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