[quote][b]fishin4u[/b] - Really no big deal, after all it only influenced the election...........[/quote]

First, I think that the IRS targeting any specific type of group is wrong and should never happen. However, my understanding is that 501(c)(4)s are not required to obtain approval from the IRS in order to operate. So how did the IRS increased scrutiny of these groups impact their ability to carry out their missions, and how did it influence the election?

[quote][b]TeeWee[/b] - There were a some recent articles (possibly in some SF publication) following states legalizing gay marriage arguing that child sex between consenting people should be the next thing to be considered.[/quote]

Can you provide a link to such statements made by any group other than NAMBLA (which is absolutely a Pedophile organization)? If not, I will consider your statements hearsay &/or a twisting of facts by the person who wrote the purposed articles (most likely opinion pieces) you mention. Why? Because in every article/opinion piece I have ever heard/read in which the person makes statements similar to yours' and Grover's they have twisted the facts and statements they are referring to misrepresent the intent of the source.

I don't think the 10 Commandments should be allowed in Government buildings, students in public schools should be subjected to moments of prayer, prayers should be part of the program in government sponsored events, or any other situation in a governmental setting where either participation in a religious act is unavoidable or religious material is prominently displayed.

But this situation is really taking the issue too far. The Bibles are in a drawer and no one is being forced to read them or even look at them. And if other religious (or anti-religious) groups want to place their materials in the drawers also I would be all for it. In fact, I would love it if there was a wide variety of materials. I sometimes forget to bring a book so it would be great to have some interesting reading material provided.

I, myself, though, usually just leave the book I have been reading if I am done with it.

[quote][b]GroversMill[/b] - @THX1138: State reps in California are trying to get pedophilia reclassified as a lifestyle choice. They should get the death penalty as well. [/quote]

@THX1138:

The lies Grover is spouting comes from anti-gay groups severely twisting the facts in regard to a California Bill (S.B.1172) passed last year that protects minors from “gay-conversion” therapies. The Bill says nothing about “lifestyle choices”, only sexual-orientation, and specifically states it does not apply to unlawful practices (which Pedophilia is).

The fact is Pedophilia is not considered a sexual orientation, and is a crime, under all State and Federal law. Nowhere is it accepted as a “sexual-orientation” in regards to the ability to prosecute such crimes. This, alone, would exclude it from any law that protects the rights or well being of a person based on their sexual orientation.

It is one thing to for a person to say they don’t like or agree with homosexuality. That is a personal opinion &/or belief. It is quite another thing to twist facts to make it seem that it is the desire and intent of Gay people and their supporters to “normalize” pedophilia. The vast majority of Gays and their supporters are as appalled by pedophilia as anti-gay individuals & groups. Quit trying to twist the facts to say otherwise.

[quote][b]hardrocker[/b] - Suicide is such a long time solution for a short time problem.[/quote]

Unfortunately, for many people, depression is not a short time problem, but a life-long, debilitating illness. The reasons are many. For some it is because there is a lack of easily accessible &/or affordable care available. For others it is because their illness precludes them from recognizing that treatment could be helpful and they have no one in their lives to take the steps needed to get them the help they need. For a few it is because none of the drugs or treatments available are effective in treating their depression.

Still, I understand your point. But, unfortunately, until we have a better mental health system many of the issues that contribute to people not obtaining the help they need will not be remedied .

[quote][b]mcdawg[/b] - Petraeus sex life or too many rapes are much more alluring for the ignorant masses.[/quote]

I gave you a + for your comment as I agree with you for the most part. I do take issue with rape in the military being included in your “allures for the ignorant masses”, though. The issue of rape in the military speaks directly to the health and well-being of every person (male & female – see below) who has chosen, or will choose, to serve in our armed forces. Rape has a long-term negative impact on a person’s life and is not a trivial issue. In the military it takes place within a system that punishes the victim and refuses to do anything to remedy the problem, which only compounds the negative impact. Because of this, it is important that the issue become public knowledge and that general public speak up in support of the necessary changes the military doesn’t seem inclined to make.

Most rape victims in the U.S. military are men
BY: ROBERT TILFORD

A 2008 survey by the Government Accountability Office put the rate of sexual assault at 7 percent of women and 2 percent of men. As women make up about 15 percent of the military, most victims are male.

http://www.examiner.com/article/most-rape-victims-the-u-s-military-are-men

[quote][b]armamentalist[/b] - This is the face of abortion; and it is the face of EVERY SINGLE "pro-choice" politician; every single person who is "personally pro life, BUT..." and every single person who insists that abortion is not the killing of a living human being.[/quote]

I appreciate your outrage over the atrocities committed by Gosnell. I am outraged also. I even appreciate your view of abortion in general even though I don’t fully agree with it. What I don’t appreciate is that you associate every person who is pro-choice with these despicable acts.

I am pro-choice but I don’t agree with third-term abortions just for “convenience”. At that point carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption. I do believe in terminating a late-term pregnancy in extreme situations where a mother’s life is at stake though. Even then, I think that every effort should be made to save the baby also and that purposely killing the baby during the procedure is unacceptable. I know quite a few other pro-choice advocates who feel the same way.

