I think the point is that if you've already protested for an end to the Iraq War, the government's (lack of a) global warming policy, abortion rights, an end to the drug war, our insane immigration policy, the 460 billion dollar budget deficit we stuck our kids with last year, local pollution, etc, then by all means move on to the right to unexposed breastfeeding in restaurants.

Who was voted the World's Sexiest Carnivore?

This country has gotten off track on this issue. We need to return to the traditional definition of marriage that stood for thousands of years: an exchange of property between the father and the husband.

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

How romantic.

"It has actually been demonstrated that organic farming techniques yield more crops and creates more sustainable soil than using chemically-treated agricultural methods."

It has actually been demonstrated that letter writers that make blind faith assertions without giving a source for the information are correct 78.3% of the time. No really, I saw it on some blog somewhere!

Just curious, I've noticed that some posters support the idea of having healthcare benefits cover gender reassignment surgery. In such a case a person feels that they cannot lead a normal, happy life, feel whole in fact, without this surgery. This reminds me of voluntary amputees, people who feel that they were not meant to have certain limbs or other body parts and cannot feel whole or happy until these body parts are removed. Once the offending body part is removed many of these people go on to live happy lives. I believe that this is currently viewed as a disorder but in light of gender reassignment, do people support the rights of voluntary amputees to make these changes to their bodies as well?

I don't agree with everything that he says but I plan on voting for him. If nothing else, I think that his support will make it even more obvious how biased and corrupt the media is. They will keep ignoring him until they realize that he won't go away. Then will come the slander, which will make what John Kerry got look tame by comparison. Then hopefully the slander will be debunked and discredited in time, but I doubt it. The average uninformed voter will just go, 'Ron Paul? Yeah, I heard that guy's racist', and never give it another thought. You know, the people that still believe the story about the babies in the incubators from Gulf War I.

As far as the specific issue with the poll, don't they at least verify that every unique ip address gets a limited number of votes? Maybe they can allow 2 or three for internal networks. But don't they have some limits for the number of votes that they count for each ip address? And if that isn't the problem then how was the vote hacked? Just because the other guys' supporters didn't bother to vote, that doesn't mean that the results are invalid. I've long suspected that the mainstream polls showing Giuliani leading are 'hacked'. And I know a lot of Republicans and I have never met one Romney fan. Outside of New England he's just another rich white guy.

Speaking of complex financial instruments that depend on constantly revolving debt, how's the dollar doing lately?

It's at http://urltea.com/1rl2 for now.

Coulter got pwned!

but noone who writes haikus is getting elected president!

Oh, for a better world...

I saw this guy on Charlie Rose and he is by FAR the most intelligent politician I have ever heard in my life. I pray that he runs in 2012 (unless that means that a neocon won next year - crap!)

http://www.brianschweitzer.com/

If you are a white collar drone like myself, another way to reduce auto emissions is to get your company to let you telecommute one day a week. Once a week isn't going to turn everyone at work into strangers, and a 20% reduction is nothing to sneeze at.

Because real men respect the Constitution and the rule of law, and do not trade in their wives every few years like automobiles.

Ok that's a cheap shot, but I've heard too many Republicans with multiple divorces 'defending marriage' lately.

Just because Ron Paul objects to the federal government doing something doesn't mean that it won't get done. There are these thing called states, and they do a pretty good job of listening to their constituents and coming up with policies. They are actually better at doing the 'representative government' thing than the feds because they are closer to the people that they represent. It's true, you can look it up on a map. So if one state wants healthcare, minimum wage, social services, etc, they can do it, while other states, obeying the will of THEIR constituents, can do things differently.

To reiterate, Ron Paul is not necessarily against these things in principle, he is against the federal government shoving these things down the throat of every state.