Judith--No, I think "essentials" like Social Security, etc. would still be paid out. It's the more "discretionary" stuff that would go first. So the Dems don't even have that excuse.

Yes--a maxed-out credit card is the perfect analogy. What credit card company would repeatedly raise your debt limit after it became patently obvious you had no ability or intention ever to pay back what you'd already borrowed?

"Somebody needs to explain to me why a moviegoer who would be grossed out by a gay romantic lead would be seeing a movie about gay characters to begin with. If anything, that there’s a 'long tradition of straight actors who play gay' to begin with seems to undermine the theory that Hollywood’s consciously trying to avoid more traditional sensibilities."

Because most heterosexual audience members seem to be able to stand the idea of gay characters only if they're "neutered" by being played by straight actors.

You may already know this, but Fred Phelps is actually a left-wing Democrat:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2874197

I agree--only humans have rights, not animals, no matter how cute they are and how much we should ostracize people like Vick for their actions. If you hurt someone else's animals, that's another story, because that's someone else's property--but the law should stay out of the question of mistreating your own animals.

Except that "Get over it or get out" is now official governmental policy, as strongly endorsed by the U.S.’s highest ranking military official, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen; the nation’s other top defense official, Defense Secretary Robert Gates; and hundreds of retired admirals and generals who signed a statement before Obama took office urging him to overturn the ban. I guess they don't really give a damn about the troops, either.

I hate how people try to make the repeal of this idiotic law so complicated, which they no doubt did before the services were integrated racially.

"There are a lot of questions and concerns about repealing DADT, and no easy answers."

You want easy answers? I'll give you easy answers.

"How will the military now be forced to handle a gay soldier in a relationship?"

Same way as a heterosexual soldier in a relationship.

"Will they be forced to approve of gay public displays of affection?"

It is not the military's responsibility to "approve" of any public displays of affection, gay or heterosexual.

"What about those in the military who aren’t comfortable with their children seeing two men kiss while they’re doing their grocery shopping in the commissary?"

Too damn bad.

"How will the military be forced to handle a gay soldier who gets married in a state that allows gay marriage?"

Same way as a heterosexual soldier.

"Will gay spouses receive military benefits now, too?"

Yes.

"And what about the gay servicemembers who aren’t married because their state doesn’t allow it, but are in committed relationships — do they qualify for benefits, too?"

No.

"Will gay and straight servicemembers be allowed to sleep in barracks together?"

Yes.

"What about when a unit is deployed, and the men are forced to sleep in even closer quarters?"

What about it?

"What will happen to the soldier or Marine who is uncomfortable with sleeping next to a gay man?"

Get over it, or get out.

There, that was easy.

By the strict, technical, traditional definition, this isn't censorship, because the property is privately owned. Only government can censor. Censorship is when you tell someone *else* they can't express their views using their own money/property--and in our society, only government can do that.

The cake looks like a mess. But it's very appropriate that it includes ACORNS!

No--what was at issue was the farmers' growing and consuming it on their own farms, which supposedly affected the federally regulated market. If the farmers decided not to grow/consume wheat--and also not to consume wheat on the federally regulated market--the feds would have left them alone. The feds would not have forced them to purchase wheat outside of their farms.

I think the whole ruling is BS, but that was the reasoning behind it.