While you're castigating others for not observing "the facts," you might want to note that Glenn's first name has two "n"s. You might have some shred of credibility if you get at least the easy things right every once in a while.

Yes there are differences; however they aren't relevant to the point. Which is that Matthews' original point--and is the same point Obama backers here are making--is that we should put ANY criticisms aside for the day--no matter how valid--and let the man have his 'moment,' right or wrong."

Some of us here feel as though that's a very slippery slope to think that way.

Deserves the "passive-aggressive-intellectually-dishonest" post of the day award. For him to suggest he was misunderstood is beyond laughable.

if any of the Obama "Dear Leaderists" here today happened to read Russ Feingold's Daily Kos piece yesterday.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/8/791144/-Its-Not-the-Prosecutors-Committee,-its-the-Judiciary-Committee

I am also very troubled that administration officials have been taking positions behind closed doors that they are not taking publicly. I am pleased that we have not heard the type of public fear-mongering from this administration that was such a regular part of the discourse in the past. But if the administration wanted to further water down the already limited reforms in the bill that was on the table, they should have said so openly.

Time magazine's Mark Halperin said on "Morning Joe" that "not since Marisa Tomei won the Oscar" has he been this surprised.

Why am I NOT surprised that he equates wining an Oscar with winning the Nobel Peace Prize?

"if you express a view that is similar to those expressed by the Bad People, then it means you are bad."

All too often, the "views" aren't really very similar at all. The only similarity lies in the object of the criticism. But the Rovian tag sticks nonetheless.

The letters section today has been the most interesting sociological study I've examined in a long time. I knew it would be entertaining, but these letters--taken as a whole, or individually--just blow me away.

"Shut up and stop thinking."

"Anyone who criticizes Obama is repeating GOP talking points."

The Nobel Committee is big on style points and doesn't believe that talk is cheap.

That wasn't my point.

It wasn't so much about Glenn, or you, for that matter. It's more a general comment that people who bitch and moan their way through life are the ones who feel the most entitled and expect shit* for free. If you feel as though this doesn't apply to you, feel free to ignore it.

*I.e., goods, services, attention, etc.

You get what you pay for, mate. Remember that.

I find it interesting that the more fabled whiners around here are invariably the ones who partake without paying for a subscription. Says everything, really.

synonym: "attention whore"

A flounce post is when one must proclaim that they are leaving a community forever... Rather than quietly leaving a community, they feel they must leave a long ass, boring, nonsensical post explaining why they are so much more highly evolved than anyone else in the community. Names may be named, events may be recalled, but they are, at essence, a nice, delicious whine.

Like any good whine, flounces are varied in their history, maturity, texture, quality, bouquet and mouth feel, but all boil down to a subtle, inherent, and slightly fruity expressiveness:

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Flounce

Wgsalter receives a response from Glenn and my comment gets deleted. What say you to that rrheard?

Everyone?

That I feel like I'm reading the complaints of a seven year-old child?

I didn't watch last night. I rarely watch anymore, not so much because I find him unbearable, but because I got sick of the same old guests night after night saying the same shit night after night. Talk about stale and repetitive!

There's something about human nature that I find to be equal parts fascinating, depressing, and retarded.

There's a certain segment of society that believes that the IRS is evil--"the great satan." I assume, mainly because it's an entity of the government. The government is "stealing" their money via the IRS is how they see it.

Now, you take this very same segment, and tell them stories of fraud or waste in the PRIVATE sector, and they shrug.* They are perfectly incapable of feeling any sort of outrage. Tell them about massive waste on the governmental side, and again, they are up in arms, ready to "throw the bums out."

The thing that gets me is, it's okay for Enron to "steal" my money, but not the IRS? It's okay for Blue Cross to make money had over fist at my expense, but if the government get involved, it "socialism"? Really? What kind of messed up logic is that? It's wrong for the Pentagon to waste money, but if Wall Street, or the insurance industry does it, this elicits a collective yawn. It's as though there is this unspoken belief that businesses in the private sector have the "right" to waste millions, or defraud other people of millions. Which is ludicrous. Waste is waste. Fraud is fraud. Even if you reason that it's "not your money" it could have been. It was somebody's money. Something better could have been done with it.

People are really, really strange. Or retarded.

*Except for ACORN, that is.

What have the Democrats done for us lately?

I remember right after the 2004 election, asking my chickenhawk, war-loving, Iraq cheerleader of a brother how he felt about the US soldiers who had died in Iraq to that point. His answer?

That's what they get.

In other words, when a person enlists, he enlists with the understanding that his superiors have the right to use him as fodder. Don' like it? Don't enlist. Check your humanity at the door. It's pretty easy to send troops to war when you look at it that way.

"Support our Troops!" "Bring 'em on!!" "Mission Accomplished!!!"