>Why not? The byproducts are very small in volume, and quite well protected/contained.

For now... or rather "not really".
Quothing XKCD:
"Spent fuel from nuclear reactors is highly radioactive. Water is good for both radiation shielding and cooling, so fuel is stored at the bottom of pools for a couple decades until itâ(TM)s inert enough to be moved into dry casks. We havenâ(TM)t really agreed on where to put those dry casks yet. One of these days we should probably figure that out."

A community organiser with a law degree mind you. Just like Lincoln actually...

>lest they reinforce that the right is nothing but misogyny incarnate.

If there weren't over 400 anti-choice laws passed by republican state legislatures JUST last year, then maybe that perception wouldn't be true.

>A candidate who has successfully opposed unions is a candidate who has successfully opposed entrenched power, and that should be a tremendous plus.

No it's the exact opposite of what America needs. What you desperately NEED is another Teddy Rooseveldt. You need a man who DEFENDS unions and goes to war against oligarchies and monopolies. Who actively promotes environmental protection and realizes that severe inequality WILL lead to revolution and so takes it upon himself to ensure the market is REALLY free, labour conditions are safe and paid fairly, and hold corporations to account.

The greatest irony of the 21st century is hearing people call Obama a liberal. He is centre-right at best. Now Rooseveldt, HE was a liberal worthy of the name.

>essentially you like politicians who agree with your political opinions.

Erm... yeah, that's sort of the whole POINT of having elections.

Now what I can tell you is there is no way the Reps can take the whitehouse again as long as they court the batcrap crazy and the religious right so exclusively. Their extreme partisan behaviour under Obama has done them NO favours and in presidential elections the liberals actually VOTE.
The only way they can win now is if they can get a candidate who has broad appeal outside that narrow band. Somebody who can get the independents to vote for them.
Even an old-school republican has a shot.

The trouble is that to get the nomination you need to win a bunch of elections where ONLY those religious right extremists vote and the teaparty has enormous influence.
Mit learned last time round that going batshit crazy to win the nomination and then somehow getting back to the centre for the national election is REALLY hard.

If the reps want a shot at this - they need somebody who can appeal across the aisle, and that person needs to be able to convince the batcrap crazies to give her the nomination first.
Trust me, it's going to be a very interesting 18 months ahead.

And of course the irony is that their ideology never actually works, but it does turn them into valuable useful idiots.
The sincere ones among them want to cut things like crony-capitalism, regulatory capture and corporate welfare as well.
But that NEVER happens, instead by using their support for "small government" big business simply gets to have government plunder all the actual services it provides, and social safety netts and hand over the results to MORE crony capitalism.
I think the perfect example was Denver where the local government basically just took everybody's pensions because they "couldn't afford to pay them anymore" - but never cut a penny of their corporate welfare bill - which could have paid the pension liabilities ten times over !

Even their lord and saviour Ronald Reagan pulled of the scam perfectly. In theory the Laffer-curve based tax-cut concept is that you cut taxes for EVERYBODY, so EVERYBODY has more money, people spend it to buy things - and this means more business open (since there are customers to supply) so that means more jobs - and so even though you cut taxes very soon your revenues are higher than before. It ONLY works if you are AT the Laffer curve peak -any other time the tax cuts will simply mean less revenue, and the theory also demands that when you do it you cut ALL spending to the bone so you stay liquid until the increased revenue realizes, at which point you are supposed to end the austerity and use this higher revenue to fund bigger projects and MORE expansive social safety netts.

But you won't hear THAT from the politicians, they take a sound economic theory out of it's very narrow context and then apply it across the board - and what's worse, they only apply half of it. What DID Reagan do ?
He cut taxes only on the rich, then he increased spending - a LOT - especially on the military, and cut the social safety nett.
That's been the republican playbook ever since despite that fact that it never worked once in all that time. Well worked at what they said it would do - as a means of handing over poor and middle class folk's taxes to rich people it works brilliantly.

And the small government libertarians are the idiots who keep electing them because they promise to make government smaller and still haven't figured out the scam.

Palin, Bachman, Fiorina... she certainly fits the mould of the average republican female candidate: "I have a vagina and I'm not afraid to insert my head into the cavity right next to it !"

No, no, wrong Jesus. I was talking about Ron Reagan, he is the son of god right?

As far as they're concerned Obama is a brown-skinned foreign socialist who gives away free healthcare.

I think they got him confused with Jesus...

>Your anecdotal fallacy of what an ideal work day provides nothing of value to the conversation

The country of France is an anecdotal ?

Mind you Appartheid was ALSO defended on the grounds of Calvinist Christianity - I should know, it was MY people who came up with that piece of stupid.

>race is not an issue of Christianity for any but a very few loonie

But this is a recent development - it was a major issue for them in the past. Slavery was defended on the grounds of Christianity, as was segregation.
Indeed - I would go so far as to say the only REASON why it isn't a major issue with Christianity today is BECAUSE the civil rights act made it illegal to discriminate in the way most Christians 70years ago thought they were supposed to and the churches eventually adapted.

>There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times.

Erm no they don't. As a bisexual person let me school you: I don't "choose a man sometimes" and "choose a woman" other times - at ALL times I'm attracted to men and at the same time to women.
Who I choose to sleep with on this occasion is determined by availability, individual attraction and circumstance - but it's not a choice about WHAT I'm attracted to, I am ALWAYS attracted to BOTH.
Bisexual is not something distinct from gay or straight - which are not THAT distinct from each other. Sexual orientation is a spectrum and nobody is entirely at EITHER end. The closer you are to the middle the more bisexual you will identify.

> That ability to change indicates a choice

No it doesn't, you have no evidence to back that up and the testimony of most people who make such changes do not support your assertion: the vast majority would say they were lying before that point, usually out of fear of oppression.
Even if you could factor those out - the remaining few may not indicate a choice at all - you yourself gave one reason why not: hormone changes.
Sexual orientation is a physical attribute of our bodies (including our brains) - like all other physical attributes it can change over time - but that doesn't constitute a "choice" anymore than you CHOOSE to have your hair turn gray or your scalp go bald when you get older.

Now imagine this little scenario:
I own a dingleberryjuice bar in California, so I need a regular supply of dingleberries to squeeze for juice.
I am currently getting these imported but I hear that a company in Indian is supplying them and might be cheaper, so I send one of my top quality assessors to Indiana to go look at their product and determine if it's suitable for our needs.
He gets there on his business trip but he can't find anywhere to stay because every hotel is refusing him a room for being gay...

Interstate commerce just got fucked over by this law.

Now this scenario is interesting because if you replace "gay" with "black" you have EXACTLY the scenario that LBJ's administration sketched before the supreme court when the civil rights act was challenged on exactly the same grounds you are using to defend this.

And if it messes with interstate commerce - it's outside the scope of states rights and INSIDE the scope of federal law.

The US would of course have to block the road where it hits NYC to prevent trade with them... leading to a 13-thousand mile traffic jam ?