Hello?
Is anyone listening?
I sometimes wonder whether bloggers only blog to hear themselves think. Certainly the political bloggers are uninterested in comments.
The last few political blogs I have read required registration in order to post comments - and usually kicked off anyone who didn't respond to every post with a "Well said! You're absolutely right!"
Who needs posts like that? You obviously know you're absolutely right, otherwise you would have written something else. That's what ego is all about.
What you need is to kick the bobbleheads off your site and print the objectionable ones. This will have three benefits.
1) You might learn something.
2) You get free fact checking.
3) Your supporters will sympathize with you, getting all these nasty posts, and neutral readers will pay attention to you - after all, you're so "controversial".

Where do you live? Not in New London, I hope.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." These are the words of dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor , in her unsuccessful attempt to prevent the US Supreme court to rule against a law that states that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development.
The law is Eminent Domain. The Fifth Amendment allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use." In the past, this has meant that the government could build a fire station in the best location for that station. Now, it means that the city fathers can build a mall on your property if it serves a public purpose of boosting economic growth.
Eminent Domain is ok if the purpose is to better serve the community. It is NOT ok if the purpose is to fatten someone's wallet. Even a Small Town Hick like myself knows that this ruling is simply the fat cats of America enshrining the right to grab any land they think they can make a profit off of, in exchange for a little kickback to the city council.

We get ourselves all in a lather over gay marriage and terrorist threats, but THIS is the kind of issue we need to address. What good is it to make a neighbourhood safe, if Wal-Mart can take it away to build a superstore?

Apparently the media still hates the US military, because it insists on continuing to print stories about coverups, mistakes, torture, and lack of recruitment. The fact that the media has pictures, documents, and other pieces of evidence only makes it worse.
You know, in my grandfather's time, the military stressed honor over everything. Forget torture - you could be cashiered for bad manners. A soldier was supposed to be a gentleman. A soldier WAS a gentleman - he would have resigned rather than cover up a mistake, or torture a prisoner.
Maybe if the military was placed back under the control of soldiers, rather than uniformed businessmen, bureaucrats, and politicians, it would change into something less contemptable.
And the nasty ol' media would stop printing all those facts.

Here's an idea on why other countries haven't been too keen on adopting Western-style democracies - they read the news.
Scandals, scandals, and more scandals. The American system is almost at the civil war state right now, liberals vs. conservatives. The Canadian government has been caught in a huge money scandal, and is likely to survive it because the opposing parties are considered even more corrupt. The British government has just been revealed, through a pair of secret memos, to be George Bush's 'ho.
Does anyone really think other countries would consider these kinds of government to be an improvement?