Bob Kerrey - What an Asshole
 

You're still repeating the canard today, and have spent more time doing so than it would take you to simply look at the op-ed piece (90 seconds, top). Why? Because it amuses you to call Kerrey anti-American. Whatever. I'm done with this one.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

While I will say that, yes, it was a gross overgeneralization that won't stand strict scrutiny, I think it would be worthier if you addressed the meat of what she's saying, as a generalization, and not jump on the "here's an exception" train, especially when your exceptions seem to be posts specifically aimed at forming exceptions to that specific overgeneralization. If AG has to make a post that specifically says "here's one to put an end to the "we don't eat our own" paradigm", there's probably SOMETHING to the paradigm.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

The question that will shed light on this issue is "Do any of the Dems on this board agree that Clinton should have faced these or other consequences for lying under oath?"

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

So was it a crime and do you support consequences for that crime and if so, what consequences?

Bob Kerrey - What an Asshole
 

No it was because I was busy posting to you, et al., and trying to get some work done and ovulating (which causes mittelschmerz and makes me cranky).

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

Baloney. If I get four or five others to start posting that Bilmore eats spoiled herring, and someone posts that they met you IRL and you despise spoiled herring, does that mean there was something to the accusation to begin with? We're not responding to it because it's so ridiculous ab initio, not because we don't want to go there.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

See posts #934 and 939. The latter is incorporated by reference in its entirety.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

I actually think there's something to it, but not as a result of any intrinsic quality of, or difference between, the philosophies. Rather, it's an extension of Jane's Law ("The party in power is smug and arrogant. The party out of power is insane"), which, for now, allows Republicans the freedom of being smugly magnanimous, and Democrats the freedom to be rabid, while the roles were reversed during the Clinton years.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

He does appear to be criticizing unnamed anti-Bush protesters in that post that is 3 months old. I will search for posts from the Dems on this board that criticize named Dems and get back to you when I find them.

Whiff, whiff.

etft -- T.S.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

True dat. That's strange - I don't feel rabid.

If I misconstrued notMe's posts about Dems to be an inherent feature of Dems v. Reps, as opposed to an imperious discourse on an inherent feature of the powerless v. those in power, I humbly apologize for wasting time and electrons.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

No, I think you read what was written. I'm just being reasonable, to see what it feels like.

I don't like it much.

OK I read it, Ty
 

I agree that the editorial indicates that Kerrey sees this war the same way I see it. I just don't understand what the point of his comments were at the commission.

My advice to him would be to be more careful with his phrasing while he is being televised interrogating the national security advisor as a member of the 9/11 commission. I know I wasn't the only person who took what he said to mean something different from what he wrote in the WSJ editorial.

Scalia Speaks on First Amendment , then Gives it a Good Stomping
 

It's subliminal. Our time spent on the Democratic "street" has desensitized us to our actions, and we don't even notice the spittle anymore.

(Aside to Bilmore -- yeah, it's an interesting theory. I was going to say that it also might be because regardless of its truth, it's become such an article of faith among Reps on this board, but Panda beat me to it.)

Well, you did misconstrue 'em's posts, but they're not really about that. Actually, the subtext has to do with polygamy.

OK I read it, Ty
 

I think he objects to the idea of a war "on terrorism." Makes sense to me.

blogging Iraq
 

Does anyone have good recommendations for coverage of what's going on in Iraq? I'm really underwhelmed by the major media -- they have not been useful at all this week. Someone just pointed me to Juan Cole, who seems good to me, but either the situation over there is much worse than CNN et al. can say right now, or he's on the negative side -- I don't know enough to tell yet. Iraq Blog Count links to a number of Iraqi blogs, but they're more impressionistic. And Brad DeLong has been posting some interesting stuff in the last day from Americans in Iraq.