They are not acts against an individual, even though the expression of the acts can be. They are acts against a population, a group of people defined by a common attribute. As such, they have the effect of stifling or oppressing that population, because members are targets simply due to who they are. It is, plainly put, terrorism on a localised scale, and needs to be classified accordingly as a special class of action.

I live in Northern Virginia as well and about 80% of my driving is my commute to the Metro. I'd love to bike that bit of my commute, but there are no bike paths (or even shoulders) on the route I take.

And I have to agree that the Metro seems to get worse with every passing year. The delays are longer, the trains break down more often, and there are too few cars running the high-volume routes at the right times. Plus now they seem to have implemented a new policy of delaying one train so that it just misses the connecting switchover train (I can't count the number of times I've arrive at Rosslyn to find my connecting train simultaneously leaving from the other platform).

I believe that public transport suffers from the same problem as efforts like preserving wetlands - there is no powerful lobby support the effort, and a lot of monied developers eager to see it fall so that they can implement a private scheme in its place. So too with the parking lot pavers, who see any unused space in the same way a lumber baron sees a virgin forest, as something to be exploited once for gain and damn the future.

I am a right wing Christian conservative.

Really? I'm a human being, with complex and nuanced thoughts and beliefs that don't fit neatly into a shoebox.

You might be too, but you've not shown it with this declaration. What you've really said is "I am a member of this group, and I identify completely with them". This is known as tribalism, you may have heard the term.

I am republican because I am Christian, not the other way around.

So are many Democrats. You mean to say that "I am republican because I am a specific kind of Christian". Unless you're one of those Christian types who thinks there is only one right way to be a Christian. Hmm, you think?

"I was raised a democrat, but I learned to read."

Pity you didn't exercise that gift then. One has to wonder what kind of material you chose to read, since it failed to broaden or enlighten you. Me, I taught myself to read, and thence devoured books on every kind of religion, philosophy, science, and sociology, and it made me realise that (1) the world is vaster and more intricate than I will ever understand and (2) everyone is composed of their own experiences and sees the world their own way. Which is why I understand that you see the world differently than me. But I don't excuse your arrogance in thinking your way of seeing is the only legitimate way. That tells me you've learned nothing at all.

The MSM will try to destroy our candidates and Fox, Rush, and Hannity will offer balance.

Oh, now you're just being silly. You're also reverting to tribalism again - "My tribe is under threat from the neighboring tribes, but we will beat our drums loudly and ask our gods to lay them low!" Won't work of course, but it comforts the powerless, as you can clearly attest.

It would be nice if we all can remain civil and exchange ideas, instead of resorting to hate and name calling that unfortunatly seems to dominate this site.

Yes it would. Which is why I refrained from all those things in this post. I would be interested in hearing your response, provided you can do me the same courtesy. I would also appreciate if you didn't use any rhetorical devices. Nothing I've written here comes from standard "leftist" dogma or left-wing pundits or websites. They are my own genuine and personal thoughts. I'd like to hear yours, instead of mere parroting of rightist canards.

I remain, a liberal who embraces truth and who is strengthed and given clarity thereby.

"Okay John, final round question! 'The majority of Americans say that the United States is a _______ nation.'"

"Um, I'm going to say 'Christian', Bob."

"Ooo, sorry John! The correct answer was 'democratic'. Looks like you don't win the Oval Office desk and chair set. But you've picked up some lovely prizes along the way, isn't that right Becky?"

"That's right Bob! John will be taking home this lovely Congressional pension plan, a set of personalised lobbyists, this deluxe hardbound memoir (already featured on clearance racks), and a beautfully touring bus!"

"Okay, those are nice too. And I can come back and play again, right?"

"Ha ha, good one, John! We'll call you if we do charity special."

what's the aversion to immersion?

The coercion to perversion. (Sorry, not the real answer, just keeping the wordplay going.)

Really, the problem isn't with the choice of baptism. It's with the obvious political posturing that has gone into his choice. Because of that, he pretty HAS to choose full immersion. Why? Because (1) it's the "showiest" form of baptism, makes for great photos and so forth, and (2) it's a coded signal to the faithful that he is "completely immersed" in their faith, and implicitly their agenda.

I think it's the second reason that is paramount in his mind. He wants to show this voting block that he is totally on-board with them. He's not just wetting his toe (or the top of his head), he's taking the full plunge into their ranks. That's the part that rankle, the absolutely transparent and calculated nature of the gesture.