You are an idiot. I could have written Glenn's post (tho not as quickly and cogently), and hereby ratify it in its entirety. I am the ultimate in a lapsed Catholic, but one who knows Catholic doctrine like the back of her hand and attended Catholic university -- it was served to me as mother's milk.

His point is that the GOP picks and chooses which aspects of Catholic doctrine to make mandatory for a Catholic candidate (when pandering to the Catholic vote), not that the entire body of doctrine is one he, I or anyone should wish to live pursuant to.

Get it?

When a guy like Radley Balko -- who is not exactly a fire-breathing lefty and is possessed of a moderate temperament -- calls for impeachment, I'm ready to think it is time:

I find myself leaning more and more toward firing up the impeachment machinery.

...

As my colleague Jacob Sullum explains, even if you think the U.S. attorney firings are a non-issue, the implications of this assertion of power are frightening:

Under this theory, could the president also block the prosecution of an official who, say, tortured a prisoner or conducted illegal surveillance, if the president determined that such measures were necessary, proper, and constitutional tactics in the war on terrorism?

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027954.php

I've tended to agree with those who have argued impeachment is a waste of time and energy. But, I'm starting to change my mind.

If this theory is actually asserted to ignore a criminal charge it constitutes an impeachable offense in and of itself.

Yup, I'm as critical as anyone here of how the Administration has conducted itself re: firing U.S. Attorneys, but that's a murkier issue, since they do serve at the president's pleasure. (Not saying a criminal case, obstruction of justice, or some such could not be made out, but it would be difficult.) The wholesale violations of FISA, however, are straightforward. And this Administration clearly thinks it has a right to violate any law it doesn't like.

Myself, I do not trust Hillary Clinton, finding her to be utterly lacking in principle and driven only by ambition and power lust. If she isn't keen on pushing some of these hearings, much less impeachment, it is because she would be delighted to step into the Executive-cum-monarch role Bush has prepared for his successor.

If she ends up the Dem nominee, I really don't think I will vote -- well, maybe a protest vote, writing in Russ Feingold.

Maybe just admit you can never vote for a Democrat and be done with it.

I voted a straight Democratic ticket in the mid-terms. (And I live in MI; Dem Gov. Jennifer Granholkm has been a disaster; we are in the worst fiscal straits than any other save the Gulf states. But Dick DeVos was an idiot, and my primary goal was to punish the GOP.) My distrust of Hillary Clinton is shared also by many "progressives" and Democrats. And since I said my protest vote would be for Russ Feingold, it is hard to see any justification for your accusation.

I'm back to ignoring you, and that is all I will say in any thread where you address me with non sequitur nonsense.

What the hell is the matter with you? Bush is leader of the uber-power saving the world from IslamofascistHitlerNazis. So, when we commit the human rights abuses we also denounce, that's different.

I trust you will adjust your POV accordingly.

He said this: Considering how vociferously we all know you campaigned for impeaching Clinton over a blow job. If you can't answer my questions because they expose your own hypocrisy I'll take that as a sign you are at least aware of it finally.

There is no basis for it, and let me just finally state, as Jebbie noted a few weeks ago, I have known Glenn Greenwald for some time, as has Jebbie. Were it true -- that I was all into impeaching Clinton at the time -- Greenwald would know it. It isn't true, but that's the sort of shit LWM throws out, because he is fixated on me.

No one should believe one word LWM writes about me. He is crazy in some respects. All I shall say to or about him henceforth when he addresses his BS at me, is that he is a baiting lunatic whose inane substance about me I will not address.

Maybe next you'll choose to pay attention and address?

Nope, I meant what I said: I will pay attention, but address substance, no. Not except to say LWM is a deranged lunatic where I am concerned, and that you can't believe a word he says about me, and that were I to lie about my past views there are many people here, including the blogger, who would know it.

I personally don't give a hoot what he or she said. Your protest only draws attention to what you said you would ignore.

Cool, and fine with me, as long as I've established that you can't believe on word LWM says about my views. And I have Anon/LWM.