home

Thursday Funnies and Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:53:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Attorney D.D. in MO:

The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages. Surely, you'll want to be the first to make a contribution to this great man's legacy.

The library will include:

  • The Hurricane Katrina Room , which is still under construction.
  • The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you can't remember anything.
  • The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't have to even show up.
  • The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.

[More...]

  • The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.
  • The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.
  • The Iraq War Room. After you complete your first tour, they make you to go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth tour.
  • The Dick Cheney Room--in an undisclosed location, complete with shooting gallery.

Plans also include: The K-Street Project Gift Shop, where you can buy (or just steal) an election.

The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.

Last, but not least, there will be an entire floor devoted to a 7/8 scale model of the President's ego.

To highlight the president's accomplishments, the museum will have an electron microscope to help you locate them.

When asked, President Bush said that he didn't care so much about the individual exhibits as long as his museum was better than his father's.

< A Skeptical Progressive Examines Obama's Record, Concludes " Count Me Out" | That Crazy Lanny Davis? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Funnies and Open Thread | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Nice letter to editor from NY Times today (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by frankly0 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:50:56 AM EST
    From NY Times:

    To the Editor:

    Re "Begrudging His Bedazzling," by Maureen Dowd (column, Feb. 27):

    Ms. Dowd says Hillary Rodham Clinton is lame for accusing journalists of treating her campaign differently than they treat Barack Obama's, and applauds the "open-mindedness of the press" in its treatment of Senator Clinton.

    Here are the words she uses in association with Senator Clinton: "desperate," "primal scream," "clanging," "churlish," "discombobulated," "gloomy," "flipping," "begrudging," "whining," "experience," "pea green with envy," "Sybil," "cascading," "dizzying," "unsettling," "struggling," "tartly," "peevishly," "pointlessly," "sarcasm."

    And here are the words she uses for Senator Obama: "golden child," "sunny," "consistency," "bedazzling," "confidence," "excitement," "exceptionally easy in his skin."

    If Ms. Dowd wants to make the point that she doesn't like Senator Clinton, then she's made it. If she wants to make the point that the press treats Mrs. Clinton fairly, contrary to what the senator may believe, then this column, alas, has made Senator Clinton's point.

    Donna Lawlor

    Brooklyn, Feb. 27, 2008
    TL Fundraiser In Progress (none / 0) (#124)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:58:38 PM EST
    ******************
    Don't mind me, I'm just tucking in here with a fund-raising suggestion:

    Let's all donate something tonight before we logout, no matter how big or small - according to our individual means.

    Heads up: I'll be posting this elsewhere tonight at TL.

    [ Parent ]

    a few people with integrity... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:48:58 AM EST
    Last night on CNN, I saw two remarkable things that gave me the tiniest spark of hope for the return of truth and integrity to the news.

    First, Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver, a black superdelegate supporting Clinton, talked in a heartfelt way about the unfairness of black superdelegates being pressured to support Obama based on the supposition that they should support the will of the people, while at the same time superdelegates such as Kennedy and Kerry are voting against the will of the Mass. voters, and are not being pressured in the same way. He was clearly genuinely concerned about fairness in this process. A blow to truthiness indeed.

    Second, Katrina vanden Huevel spoke about her policy criticisms against Clinton while at the same time denouncing the incredible misogyny that has been leveled against her by the media. She demanded that that be acknowledged in an honest way. It made her policy criticisms seem all the more credible because she appeared to be speaking with integrity.

    I wrote them both letters thanking them for their courage in being honest. Lately, I've begun to think that both the right and left have abandoned reality-based discourse.

    Sleeper takes down Wilentz (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:47:32 AM EST
    Jim Sleeper wrote an excellent post on the Sean Wilentz "race-baiting" article.  Sleeper is a tepid Obama supporter, having recently argued about that Obama's young white base is out of touch with the Democrats' real base, and also that "Obama doesn't yet know enough about governing to discredit Bill Clinton's argument that electing him would be a roll of the dice."

    But he absolutely excoriates Wilentz:

    I know how to expose charming black impressarios of racial street theater and common-room put-downs that freeze white liberals in their seats. Moreover, even in supporting Obama, I've expressed reservations here in posts like "Obama's Biggest Weakness" and "If I Vote For Obama, It'll Be Because..." Not only that, I hold nothing against Hillary Clinton, whom Wilentz thinks he is defending.

    But I do recognize attitudinizing and pulling rank, academically or streetwise, when I see them, and I know that someone has gone off the deep end when he ends 5500 words of endless pirouetting with a pompous polemic like this:: "[T]here is a long history of candidates who are wiling to inflame the most deadly passions in our national life in order to get elected. Sadly, that is what Barack Obama and his campaign gurus have been doing for months -- with the aid of their media helpers on the news and op-ed pages.... They promise to continue to until they win the nomination, by any means necessary."

    . . . .

    The evidence, please? it never came.
    Very good criticism (none / 0) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:00:56 AM EST
    I love history and respect historians but sometimes they think that their job gives them more clout to speak on matters political, when it really doesn't.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course (none / 0) (#76)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:03:26 AM EST
    it would never occur to anyone that Sean Wilentz was not defending Clinton so much as correcting what he sees as the record on Obama playing the race card.  No one would attempt to correct the record would they?  Not to Obama supports they wouldn't, so it's got to be a plot.  It's quite clear to me that Obama played the race card masterfully and it worked.


