Just don't overdo the "unity" stuff: I am definitely nowhere near, at this point, to becoming a fellow traveller with Republicans, regardless how "prgressive" -- or "reformer" -- they claim to be. (Palin's "reform" has been replaced with "progress" and "progressive". Yeah: her effort is to clothe the far-right religonut lunatic fringe in the term "progressive" -- still "stealthing," still LYING against the mainstream.)

2. Where is the EVIDENCE that he was qualified, beyond merely being a "reserve officer," to identify guns?

3. Same question of the UNIDENTIFIED "businessman".

4. What in hell relevance has a "graduate degree in engineering" to the issue? IF such a person and degree existed?

99 per cent of the conspirabunk generated since 11/22/63 is the equivalent of FOX's, "Many people say!"

You're an expert at calling it. And perhap even at identifying it, being as you are a troll/bullshitter.
_____

We already know there were two brains examined during the days following Kennedy's autopsy: The real one on November 25th, and the fake one between November 29th and December 2, 1963.
_____

According to whom? Countless cottage-industry denizens who WEREN'T THERE?
_____

The existence of a cover-up to blame Oswald for the death of Kennedy is indisputable.
_____

If it were "indisputable" it wouldn't be in dispute. Back at reality: it is not only in dispute, but every time "suppressed evidence that proves conspiracy" is released it refutes the ginmned-up conspirabunk that filled in for the "suppressed evidence".
_____

This new analysis pretends to recreate John F. Kennedy wounds to determine through blood splatter analysis where he was shot from,
_____

The analysis is based in large part upon the EVIDENCE of how the blood splatter IN DALLAS on 11/22/63.
_____

but the Parkland doctors and military Bethesda doctors have wildly disagreed as to the nature of the throat wound, for example,
_____

And the Parkland hospital attending medical personnel explained it: the wound was widened by them in the effort to save JFK's life.

There isn't any mystery about it UNLESS one ignores the testimony of those who were actually there in preference for this or that ALLEGED witness testimony made up by denizens of the cottage industry.
_____

and many witnesses have said to have seen a wide wound to the rear of Kennedy's back, as opposed to the front, which is the official story.
_____

So far, we have the EVIDENCE of the official story, in contrast to which we only have SPECULATION -- i.e., CONSPIRABUNK ffrom amatuers with innumerable axes to grind, beginning with Mark Lane.

Did "Award winning[LEFTIST] Mother Jones' blogger Jonathan Stein" INTERVIEW Obama on the issue?

I thought not.

What was that YOU posted about YOUR use of RUMORS to fuel YOUR trolling on TPM, "truthseeker"/BULLSHITTER?

Probelematic only for defense lawyers wanting to use such to delay, delay, delay.

But hardely insurmountable. Torture is a war crime Constitutionally, under domestic Federal law which has not been repealeed or amended, and under treaties and international law.

Treaties are part of the law of the land. The law of the land is the Constitution.

Congress cannot by itself amend the Constitution.

Neither can the Executive.

Neither could all three branches agreeing to do so.

A pile of "complexifying" details have been piled up. But actually the road through those is quite directly over them.

Meanwhile, everyone who reads the drama-queen hystrionics which compares discrimination against "gay"s as equal to Dred Scott or even slavery, should be offended by the self-serving intellectual dishonesties used to push the agenda.

There is civil -- non-"religiously"-enangled -- marriage., It is exactly the same as so-called "civil unions"; it's an issue of semantics.

Oops -- it's an issue of "ME!"-ist hystrionics.

Allowing "gay marriage" will "end" all bigotry --

as if, yet again, the only issue obstructing human progress and delaying universal Nirvana and Utopia is opposition to every little "gay" interest and demand. The sky is falling, and we all need to hand-wring, because "gays" insist on making their "orientation" a public issue, and then bitching that everyone else is making it a public issue.

The rancid hypocrisy -- bigotry -- is overwhelmingly nauseating.

And some of us were speaking out against the Bushit criminal enterprise beginning 11/5/2000.

How "heroic" of you to finally speak up beginning in 2006, once you were certain it was safe for you and yours to do so, and boast of it. Some of us never had the luxury of waiting, or even considered doing so, because Constitution, rule of law, and right in keeping with those transcend self-interest.

I have no idea where I was when the OJ and Rodney King verdicts wer announced. Perhaps I was watching TV, perhaps not.

Hardly momentous for most of us who were alive and aware during JFK and MLK, Jr. assassinations. And, frankly, not to be bracketed in the same category as somehow "funny".

Was it the "Dems" who ordered it, or was it CONGRESS acting OFFICIALLY?

I don't know if Johs rmemebers, but TPM was one of/the first place other than the FL Sec. of State's site for on-point information about the ongoing election battle post 11/4/2000.

And the only one which was interactive and "cutting-edge" in the on-point effort to stay on top of the second-by-second changes going on during that hellish period.

"TPM" was small then -- but has grown appreciably since. And amid all that Josh has gifted with a brand-new little one who should be walking by now.

Again, congrats, Josh! And "Many Happy Returns," as the conventional (or Ted Berrigan) would say.

And he's allowed to vote? Then send him to FL where he won't be!

In FL, the scenario was similar: one had an oval next to the D candidate's name; and oval next to the D's name; and a line under those for write-in. In some instances the oval next to Gore's name was filled in, AND his name was written in on the blank line. To Rs that was a BAD vote.

Ultimately, it stands to reason -- as the law reflects -- that if one can discern voter intent, it's a good vote. It's that uncomplicated.

Methinks Coleman is 8 years and a blizzard of votes short of a full ballot box in this instance. The D Sec. of State will keep it honest, and the courts will hold against Coleman. Franken will likely win.

Totally selfless. Gratuitously slefless, even, considerin'.

1. The Republican base has shrunk significantly as result of 11/4.

2. Rudy is Catholic -- which is in the general neighborhood of monarchy, Communism, socialism, and everything anti-red white and blue.

3. In 2012 he'll be 900 years old, which is almost ass old as McSenile.

4. Pluses: he's divorced and remarried, and has no social graces.

How's it goin' for Franken?

Obama is sending folks to GA for the run-off . . .

Bullshit. I've been a civil rights activist for fifty years, and have yet to see and LGBT support for any civil rights other than their own -- though they will accept support for their's from everyone else.

There is simply no comparison between, on one hand, African-Americans, and on the other, LGBT, in the willingness to engage in mutual support.

Nor is the comparison to Dred Scott other than blindly self-centered, and in insultingly poor taste: Dred Scott was a free man denied his freedom and given back into SLAVERY. He was denied his full humanity. There is no comparable history for "gays," and it is self-aggrandizing drama-queening to make such a comparison. (And I'll bet you reject the anti-choice faction invoking Dred Scott in their arena.)

I'm as opposed to "gradualism" as anyone; but comparisons of "gay"'s current circumstances -- you aren't slaves and aren't at risk of being enslaved, or returned to slavery -- to that of Dred Scott is absurdly arrogant and self-pitying.

A female sexist whiner who REFUSES to grow up and stop living in her bitter-bitch past.

I'm wondering if simply ignoring the whiner will cause her to STFU and sulk in silence, in view of the fact she clearly refuses to be constructive even though not all humans aren't female.

We already know that Obama listens to ALL points of view in order to inform himself BEFORE making decisions. Who is at the table does not prefigure the decision.

So this particular post is a wind-egg pretending to be a pregnancy.