You're undoing your own argument. Culturally, nobody gives a damn if you dance at the Jefferson Memorial, though some people might give a damn if a bunch of people wasted time writing and fussing about legislation to change that law that nobody cares about. On your other topics, you've made your own counterpoint. Culturally, the west has moved very quickly on areas like gay marriage. In practical terms, it's a done deal. There will be lots of little rough edges to clean up for a few years yet. Meanwhile, the Wahabbists and their ilk in the Middle East are going full-throttle backwards into the medieval days they miss so badly.

Well, that and what given a bunch of cash to the Clinton family will get you, of course.

Look, all that really matters is that Hillary Clinton has the Saudis' backs, as long as they give her family a bunch more cash.

That's because the people who run around screaming about "social justice" do that primarily to distract from the fact that justice is the LAST thing they actually want. How about providing some examples of people who stamp their feet, shout down speakers at colleges, and otherwise rant away ... being actually constructive people interested in open conversation rather than repression of anyone deemed insufficiently onboard with their agenda? Some specific examples to counter the well-earned broad brush of derision would be helpful. But what are you going to trot out ... BLM? Occupy Everything? The Eat The Rich With Bernie Sanders movement? People who insist we switch all pronouns to "it?"

No. Calling out liberal totalitarians is not the same as seeking to actually DO the things (like squelching speech through the power of government) that liberal totalitarians actually do. Though you are performing the approved-by-liberal-elites correct response to being called out - immediately lie about it in hopes that will deflect reality.

Well, that's not entirely clear. If the Saudis bought them, then the Saudis financed them. If the Saudis bought them for less than what they cost, then either the manufacturer(s) subsidized some of the cost, or the taxpayers did. Which brings us to the fact that such expenses come out of the discretionary budget, which means it's essentially paid for almost entirely by income taxes or by debt that will be serviced by income taxes ... and that means that only about half of the people in the country actually have a hand in financing such things because the other half pays no income taxes. And of the half that does pay them, of course a small portion of that group pays the majority of those taxes.

So, "we" is indeed not an obvious thing, here.

Right, they didn't recommend charges because the entity that makes the decision about prosecuting wouldn't indict her. Not because they didn't gather ample evidence of her blatant mis-handling of classified material, destruction of records, and lying. The decision wasn't based on the evidence, it was based on whether or not Loretta Lynch would directly or through her underlings, pursue a prosecution. Obama signaled months ago, before the FBI had even been allowed to see much of the evidence, that there was no chance of an indictment on his watch.

But Comey said right to you that his decision about recommending an indictment was based on his assessment of the likelihood that the DoJ would actually prosecute her. It was a 100% political decision that came mere days after Clinton sent her husband to have a one-on-one private meeting with Lynch. Replacing Comey with someone else wouldn't have mattered, because the FBI director doesn't get to decide whether or not the idea of a prosecution will be preemptively shut down by the administration, which it was in this case.

No. Business unit managers and officers. Even senior people helping to run his campaign. One of his most frequent PR surrogates is a Latina, not to take the fun out of your jab. Likewise with people from every other color, creed, and walk of life throughout his operations. Probably he doesn't promote too many crazy jihadi wackadoos though. Which is just plain good sense.

Really? Are you referring to the totally failed, money-wasting exercise on upstate NY revitalization? Or were you referring to her support and vote for the war in Iraq? Or were you referring to all of those other great pieces of legislation she sponsored and saw through ... oh, right, there really weren't any.

Why? Because her phony "reset" stunt with Russia worked out so well? Check with the people in Crimea and throughout Ukraine on that one perhaps. Or were you thinking of her proud handling of the affairs in Libya, where her championing of the use of force to topple the leader there, with essentially no further involvement, has resulted in chaos, death, and the insurgence of whole new ISIS and AQ-style franchises murdering people by the thousands? Yes! Really something to be proud of. Or were you thinking perhaps of her wise ability to so gracefully handle the situation in Syria, which has turned into a calamity for millions of dead and feeling refugees that are now swamping Europe and carrying radical jihadism with them? Yes, that was really a moment of pride, promising but never delivering on the support that the moderate anti-Assad segments of Syrian society needed, allowing the radicals to move in wholesale, followed by Russia and Iran. A real moment of pride, there.

