They've always removed me from the jury pool, by asking a question designed to show whether I was intelligent or not. Last time it was, "How believable is a police officer compared to a member of the public?" My response included that the officer had training in observation and recollection, so would likely be a slightly better recording device than a common human, so perhaps 55%, or 60%, instead of 50/50? The judge said, and I quote, "Next."

Exactly! Just like he threatened a veto on NDAA, and said he would close Gitmo.

Reminds me of the test for cops, that kicked applicants out for being too intelligent. "If you can see through our shit, then you're not good enough for us!"

Perhaps not directly; however: how am I to pursue this happiness when I keep running into security checkpoints?

Reading comprehension much? I realize there's only one letter difference, but he wasn't talking about which administration created it; he was talking about the terrorists, and how they're winning. We are now less free than we were last millennium. But still, project your rage.

Currently no mod points; I read the parent because of your post, and am glad that I did, so I'm echoing the sentiment.

Many of us are witness to what the mainstream media has been doing and continues to do regarding the Ron Paul campaign. He just won at least half the delegates in both Iowa and Missouri; the only way I know about this is from reading the comments in "hit piece" articles about Ron Paul's "failing campaign".

During these past few months, my relationship with the television has been changing as well. I'm no longer really interested in the stories that it has to tell me; reality is much more interesting (like that Chinese curse).

Put me on that jury, and I will accept exactly that. Touching someone in their "private" area uninvited is definitely close to rape, and is physical harm. I agree with the rest of what you wrote.

What's weird is to think that these people are the result of unfunded federal mandates like No Child Left Behind...

Why ethanol? It seems like renewable forms would be much better and would not disrupt the food supply (and pricing). If you're talking about automobiles, we should move towards the new IBM "breathable" batteries, which weigh much less because they get some of their power from the atmosphere. Batteries in cars make the most sense, because it decouples "power generation" from "power usage"; the batteries can be filled from energy produced via water, wind, sun, nuclear, coal, fusion, and whatever the next quantum-based energy source is. (Siblings said similar statements, albeit with much more vitriol...)

IIRC near the beginning of season 2, Jack Bauer killed a suspect in custody. I think the good guys lost their moral compass years ago... (Besides, what "good guys"? The government is just the last thug standing.)

You have this backwards. To Ron Paul supporters, centralized banking is a recipe for extracting the wealth from a nation, through continuous boom/bust cycles, the boom being "easy credit" so people who shouldn't qualify for mortgages, do; the bust being "tightening credit" so those who shouldn't have qualified for mortgages are foreclosed on.

A stable currency won't "magically" cause these cycles to disappear. Moving away from centralized banking and fiat currency, will -- not magically, but because those cycles were designed in to the Fed's long con from the start.