Why not regulate men's private parts too?

[Felch]

1950 was a very good year. We ruled all that we surveyed. And we had a mortal enemy on the horizon to give us something to do.

[regexcellent]

Felch

Also nobody has free speech like we do, and I mean that very seriously. The 1st amendment is unique in its scope.

Also we actually have gun rights (except in New York)

[kentonio]

If you were really ahead of us on the whole women thing then you would not give half a **** if your elected officials were male or female.

How convenient it is to not give a **** when you're lucky enough to be in the half the country who gets all the positions of power. Let me guess, you just haven't had a women President yet because no woman wanted to do the job?

There is one thing I know for a fact you all are behind on and that's your economy. Ever since your first labor government was elected we've been lapping you.

Really? How much money do you owe?

[kentonio]

1950 was a very good year. We ruled all that we surveyed. And we had a mortal enemy on the horizon to give us something to do.

Fair point.

[MrFun]

Actually the only laws re Catholics are concerning the laws of royal succession and the only reason they still exist is because they would require consent from all the countries in the commonwealth. They've been pushing to change it for years. As the royal family is based on family inheritance however (and the royal family are largely ceremonial), this has nothing meaningful to do with everyday citizens lives.

In practical terms, we have an awful lot more religious freedom than you do. Seen the polls regarding running for congress as a muslim or an athiest recently? Here religion is basically a private matter, and that leads to a lot more 'freedom' than feeling like you have to thank god every 5 seconds to be considered a legitimate politician.

I agree with this. While U.S. does not officially have a legal, mandatory religious test in order to hold political offices, we may as well, since Jewish, Muslim, or atheist people would never get elected into US Congress nor as president.

[regexcellent]

How convenient it is to not give a **** when you're lucky enough to be in the half the country who gets all the positions of power. Let me guess, you just haven't had a women President yet because no woman wanted to do the job?

It's not because nobody's willing to elect a female president. Republicans have not been turned off to Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin due to them being female. Democrats would have been perfectly happy to vote for Hillary Clinton had she won the primary in 2008. So yes, it's because there haven't been any decent candidates who also happen to be female. The simple fact is that there's no reason to give much of a crap about the sex, race, whatever of the candidate. It's not worth paying attention to and the fact that you are concerned about this demonstrates that you are not post-sexist or whatever you want to call it.

[regexcellent]

I agree with this. While U.S. does not officially have a legal, mandatory religious test in order to hold political offices, we may as well, since Jewish, Muslim, or atheist people would never get elected into US Congress nor as president.

There are Jews, Muslims, and Atheists in Congress.

Especially Jews. There are a disproportionate number of Jews. ERIC CANTOR IS JEWISH.

[kentonio]

Felch

Also nobody has free speech like we do, and I mean that very seriously. The 1st amendment is unique in its scope.

Yes, the rest of us tend to think that letting people picket and cheer at a childs funeral is something that is not acceptable in a reasonable society.

Also we actually have gun rights (except in New York)

Yes, gun rights definitely make you more 'free' than the rest of the world. I'm amazed we haven't followed suit yet and started packing our kids a glock in their lunchboxes to ensure they grow up valuing freedom.

[regexcellent]

Guns are a tool of liberty.

You Euros are just a bunch of pussies so you don't pick up on it.

Allowing people to say whatever they want, also, shows that we are more accepting than you

[kentonio]

It's not because nobody's willing to elect a female president. Republicans have not been turned off to Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin due to them being female. Democrats would have been perfectly happy to vote for Hillary Clinton had she won the primary in 2008. So yes, it's because there haven't been any decent candidates who also happen to be female. The simple fact is that there's no reason to give much of a crap about the sex, race, whatever of the candidate. It's not worth paying attention to and the fact that you are concerned about this demonstrates that you are not post-sexist or whatever you want to call it.

It's actually funny how you manage to try and use sexism as an accusation while sounding like a massive sexist. No decent female candidates? Brilliant.

There are Jews, Muslims, and Atheists in Congress.

Of the 435 reps there are exactly... 2 Muslims and 1 declared atheist. Of 100 senators there are exactly... 0 of either.

As Bush said once..

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Especially Jews. There are a disproportionate number of Jews. ERIC CANTOR IS JEWISH.

A disproportionate amount of Jews? Dear lord..

[regexcellent]

There have been 3 female candidates for President and 2 for Vice President. With such a small sample size, it's not sexist to say that all were either terrible or not as good as an alternative.

Do you have a problem with Congress being more than 2% Jewish?

[kentonio]

There have been 3 female candidates for President and 2 for Vice President. With such a small sample size, it's not sexist to say that all were either terrible or not as good as an alternative.

Why exactly do you think that there have only been that many, and that only 1 of them has been taken even vaguely seriously?

Do you have a problem with Congress being more than 2% Jewish?

Why would I? No-one with any sense would suggest that the numbers of any religion or group should exactly correlate with the national demographic, but when large demographical groups are consistently unrepresented in government then its a pretty obvious sign of something wrong.

[giblets]

As Bush said once..

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Bush Sr. probably never said this.

[regexcellent]

Why exactly do you think that there have only been that many, and that only 1 of them has been taken even vaguely seriously?

I've never really cared. I suspect this is the case for most Americans. We don't have elections in order to give every demographic group a chance at power; that's called Balkanization.

We have had plenty of female Governors and Senators, both good and bad. I have no idea why they have never bothered to run but it is plainly obvious that being female is not in the present day an impediment to being elected.

[kentonio]

Bush Sr. probably never said this.

I just checked and you're right, it hinges on the word of one reporter although Bush never denied it.

I did find this newspaper quote from the same time..

"Asked if he thought an atheist could be a patriotic American and a Reagan- Bush supporter, the vice president said: "I guess we need all the votes we can get. . . . But we believe there is an underpinning that comes from faith. It's not denominational. It's not exclusive. It simply reflects the craving for a return to the values that made this country strong."