And oh how befuddled the Left becomes when they get it better than they give it!

Damn straight.

One other thing about Kirk - his character development is totally different that in the original timeline (as it should be).  In this film, he no longer relies on cheating death and truly faces the Kobayashi Maru "no-win" scenario by sacrificing himself for his crew - parellelling what Spock does in "Wrath of Khan".  It'll probably make him  a little less "Kirk-ish" going forward (as we knew the character from TOS) but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

They even made reference to the "needs of the many" quote - nice touch.

I enjoyed it (saw it last night).  The only thing the bothers me a bit is the complete lack of explanation for Khan himself.  Certainly anyone remotely familiar with Star Trek already knows but at no point does Kirk or anyone else say, "Wait...What?  Exactly where did this guy come from?"

I know that part of the movie was moving at a fast pace but surely they could have taken 2 minutes of exposition to properly explain why he and his people were in those cryogenic tubes.

Also, the whole Eugenics War aspect of the "trek" history could have been adjusted in the time line.  Originally, it supposedly happened in the 1990's.  They need to move that up - and refer to Khan's time in cryogenic statis as being more like 200 years from that present (the early 2260's), not 300 years.

Because everybody agrees that, on "The Golden Girls", Bea Arthur was the "sexy" one.

Fred, I think Rand Paul is about as close to a true Libertarian as you're going to get right now.  If he has eyes on running in 2016, he's going to temper the comparisons to his father on certain issues.

No one should be spared the humiliation of having a dozen waiters and waitresses at TGIFriday's clapping and singing at their table - no matter how old they are.

How about we get over the idea that this is somehow our business to be "proponents" of whether people should marry early or late?

As a personal communication medium, it's all but useless.  However, as a marketing tool it's of incalculable value - including politics.

It's fast (instantaneous) and can potentially reach a ridiculously large number of recipients.  It's the ultimate "rapid-response" tool and if the tweet (or included link/picture) is compelling enough it can even change the direction of public opinion.  It's a force not to be underestimated and "social media" is one of the reasons the Obama campaign clobbered the GOP twice.

That being said, I personaly rarely tweet (mostly re-tweet) and only now that I have an iPhone do I even check it now and again.

For the under-30 crowd, however, it's a way of life and it's only growing in popularity with each passing day.

Get with it, get out of the way or get run over.

Troy, you're of course referring to the special place in hell reserved for child molestors and people who speak at the theater.

1.

I don't believe in "global warming" as a phenomenon linked to human activity.

The globe has warmed and cooled repeatedly over its long history.  It's a natural occurance.  To focus on one or two decades out of millions of years is ridiculous.

"All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again."

Trust me, this guy hasn't cast a single ballot during his entire period of eligibility (12 years).

We seem to forget that about 50% of citizens 18 years and older DO NOT VOTE at all.  They'd giggle at the suggestion or say "whatever" as they roll their eyes.

Let's not lump these meatheads in with low information voters.  They may be "low information"-driven but they show up on Election Day.  We need to take them a bit more seriously than a guy who blows a couple large on a plush banana.

Salvatore Padula is right on the money.  We can goof on the people we need to persuade and feel superior but it doesn't mitigate the reality that if we don't persuade at least some of them then we're looking at one-party rule for the foreseeable future.

And it won't be the Republican party.

Islamic Terrorists are just like Terminators: They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until all infidels are dead.

You can have compassion for them if you feel you should, but it makes no difference to their jihad.

The founders gave the Federal government explicit, inumerated - limited - powers.  They did not intend for it to be interpreted that the Federal government had the power of economic planning, aid to education, a government-run retirement program, government-run health care, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, energy prodcution, public housing or any other power not explicitly put in the U.S. Constitution.

Laws intended to make citizens more virtuous or "shape" society are no better that those listed above regardless of what George Washington or anyone else believed about the role of religion in public discourse. 

If it's not a power specifically enumerated within the Constitution, that Federal power should not exist.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

The people of the United States of America created a government specifically for the purpose of secure these natural rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - not to create a society in a form that some of us desire.

I find the idea of government creating laws for the purpose of "molding and shaping" us as falling under the category of "destructive of these ends".

"Most days, I have very little control over the hours in which I sleep...(Six unbroken hours is a very good night.)...My days are largely dedicated to putting out fires and meeting the most urgent demands. I mop spills. I settle fights. I change diapers. I sweep the dining room floor of mud and/or dropped food at least three times a day. Trust me, that’s not excessive."

Rachel, you're describing a day that's not dissimilar to one for me or my wife and I'll throw in a 9-year old autistic child for good measure.

Because of these conditions, I'm even more committed to preserving my and my family's "freedom to do stuff" in the few moments that we actually get to do that stuff.

I appreciate that you recognize that there are arguments that SoCons have trouble accepting or understanding.  Honestly, I've pretty much given up with the arguments.  I'm a conservative and a Republican, committed to liberty.  If SoCons want to vote or not vote with me, they can make that decision without any interference from me.

I'm not all that concerned.