Christians who have a different point of view from you should just shut up...

Don't be silly. They should change their minds so they'll be right - or at least less wrong.

...you question the basis and quality of their true faith.

Is that some sort of sin?

Did you accidentally leave out the part about questioning their patriotism?

I'm sure that could be arranged, but it's really more of the Republican playbook.

I find it interesting that you attack the very idea of criticism as some sort of affront to your sensibilities. You have a very dictatorial attitude. Your position comes down to "you're not supposed to criticize us for criticizing others!" It's hard to imagine a more blatant hypocrisy.

The Day of Silence proponents say, "Protect the safety and security of homosexuals," and others say, "Our faith and morals inform us that homosexuality is wrong and destructive." Neither side's position is mutually exclusive. They pass each other like ships in the night.

That is hopelessly naive. I suppose it's convenient to be able to disown the hate-crimes they incite, but it's not fooling anyone but you.

Aren't there some more serious homosexual rights issues in the Muslim world?

And they're routinely condemned. Do you really not see why Christian Americans are prioritizing addressing other Christian Americans? Or are you just prodding for the sake of prodding, making silly inferences for the sake of casting unjustified doubt?

So, basically people are getting killed because these guys can't get laid? Maybe we can use this to push for legalizing prostitution. :)

Re-read the study, ol' chap, that scenario was specifically contra-indicated.

If you flout a Congressional subpoena

It's up to the President to enforce it, I believe.

And if he refuses to obey the law, he can be impeached. Supposedly... It's not like he hasn't flouted the law on a regular basis and bragged about it in writing and on national television.

Will you...

be thinking about the soldiers when you tell their families that their effort was always a waste and they were just stupid pawns in an unjust war?

Were you thinking of the soldiers when you sent them off to waste their efforts and lives as stupid pawns in an unjust war?

...someone offering a different opinion a troll.

Having a different opinion is not what makes you a troll. The technique of posting inflammatory and derogatory messages to bait users into responding to intellectually worthless statements is what makes you a troll.

Perhaps he'll write a signing statement to the effect that he's going to take our money and ignore the conditions. It wouldn't be any less constitutional than the rest of his signing statements (and frankly easier to argue for than some).

Meanwhile, if he does as he's stated he will, then we need to let him take the fall for vetoing funding the troops. It's not the Democrats playing politics this time.

Elephantman should be re-named strawman. "Distract! Distract!"

Its unfortunate that we have such a rotten executive in office, one that repeatedly ignores scientific studies and general basic common sense, but the enforcement of policy is entrusted to the political branches of government by our constitution.

The legislature - a political branch responsible for setting policy - has made it a federal law that you cannot knowingly teach medically inaccurate information in federal schools. Meanwhile, the executive has made a habit of breaking the law, rendering the legislature (and law) effectively impotent when the executive disagrees with it. Resolving such a dispute is precisely the purpose of the judicial, and indeed the whole reason the judiciary is separate from the executive in the first place.

How can you possibly argue that the legislature is responsible for the problem of Bush ignoring the legislature? How is making new laws which also get ignored going to solve that problem?

While you're absolutely correct that compliance with existing law would not, in itself, fix the many problems of abstinence-only education, I do not agree that overlooking and thereby absolving the executive of ignoring the law is in any way a good policy.

That's all very nice and of course it'd be great to "vote Bush out of office" (last I heard he's not running again - I'd point out that such would be illegal but he really doesn't seem to give a damn about that sort of detail), but I still don't see why an association of lawyers who's existence largely revolves around bringing court cases against the government when the political branches break the law, shouldn't bring a court case against the government when it's breaking the law.

If that basic standard can't be met, nothing else really matters very much. Short of a miracle, we've got another year-and-a-half or so of the Bush presidency, and I really do think that the very largest problem of the Bush presidency is the fact that they're a bunch of criminals who break the law constantly. Frankly, even the legislature's most important role right now is its oversight responsibility - in essence, its actions as a judiciary!

This is not some sort of one-track situation where "we" can only press one issue from one direction. I'm all for reforming the executive and generally most of what you wrote, but I don't see any of that as invalidating the ACLU's action in this case.

So you bitch about 4 paragraphs out of 32, and the first of that 4 paragraphs is paragraph 12.

I guess they just can't find the time to bitch about EVERYTHING like you do.