Is this one from Ann Coulter, lying about her age of course?

But seriously:

What else could a girl want?

Perhaps some humility?

Perhaps less a sense of victimhood?

I think she should take her money and her beauty and try and do something meaningful for the poor, the ill, the ugly, society's disadvantaged ones. She can do that in this country or some other. There is plenty of need and misery to go around.

At first it will just be slumming but perhaps, after a while, she won't just narcisistically bask in the glow of doing nice things for ugly people but will actually come to appreciate that it is possible to live a life of purpose.

Or she will go into politics, run for senate and spend the rest of her life having people do things for her and tell her how wonderful and beautiful she is. And she will live happily ever after.

I've taken care of many depressed patients and I disagree with the writers who think she has a clinical depression which is being callously disregarded. The key is the description of not just how well off she is but how beautiful she is and all the other wonders of her life. I believe she has at least the underpinnings of a narcissistic personality disorder and her "depression" is the disappointment that she is not appropriately idolized by all as well as a let down about the lack of a "what next?". When I read the work of truly depressed people it makes me sad. This just irritated me (and most of the other writers). That is why I suggested she go into politics which is the perfect place for people who need to be constantly fed reports of their own value and perfection. She can pick either party.

No, Joe, we watch you...and know the opposite is true.

No,it didn'ta take 2.5 years to figure this out; it was being said and ignored before the first US boot hit Iraqi soil. It took 2.5 years until some congressmen finally were shamed, or electorally worried, enough to grow a pair and agree with what the moonbats (you call them progressives now) were saying all along.

But those folks didn't actually take actions that have led to the death and maiming of tens of thousands of America's best, the same for who knows how many Iraqi's, or run up billions of dollars in unpaid bills on the government's account.

Re: agent indemnification policies: The government should be paying for these policies since the agents are, ultimately, representing "us".

I wonder if candidates can take out insurance policies that would recover campaign expenses if their campaign was done in by opponent smears and innuendo rather than gross incompetence. Sort of like McCain could recover for having South Carolina, and thus the nomination, stolen from him by Bush in 2000 but K. Harris could not because she seems to be doing it all to herself.

Cheney said "exactly the same". Joe, he said "exactly the same". That means pushing 3000 GI's dead, 20-30,000 wounded, billions in the hole and civil war by whatever name you prefer in Iraq. "Exactly the same", he said. I know you're a loyalist and all that but how can you continue to defend this guy.

That's kind of a bizarre floormat for someone to make anyway. I'm hoping this is photoshop Just because it wouldn't surprise you, doesn't mean its true. (seems fair though: like the Kerry on stage with Fonda thing).

DMB: You're right. I've been responding to Joe as if pointing out how inane his automatic defense of the administration was would actually make a difference. It never pays to feed the trolls. I'll just let him ramble to himself from here on out.

Forget this posting, Please comment on the previous one about Bob Ney.

I actually figured something like this. Someone who is not trying to hide a jewish background from a "cracker constituency", says "My grandfather was in a concentration camp"; not "was incarcerated by the Nazi's". The latter has more a white bread, Hogan's heroes flavor to it.

"Well, you have neither. So are we winning the war?"

Ganging up on cosmo:

We tried and executed Japanese and German military perpetrators of torture and genocide after WWII because we could and there were laws to support our doing so.

Our sole remaining reason for marching into Iraq (even the boss admits now no WMD and no AQ link), is that he was a bad man who tortured and killed his people. I'm sure he saw the Kurds and Shias (and political rivals) as threats to society and, by his interpretation, worthy of indefinite imprisonment and torture. I suggest we pick better role models for our nation.

Do you believe that the Geneva conventions were created in 1947? Back to the history books for you(Hint: go back to 1864 or so for the first one).

Your point is stupid anyway. Yes, the 1947 conventions were because of abuse in WWII; but NOT TO JUSTIFY THEM.

Jeebus. Do you guys think at all besides the decision of what to tune into: Rush or Bill?

Even those on the right now use the term "swiftboating" to mean an inappropriate, personal, and inaccurate attack. Is that a confession about 2004? Perhaps inadvertently. Do they feel any shame or embarassment about this irony? I doubt it. Does it bother me that I'm talking like Rumsfeld? Absolutely!