If you look at the way the votes go, I would guess only one or two senators will actually vote against this. I know Rand Paul will be at least one. We'll see if he can rally anyone else.

Does that make you a meta-shill shill? Or a meta-meta-shill?

Christians don't see it that way. Jesus ate fish (not sure if there are accounts of him eating other meat) and fish totally doesn't count. Ask any Catholic during lent. Fish is like a get out of jail free card.

Darn it, I have to undo mod points, but it's totally worth it.

Simple, choose another airport or airline. It may inconvenience you, but would you go an extra hour away to another airport if it meant you (or someone you love) wouldn't get a frisking? Also, the law would still apply to private security agencies. It would be illegal for them to touch your genitals without your consent just like it is for everyone but the TSA.

With the TSA, it doesn't matter where you go. The government has a monopoly on force.

BULLSHIT. Stop, I order you STOP!!!!

Actually Ron Paul at least opposes the TSA for BOTH reasons. He supports going back to letting airports and airlines determine security.

I completely agree about CO2, however CO2 is the least harmful emission from volcanoes. Particulate and SO2 are the real bastards that volcanoes spew. In fact, aren't volcanoes usually to blame for cooling, not warming?

Exactly... It would be much cheaper to be able to order a custom car (not one they had to find in stock somewhere) specifically for you over this thing called the internet and then you could either have it shipped to your house or pick it up at the factory. With you being able to buy everything else online, why the hell shouldn't you be able to order a brand new car online?

THIS... So much THIS. In all the debates about climate change, we never talk about the fact that climate will never be constant. It WILL get colder and it WILL get warmer. We need as a species to be able to adapt to both to survive in the long term. In the near term, we are much better adapted to survive on a warmer planet rather than a colder one, so if we believe we are so powerful that we can affect the climate, shouldn't we be trying to make it warmer?

So you are saying that our projections are horribly inaccurate?

If we are free to adjust our standard working time as necessary, then why not just get rid of time zones all together. Just use UTC and everybody get used to the idea of going to work at 10PM and getting home at 7AM if that's the side of the planet you live on and you want to work during daylight.

Those pesky ID requirements for cashing a check, watching a rated R movie, purchasing alcohol, spray paint, super glue, tobacco, or allergy medicine, getting a job, driving, renting a car, staying in a hotel, etc. Those are all in Republican states too right? Who are these people who can get through life without any ID? I mean Ohio has ID laws, but heck you can bring in a paycheck, bill, or bank statement. Anything remotely official looking with your name an address on it is considered ID. Is this really weeding out legitimate Democrat voters?

Oh really, so the ideal tax rate is 100% then? The Laffer Curve has not been refuted. The point of maximum revenue may be under dispute. However, the point of maximum revenue may not be the ideal point either.

Unless you believe in the Laffer Curve in which case cutting taxes can RAISE revenue. But regardless of your tax stance, you cannot balance the budget without cuts. AND REAL CUTS, not cuts to proposed increases.

Yes because comparing a big government state to China, Cuba, and North Korea is much worse logic than comparing a libertarian state to Somalia...