    [ Parent ]
    The point of the post (none / 0) (#78)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:07:34 AM EST
    If you deign to read it, is that Wilentz failed to correct the record in that he did no original research.

    [ Parent ]
    Original research? (none / 0) (#95)
    by ding7777 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:20:58 PM EST
    maybe Wilentz listened to the Nevada debate where Obama admits his campaigned pushed the race baiting story.

    [ Parent ]
    You mean the same debate (none / 0) (#105)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:23:29 PM EST
    Where Senator Clinton admitted that comments by her supporters were "out of bounds"?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure what your point is anymore. (none / 0) (#112)
    by ding7777 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:21:40 PM EST
    Sleeper's arguement is that Wilentz didn't provide evidence of Obama pushing the race card when Obama publically stated his campaign (Obama's Press secretary) pushed the race card line and Obama apologized for it during the debate.

    Why doesn't Sleeper believe his own ears/eyes, instead of asking Wilentz for more evidence?

    (replying to your strawman comment - Robert Johnson doesn't work for Hillary's campaign nor was Johnson manipulating the press with his puplic comment)

    [ Parent ]

    Because the existing evidence (none / 0) (#116)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:58:11 PM EST
    Which everyone who has been following the campaign knows about, does not support Wilentz's thesis.

    At the debate you cite as evidence that Obama admitted playing the race card, both Clinton and Obama took joint responsibility for the flare-ups of the previous week.  

    Clinton said:

    So I very much appreciate what Senator Obama and I did yesterday, which is that we both have exuberance and sometimes uncontrollable supporters; that we need to get this campaign where it should be.

    Obama said:

    I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say.

    This was universally acknowledged as a joint acceptance of responsibility and agreement to move on.  

    Now comes Professor Sean Wilentz, eminent historian, and without presenting any information that was not endlessly pored over in the press and on major blogs last January, decrees:

    To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters . . . .

    That theseis is simply unsupported by the evidence in Wilentz's article or the historical record.

    [ Parent ]

    You are mixing apples and oranges.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by ding7777 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:46:10 PM EST
    Hillary was talking about volunteer supporters - not paid staff.

    RUSSERT: In terms of accountability, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton on Sunday told me that the Obama campaign had been pushing this storyline. And, true enough, your press secretary in South Carolina -- four pages of alleged comments made by the Clinton people about the issue of race.

    In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

    OBAMA: Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we're setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues.

    Hillary never said "staff"... that's Obama trying to equate his paid staff with Hillary's volunteer supporters.

    But the bottom line is that what Obama stated supports Wilentz when he wrote "...they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters . . . ."


    [ Parent ]

    Please (none / 0) (#125)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:56:34 PM EST
    Billy Shaheen was Clinton's campaign co-chair and Clinton fired him and apologized to Obama.  Andrew Cuomo was a Clinton surrogate.  He reportedly called his "shuck and jive" comment "unfortunate, more than unfortunate." John Edwards agreed with Obama that Hillary's own comments regarding LBJ and MLK were "troubl[ing]."  Robert Johnson spoke at a Clinton campaign rally when he made his comments.  He also apologized.

    [ Parent ]
    AF, (none / 0) (#126)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:04:19 AM EST
    Wilentz nailed it and if Sleeper doesn't believe Obama's own words as evidence, shame on Sleeper.

    Shaheen , Cuomo, Johnson are NOT paid staffers and none of them said anything racist about Obama - asking about a candidates drug use is just as legit now as when it was asked of George W Bush  -  "shuck and jive" --- please!!

    But since you would rather highjack this into a "Hillary is bad" thread instead of acknowledging that Obama's own words were the evidence that Sleeper somehow missed... well, have the final word because I'm not interested.

    [ Parent ]

    It's an open thread (none / 0) (#127)
    by AF on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:44:07 AM EST
    Obama admitted that his staff overreacted to comments that Clinton admitted were inappropriate.  He did not admit "deliberately" and "falsely" injecting race into the campaign.  

    As for your defense of the Clinton campaign's comments, "if [you] believe [their] own words as evidence, shame on [you]."

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, it was an open comment post and you started (none / 0) (#128)
    by ding7777 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:27:58 AM EST
    a thread about Sleeper's supposed "take down of Wilentz".

    I'm trying to stay on the topic of your initiated thread (Sleeper/Wilentz).

    Obama admitted his Press Secretary was "pushing" 4 pages of "alleged" racist comments by the Clintons.... what part of "pushing" does not equal "deliberate"?... why would Obama apologize for deliberatly circulating true racist statement to the media?  

    Sleeper is wrong for failing to acknowlege public statements by Obama as "evidence".

    [ Parent ]

    You confuse footnotes, perhaps, with (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    original research? Notes are replaced by direct links to documents in online publication, and links he has. Or maybe you're looking for documents in archives, as in traditional historical research? Not needed, not in researching history as it happens -- so perfectly acceptable sources include media, interviews (called oral history), etc., as well as debates he witnessed (that's the key to your term). In sum, this is original research. It's more journalistic than historical at this point, when the history still is happening -- but a few journalists actually still do original research, too. Your term is hardly restricted to academe and its practices.

