Women have a right: the right to remain silent. [Archive]

gloomyDAY

23rd August 2012, 08:00

The politicking train keeps steaming along towards America's 2012 Presidential elections, and the target has been focused for much of the time on women.

Let's take a look at the list:

1) Birth control.

2) Legitimacy of rape.

3) Abortion.

American women with an employer's health insurance plan will be able to get birth control without an additional co-pay. What's wrong with that? Well, the Catholic Church thought that "periodic abstinence" was a better choice since contraceptives were an elective drug. Well, what happens if a woman gets pregnant while using the tried and true method of "periodic abstinence" that her church leader advocated, but doesn't have the means to raise a child? The government is staunchly against her side if she tries to get any economic aid after the baby is born. Her ability to get and retain a job will plummet once an employer discovers that she is pregnant. The odds are stacked against a pregnant and single woman in America, period. If she has that kid, then that child will grow up in a deprived environment and its chances, statistically speaking, are out of the window in terms of receiving a decent education and stable career.

America is now the first country ever to tally up more rapes of men than women. Great! The part that is unsettling is that women are now being questioned on whether or not their rape was legitimate. Please, let me explain. There are politicians in America that believe that if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant from that encounter, then the woman actually enjoyed the sexual liaison. Yes, hard to believe but true. Aside from women having to pay for their own visit to the hospital, which costs about $4500 (http://www.reddit.com/tb/ww4er), they now have to contend with the fact that they may be pregnant with a raper's child.

What can a woman do if she doesn't want to have a child? What are the options? She can decide to place her child into an adoption home. She can take the baby to a "safe-haven (http://www.babysafe.ca.gov/)". She can also have an abortion. That last option has been the sticking point of many Americans and politicians alike. Politicians do not like the notion of ending a embryo's life, but have no ill-feeling towards sending a mentally retarded man to receive a lethal injection. An abortion is a woman's choice, but more and more states are holding up a Holy Cross and making it more difficult for a woman to legally have an abortion. A woman no longer has control over her own body and child according to law.

Women are getting their rights eroded in America. Just thought you'd like to know.

Big Ben

23rd August 2012, 10:26

1. I've heard that in countries like UK there's plenty of these so called single moms that are actually leaving with the fathers of the child(ren) or some other dudes and they don't get married because they wouldn't get de benefits for being 'single moms'.... that's what I've heard at least. Being well-intentioned is good... being effective is something else.

2. He's an idiot. Don't vote for him.

3. On the other hand you have countries like Romania where abortions are like taking a dump... but that never made me think how great it must be to be a woman over here

ioan

23rd August 2012, 14:41

airshifter

24th August 2012, 04:18

US politicians and US politics generally are becoming the laughing stock of the world. If they keep going like this in a few years the US might be behind Iran and Saudi Arabia with regards to human rights.

Posts such as that based on such ignorance of human rights in the US should make you the laughing stock of the world without further effort. :laugh:

Considering that you are among those dismissing possible charges of rape for a man who has yet to be tried, it's amazing that you would even comment on an issue such as legitimacy of rape.

gadjo_dilo

24th August 2012, 08:10

On the other hand you have countries like Romania where abortions are like taking a dump... but that never made me think how great it must be to be a woman over here

???!!!!?!!!??!

donKey jote

24th August 2012, 15:52

3. On the other hand you have countries like Romania where abortions are like taking a dump...

I very much doubt the women having them feel that way, no matter how lax the Romanian abortion laws might be ...

Big Ben

24th August 2012, 19:36

I very much doubt the women having them feel that way, no matter how lax the Romanian abortion laws might be ...

that was an exaggeration but for some of them having a tooth removed is a bigger problem... I doubt that one of those that have 6-7 of them puts much thought in making that decision

Malbec

24th August 2012, 23:00

that was an exaggeration but for some of them having a tooth removed is a bigger problem... I doubt that one of those that have 6-7 of them puts much thought in making that decision

Try being at one. I think you lack a bit of empathy there. Its not an easy decision to make for any woman and physically its not very pleasant at all.

