What if someone lights up a smoke in front of a pregnant lady? Can she shoot that person dead?

Someone cuts off a pregnant lady on the highway, can she run him off the road?

Guy fucks a girl with a condom, can she shoot him for not shooting in her?

Etc...

Obviously the law is aimed at granting the unborn, personhood. The solution is obvious: Write the law so that it grants the fetus the right to defend itself.

Not that I would pay but hey, if their product has value, let the market bear it.

What should happen is newspapers should clamp down and charge for linking. Let the aggregator sites pony up their share from all the money they make on advertising from traffic that is significantly built on telling people, "Hey, look what that site is saying!"

Aggragator sites don't want to pay? Fine, readers will go to the source and the newspapers can generate more of their own ad revenue.

Take the John McCain example. To say that the Times treatment of McCain proves liberal bias, you'd need to also show that Obama had a similar problem that the Times ignored.

Take the Obama/Ayers story. I understand that Republicans are disappointed that the story didn't stick but that is because the public didn't care, not because it wasn't harped about constantly in the media.

The idea that the press has a liberal bias is absurd. I would be willing to admit that maybe more reporters and editors are left leaning, than right leaning, but in no way does that outweigh the far more relevant fact that the corporate owners of all these newspapers and television networks are conservatives.

Mercede and Levi are more than brother and sister.

Mercede points out that Bristol was jealous of Mercede being close to Levi, which is silly since they're bro and sis.

But then Mercede reveals she has a tattoo of Levi's name on her.

Creepy. Mad Creepy.

This is one of those issues where if you chime in to tell everyone how shallow they're being, you automatically become one of us.

Welcome to the club.

I dream of a day when the RNC won't defend its positions or base their election strategies based on: If you don't support us, you're a homo!

Although they'll unfortunately still be relying on: If you don't support us, you're a nigger-lover! or If you don't support us, you're anti-American! or If you don't support us, you're going to hell! for some time to come.

I remember watching the republican presidential candidates tripping over each other to prove who could be more offensive to latinos and thinking, "Boy, this is gonna bite them in butt HARD"

The funny thing is that latinos can be quite socially/fiscally conservative and had the republicans resisted the urge to not pander to their racist/paranoid base, things could have worked out surprisingly well for them. But, they couldn't. Hee hee!

Although I've generally no appetite for newspapers in general, the fact is the reporting they do has value. Newspapers need to stop letting internet news aggregate sites, talk radio, cable news and sunday talk shows ride the coat-tails of their reportage for free.

It doesn't matter the medium, be it print, electronic or whatever, too many non-productive middlemen are making a mint off of newspapers' reporting to make the newspapers' inability to make money laughable.

GOP will need a superstar to run in 2012, and Palin is just too flawed. She'll rile the Dem base and of course she'll still be relatively inexperienced and Obama will have 4 years of being president under his belt.

Is there anything in the presidents statement that would preclude the congress from doing its JOB? Other than their general spinelessness, I mean.

"there is still no proof of anything beyond waterboarding."

So you mean beyond the admitted and proven torture, you need more proof of torture?

That makes me feel REALLY threatened by and hostile towards conservatives. The hypocritical ease with which they would, if they could, force their values onto others.

Since we're discussing the political ideology of 'conservatism' we'll keep this in the realm of politics, and leave the invisible old man who lives in the sky out of it. When the govt decided to get into the business of issuing marriage licenses, they assumed a responsibility to offer the service equally amongst all its citizenry. After all that is what our govt is, a representation of its citizenry. All of them. Our country is founded on this ideal. I believe there are even some laws about this, specifically designed to over turn 'social traditions' even though at the time they were deemed to 'exist for everyone's benefit.' Thus the argument of tradition should bear no weight.

Regardless of the reason, that a group of people should deny another group of people a right of their own govt, of which both groups are equal members, IS bigotry whatever the underlying belief is that may drive the desire to deny the right.

That conservatives believe that marriage is good for society has no bearing on their desire to deny the right to people in a non-traditional sense, FROM THE GOVT since granting that right has no bearing on the conservatives themselves.

Perhaps if conservatives would stop equating govt with god, and opportunistic politicians would stop exploiting their belief system this wouldn't be an issue.

Because he doesn't at all address the fact that the main reason conservatives fear gay marriage is because republican politicians shameless exploit the issue, stoking fear and anger for their own benefit, counting upon it as a wedge to hurt their democratic opponents.

Now we know why there's been no desire to prosecute, hm? I guess bipartisan means both sides are culpable.

I'm guessing for every person at the CIA who liked to torture, there were dozens if not hundreds who were appalled and ashamed.