I suppose what you really mean is that she can be proud that she leveraged her position as Secretary of State to get foreign governments to hand millions of dollars to her family business while she was in office, in exchange for better access to her while they had issues in front of the State Department. Yes, by her standards, she should definitely be proud of how wealthy she made her family while she held that public office. Way to go, Hillary!

You're not really saying that you can't understand a rhetorical reference to the rise of ISIS coming from the power vacuum that Obama created by pulling out of Iraq. Really? Or are you that unable to understand those sorts of references?

Right. In practical terms, he can't recommend prosecution because it was clear before hand that Obama's political appointee in charge of the DoJ wasn't going to prosecute his designated successor no matter how clearly the FBI established her trail of untruths and mis-handling of classified material. Loretta Lynch (and thus her boss, Obama) is the decision maker here, not Comey. You're just pretending you don't understand this.

Weaker than the presence of classified material in Patreaus' home safe? Weaker than a bit of sensitive material in the background of a sailor's selfy shot? You know, things that resulted in criminal convictions and even jail time? But her flouting of both administration rules and the law, her possession of many classified documents on unsecure systems and her passing them around to her staff and lawyers (people without security clearances) - that's "weak" by comparison? You're deliberately pretending you don't understand the situation.

Because it was in the context of trying to get to the bottom of her (and her boss's) lying about the Benghazi mess for political reasons right before an election that it became clear she had been running her official email on (and ONLY on) a home computer. And in examining that situation, it became clear that she had - on becoming aware that she was under subpoena - that she destroyed tens of thousands of federal documents, and repeatedly lied about what she did, when she did it, and why she did it. Right: you can't separate the two topics because SHE is the one responsible for them being part of an uninterrupted spectrum of incompetence and deceit that doesn't begin and end with just one topic.

So the problem here is that you don't actually understand the different branches of government and how they work. That explains a lot about your rambling, here. "The GOP" is a political party. It has no authority. Are you talking about congress? They could charge her with contempt for lying as she did in under oath in front of them, and that's still a possibility. But otherwise, the only entity capable of charging her with anything is the Obama administration. You get that, right? No, apparently you don't.

Blah blah. She said that she did NOT say it, and that's simply a lie. Regardless, you're carefully avoiding the long career of deliberate lies about all sorts of things - from the ridiculously meaningless (why lie about why her parents called her Hillary?) to the clearly self-aggrandizing (landing under sniper fire!) to the long, long parade of lies designed to deflect from public awareness of her corruption. Everything from her days in Arkansas to countless bits of business under her control in the White House, to her frequent throwing-under-the-bus of staff with a lie about why, to her non-stop lying - right to this day - about her "mistake" in setting up an off-the-books mail server to hide her public records from scrutiny ... acts serious enough that the DoJ has been doling out immunity deals like candy. Focusing on how half-truthy her spin on the her "it's the Gold Standard" assertion was then or is now is just you trying to avoid the rest of her career's disingenuous handling of the truth.

OK, I guess you consider her to be a more authoritative voice on her character than the judge who said she threatened his life. Do you have a reason to consider that judge to be a liar? Please explain.

Please explain some of the racist things he DOES say. Or are you one of these people who can't understand the difference between race and culture? While you're at it, of course, please chime in on Hillary Clinton's choice to do things like yukking her way through a skit at a fundraiser where the joke is that being late for events is an example of operating on "Colored People Time."

No, you just can't read. The issue isn't Bill Clinton, the issue is Hillary Clinton and her personal staff spending time and your tax dollars to deliberately engage in a campaign of character assassination against the women who - by either willingly or unwillingly being the Bill Clinton sexcapade and abuse show - were going to poison the well for Hillary's personal eventual quest for political power. She would never have progressed past being a lawyer getting rapists easy plea deals if she hadn't ridden her husband's coat-tails all the way to national office. She put up with his toxic womanizing from the days he had Arkansas state troopers bringing women to his hotel room all the way through his abuse of women in the White House - why? Because to leave him would mean leaving power and access to more of it. But she went WAY beyond merely tolerating that abuse.

