The entire point of negotiation is to make sure that a conflict doesn't happen between Iran and the U.S. or Iran and Israel. You negotiate and use diplomacy to defuse situations before they turn violent.

And I don't know if you heard, but IRAN DOES NOT HAVE ANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!

The U.S. does. Israel does. But Iran does not.

The trend to micro-niche ourselves in life is getting ridiculous. Many friends will have similar interests as you, but some friends will have completely different interests than you and this can be a wonderful and stimulating thing. In fact, it's essential in growing as a human being. Otherwise you end up as one of those people who gather in small groups together, trying to one up each other over their knowledge of Sartre, adjusting hipster glasses and stroking facial hair. Uh, no thanks.

People who are vibrant and truly engaged in the world around them will have a multitude of interests, both "low" and "high". The same should go for ideas- good ideas can come from people we don't always see eye to eye with. Similarly, the opinion of other people is often essential in gaining insight on to a problem, or situation that you can't be objective about because of your proximity. This is true in literature and movie taste, as it can be in politics.

The photograph of Che Guevara, a leader of Communist uprising, is now nothing more than a consumer commodity.

But if we're going to turn someone's image into something like that- something put on shirts and worn as a statement- can't we pick someone who actually worked to better humanity, instead of furthering the goals of a brutal and repressive form of government?

The filmmakers here don't want to talk about context much, as I could gather. They're more interested in understanding how a brand takes off. I had to read through most of the interview before the most obvious question was asked: "You also include the voice of a Cuban-American, a young guy talking about his negative associations with Che -- his embrace of armed conflict, the violence. But you didn't dwell on that perspective too long."

God forbid you should highlight the negatives! Wouldn't be trendy, you know.

Wasn't this bad idea originally cooked up by McCain?

So which of our two potential candidates first took this idea and ran with it? And wouldn't it have been a better idea to come up with an economic solution of our own, instead of allowing the right to dictate the conversation?

Why it is ESSENTIAL that we have a Democratic president in the White House this time.

It also shows that a sour-grapes vote for McCain makes no sense if our preferred progressive candidate doesn't clinch our party's nomination.

First, the postings started out very moderate, highlighting the benefits of each candidate, balancing them against the numbers.

Then the knives come out.

Come on people, I know we're all very passionate about this, but let's not forget that the person to beat here is McCain and the right wing, which has driven our country into the ground these past eight years.

I understand the high degree of passion that exists with both Clinton and Obama supporters, but let's all remember that the essential thing here is to return a Democrat to the White House in November.

This country has been driven into a ditch by a bunch of criminals and fuck-ups for the past eight years. McCain wants to do more of the same for the next four. Sitting out this election as if it didn't matter, or pulling a protest vote for McCain- regardless of who the Democratic nominee is- is goddamn ridiculous no matter which of the two you support.

The Immigration Reform Act of 1986, which allowed a "one time" amnesty to milliions of illegal immigrants living in the United States. A "one time" move that undercut our legal workforce and whose passage caused problems that we are dealing with to this day.

2013?

Wasn't this supposed to be "over in six months"? And "paid for by Iraq's oil" with a "fast and light" military force?

Don't forget that McBush also wants to "greatly expand the Army and Marines for further protection". All of this while having a robust economy.

How're you going to pull that off, John? Let alone PAY for it?

I honestly don't know how the American people could elect this guy. Shooting yourself in the foot is one thing (2004) but it's another thing entirely to put the gun in your mouth and blow your head off.

McCain, wish in one hand, sh** in the other.

Great afternoon. It's nice to know that in at least 2 states in the "Land of the Free" I'm not a second-class citizen anymore.

I'm elated with the California decision. Now, at least in two states in America, I'm not a second class citizen.

I understand clearly where the author is coming from, and his frustration. Every political season we gays and lesbians are a punching bag for right wing bigots, and religious fundamentalists who would be more comfortable living in the late nineteenth century. The left wing for many years has paid us lip service, in the hopes that we'd go away quietly during election season, lest we upset the apple cart. I'm tired of being told to sit down and shut up by heterosexists on both sides of the aisle.

The basic premise of the article is the fact that our relationships have always been valid in each other's eyes. However, I am very, very grateful that the California supreme court has realized this also. Equality under the law...who would've thought?!

Exactly. Amazing letter.

A star for this one please, Ms. Walsh.