidency has been the Affordable Care Act, and not only was that a Republican idea, but the candidate you're supporting, Romney, passed the same thing in his state. So...

Entire books can, have, and will yet be written on the subject of how liberals like Obama have been incrementally changing America on a one-way road that would take a Herculean effort to reverse. All of Obama's mentors, and his wife, support the idea of fundamentally changing America into a nanny state that is the exact opposite of the basic intentions of the founders.

For starters, this says it all:

Barack Hussein Obama Mmm Mmm Mmm - YouTube

Barack Hussein Obama Mmm Mmm Mmm - YouTube
Video: click to display

Does that look like the America anyone thinks of when they think of America to you? I'm not worried about a Hitler Youth being built by the teacher unions in support of Romney.

You actually support the idea of America being reformed into something that isn't America anymore yourself, Rust, your only objection is that Obama hasn't been extreme enough and hasn't done enough yet to accomplish that to suit you.

[Psych]

Originally Posted by Morb

Entire books can, have, and will yet be written on the subject of how liberals like Obama have been incrementally changing America on a one-way road that would take a Herculean effort to reverse. All of Obama's mentors, and his wife, support the idea of fundamentally changing America into a nanny state that is the exact opposite of the basic intentions of the founders.

For starters, this says it all:

Barack Hussein Obama Mmm Mmm Mmm - YouTube

Does that look like the America anyone thinks of when they think of America to you? I'm not worried about a Hitler Youth being built by the teacher unions in support of Romney.

You actually support the idea of America being reformed into something that isn't America anymore yourself, Rust, your only objection is that Obama hasn't been extreme enough and hasn't done enough yet to accomplish that to suit you.

When I was in school they were brainwashing you to be christian, but at least they didn't make you sing songs about political leaders...

[TheRascalKing]

Originally Posted by Psych

When I was in school they were brainwashing you to be christian, but at least they didn't make you sing songs about political leaders...

So, every school in the country is being forced to sing about Obama?

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by Psych

When I was in school they were brainwashing you to be christian, but at least they didn't make you sing songs about political leaders...

Being compelled to support an illegal war, feel bad about a supposed terrorist attack, and allow mercenaries to spread propaganda to you isn't enough for you?

[TheRascalKing]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Yet like everyone else in the USA and Europe, they had no problem with slavery. I don't think either of us believes they magically went from being slaves to being treated as equals there.

Norway - Women got the right to vote in 1910.
USA - Women got the right to vote in 1920.

Doesn't look like Norway is really the leader of civil rights that you crack it up to be, troll.

You know that Norway never trafficked in slaves, right? And Great Britain abolished it long before the US did, as a matter of fact they had a strong abolitionist movement long before the US did. There's a reason why black
GIs in World War II preferred to remain in Europe after the war, they were considered more American there than they were in America. No lynchings, no
idiotic bullshit like getting hanged in your uniform, no white and colored bathrooms (the Americans tried to introduce the idea of Apartheid to the UK with colored and white signs, the Brits took them down and started restricting white troops since they were the main cause of problems. There were signs that said "Colored and locals only".)

[Morb]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

So, every school in the country is being forced to sing about Obama?

That's the fifth or sixth video of children being brainwashed in different classrooms that I've seen so far, just with that song. There are other songs too. I assume that for every one that someone films and releases, there are many more that haven't been made public.

[TheRascalKing]

Originally Posted by Morb

That's the fifth or sixth video of children being brainwashed in different classrooms that I've seen so far. I assume that for every one that someone films and releases, there are many more that haven't.

Lol, Brainwashing.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Morb

Entire books can, have, and will yet be written on the subject of how liberals like Obama have been incrementally changing America on a one-way road that would take a Herculean effort to reverse. All of Obama's mentors, and his wife, support the idea of fundamentally changing America into a nanny state that is the exact opposite of the basic intentions of the founders.

For starters, this says it all:

Barack Hussein Obama Mmm Mmm Mmm - YouTube

Does that look like the America anyone thinks of when they think of America to you? I'm not worried about a Hitler Youth being built by the teacher unions in support of Romney.

You actually support the idea of America being reformed into something that isn't America anymore yourself, Rust, your only objection is that Obama hasn't been extreme enough and hasn't done enough yet to accomplish that to suit you.

