jackson33

Legally in the US, life does begin at conception, at least in many States. In all States at the Nation the fetus is viable at the beginning of the third trimester and protected under law, with some exceptions. I have no idea where life beginning otherwise comes from, as under law, it was defined under Roe V Wade (1973), which simply states the bearer's (mother) rights supercede that of the fetus, for six months. Morally is a different subject and I've always had trouble accepting abortion, not so much for the tens of millions of potential Einstein's (pick your own elites), but for the stress later put on woman that have aborted their own children.

Currently the only person, I know of that will run for President, 2012 is the setting President. To predict, who might run, either against Obama (Dem) or as a Republican is premature. As for Fox News contributors or the many that are "contributors" on any other networks, if they wish to formally announce a run are legally bound to give up those positions. I understand the implied message here, that persons on TV weekly could be doing so, to maintain a connection with the electorate, yet earn an income, however there are today hundreds of ways to do the same and never show up on TV. The big game here in recent months has been promoting those running for Office in 2010. If you would like a long shot prediction, based on underground gossip at best, I still believe Ms. Clinton will contest Obama, WOULD win if she did and am closely watching Chris Christie in the Republican Camp, who MIGHT be capable of doing what's needed if the Republican have control of Congress in 2012, including the 60 seat Senate. What's throwing confusion into my future outlook, are the results of the 2010 Congressional and how many Governorship/State Legislatures will be Republican. If the Republicans, do control the House (believe they will), but do not control the Senate (think the final will be 51D-49R), then I agree with Obama "it will be hand to hand combat" and I'm not sure a "freshman Republican House", can handle to the point needed. States that gain or lose, House memberships by way the 2010 Census, will be redistricting or in some cases population shifts with in a State can bring one on. It's possible for Republicans to win 33/34 States Governorships and IMO redistrict up to 6-8 districts into their camp, for the 2012 elections....

First, it was a "poll" and not discounting there accuracy or potential motives, the recent elections did place the Conservatives into power, but... Second; According to the UK or Parliamentary System, short of a majority vote for one or another party, a Coalition must be formed to attain that majority, or in England the Head of State (the Queen) may choose the ruling party. To achieve this the most Liberal and most Conservative, are trying to keep from another election, where likely, they felt Labor would regain power. What's interesting to me and not only on this issue, is the Liberal influence being imposed on the majority (of the two) Conservatives, under there coalition, to maintain that Government.

I had this written, when the thread was locked, seems irrelevant now but will post for what it's worth.... rigney; Overall US Legal Immigration Policy has changed many times but until 2003 or so, speaking, writing or understanding English was not an issue or a requirement. It was an implied requirement for a successful transition (melding) into the society. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aanewtest.htm Factually and to your point however, people wishing to come here for the most to participate in the affairs of Society and Government, would learn English and encouraged to do so for a prime reason of being successful to the purpose of their coming here in the first place, learning the language, culture and traditions of their chosen residence. It has obviously worked and no doubt should be continued and today for citizenship, applicants are REQUIRED to have an understanding of the English Language. How it has got to the current paradox, IMO falls under two major issues, political and economical and under the disguise of being politically correct. Whether by State action or at the Federal level and noting Illegal Immigration... 1- Political; At least since 1965, possibly before all US political Parties have fought over minority groups and there vote at the voting booth. Since it's pretty much up to States/Controlling Party, to control registration and voter eligibility, local laws and enforcement of those laws has been directed at gaining those votes. 2- Economical and probably the most important; Whether a small business, the largest manufacturer selling a product, or any local, State Government wishing to gain revenue, the objective being the individual/family and their potential participation. While I agree, if exceptions are being made to accommodate one language over another seems unfair, in any area where a large segment of the society is first generation and speaks usually two languages, you'll find much the same, in that local area. As for those that speak Spanish and not illegal, I'd bet the farm they prefer hearing English and are very much aware, to get anyplace in this Country or any Country, it's best done understanding the native language. As to the replies; It should be the Governments obligation to promote the use of English in the US and for the most part I think they are, it's a simple matter of assimilation and if you don't mind a courtesy due the Nation, THEY CHOSE. I have no idea how bigotry got thrown into this discussion, melding or to encourage being part of that choice, if anything is the opposite of bigotry. Tripo; Your mother (10yo) and assuming her parents moving from Panama to the States and claiming to have trouble mastering English, seems a little dramatic. I could and do understand the parents (your grandparents) as a good share of original immigrants do have problems, children in my experience with Latino's have little to no problems. I have no idea what being dirt poor has to do with learning something, but I see nothing written, indicating not speaking English makes for a bad Citizen and your personal success as a second generation immigrant, speaks volumes for the millions that have come here and built what you can now enjoy...

It is interesting the President has indicated the US can absorb a terrorist attack, in the US, then the administration issues a vague warning for some European Countries, where supposedly they might not have that capability. Frankly I'd feel safer in the UK, France or Germany under their National Security systems, than what's going on here. Technically and statistically Americans Traveling in Europe are much safer, than a trip to many US Cities. Motive; Any election year, especially like the one this year in the US, always brings out off the wall comments, designed to satisfy certain segments of the US society. The Administration, best remember, the President himself, has planned a 12 day trip into Asia on November 4th, which is the current hotbed for terrorist activity.

