"They are the Most Crooked, Lying Bunch..."

[noiseradio]

I do distinctly remember quite a few who intensely disliked Clinton saying, in effect, "anyone but Clinton" when explaining why they were voting for Bush. So, it cuts both ways. I agree it's not new, but what a stupid way to pick leaders. It does not speak well of our political process at all, nor of the motives that so many people seem to have for their vote.

(Lest anyone think the "stupid way" comment was a shot, I have chosen candidates in the same fashion, and would include myself in that description for doing so).

[Pov]

Can ANYONE SAY ANYTHING about Kerry as a proven Leader, or shall we continue to mud wrestle in the pseudointellectual pleasuredome where, God-forbid, anyone will ever feel that it is noble to support and try to work with the current administration.

Well, no we can't say anything about Kerry as a proven leader. With Bush we know what we are getting, but "proven leader" is not a term I would use to describe him.

Of course, you could have said the same thing about Harry Truman. He was widely considered to be a political hack when FDR selected him as VP. Of course, that decision turned out to be very wise, as he turned out to be a great president. Maybe Kerry will too, probably he will not. So what's better, the evil we know or the evil we don't know?

Frankly, I am seriously considering sitting out this election. OTOH, I am truly and deeply angered by the Bush campaign's reliance on the fight against terrorism, portraying him as the only candidate who can adequately protect the country. It's a load of BS. 9/11 happened on his watch, and now evidence seems to be gathering that his administration ignored pointed warnings about the imminent threats posed by Al Queda. Finally, I work about 5 blocks from the former site of the World trade Center. After the planes hit we all went to the basement of my building (which used to be abomb shelter). Anyway, they had a TV and radio set up and I kept wondering to myself "where is the president? why isn't he addressing the nation?" Then I find out that he spent the day flying around on Air Force One like a frightened bunny rabbit. Sorry, but all the pictures in the world of him sitting in the cockpit of jet fighter will never counteract the image I have of him as a weak, ineffective leader who fled at the first sign of trouble.

[BlueChair]

This is part of why a two party system isn't very good. You're stuck with two choices (unless you count the independents, which too few people vote for to take them seriously).

Unfortunately, in Canada we are moving toward a similar situation. We used to have four national parties... from left to right they were the New Democratic Party, the Liberals (currently in power), the Progressive Conservative party, and the Canadian Alliance.

As of recently, the PC and Alliance decided to join forces, so now there is a new Conservative party instead of PC/Alliance. Very few people seem to vote for the NDP party, so really it seems that we too are headed for a similar boat where it's either the Conservatives or the Liberals.

In the end, the policies of both are eerily similar, though the Liberal party voted against participating in the Iraqi war, while the Conservative party probably would have wanted to join (despite our lack of a real military).

[RedShoes]

....but what a stupid way to pick leaders.

I agree, but as you said this is by far a greater reflection of our political system rather than the voters. A two-party system leads to this sort of mindset - we're forced to pick between two candidates....rather than the best of a small group.

[noiseradio]

I'd have to respectfully disagree that Truman turned out to be a great leader. History has been far to kind to the Truman legacy. He was very impetuous, listened too closely to a handful of advisors, and is credited mostly for things he inherited from his predecessor. I do think he improved as he went on, and I give him enormous credit for integrating the Armed Services. But he was a Cold Warrior in the worst possible sense of that term, and he helped usher in atomic diplomacy--a foreign policy which still haunts us. I firmly believe that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unneccesary to end the Pacific War (and I'd be happy to square off on that one if anyone wants to take the bait). Those bombs were dropped primarily to intimidate Stalin; that's a crap reason to incinerate over a hundred thousand civilians. It ended the war, yes. But at horrendous cost. It is fairly well documented by now that lives were NOT saved by the atomic bombs, and the legacy of the Cold War (including Korea and Viet-frickin-nam) have their roots in the diplomacy of Truman.

I understand the point you were trying to make was about Kerry being untested but not necessarily incompetent, and that point is still valid. So I'm sorry if this post serves to get anything off track.

[noiseradio]

I agree, but as you said this is by far a greater reflection of our political system rather than the voters. A two-party system leads to this sort of mindset - we're forced to pick between two candidates....rather than the best of a small group.

I agree, and I mean it much more as an indictment of the system than of the voters. But the voters are still responsible for playing along.

