Come on, Aaron. Surely you know by now that it's against PC conventions to measure others by your value system. It's all relative, doncha know.

1) "where's the outrage, where's Hillary" - how in hell are we expected to have time to not only be aware of each travesty in the world, let alone comment on all of them - regardless of our political bent?

Besides - if you're going to say where's hillary on this specific incident, then where the hell is bush? why aren't each and every politician in the US waiting in line to make their 5 minute recorded statement.

Conceptually speaking, and using obvious logic, the entire premise you propose is ridiculous.

2) "...it's against PC conventions to measure others by your own value system." You know, although you obviously don't support that - you are exactly correct.

When we're confronted with behavior by anyone we find objectionable, we absolutely have the ability and 'right' to make a value judgement on it as a country and as individuals. Our leaders, as a nation, can decide, for example, to wheel-and-deal with foreign governments (or not, depending on what would be most effective) to impress upon them that they might should change their people's laws and culture to not have violence against others be justifiable.

So - instead of calling & writing your congressman and senator demanding that we adopt strong processes for interacting with governments that have what we/you believe to have objectionable human rights practices, you instead make a post to attack Hillary Clinton and the so-called 'PC' crowd.

Good to see you're more interested in making positive progress in the world rather than merely fomenting partisan progress.

Oops - I seem to have gotten that backwards - and so did you.

TJ,

The where's Hillary is a joke. It's sarcasm making fun of how reporters never ask her opinion on stuff and why she never goes to rallies held by her base (like the Cindy Sheehan Travelling Zoo that was here this past weekend).

Aaron,

1) Now that I know it was a joke, I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part.
2) "Reporters never ask her opinion on stuff"? I sincerely doubt that - I'd love to prove whether you're right or wrong, but don't have time to dig up articles :)

3) "...why she never goes to rallies held by her base (like the Cindy Sheehan Travelling Zoo..."

You're actually stating that a woman who basically threatened Hillary with the possibility of losing her next election for not supporting the "right" cause is one of her "base"?

In fact, you're simply assuming that the extremists are her base. However likely that may be, it is still an assumption, #1, and Hillary has absolutely no responsibility to attend that or any other event, #2, and you assume, likely incorrectly, that Hillary, by your implication, supports whatever extremist views were expressed at that event.

In short, you're indicting Hillary Clinton based on nothing more than the fact that you 1) don't like her (most likely because of her last name) and 2) don't like those who protested the war (most likely because they have any stance at all that is not in support of this administration - more than most likely, actually, as you've rather consistently shown this particular bias in the past).

After some critical reading and thinking, it becomes obvious that you're slinging arrows merely for the sake of it, without any reason other than the fact that you stand opposed.

Seems rather sad, at that.

speaking of that "reporters never ask her opinions..." stuff...

please, explain to me how that equates to the "MSM" being "liberal"...

If the "MSM" is liberal, as is hotly bounced around by conservative pundits like a useless rubber ball, then they'd do nothing short of sleeping at Hillary's feet to get her opinion every moment of the day, wouldn't they? (Hope you're reading this, Pam - Aaron is, quite inadvertantly and regrettably, I'm sure, helping me expose the fallacy of that old "liberal/mainstream media" crap)...

After-all, she's at this point still the most likely contender for the democratic nomination - the "liberal media" should be eating her every word like cake.

Yet, by your own assertion, they "never ask her opinion"?

(Putting it in simple words - It just doesn't add up, Pam)

TJ, your last post makes no sense. Could you clarify?

I'd love to do so - can't promise when, though!

Ah - Aaron - I understand why you think my comment makes no sense...

The reason it appears to make no sense is because it has almost no relevance to this specific posted topic...

I have been working a very very lot these days - worked around 33 of 37 waking hours between Monday and Tuesday alone...

Just about every thing I stated that has nothing to do with your comment was based on either Pam's or Kitty's (I think Pam - can't keep these things together, as I have 8 high-profile work items floating in my head constantly) recent statements and assertions about "mainstream media" and general statements reflecting a perceived "liberal bias"...

So, while I started by responding to your post and comment, I quickly diverted to responding to Pam, without clearly stating so - which was not at all reasonable of me, even if I had been more clear.

I will try to be very much more responsible in my comments moving forward - if I do make the occasional miss-step, please be patient, as you already are...

I'm also, in general, try to keep myself in check - however passionately I may believe in my opinions, I did recognized that I was getting a bit too passionate about how I made my arguments.

Again, in this time of little sleep, but taking much needed breaks here at LLP to get my brain going a different direction, I may stray beyond my own constraints on this - I'm trying to be a good boy, though.

Let's not judge a brother's 'right to choose'.