Golly, tell us what you really think. Stop holding it in! :-)

Good post, as good a post as I have seen here in the comments section in months. I do wish I could holler at you that you were just plain wrong; but I am sorry to say I think you nailed it on the head.

(please, no more "head" jokes just because big dog got a little)

I didn't see anything unique about Totally's post. Except for his pointing out that some of the "troops" are morons or even worse, murderers, and what have you. Which is, of course, true. How could it not be? To say different would be to say that Truman Capote and the murderer that he fell in love with were one and the same and that the two of them were just as dangerous as each other. Truman was blinded by love, but Truman didn't murder a family of helpless people. You'd have to read In Cold Blood to know what I mean.

The world is complex, but it ain't so complex that there is any mystery that "the troops" we are supposed to unquestionably support are a multifaceted, variable bunch of human beings.

why the hell would SYRIA offer proxy torture prisons to America? I can see if Egypt or Kuwait or Saudi did (tools that they are), but SYRIA?

This information must be wrong, Glenn.

If this is true, Dude, Syria, at least get the Golan Heights back before you start double crossing your people. Have some self respect.

You yourself admit that you arrive in the same place as elephantman.

Please show me a quote as to where I admitted that I arrive in the same place elephantman? That doesn't even make sense, considering what I have been saying to elephantman.

Neither do you address the points of my argument.

Because you can't.

Next.

i didn't address your points? You mean the illogical and irrational point that a vote for Nader was somehow a vote for McCain? I addressed that. While you have a twisted sense of logic, I do not. Or the points that were just emotional babble? I'm not sure which points I didn't address. All you said was that somehow in your illogical world, a vote for Nader was a vote for McCain. If you have ever studied logic, then you would know that is pure nonsense. (nonsense=no sense logically)

next indeed. How about fizzywhistle... ?

Any ideas on how this accretion of power to the president is going to be not just stopped but reversed?

That's the problem: every possible scenario appears to be a bad one, ending in mass death and overt totalitarianism.

Which puts me back to the Save Yourselves approach after the 2002 elections, when the window of opportunity appeared to have closed with the success of the Republicans. I've seen no clear way around, or out, or through since then.

Obama may be our last best hope, assuming the most democratic and benevolent of intentions, but events would have to be particularly fortuitous. With McCain or even Hillary we can just kiss it goodbye.

As always, these things are a matter of opinion. I liked the style as well as the message, and it hit me at that moment in time as very well done. Perhaps it was not the very best in the last couple of months, but a little "atta-boy" here once in a while beats the hell out of the continual bickering. Your mileage will vary.

I also like Glenn's writing style. He brings good opinions to the table as well as information that I had not seen elsewhere, and he does it often. However, I like the style. I can only guess, but I bet he is a real stylish kind of guy in his private life.

I guess I am saying that style counts for a lot in human interactions. At least with me. (I wish I had some)

mccain is the greater of the two evils.

Let us take that as axiomatic.

Since Nader cannot win, but can only operate as a spoiler against the lesser of the two evils, a vote for Nader necessarily helps the greater of the two evils.

Is it not so?

this is only so if you take the vote as a spoiler. I do not accept that as valid. See: the 350,000 democrats who voted for Bush 2000 IN FLORIDA ALONE.

While I espouse third party voting, I do so out a deep disgust of both ruling parties. Elephantman does so in order to get you to vote for someone other than obama

The effect is the same either way, is it not? And since the effect is the same, does not the bottom line therefore show you to be no different from elephantman? You both arrive at the same place, do you not?

OH! This is where I admitted that I land at the same place? No. This is where YOU said that I land at the same place as elephantman. I think, again, your logic is flawed. Here is the difference and why I am not in the same place as elephantman: he will vote for McCain. I will vote for Nader.

I also would not choose a lesser evil over a greater evil, as I would not choose evil.

Not true. Your own logic clearly shows your assertion to be an impossibility.

please indicate how my own logic shows my assertion to be an impossibility. I do not choose McCain if I choose Nader. While you may find that simplistic. It is just a fact. You can twist the logic around that fact. I choose to regard it as fact.

By your own admission, the circumstances clearly prevent you to avoid choosing evil, regardless of who you vote for, and regardless of whether you actually vote. To the contrary, you are in fact choosing to support the greater over the lesser of two evils.

This doesn't even make sense. Does that answer your point?

Neither high principles nor spite are effective here for your purpose of pursuing a more just government. Your only logical choice is the lesser of two evils. Instead, you have chosen illogic and the greater evil.

You have chosen to twist logic. I leave it quite straight-forward. I choose not the lesser of two evils, but a choice whom I believe would really make a change. Whether that choice wins or loses does not change my choice. If you choose Obama and he loses, does that mean you chose McCain? You really don't make any sense.