Okay, take the same argument and remove the words you find offensive. Hell, remove all reference to McCurry altogether. Take a look at what Matt wrote. The points being made by the telecom representatives are patently false and misleading. That's what's important here.
What's the logical argument for taking them out of the equation though? It's not as if either of them was just elected or switched parties. In years past, with both of them in the Senate Democratic caucus, Republicans still got the majority of donations. It's a slight shift, but it's still a shift.
In case I didn't make it clear in my review, as the title of this post shows (you'll understand when you see the film), 'An Inconvenient Truth' is actually really funny. The crowd I saw it with, of course, is probably more open to Al Gore's personal brand of humor than most, but there were more than a few spots that had everyone laughing out loud.
Heh. Weren't Atrios and Mike saying the same thing? Three qualifies as "a number," right? Besides, forgetting the fact that it would be really strange, how do I know that ZamboniGuy isn't in reality actually a number of commenters posting as a committee?
Well, something was going to push down Chris's post eventually. It's not like I posted it 15 minutes later. And the irony of the juxtaposition wasn't lost on me. That's one of the reasons I tried my best to make the post about more than just Glover and myself.
And as both you and Matt have mentioned, it's not as if journalistic laziness is some shocking new concept. That's why this whole thing is so strange to me.
I didn't quote selectively from the Bloomberg piece. It's been updated and lengthened to reflect the actual Iranian comments from the AP story. It's also worth noting that Drudge pulled the headline and the link, both from his front page and his headlines archive. I'd be lying if I said I didn't hope I had something to do with that.
While I'm not going to get into all of this, which I think is about on the level of a late-night morality debate between drunk college kids, is it really so hypocritical to hope that American soldiers -- our friends, friends' children, relatives, and loved ones -- come back alive? That they, while carrying out a policy we may disagree with, manage to keep their senses and don't come back emotionally and mentally damaged? That they know there are people at home who deeply care about them and their well-being? Because that's called supporting the troops, and I don't think there's anything at all wrong with it.
Many people who are not nativists or racists throw up their hands in confusion over immigration policy. None of the options discussed in the political arena represent good policy right now, and none will emerge while Republicans control either side of Capitol Hill.
Such an important point. This is why I keep pushing the need for context in the debate, rather than endorsing one proposal versus another. Of course, every time I post anything about immigration, I'm still accused of being for open borders and against protection for workers even though neither has a thing to do with anything I've ever written. People bring serious baggage to this debate and too often refuse to listen to any rational discussion that doesn't support their position.