Look Kitt, I'm truly sorry if you feel I've done something terribly wrong here. I just don't see it. If anything, I'm starting to see why Shooter, RealName, and others post/write the way they do. Some people here are way out of line. Obviously their smarts and literacy mask a real nasty side, something I personally haven't seen since way back in the day when Usenet was all the rage.

I certainly didn't want to ruin this thread, but the mob mentality springing forward from certain people is a little hard to take.

I think you did a fine job, and all threads are ruined after the first 100 or so posts anyway. Certainly you provoked the main local ideological purity squad in to demonstrating your points. Bravo.

I loved the sub thread on the fact you as a human could not have been here as long as you claim since the piece-o-work could not find your name further back in time than a certain date. This prompted St. Paul to call you a 'liar' which is a favored tactic of his; everyone he dislikes is said to be a 'liar'. You may well not have been here as long as you say, but I do know that very shortly after Glenn moved here I was forced to pick a new name and register one day since 'registration has changed' according to the Salon page. I wondered that day if Salon was worried about the number and nature of the commenters of this section or if it was coincidence.

It has been said that any man can be 'ruined' by just a few pages of his words if you look at enough and take them out of context; I once saw a friend demonstrate that with Gandhi. You know the resident 'researcher' and his rovian tactics. I was surprised to see a fellow with a little yellow star beside his name take on that foul one.''

Welcome to the comment section that attempts to prove that wing-nuts are not the only nasty, foul commenters on the net.

You mean like your insisting that no one here has "endorsed" a candidate yet because we are all waiting for Glenn to do so first?

I have been insisting that it looks like everyone but myself is waiting; and in politics the appearences do matter.

And, whomever Glenn decides to endorse, IF he does, is NOT the issue.

So you say.

Bucky1 is wrong again. I worship velvet, not satin.

Yes, leave it to an ideologue and attack puppy to look to attack in the middle of good natured banter. I love that tittle you picked, and yet I wager you will try to claim that you were also "just playing along".

The hatred that is consuming you will have consequences; I try not to smile at the thought. But damn, the face just smiles on its own.

Um, why do you think they're poor in the first place? Has it occurred to you that in at least some (and I'd venture to guess many) cases, it's because WalMart moved in to their communities, destroyed local businesses that paid better and offered health insurance and other benefits to their employees, and then rehired these people at rock-bottom wages?

Few people "choose" to be poor. Poverty is something that's usually foisted upon people through unfair economic practices that disproportionately favor those with power and money. So yeah, they're able to buy "cheaper" goods at WalMart, which they pretty much have to because they often also work for WalMart. It's the modern version of sharecropping

Are you saying that there was no poverty before Walmart? Or, only in small towns? I really dislike Walmart but have this need to see the facts used, not myth. I would need to see someone explain how it can be that 'they' all work for Walmart; I was in one once and there was not the whole town working there. Not even all the town's poor worked there.

Or, to be fair, perhaps you mean that Walmart only employees all its own customers. That is the old joke from the Great Depression that every family could take in each other's wash and everybody could make a living. Examine that plan and you will see the fallacy.

"Eager to preserve the English language against a rising tide of nonsense, we asked readers to compose a piece of prose crammed with as many infuriating phrases as possible. Christopher Howse is amazed and amused by the torrent of replies..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=

/portal/2007/06/14/nosplit/ftannoy114.xml

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/_/2007/06/

lbj_vietnam_and_the_great_society.php

From the far left comes word of a new documentary on LBJ and why he went to Vietnam in force. This seems to totally counter the conspiracy theory of one of the regulars, but it still is able to cast LBJ as a 'great man'.

Give it a read, it beats most projects to reconstruct the monster.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i20585

Washington D.C. In a surprise move today, said by some insiders as an effort to ward off small-government conservatives from shaking up the GOP, Chairman Mike Duncan announced that the GOP will no longer be called the "Grand Old Party" but will instead be known as the Gargantuan Oligarchy Party.

"This has been discussed for some time within the party apparatus so it really should come as no surprise to our members or those who have paid any attention to politics in the last 30 years", said Duncan in a hastily announced press conference Monday.

Duncan's remarks came after internal GOP memos leaked to the media suggested that Ron Paul was actually more Republican than most of the current republican membership.

"Think of this as 'truth in advertising'", responded Duncan to reporters' questions about the current party platform. ... (there is much more at the link)