[Pov]

I firmly believe that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unneccesary to end the Pacific War (and I'd be happy to square off on that one if anyone wants to take the bait). Those bombs were dropped primarily to intimidate Stalin; that's a crap reason to incinerate over a hundred thousand civilians. It ended the war, yes. But at horrendous cost. It is fairly well documented by now that lives were NOT saved by the atomic bombs, and the legacy of the Cold War (including Korea and Viet-frickin-nam) have their roots in the diplomacy of Truman.

Well, I don't want to go off topic here so let's just agree to disagree. I think dropping the bomb to end the war probably saved the lives of tens of thousands of American GIs. FDR would have done the same, IMHO. The Japanese proved themselves to be vicious fighters, willing to fight to the death, and they would have been defending their homeland. 'nuff said.

[HungupStrungup]

I am disenchanted with Mr. Bush. I think he has made a number of errors but in an effort to lead. He is at times a bumbling fool, and at times a great leader. I know that the utterance of the second half of that last sentence infuriates many. It is, however, a reasonable line of thinking. It is an educated line of thinking as well, based on the Congressional record (which no one wants to address from the original post).

Your disenchantment I'll have to take for granted, since you certainly didn't express it. I find no basis for the "great leader" statement, not in my experience, not in your original post and certainly not in the Congressional Record (huh?). The most I can grant is that Mr. Bush may mean well, but if that's true, he's incompetent at best.

But it seems so disingenuine to me to say "I hate Bush" ipso facto "I want Kerry". It reminds me of playground politics during recess at St. Helens elementary school.

Because we have the Electoral College deciding presidential elections, as I've posted at mind-numbing length when discussing the perfidy of Ralph Nader in 2000, either the Republican candidate or the Democratic one will be inaugurated on January 20th next. There are no other choices. For me it's enough to be, as RedShoes pointed out, the one person who can defeat W.

Kerry was not my first choice. I did not vote for him in the primary. But I would vote for a randomly selected tree stump, were it eligible to be President, before I would vote for W.

If the merits of Senator Kerry are so profound as to make him a suitable candidate to lead this nation during one of the most tumultuos times in our country's history, then cite the reasons. But instead, the thread is about discrediting my replay of Kerrys statements and actions.

That was because your "replay" of Kerry's statements and actions required discrediting.

Why Kerry?

Kerry is a thoughtful man and a man of courage, a war hero. He was against the Vietnam War and yet he served in it. He came back and tried his dead-level best to bring it to an early conclusion, so that others would not have to die, be maimed or otherwise damaged and face the choices he had to face. Almost everyone who served alongside him supports him now, despite political differences.

He takes positions more like my own than not. He is well-respected by colleagues of his own party, and he was defended by John McCain, one of the few Republican politicians I respect, against the charges that he is soft on defense. He has been elected three times to the Senate by the voters of Massachusetts.

And of course, there's that tree stump thing.

Oh, and by the way. I have been unemployed for 5 months. I work 10-12 hours daily seeking gainful employment. I have a life. I am in process of raising to beautiful souls to young adulthood, and my wife always knows that my marital fidelity is inshakable, as is my faith. I am not a mean-spirited demagogue, nor am I easily brain-washed. I think that covers the majority of the slurs.

My "I have a life" comment was simply in response to your impatience at having a brief, flippant reply (nonetheless to the point, I believe) rather than a trenchant, point by point refutation of your first, rather lengthy post, in less than four freakin' hours. I did not call you a demagogue, and if mean-spiritedness was implied, it's because I think your post deserves to be questioned in that regard.

I certainly said nothing negative about your family, your faith, or your wife's confidence in your fidelity. Please take a deep breath and count to ten before you start defending against slurs that aren't there!

Now, what about the candidate? Can ANYONE SAY ANYTHING about Kerry as a proven Leader, or shall we continue to mud wrestle in the pseudointellectual pleasuredome where, God-forbid, anyone will ever feel that it is noble to support and try to work with the current administration.

There is, sad to say, very little nobility to be found in serving the agenda of this administration. Some top officials are cunning liars and some merely dupes. None has at heart your best interests, or mine, or that of the beautiful souls you are raising.

[Pov]

There is, sad to say, very little nobility to be found in serving the agenda of this administration. Some top officials are cunning liars and some merely dupes. None has at heart your best interests, or mine, or that of the beautiful souls you are raising.

