The Beat

Lamont's Winning Message for Democrats

posted by John Nichols on 08/09/2006 @ 12:44am

For whom does the bellwether toll? It tolls for thee, Joe Lieberman – and, more importantly, for the neoconservative vision that you embraced more passionately than other Democrats and most Republicans.

Lieberman, a three-term incumbent whose defenses of the Iraq War and enthusiasm for a fight with Iran made him the Bush administration's favorite Democrat, lost to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont by a solid margin in Tuesday's Connecticut Senate primary.

With most of the votes counted, Lamont was leading by a 52-48 margin, a result that just a few months ago would have been unimaginable.

The Connecticut voting offered a classic bellwether contest. On one side of the Democratic primary ballot was Lieberman, a three-term incumbent who had aligned himself with the Bush administration in support of the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq. On the other side was Lamont, the previously unknown challenger who surfed a wave of resentment against the neoconservative nightmare that has gotten the United States bogged down in Iraq, rendered it diplomatically dysfunctional in the Middle East and created more global resentment toward America than at any time in the nation's history.

As such, the Connecticut contest was always about more than one senator and one state. And in the end, with massive media scrutiny and the frenzied attention of political players from across the country, the primary became what former Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker described on primary night as "a referendum on the Iraq war – not just for Connecticut but for the whole country."

At the very least, the Connecticut primary became a referendum on how the Democratic Party ought to respond to a war that it has often questioned but never effectively opposed.

If Connecticut said "no" Lieberman and the war, Lamont supporters in the state and beyond its borders argued during the course of the primary campaign, party leaders might finally be forced to develop a coherent opposition message. And if Democrats developed a spine, the reasoning went, the warped politics of a nation that has been manipulated for the better part of a decade by the fearmongering of White House political czar Karl Rove might finally take a turn away from the madness of a latter-day King George.

"A lot of people around the country are looking to Connecticut to see what course they want for this country," Lamont said as his state began voting Tuesday in the most closely watched U.S. Senate primary the nation has witnessed in decades.

What the country saw was a win for an anti-war candidate over one of the most prominent war supporters in the Senate. It was not so conclusive a win as some Lamont backers had hoped for. The final result was close enough for Lieberman to find encouragement for his planned independent run, setting up a three-way November contest between Democrat Lamont, Republican Alan Schlesinger and the sole candidate of the senator's "Connecticut for Lieberman" party.

If the primary offers any indication, that November contest will be an intense one. And, while many analysts still try to portray Lieberman as the frontrunner, the reality is that Lamont's star is on the rise. And he is on the right side of the issue that polls identify as the biggest concern of Connecticut voters: the war in Iraq.

Make no mistake, Lamont's victory was a breakthrough win for the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. With a candidate who had no name recognition in January, anti-war Democrats displaced an 18-year incumbent senator who in 2000 was the party's nominee for vice president and who in 2004 mounted a campaign for the party's presidential nomination.

How did Lamont succeed where others – including 2004 presidential contender and current Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean -- failed? Not by simply expressing opposition to the war, nor even by expressing frustration with Lieberman's refusal to question even the most misguided of Bush administration foreign policies.

Lamont won by doing something most national Democrats have failed to do over the past several election cycles. He put the war in perspective, telling voters that the $250 million a day that is shifted from the U.S. Treasury into a failed fight in Iraq and the deep pockets of defense contractors like Halliburton could be better used to pay for education and health care at home and smart foreign aid programs abroad.

The Lamont message was always a far more sophisticated one than most of the national media coverage of the campaign suggested. The challenger rarely spoke just about Iraq, but instead invited voters to join in a broader discussion of foreign policy, American interests and American values. And he never allowed the war debate to be isolated from the debate about how an America that was not bogged down in Iraq might better spend its resources.

Mocking the rhetoric of the Bush administration and Lieberman regarding Iraq, Lamont said on Tuesday night: "Stay the course -- that's not a winning strategy in Iraq and it's not a winning strategy for America." He meant what he was saying. Just as Lamont wants to "[fix] George Bush's failed foreign policy," he also wants to fix failed domestic policies that have produced what he correctly refers to as a "broken" health care system and an education system that leaves too many children behind. And he recognizes the linkages between failures abroad and failures at home.

Connecticut Democrats rewarded that recognition by handing the Senate nomination to Lamont in a historic primary vote.

National Democratic party leaders and strategists, who have had such a hard time figuring out their message going into this fall's House and Senate elections, would be wise to take a lesson from the campaign that Ned Lamont waged, and the result it produced.

Comments (629)

  1. Lamont will come under heavy scrutiny now that he's the nominee and not simply an insurgent underdog. But unless a major skeleton is uncovered from his closet or there is a gaffe - Lieberman will not escape his Bush baggage. Lamont wins in a three way race with 47% of the vote this November.

    Intrepid Liberal Journal [intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com]

    Posted by trebor007 at 08/09/2006 @ 12:49am

  2. Republicans are all going to tell us this is what they wanted, but Laura Bush is the only Republican who got what she wanted. Maybe George Bush will kiss his wife now that he doesnt have to entertain Joe Lieberman anymore.

    Posted by conshame at 08/09/2006 @ 01:59am

  3. Dear RIO BRAVO,

    you're stupid.

    sincerely, everybody

    do you have any idea what real left-wing extremeism is? No agressive war, no torture, no president-above-the-law. Are these really extream positions? Joe Liberman was a right-of-center polician. Lamont is, yes, little left. But sh*t, look at polls, the country is a little left right now. deal with it. your crappy reign is ending.

    Posted by goodbomb at 08/09/2006 @ 02:16am

  4. Goodbom,

    "little left"...are you kidding? Left of who Castro? Chavez? Where the hell are YOU?...my God, you are not serious, are you?.."little left"?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 02:37am

  5. EVERYTHING looks "left" when you find yourself skidding out of control over on the far-right-hand shoulder of the road. And with the Israeli-American bloody blitzkrieg of Lebanon and Iraq making Hezbollah sympathizers out of most of the known earth, making reasonable, liberal Democrats out of non-crazy middle-Americans shouldn't prove difficult in the least.

    And on a related note, we should not overlook the fact that yet another "endorsement" by papa-Bush's boating buddy Bill Clinton had yet another completely non-measureable impact. I mean, has this guy "counseled," "advised," or "campaigned for" anyone in the last five years -- including the Dubai Ports cartel -- who didn't lose?

    We need new Democratic candidates like Ned Lamont: sane and successful people whom we hopefully will never have to hear insult us like Bill Clinton did by boasting: "I have always defended President Bush against the Left on Iraq." Grrrrr!

    So, OK. First Holy Joe Lieberman and then You-Know-Her: little miss voodoo flag burner, prayer-rug holy roller, wimpy war-agitator, and AIPAC trained barking seal.

    America really needs to flush the incumbent toilet in Washington, and then fill up the bowl with some clean people for a change. The human crap piling up in the nation's political sewer pipe right now has produced an intolerable stink. This festering bloody bacterial waste now poses too great a health hazard to our nation and the world. The latrine definitely needs disinfecting.

    Posted by Michael Murry at 08/09/2006 @ 03:50am

  6. No one has mentioned L.'s Zionism and how it influenced his pro war stance. Anyone?

    Posted by alh1939 at 08/09/2006 @ 05:19am

  7. No one has mentioned L.'s Zionism and how it influenced his pro war stance. Anyone?

    Posted by alh1939 at 08/09/2006 @ 05:19am

  8. Well, you know...

    Lamont hasn't won the Senate seat YET.

    I think he will, but I wouldn't start my poultry offspring enumeration immediately.

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 06:49am

  9. BTW, I know the THEORY is that "once the DLC/centrist Dems have been ousted or 'learn their lesson' and move Left...that the moderate and independent voters they once won on, may be lost, but it will be MORE than 'made up for' by new voters who appreciate an honest and straightforward progressive agenda" (or even "No, those moderates, even conservative Dems will appreciate it too and reject their old DLC-based politics")....but...

    anybody have any PROOF that that's going to happen? I mean, this was a Democratic primary, not the general election. And SOMEBODY in the past has been voting for Lieberman, Hillary, Biden, Obama, et al.

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 07:04am

  10. JOHN MAASCH:

    Your hyperbole is entertaining, but entirely devoid of representing reality. Lamont is, as he himself has said, very much a New Dealer in his personal political views. The New Deal was hardly far left. It certainly is no where near Chavez or Castro. If you actually understood ANY of their positions, you might realize that you are, in fact, blowing smoke for the sake of being seen. It's patently obvious, especially on this subject, that you have no idea about that which you are talking.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/09/2006 @ 08:10am

  11. God Bless the DEM party and the ones who voted for Lamont.

    I, for one am overjoyed.

    What a glorious day, i almost cannot contain myself.

    Thank you, Thank you, Thank you, and Thank you!!!

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 08:11am

  12. Listen up America...We the people, have spoken...Take note..It's not so much the war, as it is that the people in this country is ready for change...This administration has no leadership including the conservative run government...Gas per gallon at the pump have doubled since 2001...Corruption..Just a couple of examples of the many incompencies of this government...And the people are fed up with it....period

    Posted by djmarch at 08/09/2006 @ 08:12am

  13. No one has mentioned L.'s Zionism and how it influenced his pro war stance. Anyone?

    Posted by ALH1939 08/09/2006 @ 05:19am | ignore this person

    This is what elected Lamont.....what a gift.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 08:13am

  14. Gas per gallon at the pump have doubled since 2001...

    Posted by DJMARCH 08/09/2006 @ 08:12am | ignore this person

    And the DEMS are going to correct this???? lolol

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 08:14am

  15. MASK:

    Perhaps the reason so few people in this country vote is due to the fact that no one represents the views of all those supposedly apathetic people. Maybe, just maybe, a move left is exactly what we need. When the DLC-led Democratic party for all intents and purposes looks just like the mainstream Republicans (and even some farther right Republicans, as Hillary most certainly does), where is the choice? It's a choice between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.

    Now, I am not some pie-in-the-sky, ooh, this changes everything sort of bandwagon supporter. This is simply the canary in the coalmine, so to speak, that things are changing. It remains to be seen how much the power elite in this country actually allow things to change organically before they put the kibosh on the "roiling masses" making their opinions known. My guess is, not very far at all.

    But I guess that's just my cynicism talking.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/09/2006 @ 08:14am

  16. But I guess that's just my cynicism talking.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 08/09/2006 @ 08:14am | ignore this person

    Nah, thats Noam Chomsky talking

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 08:15am

  17. Posted by FREIHEIT 08/09/2006 @ 01:23am

    so, dem vote splits in conn. republican wins in nov. at least nichols is happy tonight. and how do we know lamont won fairly?

    Wow Freifeit, you've surpassed Rio and Lvliberty in the fantasy zone here. There is no way, even if Lamont and Leiberman split the Democratic vote right down the middle in Novermber, that Schlesinger could win. He's never polled over 15% in a three-way race. Most CT voters are Democrats, and just won't vote for a Republican no matter what.

    Posted by Stwriley at 08/09/2006 @ 08:34am

  18. Is Connecticut a bellwether?

    Not necessarily. CT voters are better educated than most Americans, and are consequently not stupid enough to believe, as many of our fellow citizens believe, that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Moreover, CT was one of the states hardest hit by 9/11, and CT families were among the plaintiffs in lawsuits alleging that prominent Saudis and Saudi 'Islamic charities' sponsored 9/11 by contributing millions of petrodollars to al Qaida and the Taliban. Said lawsuits were prohibited by the traitors in D.C., including Lieberman, and most of our fellow citizens are not even aware of the Saudi sponsorship of 9/11, or the treasonous appeasement of America's number one terrorist enemy by the GOP and Lieberman, who have been waging war on Muslims from Gitmo to Lebanon as a smokescreen for their betrayal of America to the Wahhabi extremists in Saudi Arabia.

    So does this mean that Democrats will develop a 'coherent message'?

    Hard to tell when even the editors of The Nation, one of the few publications to have reported on the Saudi sponsorship of terrorism and the Republicans' treasonous cover-up of same, persist in pulling punches, using weasel words like 'misled' and 'faulty' to characterize deliberately fabricated 'intelligence' about Iraq. A coherent message would consist of calling a spade a spade: advocating the impeachment of Bush & Cheney for high treason, exposing the truth about 9/11, and enlightening those of our fellow citizens who have been sold a pack of lies about the supposed involvement of Iraq in 9/11.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/09/2006 @ 08:40am

  19. Yo CPT,

    Got a question for you: How much recruiting do you with Young Repblicans groups or College Republicans?

    It sure seems that --- if they are actually serious about they say and are not closet pacificists and/or elitists --- Young Republicans would be the model recruits: of prime fighting age, tempered by the spirit of 9/11 sacrifice that is hands-down the determining political event of their young lives, with the heroic example of their Unitary Executive Decider baked into them. It is a natural constituency for fighting in Bush's Vanity War and it would seem that the only complication would there are no Young Republicans "left behind" on, say, a college campus among whom to recruit.

    Young Repbulicans are the people know that the last two syllables of "American" are "I can". So: Do they? Do they give back to the community that has nurtered them into being red-blooded Americans?

    Again, have you tried recruiting among Young Republicans? If so, did you have to assign numbers after sounding the clarion call to sign up for Bush's Vanity War --- or institute a waiting list for people ready to make a sacrifice, no questions asked?

    Do elaborate, in detail ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 08:45am

  20. The questions now are:

    Is this purely a blue state phenomenon?

    Can Lamont build on his slim democrat majority adding votes from those who voted for Lieberman or those who did not vote (50%)?

