Please carry on, please do.

-- blank-

Does this mean you're not going to post the links of anti-semitic quotes from regular board attendees of UT as I requested?

Thanks for the clarification. I meant to put the qualifier normally in front of involved for just that reason.

When Reynolds sends an item link to a posting of the Easter poem "Dulce lignem dulce clavo" by InstaPunk contributor "Chain Gang," I don't see where Glenn Greenwald is justified in tying Reynolds to the racist rant posted on the same site by a different contributor, "Old Punk."

Why not? Reynolds sent his readers to that site. The racist rant was on that site - just below the poem. You just had to scroll down. It wasn't hidden - and it was very easy to find. Shame on Glenn Reynolds (guilt by association is fair game, right Mr. Instapundit?!)

You did good, Glenn G.!!

Thank God for you!

Keep fighting the good fight!! We need more like you on our team!

Ron Paul has also been called on to repudiate people like David Duke who offered him support, and Mitt Romney was called upon to answer for the racist history of his church, both cases of guilt by association, so drop the baseless idea that this is one way.

The problem with this? Neither of those individuals are actual candidates for anything anymore, nor do I recall either of those upstanding gentlemen actually disavowing, repudiating, or otherwise rejecting those elements.

Obama did.

Accept it and move on.

Listen Proxy, to this old joke:

A very dignified and correctly spoken businessman was forced to reprimand his secretary. "Sally" he said (her name was Sally, you see.) there are two words I'd rather you wouldn't use around the office. One is "swell" the other "lousy".

Sally, ever eager to be co-operative and raise the tone of the office, said "Sure, Mr. Warning, I'll do that! Now, what were they"?

Get it, Proximity?

And no one is trashing Obama for attending a Christian church. They're trashing him (rightly) for attending the same church for 20 years where the pastor preached outright hatred and race-baiting but then wants to disassociate himself from it, saying he didn't know.

.

It's the lying and hypocrisy.

Is John McCain equally guilty of "lying and hypocrisy" because he actively sought and obtained John Hagee's endorsement, and later - only when pressed with reports of Hagee's virulent anti-Catholicism, blaming hurricane Katrina on homosexuals, and other insanity - said that he doesn't support Hagee's views on Catholicism? Are we also to infer that he does share Hagee's views on homosexuality and every other boneheaded thing for which he has stood?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html

Is McCain to be taken at his word with regard to Catholicism - in a statement hardly a fraction as probing and forthright as Obama's A More Perfect Union speech - or should he, like Obama, be subjected to withering scrutiny over whether he might in fact share Hagee's most radical views because he actively sought his support, self-serving disclaimers be damned?

Get it, Proximity, should not be in italics. Joke's over, but the tags remained.

Americans don't like loons or extremists, and during the eight years of the Bush adminstration...

-- Proximity Warning

Wait a minute. Then how in the hell did there ever get to be a "Bush Administration"?

Seems like you're used to speaking for both of us. Please carry on, please do.

-- blank

I was pretty sure you'd see it that way, but thanks, I will. And you'll be much the better for it.

@Settembrini

Thanks for the clarification. I meant to put the qualifier normally in front of involved for just that reason.

-- Retired Military Patriot

And rightly so!

I have always felt that the Air Force should have remained as separate support wings of the navy and army. On this point I agree with Ron Pauliac. There is no provision for an air force in the constitution!

but I was first introduced to Instapunk's brand of racism more than twenty years ago, when I was a wee little girl, by my racist parents. I was told that there are "black people" and there are "niggers." I grew up afraid of blacks and Hispanics ("Orientals" were somehow okay). It wasn't until I made my way through school (public school, to touch on a topic a few pages ago- thank goodness for my teachers- they are the ones that taught me tolerance) that I realized how freakin' stupid and wrong it was. This sort of revelation made me question a lot of things, and it also brought about the theory I have often repeated in the last ten years or so: Republicans are racist. I have yet to meet a Republican that disproves my theory.

Another theory: the reason why the whole Wright flap has taken off is because what he said cuts too close. He's right. I don't know why more people aren't saying that. I don't think anything he said was that radical or off-base. I don't think he's inflammatory. I knew it would have been political suicide, but part of me really wanted Obama to come out and say it. Racism is alive and well in America- it just doesn't come in white pointy hats and burning crosses anymore. If anything, it's scarier. Subtler. It's my parents encouraging a black family to join their lodge in one breath and complaining about pants-slouching "niggers" in the next.

Thanks for the further elucidation of the mechanics of murder.

Gosh, I bet you could win a whole lot of bar-bets with military know-it-alls when you've got the indide scoop like that. I admire you, and wish I had some of that action.

Wait a minute. Then how in the hell did there ever get to be a "Bush Administration"?

Simple: because in late 2000 five Justices of the SCOTUS decided stop the Florida recount without providing a remedy (jettisoning decent legal reasoning in the process), and because a small majority of the US electorate jettisoned common sense in late 2004.

Ultimately we can thank the Republican Party for both outcomes.