What? Are you suggesting that Obama controls what a school sings for black history month? Hint: He doesn't. Moreover, that sort of thing has happened with Presidents before. For example, Bush had a school named after him while he was a sitting President. Why is singing about a President bad, but having to go to a school named after him, which his named emblazoned everywhere, not?

Do you have anything that actually answers my question? If there are so many examples that you can write a book about it, then it should be quite easy to answer:

How has Obama been devoted into turning America into something that isn't recognizable as America anymore? And how would Romney differ?

[TheRascalKing]

And who decides what America is in the first place? Some people used to think that America was about restricting the right to vote to landowning white males.

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by Morb

Entire books can, have, and will yet be written on the subject of how liberals like Obama have been incrementally changing America on a one-way road that would take a Herculean effort to reverse. All of Obama's mentors, and his wife, support the idea of fundamentally changing America into a nanny state that is the exact opposite of the basic intentions of the founders.

For starters, this says it all:

Barack Hussein Obama Mmm Mmm Mmm - YouTube

Does that look like the America anyone thinks of when they think of America to you? I'm not worried about a Hitler Youth being built by the teacher unions in support of Romney.

You actually support the idea of America being reformed into something that isn't America anymore yourself, Rust, your only objection is that Obama hasn't been extreme enough and hasn't done enough yet to accomplish that to suit you.

I'm gonna side with Rust on this.

Kim Jong Un and Korean Children at 66th Anniversary of Korean Children's Union - YouTube

Kim Jong Un and Korean Children at 66th Anniversary of Korean Children's Union - YouTube
Video: click to display

Until 20000 of the best students in the country are shipped to Washington for a massive rally, we haven't done enough to discard the old ways of the empire.

[Rust]

Here's another example I found in a couple of seconds of googling:

" The Obama song video controversy is reminiscent of an incident involving school age children and Laura Bush during the White House Easter Egg Roll in 2006. Hurricane Katrina had come and gone, and criticism of the Bush administration's inadequate response was both plentiful and incessant. The Bush White House invited children from the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina to come sing for the First Lady.

What did they sing? To the tune of "Hey Look Me Over," children from states devastated by the hurricane sang:

... Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us
and we join them hand-in-hand!

And those children sang the song praising President Bush in the White House at a national event at the instance of the First Lady, not in a lonely public school auditorium at the instance of an unknown teacher.

The fact that it or something like it has been done before, of course, doesn't make it right that children should be used to promote any political ideology or person. But before the Obama song video controversy gets out of hand, those seeking to use it as political capital might stop and think about the children themselves- if it was wrong to ask them to sing praise to the president, isn't it just as wrong to make them pawns in a public partisan attack on the White House?"

http://voices.yahoo.com/obama-song-c...h-4520993.html


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/0...uths-of-babes/

[Morb]

Originally Posted by Rust

What? Are you suggesting that Obama controls what a school sings for black history month? Hint: He doesn't. Moreover, that sort of thing has happened with Presidents before. For example, Bush had a school named after him while he was a sitting President. Why is singing about a President bad, but having to go to a school named after him, which his named emblazoned everywhere, not?

Do you have anything that actually answers my question? If there are so many examples that you can write a book about it, then it should be quite easy to answer:

How has Obama been devoted into turning America into something that isn't recognizable as America anymore? And how would Romney differ?

Can you imagine if there were school children singing songs about Bush? That would have been the lead story in all of major media for months, and rightly so. Schools are named after presidents all the time, who cares? You know the difference between that and brainwashing children as well as I do.

Obama has set a precedent that will only get stronger, now the government can coerce people into doing What Those Who Know Best want them to do, or there will be penalties. Health care is only the beginning. If Romney gets elected and does absolutely nothing, that'll be better than what Obama is doing. I don't look to the president or the government to fix all my problems (and neither should any real American).

Obama's entire message regarding how to fix the economy is to soak the rich, while he wastes money, time, and resources on "green energy" projects that the market won't support yet (and so they fail and add to the economic downfall we're seeing). The message there is that you can't count upon free enterprise and the private sector to get anything valuable done, you must count upon the government.

