Stay-Home Moms are a gold mine if NSA pussy.

The result of a life spent inundated with social mores. Another BS double standard that benefits men and of course reflects the fact that men are in control. Men age and become refined, distinguished and if they can afford it get to romp in the gardens of younger women. Whereas women are seen (culturally) to have had their best years behind them pretty much from 30 on. Shame.

P.S. to be clear I'm talking about cultural perceptions.

When my wife was pregnant, her mother, a little old lady who lives in a tiny mountain village of Guatemala hid a horrible family tragedy from my wife on the grounds that bad feelings can hurt the fetus. *shrug*

Though it seems to me this is another one of those studies that 'proves' the obvious. Whatever affects the mother impacts the baby.

How about anyone who watches that unhinged gasbag's show?

For that matter, why would you go on it, considering how he's been behaving this election cycle?

It's never good to have to say: "Everything I have said has been factually accurate."

Mrs. Clinton has been misrepresenting herself constantly during this campaign.

Looked at the adds and had the girl-heads not been pointed out, probably wouldn't have noticed. Mostly because my gaze didn't make it that far up, but also because pop-culture as been 'adultizing' young girls for so long now, (like when you find out that that hot fashion model is 16) that I think for a lot of people our ability to judge (at least in a photo) is way out of whack.

Yes, but I'm not selling anything.

And you've called me out on it, just like I'm calling HRC out on it. It's all good.

Only difference is you're wrong.

HRC has been running partly on the idea that she's vetted and has withstood republican attack machine for all these years. The reality, is she has ignored the right-wing attacks. She's never had to respond to them. The attacks from the right could be ignored because either she was merely the First Lady, out of office, or running for senator in a very blue state.

Should she be the nominee the situation will be very different.

The Right makes the assumption that anyone who gets wronged, deserves it.

They fail to understand that the problem is NOT that the prez is torturing terrorists (though some ardent human rights supporters would still have a problem with that), the problem is the president is torturing SUSPECTS. If he suspends the rights of suspects, then no one has any rights.

America is supposed to stand for something. It might stand for not torturing anybody, that's debatable depending where you stand on the Left-Right spectrum. However it DEFINITELY does NOT stand for torturing people whom the gov't claims are suspects of terrorism, and they can't be questioned on the evidence because of 'National Security' (da Da DA!)

Little more accurate:

Chris Wallace reads script obediently.

"They fear that overturning the ban will actually force them into wearing the hijab and remove their religious choice.

These women are basically asking the govt to protect them from the choices forced upon them by the lifestyle to which they belong. At this point I have to ask, why do they continue to accept a lifestyle that would make them behave in ways they didn't like if the govt didn't prevent it?

I say the govt should let women wear what they want. Women being forced to obey by family, religious pressure is a whole other issue and should be dealt with separately.

That past elections have hinged on who you'd rather have a beer with, I'd have to say I'd take a drunken sorority girl over ANY candidate. But perhaps I have ulterior motives.

What today's market understands is that today's boomer parents cater to their children in a way that previous generations would never have thought of doing. There is even a name for it: the non-wage earning consumer. And it's worth many billions a year.

"This is how the world ends... not with a bang, but a..." ka-ching!

Yup.

"Gen X's kids are now entering the tweens and Gen Y's are having babies.

Yes I'm sure you're right but I don't really know about them so I don't have anything to say about them. However still it's boomer behaviors that have set the precedent of catering to their children.

In my opinion, those 'educational' cable programs for the most part are shallow, overly dramatic pieces of crap. But that not a big deal for me. I'm raising a 2.5yo right now and I don't mind the programs but we don't have cable. Any good programming I can either download or I'll buy DVD's. The issue for me is that way we avoid the commercials. That is the danger to a developing mind and its exactly what they want, access to developing minds to begin forming life long brand loyalty.

The best part is now whenever a situation comes up when we do see commercial television, the boy gets mad when the commercials come on. Thats just how I like it.

Wonder if Mr. Bond sent a letter to the local dem parties in each state before the primaries complaining to them that by flouting national party rules they'd be disenfranchising their voters?

Didn't think so. Besides It may not matter at this point. If Obama has him some momentum he could kick enough ass in the rest of the states to render HRC irrelevant.

Then he could go on to destroy McCain.

"Obama and Edwards made the decision..."

As you say, Obama and Edwards made their decisions and should stand by it.

However by the same argument, the local Dem parties of each state made their decisions knowing in advance the result would be stripped delegates. Should they stand by their decisions and not seek to have the delegates seated?