Taro T

I'd actually take the opposite tack and have step one to provide incentives for being married. (And if the federal government is gearing tax policy to support marriage, I am fine with providing civil unions with the same tax incentives.) BC's PSA's extolling the problems that single mothers face and why single girls/women should try to avoid that sounds ok as an additional step.

Fair enough. When I was younger, I was very much in favor of your position. Where we are today with technology, I think it would end up chilling free speech more than understanding where the money is coming from would help the system. JMO.

So, no issues with a person supporting a politician supporting public union reform having (literally) a truckload of protesters on their front doorstep?

I don't expect the whack jobs to try to kill someone for actually speaking their mind, but I could definitely see someone catching hell for it.

Interesting. As Chris Matthews is talking about how every single person on the stage today except for Walker Cruz is a white Catholic and the Republicans are trying to woo the Reagan Democrats, Arthur Davis is up on stage. And, apparently, not a single person has talked about Mitt Romney tonight either.

You aren't impressed by the Republican's convention?!? Truly shocking.

NB, you seem to feel very strongly about this issue. Question for you, in lieu of having individual donors 'outed' would you be willing to accept a system where demographic statistics are released in aggregate about the donors to campaigns and PACs on perhaps a monthly or weekly basis? Something whereby say the NAICS codes (or aggregates of general 1st 2 digits of SIC codes) with # of donors, & average donation, and headquarters states / nationalities; and similar info for individuals and unions is also disclosed. That way you would know (more or less) where the money came from, but whack jobs wouldn't be able to specifically target individuals for retribution for having the audacity to use their 1st amendment rights. Obviously details would have to be fleshed out better. Just curious as to whether you'd consider something along those lines acceptable.

I've been going for the entertainment angle tonight. Been flipping back and forth between Fox and MSNBC. Thought it interesting that it looks like MSNBC didn't show the video w/ Obama's quote in it. (If they did show it, which I doubt, they cut away to Matthews VERY quickly.)

It was a team loss, but if any of a handful of plays/items would have been different, so would the outcome. They include: Biscuit dropping a likely pick-6 right before the Jints went up 20-19; Talley having 1 arm in a protective sleeve (how many tackles did he miss because he couldn't wrap the guy up - a lot of other people missed tackles that game, but that was the only game all year Talley was missing); Marv Levy not forcing Kelly to call additional running plays - the Jints had a 2 man front and Thurman was tearing them up; Bruce not being able to get the ball out of Hostettler's hand in the endzone; and the officials deciding to review McKeller's catch on the last drive that cost the Bills at least enough time to get 1 additional play that drive.

I'd've probably run with "Former Republican, Ex-Governor Christ Endorses Obama." Somehow I don't see his endorsement as being quite in the same league as Zell Miller backing Bush. (No tthat that was any particular surprise either.)

Nah. Keep 'er closed. The only changes I know I'd want to make are saying the Bills will beat the Jest a second time and be able to steal all of the Seadogs plays and somehow I don't see them going 12-4. Funny, I actually thought I had 'em going 9-7 rather than 10-6.

The choice to have sex will always come with the possibility of consequences. And, by definition, if a baby stakes out a claim as a result of that, it wasn't "non-procreating." I'd suggest that the term "right precautions" is rather subjective as well if one swims through anyway.

Well, I know that's what Scooby, Conner, nozzlenut, and a few others would choose in a heartbeat. NB tries to be a reasonable lefty, so I'd hope he'd pick something a bit more reasonable.

Not an incredible tagline, but in my slightly buzzed state I can't come up with a better one. It's relevant and points to the contrast between the candidates. It appears that you don't like it. What would you suggest they use instead?

