/* But why is no one mentioning that Sen. Edwards didn�t think they met either? (Or he would have said, �Uh� we have met – remember.��) But he didn�t say that until the next day.
*/

It’s been quite a while, and I would never have thought of it myself, but Slate’s NPR program (Day to Day) answered this today when the political commentator said that Edwards wouldn’t want to admit to being nothing memorable.

Along these lines:

“I never met you until today.”

“We’ve met, don’t you remember?”

“No. Did you do something special?”

But why is no one mentioning that Sen. Edwards didn’t think they met either? (Or he would have said, “Uh… we have met – remember….”) But he didn’t say that until the next day.

So sure, it’s a lie – but the point was probably more important than this particular lie – which has to be pretty low down on the list of dishonest stuff to talk about.

I agree that I can be more lighthearted. However, I’ve had that go bad in the past because of the trouble with talking over the web. I can’t think of any examples right now, but I have had trouble with the word “cracker” (for computer criminal) when some people thought I was being racist, and others thought I was referring to food.

1. i would like responses to be informed by the privatization of policy making having rendered the rhetoric of both parties irrelevant. criticism shouldn’t be leveled at political puppets but corporate masters.

2. replies should be lighthearted and humorous as public political discussions always border on the absurd. for instance: “politics should be like nascar. candidates should be made to wear the logos of their corporate sponsors.”

Brent, which features would you like to see in version 2.0?

I think that a little opposition sharpens people’s minds, and leads to better policy. Some day I’ll get tired of this and move on. For now, I think forums are more interesting when at least some posts have actual substance. Wasn’t one of the 9/11 Ciommission’s findings that “groupthink” led to a lot of bad things (not to mention sitting around in a room feeling all gushy that everybody else agreed with you)?

Besides, some of the liberal posters here have made me rethink my own positions, and have presented evidence and news that I haven’t yet figured out how to rebut.

The result is that Cheney is either negligently forgetful, or (more likely) willing to tell falsehoods to make a point. We can see clearer evidence as Chush-Beney misrepresents the recent CIA report: they are saying that it proves the opposite of what 98% of everyone else understands it to mean – completely distorting it.

Statements to this effect should be made now, and plainly, while people can still clearly see the falsehoods. Dems should proclaim “this misrepresentation of reality has been going on for 4 years, and if they get re-elected it will continue to happen.”