It really is disgusting what they did to Scott Ritter. For being so right, at such a wrong time, his reputation and public standing were utterly destroyed.

I remember this one episode of Bill Maher's former show Politically Incorrect, in which Ritter and Dennis Miller were members of the panel, and Miller just relentlessly mocked him - to the audience's delight, I might add.

Just another instance of the earnest, informed person being ridiculed by some ignoramus kewl kid with a "savvy" (and, not coincidentally, right-wing) view of things.

AP WASHINGTON - Increasing numbers of U.S. troops have left the military with damaged bodies and minds, an ever-larger pool of disabled veterans that will cost the nation billions for decades to come — even as the total population of America's vets shrinks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080511/ap_on_re_us/disabled_veterans

-- Retired Military Patriot Sunday, May 11, 2008 12:53 PM

The number of suicides among returning vets of Afghanistan and Iraq is greater than the number of combat deaths.

Christ on a crutch man, you and Rowan Berkeley just keep on with such ignorant ranting about libertarians, imputing to them evil (and largely wrong) beliefs, even after Glenn politely asked for all this nonsense to stop. So I won't engage either of you on your gross substantive errors since that would only fuel what Glenn is asking to have cease (as well as waste my time); but after a baseless screed about libertarians, for you to conclude about them with this:

Charles Manson comes to mind.

Is really exceptionally vile.

For real.

Ask them why they willingly and knowingly took part in this campaign to lie the nation into the Iraq War. They knew damn well that these plainclothes colonels were on the war wagon and here's the proof:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AchezOZsFiU

In this video clip from 2003, Gore Vidal calls out CNN and the other networks for using these Pentagon henchmen to gin up the war. So they knew all along and did it anyway.

L.W.M. can't deal with fact, so he engages in personal attack --

JNagyarassoff...The media is NOT INTENDED to be "loyal" to the gov't, or even to the military. It is INTENDED to be loyal to the FACTS AND TRUTH.

It's spelled "Nagarya". Do you also call blacks "nigger" because it's the sort of thing juveniles like you think is "funny"?

"Wonderful sentiment. Where is it written? Don't tell me it's in another part of the constitution I must have missed. Like the one that says the 2nd amendment is a collective right."

Mistatement of the facts -- either because you "don't" get them, or because you have problems with the truth:

The debates by those who framed the Bill of Rights are legislative history. Legislative history is legal authority.

Those debates clearly substantiate -- as I did at least twoce in the face of dishonest malquotation of my first presentation of the facts -- that the Second Amendment is (1) exclusively about the militia, and (2) that it has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything from the point at which the debaters of it voted down the phrase --

but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military srvice [IN THE MILITIA] in person.

I have an actual education in actual law. You don't. And you clearly can't handle facts which upset your NRA-lie applecart.

The First Amendment exists to protect unpopular speech -- popular speech needing no protection. And it has all along been long recognized that the media is protected by the First Amendment against infringements by gov't.

And again, ass: I substantiated from the OFFICIAL record that --

1. The Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything -- see above; and that,

2. The Second Amendment does not "protect" anything within its scope from the rule of law -- from, that is, regulation by Congress by means of LAW implementing that Constitutional requirement.

You have these choices:

1. Accept those facts as substantiated to be the facts;

2. Attempt to disprove them with OFFICIAL documents of equal or greater authority than the debates by those who debated AND WROTE the Second Amendment;

3. Attack me instead of doing either of those.

What I like about J here is that he's the scary reverse of the conservative "judicial activist" whiners. If this court rules the 2nd affirms an individual right, he'll be screaming, "Judicial activists!" "Black robed demons!" "Legislating, nay amending, rewriting the constitution from the bench!"

Nope. I'll be pointing not only to the fact that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything, but also to the fact that the Second Amendment does not "protect" anything within its scope against the rule of law -- from, that is, regulation -- "regulation" being LAW -- as the Constitution itself stipulates shall be done.

Rowan Berkeley --

Mark Twain? He wasn't on Bucky's list of anarchist gurus

Nor does he fall into the category of pop. lit. lions like Vonnegut that I was dissing.

People should 'hit' your name. Browse your blog for a creative bedtime read? You don't need to sit on the edge of the computer seat.

I don't enjoy reading anywhere if ya` are worried a barroom chair may fly through the air. I've 'stuffed' my belly on Mother Day ice cream cake.

I check in here and gulp a quart of goat milk.

L.W.M. --

". . . . It is just the free press, free to do pretty much what it likes, including lie to you. It is guaranteed that right by the first amendment . . . ."

You seem like an intelligent person, but seriously.

"I have an actual education in actual law. You don't."

You come across as if you have an actual education in behaving like a pompous ass.

I'm glad you've enjoyed my rantings.

Thanks for the link.

Aaron Brown doesn't come off too well here. He is trying to make the case for war.

Have you been doing bongs non-stop since Wednesday? 8') Republican Superfriends?