Obama's messages are never truly geared towards what made America great and trying to continue that, they're geared towards how only the government can make anything great happen (which is the polar opposite of the fundamental ideas of libertarianism and the general direction the founders pointed this country to begin with).

I make it clear where I sit and stand on these issues and why (I always have), while you never do (and I know why). You prefer to hide behind endless and useless squabbles about statistics because you know that when it comes to a debate about ideas, yours only succeed by misrepresentation. Like I've said before, I'd be more willing to debate things with you if you'd dare to lay your own ideas on the table, but you can't (you don't dare, it's not a smart move). My intention here is to bring that basic point to light. Since you can't put your own agenda on the table to be examined as well as mine, I won't waste time writing an essay on how Obama and his fellow liberals have been eroding the basic priciples of personal responsiblilty, liberty, and private enterprise in order to replace it with a nanny state for decades now.

I don't care about defeating you in an argument, I care about making others curious enough about these issues to learn more for themselves. As always, you are a useful tool in that endeavor, Rust. You make for a good springboard.

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by Morb

Can you imagine if there were school children singing songs about Bush? That would have been the lead story in all of major media for months, and rightly so. Schools are named after presidents all the time, who cares? You know the difference between that and brainwashing children as well as I do.

Obama has set a precedent that will only get stronger, now the government can coerce people into doing What Those Who Know Best want them to do, or there will be penalties. Health care is only the beginning. If Romney gets elected and does absolutely nothing, that'll be better than what Obama is doing. I don't look to the president or the government to fix all my problems (and neither should any real American).

Obama's entire message regarding how to fix the economy is to soak the rich, while he wastes money, time, and resources on "green energy" projects that the market won't support yet (and so they fail and add to the economic downfall we're seeing). The message there is that you can't count upon free enterprise and the private sector to get anything valuable done, you must count upon the government.

Obama's messages are never truly geared towards what made America great and trying to continue that, they're geared towards how only the government can make anything great happen (which is the polar opposite of the fundamental ideas of libertarianism and the general direction the founders pointed this country to begin with).

I make it clear where I sit and stand on these issues and why (I always have), while you never do (and I know why). You prefer to hide behind endless and useless squabbles about statistics because you know that when it comes to a debate about ideas, yours only succeed by misrepresentation. Like I've said before, I'd be more willing to debate things with you if you'd dare to lay your own ideas on the table, but you can't (you don't dare, it's not a smart move). My intention here is to bring that basic point to light. Since you can't put your own agenda on the table to be examined as well as mine, I won't waste time writing an essay on how Obama and his fellow liberals have been eroding the basic priciples of personal responsiblilty, liberty, and private enterprise in order to replace it with a nanny state for decades now.

I don't care about defeating you in an argument, I care about making others curious enough about these issues to learn more for themselves. As always, you are a useful tool in that endeavor, Rust. You make for a good springboard.

Thing is, both parties are going to do this. All their supposed "socialist" plans end up burning the government and work to make a small group of people some more pocket change. But maybe Obama won't drag us into another 10 year war in Iran, which is the only reason I'll vote for him (or not vote at all, I live in a blue state anyways. Democracy at work!)

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Morb

Can you imagine if there were school children singing songs about Bush? That would have been the lead story in all of major media for months, and rightly so. Schools are named after presidents all the time, who cares? You know the difference between that and brainwashing children as well as I do.

Ironically... I posted a source that showed just that, kids singing a song about Bush!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/0...uths-of-babes/

Thank you for proving my point. You're not interested in facts, you're interested in rhetoric. You didn't really give a fuck about the song, you care about how you could use it to feign outrage as a political tactic.

So not only do we have examples of the same thing (children singing songs) but more importantly you failed to show how Obama was at fault. How does Obama have any control over a teacher deciding to choose the first black president as a topic for a song in black history month?

By the way, the example is not the naming of school after a deceased or non-sitting President (you're correct, that happens all the time). The example was naming the school after a sitting President, and that does not happen all the time. Having kids praise a sitting President by having their school emblazoned with his name does not happen all the time.

Obama has set a precedent that will only get stronger, now the government can coerce people into doing What Those Who Know Best want them to do, or there will be penalties. Health care is only the beginning. If Romney gets elected and does absolutely nothing, that'll be better than what Obama is doing. I don't look to the president or the government to fix all my problems (and neither should any real American).

