I think ouroborous is saying that if you break down our society into four groups:

A. Government

B. MSM

C. Protestors (no matter how stupid and crazy)

D. The rest of the masses

If A says something, B will agree to it with little discourse.

If C says something, B will label as coming from crazies.

Because B agrees with A and disagrees with C, D will most likely side with A -- that protesting and speaking out against A will ALWAYS land you in B's proverbial loony bin and discredit you in D's viewpoint.

Did I get that right, ouroborous?

You mean the innocent, expatriated persons who have not lost their citizenship to their native country?

You know what? I bet if I tried hard enough I could imagine worse. And, if I tried even harder I could probably believe what I imagine.

For now, I'll keep believing that foreign objects were used instead of no foreign objects.

Wondering if anyone else questions if it is okay to be intolerant of bigotry.

Probably not possible, but I'd applaud any prosecutor who'd press charges against Ignatius and his ilk with Accessory after the fact (U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 3).

Here's the text of the code:

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.

I mean, it looks like to me all you have to do is show sympathy and you're guilty. What is the legal definition of "comfort"?

Of course, that "Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress..." passage is unfortunate.

...the populist anger being fueled by these bonuses does present an opportunity for enterprising Republicans.

Those enterprising Republicans might need to change their platform though. I'm not sure advocating unfettered capitalism (the very thing that allowed for this debacle) helps their cause.

Both have their work looked over by an editor. And, editors are supposed to police what is published to ensure that the 'facts' are true and corroborated.

In addition, I point you to a passage from the ASNE Statement of Principles (emphasis mine):

Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports.

Sig is link but here is the URL: http://www.asne.org/kiosk/archive/principl.htm

In light of the above, I would say that opinionists and reporters CAN be held to the same standard when it comes to presenting something as fact. And, the best way to corroborate something is fact is to cite multiple sources that are not anonymous.

Untethered overreaction to a man who's integrity cannot be questioned.

Why can't it be questioned?

Would you say the Republicans do well when criticized from within their own party? If so, do you think there might have been one or two Republicans to vote for the stimulus package?

Republicans are good at group think and being antagonistic.

It's not a large majority, but the point is this: those percentages are not reflected in Congress, the Senate, and our mass media. The first problem is the disconnect between public opinion and the opinion of our public 'officials.' The second problem is the disconnect between the populace and their voting habits. Not voting for people who support your views isn't going to bring about a change.

There has been no attack since disclosure of the illegal wiretapping, rendition, torture, etc. activities. Does that further defeat the insipid rhetoric of 'these things prevented an attack and are, therefore, justifiable'?

I wonder how many Liberals would agree with that study against how many Conservatives?

I've often wondered how many serial and mass murderers are registered Republicans.

Okay, I only got up to page 5, but I really want to ask this.

Let us assume 1) that Obama is a progressive and 2) he fills his cabinet with predominately non-progressive people.

Would it be fair to say that the 'only' progressive opinion he will hear is his own? Is that a good thing?

Go Team USA. I'm almost done caring about this place because most people don't care and the rest are largely ineffectual at shutting down the propoganda machinery that enables the Grand American Myth of Economic and Moral Exceptionalism.

So, perhaps, the revolution needs to be against the propaganda machinery (MSM?) and not the government? Would the press cover a mass sit-in of CNN or Fox headquarters? Well, I'm sure they would. But how?

Having been a foster parent of 12 drug exposed babies, I can sympathize with what you are stating. Smoking crack absolutely promotes the neglect of children. I also have never met a person who uses crack recreationally. But, in terms of law, smoking cracks does not equal neglect.

If it were, couldn't we stated that all DUIs are, at least, attempted manslaughter? How would we classify a schizophrenic with violent tendencies not taking his or her medicine? Attempted battery?

I am definitely not a lawyer, but my understanding of law is the above hypothetical scenarios will not happen. As such, I don't see a parent smoking crack will ever be, by itself, prosecuted as child neglect.

You type faster then me?