    [ Parent ]
    You confuse footnotes, perhaps, with (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:52:24 PM EST
    original research? Notes are replaced by direct links to documents in online publication, and links he has. Or maybe you're looking for documents in archives, as in traditional historical research? Not needed, not in researching history as it happens -- so perfectly acceptable sources include media, interviews (called oral history), etc., as well as debates he witnessed (that's the key to your term). In sum, this is original research. It's more journalistic than historical at this point, when the history still is happening -- but a few journalists actually still do original research, too. Your term is hardly restricted to academe and its practices.

    [ Parent ]
    Sleeper's piece (none / 0) (#92)
    by tree on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:06:02 PM EST
    is itself filled with argument by assertion, guilt by association, ad hominem and circular arguments. (Not to mention numerous typos and grammatical errors. I'd expect better of someone who writes for a living.)

    When he's not just gratuituously bashing Wilenz, i.e.
    >"Sometimes he lurches into histrionic poses, as when he instructed a congressional impeachment committee that "history will judge" them -- a pronouncement sufficiently snooty to remind even from those who agreed with him that history will judge Sean Wilentz, too, for shifting burdens of his own responsibility onto others." (Bad grammar from the original.)

    or insinuating that Wilenz should remain silent, lest "bad people" use his argument,

    >"Does Wilentz even want to meet the kinds of people who might actually pick his stuff up and run with it?"

    his only "substantive" criticism is that Wilenz used the reporting of the media to support his claim that the Obama campaign used the race card.  Apparently its WRONG, WRONG, WRONG to use media reporting that no one has disputed to support one's argument that the media allowed Obama to play the race card. Ridiculous assertion.

    Perhaps Sleeper has written excellent posts before. This is not one of them.  

    [ Parent ]

    Sleeper's piece was criticism (none / 0) (#93)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    Criticism is not supposed to contain original reporting.  

    Wilentz's piece purported to be a correction of the record.  But he simply recounted what is already in the record and asserted in immoderate language that it constitutes Obama playing the race card.  

    And by the way, thanks for the "1" rating.  Do you always low-rate comments you disagree with?

    [ Parent ]

    GOOD criticism (none / 0) (#98)
    by tree on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:37:12 PM EST
    is supposed to do more than assert that someone or something is faulty. It must explain why. Sleeper's  piece simply asserts without going into any specifics to support his criticism.

    Wilenz piece was not a "correction of the record". It was an interpretation of the historical record and what it means. That's a large part of what historians do, by the way. He backed up his historical interpretation with undisputed historical facts, he didn't come up with new ones that no one else has heard of. The piece was his interpretation, backed up by a recitation of facts to support it. Apparently Sleeper thinks, or wants us to think, that you have to come up with new facts that no one else has heard before in order to interpret history. Apparently he got you to buy that, which was great for him, because, other than a sh*tload of "immoderate language" himself, Sleeper had nothing other of substance to say.

    I rated the post low (first time I've done that) because I thought Sleeper's piece was particularly  specious. I won't rate anything a 1 any more. People seem to take it too personally. I'm sorry if I offended you. I'll go back to simply giving 5 ratings to those posts that particularly make me say "Amen to that", or make me laugh!

    [ Parent ]

    I buy (none / 0) (#102)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    that Wilentz's piece utterly failed to prove its thesis, let alone justify its over-the-top language.  

    Let's be very clear: Everybody who has been following the campaign is aware of the "historical facts."  Very few have concluded that Obama campaign has consistently used race unfairly.  That is why Wilentz wrote the piece: to change the conventional wisdom on this point. But he offered nothing new, and therefore failed to change the mind of anybody who, in Sleeper's words, "isn't already cheering Wilentz on."

    [ Parent ]

    What a surprise! (none / 0) (#107)
    by tree on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:02:29 PM EST
    You, who are inclined to agree with Sleeper, find Sleeper's post compelling. And apparently in your opinion,  Wilenz's language is "over-the-top", but Sleeper's language, which includes these descriptions of Wilenz,

    "arrogance" "opportunism" "slumming to help his side""attitudinizing" "gone off the deep end" "endless pirouetting" "pompous polemic"
    "a parody of Talmudic exegesis gone wrong" "look over his shoulder in tow or three directions before positioning himself as an arbiter of what is safe and appropriate" "lurches into histrionic poses" "snooty", etc.

    is merely arguing on the merits, to your mind. Excuse me for thinking your bias is getting in the way of logic here.

    I would be open to an argument based on an alternate interpretation of the record, but Sleeper doesn't give one. He simply insults and then asserts that Wilenz doesn't have a argument,  while admitting that Wilenz is citing the historical record to support his interpretation, and at the same time implying that Wilenz has no right to use that record to make his point.

     And don't even get me started on the inanity of Sleeper's comment that he's written for "the New York Daily News, where I had many black readers."!  
    Wow, what an expert!

    "Very few have concluded that Obama campaign has consistently used race unfairly."

