You got the touch!

It's for your own good, goyim.

Japanese Encampment 1942

Not sure if the U.S.A did it too, but during WW1 I believe, Canada imprisoned all the Italians just like what happened with the Japanese.

Ukrainians too

That's right! We learned about it this year

Not sure why you got thumbed down. I recognize that bit from George Carlin.

tis a cruel world

he promised us all a pony if elected!!!!!!!!!

**ubermaster rolled a random image posted in comment #10144 at Pokemon **

What you're saying doesn't make any sense....also they did change the original obamacare, they made the penalty a tax.

that's Rand Paul, not Ron Paul. It's Ron's son.

Why did I read that in his voice?

YouseewhatIdidthere

There's no such thing as freedom when it comes to abortion.

Actually there is, you can give women the freedom not have to get their abortions via clothes hanger, dying in the process.

If a woman would decide to break the law and kill an unborn baby because she doesn't feel like having it after her own irresponsible decision and gets hurt, that's not the government's problem.

When you say freedom in the context of the law, it means freedom within the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Something that arguably borders on murder is not, at least in my opinion and the opinion of many other Americans, acceptable behavior. People say America is a free country, but that doesn't mean that you have TOTAL freedom: you can't kill someone, you can't steal from people, etc. Laws are made to discourage people from engaging in behavior that harms oneself or others. Someone who has not grown to their full potential is still someone that is living. I'm not one of those people that wants to ban birth control because a single cell without capability to sustain itself outside of the body, let alone grow into a new organism, is not a person. But when two of those cells meet, they begin to grow into a living person. They have all the necessary genetic material to live, even if they may not yet be able to contemplate their surroundings.

Now I respect your opinion and I understand why you have it. You belie0ve that woman should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. I think the only case that abortion is acceptable is after rape, because the woman didn't make the choice to have sex. I just don't see the fairness in being allowed to kill a living organism after making a decision with risks that they are aware about.

Hopefully you don't perceive my argument as an insult to you or to the women who have died during illegal abortions.

Well in the case of rape or a woman being physically unable to give birth without dying it is a given. But the concept of criminalizing things such as drugs, prostitution, and abortion does not hold water with me. I can see more harm being done than good ultimately. To ban abortion would only put a number women in danger and also make them criminals. I would not say that life at all begins at the two cells meeting, for the zygote initially created could not live when outside of the body. If abortion is tantamount to murder then why is there no funeral after a miscarriage? Why doesn't the census count them? Why do we not arrest a woman who has a miscarriage for manslaughter? It just seems to me that the pro-life movement is counter productive to social progress. GIF Unrelated.

I am aware that I spelled "ballot" wrong.

Plus, if he ran as a third party candidate that would pretty much ensure an Obama victory because he would take away a signifigant percentage of the Republican vote. That's what Ross Perot did in the 90s and what many believe won the election for Clinton.

I disagree.

The people in the electoral college make a promise to the American people that they will vote the way we vote. But it's only a promise, so they can turn around and vote for someone whom the American people did not vote for. This happened in 1824 with Adams, in 1876 with Hayes, in 1888 with Harrison, and most recently in 2000 with George W. Bush.

the problem is the electoral college votes are based off a specific states overall population. So realistically someone could say receive every vote in small states like delaware rhode island or conneticut and then lose an election by one vote in say california. The candidate would have won the popular vote but lost the election because california has more electoral college votes than those three small states combined. Which is why the electoral college is an idiotic system that goes against the idea of voting actually meaning something. As was evident in the 2000 election when al gore won the popular vote but didn't become president.

no he didn't. He just doesn't have the money to continue to waste money in primary states. He is still in the race just not actively.

No, he didn't

Only his foreign policy. Fiscally, Obama's policies are somewhat outdated.

>we
>I would say a good 40% of "us" are under voting age. And don't forget about the non amerifags.

Oh I though you meant as high school secretary

There's no way he'd be on the Republican ticket. He's disliked by the Republican party for his almost radical isolationist views and threat to run as a third party candidate. And even if he was it wouldn't mean anything because the VP has almost no power.