What are you talking about? Everyone knows that the history books officially report 2001-2008 as the administration of George W Bush, even though Cheney was running the show. That makes him eligible to run for POTUS or VPOTUS again if he so chooses. There is no restriction on the number of terms one can serve as VP, to the best of my knowledge.

That didn't stop him from running the country for 8 years already. Why would it stop him from campaigning? If he has another heart attack he'd probably just pick some random young white guy from the crowd to be his donor and away they'd go to the hospital.

two enter, but only one returns...

No, that was Janet Reno you're thinking of. Hillary doesn't have the frame to dish out physical violence.

Don't be stupid. You can't eliminate it 100%, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying to reduce it. The US has a vastly higher rate of per-capita gun accidents leading to death than any other country, and it is because the gun culture has convinced us that it is OK for innocent children to die randomly in these kinds of accidents.

The way to prevent these from happening is to prevent people from being so stupidly cavalier with their weapons. A few things can be improved right away:

• Mandatory background checks on every weapon sale, everywhere, period. Nobody needs a gun so quickly that a 24 hour wait for a background check would be that terrible of a burden. The reason why there is so much opposition to this is because the gun companies are afraid they will lose sales from people who go in, start the paperwork, then don't bother coming back to finish the transaction after the background check is complete.
• Every gun comes with an external trigger lock and every customer is educated on how to use it.
• Every gun is fully traced for every sale, including between private owners, in a centralized database
• Every customer should be trained in proper gun safety on a regular basis so they aren't being idiots and leaving loaded weapons within the reach of small children

And finally, negligent gun owners should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as if their own hand was on the trigger. These events get brushed under the rug on a regular basis, which does nothing to encourage gun safety.

You are trivializing the tragedy when you insist that no possible solution could ever exist to lower the probability of innocent children being murdered as a result of a negligent gun owner. In our country on average one innocent child is killed every day as a result of a stupid person such as the one responsible for this killing. When you start off by mocking any attempts to try to prevent 100% preventable deaths, you not only show your hand but you show that you have no interest in discussing the matter.

That is actually a pretty big assumption you are making, there. The Neitzes do each have one R01 (research) grant through the NIH (you can look them up here if you'd like) however research on this scale can't be done with only that large of a budget. While each of those grants are six-figure totals, those are multi-year grants and they pay salaries (faculty, postdocs, grad students, and technicians), they buy supplies, and they pay the university to keep the lights on. There was certainly additional funding coming from other sources to get through to human testing.

So indeed, some of it was publicly funded, but we don't know from any of the information in front of us how much of it was publicly funded. Just because they work at a public university doesn't mean they didn't have some non-public money coming in to support their research; this is quite common today with the way research budgets work when dealing with the federal government.

That isn't a terrible request, provided you are willing to request that happen only if the corporate proceeds actually pan out. There are other faculty at public universities who try to start their own companies and the companies end up going broke without ever turning a profit.

The "last half dozen scandals" have consisted of the email server bit and 5 nonsensical conspiracies. I don't particularly like her that much but the unending stream of hatred the GOP directs at her produces semi-laughable results at times.

He declared last week, and wasn't on the front page. Why not? I'm guessing it's because Paul is a favorite object of man-love here on slashdot while Hillary is a favorite punching bag. You don't get many readers in to a celebration, but you get plenty of them for a pseudo lynching.

Faith in what, exactly? The magnitude of certainty with which you project your beliefs upon the world suggests that you have more faith than smitty and I combined.

You are projecting more than I am when you make that statement. But you're not in to reading comprehension so that statement is not surprising from you. Tell me, what is the person you voted for in the past several elections doing these days? Oh, that's right, you didn't vote. But go ahead and tell us how wrong we were for doing so.

Indeed most times reading your mind would be a waste. From your posts it appears that most of the time your mind is full of anti-obama and general anti-democrat conspiracies. There are plenty of those on the front page of slashdot on a regular basis, I don't need to exert additional effort to find them.

The only wild part about the hypothetical that you are so happily brushing off is that it assumes the democrats would have the spine to do such a thing. They have shown for decades now that they are too spineless to stand up the republicans.

But indeed you are a hypocrite. You champion causes that help your party and care nearly not at all about what happens to the rest of humanity as long as your team wins. What your team does is always awesome to you, and if the other team were to use the same strategy it would be apocalyptically bad.

But go ahead, tell us about the boogeyman again. Tell us what he is certainly preparing to do to you this afternoon.

This isn't about Walker. This is about your rank hypocrisy. If the US congress had amended the constitution in 2009 to give Obama the power to throw justices off the SCOTUS at will, you would have been screaming at the top of your lungs that it was a massive power grab that would irrevocably lead us to our country becoming an Islamofascist hellhole. But in Wisconsin, when they are trying to restack the state's supreme court in favor of a republican by changing how justices are appointed - and removed - you are championing it as a great step forward.

If Wisconsin had a democrat as governor and they were doing the exact same thing right now you would be screaming for the US justice dept to step in and prevent it from happening.

Then I will put this a slightly different way.

If President Lawnchair and the congress he had back in 2009 (which was theoretically controlled by democrats) had pushed through a proposal to remove Chief Justice John Roberts from the SCOTUS and make a seat available for them to appoint whomever they like, would you not have opposed that? So then why do you support The Kevlar Kandidate being given the right to remove the state's chief justice in spite of the constitutional structure?

You seem to have a fondness for accusing me of setting "rules". I have made no effort at any such thing, in spite of your accusations to the contrary. I'm merely pointing out the logical contradiction to use an analogy in two opposing ways. But go on...

So then are you saying now that the Progressivism you love to hate that was around back then is not the same as the Progressivism that you claim to see now that you also love to hate? Logically if they were the same movement, and there was already a climax, then what we see now should be inferior to what used to exist.

I have not been deliberately misleading, in spite of your claim to the contrary. Your claim to be some how more in tune with my intentions than me seems to fall well under your own accusation of