Have a wonderful, and safe, Thanksgiving yourself.

And I echo those who say that sometimes the best thing to do is to step back and take time to take care of yourself.

p.s. one of the things I am thankful for is the group of caring people here at UT. It can get rambunctious at times, to say the least, but most who comment here care deeply about what is happening in the world, even though we may differ greatly in our perspectives on how to make it better.

Not to be blunt, but why do you think you are entitled to know how I feel about religion?

bystander posted the words you credited to me. I was just agreeing that they were more appropriate to my own thought processes than the original which seems a bit passive/aggressive or, at least, more prone to authoritarian submission, which is, most definitely NOT an inclination I embrace.

As someone posted earlier, he could be ill. Or he could be frustrated or he could have been advised that Glenn Beck had him in the crosshairs.

"Crosshairs"? The only hairs Glenn Beck has his sights on are the 'short and curlies' he's constantly yanking at.

Why anyone in their right mind would let that frothing crank-yanker affect their decisions is beyond me.

The humdingie wingers I know treat Beck like some sort of nasty, stained porno magazine that they keep hidden deep beneath the bedsprings. If they look at it, they're embarrassed enough to refrain from admitting it openly.

God grant me the power to change everything within my reach

sufficient tenacity to influence the things I cannot change

and enough residual energy to get royally pissed at the difference.

I think we should call it the Activist's Prayer. ;-}

I just noticed them yesterday, but I wasn't around over the weekend. The page numbers are also now changing color again too. I had been missing that more than the stars.

You're going to have to forgive clubseal.

I think that dog is ugly as sin but thank you for the laugh.

S/He hasn't seen one of those beauties in motion. ;-}

I've seen no indication that the Obama administration is trying to advance the illegal and unconstitutional powers that the Bush administration bestowed upon itself, they're merely trying to mitigate the damage that's already been done.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obama-administr.html

Spying on Americans: Obama Endorses Bush Era Warrantless Wiretapping

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15941

Liberals, conservatives rip 'state secret' policy

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/24/liberals-conservatives-rip-state-secret-policy/

There's more where that came from.

You should take off your blinders before you trip and hurt yourself.

I hope i didn't wreck it with my: 'read post'!

Naw.

I just went back to skimming. ;-}

I often have trouble following what you're trying to say. Assuming, of course, that you are trying to say something. But this was pretty funny:

LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF GETTING TO 38th STREET -

Nicely pithy and the all-caps perfectly captures the extent of maddy's pants-pissing.

Well done.

I began to wonder if there weren't two mutually exclusive claims in those 11 words.

Just another of those 'non-constitutionalist' liberals.

Librul Lite.

It's a 'twisty-bendy' kinda thang that some of us just don't understand.

No worries. As I said, I have to resist the impulse myself, especially on those days when I've not been able to keep up with the thread.

As for your other points, I'll let Glenn address them if he chooses.

IMO, he's addressed it pretty thoroughly in the past and to my personal satisfaction.

In short, there is a qualitative difference between granting anonymity for propaganda purposes - especially those of the government - which shouldn't happen, and granting it for the purpose of protecting a vulnerable source while performing the legitimate government oversight function that an active Fourth Estate should be, but mostly has not been, engaging in.

Believe me, I'm a dyed in the wool liberal, and a big Obama supporter, but I don't think the decision to not try the Guantanamo detainees is such a bad idea. There are times when you have to be practical and decide that protecting American lives is more important than protecting a principle, especially a principle that I don't think would be damaged by making an exception in order to protect American lives.

If that is what you believe, then why do you suppose the oath of office states the following?:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I suppose that bit about "to the best of my ability" offers a bit of wiggle room in your mind (and others) many of whom are, not coincidentally, "big Obama supporters".

You are wrong about the damage being wrought as well.

We have learned over and over again that anonymous sourcing represents a degraded form of journalism. The Time article cited today is no different.

Glenn already addressed this in the second page of the comment thread (link @ sig).

I know it can be tempting to just spout a comment before reading the thread, they get long so quicky, but this is exactly why I try hard not to do that.