It's a faith-based thing, you wouldn't understand.

Just like the conservatives' belief that the Bavarian Illuminati were the cause of the French Revolution.

Or LBJ's refusal to believe when J. Edgar Hoover told him there was no foreign financing of the anti-war movement.

-- Paul Rosenberg

Yes, but if you don't ask then you don't get little gems of retraction like this:

"Perhaps I should say "allegedly"..."

I will give Anonymous credit for that since it's more than we usually get out of that crowd.

Once again someone says General Petraeus should not be listened to because he's "too political" to make an accurate assessment of the military battlefield. So given your opinion, you'd rather listen to Senator Reid, someone who's job is being a politician ALL the time, rather than someone who is a General in the Army (pollitics being a PART of a General's job as well, granted) who is a military person? That just isn't logical to me.

--Anonymous

And how did you feel at the beginning of the war when General Shinseki was ignored by the administration because he wanted more troops on the ground than Rumsfeld was prepared to allow? Were you angry and disgusted with Rumsfeld ? Or did you approve of the administration's "shopping around" until they got a General who agreed to tell them what they wanted to hear?

Clarence Darrow:

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.

John Philpot Curran:

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt. (1790)

Pray tell where in the above quotes it says that maintaining the world's biggest military is the key to maintaining freedom?

But by that criteria, they should also pass bills that provide immunity from civil penalties for negligent exploding gas tanks, drugs that are known to cause birth defects, etc.. After all, what's good for GM is good for the country.

They've been working on that for years. I believe it's been referred to as "tort reform". ;->

Just fielded a call from a DCCC fundraiser. Boy did he call at the wrong time. I unloaded on him. Told him he wouldn't see another dime from me, or a lot of other dems, if Congress didn't grow a spine soon. I almost, but not quite, felt sorry for him.

They want to run things like a corporation? Fine. Show me the results I expect for my money.

Bebop-o, it's unrealistic of me to think that my small contribution to the "outhouse" will float upstream in sufficient quantity to sully the rivers of the powers-that-be, but maybe they'll notice if enough of us poop on 'em. ;->

I won't pinch too hard, I'll just make sure that only the deserving benefit. I just hope they get hungry enough soon enough to truly start listening to what we are trying to tell them. And I could never pinch/be angry at you!

Bambage says he'll not tell if I smooch up to you?

I'm with Bambage - no smooch and tell here! Especially wive's tales of hard drinking woodchucks and husband/farmers in fields.

Can we get blueberry wine with our chardonnay and scotch too? It's good to have you back home.

I just saw on c-span that the Repug thugs, in the House I think, want a bill passed that condemns the MoveOn ad.

It's in the Senate. I had an email from MoveOn this morning urging calls to our Senators. I got through to Sherrod Brown but Voinovich's line was busy - for hours - no surprise. He is such a wienie-wanker.

Ahmadinejad's jesture was symbolic, but it opened a huge portal for real diplomacy and real communication. Bush's refusal is equally symbolic, in slamming that portal shut. In Bush's view, an american president cannot, must not, be seen to engage/interact with evil (Ahmadinejad)--aside from conflict with it.--Casual Observer

The symbols seem to me to be used to control authoritarian followers by invoking carefully cultivated reflex reactions. And it doesn't take much to make the reflex part of the dogma. My own experiences with these reactions are, once they become engaged, further discourse is pretty much aborted for any topic. This tactic is a consistent theme across the board for them, used to control everything from individual conversations to elections (gay marriage anyone?).

This is particularly dangerous when it becomes the method for applying foreign policy as it completely rules out diplomatic nuances and accepts nothing short of abject capitulation from those who are trying (however honestly or dishonestly) to open a dialogue with us. This isn't the first time we have slammed a door in Iran's face.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001320.php

I wonder how many more opportunities we will squander before they just decide we are no longer worth the effort.

Senate vote three fourths said yes

Although all Dem presidential candidates voted no, of those who were present, MSNBC said 75 senators voted yes for the sense of the senate condemnation attached to the defense bill. A lot of Dem cowards who don't trust the American people to recognize the hypocrisy involved in this bill should be ashamed of themselves.

-- Retired Military Patriot

Well now, this just twists my knickers into a knotty bundle! I'm sorry, but "sense of the senate" my back passage. They have no sense at all!

As if they don't have a big enough load of work to do, now they have made themselves the arbiters of "polite discourse" too. Heaven help us all, because the devil's LHAO down below.

I wonder if, while they're considering retroactive immunity for the telecoms, we could ask them to also consider retroactive condemnation of the Swift Boat Bassturds.