What a load of crap. First off, you rail about stereotypes but then stereotype social conservatives. I don't hate gays, but I don't agree that homosexuality is to celebrated and I don't care for shows like 'Glee' shoving it in our face. Social conservatives hate the show not because of it's so-called "positive portrayal" of gays or because we don't agree with it's anti gay bullying message (speaking of stereotypes, why no complaints about the media stereotype of all gays as bully fodder?) but because it constantly pushes the idea that homosexuality is great and should be lauded, if not aspired to. And it demonizes all those who don't agree as being evil.

Second, what is this "there is more to being gay than sexuality" drivel? That's nonsense, gay is a description of sexuality. What "more" is there to it? Unless you're saying gays should act more alike and be more like alike sorta like a subculture, and THAT kind of crap is how you get stereotypes. It's like those who say in order to be 'truly black' blacks have to act and think a certain way. I find both ideas appalling. If there's more to being gay, than you're going to have to explain to me how you can attracted only to the opposite sex and still somehow be considered "gay".

And no, gay marriage isn't the main prerogative of all gays, but it is of a large percentage of them, and that majority happens to be very vocal and aggressive and make up the bulk of 'gay rights" activism. So while you may be right that not all gays are dedicated to same sex marriage, you are wrong in your implication that most gays don't have an agenda with gay marriage at the top of the list. BTW, I have never heard any social conservative claim that *all* gays want gay marriage to begin with.

Glee is pointless garbage. There is nothing unique about it's handling of teen issues, a million shows have done that and done it much better. And it's far from the only show to be anti-bullying. If that's the best defense you can come up for it then that shows just how weak the pro-Glee stance is.

Yeah, your "numb" all right, Dwest. Numb in the frigging head.

What "message?" There isn't any "message," just a bunch of private conversations and trivial info. By releasing it, this ASSclown has done nothing but undermine our prestige and ability to work with the rest of the world and violated the privacy of our diplomats and others. And nice to bring up open borders, excellent use of the straw man. Would it make you feel better if those who advocated open borders (btw, which DOES NOT include Palin and most other conservatives) also advocated this breach of sovereignty too? I'd rather deal with half an idiot over a full idiot. Why not post relevant facts, than oh so clever distracting and irrelevant side issue ramblings?

Speaking of idiots, anyone who is okay with this just because it "hurts Obama" (yeah right, the rest of the world is still kissing his butt) and doesn't care about the massive damage it does to us overall are all time morons. Talk about blind spite. And if Obama really is "in on this" that just makes Julie a bigger punk, because he's helping our slimy "leader" achieve his agenda. If Obama is part of the problem that does not make Julie part of the solution. It makes him an even bigger problem.

And you don't think this didn't hurt our standing or our friendships? Look at the words of the Italian minister. If he is thinking that, how many others are? And now a big ally is exposed to danger: <a href="http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/12/meet-wikileaks-likely-first-victim.html

So, damn right this is about ASSage and not the "message" he so recklessly and without any selectivity threw out there. Yeah, ASSange, some low level diplomats observations on some third world dictators mistress is really something the "world needed to see." If you so concerned about "open government", why not leak data from Iran, China and other truly evil regimes? I know why, because you're a phony, lair and hypocrite.

Assange isn't a messenger, anymore than a pervert who secretly photographs a woman nude and post it on the Internet is just a 'messenger' delivering pictorial info to the need to know masses. He's a thief and a lair. No, he shouldn't be shot, he should hanged and then shot. Remember that this guy is an American hating, socialist, (he is for small government, my butt), self-righteous, video editing to slander our troops piece of filth. People who are lionizing that evil "man" are also scumbags. If people think that the government defending use from enemies is "Big Government" and needs to be downsized and hampered than they are losers. What's next, complete anarchy? Yes, not all secrets that our government keeps are evil and just have to be 'exposed.'

Speaking of one commentator up there, it figures a supporter of that rambling nutbag Truther "let's leave the rest of the world to the mercy of dictators, murders, thugs and other evil bastards and hope they don't hurt us" coward Ron Paul would apologize for Assange. Hey guy, who gives two craps how popular our "interventionist" (aka non-fanatical and unrealistic isolationist) foreign policy is with the dim schmucks that dominate the rest of the world? You do things because they are right, not because they are popular and make you look good to the brain dead masses of Europe and the rest. Hey, you and Ron are just like Obama! Brown nosers. Ron Paul has got his rigid paranoid "isolationist" ideology so stuck up his butt that he wouldn't even vote yes on a resolution to to acknowledge the fall of the Berlin Wall. Paul: Freedom for the U.S. only, everyone else screw you! Oh, yeah and he also voted to raise our taxes, some freaking hero, huh?

Dwest = Useful idiot.

P.S. Assanges new revelation: the fight against Mexican drug cartels is not going well. No freaking duh! Anyone who has read a paper knows that. Big freaking revelation.

"Briefly, unless the lawmaker is far, far more aggressive than Holmes Norton is on this voicemail, there’s no legal violation"

What a minute, it's okay to do something wrong just as long as you don't do it too loudly???

"By statute and precedent, a campaign contribution cannot be a bribe;"

Well, what do you call her basically saying, "If you want the work to continue in your sector, give me cash" then?

"and federal law doesn’t even come close to barring general conversations linking campaign money and legislative activities."

Oh, yeah, then what about this: “[N]o solicitation of a campaign or political contribution may be linked to an action taken or to be taken by a Member."

A conversation is an action, like time I checked. And what about this: "they should always exercise caution to avoid even the appearance that solicitations of campaign contributions are connected in any way with an action taken or to be taken in their official capacity." How nice of NPR to completely ignore this part.

