So basically Jeffreys is saying that he doesn't know the facts of this case. He is outraged that in a headline someone residing in Virginia for the last 12 years is described as a Virginia man. And he thinks the fact that one immigrant was involved in an unsuccessful plot is deeply revealing for how we should deal with the millions of illegal immigrants in this country. The sad thing is that as feeble as this argument is, lots of people are probably going to agree with Jeffreys that this case is deeply revealing because it reveals exactly what they believed before hearing about it. It is one of those revealing cases that does not worry about the facts but reveals that people were right all along.

Yeah forget this Democracy thing. It is time to go with Banana Republic behavior and impeach people because you don't like their politics.

You see an inconsistency between people saying that Santorum will be hurt if he talks about his views on social issues and Obama not being hurt by not talking about social issues when you think he has radical views on them? Strange.

That's true, but it is somewhat mitigated by the fact that they are in a country that has been under occupation for a decade now and that many more of their people have been killed than ours. People do get antsy during decade long occupations. I expect that both Jews and Christians would get more touchy about the treatment of their religious items if they were done by an occupying army after a decade. It is true that other Muslims have done equally objectionable things with less provocation. But it is silly to try to understand what is happening in Afghanistan while ignoring the fact that our army has been there for a decade with not insignificant Afghan casualties.

The answer is, of course, that different founders would support different candidates. And there is no reason to believe that most founders would base their vote on religion rather than the other issues that face the country. Most of the Founders after all were humanist thinkers who would want to adjust their world views against progress in the sciences and what we additionally know about the world. The silliest thing to think is that all of the Founders would support one party, either of them.

Wow, you don't even get the concept of choice enough to make a rejoinder in terms of choice. Or more accurately, I suspect, you just don't place any value on it. This particular law doesn't actually prevent any women from getting an abortion. It just requires them to accept a little unnecessary molesting to exercise their choice.

It is interesting that during that period where girls were keeping their legs closed, teen pregnancy rates were higher. Apparently that aspirin trick doesn't actually work.

Well in the real world not so much. Actually Obama has imposed the strictest sanctions regime on Iran since the Revolution and it seems to be affecting how the Iranians behave. He has also allowed the opposition to the mullahs growing by, first for the first time since the revolution, resisting the urge to tie the opposition to the West. That is why the Iranian leaders are acting out, because they are under threat. But yes in the conservative fantasy Iran was contained until Obama came to power and suddenly the mullahs felt free.

shubi, You are right that it was a mistake to call Ransom dishonest. I tend to assume that someone who has a column here should understand basic issues, especially if it is on a financial matter and he is a financial editor. But it appears that Ransom simply misunderstood an article, which to be fair was not clearly written. And so while what he said was misleading, it is likely that he was honestly mislead.

This is oddly incoherent. The fed and GM are not one and the same. GM used money it got in return for stocks to pay back loans, but that does not leave them still owing on the loans. Refinancing a loan has a meaning. What happened does not fit that meaning.