The right-wing lacks mirror neurons.

Thanks GG, for drawing attention to this matter again. It is perfectly exemplary of so much that is horribly wrong right now.

And by the way, who decided to turn out the lights in the Saloon last night? Was the crowd too rowdy in here?

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

From one of the best plays/screenplays of all time IMO.

How people can read things and interpret them so differently.

I didn't see this post as GG's endorsement of Ron Paul, although I knew the thread would quickly devolve into a debate about the man and his politics.

I saw it (the post) as more of a commentary on the large pent-up anti-beltway establishment feeling extant. And a data point in favor of a LOT of anti-War sentiment.

I'd be curious to read Glenn's thoughts on what impact he feels a Ron Paul 3rd party run would have on the "mainstream" candidates.

HEY! I DO have an atheist running my church. (The pastor, anyway). I'm a Unitarian.

T - just crackin' wise at you is all.

L.W.M. - that'd be kinda quick for him, wouldn't it? I figured 'bop was making an allusion to the Wedding of Church & State under Paul. But I don't try to figure it out, I just let it flow through me...

This Salon article from yesterday

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/05/kucinich/

provides links to a number of "blind" issue surveys. You provide answers to a number of issues (no, it's not a perfect process, and no, all the issues that are so important to you will not necssarily be addressed) and the candidate who most closely conforms to your views will be revealed.

I'd encourage everyone to take at least one of these quizzes, if you haven't done so already.

Oh you don't eh? Then why not choose Kucinich to illustrate this point? Because Paul raised a lot of money in a short time? He obviously has so much support? He is "legitimate" whereas Kucinich is not? What's the excuse for promoting a joker with the same rightwing ideology, wrt domestic social issues, as the worst wingnuts out there?

Glenn could have chosen to an expose on Kucinich but he didn't. It must be the fact that Paul just raised alot of money (he is therefore "legitimate") not because Glenn wants to promote Paul's candidacy, right?

Check memeorandum for a short list of those who felt compelled to comment about RP today, as a direct result of his highly unusual fund-raising performance.

I'm sorry GG's decision regarding what to write about today didn't include your favorite candidate (or mine, for that matter).

I commented on MY interpreation of what this fund-raising anomoly might mean (i.e pent-up antiwar sentiment). In addition I commented upon my interpretation of the post as so clearly distinct from others'. Forgive me if I have somewhat less confidence in your interpretation of what GG chooses to write about than you apparently do.

Get a screen name, next time, if you adress somebody directly.

...to peeek back in here, yet?

... w/ the "hundreds of billions" pricetag (I've seen more than one estimate north of a trillion, lately, haven't I?), but you almost caused me, like some of the others, to spit food on my monitor this a.m. No mold yet.

Glad you're back, hope the book work is under control. Thank whoever's job it is to clean up after the wild party in here.

WASHINGTON --As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

more stories like thisPrivacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

http://tinyurl.com/yo6jx7

Since you wandered so far O/T.

My buddy wrote/produced this movie -

http://tinyurl.com/29sfx3

I can't whole-heartedly recommend it (blame the Director for that) BUT - it has some pretty decent (to me, anyway) Fado singing.

Glenn, I wonder if you'd mind appending a similar paragraph on say, Kucinich. That might pre-emptively stave off , oh, 25% of those who will now flood the comment section w/ remarks like "Glenn, I can't believe you'd endorse Ron Paul!? Don't you know he thinks [x]!?"

Their sense of irony, that is.

BTW: "These are the still-valid premises that led the Constitution-revering President Bush to spend the last six years ignoring statues whenever he wanted to"

"statutes", you mean. But thanks for the laugh, as I pondered ol' GW blithely ignoring that pesky statuary.

Hey Glenn, are you going to have anything to say about this?

Thank A.L. for the link.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/99D0C2963ED15AB288257394007C1F36/$file/0636083.pdf?openelement

Tiny url didn't work, sorry.

Did you actually revist that crap and sit through it (again?)

With that kind of intestinal fortitude, you should go on "Fear Factor"!

N/T