That last letter by No Name Given, for example. It's not about being bothered or not. It's about the intensity of the hung up feelings, AND the behavior of making her feel like shit for months and months, with no end in sight, short of a break up. Yes, the BF has a right to be bothered, but he has no right whatsoever to make her feel like shit about it. It's fucked up. He needs to go find some virginal church mouse if he wants to be happy.

It's speaks volumes about the guy that he'd rather stay in the relationship and make her feel like shit, than honor his own feelings and leave her and find someone whom he's more compatible with. As I said before, what an immature baby.

anon is just looking for reasons to punish women. How telling.

Anyone who is seriously bothered by names like "Obama" or "Hussein" would never vote for a Democrat of any stripe anyway, even if his name was John Smith. So I really think this is a non-issue best dealt with now. Let those right wing authoritarians flap their gums over this all they want.

That quote made my day. Watching Ann's slow descent through the various levels of hell is quite enjoyable if you look at it that way. Once she finally bottoms out and becomes thoroughly irrelevant, I'm sure there will be a job at CNN Headline News waiting for her.

"The political ineptitude of the tribunal, from start to finish, was astonishing."

The political ineptitude of this entire enterprise has been astonishing. Politics is said to be the art of compromise. To men like Bush and Saddam, it isn't any sort of art. Rather, it is about "victory," "winning," and control. By any means necessary. Shock and Awe and blunt force trauma.

"Football 101" at "About.com" says it's hook and ladder. We can argue about this until the end of time about which term is more appropriate, but you have to ackowledge that hook and ladder is a legitimate football term. When someone says "hook and ladder," you know what they are talking about

http://football.about.com/cs/football101/g/gl_hookandladde.htm

But there doesn't HAVE to be anything important on the line for it to be a great game. Last night's game is a perfect example. Two teams having at it for nothing more than pride and love of the game. Do you really need more? Calling it a scrimmage and an exhibition is fine. I call it fun!

Last year's Rose Bowl is the best game I'll ever see. The rest will always be runners' up to me.

For watching that drivel so we don't have to.

And I don't think the point is necessarily whether or not Fox and CNN are biased or partisan (as RBL pointed out), but the extent to which they play to the lowest common denominator. Just when I think I've seen or heard it all, one or both of them tops itself by taking more and more of the "info" out of "info-tainment."

We should have the police go around killing all the potential criminals!

What a truly visionary idea that is. We can save the world so much misery if we travel to the ends of the earth preemptively killing every potential criminal before they have committed any crimes, therefore ending all crime forever. That's something worth fighting for. Sign me up! I was getting tired of this whole "democracy" thing anyway. Let's kill all the potential criminals so we can have our precious freedom back. I'm getting very tired of taking my shoes off at the airport, I'll tell you that much.

"They were against Bush before they were against Bush."

Joe's real identity is Karl Pilkington from the Ricky Gervais show. What are the chances of there being two people on the face of the earth who are that stupid? (Well, three if you count the President.)

http://www.pilkipedia.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Karl_Pilkington_Quotes_By_Date

being as colossally and spectacularly wrong as Bush, Cheney, McCain, Rumsfeld, etc. were (and are), would warrant a resignation and/or firings. Why do we let them off the hook time after time? Everyone is wrong now and then, but at some point you cross a line, and we crossed that line with this group a long time ago. Is it just simply a matter of people mindlessly following their authoritarian leaders and believe they are beyond reproach? It boggles the mind.

I agree. There is ample evidence in support of "both."

is the extent to which their policy decisions are affected by their presidential aspirations.

"you could look at the decision another way:

The CIA is keeping her from cashing in on the scandal as a form of retribution for the damage she caused their prestige..."

Valerie Plame is responsible for the C.I.A's damaged reputation? That's like saying the survivors of the Titanic shouldn't have been allowed to write books and cash in on their experience because of the damage it could have done to the luxury cruise industry. Maybe they'll let Plame print a disclaimer:

"Attention ladies and gentlemen, the names have been changed to protect the president and those serving in his administration."

The other thing I find hilarious about this is that conservatives would have us believe that Valerie Plame was the ONLY agent who's identity WASN'T classified. Just her. Everyone else needs to be protected, though.

"The time has come to put the country on a war footing, introduce rationing, draft 2 million men and women, and go try to stabilize Middle East."

Oh yeah, the rest of the world is just gonna LOVE that idea. I'm sure everyone will understand just how benevolent our "non-partisan" solution to the problem certainly would be. Anything worth doing wrong is worth doing wrong to the nth degree I suppose.