are doomed to rule the world. Jeez, Bush's comments are based on a stunning level of falsehoods. Democrats didn't "choose" Lieberman in 2000. Al Gore did. He didn't consult Democrats. Democrats didn't vote for Lieberman to be the vice presidential candidate in 2000. He was chosen by one man. Democrats didn't choose Lieberman any more than Republicans chose Cheney. Hell, Bush didn't even choose Cheney--Cheney chose himself! How do you like that? Does Bush think people are stupid enough to believe his tripe? I guess his followers must be. But the contempt he must have for those people, to just lie and mislead them like that.

While we're on the subject of "choosing," how many Democrats had the opportunity to "choose" Gore during the 2000 primaries before it was already a foregone conclusion? Anyone in California? No. Anyone in Texas? No. Anyone in Illinois, Ohio, New York? No. It was Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (give or take an electorally insignificant state or two) who chose Gore. Am I the only person who is extremely upset about the way we choose our presidential candidates in this country? (And don't even get me started on the electoral college...)

"(3) You accuse Salon of propagandizing for the enemy. Cite some specifics: What are the factual fabrications? What are the willful distortions?"

Joe has never offered any facts, evidence or support for his claims and accusations because there never are any. He's just repeating Republican talking points and red herrings on a liberal forum to wind people up. You'll be waiting 'til hell freezes over if you want substance from him

Kim and Clinton were such chums. And Castro and Kennedy were best of friends. Where does he come up with this shit?

The best part is accusing Salon of labeling England as a victim. Where exacctly, did the article say that? No, joe, that's what you concluded, then projected onto Salon. You authoritarians have such "interesting" powers of observation! It truly boggles the mind...

"So is your only argument now that a person can't have an opinion on the war unless he or she is in the military?

No one is saying that. What we are saying is that if you support the war in Iraq, especially if you support it as strongly and enthusiastically as you joe, then you are a hypocrite if you aren't willing to go to Iraq and fight, too. How can such a simple point be so consistently misunderstood? Because authoritarians like you joe, are conveniently unashamed, and blissfully unaware of their own blatant hypocrisy.

Here's how the equation goes: The more you support the war, and the more unwilling you are to go and fight, the bigger a hypocrite you are. See how that works? It doesn't mean you can't have an opinion, it just means your opinion doesn't old any water with intelligent people. In Texas, we call it "all hat, and no cattle."

I wish no ill will against Blackwell, in the sense that I don't want him to endure physical harm, etc., but no matter how bad things get for him, I will be incapable of feeling any sympathy towards him whatsoever. For the rest of my life. If he loses this election, I guess we'll have to chalk it up to God's will, right?

Those Venezuelan exit polls were proven fraudulent. Opinion polls conducted regularly in the months preceding the 2004 Venezuelan election showed support for Chavez that roughly matched the election results. Only the fraudulent exit polls disagreed. I'll trust Jimmy Carter's word over yours, Mr. Souther.

Well, if you hold our troops in utter contempt, it's rather easy to say "stay the course" day in, day out. Of course, publicly you'll say how much you "support" the troops, and you have a nice yellow magnet on your car, but what's in your heart is nothing but contempt for the troops.

Why the contempt? Becuase you have contempt for all people who are lower-class, poor, and who don't have much in the way of future prospects, so to speak. You hear the contempt in comments like Barbara Bush spoke at the Astrodome during the Katrina aftermath last year. You hear it in George Bush's words when he condescends to the press corps. (Actually, George's contempt is not just for the poor, but anyone who disagrees with him, but you get my point.)

When trying to understand how a Republican can sleep at night these days given what's going on in Iraq, just factor in that they feel like our soldiers should consider themselves "lucky" to be getting a paycheck at all, and that it's their "duty" to be sacrificing their lives so people back home can drive their Escalades and Hummers in peace and comfort.

that joe's not posting today because he's down at his local recruitment office, signing up for duty?

(Yeah... I didn't think so either.)

He could be "president" someday!

(Sorry, I couldn't resist...)

Ken only WISHES he had the authority. Which begs the question; if he doesn't, who does? Hmmmm.... maybe Karl Rove? Or maybe the people who gave the money to the RNC specifically to run this ad?

If we could "follow the money" on this one, who knows WHERE it would take us?

But something's really wrong with this picture.

On one hand we have: "Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertisement."

And on the other, we have: "independent expenditure" produced by an arm of the Republican National Committee that is legally prohibited from coordinating with Mehlman."

How can the RNC be legally required to take responsiblility for the ad, but be legally prohibited from coordinating with the people actually producing the ad?

!