George Mitchell did it. Bill Frist did it. Mitch McConnell did it.

I am not saying they were never assholes behind the scenes ... I am saying, they are not nearly the assholes in public that Reid constantly is. The guy tells baldfaced, defamatory, bullshit lies to the public pretty much every time he opens his mouth in front of a microphone.

I do not believe anything you say, so the fact that you claim it is not evidence the "challenge" was ever made, or accepted.

I gave you a specific example of Jimmy Carter, though I didn't quote or cite it. But why would I? It doesn't meet your mythical "challenge," so as best I can tell, you don't care about it.

Yes. Jimmy Carter said Joe Wilson's "you lie!" was based on racism.

But I do not accept your mythical "challenge." But, you can no longer claim no evidence has been presented.

(Prediction: you will dishonestly claim that no evidence has been presented.)

You're a liar. Quote me implying that.

I was thinking of elected officials. But yes, I still would put him below Reid, but probably closer to .8 or above, both because of his policies, his lies that the policies he attacks are racist, his race-respective enforcement of policies, his refusal to accept the valid oversight of Congress, his lies about Fast and Furious, his responsibility for the death of Paul Walker ...

Ohwait.

But still, the other stuff.

Nah. Not even close. Neither Clinton is half as much of an asshole as Reid. They just seem worse because they were in the White House.

I know of no specific challenge. But yes, the left and Democrats cry racism all the time. Actual politicians.

Well, most politicians are too smart to call specific things racist, because they know they can't back it up. Instead, they say that, collectively, the opposition to Obama is based on racism, bullshit like that (which Jimmy Carter infamously has done, multiple times). And the Democrats (led by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz) often call specific policies racist, including, but not limited to laws against abortion, promoting election integrity, promoting reductions in the welfare state, and so on (not to mention immigration).

I don't know anything about a specific challenge given, or accepted. I do know that anyone who claims the Democrats don't lie about racism all the damned time are full of shit.

If there is anyone I take less seriously than damn_registrars, it is Harry Reid. He actually said the Koch brothers "are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine."

Oh, I can think of someone far more un-American than they are. Looking right at you, "Senator."

Is there a bigger asshole in politics than Harry Reid? OK, Alan Grayson ... I mean someone with power and importance, though.

No one takes damn_registrars seriously. The left says this all the time, especially on MSNBC. Every week, probably. Maybe every day.

I was at, and performed in, one of the very first Tea Party events. I also performed at another shortly after the first. I attended a third shortly after. Black people were on the stage at each of the three (in particular, an elected representative, the wife of the organizer, and an MC). I guess they all hated black people.

Kristol is right: it's bullshit.

That's not to say there aren't some racist people who associate with the Tea Party. But then again, there's a bunch of liberal racists around here in Seattle (in particular, there are anti-Israeli racists, and there are racists who think that blacks are required to think a certain way or else they are "Uncle Tom").

Racists are everywhere. Yes, including in the Tea Party. But there is zero substantive evidence that racism played a significant role in the rise of the Tea Party. It's all circumstantial: it happened when a black man became President. But it would've happened if Edwards or Clinton had won the election, too. I know this because I am one of them, and I know lots of them.

Maybe they could all play "the hamster dance" song as they go down the street? Or maybe loop something from "what the fox says".

"Da ding ding dinga ding" -- "oh, here comes another Tesla!"

Or fraudulently claim certain documents had been authenticated.

It wasn't 10 years ago -- therefor it wasn't correct. What you are describing happened in 2013. They "rolled" most of the PDDs together last year. They were all under the PDD spectrum before then.

It also wouldn't be correct now. Aspergers is on the "Autism Spectrum", but is STILL separate from Autism. To call Aspergers "Autism" is to provide a misdiagnosis.

Support for various disorders were based on DX. Still is, as far as I know. And the treatment/therapy for Autism is often quite different for other PDDs on the spectrum such as Aspergers.

My son was dx'd with autism about 10 years ago by Kaiser. I had him re-evaluated at my expense because his symptoms and the criteria made no sense to me. He was later dx'd with Aspergers.

I asked the Kaiser doc about it and my response was "Well, there's not a lot of financial help or school support available for Aspergers -- there is for Autism". Wonderful.

Horseless carriage should be an OPTION. Horse-drawn buggy should be an OPTION.

As long as there is an economic reason to have physical media, It will continue to be produced and you will continue to have that option.

Don't be surprised if one day DVDs or BR or whatever media is no longer produced because it's no longer profitable. Right now, *I* like owning a number of DVD/BR. I like the box. I like how they look in my shelf. I like the DVD extras. I like how I can take them to a friends house to watch without having any complicated issues like logging in to my own XYZ account (netflix, amazon, hulu, whatever). I like that I can sell them when I no longer want them and that ownership transfers. I am willing to PAY for those things in the form of a $20-$100+ dvd or special box deal. As time moves forward, I would guess that fewer and fewer of us will be willing to pay for that. They'd rather pay $3 or $4 bux a pop and rent it on google play or amazon or itunes. And that might make the best sense for them.

Re-read what I posted.

"I'm all for advances in science improving the QUALITY of life and allowing us to live as long as we naturally can -- but to live forever? "

Where do I say we aren't living past our "natural lifespan". You seem to read "average" in to my sentence though I never said "average".

Considering that it was how we moved big stuff in to space and current relations with Russia going south (with Russia being our only ticket to the ISS), we better get to those "potential future programs" pretty damn fast.