These big, important, powerful men could not possibly be gay. How weak! How feminine! No, they are just interested in some hot, straight, extremely heterosexual man-on-man butt sex. Just a good butt sexing, that's all.

"Cuddle? What a fag."

-Paul Smecker

Boondock Saints

Is contained in one quote.

"This faith in science is often accompanied by the antiquated view that there are facts separate from values and interpretations."

The view that there are facts in the world is "antiquated". So, why should we believe any of this crap?

For Christ's Sake! "Begging the question" is not pleading to have a question asked. It means "to argue in a circular fashion". That paid writers consistently misuse this phrase is pathetic.

Keep making generalizations about the "left" based on the comments following Paglia's articles? What the hell do several persons' internet ramblings have to do with the "lefts'" opinion about the views Paglia espouses? And what the hell is the "left" anyway? Does it act and speak with uniformity? Is it comprised of a single viewpoint?

ROTFLMAO = Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off, or similar. That is all.

Great work! Keep it up.

You said:

" It's a HUGE mistake to assume that Obama would be supported by the lion's share of current Hillary Clinton supporters. The level of animus among the latter toward Obama and his camp and the DNC poobahs is unprecedented in Democratic annals. It is neither superficial nor will it be short in duration. Venture outside the, ahem, progressive blogs and get a look at reader comments on more mainstream sites. Women, especially, are really, really angry. Believe it. Those sexist chickens are beginning to land on the primary roost with a mighty thump - not exactly a surprising development."

Jeez, do you even read what you post? "Look at the comments on mainstream sites..." wow, that's scientific. You really get a good cross-section of the population that way. Maybe I should judge national opinion by how much spam I get in a day!

Seriously, whatever "rift" in the Democratic party is imagined by the media right now, it will be gone come the general. Do you really think all those Hillary-supporting really, really angry women are going to break for McCain?

You wrote:

Obama, as his voting records confirm, is and continues to be an incrementalist. Sometimes these incrementals are painfully (to be only just existent) small.

...

Why are Democrats getting angry now over the fact that he is a centrist--when he has been a centrist all along? He voted for the Patriot Act...he voted for funding for the war. Call it pragmatism or midget sized ambition (?).

But I don't understand why people are getting angry now--when this has been the case all along. If liberals want a true liberal in office--why didn't we support, in greater numbers, Kucinich? He was the most honest one we had running...and his efforts to impeach Bush have only been met with laughter.

Obama is a good-looking pragmatist who might be able to win. Those in search of a liberal knight need to look further askance...

No one is getting angry about Barack Obama being "a centrist all along" whatever that means. The truth of that claim aside, what we're getting mad about is his support of a bill that erodes the 4th amendment and the rule of law, and in such a way that explicitly contradicts his and his campaign's earlier statements on the issue.

Did you even read the post?

This is a serious question: what are you trying to accomplish with your comments here?

@Glenn: Keep it up! Speaking as someone who volunteered as a Field Organizer for Obama, I can assure you there are those of us out there, even the "party faithful", who actually care about these issues. The constitution is more important to me then any one candidate.

"But her demands begged the question -- in terms of security, let alone political image -- why would Nancy Pelosi support a movement that has been parked outside of her house, denouncing her publicly for two years?" -- Article

A good question, I suppose, but...

Her demands DID NOT "beg the question".

To "beg the question" is to presuppose the conclusion you argue towards. In other words, to argue in a circular manner.

Any other use of "beg the question" is wrong, and causes me to immediately lose respect for any author.

What's the matter, Cary? Out of advice for the day?

Side note: Erections sometimes happen for no reason at all (especially when one is not having as much sex as one would like), and a wife who would be angry at her husband's erection deserves to be divorced immediately.

Instead, learn from them.

"For some people, that seems to be their only occupation. Considering that no country is, or ever will, be perfect... you could occasionally find something positive to favorably comment upon. It would be a nice change of pace." -shooter

I have seen this type of response advocated by the "right wing mavericks" of the media before, O'Reilly and Rush and the like. It essentially means "Wow, I have no ability to argue against your point, so won't you please talk about something else? You're a 'nattering na-bob of negativity' (remember that one?) *waves flag*"

What is the best strategy for countering this type of ad hominem retort? Any thoughts?