What precedent? How was it set? Be specific. If you're talking about healthcare, then not only does it not set a precedent (in that the precedent was already there... the government has a the right to levy taxes), but Romney did the exact same thing. Your argument is that Obama is unique. Giving an example where Romney does the exact same thing doesn't help your case, it hurts it.

P.S.
I have no problem "laying my position on the table" when it's relevant. The only reason you bring that up here is because you want to change the topic to what I believe in. If you want to create a thread where "I lay down all my beliefs" or you ask me what they are, I'd be happy to do so there. Not here.

[crazzyass]

Originally Posted by mizled

No, I'm implying that the Nobel committee is a bunch of old white people.

Try to stay on topic here, ok?

And? Your post doesn't make any goddamn sense. It's a bunch of old white people, sure. What does that have to do with my comment that they live in the 21st century so they aren't as impressed by the black president thing?

[TheRascalKing]

Those same old white people gave M.L King a Peace Prize when he was violently hated in his own country. Not for being black but for combating oppression and poverty.

[Rolf]

Originally Posted by mizled

No, I'm implying that the Nobel committee is a bunch of old white people.

Rolf is surprised to hear of old white people in a committee in a region consisting mostly of white people, many of them old.

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Those same old white people gave M.L King a Peace Prize when he was violently hated in his own country. Not for being black but for combating oppression and poverty.

Anastasia, Rolf wonders why in name of fuck did one bother to make an alt account when the postings of one consist of the exact same excrement as those made on ones true account.

[TheRascalKing]

One man's excrement is another man's golden egg.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

You know that Norway never trafficked in slaves, right?

http://www.unesco.no/aktuellesaker/k...n-slave-trade-

"In 1803, when Denmark-Norway abolished its export trade in slaves, the Gold Coast establishments had to find an alternative economic base. Attemps were made to develop cotton and coffee plantations, and trade turned to "legitimate" exports products such as palm oil. Having lost Norway in 1814, Denmark lacked the strength to establish political control over the territory claimed to be under the Danish King."

Let me guess, you think that separating from Denmark completely whitewashes Norway's role in the slave trade? Creative.

And Great Britain abolished it long before the US did, as a matter of fact they had a strong abolitionist movement long before the US did. There's a reason why black GIs in World War II preferred to remain in Europe after the war, they were considered more American there than they were in America. No lynchings, noidiotic bullshit like getting hanged in your uniform, no white and colored bathrooms (the Americans tried to introduce the idea of Apartheid to the UK with colored and white signs, the Brits took them down and started restricting white troops since they were the main cause of problems. There were signs that said "Colored and locals only".)

I think it's hilarious that you drag Britain into this. You're talking about the same country that has an overtly racist political party (BNP) that actively pursues an overtly racist agenda of repealing anti-discrimination laws.

Not only does it have such a party, a party that would get ass-raped in American politics, but said party has two seats on the European Parliament. Even Robert Byrd had to renounce his KKK heritage to get anywhere in American government.

So, tell me again about how far ahead of the USA Europe and Great Britain are. Yeah, it's changing the subject, but you've been desperate to do that ever since you realize that you fucked up on backing a country like Norway. Oops.

[TheRascalKing]

Fair enough on the Norwegians, they had a castle. But you're an idiot to cover for the US, no western nation has the record that we do when it comes to mistreatment of people of color. Large parts of their economy weren't built on the ownership of human beings. That's part of why the USA stopped egregiously engaging in state backed racism after the 1960s, the rest of the West was calling us on it. Nobody in Britain takes the BNP seriously, so you fail again. Shut the fuck up and quit trying to cover for the USA's standing as the most socially backward Western state, you're not making anyone look stupid but yourself. We're fucking troglodytes, we have states trying to curb womens' reproductive freedom, our president's citizenship is constantly called into question because he is of color, and we treat LGBTQ people like second class citizens.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Fair enough on the Norwegians, they had a castle. But you're an idiot to cover for the US, no western nation has the record that we do when it comes to mistreatment of people of color.