What about Dick Cheney? I think he truly cares about the little guy

[noiseradio]

Well, I don't want to go off topic here so let's just agree to disagree. I think dropping the bomb to end the war probably saved the lives of tens of thousands of American GIs. FDR would have done the same, IMHO. The Japanese proved themselves to be vicious fighters, willing to fight to the death, and they would have been defending their homeland. 'nuff said.

We don't have to debate this point, but I have to say that the scholarship in the historical community in the last 15 years just doesn't bear that out. There have been scads of recently declassified documents from the Truman White House (correspondence among the Joint Chiefs, the Sec. of State, Sec. of Defense, the scientific community and the president) which make it very clear that the primary concern in the final decision to drop the atomic bomb was to intimidate the USSR. Everyone in the military--every branch--advised the president that Japan was on its last legs and ready to surrender well before the scheduled November invasion by Allied forces of the Japanese mainland. The navy blockade had completely strangled the islands, the entire Japanese navy and airforce were obliterated, the army was completely cut off from Japan (stuck in China) and the citizens were starving so badly they were eating acorns and tree bark. The only sticking point was whether or not to let the Japanese keep their emperor (which we did eventually do). Japan sent peace feelers to Switzerland and several other nations indicating that they would surrender if allowed to keep the emperor. It was only when the USSR announced its plans to invade Japan in August that the decision to drop the bombs a full 3 months early were made. It's not speculation, either. There are plenty of pages of executive memos stating clearly that we did not want Japan to surrender to Stalin, but to us. The a-bomb was the opening salvo of the Cold War.

You can check out Gar Alperovitz's book The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb if you want to see the memos in question, reproduced in their entirety, and set in context. The evidence is pretty damning. And FDR would almost certainly have NOT done the same thing. he was much more inclined to follow the scientific community's advice to perform a demonstration of the bomb's effects on an uninhabited island so that Japanese and Soviet leaders would see what we had WITHOUT having to use it.

I'm sorry to be so strident here, but I spent 2 years on a masters degree in post-WW2 US History, and I studied this particular issue extensively. I'b be more than happy to recommend several other books if the Alperovitz tome in unconvincing.

[Mr. Average]

Hungup:

I have now taken many deep breaths on your advice. Thank you. But the summary of slurs contained but a single one attributable to you. Others within the thread had also made implications. I was reacting to a composite slur that has become all too common, and all too often aimed at me. It's okay. I have grown accustomed to it.

The thread should end. It stands as a testament to the fact that after 30+ posts, the distillation reads something like this:

People Hate Bush (elect a tree stump...) and are completely convinced that he lied. Evidence doesn't matter. Proof doesn't apply. It is a sort of mob psychology fed by a propoganda machine. What shocks me so is that propoganda is designed to work up from the lowest levels of society. It is active and present within this forum. Brainwashing, Blue? After months of the US Democratic primaries and caucuses, I am amazed at some of the things that educated people are saying that can only be ascribed to a debate speech from one of the candidates. There are friends of mine now repeating Dean's theories as facts. Absolutely incredible.

People have no real respect or confidence in Kerry. Not a single 'defender' acknowledged his actual comments that begin this thread and that he now fails to acknowledge.

People have forgotten that we, too, were attacked on our own soil and thousands died across three locations.

Pov sites the St Thomas Aquinas logic associated with the use of the atomic bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The citation states that the Japanese were vicious in protecting their homeland.

Bush had precedent. Pearl Harbor. In which of the two cases....9/11 or Pearl Harbor, was the diplomatic process best applied? More thoroughly exhausted before the first shot was fired?

The sad reality is present and accounted for. The outcome of the thread is clear to me. I understand that my reality and lifes rich experience differ from many others here. My opinion is clearly shaped by these experiences, as is the case for us all. I am not hoping to convert anyone...just to get people to use a bit more reason before subscribing to the popular and easy mob psychology of disposing with the current leader and trying something new.

It is such a funny thing about visibility and winning big contests. When the Dallas Cowboys became "America's Team" the negative press began to flow. Drug scandals. Steroids. etc. It became very popular to root against the Cowboys. Ask fans at a sports bar, why are you rooting for Washington, and they would say 9 times out of 10: "Because I hate Dallas!"

When Florida State won the National Championship in American College Football in 1999, it became very much 'in vogue' to hate FSU. The press was unrelenting. Now that USC has a coshare of the National title, they are being riddled with negative press....players falsifying academic records, players pulling guns, players on dope. etc.