(As far as first-term and second-term pregnancies go I’m sure we disagree. But there is a lot of room for differing views/opinions about when life begins so I will just say, again, that I respect your view but do disagree with it.)

I am pro-choice but I also don’t think anyone should be subjected to such an unsanitary, filthy, dangerous, unprofessional environment such as Gosnell’s clinic. Unfortunately, unsanitary, dangerous, and unprofessional are pretty typical of back-alley abortion establishments, which is one very important reason I am pro-choice.

Also, by your reasoning, do you also associate any doctor who judicially prescribes OxyContin with the drug-mill clinic that Gosnell was also running?

[quote][b]JGForster[/b] - You still refuse to acknowledge the point...it is not about the incompetence that led to the attacks, but to the inability to tell the truth because the truth reveals the utter failure of Obama's policies on terror. [/quote]

That is a real shame. Because it should be about exposing, seeking out, and resolving any “incompetence” and weakness within the system that contributed to the attacks & deaths. And if that is what the hearing was actually “investigating” then any “utter failures” in Obama’s policies would be uncovered.

Instead, the Hearing is nothing but theatre, grandstanding, and a contrived opportunity to smear the opposing Party (as the majority of congressional hearings are, no matter the instigating Party).

[quote][b]JGForster[/b] - the inability to tell the truth [/quote]

Isn’t that a defining attribute of many politicians, regardless of their Party affiliation? (And please don’t try to deny that Bush II lied to us). Having said that, it isn’t that I don’t think lies should be revealed, but that the more important issue (the safety of our Foreign diplomats) should be the focus of this whole mess.

Also, I still haven’t heard/read a plausible, coherent explanation as to why the Obama administration would think it was politically beneficial to compound an already politically explosive situation by refusing to send military assistance to the Embassy. And, in order to avoid any possible realistic explanations of the military decisions, the committee didn’t bother to invite anyone who could give such explanations. (Another typical move in many Congressional Hearings of both ilks – don’t allow testimony that might plausibly disprove their sought after “truth”).

The American public is being played as usual (by both sides). Unfortunately, that’s just politics as usual.

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - @WIllow: You mean to tell me you see a huge difference between those things and this....You sincerely do have a cranial-visual issue. I guess you can't be helped.[/quote]

Making fun of a criminal because he is fat &/or a redneck is mocking. Saying a person is a criminal because he is fat &/or a redneck, or implying fat people / rednecks are more likely to be criminals, is stereotyping.

I don't see any remarks here that state or imply that his size &/or "social identity" are the reason he is a criminal, nor that everyone else of his size or "social identity" are likely to be criminals. When I do, then I guess my "cranial-visual issue" will be solved.

But enough of this. I have no desire to get in a long, drawn out argument with you, mel. You are welcome to whatever opinion you hold of me and to whatever faults you want to find in me. I am by no means perfect but the people who's opinions I care about accept me as I am and still think I am a pretty decent human being. That is all that matters.

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - These two threads are absolutely equal in content and intent.[/quote]

No, mel, they're not. There was mocking on the other thread, but there people were also using the incident to stereotype a group of people.

Fat people. That's all you had to say...

I was STUNNED to read that this guy was a redneck.

Redneck? Naaah… must be a typo.

Crime. Stupidity. Redneck. Need I say more?

Those would be stereotyping.

[quote][b]roebling[/b] - If she had that printed in large pink letters across the back of a bunch of grey sweat pants, she could sell them all to Walmart and Sears and make a fortune.[/quote]

Unfortunately, you are probably right. But we wouldn't have to limit ourselves to Walmart and Sears. There are plenty of women who would buy them from boutiques & high-end stores (where we could double the price probably for not much better quality of goods).

[quote][b]melmarino[/b] - @Willow: @mikayal23: Just curious. Why aren't you all over this talking about how we shouldn't mock this guy? Why aren't you telling us about his probable socio-economic issues? Why aren't we being called racists here? (Please say that you know we are all white. I'm dying to respond to that.) Why aren't you telling us any of the things you say on other articles about criminals? Could it be your particular little group of "-isms" are showing?
Thanks so much for the abject proof of your selective ire.
[/quote]

@Avenger: has pretty much gotten the answers right. (Except for the “showing restraint” part it seems.)

1. I had not read this article or your comments until this evening. I have plenty of other things to do in my life than spend all the time it would take to read and post on every thread and article.

2. Mocking is different than stereotyping. While I find the derogatory remarks here about rednecks and fat people to be ugly and distasteful, only one (by @ Mahatna-Gahndi: ) has come close to stereotyping those groups as less than moral, decent, productive citizens.

But mocking people is in no way a sign of judgement or feelings of superiority, so I guess I am still the only one here who engages in such activities. Mea maxima culpa, mel.

[quote][b]crazy8golfer[/b] - Sounds like you are smoking dope now !!!!![/quote]

Nope, just actually been reading research on the subject.

