Actually, they don't check out. A liberal source is not a credible source and neither is a conservative one. Keep looking.

You have pretty much defined all sources as not credible in your statement above. Ergo, you just believe what you want, irrespective of the truth that may be out there.

You probably can't even name a source you would consider 'credible'. Can't stop people from wanting to ignore reality, but it must be really difficult to get around with your head stuffed so deeply in the ground.

Do you remember reading about this?

McCain Recruiting........TROLLS!!!!!!
By ronburgandy - May 20, 2008, 11:03PM
Cafe Talk | Talking Points Memo

John McCain is actively recruiting trolls to spew his talking points on blogs.

This page on his website asks for supporters to go to various blogs and "go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known." It then asks those that make comments to "report the details of your comment by clicking the button below. After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center."

The page gives links to blogs such as dailykos, and also gives helpful "talking points" for users to push.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/mccain-recruitingtrolls.php

More like, "Left-wing groups are charging Congress with endangering a 200-year-old document. The document is not well known except to scholars, but is considered to be of incalculable value. But Congressional leaders dismissed those claims, saying the document is still locked in its glass box under heavy security.

"The real threat to that old thing is terrorism," says Republican Kit Bond.

In other news ..."

etc.

If you're all smart, you'll ignore this loser or risk being drawn into his one man sink hole. Isn't the name clue enough?

In other matters, I agree with Amity. I'm obviously not as schooled as Glenn, but why defy the senate for pushing the bill down their throat--AND THEN PUSh IT DOWN THEIR OWN THROAT with only twenty four hours lead time?

IMHO, it seems that this was a dance meant draw the issue out long enough to dissipate grassroots inertia--especially the walkout, which may have convinced a lot of us that congressional Dems were seriously considering unfurling their vertebrae on this fight. The timing as Amity mentioned is also supsect due to the primaries, but I'm afraid I just don't know enough about that to speculate. Anyone else with rationales.

As I said before, and I'm often accused of being conspiratorial (and also of forgetting to put question marks at the end of my questions), it just seems like a hand off of the reigns of power. I think someone posted some data last year about how much cash Dems were getting from the telecoms, anyone have updates?

Or whatever. The people in congress who are voting for this travesty have power and money as their only care in life. Or so they think. Some of them are just stupid and don't have the ability to comprehend what is going on around them. Which of those two excuses fits into your snack sack? There is only one other possibility. You're yanking our chain. Of course, that one fits pretty snuggly into the 'stupid fuck' snack sack so I'm not sure if that would qualify as a third excuse possibility.

Yes, it does. But the senate has much less resistance to this than the house did. They will pass it, unless Dodd and Feingold take their perogative to stop it. Which they can absolutely do, especially if they get a bit of help from friends. Individual senators can be immensely powerful, but only if they choose to be (and only if senate rules are honored).

I assume this bill can and will be challenged and the Supremes will have to rule on it eventually?

Right now I hate the House Democrats who voted for this abomination with a white-hot hate that rivals the power of the sun. They sold out the American people for a few crumbs on the Iraq appropriations bill. I can't believe the leadership was this craven and cowardly. They all must have guilty secrets to hide.

I feel a certain sympathy and respect for a devoted Clinton follower who has received back whatever abuse he's dished out by an order of magnitude.

-- bystander

Maybe we should all become Republicans.

I'm thinking the Know Nothing party sounds good about now.

Bucky2, you don't know what a personal attack is. If you think correcting you on your claim that Clinton (rather than Bush I) got us into Somalia is a personal attack, then you can't be nearly as "hard" as you claim to be.

But if everything is personal, then here goes nothing. Here's a laffer from a previous letter of yours:

Your assessment of our military's capability to defeat Iran is also inaccurate and false. I remember hearing the same garbage spewed in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait about how our military couldn't defeat the vast and experienced Iraq Army. We all know how that war turned out and it would be no different with Iran. We control the entrance to the Persian Gulf and have done so for quite some time. In fact, when I was in the Persian Gulf in 2003 for OIF, Iran all but fell off the map when hostilities started. In conventional warfare, Iran gets smoked by us with out much of a sweat. However, conventional warfare isn't their strong suit.

(1) OK, you're a veteran. Too nad you're an ignorant, brainwashed veteran who apparently got his news through official Pentagon-approved channels.

(2) Can you tell us who said we couldn't handle the Iraqi army in 1990? I was alive then. I missed it.

(3) You got this dead right: "We all know how that war turned out and it would be no different with Iran."

But do you have any idea what that actually means? It means we can't defeat Iran. That's called analysis, military boy.

To repeat myself: you need first to get proper FACTS, and then learn to THINK. If you think this is a personal attack, get used to them. Here's a truly personal attack:

CHICKENHAWK.