"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

I don't know if this is addressed in the article (didn't read, maybe will read later as time allows), but sometimes these comparative studies are off track because we test all students in the US whereas other countries test those students who are university-bound because they start students on vocational tracks earlier in life. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but it is at least worth considering who makes up the sample sizes.

For example, in Wisconsin, Rotary International Exchange students are required to take the ACT (along with all other juniors in the state) because the state decided to use the ACT to measure school's progress. Since the Rotary students are enrolled, they get no extra accommodations for language proficiency or fluency yet are included in all the scores that a district would have to report out on.

Seems like a number of these are open to interpretation. "Supported the Patriot Act." Frankly I wish he had opposed it or given up some executive power, but the Patriot Act is the current law of the land. So this article is arguing that Obama broke the law by upholding the law and using the powers granted to the Executive by Congress through the Patriot Act?

I aM sURe tHaT He jUST wAnTeD tO PlAY YaHtZeE WiTh HeR

Jeff, "I was trolling" after the fact is a pretty low response. You made a BS statement and got called on it. You should really own up.

The argument about discounting California's votes has got to be one of the DUMBEST argument ever pushed by the right. How about this: if we discount California's vote total entirely, why shouldn't we also discount an equivalent number of votes FOR Trump? What would that do to the EC and popular vote totals? Regardless, Californians are just as much a part of the Republic as Texans, Alabamans, Michiganders, etc. you want to not count their vote strictly because there are more of them and they voted differently than you. That's about the most undemocratic a person can make.

How do you define authentic? What a riot. I mean honestly I'm impressed you included a leftist and a left-centrist in your list of "authentic" people, but what a bizarre metric.

I detect no change.

He's just as rambling, incoherent, crazy, and abusive as he's always been.

A conservative radio station takes a conservative speaker/show off the air and replaces him with another conservative speaker, and somehow the Democrats are to blame? What a riot.

#8 - I think that's a reasonable response. Generally when I see someone pull out the "you didn't build that" line, it's used in a way that demonstrates zero understanding of the original context.

What is your specific problem with pointing out that small business owners didn't make the roads on which they ship their goods?

#30 has to be, by far, the absolute worst retort I've ever read on this site. Ever.

"My guy got a fictitious medal for creating a false condition to dodge the draft, but by golly, at least he got a medal"?

Like, WTF. Do you see the words you're typing. Do you think about them even a little before hitting enter? I mean, Gawd, this is just so bad it has to be parody, but it's not. I know it's not. JTC this lowers the stupid bar on this site.

That post is the Big Foot of stupid. The Loch Ness. The Empire State Building.

If the stupidity of that post had a population, it would rival Tokyo.

That post : stupid :: Donald Trump : grifter

If that post's stupidity were a meme, it would be so epically popular that it would rival all the Minions posts that Baby Boomer post. Combined.

And you'd still probably brag about the fact that you posted something so mind bogglingly stupid. Because that's essentially what the post did. We'd enter a Stupid-ception, a spiraling universe of greater and greater stupidity that stretches out to the end of time. We'd never actually hit the middle but just stretch out longer and longer as time, energy, sanity, and logic all cease to have any meaning.

That post was the E=MC^stupid of all posts.

Good. Lord.

Do you really think campaigns wait to write copy until after the debate? Geez. This is as simple as a staffer hitting send too early.

Boaz - I said that I understood your stance even if I disagreed with it. You're the one who laid out the argument that you value guns more highly than children. I honestly don't think I'm distorting your argument here; you offered it up without being prompted.

"Your dead kids do not outweigh my right to own a gun" makes no mention of the shooter. You are straight up choosing a firearm over a human life. I may have been brash about my disapproval of this argument, but honestly - YOU said the words. If YOU use rhetoric like this instead of a reasonable response (which it seems plenty of other guns rights proponents are capable of doing), then don't be surprised to be called on your --------. Your exact language is that you'd rather have a dead child than give up your firearm. And you call yourself pro-life?

Boaz,

If you can't see how "I'd rather have dead kids and my guns than have living kids and not my guns" is an offensive argument, then I can't help you. I'm not sure anybody can. That's the crux of what you're saying. I don't understand how you can't see it.

Imagine the dead children are beautiful, lovely feet with long toes that end in gorgeously painted nails and maybe you'll understand why people are disturbed by your argument.

To be clear here - I disagree with your stance, but I respect it. I think your argument, though, is incredibly callous and offensive.

Huh. Generally knee-jerk reactions from the right, and a nuanced, thoughtful explanation from Joe, presumably from the left. Imagine that.

Even as a person in favor of more regulation and gun control, I had similar slippery slope concerns just reading this headline. The discussion here is very interesting, though, and Joe has given me a lot to think about as it pertains to advertising. It's definitely an interesting case.

And Boaz, and I'd like to go on record. The right of my children to live ----------------- outweighs your right to a gun. Find a new argument; this argument is morally bankrupt and is a red herring.

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

-Robert Frost
/obligatory

I wonder what Alexander Hamilton thought about the idea that a sitting president couldn't be charged or even investigated for murder? Or the idea that a president could override Congress to use tax payer money to bribe a foreign government into manufacturing dirt on a political rival? Anybody want to scrounge the Federalist papers for nuggets on those two items?