New boy on the block, GBT, whines: "So apparently because I rejected Glenn's petty attacks on Obama he had the courage to delete my posts

wow what a courageous intellectual coward Glenn is..."

Do yourself a favour, fellow Salonistas, DON'T bother reading her other posts. It's kind of like the irritating person at the office that endlessly semi-audibly, pursed-lippedly whistles the same irritating tune over and over.

Where do these ugly, petty, angry little people come from? Where do they go when the sun goes down? Who feeds them? Cares for them? I realize that this one, like so many others, has just wandered in for the day, looking for some abuse, pouring their frustration and impotence into posts that they would never dream of actually saying to another person. Things they could never say. And yes, I know, cardinal rule number one. Don't feed the trolls, especially the really bent ones. I can't help it, though. This one really is a stinker, and obviously needs help. My advice. Adjust the meds. Get a hobby. Or better yet, get a life. Make a friend. Come out of the closet. Cut back on the red meat. Or maybe wander over to TownHall or Freeker's Republick -- people may actually listen to you. And my friends, not to worry, like a bad case of gas, this too shall pass.

btc3rd throws down the glove: "f**k Lieberman, f**k Harry Reid and f**k the testicularly challenged Democratic Caucus."

and f**k the sheep they rode into town on.

But what's with the "testicularly challenged" thang?? I don't think having a set of nuts, especially the much aligned-brass ones in the old nut-sack has any connection with doing the right / decent / good / moral / brave thing. Probably a little more than half of the current world population would concur.

http://www.bored.com/photos/squirrelwithbignuts_2.html

You get what you pay for, I guess.

Starting with . . .

Changes? Not likely. Not this far down that particular road, in a handbasket, so to say.

"Changes", David Bowie, 1971.

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=pl3vxEudif8

Wiki says: "Rolling Stone's contemporary review of Hunky Dory considered that "Changes" could be "construed as a young man's attempt to reckon how he'll react when it's his time to be on the maligned side of the generation schism"."

Which brings us to . . .

Fool me once, shame on you, shame me twice, shame on me. Whatever. Fool us all the time. Ahhh. Welcome to Uh-Murica.

"Won't Get Fooled Again". The Who, 1971

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=b3mi-bKtDGA

Wiki says: "Pete Townshend wrote this song as part of his Lifehouse Project. He wanted to release a double-album and film about a world where the people are oppressed, but saved by a rock concert. Part of Townshend's wish was to show the power of music and how it reflects the people. "Won't Get Fooled Again" is about a revolution. In the first verse, there is an uprising. In the middle, the rebels overthrow those in power, but in the end, the new regime becomes just like the old one ("Meet the new boss, same as the old boss")."

Leopards, spots. Old dogs, new tricks. New things, under the sun?? Yeah, right . . .

Wiki again says: "In testimony before the grand jury, (Shoeless Joe) Jackson admitted under oath that he agreed to participate in the fix. He also admitted to complaining to other conspirators that he had not received his full $20,000 share. Legend has it that as Jackson was leaving the courthouse during the trial, a young boy begged of him, "Say it ain't so, Joe," and that Joe did not respond. In his 1949 interview in Sport Magazine, Jackson debunked this story as a myth." And Clueless Sarah Palin tried this on Barack's running mate in a debate. But it probably applies more to Chinless Joe Lieberman

"Say It Ain't So, Joe". Murray Head, 1975 (oops)

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=eZTt9B70fc8

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080616/alterman

Eric saw the writing on the wall: "Lieberman's blinkered critique of the Democrats--offered in a speech at a dinner for Commentary magazine and published in op-ed form in the Wall Street Journal--is a stale, forty-year-old whine that could have been written by any member of the extended Kristol/Podhoretz mishpocheh with nary a comma moved. More emotive than historical, it oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the past fifty years of US foreign policy to a degree that might have impressed Soviet ideologist Mikhail Suslov. Lieberman, for instance, seems not to know that Franklin Roosevelt allied himself with the Soviet Union, or that John F. Kennedy never committed to full-scale war in Vietnam. Meanwhile, he complains, Obama has "embraced our worst enemies." "

What the country needs is a decent five-cent cigar (inserted into Rush Limbaugh's cysted you-know-what) and an intelligent populace who'll wake up, rub the sleep out of their eyes and see that things ain't going to change until they really do change . . .

rant done. For today.

Eight years of these guys. And eight years of a guy who wasn't exactly the nicest guy in the world before that. And then the guy before that. And so on. And suddenly now, everyone is in on the "what-a-horrible-guy / what-horrible-people" these-Bushies-were thang. "We aren't like that, we're Americans. We're wunnerful people" Jaysus, what does it say about a country and a people that these POS could even be considered contenders in the first place? And Obama is suddenly going to make Americans into nice people?? I don't know what you people have in mind, but to the 95% of the people in the world who aren't Americans, it'll be business as usual.

You answered my question . . .

Wow, a cool guy in the WH -- maybe. Does this really really really mean that Americans aren't going to be assholes anymore???