[quote][b]Yellow Dog[/b] - Very warm & fuzzy...[/quote]

More like a practical approach:

3. Research indicates that prison educational and vocational programs can improve behavior, reduce recidivism, and increase employment prospects upon release.
http://www.reentrypolicy.org/Report/PartII/ChapterII-B/PolicyStatement15...

CURRENT STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING RECIDIVISM
http://targetarea.org/researchdoc/recidivismfullreport.pdf

And there is a whole lot more out there backing my "warm & fuzzy" opinion if you really care to know.

[quote][b]Mahatna-Gahndi[/b] - I knew them from Lee Arrendale State Prison[/quote]

You've been in both Lee Arrendale & Hancock State Prison? What crimes did you commit? Or are you just full of s*^t?

[quote][b]dahreese[/b] - But, until you're willing to dig down into your pockets and build more, or bigger jails, this is going to continue to happen. [/quote]

I'd say dig down into pockets to finance programs that might actually rehabilitate criminals. Maybe more drug treatment programs, mental health treatment programs, programs that help released prisoners to train for and find jobs,etc. The first two could be made more readily available in prisons as well as to the general public (which would help people stay out of prison in the first place). The training/educational programs could also be made more readily available in prison, along with programs that teach basic life skills such as managing money, parenting skills, conflict resolution skills, etc.

Programs such as these would not work for every criminal, but IMHO would show a better return on investment that building bigger, better prison in which to lock up more and more people.

[quote][b]Censored[/b] - What Christians want is SALVATION.[/quote]

I don't see anywhere in the US that Christians are being prevented from obtaining their idea of Salvation. In fact, if you think about it, nowhere can they be prevented from doing so because it is an internal state that cannot controlled from the outside.

But if you are talking about Salvation for everyone, it isn't going to happen. No matter how strongly you feel the need to "Save" everyone nor how hard you work at doing so. And, while I do think your want of this comes from a place of caring and concern, the fact is it is your reality and not everyone's. For me, my reality is as strong as yours and thinking I can change my beliefs to yours is as unrealistic as me thinking you could change your beliefs to those of a Buddhist.

So, I have no problem with Christians expressing their beliefs. Just don't be disrespectful about it. (I consider being told I am going to Hell, that I am immoral, or that my beliefs are inferior, to be disrespectful). And don't try to force your morals on me. I have my own and am comfortable that they compare well to the morals of many Christians (and better than some "Christians").

[quote][b]JackStilton.[/b] - My perspective is the same as everyone else was for the last 2000 years... I am just trying to save the word normal! [/quote]

If you look at historical views of homosexuality you will find a wide variety of views. In some Native American tribes they were highly revered, in Thai culture they have been accepted as a "third gender", there was the Sacred Band of Thebes in Ancient Greece (and many more examples if you care to know the real facts). There were cultures where homosexuality was simply accepted and not "newsworthy" in any sense. Then there is also the history of societies that banned, demonized, tortured, and killed homosexuals.

So there is no "same as everyone else", and no "normal".

I can see the headlines & news story now:

Is Ronald Reagan's Son Heterosexal???

Michael Reagan was seen yesterday walking down the street holding hands with a woman. This sighting has stirred the flames of rumors we've been hearing for quite awhile now that Mr. Reagan is heterosexual. Etc...etc...etc.

Celebrities have to put up with this type of "news" all the time even if they are hetero. Who are they dating? Is marriage in the couple's future? etc. So their sexual orientation is always a public matter whether they want it to be or not.

So a Gay celebrity has to make a choice. Stay in the closet and hide their relationships by not doing what most of us do everyday (hold our spouse's, boy/girlfriend's hand in public, kiss them goodbye, etc) or let it become public knowledge that they are Gay.

My guess is that Mr. Collins decided he didn't want to keep hiding and knew it would become "news" whether he wanted it to or not. Good for him for taking control of the situation and not letting "rumors" rule the day.

[quote][b]Censored[/b] - I would love a return to our Constitution. I don't see it happening though.[/quote]

What would "returning to our Constitution" entail?

[quote][b]Censored[/b] - The Constitution is no more Willow. Our social contract has been broken.[/quote]

It is still one of the best things going at the moment. I'm sure there are many people in other nations who would love to have our Constitution, even in if it is as "broken" as you believe it is.

[quote][b]Censored[/b] - Did you ever think that all this diversity will one day attempt to meld into one? If so I wonder who will get to lead it all?[/quote]

Diversity and melding are two opposing states. If we as a nation support and preserve religious diversity then we won't have to worry about who will "lead it all". And that is the way it needs to be. I don't want Christians "leading" our society anymore than I (or you) want Muslims (or any other particular religion) "leading" us.

Oops, double post

[quote][b]Censored[/b] - Question is what belief unites us?
[/quote]

Belief in the First Amendment would be the one I would vote for.

[quote][b]Censored[/b] - Anyone notice how Obama only goes to "interfaith" services after tragic events?[/quote]

And that is problem? Why? Aren't we a nation of many religions?