    How will moderate republicans and independents vote this November?

    Will this help or hurt democrats nationally in 2006 and 2008?

    In my humble opinion moderate republicans will rally around Lieberman. Those who voted for Lieberman in the primary will stick with Lieberman. Independents will vote for Lieberman. And this is strictly a blue state phenomenon. It will help in blue states and hurt in red states--the basic presidential formula will remain the same (who ever wins Pa., Ohio, Florida --wins)

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/09/2006 @ 08:47am

  21. Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/09/2006 @ 08:45am

    Couldn't have said it better myself....

    Posted by djmarch at 08/09/2006 @ 08:50am

  22. I'm looking forward to the great liberal center retaking it's rightful place as the true leader of the great land

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 08:52am

  23. correction... this great land

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 08:54am

  24. Are today's Republican Youth pro-Americastan --- or Have they succumbed to the seductions of being anti-Americastan?

    CPT,

    Some follow up to previous queries. Here are some thoughts from the president of the Iraqi parliment in that burgeoning allied democracy (reported yesterday at www.juancole.com):

    The president of the Iraqi Parliament, Dr. Mahmoud] Al-Mash'hadani: "...Who plundered Iraq? Who stole from Iraq? Who humiliated Iraq? Who desecrated Iraq's holy sites? Who damaged the honor of Iraqi women? It is none other than the blue jinn whose name is: the occupation."

    Al-Mash'hadani accused the American forces of standing behind terrorist attacks in Iraq, saying: "The occupation is the first and last cause of the problem, it has overthrown the [former] regime without a plan, it has suppressed the state with no reason, it has led to the resistance and it has infiltrated it, it has brought Al-Qaeda to Iraq…" After approving the statement that "American occupation troops stand behind some of the terrorist attacks," he described today's Iraq as "Americastan." '

    Anyway, help us out here: If despite strong rhetorical support for it, a Young Republican refuses to sign up for Bush's Vanity War --- perhaps he or she has "better things to do" --- does that make him or her pro-Americastan? Or has he or she hurtled into being anti-Americastan?

    Since you and fellow travellers have so many times been able to read minds and divine people's deepest motives, I am hoping that you will be able to help out once again with some mental x-rays.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 08:59am

  25. it has brought Al-Qaeda to Iraq…

    Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/09/2006 @ 08:59am

    oooooooooooooooo

    that's gotta hurt

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 09:03am

  26. Mi 7th district. Wahlberg won against a moderate republican. He was supported almost entirely by out of the state Club for Growth. Schwarz was a true mainstreet repube, sat on the Armed Services and Ag committees. I talked to 3 people that voted for Wahlberg, and they did not even remember his name!!! Just "I voted against Schwarz"!! WHY? He was "liberal". Even though chimpy, Mcain and most other repubes endorsed Schwarz.

    So now we will have yet another nutjob far right repube in congress, the dem challenger is a way far out hippiechick that has 0 chance in the conservative district. Sick!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2006 @ 09:04am

  27. there's nothing quite like evangelic conservative republicans spreading terrorism around the world...

    in the name of god

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 09:04am

  28. Posted by JORCHEIM 08/09/2006 @ 08:14am | ignore this person

    Yes, I know that's the theory..."There's no difference between the Parties and that's why people don't vote"....but...

    SOMEBODY has been voting for Lieberman for his last 3 elections (or Hillary, Biden, Carper, Bayh, Dorgan, Landrieu, etc.)

    Was it all just "lesser of two evils"...or is it possible those representatives..."represented" something their constituents liked?

    And if "the Revolution" truly is here (with Lamont's victory)...what about Jonathan Tasini in New York? or Carl Romanelli in Pennsylvania?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 09:18am

  29. GO LAMONT! The march of folly continues...

    Posted by woodyee at 08/09/2006 @ 09:19am

  30. the dem challenger is a way far out hippiechick that has 0 chance in the conservative district. Sick!!

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/09/2006 @ 09:04am | ignore this person

    DARLADOON lives in the Michigan 7th?!?!?...I thought she lived in D.C. (hehe)

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 09:20am

  31. Go Wahlberg, the march of the lemmings begins.

    you righties are devoid of logic. Willing to vote for a real extreme idealoque, yet label a middle of the road guy like Lamont extremely liberal. Black is white.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2006 @ 09:22am

  32. JOHN MAASCH : Living with Cleavage

    He writes,

    Goodbom, "little left"...are you kidding? Left of who Castro? Chavez? Where the hell are YOU?...my God, you are not serious, are you?.."little left"? Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    He's ostensibly talking about Ned Lamont, millionaire exec from the marxist-lenist People's Republic of ... Connecticut.

    I cannot take his MAASCH's "ideas" seriously as they are second-hand renditions of crappy right-wing propaganda in the first place. But I do want to help.

    MAASCH, since you have tits now, why not make the best of it (or ... them)? Given that you have teenaged kids, perhaps you can engage them in a Tit-Growing Contest? See who can sprout the bustiest tits? As I doubt you will be getting tit-fucked with the resultant "pearl necklace" squirted onto your hairy upper chest, it may be the one avenue for making the best of the situation.

    You can maybe preface the idea to your daughter(s) with a winking, "Y'know, I'm not like other daddies" or "I bet your friends' daddies don'yt have ideas like this".

    Wouldn't that be cool, swell, hip ... ???

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 09:24am

  33. DARLADOON lives in the Michigan 7th?!?!?...I thought she lived in D.C. (hehe)

    Posted by MASK 08/09/2006 @ 09:20am | ignore this person

    Pretty close!

    Ranier is a nice woman, fairly succesful organic farmer, but just will be able to do nothing in the House. the dems passd on 2 more experienced candidates. The problem with primaries, usually brings out the extremes of both parties. That is how we get the congress we have now, a bunch of do nothings.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2006 @ 09:26am

  34. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060814/new_christian_zionism

    Wahlberg will fit right in.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2006 @ 09:32am

  35. So how come I don't hear about how this race in MI is for the "soul" of the repube party? Maybe 'cuz they sold their soul to the devil.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2006 @ 09:38am

  36. Posted by CRABWALK 08/09/2006 @ 09:38am | ignore this person

    Have a feeling that "The Nation" writers will be "hands off" on the Schwarz-Walberg race, CRAB.

    If they write anything negative about Walberg and ousting of Schwarz...parallels to CT too close for comfort.

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 09:52am

  37. Glenn,

    You closet porn boy..good to see you out of the closet...should fit right in with the new democraric wave of progressives surging victory as America to re-identifies it self as uberlibs,...what is it that Will thinks you all are...OH, yeah, "the great liberal center"...heh,heh, heh,...I am glad you now feel safe to personally expose your fixation on male breasts, I guess that is your thing...you must be so proud...maybe we can have a parade float for you on gay pride day?..but please, put me on ignore, the idea of you typing with a "little wood" getting in the way of the keys is disturbing...your wit and clear sighted views are need here...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:08am

  38. "He's ostensibly talking about Ned Lamont, millionaire exec from the marxist-lenist People's Republic of ... Connecticut."

    I never thought of this but it may be closer than one thinks..I pray that all the Neds of the US win their primarys...and become National Candidates.. good abservation and a good idea...see. we need you at the keys..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:10am

  39. I'd like to see the same thing happen in New York, with Jonathan Tasini (www.tasinifornewyork.org) winning the Democratic Senatorial primary on September 12th.

    Posted by Spambolaya at 08/09/2006 @ 10:11am

  40. Republicans whine, oh its extreme liberal socialism to be against the Disaster in Iraq. Any of you fools who call yourselves Conservatives or some other label that allows you to support the Disaster in Iraq - does any one of you realize that the Disaster in Iraq is a Disaster?

    Does any of you right wingers, saying anyone who doesnt support the Disaster in Iraq is an extreme leftist Socialist, does any one of you understand that George Bushs Disaster in Iraq is a Disaster?

    Here you are, Conservatives, saying: "Anyone who doesnt support the Disaster in Iraq is an extremist",

    Does any one of you Conservatives understand, that George Bushs Disaster in Iraq is a Disaster for America?

    Posted by conshame at 08/09/2006 @ 10:18am

  41. JOR,

    "Your hyperbole is entertaining, but entirely devoid of representing reality. Lamont is, as he himself has said, very much a New Dealer in his personal political views. The New Deal was hardly far left. It certainly is no where near Chavez or Castro..."

    It is hyperbole...I am glad you caught it...lighten up...the point is that inly people from here think Ned is NOT on the left...

    And for yourself, as you said you do not ID your self with any party, your posts lean no where right sided at all, ...in any way...ever...I think it would to be to far a stretch as to hazzard a guess where you would vote had you resided in CT...your strains to be" nuetral or non affiliated" are not working or credible...

    You know the verses....webbed feet, quacks, waddles....feathers...tastes good with orange sauce..

    at any rate..lighten up..this is a good day for you, Ned, Lieberman and the entire Republican machine...everybody wins!!!!How much more democratic can one get...no losers!!!!!!

    As far as the New DEal...can't think of many republicans that would call that national program "hardly far left"..but..maybe you know some...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:19am

  42. Breast boy,

    "He's ostensibly talking about Ned Lamont..."

    Actually, talking about Goodbomb here..

    What kind of bras do you like? Lace or solid color?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:22am

  43. Oh, its extremist to be against the Disaster in Iraq, but here comes John Maasch, he wants to get rid of the New Deal. That isnt extremist - get rid of Social Security. Get rid of education, attack the environment, screw students, use and abuse the elderly - thats not extremist. Americans should not allow Conservative Republicans to define extreme.

    Posted by conshame at 08/09/2006 @ 10:27am

  44. John---Great post---"porn boy" lmao

    If you give people like porn boy enough rope they usually hang themselves.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/09/2006 @ 10:30am

  45. The question of who or what is 'far left' or 'moderate' is irrelevant. Rank-and-file patriots, whether Republican, Democrat, or mugwump, have a common interest: saving our country from the traitors in the White House and Congress.

    A government of patriots would have exposed the Saudi sponsorship of 9/11 and demanded that the high-ranking Saudis responsible be brought to justice, instead of censoring the 9/11 intelligence report, prohibiting the families of 9/11 victims from bringing the truth to light in U.S. courts, and falsely accusing Iraq. If rank-and-file patriots still believe that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, it is due to the propaganda barrage of Fox and other corporate media storm troopers. A majority of real Democrats like Lamont is necessary to expose the betrayal of America and impeach the traitors.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/09/2006 @ 10:33am

  46. The president of the Iraqi Parliament, Dr. Mahmoud] Al-Mash'hadani: "...Who plundered Iraq? Who stole from Iraq? Who humiliated Iraq? Who desecrated Iraq's holy sites? Who damaged the honor of Iraqi women? It is none other than the blue jinn whose name is: the occupation."

    Al-Mash'hadani accused the American forces of standing behind terrorist attacks in Iraq, saying: "The occupation is the first and last cause of the problem, it has overthrown the [former] regime without a plan, it has suppressed the state with no reason, it has led to the resistance and it has infiltrated it, it has brought Al-Qaeda to Iraq…" After approving the statement that "American occupation troops stand behind some of the terrorist attacks," he described today's Iraq as "Americastan."

    Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/09/2006 @ 08:59am | ignore this person

    Let see, if Durbin can call US Troops Nazis...and Kerry can say that we are terrorists....and TEDDY calls us rapists; then why are suprised when a politician, the speaker of the parliment, a sunni i think, says what he did.

    I thought they were our puppet, according to looney leftys, i guess we did establish a democracy there.

    Are you suprised? Hell when DEM Senators say the same things, you really think others arent going to listen?

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 10:33am

  47. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/09/2006 @ 10:33am | ignore this person

    Bud they dont get any farther left than you.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 10:35am

  48. JOHN MAASCH stops pondering his measurements to fulminate,

    I never thought of this but it may be closer than one thinks..I pray that all the Neds of the US win their primarys...and become National Candidates.. good abservation and a good idea...see. we need you at the keys..Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006

    Curious indeed how people who have had success in life --- say, Ned Lamont who had alot of advantages at the start or Clinton who had none --- occasion such terror amongst the conservaClowns. But The Decider's astonishing history of failure in business --- despite coming from one of the country's most E-L-I-T-E Yale/Andover/US Senate-connected families --- is something to rally around. And even more so as The Decider "raises his game" with astounding new heights of national and international failure.

    What is their attraction to failure?

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 10:37am

  49. Republicans whine, oh its extreme liberal socialism to be against the Disaster in Iraq. Any of you fools who call yourselves Conservatives or some other label that allows you to support the Disaster in Iraq - does any one of you realize that the Disaster in Iraq is a Disaster?

    Does any of you right wingers, saying anyone who doesnt support the Disaster in Iraq is an extreme leftist Socialist, does any one of you understand that George Bushs Disaster in Iraq is a Disaster?

    Here you are, Conservatives, saying: "Anyone who doesnt support the Disaster in Iraq is an extremist",

    Does any one of you Conservatives understand, that George Bushs Disaster in Iraq is a Disaster for America?

    Posted by CONSHAME 08/09/2006 @ 10:18am

    Excellent Post !!!

    Posted by djmarch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:38am

  50. Con,

    "but here comes John Maasch, he wants to get rid of the New Deal."

    Huh? Where, how, why who,what and when did you come up with this gem?

    Stay away from porn boy...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:42am

  51. Mr. Nichols:

    While your article about Ned Lamont's win is excellent and it was important to highlight Lamont's win, I believe it is equally import to emphasize how illiberal Republicans continue to pull their party more to the "neanderthal" wing of the Republican Party.

