Printable View
Yes, Finland is not ready for a gay President. He still got about 35% of the votes, which is a lot for a gay environmentalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
BTW, he's not considered left-wing in Finland, more like center or right from center. The Green Party is sometimes called the "park rangers of the Conservative Party".
Until 1971, it was illegal to be gay in Finland. Until 1981, it was considered a mental illness. So maybe within 20 years from now, Finland will be ready for a gay President.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I find such laws very curious. When I was in Libya, was I breaking the law by being a gay person in the country, or would I merely have done so had I indulged in gay sex?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Curiously enough, said presidential candidate Pekka Haavisto has been working for the UN in countries like Afghanistan or Sudan. I'm sure they knew about him being gay in Afghanistan and Sudan , so they don't probably really care as long as he's up to his job:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Pekka Haavisto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
From 1999 to 2005, Haavisto worked for the United Nations in various tasks. He led the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) research groups in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, Palestine and Sudan. He also coordinated the UN investigation in the effects of depleted uranium in Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.[4] Haavisto also represented the UNEP in the investigations in the Baia Mare mining accident in Romania.[5] In 2005 he was appointed as the special representative of the European Union in Sudan where he participated in the Darfur peace talks.[6] In 2007 and 2011 Haavisto was re-elected to the parliament from the electoral district of Helsinki.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
Well, duh!
Really is that the best that you can do? Is nitpicking on other people's grammar your biggest achievement?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
English is not my native language and I do make mistakes in it. Why don't we speak in some other language, mr.intellectual and see how you do in those?
Yeah, funny you have no problems with what others said to me, yet you single me out. You just wouldn't be a hypocrite, would you, dunnell?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Hmm, then why was it the Republicans (conservatives) that rammed through the civil rights reform in the U.S. over the Democrats (liberal) objections?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Krogshöj
Makes that poll and any such statements seem pretty much like a jack-ass braying.
Such unknown or unenforced laws used to be (in the U.S. before police lost the right to use discretion in dealing with the populace) items that a police officer might use to tell a rowdy person "There are all sorts of laws I could right now use to throw your butt in jail if I wanted to. So go home and cool off/sober up."Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Sadly both Dem. and Rep. parties have managed to turn police officers into robotic arrest machines, starting at the academy. (This has been told me by several retired police officers. With some retiring at an early age because they are sick of the new system.
It is truly, truly amazing how you just make things up, as if no one would call you out after making a ridiculous statement. Do you not realize that you are (again) proving the point being suggested in the OP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
It took me all of 30 seconds to find this and copy if from Wiki. So here is a breakdown of the vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by party and by region:
Quote:
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)[/*:m:resgeird]
- Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)[/*:m:resgeird]
- Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)[/*:m:resgeird]
- Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)[/*:m:resgeird]
The Senate version:
- Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)[/*:m:resgeird]
- Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)[/*:m:resgeird]
- Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)[/*:m:resgeird]
- Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)[/*:m:resgeird]
As one can easily see, Democrats in the north supported the legislation by a wider margin than Republicans in the north. And Democrats in the south supported the legislation by a wider margin that Republicans in the south.
But this was not about Democrat vs. Republican (as our pal Bob would have us believe). It was about region. After the Civil War, the "Party of Lincoln" (the Republican party) was about as popular as a mosquito at a picnic. But that all began to change when Democrats (in the north) began pushing for civil rights laws and began opposing various Jim Crow laws in the southern states. That's when many southern state flags were changed to include representations of the Confederate flag, when talk of "states rights" became popular again and when many southern Democrats began leaving the Democrat party and becoming Republicans.
Man, the last time I saw a reality distortion field like the ones Bob comes up with, a slim dude in a sweater was introducing something called an iPad up on a stage! :D
What is, may I ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Wir können naturlich auf Deutsch diskutieren.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Indeed. They tend now to be people unable to command respect — not the sort of blind respect some feel the police should be afforded, but genuine respect — from any section of society. Not a good situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Ah the Wiki, first source for gullible, and not very bright, world wide: meanwhile, from an article based on what was written in an old Times magazine: http://biggovernment.com/files/2010/...640619_400.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Contrary to Democrat myth, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader – not President Lyndon Johnson – was the person most responsible for its passage. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson promised Republicans that he would publicly credit the GOP for its strong support. Johnson played no role in the legislative fight. In the House of Representatives, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 80% support from Republicans but only 63% support from Democrats.
