When asked if he'd ever sacrificed anything for the cause he so passionately speaks in favor of, shooter242 answers:

Nope. Is that a problem?

Only if you don't wish to leave the impression you're nothing but a rhetorical and moral eunuch, no.

I'm pretty sure the first amendment doesn't require putting one's life in jeopardy, as a prerequisite to giving an opinion.

It doesn't. Keep that in mind next time you think about complaining about the responses expressed here, eunuch.

You just sound like another coat-holder.

As long-time commentators here can attest, that is entirely too much work for our favorite eunuch from Jersey.

I have posted on this thread twice regarding Glenn having hired Pam Spaudling to pen 2 hit pieces against Obama..

Your choice of handle aside, you must have this overpowering need to be used and beaten like a dog. Otherwise you'd recognize how ridiculous this statement is (and given your contributions thus far, that's saying something). Especially so given Glenn doesn't 'own' this blog or 'hire' anyone.

Is your dominant on vacation or what?

Nobody is going to buck executive privilege when it's clear to all parties that the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President.

And so manly too, insisting such things as "obstruction of justice" and "partisan interference in corruption investigations" are unimportant.

Yes, a real man's man there.

Jesu Ben Joseph, what rock did this idiot crawl out from under?

I want to make sure that they are as solvent as possible

Thanks clarifying your priorities there. You can go back to your perversions now and leave the discussion to the grown-ups.

It would be ironic if we had the Republicans to thank for the maintenance of the filibuster. Fitting, but ironic.

Of course, who knows what tomorrow or the weekend will bring.

Do we need to pressure three or two (plus Obama and Clinton, of course)?

It would be better if the entire Democratic Caucus just got up and left as soon as Bush starts talking, but that's a bit much to hope for.

I mean it seems like a one-stop trick, but couldn't Feingold or Dodd or Edwards or somebody just put a stop to this with another 'anonymous' Hold?

I know it would be a bitch and a half to 'frame' for the average, low-information/interest voter. Or perhaps it wouldn't given the negative aura around the whole telecom amnesty issue. At this point I kinda doubt there'll be any negative reactions or consequences for someone taking positive action here.

In any case, in lieu of another genuine filibuster (as opposed to the faux ones the Republicans trade in), is this the only realistic way of stopping this atrocity from continuing?

God, what a pathetic bunch of losers.

I trust you included yourself in that sentiment. Now, go and cry in the corner like the nice emotional eunuch you are and leave the talking to the grown-ups.

...You could choke on it.

If only these gassbags actually would.

Just sit there, remain silent, and be as brainless as the lump of stone you actually are.

Eunuch.

If a Dem is elected what we will see is a bizarre and forceful attack on that Dem to reverse all of the lawlessness the GOP enabled over the last eight years.

That is almost a given. But what if the President and (likely) Democratic Majority decide not to surrender the power and authority W claimed for himself? What if they go ahead and use it as W and the Republicans possibly have and make the unlamented J Edgar Hoover turn over in his unmarked grave with envy?

What then?

If the audiences differ in size, it just might be a reflection of the message's worth.

So, is shooter242 being (a) naive or (b) deliberately thick?

I can understand he thinks media consumers are as valueless as he himself is, but really I can't see how he fails to comprehend the difference between quality and quantity.

Then again, perhaps I'm being too generous and he's just a moral midget.

Does 'conservatism' automatically require 'the enemy'? Given the ideology (such as it is) is actively seeking to keep a status quo intact from all comers, should we be surprised they're actively seeking someone to 'fight'?

I ask because unless they are it'll have to go into Conference Committee, right? Anyone have any insights on how far (or not) such negotiations might go to include/exclude telecom amnesty?

In any case, couldn't Bush just issue yet another Signing Statement saying he's not going to pursue lawbreaking by the big telecoms?

You, my friend, are being used.

Quit talking to the mirror. You're starting to sound like a diseased meglomaniac.

Say for instance, a grocery store tracks cart movement to analyze the effectiveness of point of purchase displays. Is that spying on you, the cart user?

It is, actually, although of a relatively benign sort; the shopper, after all, is inside a place of public commerce and not making a private phone call within the confines of their own home.

If however the shopper were abruptly accosted by store employees who demanded, without offering any justification, to examine the contents of the shopper's pockets and then proceded to empty them without the shopper's consent? That's more in-line with what is at stake here.

It's questions like that which make the left's allegations less than compelling.

Statements like this demonstate you either have no concept of either "the rule of law", or simply don't care to examine the underlying issues.

Then again you've admitted you're a moral and ethical eunuch. Guess that answers the question right there.

This is the 21st Century people. If you don't want your communications broached in any way, shape, or form, your only recourse is to not make any.

Is this plain old cynicism or the sign of a broken psyche?

More to the point, does anyone even really care?

What happens next?

Step by step, if someone could please spell it out.