Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Really, some days it's hard to tell whether a news story should go on Politics, the FB, or the Adult Board.

What with the "Enlarge This Photo" link and everything, I can only imagine how much WaPo's servers are being deluged by requests from roundabout Seattle.

Gattigap

People in the Seattle suburbs wait three days for a story to become ripe?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
People in the Seattle suburbs wait three days for a story to become ripe?

Just like the wine grapes, so I hear.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Just like the wine grapes, so I hear.

Ah, yes -- Penske has told me about this "Lynnwood beaujolais," but I've never dared to try it, though I am willing to believe that it pairs well with hot dogs and potato chips.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's odd to me that you would say that the continuing sanctions weren't "working," since we now know that they were working pretty well, especially in contrast to the mess we've made.

And it's a particularly strange thing to defend a disastrous foreign policy by saying that it was bi-partisan. Of course, the Clinton Administration followed a very different policy. This suggests that many of the Democrats you quoted either did not agree with what Bush did, and felt the political need to get some cover, or have been quoted out of context. Assuming the former, one might worry about what is wrong with our country that pushed us to such a disastrous policy, instead of suggesting that the disaster can't be so bad because there were Democrats who went along with it.

First, I don't know how you could say the sanctions were working pretty well. Unless the intent was to starve Iraqis and let certain people get around them for profit.

As for defending a disastrous policy, I did no such thing. Nowhere did I say the disaster "can't be so bad" because Dems went along with it. And the video montage was the partisan play, not my post, darling. Which is why I thought it would have been more interesting to show the perception problem as widespread and to have some honest analysis on why it was there. Not some Thottam-ish video showing Cheney-Rummy soundbites. Surely you don't think that montage does much to illuminate the "disastrous policy" do you? Good. Then we are in complete agreement.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
First, I don't know how you could say the sanctions were working pretty well. Unless the intent was to starve Iraqis and let certain people get around them for profit.

If the concern was Iraqi WMD, they were working well. If your concern is dead Iraqis, we seem to have caused more problems than we solved.

As for defending a disastrous policy, I did no such thing. Nowhere did I say the disaster "can't be so bad" because Dems went along with it. And the video montage was the partisan play, not my post, darling. Which is why I thought it would have been more interesting to show the perception problem as widespread and to have some honest analysis on why it was there. Not some Thottam-ish video showing Cheney-Rummy soundbites. Surely you don't think that montage does much to illuminate the "disastrous policy" do you? Good. Then we are in complete agreement.

My post was not meant as an endorsement of socklifting, etc. But surely it does not stoop to that level to point out that Rumsfeld is now saying that he never said things that he most certainly said. Honest analysis indeed.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But surely it does not stoop to that level to point out that Rumsfeld is now saying that he never said things that he most certainly said. Honest analysis indeed.

I've shown that I can criticize both parties on here and that I'm even with Dems on almost all the issues (not just social issues either). That video is just stoopid, no matter how you defend it.

No offense Ty, but you don't seem able to level a criticism (or defense) unless it's partisan-based. And you seem to pretty much tow the party line and it doesn't make for very interesting discussion. I've criticized all the Bushes, and much of the Republican Congress. I'll criticize anyone I think has a bad idea or a bad policy. You, on the other hand, will defend any dem policy or, if you can't do that, will dismiss it as something the Republicans do worse anyway. In our exchange where I questioned the Dem's choice of Kerry to run, never once did you bemoan that sucky candidate. That's pretty telling. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I've shown that I can criticize both parties on here and that I'm even with Dems on almost all the issues (not just social issues either). That video is just stoopid, no matter how you defend it.

No offense Ty, but you don't seem able to level a criticism (or defense) unless it's partisan-based. And you seem to pretty much tow the party line and it doesn't make for very interesting discussion. I've criticized all the Bushes, and much of the Republican Congress. I'll criticize anyone I think has a bad idea or a bad policy. You, on the other hand, will defend any dem policy or, if you can't do that, will dismiss it as something the Republicans do worse anyway. In our exchange where I questioned the Dem's choice of Kerry to run, never once did you bemoan that sucky candidate. That's pretty telling. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I didn't watch the video. So you have my proxy as to its stupidness. But I did see the comments by Rumsfeld that whoever you responded to (GGG?) was talking about.

