Don't worry... I'm not "infuriated" at all. I just think that any country that is saddled with the likes of the Olins, Scaifes, Waltons, Bushes, Cheneys, and any other of the rapacious rich buying their political system will eventually lose their democracy and collapse, just like we have.

End of story. These people contribute nothing to society, and take much.

Good thing they have people like you to look out for them. They need your help so much.

If I hear some righty say, one more time, that the fact that 40% of Americans pay no income tax, and that some miniscule percentage at the top pay some huge proportion of the total, as though this appalling set of statistics bolstered their argument, I'm going to do something desperate.

What this means, you sociopathic nincompoops, is that we already live in a banana republic, so drastically unequal that almost half of us are so poor that the government can only step aside and hope we don't starve to death, while a tiny minority are so absurdly rich that without giving up a fur, jewel, or yacht, can essentially finance the military/prison/police state shell of a government we have left, with plenty of cash left over to make this arrangement permanent.

That situation is desirable? That is the reason that Democracy emerged, you greedy idiots. To prevent the undeserving and entrenched wealthy from destroying the lives of everyone else with their greed, arrogance, and self-entitled stupidity. (See Bush, George W.)

The idle heirs of the obscenely wealthy have not only robbed everyone else blind, but they have bought the media, the think tanks, and the politicians for so long that even people who work for a living believe their claptrap in numbers that are nothing short of alarming.

We've seen, and continue to see, what happens when this overclass gets its way. If they are taxed a little more and decide to leave? Their loss is our gain.

JimAk.... It's always unintentionally revealing what righties say. So Dohrn and Ayers said some awful stuff; never mind that they were opposing an unaccountable government slaughtering innocents in an unwinnable war based on lies. Maybe they felt the way the abortion clinic bombers Palin now excuses felt. Kudos for quoting Ayers directly, "I wish we could have done more," which to any sentient being means, to stop the war. McLiar, on the other hand, repeats incessantly, "I wished we could have bombed more." Did you bother to call him on that? Didn't think so.

Still, what people did that long ago is not really that relevant, when they have reformed themselves, and as a disqualifier for Obama, it's pretty weak.

But, as you've repeatedly stated, such things don't matter. You have your obsessions, and you're sticking to them.

PS. GeeBee... You're quoting the Red Queen, not Humpty, but you're accurate.

Is it just me, or are righties all so dumb they make Palin look smart? Roe v. Wade negates the idea of a living constitution? Or not? I can't tell. Joe the plumber, who is on TV all the time even though he's demonstrably dumb as a box or rocks, has no free speech?

It seems that the only thing all righties have in common is that they believe utter nonsense, yet in a creepily violent and punishing way. THawk has some theory, albeit not "fully developed or proved yet" that apparently posits "a probable McCain landslide." So there. Verses told another Christian poster who disagreed with him the other day, and I paraphrases for effect, "My Jesus can beat up your Jesus."

THawk and the rest of you... I hope the Brain Fairy left something nice under your pillow.

Don't spend it all in one place.

EP... I've been known to show up at doors when rum is involved, but I have never knowingly eaten fruitcake; those petrified fruit thingamajigs creep me out. And then there's the shelf life.

Congratulations, Catamite Bastard. You've won your first Hurl Check (formerly the Eww Award).

How about Foley tying you to a four-poster? Would the be considered "Prior Restraint?" (Ewww.. prior to what?)

Ask Sarah Palin.

Jeez, it's hard to work and comment when Glenn has these days.

This complaint is constantly heard on the right... That somehow the First Amendment protects their speech by, you guessed it, denying everyone else's. Every time Limbaugh or Savage or Coulter says something publicly so over-the top despicable, and is rightly criticized for it, they complain through their hundreds of radio stations and thousands of echoing toadies that their "rights" are being taken away. Note to Palin... You got to say it, dintcha? At dozens of rallies and through the many media outlets who unquestionably broadcast your inanities and hate speech?

The first Amendment gives, (you the right to make an ass of yourself) and it taketh away (through the right of others to point out you're an ass).

That's the beauty of it.

The Fairness Doctrine, in this case, is a classic example. To a righty, allowing equal time to dissenting views would constitute "censorship," because a superior viewpoint might make their viewpoints look irrational and/or stupid, and would certainly compromise their believability. Worse, when they lie, there'd be someone there to say, "You're lying," perhaps on the same station. That would never do.

The implicit admission here is that righty viewpoints are inherently unable to withstand scrutiny, and thus invariably collapse against the lightest criticism, and people would stop believing. She's correct, of course.

Oops, the ice-bound Einstein gave the game away, again.

@Sysprog... Now Ethics Professor and I are getting even more unwanted competition from this Miliband character; these Vladophiles are practically popping out of the woodwork lately. We saw him first. I guess Bush was onto something when he looked into those eyes and saw something.