... reads like a book report might if someone wanted to click on the link that says [Read shooter242's other letters] and do an analysis (if anyone is reading this comment section for the first time and doesn't know who shooter242 is, I don't advise doing this). This catalog of right-wing authoritarian techniques describes shooter's repeated methodology to a lapsang souchong. And that's the value of shooter to this list — no one has to go and search out prima facie examples of right-wing authoritarianism. Shooter brings them right to us, bless his little heart.

I officially give up on you Glenn. Salon has made its intentions clear now no one has to wonder any more.
— (~~~~)

Goodbye.

If shooter ever thought about what he was saying then he wouldn't be shooter. He'd be a rational being then and would not be recognizable as the shooter that we know and love.

• 52 percent of all adults believe that the use of torture is justified either often (12%) or sometimes (40%).

UN Convention against Torture (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm)

Article 2
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

• 55 percent of all adults believe that rendition (as explained above) is justified either often (14%) or sometimes (41%), when interrogating suspected terrorists.

Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

This is a ratified treaty and as such is the law of the land.

P.D. "Bo" Steele does not seem to understand the legal concept of "standing". Please look at <http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm>.

If that is too heavily legalistic, look at Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing> and click on "Standing (law)".

• If someone hates Joe Lieberman because he's a Jew, that's Anti-Semitism.
• If someone hates Joe Lieberman because he is despicable and a liar, that's not Anti-Semitism.
• If someone hates Jews because Joe Lieberman is despicable and a liar and a Jew, that's Anti-Semitism.
• If someone hates Joe Lieberman because he puts the interests of the state of Israel above the interests of the country of which is an elected official, that's not Anti-Semitism.
• If someone opposes the state of Israel's program of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid, that's not Anti-Semitism.
• If a person accuses someone of Anti-Semitism who has not actually expressed Anti-Semitic sentiments, that person has violated the ninth commandment ("thou shalt not bear false witness aginst thy neighbor").

Margalis:

Name them.

Or stop blathering.

I predict that Winnie will neither name them nor stop blathering.

I am still 8 pages of comments behind. I can't imagine how exhausted all of you must be by now if you are still arguing with this imagined stain upon our collective souls.

No one is arguing with him any more, it having been shown to be quite pointless. Not only does he not know what he is talking about, he apparently doesn't even realize what he is saying.

He is using the same argument that the Bush administration does, that there can be no criticism of the war in Iraq, of Guantánamo, torture, military commissions or even of the administration itself because it emboldens the enemy and gives them comfort, except that he is applying it to Israel, AIPAC, and Jews in general with respect to anti-Semitism.

He has clearly missed his calling — he should be an interrogator for the CIA. Fifteen minutes in a room with him and the most hardened terrorist would beg to tell everything he knows if they will only shut this guy up. His characterization of himself as a whiny Jew doesn't half do him justice. I suspect that in actuality he is the Vogon poet-laureate (h/t to WT via the Chocolate Interrobang).

TMKF: Only 1,000 a week?

No, "'upward of' 1,000 a week". I.e., less than 1,000 a week.

Crikey, I get "upward of" 1,000 emails a week — but 90% of that is Nigerian spam.

While the Broder piece is meta-reporting (i.e. not about substantive policy but rather election strategy), I find that it does represent a contribution to the 'marketplace of ideas' that Gore refers to.

In other words, you are saying that the truth needs to be balanced with falsehoods in order to give readers a choice. Admittedly, this is an opinion piece and not reporting, but the opinion rests on misrepresentation.

The American people rose up and pulled of a statistically highly improbable coup of turning both houses of congress over to the Democrats and giving them a mandate to end the US military involvement in Iraq and rein in the unlawful excesses of the president. Cole is saying that this is not so, that the American people want the Democrats to work more closely with the president. No one could have worked more closely with the president than the 109th Congress. If that is what the people wanted, why did they vote every Republican incumbent running out and return every Democratic incumbent?

If one wanted to write an opinion based on the facts it would say that the people want an end to the war in Iraq and they want restraints on executive power and that by obstructing every attempt by the Democrats to accomplish this congressional Republicans are thwarting the will of the people and can expect to pay for it in the next election. I wouldn't really expect the Republican House Campaign Chairman to say this, however.