When you hold the top, people like to see you fall. It is a sad testament to the human condition. People like underdogs, and will overlook GLARING limitations of the underdog to justify their stance. Of equal importance, they will overlook great achievements of the leaders in order to justify their position.


Heaven help us. All.

[HungupStrungup]

I was reacting to a composite slur that has become all too common, and all too often aimed at me. It's okay. I have grown accustomed to it.

The thread should end. . .

I agree, perhaps the thread has outlived its utility; not because you haven't elicited a good number of thoughtful comments replete with facts and resonable assertions; and certainly not because you've been multiply-slandered, because you haven't, not in this thread anyway; but rather because you seem to want agreement or perhaps martyrdom, but never debate.

It stands as a testament to the fact that after 30+ posts, the distillation reads something like this:

People Hate Bush (elect a tree stump...) and are completely convinced that he lied. Evidence doesn't matter. Proof doesn't apply. It is a sort of mob psychology fed by a propoganda machine. What shocks me so is that propoganda is designed to work up from the lowest levels of society. It is active and present within this forum. Brainwashing, Blue? After months of the US Democratic primaries and caucuses, I am amazed at some of the things that educated people are saying that can only be ascribed to a debate speech from one of the candidates. There are friends of mine now repeating Dean's theories as facts. Absolutely incredible.

How nice that my disbelief in the credibility of Bush and the top people in his administration can be dismissed so easily. I've fallen victim to propaganda! I can't be trusted to think for myself, evidently, otherwise I'd agree with you. What a comfort that must be.

Whether I have evidence that W is a liar, or at best a dupe of liars, or that he encourages his minions to lie, matters not. I must be brainwashed.

My "tree stump" comment does not mean that I hate Bush, by the way. It means I think he has been an awful president, and to retain him in office for another four years would be disastrous.

People have no real respect or confidence in Kerry. Not a single 'defender' acknowledged his actual comments that begin this thread and that he now fails to acknowledge.

Okay, I'll take a shot, but briefly.

Senator Kerry released a statement that he was being endorsed by 'unnamed foreign leaders'.

He released no such statement. What was said was not in the form of a statement at all (in common parlance, this phrase would mean something written, edited, vetted and released, like a press release or position paper), and it had nothing to do with endorsements; but it was rather an oral response to a question. The reporter who transcribed it has since corrected the record to reflect that what the Senator said was "more leaders" and not "foreign leaders." In the context of that conversation, it's likely he meant foreign leaders, but it isn't what he said.

Why am I splitting hairs? Because one man's "facts" are another man's "baseless assertions," and you claimed to be presenting factual arguments. We will be parsing the meaning of the word "is" a little later.

Yes, it's true, Kerry did not name those leaders, and he probably should not have answered the question that way. What, W never misspeaks? But still, the challenge to name those people who may have confided in the Senator that they would prefer it if he wins is completely cynical, given that in diplomacy one does not divulge confidences. Those leaders still have to maintain relationships with the present administration, for another few months anyway. And if Kerry expects to be able to conduct diplomacy for the next four years, he can't be pissing off our friends and allies before he's even elected.

(Yet another Bush lie, by the way . . . . er, prevarication. He promised when running in 2000 that he was going to conduct foreign policy in a new, adult way, so we could retain good relationships with those we may need to rely on. It sounded good anyway.)

This challenge to reveal the names is also ironic, coming as it did most loudly from the Vice President, who has yet to divulge the names of, let alone recommendations made by, people who provided input for his energy task force early in the term.

More to follow. Many are waiting for the TV advertisement endorsing John Kerry that ends with the statement "This is Osama Bin Laden, and I endorse this ad" (an editorial slip, I know, but sadly humourous).

Sad yes, but not particularly humorous. Is this a worthy example of a "recent fact" presented "for [my] edification and review"?

[noiseradio]

If you guys don't take a deep breath and chill the hell out soon, So Like Candy will get you.




Just a suggestion.

[King of Confidence]

The thread should end. It stands as a testament to the fact that after 30+ posts, the distillation reads something like this:

When a thread should end, it will end. You started it.