I never liked Kerry. If you didn't pick that up, you weren't reading my posts. He blew when he was my Lt. Governor many years ago, and he has blown ever since. I wish he'd stop sending me e-mail, and I don't know how he ever got my address.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I wish he'd stop sending me e-mail, and I don't know how he ever got my address.

OMG. John Kerry is stalking you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
OMG. John Kerry is stalking you?

He has a gun? All this time I was picturing him windsurfing.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Does anyone else enjoy the irony of the WSJ owners and staff, self-appointed champions of free market capitalism, resisting the market these days?

It is obvious that their brand of socially non-commital fiscal conservativism is dead, and the market is ready to sweep it away and focus on what they have of value: plain old business news. Their editorial voice will be replaced with fair and balanced coverage, just like Fox. Yet they resist the market.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Does anyone else enjoy the irony of the WSJ owners and staff, self-appointed champions of free market capitalism, resisting the market these days?

It is obvious that their brand of socially non-commital fiscal conservativism is dead, and the market is ready to sweep it away and focus on what they have of value: plain old business news. Their editorial voice will be replaced with fair and balanced coverage, just like Fox. Yet they resist the market.

"these days"?

Has the editorial page there ever not been subsidized by the news operation? Can there be more than a few people who buy the paper for the editorial page?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Does anyone else enjoy the irony of the WSJ owners and staff, self-appointed champions of free market capitalism, resisting the market these days?

Seems like they're using the market to maximize their payoff. Or to determine whether Murdoch is offering the highest and best value for the assets.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is excellent news:

• Five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor were pardoned by President Georgi Parvanov upon their arrival in Sofia on Tuesday after spending 8 1/2 years in prison in Libya.
  
  The medics, who were sentenced to life in prison for allegedly contaminating children with the AIDS virus, arrived on board a plane with French first lady Cecilia Sarkozy and the EU's commissioner for foreign affairs, Benita Ferrero-Waldner.
  
  The six came down the steps from the airplane and were welcomed on the tarmac by family members who hugged them, one lifting the Palestinian doctor off the ground.
  
  They were given bouquets of flowers, and Bulgaria's president and prime minister were on hand, greeting the nurses and Sarkozy, who had been part of the delegation that negotiated the group's return.
  
  "I waited so long for this moment," nurse Snezhana Dimitrova said before falling in the arms of her loved ones.
  
  Libya accused the six of deliberately infecting more than 400 Libyan children with HIV. Fifty of the children died. The medics, jailed since 1999, deny infecting the children and say their confessions were extracted under torture.
  
  The deal for the medics' release included measures to improve the medical care of children with AIDS in Libya, the French presidential palace said, without giving details.
  
  "The return of the medics is a direct result of Bulgaria's membership in the European Union, of the solidarity which the EU showed Bulgaria," Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev said at the airport.
  
  French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Tuesday he would travel to Libya on Wednesday "to help Libya rejoin the international community." Sarkozy said neither France nor the EU paid any money to Libya for the medics' release.
  
  Foreign Minister Ivailo Kalfin announced after the medics' arrival that President Parvanov had signed a decree to pardon the five nurses and the Palestinian doctor, who was granted Bulgarian citizenship in June.
  
  "Led by the firm conviction in the innocence of the Bulgarian citizens sentenced in Libya and fulfilling his constitutional rights, the President signed a decree for pardon and releases them of their sentences," Kalfin said.
  
  Bulgaria made an official request Thursday for Tripoli to repatriate the medics to serve their sentences in Bulgaria. It granted citizenship to the Palestinian doctor, Ashraf al-Hazouz, last month.

SF Gate

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"these days"?

Has the editorial page there ever not been subsidized by the news operation? Can there be more than a few people who buy the paper for the editorial page?

I'm not sure that Slave, Penske or Spanky knew that the WSJ even has a news operation.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"these days"?

Has the editorial page there ever not been subsidized by the news operation? Can there be more than a few people who buy the paper for the editorial page?

I'm making a different point - which is that they pontificate about the power of the market, yet, this very pontification is ready to be swept aside by the market. It's been a drag on profits. Time to maximize profits and court the social conservative who want their news Foxified.