Of course radical right-wingers lie.

Truth, honesty, reality, facts - none of these serve their purposes. So they don't bother with them.

They have said that they resent the 'reality-based community', didn't they? So there ya go.

My thanks to Pudgenet for explaining that a claim that is right is just as wrong as a claim that is wrong. Right?

In the context of the Lancet study controversy, it was conceded that arguing from ignorance isn't vindicated if later information comes out that proves your guess to be correct. Unfortunatly for the wingnuts, the people most able to determine her covert status were the ones who drafted the letter requesting the criminal investigation in the first place.

No one's been arguing out of ignorance unless you expand the term to include ignoring known facts.

Let's readjust our expectations, already

There seems to be an endless, ever-flowing stream of this sort of "I'm shocked, SHOCKED" response to the right-wing lie machine. Why?

No attack on you, Glenn, but by this point shouldn't our expressions of shock be reserved for when (if?) these guys tell the truth?

Of all the different types of frequent comments which blog posts typically prompt, this one is - by far - my least favorite. I just don't understand why people feel a need to come and say, after someone points something out: "And you find this shocking?" or "This is new to you???" or "This is suprising WHY?"

I never said any of this was shocking. I never said it was surprising. I never said it was unexpected. I never said it was new. In almost every circumstance where that comment is left, nobody every said it was "shocking" or "surprising." And yet the commenter still comes and complains about how everyone (except them, who realized these truths long, long ago) is "shocked" and "surprised," even though nobody is.

It's like complaining that someone points out bad things in Iraq because - hey - we all know that things are bad there, so why are you "shocked?" When new evidence arises of a political movement's dishonesty, it would be dumb not to point it out, even if it's not "shocking."

One other thing I forgot to mention about what I hate that comment - it is completely self-centered, as it assumes that whatever the individual knows and believes is known and believed by the whole planet, and there is therefore no need to discuss it or prove it any longer.

Just because you have concluded that Bush followers or neocons are serial liars by design does not mean that everyone else has come to that conclusion. There are still plenty of people who are able to be influenced and persuaded in how they think about such matters - and that includes journalists, pundits and others -- so the fact that you already understand point X does not mean that there is no longer a need to discuss point X.

I think the problem, i.e., the reason the RWNM thinks they can continue to get away with disputing Plame's covert status, is that she was "non-official cover," and would have had to provide her own cover story, and would not be aided by the CIA if she had been discovered. [Apparently, there was no forethought given to the possibility of being outed by the WH or the Veep. But, who could have possibly forseen that?]

We simply haven't seen enough (any?) movies where the spy (especially not a beautiful, blonde woman) has that status. I know that all of the Hollywood spies I've seen have been the more traditional covert agents. And, you know, if it hasn't already been done in a movie or on TV, then it totally strains credibility, creating the RW's version of cognitive dissidence. Thus, the popularity of 24. They've seen Jack Bauer make torture work, so they know it works.

Perhaps, Hollywood could lend a hand here, so we'll be better prepared the next time. If there are any producers or executives or screenwriters "watching," how about pitching a new (scripted) show called, simply: NOC? I think it would sell.

As long as media outlets like Fox attracts many viewers, authoritarian followers who need to have their preconceived notions repeated, these kinds of deceptions will continue successfully.

The rest of us are either here, discussing these issues, writing our representatives and letters to editors, or are disgusted with politics to the point they no longer pay attention.

Or do a damn thing to stop the constant lies and misrepresentations of what this administration is up to.

If I knew how to fix the authoritarian crowd who enables this kind of phenomena to happen, I would be very wealthy!

The one that drives me crazy is when Administratin officials declare that a certain subject can't be discussed or commented on, because "the matter is still under investigation" or litigation. Then, once the matter has been resolved in court, or the investigation completed--i.e. the Plame case--then it's not worth discussing or commenting on because it's "old news" and we should be focusing our attention on more serious, current matters.

Woe. Wow. You always do it.

I attended a May 31, 2004 Memorial Day Commemoration when former Homeland Security Tom Ridge spoke at the Vietnam Veterans Wall. It's probably on the Internet, but why bother...Words...Ambiguous big shot's hollow dead white coffin snow killer words. I handed important intelligence information to give to the proper authorities. A life was being threatened. O, more treats came and I eat some strawberries in memory? huh. Read more? Maybe no read. either or, OT/OT? WHO is sure? Who wears sure for 'bo' (3- o's) politico's?

Well let me feel stupid, okay? I may believe today that the debated forbidden fruit is a red strawberries. It's a prerogative. The planet is a big Copernican berry. A natural knowledge makes me know I have a red man face from a glowing, stuffing my face, with big red strawberry's. Galileo and Glenn (2-n's) may dispute that belief, but, we humans are all impartial observer discovers. If we are black, read, or white, we can reason clearly? I hope.

Future ocular scientist may belive I made a quick guess and then they will sorely lambaste me. It is best 2-Contradict me. I am uncertain if I am questioned about if I am a true big juicy red strawberry, I'll be labelled a red faced lying "goof."

If my world concludes that, okay. That, in my honest opinion is a matter that is sure uncountably, 2-strawberries too many. I reckon I just have eaten way too many more strawberries than snowball (BLACK FACE BOLD LIE) Mr Snow.

I mean to express proper disrespect where it is do. How can one respect one who eats too many strawberries? And people who lie and muster a bloody killing spree for "democracy" are rotten bottom of the barrel rotten apples.

Sysprog. The poem's spirit entered me. Thanks. I e-mail you some strawberries, okay. How spysrog Kemosabe.