Recent Activity
Search BL Rag
Powered by Squarespace
About This Site

The BL RAG is dedicated to the idea of free expression, thus we welcome and encourage reader  commentary on current events and issues, music, sports, or other topics of interest, no matter what one's political leanings or worldview.


Site Management:

Front Page Section Editors: Machiavelli, Skinnydipinacid, and Redbeard

Miscellanea Editor: Zoy Clem

Poetry Editor: Lenny

Music Editors: see schedule below


Site Editors: Skinnydipinacid and Zoy Clem

Maintenance Man: Master Admin Dude


Eric Olsen, Fornax, GrayRider, Winston, Jimmmco, and WesMorgan1


KRAG Music Section Schedule:

Sunday - Jgeagle5

Monday - Rhythm & Truth

Tuesday - Machiavelli

Wednesday - GrayRider

Thursday - Skinny

Friday - Fornax

Saturday - Zoy Clem

On-call - Schwabman

« NYC Looks to Expand Food Bans Even Further | Main | Weekend Open Thread »

Congressman King Accuses Obama Of Security Leaks


Recent security leaks of classified intelligence information have been of great concern in Washington D.C.. New York Republican Representative Peter King is accusing the Obama administration of purposely leaking the information in order to bolster his image of being tough on terrorism.

He's trying to be like George Patton or John Wayne," Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News.

Further fueling the matter is Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to appoint two U.S. Attorneys to look into the leaks rather than using outside investigators. 

Some Republican lawmakers have questioned whether the attorneys assigned by Holder will be able to act independently of the Obama administration. King added his voice to those skeptics Sunday, questioning what kinds of powers those attorneys might have should they come across wrongdoing. 

If King's accusation are false, this could be a career killer for him. But, if true, the consequences would prove to be a greater disaster for the president.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (113)

Shorter KwAwk and Winston: "Oh, yeah? Well, Obama ain't so bad, because... because... er... because... BUUUUUSH [fill in the blank].

Maybe we should go back and use Millard Fillmore as a presidential counterpoint.

June 12, 2012 at 17:33 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Redbeard - Contrary to what some people believe American history didn't start in January of 2009.

Millard Fillmore is an interesting substitute for Bush. He was the last Whig President. Supported expansion of slavery and in fact signed the Compromise of 1850 including Fugitive Slave Act. Was a prominent member of the Know Nothings who opposed immigration especially by Germans and Irish Catholics. Opposed Lincoln during the civil war and supported the appeasement of the South after the Civil War.

Generally regarded as being one of the 10 worst President in US history.

I love Wikipedia.

June 12, 2012 at 18:13 | Registered Commenterkwawk

So... you really are going with The Fillmore Gambit. This should be very entertaining.

June 12, 2012 at 18:15 | Unregistered Commenter1RedBeard

Actually, the most entertaining aspect of this entire election will be watching the Stuttering Clusterf*ck of a Miserable Failure receive the list prestigious eviction notice in the free world, then watching him and the Wookie drag their sorry asses onto Marine One for the ignominious flight back here to Shitholistan, where they'll finally settle into that nice lite crib Tony made possible for him back in the days when they were so certain the bitter clingers could be won over with just the right amount of leftist bullshit.

June 12, 2012 at 18:25 | Unregistered CommenterMy Sharia Moor

"PETER KING: 'Worse than Watergate'..."

That popping noise you hear is dems heads exploding all over the nation.

June 12, 2012 at 18:31 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

They could even throw the "Welcome Home" party at Bill Ayers's house.

June 12, 2012 at 18:35 | Unregistered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Millard Fillmore is an interesting substitute for Bush.

Fillmore and Bush??? Really???

You DO realize that the Democrats formed the KKK to fight Republican policies, don't you?

Pretty sad political comparison.

June 12, 2012 at 18:48 | Registered CommenterGrayRider

Sorry Gray, the whole Fillmore/Bush substitution was Redbeard's idea.

June 12, 2012 at 21:02 | Registered Commenterkwawk

...and KwAwk still doesn't get the point.

June 13, 2012 at 06:28 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

June 12th. On this date in history;

Ronald Reagan- "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall."

Barack Obama-" The Republicans ordered a steak dinner and ran."