    The illiberal and bigoted Republican right wing guided the Michigan Republican Party further to the "give-away-to-the-wealthy" and "intelligent design" wing of the Republican Party. The defeat of 'moderate' Republican Representative Joe Schwarz by running a more illiberal and radical right-winger, Tim Walberg, is the leitmotif of the Republicans. Additionally, the victory of Ned Lamont over Joe "arrogant" Lieberman scares the hell out of the illiberal Republicans, not to mention a few "lesser of the two evils" Democrats.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/09/2006 @ 10:44am

  52. Samcrosset makes a very good point, we need to find out about 911, what did George Bush know, when did he know it, what did he do about it. Thomas Keene of the 911 commission said so himself.

    Posted by conshame at 08/09/2006 @ 10:45am

  53. Glad to see at least one person pointed out Lieberman's Zionism as a reason for his otherwise idiotic support for this war

    Posted by hfoto at 08/09/2006 @ 10:45am

  54. Posted by SPAMBOLAYA 08/09/2006 @ 10:11am | ignore this person

    Tasini beat Hillary?

    Fantasy, but it would be hilarious to see!

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 10:46am

  55. Porn Boy,

    "The Decider's astonishing history of failure in business --- despite coming from one of the country's most E-L-I-T-E Yale/Andover/US Senate-connected families --- is something to rally around.

    Like Kerry? Oh, wait, he never had a job..maybe Heinz...or Kennedy, no, wait, he never had a job,.like Jay Rockefeller..no, wait, he never had a job....how far should I go with this?.. Stupid post of yours...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:47am

  56. As far as the New DEal...can't think of many republicans that would call that national program "hardly far left"...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 10:19am | ignore this person

    John Maasch is notorious for saying something on a message board, and saying 2 minutes later that he didnt say that. Oh I suppose he'll deny that calling the New Deal far left means he wants to get rid of it.

    And the RNC talking point about how "Its extremist not to support George Bushs disaster in Iraq."

    Posted by conshame at 08/09/2006 @ 10:48am

  57. Al-Mash'hadani accused the American forces of standing behind terrorist attacks in Iraq, saying: "The occupation is the first and last cause of the problem, it has overthrown the [former] regime without a plan, it has suppressed the state with no reason, it has led to the resistance and it has infiltrated it, it has brought Al-Qaeda to Iraq…" After approving the statement that "American occupation troops stand behind some of the terrorist attacks," he described today's Iraq as "Americastan

    He is so absolutely right...We went into Iraq without a plan...Evidence of Bush's promo "Mission Accomplish" And up to just recently, all it has been is just an "occupancy"..Yea we've had a few "Operation This" and "Operation That", but other than that, it has been just plain occupancy. The talk up to recently was about bringing troops home, but instead now are sending more over. Another example of the incompetence and of contradiction of Dumbsfield. The American people have seen through this debacle and now holds this administration accountable...

    Posted by djmarch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:50am

  58. Posted by MICHAEL MURRY 08/09/2006 @ 03:50am |

    "America really needs to flush the incumbent toilet in Washington, and then fill up the bowl with some clean people for a change. The human crap piling up in the nation's political sewer pipe right now has produced an intolerable stink. This festering bloody bacterial waste now poses too great a health hazard to our nation and the world. The latrine definitely needs disinfecting."

    We don't believe in beating around the bush here Michael. If you're going to post on this site You're going to have to avoid subtilities and just come out and say what you mean.

    Seriously I like your style dude.

    Content: A

    Imagery: A+

    Passion: A++

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/09/2006 @ 10:52am

  59. CPT comes to attention:

    sunni i think, says what he did.

    This demonstrates that someone on the US right is aquainted with a distinction between Sunni and Shiite, even if your Maximum Leader has not.

    I thought they were our puppet, according to looney leftys, i guess we did establish a democracy there.

    Or, consider this ... the much ballyhooed "government" of Iraq has about as much real authority as the student "government" of a Middle School in Iowa; hence, what the president of the Iraqi parliment bitterly refers to as "Americastan".

    Your own Maximum Leader has even decided (2005, AD) that meaningful elections cannot be said to occur in a nation under occupation, on the assumption that more binding authority lies elsewhere.

    By the way, CPT, I take your silence on recruiting among Young Republicans as very eloquent in betraying what has long been suspected: This braying group is willing to fight for and with the last drop of someone else's blood, in the proud and lengthy neo-con tradition.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 10:53am

  60. CON,,

    "John Maasch is notorious for saying something on a message board, and saying 2 minutes later that he didnt say that"

    Show...I am here wating for you to show me..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:57am

  61. Joe Lieberman is a bitter old bag. "Partisanship won in Connecticut and I cant let that result stand." So now Joe Lieberman finally takes off his Democrat dress, Joe Lieberman says I am no longer a Democrat.

    His wife said "We dont want to jinx ourselves", but here Joe Lieberman already made out with his boyfriend on TV, he wanted his kiss of death with some tongue in it, as the Salvadoran Solution for Iraq really gets off the ground, and 50 US Soldiers were killed off and their sacrifice only makes America less safe.

    Posted by conshame at 08/09/2006 @ 10:58am

  62. John Maasch - some infantile game, folks - do you see the level of intellect of the typical George Bush / Joe Lieberman supporter?

    Posted by conshame at 08/09/2006 @ 11:00am

  63. Posted by HFOTO 08/09/2006 @ 10:45am

    "Glad to see at least one person pointed out Lieberman's Zionism as a reason for his otherwise idiotic support for this war".

    Shhh! This is the one subject NO ONE can talk about. As Chomsky says if your jewish and you criticize Zionism you're indulging in "Selbsthasse" and anyone else is a Nazi.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/09/2006 @ 11:03am

  64. Refer to 10:48am post

    Posted by conshame at 08/09/2006 @ 11:03am

  65. JOHN MAASCH has never been scared of saying something jaw-droppingly stupid, but here we have the Titted One (or two) at his most fearless:

    Like Kerry? Oh, wait, he never had a job..maybe Heinz...or Kennedy, no, wait, he never had a job,.like Jay Rockefeller..no, wait, he never had a job....how far should I go with this?.. Stupid post of yours...

    Look back at the post, MAASCH: Did I not say, clearly and in plain English, that Lamont came from a privileged background (in contrast with Clinton)? The evidence is right there, now wheelbarrow your boobs out of the way and LOOK toward the screen.

    And since you, and others who share your sorry delusion that you know something, are always pontificating about having both feet planted in the mainstream, it DEMANDS to be pointed out that your Maximum Leader is the product of a strata of society that your run-of-the-mill millionaires, Ivy Leaugers, and Westchester County types can barely imagine. By the way, Kevin Phillips (architect of the Southern Strategy) developes the theme of Bush GOP elitism at length in AMERICAN DYNASTY.

    ConservaClowns echo this talking point handed to them from above all the time --- we're so ordinary!!! --- but look at the fucking howling when it bites them in the ass to see that the leading figure of their movement is from what amounts to royalty.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 11:08am

  66. GLENN C. LEMON

    Since you have mastered the art of ignoring questions that i ask you to comment on, why should i answer questions that you want answers on?

    I am very willing to answer.....but i chose not to until you comment on my other assertions.

    Why if DEMOCRATIC US Senators can call our Soldiers Nazis, terrorists, and thugs; are you suprised when the speaker of the iraqi parliment does the same?

    You knowledge of events on the ground in the war on terror is limited to headlines in the Daily Kos. Far from reality.

    Please come back with more than just a ONE line qoute from GEN Abizad.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 11:12am

  67. NEW YORK (CNN) -- There you go again, Mr. President. You just couldn't help yourself this weekend. For crying out loud, you did everything but declare "Mission Accomplished" on our southern border.

    You told everybody listening to your weekly radio address that you fulfilled your pledge to deploy 6,000 National Guard members to support the Border Patrol and re-asserted your call for "comprehensive immigration reform," meaning a guest-worker program and amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

    Mr. President, 'cause you're sittin' in Crawford, 'cause you're a former governor of Texas and 'cause I was born in Texas myself, let's talk Texas here in hopes we can better communicate. When you said this weekend your administration met a key objective to better secure our nation's borders, well, that was just brag, not fact. Whoever suggested you say such a thing is dumber than a box of hammers. And as they also say in Texas, you oughta cut 'em loose.

    When you talk about the National Guard delivering results at our border and brag about our Border Patrol agents seizing 17,000 pounds of illicit drugs and 2,500 illegal aliens along our southern border since June 15, well doggone it, it's just about obvious those fancy advisers of yours forgot to tell you that's actually well below last fiscal year's pace, when the Border Patrol caught more than 1 million illegal aliens and seized more than 1.3 million pounds of illicit drugs. Did I mention you oughta cut those fancy advisers loose?

    Mr. President, I don't know if anybody told you, but only 250 more Border Patrol agents have been freed up by all those National Guardsmen. If you're curious, that works out to just about one agent for every 10 miles of border with Mexico. You don't think your compadre Vicente Fox is exactly jumpy as spit on a skillet over that deployment, do you?

    By golly, Mr. President, I need to remind you that you told the nation on May 15 that you were sending the National Guard to the border. We simply couldn't find 'em, and we sure went lookin'. Now the National Guard tells us they're not actually on the border but somewhere in the Southwest, and a whole bunch of 'em are in training, not exactly workin' just yet.

    And that fella running the so-called Homeland Security Department...he talks about ending the Border Patrol's catch-and-release program for illegal aliens and then catches and releases them, and then talks about someday achieving "operational control" of the border instead of talkin' about securing it. That makes a lot of people think he's about as yellow as mustard without the bite.

    Now what with the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, Israel battling Hezbollah, Iran and its nuclear program, North Korea and its nuclear program and its missiles, our record trade and budget deficits, a slowing economy and accelerating energy prices, you're probably feelin' right now 'bout like a gnat in a hailstorm. That's understandable.

    But as Texans like us say, when you find yourself in a hole, first thing to do is quit diggin'. You got more than enough critics right now, and sure, every dog has its fleas. But you sure don't want folks to start pullin' for the fleas.

    I don't mean any disrespect, Mr. President, and I do know you're the leader of the free world, but if you would, please look 'round and see just who's followin'.

    Posted by djmarch at 08/09/2006 @ 11:12am

  68. RED

    "Glad to see at least one person pointed out Lieberman's Zionism as a reason for his otherwise idiotic support for this war".

    Shhh! This is the one subject NO ONE can talk about. As Chomsky says if your jewish and you criticize Zionism you're indulging in "Selbsthasse" and anyone else is a Nazi.

    Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/09/2006 @ 11:03am | ignore this person

    Please, Please, Please dont stop getting this message out, and ID all who support it.

    Let the USA know what you really stand for!! Please

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 11:15am

  69. Posted by DJMARCH 08/09/2006 @ 11:12am | ignore this person

    Useful idiocy.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 11:16am

  70. The signal is loud and clear...........Americans want us out of Iraq as soon as possible. Lamont also did something that many outside of Conn. havent heard about. He spoke about the economic and social repercussions of the war.........the loads of money this fiasco costs us daily.........how we could use that money for things that make sense for the country..like education and healthcare.

    Conservatives should have ditched this fear mongering fuck up long ago..........he has thrown our country into a financial abyss with his ultra liberal spending.......the only americans this president has been good for are oil executives and energy company CEO's.......along with the defense industry and big business in general. Unfortunately, that leaves the majority of americans out in the cold, and they are fucking tired of it.

    Lamont spoke about policies that make sense for average americans.......and average americans listened for a change. Thats what happens.......when the country that you live in becomes something that embarrases or angers you.......you move in a different direction. Out with the old and in with the new. This country is tired of propaganda and spin.........we know the war in Iraq is not going to be won.........we know we were duped in the first place........we know you only care about rich people........and we've had enough.

    It's not unpatriotic to take back your country from those that dont really care about it.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/09/2006 @ 11:24am

  71. Please, Please, Please dont stop getting this message out, and ID all who support it.

    Let the USA know what you really stand for!! Please

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 11:15am

    Oh my God I mentioned the "Z" word !

    By the way that vapid rhetorical trick you use of pretending that those who disagree with you are "hoist by their own petard" is starting to wear thin.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/09/2006 @ 11:26am

  72. Ill take the useful idiocy of those on this board that know how to do basic arithmetic over your spoon fed idiocy CPT.

    Why dont you give us all another math lesson you fucking idiot.......the one a couple of weeks ago kept me chuckling for a couple of hours..........again explain how lowering the math standards for military acceptance gives us a better and brighter military in general.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/09/2006 @ 11:28am

  73. 7. Lamont's push for Universal Health Care and other big government issues will paint him as a tax and spend liberal-bad even in Connecticut.

    Posted by LL

    I'd rather be viewed as a tax and spend liberal...........than a tax and kill republican.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/09/2006 @ 11:30am

  74. But I guess that's just my cynicism talking.

    Posted by JORCHEIM 08/09/2006 @ 08:14am | ignore this person

    Nah, thats Noam Chomsky talking

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 08:15am

    Displaying your ignorance of Chomsky.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2006 @ 11:34am

  75. CPT,

    Why if DEMOCRATIC US Senators can call our Soldiers Nazis, terrorists, and thugs; are you suprised when the speaker of the iraqi parliment does the same?

    Huh? What?

    For purely partison purposes, you are furiously hammering together a menagerie in which some carefully selected wink or nod in Washington by a Dem Senator is read in Baghdad in an effort to suppose that a "line of the day" is coordinated between them. That's the only reason for putting them in the same breath.

