>>All they want is equal rights. They have done nothing to lose them, and remember that a gay
is just a straight with a different view of 'whats hot'.<<

Yes, because homosexuals clearly serve the same function in society that heterosexual couples do. They create and raise families, the most fundamental building block upon which our society is built. Oh wait, they don't do that? Weird. I was sure you had thought this one through with your strong stand on the issue.... which you haven't even completed a thought about.

Terrorists can be civilians. They're still terrorists.

Where are Americans targetting civilians?

>>The English language is used to convey meaning. Sorry, but to preserve an ineffective system in absurd <<

You're claiming that having a meaning to the word "terrorist" is ineffective, and that it would be better if we all just redefined words to mean whatever is politically expedient for our dishonest purposes of misinforming the public? Needless to say, I disagree.

Where does all the hate for Palin come from? I'm not religious, but I haven't seen where her religion supposedly causes a problem with her governing. I would have preferred her to Obama/McCain by a rather large margin.

Canadians have culture?

Let's not forget the war crimes of the North. How many of them have been held accountable, 0?

In this case all _eligible_ voters. I'm sorry, in my country we have more safeguards against fraud. With such disproportionate vote counts (to population distribution), the question of how they counted so many votes so quickly is more curious.

Educate yourself, Theodora. Where there are no outside observers and candidates have complained that they were not allowed the 1-observer-per-candidate as claimed there is no conclusive proof. Where there is no media there is no conclusive proof. Secrecy in an election serves one function: Fraud. The incumbent here has protected his ability to defraud the system on every level. There are claims that candidates' 1-observer-per-polling-place were denied entry. There are claims of intimidation by security forces at polling places. There are reports of more than 10 million ballots lacking national identification numbers. There are reports of polling places closing early with people still waiting in line.

There are only reports and claims, but no proof? Only because the controlling fascist regime has outlawed all of the means of documenting truth in Iran. The current regime is why proof is hard to come by. But the current regime is not why there are so many claims of fraud? The Iranian people are just corrupt in large part, not the current regime? You can hardly refute the multitude of claims made against the incumbent, considering the lack of information which he has himself caused.

You can no more easily discount the complaints and reports of fraud for lack of proof than you can accept the regime's statements in defense of itself--because they offer no proof. But they chose this situation with the sole motivation of protecting their ability to defraud the Iranian people. They are at least as suspect as the complaints against them--or more, considering they are the sole reason there is often no evidence to prove or refute the multitude of claims of fraud.

David Carradine identified as Bill from the Kill Bill movies!? Those were awful movies and he needed the money! David Carradine played Kwai Chang Caine, even God Himself said he was Awesome.

So you propose that they did in fact count 30 million ballots in an hour?

You additionally propose that when more votes come from an area than that area has registered voters, this can happen somehow without foul play?

>>And yet he gets asked questions all the time as well. Does he evade these questions? Maybe no certified journalist thinks they are worth the effort.<<

Are we playing make-believe here or do you seriously contend that Obama has been challenged by the press on ANY major issue that there are serious questions about?

Progressivism is not a myth that the right wing made up to attack the left. Obama is far more than educated enough to be familiar with how his policies fit into actual ideologies (things you're obviously oblivious to). Many reporters are far more than educated enough to ask him about his views  on many progressive thinkers with whom he is undoubtedly familiar with from his studies whose thinking clearly ties into his political decisions (acting as they would advise 99% of the time meets the requirements of the "clearly ties into" claim).

>> (E.g. counting errors without proof)<<

You just ignore the facts that squash your claims. Why would we bother?

You believe the Supreme Leader's statement that the election was a sign from Allah.

You believe that they counted 30 million paper ballots in less than an hour.

You believe that more people can vote than are registered to in a district without foul play.

Answer your question?

In case that wasn't enough:
"So by wanting a peaceful neighbourhood and attempting to assure the freedom and safety of ALL people, the government is oppressive?"

By assure the freedom and safety of ALL people, you are referring to the freedom of the fascist regime in charge to maintain power by any and all means necessary? I'm sure you have a perfectly _reasonable_ explanation for why Iran does not allow international observers to assure the legitimacy of its elections or ANY press coverage of the events in question, if not?

Pardon my sarcasm. This is just ridiculous.

I must confess I am biased. I have a personal belief that when someone does everything they can to hide something, they usually have something to hide.