How do you figure? That's a crock. Overall, the country has shifted more left, not right, over the last many decades, which has simply brought more people out from the Right to complain; so the right feels more extreme. If you're too young to remember what it was like in the '70s or '80s, you might have that mistaken impression that this is a more conservative country than it was before. It's not. And insane far left wingers match insane far right wingers. There are too many far wingers, period.

1) Government is larger than ever before. There are more social programs than ever before.
2) Politicians discuss/argue and vote over gay marriage, something even Democrats would not have touched with a 20 ft pole 20+ years ago. The fact that right wingers cite religious objections isn't anything new, and both parties would've balked at the notion.
3) Media: A really good way to get the pulse of the times. Have you even watched television, or listened to radio? What would've have been vehemently censored before is now commonplace, and no topic is off limits. There are dedicated channels for minorities and alternate lifestyles. Media is much more liberal than ever. (despite protestations from the likes of Dan Quayle)

Obamacare was rejected by the right because they were shut out of much of the process by a majority D 111th congress, the public option was dropped, and because it was rushed through; no one knew exactly what was in it's 10,000+ pages.

hon hon hon

You're being overly semantic. "Pop" in that context is indeed a modern idiom, a shortening of "pops out", often used to describe an HDTV picture, where the factory sets the color and contrast extra high on TVs so the picture just "pops" on the store display floor. Sort of a 3D-ish effect, or extremely vivid.

Especially if you encounter space bears! They're worse than moon bats.

Nooo... really? When did that come out?
That's why I often resort to Amazon. But since I have a Staples less than 2 miles from my house, it would be nice if they carried more than 2 brands of pen or whatever.. and I wouldn't have to wait for it.. and pay shipping as well. Same with Home Depot too, Lowes carries all the little odds and ends I can never find at a Home Depot.

Well, there goes the last decent brick'n'mortar office store, who had previously merged with Office Max. Staples only carries the most base of common office supplies, their inventory was never as diverse as Office Depot. Everytime I looked for something a little different , like Frixion pens, or the Pilot Plumix, when they first came out, there was no sign of them at Staples - "Yeah, we got that" ?? No, no you don't. But the other two always did. Now it's game over, and yet another monopoly has formed.
RIP Sherman Act.

So do subscribers. I'm paying Comcast nearly $100 a month for the privilege of watching material which comprises about 35% commercials, if not more. I gotta cut that cable.

That's why they listed it as an idiom.

It's a common enough idiom.

http://dictionary.reference.co...

verb (used with object), comprised, comprising.
1. to include or contain:
The Soviet Union comprised several socialist republics.

2. to consist of; be composed of:
The advisory board comprises six members.

3. to form or constitute:
Seminars and lectures comprised the day's activities.

Idioms:

4. be comprised of, to consist of; be composed of:
The sales network is comprised of independent outlets and chain stores.

Oh, well done. You managed to cover at least two common liberal bullet points in that argument, but 3 or more out of 5 is preferred: 1) Name calling - make sure to call someone an idiot or a moron, insults always give your point more credibility!
2) Fox News - even if it has FUCK ALL to do with the topic, this is mandatory, or points will be deducted!

However, you disappointingly failed at several other golden opportunities here:
3) The Koch brothers - always worth a mention to drive home the "evil" branding, relevance not necessary (ala Fox News)
4) A knock on a Bush, preferably W., but nowadays Jeb is a good target
5) A Hate label: your political enemy *must* always be clearly labeled at least one kind of hater of some kind, made into a 2D caricature; from any of the following:
* Racist
* Bigot
* Homophobe
* Islamophobe
* Warmongering / Facist
or in this case,
* Denier
although you didn't actually state as such, so on second thought, you get a "C+", though originally I was leaning towards a "B-".

But in 2023 they debunked that experiment, as I recall..

Not justifying the massive spying, but simply addressing the core logic presented here: Even if something is not 100% effective, does not mean it's useless:
Why have cops? Crime still happens. Why have diagnostic medical tests, yet people still get diseases. May as well stop chemotherapy too, I still have about 5% of the original cancer cells left that the first four treatments didn't kill. Many plots have been thwarted, particularly lately, and except in cases where a previously unknown informant steps forward out of the blue, the information comes from their spies and monitoring.
I'm only saying the objection to the spying should be based on privacy and personal freedom, not it's effectiveness; that's a different argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://www.theguardian.com/pol...
Now, you easily argue, tally up all those thwarted attacks, are they worth the cost to our liberties? Again, I'm not debating that. Clearly privacy is dead, between the data-mining corporations, and the governments.
We are product. We are potential suspects.

Such humble acumen shall not be tolerated here; This is SLASHDOT!! **kicks you down an elevator shaft

Amen to that. They're already a monopoly in my area, and act like one. There is no way any good can come of this for the consumer. I've started calling them Con-cast. Their service leaves much to be desired, it's pushy and disingenuous. And, after trying to upgrade my subscription to HD this weekend, I never even received the confirmation email I was supposed to get, so I doubt it's even in their records.

This. Both Christie and Cuomo are taking flak.
The use of the term, "scaremongering" in the summary is childish paranoid bullshit. Some people are too stupid or arrogant to realize that hindsight is 20/20, and forecasting is and always will be (for the foreseeable future) an inexact science. So, some butthurt whiners were inconvenienced by the safety measures enacted, yet had the opposite been the case, where the threat of the storm was under-represented and it turned out to be catastrophic, ala Sandy, they'd have been the first ones to scream about incompetent government preparation. Add to this the fact that people might've been genuinely endangered in such a scenario, and it's obvious to anyone capable of reason that it's better to be safe than sorry.
Besides, as it was, New England got hammered, it's just that North Jersey and NYC got off light, since the storm's path was some miles east from the predicted model.