And let's not forget:


7. Which party is for enforcing immigration laws?
8. Which party is for ending corporate welfare?
9. Which party is for limiting the role of the federal government in our personal lives (including when we're working)?
10. Which party is for limiting the rolling back regulations that keep small companies from growing?
11. Which party is for shrinking government spending (and thus giving us more free time so less of our economic output has to be diverted to government functions)?

It should depend on what the first lady is doing. If she does an interview on a topic of substance (like racism) or makes a lot of noise pushing a policy iniative ("Just say no", controlling fat, etc.) then it's fair to make fun of them based on those subjects. Barbara and Laura Bush were both pretty quiet. I don't see how it was fair to make fun of either of them. Are you saying that because SNL did it, it must be ok? SNL made fun of the first lady, so making fun of the first lady is ok, but SNL didn't make fun of the first daughter so making fun of the first daughter isn't ok?

But actually SNL did make fun of first daughters. A quick search of "SNL Jenna Bush" came up with this: http://www.imdb.com/character/...

The way you say "hype" makes it sounds like advertising. I suspect this isn't people saying "let's go see what all the hype is about", it's Americans saying "we're going to reward Sony for releasing the film despite Kim's hissy fit, and we're going to make it clear to Kim that you can't mess with Americans and their right to free speech.

And there is more to come. I haven't seen it yet but I will make sure I see it (legally, not pirated) when I can. I'm sure most of the sales in America are coming from people with the same thought.

Not to mention all the stuff he and his government have done to us and our allies.

No fan of Obama here, but I figure he has a little more access to information about who did this than you or I do. I HOPE he wouldn't retaliate unless he was pretty confident in his intelligence agencies' reports. I have trouble imagining he would retaliate against NK if he was pretty sure China or someone else did it. But I could imagine him needing to if it were required to avoid letting China know how much we know about them.

Given all that NK has done to us and our allies over the years, I don't think we owe them an apology even if they are innocent of this particular crime. We could take down their internet for a couple years and still come nowhere close to making up for all the American, Japanese, and South Koreans they have killed and kidnapped over the years. Or for the thousands and thousands of our fellow humans (North Koreans included) they have killed and tortured.

I don't remember the Bush kids getting attacked (though if they were I would have ignored it unless it came from high-level Democrats). I didn't hear about Obama's family getting attacked except from one low level staffer who merely criticized clothing in a not-very-public forum. But again unless the attacks came from high level Republicans I don't think it is worth much consideration. Chelsea did get some insults that were beneath contempt from some conservative radio personalities, and those radio people were roundly criticized by other conservatives. The only serious insults against family members that I remember are those that were leveled against Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton. With Hillary Clinton I would have to say it was fair game because they talked about a "co-presidency".

I don't know. Obama may not care if Americans hate him. He may not care if America's friends hate him. But he sure seems to put a lot of effort into making sure America's enemy like him.

If you're racist yes. But if you're not racist you'll be an equal opportunity insulter and will be stunned when someone says you're racist for calling a black person something when you weren't even thinking about his race.

You see that deer-in-the-headlights look from Republicans a lot. They insult someone for behaving the way they do and suddenly a overly-race-conscious liberal calls them "racist" and they're so surprised they don't know how to respond. There's the initial "huh, what?" then the "oh yeah I guess he's (whatever particular racial group is involved" then the "but what does that have to do with.." then finally the fucking pissed off "why are you calling me a racist when you know damn fucking well I wasn't thinking about race" and then the liberal goes into smug mode.

Yes, having failed to correct left-handness in many people but succeeding in correcting black women's hair so that it can be straight we decided about 50 years ago to take on the task of correcting women so that they have the same professional and sexual goals as men. We've made a lot of progress but we still have a long way to go. A lot of women may complain and object, but we know what's best for them so we'll make those decisions for them.

Why do we have to assume one way or the other? Why not just admit we don't know and let people do what they want instead of trying to push them to do what we think they should?

If men and women aren't that different but we assume they are, we'll start making rules about what fields women and men should enter.

If men and women are significantly different but we assume they're the same, we'll spend forever trying to correct a problem that doesn't exist and can't be 'corrected' without significant heartache. By assuming men and women are the same we may be taking on a task similar to correcting left-handness. Why not let people be and stop assuming you know what is best for them?

Yes I have seen those things because insects blown by the wind, leaves and drops of rain are incapable of being deterred the way a terrorist is.

Perhaps a better analogy regarding insects is a screen window. Why have one? Do you ever see insects flying into a screen? If no insects ever fly into the screen, then how can the screen be keeping the insects out of your house? The answer is deterrence. The insects see the screen in the window so they don't try to fly through the window.

Well said.

You know what really pisses me off? That damn windshield that has to be installed on every car. SERIOUSLY?? I have never once been hit in the face with high wind, blown insects or leaves, or even rain while I've been driving. Yet we still have to have those windshields on every single car.

Yes, just like terrorists. You don't like the protections because you don't see any terrorist attacks. But if we removed the protection and it were KNOWN we removed them how many terrorists would jump at the opportunity?

I forgot to mention.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.