In quite a few countries where there's a high abortion rate its because the men refuse to use contraception. Ever thought about that angle?

ioan

25th August 2012, 01:29

Posts such as that based on such ignorance of human rights in the US should make you the laughing stock of the world without further effort. :laugh:

Considering that you are among those dismissing possible charges of rape for a man who has yet to be tried, it's amazing that you would even comment on an issue such as legitimacy of rape.

Thanks for proving my point by bringing 0 facts to counter my post. :rolleyes:
BTW how is the promised closure of Guantanamo going? Maybe it is still up and running because the inmates were enjoying the 'surfing' sessions?

And what about people who are kept in prison in the US even though they were declared innocent?

Take a walk outside the US and you will understand what real democracy and respecting the human rights means.

PS: There are no charges of rape in the case you are blabbing about, but that's a matter for another thread which already exists.

ioan

25th August 2012, 01:32

Its not an easy decision to make for any woman and physically its not very pleasant at all.

I disagree about the first part of that, as I have met women who had several abortions without blinking even though they reckoned that it is not a pleasant procedure.

airshifter

25th August 2012, 05:30

Thanks for proving my point by bringing 0 facts to counter my post. :rolleyes:
BTW how is the promised closure of Guantanamo going? Maybe it is still up and running because the inmates were enjoying the 'surfing' sessions?

And what about people who are kept in prison in the US even though they were declared innocent?

Take a walk outside the US and you will understand what real democracy and respecting the human rights means.

PS: There are no charges of rape in the case you are blabbing about, but that's a matter for another thread which already exists.

There are a whole lot of dead terrorists due to the detentions at Gitmo, and that's no accident. Even Obama figured out the value of detaining terrorists. We could ask Bin Laden how that worked out as well. If you were a bit more familiar with the laws and conventions of war you might better understand the legalities of how terrorists not in uniform nor under the flag of a country can be detained... but don't let facts get in the way of your rants.

As for innocent people still in jail, it happens all over the world every day. Are you saying there are no innocent people detained in all or Europe or would you rather in this case compare a massive country with various state laws to a tiny place just so you can bias the realities?

I've been all over much of the world, and seen just how democracy works. For that matter I had the chance to see how it worked from the East German border, and just how free people there were. Of course the Soviets were all about democracy as well. Though the world has changed a great deal human rights are based more on the views of society than anything else. What many of us think unfair is accepted in the cultures that live and deal with such laws. A Muslim woman wearing a niqab is readily accpeted in France correct? And after 9/11 the US may have declared war, but I don't recall any "not white enough" young men getting gunned down by cops because they had a backpack. But it happened in the UK. I could easily go on and on, but my intention isn't to try to state the US is perfect by any means... simply that you have blinders on if you feel that the rest of the world is any different.

Then again, you already know that. Your buddy holed up in the embassy is scared of what human rights violations he might face... that is why he is hiding. Or it could simply be that he actually does have something to hide. But nah... you don't want the truth.. you want to point fingers. In effect evading the legal system and questions he is wanting for is violation the human rights of the women involved. But you're ok with that. Do you speak for the women as well?

ioan

25th August 2012, 09:55

There are a whole lot of dead terrorists due to the detentions at Gitmo, and that's no accident. Even Obama figured out the value of detaining terrorists. We could ask Bin Laden how that worked out as well. If you were a bit more familiar with the laws and conventions of war you might better understand the legalities of how terrorists not in uniform nor under the flag of a country can be detained... but don't let facts get in the way of your rants.

No law or convention of war legalizes what the US is doing in Guantanamo and other similar places, quite opposite in fact.
And those terrorists are your own invention. How many of them would there be if it wasn't for the US going to war in every country where the soil is rich in Oil or precious minerals?

As for innocent people still in jail, it happens all over the world every day. Are you saying there are no innocent people detained in all or Europe or would you rather in this case compare a massive country with various state laws to a tiny place just so you can bias the realities?

I was speaking about people who were judged as innocent, yet years after they are still in jail. No such thing around here.

