Bingo.

"Henry M"'s comments are a chilling manifestation of a mindset that, for the life of me, I cannot meaningfully distinguish from that which I see in the "America first" crowd. The words are slightly different, but the message - not to mention the blind faith invested in "the candidate" - is the same.

Frankly, this scares me. But maybe I'm just a concern troll.

I did respond to Henry.

Party fervor crosses party lines and has existed since Athens. I doubt there is more of it now, although the events of the past 7 years practically demand it. Another factor is that probably it's now easier to meet people who think like this, outside a Party meeting, than it used to be. Then again, recall the street battles in Europe before WW2.

Even scarier, I have had occasion to consider how easy it is to slip into a purge mindset, whether of fellow revolutionaries or of a defeated opposition. All you need to do is reach a point where you've had enough.

It could happen here.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000002899718

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
June 18, 2008 – 12:57 p.m.

Blue Dogs’ Resistance Could Force Compromise on Surveillance Bill

[...]

Asked why Democrats don’t put aside the surveillance legislation until a new president is elected in November, Hoyer said he would prefer to do so, but can’t because so many House Democrats [...] would vote for the Senate bill if it came to the floor.

[...]

- - CQ Politics

Kagro X explains the utter absurdity of Steny's falsehood:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/18/133218/573/108/537903

Hoyer: I've lost all control.
by Kagro X

That bill only gets to the floor two ways:
1) Steny Hoyer brings it there; or
2) a majority of the House signs a discharge petition to bring it there.

[...] No Democrats have signed the discharge petition [...]

[...] so how is that Senate bill going to get to the floor? [...]

- - Kagro X

In other words, the headline at the CQ web site is wrong, and the Blue Dogs don't actually have the power to force a compromise on the surveillance bill.

Also, as the NYTimes explained in their editorial this morning, about Hoyer's so-called "compromise" bill:

"The bill is not a compromise."

Despite CQ's errors, many reporters will be taking their cues from CQ.

To view Greenwald's reference to telecoms' failure to deny their own wrongdoing as "the basis" for accusing them of crimes is to have missed the point of (or not read) literally dozens of lengthy, cogent Greenwald essays on precisely what those crimes are.

You mean what he THINKS they are. Up until then, honest reporters would say "alleged".

So what's up, shooter? I'm disappointed at this new trend of yours: complete incomprehension. Are you feigning stupidity, or is it for real? -- Jordan Orlando

LIbs always have a hard time distinguishing fantasy from reality. The fantasy is that a trial has already happened and everyone involved was found guilty. The reality is, that no such thing has occurred. Saying that it has in a paid ad, is lying.

The fantasy is that a trial has already happened and everyone involved was found guilty. The reality is, that no such thing has occurred.

You say that, and yet you defend Gitmo?

Which is it? Either people are innocent until found guilty (as you say here) or they're already guilty and can be held without bail or without recourse to a trial (Guantanamo?) If Greenwald can't accuse the Telecoms without a trial, how can you accuse all those prisoners?

A judge plainly stated that the preponderance of evidence showed that the telecoms' behavior was plainly illegal, and flatly dismissed the risible notion that they could possibly believe otherwise. Further, telecommunications law, dating back to the invention of the telephone, all recognized the dangers to privacy such companies represented, and were written to explicitly and emphatically render such depredations illegal. Before that, the Constitution was pretty straightforward about government spying.

Duh.

Douchebag, care to elaborate? No I thought not. Fucking fool.

Douchebag, care to elaborate? No I thought not....

Of course not. There's no need. You're simply clueless.

... Fucking fool.

And that'd be ... you? Do I win a prize, or was that to easy....

But go ahead, "encrypt" your private messages in that abstruse G3 encoding. That'll confooze 'em fershure.

You might have at least caught up with the twentieth century (or was it the nineteenth?) and suggested steganography. A bit easier with computers nowadays....

Cheers,

Hey, Everyone Involved:

Do you realize how many people read Glenn's Opinion blog? If you want to swear at each other, please try to find a different venue? Glenn's work is too important to have a thread bogged down with name-calling and swearing. This is disrespectful to Glenn, but also to the rest of us who come here to have intelligent exchange. Thank you for your consideration of others.

Too bad, so sad.

"Majority Leader's Office"

202-225-3130

Thanks brendancalling for the # and the aka

I'm typing even more incompetently than usual.

If you want to swear at each other, please try to find a different venue?

Glenn's already banned "Electro Spambot", AFAIK. He's got himself a new account and new sig, awaiting Glenn's banning him again.

Cheers,

Why didn't Kennedy fire Hoover?=

Why Democrats wouldn't overturn a corporate outsourced surveillance system that has been focused primarily on them for at least 6 years?