"Further, the fact remains that each of the states I mentioned are, in fact, fascist states, and are a threat to democracy and human rights, and serially violate the human rights of their own people."

No, despite your insistence, it is not a fact. You are trying to shift and expand the meaning as you go along. As I said before, the only two states that might fit the your "Islamo-fascist" label are Iran and Saudi Arabia. The other states you mentioned (e.g. Egypt, Pakistan, etc.,) do not. This is where your other reasoning come in, such as your notion that because some of these countries have extremist Islamic elements in them that they are, for lack of a better word, "covert" fascist states, which is absurd.

"You say I'm a bigot for pointing it out, but what I hate is fascist and theocratic rule, not the people unfortunate enough to be oppressed by it. With a very few exceptions, religious autocrats throughout the ages have committed unspeakably horrific crimes against humanity, and nearly every dictatorship is religious at some level."

You are not a bigot because you hate fascists and theocratic rule. Your bigotry is based on your orginal and continuing attempts to falsely label all states with Islamic majorities as "Islamo-fascist" states in order to promote general anti-Arab or Muslim sentiment and rationalize a "war of ideas".

Your concern for the people who are repressed in Egypt is touching. I'm sure it's genuine.

Mubarak's a Pharoh? If you say so, but, he is a "Pharoh" that has a peace treaty with Israel.

Well it's probably better that you're retired because that sounds like just the kind of "textbook" military strategy that usually falls apart when reality rudely makes its presence felt. Btw, in case you missed it, blood has already flowed in New York and London. So much for enjoying the fireworks from a safe distance.

LOL! Whew, that was good and was exactly on point about the wailing hypocrisy surrounding this issue.

Because it's "For The Children!!!!!..." dontcha know and that's all that matters. In a reverse of that old maxim - They'd rather see 100 innocent men go to jail, rather than one child abuser go free.

"As usual during the trip, we took several photos. Because I forgot my digital camera, I bought a disposable camera at a gas station on the way to the campground. I took pictures of the kids using sticks to beat on old bottles and cans and logs as musical instruments. I took a few of my youngest daughter, Eliza, then age 3, skinny-dipping in the lake, and my son, Noah, then age 8, swimming in the lake in his underwear, and another of Noah naked, hamming it up while using a long stick to hold his underwear over the fire to dry. Finally, I took a photo of everyone, as was our camping tradition, peeing on the ashes of the fire to put it out for the last time. We also let the kids take photos of their own."

How do you interpert that as a father showing his daughter his penis? It's not like he said let me show you my penis and whipped it out for the expressed purpose of showing her. You're putting a rather nefarious and sexualized spin on it. I think "seeing it.." is much more accurate.

The current issue is this nonsense about the father "showing" his daughter his penis. That type of twisting of what happened is certainly part and parcel of the "For The Children" hysteria and actually illustrates what the author was talking about in his article (re: the Eckerd's clerk and subsequent drama).

My other line was just a play on an old phrase so get over it.

Check yahoo. Bonds won't be indicted "today" yadda, yadda. IOW, they ain't got much.

"People,

there is such a thing called child molestation. It does exist. People do take photos of naked children for sexual reasons, and sometimes they do get them developed in drugstores.

Also, if you take photos of your children, and have them naked, running around with liquor bottles, and have naked adults in the photos as well... you might very well expect some controversy.

It was probably innocent on his part. He should have used a digital camera. He was questioned and the case was dropped. Period."

Really? I didn't know there was a thing call child molestation. Thanks for informing me. Oh, I see you allow that it was "probably" innocent on his part. You know though, you can't be too sure so we should probably extradite him just in case. You can never be too careful when it comes to protecting ther children. Btw, the adults were naked?