I've been all over much of the world, and seen just how democracy works. For that matter I had the chance to see how it worked from the East German border, and just how free people there were. Of course the Soviets were all about democracy as well. Though the world has changed a great deal human rights are based more on the views of society than anything else. What many of us think unfair is accepted in the cultures that live and deal with such laws. A Muslim woman wearing a niqab is readily accpeted in France correct? And after 9/11 the US may have declared war, but I don't recall any "not white enough" young men getting gunned down by cops because they had a backpack. But it happened in the UK. I could easily go on and on, but my intention isn't to try to state the US is perfect by any means... simply that you have blinders on if you feel that the rest of the world is any different.

You're stuck in an era that ended 22 years ago, we are now in 2012, no East Germany and no Soviets. :rolleyes:

Then again, you already know that. Your buddy holed up in the embassy is scared of what human rights violations he might face... that is why he is hiding. Or it could simply be that he actually does have something to hide. But nah... you don't want the truth.. you want to point fingers. In effect evading the legal system and questions he is wanting for is violation the human rights of the women involved. But you're ok with that. Do you speak for the women as well?

Human rights violations? Well yes he is scared of the human rights violations that the US is preparing for him, and anyone in his place would be. So where is that rape charge you were talking about?! There is none!

And again, we are in 2012 and while Muslim countries that the US is at war are getting more and more democratic the US is getting worse by the day.

ioan

25th August 2012, 18:49

Big Ben

25th August 2012, 22:24

Try being at one. I think you lack a bit of empathy there. Its not an easy decision to make for any woman and physically its not very pleasant at all.

In quite a few countries where there's a high abortion rate its because the men refuse to use contraception. Ever thought about that angle?

spot on. no empathy at all for the those I've mentioned.

how about doing the right thing? Ever thought about that angle? Let's just leave it there I know you don't believe in that. We already know we don't see eye to eye on these matters. I believe people should take responsibility for their actions while you like to cook these soup of responsibilities where everyone is responsible for everything and nobody in particular for anything.

tstran17_88

25th August 2012, 23:29

Another funny comment, this time from a US judge:

Tom Head, Texas Judge: Obama Reelection Could Lead To 'Civil War,' I'm Ready To 'Take Up Arms' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/tom-head-texas-obama_n_1822003.html)

Hopefully he was just joking.

LMAO...LOL... ROTFLMAO...sorry bud, But your quoting the Huffington Post, I can't contain myself! :laugh: :laugh:

The only people who take that wench as a serious journalist are Europeans and the FAR
leftie Communists!! :laugh:

Malbec

25th August 2012, 23:29

I believe people should take responsibility for their actions while you like to cook these soup of responsibilities where everyone is responsible for everything and nobody in particular for anything.

No, the difference between your position and mine is that you believe women are solely to blame for prostitution and unwanted pregnancies. Unless my understanding of biology is mistaken both require a man to be involved and therefore they need to share the blame too.

As I said earlier, if a country has abnormally high rates of abortion that says as much for mens' unwillingness to use contraception as it does for the womens' values.

Like the OP, I've been quite surprised over recent weeks at the level of misogyny that bubbles just below the surface in supposedly 'modern' societies, your posts illustrate that very well. As for the OP's initial post, what exactly are the political mainstream and womens' groups doing to safeguard their rights?

BDunnell

26th August 2012, 00:15

There are a whole lot of dead terrorists due to the detentions at Gitmo, and that's no accident. Even Obama figured out the value of detaining terrorists.

The point must surely be made, though, that further radicalisation has also resulted from such policies.

And after 9/11 the US may have declared war, but I don't recall any "not white enough" young men getting gunned down by cops because they had a backpack. But it happened in the UK.

I'm not sure that starting a moral equivalency contest involving such events is a particularly good, or sensible, idea.

I could easily go on and on, but my intention isn't to try to state the US is perfect by any means... simply that you have blinders on if you feel that the rest of the world is any different.

Equally, I have no desire to portray the US as being uniquely at fault, but one does see significant differences in national reaction to events such as terrorist acts, and these often find themselves played out in policy.

Then again, you already know that. Your buddy holed up in the embassy is scared of what human rights violations he might face... that is why he is hiding. Or it could simply be that he actually does have something to hide. But nah... you don't want the truth.. you want to point fingers. In effect evading the legal system and questions he is wanting for is violation the human rights of the women involved. But you're ok with that. Do you speak for the women as well?

