However, strict logic when speaking may make you an asshole, but it tends to make you a great lawyer. Funny how that works.

I think you are confusing wisdom for intelligence. Politicians tend to be very wise when it comes to understanding what makes people tick and how to get people to like them enough to vote for them.

Then they get on Senate committees and blabber on about topics they have absolutely no business talking about because they are ignorant on the subject.

The intelligent person knows when it's raining. The wise person knows to get in out of the rain.

If you havent watched either one in years or decades, how do you know they are boring? Maybe it's you.

That the Fugitive Slave Act was deemed constitutional? But the 13th Amendment to the CONSTITUTION made that irrelevant, didn't it?

Clearly, you aren't salaried.

I never understand why the most insightful comments about the topic at hand, the one that actually sheds some light on the topic by someone who might know a little about it, is always at the bottom of a thread on /.

Pedantry is alive and well, it seems. I understood him just fine. Perhaps you should of not been so pedantic.

Rush isn't really all that well known for journalistic integrity.

Yeah, except for the simple fact that you are wrong and he is right. You may be painting with a broad stroke but you are using the wrong color.

Well, it would depend entirely on his reasons for taking over the world. I have an open mind about these sorts of things.

So what is the limit here? If he had donated all 30,000,000 of that money, would it then be ok to go after him? What about 50$?

The issue is the principle of the thing. I dislike Sheldon Adelson, and so when I go to Vegas, I try not to stay at any of his hotels, because I don't want to give money to a man who actively supports causes that I find offensive. Am I "blowing it out of proportion" but not staying at his hotels, even when the amount of money I'd give him by doing so is very small?

At the end of the day, this guy actively supports a cause that, rightly or wrongly, many of his employees find offensive; that is, the quest to deny gay folks the right to marry whomever they choose. For a lot of people, that is an incredibly important issue, and so, yes, even donating 1000$ to that cause would cause me to seriously question working for him.

We don't know this...he could have faced the "resign or be fired" ultimatum from the board, which is pretty much the same thing.

Europe is virtually free of gun-related deaths.

Strangely, they all have one thing in common: restrictive gun laws.

The US has 80 guns per 100 people, and an extremely high rate of gun deaths.

Ergo, restrict guns, enfoce it, and you will have less gun violence. It's quite simple. It's not a fantasy...there are places in the world where people can walk the streets without fear of being shot, and those places by and large ban or restrict private ownership of guns.

It's simple, because it's true. And I know you pro-gun fetishists won't ever admit it. But fewer guns = less gun violence. It's a fact. Wiggle around all ya want.

The laws about marriages have only until recently said that two consenting adults could marry.
With the passage of anti-gay marriage laws, those laws were changed to specify that marriages were only to be between a man and a woman, because idiots like you were afraid that guy folks would marry each other.

So before, they DID have the same rights as straight folks...the ability to marry WHOMEVER THEY CHOSE.

But by passing the anti-gay marriage laws, you are RESTRICTING their rights to marry whoever they choose, and LIMITING it to a marriage between a man and a woman. Why is it so hard for you bigots to get this SIMPLE FACT?

You didn't expect your statement to be so profound...you should be criticized for this.