Really? So, you'd be in favor of the government making sure they know who is and who isn't gay in order properly run skewed elections and referenda? How about simply having a clause in your constitution that says (as ours does) that everyone is treated equally under the law? Isn't that simpler than getting the government involved in keeping lists of who is on which part of a given spectrum of sexual orientation or skin color, etc?

Really? You equate our constitutional system of checks and balances to terrorism? Terrorism is the simple majority deciding that they can tell you what to do. Are you OK with 51% of the population deciding that you no longer get to speak freely, because they don't like what you have to say? That's democracy. A constitutional republic (which we are, that's not really open for debate, even when you confuse it with something else, like a monarchy - and you're very confused, here) has tools in place to prevent people like you from rallying 51% of the people who vote to do things like have the other 49% enslaved, or killed, or whatever you'd like to see done in the name of your having the majority of simple votes on the matter.

The majority is not always right, and the people who wrote our constitution knew that. It's why the country isn't run like one bit PTA meeting or a dog club. We have three branches of government, and the legislative branch is broken up in to two houses specifically to blunt the tyranny of the majority. You either haven't ever studied the basics of how the constitution is structured, or you have, and your pretending you haven't so that you can make your really bad analogies. Please try to get it straight.

Yes, it is. Which is why the very smart people who wrote the US constitution chartered the country as a republic, not a democracy. And a good thing, too.

So, you'd be OK with him supporting mandatory labeling on all foods that contain DNA? Because 80% of the population says they support their government helping them out with that.

I'd never support a politician who says he'll do what the majority say they want. We don't need mob rule directly, or by proxy, either.

You don't have much of an imagination, do you? Or pay any kind of attention to actual events, pretty much ever?

Escort aircraft can make observations and help with communications and recordings that can't be made any other way. One of the threats suggested the bomber was on board, implying the possibility that he might make demands which could include, possibly, making that aircraft into a weapon aimed at a metropolitan area ... which might require destroying the aircraft before that could happen. Fighters are routinely deployed when other aircraft stray from where they're supposed to be, cease communicating, etc. Which you'd know, if you paid attention.

Fascinating! So you can point to legislation that levied taxes to pay Verizon to put down fiber in places where they've chosen not to? If those appropriations actually specify deliverable services that they're not providing, that should be super easy for you to point out. Maybe not as easy as making up some "insightful" but completely misleading stuff about how it was taxes that Verizon funded FiOS and that they promised service at specific addresses that they've abandoned. Looking forward to your links.

Because, of course, the entire infrastructure of the carrier's network, peering connections, management, power, data centers, and all the rest is just "some wires."

How is that self-controlled navigation working - image recognition based on ground features? Because otherwise, they're navigating using GPS or the equivalent. Interfere with that by saturating them with the same freqs, and they'll have no idea where they are. Sure some sort of inertial navigation system might be viable, but probably not with the precision needed to get some small drone as close to its specific target as such small devices would need to be (presuming they're not just spraying bio-hazards and the like over a football stadium or some such).

No, just someone who doesn't like whiny people who think that constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and assembly should only apply to them, and not to people with whom they have an ideological difference. Are you really at a loss to come up with a single association, group, union, club, or other entity that you support that has - as a group - said its piece to a legislator about something that group finds important? If you can't think of a single one, then you're much too poorly informed to have an opinion on this matter. Or to vote, as far as that goes.

Because the same PR firms aren't ONLY putting together lobbying efforts that go directly to legislators, regulators and executives - they also put together expensive, long-running PR campaigns aimed the voters themselves. Is this where you say that they shouldn't be allowed to run ads in newspapers, or use direct mail or the web to deliver their messages? Why?