In the Senate, Dirksen had no trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for passage. On the Democrat side, the Senate leadership did support the bill, while the chief opponents were Senators Sam Ervin (D-NC), Al Gore (D-TN) and Robert Byrd (D-WV). Senator Byrd, whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate,” filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act for fourteen straight hours. At a meeting held in his office, Dirksen modified the bill so it could be passed despite Democrat opposition. He strongly condemned the Democrat-led 57-day filibuster: “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
Along with most other political leaders at the time, Johnson, credited Dirksen for getting the bill passed: “The Attorney General said that you were very helpful and did an excellent job… I’ll see that you get proper attention and credit.” At the time, for instance, The Chicago Defender, a renowned African-American newspaper, praised Senator Dirksen for leading passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The struggle for civil rights was not finished, however, as most southern states remained under the control of segregationist Democrat governors, such as George Wallace (D-AL), Orval Faubus (D-AR) and Lester Maddox (D-GA). Full enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not arrive until the Republican political ascendancy in the South during the 1980s.
And how are we supposed to know that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
If you used your real name, and maybe flew a flag by your name we might have a better idea and those who tend to want to nitpick might take that into consideration..
So which language would you feel more comfortable in?
Truth is there just weren't that many Republigoons in office then
House: D 248, R 172
Senate D 67, R 33
Only in a psychotic Bizzarro World could anybody suggest with a straight face that the Rebubligoons "Rammed through" the civil right bill...
Riebe's fantasy based claims pretty much proves the point of this thread, as if there was any doubt.
So you are claiming that the data provided in the Wiki is factually incorrect. And yet, it was compiled from the Congressional voting record. So Bob, post the data that you have which disproves what I posted. If that data is incorrect, and the regional voting pattern is incorrect, then post the correct data for all of us to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Also, please notice that in your post you claimed that the Democrats who opposed the civil rights legislation were "liberal" and the Republicans were "conservative". And yet, by the very Time article that you posted, that silly assertion is not supported... because it is just another of your simple fantasies. George Wallace was a "liberal"? Really?
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
I offer our friend Bob as Exhibit #1... and rest my case.
Don't blame me I am using the standard of conservatives vs liberals this asinine thread is based on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I said nothing of the accuracy of your wiki post, I merely stated that going quickly to wiki as a primary source to support a rhetoric is lame at best and 30 seconds of foolish at worst.
You were babbling about the Rep. not pushing through the civil rights bill and the article says you are wrong period.
How many hours did the Dem. filibuster.?
Wasn't Sheets Byrd, the one so lovingly trumped up by liberals for the past forty decades leading the charge?
You are the one that made this moronic statement It is truly, truly amazing how you just make things up, the article makes you look like a fool for making it, and it only took 30 seconds for you to do it, so what is your point here?
Wow, if I have low IQ at least I can blame it on conservatism, in today's world that would qualify for a disease; whereas your reason for being insensate is you were born that way. Too bad you had such misfortune in your genes.
My word, so Times magazine is a bizzarro publication?Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
I think you live in that world, so your voice of it is one of authority.
Try harder next time sonny.
So it's typical for you to just follow along... like a sheep? Party does not (or hasn't always) define political ideology. But to people who run around using the word "RINO" and expect lock-step loyalty and NO QUESTIONS to be asked, maybe it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
But IMO, that's a good thing. It helps create more independents who aren't lemmings and slaves to parties.
Whether it's a Wiki entry or Ned the Janitor, if the data is valid, it is valid. In fact, you're very much like Ned the Janitor. And yet, I still talk to you, don't I? Seldom is your data valid, but you're still entertaining for a chat up. And being that the original source of this data was the Congressional record (and available for review or further dissemination there), why would I spend more than 30 seconds (re)assembling something that you are incapable of truly comprehending anyway?Quote:
I said nothing of the accuracy of your wiki post, I merely stated that going quickly to wiki as a primary source to support a rhetoric is lame at best and 30 seconds of foolish at worst.
What I pointed out was that the vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not at all what you were trying to spin it as: a simpleton's issue of "the good, conservative Republicans vs. the bad, liberal Democrats." In truth, the vote came down to region, NOT party. The Act passed because a large majority of members of BOTH parties in the north supported it, while virtually no members (0 Republicans, by the way) in the south did.Quote:
You were babbling about the Rep. not pushing through the civil rights bill and the article says you are wrong period.
Nice try though.
Apparently that you have great difficulties with basic math.Quote:
You are the one that made this moronic statement It is truly, truly amazing how you just make things up, the article makes you look like a fool for making it, and it only took 30 seconds for you to do it, so what is your point here?
Well Bob, just think... that a man as "insensate" (always a treat to watch a barely literate goof use a $5 word to express a 50 cent thought) as I am can have this level of success, should give hope to those of your ilk. Some day, some way, you might go from that single wide with the wheels still attached to a double wide with a fake rock foundation! Hells yeah! :bounce:Quote:
Wow, if I have low IQ at least I can blame it on conservatism, in today's world that would qualify for a disease; whereas your reason for being insensate is you were born that way. Too bad you had such misfortune in your genes.
