Replies

I don't understand your problem and why you want to even communicate with me. Your #25 isn't a refutation. It's an embarrassing oversight which you acknowledge on #26 because it makes no sense in that we were largely in agreement, I think, and not buying into the freeeee non-pragmatic approach to electoral politics. Neither you nor freeeee have refuted anything I've written.

However, at this point I do regret the apparently abstruse Roseannadanna aside. Not just because it started something but because, as tiggs pointed out, the Radner character was Emily Litella. In any case, your btw "insight" into the hundreds of hours of SNL broadcating does not effectively proscribe SNL as a cultural resource. And by the way, however you wish your cultural quarantine to go, your "Hollywood elites" of SNL should probably be called "New York elites", unless you want to look as out-of-it as the Church Lady.

Obviously there's lots of misunderstanding here. You're clearly wrong to say otherwise. But even more than that, you have the effrontery to call me an average myopic rightist stooge - an unsupportable personal insult that goes over any line of civil discourse. I don't know what would prompt such an obtuse insult on this forum, unless it was whiskey. What important clue suggests I'm shortsighted and pedestrian, and am a stooge for rightist dogma? We were both pragmatists if your #25 reflects anything at all beyond your pathetic misunderstanding that I wasn't posting any objection to anything you'd written.

If you'd like to go a few rounds over who's the knucklehead here, you don't worry me. I'm no Bush sycophant and I don't know any. Because of jerks like Kerry, people I went to highschool with actually took the trouble to call me a babykiller on more than one occasion. There's lots of good reasons to get 51%. I can't think of anything more myopic, stooge-like, and dogmatic than defeating George W in the name of individual freedom.