Every dollar of which is a matter of public record, and open to scrutiny. Are you saying that if you and a million like-minded friends who really, really think that (for example) Ron Paul or somebody else would be a perfect person to hold office and represent their views, shouldn't be able to pool their resources and make a large donation to such a campaign? What if in a race between two candidates, one of them says that he'll make it his personal crusade in office to shut down those evil online computer games that are ruining our children's minds, and the other candidate thinks that new media entertainment is great, creates jobs, and thinks that game companies are worth our support? Should the companies being attacked by the first candidate not be allowed to put their money and other efforts where it will help to promote the views of the second candidate, or at least shine a bright light on the idiocy of the first candidate? Why not? Should the people who started and work for those companies lose their right to speak, assemble, and support politicians who represent their views?

What's wrong with that? Mr. Senator has to declare those donated travel expenses and pay taxes on them as if they were income. When politicians fail to do so, you get results like we had in Virginia last week, where a formerly high-profile, well-liked governor who took advantage of some modest such offerings without handling it correctly just got sentenced to prison. That happens with some frequency. So, what's the problem? If you know of politicians like him who are dealing under the table and personally profiting, what haven't you sent that evidence to the FEC?

This is factually incorrect. But even ignoring that, why do you have it in quotes? Are you saying that candidates, whose personal and business financial records are highly scrutinized and completely available to auditors with local, state, and federal election officials and prosecutors (if need be) are taking money paid into campaign funds (which are completely open to inspection as public records) and personally running off with it? That's big news if you know of actual examples, since politicians who do that sort of thing are held criminally liable, and go to jail.

So I'll ask you the same question as I did the GP. Do you have evidence of politicians taking large sums of money and not being prosecuted for that? As an example, the former governor of Virginia is about to go jail for doing that. Prosecutors are standing by to pursue other politicians who do the same. Which politicians do you know of who are taking large sums of money and not being prosecuted? Please list them.

Or are you referring to donations to campaigns, which have to be reported, publicly, down to the penny - as the money comes into the campaign fund, as as each penny is spent. Are you aware of politicians who are personally raiding those campaign funds and not being prosecuted? It does happen sometimes, that idiot politicians get greedy and hit those funds. And the audit trail makes that plainly obvious, and they are prosecuted. If you know of cases where they've taken such cash out of their campaign funds, but prosecutors are not aware, why aren't you saying something about it?

That sounds pretty serious! Which politicians are taking the money? If you have new information, it will be front page news tomorrow. Because that means that you've identified people who are someone handling money that career auditors with local, state, and federal election commissions are unable to see, even though they have complete access to the bank records, tax filings, and other information for every one of them. You must have some serious inside scoop! Please, share.

But it's OK with you if the entire purpose of the Senate is to make the House Of Representatives fail?

The entire purpose of our structure of government is to make it adversarial. That IS checks and balances. You conveniently forget things that actually do get passed and signed, and focus only on your frustration when the agenda of one person is disliked by a majority of the people in the country, and by congress. That's the whole point. If I were elected to an executive branch office, and said out loud that my entire agenda would be to do things you, personally, find deplorable, wouldn't you want to see that agenda fail? No? You'd like to see the agenda you dislike succeed? Why is that?

Again, that's the whole point. The current president is putting on a display of policy absurdity and stunning lack of competency - and so of course the legislative branch (including many in his own party) are pushing back against his positions. The majority of the country profoundly dislikes the health care finance law they rammed through on 100% partisan grounds. The majority of the country find his foreign policy positions to be complete feckless, and clumsily handled even if they approve of them. The point is that exactly such things were plainly going to happen given his ideology and stated positions on a wide spectrum of things. People saw that while he was first campaigning for office. You're suggesting that despite knowing he was going to be a disaster, and despite there being very good reasons to oppose most of his positions on everything within his constitutional purview (as well as the things he's doing that are well outside his role), that everyone should just go along for the ride? Gotta love that about the lefties: "We should all get along a work in the spirit of compromise, by doing what we say." No. Obama and his party have solidly earned the opposition they've cultivated, and the recent mid-term election demonstrates once again how tone deaf they've been. Opposition to them as they acted in that mode isn't a problem, it's a solution.