A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What happended to Juan?

Yesterday, my complaining caused an administrator here to act in an entirely justified manner and cancel a forum event. She was right to take that action based upon my poor sportsmanship. I surely do not want the following to be perceived as bitching.

On infirm, juan was a fine Sock used only for the best intent. I believe its work on Greedy Canada and the PB can stand with any work of my other Hank/Abba/notme socks. Juan the Marine had a clearly defined personality. Soon on infirm came Juan USMC. This sock, thought important in it's own right, did cause confusion as it worked in a manner that my Juan would not have used.

When we came here, Juan USMC registered before I did. When I complained to Slave he brought up some argument about geographic limitation between Trademark rights, and an argument I had made when stealing the use of a notorious infrim sock for use here. Of course, the situations were much different but I found no relief. Thus, Juan the Marine exists only as a memory. Plus, since I always f' up infirm logins its not even in existence there anymore.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
As I've pointed out many times, the number of guido references from others far exceed this.

You've pointed that out many times, but haven't identified any "guido references" other than your own. I guess you find those okay in the "self-deprecating" category or something.

You've also occasionally said that if anyone says the words "The Sopranos" they are showing hatred for Italians, but I consider this just one of your more lovable personality quirks. (Admittedly, the competition from your other quirks is thin.)

[Gattigap]

The NYT's Frank Rich works himself into a nice lather over the Armstrong Williams scandal -- though here he makes an interesting observation.

• But perhaps the most fascinating Williams TV appearance took place in December 2003, the same month that he was first contracted by the government to receive his payoffs. At a time when no one in television news could get an interview with Dick Cheney, Mr. Williams, of all "journalists," was rewarded with an extended sit-down with the vice president for the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a nationwide owner of local stations affiliated with all the major networks. In that chat, Mr. Cheney criticized the press for its coverage of Halliburton and denounced "cheap shot journalism" in which "the press portray themselves as objective observers of the passing scene, when they obviously are not objective."
  
  This is a scenario out of "The Manchurian Candidate." Here we find Mr. Cheney criticizing the press for a sin his own government was at that same moment signing up Mr. Williams to commit. The interview is broadcast by the same company that would later order its ABC affiliates to ban Ted Koppel's "Nightline" recitation of American casualties in Iraq and then propose showing an anti-Kerry documentary, "Stolen Honor," under the rubric of "news" in prime time just before Election Day. (After fierce criticism, Sinclair retreated from that plan.) Thus the Williams interview with the vice president, implicitly presented as an example of the kind of "objective" news Mr. Cheney endorses, was in reality a completely subjective, bought-and-paid-for fake news event for a broadcast company that barely bothers to fake objectivity and both of whose chief executives were major contributors to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

In fairness, though, Mr. Williams believed in it, so it was OK.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
In fairness, though, Mr. Williams believed in it, so it was OK.

Plus, he wasn't paid for the statements he made. The company that he owns merely sold a service in exchange for money. (Those who saw TDS the other night will know the statements I'm referencing. Deeply surreal.)

Maybe the Admin was just getting nostalgic for Pravda and TASS.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The NYT's Frank Rich works himself into a nice lather over the Armstrong Williams scandal -- though here he makes an interesting observation.

• But perhaps the most fascinating Williams TV appearance took place in December 2003, the same month that he was first contracted by the government to receive his payoffs. At a time when no one in television news could get an interview with Dick Cheney, Mr. Williams, of all "journalists," was rewarded with an extended sit-down with the vice president for the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a nationwide owner of local stations affiliated with all the major networks. In that chat, Mr. Cheney criticized the press for its coverage of Halliburton and denounced "cheap shot journalism" in which "the press portray themselves as objective observers of the passing scene, when they obviously are not objective."
  
  This is a scenario out of "The Manchurian Candidate." Here we find Mr. Cheney criticizing the press for a sin his own government was at that same moment signing up Mr. Williams to commit. The interview is broadcast by the same company that would later order its ABC affiliates to ban Ted Koppel's "Nightline" recitation of American casualties in Iraq and then propose showing an anti-Kerry documentary, "Stolen Honor," under the rubric of "news" in prime time just before Election Day. (After fierce criticism, Sinclair retreated from that plan.) Thus the Williams interview with the vice president, implicitly presented as an example of the kind of "objective" news Mr. Cheney endorses, was in reality a completely subjective, bought-and-paid-for fake news event for a broadcast company that barely bothers to fake objectivity and both of whose chief executives were major contributors to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

In fairness, though, Mr. Williams believed in it, so it was OK.

About 3 years ago Atticus stopped being bothered by all this and just started pretending West Wing was the news. It's still on.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
About 3 years ago Atticus stopped being bothered by all this and just started pretending West Wing was the news. It's still on.

Sounds like the approach of many FNC viewers.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Plus, he wasn't paid for the statements he made. The company that he owns merely sold a service in exchange for money. (Those who saw TDS the other night will know the statements I'm referencing. Deeply surreal.)

Maybe the Admin was just getting nostalgic for Pravda and TASS.

For what it's worth, the right of center blogs have brutalized Williams on this. Michelle Malkin in particular.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
For what it's worth, the right of center blogs have brutalized Williams on this. Michelle Malkin in particular.

Have they brutalized the Administration as well? I'm less bothered by Armstrong (who I'd never really heard of before) for being a whore and taking the money, and more so by the Admin's actions.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Have they brutalized the Administration as well? I'm less bothered by Armstrong (who I'd never really heard of before) for being a whore and taking the money, and more so by the Admin's actions.

Did they pay him more or less than Dean paid Kos?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Did they pay him more or less than Dean paid Kos?

Que?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
For what it's worth, the right of center blogs have brutalized Williams on this. Michelle Malkin in particular.

I just perused her columns on this. She hates the NCLB Act anyway, so castigating Williams for taking money to promote it is hardly a test of moral strength for her. She's all over Paige; conveniently, he's on the way out. Other than that, she limits herself to a single-sentence harumphing that "someone in the Bush administration should pay the consequences" (or words to that effect).

So for what it's worth, from what I can see that Malkin is saying, it ain't worth much.

[Replaced_Texan]

Blogging makes the world surreal.

Mike was in Iraq.

Mike will be coming home now.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Have they brutalized the Administration as well? I'm less bothered by Armstrong (who I'd never really heard of before) for being a whore and taking the money, and more so by the Admin's actions.

Yes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I just perused her columns on this. She hates the NCLB Act anyway, so castigating Williams for taking money to promote it is hardly a test of moral strength for her. She's all over Paige; conveniently, he's on the way out. Other than that, she limits herself to a single-sentence harumphing that "someone in the Bush administration should pay the consequences" (or words to that effect).

So for what it's worth, from what I can see that Malkin is saying, it ain't worth much.

You must have missed this: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/m...20050112.shtml

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Que?

Whenever Hank is really embarassed by reality, he makes something up about Dems.

Remember, just yesterday, when confronted with the sad reality of Iraq, he tried comparing (unidentified) Dem calls for "civil war" to the bombing of police convoys and terrorist attacks on US soldiers.

It's another of his lovable personality quirks. Tomorrow I think he's going to make something up about the ecomony under Clinton, to counter today's news on unemployment filings (up 10,000, instead of the large predicted drop).