Is it your level of success that causes you to reply with such demeanor/our, or do you continually work at it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Not sure what it is, Bobo. I was actually this way before I'd made any money. It's probably that people like you just bring out "the best" in me. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Or maybe... Rome fell and I blame people like you for taking us into the Dark Ages. If you believe in past lives or reincarnation, maybe I'm still holding a grudge from something that happened a couple thousand years ago. Tell ya what... let's go to the zoo together, I'll throw you into a lion's cage (like old times) and we'll call it even. What do ya say, old stick? Deal? Sleep on it and get back to me.
Chances are, by that time public tastes will swing towards somebody like a Muslim of Somalian origin, whose parents were illegal migrants and who made his career in hashish dealing and whose relatives fight American imperialists on High Seas. By that time the gay-left-environmentalist thing will be about as fashionable as disco, six-liter engines and cheap sci-fi movies are today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Slim chance. I don't believe that's going to happen. There aren't that many illegal immigrants, or even legal immigrants, coming to Finland to make a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
How many people like Haavisto were there around in Finnish politics 20 years ago? In the words of Bob Dylan, times, they are a-changing.
And then, I sense a cold note in your response. Are you not comfortable with Somalian refugees? Muslims? Is that sort of attitude typical of Finns?
Gay politicians: I don't know. Openly gay politicians: None. Now there are 4 openly gay members of parliament, one of them is black and one of them is a woman. Times do change, but rarely backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
I'm comfortable with the current number of refugees and the current rate of immigration. Some Finns are not. I don't know which opinion is typical, but those who aren't, certainly make more noise and headlines. They sound like Finland is flooded with Muslim immigrants and the end of the World or at least the Western civilization is near.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Sounds good to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I will loudly sing What a friend we have in Jesus as I give the Lions a flea bath.
No, as usual, due to single digit IQ you miissed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
The POINT Boobby-boy, is that you claimed insanely enough that the Rebubligoons "Rammed thru" the Civil Rights Act...
Has somebody rammed thru with a No2 Phillips----your ears?
Or do you simply forget your blather you wring, boy?
Despite the fifty plus hours of attempted filibuster, the Republicans still managed to ram through the billQuote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Try harder next time.
No sonny boy, try thinking rather than regurgitating the one fragment of the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
A minority does not force something thru..
It was a near straight geographic vote as anybody who was around then know, sonny.
The South, home to vicious rabid, inbred racists, nearly all voted against it.
The rest of the country, even the Republicans---who by today's standards would have asylum-escapees like you calling them Socialist Nazis communists---voted for it because it was time, it was in fact a hundred years late...
Rather than making a further idiot of yourself, you could attempt to illustrate how that one vote laid the first foundation stone in the building of the modern Republigoon Partei as all the former "Dixie-crats" abandoned their senses and became the core Bible thumping, morals lecturing---while cheating on their wives, sining and whoring---hyper Patriotic ---from the region that is most apart and which brought years of savage warfare trying to destroy the Copuntry---which now sucks up the vast majortity of Federal Grants and payments....of ALL sorts...
But nobody spoon fed you that so you couldn't possibly comment.
Boy.
Of course you may.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Among others, I speak a bit of german too. Not that well to start writing in it on a forum though.Quote:
Wir können naturlich auf Deutsch diskutieren.
It is funny how you had nothing to respond to my comment calling you a hypocrite.
LOL. I am not going to use my real name just to please a couple of anal nitwits.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Don't worry, I am comfortable enough speaking english.Quote:
So which language would you feel more comfortable in?
Having been to Helsinki not that long ago, well, it sure doesn't look like that. The amount of obvious immigrants I saw was just astounding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
My, my,my Times magazine gives credit to Republicans for getting it passed and that just grinds your political bias to the point you are saying you do not need the truth to continue foment hatred.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
I will do what a little voice from internet heaven said and just move on.
Prattle on.
What kind of amount do you find astounding? And how do you tell immigrants apart from foreign students and tourists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
About 7% of the inhabitants of Helsinki are foreign born. Of the whole population of Finland about 3% are foreign born. The biggest foreigner groups are Russians, Estonians and Swedes.
There are about 5500 Somalians in the whole Finland (about 0.1% of the population). Even if they all lived in Helsinki, it would be only about 1% of the Helsinki residents.
Numbers numb-nuts, numbers, Times can say what ever they wanted to, but laws are not passed on what a magazines says, boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Laws are passed by Representatives and Senators casting votes and the president signing them...
Back to 7th Grade Civics glass...Or did you drop out before that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
That's terrible! You're being overrun! All the Americans were right, it IS The Islamic Republic of Europe!
Have you guys thought about building a wall?
5500 somalis? LOL. I probably saw more somalis than that in my time there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Most likely you didn't. You just felt that way. Most of them are unemployed and have time to hang around downtown Helsinki in places like the railroad station. If you happen to be in a place where they gather it may seem that they are more than they really are. In some other parts of Helsinki you wouldn't have seen any of them. You also probably saw the same somalis many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker