They reported it. Just like they report what is going on now. The problem stems from the "fair and balanced" approach to news, where they report pretend these kinds of issues have "two sides". For all their reporting about Guantanamo and waterboarding, what came of it? Absolutely nothing. Gitmo is still opened, and no one will ever be prosecuted for war crimes. They did a fine job of presenting "both sides" until a segment of the American population condoned torture and other illegal activities.

Without partisan hypocrisy, it wouldn't be so easy for them to get away with it. The same people that want to impeach Obama for the patriot act and NDAA, were totally silent when Bush was in charge. Conversely many who wanted Bush impeached, now seem to just look the other way and yawn now that "their team" is in charge.

One thing I've learned from observing politics closely for 20 years is that partisans are the most hypocritical bunch on the planet, regardless of ideology. So you can claim Romney will be treated easier by the press, but the fact is that the ruling class get's it easy no matter what, as long as they play ball, and our current president (despite being called a communist) has played ball so well that wall street recovered while main street is still in a recession. I don't see Rick Santelli ranting about needing a tea party now thew Dow is over 10k again.

Another fine example of why I hold right-wing libertarians in utter contempt.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The press didn't give a shit when Bush was doing it, they don't give a shit now that Obama is doing it, and they won't give a shit if Romney does it. They have their orders from their parent companies who all also own defense contractors.

I don't have to respect the opinions of dangerous idiots.

And as you see from the response to this posting, libertarians are not immune from idiocy.

No one is advocating that they can inject "ANY" chemical they "desire", you half-wit. If you distrust this government so much, just leave. No one is forcing you to stay.

How is this bullshit rated insightful?

No, I'm certain the word I was looking for is evangelical. In the past presidential candidates did not wear their religion so proudly on their sleeve. To say that evangelicals don't advocate anything that is not mainstream is laughable, regardless of how many followers they have.

I wonder if hands with no thumbs make a different noise when clapping.

The data I have is my observation of politics for the past 20 years. The evangelicals are not going anywhere, as they represent the largest voting bloc the Republicans have. Ron Paul can turn out younger people to his rallies, but it does not translate into votes, otherwise he'd be sitting higher than 2-5% in these primaries. Rick Santorum, running as the evangelical candidate has been utterly cleaning Paul's clock state after state. The problem is that the younger generation is so turned off by social conservatism, they don't vote Republican in large enough numbers to make any sort of difference. The ones that do are the ones that sympathize with the evangelicals. Just look at this primary. It came down to the emissary for the 1%, or evangelical Santorum. I don't see the younger generation represented there at all.

Going from Arch Linux experience it would probably be in their repo in 50 hours, going by your 48 hour example.

Honest question: Why do you visit this site?

What for The People's Fusion Research Kickstarter Project? Here is a crazy idea: Some people are just fine with their tax money going to fundamental research.
I tire of the tax trolls that plague this site.

Keep telling yourself that. I see no evidence that conservatives are moving away from the religious right, and if you do, prepare for disappointment.

You say all of that, but yet he was the only real competitor Romney has had. He's won more primaries than Gingrich or Paul combined, so I don't think I'd say mainstream conservative thought has moved on from embracing the religious right at all.