    I would say at this point that very few have written about it. That very few have concluded it is truly open to question. Its rather equivalent to the meme that "No one likes Clinton", but apparently many people vote for her anyway.  For my two cents, I think that history will judge that the Obama campaign used the race card in the primary. Not because Wilenz said so, but because its the truth, and as time passes the truth will out. You may disagree but neither of us can say for sure at this time what history will say.

    [ Parent ]

    Regardless of which person is correct (none / 0) (#108)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:00:09 PM EST
    the Willentz article made several assertions but did not support any of them.  His only attempt at support was an appeal to his professional pedigree.  

    How do you challenge unsupported assertions?

    [ Parent ]

    "How do you challenge... (none / 0) (#118)
    by tree on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:55:52 PM EST
    unsupported assertions?"

    Let me illustrate. What you and Sleeper have both done is make an unsupported assertion ( an assertion that Wilenz only made unsupported assertions). You don't back it up with anything, you simply keep stating it as fact as if repetition will make it true.

    To support his contention that the Obama campaign has played the "race-baiting" card" as he calls it, Wilenz mentions Jackson Jr.'s denigrating and race-baiting remark that Clinton didn't "cry" about Katrina, as well as the Obama's campaign pushing the "Bradley effect" as an explanation for Obama's loss in  NH. He then goes into detail about various aspects of the South Carolina to-do, showing how it was racially framed by the Obama campaign and linking to the Obama Memo that showed that far from being above the fray in the matter as they claimed, the campaign was in fact encouraging racially inflamed memes. He then mentioned the veiled threat to John Lewis and other black super delegates made by Jackson Jr. which were mostly ignored by the MSM. He has many other paragraphs of examples of what he believes is evidence of the Obama campaign playing the race card.

    And his final point was that the Obama campaign's reaction to the cultural garb photo was played up as if it was a deliberate attempt by the Clinton campaign to play the race card, which makes no sense as a Clinton ploy, but only makes sense as a ploy to feign outrage by the Obama campaign, knowing that the MSM loves to bash Clinton no matter what.

    Now you may disagree that any of these things prove that Obama has been playing the race card. You may interpret them all in some other way,or simply wish them away.( Disagreeing with these arguments does not mean that Wilenz didn't use them to support his thesis.) But to continually assert that Wilenz's has not supported his allegation of playing the race card is to fly in the face of reality. In other words, Sleeper, and you, are the ones making unsupported assertions.

    And here's another lesson on how to challenge unsupported assertions:

    "His only attempt at support was an appeal to his professional pedigree."

    I've already listed many ways that Wlenz supported his assertion. I can find no "appeal to his professional pedigree" anywhere in Wilenz's 30 odd paragraphs.
    Please, show me anywhere in those paragraphs that Wilenz used such an appeal. Otherwise, this assertion, like your other one, is totally unsupported.

      I've already shown where Sleeper ludicrously used such an appeal to pedigree himself.  

    [ Parent ]

    There was a lot (none / 0) (#114)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:41:51 PM EST
    of discussion about race and who played the race card in January.  The rough consensus --ratified by the candidates themselves at the Nevada debate -- was that Hillary and her camp made a few ill-chosen remarks, African American Obama supporters and some members of Obama's staff overreacted, and then everybody agreed to put it behind them.

    Except Sean Wilentz and his defenders.

    [ Parent ]

    "Everybody" agreed... (none / 0) (#119)
    by tree on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:02:14 PM EST
    And then time stopped.

    If you ever want to know what "everybody" thinks, come to AF.

    [ Parent ]

    Everybody (none / 0) (#120)
    by AF on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:26:26 PM EST
    Meaning the candidates and the media.  Read the Nevada debate transcript and the coverage of that debate.  Earlier in this thread you wrote "at this point . . . very few have written about" race-baiting, so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.  

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (none / 0) (#1)
    by tree on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:56:37 AM EST
    Best laugh I've had in a while.

    My fav:

    To highlight the president's accomplishments, the museum will have an electron microscope to help you locate them.

    Priceless.

    Jeralyn, that's hilarious! (none / 0) (#2)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:19:32 AM EST
    :-)
    I am in tears.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Drew on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:56:20 AM EST
    This is hilarious. I am laughing so hard that I am crying.

    Gallup tracking poll (none / 0) (#4)
    by Oje on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:28:37 AM EST
    I was tracking the Gallup tracking poll over the past few days, and I wanted to register a note about Wednesday's results.

    After about 5 days of even competition (and a 46-46 tie), Obama leaped to a 5 point lead in one night, 48-43. This is very amusing since, as a 3-day tracking poll, it means that two days of virtual ties were followed by a 10+ percentage point jump in Obama's favor, average over three days of polling. It just so happens that the "surge" by Obama and the "decline" by Clinton is roughly 1/3 the differences between Obama's 51% and Clinton's 39% in the USA Today commissioned poll.

    My guess is, as a cynic, that Gallup "fixed" their tracking poll to reflect the USA Today methodology (since it directly contradicts their client's published data). Anyway, the margin that suddenly occurred yesterday should continue to spike the results for the next two days. So, I will predict Obama's lead tomorrow morning, 50% to 41%.  Of course, all this began on the night of the debates (and therefore prior to), and the "analysis" will tell us that Monday's Drudgery produced a big surge in "teh momentum."

