All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ty -

OK, that's an interesting point I hadn't considered. But if that's the case, isn't the Democratic party cutting off its nose to spite its face here? I mean, why support a strident left winger who's only going to make the party seem imbecilic over a well liked centrist? Joe Lieberman is one of the few Democrats who has some across-the-aisle respect and reflects well on the party. I don't know Lamont that well, but he's so far appeared shrill.

They all sell out thier side to be players. I think in Lieberman's case the man is truly a moderate, somewhat hawkish Democrat, and I think your party needs that voice, from someone with his stature in particular.

Call me nuts, I just don't think you piss all over the Jomentum. Or maybe I just like the guy because he seems principled to me.

SD

I haven't seen a lot of Ned Lamont, but what I've seen suggests that the guy would be seen as a perfectly decent candidate if it were an open election.

As for the relationship between Joe and the Democratic Party, doesn't it say it all that he's going to run as an independent if he doesn't win the primary? In his mind, he's bigger than the party, and has been for some time.

I think it's a good thing for the country that people can run as independents if they have popular support but not a lot of support within their party. It's good to have independents involved in the process. But if Joe's an independent now, he should stop pretending to be a Democrat.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I haven't seen a lot of Ned Lamont, but what I've seen suggests that the guy would be seen as a perfectly decent candidate if it were an open election.

As for the relationship between Joe and the Democratic Party, doesn't it say it all that he's going to run as an independent if he doesn't win the primary? In his mind, he's bigger than the party, and has been for some time.

I think it's a good thing for the country that people can run as independents if they have popular support but not a lot of support within their party. It's good to have independents involved in the process. But if Joe's an independent now, he should stop pretending to be a Democrat.

Ty -

Lamont's main plank is massive troop withdrawal. That's not acceptable, whether you agree with the war or not.

I offer this will complete sincerity and no hyperbole - it is not rational to advocate a large scale withdrawal at this point. Whether you agree we should be there or not, the forces are needed to keep stability. The case that Iraq is able to stand alone is not strong, and based more on wishful thinking than hard evidence (from what I've read). Given all this, Lamont is not a reasonable candidate for office. He's a fringe player pushing for an impossible policy change. That's not an acceptable alternative to Lieberman, particularly where you're saying the only objection to Lieberman is his squabbles with his own party.

Call me nuts, but the unity of the Democratic Party doesn't trump the country following a sound policy in Iraq. The Democratic Party's regressive machine mentality, which lieberman is bucking, is exactly what's left the party so damn castrated and inconsequential.

But then... maybe it goes deeper than all that. My suspicion is the Democrats simply can't make a decision because they're overinformed on everything. They see both sides of every issue and vacilate and try to placate everybody, which leaves no one satisfied and everybody angry. They understand every side to an issue, but can't seem to grasp that govt is in the decision making business. Perhaps this explains their love for slow moving programs and byzantine hierarchies. They like soft decisions with little downside - hedges - protective measures. Maybe this is why the Democrats are so favored by lawyers. No pain...

And no gain.

Bush is arguably reckless and overly ambitious, but he has made decisions.

SD

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ty -

Lamont's main plank is massive troop withdrawal. That's not acceptable, whether you agree with the war or not.

..............................................................................................

Call me nuts, but the unity of the Democratic Party doesn't trump the country following a sound policy in Iraq. The Democratic Party's regressive machine mentality, which lieberman is bucking, is exactly what's left the party so damn castrated and inconsequential.

SD

Not surprisingly for an old line white shoe state like CT, this could be the fetid whiff of anti-semitism here.

Either way, Jewish voters, FriendsofIsrael, and supporters of freedom (religious and political) should take note of the lines being drawn here and which party is more likely to defend our one staunch ally Israel.

Let's face it, Dems=party of Islamofacist sympathisers (eg, see Rachael Corrie) and apologists; Reps=party of God and Freedom.

Pardon if this has been substantively addressed, but has anyone ever explained why Mrs. H. Clinton would claim to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary?

Isn't it a bit unusual for her mother, a lifelong resident of Cook County IL, to name her after someone who was then (in 1947) an abscure little known bee keeper in New Zeeland, who did not get world wide attention until he climbed Everest in 1953.

Anyone? It seems that this and the many other lies and inconsistencies will need to be explained before the 08 campaign.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by fair and balanced
Pardon if this has been substantively addressed, but has anyone ever explained why Mrs. H. Clinton would claim to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary?

Isn't it a bit unusual for her mother, a lifelong resident of Cook County IL, to name her after someone who was then (in 1947) an abscure little known bee keeper in New Zeeland, who did not get world wide attention until he climbed Everest in 1953.

Anyone? It seems that this and the many other lies and inconsistencies will need to be explained before the 08 campaign.

Maybe her parents told her the story and she never thought through how implausible it was. remember, this is the lady who stood by Bill's claims of fidelity- she's quite gullible. do you think we can afford to have her negotiating with our enemies?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ty -

Lamont's main plank is massive troop withdrawal. That's not acceptable, whether you agree with the war or not.