People Hate Bush (elect a tree stump...) and are completely convinced that he lied. Evidence doesn't matter. Proof doesn't apply. It is a sort of mob psychology fed by a propoganda machine. What shocks me so is that propoganda is designed to work up from the lowest levels of society. It is active and present within this forum. Brainwashing, Blue? After months of the US Democratic primaries and caucuses, I am amazed at some of the things that educated people are saying that can only be ascribed to a debate speech from one of the candidates. There are friends of mine now repeating Dean's theories as facts. Absolutely incredible.

Dan, read more widely. There is plenty of good journalism--not propaganda—being done that substantiates people’s opposition to the guy. Not even necessarily "liberal" journalism.

And even Dean’s theories are looking not-so-far-fetched. After the testimony slated to take place before the 9/11 Commission this week, maybe even less so.

People have no real respect or confidence in Kerry. Not a single 'defender' acknowledged his actual comments that begin this thread and that he now fails to acknowledge.

In point of fact, I and many others DO have full faith and confidence in Kerry. He wasn’t my first choice either, but he was my second. Pace the current ad campaign, I have no qualms about his willingness to use whatever force necessary to defend the United States, if that’s what this is about for you.

I don’t care about the quotes, in part because you still haven’t provided a citation or context, but mainly because, at least as far as the supposed flip-flop vote goes, H/S pretty much laid out how congressional voting works. It’s called politics. So he’s calculating and self-serving – he’s a politician, it comes with the job. It’s possible to still serve your country too, though, and he’s demonstrated that, in spades, his entire adult life. Far more than can be said for Captain Prancypants on the USS Abe Lincoln.

People have forgotten that we, too, were attacked on our own soil and thousands died across three locations.

NOBODY has forgotten. And it happened on George Bush’s watch, and the incoherent spinning from his team the last two days has done nothing to undermine anything that his former terrorism specialist, Richard Clarke, said on 60 Minutes Sunday night.

The sad reality is present and accounted for. The outcome of the thread is clear to me. I understand that my reality and lifes rich experience differ from many others here. My opinion is clearly shaped by these experiences, as is the case for us all. I am not hoping to convert anyone...just to get people to use a bit more reason before subscribing to the popular and easy mob psychology of disposing with the current leader and trying something new.

It seems to me that there is actually insufficient "mob psychology" to dispose of the current leader, which scares the hell out of me.

It is such a funny thing about visibility and winning big contests. When the Dallas Cowboys became "America's Team" …

When Florida State won the National Championship ….

When you hold the top, people like to see you fall. It is a sad testament to the human condition. People like underdogs, and will overlook GLARING limitations of the underdog to justify their stance. Of equal importance, they will overlook great achievements of the leaders in order to justify their position.

THIS IS NOT FOOTBALL, not underdogs and overdogs. That you break it down to that suggests a simplism that is all too characteristic of Bush’s defenders.

This is the future of our country, and it’s being sold out from under us while we’re freaking out over Janet’s nipple.

Heaven help us. All.

Spare us the histrionics. Heaven isn’t going to help us. It’s going to take hard work and guts, and John Kerry has shown plenty enough of both his entire life.

[King of Confidence]

Sorry you got the double-barrel, Dan. I didn't know H/S was still on the case.

[BlueChair]

Yeah... too many people feel helpless. You need to remember that you are in one of the few countries where you can (technically) have politically independence and the right to vote. Use that right as much as you can.

[noiseradio]

Link to a Boston Herald editorial with the Kerry quote about the shifting vote:

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/vi ... 18&format=

And here's one from USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... usat_x.htm

Please note that the USA Today piece is relaying remarks made by Dick Cheney. So it's a quote of a quote. Don't know if it's accurate or not, based solely on that.


Here's a link to an article in the Washington Times that discusses Kerry's Vietnam War record as well as his post-war record (including the medal bit).

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040 ... -9539r.htm

I offer these not to make any points (other than, perhaps, that Mr. Average isn't just inventing these Kerry-items). I have no idea if these sources are valid or not, but I got curious as to what I could find with a google search on those topics, and that's what I found after only a little bit of looking. I have no idea if they help or hurt anyone's case.

[King of Confidence]

Guh. Well, I'll admit that is a pretty lame quote. Guess I'll vote for Bush after all.

If he had a good reason for voting no -- because he thought a rescinded tax cut should have paid for part of it -- he should have just stuck to it, especially because it's too difficult to explain some nuance of the vote without sounding like he's trying to have it both ways.

Nevertheless, it's a single sentence, still lacking the context of whatever conversation it was in, in response to an unknown question.

