OK, why not?

-- tiberius: ..."You are all the same people that were ranting that we didn't do enough prior to 9/11. You can't have it both ways. We either have to actively track and stop people BEFORE the harm us or we have to shrug when thousands of us die."

I am not the same people. I do understand what you are saying.

You are saying that normal police and intelligence methods developed over centuries are not good enough to protect us against this superhuman cabal of demons. My response? You have to be kidding!

It does nothing to "protect" me to take away my civil rights under the constitution; in fact it does the opposite. This is not an issue of "protection." This is an issue of the state always grabbing more power whenever they can terrify the populace.

By the way, who benefited the most from 9-11 anyway? Don't policemen have some saying or the other on that topic?

...and his view of liberty (and fairness) if you were a woman.

I doubt it, as I think more of one woman than I do of anyone else (myself in particular); and I do not know exactly what you mean about a women issue.

However, even if you do not like the guy, you must admit his very presence in the debates is splitting the party in two. I would think most progressives would applaud that. It is the old adage that if the other side is harming themselves then do not get in their way. (or words to that effect)

I do not think that a Democratic win will bring forth a new age of freedom; but we have to stop the Repugs now, and with whatever and whoever we can use against them. Can you imagine Rudolph William Louis Giuliani as your next ruler now that these recent precedents have been established? (may the gods forbid)

"I don't know if "bucky" is still around, but I do have to give a minor defense here to the otherwise loathsome WALNUTS and remind people that in the Republican debate, John Mccain was vehemently against torture and Gitmo too."

I am no fan of McCain, but you are correct that we need to applaud those specific positions of anyone that helps us step back from the brink of totalitarianism.

Having said that, I still think McCain would be a bigger disaster than Bush, if that were possible.

A year and a half out? Are you crazy?

In the Presidential race, it will be Fred Thompson (R) against Hillary Clinton (D) in a close race. It would not be quite so close, but she has high negatives. I pick Clinton by 1%.

House races: The Dems pick up 5 - 10 seats.

Senate: The Dems pick up 3 - 5 seats.

It is the local races that matter the most, and I see a local landslide for the Democratic Party unless someone at the top does something real stupid.

Note: The above assumes the neo-cons allow an election. I rate that at 60/40 for election at this time.

Anyone else willing to make a prediction, while we may do so without going to jail?

" ... But the real goal of the Vietnam Was was to avoid another wave of McCarthyism driving the Democrats out of power, as did the first wave of McCarthyism, which only succeeded because of the Korean War taking us by surprise. ..."

This is simply false. Even if you cite some yahoo to back you up, this is self-delusion on a grand scale. The history of our long and very disastrous 20th century dealings with Vietnam, can in no way be summed up as a reaction to the imagined rise of neo-McCarthyism.

However, if in some alternate universe this hypothesis of yours (that you bring up every few days) was true; that would make LBJ the one of the most monstrous mass murderers in history. You claim he killed one million Vietnamese (and not a few of our own people) to cure a domestic political problem?

My uncle's life was ruined (plus he lost a limb) to help the Democrats stay in power? A high school friend went to his death to help LBJ's political aims? I say no; LBJ was not that monstrous and the causes were much more complex and subtle than that.