All Hank, all the time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I saw that. Not very nice.

:hmmf:

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I saw that. Not very nice.

:hmmf:

Yes, but the real problem was that it was about as funny as the TaxWonk/Sidd show.

:shrug:

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Yes, but the real problem was that it was about as funny as the TaxWonk/Sidd show.

:shrug:

If you don't like the entertainment, make some of your own.

Bitch.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If you don't like the entertainment, make some of your own.

Bitch.

How 'bout those Mets?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If you don't like the entertainment, make some of your own.

Bitch.

he about did, but then he erased it. almost got hisself into one tar baby of a problem, ggg did.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
he about did, but then he erased it. almost got hisself into one tar baby of a problem, ggg did.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I've been watching the whole Lieberman/Lamont thing with some degree of amusement, largely because (a) I'm not from CT, (b) I don't really care too much about Lieberman personally, though I do find him mildly annoying when I do think about him, and (c) I presumed that the whole primary thing couldn't really be profoundly affected by Kos or some other bloggers typing angrily onto their keyboards, no matter how pissed they really are. In the end, I thought, it's a local campaign and the locals will decide what they want.

I was surprised, though, to come across the NYT editorial in which the Gray Lady endorsed ... Lamont.

It is NOT a typical, mealy-mouthed endorsement. Nor does it spend more than a paragraph or so praising Lamont. No, much of it is dedicated to the dicing and filleting of Joe Liberman. To what I imagine will be Slave's, Penske's, bilmore's, spanky's, and club's delight, the NYT doesn't even pretend to sit above the fray and spend time complimenting both candidates. Instead it kicks Joe in the butt, stomps on his testicles, and leaves him for dead.

I don't know but presume that CT voters tend to read this paper, and would imagine that a typical voter there would place some importance on the NYT's endorsement, certainly more than that of an Atrios. I wonder how this will play out.

Gattigap

Could you post the text of the article?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Yes, but the real problem was that it was about as funny as the TaxWonk/Sidd show.

:shrug:

I rather enjoyed that. Although the Seargent also had a major part.

[Spanky]

Its time for both of these Jokers to go. Time for the CIA to do some wet work.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/30/D8J6NURG0.html

Iran awarded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez its highest state medal on Sunday for supporting Tehran in its nuclear standoff with the international community, while Chavez urged the world to rise up and defeat the U.S., state-run media in both countries reported.

The leftist Venezuelan leader also condemned Israel for what he called the "terrorism" and "madness" of its attacks in Lebanon, Venezuelan state television reported.

"Let's save the human race, let's finish off the U.S. empire," Chavez said. "This (task) must be assumed with strength by the majority of the peoples of the world."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presented Chavez with the Islamic Republic Medal in a ceremony at Tehran University. The award was to show Iran's gratitude for his "support for Iran's stance on the international scene, especially its opposition to a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency," Iranian state-run television said.

"He is the one who has resisted imperialism for years and has defended the interests of his and other Latin American countries," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

In February, Venezuela opposed an IAEA decision to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program.

A draft proposal Friday by permanent members of the U.N. Security Council gives Iran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

The U.S. accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran maintains its program is purely peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Could you post the text of the article?

Most of the piece, from the link:

• Mr. Lieberman is now in a tough Democratic primary against a little-known challenger, Ned Lamont. The race has taken on a national character. Mr. Lieberman’s friends see it as an attempt by hysterical antiwar bloggers to oust a giant of the Senate for the crime of bipartisanship. Lamont backers — most of whom seem more passionate about being Lieberman opponents — say that as one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war, Mr. Lieberman has betrayed his party by cozying up to President Bush.
  
  This primary would never have happened absent Iraq. It’s true that Mr. Lieberman has fallen in love with his image as the nation’s moral compass. But if pomposity were a disqualification, the Senate would never be able to call a quorum. He has voted with his party in opposing the destructive Bush tax cuts, and despite some unappealing rhetoric in the Terri Schiavo case, he has strongly supported a woman’s right to choose. He has been one of the Senate’s most creative thinkers about the environment and energy conservation.
  
  But this race is not about résumés. The United States is at a critical point in its history, and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial role to play. The voters in Connecticut will have to judge whether it is the right one.
  
