I can't stand reading either one of you disingenuous gasbags.

But you soldier on, reading GG anyway to confirm your dislike and bravely report it to...us?

If they really believe in their ostensible principles, they ought to apply them equally.

Dream on.

I haven't seen the movie, but I read the book. That bit about the transponder was not given away at the beginning. I hope it was in the movie, or you've just been very bad.

If every word of York's article is true, so what? How does it feel, Rush? To be slammed with a version of the truth sliced-and-diced to serve an agenda not your own? You like being Swiftboated? Does it feel good? No? Gee, we're sorry.

Now I see where it says "Unclaimed Territory" up on top. For being a dumbass, I doubled my contribution. Wish it could be more.

Tom's point is there's nothing in the "item" space on PayPal. I love you dearly, Glenn, but I'm not making a payment into the ether. I gotta see where it's going.

Even the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts has recently shown heightened concern about administration's conduct of the war on terror.

Is the majority on the Roberts Court really concerned about this administration's abuses? Or is it looking into the near future, realizing that a Democratic administration is right around the corner, foreseeing these same unreasonable powers invested in "the other guys," and not liking what they see?

many men "are more likely to experience a vicarious boost in their own sense of power and potency when American military forces attack, and especially when they defeat, an enemy."

Did the researcher not also note that this same reaction is engendered by something as banal as a sporting event? Is there any doubt that the alums who fund the stadiums are doing it as a form of Viagra?

How can someone with such a keen sense of his own persecution, yet who seems utterly blind to that of others have been made a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States?

On calling it a "war." That's the tag BushCo put on it to make it seem serious, two-sided and noble. The candidates would do themselves and everyone a favor by calling it by its real name: an invasion followed by an occupation. If you can end a war by simply going the hell away, then it isn't a war.

The idea that sells itself is that one's first duty as an elected official is to the security of this country; that the world is a harsh, ugly place, and that sometimes one has to do horrible things for the greater good.

And the horrors these people create make the world harsh and ugly for the next generation of fascistic fear- and warmongers.

Yes, but can the U.S. Senate remove the president's head? (If only.)

And yes, we do agree on the substance.

Sysprog, what I meant was that if the mullahs wanted him gone, MA'd be gone. If he wanted the mullahs gone, sorry Charlie, it doesn't work that way. That's the inequality I was describing, and including MA in the "group of tyrants (plural noun)" to my mind gives him stature he doesn't in fact have.

And 'pon that, my mind is made up.

Glenn, in this country we have had, and continue to try to have, a strict separation of church and state. I should have held my tongue until I knew more about Israeli governmental structure, but it is my strong impression that Jewishness plays a greater role there than Christianity plays here. And all I said was that Israel seems "more of a theocracy," on a continuum with, say, Sweden at one end and Iran at the other.

Some people will admire Ahmadinejad because they agree with his view that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East, that the land doesn't belong to them, that it should be returned to the Palestinians. I'm not someone who thinks that, so I'm not going to find those views admirable.

And I don't find tyranny and theocracy admirable either.

No one is asking anyone to "admire" a point of view, only to admit that from the other side's p.o.v. (which is held with as much sincerity as one's own -- remember Rashomon), there is a case to be made. If your dog shows up having been beaten and you accuse me of doing it, even if I maintain that I didn't do it, in the name of some kind of rational outcome I should at least agree that your dog has been beaten.

And personally, I'm not sure how you can talk about a "Jewish state" and in the same breath decry theocracy. To a goy who's never been there (and this may be a failure of P.R. more than a reality) Israel seems a hell of a lot more theocratic than anywhere I'd want to live.

p.s. Calling MA a tyrant (def: absolute ruler) inflates his importance. The ayatollahs are the tyrants of Iran.