Michael: That's well beyond my technical skill but I do find the idea interesting.

This is more than just an "idiot", this is a man that has just threatened to kill Nancy Pelosi. If you don't report the post below to the appropriate authorities, then you are an accomplice. Do not take these comments lightly.

Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at October 20, 2006 12:52
"That would make Nancy Pelosi President of the United States. I will proudly be one of the patriotic Americans to take up arms to throw off the yoke of fascism she represents. Hopefully I would be on the squads assigned to eliminate the left."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this same person threatened to kill Bush or Cheney, there would be Secret Service knocking on his door. How is this different?
Killing the House Democratic Leader?!?
Hello, FBI, I hope you're tracking this guys e-mail.

Please show me one, even one post where I have advocated "cut & run". I think, and have thought from the be genning that the war in Iraq is a tragic mistake that does nothing to enhance our national security.

That being said, once we went in, we are stuck and should fight to win. I do not see how having our forces out in light patrols that do little besides providing targets for the insurgency does that.

Bush was told from the very beginning that his plan did not provide for adequate force to control the country. This is patently obvious today.

You are a sad case LJD. Like Bush and his crew, lying about the positions of those who disagree with you is about all you have left...

I have heard repeated reports that current NK delivery systems can hit the Hawaiian islands. Since neither of us is an expert on the subject, either of us could easily be wrong.

Lets say for the sake of argument that NK currently cannot hit the US. What is to stop this cash-starved, America hating dictator from selling a nuke to cash-heavy, America hating terrorists?

What about South Korea, or say, Tokyo getting nuked? I think any rational person would agree that this would be a disaster that would change the world permanently, and for the worse.

I do not see how Bush's N Korea policy can be viewed as anything but a miserable failure...

I think that retarded squirrels everywhere would be offended to be associated with Zelsdorf.

In terms of a moderation system, how about allowing all readers to score a comment as
1:Insightful,
2:Funny, or
3:Troll.

Limit it by IP address of course. Then, depending on which category has the most, and by how much, you include an image next to the comment,such as:
1:Insightful=Einstien,
2:Funny=Smiley face, or
3:Troll=GW Bush (ok, maybe I shouldn't be the one who decides the images.)

The point is that trolls be marked with something shameful or degrading. If all of Zeldorf's comments have a picture of a retarded squirrel next to them (guilt by association), maybe he'll post something worthwhile or leave. Plus you would have all the data you need to host a yearly/monthly/weekly "10 worst trolls" article.

Anderson: There is no current policy against being an idiot. Instituting and enforcing one has occured to me but the demands on my time might be unbearable.

Perhaps then promote some trusted, level-headed readers to moderate such messages for you.

anjin-san:

Now that a certified lunatic has developed nukes as well as the means to deliver them

Last I heard there was consensus that the DPRK had no viable delivery method, unless you have support to the contrary.

As for the ad itself, the popular left blogs are already trying to re-frame it, asking why the RNC would highlight their inability to capture American's most wanted enemy? How many of those quotes are from after 9/11? Heck, there's even 2 quotes from after the start of the Iraq war (and possibly after he "Mission Accomplish" photo-op, but I'd have to check the dates).

The ad may as well say "For 5 years the Republicans in Washington have failed to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, we can't take the chance that the Democrats might be just as bad at it as we are."

You are surely right about that.

Yes, about Kim Il Jong. Bush is on record stating that he "would not tolerate" a North Korea with nuclear weapons. Now that a certified lunatic has developed nukes as well as the means to deliver them (on Bush's watch) what strong action are we seeing to insure our security?

1. Blame Clinton
2. Harsh scoldings for Kim
3. Sanctions. Remember how we were told that sanctions were utterly ineffective against Saddam and stronger action was necessary to stop such a menace? How is this case different?

As for Kim apologizing to China, I don't see how that is a victory for Bush. Last time I checked China was a communist dictatorship...

Regards, C

P.S. Anderson's right - Zelsdorf just jumped the shark.

JJ, do aspirations to join the American Freikorps and murder political opponents, comply with the OTB commenting policy?

Just curious.