    But let's put aside rhetorical tactics and address the larger arc of strategy in the world itself: Several months ago, I asked EVERYONE here what The Decider's administration has accomplished that could be taken as a generally positive development. You were one of only TWO people courageous enough to answer and the centerpiece of your reply was The Decider was "bringing democracy to the Middle East". That was the big theme of your answer, correct me if I am wrong.

    If you are indeed a man of your word (and not playing the partison game of trying to generate flak for Dem Senators), I would think that you would have more substantial thougts and concerns about what someone ostensibly in power in Baghdad sees "on the ground" (to appropriate your phrase). So, do you --- or do you not? Do you claim to know what's best for "their" "democracy", thanyouverymuch and noquestionsasked --- or not?

    You knowledge of events on the ground in the war on terror is limited to headlines in the Daily Kos. Far from reality.

    Sorry, CPT, but I don't think I have read Daily Kos more than 3 times in my life. Read Joshua Marshall maybe 5 times, none recently, Juan Cole 2 or 3 times including yesterday.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 11:36am

  76. I for one welcome this as a national debate. It will be interesting to see if the American people have lost their sense of purpose in defeating evil wherever it may rise or have succumbed to the appeasement and defeatism of the far left as exemplified by Lamont and the fringe left who post here.

    Posted by LL

    We havent lost sight of the goal LL.........we will defeat evil wherever it may rise.........the problem is there are alot of americans who say the the evil has risen in WASHINGTON, and we will do whatever necessary to defeat it.......and take our country back from religious, bigoted assholes like yourself.

    We're not destroying the nation as you claim liberty.........we're trying to take back a nation that has lost it's sense of direction.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/09/2006 @ 11:36am

  77. JOHN MAASCH:

    Actually, I most certainly wouldn't have voted for Lamont, because in order to vote in a primary in this country, one must be registered to a party that actually HAS a primary. SO, no, you don't know for whom I would have voted.

    As for being left wing, you're right, I offer no illusions about that fact. I used to be staunchly conservative... then I realized how devoid of morality and intellectual honesty most of the positions held by the conservative leadership are, and how completely antithetical to my religious beliefs those same positions are. Pretty simple, actually.

    And as I don't like the Democrats for much the same reason I don't like Republicans, for me, this Lamont victory to me is just another primary.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/09/2006 @ 11:36am

  78. I'd rather be viewed as a tax and spend liberal...........than a tax and kill republican. Posted by JPOLSTON

    J, this is hilarious! Did you think of it or is it already circulating out there?

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 11:39am

  79. CPT:

    Have you ever read any Chomsky? Or are you simply regurgitating the same claptrap you heard last week from Limbaugh or Hannity? Because if you haven't read him, or Zinn, for that matter, shut the fuck up and stop showing your complete ignorance. I realize it's difficult, because all you know how to do is spew intellectual sewage like your idols... but, for the good of the country... TRY to refrain from shitting from your mouth.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/09/2006 @ 11:44am

  80. Hillary Clinton will come out against the Disaster in Iraq within 24 hours.

    Could the Disaster in Iraq get worse before the elections? Lets see - a major offensive to stabilize Baghdad. Sounds like a turning point to me, and turning points = things get worse.

    Donald Rumsfeld says dont expect things to get better, in fact, the terrorists are getting desperate, so expect things to get worse because they're desperate. Dick Cheney says the insurgency is in its last throes, and you know what that means? He tells us that because they are in their last throes, the terrorists are desperate, and terrorists getting desperate means things will get worse. So, things will probably be worse in Iraq, the Disaster keeps getting worse, oh it will take weeks, months at most, its a Democracy - they had elections.

    The Salvadoran Solution for Iraq is really getting off the ground, 50 US Soldiers killed in the last month alone, and for no good reason - not merely in vain but in fact to the detriment of our safety.

    Posted by conshame at 08/09/2006 @ 11:47am

  81. Does Mrs. Clinton pay attention to what is going on right next door to her? I feel another waffle (apologies to Garry Trudeau) is on the way.

    Posted by The Goods at 08/09/2006 @ 11:49am

  82. Ned is spoiled rich kid from Greenwich...this is the man who will save your party???

    The Unbearable Lightness Of Ned Lamont's Honesty http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007709.php

    This week has provided some revelation about the honesty of Ned Lamont, whose primary run to unseat Joe Lieberman has captured the nation's attention. Earlier today I posted about his sudden case of amnesia when one of his key blogosphere supporters decided to use race-baiting to attack Lieberman on Lamont's behalf. Now it appears that Lamont used Wal-Mart, the liberal bete noir, as a punching bag without telling anyone that he owned a chunk of the retailer's stock:

    Connecticut millionaire businessman Ned Lamont, who sharply criticized the employment practices of Wal-Mart this week in his campaign to unseat Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democrat primary, owns stock in the company, Senate records reveal. "This is about waking up Wal-Mart, and this is also about waking up corporate America," Mr. Lamont said Wednesday at a Bridgeport rally against the retail giant, hosted by many of the same liberal bloggers who have boosted the former cable executive far ahead of Mr. Lieberman in the polls.

    But Mr. Lamont and his family are part owners of the company, according to financial disclosure records he filed earlier this year with the secretary of the Senate. Mr. Lamont, his wife and a dependent child own as much as $31,000 in Wal-Mart stock.

    Mr. Lamont and his wife jointly own two accounts containing as much as $16,000 in Wal-Mart stock. Their Wal-Mart holdings spin off as much as $3,500 in annual dividends. In addition, a trust fund he set up for one of his children contains as much as $15,000 in Wal-Mart stock and spins off as much as $1,000 in dividends.

    In his remarks at the anti-Wal-Mart rally this week, Mr. Lamont never mentioned his shareholder status in the company. He did, however, criticize Mr. Lieberman for not doing more during this three terms in the Senate to help the workers he says are so mistreated by Wal-Mart.

    These purchases do not come from a market fund or retirement portfolio. The Lamonts deliberately purchased Wal-Mart stock for themselves and their child. One presumes that the Lamonts did so because of Wal-Mart's performance and delivery of dividends to their stockholders -- all of which come from the same business practices that Lamont publicly blasted this week.

    It gets worse. While he and his family continued to get thousands of dollars in dividends, Lamont supporters castigated Lieberman at the event for taking a one-time donation from Wal-Mart's PAC of $1,000. Lieberman says he sent the money back, but will Lamont's supporters now demand to know what their candidate did with his Wal-Mart money.

    Lamont bills himself as a new kind of politician, but from what we've seen this week, he looks like the same old model we see too often in Washington: dishonest and hypocritical.

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 11:50am

  83. People turning up in the streets of Baghdad, 100 a day, holes drilled in them, acid poured on them, kidnappings, they dont want to rebuild the electricity, they dont want to rebuild the water plants, & the sanitation - they just keep building their big new palace. George Bushs new palace in Iraq, biggest palace ever built in Iraq, is... ahead of schedule.

    Posted by conshame at 08/09/2006 @ 11:51am

  84. I think it's great that Lamont won. Lieberman himself said "Lamont had made the primary a referendum on Bush and the war, both of which he said were intensely unpopular among Connecticut Democrats". The fact that Lieberman acknowledged the unpopularity of the war with Democrats (his constituents) and still supported the war shows the mans hypocrisy. You represent the common and majority interests of your constituents and the moment you no longer do so, you are subject to removal. The rest of the Democrats in this country need to get behind Ned Lamont and appreciate the example that CT Democrats have given us.

    Posted by progress08 at 08/09/2006 @ 11:53am

  85. EVERYONE

    You would all be wise to remember the adage "all politics are local".

    This is NOT a bellweather for the entire country. On foreign policy, Lieberman is probably the most rightwing Democrat. It is unreasonable to think that his primary defeat in a strongly Democratic state has some kind of national meaning.

    The Dems may very well pick up seats in November, and possibly win the House. But to draw too much from an "outlying" data point is not reasonable.

    And remember, Lieberman still has a lot of support and may very well win as an independent.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2006 @ 11:59am

  86. What's the difference between Democrats and Republicans?

    When a Democrat like Lamont owns stock in a company, like Wal-Mart, that betrays our country by giving away our jobs to a nuclear-armed dictatorship like China, it's hypocrisy.

    When Republicans like Bush not only encourage corporations like Wal-Mart to sell us out, but negotiate on their behalf treasonous 'free trade' deals with dictatorships hostile to the U.S., it's ideology; it's part of the Republicans' platform to betray our country to hostile dictatorships like China and Saudi Arabia, for the sake of multinational corporate profits.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/09/2006 @ 11:59am

  87. Wow a socialist democracy where healthcare is universal, crime is spectacularly low, standards of living are high, and morale of the citizens is very high. Ya, that would suck.

    Posted by progress08 at 08/09/2006 @ 12:01pm

  88. So let me get this straight. The winning recipe for Democrats in the general election is a Candidate with Al Sharpton over his right shoulder and Jesse Jackson over his left (no pun intended).

    Now thats a winning strategy if I ever saw one. If the GOP was smart, they would start running that picture RIGHT NOW.

    Face it Democrats, when the Dems felt the war was popular, they were all for it. When things started going bad, they bailed.

    If thats the "strong" leadership you crave, well more "power to you".

    Our enemies are correct. Make thing tough for the US in any conflict and eventually they will lose their nerve.

    THANK YOU DEMS FOr PROVING THEM RIGHT!

    Posted by vinnyb at 08/09/2006 @ 12:02pm

  89. elitist: Background Lamont grew up in Syosset, NY. After graduating from Phillips Exeter Academy in 1972, he earned a bachelor's degree from Harvard University (home of the Lamont Library, named for his great-grandfather Thomas W. Lamont)[5] in 1976 and a Masters of Public and Private Management from what is now known as the Yale School of Management in 1980. He began his career working for a small newspaper in Ludlow, VT.[6]

    Lamont then entered the cable television industry, managing the startup of Cablevision's operation in Fairfield County, Connecticut. In 1984, he founded, and is currently president and chairman of, Lamont Digital Systems, a builder and operator of advanced telecommunications networks for college campuses and residential gated communities, with over 150,000 subscribers. The company's finances are private, though it currently has 35 employees, down from 100 in 2001. (YOU MEAN HE CUT JOBS??? That is over 250% reduction in staff...HMMM...)

    Before running for the U.S. Senate, Lamont was elected and served as selectman in the town of Greenwich, Connecticut, for eight years (two terms), chaired the state investment advisory council, and served on many civic boards. Lamont unsuccessfully ran for a state Senate seat in 1990, finishing in third place.[7]

    [edit] Family Lamont and his wife, Annie, a venture capitalist, have three teenaged children.[8] Annie seconded her husband's nomination at the Connecticut Democratic Convention in May 2006. Their 18-year-old daughter, first-year Harvard student Emily, has campaigned frequently for her father across Connecticut, introducing him at various events. She also made one of her father's largest contributions so far, giving $4,200 to the Ned Lamont for Senate campaign.[9] Her younger siblings, sister Lindsay (14) and brother Teddy (13), have generally remained out of the spotlight.

    Lamont is the great-grandson of former J.P. Morgan & Co. Chairman Thomas W. Lamont, and has a self-reported net worth valued between $90 million and $300 million.[10] On July 17 the Waterbury Republican-American reported the assessed value of Lamont's Greenwich home was $30 million.[10] His father, Ted, was an economist who worked with the Marshall Plan which helped reconstruct Europe after World War II.[11] He later served in the Nixon administration in Housing and Urban Development. Ted Lamont is now an unaffiliated voter, having last voted for a Republican in 1988.(Since then he has voted Democratic.) He told The Hartford Courant that "Eastern Moderates no longer have a place in the GOP."[12]

    Lamont is also the grand-nephew of humanist philosopher Corliss Lamont who was director of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1932 to 1954, president emeritus of the American Humanist Association, author of 16 books, and a lifelong peace activist.[12][13]

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 12:02pm

  90. Posted by JORCHEIM 08/09/2006 @ 11:44am | ignore this person

    Then try coming up with an original thought, other than someone elses idea of the structure of society.

    "It remains to be seen how much the power elite in this country actually allow things to change"----total Chomsky...met the guy when he was the guest lecturer at a university.

    uhhemm...Have you met him?

    P.S. The guy lives in fantasyworld where reality doesnt exist and everyone is the same, no distinction between terrorists or states, they are all the same to this nut.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 12:03pm

  91. Sam you make no sense...He himself ripped on WalMart practice in public, but in private he is making money of their practice...

    So you are justifying his actions? Typical...no accountability

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 12:05pm

  92. Displaying your ignorance of Chomsky.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/09/2006 @ 11:34am | ignore this person

    "It remains to be seen how much the power elite in this country actually allow things to change"

    This is not Chomsky-like????? Are you familiar with him? Maybe there is another Chomsky.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 12:06pm

  93. The Dems may very well pick up seats in November, and possibly win the House. But to draw too much from an "outlying" data point is not reasonable.

    And remember, Lieberman still has a lot of support and may very well win as an independent.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/09/2006 @ 11:59am | ignore this person

    BLASPHEMY!!!!!....ILP, don't you know? "The Revolution" has come, 30 years of conservative domination has ended, the People will no longer oppose liberalism, and the country has shifted so far Left that Kucinich will likely be the 2008 nominee....

    all because a slightly-more-liberal Democrat beat a slightly-less-liberal Democrat in a primary!

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 12:08pm

  94. Oh my God I mentioned the "Z" word !

    By the way that vapid rhetorical trick you use of pretending that those who disagree with you are "hoist by their own petard" is starting to wear thin.