    Oops, I should mention too... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Oje on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:33:00 AM EST
    It was TalkLeft that brought attention to the poll in an thread to discuss the absence of momentum in the Gallup tracking poll over the weekend, before the USA Today Gallup poll hit the newsstands. My continuing interest in the polls under the "media bias thread" came from that original question raised by Jeralyn (I think).

    [ Parent ]
    you'll be interested (none / 0) (#6)
    by Nasarius on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:13:02 AM EST
    In Mark Blumenthal's posts on this.

    [ Parent ]
    Pretty funny... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Oje on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:25:48 AM EST
    I go to the site for poll data, but I do not read the posts... Thanks for the link.

    [ Parent ]
    How About a Redacted Room (none / 0) (#8)
    by bob h on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:25:17 AM EST
    where all materials must be obtained from a Freedom of Information request and then arrive heavily redacted?

    others? (none / 0) (#9)
    by ding7777 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:15:16 AM EST
    The Miami-Dade Recount Room, where paid Republican Staffers refuse to let you in

    The Mission Accomplished Room, which doesn't exist

    The Computer Room (none / 0) (#10)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:29:38 AM EST
    where "outdated" software will delete archived emails, but only when somebody wants to look at them

    [ Parent ]
    This is kind of funny, too (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:34:40 AM EST
    Obama caught lying--and here we have some pretty solid evidence.  Wonder if the US media will pick up on this?  Paging Lou Dobbs...

    ... Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

    The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

    LINK courtesy of No Quarter

    Wow (none / 0) (#12)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:38:35 AM EST
    I am suspicious of anonymous sources, but I wonder if this will even be cause for concern to folks in the blogosphere?  I'm guessing no...

    [ Parent ]
    yeah (none / 0) (#13)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:46:45 AM EST
    I am hoping people ask questions at least.  Of course, they took the "photo leak" on the word of the likes of Matt Drudge, but that was only because it painted Clinton in a bad light.

    No Quarter is also pushing for Obama to be asked if there are any members of the Nation of Islam on his campaign staff.

    [ Parent ]

    so, are you saying (none / 0) (#17)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:06:43 AM EST
    that we should rely on anonymous sources, or we shouldn't?

    I am hoping people ask questions at least.

    Asking questions, at this point, is certainly warranted.

    Of course, they took the "photo leak" on the word of the likes of Matt Drudge, but that was only because it painted Clinton in a bad light.

    No, not only because, it was also because HRC's first denial sounded like a non-denial denial.  (Please note: I am not saying that is was a non-denial denial, but that it sounded like one.  She could have been stronger at it.)

    [ Parent ]

    okay (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:11:12 AM EST
    The first denial was "I don't think so, but let me look into it."  The second denial was an exacerbated, "No," then, "do you want me to interview all 700 members of her staff?"

    But, let's get this straight here: you are saying Clinton did not do it, but the fact that her campaign did not come out and deny it right off the bat without first investigating whether or not it was true is being held against her?  Because in basic rhetoric, they call that a "straw man."

    Also, I notice this takes the heat off the original post I made, which, if true (and I am saying investigate it), proves that Obama not only lied but he did something very Bush-y, which is say one thing to the American public, then make a shifty phone call to another government to assure them that he's just playing the game.

    If that's true, do you have a problem with that?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not clear on the time-line (none / 0) (#42)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:51:26 AM EST
    I thought that the Obama campaign jumped on it after her fist non-denial-sounding-denial, but that they let up after further stronger denials.  That was my impression, but I'm open to being corrected on this.

    As for "just campaign rhetoric", I do have a problem with that.  I'd like to hear more of what exactly he said.  A certain amount of rhetoric is understandable and ubiquitous.  Stating something that's 180-degrees opposite, on the other hand is not.  I'm not sure where the dividing line is nor where exactly this sits.

    (I'll note that, at least in the debates, HRC and Obama had fairly identical positions.)

    [ Parent ]

    So does that mean (none / 0) (#84)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:29:10 AM EST
    if you don't deny something strongly enough that you're considered guilty? Because there is a whole lot of folks out there still insisting that the whole Photo escapade was Hillary Clinton's fault. But then lately it's like being in a time warp...

    Take the Wayback  Machine back and try to have a conversation with a Bush supporter about anything that he's done wrong. The immediate response? "But, but, Clinton did... insert you own words and repeat as necessary for the next question.

    [ Parent ]

    KMarge, did you see the Milwaukee (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:33:33 AM EST
    Journal Sentinel editorial this morning? Our state's leading paper still seems to insist that -- surprise, surprise, after its primary coverage -- with the least nod to the possibility that the Clinton denial actually was a denial of any involvement. Yes, this will have long legs and become part of the pop meme, just like all of the other attacks on the Clintons, despite denials, refutals, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    What if there are? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:27:07 AM EST
    What happened to no religious test? I understand the need to denounce and reject Louis Farrakhan, but honestly in my last firm with over 250 lawyers and paralegals and other assorted support staff, I couldn't tell you the religious denomination of anyone outside my section and I only knew which ones were Jewish, come to think of it.