That's the point - it's not about him. It's about HER deliberately seeking to wreck the lives of those women because she needed to change the narrative, despite anyone and everyone familiar with her husband knowing exactly how he conducted himself. Bringing up Bill Clinton would be pointless, except for the fact that Hillary - who panders like crazy on the "women's issues" front - has no problem treating other women like trash when she feels the personal political need to do. That sheds light on her character, and you, like the rest of her supporters, would really love to avoid the topic by lazily claiming it's all about Bill. It's not.

Oh, I get it now. You're this guy: "Hillary lies and uses character assassination and has throughout her career including while in public office, but Trump is worse, so I will pretend none of that is true about Hillary. Likewise I'll ignore that even the DoJ being run by politicians from her own party feel obliged to actually issue many formal immunity agreements to get to the bottom of her ever-shifting stories and destroyed records."

How many immunity agreements has the DoJ felt the need to dole out while looking into Trump's affairs? How many times has the director of the FBI said about Trump the same things he's had to conclude about a long list of Clinton's assertions (that they were "untrue," and that she was "extremely careless" in her handling of classified material, and so on).

Why should Benghazi come up? That affair, in and of itself, isn't an example of her law breaking. It was an example (in the event of the death of the ambassador and three others) an example of her incompetence and dismissive attitude towards underlings. And it was an example (in the event of her and her boss deliberately, knowingly lying repeatedly to the public generally and to the faces of the dead people's families literally while standing next to their coffins) of her general aversion to the truth and her willingness to look you, me, and and everyone else in the eye and lie. About little things (where her name came from, whether she "landed under sniper fire," about being "dead broke" and having trouble buying her multiple houses, etc) and big things (like her motivation for and practice of running her State Department email off a home computer, the casual disregard for above-classified document security, and the destruction of federal records while under subpoena).

That last bit IS about law breaking, but was more about the cover-up of her incompetence and lying. Her email arrangements, of course, were made so that she could run her foundation-related influence selling machinery without those pesky FOIA requests coming in later for a look.

When Trump BSes about trivial rhetorical stuff, it doesn't help. Just like it doesn't help when Clinton does the exact same thing ("I never said the TPP was the gold standard ..." and similar demonstrable "little" lies, the type of which she also trots out every day). But when Clinton deliberately lies about her official conduct and has her entire staff getting immunity deals in order to protect her from consequences that would send anyone else to jail, it's an entirely different level of behavior.

It's especially awful to watch her trot out a hearsay anecdote from an occasionally unstable Miss Universe contestant from 20 years ago to show how mean Trump is towards Latinas (despite the endless praise he gets from Latina women working in many management roles throughout his company) ... this coming from Clinton who personally launched the efforts to smear the reputation of multiple women with whom her husband had been screwing, including some of which were clear cases of abuse on his part. You can and should complain about Trump's ungraceful conversational style and bro-ish behavior. But Clinton's career of personal enrichment at the public trough, character assassination, and decades of deceit and lying is far more sinister.

Regardless, neither are well suited to the office. But one or the other of them will be seating Supreme Court justices. That's all that matters at this point. His choices - which will come from a list we've already seen - will skew towards constructionist jurists inclined to preserve the rights the Constitution protects. Her choices will without question be liberals who, like her, promise to act early and often to erode those rights. I'd rather have his likely flavor of jurists in place when we have future cases involving the Commerce Clause, campaign finance, balance of power issues, and friction around the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments.

It might work out but I think you'd have to throw a lot of money at it to prime the pump.

If there's one thing Jeff Bezos isn't afraid of - it's spending money to make money.

Because there are thousands of mail-order/online-shopping businesses in the country? Amazon isn't anything like a monopoly.

If you do regular business with them and think that price is "ridiculous," then you're a fool and shouldn't use math for any other important tasks in life.