The real war mongers here are the government worshipers who pretend that they will not support the next war a democrat starts.

STFU Donnie, I mean, Bucky! You're out of your element!

Or, maybe not, but you get the drift. The real war mongers are the McCain supporters. And the RWA 28%ers.

I'm not sure what causes you to tee off on anybody you feel doesn't measure up to your "the MIC is a mass slaughter machine" position. I've no proof, but I'd venture to say that most hanging around in here AGREE with you on that.

At least, they would if you weren't always railing at your targets as if THEY were the ones who are deranged.

Can't you lighten up, please, and save some of the bile for the 28%ers?

With all due respect...

Wanker. 100%. 1 vote. That's me 8').

Any ad campaign in his district?

And THIS, is key -

And there are few things that would infuriate their base and prompt the equivalent of all-out political war in an election year more than a act like this. Handing George Bush new warrantless eavesdropping powers and full-scale protection from having his illegal spying finally investigated and adjudicated (and that is what the effect of telecom amnesty would be), rather than just waiting six months for the next President to take office, would be unconscionable.

I think it's a leverage point, really. Because there is no uproar, these "people" haven't internalized what an absolute disaster this would be for their hold on power. Maybe if they understood how self-destructive they were acting, their staggering sense of self-importance might come into play.

N/T

Glenn, Hoyer may not be vulnerable, but is there any leverage to be gained by slamming him w/ the "telco immunity will so outrage a substantial minority of the Democratic-leaning voters that Democrats might well lose the General election" argument?

And Aych, if HRC is coronated, I'm going to vote for every Dem I can (that won't be many, I'm in TX) EXCEPT for her. But maybe I'm not average.

or STFU. Yeah, genius, you're the only one in here who ever recognizes the similarity between the two choices we're currently stuck with. And we're all empty vessels, not worthy of being called your peers.

Retard.

bstar, no need to qualify yer comments to me, personally. It's just that broad-brush disparaging commentary is one of my hot buttons. Like when eedjits use the "salonistas" label. Sets me off.

There are plenty of rational people in here, along w/ a few select loons, and most are willing to engage in rational discourse - as long as somebody doesn't seem to demonstrate right out of the starting gate that there's no possibility of any good faith interaction.

"The overwhelming majority of the people in this country see no value in launching a futile lawsuit against telcos, are not terrorists or sympathizers and have no fear of their privacy rights being tread upon in the name of national security, and therefore tend to come out in favor of the Bushies on this issue."

I suppose there's a REMOTE possibility that's not simply an assertion you pulled out of your butt - if you ignore the actual evidence (polls) that Glenn has repeatedly cited to the contrary.

Paul, HBIC is probably some clever disparaging acronym. You know, sort of like sharter28% means

RWA lying bit of human excrement that isn't worth addressing.

That type of thing.

Missed that, didn't get to my counterpunch email yet today.

F*cking depressing, and irritating as hell innit? A rhetorical question, of course.

...we're compelled to force people into voluntary cooperation w/ each other.

The Dallas Morning News has two long Op-Eds this morning (they take up most of the page) on Obama/Wright. Jeebus. And the authors? Maureen O'D and Krauthamer. Double Jeebus.

What a rag.

They're quoting you in the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/us/politics/04memo.html?hp

Sorry if that's been repeatedly pointed out. Odd thing was, I saw the quote, thought to myself, "I don't remember that", logged on, and here it was...

I hadn't even read the first sentence of the post when I posed the question.

...I'll chime in to say, "damaged goods" Sunday, May 4, 2008 08:07 AM idea sounds good to me.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/04/1988/permalink/b6d2ac804e16487662920129add58752.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/4owhap

ttp://therealnews.com/id/1434/20080502/Hundreds+killed+by+US+strik

or click sig for linky

Hundreds killed by US strikes in Sadr City

Pepe Escobar: New strategy to fight resistance--Wall-in a section of the city and bomb it

Did you check the link I posted?

Sunday, May 4, 2008 03:00 PM

Let's remember who the real villains are.

As this B.S. is disseminated, all the "qualifiers' get stripped out. The Dallas Morning news says the NYT and WaPo contributed to their report, but no mention that "there has been debate among experts about the extent to which Iran is responsible for instability in Iraq", Instead, the info was generated from "interrogation reports".

and, ya gotta love this (forgive the transcription)

At a news conference, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said there was no hard evidence that Tran was allowing weapons to come into Iraq.

But al-Dabbagh called reporters later to clarify his remarks, which he said were misinterpreted.

"there is an interference and evidence that they have interfered in Iraqi affairs" he said in an interview arranged by a U.S. official. When asked to characterize the proof of Iranian weapons, he said: "It is a concrete evidence."

I bookmarked that site (zenhuber). Have you read his book?

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/08may05.pain.regulation/

Arne even misspells Arnie. Grunt.