GTCharlie:  I was wondering how long it would take for someone to catch on to that. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion

It's like The Dailey Show - meant to be political satire, but some truth behind it.

You can be the judge.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/latest_sarah_palin_speech_opens

(V):  & "Red Dawn".  LOL  Those obsessions did not end w/ the end of the Cold War. In the US, some people are scared of any gov't services for fear that it will lead to Soviet style Communism.  A lot of it is great theater put on by the right & insurance cos, like pro wrestling - especially those fake thugs at town hall meetings this summer & the "Tea Parties".  But, it does little to help political dialog.  I think real HC reform will come one day in this country once this facade is peeled away.

Just got one of those "push" telephone calls from the far right - trying to scare me about Obama's HC plan.  It would be hilarious if so many people didn't buy into that kind of crap.  I get to see the right & all its glory living in South Carolina, LOL.

Funny thing is, they are now laying off teachers & eliminating services to the Handicapped in full force in this state.  Parents are now having take care of those family members with severe mental retardation at home.  The average citizen is in an uproar, but they voted for Mark Sanford twice.  Aside from his little tryst in Argentina, he's tried to block all Federal Funds from comming into this state, mainly because he wanted to show up Obama.  Now, even Republicans here are in an Uproar.

Artful Dodger:  I don't own a gun either.  I have been skeet shooting a few times.  That's kind of fun.

Whether gun ownership is a constitutional right is debatable.  The results of gratuitous gun violence are less so.

Here is an interesting article presenting both sides of this debate in the US from an online library.  It discusses the 2nd Amendment, court rulings & other issues.

http://www.awesomelibrary.org/guncontrol.html

One of the editor's conclusion regarding the effectiveness of gun control legislation around the world is this statement:  "The NRA position that restricting access to guns causes more crime (because then only criminals will have guns), is not supported by evidence at a national level.   In countries where guns are greatly restricted, such as Great Britain or Japan, deaths from guns are very rare, especially compared to the United States. In fact, the USA is a world leader in the rate of homicides from guns."

Artful Dodger:   But, most states have restrictions on 16 yr olds driving at night for that very reason, & they certainly have various laws against drunk driving.  It seems reasonable to have restrictions on gun ownership.  Take the situation at Va. Tech.  If memory serves me correctly, he would not have gotten a gun if reasonable & currently legal background chks had been performed.  Therefore, the perpetrator of that tragedy probably would not have killed any or as many people. 

The 2nd Amendment was intended to arm a trained militia, not for every citizen to have rights to a gun.  Gun control is, therfore, similar to putting restrictions on a drivers license. 

Incidently, I heard a commercial on radio sponsored for a local gun show the other day.  It intimated that everyone should come & get their guns "before they are all taken away".  Talk about your false scare tactics & downright tackey too.

Artful Dodger:  A lot of people here think an armed society is a safe one.  I disagree.  Guns get stolen & used on the "law abiding" citizens they were meant to protect.  That may not justify taking away all gun rights, but, I think reasonable gun control is in order.  Under 18.  Teenagers & children do not generally have the judgement to own a gun.  They are wired differently than adults, & are more likely to do things on impulse.  People with mental ilnesses who have a history of violence.  Their illness prevents them being responsible with a gun.  Certainly, criminal background checks are in order for violent criminals.  I don't believe the 2nd Amendment was enacted to protect such things.

I know some of these laws are on the books, but they are often not as enforced as they need to be.  And, anyone can go to these gun shows & pick up a gun, often a high caliber automatic which is needed by only by law enforcement or the military.  I blame the gun lobby for a lot of this nonsense.

(V):  I'm not opposed to dieing with dignity, I'm just concerned with one family member being saddled w/ the responsibility of assisted suicide.  And, there is too much room for abuse.  If a team of Drs & family members are in on the decision, and a concensus is built around the wishes of the patient, that would be another matter altogether in my opinion.

I am close to this issue.  My mother commited suicide in whole lot of pain.  Who is to judge her for her decision?  I believe she rests in peace now.  But I sure would not have wanted to be the sole decision maker in assisting her to do so.