Well, we don't know what the truth is, do we?

BDunnell

26th August 2012, 00:16

Considering that you are among those dismissing possible charges of rape for a man who has yet to be tried, it's amazing that you would even comment on an issue such as legitimacy of rape.

Well, quite. Mr Consistency at it again.

ioan

26th August 2012, 00:22

Well, quite. Mr Consistency at it again.

We are yet to see those rape charges. :rolleyes:

Big Ben

26th August 2012, 21:31

No, the difference between your position and mine is that you believe women are solely to blame for prostitution and unwanted pregnancies. Unless my understanding of biology is mistaken both require a man to be involved and therefore they need to share the blame too.

As I said earlier, if a country has abnormally high rates of abortion that says as much for mens' unwillingness to use contraception as it does for the womens' values.

Like the OP, I've been quite surprised over recent weeks at the level of misogyny that bubbles just below the surface in supposedly 'modern' societies, your posts illustrate that very well. As for the OP's initial post, what exactly are the political mainstream and womens' groups doing to safeguard their rights?

Well, I'm a mysoginist too. Last time you implied I'm somehow responsible for all the serial killers with a taste for prostitutes that ever lived. Wasn't that enough? :rolleyes: Please don't talk to me again.

gloomyDAY

27th August 2012, 00:24

Women are being placed in a little moral box that disallows them access to their right to privacy, subjects them to absurd draconian laws that declares all women to be pregnant (http://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-bill-conception-abortion-387/), and questions them -not about whether or not they were raped- on the legitimacy of a rape. Are American women going to take this crap? No. Hell no. Not a bit.

The only people who take that wench as a serious journalist are Europeans and the FAR
leftie Communists!! :laugh: I saw the same report from a different source (ABC News), so that doesn't change the fact that the Texan judge stated that another Civil War will occur if Obama gets re-elected. America hasn't been this divided since the 1860's.

Rollo

27th August 2012, 01:22

None of this post belongs in this topic. This needs to be spun into a new thread:

Then again, you already know that. Your buddy holed up in the embassy is scared of what human rights violations he might face... that is why he is hiding.

Pffft. Human rights. The United States doesn't believe in human rights. Why do you think Gitmo exists?

Article 5 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

There are a whole lot of dead terrorists due to the detentions at Gitmo, and that's no accident. Even Obama figured out the value of detaining terrorists. We could ask Bin Laden how that worked out as well. If you were a bit more familiar with the laws and conventions of war you might better understand the legalities of how terrorists not in uniform nor under the flag of a country can be detained... but don't let facts get in the way of your rants.

Thankfully, neither the US Constitution not the UDHR have any sway in Gitmo; so torture is perfectly fine.

http://www.defense.gov/news/Oct2004/d20041022full.pdf
none of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions "apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a high contracting party to Geneva."
- re a Presidential Memorandum issued February 7, 2002.

Good work, well done.

Rollo

27th August 2012, 01:23

Actually I suspect that the reasons for defining rape and "legitimate rape" are contained within the opening lines of the act:

Full Text of H.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act - GovTrack.us (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3/text)
To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes.

The two words here are "taxpayer funded". The United States threw poor people off the boat in 1973 with the HMO Act (richer people with private health insurance can probably get their HMO to cover an abortion due to pregnancy caused by rape).
Nixon was bought off by Edgar Kaiser effectively. The general sort of thinking has permeated Washington now for 40 years. If the government doesn't have to pay for services, then its bottom line looks better.

This is quite interesting:
http://businesspractices.kaiserpapers.org/media/nixononkaiser.mp3

airshifter

27th August 2012, 04:43

None of this post belongs in this topic. This needs to be spun into a new thread:

Pffft. Human rights. The United States doesn't believe in human rights. Why do you think Gitmo exists?

Article 5 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Thankfully, neither the US Constitution not the UDHR have any sway in Gitmo; so torture is perfectly fine.

http://www.defense.gov/news/Oct2004/d20041022full.pdf
none of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions "apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a high contracting party to Geneva."
- re a Presidential Memorandum issued February 7, 2002.

Good work, well done.