I offer this will complete sincerity and no hyperbole - it is not rational to advocate a large scale withdrawal at this point. Whether you agree we should be there or not, the forces are needed to keep stability. The case that Iraq is able to stand alone is not strong, and based more on wishful thinking than hard evidence (from what I've read). Given all this, Lamont is not a reasonable candidate for office. He's a fringe player pushing for an impossible policy change. That's not an acceptable alternative to Lieberman, particularly where you're saying the only objection to Lieberman is his squabbles with his own party.

Call me nuts, but the unity of the Democratic Party doesn't trump the country following a sound policy in Iraq. The Democratic Party's regressive machine mentality, which lieberman is bucking, is exactly what's left the party so damn castrated and inconsequential.

But then... maybe it goes deeper than all that. My suspicion is the Democrats simply can't make a decision because they're overinformed on everything. They see both sides of every issue and vacilate and try to placate everybody, which leaves no one satisfied and everybody angry. They understand every side to an issue, but can't seem to grasp that govt is in the decision making business. Perhaps this explains their love for slow moving programs and byzantine hierarchies. They like soft decisions with little downside - hedges - protective measures. Maybe this is why the Democrats are so favored by lawyers. No pain...

And no gain.

Bush is arguably reckless and overly ambitious, but he has made decisions.

SD

Having a lot of troops in the country is not exactly making it stable. There is a school of thought that the only way to resolve the conflict is to have the Iraqis stand up, and the only way to do that is for the Americans to leave.

On this issue, Lamont is how politics is supposed to work. Lieberman is behind a position that CT Democrats no longer support. Enter a primary challenger articulating a position that's where the voters are.

Even if Lamont is elected, it's not like he's going to be Secretary of Defense. What seems odd to me is that you would waste more time attacking a Democratic Senatorial candidate in CT for his Iraqi position than you would attacking the position -- or lack thereof -- of the assclowns who have been running this war for the last several years and who are now planning the next war with Iran.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Having a lot of troops in the country is not exactly making it stable. There is a school of thought that the only way to resolve the conflict is to have the Iraqis stand up, and the only way to do that is for the Americans to leave.

On this issue, Lamont is how politics is supposed to work. Lieberman is behind a position that CT Democrats no longer support. Enter a primary challenger articulating a position that's where the voters are.

Even if Lamont is elected, it's not like he's going to be Secretary of Defense. What seems odd to me is that you would waste more time attacking a Democratic Senatorial candidate in CT for his Iraqi position than you would attacking the position -- or lack thereof -- of the assclowns who have been running this war for the last several years and who are now planning the next war with Iran.

maybe we can have Jimmy Carter set the insurgents up with nuclear power technology. That always brings a few years of quiet!

GOD SPEED BUSHIE! MAY OUR LORD CONTINUE TO GUIDE YOUR JUST AND SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENCY DURING THIS TRYING TIME OF WAR AND THE TREASON OF THE DNC!!!

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by fair and balanced

I love this picture. Really.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by fair and balanced

"Eyes that have foresight, for hindsight won't do"

• [A]n unnamed CIA briefer . . . flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the summer of 2001, amid reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."
  
  Bush heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

linky
Needs an optometrist for the foresight, it turns out, but the hindsight has been 20/20 since mid-September, 2001.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"Eyes that have foresight, for hindsight won't do"

• [A]n unnamed CIA briefer . . . flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the summer of 2001, amid reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."
  
  Bush heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

linky
Needs an optometrist for the foresight, it turns out, but the hindsight has been 20/20 since mid-September, 2001.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page..._bin_laden.htm

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page..._bin_laden.htm

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/03/...nton_again.php

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/03/...nton_again.php

ummm no. I posted LA Times. that's a party admission for you guys.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Having a lot of troops in the country is not exactly making it stable. There is a school of thought that the only way to resolve the conflict is to have the Iraqis stand up, and the only way to do that is for the Americans to leave.

On this issue, Lamont is how politics is supposed to work. Lieberman is behind a position that CT Democrats no longer support. Enter a primary challenger articulating a position that's where the voters are.

Even if Lamont is elected, it's not like he's going to be Secretary of Defense. What seems odd to me is that you would waste more time attacking a Democratic Senatorial candidate in CT for his Iraqi position than you would attacking the position -- or lack thereof -- of the assclowns who have been running this war for the last several years and who are now planning the next war with Iran.

Ty --

1. This is not how politics is supposed to work. The "machine" in CT is pushing a popular candidate out because he's not towing the party line, which is dictated by a strident, foolish minority. You admitted as much when you said Lieberman had to go because he was bucking his own party too much. This is an example of exactly what politics shouldn't be. It's exactly the sort of idiot extremist tale wagging the dog the Democrats decry in the GOP. It reminds me a little bit of the GOP running over McCain. That was wrong and stupid, and this is just as dim.

2. The theory that pulling troops out will stabilize Iraq is a feeble attempt to come up with a justification for cutting and running. We pull the troops and the place will fall into civil war. Doing that is a senseless risk. If we're wrong on that gamble, we'll have to send troops back in, at considerable increased loss of life and cost. I will grant you this, that position does a surprising level of creativity in Democratic rationalizations. I didn't know they could be that imaginative.

3. We're not going to war with Iran, and you know better than to make blanket statements like that. Come on. We can discuss this without getting into that level of broad brushed deflection and grandstanding.

SD

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm no. I posted LA Times. that's a party admission for you guys.

The guy who wrote that thing certainly doesn't write for the LA Times. Nice try, though.