    In my current position with a Fortune 500 company, I don't know anyone's religious preference, except one typist, who is  a Jehovah's witness (and only because she was assisting me on a project involving an area where she said she remembered attending religious services in the arena).

    I think this goes too far.

    Next the GOP will be demanding Democrats denounce and reject all Wiccans, all Moslems of any type, all Santeria worshippers and so on ad infinitum.  

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:34:39 AM EST
    there's a difference between Islam and the Nation of Islam.  But still, I think it's verging a little too close to the line of race-baiting to go down that road.

    [ Parent ]
    You might just as well say (none / 0) (#26)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:38:46 AM EST
    the Klan or the Aryan nation have religious freedoms.

    I am sorry--I don't care if it's Obama OR Clinton, I have a problem with active members of the Nation of Islam working in a paid position on a democratic presidential campaign staff.  I seriously doubt I am the only democrat who thinks this way.  If this was Clinton, it would be a deal breaker for me. Absolutely.

    [ Parent ]

    I am not aware of the Klan (none / 0) (#36)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:08:44 AM EST
    being a religious sect other than being loosely identified as Christian. The Aryan Nation is supposed to be an arm of Christian Identity And yes they are entitled to religious freedom if they can pass the usual constitutional tests for what constitutes a religion. A test which gets into the sincerity of the belief- you can't claim to be a member of the 1st Church of Owsley and claim LSD is a sacrament and therefore the BOP must supply you with your sacrament so you can "worship" while you are incarcerated. I don't have time to look up the constitutional cases and caselaw so this explanation will have to do.

    I think NOI is likely to pass such a test. I don't expect either HRC or Obama to know the religions of their staff- particularly their low level staff. If such staff makes bigoted statements, then that can be addressed. You represent the campaign, you toe the line. What you do or think in private is your own problem.

    I don't think Christian Identity members will be volunteering for Democratic candidates. So I think you hypo to be far fetched.

    You are heading down a road you don't want to go. All witches must be denounced and rejected because of their views. Where does this end?

    I live and grew up in the deep South. My 90 year old dad is unquestionably bigoted (and Republican) in his views - we decided 25 years ago there are some subjects we don't discuss. Should I disown him?

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Where does this end (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:13:03 AM EST
    it seems to me it could end with denouncing people and sects that preach hate.
    like Farrakhan and is friends.

    [ Parent ]
    So I should denounce my 90 year old Dad? (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:30:34 AM EST
    Isn't denouncing and rejecting his views enough?

    Republicans will claim Moslems hate Christians and therefore need to be denounced and rejected and they will look for janitors who are on an independent contractor basis to claim the tie in.

    It should be enough for the candidate to denounce such views and if any staff makes bigoted public statements or acts upon hate should be dismissed. Private thoughts cannot be controlled by the candidates.

    This is a political campaign for political office. There is a reason we have a first amendment. The voters are being asked to support HRC or Obama and their platforms, not Louis Farrakhan or David Duke and theirs. What part of HRC's or Obama's position is the same as either Farrakhan's or David Duke's views?

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    will claim Moslems hate Christians (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:47:45 AM EST
    I dont really think thats true.
    well, they are republicans, so maybe.  but I think most people are capable of separating the Islamic religion and the Nation of Islam.

    [ Parent ]
    but too many equate (none / 0) (#43)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:53:52 AM EST
    Islamists with terrorists.

    My dentist, who is a great guy, very intelligent, and has a whole lotta common sense, told me that he didn't think he'd be voting for Obama because his middle name is Hussein.

    I asked him: what does the name his father gave him have to do with anything?

    He said that the fact that he still has the name was probably indicitive of his sympathies.

    I couldn't believe it.

    But, that's what we're dealing with here, folks.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree that all Muslims (1.00 / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:01:25 PM EST
    are not terrrorists.

    But of the current group of terrorists, all have been Muslim.

    That's the real issue that bother's people. And the fact us that Obama didn't actually disavow LF's endorsemdent.

    [ Parent ]

    I wonder how many people have (none / 0) (#48)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:10:49 AM EST
    given thought to the fact that Hussein is one of the most common names and surname within the Semites that in Arabic translates to good; small handsome one?

    [ Parent ]
    1st Church of Owsley ??? (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:25:42 AM EST
    lol....you must be tripping.

    [ Parent ]
    Squeaky! (none / 0) (#73)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM EST
    Me?!!!  

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Hahahahahaha (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:46:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So (none / 0) (#49)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:17:04 AM EST
    you are equating the Nation of Islam with the Klu Klux Klan?  I guess because Nation of Islam has a long history of lynching jews and white people?

    BTW, are there other groups that the political staffers of the Obama campaign staff can't be part of?  

    And who is the person on the staff that is a member of NoI?

    [ Parent ]

    let me say (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:38:33 AM EST
    I haved not verified this but I was talking yesterday about the crap junk mail that fills up my mailbox daily.
    as I said, I have not verified this but I got it yesterday and I am just passing in on:

    Obama employed and continues to employ several 'Nation Of Islam' members in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs.
    Mr. Obama placed Cynthia K. Miller, a member of the Nation of Islam, as the Treasurer of his U.S. Senate campaign.
    Jennifer Mason is also a member of the Nation of Islam. Mason is Obama's Director of Constituent Services in his U.S. Senate office and is also in charge of selecting Obama's Senate interns.
    Ms. Mason still holds her prominent Obama Senate staff position.

