who opposed the Bill of Rights were concerned that if a list of rights were enumerated, they would be assumed to be the only rights of the the people.

Turns out they were right.

I was going to skip the third debate because I thought it would be a snoozefest like the others, but if McCain brings up Ayers, well, damn.

It was my impression that Ryan hooked up with one of the girls in HSM3. Despite the obvious cues, he never really struck me as gay. He's more of a King of the Drama club effeminate heterosexual type.

is named Sasha and is just about the same age as Sasha Obama. She's thrilled there's a Sasha in the Whitehouse!

DENIED!

That closer is a classic, Joan.

I can't believe people are even having this discussion. If "does it work?" is a viable legal strategy, why can't we just round up family members of suspected terrorists and shoot them in the head until we get the information we want? If efficacy is the sole arbiter of what is legal or not, where do we draw the line?

we'll be fine. Here's to another woman on the SCOTUS!

A co-worker of mine accidentally typed in hotbox instead. Hilarity ensured.

I guess I don't understand what Bush would do with Gitmo detainees. At some point we'll have tortured them enough so we'll have all the information they know, or they'll be in so long they will no longer have any information of value. Then what? Kill them quietly? Or was the plan all along to get them to commit suicide?

It did sound like a lot of rationalization. In the end we hear more about why her friends' marriages suck then why she stepped out on her husband. Was it just the travel for work? It seems like that's something that could be negotiated before doing something as drastic as having an affair.

Since the Constitution already says that you must be a "natural born" citizen to be President, and the definition of what a natural born citizen is is already a matter of settled law, don't all Presidential and VP candidates have to provide this proof currently?

Everyone in a relationship wrestles at some point with an eternal question: can one person really satisfy every need?

So my spouse or SO is supposed to satisfy my *every* need? This sounds like an incredibly Narcissistic view of what a relationship is supposed to be. I'd be scared if my wife satisfied every need... she's her own person, not some sort of one-stop-shop service provider.

When Dodd was threatening to fillibuster the neutering of FISA, didn't Reid just tell him he couldn't do it for some procedural reason? Why do you need 60 votes to pass anything now?

iirc, the Republicans, with a smaller majority, back in the Bush years, rammed through a lot of bills without being concerned about a Democratic filibuster--they even threatened to end filibusters altogether.

Indeed! Whither the 'nuclear option' now?