This is moral equivalency and it is utter nonsense. The Afghans and Iraqis our troops have killed were mujahedeen, jihadist soldiers on battlefields. Are you really suggesting that is essentially the same thing as murdering an innocent schoolgirl on the playground? Really? Even the French soldiers who were killed were off duty, out of uniform, and nowhere near combat. Let me just anticipate the retort, "What about that US soldier who murdered 16 in their sleep in Afghanistan a couple weeks ago", or some similar example. My reply is, that soldier was in VIOLATION of his command doctrine and his orders, and our side is prosecuting him for it. The jihadists are celebrated by their kind for CARRYING OUT their doctrine. There is no comparison.

Right with ya'. In fact, we could devise a device which could do a quick blood test for a dozen commonly used recreational drugs and make every single driver test every time they drive. Or why not use modern technology to make every driver request a trip permit via Internet every time they drive. I bet we could cut drunk driving, oil imports, smog, road construction budgets....OK, sarcasm mode OFF.

It doesn't really matter what amendments are made. The trick is to ENFORCE the provisions. If we had an effective method of doing that we wouldn't need amendments. The government would be kept within the limits already written. Changing the language isn't going to make the slightest difference if we can't make it stick anyway. I don't mean to be cynical, just to state the problem plainly. The SCOTUS hasn't any integrity or Obamacare would have been struck down on a facial challenge on day one. The Senate hasn't any or they would be screaming bloody murder over the recent "recess" appointments. If the officials whom the people have charged with enforcing and upholding the Constitution refuse to do it, how can the people enforce it ?

I was just logging in to post along the same lines. I looked the word up. It is a noun. No mention of it being slang. Old origins. The thesaurus gives many synonyms, all of which are similarly offensive in that they describe what she does accurately. This left me wondering, if "slvt" is offensive and inappropriate, which term would Ms. Flake, oops, I mean Fluke, prefer? The truth is she would rather nobody describe her lifestyle or discuss the morality of her choices at all.

Sir Elton, the famous PhD philosopher and sociologist? Oh, you mean Sir Elton John , the entertainer, who has no more particular qualifications to teach us all lessons than anyone else.

And even though scientists still dispute over this, and although no evidence of a particular gene or gene expression for homosexual attraction has been identified, yet I'm certain that you can support this unsubstantiated assertion. Your supporting documents or articles are forthcoming, right?

You nailed that, Tim.

My point is that we need to get behind a candidate who DOES show "a dime's worth of difference". Romney ain't it!

I can't speak for Dobermite, but no, I don't think that is conservative. However, i don't think we have a candidate running who is 100% conservative in every respect. I further doubt that you will ever find a candidate for any office who agrees with you on every detail of every issue, unless you run. We have to choose the best of the cadidates who are running. Rejecting all who have falws will leave us with no candidate at all.

Absolutely correct!