Who said I'm covering for the USA? The USA, along with the entire rest of the fucking planet, has a shitty track record on human rights. Hey, remember when Great Britain used to be this huge Empire that became a huge empire by colonizing, conquering, enslaving, raping and pillaging the inhabitants of smaller nations? Remember when France, Spain, and the rest of Europe did the same? When did the USA ever reach the heights of slave trade that Europe did? Oh right, they didn't.

In short, it's Europe's own savagery that is at fault for the existence of the USA. Boo fucking hoo. People were and continue to be assholes.

Large parts of their economy weren't built on the ownership of human beings.

You mean like the trans-Atlantic slave trade? Slavery predates the USA's existence, you know.

That's part of why the USA stopped egregiously engaging in state backed racism after the 1960s, the rest of the West was calling us on it.

So the USA is the autistic child of retarded parents. What's your point? There's a race to civilization?

[quote[ Nobody in Britain takes the BNP seriously, so you fail again.[/quote]

How the fuck did they get on the European Parliament if nobody takes them seriously? Iz u fukking st00pid?

We're fucking troglodytes, we have states trying to curb womens' reproductive freedom, our president's citizenship is constantly called into question because he is of color, and we treat LGBTQ people like second class citizens.

Abortion: "Most countries in the European Union allow abortion on demand during the first trimester. After the first trimester, abortion is allowed only under certain circumstances, such as risk to woman's life or health, fetal defects or other specific situations that may be related to the circumstances of the conception or the woman's age."

So much for reproductive freedom.

Obama: The Birther movement doesn't represent the United States, you retard. They can't even win a case with the SCOTUS.

LGBT(Q?): It would be a fair point if we hadn't begun legalizing gay marriage before Norway did. Who's slow now? Oh yeah, those European cocks you're sucking.

[TheRascalKing]

Lol, keep it up, Hiawatha. All I'm saying is that the United States has a track record of being behind the rest of the Western supposedly civilised world when it comes to social advancement, it doesn't matter if you want to cover your ears and ignore what you and I both know to be the truth. How did the BNP get in the Parliament? How do Republicans, some of which express views similar to those of the BNP, keep getting elected over and over again? Legalizing gay marriage? Most of our states don't allow it. Obama? A worrisome amount of White Southerners think he's a Muslim. We're socially backward, Chief.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TheRascalKing

Lol, keep it up, Hiawatha. All I'm saying is that the United States has a track record of being behind the rest of the Western supposedly civilised world when it comes to social advancement, it doesn't matter if you want to cover your ears and ignore what you and I both know to be the truth. How did the BNP get in the Parliament? How do Republicans, some of which express views similar to those of the BNP, keep getting elected over and over again? Legalizing gay marriage? Most of our states don't allow it. Obama? A worrisome amount of White Southerners think he's a Muslim. We're socially backward, Chief.

1. As you so cleverly keep pointing out, I have some Indian ancestry, so yeah, I know exactly how fucked up the United States own track record. I also happen to know that Europe was part and parcel of that little shitfuck.

2. Republican = BNP? No.

3. Europe =|= rest of the world, Uncle Cracka. We're middle of the road at worst. Let us take for example, the shithole that is Mexico. Try being LGBT in that country. Whine about your rights there. See where it gets you. I wonder how abortion works for them with the Roman Catholic faith dominating their country. I wonder if their mixed-breeds are still second-class citizens.

4. Speak for yourself when you throw words like "socially backward" around, 'Murican.

[jheit8]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

1. As you so cleverly keep pointing out, I have some Indian ancestry, so yeah, I know exactly how fucked up the United States own track record. I also happen to know that Europe was part and parcel of that little shitfuck.

2. Republican = BNP? No.

3. Europe =|= rest of the world, Uncle Cracka. We're middle of the road at worst. Let us take for example, the shithole that is Mexico. Try being LGBT in that country. Whine about your rights there. See where it gets you. I wonder how abortion works for them with the Roman Catholic faith dominating their country. I wonder if their mixed-breeds are still second-class citizens.

4. Speak for yourself when you throw words like "socially backward" around, 'Murican.

Well, several mexican states have legalized gay marriage... So I guess being LGBT isn't that bad. I'd even go to say it's better than in places such as Texas for homosexuals.