The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Der Mike]

Jan, simple power of attorney forms deal with ALL of the problems of inheritance. Also, there is no waiting list to visit people in the hospital. Not trying to be rude, but ANYBODY can visit ANYBODY in the hospital.

As for who to contact, again, whomever you name to be the person to contact is the person that is contacted.
-=Mike

[Jan]

Jan, simple power of attorney forms deal with ALL of the problems of inheritance.

Are you sure you don't mean a living trust? Because, those I think would cover it nicely. Expensively, but nicely. I don't think Power of Attorney would do it. And you'd also need a Medical Power of Attorney unless the other was absolutely blanket, which I think is unusual.

Also, there is no waiting list to visit people in the hospital. Not trying to be rude, but ANYBODY can visit ANYBODY in the hospital.

Also not trying to be rude but it would seem that you've never tried to visit anybody in Intensive Care. Restricting it to the next of kin is pretty standard.

Jan

[Karachi Vyce]

Gay people have equal civil rights, so take the strawman leave it outside please.
-=Mike

No. This simply isn't true.

Homosexuals don't have the same protections as heterosexuals do. Look at employment. Sexual Orientation isn't covered under Title VII or any other federal law prohibiting discrimination in hiring or employment practices.

Face it, persecuting queers is the final frontier of acceptable discrimination.

This is what I was talking about with the Religious Right. They're hijacking our politicians in order to perpetuate their religious-themed bigotry. They're zealots - just better organized, more civilized, less-apt-to-perform-a-suicide-bombing ones. Why are you buying into it, Mike? You don't have to follow the Republicans lock step you know. They're not always right about everything. They couldn't be more wrong with trying to create a gay marriage ban amendment.

[Der Mike]

No. This simply isn't true.

Homosexuals don't have the same protections as heterosexuals do. Look at employment. Sexual Orientation isn't covered under Title VII or any other federal law prohibiting discrimination in hiring or employment practices.

Face it, persecuting queers is the final frontier of acceptable discrimination.

Can you name a job ANYWHERE where they don't expressly forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation? I've never --- not once --- seen one.

This is what I was talking about with the Religious Right. They're hijacking our politicians in order to perpetuate their religious-themed bigotry. They're zealots - just better organized, more civilized, less-apt-to-perform-a-suicide-bombing ones. Why are you buying into it, Mike? You don't have to follow the Republicans lock step you know. They're not always right about everything. They couldn't be more wrong with trying to create a gay marriage ban amendment.

As I said, if the gay marriage advocates go state-by-state and get it legalized, I'll applaud them.

By the same note, if the amendment gets passed, I'll applaud that.

This is a purely legislative issue.
-=Mike

[Jan]

Can you name a job ANYWHERE where they don't expressly forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation? I've never --- not once --- seen one.

Since when do corporate policies equate with civil rights?

Jan

[Der Mike]

Why would somebody pass a law to oppose something nobody does?
-=Mike

[Radhil]

Powers of attorney are arrangements of representation, and thus expire when their issuers do. They confer no powers beyond speaking on behalf and making arrangements in someone else's name. That's a hefty thing, but by no means as comprehensive as a marriage or union.

So, inheritance? Not a chance. Rights of family members? Nope. Only thing a PoA grants is the ability to sign someone else's name. And should the one that gave you PoA be unable to confirm what you do on their behalf, if it's questioned.... barely worth the paper it's printed on.

At least, so I've been led to understand (IANAL, blah blah blah, forgive any inaccuracies).

EDIT - Also, let's nip this -

As I said, if the gay marriage advocates go state-by-state and get it legalized, I'll applaud them.

By the same note, if the amendment gets passed, I'll applaud that.

This is a purely legislative issue.

And that will never happen for a couple decades of social evolution at least, longer if religious groups keep up their pressure. So I think it's safe to say you'll never applaud them.

By the definition of this country, legislature typically speaks for the majority, courts for the minority. If you have a problem with the methods of the minority, take it up with the founders.

EDIT FURTHER -

Why would somebody pass a law to oppose something nobody does?

Because lawsuits are better deterrents than management write-ups.

[Jan]

Why would somebody pass a law to oppose something nobody does?
-=Mike

Just because there's a policy prohibiting something doesn't mean it won't happen. Maybe there being a law prohibiting something won't either, but at least the penalties are generally steeper.

Jan

[Der Mike]

Powers of attorney are arrangements of representation, and thus expire when their issuers do. They confer no powers beyond speaking on behalf and making arrangements in someone else's name. That's a hefty thing, but by no means as comprehensive as a marriage or union.

It most assuredly does. You sign a form, saying somebody handles my affairs when I am unable to do so, and that cannot be violated.

