How very well put and agreeable and civil and educated and just plain fine!

(on another topic)

Regarding Chris Mathews' negatives to Hillary and positives to Rudolph, I think he is probably quite unconscious of his patriarchal misogyny. He is a son of the patriarchy, and has by osmosis (as it were) absorbed its tenets.

How do I know this? I too am such a son. The sound of Hillary's attempts to add gravitas to her voice in a speech are grating (may I say somewhat comic) to me. My educated conscious self is working on overcoming this, but it is deep. (Like racism, an ape-mind subtext).

If she were more true to her own person as a woman, expressed, she would do better with me, anyway.

(Rudolph is a fascist fraud, no bones about it).

My experience of friends and acquaintances who were ex-military, is that these are honorable people in whom I could have trust, in their words and doings.

However, my experience of the US Military as an institution is diametrically opposite: no lie is too blatant to tell. Many examples have been given on this thread - but I would add Colin Powell's shameful UN speech prior to the invasion of Iraq. A tissue of lies, the disgraceful action of a corrupt political actor. Or the repetition of lies by a useful fool.

Either way it speaks to the rot at the core of US military leadership.

What is wrong with this country's "leadership" that they traffic in deception consistently and constantly?

Incidentally, how is it an appropriate use of the US Navy to intercept "dhows carrying hashish"? What conceivable threat are these to US interests? Oh ya - we've declared a war on drugs, and the military is the weapon to fight ALL wars. Including the war on truth.

Some of them, at least. Help you poo, they do!

PW (Partisan Wanker) said:

"The point is that you guys are so unhinged, rabid and stupis, that you twist even the most well-intended( if empty) sentitment (what Bush was effecitvely doing here was reflecting a collective guilt for the holocaust) to reflect your diseased fixation on one man."

Why do you continue to defend this empty suit? DO even you believe his intentions are good? If they are, he is a moron. I don't believe he is a moron - just an isolated, self-righteous, deliberately and aggressively ignorant, supremely egotistical, non-analytical, TOOL (of the corporatist cabal).

Is it stupis to be sentitmental? Thinking about mammaries makes me mental! But not stupis......

and CNN is feeding this desire, I believe deliberately. McCain will be big Daddy strong soldier protector, and Hillary will be the Mom trying to play at a man's game. Robotically.

This is one script that they're working on now to gull the masses. Maybe I'm paranoid, but the level of sycophancy the press displays to Republican "leaders" is appalling. But that's how fascists operate - kiss up and kick down. If you're not part of the pack, you're out, lone dog. Probably rabid.

IMHO, Obama is a much greater threat to McCain than Clinton - because he can break this scenario. And the dirty racist campaign the Rethugs will attack him with is so low and dirty it will only keep the hard core who would never vote Democratic anyway, and offend everyone else.

LWM - you responded:

"Are you calling Ron Paul a leftist or don't you know your left from your right? If this was 2000 (no war) they (the right) would be falling all over themselves to support him. He's an ultra-conservative. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? Ron Paul is a right winger. Get a clue."

No, he was saying that the Republicans don't want Ron Paul in the debates. Why? Because he speaks the truth about their key deceptions.

I'd call Ron Paul a Baptist Libertarian. Ultra-conservatives don't want him around because they're fascists. You know, the guys running the federal government like predatory publicans.

LWM - have a cup of coffee before you make a fool of yourself again.

You said:

"I assume you are saying that the Republican Party of New Hampshire didn't want Ron Paul in the debates."

Assume what you choose - the "persons" excluding Ron Paul (like Kucinich) are corporatist-owned broadcasters. They act like they own the airwaves, and they do, effectively, since they own the federal government. The Republican party is a branch office - and the only reason they withdrew was that Pauliacs were freaking out. And good for them, too. More of us should freak out more often.

you also said:

"And Fox News is not in charge of anything"

I didn't say anything about Faux News, but thanks for raising them with your strange point. On the contrary, Faux News is the house organ of the Corporatist States of Amerika, ably representing the "party" noted above.

I am beginning to suspect you of being a very subtle agent provocateur, LWM.

"If a conservative is a liberal mugged by reality, it seems clear the experience was so traumatic that the victim can't bear to face his attacker ever again."

Can I repeat this, attributed pseudonymously, kind sir or madam?

This seems to me to be the start of the definition of liberalism. Where men are ruled by law, not by their testicles (to quote PJ O'Rourke). Forbearance, respect, and duty. Civitas.

You know, what fascists want to destroy and replace with rule by force. Bully corporatism. Where the law is a tool to selectively gore dissenters.

To boldly split infinitives? Does anyone apart from my mom care anymore?