    Posted by RED NECKERSON 08/09/2006 @ 11:26am | ignore this person

    Well, thats interesting, its a trick i borrowed straight from many of the liberal posters here.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 12:09pm

  95. The far left fringe with credit to the MoveOn types

    We may recall that the origins of MoveOn were in advocating for Clinton to be censured and for the nation to move on with its business of governence.

    Aaaah, feel the radicalism.

    But, nope --- censure was not sufficient for radical conservaClown deadbeats, bloodthirsty for the political scalp of a man from distinctly unBushesque origins and with a common touch whom they could not beat at the ballot box. Also notice: ConservaClowns had already shut the government down several times in Clinton's first term under Gingrichian auspices, to create a climate of crisis for their own partison political ends and to just plain screw government employees and people whom they serve ("fringe" ... "radical").

    However, if "The Decider" were to become "The Grunting Because He is Being Fellated Decider", how would it be different? Why, the accoutrements of Puritanism could be put safely away! There would be thunderous bold rhetoric in the Party of God for The Decider to be put on the 1000 dollar note (to be better appreciated by his acknowledged, ELITE constituency) or to name some airports after him so that no one will forget that he loosed his load in office. ConservaClown moralists like Henry Hyde and Bob Livingstone would be dusted off to come out of retirement, all the better extol their own virtues on this score.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 12:11pm

  96. Jorcheim "Actually, I most certainly wouldn't have voted for Lamont, because in order to vote in a primary in this country, one must be registered to a party that actually HAS a primary. SO, no, you don't know for whom I would have voted."

    Incorrect---many states have open primaries allowing anyone to vote in the primary--democrat, republican, and independent.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/09/2006 @ 12:13pm

  97. Glenn---"Grunting Because He is Being Fellated Decider"

    your fascination with pornographic imagery is interesting. You clearly have earned your new nickname--"porn boy"

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/09/2006 @ 12:17pm

  98. You have plenty of company on this site with those who wish to destroy our Constitutional Republic and replace it with a socialist-democracy as modeled in much of Europe and especially the Scandinavian countries.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/09/2006 @ 11:56am | ignore this person

    Republic, is that what you think we have now? Silly boy. Closer to a Kleptocracy. Congress bought by the rich, for the rich. And not just regular well off folks, I'm talking obscenely rich. I have seen very few laws come out since 2000 that really benefit the average joseph six pack. Unless they are afraid of their gay neighbors.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2006 @ 12:18pm

  99. LVL,

    Has once again clearly announced his utter contempt of democracy.

    How dare these disgusting CT registered Democrats choose a Senatorial candidate that is not to the GOP's liking!

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/09/2006 @ 12:19pm

  100. CPT:

    You said:

    Then try coming up with an original thought, other than someone elses idea of the structure of society.

    My response:

    Hmmm... interesting that precisely what you are telling me to do is precisely what you won't (or, more likely, CAN'T) do for yourself. Last time I checked, Chomsky was essentially agnostic (although he happens to be of Jewish descent). And last time I checked, he was not basing his political views on the teachings of Christ, unlike myself. Again, I doubt you've ever actually read Chomsky, but MOST of his writing is mde up of stern critiques of the present society and government (and their behaivior towards other nations and its own people), instead of proffering alternative societal structures to what we now have. But since you never read Chomsky, you wouldn't know that, because you are allowing Limbaugh and Hannity to think for you... fucking hypocrite.

    You said:

    "It remains to be seen how much the power elite in this country actually allow things to change"----total Chomsky...met the guy when he was the guest lecturer at a university.

    uhhemm...Have you met him?

    My response:

    So just because you met him at a lecture means you are somehow an expert on him? Interesting, seeing as you can't even name 2 of his books without searching the internet for them. As for meeting him, no, can't say I have ever had the pleasure. However, he and I did, as a matter of fact, used to correspond with one another via e-mail. You might try it. He is surprisingly accessible and approchable for someone hanging out, as you say, in fantasyworld.

    You said:

    P.S. The guy lives in fantasyworld where reality doesnt exist and everyone is the same, no distinction between terrorists or states, they are all the same to this nut.

    My response:

    Actually, he lives in Massachusetts, probably somewhere near MIT, which is where he teaches. But I am just guessing.

    As for everyone being the same, we are all the same. And when we drop a bomb on civilians, or facilitate Israel's dropping of bombs on civilians, that is no different from a suicide bomber or a Hezbollah guerilla launching rockets arbitrarily at civilian sites. You think that state involvment somehow legitimates violence in such as way that it is no longer an evil. I would recommend you ask Jesus about that. Something tells me he would have quite a bit to say regarding that... mostly that you are completely full of shit.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/09/2006 @ 12:19pm

  101. LEN MOSSE:

    Not in the 3 states I have lived in since reaching voting age. North Carolina, Texas, and now Pennsylvania. But thanks for playing.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/09/2006 @ 12:20pm

  102. Should Lamont sell his stock in Wal-Mart? If so, then he should sell the rest of his stocks, for every U.S. corporation is taking advantage of the Republicans' treasonous giveaway of America's industry to our number one nuclear threat, China.

    It is precisely because boycotts and divestiture are insufficient to compel ethical and patriotic business practices that we need to elect real Democrats like Lamont. Only laws can save our country from the treason of multinational corporations.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/09/2006 @ 12:21pm

  103. I'd rather be viewed as a tax and spend liberal...........than a tax and kill republican. Posted by JPOLSTON

    J, this is hilarious! Did you think of it or is it already circulating out there?

    I havent heard it anywhere........it was an original thought..........maybe it should be the new mantra of the democratic party!

    Posted by jpolston at 08/09/2006 @ 12:24pm

  104. SAMCROSSETT:

    I don't know if I agree with you on your appraisal of Lamont, but I certainly agree with your opinion on mulinational corporations.

    Posted by jorcheim at 08/09/2006 @ 12:24pm

  105. More accuately: Spend and kill republican. Or Borrow and kill republican.

    good stuff JP!

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/09/2006 @ 12:27pm

  106. Sam, You have no idea what you are talking about.

    If Lamont is anti big company like he spews off at the mic, then HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BIG COMPANY STOCK! WHAT DON'T YOU GET???

    Did you see that he laid off 65 people, over 250% of his staff over the last 5 years...why Sam? Why Sam Why? Isn't he against monopolies, such as the effin CABLE INDUSTRY, you idiot!

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 12:27pm

  107. CPT

    Chomsky is one of the greatest thinkers of our time........if given the chance I'd much rather pick at his brain than yours. Read his accounts of East Timor and then get back to me with what you think our government is capable of in times of crisis (or incapable of).

    Posted by jpolston at 08/09/2006 @ 12:28pm

  108. Connecticut Democrats rewarded that recognition by handing the Senate nomination to Lamont in a historic primary vote.

    Uhhh, make that only 52% of connecticut Dem. voters!!!!!!!!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/09/2006 @ 01:55am

    Uhhh, retard? What percentage did your dipshit president get elected by? Less than that?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 12:30pm

  109. He only has 300K left in his war chest...Joe has over 3 million. The GOP is going to give up on their guy...I going with Joe pulling in over 50% of the vote in November in a three way race.

    You are underestimating the educated blue collar workers that are independent, pro military (defence) and now highly motivated group of people who hate people like Lamont....a rich kid with a silver spoon in his mouth...

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 12:31pm

  110. JPOLSTON

    Ill take the useful idiocy of those on this board that know how to do basic arithmetic over your spoon fed idiocy CPT.

    Why dont you give us all another math lesson you fucking idiot.......the one a couple of weeks ago kept me chuckling for a couple of hours..........again explain how lowering the math standards for military acceptance gives us a better and brighter military in general.

    Posted by JPOLSTON 08/09/2006 @ 11:28am | ignore this person

    Firstly, Why must you always attack me in terms of my profession? Interesting, that you always do......but as many here say, liberals are not anti-military. right?

    Secondly, i guess you did not go back for my response to your posts, it was an attempt at sarcasm, which i admit doesn go over well on a thread, unless you spend pages trying to do so. I thought it was funny that the other poster went to such lengths to show a strength, the economy, as a weakness. He went on a good while.

    In any event please refrain from referencing my profession in your personal attacks.

    At least try to be original; heard them all from all kinds of people: College professors, HS counselors, teachers, prinicpals, administrators, hippies on the street, liberals (who Id themselves as such)at the airport and all kinds of "know it all intellectuals" and activists who know unequivically how the world works, when they never even travelled outside of their tower.

    And to anyone who might get inspired to confront us, yes we get it, you hate Bush, i know, we got it, the other most common FACE to FACE jabs hurled our way are:

    "why dont you guys mutiny and overthrow Bush"

    "why do you guys have to shoot innocent kids"

    "how can you support an illegal and immoral war, what kind of person are you"

    "why are you in the army, didnt you do well in school?"

    "only losers join the military and kids with no other options"

    "how can you send young men and women off to die"

    "you have to be a brainwashed autoton to do what you do"

    "you really dont know whats going on over there, you've been brainwashed"(one of my favorites)

    Uglier:

    "You guys get what you deserve....bodybags"

    "I hope you get you dick blown off"

    "Maybe you will get lucky and get to die for your country"

    "Thank goodness for IEDs, babykiller"

    So you see, you are going to have to do alot better than that, again, in the future try to be original and leave my profession out of it.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 12:33pm

  111. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/09/2006 @ 12:21am | ignore this person

    "We need to elect Ned Lamont....to save him from himself earning money from evil corporations"?!?!!??

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 12:37pm

  112. Which of our wars and war-time presidents would you guys have supported using the same standards you are using now? I think we've always had malcontents who inherited much but never understood or appreciated the price born by others.

    Posted by Conservative at 08/09/2006 @ 12:39pm

  113. DANCALL bloviates:

    people who hate people like Lamont....a rich kid with a silver spoon in his mouth...

    George Walker Bush

    Born, 1946, in Harlem

    Grandfather operated a newsstand, closed in the depression, went on disability, but had to work part time in a pharmacy

    Father was a mechanic

    Attended PS 135678

    Then went on to CUNY (free tuition in the day) but had to drop out to pay for sick mom's medical bills

    After that apprenticed in his father's garage

    Opened his own garage with some friends before ... going into politics

    ... yup, a regular guy

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 12:40pm

  114. Goodbom,

    "little left"...are you kidding? Left of who Castro? Chavez? Where the hell are YOU?...my God, you are not serious, are you?.."little left"?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 02:37am

    Recommended reading, Maasch, and all other posters, right and left:

    http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=949

    This might help you and yours get over your aversion to anything with the word "LEFT" in it and stop you from summarily dismissing same as preposterous and unworthy of the simplest consideration.

    It's deeper than you folks make it seem (left doesn't isntantly translate to Chavez/Castro, except in your world), but simplicity is, after all, your forte, so I sigh...

    sigh...

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 12:41pm

  115. Jorcheim---You implied, by saying "in this country" that all states have closed primaries---they do not. Virginia is an example of a state with an open primary system. Just admit that you are wrong and move on.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/09/2006 @ 12:41pm

  116. Joe Lieberman lost because he acted (and continues to act) like it's the duty of the voters to elect him so that he can go to Washington and vote his conscience-- giving his own personal opinions more weight than the interests of the Connecticut democrats he's supposed to be representing.

    For this reason, his new party, Connecticut for Lieberman, is aptly fitting.

    Posted by habiba at 08/09/2006 @ 12:42pm

  117. Is Lamont anti-big business or anti-capitalist? Only in the eyes of Republicans who claim to be 'free traders' while refusing to enforce anti-trust laws against Big Oil, Big Pharma, and yes, Big Cable. All Lamont has to do is advocate pro-worker, pro-community, or pro-America business practices, or worse yet, advocate laws compelling such practices, and the happy Republican slaves of multi-national corporations denounce him as a (gasp) socialist.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/09/2006 @ 12:44pm

  118. New Dawn---You are correct in saying "left doesn't isntantly translate to Chavez/Castro" nor does the right instantly trnaslate into David Duke and Jesse Helms.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/09/2006 @ 12:44pm

  119. Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 12:31am

    Why is it that wealthy Democrats are regarded as effete, silver-spooned, out-of-touch plutocrats, but wealthy Republicans are always hard working, pull-myself-up-by-my-bootstraps average joes?

    Yesterday's primary was democracy in action. A powerful beltway Democrat was shown that riding roughshod over the views of your constituency is a good way to get yourself sent home. Voters also sent a message to the party that there's no room in the big tent for cheerleaders of failed policy. Which is perfectly reasonable, as the idea that "staying the course" isn't working is quite in line with the views of America as a whole.

    Moreover, all this chatter from our friends on the right about "fringe lunatics" taking over the Democratic party is just so much nonsense. Anyone who's ever been to Connecticut knows that it's not exactly a hotbed of liberal radicalism. And anyone who knows anything about Lamont knows that he's not a radical.

    Lieberman's pitch, which was effectively "I'm bipartisan, I can get things done" was roundly rejected by Connecticut Democrats, and probably rightly so. Lieberman's brand of bipartisanism is the sort of bipartisanism sanctioned by the GOP -- which basically says agree with us on most important issues, but when you're off on your own, talk about social programs and multilateralism, so we can bash your party as dangerous, soft-on-security tax-and-spenders.

    Connecticut Democrats didn't buy it. There's a political center, and they (and Lamont) want to see our government pulled back in that direction. Lieberman wasn't doing as much, so he's not going to be on their ticket.