Reagan is in the top five presidents of all time. Barack Obama will be seen as possibly the worst. On this there is no debate.

June 13, 2012 at 06:47 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Off topic, but only slightly:

The new (same old, but more out in the open) face of the Democrat Party - Charles Barron.

What a lovely guy.

Now, let's sit back and wait for our leftie buddies to say that the problem with that story is the blog outfit reporting it. [insert rolling eyes here]

June 13, 2012 at 07:05 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

This cartoon would be a great Romney campaign poster.

June 13, 2012 at 07:21 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

That's racist, Thomas. You know the big nose means... no, wait... big nose cartoons are for bashing Jews. Well the big ears certainly... no, that doesn't fit either. Aha! The skin color must be raci... er... what's that? He really IS that color, so using any other skin tone would be silly? Ok, never mind.

Well, anyway, since it's critical of the Liar-in-Chief, we know that the cartoon just HAS to be racist in nature. Just HAS to be.

June 13, 2012 at 07:44 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

CORRECTION: When I posted

Thomas Miller is a geyserific Firehouse of Bullshit™ and he never shows the slightest embarrassment about it.

what I meant to say was that he is a FireHOSE of Bullshit. And never shows the slightest embarrassment about it.

It also doesn't embarrass him to refer to North Carolina's African-American voters as "the Hood" but that's to be expected when someone shares the front-and-center Foremost Preoccupation of Wingnuttia.

June 13, 2012 at 09:56 | Registered CommenterWinston

Red - The point is you wish to disavow Bush and not have to take responsibility for all of his destructive poliicies and incompetance, and you wish Obama would quit bringing up the disaster that Republicans wrought the last time they were given the riegns of the country which also happened to be the first time in almost 60 years.

In any case, we're now on day II of this conversation. Anybody care to take a stab at answering my questions, first about why right wingers choose to go back time and time again to news sources that have been proven to be trying to mislead them, and second why do right wingers celebrate misinformation and ignorance ala Sarah Palin and third why do right wingers hold Demcoratic office holders to such a higher standard that Republicans?

June 13, 2012 at 09:56 | Registered Commenterkwawk

KwAwk, please tell us what quote from Charles Barron is incorrect. If the quotes were correct, then please tell us how Yid was trying to mislead us.

Also, please tell us why you simply choose not to believe top Democrat strategist Pat Caddell. Did Fox misquote him? If not, please tell us how Fox was trying to mislead us.

June 13, 2012 at 10:18 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

I find skwawks comments begrudging us for going back to the same news sources interesting. I don't know how old you are skwawk but I've been alive long enough to have lived through several decades of having nothing but left leaning news sources to get my news from. It wasn't what they presented in the news that was so bad it was what they didn't present. There was an obvious propensity to report news in a manner that supported their underlying belief systems. And/or at least not do too much damage to their basic world view. How did I know this since their was no Limbaugh back then. There was no Foxnews back then. There was no internet with conservative blogs or conservative online news analyses such as National Review Online or The American Spectator. I didn't even subscribe to conservative magazines or newsletters that could be received by mail. Hmmmm, how could I have known how slanted the MSM was. Well, all you have to do is listen. Not hard to do if you have a mind to.
There have since been many studies done in recent years to show this bias does exist. Better than 70 percent (likely much higher) of journalists in these media outlets admit to voting democrat and supporting the democrat party in general and some are beginning to admit that their bias has and does affect how they cover the news. I mean, I mean just check out the schools these assholes are coming out of.
So why do I keep going back to MY sources of choice. Hmmmm, I dunno.... :-)

I could line up the stats for you but I know it would do no good. For as you accuse us, I find that it is YOU not me who refuses to listen to reason and facts.

You have made a big deal out of obama's killing of osama in this thread. I guess the policy's put in place by President Bush which surely served in helping to bring about that take down mean nothing to you. Certainly haven't heard anything from you about the previous administrations role in the matter. I do recall hearing much from you - and windy and others of your ilk - about the previous administrations role in our current and ongoing economic crises though. Surely you can forgive me if your objectivity on these issues totally escapes me.

June 13, 2012 at 10:33 | Registered CommenterTijuana

"Joy Behar Wants to See Romney's House Burn Down: 'Who's He Going to Call, the Mormon Fire Patrol?'"

