I've been here a long time, and I can't say that I ever remember conversations being rational - although they are occasionally coherent.

Wow, I wish I had mod points - this is an excellent point, and it's a primary reason that I don't use automatic bill pay. Hell, I didn't have direct deposit until my current job where I wasn't given any choice. The less companies with access to my bank account, the better.

This is the real point: if anyone actually believed that GoDaddy did a complete 180 over the course of about 24 hours, then all could be forgiven and forgotten. I don't know anyone that is buying that BS, though.

This.

The reality is that unless you can have a positive effect on the bottom line, you're spinning your wheels.

And to think that I just used the last of my mod points - well played.

Actually, whether your'e a believer or not, or religious or not, the the concept of a God is CRITICAL to our nation. This nation exists based upon the belief that we have inalienable rights that are endowed by a Creator. This is a long-established legal principle in the United States which recognizes that in a free society there must be an authority greater than government, otherwise anything that government says is legal, automatically becomes just, as well. If our rights come from government, then everything that government says is right - is right, and there is never a just cause for rebellion.

Only when you recognize that there is an authority greater than than government telling government essentially, "you may say that X is legal, but it's still wrong" can society truly be free. The alternative is, "well, that's wrong because I say it's wrong" or "that's wrong because we say it's wrong" - neither of which is a prescription for a free society for what should be obvious reasons.

Note that this model has worked quite well since the founding of the nation, in spite of the fact (or because of the fact) that the U.S. government makes no determinations about any specific religion. 80% of the conductors of the underground railroad were Catholics and Quakers - theologically completely different, but both informed by their religious beliefs that even though government said slavery was legal, it was still wrong and had to be fought. Every major moral victory over government has been won at the behest of believers in a Creator, not a single, solitary one was ever led by atheists or agnostics.

Wrong on both counts - Citizens United had nothing to do with independent expenditures by PACs.

This has nothing to do with Citizens United - it is campaign finance laws that created this. These aren't corporations running these ads, these are shadow PACs created by the campaign to sling the mud that they don't have the guts to.

If you believe that, you're a fool. Those groups are just as much a part of the campaign as the candidate. Sure, they jump through some hoops to avoid blatantly violating campaign finance laws forbidding coordination (at least at the federal level), but it is a well-known tactic to use third parties to say things that it would be unseemly for the candidate to say.

"We really need to get it out there that %opponent% beats his wife, but we obviously can't run an ad saying that."

"Well, I could always call %rich_friend% and have him start a PAC. We can't coordinate once it's formed, but he'll do the job and throw the bombs that need thrown."

Welcome to McCain/Feingold - the law that achieves the opposite of its intended purpose.

And even then you would have some user that some hacker social engineered into giving them physical access.

Right - there is not a security control available that doesn't have limitations. That's why we (should) employ defense in depth. The reality is that this device makes it harder for the bad guys to get your data, and that is the goal.

Agressive action toward another is a different story. We're talking about one person doing something that you deem threatening, not that is intentionally threatening. Guess what? There are people out there that are worse drivers when they're paying attention than I am when I'm talking on the phone - who gets banned then? This is you foisting your subjective ideas about safety on everyone else, not acting in self defense. Let's ban eating while driving, putting makeup on while driving, talking to passengers, having passengers, etc, etc, etc...the list is practically endless of things that a person does while driving that someone else might consider unsafe. I would bet money that you don't follow speed limits - almost no one does. Why not? Isn't willfully ignoring speed limits, by your definition, you swinging your fist at my face? Of course not. Your analogy is as stupid as these nanny state laws are.

And almost everywhere that has a ban on cell phone usage while driving - this would be legal. This goes to show the stupidity of banning cell phone usage while driving. Enact and enforce distracted driving laws and stop pointlessly singling out cell phone users.