Sorry for the delay in replying; I didn't visit the Bigs over the weekend, because there usually isn't much going on here then.

Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to find that info for me. :)

Yeah, it's a correct use, if you're using that particular style guide. It's just not the only correct use. And for the record, I start sentences with "and" and "but" all the time. I was just teasing. :)

Thanks for clearing that up, even if others don't seem to like your answer much. :)

"And no one's forcing me to buy anything of Lucas' (yes, that is the correct use of the apostrophe)."

Not to be even more of a grammar nazi, but that actually depends on which style guide you use. Some say that for every word or name that ends in an "s" you should only use the single apostrophe. Others say that that use is only for lengthy names that would be confusing with an additional syllable, like Achilles' heel. Most style guides, including the Oxford University Press, say that a singular possessive noun, even those that end in a sibilant sound, should always end with an additional "s." Notable exceptions are the Chicago Manual of Style and The Elements of Style. So really, that could be both correct and incorrect at the same time, depending on which guide you're using at the moment.

Also, you shouldn't begin a sentence with the word "and." ;)

Since I really don't know much about what constitutes an NBC, can I ask you to explain how that works in regards to Romney? His father was a US citizen, even though he was born in Mexico and, I believe, has dual citizenship. He also ran for President, and was apparently eligible to do so, since he wasn't disqualified during the race. Mitt was born in the US to two US citizens. How is he not an NBC? How does that work? Various websites give conflicting information on the topic.

The CDC publishes an adoption stats report every few years. They're accessible on the website. One of them - I'm thinking it was the 2008 report - showed a decline in the number of babies up for adoption vs a rise in the number of abortions over the past 30 years. And yes, I'm sure the special needs numbers - as well as those for kids older than infants - are much different. It's too bad, because those are often the ones that need a loving home the worst.

Prop 8 had the exact same margin of error as the popular vote for President that year, and yet libs loudly crowed over the "overwhelming majority" of people who voted for Obama.

"The argument that is more effective for the pro-choice crowd, I think, is the child many times will grow up in poverty and will have raised in conditions most children don't grow up in."

That's what adoption is for. There are millions of parents wanting to give kids a good home, but ever since the legalization of abortion, the number of babies available has been steadily declining.

Exactly. I don't even watch it on my TV most of the time anymore.

I haven't seen those articles, but I'll look around for them. Thanks for the tip, and for posting those links!