Mike usually gets down on Democrats / Liberals for too much GOVERNMENT intervention, which is usually not needed and results in one-size-fits-none "solutions." In this instance, colleges are performing every function of a court, including passing sentence, all the while denying the accused the rights they would receive if the matter were actually presented in court. As the Constitution remains in effect even when a student is attending college, this is an entirely reasonable cause for conservatives to champion.

2

2

Wood u serishlee pai attenshun tu if sumwon rote it like this? Yes, I greatly exaggerated, but my point remains. If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, you must convey them using proper grammar and proper spelling. Mistakes within the text allow opponents to concentrate on the mistakes, ignoring the substance of the text. If Ms. Hughes made the mistake, this is an opportunity for her to learn from her mistake. If this is (another) editorial mistake, highlighting it may push TH closer to prioritizing editing. Besides, I'm quite confident that "lose" is the single most misspelled word in the English language. One should flag it for that reason, alone.

The Fair Tax takes the regressive aspect into account with what it calls a "prebate." Every household would receive a monthly check equal to the average taxes paid each month for food and clothing. The idea of the prebate is to make life's necessities essentially tax free. Yes, if you decide to eat steak and lobster every night and wear designer clothing, the prebate won't cover your food and clothing taxes. But if you eat and dress as most people do, you'll only end up paying the consumption tax on the goods you choose to buy. I'm all in favor of downsizing the government and eliminating the IRS seems like a great place to start.

Sorry, Michael, but the Supreme Court -- you may have heard of them -- have ruled that the second amendment recognizes the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. This was just five years ago, so you shouldn't have too much trouble using any number of search engines to find the reference. BTW, the murder rate in the U.S. is, as of 2012, 4.8 per 100,000. Peaceful, gun-free Canada has a murder rate 1.6 per 100,000. Please show me the "thousands of times more gun deaths" in this statistic? Take your own advice, use Google instead of making up statistics. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Well, if they use your approach, their arguments CAN be dismissed. You take one small slice of criminal statistics, rape/domestic assault, and compare it to all firearms related deaths. The only reasonable comparison is between all firearm related deaths and all defensive uses of firearms. Serious studies, such as John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime," show that guns are used for defense over two million times each year. Simply showing a gun is sufficient to send most criminals scurrying for easier prey. See how easily their arguments can be dismissed?

But Tina Fey, in her Sarah Palin persona on SNL, said, "I can see Russia from my house." That silly line got all the coverage and the majority of voters came to believe Sarah Palin actually said it. In an election, it doesn't matter what you actually said. It matters what the voters think you said.

Stick around Townhall long enough and you'll learn that LD's posts are satire. The fact that they sound like something a true liberal might say makes the satire that much better.

Unfortunately, the patriot who shoots at police over an unlawful raid will end up dead when the police return fire. The patriot's family may suffer the same fate, since the return fire will be almost certainly overwhelming. In one on one confrontations, the police will always have the advantage in numbers and firepower.