rcade

I was raised Catholic. Ignoring the bishops is as Catholic as the popemobile.

You paid $5 for a 12-pack of soda?

One of the charts contains the unemployment rate, dude. I don't know why I bother replying to your nonsense.

The reality is that numerous metrics by which we chart the economy are getting better. They've been on an upward trend for months. You can pretend otherwise if it makes you happier about the Republican chances in November. Here's two of those charts: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/recovery-winter1-small.png http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/recovery-winter2-small.png It must be a bummer to have to root for a worsening economy to get your guy in the White House.

There are numerous economic trends that have been trending up the past six months. There was another yesterday when the Dow closed over 13,000. If the election was held today, judging by how he's polling against an unnamed Republican, President Obama would win pretty easily: http://electoral-vote.com/

I would've been happy to cross party lines to give Bush credit for capturing or killing Bin Laden. But this ain't horseshoes. Close don't count. The claim that the "apparatus was already in place" to catch Bin Laden, and therefore Bush deserves credit for something he failed to accomplish for seven years after 9/11, is hogwash. I fault him for failing to close Gitmo, not prosecuting any of the bankers most responsible for the 2008 economic crash, putting too many of the Goldman Sachs crowd in his administration, extending the Bush tax cuts and signing into law indefinite detention, among other things. But on the whole, I think he's done a good job in office.

So when President Bush said "I truly am not that concerned about him," you think that meant he was concerned about Bin Laden? He said he wasn't concerned because he meant it. The rest of the quote just gave his explanation for why he was "not that concerned" about the terrorist who plotted the deaths of 2,977 people on American soil, despite promising the American people six months earlier we'd get him "dead or alive." Bush took his eye off the ball and Bin Laden was still alive and free at the end of his presidency. Obama made Bin Laden a top priority and Bin Laden is dead. You're so busy trying to blame the left for everything that you won't hold Republicans accountable for anything. Consider the possibility that Bush made a mistake here.

That driver is being charged with DUI. He could still be charged with DUI if marijuana was legal. Every day millions of Americans use pot or alcohol without harming anybody else. You'd declare them all illegal because of the small number of people who can't exercise good judgment. That reasoning could be extended to any mood-altering substance -- tobacco, caffeine, energy drinks, and on and on. Instead of blaming the drugs or the booze, how about blaming the people who can't handle themselves?

Medical marijuana is legal under California law. Do you believe it's proper for the federal government to arrest companies that dispense medical marijuana in California and patients who buy medical marijuana with a prescription from their doctors? You're celebrating one of the most extreme examples of the federal government trampling state's rights in our lifetime.

Federal laws *never* change in response to what states want. That's why the maximum speed limit is still 55.

You think people with advanced scientific degrees didn't smoke pot in college? You must be stoned. Government policies against marijuana are self-perpetuating. Money is allocated to the authorities who criminalize marijuana at the federal, state and local level, and like any government program the participants work hard to justify their existence. At some point, if pro-legalization trends continue, the politicians will reach a tipping point because criminalizing marijuana will be so unpopular.

Who said that it did? You said that young people will change their views on marijuana as they age. Gallup's polling data shows that isn't happening. The people most against marijuana legalization are 65 and older. The people most for it are 29 and younger. As the baby boomers aged, you can see from Gallup the pro-legalization numbers went up. People who grew up smoking pot -- or knowing people who smoked it -- don't fall for the scare tactics about the drug.

Electric football.

I think it would be a mistake to rename the Sun Belt, because that would just convey a lack of self-confidence in the product we're putting out there. It's like how UNT has changed its uniforms every couple years, which never let us develop a traditional look. I cringed when I saw how much the Dodge-era uniforms looked like Southlake Carroll.

Here's a fact for you: The history of Gallup polling on marijuana legalization from 1969 to 2010: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx 12 percent supported legalization in 1969. 50 percent supported legalization in 2010. The trend is obvious.

The CUSA commissioner not liking UTSA at this time is good news for UNT's chances of getting an invite.

They are. They beat Michigan a few years ago in one of the biggest upsets in college football history.

Six months after telling the American people he'd catch Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive," President Bush was asked by a reporter where Bin Laden is and he said this in response: "I don't know where he is. ... I truly am not that concerned about him." President Obama, on the other hand, promised while running for president that he would make catching Bin Laden a top priority from day one. And he kept that promise. The notion that Bush put years into catching Bin Laden is proven false by his own words. He wasn't concerned about him.

Santorum's comment about almost throwing up were about Kennedy's 1960 speech regarding the separation of church and state. It's one of the most famous political speeches in U.S. history. Kennedy, like Santorum a Catholic, had to reassure Americans that he would not let his religious beliefs or the Vatican dictate policy. For Santorum to suggest that he "almost threw up" over the speech is remarkable. If Santorum doesn't understand why Kennedy made that speech, he's a lousy student of history. Bringing up JFK's personal life has nothing to do with Santorum's throw-up comment.

A person can care about more than one political issue at the same time. I care about Santorum's views on things like birth control and rape because they show, in my thinking, that he's woefully unsuited for the presidency. I saw Santorum on Meet the Press adopting the same tactic you're using and trying to steer discussion away from his social conservatism. As David Gregory responded, you can't make speeches about this stuff for year after year and not expect to be questioned about it.

I was raised Catholic and have known plenty of Catholics. Santorum is far to the right of many of them. 54 percent of Catholics voted for Obama and 45 percent for McCain, according to a Pew poll. Santorum's position on birth control was a gift to Obama. Romney and Santorum's popularity with female voters tanked after this became an issue. As for my married Catholic friends, they used birth control. Aside from my in-laws, who had nine children. Comparing a Catholic who uses a condom to one who cheats on his spouse is funny.

His beliefs on birth control are more extreme than most Catholics, who have used birth control themselves. The premise that Santorum's personal religious beliefs won't determine how he acts as president is absurd. This is a person who thinks that the government can regulate private sex acts between consenting adults in their homes. He also has said that if his daughter was raped and became pregnant, she should view it as a "gift" that "God is giving you." If he wins, he will choose Supreme Court justices who reflect his views on the role of the state in our sex lives.

If the Catholic Church runs side businesses, they should follow the same rules as every other business. There is no constitutional right in this country to use religion to exempt yourself from laws your religion does not like. In the Supreme Court case Employment Division v. Smith, the court ruled that religious liberty is not sufficient grounds to be exempt from laws. The court found that Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for consuming peyote as part of a religious tradition. Antonin Scalia wrote the decision for the majority. "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself," Scalia wrote.

Birth control is an issue because the Catholic bishops ordered their priests to read a letter at the pulpit criticizing a federal requirement to offer contraceptives in the insurance plans of the side businesses run by the church. Santorum, Romney and Gingrich picked up the ball and ran with it. Santorum continues to talk about it. He won't ban contraception as president, but he's already said he'll cut all federal funds being spent on contraception. It *is* a campaign issue for him. I guess he wants there to be more unwanted pregnancies and STDs. There are plenty of Catholic politicians on the left and right who don't share his nutty extremism on the issue. Most people stopped arguing against birth control decades ago.

Santorum's religious extremism doesn't have to be demonized. He talks all the time about his obsessions with what people do in their own bedrooms. On the subject of birth control, Santorum is against it. He calls it a "license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal ... but also procreative." So if you ever put a rubber on it, Santorum thinks you went against God. If you and your wife used birth control to wait until you were ready to have kids, you went against God. That sound nutty to you?