Ah, FaulknerJr., step away from the computer. These morons shouldn't goad you into saying things you may regret. You fight hate with facts, and even if we disagree about your one troll-buddy (if you're his friend, why don't you talk to him about pouring his energy into his own work?) you are one of the most effective voices for our side on these threads.

And I don't like the digs at virtue001 as a possible "her." It's kind of dumb to try to defend an ardent feminist with misogyny. And virt has talked about his lovely wife, and doesn't seem like someone who'd get gay-married, so I think it's pretty clear he's a man. So it's insulting, sexist and dumb all at the same time.

Yes, we'll work on moderation, and frankly also banning the people who can't avoid the kindergarten potty talk. It diminishes both sides of the debate.

FaulknerJr, as you know, I don't always follow my own advice, so I don't judge you for getting provoked by certain losers. We all do our best.

doloresflores_d, I share your worries about a mandate without a public option. The LAT and WSJ stories about how insurance companies are preparing for a big Obama windfall earlier this week were really depressing.

But I know our GOP friends who think they're populists are thrilled about insurance gougers making their 30 percent profits on terrible service while Medicare (which isn't perfect, but is decent) makes 2-4 percent overhead. I love these defenders of the wealthy who should clearly support social-justice, because given their deficient spelling and reasoning, they aren't folks who reaped the benefits of our rigged (anti) opportunity society. But maybe people like farragut and bad-dog are faking the factual/grammatical ignorance, and they're Chuck Grassley and John McCain! We just don't know.

fromdabak, yeah, that's part of my problem: So many to censure, so little time!

Yes, I might start with Rex Rammell...so far that's mainly gotten coverage on liberal blogs...did I miss any MSM coverage today?

Wow, VirginiaL, can you show me a situation where you set a similar example? I'm not familiar with one. I at least left it as a question, and said I have doubts. But I know that's why Dems are savaged, because they lie on their backs with their necks and bellies exposed. But thanks, VirginiaL, for pretending to set a good example.

Honestly, I'm such a centrist waffler (and many lefties reading Salon have called me out as such.) The fact that I'd love to see Dems thwart the GOP by any means necessary (any legislative means necessary, as Sen. Reid's spokesman said!) is a measure of the GOP and the overall conservative sector's erratic and destructive move to the far right.

Oh, here's one of VirginiaL's conciliatory letters. From my "How Obama can turn it around" thread. "Liberal Terror" is definitely a conciliatory term to use. Please stop using crack, VirginiaL. I know a lot of great treatment programs in SF, we can help you.

"Take a page out of the Chavez playbook. I mean, he's got enough mouthy, unprincipled, immoral goons between Code Pink, ACORN, MoveOn, and the DailyKos to cement totalitarian rule if he wants. Right?

"Of course, it won't help him with Congress, because he's actually afraid of Pelosi, Frank, Reid, and a few others. But hey, with Liberal Terror squads informing via the White House website, and misuse of email addresses, I am sure that in a few months they could finish turning the US into a Third World country. It is, afterall, the goal."

The right wingers blathering on about the film imagining the assassination of George W. Bush ignore the only way that would be relevant to this debate: If Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi hosted a viewing of the film and praised the filmmakers. The issue is not that some gun-toting racist maniacs are poisoning the debate; the issue is that they are being praised as "great Americans" and encouraged to believe Obama will "pull the plug on Grandma" by elected GOP statesmen like Wally Herger and Chuck Grassley. I have to agree with the person who suggested education reform might be more important than health care reform right now; there are an awful lot of people who lack simple reading and/or reasoning skills.

This thread shows the political disease I'm talking about: rightwingers blame all liberals for the excesses of the few, and get away with it. MoveOn never approved the Bush/Hitler imagery; it was submitted to a contest, and when they saw it, they pulled it from their Web site. No Democratic congresspeople praised the Bush assassination film. No Democratic congresspeople endorsed fringe lefties who may have expressed a wish for harm to befall Bush or Cheney. There is absolutely no equivalence here, but rightwingers like Dick Armey propagate that nonsense anyway, and get echoed by dittoheads on this thread. Sad.

Wow, I'm so sorry that I abandoned my friends reviving last Friday's excellent reminiscences about great 60s/70s TV and movies...it's awesome once again. Watching Kennedy coverage is similar.

Plus: I never saw the Nixon statement: "Have the Secret Service protect [Ted Kennedy] until the election, but if he's shot after that, too damn bad." The people in this thread who hear Kennedy and think Chappaquiddick (which was a horrible breach of conscience) and not assassination are just right wing losers, and we see that every time they splatter their ignorance all over these threads.

If someone provided evidence, I'd readily believe they're working for crazy Democrats, because they so surely drive people of good faith away from the Republican Party. But when you're a tiny circular firing squad, maybe it's all the same.