So, inheritance? Not a chance. Rights of family members? Nope. Only thing a PoA grants is the ability to sign someone else's name. And should the one that gave you PoA be unable to confirm what you do on their behalf, if it's questioned.... barely worth the paper it's printed on.

At least, so I've been led to understand (IANAL, blah blah blah, forgive any inaccuracies).

It baffles me that social liberals can find a right to abortion in a Constitution --- but the sheer concept of power of attorney and wills is impossible to grasp.

Vyce, Zha, and I all mutually know somebody who has dealt with this SPECIFIC issue.

EDIT - Also, let's nip this -

And that will never happen for a couple decades of social evolution at least, longer if religious groups keep up their pressure. So I think it's safe to say you'll never applaud them.

So, gay rights groups should be given a break in the whole "legislation" thing? Opponents should NOT issue a disagreement? Not the way the world works.

By the definition of this country, legislature typically speaks for the majority, courts for the minority. If you have a problem with the methods of the minority, take it up with the founders.

Jefferson didn't buy into the concept of the SCOTUS being the final arbiter of the Constitution.

Just saying.
-=Mike

[Dr Maturin]

By the definition of this country, legislature typically speaks for the majority, courts for the minority.

This is nonsense, as I told you guys here a few years ago.

[Jan]

It most assuredly does. You sign a form, saying somebody handles my affairs when I am unable to do so, and that cannot be violated.

Certainly it can be challenged, though, and successfully if doubt as to the person's competence is cast. And having a medical PoA doesn't grant any other rights. The state can appoint a Guardian ad Litem (sp?) in the case of incapacity in the absence of a blanket PoA and Living Trust.

It baffles me that social liberals can find a right to abortion in a Constitution --- but the sheer concept of power of attorney and wills is impossible to grasp.

Apples and kumquats. And you just can't resist those lables, can you?

Vyce, Zha, and I all mutually know somebody who has dealt with this SPECIFIC issue.

And exactly the location where it was dealt with probably had much to do with how it was disposed. At least if there was a will involved.

Jan

[Radhil]

It most assuredly does. You sign a form, saying somebody handles my affairs when I am unable to do so, and that cannot be violated.

It baffles me that social liberals can find a right to abortion in a Constitution --- but the sheer concept of power of attorney and wills is impossible to grasp.

Vyce, Zha, and I all mutually know somebody who has dealt with this SPECIFIC issue.

Stay on target - you're not dealing with a social liberal, you're dealin' with me.

I took you specifically on power of attorney, my mistake. I'm aware of wills, even living wills, it's a fair solution. I'm also aware of them being overridden if a family causes enough stink. It's a strong suggestion, but without the legal - and probably more to the point, psychological - backing of marriage, it's not a universal solution.

So, gay rights groups should be given a break in the whole "legislation" thing? Opponents should NOT issue a disagreement? Not the way the world works.

Jefferson didn't buy into the concept of the SCOTUS being the final arbiter of the Constitution.

Just saying.

Where did I say no one should argue? Make this 80-some-odd page whole thread look damn silly. My belief is that the gay-rights groups should come out on top of the marraige deal, but I wouldn't expect them to skip court and go directly to church, not with the opposition they face. That's why the courts are there, after all, arbiters of the arguements.

And no, SCOTUS is not the final word. Neither is Congress, nor Prez. SCOTUS does has a heavy say, and as the very event that started this latest round showed, Congress failed to muster enough support to permanently overrule them.

EDIT -

This is nonsense, as I told you guys here a few years ago.

Um, OK. Telling me again without telling me how it's nonsense isn't likely to change my mind though. Laws are passed via majority rule, so unless minorities magically become majorities through wishful thinking, I don't see how else it works.

[Der Mike]

The Marines might be due an apology over the Haditha stories.

We've seen the story fall apart. The video originally claimed to have been released by Human Rights Watch from a budding journalism story was ACTUALLY released by a group called Hammurabi by a middle-aged man who held on to it for months with no explanation.

He was said to have been a Baghdad resident who was visiting family during the incident. He is now an actual resident of the city (a bit of a hotbed for terrorists, mind you).

The reporter for Time fought, ferociously, to have the word "massacre" used in the original print story. He's also written pieces, basically apologizing for the Taliban (http://www.time.com/time/nation/prin...85644,00.html).

The evidence is shaky and those who have convicted them (Murtha, John) should be ashamed of themselves.
-=Mike

[Dr Maturin]

Considering who is currently sitting in SCOTUS, I don't think you guys want it going there, anyways...

[Radhil]

Considering who is currently sitting in SCOTUS, I don't think you guys want it going there, anyways...

Also true. Not like there's many other options though, not within the USA at any rate.