Researching this myself, I came across this in the NYT on Kerry and defense over the years. Not a Kerry puff piece. Registration may be required.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/20/polit ... 0KERR.html

Okay, enough politicking for me on this site.

[noiseradio]

I just reread the three articles I posted links to, and all three pieces are pretty clearly right-slanted. Not that that's any worse than left-slanted journalism or editorial, but it does suggest a certian interpretation. And I didn't realize at first that the USA Today piece is a transcript of Cheney's remarks, and not merely an article about those remarks. Obviously, anything Cheney has to say in interpreting Kerry's quote would be of an impeaching nature.

KoC,

I agree that the quotes are provided out of context. Again, I'm not making an argument with them, just pointing them out.

[Mr. Average]

My point continues to be made.

And to suggest that I fear debate is ludicrous. I started this thread to create debate and reasonable thinking. On three or four occasions within the thread, I have reacted to the comments that went before.

And by the way, I clearly...CLEARLY labelled my Osama Bin Laden endorsement joke as an editorial...not a fact. What is wrong with you for excising the quote and purposefully leaving the disclaimer. That is just plain cowardice. You know better. But is certainly makes you look more credible to those who are scanning the thread for substance. Congratulations. You must be very proud.

Ladies and Gentlemen. I stated an opinion supported by facts. For the most part, the facts are ignored and the slander rules the day.

My point continues to be made, End the thread whenever it ends. But as it progresses, it continues to underscore the point. I love the comment that Richard Clark, a disgruntled, egomaniacal employee whose recent book has been systematically dismembered onthe facts, is referenced as a credible witness against George. Gosh, he even attcked Condoleexzza Rice, inferring that she, like her boss, is a simpleton and had never heard of Al Queda prior to him 'teaching' her about them. Too bad, Dick, but Condi is on tape months and years prior to EVER Meeting you discussing the need to improve our intelligence lest Al Queda and other such groups gain advantage and attack us on our own turf.

Keep slamming. My point continues to be made.

For the record, I think the contributors to this forum, especially some of the more vocal ones (not the hit and run types) are among the most intelligent people I have ever exchanged thoughts with. I respect your right to hold a different opinion. I think your opinion is wrong. You think the same of mine. But from these exchanges, I open my mind and learn. I am better for the exchanges, because I am not afraid to hear and entertain the alternate viewpoint, and even weave it into the tapestry of my values if appropriate. It is just that no one has said a single damn credible thing to unsubstantiate my original post. Not a single thing.

I need a job. Any help?

[HungupStrungup]

And by the way, I clearly...CLEARLY labelled my Osama Bin Laden endorsement joke as an editorial...not a fact. What is wrong with you for excising the quote and purposefully leaving the disclaimer. That is just plain cowardice. You know better. But is certainly makes you look more credible to those who are scanning the thread for substance. Congratulations. You must be very proud.

I quoted the entire paragraph, including what you call the disclaimer. Yes, I'm proud, because I presented my quotes from you fairly.

[King of Confidence]

I only snipped the paragraph in the interests of space, and commented on (what I took to be) the crux of the issue you presented therein.

But that's a red herring in any case.

Dan, I honestly don't know what this point is that you say continues to be made here, except that you don't really like Kerry, and these "facts" support your view. Fine. I can come up with a fistful of facts that engender my intense dislike for George Bush, and for my money, my facts and the substantive matters to which they pertain are, on the merits, more critical for the future of our country. For your money, probably not. In view of that, I'm going to bed.

Fred Kaplan, Slate's defense-issues reporter, has a take on what's happened so far with Clarke:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2097685/

Since I don't post here much these days 'cept, it seems, when there's fightin' to be done, I do probably need to add this: I harbor you no ill will, and please construe none of this as personal. It was your positions I wanted to attack, and I'm sure I didn't do so without letting my general pissedness about this administration interfere.

Good night.

[BlueChair]

[King of Confidence]

Ha!

Makes me think of the Stonecutters.

"Who keeps the martians under wraps?

"We do, we do"

[noiseradio]

A little bird told me that the Washington Times tends to lean far to the right. So is it the Washington Post that leans left? I don't know the reputation of too many of the nation's papers. NYT leans left, as does my hometown Baltimore Sun. Dallas Morning News is slightly left-leaning, while the Fort Worth Star-Telegram leans right.

All this to say: everyone should already know to take editorials with the appropriate amount of salt.