@Observer1:

Lieberman isn't even a DINO -- he's an Independent now. I suspect that the Democrats indulged him because they needed his caucusing with the Dem's to control committees. I can hold my nose for that, but now that he's clearly _not_ needed, kick him to the curb.

@weeping for brunnhilde:

I understand your sentiment, but Bill Clinton was a really really good president. Plenty of things undermined the public's perception (perhaps some even warranted), but he was arguably the best President this country has seen in the past 50 years.

Isn't the whole point of hedge funds is that they're largely unregulated and thus able to be much higher risk?

Their whinging is a prime example of "Privitization of profit, socialization of risk" that's just a rotten garbage smell away from "crony capitalism" as being one of the worst economies you can have.

At least if I have warlords fighting over economic assets, its obvious how fucked up and dangerous that is.

I think she meant to leave out the "a candidate's part" and simply say "...threatens free speech rights under the Constitution," and imply that should the press continue to criticize her, she would work to eliminate the First Amendment.

That would sounds more like the neoconservatives I know.

I don't remember which government official it was -- but long ago, one very accurately said "The only thing worse than being in Doonesbury is not being in it." I suspect McCain's getting that bitter taste right now.

Either "Has the endorsement of the worst President in history" or "Can't even get an endorsement from the sitting president in his own party."

n/t

We should have let the Confederacy have South Carolina.

The perfect place for Objectivists to find consolation sex amidst the flaming wreckage of laissez-faire capitalism...

In what other area of journalism is lack of awareness a mark of distinction?

Glenn Greenwald dared you to write that with a straight face, didn't he?

A Republican would rather 9 people suffer than 1 undeserving person receive benefits.

The cynic in me says that this is her attempt to kill the Senate commission by replacing it with something she knows would get shut down before it made any significant progress.

His argument rests on the supposition that fetuses are people.

If you agree with that, the rest of his argument is superfluous. If you don't, the rest of his argument is irrelevant.

...can we move on to demolishing the notion of the gun-violence Laffer curve too?

...you should hear his one about the activist judges in Brown v. Board...

Freedom to be spied on! Freedom to be indefinitely detained! Freedom to be tortured!

That makes it a tent big enough for Barack Obama to fit under...

We encourage free speech, thought and expression in part so that ideas enter the marketplace and either flourish or die. Carrie Prejean's ideas are stupid, and they got the appropriate reaction.

What, we want women to have opinions so that when they express them, we pat them on the head and say "Oh, isn't that adorable! She talks, too!"

She's free to talk, we're free to loudly reject her awful ideas. Or, perhaps, support them, if she ever had a good one.

How do you go through the entire article without mentioning that Selena Roberts was the reporter who brought us the fabulously accurate and authentic Duke lacrosse rape story?

She has no credibility.

"and doesn't want to legislate or create policy from the bench"

You lost me at the right-wing buzzword that really translates into "Interpreting the law, especially when it conflicts with itself, because that's their job".

When the constitution of a state or of the United States of America says everyone has equal protection under the law, and another law says "...well, not really, actually, for this certain group of people we think we can discriminate against," and a judge throws out that law, that's the judge doing their job.

If the right wing wants to take issue with "policy from the bench", I suspect they need to take it up with the authors of the 14th amendment, or any of the other fine amendments to our Constitution.

You won't get argument from me that the Dred Scott decision was wrong.

I'm still not sure you're aware of what "legislate from the bench" has come to mean though -- it _is_ a right-wing buzzword and it means "judges should only make decisions that are right-wing approved, regardless of what the supreme law of that jurisdiction says".

Why are our troops deployed in the United States?

The racism/culturalism/classism in your post is depressing. You might want to look at that.

Pretty much the difference between "sci-fi" and "space opera", though there can be a fuzzy line between those two.

...I hear "uppity".

...flung rotten vegetables, or feces, or tackled and pummeled the President? Would we hear the same things? "It's wrong, but the sentiment is right"?

Sounds an awful lot like their apologism for abortion provider shootings: "It's unfortunate that Dr. Slepian was shot, but we have to remember that he's a disgusting unethical baby-murderer, and here's the addresses of several more abortion doctors, should you wish to stop them from being baby killers in some unspecified manner. Also, here's an assualt rifle."

"I shouldn't have done it, but your legal and normal civilized behavior drove me to my own extreme, impolite or illegal behavior, so its your fault."

Football is rife with the same radical right christianity that fuels right wing politics these days. Its really not surprising that the same "energizing the base", "talking points" and "message being more important than results" is found there too.

R.E.M. has had many years of evolution in them. Automatic for the People, Monster and New Adventures in Hi-Fi are quite a departure from their origins, but they're also about as fine a series of 3 albums as any band could hope to release. Seriously, they're fantastic.