All Hank, all the time. - Page 190

SlaveNoMore · 08-09-2006, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Sexual Harassment Panda
Diebold is the reason he got 48%. In a fair election he loses by 10 or more.

If Ty wrote this, I'd assume it was a joke.

With you - not so much.

PS - Echo Chamber

ltl/fb · 08-09-2006, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I guess you didn't vote for John Kerry in 2004 either, given his "Holiday in Cambodia" lark and the stories about the Green Beret he keeps in his briefcase.

I did not vote for any presidential candidate in 2004.

SlaveNoMore · 08-09-2006, 01:31 AM

Quote:

ltl/fb
I did not vote for any presidential candidate in 2004.

President Bush and the RNC thank you once again for your support.

Spanky · 08-09-2006, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Spanky, get with the program, it's Team Connecticut now. You are either with us or with them.......

I will be supporting the Republican in the race. Since Joe is so selfish and puts himself above his party, our guy may have a chance. Joe will split the Demo vote giving the Repub a victory.

ltl/fb · 08-09-2006, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
President Bush and the RNC thank you once again for your support.

What's the point of voting in a state that is certain to go one way? I didn't vote in 2000 in TX, either.

sgtclub · 08-09-2006, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Since Joe is so selfish and puts himself above his party, our guy may have a chance. Joe will split the Demo vote giving the Repub a victory.

I don't buy this. If I ever went into politics, it certainly would not be for the good of the party.

Pre-2000, I sort of respected Joe. I thought he was principled for a politician. Then he flip flopped on one of his central issues ("cleaning up Hollywood" with which I disagree). I guess he had to do it politically to be Gore's mate, but it took away what I thought was his core appeal.

Still, whatever his rationale for running, if his constituents vote him in that's all that counts. The parties both suck.

sgtclub · 08-09-2006, 02:53 AM

Woman appears 'mourning destruction of her home' in two photographs allegedly taken two weeks apart in different locations; foreign media remains largely hostile to Israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...288406,00.html

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-09-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
There is something very annoying about Lieberman. Although I appreciate his courageous stance on the war, he still seems pretentious, arrogant and condescending. His hollywood bashing made him seem like a twisted version of the church lady. I think personality played a major role here. This just wasn't an election over policy.

I was glad to see Cynthia McKinney go. It is too bad we couldn't use the primary to get rid of some of the bad eggs in our party.

2, except for the courageous bit. Courageous? Principled, maybe, but not courageous.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-09-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

"The British Government has learned that..."

Still not a lie.

Depending on how you want to parse the word "lie," whatever, but certainly an attempt to mislead. And I appreciate that you're not trying to deny that.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-09-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
dissent. The analogy is off. the fact is, all empty space is not filled with ether and if someone who knows that quotes aristotle then that is close enough to a lie to be equivalent.

With Bush, they thought it might be true. They had some intelligence that indicated it was and then some subsequent intelligence that conflicted with the earlier intelligence. The brits only had one type of intelligence and were a key ally. I think citing their intelligence, when you still believed it might be true (and as far as I am aware it was never absolutely proven that it was not true) is fine.

It was a judgement call. No dishonesty.

The CIA told them they couldn't say it because it wasn't supported by the evidence. Full stop. It was taken out of an earlier address for this reason. But then the White House tried to use it again for the State of the Union. And the CIA again said "no." So they added the language about Britain. Plainly, an attempt to skirt the fact that the intelligence was otherwise.

Quote:

Again, if it turned out Saddam got the yellow cake and made a bomb and dropped it on SF, Ty would have been howling louder than the most that Bush;s inteligence dropped the ball. And questioning why the brits got it right.

If you had a pony, you could be a cowboy. But you don't and you aren't.

Adder · 08-09-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And when you ltwist facts by conveniently leaving out the preceding words "Great Britain has learned that..." which, in light of still unrefuted British intelligence and later confirmed by Lord Butler's report, makes Bush's statement true, is this also akin to lying?

It is when those words are inserted specifically because your own intelligence disagrees.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-09-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
It is when those words are inserted specifically because your own intelligence disagrees.

Slave says "still unrefuted British intelligence," but the only reason the words were in there was because the CIA said the British were wrong. Is there a better example of cherry-picking intelligence results to support a pre-selected policy?

taxwonk · 08-09-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account

Thank G-d history will be the ultimate vindication for George W. and his courageous stand against the enemies of peace and freedom.

This sounds ike something one would read on one of those posters the Chines government is always sticking up in Tienanmen Square. The only thing missing from the syntax is referring to Shrub as "Glorious."

Adder · 08-09-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Assume Lieberman loses the primary.

Also assume that he runs as an independent, which given the margin of loss tonight and the lack of any viable R candidate, he would nuts not to do, the seat is his to keep.

When he wins, who does he caucus with?

Based on (i) the continuing violence in the ME (ii) and relatredly, continued threats to Israel's existence from Hezbollah and Iran, (iii) and relatedly Iran's nukes that it has and tests (on August 22) and (iv) the continued flirtation of the democrat party with anti-Israel anti-semitic pro-Euro/ME terrorists' positions; I go out on a limb here and now and predict Joltin Joe will caucus with the Rs.

Who has the guts to go on record with me!?!?!

Also, of note, once Lieberman turns I, he is no longer a D, and thus the Senate will be 55-43-2. Ouch.

In his concession speech, he said he was running as an independent democrat, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

sebastian_dangerfield · 08-09-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I will be supporting the Republican in the race. Since Joe is so selfish and puts himself above his party, our guy may have a chance. Joe will split the Demo vote giving the Repub a victory.

You can spin that in the other direction. It's just as accurate to say that because of the selfishness of several grass roots lunatices who do not represent the general consensus of CT voters, the Dem party is fucked and will likely lose a seat in the Senate.