You are still comparing apples to oranges.

The Clintons aren't "keeping" GQ from running the story. They are just adding conditions that make it uncomfortable for GQ to run the story. GQ is still perfectly free to run the story. I frankly don't understand why they won't. But it's GQs call, not the Cintons', and that's the difference. You keep acting like GQ and the New York Times are equvalent, and that this is some Abu Ghraib whistle-blower story. Sure, this is a petty move on the part of the Clintons, but that's all it is. A petty political powerplay.

We agree on that much, for sure. Conservatives can't do without their porn and cigs. Even if you get rid of the homos, it's still to high a price to pay. Thank G-O-D for freedom!

"Problem is, there's this thing called FREEDOM that seems to stop them every time."

You mean, like porn being illegal? Okay, I get your point. My bad. Conservatives would never stand for that.

I mean, if they've really gotten rid of all the homosexuals, it's gotta be heaven for conservatives, right?

With all of shooter's talk about slickness, and getting into positions and homosexuality, he'll probably have to find some public mensroom somewhere to go "relieve" himself.

Tom DeLay calling Travis County DA Ronnie Earle "vindictive and partisan."

But this one still can't touch Larry Craig calling Bill Clinton a "nasty, bad, naughty boy." I don't know how that one will ever be topped.

That Senators like Feinstein, Landreiu and Lieberman (when he was a Democrat), vote with the Republicans in instances where they actually agree with the the Republicans on a given issue. That in their minds, they are being "brave" by voting their conscience, rather than toeing the party line. As liberal a state as California is, there are plenty of folks who appreciate how Feinstein votes, unfortunately. Even in San Francisco.

The make-up of the Democratic Party is such that it's members who are rather conservative feel perfectly free to champion conservative issues and candidates when they want to. There's never that "vote with us, or else..." type of pressure that we hear about with the Republicans, especially in the heyday of Tom "The Hammer" DeLay.

You know, I almost made it the airplane joke, but I thought I'd have to get into the bit about the parachute, and I figured the bar joke was quicker

Sorry couldn't resist.

I was trying not be redundant.

To answer your question, yes, I was being sarcastic. Nice catch. Here's the bonus round. Sarcasm, or dead serious?

I'm all for choosing one's words carefully when being critical of Jews, Muslims, neocons, the Christian Right, Mormons... shoot, marginalized groups of any stripe really. It's just too easy to paint a group of people with a broad brush (A wink to the Wal-mart joke earlier). But can't we all agree the it's pretty much always cool to hate on Scientologists 24-7?

Why should we take Rudy seriously? He’s not very bright, with a propensity for self-mythologizing and has precious little foreign policy experience or know-how, which is why the MSM rarely calls him on the recklessly stupid comments he regularly makes. [Guns on planes? Sure!] I mean how could we ever elect a guy with those qualities? That would be crazy!

Hey, maybe we know who shooter is now.

As if, tiberius. As if.

So I wasn't the only who thought of "Dawn of the Dead" when Bush famously told everyone to go shopping after 9-11?

If you got an "A" in fiscal responsibility, why is there such a huge deficit, when you inherited such a huge surplus? And no, you don't get to bring up "September the Eleventh" for the one-hundred-millionth time.

Bush obviously enjoys being The Decider. He gets to decide who gets to ask a question AND he gets to decide if he'll answer it or not. Who wouldn't want that!

Yep. The short bus just pulled up, and the trolls are here to play. Just in time for me to leave work, and do anything else. 'Til tomorrow, guys... have at it!

If the executive branch could have exercised this power back in the 90s, just think how much faster we could have caught a "real" bad-guy, like the Unabomber? Oh, wait. He lived in a wooden shack in the middle of nowhere without electricity. Nevermind.

So far, I 've given Obama $25 twice, both times for saying something I thought was brave, and then getting kicked in the teeth by the right soon afterwards. Last week, I spent $100 to go to a Hillary fundraiser just for the opportunity to meet Bill Clinton. (Yes, it was worth it.)

At this point, I've yet to make up my mind who I'll support in my state's Primary--I live in Texas, so it doesn't really mattter anyway--but it will be either Edwards, Obama, or Hillary.

I think you missed my point. I'm not saying that fundraising isn't a necessary part of campaigning. However, just going by my email inbox, campaigning is ALL about fundraising, 24-7.

What I'm saying is this: Why not send an email to your supporters letting them know what you did in comgress all week? Which measures did you propose? Why? Which ones did you support? Why? Which ones did you vote against? Why? Instead, I get hit up for money a few times a week from some cheerleader. That doesn't motivate me.