"TV Land to Cut Don Rickles' Obama Joke From Shirley MacLaine AFI Tribute"

What is good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander. What we must understand is that some things are tolerable while others are not.

June 13, 2012 at 10:52 | Registered CommenterTijuana

KwAwk, please tell us what quote from Charles Barron is incorrect. If the quotes were correct, then please tell us how Yid was trying to mislead us.

I would say that you seem to be trying to portray a neighborhood dispute with a very small time politician with mainstream thought in the Democratic Party. Nobody knows who Charles Barron is, and probably never will, but they dig deep to find a city councilman and try to convince you that what he says actually matters to anybody outside of Crown Heights, New York.

And aside from the Pat Caddell declaration, what evidence is there that any specific person was the source of any leaks? It may be true and it may not be true, but a responsible news agency wouldn't print such allegations without a credible second source.

Aside from that did Hannity bother to tell you that Caddell left the Democratic party in 1988 (thats 24 years ago BTW) and hasn't been involved in a winning national capaign since 1976? Hannity would like you to believe that Caddell is a loyal and trusted Democrat who's just gotten angry with Obama, but Caddell has been attacking Democrats for years, even attacking Democrats for their position on Terry Schiavo.

June 13, 2012 at 11:20 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Yeh' Winston I'm the first person to ever refer to the "Hood" in context of anything associated with minorities. Your ignorance of this isn't surprising to anyone but yourself. If I was the first I would do the 'TM" insignia like a certain dumbfuck's posts I skim occasionally.

June 13, 2012 at 12:28 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Aside from that did Hannity bother to tell you that Caddell left the Democratic party in 1988...

Do you have a source for this claim?

June 13, 2012 at 12:50 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

The basis for the claim comes from Caddell's Wikipedia entry.

I can't watch videos on this computer, but at the link below is a clip of Caddell on Cavuto's show talking of the Democratic Party as his former party.

June 13, 2012 at 14:19 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Thanks, Tijuana for sharing your feelings about wingnut media, and I mean that quite sincerely. What interests me and what I think is revealing is how rare it is that rightwingers will actually defend their propaganda outlets on their own terms—actually, they virtually never even try. They attack the supposed Liberal Media instead, and insist that—since actual news organizations distort reality so badly—they’re entitled to sources of “news” and “information” that reflect their own “reality.” The bald falseness of so much of the disinformation and half-truths and flat-out bullshit they take in daily from these Resentment Generators (a good deal of it’s really quite loony) is a feature, not a bug: they also get to take offense and feel persecuted and act victimized when others ridicule them for the version of “reality” they choose to “believe.”

My point is this: it IS, very definitely, a choice. To believe nonsense, I mean, and to insist that you really DO literally believe the most obvious nonsense—in some ways, the more obvious, the better. I used to pity people who “knew” so much that wasn’t true, until I realized, they are complicit in—hell, they’ve engineered—their own stupidity. They like it. They want it. They seek it out. They are complicit in anti-science, climate change denial, evolution denial, tax myths, urban fairy tales, rightwing zombie fables, outrages perpetrated by the Other(s), you name it. They’re the same people who insisted they believed Procter & Gamble was run by the Devil, challenging sane people to argue with them. They’re like Tom: Firehoses of Bullshit™. For them, Truthiness will always be more important than accuracy.

People of the Lie.

June 13, 2012 at 15:00 | Registered CommenterWinston

Uh oh. Winston is nearing the edge again. Someone get a rope around him, and hold him back.

June 13, 2012 at 15:12 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

I'd like to thank TJ too for his response, because I think it is honest and forthright.

TJ -- How I look at it is this way. I used to listen to Limbaugh a bit back in the early 90's and what I heard from Limbaugh then pretty much matches up pretty much with what you're saying almost 20 years later. The what Limbaugh was saying back in the early 90s may have been true. That there may have been a significant liberal bias to the mainstream media, but after 20 years of Limbaugh complaining and 20 years of the MSM working to correct liberal bias and present more conservative viewpoints and scrum liberal leanings out of news if you listen to Limbaugh today you're getting the exact same arguments as you were getting in 1992.

