If it isn't appropriate to investigate the Executive branch of the government for authorizing torturing prisoners until they were dead, under what circumstances would it ever be appropriate to do so?

Failure to pursue this now answers that questions: NONE.

What I want him to do is to reassure me that people who tortured prisoners to death as well as those who authorized it will not continue to roam American streets as free citizens.

Those bastards belong behind bars.

If Obama found a cure for cancer that came from seawater, gave off gold as a byproduct, and generated so much revenue that the tax rate for everyone could be lowered to zero, the Republicans would still find some excuse to rant about it.

There's nothing he could ever do that wouldn't cause them to pitch a fit. That's just how the Republicans roll.

...so I'm not sure if they actually torture their guests until they are dead or not.

That's what the Bush administration did to dozens of people.

This is about the Republican Party wanting to keep Al Franken, and the 59th vote that accompanies him, out of the Senate for as long as possible.

It's not about Coleman, or the best interests of the people of Minnesota, whom Coleman clearly couldn't give a damn about.

It's about the Republican Party. Because with Republicans, it's always party first.

...who had no objections when George W. Bush shouted, "Yo! Blair!" in a crowded room.

When you grow up, you'll know older people. For the rest of your life, you'll associate those people's names with "old" people. So will all of your peers.

If you're of a certain age, names such as Mildred, Martha, Betty, or Hazel are thought of as "old" names, so no one in that age group has given those names to their children.

But a generation or two later, women of childbearing age have never known anyone with those names and don't associate them with "old" people. So they start giving them out again.

I'm pushing 50, and had a lot of friends growing up whose mothers were named "Betty." Yet I've only met one person in my age group with that name. My guess is that in another 20 years or so, every Tom, Dick and Harry will be named "Betty" again, so to speak.

Evolution and creationism, the two most well known, make attempts to answer that question but it would seem both hit dead ends a long time ago.

Not true. Evolutionary study continues today and will continue in the future. Additional evidence will undoubtedly continue to be found. Each generation of scientists will build upon the work done by their predecessors.

On the other hand, creationism study not only does not continue, but it doesn't even exist. There's nothing to study. There's no way to seek or find evidence to support it, nor is there a way to test it.

To call creationism science is to give it airs. It is nothing more than wishful thinking by people who can't stand the notion that the Bible might be wrong about something.

But liberals are famously closed minded and infinitely arrogant, so I do not see it happening soon.

Just another theory that cannot be proven.

Nothing sheds pounds more quickly than a high-intensity Photoshop workout.

Sometimes I wonder if it was a bad idea bringing Texas into the Union in the first place.

Alas, it only happened because they did such a poor job of being an independent country.

I find it amusing that the authenticity of scientific research is regarded as something that can be decided by popular vote.

It's not as though the president is forcing women to abort, now is it?

It's sort of like blaming all lung cancer deaths on Obama because he hasn't signed a bill making smoking illegal.

It's not as though the president is forcing women to abort, now is it?

It's sort of like blaming all lung cancer deaths on Obama because he hasn't signed a bill making smoking illegal.

That so many supposedly educated, liberal posters don't have any qualms about killing a future human being, don't see the moral dilemna, and take refuge in politically correct slogans and insults is absolutely frightening.

You're missing the point. Plenty of supposedly educated, liberal posters do have qualms about killing a future human being and do see the moral dilemma.

What you're missing is that these same supposedly educated, liberal posters think that those women who are actually pregnant and have the dilemma before them should decide how best to deal with it. We would prefer that such decisions involving the personal lives of individuals not be made by bureaucrats, judges, or Senators in Washington.

And as a "supposedly educated" poster, I'm fine with it if a pregnant woman chooses to carry her fetus to term. Really. I lose no sleep.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who call themselves "conservative" and hate Big Government think that it's OK for Big Government to interfere in the lives of individuals if they're pregnant. The rest of the time, they're horrified. What's up with that?

That the tenth amendment makes this an issue for the states. Of course, that would also apply to about 99% of the things that the Bush administration did, too.

No Child Left Behind, anyone?

...but that won't stop the Right from claiming that its availability will turn out teenage daughters into sluts.

...it works the same in the teaching profession. Change school districts, and you start at the bottom, or at best, no better than the salary of a five or six year veteran.

If you teach in public schools and want to move, you'd better do so early in your career.

Otherwise, it's back to $25,000 per year.