Why shouldn't the Democrats go nuclear? Worst case scenario, Alito is confirmed which happens anyway. Best case scenario, Alito's nomination is thwarted. Another good scenario, the Republicans are revelaed as extremists for cheating and going nuclear.

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. What do we have to lose?

Reid didn't close the Senate down, he got the doors to the Senate chamber closed.

CNN is framing this as closing down the Senate, which is reminiscent of when the GOP House literally shut down the government back in 1994 -- a much different, much more radical, and very unpopular move.

Where's the ugliness in saying "I told you so"? I don't see it. There was a debate. One side lied, was wrong, and tried to demonize the other side. And now that other side is supposedly ugly if they simply say, correctly, that we told them so? Why is that ugly? Because its not magnaminous? Is there duty to be magnaminous? Especially when the other side called us traitors and lied? I don't think so. You had it right the first time Grieve. This is all about minimal standards of accountability.

Damn those hippies! If they didn't create a perfect utopia, then it was all for nought. And if some porn stars living in the same city had a violent episode? Then it was clearly all wrong from the start.

"I don't know enough of the facts to opine on whether that phrase will be read aloud by jury foremen. I do know enough to say it is a stretch to use the term "innocent" to describe the men of Duke lacrosse. Hiring strippers, excessive alcohol use, disorderly public conduct -- those aren't activities one generally describes as innocent."

Don't be an ass, Sweeney. You know that "innocent" in this context means innocent of rape charges -- not innocent of being in college.

"And some of these people -- not all, by any means -- seem to be secular fundamentalists. They have as bigoted a view of religion as some religious fundamentalists have of secularism. We have too much dogmatism at the moment. Take Richard Dawkins, for example. He did a couple of religious programs that I was fortunate enough to miss. It was a very, very one-sided view."

What a crock. Dawkins is the exact opposite of a bigot or a dogmatist. His views are not based on prejudice but on judicious review of the evidence and a laudable commitment to rationality over superstition.

Armostrong strikes me as an overzealous phony. She has some deep need to have religious views but she struggles with the fact that religion is obvious bunk.

She also makes up lame excuses such as her claim that the afterlife is a red herring. A red herring? I have a close member of my family who is dying of cancer. Tell her that the afterlife is a red herring.

You have to be kidding. A woman with as much integrity as Katherine Harris? Pshaw!

Down the memory hole again, I see.

You worry too much Tim. Stalin famously said that its the one who counts the votes who has the power, and that was that bitch Katherine Harris in 2000. That bitch was instrumental in stealing a presidential election, one of the worst crimes against our democracy ever committed. She should be jailed. Dean did nothing wrong by calling it like it is. If the shoe fits...

Collins has gone from a schoolboy disbelief in god to a schoolboy belief in god.

The man needs to learn a little philosophy before pontificating about deities. You'll notice how he repatedly talks about a "need" to believe in god rather than a reason. He talks about how religion helped people through illnesses. But of course no one denies that religion can function as a crutch. We just deny that its a reliable way to find truth.

Collins said re C.S. Lewis, "As I read his arguments about the Moral Law -- the knowledge of right and wrong, which makes no sense from the perspective of basic evolution and biology"

Actually evolutionary psychologists have a very good explanation for this. He also thinks that evolution can't explain altruism but there are well known arguments for kin altruism and reciprocal altruism which he just seems to ignore.

As all polling insiders know, Lamont being up 51-45 against a well known incumbent like Lieberman means he's really up something like 54-46.

Strong-on-security? Acting like a pussy and jumping on Bush's bandwagon because you're afraid of being called weak-on-security doesn't make you strong-on-security. When Bush's bandwagon goes over a fucking cliff, that REALLY doesn't make you strong-on-security. Being strong-on-security means you support actions that increase our security. Bush's faith-based Iraq adventure has harmed our security. Hence, people who supported that policy are weak-on-security, not strong.

Here's what's really going on. Lieberputz is personally insecure. When Republicans attack him for being weak-on-security he feels ashamed and weak -- i.e. insecure. By going along with the Republicans, he relieves this cause of his anxiety. Its his own security he is worried about, not that of the United States. If he really cared about the security of the United States, he would have changed his view on Iraq now that all this new data shows his original position was wrong. But Lieberputz is all about the security of Lieberputz, not the United States. If he backs down, Bill Kristol will call him names. Lieberputz is willing to trade off some real national security of the U.S. in order to avoid being called names by Bill Kristol.

If Lieberputz really were strong-on-security, I would support him.

I disrespect Lieberman but I'm no anti-semite. And I doubt most Jews will fall for this phony argument. They're too smart to fall for bogus propaganda and have too long of a tradition of concern for social justice to join with the unjust liars of the Republican party.