Why is that? Because a big part of Limbaugh's appeal and his success and his niche is convincing listeners that he's an outsider who presents what others refuse to offer, says what others refuses to say. But over the past 20 years as more and more conservative voices have been added to mainstream news, Limbaugh has had to move further and futher to the right to set himself apart and to maintain the illusion that he's still special and or the real outsider daring to speak the truth.

While he may have been speaking the truth in 1992 he's now at a point where he has to exaggerate his own views and exaggerate the bias of the MSM in order to maintain an illusion.

And most right wing talkers follow the Limbaugh model.

June 13, 2012 at 15:51 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Romney now ahead in Wisconsin. Btw Obama won Wisconsin by 14 pts. in 2008.

"The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Romney with 47% of the vote to Obama’s 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) "

The next five months are going to be tough on the dems. As they recoil farther back into their mental fetal position with the realization that the 'the dream' is over and Obama; "The Worst President Ever" is one-term, Prezzie. I'm personally going to enjoy the rants here and at other sites for the reason this happened. We can guess beforehand the low hanging fruit of Citizens United, Bush, Bush, Bush, The Republican House, Greece, Koch Brothers and the list goes on and on. Any excuse in a shit storm they say. The joy will be the hysteria and keeping sharp objects away from them when it does settle in. My guess for the die-hards it’s October 1st. The political astute dems like Carville already see it's probably over.

June 13, 2012 at 16:11 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller


We could go 150 comments strong on the left-wing radio idiots on XM. I'm sure you perceive their model as pristine, intellectually superior, moderate in tone and balanced with the understanding by their brilliance they 'just' no what's good for us. Of course this is the forum where Republican women are called whores, bitches and cunts, Republicans as a whole are all racists (gee I wonder who listens to that here) and violence against Republicans is ok in the context for which it's applied. Btw, burning down a Republicans house once in awhile is ok to. You know, all moderate stuff compared to Limbaugh or Hannity.

June 13, 2012 at 16:20 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

See what he does there?

June 13, 2012 at 17:20 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

See what he does there?

What...state the truth?

June 13, 2012 at 17:56 | Registered CommenterGrayRider

Actually we couldn't go 150 comments on the left wing talkers on XM radio simply because there is nobody on the left in talk radio or otherwise who comes close to being as influential as Rush Limbaugh is on the right.

The other reason is that there is nobody in talk radio on the left that I would defend to the end of the earth.

And TM, you've got talk radio people on the right every bit as hateful and mean spirited as anybody on the left if not more so. Michael Savage and Laura Ingram come to mind. And in the blogosphere there is the queen Michelle Malkin.

June 13, 2012 at 20:19 | Registered Commenterkwawk

See what he does there?

What? Change the topic and go into attack mode when the conversation hits a little too close to home?

June 13, 2012 at 20:20 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Oh' please; the pity party ("see what he does there" sniff, sniff. kwawk by inference tries to glue a halo to left-wing radio zealots and when I expose that for b.s. I get the parade of Malkin, Ingraham (really?) and Savage I told you so's. I agree that no left-wing radio announcer has the influence of Limbaugh. That's due to the fact left-wing radio is a failure by its negative, mean-spirited anti-American nature. People hate it. So you get ratings for clowns like Ed Schultz that number in the thousands. Yawn... Left-wing bias in any medium fails unless it's propped up or supported by other programming to cover its loss. Bill Maher gets a couple hundred thousand viewers on a Friday night and should have been kicked off HBO five years ago for terrible ratings but his left-wing politics dovetails with HBO, so they carry him. It's a vanity show. Not unlike Prezzie # 44.

Btw don't call Barry "cool." That's racist according to the Congressional Black Caucus. Of course Michelle Obama calls Barry "cool." Awkward. And of course that front page picture in Ebony calling Barry our "cool" President is hard to explain. And just forget the Hollywood actors and actresses that have called Barry "cool." For everyone else, it's a racist term.

June 14, 2012 at 06:41 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

. . . the forum where Republican women are called whores, bitches and cunts, Republicans as a whole are all racists . . . and violence against Republicans is ok . . . Btw, burning down a Republicans house once in awhile is ok to.

Tom’s been listening to NPR again I see . . .

