Someone should conduct a study to determine whether or not the wealthiest people in the US are actually getting the greatest benefit from the services which taxes provide. In general, aren't the wealthiest individuals earning their money by holding stocks and by trading in commodities? Therefore, aren't they earning a profit on the backs of all the large trucks hauling goods all over our interstates, which cause the greatest stress on our roads, which are paid for by our taxes? Aren't the wealthiest people in the US the ones who stand to profit from it when corporations or restaurants deny their employees health insurance, making their wellness and healing a public cost? Don't they have bigger and more powerful toys than regular folks, travel more, use more electricity and burn more gas, contributing more to global warming and ground-level ozone causing asthma problems? These people who are the wealthiest in the US *do* cost more to maintain than regular folks and *should* have a higher tax burden. The public has to pay the cost for the harms that they cause in the ways that they make money and the lifestyles that they live. So far, as we can see, that's become pretty unbearable for the unwashed masses to shoulder any longer.

Oh Lord, you gave fair warning, but I had to click anyway. And I don't have any tissues at my desk. :[

Seeing old gay people filled with joy at having the right to get married overwhelms me in a bittersweet way: happiness that they finally have that right and that acceptance, and sadness that they had to wait so long to get it, and who knows what pain and discrimination they've had to face to get to this point.

I agree with you completely, I can support those propositions on principle alone. I just think it's funny that for me, the 1st proposition is the only one for which it is true that I have got a desire to do it.

She should propose legislation granting the dollar personhood.

The online audience is a bunch of potheads, hahaha. Funny that he was taking us seriously when he wanted votes, free press and campaign contributions.

"Abortion has been legal for about a generation folks. Don't act like it's a sacred right that's existed since the earth was created."

It's existed for as long as women have been able to get pregnant and known how to induce a miscarriage, and always will exist. It's a biological right.

"To suggest that I can not understand because of my gender is to suggest that woman know nothing of the reasons men rape because they are not men."

Why would I understand the reasons that a man would commit rape? I don't understand that. Why would any man who is not a rapist even understand that? You reveal more of yourself and your view of women with this idiotic metaphor than with all your claims to love babies.. it's just the thin veil over your completely disregard for women's autonomy over their bodies.

I think that cooler heads should prevail, and I'm really glad that my president has one.

You showed a picture of a child born at 22 weeks to prove that abortion is murder of a little person.

Less than or equal to 1.5% of all abortions are performed at over 20 weeks. (source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm)

The average (>50%) abortion is performed at less than 9 weeks of gestation, when the fetus is less than 1 inch long and looks like a peapod.

In light of the fact that women can die in childbirth even in our medically advanced society, and in light of the fact that most of the late term abortions which you find to be murder are performed to save the life of the mother, I would like to know how you justify valuing the life of a fetus over the life of a woman.

Huckabee just wants full control over every woman's body, to force them into the life or death decision to go through gestation and childbirth.

Last time I had to purchase some Plan B OTC it was $35, but that was last year. And they sell it to men OTC as well, at least at my local pharmacy. I haven't heard of a man going to get it from the doctor, since there's no need in the US if you're over 18, at least.

There's no way this has anything to do with parity. Let's assume for the sake of argument that she did hit him first. She was absolutely wrong for that and she needs counseling and he should have dumped her and pressed charges against her. It's not parity for him to hit her back, because he did so much more damage than she. If you walk up to Mike Tyson and punch him in the chest, is it parity for him to punch you back, even though he would in all likelihood break your ribs when you barely bruised him? What it a kitten swats at someone, do we all think it's okay for that person to backhand it into a wall because, hey, it hit first. No, everybody knows that's not parity and that's not fair. If you are bigger and stronger than something or someone, it is not parity for you to fight it blow for blow. It makes you an asshole.

This is just a blog, dood.

His show reminds me of Coast to Coast, the NPR ghost/spooky show with Art Bell. I bet there are a lot of people watching purely for the camp and entertainment factor, because the guy's just a nutter.