    **

    I am uncomfortable with the NOI.
    not equating them with the KKK.  simply saying I am not comfortable with the president having any close relations with this group.
    sall Im sayin.


    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:49:42 AM EST
    These people appear to be quite the scourge to society...

    http://www.cynthiakmiller.com

    You can just see the hate oozing from her.

    Can't find anything about Jennifer Mason other than a lot of really hateful blogs saying she is an NoI member.  

    I'm no fan of the NoI but do we really need to vet Obama's entire staff and find out what groups they belong to?  The NoI is not simply Farrakhan.

    [ Parent ]

    Um (none / 0) (#75)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:02:24 AM EST
    The SPLC has labeled the Nation of Islam as a "hate group."  I'm curious, how many of the SPLC's other hate groups would you apply the same standard to, such that if you found out someone was a member you'd say "gosh, what a silly thing to worry about, look at this pleasant-looking picture of the person I found on the Internet."

    [ Parent ]
    I know very little (none / 0) (#83)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    about the membership of the NoI.  I know what the NoI is and, specifically, what Farrakhan represents.  I find that loathsome.

    But I believe they have a fairly large membership role and I don't know what those members believe.

    [ Parent ]

    presumptively, (none / 0) (#101)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM EST
    if you identify yourself as a member of a group, any group, you agree with and identify with that groups policies and positions. otherwise, why bother?

    being part of the NoI isn't the same as being black or hispanic or caucasion, it requires you to commit an affirmative act.

    by definition, any adult member of the NoI is a believer, else they wouldn't be a member.

    i suppose some would claim they joined for the social aspects; all those wild parties farrakhan is known to throw at the mansion.

    probably not.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:03:49 PM EST
    all candidates' staff need to be vetted. It gives you an insight to where their heads are.

    [ Parent ]
    They are "black supremacist" (none / 0) (#68)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    in the same vein as "white supremacist".  They are a well-known racist organization.

    [ Parent ]
    I will.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    we all have a constitutional right to join the Klan or the Aryan nation or any other group....whether they preach love or hate.  I'm grateful for such rights.

    And if I applied for a job with a campaign and they asked me what my religion is or what groups I'm a part of on my time...I'd tell 'em to stick their job up their arse.

    In short, freedom means putting up with a lot of unsavory sh*t, and I wouldn't have it any other way.  

    [ Parent ]

    I wouldn't have it any other way (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    nor would I.
    that does not mean I want the president hanging with them.


    [ Parent ]
    and THAT (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:57:15 AM EST
    is also my right.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely.... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:14:35 PM EST
    you have the right to disqualify a candidate from your consideration for any reason.  But you seem to be suggesting that a candidate should be vetting the views of their employees and volunteers....that slope gets slippery.  Personally, I'd disqualify the candidate who demanded to know every little detail of their emoployees private lives....that's a tell-tale sign of a tyrant to me.  As long as the employee is on board with the candidate's platform and performs their duties for the campaign well...that should be enough for the candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey kdog (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:28:34 PM EST
    nice to see a familar face, eh??

    And no. These are high profile positions, and you have to assume that they have some influence on their boss, and vice versa. i.e. Look at Obama's presumptive NSA, Brzezinski, and you know where that puts him in respect to Israel.

    BTW - I'm out at the Commerece and may do a piece on it.

    [ Parent ]

    "I dont care if it's Obama (none / 0) (#111)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:21:23 PM EST
    OR Clinton.."

    Somwehow, Im less than convinced.

    [ Parent ]

    And what are they supposed (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    to do if someone lies about their affiliations, hire a detective to follow them around?

    If we're going to play six-degrees-from-the-candidate-I-dont-like, Im just as concerned about Hillary's ties to the Israeli Right (and Obama's too for that matter). But, that's a no-no topic. Here and everywhere else.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, we know (1.00 / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:05:37 PM EST
    you'd be concerned about ties to Israel.

    [ Parent ]
    David Sirota has a diary up (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:56:42 AM EST
    at DK including Obama campaign's statement in reaction to this.  Then Sirota says, I believe Obama campaign's latest statements and Obama never supported NAFTA (after he was in the Senate, that is).  Excellent parsing.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL, Sirota is yet (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM EST
    another in the line of utter hypocrites.

    Here's another article he wrote slamming Obama for supporting the Peru extension to NAFTA

    Link

    Some of these folks like to forget that we have the internets and the google ;-).

    [ Parent ]

    Used to get email from Sirota (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:36:10 AM EST
    every morning. Once he became another Obama convert and surrogate I unsubscribed. Guess he caught that flip-flop disease so prevalent in the press. I had thought him immune being so far removed from the beltway. "It must now be airborne." Where is Dustin Hoffman when he's needed?

    Never mind, obviously way too much caffeine.

