There is another blatantly false meme working its way through both the right and the left, and that is "Iraq is the bad war, and Afghanistan is the good war that we've been neglecting." This is a fringe position embraced as conventional wisdom by both the left and the right.

"By this time, in a burst of healthy paranoia, we had destroyed all our copies of the Document, and the government wouldn't give us access to the copy held in the SCIF."

What is the reasoning behind destroying your client's evidence? What does "healthy paranoia" mean? If your case was predicated on this piece of evidence, why would you destroy copies of it? Were you afraid of prosecution or worse?

You have other choices. Vote for Ralph Nader. If it spoils the little love fest of Republican and Democrat creeps on capitol hill, so be it. For those who support the "the bill would have passed anyway, and he took an issue away from the Republicans, and we just have to win at any cost..." theory, I say this: Leadership. If fear of a Republican attack is what compels your vote, you not only should not be president, but you should not be in congress. You shouldn't even be on your local city council. Your responsibility is to vote for what is right for your constituency and or your platform, not what is right to get elected and or to avoid potential trouble. Obama lost my vote today. I do not feel represented by the Democratic party anymore, so I never give them my instant regard again. For those of you here who feel you align with the democratic party, now is the time to ask yourselves why. Screw this lesser of two evils voting. Vote for anyone other than these two.

"The progressives who constitute the Democratic Party's activist base learned a lesson from the 2000 election; Ralph Nader will almost certainly not be a factor in the 2008 presidential election because left-leaning voters are not willing to throw their votes away."

You continue to support and elect candidates that don't legislate on your behalf and somehow that isn't throwing your vote away. Obama now supports retroactive immunity for law breaking corporations. Obama now supports the erosion of the 4th amendment. Obama now supports government wiretapping of American citizens without oversight. Voting for that him is throwing your vote away. Voting for Hillary, authorization to use force in Iraq, Clinton is also throwing away your vote. Voting for these millionaires who buy their way into our political system is a thrown vote. There are a thousand ways you throw away your opportunity to be represented in your government, and voting for Ralph Nader is not one of them.

Vote for Ralph people. They still haven't learned the lesson of the last two elections. They seem to be a little thick headed.

There are two types of citizen. Citizen by birth and citizen by law (naturalized.) From the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

On panama :us immigration code [CITE: 8USC1403]:

"Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States."

So the question is... was he born in the Canal Zone, or Panama?

I say this is all solved with some sort of hazing ritual. Crack and egg on his head, make him drink a quart of cheap vodka, he has to stand outside capitol hill in a dress with a sign around his next stating: "Ask me to sing the national anthem!" Problem solved.

It was once legal to own slaves. There is your rule of law. It was illegal for women to vote. There is your rule of law. Genocide was the mandate during the formation of this nation. There is your rule of law. We dropped nuclear bombs free and clear. There is your rule of law.

We are not a nation of men, or laws. We are now defined by systems of aristocracy, systems of free markets, systems of corporation. None of which are governed by men or by law. I would suggest that you can not codify integrity, morality, and ethics, some things this nation is in short supply of. The nature of our society will hopefully be defined by people of character who work in contravention to these systems, these external and unnatural authorities.

Does anybody here really think that law equates with justice or fairness? Would anyone trust their fate to the current rule of law? Adherence to the rule of law is the lowest common denominator, and it is asking way too little of those that govern us, and of ourselves.

I see more in the image, and in the response than is intended.

Being a Muslim is bad. Muslims shouldn't expect to inhabit the oval office anytime soon, because it appears to be a "smear" and a crime to be Muslim in this country. We have a representational government... with the exception of Muslims.

Black women shouldn't have their god given nappy hair. Their natural hair is equated with militancy. They should wear their hair in pressed and relaxed styles. Their natural hair is for Black Panthers and radicals.

Burning a flag is bad. So bad that it is a "smear" to suggest someone does it. Never mind that it is a constitutionally guaranteed right granted by the supreme court.

We are lead by wealthy elitists. Note the Fabergé egg over the fireplace. I don't own a Fabergé egg. Those things are expensive.

O.K. so the last one is a stretch. I find it interesting that we find these as "smears" in our conventional wisdom.