That's because Rachel Maddow is super-polite, and I believe the very measured tone you heard is her trying to avoid calling him a scum-sucking asshole shit-for-brains on television.

I hear you, but the point I was going for (in, as I look it over, a rather ham-handed way) is that poor economic choices are poor economic choices.

Two things that go together:

I'm sure you're right about his attitude toward women. However, his use of "who" rather than "that" only indicates that his life has been uninfluenced by grammar geeks like ourselves.

Aside from the creepiness factor—don't these guys have anything better to do? Do most Egyptians really think that debating this sort of thing is a good use of their taxes and Parliament's time?

"Crazy" isn't the go-to for exes, per se—it's the go-to for women who've caught them being deceitful.

"Hooter hiders"?

Hell, they should be allowed to be pope. One good nun running the Vatican would have the deadwood cleared out and the RCC on a paying basis inside of a decade.

I realize no one's going to read this (as the original thread was a couple of months ago). But the time frame for #1 should be 8-10 years, not 1 year. Historically, that's how long it takes to accomplish something really new, from a standing start, in science.

And then the Good Fairy (or alternatively, underpants gnomes) will come down from heaven and magically fund basic research.

My take is that:

Lately, in fielding the "war on women" issue, the Republicans are trying to frame it as "well, we're better for women because we're better on their economic issues."

I'm aware that the LDS is one of those religions that thinks members' time is the Church's time. But I get the impression that the Romneys never quite went in for the whole 9 yards you describe. She's apparently a well-considered equestrienne, plus she's got some serious health problems and she probably was a really…

Rule of thumb: In any he-said-she-said dispute, if (a) the woman has no reason to lie, and (b) the man's defense consists of "She's cuh-razy," he is lying, lying, lying.

I don't doubt a bit of this.

why does it seem to only be affecting Taiwan?

Yeah. You may know of a political science concept called the Overton window; it's the range of political opinions, Left-to-Right (or Right-to-Left, if you prefer), that the general public considers to be reasonable and not "extreme Left" or "extreme Right."

I can't be too judgmental.

Republican campaigns continually operate on the assumption that facts are trivial compared to spin.

Lukewarm about this.