June 14, 2012 at 09:27 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

And I love the implication that Time Warner the owners of HBO are a left wing propaganda outfit who subsidized Bill Maher for the purposes of converting us to their communist ideology. I bet we'll hear next that they're incorporated in Berkeley.

I suppose it's meaningless that a couple of hundreds of thousands of viewers translates into $3-$5 million dollars in revenues a month for Time Warner.

June 14, 2012 at 09:41 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Joy Behar is on NPR? I had no idea.

June 14, 2012 at 09:43 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Y‘know, speaking of Behar, it’s kinda sad seeing you folks and the Puke Funnel pull out all the stops to put out bullshit this nakedly desperate. Romney scorned the President for wanting to hire more firefighters, cops, and teachers, and Behar ridiculed him back—by asking whether the Mormon Fire Patrol would save “one of his million houses” from burning down. Torturing that question into “Chairman of the DNC Joy Behar wants to burn Romney’s house to the ground” is quite a ridiculous stretch.

Re-electing the President won’t be a cakewalk. But as Charles Pierce says

last time I checked, he was still running against a truly remarkable liar possessed of all the glowing personal charisma of a proctological procedure.

At various times Romney’s called three different states home, Michigan, Massachusetts, and California, and he won’t carry a single one of them in November. Now what’s that tell ya? The more AMERCIA sees of Colossal Dick, the less they’re going to like him.

June 14, 2012 at 10:40 | Registered CommenterWinston

You've forgotten his fourth home, Paris, France. Could you imagine the fun Limbaugh, Hanninty and Coulter would have had with John Kerry if instead of going to Vietnam he'd have gone off to live in Paris for two years to live the life of a humble missionary eating cheese and learning the fine art of dressage horses?

Where are you Rush? Where are you Ann? Where are you Sean?

I thought the worst thing that could happen to America was to elect some pansy elite European wannabe?

What's that you say? Nothing?

June 14, 2012 at 10:58 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Ha ha ha, I did forget Paris. Like their nominee, Nooshans have no principles, something you can tell from their comical double standards.

June 14, 2012 at 11:05 | Registered CommenterWinston

Oddly, wealth was not a pejorative when you two blabbermouths were supporting John Kerry. But hey, if you're short on weapons to use against Romney, I suppose you must trot out the class envy.

And just for the record, for the illumination of such dim bulbs as Joy Behar and Winston, firefighters, cops, and schoolteachers are supposed to be state and local issues, not federal. I'm not surprised you can't grasp that, since that lousy old Constitition is written in such terribly difficult language. I mean, really, no mere mortal could possibly understand such arcane wording as this: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Boy, howdy. That sure is confusing, ain't it?

June 14, 2012 at 11:15 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Gee whiz, how come it's only class envy when our side does it?

June 14, 2012 at 11:27 | Registered Commenterkwawk

I couldn't have cared less about Kerry's money. He didn't steal it. It's his.

Try again.

June 14, 2012 at 12:08 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Well, there are a lot of people on the right that do care about it. The term Limosene Liberal didn't invent itself.

June 14, 2012 at 12:26 | Registered Commenterkwawk

"My point is this: it IS, very definitely, a choice. To believe nonsense, I mean, and to insist that you really DO literally believe the most obvious nonsense—in some ways, the more obvious, the better."

I appreciate yours and skwawks responses to my post windy. I recognize that many of my own personal beliefs and/or worldview are born out of a Judeo-Christian background that believes their is such a thing as sin and right and wrong - not nonsense. That moral values are not only worthwhile but integral to a sense of decency - not nonsense. And no we do not always get it right but most of us are trying really hard to do the right thing- not nonsense. Maybe that is where the rub comes in. What I think is right and what you think is right are quite simply worlds apart. For me, I think St Paul had it right when he said in 1st Corinthians, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am." - not nonsense.

Heavy stuff I know. That dark glass can be a real "pisser," for both of us. Well, at least for one of us. Guess which one?? :-) As I "see it."

BTW, I rarely listen to Limbaugh or Hannity or any of the shows of that kind. I agree with their stance in general but do not feel the need to be pumped up or reaffirmed by them on a daily basis. I am glad that they are there however. Makes me feel like "Radio Free America" is alive and well as it did not exist for so very, very long. Very comforting.

