Maybe I missed something, but since when does the internet discriminate against racial minorities? I say we drag Al Gore in front of Congress to explain the inherent racism of his invention...

Oh, and whatever Jesse Jackson wants, I vote the opposite--sure saves me the time I'd have to spend researching something myself.

5. Frankly, I'm disappointed that so many so-called "conservatives" would reject term limits out-of-hand based on the silly and immature premise of "hey, we voted him in years ago--you can't kick him out!" I could easily reply with just as immature a response of "why don't you marry the corrupt, self-serving jerk, then!"

At the broader level, you could make the same argument against most any constitutional provision--since the document itself is primarily directed toward restraining public will in some form or another.

More nuance, please!

(And please leave more room for comments so we don't have to split them up so much.)

3. Whichever commentors have already demonstrated the terrible consequences of Amendment 17, I give kudos. You can undermine both the power of incumbency and the corruption of campaign financing by returning the question to the States. Does it solve every problem? No, but it's a start, at least. (Direct elections, on the other hand, confer power upon the political parties, not upon the people.)

4. On a related note, conservatives should understand that no constitutional restraints work without an effective check. At present, the States have no power to check a runaway federal government, and the people are either too lazy or unwilling to stop this process (and an occasional election won't empower them to do so, anyhow).

1. Do you oppose the existing two-term limit on the office of the presidency, also? I'm just wondering, because if you don't, then it does tend to weaken your line of argument.

2. You concept of voter "choice" is weaker than you think, given the proven power of incumbency. It's one thing to have a real choice between several options, but quite another thing to have the "choice" between an unopposed incumbent and some no-name candidate.

I'd like to see Big Government compile some sort of "UN-Wanted" posters of the Obama Czars and other high-ranking officials (make sure you add AG Eric Holder and his gang of activist lawyers to the mix). There's some serious dirt on these Bolsheviks, if you ask me. We've got to keep getting the word out to the American people.

The ACORN story got some serious traction, as it deserved. But setting the record straight on high-level government officials and their radical views hits so much closer to home when it comes to opposing President Obama's radical agenda. Call it a two-front war, if you will--one to show the radicalism at the nutroot level, the other to show that it leads all the way up the chain. Never in American history has the neo-Marxist Left risen so high in power, and people must see the Obama Administration as the culmination of a broader, radical worldview saturating vast segments of the population.

Several passages about Bonaparte from Tolstoy's War and Peace are astonishingly transferrable to an analysis of how Barack Obama became president in the U.S. It's longer than the usual homework assignment, but I highly recommend the read.

Unfortunately, carrying forward with this comparison, I doubt health care reform will prove to be President Obama's "Waterloo." After all, Europe had to exile Bonaparte more than once...

What folks don't seem to realize is that a tax deduction is no different than government spending. The only tax cuts are cuts in the rates. Everything else is social engineering and political pandering. Boo! Hiss!

Are you kidding me? A true conservative would never opt for the swiss-cheese tax code we have today. It's not about the ease of filing tax returns (contra your silly comment that Turbotax makes this OK). It's about the ease of reforming the tax code overall. Wrinkles added to the tax code are impossible to iron out, politically speaking. And they lead to all sorts of perverse incentives. I'm all for folks owning homes, for instance, but why at the expense of renters? Are we surprised that there was a housing bubble?

I'd like to spend more time addressing this nonsense, but it seems a waste of breath when right-leaning folks are apparently clueless.

It's really no wonder Americans can't control government spending or personal consumption--collectively, we are adopting the mentality of "money grows on trees." Think big picture, y'all, and stop letting the government distract you by passing out candy or free t-shirts! Panem et circenses are the enemies of a free society!

Some folks are also hitting on my points, but it's worth elaboration.

Let's see, the two biggest villains include a hypocritical Christian girl and an overly-right-wing fanatic cheerleading coach.

The main character? Oh, he refers the Christian girl to Planned Parenthood. Nice touch, that.

I've still been tuning in, but eventually the tired anti-conservative shtick wears thin. It won't be long before I'm over it.

And yes, it's not as entertaining as it promised to be with the pilot. I think the show's weakness rests in not knowing whether to keep up a fast comedic pace or to drag out its dramatic storylines. Caught in between, it becomes quite uneven.

Would've made a better feature length film--something along the lines of Dodgeball?

Great, another movie designed to put convicts in a positive light--this time, by suggesting our society would be capable of enslaving death row inmates for combat.

Back in the real world, we wring our hands over whether lethal injections might cause a teensy-weensy bit of pain. Wouldn't want a cold-blooded killer feeling pain!