Saverin shrugged.

Well said.

I disagree. Those rights were endowed to all men, not just to Americans.

He's a Chinese citizen who has no right to protection at the U.S. Embassy. He should be returned to the Chinese authorities and the U.S. should make no more internventions into his case. It's assinine that anybody even contemplates his "right" to leave the country with the U.S. Secretary of State and that anybody provided him telephone access to a U. S. Congressional committee during hearings. Our relationship with China should not be affected by this one person throwing himself at the Sec. State.

I presently own two homes (one I live in and one I can't seem to get sold). I pay $330 a month in property taxes on my primary and $140 a month on the one I am trying to sell. That will go up because I have lost the Homestead exemption on it. Everybody loves to talk about income taxes or all withholding combined, but nobody seems to want to discuss the TOTAL amount of taxes people pay. We're being taxed to death, never mind the inherent immorality of charging me $330 per month to live in my own home.

This article really feels like ot should be much longer. It just sort of ended. Is this and excerpt of a larger piece, because I'd really like to read more.

I am by no means a supporter of Fluke, but I think it is important that you understand the left's rationale for birth control being a medical necessity. They are not arguing birth control for the sake of preventing pregnancy and, thus, the ability to freely sleep around. They are arguing birth control for the sake of preventing womens' health issues and certain cancers. Whether or not that argument carries weight you are doing yourself and your co-opinionists no favors by pushing the "Fluke is a s1ut" narrative. Many have pointed out that birth control can be had for less than $15 a month through Wal Mart. You might try switching gears and furthering the argument the cost factor is moot.

Your ignorance is showing. The point, which you fail to grasp, is that 15,000 warheads (which is an incorrect number, by the way) are unnecessary. Also, the Cold War was not won without firing a shot. Ever heard of the Korean and Vietnam wars? Beirut? The Cold War was won by bankrupting the Soviet Union. In case you haven't noticed the United States is now on a fast track to bankruptcy. We don't need to pay to maintain all of those weapons. I promise you that M.A.D. will be just as effective with half as many warheads.

I guess my caveat that I was being "sincere and not intended to be provocative" didn't come across to you. You're what is wrong with political debate in this country. A sincere question is met with name calling. Great. Anyway, I looked it up. Taking into account the total affected area, it would only take 283 nuclear bombs to create enough blast damage and fallout to effectively destroy or irrevocably poison every inhabited area on Earth. So, why do we need 15,000 nuclear warheads and all of their expensive upkeep?

I have one sincere question that is not intended to be provacative; How many nuclear warheads would it take to effectively end life on Earth?