I am confident that obama will lose in November and that things will take a slight turn in the "right" direction. But if time has taught me anything, it will only be temporary and this country will eventually turn back to it's current path and eventually self destruct. I believe our gradual descent into a secular, amoral, entitlement society has already reached a point from which there is no return. The children will burn it all down before they'll let what they feel is their due be taken away from them. This time I truly hope that I am so very wrong.

June 14, 2012 at 13:19 | Unregistered CommenterTijuana

I tuned into Limbaugh today and he told me that the real cause of the problems in this country are that taxes are too high, we have too much of a welfare state, businesses are being choked by regulations and Democrats want strip out the second amendment.

No wait, that was 1992, my mistake.

June 14, 2012 at 13:35 | Registered Commenterkwawk

All that was true in 1992, and is true now, KwAwk. Why do you have so much trouble understanding the basics?

Secondly, the term Limousine Liberal is aimed at hypocrites, not rich people. It's a rather crucial distinction, actually.

And lastly, thanks to Tijuana for that excellent post.

June 14, 2012 at 14:03 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Yes, TJ thank you for the response I'll write back later when I have the time.

Red - Tax revenues right now are the lowest since WWII and have been for the past 3 years. We've spent the past 20 years deregulating industry, cutting wasteful government spending, the welfare system has been reformed, cutting taxes, and have even allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire without any plans to replace it, yet the rhetoric that comes out of the right hasn't changed one iota. Why is that?

Remember that great joke from Steven Colbert made about George W. Bush? To paraphrase: here is a man who believes the exact same thing on Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday.....

June 14, 2012 at 14:30 | Registered Commenterkwawk

KwAwk, I have no idea where you get your tax revenue ideas, but it's probably the same source that tells you the rest of that utter nonsense.

Sorry to be so blunt here, but you are the very type of person, operating on feelings and not facts nor common sense, who is helping to push this country off the cliff and bring about the collapse that Tijuana spoke about.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go clean my assault weapon. Not that you would even know one if you saw one.

June 14, 2012 at 14:49 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

lol Red, I spent 6 years in the Marine Reserves including 7 months in Iraq. I've probably shot more assault weapons than you have. And I've actually used them for what they're intended for.

In any case, my tax numbers come from the taxpolicycenter which indicates that government revenues are hovering at or near 15% of GDP and have been since 2009. Prior to 2009 government revenues haven't been less than 16% of GDP since 1943. Sounds like you're basing your analysis on feelings as opposed to me.

June 14, 2012 at 15:10 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Wow, excellent post from Tijuana and I appreciate the spirit in which it is offered. I also am convinced sin exists and that right and wrong exist as well, that we can’t live as humans without moral values, and I agree most people try hard to do right. And while I can’t say whether your conception of right behavior and mine, are worlds apart, I will tell you one thing; a few things are unquestionably wrong and evil and torture is one of them.

Torture is wrong and evil like human slavery is wrong and evil: without any reservation, conditions, exceptions or conceivable justification, ever, period. Every religious or spiritual tradition says so. If you can find one that doesn’t, I categorically reject it as a moral system.

I take it as reflecting (the best) conservatives’ own discomfort that they won’t talk about torture with the moral seriousness it demands—i.e., they revert to trivializing jokes like “it’s torture making me listen to Al Franken.” These are the BEST conservatives, who understand, however vaguely, this stuff is dead serious, completely indefensible, and a blot on one's soul.

Yes, I have a huge beef with Holder and Obama over this. To me, people who insist some moral values are absolute, have to agree on this. Otherwise they are actually moral relativists. Torture is wrong and always will be under every circumstance. It’s barbaric behavior even animals don't engage in.

June 14, 2012 at 15:30 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

One of the Right's enduring myths is that they act on the basis of the facts while liberals act on their feelings. Quite the opposite is true, as we see here: kwAwk is right and Redbeard is wrong.

If conservatives actually had a constructive relationship with the factual world, they wouldn't need to create an entire TV channel devoted to spouting nonsense and ginning up resentment against scapegoats and label it, absurdly, "news."

The irony: On this channel, nothing really new ever happens. Every day it's the same old story, just the way its consumers like it.

June 14, 2012 at 15:41 | Registered CommenterWinston

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>