"Are you really saying that Europeans only have “a hundred or hundreds of years of history”? Wow… ever heard of Rome?

"

The hundreds of years of conflict I was talking about would be certain european elements fighting each other. you don't see, for instance, teh german's fighting the french for a thousand years, do you? you don't see the english fighting the indians for thousands of years, do you?

I'm talking specific individual conflicts amoung people or nations. Sunni and shia, for example.

As to the assholes. I didn't make the statment, tough guy. I was refering to the nonstop conflict over nothing but religon. not only intolerant. Moronic. Until God comes back the arguement is unsolvalbe. And killing each other is noo going to bring god back, to answer who is "right". :)

Government by a consensus of what educated people know is a viable proposition. Government by the opinions of the masses is Russian roulette by another name. The left doing it doesn't make it right.

Do you believe that most (a. congressmen, b. administration officials) are more influenced by these false pronouncements by establishment media types than by the polls you cite? My sense is that administration officials' war policies -- while they may be influenced by the arguments of some pundits, such as Bill Kristol -- aren't influenced much by the polls or the pundits' mischaracterization of public opinion. y on the actual data, rather than Mara Liasson's (or Bill Kristol's) pronouncements about what the public wants? David Goldstein

David, I think maybe what happens is that these false pronouncements by pundits like Liasson, Brooks, Kristol, et al give protective cover to congressman and administration officials in doing the bidding of the established government/corporate/media power structure, over-ruling whatever it is that polls reveal the majority of the public wants. After multiple false pronouncements state what we individual citizens within that majority "really think" we say to ourselves, "Gee I must be in the minority," and then shrug and move on.

(Sorry.)

Glenn, 'hardly unique in that way-or any other.' !

That is some rare tone, Counsellor.

From you, snuck in there: funny.

Good to garnish the exasperation once in a while.

Maybe she'll recover in Nitwits Anonymous. All right, that's enough against her.

Speaking of Comity, (which i think, in the Senate, means either: 'i despise you classily,' or, 'since you're in my way, but i don't have anywhere to go for 6 years, i'm gonna use my tailored suit dictionary to out-insincere you while everything goes to Hell because of your rotten attitude towards mankind or whatever intransigence one of us is adhering to beyond all reason, and someday, please God, when i note the absence of a quorum, you won't even be here anymore to come back in and vote the wrong way again, you distinguished idiot from the senior state of hogwash; and Mr Chairman, i surrender the balance of my time to my ineffectual ranking colleague at this time,) i gravitate toward John Stewart usually.

I know i'm wrong. One guy posted that everything i know is wrong; which is a tough beat.

I always said that comedy has no limit. Probably The White House got jealous. Business fears Art like it was the AIDS of money.

Politically, or Puritanically, or both, that's why violence and blood is often rated R, while sex gets the X. There's a certain anesthesia brought on by that choice agenda.

Which is why us un-computered, vcr incapable consumers all got cable.

Where i'd love to watch you, Glenn. (If it wouldn't ruin your life or mission.)

If enough regular citizens were getting the message here, there'd be a lot of change in the commandeering of this country.

And comity rhymes with vom...

So Liasson just flatly stated that "the American people" -- as opposed to "the left wing base," which is (of course) a different animal altogether -- don't want to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months but instead favor withdrawal only when "facts on the ground" permit it.

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but is Glenn correct in saying that:

Liasson just flatly stated "the American people”…don’t want to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months

I know Glenn is a fan of being very careful with words, so I’m not worried about this question. I’m more worried about my ability to comprehend what I read. I can’t find where Liasson “flatly” states that Americans don’t want the troops home in 16 months. I can see how inferences can be made based on her comments, but Glenn would be the first to not only make that distinction but to argue why it is a highly significant one.

Would somebody please show me how Liasson “flatly” made this claim?

Government by a consensus of what educated people know is a viable proposition. Government by the opinions of the masses is Russian roulette by another name. The left doing it doesn't make it right.

-- The5thW

Government by a false consensus of what a limited number of people either assert that educated people know or assume is true is a disastrous proposition.

Journalists asserting what is true based upon their lazy acceptance of hawkish government propaganda, allegedly supported by false, unsupported assertions of what the masses believe, is akin to gambling on shooting yourself in the head with a revolver missing only one bullet but otherwise fully loaded -- let's call it Katrina Roulette.

Neither idiocy can be protected by assertions that said idiocies are not leftist.

That's why a lot of people older than, say, 8 years old, thought it was somewhat of an old fashioned problem that their government was asking us citizens (and our legislators) to support a dangerous and controversial foreign war based on secret evidence that citizens could not examine for themselves but which they promised us, and selected journalistic emissaries, that they really, really, really had and that this secret evidence was really, really, really convincing, promise and for true!

and some people, who might agree with the call to pull out regardless, will "reconsider" or stay silent, if they discover that expressing view will aligns them with the "left wing fringe" ...

It's an insidious distortion of a more objective "reality" as defined by multiple polls by reputable firms.