May I call you Boon?

you can look at their decisions as a prism which illustrates how they view the will of their constituents.

Replace "constituents" with "campaign contributors" and I'm pretty much in agreement with everything you said.

You see, even if "your guy" wins, that doesn't mean he's bound or obligated to be your little toady.

Anytime you think everybody but you is totally naïve about politics: a) take that Valium and b) think again.

Assuming that your interlocutors are totally dumb is not a really good way to carry an argument. However, it's a great way to get flamed. Which may have been your goal all along.

If so... carry on.

Heru, I'm curious... do you see affirmative action as racist? Why or why not?

But damn, people. Can't we even give this a freakin' chance of working...?

How is talking about something Rahm Emanuel said not giving this a chance?

Can you explain something to me? How do you propose to "[h]old Obama and the party's feet to the fire, yes, yes, yes" if you're going to get the vapors whenever anyone says anything critical of anyone in the Obama Administration?

You're not the first person to react this way and I am just trying to understand: what would you have us do?

These people who believe that a mystical center exists where bipartisan polity and comity drops like gentle lotus blossoms and the right and left wing enter Nirvana on shimmering footsteps are in the business of creating a reality to use to explain why the voters should be thwarted.

As always, ondelette expressed my feelings better than I could. I may limit my comments for the nonce to a simple "what ondelette said!!"

What ondelette and Holly said.

Paul Daniel's Arse is sore...

Thrasher! Long time no see!

What's "GBT" stand for, anyway?

Let's all be vewwy quiet.

It might think we've all died, and it'll decide to leave.

ssshhhhhh...

Attempts to criticize a lawyer for representing unsavory or even evil clients are inherently illegitimate and wrong -- period.

I think there should be a distinction drawn between criticizing an individual lawyer for her or his judgment in taking on a particular case where that judgment is relevant - and a blanket statement that "bad" people don't deserve representation.

I'd like to give Omar a shot at confirming/denying that he agrees with the second premise. Cause that would be "inherently... wrong" in my humble opinion. Otherwise, I think you may be arguing past each other.

Which has never happened in Salon Letters before.

You may have answered the question I asked, but I'm going to give you another swing.

Are rich corporations on a separate plane from mother-rapers and father-stabbers, vis á vis their right to representation? Leave compensation out of it for the present.

I was wondering where I could get a set of those boots.

He may be writing a strong letter of protest to Salon right now for not getting to post, he made that threat earlier.

I'm curious what part of "Salon reserves the right to delete any letter at its discretion" some posters don't understand.

Derbig, do you really think there's a commenter called "oomex" or are you just being your usual droll self? There is a guy named "Paul Daniel Arse" around here, though, who's been really chappin' my Ash...

I don't know when the word "truth" lost all but its Newspeak meaning, but it seems like a lot of people have this initial first reaction. It saddens me, because I will always associate the phrase with the transition to a full and free democracy in South Africa. (link at sig)

To me, the association with that process would give a US Truth Commission more moral weight, not less. But, in a country such as this, where labeling counts for so much, we can't totally discount that reaction.

A "Just-the-Facts and Reconciliation Commission?" A "Wait, Wait, Don't Lie to Me and Reconciliation Commission?"

I really don't want to abandon the word "truth" to Big Brother.

Clowns scare me too. Nevertheless, I adored that screen name and always shall.

Still and all... a good, crisp petiole freshens up your day.

I was being droll.

All the rules of war, certainly the GCs, condition our being bound by the rules to our enemy also accepting and being bound by the same rules.

When i read Article 2, i see the following:

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Setting aside the fact that al-Qa'ida is not a "Power," doesn't that indicate that the GCs are not conditioned as you say>

2) the archive of letters under that name is from somebody else.

Could you post a link to the archive? Cause the only thing that comes up when I google "oomex" is letters written by you and a bunch of Java code.

I implicitly trust Obama.

Ooh, that reminds me of something someone once said! Hmm, it slips my mind... let's see... OH YEAH. Link at sig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIbb42a6K4I

We take turns.

Bother you? Too bad.

Did I miss Glenn's notice that you would be personally attacking any commenter that you found guilty of posting a "stupid" comment?

He who knows does not speak; He who speaks does not know.

To be clear: I like Barry O, I just don't trust him - or any politician - implicitly or otherwise.

I'll be happy to have my cynicism proved wrong if President Obama delivers on half the wonderful things his supporters tout. But if he doesn't, it won't be we curmudgeons' fault for not "believing" hard enough.

He's not Tinker Bell, he's the President-elect.