Hang on - if she wants free access to birth-control, why can't we have free access to the advocate of free access to birth-control?

Capitalism for me but not for thee ...

The premise of the question is that someone judges Israel for the deaths of children in Gaza.  Perhaps even assigning responsibility to Israel.

In fact, responsibility for these deaths lies with Hamas and the terrorists.  Because they are firing rockets among the civilians.  It is Hamas who should be judged, not Israel.

Next question?

How about renaming the show "The Three Amerigos"?

GLoP doesn't resonate.  Sorry.  Just a thought ...

There seems to be an assumption among many that "if only we can convince other adult voters, or they get convinced by some event."

Sorry people - last night, people voted for more free stuff even if it means more unsustainable national debt.

I can't see adult voters changing their mind that much.  The way of thinking was baked in at a young age.  Because they are educated that way.  

And conservatives should hang their head in shame for leaving education to the Left.  We are reaping what has been sown.

See my Ricochet post:

http://ricochet.com/member-feed/It-s-Your-Fault-US-Conservatives

Alternatively, the Republicans may lose the House in 2014 for being obstructionist.

In Gingrichian fashion, I reject the premise of the question.  Is there a need to say anything to these people?

They are a self-selected group of partisans who won't listen to reason and change their minds. So why talk to those who don't listen?

(Being intellectually honest, there are some on the Right who are the same, but I like to think reason underpins the Right's thinking more than the Left, so the numbers are fewer).

Dangerous drinking games:

1. Obama says "bin Laden"
2. Romney says "jobs"
3. Scheiffer says "I want to interrupt you there, Governor..."

Re terrorist act, the specific quote  in the Rose Garden speech was this:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

It's one of those that could go either way.   There were better ways to address the Libyan issue.

Idea: gift a soldier a Ricochet membership as a way to thank them for their service.

Background:

• So I just heard this morning the Editor's podcast in which you will soon be able to gift Ricochet memberships to others.
• And then I read Cutlass's suggestion of a grande latte and thought: why don't Ricochet members gift a soldier a membership to Ricochet?
• I'm sure there are plenty who would appreciate the value during the quieter times to hear, read and contribute to the best centre-right conversation site on the web.

Who knows, there may end up being a "Milblog" feed someday at the top of Ricochet?

Obama has money to spend on negative ads and they are proving effective - after all, that's why political campaigns invest their campaign money in them.

Romney has to wait until he gets the nomination when the presidential campaign money becomes available. Then he can ramp up his ads.

If he is still behind in late September, then it'll  be time to join the rats in the lifeboats.

IMHO, it depends on your Facebook friends.  I post a lot about politics, often drawing in left-leaning friends into intellectual debate.  Surprisingly, it's a good way to test yourself and your arguments - can you be civil and persuasive?  Think of your Facebook friends as independents who could become likely voters.  They may not be confident to join the fray, but they're often listening.

I also find that a bit of humour and intellectual honesty go a long way.  Of course, the humour can be at the expense of the Left.  For example, after posting a picture of George W Bush hugging an African orphan and getting back ad hominem comments (about W), I wrote "It's great that we now have someone much smarter in the White House as President of all 57 states in the US. A worldly man that even knows a few words in Austrian."

Nanda - be my guest.  It took me five minutes to parody it.

Taking apart Julia would take much longer - since it's such a rich vein for ridicule.

 1) Near-zero: I think an endorsement from an early drop-out due to lack of popularity is even more diluted in effect than a run-of-the-mill endorsement (I think a previously-popular-but-disgraced candidate's endorsement would be better).

2) Does Buddy Roemer count?  If not, then I would have thought Perry - he seems to be going through the motions and the Santorum, Paul, Gingrich triumvirate of non-Romney has crowded him out, money or no money.

3) Proportional representation in pre-April states + marathon debating season + the never-ending search for the non-Romney may have made him think "I'm next to rise in the polls around the New Hampshire primary".

What I would find interesting is that - assuming decisions to proceed / drop-out are forward-looking - what did he see coming or experience, that ultimately caused the trigger?  A message from big-donor(s)?  A spike for another candidate in a purple state?

Meantime, I heard that Gingrich was so inflamed by the negative ads that he was considering dropping out ... and endorsing Romney ;)

As a Sydney-sider, it's a great city to visit, but we do have our share of progressives over here doing their best to make it economically unattractive.  Bike paths taking over what was road space.  Renewable energy being funded by ever increasing electricity charges.  And of course at the federal level, we just introduced a carbon dioxide emissions tax, a flood levy tax and soon a mining tax.

Come and sample the city's delights before we kill our golden goose.

Born and bred in Perth (once home to the America's Cup), I used to take the bus to the beach before I was old enough for a drivers license. Once I had a car, it was filled with sand. Left for the UK then returned ten years later to Sydney - living five minutes from the beach. Beachgoing is ingrained in our culture - our population is 99% coastal.

I've had many a debate with a mate living in England - which country is more libertarian? Suffice it to say neither comes close to the US. But we do have a inherent distrust in government and authority - the Eureka Stockade being a historic case.

As for media - it is polarised between Fairfax (centre-left) and Murdoch's News Corp (centre-right). Maybe it's me, but News Corp seems to do a better job at "keeping the b*st*rds honest" no matter which party is in power. Fairfax tends to pull its punches with Labor (left) governments.

Oh, and we all have barbecues. We may be the only country that enjoys eating the animals that appear on its coat of arms.

I believe the correct title is "Czarina of Counter-Person-Caused-Disasters".