What should you do with people whose belief systems you cannot stand? Tolerate them? Or ostracize them?

Isn't it easier when the intolerable beliefs are all on your side? Then you can insist that others accept you, while feeling self-righteous all the time. However, the moment that someone else barges into your kumbaya scene, you feel not the least bit tolerant towards their opinions. Funny how that works, isn't it?

We're good. You have to say, "Candyman" FOUR times.

Whoops...

Question for everyone: what are those rules?

Aren't they supposed to be posted for comment somewhere?

It's a shame that Senator from Illinois wasn't elected President. He promised transparency.

Anyone who ever wondered how good people can support tyranny, bookmark this comment. A healthy helping of ignorance combined with unshakable faith that those other people are wrong.

"I freed myself from wearing a watch about 10 years ago. No longer having the familiar restraint around my wrist has made me feel free. I much prefer a phone in the pocket to a phone on my wrist."

And I felt the same way -- until I started wearing a pebble. I like keeping my phone in my pocket rather than taking it out 50+ times per day to see if an email or text is trivial or not.

In other words, the ACLU does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. What was your point?

Learning is an essential part of reading. Failing to comprehend, or worse, guessing at a meaning and guessing wrong, does yourself a disservice. Story? Who even said we're reading fiction?

Not Eliza -- more like PARRY:

The Feds' insistence on sweeping up all the innocent-communication "noise" is drowning out the signals. (e.g. "Hey, you might want to keep an eye on those Tsarnaev brothers -- see attached description of the stuff they were doing while they were still here in Russia.")

Indeed. This proves beyond any sane doubt that the targets are not foreigners (who for obvious reasons would ignore any "legal framework" and avoid using defective-by-design NSA-approved encryption). The targets are domestic.

And yet that is precisely what the government is pissing and moaning and setting its hair on fire about. Showing that sort of contempt for citizens' private prerogatives is what caused them to forfeit our trust in the first place.

Actually, "both of the above" (foolish and malicious) fits the available evidence best. For instance, Rogers' answers at Monday's cybersecurity forum were both pathetically lame (foolish) and contemptuous of American values (malicious).

And their fruits are rotten and infested with vermin.

You act as if the Geneva conventions are a black and white issue, but the people fighting our troops are not soldiers of any UN recognized state-- or recognized by any individual state, for that matter. Also, the rules apply to any signatory nation, even when in conflict with a non-signatory, but only if the latter agrees to accept and apply the conventions. I'd say hacking off the heads of nearly every civilian and POW that comes into their hands as an implicit non-acceptance, and definite non-application. Thus, it's difficult to apply all the rules. I also need to point out if they indeed are soldiers, then the act of putting them in Gitmo itself is, as a POW camp, perfectly legal. Alleged torture is, of course, not.