Here's what I posted yesterday:

my typo

should read "it was the reps 1/01-6/01"

-- Gratefule Live

[Read Gratefule Live's other letters]

Permalink Saturday, October 4, 2008 03:18 PM

Greenwald wrong re Dem Senate control 2000 -2002

Don't let facts interfere, but the Dems did not control the Senate for all of 2001 and the Reps did not control it for all of 2002. It was the Reps until1/01- 6/01 (Jeffords left the Rep party), and the Reps took it back 1/03. I'll do Greenwald the way he'd do Palin: if he gets this wrong (see his diagram) he probably knows nothing. And if I misread his diagram he doesn't know how to draw.

-- Gratefule Live

This AM I see Greenwald corrected, which is fine, but I don't see notice of update, which this site normally is assiduous about...no big deal, but newspaper hasn't arrived yet and I have some time to kill. Hey Greenwald...you're OK in my book.

Have a little sympathy for those of us put off by the hysteria over Obama's early bloviating to the high heavens, a "face in the crowd" sweeping the besotted massess of their feet with a bunch of b.s. that would've done Elmer Gantry proud. Where were the parodies of Obama? Guess you can't make fun of him w/o being seen as racist.

I concede I only saw one of the primary debating skits that featured Obama...he was played straight, not funny, no parody. If there were others that did in fact parody him, please let me know what they did to make fun of this perfect young man here to save us.

Sure, the High Court is extremely important, but so is not having a liberal president with Pelosi and Reid on the loose. Divided-by-party government is another manifestation of checks and balances. Do you really want to have an Obama-Pelosi-Reid unstoppable troika? There's even a chance of a filibuster proof Senate. Want that?

In my humble opinion, we progressives should defend Ayres and say hey, if this guy dropped a few bombs in D.C., what is that compared to what Nixon and Kissinger did in Cambodia?

Above, a poster's thoughts, which I agree with 100%. Obama's a new kind of candidate, shouldn't be afraid to say something like that, will get many points for sincerity and sophistication. People don't care anymore about a domestic bomber from the 60s; the younger generation doesn't even know what the fuss is about. Obama should put this Ayers business to rest with a short but pointed and explicit speech along the lines of the quote above.

The logic of this article -- attacks are racial -- bodes well for critics of a President Obama's administration. It'll be you better watch your mouth. Of course, if he's half as good as his devotees claim he is, there'll be nothing to criticize in the first place.

Well, if he was alive, I would pay him a visit...after all, I wasn't even born when he did his stuff. Anyway, that doesn't make McCain's attacks right, but it does show you the level of logic people use to rebut them. Does Joan get paid for writing, by the way?

...changing his opinion based on new evidence. Bush's refusal to do this has been much lambasted by the Bright People, right?

Dquintana wrote:

I sincerely believe that this can be turned around. But it requires a renewed commitment by all of us to make sure that our children are well educated, to make sure that we work toward a better infrastructure, better health care, a cleaner environment and stronger communities. We need to remember that selfish, impulsive behavior usually wreaks havoc. We also need to remember that we Americans are all in this together, regardless. If the ship goes down, we all go down.

Dude, listen to me carefully: if what you want were possible, we wouldn't be in this pickle to begin with.

...is a logical fallacy understood as such since the ancient Greek philosophers: it means arguing against the man, not his ideas. The other side of the coin is argument from authority. Where Chris Buckley's succor to liberals fits in I'm not sure, but why does it mean anything that he's a conservative. As somebody already posted, conservatives could want Obama not on his merits but to have a Democrat suck up the blame that may come in a torrent during the next presidency, given the scope and number of the problems. Or Buckley may be wrong in his thinking. Why does it matter that he's a conservative? You might as well care who Barbra Streisand endorses. As for Buckley's reasons, they're quite conclusory, so there's not much to be persuaded by. Not incidentally, I notice that Obama tends to talk in conclusions these days (we're gonna do this, we're gonna fix that) with little or no explanation of how it will work. Well, I can't blame him for that. Let's talk again around Jan. 20, 2010, and see how he's doing.

...when they hear a candidate say "he's a decent man...he's not Arab".

Substitute "Jew" or "Catholic" and you'll get my drift.

Often I hop into my shower having removed only my bottom clothing (pants, underpants, socks/shoes) and use the "telephone" attachment to due a specialized, very quick, wash. Whole thing is about 3 minutes, maybe 4, and makes a big difference in morale/comfort/cleanliness.

As for the poorer countries, I do hope the U.S. doesn't get involved in trying to change their toilet habits/culture. We've got some problems here that need attending to. Save this one for Obama's second term, thank you very much.

Assume Palin should not be the nominee by miles, assume Obama should win in a landslide, assume anything political you want is correct, the fact remains Libs have no manners. And SNL hasn't been funny in about 15 years.

...about a week ago. It was fabulous. Only happy people show up. From the comments here, looks like a lot of posters are not doing too well.