Current or modern politics in the United States

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by DTravel

How is a homosexual partnership different than a heterosexual partnership other than the genders of the people involved?

How is a brother different from a sister other than the sex of the individual? We do consider it useful to have different words for each though.

Marriage was originally instituted to provide a framework for the children which naturally evolve from a heterosexual relationship.It wasn't restricted to couples of child bearing age of course.

Am I the only person who objects to the misuse of the word "gender" when "sex" is the appropriate word?

[HugoHackenbush]

Originally Posted by DTravel

And even in cases where the deceased HAS left a will, that is no guarantee that it will be respected. Wills are thrown out by the courts every day because "the closest living relative" was cut out of the estate or "too much" was left to a friend, employee, etc. An executed and recorded will is NOT the same as marriage nor are the inheritance "rights" (for lack of a better word) as strong legally.

DTravel, this is halfway correct. Wills are tossed out, but only upon proof that something was wrong with the person making the will, such as they were incompetent at the time the will was executed, or psychologically browbeaten by a 3rd party into changing their will in favor of the 3rd party.

Courts do not rewrite wills due to simple inequality.

[9876543210]

DTravel,

Originally Posted by DTravel

I disagree with that. Sarah Palin wouldn't have been on even the long list, let alone the short list, for VP candidates if the Tea Party wasn't already a major faction of the Republican Party. McCain didn't put her on the ticket because he liked her or agreed with the Tea Party. The Republican Party put her on the ticket to appease the Tea Party faction.

I'm not sure I agree the tea baggers were a "major faction" of the Republican party in 2008. They were certainly growing but I pretty much agree with Jon. Prior to 2008 the tea baggers were kind of hangers on. But after McCain nominated Palin they were a major faction that had to be dealt with. Would the tea baggers be today where they are without the nomination of Palin?

Forget the guys name (Steve ???, bald, not very old) but he used to be a Senior Advisor to McCain during their campaign and he seems to really dislike Palin. I think he's said that McCain wanted her to solidify his position with the far right. So appease or attract?

[9876543210]

knobby109,

Originally Posted by knobby109

How is a brother different from a sister other than the sex of the individual? We do consider it useful to have different words for each though.

I'm not a lawyer so the law isn't my specialty. But brothers and sisters are, legally, far different than just some guy or some girl. In health care when things head south, siblings take priority (in most states except maybe Florida; remember those Christain clowns some years ago that wanted to keep some woman alive when the family didn't?) if one parent is already gone. The long and short of it, legally, is that siblings usually have many rights as far as a family is concerned over someone outside the family.

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

knobby109,



I'm not a lawyer so the law isn't my specialty. But brothers and sisters are, legally, far different than just some guy or some girl. In health care when things head south, siblings take priority (in most states except maybe Florida; remember those Christain clowns some years ago that wanted to keep some woman alive when the family didn't?) if one parent is already gone. The long and short of it, legally, is that siblings usually have many rights as far as a family is concerned over someone outside the family.

My comment was in reply to somebody who didn't see why I wanted to use different words to describe a heterosexual marriage from a same sex one.Because they are distinguishable it's a good idea to distinguish them. I used as an analogy, although brothers and sisters are siblings, a male sibling is not the same as a female one which is why one is called a brother and the other a sister.It's not an equality thing, it's recognition that equal doesn't mean the same.

[spazarino]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

remember those Christain clowns some years ago that wanted to keep some woman alive when the family didn't?)

Terry Schiavo was the name of the lady in question. Her husband was the one who wanted to make the decision, as Terry had been in a vegetative state for years and had zero chance of recovery.

Outside people, who had NO connection to the case, stepped in where they didn't belong and turned it into a circus.

Her case is a big reason my living will (appropriately written, signed, and witnessed...there was a certain in advantage in working for an attorney at the time!) SPECIFICALLY says "I will NOT be the next Terry Schiavo" and basically tells outside parties to "go the fuck away."

Oh MAN, did my sister (who's my alternate executrix) laugh when she read that!

[9876543210]

knobby109,

Originally Posted by knobby109

My comment was in reply to somebody who didn't see why I wanted to use different words to describe a heterosexual marriage from a same sex one.Because they are distinguishable it's a good idea to distinguish them. I used as an analogy, although brothers and sisters are siblings, a male sibling is not the same as a female one which is why one is called a brother and the other a sister.It's not an equality thing, it's recognition that equal doesn't mean the same.

? Ugh, hmmm. You want to try that again?

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

knobby109,



? Ugh, hmmm. You want to try that again?

It was my second attempt so let's leave it at that

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by begos

a further indication of how "fair & balanced" good ol' Faux News is.

While you'll currently find articles like this on sites like Time and CNN....

Republican Activist Resigns After Racially-Charged ‘Daily Show’ Comments
Said it's OK if voter ID law hurts 'a bunch of lazy blacks that wants the government to give them everything'
http://nation.time.com/2013/10/25/re...#ixzz2ikcUoBgO

North Carolina GOP precinct chair resigns after racial remarks
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...zite2_featured

if you look for the story on Faux News or enter the name of the miscreant (Don Yelton) into the search function there, you'll find nothing. Zero. Nada. As though it never even happened.

