Yes, the 40 million or so people who voted for Dubya had nothing whatsoever to do with his win.

But could you explain to me again how it is Ralph Nader's fault that the Democrats have the White House, the House of Representatives and a super-majority in the Senate and still can't get much of anything worthwhile done?

I respond that you are confused about the nature of a corporation, and that your opinion is not based on facts, however forcefully stated. The fact is that a few friends can start an organization with the goal of promoting their political views, and without the government telling them anything about what they may say. That organization is not a corporation.

A corporation in our legal system is a legal fiction, a tool designed to promote free enterprise usually by shielding the people involved from liability for the actions of the corporation. Thus, e.g. a small businessman doesn't lose his house and savings when his company craters. The government creates a corporation as a creature of the state by granting a charter, and that charter gives the corporation certain special rights and responsibilities compared to the hypothetical group of friends getting together, as above.

A corporation in our legal system -- and this is key to understanding objections to Citizens United -- has a legal identity separate and independent of the people involved. This is a useful concept in some ways. For example, in bankruptcy liquidation, a receiver may fire all the employees and disband the board of directors, but the corporation still exists in the eyes of the law.

People criticize the Citizens United ruling because it gives this independent legal entity some of the same rights as people, although it has many privileges granted by the government that people do not have. Crucially, the people in a corporation do not lose their individual free speech rights just because they are associated with the corporation. As individuals, they can speak out and give money to political campaigns. There are certain rules limiting the financing of political campaigns, ostensibly to protect the integrity of the democratic process. However, because it opens the door for the independent legal identity of a corporation to pour money into the political process, Citizens United gives the people who control that legal identity an easy end-run around the campaign-finance rules. Remember, the corporate officers still have all the rights to participate in the political process as individuals, but now they have a new, enormous avenue to participate in addition to their individual rights.

Perhaps you don't have a problem with that, but plenty of us do feel that it is wrong to inject the profit motive directly into the political process, in addition to the innumerable indirect ways it already (allegedly) harms people by distorting the process. That's a valid point that can be argued without dismissing your opponent's views categorically.

How about we declare that embryos are Muslim? Then it's okay to kill them by the dozens and the media won't report it.

P.S. Yes, the above is sarcasm.

The thing that I find most interesting about this argument is that the predominant sides of the argument consist of the side that says, "These guys were irresponsible/criminal Rambo-types. They/we need to do better!" versus the side that says, "These were good soldiers doing the best they could in trying circumstances. Bad things happen in war."

Now, considering that the fighting in Iraq is an anti-insurgency campaign, and the U.S. military is supposed to be winning "hearts and minds," dead civilians, dead reporters, wounded/dead children foster hatred of the U.S. and undermine the mission. Therefore, the people defending those soldiers and saying that mistakes happen are essentially saying this:

"This war cannot be won."

Still waiting for that logic, rather than this sophistry.

That's not how it works, though. With these targeting killings, the guys in Arizona can't do investigation with a drone 1,000 feet in the air. They get passed intelligence that a target is in a particular location. They pilot the drone to that location, do some cursory verification that the situation looks like the scenario they were told to look for (e.g. a caravan of vehicles or a building) and they blow it up.

We wanna know where that intelligence came from for these targeted killings. I don't think anybody is losing any sleep over drones blowing up guys engaged in firefights with U.S. troops.

Exactly. Because the program is secret. Which is why the ACLU is trying to get the details, to ensure that there is no abuse.

When you start using that logic and common sense, let us know.

You're just begging the question. How did they get designated as enemy combatants? Essentially, only because the President said so. Maybe based on facts, maybe not. How do we know?

Prove it.

So, do you agree with the following: One day, the President or one of his people decides that they don't like your, rworne's, politics and decide that you should be taken out on your trip to Spain. The President declares you an enemy combatant. You no longer have any rights. It does not matter whether you have ever engaged in hostilities against the United States. There is no burden of proof. No due process. You do not have the right to challenge that designation in a court of law. You might plead with the President personally, if you somehow find out about it, but it will do you no good. You have no legal recourse. You do not have any appeal process whatsoever. You're just dead.

Is this okay with you? Or do you honestly believe that all government officials are honest as the day is long and that none of them will ever abuse this power?

Real1tyCzech, you are an enemy combatant and are therefore not to be afforded any Geneva Convention protections.

No, no, stop, stop! I know what you're going to say, so don't even try to protest that you've never engaged in hostilities toward the United States. It doesn't matter. Nobody cares. There's no due process. You don't get to protest this designation in court. The President says that you're an enemy combatant, and that's that.

Any plane you hear approaching now could be the last. Enjoy!

Right, this guy attempted self-immolation as a protest, and it was all over the national news for days. There's no need to pull off something spectacular to get noticed in this country.

</sarcasm>

One word: Trantor!

Just imagine 3D visuals of Hari Seldon's arrival on the imperial planet at its height, and later the ruined planet inhabited by the Hamish. I've been dreaming about the possibilities for a movie vision of Trantor since CGI became widespread.

Pity about the story, though...

As long as we're bitching about English proficiency, this is one of my pet peeves. You're a guy, and you have a fiance, so that tells me you must live in one of those few countries or 5 U.S. states that allows such marriages/civil unions, right?

(Hint: Look up "fiance" versus "fiancee." The distinction has become much more important lately.)

I don't get it; what's missing?

Oh, right! The Constitution Party.