In essence, Salon like FOX is a rich man's plaything. O'Reilly et al. are funded by Rupert Murdoch; Greenwald and his colleagues are funded by San Francisco trust-funder Bill Hambrecht and his wife.

The problem for Greenwald is that when News Corp stock falls out of bed, FOX News does not suffer any loss of funding or influence, whereas when SLNM stock falls to a penny or less, Salon has to make cuts and rely on "erotica" and other "alternative revenue streams."

Are you the slightest bit aware that your first point--that Salon is, like FAUX News or the Washington Times, propaganda subsidized by wealthy interests, regardless of its profitability--is disproved by the second?

The directive to "not have an intelligent debate" was a summation from Thinkprogress of one of their points--I think it was dead accurate, but it was not an actual quote. Here's the way Thinkprogress has it listed; the part in quotes was directly from the memo:

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

You can follow the links from Thinkprogress and read the memo for yourself.

Still, it's pretty clear from the videos--or from the Birfers, or the Teabaggers (or for that matter the creationists or global warming deniers)--that the 21st Century American right has, actually, no interest in intelligent debate.

What the people of the world want is a boot on their throats. That's all they understand. That and profits. I can't wait to hear more from her.

Thanks for summing up the Axis of Cheney's philosophy most succinctly, thug.

Geez, who pissed in your cheerios?

Good going, Bill.

I know you guys are having fun screaming at each other, but I'm re-posting the link (at sig) for the Kos diary that CrunchyFrog posted earlier. It tells quite plainly how to have a successful town hall, by establishing order and rules of behavior early on, and having enough police to back it up.

Wingnuts, you're free to yell all you want--outside the hall.

And Giant Bastard: Texas is within striking range of turning blue, and people are working hard to make it happen. It's already a minority-majority state (Anglos are, I believe, about 45% of population), and would have more Dems in the House if not for DeLay's illegal jerrymandering. So don't count it out.

It's pretty expressly Tarantino's attempt to set a spaghetti western in occupied France. (Not sure where I learned this. The film's website, maybe?) In other words, he's looking at the fringe areas of the French countryside, between Maquis and Nazi control, as bloody, lawless areas a la the old west. That the ruthless vengeance-seeking protagonists are American Jews only adds more spice to the mix.

Will it work? Who knows? I'll definitely check it out, though.

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here."

Palin conveniently left off the bolded part.

This particular manner of bullshit is referred to as a half-truth.

But I watched, and he wouldn't die!

It's possible to back the President and kick him in the drawers at the same time.

Bears repeating.

Well, let's see, there's the Klan, and the IRA, and their enemies, the UDA, and Hamas, and the Black Panthers, and on and on...

All, with the possible exception of the Panthers, terrorist organizations.

Nice fucking company you people are keeping. And Sirota's right: as usual, the weapons are there for intimidation.

But this time, it ain't working.

In response to those obstructionists calling it "Obamacare," just call it "Kennedycare" in memoriam.

And yes, we only need 50 votes to pass the Senate now.

Shoving someone is not "perhaps technically battery," it is battery. The recipient is under no legal, ethical, or moral obligation to accept this attack. Both attacker and victim are sentient, autonomous creatures. You, Cary, may feel that you should never fight back, but you have no right to deny someone else the right to defend their autonomy. Furthermore, you deny the attacker's humanity by denying him the responsibility for his actions.

For children, this is okay. Not for adults, who know how they should act, and who have the strength to cripple or kill.

Furthermore, if a successful shove--one that drives the recipient backwards, out of balance--is immediately followed up with a flurry of punches, say, or a takedown, the recipient will be completely unable to defend. In a sparring or competitive match, in any style, the fighter that backs up will get pounded by their opponent. That'll be the match, right there. On the street, however, that can be your life. If I let an attacker shove me, I will be helpless to prevent him from beating me into a concussion or worse. Why should I accept that, in the hope that his shoving is some kind of macho-macho game?

LW, do not beat yourself up over this. You did not cause this assault. Neither did you start the verbal "attack" that led to this fight. This fellow started by being abusive, and you stood up for yourself. Good, that's what our voices are for! Sometimes we need to establish boundaries with each other by getting mad, even with people we love. A healthy person does not use that as an excuse for violence.

I think that's a bit unfair, Glen. That applies to a minority, a substantial one, true. And you know what?

(Looks around...sotto voce:)

They're all watching you right now!

(And besides, I thought the Teabaggers were the Revolution. Now it's Obama? I iz confused.)

But what do I know? I'm just a member of the OLIGARHY (click on sig).