tvashtarkatena

SObo, I did not know you were into that sort of thing. Cold ride home from Mount Vernon. No traffic at that hour so I revved it up to warp factor 9 and the wind chill quickly began to seep through my softshell, 2 down parkas, and body armor. Maybe I should re-install my electric vest plug in. Had to stop at 'McCafe' for a warm up coffee in south Everett and...the coffee was LUKE WARM . I could have poured it right onto my crotch without injury or potential lawsuit. Come on, McCafe, get it right lads, get it right....

I always do.

Me, screw up? Never.

True. I know a shit ton of liberals who voted Obama...some very strong supporters. Not one even remotely considers him any kind of Messiah, panacea, whatever. He's just a politician stuck with a very shitty job ahead of him, .

Example #1. That didn't take long. The boy just can't help himself. As for boys who seem to be able to take care of themselves in this schoolyard full of 'bullies', jmo doesn't appear to have much of a problem in that department.

Assuming the Reuters conjecture is true (which I doubt)...So...Rush can attack the government but the government shouldn't defend itself? Where in the hell did you get that idea that the 1st Amendment exists to ensure that people have a right to disagree with their government, or for any other 'official' reason, for that matter? Our rights are SELF EVIDENT...the government doesn't 'grant' them to us, nor require us to 'use them properly'. We can use them for whatever we damn well feel like; they exist with or without government. The majority of 1st Amendment supreme court rulings, for example, have nothing at all to do with disagreeing with the government. The central theme there, if there is one, is people simply trying to do their own thing and enjoy the freedoms that are core to our society.

No anger or bullying there (that would require too much energy). Just identifying hypocrisy when and where it might occur. I've heard your opinions, noted that you don't practice what you preach, established that you have zero credibility, and duly ignored what you have to say.

I completely agree agree. I opposed all the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. I feel the reward irresponsibility and punish those who did the right thing and lived within their means. They reward criminal behavior, and I"m talking about the Wall Street and Washington fat cats who came up with all these tricks. The firing squads are for them. Before you find yourself ageeing with me, make no mistake; mine is an 'eat the rich' opinion.

It'd be interesting to keep score for a month you see if this is true. It used to be that almost all of the insult and bullying came from the conservatives around here but that has changed. And as for weasel-like passive aggressive attacks; those would be pretty much limited to the poster above. This little jewel will insult other posters in threads they're not even paricipating in, insinuating what they 'might' post in such a situation, or for threads that occured months prior that have long been put to rest. He claims to 'want a discussion of the issue', but the vast majority of his posts are about, well, other posters, the one above included. Rarely does he tender a compelling opinion on anything. A tiresome, nasty little cunt, really. But of course, he's 'above it all', don't you know.

Um, all Op Ed pages are biased. That's where the 'opinion' part comes in. The reporting (and that would be in a different section) has a focus, as doas any paper, but the writing, editing, and vetting are all of a high standard.

As for the bailout, we're giving all the money to the very crooks who fucked everything up. There needs to be firing squads first before I'll be comfortable with a bailout of any form. Frankly, I think Obama has just hung out a big sign that says "Get your free money here!". Every shyster in America, and that would be about half the population, is now sprinting for that check. Both the bail out and the budget are pure, panic driven insanity. Not good.

sinking $1 trillion a year in the military is no less big government, so let's quit with the rightwing ideological framing. Get a clue, freak. I've argued here for years for a massive reduction in military spending.

It is a big government document. A very, very big government document. I'm so far left I believe marriage should be the union between one man and a herd of sheep, but this budget is pretty scary. I believe in sustainable policies. This budget is clearly exactly the opposite, and it as an extreme shot in the dark.

That soft, chewy center. Can anyone find it? It's like trying to find the centroid of a padded room full of psychotics.

Any time a conservative mentions 'class warfare' their credibility immediately drops to zero. 100% propoganda, pure and simple.

Safire had more raw intellectual firepower, and he was obviously a master wordsmith and work lover, but i like Brooks (does he describe himself as a moderate? Never heard him peg himself that way) because he's a mellow guy who hangs out with the Kahunas and so is usually able to report inside statements and opinions (adding his bent, of course). I don't agree with him much of the time, but enjoy reading his commentary. I don't recall reading any apologist pieces.

I'll fuck a pig's ass raw, film it, and get a reality TV show about it, cuntz.

STFU, DH.

Guys, stow it. I mean, come on. The guy is probably the top columnist in the country. When he says something, the White House is reading it, and should respond. Jebus, just read the piece, then draw your conclusions.

Yes, I also have concerns about that kind of licensing. It's yet another private information database the government has on you. How that information is treated is often not very controlled. Information is stolen, sold to corporations, corrupted with bad information that creates major legal hassles for the hapless victims, the list of concerns goes on and on. I'm still chewing on it. That concern might outweigh the desire to plug the home sellers loophole.

I've sustained the exact same injury the exact same way. Used to feel a little aching in cold weather the first few years, but that went away. It hasn't been a problem. I sucked at climbing before the injury; I still sucked afterwards.

I was sad when Safire retired from the Times pages, then Brooks came along... I like and respect guys like Krugman, but I don't really enjoy reading them like I do these two.

One last comment about the proposed gun legislation, or any gun legislation. If, in fact, a piece of gun legislation does reduce gun related crime (not easy to prove, I know), then it might actually reduce the general anti-gun anxiety in this country. That, in turn, might reduce public support for more draconian gun control measures in the future, which would seem to be a good thing to gun enthusiasts when it's all said and done. Just sayin...

I appreciated your analysis, for one. This is a great example of whay folks who are serious about figuring out what's going on gravitate towards more reputable sources like the WSJ, NYT, Economist, etc...rather than wade through news-entertainment-diarrhea of unprofessional outlets like FOX. It doesn't mean those sources are always 'right' or never make a mistake, but at least they're operating to a higher standard of veracity and fact checking. They're access to original sources is much better, as well. FOX has to settle for getting just about everything third hand (or they just make it up), because the newsmakers already know that they've got a known agenda and that their journalistic ethics blow goats.

OK, Bill XOXO from me. Have a good day. Sorry about the nastiness.