  As Mr. Lieberman sees it, this is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party — his moderate fair-mindedness against a partisan radicalism that alienates most Americans. “What kind of Democratic Party are we going to have?” he asked in an interview with New York magazine. “You’ve got to agree 100 percent, or you’re not a good Democrat?”
  
  That’s far from the issue. Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration’s most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.
  
  Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation’s longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq” than on supporting the war’s progress.
  
  At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman’s ability to command Republicans’ attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president’s defender.
  
  On the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman has left it to Republicans like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to investigate the administration’s actions. In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then added: “I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized.” To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu Ghraib.
  
  Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration’s policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales’s sneering reference to the “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.
  
  If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.
  
  Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Most of the piece, from the link:

• Mr. Lieberman is now in a tough Democratic primary against a little-known challenger, Ned Lamont. The race has taken on a national character. Mr. Lieberman’s friends see it as an attempt by hysterical antiwar bloggers to oust a giant of the Senate for the crime of bipartisanship. Lamont backers — most of whom seem more passionate about being Lieberman opponents — say that as one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war, Mr. Lieberman has betrayed his party by cozying up to President Bush.
  
  This primary would never have happened absent Iraq. It’s true that Mr. Lieberman has fallen in love with his image as the nation’s moral compass. But if pomposity were a disqualification, the Senate would never be able to call a quorum. He has voted with his party in opposing the destructive Bush tax cuts, and despite some unappealing rhetoric in the Terri Schiavo case, he has strongly supported a woman’s right to choose. He has been one of the Senate’s most creative thinkers about the environment and energy conservation.
  
  But this race is not about résumés. The United States is at a critical point in its history, and Mr. Lieberman has chosen a controversial role to play. The voters in Connecticut will have to judge whether it is the right one.
  
  As Mr. Lieberman sees it, this is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party — his moderate fair-mindedness against a partisan radicalism that alienates most Americans. “What kind of Democratic Party are we going to have?” he asked in an interview with New York magazine. “You’ve got to agree 100 percent, or you’re not a good Democrat?”
  
  That’s far from the issue. Mr. Lieberman is not just a senator who works well with members of the other party. And there is a reason that while other Democrats supported the war, he has become the only target. In his effort to appear above the partisan fray, he has become one of the Bush administration’s most useful allies as the president tries to turn the war on terror into an excuse for radical changes in how this country operates.
  
  Citing national security, Mr. Bush continually tries to undermine restraints on the executive branch: the system of checks and balances, international accords on the treatment of prisoners, the nation’s longtime principles of justice. His administration has depicted any questions or criticism of his policies as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. And Mr. Lieberman has helped that effort. He once denounced Democrats who were “more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq” than on supporting the war’s progress.
  
  At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman’s ability to command Republicans’ attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president’s defender.
  
  On the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Lieberman has left it to Republicans like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina to investigate the administration’s actions. In 2004, Mr. Lieberman praised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for expressing regret about Abu Ghraib, then added: “I cannot help but say, however, that those who were responsible for killing 3,000 Americans on September 11th, 2001, never apologized.” To suggest even rhetorically that the American military could be held to the same standard of behavior as terrorists is outrageous, and a good example of how avidly the senator has adopted the Bush spin and helped the administration avoid accounting for Abu Ghraib.
  
  Mr. Lieberman prides himself on being a legal thinker and a champion of civil liberties. But he appointed himself defender of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the administration’s policy of holding hundreds of foreign citizens in prison without any due process. He seconded Mr. Gonzales’s sneering reference to the “quaint” provisions of the Geneva Conventions. He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons. There is no use having a senator famous for getting along with Republicans if he never challenges them on issues of profound importance.
  
  If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.
  
  Mr. Lamont, a wealthy businessman from Greenwich, seems smart and moderate, and he showed spine in challenging the senator while other Democrats groused privately. He does not have his opponent’s grasp of policy yet. But this primary is not about Mr. Lieberman’s legislative record. Instead it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction. We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for Senate in Connecticut.

At first glance Lamont seems like a political dilettante. I will be voting for Lieberman.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
At first glance Lamont seems like a political dilettante. I will be voting for Lieberman.

do you have socks that reside in Connecticut?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you have socks that reside in Connecticut?

I retired from socking.

[sgtclub]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060801/D8J7MKJ01.html

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060801/D8J7MKJ01.html

So we should expect to see some Iraqi WMD in another 40 years?


(Should be right around the time the occupation ends)