Why? I can understand the desire of European Jews after WW II wanting to have a place they felt safe, but it doesn't really justify having a State where the laws are based on race and religion.

That's what I'm not seeing from the zionists here why that is justified. To me it seems to be the crux of many of the problems with the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Without just laws, there can be no peace in the region. As far as culpability, both sides are guilty of so many atrocities there's simply no point in delving endlessly into who did what. At some point, rationality needs to take place. Unfortunately, I have little faith that any of the leaders there are subject to much rationality, nor are their supporters here.

--Ron

I see this phrase bandied about, but it's based on nothing. There never has been, much less over the last 50 years, an unfettered capitalist society. It's fine to make the point that know-nothing, do-nothing policies of the last 8 years were a disaster, but at least don't call things what they're not. We've always had a mixed, not capitalist economy. Don't blame an unfettered capitalist society for something it hasn't done. A mixed capitalist society has produced all the problems we have, it's up to honest analysts to determine the true basis for problems.

A rule of thumb I'd like to see about all political "solutions" is to recognize that every political "solution" creates new problems. Wisdom is recognizing that and deciding whether a proposal really improves things or not.

This whole thing reminds me of something I'd learned in a French culture class, that "In France, one does not have the right to be in error." I think that describes a lot of the cocooned pundits/politicians/etc., mental state, that if they admit to an error then they no longer have any credibility or can show their face again. How often do you hear of a politician or pundit honestly EVER say they were mistaken before? I think that may be an underlying cause of the cocooning in the first place, not that that's a laudable view or anything.

Until the cost is greater to stay in a cocoon than to honestly debate an adversary will things change much, in my view. What Glenn is doing, and Rachel Maddow, and others like them, certainly can help make that change.

--Ron

You know what's most nonsensical about your argument? The fact that it's not a zero-sum game. Giving gay people the same immigration rights as straight people have does not prevent eliminating the asinine drug laws. In fact, it probably helps, since it's a step toward rational behavior.

It's like saying we shouldn't try to fix the economy until global warming is addressed.

--Ron

It'd be nice if we (or you, or whoever) could flag posts we think are worthless name-calling exercises. A yellow one for caution, and a red one for getting your act together before you're banned, at least for a while.

I try to read through comment sections, but hadn't had time recently, so I didn't even know about the flame wars or about be-bop being banned. Sad on both accounts, since I've learned something quite often with a number of posters here, and when I'm in the mood, i enjoy be-bop's style and commentary, and when I'm not, I can skip over them.

Saddest of all, to me, is to see people I think well of fighting each other. I like heru-ur's writing, and I like Omooex, and as I think about it, just about all the regular writers here I enjoy reading, even the ones I don't agree with.

Can't you just voluntarily dial it back a bit, give each other a little more leeway to be foolish for a while, and do more to encourage smarter writing when flame wars get going too long? I like Paul Ash's comment about people who seem to respect each other letting each other know when they're going too far. I know it's hard to take, but it's not easy to tell someone you like to tone it down, either.

I don't mind harsh criticism on actual topics at all. For instance, the Israeli/Palestinian situation brings out lots of vitriol, but that's somewhat warranted when it's a situation of life and death. It'd be odd if there were not a lot of passion involved. I like that one is generally expected to vigorously defend one's self, and it quickly becomes obvious which posters can actually defend their views, and which ones are blind to their own failings to think logically.

--Ron

For years I've been telling my friends that (Neo)-Conservatives' accusations are actually confessions. It happens so much it really ought to be part of the CW (Conventional Wisdom). Puzzling for me is that most everyone nowadays knows what projection is, but so often fails to recognize it.

--Ron

<< wow. great link. thanks. it's wonderful in so many ways. a perfectly-expressed paranoid/delusional thought system. it's always easy to know what the VRWC (I'm going back to calling it that; I think it fits -- h/t HRC) is up to. all you have to do is listen to what they're accusing their "enemies" of doing.>>

...in the "conservative" camp of today.

Just keep one thing in mind, when a conservative makes an accusation...

...it's actually a confession.

--Ron

Someone responding to the previous wingnut column suggested that our wingnut is Elephantman. That strikes me as quite plausible, especially since both make assertions without proof of any sort, and seem to think that they've responded cogently.

Conservatism as a philosophy died some time ago, it's just that too many people haven't realized what the awful smell is coming from.

If only there were a political party that stood on principle for individual rights and fiscal sense, and did not promote an oligarchy. That party is not the democrats, who I feel forced to vote for, and it certainly isn't the republicans.

--Ron