"But you guys like to play the partisan game and cast your vote on the feel good things."

Let's review: Paul was a Republican candidate that Republican voters roundly rejected.

What the hell does partisanship have to do with the fact that the Republicans did not nominate Paul? Don't blame Democratss or Independents or "you guys". The Republican voters chose a Maverick who once was a POW because, apparently, that's what was important to Republicans. If they gave a shit about the constitution, they might well have nominated Paul.

So, it's all the fault of the Democrats and those undeserving (primarily black and brown) people who should never have had opportunities to buy homes. Okay, so can you explain how the Repbulican Homeownership Challenge had nothing to do with this?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617.html

... just don't call the U.S. Council for World Freedom "terrorists."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/07/politics/main4505539.shtml

but he just doesn't give the answers that Caribou Barbie was looking for? (Seems like something similar happened in a recent VP debate...)

"And come on? Do you watch television? Anyone who consumes television news and argues that either the MSM or Fox News are truly "fair and balanced" always make me glad I'm an avid supporter and practitioner of the 2nd Amendment."

- When I watch MSM news, it is more to see how they spin the day's events, rather than to eagerly eat up whatever they dish out. What the hell is "fair and balanced" anyway? If the VPOTUS shoots somebody in the face, that's a news story. If that story happens to make the VPOTUS look like a jackass, that isn't biased against the VPOTUS, that's simply what happened. Perhaps VPOTUSes shouldn't shoot people in the face.

"Disavowing the existence of mainstream (or otherwise) media bias is at best autistic, at worst Machiavellian or psychotic."

- Autistic??? I don't share your assertion that the MSM has an inherent liberal bias. In fact, I think it generally has a moderately conservative bias. Are you arguing that the American public should have been shielded from the story of the abuses at Abu Ghraib? Should we be shielded from flag-draped coffins? If shielding the public from reality benefits the conservative movement, then isn't the conservative movement fundamentally corrupt? Doesn't that really say that reality and conservatism (or, perhaps more accurately, modern Republicanism) are incongruent?

Regarding the photos of the beaten and burned bodies (hanging from a bridge?), I absolutely concur that the photos should have been published. But here your argument seems to contradict itself: All three images (A.G., coffins, burned bodies) are negative, but you appear to take the NYT to task for publishing the A.G. and coffin photos, but then you criticize them for not publishing the burned bodies. How, exactly is this an example of liberalism run amok? In all instances, the images related to real events. If the real events made the "conservaative" cheerleaders for the Iraq "war" look like jackasses, that isn't the media's fault. In a sane world, those images would have sent a message to the administration that at least part of the "war" is going off the rails, but in a "conservative" environment where strict adherence to a prescribed ideology trumps all else, the images are not viewed as a wake-up call, but as attacks by those who don't subscribe to right-wing ideology. Thus, as the "conservative" movement has lost any ability to critically analyze itself, anything out of line with "conservative" ideology is derided as liberal.

Since we're recalling specific instances, I recall the infamous meeting that Dick Cheney had behind closed doors with a bunch of energy industry bigwigs in 2001. This was around June or July. Democrats in Congress began to press the VPOTUS for details of the meeting and asked the very fundamental question: "What were you talking about behind closed doors." The Demcorats seemed to think that the American public had a right to know what its government was up to. The secrecy of the meeting began to dominate the news cycle (I was watching CNN at work.) Then a funny thing happened: 4 or 5 pretty blonde teenage girls suddenly went "missing" in separate incidents and the headlines shifted to the stories of these missing girls. Clearly, the editors at CNN (often derided as "liberal" by "conservatives") "thought" that Americans would be much more interested (and, perhaps they were right about this) in the plight of a few girls than they would be in the details of a secretive meeting between the most powerful players in their government and in the energy business. The Cheney/energy (was it the Energy Task Force?) meeting story was clearly bumped because it made the Bush Administration look like it was up to some shady dealings.

The MSM was very supportive of the run-up to the Iraq invasion. The MSM told us how "presidential" W looked in his debates with Gore. The MSM never substantially questioned the Swift Boat attacks against Kerry. I could go on all day.