A law for this was, however, just passed in NYC.

gun owners, illegal purchases, and murders, accidental shootings, and suicides.

Ah but it's in the U.S.A. GO USA!!!!!!

Corrupt government that represents the needs of corporations and ignores the needs of it's people, forcing millions into poverty.

A justice system that is out of the reach of the majority and protects the needs and wants of the rich and powerful.

A Supreme Court that gave corporations more rights than living breathing humans.

War, constant war mongering, invasions, occupations and drone attacks have bankrupted the U.S. government and created untold enemies.

Two tier justice system compliments of Eric Holder.

Creationism being forced into public schools.

Tax dollars being used for charter schools that teach creationism.

Thanks Squinch.

Other than that, nuclear power generation, generally.

He was addressing a specific issue: that of women's rights.

And although it's certainly true that women are losing and have lost the right to choice in many states, it's hardly the same as the oppression of women that he was referencing.

3 women murdered by their partner a day here in the US.

No, they weren't stoned and the government didn't do it, yet still 3 a day. Something is wrong here, isn't it.

1 in 3 murdered women were murdered by their partners? Except in that case your second sentence doesn't make any sense. Please clear up what you meant.

Then maybe I can address what you need me to. I thought it was pretty clear. But I'm more than willing to clarify if I can discern the need for clarity on your part.

I'm pretty sure you must mean 1 in 3 women who die by violence are murdered by their partners, but in that case the "a day" part makes no sense. One way of reading it would be that 1 in 3 women are killed every day by their partners, which would mean all would be dead in three days. Obviously that makes no sense.

that out of those three, one is a murder by a woman's partner? I'm not quite clear on what you're actually claiming here. In any case, as you point out, this is not government sponsored in any way. Yes, something is wrong when it comes to violent crime in the U.S., but that doesn't make your point, which seems to be that it's just as bad for women here as compared to elsewhere in the world.

That is what I meant.

Are you saying you see no cultural reason for this?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove in the context of your post.

...but as a listing of what we in the US have to put up with that folks in the rest of the industrialized world don't (no universal med care, no paid leave, out of control gun nuts) it's a good idea.

This is a response to a number of posters across a host of issues who have begun to use "this is a first world problem" as a way of dismissing the issues that they don't like. It's a way of saying, "Your concerns are petty and irrelevant. You are spoiled."

Clifford was just the latest to do this.

Your annoyance with this OP is a first world problem. That doesn't make your annoyance irrelevant.

is a phrase used to describe something like, "I kicked the remote off the bed, now I have to get it or watch this infomercial."

Have DUers actually given that treatment to the things in your OP? Or is this an objection to the meme itself?

here as a way to shut down discussion or dismiss the opinions of others.

In that usage, it's pretty destructive, both for its incivility and for the fact that it minimizes the very real problems that we need to work on here.

1. Arguing over "bad" or politically incorrect words on internet message boards
2. Judging harshly what people in other cultures might do, from the comfort of suburbia America
3. Being concerned over trivialities like whether people feel sufficiently guilty of having white or male "privilege"