something about Ken's idea reminded me of this,

Jamie Kirchick trying to link two things together that are juuuuuuuuuuuust a touch not.

it's one of the things that insured my somewhat active participation at that site.

@ Ken:

Ken, all due respect, the idea that's arguing for genocide, isn't just unwarranted but shows an utter failure to understand the words, the meaning of them, or much anything else.

Reporting that to the FBI will probably not redound to your credit should you ever face a competency hearing.

Read it some more and ask a couple of questions.

@ Ken:

I have noted that MacLeod's position and orientation have changed.
I have not noticed that he's ever been willing to do so as a means of winning approval.
I find that particular charge to be even more silly than it is low and mean.
Don't know when MacLeod started at Hot Air but I used to read his comments at contentions.
My responses to those comments and his responses to my own mos def did not indicate a willingness to cede ground.

Finally, there may be something to calling him genocidal as people have questioned the extent of his complicity in the destruction of the Amalekites and he hasn't really denied it.

@ Ken:

well, Ken, how do you view claims such as "Obama isn't committed to defending America" if not “Far right gutter-political claims”?

@ miguel cervantes:


I thought she might still be with OSI
but I wasn't sure what she might be doing.

All I know is that it's Mike (not the crazy salt-add(l)ed) Portnoy on drums.

yes do go on.....tell me how their posture could have been all that aggressive elsewhere while they were getting bled in Afghanistan.

and tell me about Agent Clarice....

Actually it was Kennedy that was the far right-winger who was going to provoke a nuclear war.

Ronald Reagan was the bonobo that came into office about when the Soviet Union was collapsing and thought he hit a triple because his handlers' program called for stripping out the money for social welfare programs and buying weapons with it.