Is it any wonder that while they endlessly proclaim that they're "fair & balanced," most thinking Americans and legitimate news organizations don't take them seriously for even a minute?

This is a common technique in news reportage. Dig deep enough and you will discover that most, if not all, news channels, papers, blogs and fish and chip wrappers do this. I call it "Lying by ommission". No actual lie is told; but very significant truths which would influence public opinion are left untold. As I say, all news organisations, or at least most of them, do this. The BBC do this a lot, for example when reporting on Israel, where they have a really blatant and shameless pro-Palestinian bias. The only criticism I would really support here is that Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced", but are worse tha average for bias and distortion. There is no law requiring them to report things which they choose not to report and I would argue agaiinst any such law; it's their news station and they can report whatever they like.

The only law I would advocate, and we have this law in the UK, is that they should be obliged to be truthful in anything they do report, not just make stuff up. Britain has a broadcasting regulator called Ofcom. Until the News International scandal of 2011, which demonstrated that politicians are not to be trusted to make objective rulings in the public interest, the current UK government were pressing ahead with moves to abolish media regulation, as was done in the USA by the Reagan administration. Since the fall from grace of News International over the phone tapping affair, and the embarrassment of the Cameron government for how eager they were to bypass Ofcom and overrule them by permitting a 100% takeover of Sky in defiance of UK competition ("anti-trust") laws, politicians have retreated from plans to abolish Ofcom, at least for the time being. So the old laws stand, and if you consisently use a television station to tell lies, ultimately you lose your broadcasting license and your station will cease to exist. The only problem of course is that it often a matter of opinion what is true and what is lies: some would say that the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth is actually full of lies and should not be broadcast, whereas others would say that to penalise a TV station for showing An Inconvenient Truth would be the end of freedom of speech and the end of a free country, and that thiis sort of regulation is inherently anti-democratic.

I say that where a lie is deliberately told in order to influence the public, and it can be proven to be a deliberate and intentional lie, there should be severe punishment to the liar; but the standard of proof needs to be high. Merely expressing opinions and commenting is not a lie and is part of legitimate discussion. There is also a duty on voters to move their lazy arses and find out facts for themselves, not merely behave like sheep and believe anything they are told wthout asking questions. Sadly most people vote from habit and watch the same channels because they already know what they want to believe and they want to have their prejudices confirmed rather than questioned. This is every bit as true on the political left as it is on the political right. An awful lot of Democrats like to watch MSNBC, so I am told?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by savage560

Look who's funding national heathcare for Iraq Afghanistan!Hey Republicons,did you guys set this up?Again hypocrites to the 10th power!
They say we can't do it here but those penny pinchers for the American people who give them those "pennies" away like its monopoly money have no problem spending OUR money all over the world!Look

What is the source of your map, Savage? It is't quite consistent with your previous map, which showed that universal healthcare is provided in Tajikistand, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and the Baltic States. I would also argue that since the President signed the Affordable Healthcare Act into law in 2010, the United States should be green. It may work or it may fail, but the AHA is definitely an attempt to create some kind of universal healthcare in the United States. I recently watched a recording of an interview of Ms Ann Coulter talking to Sean Hannity the day after the 2012 election, and she intriguingly betrayed herself. At least as much as any question of cost, she objects to the concept of giving America's population universal healthcare; she would be against it if it cost nothing at all. Her reasoning was that it is much easier to never give anyone a benefit than it is to take away a benefit once it has been given and people are accustomed to expecting it. In principle, she is against giving the American poor anything, not even if you save money by doing so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsCq_1HQw2c

It was one of the most despicable and mean-spirited arguments I have ever heard, since I studied British history at school and was taught about the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, which was originally intended to follow the following lines:

• Prohibit all poor relief of any kind except where the indigent person or family agree to enter and live in the workhouse.
• Make the regime of the workhouse worse and more horrible than the worst alternative outside, so that people will only ask for poor relief if the alternative is death (and hopefully not even then).

In 1834, the British government thought this was a clever way to save money, to treat its own people worse than animals, because animals have more value than the people. It seemed to me as I was listening to Ms Coulter and Mr Hannity that I was listening to the same logic as informed the writers of the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, who incidentally were the same people who refused to sanction poor relief for the millions of starving in Ireland in the 1845-8 Potato Famine, in case the Irish population were to become dependant on government assistance. Over a million of them died of starvation instead, but that's better than having them survive by depending on the government, right?

It's harder to take treats away from people than to have them never get on those treats to begin with. ~ Ann Coulter

This is exactly the argument which the Peel government put forward when refusing to offer poor relief to an Irish population which was quite literally dying of starvation. It is profoundly sociopathic and wicked. We must not offer state supported healthcare in case it helpspeople, because they will become dependant on this help. You won't become dependent on government supported healthcare if you are already dead because you couldn't afford medical help.

The worst thing about it is that neither Ms Coulter nor Mr Hannity has the least notion of how evil this is.