Why not all 300 million of your neighbors? I'd bet you'd get a really good discount...

And whats up with the trolling about solar?

You've never heard of Nature?

You've got to be kidding me. Never heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District? It doesn't happen because it is fucking ILLEGAL. It wasn't Democrats on that school board pushing for ID. You shouldn't put so many words in other people's mouths because you'll just end up with a foot in yours.

The problem is that people like him, as you say, are talking about fundamentalists. And you are making the argument that there are plenty of non-fundamentalist scientests out there. I fail to see the point of your argument.

companies like Red Hat (who doesn't even have a desktop distro, only a server one)

Not true..

A childish "they do it too" doesn't make it right. Lebanon, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia also aren't functioning democracies that claim to respect human rights and the rule of law, unlike Israel. Two of them are unapologetic monarchies for christ's sake, so what is your point? You have addressed nothing in my original comment.

So the Palestinians are Israeli nationals then? You can't make an entire population stateless at the same time you control their territory. If they aren't Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian. or Palestinian, what right of citizenship do they have? It is interesting that you picked Puerto Rico because they have been given many chances to vote on their status. You can bet that if the Puerto Ricans wanted their own country, they would have it.

So now we have the following situation:

1) Israel controls territory it can't legally annex (for several reasons, all of which are complicated), and won't annex (for reasons which are equally complicated, one of which is mentioned below)
2) Regardless of their original status, Jordan and Egypt have renounced claims to the territory
3) Every people has the right to self-determination

I take it you would prefer to see the West Bank and Gaza simply annexed into Israel proper and their residents given full Israeli citizenship? The Fourth Geneva convention places strict limits on what rights can be denied to people living in annexed territory. Israel has no incentive to take an action which would instantly make the Jews into a political and demographic minority.

These are the two arguments I continually hear from Israel supporters and I don't think either stands to scrutiny. I'd really like a rational response to this because every time I bring this up with someone who supports Israel as much as you obviously do all I get is vitriolic and inane responses. I look forward to your reply.

Marbury v. Madison was settled in 1803. The horse isn't just out of the barn, the barn burned down in the 1860s and the horse has been dead for over 200 years.

And then after your country is bombed into the stone age anyway you will be prosecuted for war crimes. I know that if you put weapons on a hospital ship it becomes a legitimate military target, and GPS jammers are definitely considered weapons. In this case it is likely that the militarization of civilian areas would be considered a violation of various conventions against using human shields, or failing to protect civilians at the very least.

It is 3%.

1: Because it is legal.
2: Planned Parenthood is often the only legal way to get an abortion in some rural areas.
3: You already don't pay for any of that 3%.

Sorry, that isn't what the law limits it to, and fortunately for the rest of us you aren't a dictator. You can try to get the constitution changed, but fighting over an issue this divisive in a budget bill is lunacy.

Well good news for you, they don't.

Saying "well they do it too" doesn't challenge his statement. But more to the point, you agree and don't care that "conservative" commentators are fact-challenged blowhards?

I would argue what you would refer to as "liberals" simply want more objectivity in "conservative" opinion shows. Not that Shultz or Matthews aren't also fact-challenged blowhards (especially Shultz).

Indeed, ratings == quality, so American Idol must be the greatest show in the history of television. The fact is that comparatively speaking, very few people watch political opinion shows, regardless of political inclination. I would argue that conservative opinion shows are more engaging to their audience than liberal opinion shows are to theirs, hence the difference in total numbers.

You're going to need to cite that.

And I guess thats why you watch Glenn Beck in the first place if a statement like that makes sense to you. I'm sure that if Glenn Beck came out as gay you could go back and find many "hints" over the years if thats what you want to read into it.

Wow, does anyone here pay attention to the news anymore?

Congress controls the purse strings, remember?

Your original point is that the right to life is specifically guaranteed by the first amendment. The quote from Justice Jackson was part of a broader point about how fundamental rights should be beyond politics and does not support your argument. Here is the opinion: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

The Gobitis opinion reasoned that this is a field 'where courts possess no marked and certainly no controlling competence,' that it is committed to the legislatures as well as the courts to guard cherished liberties and that it is constitutionally appropriate to 'fight out the wise use of legislative authority in the forum of public opinion and before legislative assemblies rather than to transfer such a contest to the judicial arena,' since all the 'effective means of inducing political changes are left free.' Id., 310 U.S. at page 597, 598, 600, 60 S.Ct. at pages 1014, 1016, 127 A.L.R. 1493.

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. [319 U.S. 624, 639] In weighing arguments of the parties it is important to distinguish between the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as an instrument for transmitting the principles of the First Amendment and those cases in which it is applied for its own sake. The test of legislation which collides with the Fourteenth Amendment, because it also collides with the principles of the First, is much more definite than the test when only the Fourteenth is involved. Much of the vagueness of the due process clause disappears when the specific prohibitions of the First become its standard. The right of a State to regulate, for example, a public utility may well include, so far as the due process test is concerned, power to impose all of the restrictions which a legislature may have a 'rational basis' for adopting. But freedoms of speech and of press, of assembly, and of worship may not be infringed on such slender grounds. They are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect. It is important to note that while it is the Fourteenth Amendment which bears directly upon the State it is the more specific limiting principles of the First Amendment that finally govern this case.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette wasn't a fifth amendment case, and as such did not mention it except in the broader point as quoted above. The right to life is specifically protected by the fifth amendment, not the first.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.