And to be quite honest, I don't care what the UDHR states. It did nothing to protect millions of people all over the world, so to pretend that it is the driving force in a particular instance is a joke. The UN is a paper tiger that creates a lot of documents usually not enforced.... what is the point?

In regards to Assange, it seems to me he is hiding from a great deal more than the US. If he felt he would get fair treatment in the UK, he wouldn't be hiding in an embassy. And apparently he doesn't want to go to Sweden either. I find it quite strange that someone apparently hiding from a number of legal problems is claiming to be the open minded leader of the world. I find it completely comical that people are attempting to use such a man to claim that human rights is a problem in only one country.... and not the one he is hiding in an embassy in.

Rollo

27th August 2012, 05:14

And to be quite honest, I don't care what the UDHR states.

Of course you don't; neither does the US, that is the point. According to the US torture is deemed acceptable.

BDunnell

27th August 2012, 20:58

In regards to Assange, it seems to me he is hiding from a great deal more than the US. If he felt he would get fair treatment in the UK, he wouldn't be hiding in an embassy. And apparently he doesn't want to go to Sweden either. I find it quite strange that someone apparently hiding from a number of legal problems is claiming to be the open minded leader of the world. I find it completely comical that people are attempting to use such a man to claim that human rights is a problem in only one country.... and not the one he is hiding in an embassy in.

This ought to be taken to the Assange thread, surely?

janvanvurpa

27th August 2012, 21:10

This ought to be taken to the Assange thread, Shirley?

Don't call him Shirley...

ioan

27th August 2012, 22:07

This ought to be taken to the Assange thread, surely?

Exactly, but then he can't use the example to defend war criminals and torturers from the US.

ioan

27th August 2012, 22:07

Don't call him Shirley...

Why not?! ;)

Malbec

27th August 2012, 22:18

Thankfully, neither the US Constitution not the UDHR have any sway in Gitmo; so torture is perfectly fine.

http://www.defense.gov/news/Oct2004/d20041022full.pdf
none of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions "apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a high contracting party to Geneva."
- re a Presidential Memorandum issued February 7, 2002.

Good work, well done.

I don't see a problem with this interpretation, in fact its been the mainstream interpretation of the Geneva convention. It has only ever covered civilians and representatives of the states involved in the conflict. Civilians that pick up arms and take part in a conflict without being contracted to the states involved are not and have never been covered by the Geneva convention. AQ is not and does not pretend to be a state and therefore its members are not covered. The British had a similar quandary with captured members of the IRA, they were not covered by the Geneva convention so there is and was controversy over the decision to treat them legally as prisoners of war which meant that the British government inadvertently legally legitimised the IRA as being more than a criminal body but a political one.

That said, I believe torture has been banned by other international treaties and I do agree that G'mo bay is in contravention of those.

anthonyvop

30th August 2012, 06:14

gloomyDAY

30th August 2012, 16:18

Personally I don't care with who, what, how a woman wants to have sex.
I don't care if they want to have an abortion or get all kind of STDs It is none of my business.

I do care if you want me to pay for it!

And don't even try to come back with the "You will have to pay more if they have the Kid argument" Abortions are cheap and the morning after pill is dirt cheap and I seriously doubt any woman would have one because they couldn't come up with the $$$I almost agree with you! The problem is that the GOP is trying to erase a woman's right to privacy. Cost isn't the issue in abortion, but access to one if a woman deems it necessary.

Also, if a woman doesn't get an abortion and is in no position to have a child, then you will end up paying to raise it one way or another. Don't believe me? Well, look at all the prison folk who were raised in a single-family home by their mothers'.

anthonyvop

30th August 2012, 21:10

I almost agree with you! The problem is that the GOP is trying to erase a woman's right to privacy. Cost isn't the issue in abortion, but access to one if a woman deems it necessary.

Also, if a woman doesn't get an abortion and is in no position to have a child, then you will end up paying to raise it one way or another. Don't believe me? Well, look at all the prison folk who were raised in a single-family home by their mothers'.

We spend way too much on prisoner upkeep and are not using this valuable resource for the betterment of society. Bring back chain gangs.

Plus most are incarcerated for Drug violations. Legalize it and empty the prisons by almost 1/2

Roamy

30th August 2012, 21:11

Of course you don't; neither does the US, that is the point. According to the US torture is deemed acceptable.