    Posted by breasonable at 08/09/2006 @ 12:44pm

  120. Gas per gallon at the pump have doubled since 2001...

    Posted by DJMARCH 08/09/2006 @ 08:12am | ignore this person

    And the DEMS are going to correct this???? lolol

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 08:14am

    Almost as funny as your President, isn't it?

    "I think the President ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say: 'We expect you to open your spigots.' The President of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price," declared Gov. George W. Bush before his ascension to the Presidency. He vowed to do just that with the "Saudis" and others who cut oil production.

    As Bush prepared to move into the Oval Office in early 2001, Rep. Jan Schakowsky reminded him of that campaign promise and urged him to jawbone his friends in the energy industry to keep prices down. Instead, he hired them.

    Hilarious, isn't it, CPT? lolol???

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 12:46pm

  121. CPT,

    Dude, if you want others to leave your profession out of it, then perhap's you should consider a change to your handle, no?

    Unless you're now telling us that you're name is Clarence Peabody Terwilliger!

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/09/2006 @ 12:46pm

  122. New Dawn---You are correct in saying "left doesn't isntantly translate to Chavez/Castro" nor does the right instantly trnaslate into David Duke and Jesse Helms.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/09/2006 @ 12:44am

    Never said that, nor would I support anyone else saying it.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 12:47pm

  123. Which of our wars and war-time presidents would you guys have supported using the same standards you are using now? I think we've always had malcontents who inherited much but never understood or appreciated the price born by others. Posted by CONSERVATIVE

    Which "war or war-time presidents" (your words) did George Walker Bush support --- with DEEDS not WORDS --- say, when he was a young man of prime fighting age? And a war was raging that all rightwingers promoted as THE apocolyptic litmus test of politics and patriotism of its day?

    Specifics, no vagueness please ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 12:49pm

  124. translate--sorry typo

    Neither liberals or conservatives have a monopoly on good ideas for the country----Recently I have been fascinated and intrigued by the ideas of Peter Beinhart concerning Iraq and national defense.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/09/2006 @ 12:49pm

  125. so, dem vote splits in conn. republican wins in nov. at least nichols is happy tonight. and how do we know lamont won fairly? Posted by FREIHEIT 08/09/2006 @ 01:23am | ignore this person

    So Frei, using all his powers of political analysis and prognostication, is predicting that in November, the Connecticut election for Senator will go to the Republican nominee, Alan Schlesinger.

    I like the risk taking there Frei...thoughtful...bold...calculated.

    And lame.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/09/2006 @ 12:51pm

  126. Ned is spoiled rich kid from Greenwich...this is the man who will save your party??

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 11:50am | ignore this person

    I can see why some think Dancall is the same person as Mask. He has the same penchant for wholly making up his opponents arguments and then railing against how dumb they are.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/09/2006 @ 12:55pm

  127. CPT,

    So you know, I firmly believe that some of the comments that you report as having been made to you are beyond the pale and uncivilized. It is never defensible to wish for, or to express a wish, for harm to other people. This applies whether it's Pat Robertson praying for death of SCOTUS justices (he did so in public) or some of the comments directed toward you that go beyond expressing strong disagreement.

    I will also point out that I assumed the same position of disgust toward Anne Coulter when she made plainly revolting remarks of this sort about Former Senator and Cabinet Secretary Max Cleland. Coulter said it in print, clearly and unmistakably.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 12:59pm

  128. Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 11:50am

    "...according to financial disclosure records he filed earlier this year with the secretary of the Senate. Mr. Lamont, his wife and a dependent child own as much as $31,000 in Wal-Mart stock. Mr. Lamont and his wife jointly own two accounts containing as much as $16,000 in Wal-Mart stock. Their Wal-Mart holdings spin off as much as $3,500 in annual dividends. In addition, a trust fund he set up for one of his children contains as much as $15,000 in Wal-Mart stock and spins off as much as $1,000 in dividends. In his remarks at the anti-Wal-Mart rally this week, Mr. Lamont never mentioned his shareholder status in the company. He did, however, criticize Mr. Lieberman for not doing more during this three terms in the Senate to help the workers he says are so mistreated by Wal-Mart."

    I've got to start keeping a file on this stuff so I can cross reference it. I read this exact same quote a few days ago by someone else, Rio I think, but it may have been some other hamster.

    You guys apparently all go to the same source where these things are already pre-packaged for you where you just pick up what you need and then run around pasting it up every where as if you thought it up all by your little selves.

    Who gives a s---t if a millionaire gets $4,500 in dividends from Wal-Mart ? Why did you people suddenly experience the need to come to Lieberman's aid anyway ?

    Above all why don't you people think for yourselves once in a while if for no other reason than to get the blood flowing to your brain.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/09/2006 @ 1:02pm

  129. Ned is spoiled rich kid from Greenwich...this is the man who will save your party??

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 11:50am | ignore this person

    Hey, isn't George Bush a spoiled rich kid from Connecticut?!?!

    Posted by Lillian at 08/09/2006 @ 1:02pm

  130. great minds...

    The point on Lamont and his wealth is this; there are PLENTY of other qualified and smart Liberal leaders out in the world that will never get into leadership positions because they do not have the personal wealth to get there. Lamont is a complete joke. He knows nothing about working class america, he proved that he is a profit monger by laying off over 250% of his staff when things got tight and LOST THE BLUE COLLAR VOTE to Joe yesterday. It is the rich elitist that have access to money and power that influence the blogs and academia to believe that socialism is the end all...BECAUSE THEY ARE ON TOP OF THE "SOCIAL" ladder. It doesn;t matter to them one way or the other...they have nothing in the game...

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 1:05pm

  131. Dancall,

    I don't think you should vote for Lamont if that is your opinion of him. CT Registered Democrats are fully aware of Mr. Lamont's silver spoon history.....yet despite this, they still felt that it was better than having a DINO serve them.

    Are you against democracy or something Dancall?

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/09/2006 @ 1:11pm

  132. CPT

    Sorry if I hurt your feelings..............I didnt realize you were so sensitive. You also know I have never called you a baby killer or said that you deserved to be in a bodybag.........so stop it with that nonsense.

    All I did was poke fun at the fact that you made a sarcastic post a couple of weeks back about how you couldnt listen to logic from someone who didnt understand what ten percent was: and this poster's math was perfect.........it was accurate and dead on.........and you looked like a fool.........and several people pointed it out which was even funnier.

    If you want to dish out your nonsensical bullshit here then be prepared to die by the sword also when you are wrong. Besides, I thought you'd have thicker skin than this..........I'm almost more afraid now for our military boys knowing that folks like yourself who cant take some joking and critisizm are calling the shots.

    Furthemore CPT.......I have made the statement many times that I dont think it's a good thing that the military has lowered it's testing standards for enlisted men. The military should be able to attract candidates for enlistment that are bright and can think on their feet..........not just a bunch of intellectual dropouts. This country used to be able to recruit the best and brightest amongst us for the military because they were fighting for something they believed in. When the Japanese dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor everyone wanted to fight CPT..........not just idiots who cant pass high school algebra. The simple fact is the standards are down because you cant find enough boys to go die for a cause they think is wrong.

    Posted by jpolston at 08/09/2006 @ 1:13pm

  133. At approximately 11:48 a.m. August 9th, CNN reported that Ariel Weinmann - a US Sailor - had been arrested for espionage committed on behalf of Russia. CNN intentionally lied. They know precisely that Weinmann had spied for Israel, as does the Jewish Media:

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525834949&pagename=JPost% 2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

    Is this what it has come to?

    Do you respect the truth?

    Will you cover the story of how CNN intentionally changed the country responsible for the spying from Israel to Russia?

    What's next?

    Report: US sailor spied for Israel David Keyes, THE JERUSALEM POST

    Aug. 9, 2006

    A US Navy sailor, Ariel J. Weinmann, is suspected of spying for Israel and has been held in prison for four months, according to an article published Monday in the Saudi daily Al-Watan. It reported that Weinmann is being held at a military base in Virginia on suspicion of espionage and desertion.

    According to the navy, Weinmann was apprehended on March 26 "after it was learned that he had been listed as a deserter by his command." Though initial information released by the navy makes no mention of it, Al-Watan reported that he was returning from an undisclosed "foreign country." American sources close to the Defense Department told Al-Watan that Israel was the country in question.

    "The US Navy concluded Article 32 proceedings [a pretrial investigation] in the case of Fire Control Technician Third Class Ariel J. Weinmann on July 26, 2006," Ted Brown, a media relations officer at the US Fleet Forces Command, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. The US Fleet Forces Command is the "convening authority of the case... and will make the decision with respect to what charges, if any, will be referred to a general court-martial."

    The veracity of Al-Watan's claim that Weinmann is suspected of spying for Israel remains in question, and military and Pentagon spokesmen are remaining tightlipped. A public affairs officer at the Office of Naval Intelligence told the Post that he was unaware of the allegations against Weinmann.

    Al-Watan speculated that if Weinmann spied on behalf of the Mossad, it would be the biggest espionage case since Jonathan Pollard's arrest. Pollard, who worked as a civilian intelligence analyst for the US Navy, was caught in 1985 and convicted of spying for Israel. He is currently serving a life sentence in the US.

    According to the navy, "Weinmann was assigned to the USS Albuquerque (SSN 706) and had deserted on or about July 3, 2005." The Albuquerque is a Los Angeles-class attack submarine.

    Though the navy's initial press release contained no reference to Israel, Brown stated that more detailed information about the case would be released shortly.

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525834949&pagename=JPost% 2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

    Posted by plunger at 08/09/2006 @ 1:14pm

  134. It is the rich elitist that have access to money and power that influence the blogs and academia to believe that socialism is the end all...BECAUSE THEY ARE ON TOP OF THE "SOCIAL" ladder. It doesn;t matter to them one way or the other...they have nothing in the game...

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 1:05pm

    Lovely logic. Sounds like somebody doesn't know much about socialism or what the effects of a socialist state on the upper classes might be like.

    Posted by breasonable at 08/09/2006 @ 1:15pm

  135. by laying off over 250% of his staff when things got tight

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person

    Dude: he laid off 250% of his staff? Are you serious? What'd he do, go around to other businesses and lay off their staff? lol

    Posted by cliffy at 08/09/2006 @ 1:16pm

  136. DANCALL, spinner of cosmic paradoxes:

    he proved that he is a profit monger by laying off over 250% of his staff

    Since you keep repeating this seemingly non-sensical figure, surely you can explain it. That is unless RED NECKERSON is right and you are a creature of cut-and-paste and have no idea what you are saying, thoughts of your own, etc?

    But how did this antithesis-of-Bush creature of the elite Ned Lamont achieve 250% turnover? Did Ned keep repeating "Your laid off! You're laid off! You're laids off!" to the same flummoxed person in his office, so as to "fire" them repeatedly? Or did Ned wield the ax face-to-face ... and then email and fax it to pump these figures up to the 250% that you keep repeating like a mantra that will save you in a panic?

    Anyway, when rightwingers start in on, say, "What the UN must do!" and "How Dems should reach the proles!", and so on, it is so much tiresome puppyshit. In each case, right wing zombies have no interest in what happens to, or the existence of, the entity about which they have legions of "helpful" ideas (invariably cloned from the "ideas" of their media shepards whom they imitate)...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 1:17pm

  137. Red...it was also in Time magazine. You will not find it in NY TImes...or the hate bush papers because they like to keep the bad away from their agenda.

    Yes, we know Bush is a rich kid. Yes yes yes...and John Edwards and John Kerry were each worth more then Bush. But again, Bush is the rich kid. You are a fool! Bush is worth half of what Lamont is worth...

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 1:17pm

  138. Dear GOODBOMB:

    Liberals are supposed to be intellectually superior to conservatives. Please refrain from writing like a Republican.

    Posted by mjp at 08/09/2006 @ 1:21pm

  139. Posted by GLENN LEMON 08/09/2006 @ 09:24am

    SO wrong, but so funny...

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 1:21pm

  140. Posted by LILLIAN 08/09/2006 @ 12:55am | ignore this person

    You mean like your "I HOPE the Dems do something about the deficit, but if they don't and spend money on social programs, fine by you" argument of yours against deficit spending?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 1:21pm

  141. Wikipedia..."The company's finances are private, though it currently has 35 employees, down from 100 in 2001." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Lamont

    Check out the common bond between Phillips Exeter and Weaver HS in Hartford

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 1:22pm

  142. Incorrect---many states have open primaries allowing anyone to vote in the primary--democrat, republican, and independent.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/09/2006 @ 12:13am | ignore this person

    Jorcheim---You implied, by saying "in this country" that all states have closed primaries---they do not. Virginia is an example of a state with an open primary system. Just admit that you are wrong and move on.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/09/2006 @ 12:41am | ignore this person

    Uh, Len…not to interrupt your little ‘gotcha' but Connecticut ISN'T one of those states with an open primary. I understand they did recently relax the part registration rules a bit, it is still a requirement that primary voters register with a party affiliation.

    Just thought you'd like to know.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/09/2006 @ 1:25pm

  143. I am sure i will get the .com excuse or he had to do it. The bottom line was he was watching his bottom line, which really means he wasn;t going to take a pay cut to keep people on his payroll...but when a dem does it, good business!!!

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 1:26pm

  144. Dancall

    I dunno, I find this sudden hostility of the Right against millionaires very interesting. In my own state conservatives are railing against the sucessful busingessman Jim Pederson as he tries to bank roll his own campaign to defeat the right wing extremist Jon Kyl in November instead of playing by the rules and using special interest money ( like Mr. Kyl ).

    And what's this stuff about Lamont loosing the blue collar vote ( as if the working man always votes in his own best interest ) ?

