Debonair73:

It's like Ann Coulter said if the Democrats are to scare to take on Brit Hume how can they take on the terrorist calling for people to kill us.

So what does this say about Commander Codpiece, who has, for years, used the combined police power of the US, state and local authorities to keep protesters away from his public appearances?

If he's afriad to meet with Cindy Sheehan, how can Bush "take on the terrorist calling for people to kill us"?

In days of yore, Afrika Bambaataa went "Looking for the Perfect Beat."

Would that we had half his luck in looking not for perfect, but merely better trolls!

NEXT!

Yeah, I caught that comment, too. I wonder if the "73" on "Debonaire73"

signifies the poster's year of birth, or IQ?

Yes, but.

If I'm doing emergency medicine, and if you are alert, oriented, competent, and informed, you are allowed to decide to refuse treatment, and I have to obey (quarantine would be an exception).

But I'm allowed to decide whether you're alert, oriented, competent, and informed.

Expertise should always have its limits, it is a public servant. But the public needs to be well enough informed to understand when it needs to delegate authority in its own best interests. There is a time and a place for redeciding that delegation and I'm all for doing so, as Richard Daley said, "early and often". But probably not in the moment, and probably not every time a decision gets made. And if its going to take 10 minutes to inform you and 5 minutes for you to bleed to death, don't expect to get asked.

The Iraqis would have fought it out and we would have a winner by now and somebody we could deal with.

Hey, I guess you should have thought of that back in March of '03.

And way to get an Afrika Bambaataa reference into this string!

Get A Grip!

Your a smart guy and I respect your opinion but I'm afraid you're knee-jerk liberalism is interfering with your reading comprehension.

First off, I made no claims, that my own experience was universal and that everyone should share my beliefs as a result. I would never be that presumptuous (unlike some other particapants here.)

Second off, my description of men with blue uniforms with guns is not a fantasy but simply a description of what it is to be arrested.

The way we as a society enforce our desires is by writing legislation. The legislation usually includes a description of the penalties invoked for failure to abide by the law in question. The tools used to enforce these penalties include guns, handcuffs, jail cells, courtrooms and prisons.

There's nothing magical about the process - it happens every day!

Your yes, but seems perfectly reasonable to me. (And I'd certainly want you to do what your training as a medical professional, and your instincts as a human being tell you to if I was the potential subject of your intervention.)

Some things just shouldn't attract the interest of the state. The Schiavo case, abortion, etc. On the other hand, as I weighed in on here long ago, the Christian scientists with a sick child, the man from Syria living in Detroit who's decided that his 17 year-old daughter has dishonored the family by kissing one of her classmates in public...well....

Decisions, decisions.... That's why we prize democracy, if in fact we do. Not to absolve us of our responsibilities, but to make them manifest, and to allow us to discharge them as a free people.

"They [free markets] are very useful and conducive to human progress, and they are an aspect of liberty."

In theory you could make such a sweeping claim. In practice the so called "free market" economy is conducive to those who control it, and detrimental to general human progress, even diametrically opposed to the general good.

Our current/past practical use, that is the way we implement the theory, of market driven economies is an aspect of control not of liberty. It pits each citizen against others, and self, in favor of the market entity, not the citizens/stock holder.

I don't think that misperception has a bit to do with being a Libertarian.

If I were better versed on this subject, I'd jump in to help but alas....

Hey Glenn,

Thanks for the clarification/update regarding the Aravosis transcript. I had not seen the actual footage myself, and was basing my earlier comment on the now apparently erroneous transcript.

That being said, I am not entirely surprised by John's statement that he thinks Kurtz is "fair". Unfortunately, I think his main weakness as a political analyst is a tendency to give too much benefit of the doubt to people he perceives as nice people (i.e., he lets personality issues cloud his political judgment).

Keep up the awesome work Glenn!

I don't actually think anybody actually said Brit Hume was a Libertarian, and if they did, they may want to revise and extend their remarks, but that's beside the point. Brit Hume ought to be irrelevant, not solely because of his reactionary political views (you'll find a lot of that in the trade he plies) but because he is a con-man, a flim-flam artist, like those he flacks for on Fox News Sunday, and the Nation is mightily tired of the con-game that's been played on them lo these many years.

Brit Hume ought to be irrelevant, but he's not. He's got the biggest head on the tube, and his phlegmatic cynicism and contempt for all things "Democrat" is a leading indicator for the rest of his miserable crony-ites. Brit hawks up a hairball and they all run with it. He's not a partisan? Ha! On stilts.

Idiots.

But over the weekend, I read a remarkable piece about Condoleeezzzaaa which claimed that she's essentially in the game for one thing and one thing only, P-O-W-E-R (which I thought was supposed to be Hillary's Big Thing, ask Brit), and she was characterized as a Marxist by her "leftist" political science professor. Cause she thought that's where the Power could be found, by sucking up. Or so it seems.

Anyway, the piece is in Foreign Policy magazine by Marcus Mabry. You have to subscribe to read the whole thing. But here's the link:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3781

It is a surprisingly lauditory piece -- for something that basically condemns her as a craven tool and a not very bright ladder climber. Something Brit should have taken her to task for again and again, but he was too busy exposing Barak's madrassa upbringing, and berating Hillary for her many, many crimes and misdemeanors.

Priorities.

And on a final note, can anyone tell me what Keith Olbermann's "ideology" is?

Thank you.