I say if it saves one life of any soldier of ours or our allies then (Red is Positive and Black is Negative) When they want to play by rules then we can
consider it also.

ioan

30th August 2012, 22:22

I say if it saves one life of any soldier of ours or our allies then (Red is Positive and Black is Negative) When they want to play by rules then we can
consider it also.

A rather dim view, especially as most of those prisoners that are tortured in Guantanamo have no idea of anything they are asked about.
Your soldiers are poor b@stards who go to war for money not for any principles or real need, so I can not feel sorry for them, not one bit.

ioan

30th August 2012, 22:23

Personally I don't care with who, what, how a woman wants to have sex.
I don't care if they want to have an abortion or get all kind of STDs It is none of my business.

I do care if you want me to pay for it!

And don't even try to come back with the "You will have to pay more if they have the Kid argument" Abortions are cheap and the morning after pill is dirt cheap and I seriously doubt any woman would have one because they couldn't come up with the $$$

So it's all about the money, 'your' money as you call it!
I hope you never get to the point where you might need social help, I do not think that you will survive it, especially if your principles will be upheld.

anthonyvop

31st August 2012, 06:22

A rather dim view, especially as most of those prisoners that are tortured in Guantanamo have no idea of anything they are asked about.
Your soldiers are poor b@stards who go to war for money not for any principles or real need, so I can not feel sorry for them, not one bit.

1st off not one single enemy combatant being held at Gitmo has been tortured.

2nd The intelligence collected from these A-Holes has been extremely valuable in the war against left-wing-Islamic terrorism.

3rd People like you expressing their ignorant, jealous, anti-American opinion don't seem to have a grasp of their own hypocrisy considering the only reason they can spew their so-called thoughts is because it was the US that sacrificed to give you that right.

OK?

Carry On!

anthonyvop

31st August 2012, 06:25

So it's all about the money, 'your' money as you call it!
I hope you never get to the point where you might need social help, I do not think that you will survive it, especially if your principles will be upheld.

Of course it is my money. I earned it! It is mine.

As for me needing social help. I have worked hard to make sure I don't but if for some unseen circumstance I do my conscience will be clear because I know that I paid many more times in taxes than I could possible recoup in any government service. Many, MANY MORE TIMES!!!

anthonyvop

31st August 2012, 17:06

You are lucky you didn't end up with them on that island under the terrorism act Anthony. Afterall you did admit to arming yourself with an illegally bought firearm when you travelled in Europe. Had you been caught, you may well have been arrested under the terrorism act lol. You'd have certainly got between 5 and 9 years if you were caught in London or somewhere like that. :p

Then I would have been a "Prisoner or Conscience"

ioan

31st August 2012, 18:46

Of course it is my money. I earned it! It is mine.

As for me needing social help. I have worked hard to make sure I don't but if for some unseen circumstance I do my conscience will be clear because I know that I paid many more times in taxes than I could possible recoup in any government service. Many, MANY MORE TIMES!!!

I pay a lot of taxes too, especially health care and social ones which I hope I will never need to use though, and I am more than happy if someone in real need, like a raped woman, can make use of it, certainly better use then have it disappear in some politician's side business.

We all pay lots of taxes, but we have a different point of view about what is good for us. I prefer to leave in a peaceful and happy society where people are helped to get through life. You prefer to live in a cramped and individualist society where each protects their own with a gun, not a place where most of us would think about living.

ioan

31st August 2012, 18:48

1st off not one single enemy combatant being held at Gitmo has been tortured.

False. Proved with hard evidence.

2nd The intelligence collected from these A-Holes has been extremely valuable in the war against left-wing-Islamic terrorism.

Any proof of it? I didn't think so. :rolleyes:

3rd People like you expressing their ignorant, jealous, anti-American opinion don't seem to have a grasp of their own hypocrisy considering the only reason they can spew their so-called thoughts is because it was the US that sacrificed to give you that right.

Sure we are all jealous that we do not live in one of the most violent societies on Earth. How is that I didn't realize that until now?! :laugh:

OK?

No.

Carry On!

I sure will.