C'mon guys, chill. When one hears/reads a comment. multiple aspects of that comment can strike you as the most critical, most fallacious, most troublesome, most demanding of further comment. Take, for example, the simple declarative sentence "Obama awarded Nobel Prize for Peace." Straightforward, only 6 words long, yet it can instigate at least three different emotions. The first, of course, could be that this action just follows the Carter/Gore awards in demonstrating the degradation of the award, A second could be that once again, Mr. Obama has gained a position without demonstrating any qualifications, experience, or expertise. Or a third alternative among the totally obtuse could be that Mr. Obama has yet again received the credits that he so well deserves.

In the case of this thread, Number 6 takes great exception to the subject, "Right-wing fascists at it again." This is evidently a subject that tends to burn her/his butt a bit hotter than most (we all have them) and he/she has ample proof to demonstrate the ignorance of the original poster and his banal catch phrase. Bucco, on the other hand, ignores the fascist comment and zeros in on Pelosi, always a rich target of opportunity, albeit generally low-hanging fruit. So, you can see that your comments are not conflicting, but simply splitting the thread into two paths. Note that Chelsea even splits it into a third path -- SURPRISE! The Bush Administration -- but it's pretty much ignored.

Actually that's pretty neat to have a thread that can be split into several diverse, distinct subtopics that can each maintain a life, but it can get quite confusing.



`