"Finally, even if Holmes Norton made the call from her office, she might be off the hook (as it were) if she used a campaign cellphone. The ban of fundraising in congressional buildings isn’t exactly airtight."

WHAT? So if you break the rules and fund raise in a congressional building and in your own office, you're excused if you use a certain telephone!!!??? Un-freaking-believable.

Better quality people = you mean abortionists and fascists?

Anyway, as for double standards and hypocrisy, that's retarded. You just throw out a wild accusation and then back it up with "um, I'm not telling you how I know, it's "public record" somewhere in Delaware, go find it if you can" and because we don't immediately accept it as the unabashed truth that makes us hypocrites?

Whatever. You *are* a fool, fool.

Yes, because by all means having personal tax and financial issues is the same thing as willfully subverting the political system while in office.

I dunno, wouldn't you rather have a choice to keep the money for your personal use or to invest it in your business? The idea here seems to be as much to *force* people to create jobs as to provide incentives for them to do so. There is a big difference.

You're assuming that with a high income tax most people would put their money in their business. I doubt that. They would either hide their income from taxation or simply spend less altogether. I don't see how deliberately squeezing money out of the economy will help create jobs or growth.

Besides, being able to keep more of my own money is a pretty damn good incentive for me to invest in more jobs and more growth and thus obtain more profit which I can blow on fun things like books and trips to Disneyland. :)

And why shouldn't we extend tax cuts to the wealthiest? I don't see how taking more wealth from those have the most is either fair or a smart move.

The problem people have with the VAT is no so much the VAT idea itself, but the fact that Obama and the libs are *not* considering it as a replacement for the current tax scheme, but instead just want to throw it on top of everything else.

You've got to be kidding me. This from a group who's affiliated Center for American Progress produced a heavily edited video trying to prove the tea partiers were racist. What they pieced together was a less than a minute video of completely non-racist statements with one racist statement in it. The statement was "I'm a proud racist" which they showed twice (lack of material anyone?) and which was said by someone who was rather painfully obviously a left wing plant. The portion of the video showing the real tea partiers calling him out and telling him to go home is conveniently edited out.

So, screw you, Media Blathers.

One minor point of contention with the article: companies being big is good because it means they are more efficient at creating the stuff we need and able to get it to more people, not that they are subject to "lots and lots" of progress stultifying, job killing, safety lessening, economy crippling "don't hurt mother Gaea!" regulations. The idea that without regulations corporations and other business would destroy the environment has been proven wrong time and again in history. In fact, it is when corporations are unregulated that they are the most efficient, use fewer resources and more wisely, and affect the environment less.

Also, I find it funny she traveled 10 years to make a 20 minute movie. Talk about wasting resources...

And Glenn, I get what you're saying but the objection conservatives have with these films is not that they were made, but that so many of them are made with TAXPAYER MONEY (mostly through PBS, which never met a leftwing documentary it didn't like) and shown in our schools to our children where they are FORCED to watch them. That's not liberty, that's not freedom of speech, that's not the 1st amendment. That's theft of our money to fund socialist government propaganda and indoctrinate our kids. It's easy for liberals to make so many documentaries when they have Big Government as their sugar daddy and face no risk if the movie flops on toast. Also, they have big Hollywood studios willing to promote them while conservatives are told to take a hike.

It's false to claim that conservatives don't invest time, money and dedication to making movies. There have been plenty of good conservative documentaries. They just don't get the publicity and the public funding. Have you ever heard or seen "Celsius 411," Ben Steins "Expelled," or "Micheal Moore Hates America?" Probably not. Why? Because Hollywood and government does their best to bury such films.

P.S. Your claim that you can't make a great film for $5000 is rather simplistic. Do you mean all films, or just features? There certainly are many great short films that were made for $5000 or less. As for features, well, Halloween is considered on of the scariest and best horror movies of all time and it was made for 320,000 dollars. Quite more than $5000, but certainly less than "millions and millions." The Blair Witch project was made for $22,000 and was a huge success to showcase another example.

The AP and the WAPO as usual gets the facts all screwed up. Those three cases they cite were not perpetuated by right-wingers angry about the healthcare bill.

As Dooney pointed out, the Pelosi threat came from a mentally ill man. I know someone with bipolar and though he was overall a decent guy when that bipolar depression hit him he could be a real SOB. He would say all sorts of things he would regret later. One time when the depression hit he took a knife and cut the hell out of his own hand. Again, it was a mentally ill man, not some right winger in complete control of himself. Strike one.

The Cantor threats had nothing to do with right wing anti-Obamacare anger. First of all Rep. Cantor voted against the bill. Second, the threatener was a jihad sympathizer. Third, he was an OBAMA DONOR. Strike two.

The Murray threatener made it clear when he was arrested that he was no, in his words, "tea party bagger." He clearly has no sympathies for conservatives. He also can't get his smear terms straight. Strike three.

if those two mainstream outlets (AP and WAPO) can't get the facts straight on those three cases where we have real specifics than how can we trust their contention that there have been 42 threats and that they "appeared" to be nearly all coming from anti-Obamacare people? With all due respect to Sergeant Gainer, he needs to know who he is talking to and that whatever he says to the MSM is subject to bias and sloppiness.

P.S. You left out Dooney that the lefts poster child for "right wing militia" violence Timothy McVeigh was a Saddam sympathizer who penned a pro-Iraqi essay in jail. Why? Because there is significant evidence that the whole Oklahoma City bombing was actually orchestrated by outside Iraqi terrorists.