Oh, I guess the fact that the unborn life can't consent to its murder makes it OK?
My point being, once you've made pleasure the only guide, arbitrary rationalizations are simply a matter of creativity. No one's responsible for anything, least of all their own behavior. Huxley uber-goober.

>nothing but a big troll marathon

Well, the good news about the decadence is that it isn't sustainable.

Daily, my suspicion that the exposure of Lerner's emails would kind of blow away the GOP elite grows just a little bit.
That elite is key to getting JEB nominated, so that the #NoMasBush crowd will help us #PartyLikeIts1992.
Look for a bomb to drop as soon as JEB has the lock.

Ah, but he governs your heart, does he not? And thanks for the box turtle reference.

I cannot admit this until the bar has been lowered below necrophilia.

I thought you were going to under-bus your governor for his FaceBook posting. The one in response to the SCROTUM decision that fell short of giving me legal cover to marry a horse. Chiefly due to those penguins being a bunch of hyper-conservatives and stuff.

Chaos is coming.

I meant to. Tl;dr: gummints gonna gum.
Or, you seem to imply a foreign policy exceptionalism for the U.S. whose existence is uncertain.

Let me be perfectly clear. Christianity may be my personal life's meaning. It informs my church activities explicitly, my online interactions less so, and is mostly implicit in business activities. That is, I don't run around evangelizing on the job, for all my work activities are not in opposition to my faith.
Government is a wholly secular affair. Despite the occasional "In God We Trust" flourish, I'm quick to point out that "Christian nation" is an oxymoron. Christianity is not carried out at the national level, and the Carpenter didn't lay it down for the United States as such.
All of which leads up to my bewilderment at

Why wouldn't I? Christianity is like chess. It's all there, in plain view, the whole time. Countries are more like poker, bluffing and cheating like. . .governments.

ISWYDT

You are a deeply funny man, no doubt about that.

See, there you go applying rationality to a problem again.
I take the existence of this story to mean that Zuckerberg's campaign contributions aren't meeting Her Majesty's expectations.
Or am I being too cynical?

As Ancient Commenter Solomon noted:

Is it OK if I just hope you are proven correct, while kinda knowing that this story goes another way?