Severian; When any debt is created, whether by Government or an individual, there is a cause. Unless the wealthy gained their wealth through Government (Royalty by permission) the assumption is most did not. Then to in any way make certain people responsible for a portion of the current debt (the proposed plan), does nothing fix the original problem. In fact under this scenario, the only real benefit, is the assumption of the Federals previous debt and INTEREST. Indirectly, the wealthy in the UK or anyplace else can do much the same anyway, simply by buying Government Bonds. As in the US and IMO, societies that have accepted more benefits than the society could afford, need to cut those benefits back to what's affordable. All this is no different than any person or family that spends more than earned, whether due do some habit (drugs/gambling) or that ignorantly takes advantage of credit sources (charge cards/buying a home car above their means). Additionally, your wealthy and assume people in the society are not captives and could move elsewhere, if not personally, in some manner there wealth. This is very common in the US, where State Taxes rise and the wealthy simply move to another State...

iNow; The only response possible is you simply don't understand that dollar saved is NOT in some middle call, well off or wealthy persons mattress, it's in a bank or brokers hand and invested. It's those dollars you wish to cut from the economy, preferring it goes to Government, in turn used for specific and target purposes, or for some experimental purpose. Obama's people know the economy should turn around SOME DAY, as did FDR's and feeling if they can hold on until that time, their policies will be embraced. It won't work and the deficit paths already laid out there could very well destroy our economical system. Correct and sleep well, but IMO your completely lost when it comes to an economic system and I'll now add the markets in general.

swansont; The quote is what not only caught my attention, but rather disgust me. However if you wish to explore further, I'll offer you the following;

Marat; Refreshing, your post #8, no swearing, no name calling and direct rebuttal to comments....

John, your probably thinking "Political Science" or a "History of Economic Systems" which are related to the different success/failures of Governing Systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system#List_of_economic_systems As for the US; While arguably a mixed version of Capitalism/Corporate Capitalism, then Free Market, as any economy it's a substitution of principles from a "barter system" (trading on product for another to trading one product for something that can achieve another) which is where all economies came from, IMO. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism From here and into modern times in the US and understanding the many influences of other systems, it basically falls under two driving systems involving the degree of Central Governing Authority. "Friedman vs Keynesian economics", to start your research...In short, Friedman believing in less Government intervention, Keynesian in more but not total and both systems have many books on the subject... http://www.google.com/#hl=en&&sa=X&ei=V_KtTMzLN8bT4wbQ38SqBg&ved=0CBYQvwUoAQ&q=Friedman+vs+Keynesian+economics&spell=1&fp=6248f386b3c06fd8 Opinion; As for Africa or for that matter Canada, the US, Australia and any current Nation linked to the British Empire, I believe the success or failure of individual Nations, can be linked to the acceptance of or rejection of their political/economical systems. The US rejected only a small portion in their formation. I have to throw in Religious Ideology/influence, for Africa.

To the article;

Very interest and valid point Sayonara. What is the sexual orientation of any of those that have ever died in defense of their Country. Each person, from where ever, what ever their religion/race/sex or background is assumed to have followed the rules/policy (many involuntarily being in war over the years) and given their all. Whether they were straight, gay, felons, Native Americans, Mexicans or anything else is of no importance, especially today where the total voluntarily enlist and serve. I'll extend my opinion to serving in the Government, especially those that must go through a grueling election system, rarely satisfying half their constituents, needing to go through the process every 2-4-6 years and devote 2-4-6 or 50+ years of their life and until recently receiving little compensation. This respect is equally spread to whatever party affiliation they have or don't have, or any legal facet of life, limited only to those that deliberately break their oath of office or the law, as judged by THEIR peers and with out regards to my opinions of their personal beliefs or policy. If it's meaningful (shouldn't be) this respect is equal for Barney Franks, Ronald Reagan, George Washington or John Doe, in any one of those caskets. Moon, just noticed your last post and am not ignoring you (tight on time), since you have backed off somewhat. I went to last post catching 'S' pictorial, replied, then saw your post after posting.

As Pangloss suggest CR; If I had a family, employed and was 100% happy with my policy or co-payment group policy, to hear "you will keep you plan", "keep your Doctor", "your cost will go DOWN", "it will reduce the deficit a trillion dollars over ten years","no one will pull the plug on Granny" and probably 100 other comments by members of the Administration or Congress, would have been music to my ears. Then imagine, we're going to allow 30 million uninsured folks into medicaid, saving additional deficits and INCREASE services, free medical check ups and other services (Andy Griffith) to again decrease cost. At some point even the most ignorant involved must question that reasoning. As for death panels, otherwise known as regulation and those that interpret them, they already exist and will out of necessity reduce qualifications for service. I believe it's already Medicaid that turns down more request for services than any Insurance Company (by percentage).

Moon; Our main disagreement seems to be (maybe except, me being homophobic) is that sexual preference (noting the meaning of preference) is an inherited trait and the person involved literally has no choice in determining his/her fate, where sexual gratification is involved. I'll assume we're also talking regressive genes, since obviously, gay/lesbians have not become extinct, which by itself destroys the genetic component, IMO. 1- When or where does preference (a strong liking) by genetics and/or learning take different paths. I like chocolate Ice Cream yet my sister (50% my similar genetic make up) prefers Strawberry would not indicate a genetic component to taste and obviously a learned preference. 2- On the other hand identical twins, with 100% in similar genetic make up have been studied extensively and particularly those that were raised apart and differently have many traits that seem to be consistent with the other, BUT homosexuality is not consistent. 3- The following two of maybe 3,546 such articles I could link with IMO show only inconclusively at best any connection to genetics (opposed to learned) proof of a genetic component. For example, for half those identical twins to be inclined toward homosexuality while raised together (learned behavior), yet only 11% of those raised separately (possibly genetic) have such tendencies, where is the consistency.

Moon; I'm guessing you want another Gay/Lesbian Thread to discuss you personal opinions on. I'll answer your recent post with this thread, where your welcome to continue. As for the Lesbian Nurse thread, it would be my suggestion you delete the following post, as it's an important issue outside promoting any particular lifestyle...