If I may play devil's advocate:  the NBC article says that Rosen was soliciting sensitive information about North Korea.  His source allegedly gave up some information in a clandestine manner, and has now been indicted on charges that he did so.  He denies that he did so.  The justice department claims there is probable cause that Rosen violated the espionage.  Weren't the folks at the Justice Department doing their job and protecting US intelligence?  Tell me how I'm wrong here.  I want this to be a slam dunk against the administration, but I don't think it is. 

I thought for sure Obama's first term had done the same thing...but I was dead wrong.  So I'm not getting my hopes up.  I'm getting them down.

From my old Army buddy and cleaver-control advocate:  they should ban assault cleavers with unlimited chops.

The never really liked us much anyway, did they?  The world is lost and broken   It tolerated a Christian world power about as long as anyone might expect it would.  Time to stock up on beans and bullets, and keep your Bible handy.  The Three Bs.  

Thirteen responses and no one has mentioned this yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY

I'll further say this:  my comments here aren't based on some world I created in my head.  How many of you have looked into the ultrasound screen at your unborn son, who has no heartbeat?  I have seven children, three of which died before birth.  My opinion here comes from the real world, not the academic world of arguing about some political issue.

"I have no answer for it except that empirically -- out in the real world, not in the world you've created in your head -- there are a lot of people who will tell you that you're wrong; that they do in fact struggle with that very question."

Do they really, in the "real world"?  Or do they only struggle over this question within the context of the abortion debate?  Find me a person who, upon hearing those words from their doctor, or seeing the little plus sign on the stick, thinks "Gee, I wonder when this mass of tissue becomes a viable human protected under the Constitution?"  No, they think "I'm gonna have a baby!!!!!"  Or hows about that woman who finds out she's pregnant then has a miscarriage in the early weeks.  I wonder if she tries to work out if that lump of human cells has crossed the magic line so she can know whether to grieve over that lost child, or just think she's has had a heavy period.   

I'm glad we've come to an understanding...

With respect this this comment...

The other question that people of good faith struggle with is "at what developmental point, precisely, is it appropriate to call these unborn beings humans and to ascribe to them all the rights and dignity we ascribe to humans?"

...I say this:  poppycock.  Why does someone need to ask that question?  Common sense tells you the answer.  But because we have this political conversation about this issue called abortion we need some grist for our little mill.  Most people know the answer to this question without even thinking about it, outside the context of arguing about abortion.  But inside the context of abortion we like to wring our hands.  Well, I use the term "we" loosely.    

I think this statement...

I'm not parsing, I'm distinguishing. Killing human life is not the same as killing a live human. If I were to burn my arm, I would kill innumerable cells that are living and are genetically human. That is not the same thing as if I were to kill myself. If you aren't willing to make distinctions it's hard to have a conversation on a complex subject. I know that you don't see it as complex, but that (among other places) is where we disagree.

...represents argument for the sake of argument.  You have made it complex in your own mind, because you want to justify to position you've taken.  As a matter of practicality, the subject is not complex.  You are either ok with killing unborn humans, or you aren't, and the only qualifications to that are under what circumstances.  All this other nonsense is just trying to add filler to the discussion.  

I'll see your fire department, and raise you a post office.

I wish for more wishes...

Oh Tommy...

Further, it drives me nuts that more social conservatives are not politically astute.  It's not jus that they aren't active, they simply don't fully understand the political process.  they don't keep themselves informed.  They vote based on the debates rather than on their own understanding of the candidates.  And their decision making process for who to vote for usually runs along this line:  "Are they Christian?"  

All things being equal, I'd vote for the Christian over the non- because I am a Christian.  But there is a ton more to the conversation than that, and it frustrates me that many social conservative voters don't see it.  

I really don't think you can make the idealists vote for a less than perfect candidate.  And I don't think it's about idealism with them, it's about being stupid.  Example, I was sitting around the camp fire at a Cub Scout outing and in a rare moment when all the boys were running around instead of gathering around the fire, a mom asked "Who are you guys going to vote for?  I don't feel like I can vote for Romney because he's Mormon, but I can't vote for Obama."  My response was "The choice is clear:  you can either vote for a guy who isn't Christian but shares most of our values, or you can vote for a guy who claims to be Christian and share very few of our values, or you can not vote and thereby ensure the second guy wins anyway."  Another parent said "Well, I don't agree with that!"  "You don't agree with which?" I asked.  "Well, I don't know, I just know I can't vote for a Mormon."

Trink, if you don't like Miami Vice, just say so...