Which would make it political suicide to even propose here in the US.

The overwhelming majority of actual gun owners are responsible. There are a lot more guns than gun accidents in this country, that is clear. However every single day there is at least one innocent child in this county who is shot as a direct result of an irresponsible owner. And those irresponsible owners are the ones whose "rights" we see so much time and money spent to protect.

People have been proudly campaigning for irresponsible gun ownership in the US for a very, very, long time. Suggesting things like locking up guns - even in the gun owner's home - will be quickly shot down by people claiming you are impeding on their constitutional right to overthrow the government.

I really, really, wish I was exaggerating or kidding on this one.

Those are the icons I most associate with the Mac. High art, maybe not, but definitely the icons I faced the most frequently.

First of all, only an idiot - gay or otherwise - would use FedEx, UPS, or the postal service to ship a wedding cake.

That said, if we substitute something else gay-positive for the hypothetical cake, they could still say "we won't transport that product" and the conservatives would be championing their cause. Carriers have the right to refuse to do business with whomever they want, for whatever reason they want. In this situation, however, the conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to force a company to take a type of business that it does not want.

If you think FedEx doesn't decide what goods it will or won't ship, go ask them to ship your car, or your pet. They refuse both for different reasons and nobody has ever tried to make a constitutional crisis out of either. There is no law prohibiting them from shipping either, they decided on their own that shipping them isn't worth their bother.

Notice that again the conservative voice on slashdot is screaming about how FedEx doesn't want to transport certain goods. If the product was a pamphlet for a local union hall, the conservatives would say that FedEx was exercising their rights to free speech and freedom of association. But since the product is something that conservatives believe all Americans have god-granted rights to, FedEx's refusal to transport it is clearly a constitutional crisis.

In other words, FedEx is free to transport whatever goods they want, unless refusing them angers the conservatives. Then, FedEx must transport them in spite of their objections.

It is rather amusing that you are refusing to think when replying to a thread about people not thinking. An outside observer might see this and suspect you to be a sock puppet as you are doing more for my argument than against it.

FTFY.

Have you considered a new hobby? Following me around and showing that you love replying to my comments without reading them is a rather odd choice, particularly on a website with as few readers as this one. We heard recently that Gary Con is coming up soon, maybe you can find something to do there.

I didn't see any gaps in the chat to suggest there were commercial interruptions.

There is a big difference between what you say - verbally or in private writing - and what you write in public. He wrote this in a public place, he had no reason to expect that it would be withheld from his employer if they were to come looking for it.

Seriously, if you post something to an internet forum, that post is no longer under your control. Don't say something online about someone if you are concerned how they might react to it. Yeah, jail time is extreme by western standards but the person who wrote it is not faultless.

I thought the original portrait on the Canadian $5 bill looks more like a young Palpatine.

Deepwater Wind, eh? That name should be great, because we all have fond memories of something whose name previously began with Deepwater.

I'm not saying it's an excuse for the behavior. I'm only asking why the punishment is different based on the consonant after the person's name. The law did not change in the interim period; yet we are making a huge deal out of the current example after having quickly brushed the previous one under the rug.

That has been the standard approach of the GOP towards all democrats for some time now. Look at all the conspiracy nuts out there who are certain that Obama deserves immediate forceful removal from the white house sans trial over ... well, insert your favorite conspiracy here. They don't care if their favorite conspiracy has already been investigated numerous times by nonpartisan public and private sources. They don't care about rule of law, either. They just grab any flimsy justification they can to force out a democrat, just for being a democrat.