Andy9o8

Just a poll-wording suggestion: "Everyone should be required to choose a party when registering" should be changed to "Everyone should be required to register with a party in order to vote in that party's primary". (The first wording would, logically, negate a person's ability to register to vote as an independent, which I'm sure was not your intent.)

It doesn't take a Master of Science in Management to be a member of Men who have Sex with Men, even if you attend the Morehouse School of Management and and eat Mechanically Separated Meat while touring the Miami Science Museum. Tell us the truth: You're really a Master-Slave Manipulator, aren't you? Search your Memory-Save-Memory and get back to me. OK, so much for my morning coffee jolt.

Looks like your support on FB has objectors, too. I agree with the guy who compared it to the difference between running, and running on a treadmill.

How old was she when they were married? Never mind.

My niece is studying cosmology. She's really quite the artist at it.

That seems to be an implied concession that it was NOT an abortion, despite the public campaign by many of my own ideological soul-mates that it was. It either was, or it wasn't. And the quote was by Karen, not Rick. Santorum appalls me in many ways. Politically, he's a prick; and I can see why so many people say he has it coming: what's good for the goose, etc. Still - even if Santorum himself might not personally deserve a lot of fairness - evidence is evidence, and spin is spin. Was it an abortion or was it not?

If you marinade them in vinaigrette and olive oil overnight, then slow-cook them at a low heat for several hours in a covered pot with plenty of moisture, the meat is remarkably tender.

Are you sure? The articles I found, after a fair amount of searching, are still sketchy. From one detailed article I read, it seems Karen agreed to have antibiotics administered to her, but refused to allow labor-inducing drugs to be administered to her, because that would be abortion, since the child was too young to survive outside the uterus. Then labor began, and Karen asked for drugs to stop the labor, but her doctors refused, so the spontaneous delivery (i.e., miscarriage) occurred. Frankly, the articles are all over the place, mainly debating on whether Karen was, or was not, administered labor-inducing medication. If you have a source that clears up this ambiguity, that would be helpful. This came courtesy of NerdGirl http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2011/06/19/santorums-wifes-abortion-was-different-you-see/ It's a column, though it does give a lead on an interview in 2004 that if verifiable, seems to be rather conclusive and would suggest they're doing some window dressing now. I'd already read-thru the complete article on which your cited article was derived (but only partially quoted from) before I posted my previous post. In fact, it was that article that I was referring to in my previous post. Here's the link: http://oursilverribbon.org/blog/?p=188 As you can see, if one reads the whole thing (beyond the title and first few paragraphs), it's not clear at all. I'm all about evidence. I'd still like to see an authoritative source clear up the ambiguity. Anyone?

NB - your 2nd paragraph answered your 1st one.

I just want to say to both of you that a modicum of to-fu will save a defenseless animal from being murdered. That is all.

Are you sure? The articles I found, after a fair amount of searching, are still sketchy. From one detailed article I read, it seems Karen agreed to have antibiotics administered to her, but refused to allow labor-inducing drugs to be administered to her, because that would be abortion, since the child was too young to survive outside the uterus. Then labor began, and Karen asked for drugs to stop the labor, but her doctors refused, so the spontaneous delivery (i.e., miscarriage) occurred. Frankly, the articles are all over the place, mainly debating on whether Karen was, or was not, administered labor-inducing medication. If you have a source that clears up this ambiguity, that would be helpful.

Doubt it. You really don't help the cause by being so belligerent. Actually, I think it's ingeniously calculated: he wants to piss liberals off so much that they'll want to start shooting people who constantly insult them, so they'll go out and buy guns! At which point they'll be damned if they'll give them up. Problem solved!

Perhaps you're kidding a bit (re: definition). Anyhow, apologetics has noting to do with "apology"; it is an intellectual exercise - sometimes just for the sake of the philosophical exercise, and (historically) sometimes for the sake of promoting a certain agenda. Also, to the OP: apologetics re: God need not necessarily be Christian-oriented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

The "conventional wisdom" has been that Santorum won't get much traction in New Hampshire because he's too much of a religious nut, and that therefore Santorum's money is better spent saturating South Carolina. Yet his donations are rolling in now, thanks to his 2nd place showing in IA. With that, along with this (story), maybe it's worth Santorum's while to invest some serious time & money in NH.

That was prevalent in the US until the post-WWII era. Philosophically, I prefer a closed primary system ("closed" = you must be a registered member of a party to vote in its nominating primary), rather than the convention system, because primaries allow more direct participation by ordinary folk, and not just a series of backrooms filled with hacks and power-brokers. Here's my longer explanation of this: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4234510;search_string=primaries;#4234510 (I don't like open primaries, where you can vote in any party's primary, because that gives too much ability for non-party members to sabotage a party's nominating process by deliberately voting to nominate a weak candidate.)

Hang in there. Don't let these people make a monkey out of you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

If you're going to be naked, don't be deflated.

Update: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/01/03/montana-supreme-court-defies-citizens-united-decision-upholds-state-ban/

I presumed it meant "one who gathers nuts", as in "hunters and gatherers".

Exactly. What about real music?

And I, for one, despair the tendency to rip someone a new asshole about the minutest aspects of their personal lives just because they're politicians. As I've said in other threads, it's the aspect of politics that disgusts me, and it's why I've chosen not to be a player, not even as a "hobbyist", in elective politics.

I don't think "playing with the body" is a fair description of what the Santorums did. They were mourning over the body. Have you ever held, caressed and spoken to the body of a loved one who had just died? I have, more than once. It's pretty normal and typical human behavior. I've also known some people, not very religious, who chose to treat the miscarriage of a fetus as the death of a child, complete with baptism/naming and funeral. No, it's not very common, but that's how some people choose to deal with it. I dislike Santorum on so many levels. And yeah, he's kinda weird. But he and his family were in grief, and coping with it as best as they saw fit. They should be left the hell alone about this.

Your point may have some traction re: Congressional Democrats, who've been pretty quiet about this so far. But, that dynamic is pretty typical of any president's Congressional party-mates, even on ideological "articles of faith", in election years. But pointing out that partisan office-holders wheel and deal is like pointing out that dogs bark. Yeah, that's what they do. As for liberal and moderate-Democratic NON-office holders, though, they're all over it. The ACLU, other similarly-inclined advocacy groups, opinion pieces by many liberal and moderate writers and pundits, bloggers (including that guy in post #8), etc. are pretty vocal in their criticism of the NDAA generally, and of Obama for signing it.

Would your wife have agreed to it if you'd told her straight-up you wanted to get recurrent?

Regardless, the deficit soared. Why? Because the expenditures soared, mainly related to the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, and the Post-9/11 Apocalyptic Security Theater. Oh, and paying smart-ass contractors; can't forget them.