Many people, quite wrongly, claim that the 'gay community' have done this with the entire democratic party. They have claimed that gay rights activism doomed democrats in 2004. Should the LGBT community have been dumped just so we could get Kerry into office? I heard that Bill Clinton called Kerry a month or so before the election and advised him to come out against gay marriage, because he wouldn't get elected otherwise. I hope that's true, because one of the only things I liked about Kerry was that he refused. He refused to sacrifice principle for short-term political gain. Was that wrong of him? Should he have done what was politically expedient (come out against gay marriage) because incremental change was better for 'the greater good'? I don't know.

that Fox hasn't proposed a nuclear winter to off-set the effects of global warming.

"it is about policy of an ally that contradicts what we wish to stand for. abe foxman is not standing for jewish interests per se, but for israeli politics, likud style."

Now we're getting somewhere. That's the core defense against the slur of 'anti-semitism.' Foxman isn't for Jews or Israel per se, but a particular political party in Israel. It's like when Coulter calls democrats treasonous. Time will tell (as it's been telling, really) whether the policies of the Israeli right have been good for that country. Have they made Israel safer? Is it a better country to live in now compared to when Labor was more dominant? I think not.

Dang, that was horrid stuff. Comment troll much, Salon?

The old argument of 'the last administration didn't bring peace, so I'll go farther right' has never made sense to me. It's like, hit me in the head again because that last whack didn't make my headache go away. Israel has been moving steadily rightward, and steadily away from peace, ever since the right-wing assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

You are certainly correct that discussions about Israel can devolve into irrationality from different directions. There are times when someone on this particular comment area will make some comment referring to "the Jews who run this country" and they are called on it by all sides, including Glenn. But your two examples don't work for me. The first one you give is oft-repeated nearly word-for-word here many times daily. The second example sounds like nothing I've ever seen or heard in my life, certainly not in progressive circles.

"Both examples were parody, and I'd hoped they would be recognized as such."

I missed the parody because the the "ANTI-SEMIIIIIIIIIIITE!!!!! WHY DO YOU HATE JEWS!!!??!" does actually occur around here, and it isn't funny.

It's afraid!! It's afraid of us!!

(apologies to Starship Trooper fans).

What always strikes me as funny about the Broadsheet trolls, misogynistic a-holes one and all, is that they seem to spend so much of their day reading and responding to articles on a feminist blog. What's up with that? As a relatively straight , white, male ( with power, privilege, and pedigree up the wazoo), I've never felt personally attacked by any Broadsheet posting. As a feminist, I have felt attacked by the trolls here, though. But as anti-patriarchy goes, Broadsheet is generally tepid stuff. If the trolls here really want to get all het up, they should head over to blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com. And don't come back.

How about Ford? Or Reagan? Or Bush-the-first? Once republicans are done screwing the country from the Whitehouse, they're done with public service. It's golf and ranchin'. Carter and Clinton have shown how it should be done.

My mind did a lot of gymnastics over this figure this morning when I read it in the paper. Aside from the potential of it just being basic AP misreporting, I wondered about the effect of China, where it's possible that close to 10 of 10 women have abortions before the age of 45, and there are a large number of Chinese women in the data set.

Anonymous, despite my suspicions that you are The Anonymous Troll that most terrorizes this site, that was pretty damn funny.

Under what sequence of events will my debt be cancelled? That's what I'm looking for.

"it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

How long do we think we can contain "knowledge"? Do we think we are in charge of what goes into the brains of Iranian scientists? I hate the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran as much as the next person (assuming the next person is against that sort of thing), but it's clear they're gonna get it. It's like thinking 75 years ago we could prevent a country from aquiring the aeroplane. In a generation every government with a high-speed internet connection and a spare billion $ will have a nuclear bomb. See subject line.

"Is the point that so-called Christian conservatives knew, or should have known, that Duke Cunningham et al. are hypocrites?"

Yes.

"That their endorsement or high rating of any particular politician is automatically suspect?"

Yes

"Exactly HOW should the common people of this country divine the scummy nature of any particular person BEFORE any proof actually surfaces?"

They're called 'republicans.'

"We now return you to our regularly scheduled ignorance"

I wish your ignorance were more regularly scheduled, then we could make better plans to avoid it.

Because they don't talk so good.

As the previous poster points out, hundreds of years ago even the Catholic Church began to move beyond the "science must always bow before god" argument. It was a little thing called "The Enlightenment." Would he have us still believe the sun goes around the Earth? That's what his Bible says, in conflict with what those "always changing their minds" scientists say.