Bitsy

And from your same article, I find it unfortunate that this Republican Senator did not feel comfortable in attaching his name to this reasonable statement.

A complete misrepresentation: those words were not attributable to Ben Smith but the writer of the piece. These are Ben Smith's words:

Surely you aren’t suggesting that the post from Daily Kos was anything other than an opening discussion about finding other candidates to run against the 42 Democrats bolded. If you are, I hope the other Democrats have increased their security or they will be next victims of the powerful Kosaks . However, the other representatives have the added advantage of not living in a state described by law enforcement as a “mecca for prejudice and bigotry." The state where gun-toting protestors show up at Obama events with blessings from their pastor who allows guns in his church as he preaches his hatred of Obama from the pulpit: "I am not going to pray for his good. I am going to pray that he dies and goes to hell." Steve Anderson, the "Pastor" at Faithful Word Baptist Church

Do you have a link for this? Thanks. I thought your post was spot on but I would like to know where you got this information.

Interesting the books you chose to mention of all his favorites.......... http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jared-lee-laughners-youtube-site-reveals-clues-about-killer-lists-mein-kampf-and-communist-m

The Ottawa Citizen article was objectively presented and made excellent comparisons. I found the Sun article snarky, rather than pointing out the positives of the Conservatives, he chose to present negative presumptions about the Liberals. I could have been reading the Washington Times or listening to Fox News from all I gained from that article.

So Canadians's are of party first, country second?

They are also doing some serious backpedaling.... http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/06/house-gop-broken-promises/# And then this 1.1 million dollar sop to the teabaggers. http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/01/how-much-will-it-cost-republicans-to-recite-the-constitution-on-the-house-floor.html

Let me rephrase then: I am an American Democrat but I am an American first, and a Democrat second. My question still stands; it doesn’t matter if he was speaking of a political party or a political persuasion…why would the Liberal Party not want their country’s economy to succeed?

I cannot imagine why it would, unless Canadian liberals are different from American liberals. I consider myself to be an American first and liberal second; I want my country to be successful, I want our economy to be financially secure and offer opportunities for all people; and I do not care which party makes it happen.

Obama has no balls…… :angry: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/health/policy/05health.html?hp

I am sure you understand why bitterness resides in some blacks in the US.

The real difference could be in the wiring, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8228192/Political-views-hard-wired-into-your-brain.html

That’s good news to this American, I will be glad when all our troops are outta there!

Good post, TimG. Until I read all of of Scribblet's fears and anxieties, I did not realize that this discussion was relative to Canada, and did not know that end of life discussions with doctors was an issue for Canadians. Has it resulted in premature deaths due to pressuring from doctors? Are mentally challenged adults being counseled to refuse life saving treatments?

This subject as it relates to the US healthcare reform plan has gone completely off-track. Euthanisia is not legal in the US and is certainly not part of the consultation process: neither are premature babies .

I want to be in control of my medical treatment, regardless of when it occurs, mid-line or end life. Before I reached age 65 and was on Medicare, I consulted a lawyer and have legal documents that will guide my doctors/medical facilities on my treatment. There is nothing in the regulation that requires a person to have this discussion with their physician…freedom of choice, and I do like to have choices. If a person wishes to have heroic measures performed, it is their choice; if they wish to avoid being on life-support, it is their choice. The decisions made between doctor and patient will spare family members from making agonizing decisions during emotional and time-sensitive times. This is a win-win regulation.

Do you have any examples of where/when this policy was used. I asked this because of the many linguists that have been dismssed under DADT and the excuses from our intelligence agencies that the shortage of Arabic/Farsi linguists has left us vunerable. In my mind that would be "best interest"...I am just curious what roles/personnel are considered about the reach of the law.

That is interesting, thank you. I was not aware of any exceptions to this law, I had never heard of the 'best interest' finding. That, in itself, sounds like discrimination to me.

Seventeen years ago, a compromise was reached that the military could no longer ask about sexual preference upon enrollment or in administrating psychological testing…DA (don’t ask). If a member of the military was gay they could not tell anyone DT (don’t tell); if they did, they were automatically kicked out of the military and lost all their benefits. The military has paid a high price to keep this law in place, both in personnel and in money/training. With the repeal of this law, a gay person can now serve without fear of being outed and they can serve without hiding their sexual identity. I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence; gays did not use this as an excuse for dismissal; if they were in the military it is because they wanted to be there...we have an all volunteer military and they were there because they wanted to serve their country, just like a hetrosexual.

Geez , even the most radical right-wing of the Republicans have not used that as an excuse.

I think it goes a little deeper than wanting to be shot at but whatever, I am delighted that this shameful law has been repealed.

Should be nothing new for them considering that all of our allies in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars allow gays to serve the military. The US and Turkey are the only members of NATO who do not allow them to serve. . Countries that allow gays to serve are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Ho hum, more of the same

A wrong finally righted. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/opinion/20mon1.html?hp