You know moe, after your little insulting reply to my divest Israel comment, I was thinking of lighting you up (or down as the case may be) with my mod points.

But I actually agree with most of your other comments. In a quick reading, I can't decide whether or not you are liberal or libertarian, but on the off-chance you are liberal or left-leaning, I'd like to point out that the only dissenters in Raich v. Gonzales were from conservative members of the court (specifically, Thomas & Rehnquist, with the moderate O'Connor rounding out the dissent). Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer can almost always be counted on to be a vote for the statist agenda (unless it's intruding on abortion or homosexual activity). See Kelo v. New London for more of the same.

In any event, the Feds are going to come down like a hammer sooner or later on all of the states pushing their "Firearms Freedom Acts" and the SCOTUS will almost certainly uphold them doing so. Stare decisis is pretty well established, and if the growing of a few marijuana plants by a cancer patient who has never actually bought marijuana, and will never sell it can be somehow interpreted to be affecting interestate commerce, then it logically follows that a "Montana only firearm" will affect it as well, since the Federal government can argue that well that person would have otherwise bought a non-Montana made firearm. Incidentally, Thomas's dissent was pretty devastating in Raich v. Gonzalez. The Federal Government basically won the right to regulate anything and everything under the sun. Washing dishes...affects interstate commerce. Mowing your lawn? Same thing. We no longer have a government constrained by enumerated powers. We have an all consuming leviathan.

tert-butanol has an octane of 89, which should satisfy most engines.

Yes, butanol can be produced from farm raised biomass, same as ethanol. But as far as air time and subsidies go, it's ethanol, all the time. Therefore the logical conclusion is that the butanol lobby, such as it is, isn't nearly as effective as the ethanol lobby. To the point of not existing.

Pros:
1) Burns in gasoline engines without modification
2) Can be transported in existing gas pipelines (does not emulsify water like ethanol does)
3) Higher energy content per gallon than ethanol, only a little less than gasoline
4) Can be produced in the same manner that ethanol is (ie, fermentation)

Cons:
1) Does not have a farm lobby attached to it

Ooops, that second Obama is supposed to be "Gitmo"

What, did I strike a chord? Somehow, I don't think you would be quite so angry if so much didn't ring true. You're response is like a typographic DailyKos stereotype. So when is your little hero Obama going to close Obama?

Then you must kill them to.

But it's a good argument for the divest-Israel crowd, isn't it? "The only reason why the Muslims hate us is Israel". Uh, no. Pretty much everything about our culture is abhorrent to them. Their religion commands them to make war on us until we submit. Israel has nothing to do with it.

Unless you kill them.

If you are using Windows on a network controlled by a DC, you can push the CA trust out through group policy...

I don't think they are his stats.

Um, considering they are measuring the browser features coming TO the website and not the website itself, it probably isn't a bad sample at all. But keeping grinding away on that axe. It might take you places.

Wish I hadn't already posted in this thread so I could mod you up.

Exactly so. Irrationality can be a valuable competitive trait in a stratified social climbing framework where for one primate to succeed, another has to fail. There is a constant arms race over information and intellect between individuals, generations, and groups. If a person or group behaves in a perfectly rational way (re: perfectly predictable), then it becomes easy to counter that person or group, especially if you are smarter, have better information, or greater resources to bring to bear. Irrationality is a strategy of nullifying these advantages because it means that no matter how you think I might react, and whatever surprises you have lie in store for me, I might confound your predictions and react in a completely irrational and therefore unplanned-for-by-you fashion. As a contrived example, it's how otherwise incompetent leaders can sometimes stay in power, by arbitrarily executing or rewarding people for spurious reasons, raising one group up with favors, and bringing another group down when they become too successful, but with no discernible pattern to either.

Pretty much all non-marxist economics, not just "neo-conservative economics" (whatever that is...which school exactly does that fall into, the Austria, Chicago, Keynesian?), follow the rational market hypothesis. Central control advocates (and marxists are among them) argue that they can "one-up" the market by having so-called experts dictate how much of what gets produced where and what the prices should be. They tend to have equally incomprehensible (and even more unworkable) models than the free-market economists do, and tend to get sidetracked by social justice issues along the way.

Ayers was almost certainly complicit in at least one murder.

He also founded the Weather Underground, which, aside from being a left wing terrorist organization, actually did murder people.

The modern radical left is a direct descendant from groups like the WU. Groups like ANSWER, for example. Hell, Obama had his "coming out" party in Ayer's house for Christ's sake. So, maybe "most of you on the left" don't give Ayers any thought, but clearly Obama did. Ayers wouldn't be such a boogieman on the right if he didn't espouse an ideology inimical to the values of most Americans and didn't have such a strong connection to the people currently in power. But he does.