GTrasher, what the fuck are you talking about? I've been skipping over your incoherent babblings for a day and a half and I can't figure out what your purpose is other than to be a pain in the ass (and that's MY job).

Your ideas come across as incomplete and incoherent. Finish a thought, sit down, take some time, and hit preview instead of publish after your first furious attempt at writing something.

I gather that you feel put upon and misunderstood. Well, that's because we're looking for a complete idea from you. I'm not even sure what your point is, or how it has any relevancy to the topic at hand.

I was going to respond to your first missive but I figured more elegant voices would beat me to it (and they have). I would point out that I, too, knew of Mr Greenwald's sexual orientation because it is WIDELY KNOWN. I do not think he needs to announce it, and I think people who make a habit of broadcasting their identity in the manner you have suggested are cads anyway, which includes you, who, every other post, needs to remind us that you are African American.

Excellent, glad to hear it. And the price of rice in China is rising. Carry on.

Please, just make a point or shut up. Pick one. Thanks,

The upshot of all of this is this: before Barack "Darkie" Obama came along, no one was talking about the mountain folk in Appalachia.

I think that in a lot of ways, Appalachia is a blind spot for Democrats, and has been for many decades.

Sure, sensitive young progressives like myself think about the plight of the coal miner while listening to "Uncle Tupelo" on the CalTrain ride to our high-paying dot-com jobs in the South Bay, and we shake our heads when a number of miners die in a poorly maintained mine with sub-par safety measures, but ultimately these people are toothless moonshiners as far as the average American is concerned, progressives largely included.

So, perhaps a positive result of all this "race" heady debate amongst Democrats is the spotlight shone on a truly blighted subculture of America.

Of course, it doesn't end with the miners and industrial workers (or ex-miners and ex-industrial workers) in Appalachia, it extends to the Arkansas chicken-farmers who are virtually indentured servants to ADM or Cargill or ConAgra, or the corn farmers in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Idaho who are mere pawns in the corporate welfare game played out by the same half-dozen big agri-businesses that profit from government hand-outs. Not the farmers, but the producers.

Huh?

Isn't the point of progressivism to stand up for the little guys? I thought it was. And now the press has its klieg lights on them, so they can offer chestnuts like "Obama ain't one of us."

Fair enough, they don't know better. That's because they've been ignored for so long.

But Obama has a golden opportunity to reach out to these people and give them the attention they deserve.

Or, as Marlo Standfield famously said, "maybe this is one of them good problems."

Oh dear..

get lost and stop obessing over me... You are a nobody in here...

That's not even a good way to win an argument on IRC/Usenet..

Nobody or not, you still have not made a cohesive point. I wait with baited breath, but I won't wait forever.

Tell me something interesting or I will join the ranks of UT letter writers who have decided to simply ignore you. The smart money is on you failing to do that, so, it's no skin off my back.

But what do you care, I'm nobody anyway.

Unfortunately, her skills are more suited for the board-room of Wal-Mart, coming up with more devious, Machiavellian ways to fuck the common worker in America and make them say "please and thank you" in spite of their better interests.

Same with the AUMF vote, the various credit bills, the Patriot Act and its various re-authorizations, the Kye-Lieberman Iran bill, etc.

The question is: who benefits? Aside from HRC that is..

Obviously, Obama must be some fresh-off-the-farm chump to not have backed such cynically anti-American, classist measures.

Oh, right, he's a black-seperatist Muslim, that must be why he doesn't unquestioningly support the Beltway power hegemony!

[citation needed]

NI..

You said..:

I think the court unanimously got this one wrong. Prop 22 advertised itself as a simple, straightforward statement that only opposite-sex marriages are (not "shall be," not "will be") recognized in California.

Let's agree for a moment that are, shall be and will be are (Noam Chomsky is cringing) essentially the same as "is". Of course, any parsing of those verbs is inconsequential to the central complaint in the matter, "only", emphasis mine, the exclusionary clause.

You will forgive me, then, if I extrapolate that exclusion and put it in the framework of other, similar legalese clauses like "only property owners" or "only 3/5ths" or even "only men".

So, what is the difference between the constructions "only men are", "only men shall be" or "only men will be?"

A great place to do opposition research!

You're one-stop-shop for right-wing concern trolling and talking points!

Why, you don't have to even bother listening to Limbaugh or reading Little Green Footballs, its all delivered to your doorstep right here in letters!

Convenient, and subscribe now, Salon.com will send you either a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" or "Mein Kampf" -- free!

Sure, you can say that word. And I can say that I think Clinton needs a hysterectomy or a lobotomy. And we'd all be equally wrong.

Either Clinton is stupid and it was a bad choice of words or she is very smart and it was intentional.

We imprison illiterate children, hold them for years without charge.

Absolutely heat-breaking, what has come of America. Close Guantanamo now, and send Bush to the Hague.

Looks like I'm not getting any work done this morning.