    [ Parent ]

    a parable (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:54:34 AM EST
    I work for a game company so we are all about guns and explosions, death and destruction.  american pie stuff.
    anyway, yesterday a funny email came around from an artist who had built this huge cannon like gun just as he had been instructed.  it was gigantic and, may I say, looked magnificent.
    problem was our world is physics based and it turns out that it was so big that, forget firing it, if you kick it, it collapses  under its own weight.
    what do I do?
    I thought that was a parable worth sharing.
    my advise was to sell it to the pentagon.

    They would Buy it (none / 0) (#25)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:38:17 AM EST
    and have the company develop a bigger version

    [ Parent ]
    The Germans made a WW II tank that was too heavy (none / 0) (#28)
    by JSN on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:40:56 AM EST
    for roads and bridges.

    [ Parent ]
    George W. Bush Presidential Library (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 07:58:13 AM EST
    no books I notice

    The Library (none / 0) (#29)
    by themomcat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:41:39 AM EST
    has one book: "My Pet Goat".
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    Shelved upside-down (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:31:03 AM EST
    for historical authenticity.

    [ Parent ]
    hehe (1.00 / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:09:28 PM EST
    Wanna compare resumes??

    Bush two times Gov, two times Pres

    And your claim to fame??

    "Made snarky Bush remarks on blogs."

    hedhehehe

    [ Parent ]

    thoughts on Buckley (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:21:53 AM EST
    from Tengrain at mockpapersissors:

    When I was a tot, I used to try to understand the adult world by making similes to my world (I still do this, I think), and I decided that those Sunday AM talking head shows were actually cartoons for adults.
    I remember telling my parents about this, and then asking, plainly, what Buckley's super power was. "He can bore a man to death," my mother replied. My father, not to be outdone, shot back, "He can freeze his enemies with his eyes. Never look in his eyes, Tengrain"
    And thus began a life-long belief that Buckley is both boring and frightening.

    Vidal came on the Tonight Show (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 04:17:20 PM EST
    right after the guy from the San Diego Zoo had shown some reptiles and said: "I was going to bring my lizard with me, but he's over filming Firing Line tonight".

    [ Parent ]
    Gore Vidal... (none / 0) (#117)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:00:12 PM EST
    is a national treasure.

    [ Parent ]
    My favorite is different (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 05:13:07 PM EST
    When asked if he had "referred to Jesse Jackson as an ignoramus," Buckley said, "If I didn't, I should have."

    Buckley may have been a conservative celebrity, but there was a lot more to him than a bow tie and a sailboat.

    I would provide the source link to AC but you might accidently open it and I don't want your head to explode.

    [ Parent ]

    this is good (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:24:34 AM EST
    from Josh Marshall:

    Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

    The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

    And they were telling the truth (none / 0) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:22:32 AM EST
    both Hillary and Obama said nothing but empty rhetoric about NAFTA in that debate.  

    They both promised to "renegotiate".  Utterly meaningless. How exactly a President would pull us out of a ratified treaty I'm not exactly sure.

    [ Parent ]

    They can do it (none / 0) (#81)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 11:20:33 AM EST
    easily if they are willing to take the political consequences. Bush has done it.
    Apparently it is not clear what role Congress plays in this and the Supreme Court refused to rule on it when Carter withdrew from the Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty.
    Makes our treaties pretty meaningless.

    [ Parent ]
    They won't do it.... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    not because of treaty obligations, but because big business loves NAFTA.  And that is who Obama, Clinton, or McCain will govern for...all empty totally full of sh*t rhetoric aside.

    If you want something done about NAFTA, Nader is your horse.  

    [ Parent ]

    Warning! Alert! (none / 0) (#22)
    by themomcat on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:32:14 AM EST
    You really need to put up a major warning on your snarky posts. I has coffee coming out my nose and barely had time to turn away from the computer.
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    Obama's lack of subcommittee hearings (none / 0) (#23)
    by katiebird on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:33:47 AM EST
    I thought it was interesting the way Hillary just dropped that fact into the debate.  And that Obama's  explanation was accepted as reasonable.

    There's been some discussion about it in the comments here.  And I've seen a couple diaries at MyDD about it.

    But, is it (could it be) an issue that will make a difference?

    I assume he accepted the (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:06:34 AM EST
    committee chair to boost his "foreign policy experience".

    However, doing nothing with it is worse, IMHO than not holding the chair at all.

    He needs to resign it, so someone can come in and turn it into a functioning committee.

    And BTW, if he didn't have time for it because he's campaigning, one wonders how he can manage the job of president, which is far more difficult than campaigning.

    [ Parent ]

    "Obama: Not a Multitasker"? (nt) (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:32:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Dealbreaker... (none / 0) (#52)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    or it ought to be.  Just imagine if it were Hillary instead of Obama.  People would go absolutely nuts.  On the other hand, I can't imagine her in such a spot.  She'd be calling meetings left and right.

    John McCain will eat him alive over this one issue if the subcommittee was, as I've heard, supposed to provide oversight hearings on Afghanistan...but hasn't for an entire year of its existence.  Meanwhile, Afghanistan has gone from bad to worse while everybody remained fixed on Iraq.

    If that doesn't give serious people pause, I don't know what will.

    [ Parent ]

    Good luck with that (none / 0) (#57)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:32:16 AM EST