I keep wanting to trust the left wing blogosphere, because I depended on them for information when the media was simply not reporting on Iraq scandals. But I can't. They made this sound as if it were a done deal, as if there were no doubt. I was once trapped in the same authoritarian trap - you read something by someone on a site you trust, and you believe it. I'm pleased to say that I figured out that this scandal was probably quite overblown before I read this article, but it's a good reminder to all of us to only believe half of what we see, and none of what we read (courtesy of M. Twain, I believe).

"The facts are this, you have a long record of deceit and hate towards Obama, and you have just defended the legality of a person who has a fantasy to see Obama assassinated. With all of that in mind, I think it would be fair to presume that you may have entertained such a fantasy."

This is incredibly sleazy, even for you. I've never, ever expressed hatred for or ill-will towards Obama. I don't hate Obama. I have been critical of him, but I do not hate him and do not and have never wished him ill, publicly or privately. You are beneath contempt. You have distorted my views, taken my words out of context, trollbaited me (as you probably are right now), and lied about my character and intentions. Repeatedly. You are a lying troll.

I will defend the right of people I disagree with to believe and express what they will. I defend the right to speak even of groups whose views I find abhorrent, including the KKK and NAMBLA. People have a constitutional right to say offensive things. To believe offensive things. You even have a right to say offensive things about me. People have a right to be idiots and to express their idiocy publicly.

But I find it personally offensive that you would suggest that I have ever entertained fantasy's about something bad happening to Obama. You have no evidence of that except your own warped imagination and you have no reason to say something like that except your desire to trollbait me. I will go back to ignoring you, but you succeeded this time. I can't simply let a statement like that lie unchallenged.

Hi! Do you have some kind of search set up to find out when I post using the word "Obama", or do you simply read every thread so that you can find in in order to trollbait me and publicly distort my views?

It's the kind of distinction that constitutional rights hinge upon. You can't censor ideas, you can punish actions. If wishing ill on a President was a punishable offense, then most of the far left and far right sites would be barren because everybody would be in jail.

I am not saying, by the way, that the paper should have run the ad. Newspapers are private businesses and have both the right and a responsibility to not run material that will be deeply offensive to a significant part of the public. I'm just being clear: the person who placed the add did not call for Obama to be assassinated. He did not seek out anybody to do it. He did not threaten it. He expressed a wish that it would happen. That is tasteless and offensive, but probably legal. If he had gone further, it would be illegal.

I see common sense. If Nader really wanted to simply make a point and show that a third candidate could win he would have taken the money and worked to show that he could be a powerhouse in certain states. But he didn't. He wanted us to have 8 years of Republican rule in the hopes that after that time the entire system would collapse and his followers could gain power in the aftermath. He could have made his point without running in contested states, but he chose not to. He lost us Florida, and that was enough to lose us the election. It's that simple, folks. Simple math.

Anybody who defends Nader is a fool. Anybody who thinks that it was noble to subject the world to Bush is an ignorant fool.

There were no fewer than 3 rec'd diaries on Daily Kos ranting about this case yesterday. In every case the debaters assumed that the story was true and debated not the veracity but the implications of this story. I realize that Daily Kos is not the reputable site it once was, but it's an influential site and a lot of people visit it. I go myself, mostly to see what the "progressives" are ranting about nowadays - they are back to attacking right-wingers, defending Sotomayer (whose hearings are months away and who is quite popular right now among the general public) and ranting about health care today - they have a short attention span.

I know it takes more room, but "ad" makes it sound as if they accepted a regular paid advertisement, as opposed to a classified ad, which is in a separate category that receives far less scrutiny. Also, the "ad" didn't call for Obama's assassination, it expressed a wish that he be assassinated. Big different. Huge difference. "Calling for" implies that the ad actually made a request that he be assassinated. If I say "I hope that Bush rots in hell", then it is quite different from my saying "Could someone please make sure that Bush goes to hell... soon". The latter is a request for murder. The former is simply an expression of desire.