"Hmm, all the conservatives seem to like Obama pretty well, we better vote Hillary!"

"Why? We know they hate Hillary. It'll make it harder for her to win. Maybe they're sincere, and some of them might even cross over for Obama."

"Nope, nope, they're conservatives. They must be up to something. We have to always do the opposite of what they say, even when they warn us not to shoot ourselves in the foot."

I don't understand how people can consistently claim that Hillary is the best choice to go up against Republicans. They HATE her, she will mobilize them like nobody else.

In polls of one-on-one matchups, Hillary loses to all the major Republican candidates, whereas Obama and Edwards either win, or at worst, tie.

It's time to put the myth of Electable Hillary to bed.

http://catidogi.blogster.com/hillary_loses_top_tier_republican.html

Tracy wrote that:

"All I've said here is that I'm uncomfortable with discussing the hijab in black and white terms. I have no interest in defining for a woman who freely chooses to wear the hijab what the practice means to her."

But almost everyone who wears the hijab because they feel strong social pressures to do so, from their family, their religion, or even just the general community around them. Broadsheet writers routinely rail against similar social pressures "forcing" Western women to give up their jobs to be mothers, to constantly worry about their appearance, etc.

I'm inclined to say that social coercion is not the same thing as force, but it's not exactly a free choice either. My point is that Broadsheet seems to have a very different standard of what constitutes a "free choice" in the West vs. in Muslim societies.

"The reality is that government is a mafia, it only adds burdens and does not solve or do anything of value."

Really? Not *anything*? Can I assume that if your house catches fire you won't be calling the fire department, then? Perhaps you could pay your neighbors to start a bucket brigade?

Anyone else notice how many of the Ron Paul letters begin with phrases like "I've always voted Democratic, but now I'm..." or "I'm really liberal but I'm supporting..."

This is a pretty obvious type of "sympathetic" trolling, and I suspect that if you went on conservative message boards you'd find the same Ron Paulites posting about how they voted for Bush (or McCain or whoever) in 2000, but now love RP.

Also, to the people who claim to support both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, you either have no idea what either of them stands for, or you have no idea what you stand for and just want to vote for a rebellious "outsider" candidate. Saying you like Paul and Kucinich because they both like the constitution is like saying you really agree with both Ann Coulter and Michael Moore because they've both written books.

They're building a highway!!!! Heaven forfend!!!!

You know what else I just realized? There are *gasp* ALREADY highways connecting Mexico, the US, and Canada! The conspiracy is complete!

seems like an honest an sincere guy. However, his economic policies would take us straight back to the 1890s. None of his campaign's math on abolishing the income tax adds up, and sales taxes are horribly regressive anyway. Not to mention the fact that he's stridently anti-abortion, which doesn't jive with the rest of his libertarian rhetoric. Furthermore, his supporters border on cultlike. They remind of the Lyndon LaRouche people. Watch how many of them are going to come on this thread, rant about North American Union conspiracies and loudly attack anyone who disagrees with Dr. Paul or his policies.

Grr...those damn corporations! With their...corporate-ness!

It turns out The Road Warrior was an accurate prediction of the future after all. God bless that prescient Mel Gibson.

The Internet Is Serious Business(tm).

"There are no illegal people"

Really? I guess there are no "illegal drug users" then? Obviously the word "illegal" refers to their border-crossing (which is against the law) and not to their mere existence or their personhood.

Don't get me wrong, there's lots of valid reasons for changing our current immigration law, but let's call a spade a spade here. Until that law is changed, they're illegal immigrants. I'm sick of people (on both the left and the right) trying to cheat at debates by redefining the terms.

If you won't talk about "illegal immigrants" only "undocumented workers" then I expect you to also eschew "torture" in favor of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

You damn kids! Get off my lawn!

But why think so small? After all, if Android can run on a phone, why couldn't it run on a tablet PC? Or an e-book reader? Or a media player? Or, right, the desktop on your desk at work?

See what I'm getting at? For Google, a gPhone, or even an OS for all phones, is probably aiming too low.

An operating system for all computers everywhere, one that's open source and owned by no one and maintained by everyone: Any such effort would be a huge threat to a computing industry that, fundamentally, has long been bent on keeping platforms closed (whether we're talking about Apple or Microsoft). Well, that's more in line with Google's grand aims.

As other comm enters have pointed out, this already exists. It has existed for like a decade now. It's called Linux (or GNU/Linux if you're anal retentive). Where have you been, Farhad?

There has been speculation for years that Google would bring its own Linux distro to market, and this may be the beginning of that move. If they choose to start with phones, that's certainly an interesting choice. But let's be clear here, Linux is revolutionary. Google marketing Linux to the masses is evolutionary.