I assume your discussion is regarding abortion and not birth control. With that as the basis, and speaking only for myself, the baby inside her 'deserves more benefit of the doubt' because of 2 points: 1. in general, the mother already made her choices and they ended up with a baby inside her; and 2. the baby is innocent. If the mother, again in general (not talking about situations such as rape), had used birth control and insisted the father used it as well; there pretty much wouldn't be a baby that needed to get hoovered out. If only 1 of them is using birth control the odds of a baby being inside her increase. If neither of them are using birth control the odds of baby being inside her go up substantially. Yes, the pill can fail, especially if the woman is on antibiotics, (and other forms can fail as well) but the odds of a prophylactic also failing at the same time are pretty miniscule. As to your second question, except in limited circumstances, the mother already made a choice, which is why there is now a baby inside of her. It's a ****ty situation, having a pregnancy that isn't wanted, but as pretty much everybody in this discussion will admit - we don't know when 'life' starts; in general I'd prefer to err on the conservative side.

... it's fun to stay at the YYYYYY - MMMMM - CCCCC - AAAAAA !! ...

I can see the D's all out attack on Akin swaying some independents. I don't know that they'll sway them towards President Obama, but it could sway some to stay home or 'vote their conscience' for a 3rd party; either of which is almost as good to Axelrod as getting them to pull the lever for the President. I could also see the all out attack turning off some Catholics. (Probably not as many as the independents that will be swayed the other way. And regardless, the President can't run ON the economy, so his crew has to find something to carry the day.) I never would have expected even 2 years ago that the D's would be telling Catholics to 'get to the back of the bus' but it does seem that's the way they're headed. Short term, I see Akin as being a big boost to the D's; it'll be interesting to see Romney's reaction and whether the D's overplay their hand. If he's not agile and the D's don't overplay it, I can see this being big for them. If either he's agile or this gives the DWS crowd significant airtime, I can see it not moving the needle when all is said and done. If the R's could get off their '!@#$ all immigrants' policy (I know that isn't where they're at, but it often comes across that way) they actually could find themselves being the predominant home for Hispanics, much like African Americans in general are firmly in the D's tent.

It'll be interesting how Romney and Ryan deal with the 'Akin issue.' This is the 1st item since Ryan was selected for VP that seems to have a chance to resonate for the incumbant. I fully expect Axelrod and crew to go all in on trying to make Romney all about Akin. If Romney can sidestep this one and have it go away by the convention, he's got a real good chance of winning. I'm not sure that he can make this one go away well enough.

Could be pandering. Could also be a realization that D's will demand cuts from Defense in any plan that actually gets worked out. Gives Romney some room to move and a chance for D's to say 'yeah, they got most everything they wanted, but at least we took some of their goodies away.' Because somehow I don't see Romney dropping a 'back of the bus' comment on the D's in budget negotiations if he does win the election. My guess is that it's a little of both.

Ditka.

You don't work, you die.

Well, that sucks. Hopefully the idiots that did it brag to their friends once school starts so they can be made to make amends. !@#$ing Dolphin fans! (PLEASE let it turn out the idiots that did it are Fish fans. (Marsha fans would work as well.))

You are correct that they haven't been true debates since the '80's. But that doesn't mean that the election can't be lost in them. Even in 2000 when they were pretty much what they'll be today, Gore managed to blow it. I do expect them to determine the winner.

I do hope you are wrong about the 1st part, though I wouldn't put it past my fellow Americans to prove you're right. The bolded part I disagree with. I don't think the country needs Ryan in the VP slot because he can't DO anything there. In his current role, he can be a voice of sanity trying to lower spending and get entitlements to a point where they aren't forced to insolvency. For that reason, I'm not happy that he's the VP candidate. I would have preferred to see one of the Governors being touted as the VP nominee. (Probably leaning towards the NM Governor, but didn't know enough about her to say she was definitely my choice.) And I do think that he helps Romney more than hurts him; he will bolster Romney's fiscal conservative credentials, inspire Tea Partiers, and is pretty much the anti-Palin, and will likely help with Independents even though he probably makes FL tougher for Romney to win.

Didn't you say a while back that you've never voted for the winner? If we took up a collection, could you please vote for Obama?