    Rich men trying to buy their way into office running against social progressives representing the little guy ? Sounds like class warfare to me.

    Posted by Red Neckerson at 08/09/2006 @ 1:27pm

  145. The point on Lamont and his wealth is this; there are PLENTY of other qualified and smart Liberal leaders out in the world that will never get into leadership positions because they do not have the personal wealth to get there.

    Actually Dancall, the part in bold is a truism that applies equally, in every respect, to "other qualified and smart" conservative leaders, neo-con leaders, libertarian leaders, etc. when you try to apply it to ‘just' someone who you perceive to be a liberal leader, it makes a very poor point indeed.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/09/2006 @ 1:28pm

  146. It is all about Ego and idealism...both parties need real people in leadership roles that know what works and what doesn't...

    The towns and districts that voted more in favor of Lamont are typically your over 100K annual income homes. The areas where the big defence contractors reside with the big unions went to Joe. What was suprising is Groton went to Lamont...they almost lost Electric Boat/General Dynamics and the Sub base...this has a lot more impact to the state then people from the outside know...it is just not a we hate bush issue. If Lamont wins, it may hurt the CT economy in a big way...

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 1:32pm

  147. Wikipedia..."The company's finances are private, though it currently has 35 employees, down from 100 in 2001." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Lamont

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person

    Uh, dude? That's only 65%. Hell, it's even based on an even 100 people! (100-35)/100 X 100% = 65%

    Crack kills, dude.

    Posted by cliffy at 08/09/2006 @ 1:32pm

  148. Why if DEMOCRATIC US Senators can call our Soldiers Nazis, terrorists, and thugs; are you suprised when the speaker of the iraqi parliment does the same?

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 11:12am

    I know it probably lies outside the bounds of your limited imagination or ability to think outside the box, but are you saying this guy cannot think for himself - are you arguing that he never would have thought those things about America IN HIS OWN COUNTRY unless U.S. politicians said it first?

    Are you saying that this man didn't look outside his doors IN HIS OWN COUNTRY and decide for himself what to say?

    As you say yourself, it's often posited that Iraqi speakers are usually mouthpieces for the administration, so when this man speaks ill of us, and he's suddenly clearly NOT a mouthpiece for the administration - you try to excuse it away that he only said those things because U.S. politicians said them first...?

    I clearly misunderstand you. Please explain.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 1:32pm

  149. lillian, it was directed at a liberal leader and I agree with you on your point.

    Bottom line, both Dems and Reps on the highest level are full of CRAP, which is what tweaks me about the Dems...you have to be smarter then this...Lamont is just another rich guy that is about money and power and will do nothing for the working class and poor people...CT is RICH, yet they have three of the worst cities in America when it comes to crime and education...IT IS A BLUE STATE!

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 1:36pm

  150. DANCALL

    Guess you missed this memo, but Edwards' grandfather was not a grandee of Wall Street and US Senator from CT and his father was not Andover/Yale/oil millionaire/MC/Ambassador/Chair-RNC/DCI/VP/and POTUS. Edwards did not come from that socio-economic background of the ultra-uber-ELITE but made his mark on his own merit.

    NEW DAWN

    Gawdamn right it's gawdamn funny! Although MAASCH did not think so, given the petulent and humorless responses. While I genuinely hope the guy gets into better shape for the sake of his own health (he reports 6'2/250 lbs, a BMI of 30 by my calculation), he makes himself a big inviting target when he comes in here and mints wild, inflammatory and plainly ill-informed assertions --- all of them wholly indebted to Republican talking points.

    Later ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 08/09/2006 @ 1:42pm

  151. cliffy, You are right...I messed up...crack does kill! I was going on growth rate %'s...

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 1:43pm

  152. Sam you make no sense...He himself ripped on WalMart practice in public, but in private he is making money of their practice...

    So you are justifying his actions? Typical...no accountability

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 12:05am

    So, when Microsoft was scrutinized over becoming a monopoly, I should have jettisoned my stock, even though I agreed they should not become a monopoly? Gee, I thought it was okay to agree against that sort of practice while still supporting the company overall.

    And gee, when the Exxon-Valdez spilled all of that crude, I should have boycotted oil in its entirety due to that awful incident, right?

    And gee, when I own stock in an electrical company and I find out that they cheated California out of millions, I should just forgo electricity and sell all of my stock instead of speaking out against unfair business practices...

    Thanks for letting me know. I'll get right on that.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 1:43pm

  153. Posted by LILLIAN 08/09/2006 @ 12:55am | ignore this person You mean like your "I HOPE the Dems do something about the deficit, but if they don't and spend money on social programs, fine by you" argument of yours against deficit spending?

    Posted by MASK 08/09/2006 @ 1:21pm | ignore this person

    Well gee Mask, come to think of it…I believe you've not only missed the point (again) you've inadvertently made it for me. My 12:55am post concerned your (and Dancall's) habit of trying to make up other people's arguments and then railing against them.

    When you try to quote back to me my argument above, placing the quotes around it, you imply that's EXACTLY what I said…and of course, you and I know that's not true, is it? You've changed what I actually said into something that I didn't, this time even employing the intellectually dishonest ‘trick' of claiming it as a direct quote. Again.

    To the surprise of absolutely no one.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/09/2006 @ 1:44pm

  154. Sam you make no sense...He himself ripped on WalMart practice in public, but in private he is making money of their practice...

    So you are justifying his actions? Typical...no accountability

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 12:05am

    And am I to understand that you support the Bush misadministration, but have the nerve to call for accountability from others?

    Talk about hubris.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 1:45pm

  155. no Edwards just gets in front of a jury and says he talked to the dead baby of a woman he represented and won a case that could be considered questionable. I think that one was for $100 Million against a Dr...Didn't Lamont make a comment about better health care?

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 1:47pm

  156. new dawn, I am not defending Bush and never have...I find it insane that everything that Bush haters complained about is now ok because the person has liberal views.

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 1:48pm

  157. Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 12:33am

    Yes, folks, if CPT is to be believed, he has indeed suited up and had bullets fired at him on a battlefield - respect his service to our country.

    No need to use his profession in your personal attacks against him - he offers plenty of other ammunition - his ignorance, his arrogance, his kill-em-all-let-God-sort-em-out attitude.

    But don't attack him because of his profession.

    I got yer back, CPT.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 1:51pm

  158. Which of our wars and war-time presidents would you guys have supported using the same standards you are using now? I think we've always had malcontents who inherited much but never understood or appreciated the price born by others.

    Posted by CONSERVATIVE 08/09/2006 @ 12:39am

    I supported George W. Bush going into Afghanistan over 9/11.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 1:52pm

  159. It is all about Ego and idealism...both parties need real people in leadership roles that know what works and what doesn't...

    Dancall, I believe you got that exactly right. In the weeks leading up to last night, I read a great deal about the how those who were supporting Lamont, cited as their main reason, the ego and attitude of Leiberman…his arrogance, his sense of entitlement to the position, his abandonment of his constituency and their concerns, etc.

    The towns and districts that voted more in favor of Lamont are typically your over 100K annual income homes. The areas where the big defence contractors reside with the big unions went to Joe. What was suprising is Groton went to Lamont...they almost lost Electric Boat/General Dynamics and the Sub base...this has a lot more impact to the state then people from the outside know...it is just not a we hate bush issue. If Lamont wins, it may hurt the CT economy in a big way...

    Again, in the weeks leading up to the election, I read a number of accounts of Lamont expressing his understanding of the importance of the sub base and defense contractors to the economy of Connecticut and his unflagging support and commitment to same. So I'm not sure where your concern is coming from.

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person

    Posted by Lillian at 08/09/2006 @ 1:54pm

  160. It is the rich elitist that have access to money and power that influence the blogs and academia to believe that socialism is the end all...BECAUSE THEY ARE ON TOP OF THE "SOCIAL" ladder. It doesn;t matter to them one way or the other...they have nothing in the game...

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 1:05pm

    Oh, s***! Another "class-oppressed" fascist. For them, a member of the upper class is redeemed if they spew the correct brand of cultural hatred. Republicans are more than willing to do this because it hasn't, for the last six years, anyway, cost anything to acquire these saps as political allies.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 1:55pm

  161. DOES ANYONE ELSE FIND IT FUNN THAT LIBERALS TALK ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTHCARE, BUT NEVER EXACTLY HOW IT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.

    THEY ALWAYS MENTION CANADA, BUT NEVER THE FOLLOWING:

    1. CANADA RATIONS HEALTH CARE TO CONTROL COSTS, WHICH IS WHY IT TAKES SO LONG FOR CERTAIN APPOINTMENTS OR PRUCEDURES. THEY ONLY ALLOW A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PROCEDURES YEARLY. IF YOU FAIL TO GET SCHEDULED FOR YOURS DURING THE PERIOD, YOU HAVE TO WAIT.

    IM GOING TO LOVE TO SEE THE LOOK ON WOMENS FACE WHEN THEY ARE TOLD THAT THEY HAVE TO WAIT 6 MONTHS FOR A ROUTINE MAMOGRAM BECAUSE OF RATIONING.

    2. THEY FAIL TO MENTION THAT CANADIANS PAY 15% SALES TAX TO PAY FOR THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

    3. THEY FAIL TO MENTION THAT CANADIANS PAY 40% INCOME TAX TO PAY FOR THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.

    I GET AMAZED THAT THE SAME PEOPLE WHO BLAST THE RED-TAPE WE SAW WITH KATRINA, WOULD WANT TO TURN OVER HEALTCARE TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT...BLAH!!!!

    Posted by vinnyb at 08/09/2006 @ 1:55pm

  162. It is obvious that the far right has taken over the Republicans and the far left has taken over the Dems. There has to be a common sense party that comes out of all this. I am from CT originally and fully understand why theere are so many independents in the state. If you are not from the state and back a guy like Lamont, you have no clue what a true middle american Dem is...someone who can be pro military, back a war, and have progressive liberal ideas. CT will be a slap in the face to the left wing in November...you are underestimating the power of the educated blue collar folks you call red necks in the south but call misunderstood in the north...

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 1:56pm

  163. Why if DEMOCRATIC US Senators can call our Soldiers Nazis, terrorists, and thugs; are you suprised when the speaker of the iraqi parliment does the same?

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 11:12am

    CPT,

    What creditable evidence do you have that U.S. Senators have "called our soldiers Nazis, terrorists, and thugs?"

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/09/2006 @ 1:57pm

  164. by laying off over 250% of his staff when things got tight

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person

    Dude: he laid off 250% of his staff? Are you serious? What'd he do, go around to other businesses and lay off their staff? lol

    Posted by CLIFFY 08/09/2006 @ 1:16pm

    I caught that, too. Almost spurted coffee out of my nose. Maybe Dan and CPT can teach a math class together...

    The dull leading the dim...

    BWAHahahahaHAHAHahAHHAhahahaHAHAHhahaaa

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 1:57pm

  165. What ever happened to states rights? Why do we even have state elections if they are being so influenced by the rest of the country...get it over with...ask for one federal system...how come it was a good cause for the nation to back the Lamont cause in CT but in another state it goes against Dems it is corporate america taking over the political process?

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 2:01pm

  166. Posted by LILLIAN 08/09/2006 @ 1:44pm | ignore this person

    I'm sorry, LILLIAN.....you make your quote "exact", so we can judge how much I took liberties with it.

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 2:01pm

  167. Dancall,

    As stated earlier, I don't think you should vote for Lamont.

    Do you think registered Democrats in the state of CT should be allowed to choose their nominee for Senate or should it be you, alone?

    Do you detest democracy?

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/09/2006 @ 2:02pm

  168. new dawn, That is a typical liberal response...I admitted I was wrong and you have to throw it in my face. That is exactly why most average joes think liberals are snobs!

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 2:03pm

  169. new dawn, I am not defending Bush and never have...I find it insane that everything that Bush haters complained about is now ok because the person has liberal views.

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 1:48pm

    In the cases where that is so, I agree. Hypocrisy is purple, not red or blue.

    But it should be pointed out to you and everyone else who uses the term "Bush-haters" like it explains everything as irrational knee-jerk hatred, that I know very, very few people who are "Bush-haters" for no reason - they hate him for his practices, his policies, his incompetence, his hubris, and his rampant attempts to circumvent our Constitution.

    Further, when a candidate does not represent his contituency, liberal or conservative, it's also a problem...

    For instance, Joe Lieberman carrying the war torch when 60% of Americans now do not support the Iraq war...

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 2:06pm

  170. Enclosed are excerpts from an Asia Times article by Gareth Porter that shine light on the real reason that Bush condoning the slaughter of Lebanese by Israel and vice versa. A link to complete article is included.

    Excerpt No. 1:

    One leading expert on Israeli national-defense policy issues believes the aim of the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah was to change the US administration's mind about attacking Iran. Edward Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, says administration officials have privately dismissed the option of air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the past, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.

    Excerpt No. 2:

    Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's main purpose in meeting with Bush on May 25 was clearly to push the United States to agree to use force, if necessary, to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program. Four days before the meeting, Olmert told CNN that Iran's "technological threshold" was "very close". In response to a question about US and European diplomacy on the issue, Olmert replied, "I prefer to take the necessary measures to stop it, rather than find out later that my indifference was so dangerous."

    At his meeting with Bush, according to Yitzhak Benhorin of Israel's ynetnews, Olmert pressed Bush on Israel's intelligence assessment that Iran would gain the technology necessary to build a bomb within a year and expressed fears that diplomatic efforts were not going to work.

