You haven't really answered my question: why is it not relevant to black, female or gay voters that Romney is a member of a church with a history (and present) of discriminating against all 3? How can that not be relevant? Saying "I don't think it's relevant" isn't an answer. As far as I can see, you think it is…

You don't think the fact that he's a member of a until-recently racist and still homophobic (and sexist, while we're at it) organisation might be of concern for black, female or gay voters? Or that it generally calls into question his judgment?

Is it irrelevant? Romeny is a devout member of an openly homophobic and within-living-memory openly racist organisation. How is that irrelevant?

Twelve pound baby?

Over 85% of Italians are Catholic.

Well I think the woman in the article identified as a lesbian so it didn't seem to bother her. And it depends I think. If you're intending to spend the rest of your life with this person already it seems like it might not be a deal-breaker. Is your partner now a different person? Does identifying as a man now change…

There is a need. People are people and American casualties are no more important than any other casualties. Whenever Americans stop to think "Hmm, is all this violence and death really necessary?" it's because it hurts Americans. The fact that those Americans got hurt while invading someone else's country and killing…

This article is quite clearly about AMERICANS. The hint is the number of time it bangs on about "America", "Americans", the American draft, and the impact on the AMERICAN military of decisions made in Washington.

Can I ask why? If you don't mind trying to explain.

Easily available, cheap petrol is related to the relative lack of public transport in the states.

It's bad for girls to hit puberty so early?

While my original comment was facetious, I do also think Westerners could do with being a little less wasteful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Consumption_statistics

I agree that eugenicists would have more credibility if any of them ever drew the line somewhere above themselves. But I don't think you can write off eugenics as a concept because it was misused to promote social darwinism.

The initial comment was facetious.

And what happens when we literally cannot go forward? I'll find cursing American wastage slightly less satisfying when you've lead us all into disaster.

Well the EU actually has about 500 million people and the USA has 300 million. The EU has a total land area of 1.7 million square miles and the US has an area of 3 million square miles, for population densities of 294 people per square mile and 100 people square mile. So the population densities aren't outrageously…

I like how her one Pakistani friend has blue eyes. I know that's not what I'm supposed to be getting from the article, but isn't it nice that her friend had eyes that a trusting white American could stare into without thinking "Shit! This guy's an Arab or something!"

I agree. But for the record, the article also agrees and goes into a little bit more detail.

Maybe we can start with you guys using a little less?