(V):   I agree w/ u.  But, here the mentality of our courts is that how you are able to spend your money constutes free speech.  In other words, regardless of whether funds raised are remotely even, candidates have the "right" to allocate their moneys however they see fit - that means any restriction placed upon time limits on commercial time being bought is considered a violation of free speech.

I think this particular mentality is rediculous & has nothing to do with individual free speech as an "inalienable" human right.

(V):   If u are refering to political advertizing law.  The McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 set some restrictions on how much money could be donated for political ads.  But there are loopholes a mile wide.

Here is an article on maze of complex issues regarding this legislation with the court cases surrounding it.

http://www.politicaladvertisinglaw.com/

Artful Dodger:   Our gov't of checks & balances INCLUDES an exucutive branch, a legislative branch, and yes, a JUDICIAL BRANCH.  All of which are suppose to even things out if something is wrong.

As for the rest of your assertions, I agree to disagree.

84 post on this subject already.  Looks at my watch & wonder when we'll move on to something else & stop dissecting LGBT people personal lives.

Übergeek 바둑이:   Very well said.

Czuch:  If we had "civil unions" for everyone - gay or straight - then I would agree with u.  But that is not the case.  I feel sure that heterosexuals would be indignant about having their marriage rights diminished to those granted only to 'Civil Unions'.  Thus, we have a 2 teired system of one set of rights for Civil Unions & a d1ferent one for marraige.  Thus, u have discrimination unless u grant marriage equality to everyone.

Yes.  The British did perpetrate the beginning of the slave trade in the US for sure.  However, we maintained the practice over a century later, and it took a bloody Civil War to end it.

The British, Western Europe & others may have legitimate reasons for banning the assimilation of "Hate Groups".  Sometimes I wish we could do that here.  However, I fear a very slippery slope if we ban the gathering of such groups here.  If we banned them from marching, liberals better watch out also.  The next thing u know a Conservative govt could "ban" Gay Pride marches here under the same pretextes.  Be careful what u ask for, etc., etc.

Lastly, concerning the success anti-Gay forces have had in getting out the popular vote against same-sex-marriage:  I foresee a day, maybe not in our lifetime, the courts will intervene on behalf of "marriage equality", or people's hearts will change when the truth really comes out.  It took court orders in the 1960s to end segregation (and, yes, I believe in activist judges when popular vote usurps equality as it did w/ Jim Crow in the South).  "No lie can live forever, sd. MLK  in the '60.  But, I concede they can last a very long time.

(V):   What about soccer games over there where black players are taunted by blantantly racist epithets like "Jungle Bunny", etc.  People at sports events here would not dream of being that overt with our racism.  I realize that such behavior is worse in Western Europe, but it does exists in the UK.

Granted ya'll may have progressed faster on the segregation front than we did, but overt racism is everywhere at some level whether you ban the KKK or not.  In addition, you were just as guilty of perpetrating the African slave trade as we were.  I'm not saying our racism is any better or worse than in the UK, but I am cautioning against British sanctimony on this matter.

Übergeek 바둑이:   Sen. Thurmond was one of the saviest politition the South has ever seen.  His fight against segregation, the filibuster, forming the Dixiecrat party , & changing from Dem to Rep were very shrewd, calculated political moves.  He probably would not have been elected so many times thru the 50's & 60's around here had he not taken those stands.  He also was a key factor in developing the GOP "Southern Strategy" of divide & conquer the races back in the 70s & 80s.  None of these acts were by accidents.  They were all brilliantly orchestrated.  Doubt they had much to do with the child from his relationship w/ a black maid.  Many Southern white men had such secret affairs from slavery times until then.

One thing I will definitely give him, though, is that he set of a constituent service institution that was 2nd to none.

As far as Joe Wilson goes, if he is not an outright racist, he has advanced to about the level of "idiot".  I, for one, am tired of demagogues like him representing my state.

(V):   What is "the tag"?

What u say about jail becoming a home happens over here also - especially w/ the homeless.  Duh