    It seems likely that Olmert discussed Israel's plans for degrading Hezbollah's missile capabilities as a way of dramatically reducing the risks involved in an air campaign against Iran's nuclear sites, and that Bush gave his approval. That would account for Olmert's comment to Israeli reporters after the meeting, reported by ynetnews but not by US news media: "I am very, very, very satisfied."

    Bush's refusal to do anything to curb Israel's freedom to cause havoc on Lebanon further suggests that he encouraged the Israelis to take advantage of any pretext to launch the offensive.

    Clearing the path for U.S. War on Iran [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/09/2006 @ 2:07pm

  171. Funny that Nichols didn't mention his hero (laughs)...his (laughs)...Fein- (laughs)...F...(laughs)...Feingold running for president since Lamont won and pushed the party further left.

    Posted by woodyee at 08/09/2006 @ 2:08pm

  172. I have no problem with the voting process, just the puppet who controlled by the far left wing.

    So are you against states voting for their rights as a community?

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 2:09pm

  173. new dawn, That is a typical liberal response...I admitted I was wrong and you have to throw it in my face. That is exactly why most average joes think liberals are snobs!

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 2:03pm

    I read and respond to the entire blog in order, Dan. Your admitting the wrong came after my response.

    I'm about as average a joe as they come, and am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

    That is why I find your labeling my post a "typical liberal response" another reason why many think many conservatives are too stupid to assess each individual and individual situation.... individually.

    So much faster and simpler to paint with the big brush, isn't it?

    You can untwist your panties now.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 2:11pm

  174. Does anyone else find referring to liberals as snobs hilarious when you consider Bush telling a roomful of the rich at an expensive dinner that his base is the "have-mores"?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 2:15pm

  175. Wait - dont rich people work hard? Why are Conservatives bashing rich people all of a sudden. Oh, rich people are all liberals, rich people are all Lamont supporters. Lamont is a terrible guy for working hard and getting rich. I thought Republicans liked rich people.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 2:16pm

  176. CPT, What creditable evidence do you have that U.S. Senators have "called our soldiers Nazis, terrorists, and thugs?"

    Posted by ORAIBI1952 08/09/2006 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person

    After Abu Graib, a US Senator - I forget which one, said something like "We have to stop torturing people at Abu Graib because we are not Nazis" - and he also said we are not Communists, we are not Khmer Rouge, etc. Conservatives took this and said that Democrats had "called our troops Nazis". But - Republicans also by the same logic "called our troops atrocious, beneath contempt, terrible" - oh yes - Republicans denounced the torture at Abu Graib, calling it "horrible" - or were they calling "our troops" horrible?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 2:31pm

  177. Anyway, if you've noticed CPT hasnt cited where a US Senator called our troops Nazis, it is in fact because he can't.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 2:32pm

  178. LibPride,

    Yes, my point exactly.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/09/2006 @ 2:34pm

  179. If the Democratic party doesn't see the handwriting on the wall evidenced by yesterday's primary in Connecticut, it is conceivable that a lot of candidates running under that banner may decide they'd better step out from under it and take the independent route. Hell, they might even join forces and form another party. For that matter, given the disenchantment felt among a lot of Republican voters with their party, their candidates might also break with their party. Is it possible that the strangle-hold of our political system by two, out-of-touch-with-Americans parties is about to be broken? A lot of us out here would appreciate having our interests attended to inside the Beltway, rather than the interests of DC lobbyists.

    Posted by felicity at 08/09/2006 @ 2:37pm

  180. Posted by FELICITY 08/09/2006 @ 2:37pm

    Amen.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 2:44pm

  181. zero's first post pretty much sums it up.....

    good job

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 2:45pm

  182. A lot of us out here would appreciate having our interests attended to inside the Beltway, rather than the interests of DC lobbyists.

    Posted by FELICITY 08/09/2006 @ 2:37pm | ignore this person

    Regardless of party or non-party affiliation, the only sure way politicians can be forced to tend to the people's interest is by replacing those who ignore the people's desires -- that is the lesson from Connecticut that the people and the politicians should learn.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/09/2006 @ 2:46pm

  183. Posted by FELICITY 08/09/2006 @ 2:37pm | ignore this person

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/09/2006 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person

    Hmmm....third party candidate, running as an Independent, declaring both parties the same and out-of-touch?

    Sounds like....

    Nader 2000.....By the way, how did that work out? (I'm sure since "The Nation" supported Ralph then, somebody here remembers)

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 2:48pm

  184. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/09/2006 @ 1:32pm | ignore this person

    I am simply saying that he is a politician, do you need anymore explanation than that?

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 2:50pm

  185. much to teach the dem. party? yeah, like, if you want to connect with the American people, get racist lowlifes like Sharpton and Jackson to stand behind you during your ( soon to be short-lived ) victory speech! This puke will be rejected in Nov. and his looney ideas will never resonate with the American people. Thank you, looney-left and Lamont, for taking over a once viable party and laying the groundwork for long-term Republican domination. With enemies like you, the Republicans won't have to do much fundraising or campaigning! Thanks again!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/09/2006 @ 2:51pm

  186. ORAIBI1952/LiberalPride

    Oh that is a difference isnt it?

    You are right, Durbin only compared our troops to Nazis.

    He didnt ACTUALLY call them Nazis, so if I compare you to a Nazi, it is not the same as actually calling you a Nazi.

    And Kerry only said our troops were terrorizing civilians, thats much more different than actually calling them terrorists.

    I love the mind of the wonderfully nuanced enlightened.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 2:54pm

  187. I am simply saying that he is a politician, do you need anymore explanation than that?

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 2:50pm

    If what you had "simply said" was "he is a politicain", I'd have hardly taken you to task on it, now would I?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 2:54pm

  188. politician

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 2:55pm

  189. So what makes the 'racists lowlifes' of the Republican Party better than those of the Democratic Party?

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/09/2006 @ 2:57pm

  190. Polls are deceiving. But I think most people are tired of hearing about innocent iraqi's being killed by "insurgents" not by bullets or artillery fire...just the guys strapping explosives to their bodies to make a point. You know, I do think we should pull out, let the civil war go on and let Iran come in a take over...while we are at, tell Isreal to hold off, let Iran rearm Hezbolah and then watch through the rosy

    Posted by dancall at 08/09/2006 @ 2:58pm

  191. Hmmm....third party candidate, running as an Independent, declaring both parties the same and out-of-touch?

    Sounds like....

    Nader 2000.....By the way, how did that work out? (I'm sure since "The Nation" supported Ralph then, somebody here remembers)

    Posted by MASK 08/09/2006 @ 2:48pm

    How did that work out? The votes were split three ways, and the Supremes ended up deciding the election anyway, if I recall correctly. I may be wrong.

    Times have changed since then, in part because of Nader's failed bid, Mask, and you know it.

    The time is ripe for further change, and you yourself adopt the hypothetical position you just described, that both parties are out of touch.

    So, what's the point of your post again? I find myself asking myself that with almost everything you post... It's just about time to iggy you like Rese and Plunger. Nine times out of ten, you offer nothing to the conversation but nose-tweaking and devil's advocacy.

    That's no threat, by the way, and I really don't care if you care.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 3:01pm

  192. JR,

    "I offer no illusions about that fact. I used to be staunchly conservative... then I realized how devoid of morality and intellectual honesty most of the positions held by the conservative leadership are, and how completely antithetical to my religious beliefs those same positions are. Pretty simple, actually."..

    I became a libertarian for the same reason..I wasd a registerd repub, but dropped last year...they are no longer conservative.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 3:02pm

  193. Ok, Dick Durbin - go and get the quote where he compared our troops to Nazis. See - you cant. Dick Durbin didnt compare our troops to Nazis - he said we have to stop torturing people at Abu Graib because we are not Nazis. Republicans took this, and came out saying that he had "called our troops Nazis".

    Republicans also condemned the torture at Abu Graib, calling it "horrible", calling it "unconscionable" - were Republicans calling "our troops" unconscionable?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 3:02pm

  194. I love the mind of the wonderfully nuanced enlightened.

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 2:54pm

    That's satire, right? You wouldn't know nuanced or enlightened if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and wiggled.

    ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 3:04pm

  195. LL

    It will be interesting to see if the American people have lost their sense of purpose in defeating evil wherever it may rise

    Of course, that was never Bush's policy. I don't see him confronting evil in Darfur or Uzebekistan or Myanmar. Further, even the proper policy of confronting Islamist militarn groups wasn't furthered by going into Iraq, so pulling out of a quagmire that's also a strategic detour is hardly inconsistent with that mission.

    CPT

    Sorry, but that's so much semantic flim-flam. Saying "We have to stop torturing people at Abu Graib because we are not Nazis" isn't comparing us to Nazis, it's saying that because we are better than Nazis we oughtn't to use their methods. Likewise, saying we are terroizing civilians isn't calling anyone a terrorist, it's saying that our counter-insurgency methods are making Iraqi civilians as, or more, afraid of us than of the enemy.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/09/2006 @ 3:05pm

  196. CPT,

    Decent people recognize that the behavior of our troops at Abu Ghraib was despicable and the Military is punishing most of those responsible for that behavior.

    Eventually, we will punish the military and civilian leaders who encouraged this behavior. To avoid this punishment, the Bush Administration is attempting to weaken U.S. laws governing such illiberal behavior, your willful ignorance notwithstanding.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/09/2006 @ 3:06pm

  197. I'd like to step off-topic long enough to ask our conservative friends about the eleven Egyptians who recently came into our country legally, then disappeared.

    They are being sought by U.S. authorities after failing to turn up at Montana State University.

    The 11 Egyptian men were among a larger group of students who arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York from Cairo on July 29 with valid visas, according to FBI and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

    As I've said since 9/11, let's hazard the wild supposition that these immigrants (legal, mind you) might have questionable motives for getting in the wind as soon as they got into our country... Could a conservative explain to me how fighting in Iraq helped keep these men from coming here?

    Could a conservative please explain to me how the idea of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" fits into such an equation?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 3:14pm

  198. Posted by JPOLSTON 08/09/2006 @ 1:13pm | ignore this person

    Please, then reference me and dont mention the Army, there are far too many good men, and some didnt pass HS algebra, giving their all and doing things that others wont do, cant do, and fear to do.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 3:18pm

  199. Rove offers to help Leiberman.

    Rove offers help to Lieberman [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/09/2006 @ 3:18pm

  200. lillian, it was directed at a liberal leader and I agree with you on your point.

    Bottom line, both Dems and Reps on the highest level are full of CRAP, which is what tweaks me about the Dems...you have to be smarter then this...Lamont is just another rich guy that is about money and power and will do nothing for the working class and poor people...CT is RICH, yet they have three of the worst cities in America when it comes to crime and education...IT IS A BLUE STATE!

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person

    Dan, when you say that both D's and R's are full of crap, I'd certainly tend to agree. However, when you then move to "which is what tweaks me about the Dems" your argument seems to loose some focus. The only thing that would seem to bring it back into focus (for me) would be if you, in reality, oppose what the R's are about and are secretly hoping the D's will bring back some sanity to the governance of the coutry, and are 'tweaked' becuase you think the've chosen a strategy that won't accomplish that.

    Is that what you're trying to say (or close to it)?

    If so, I don't think that's what's been coming through on your previous posts here.

    Also, if that's true, do think a 'winning' strategy for the D's would be to forgo running rich candidates and only run poor (or average wealth) candidates?

    Posted by Lillian at 08/09/2006 @ 3:25pm

  201. Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 08/09/2006 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person

    Abu Graib is a specific reference to the horrible misbehaviour.

    Comparing them it NAZI atrocities is qutie something else, and most RATIONAL people see it that way.

    Lets see, panties on the head, naked pryiameds or

    As the NAZIS did; gas chambers, starvations, medical experiments on humans, ie seeing how long a person can go without food or water, oh and murdering of MILLIONS.

    The two are not the same. And ask yourself why a politician, who is careful about words and knows their power to invoke images or feelings, why he chose the words he did to characterize an American misstep.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 3:26pm

  202. CPT,

    Why did bush "accidentally" say Osama in speeches when he meant to say Saddam and vice versa (prior to the invasion of Iraq)?

    Why did Bush say "I don't spend much time thinking about him" when asked what he was doing to capture Osama bin Laden.

    Why did Bush tell a Buffalo, NY audience that wire tapping Americans without a warrant would be illegal?

    Don't politicians say the darndest things?

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/09/2006 @ 3:31pm

  203. Let me get this right...a guy with an 18 year ADA rating well over 90% is now a neo-Con because he believes that there is a nexus between national defense and the war in Iraq. OK !! That's it! I thought I was nuts....Will the last Democrat who believes that the motto of the DNC should NOT be "My Country--Always Wrong!" please turn out the lights. (Yoh know, global warming and all that....)

    Posted by carl palm at 08/09/2006 @ 3:31pm

  204. Abu Graib is a specific reference to the horrible misbehaviour

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 3:26pm | ignore this person

    Are you saying it was horrible? Youre a Republican, right? And you say it was "horrible"? Is that what you're calling it, "horrible"? Well I am being redundant, because obviously, you did just call it horrible. Who are you to call our troops "horrible"?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 3:31pm

  205. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/09/2006 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person

    My POINT, NEW DAWN, is...in case you didn't notice...all this talk of "third parties" and "split away from the DC establishment", etc....

    comes from the Left, does it not? Not a lot of "Buchananites" left and George Wallace is dead.

    So...when you have ONE side of the political equation, that is ready to throw out their moderates (though the Repubs made a stab at it in Michigan with Schwarz and Walberg too)....somebody on the OTHER side usually benefits.

    Does anybody SERIOUSLY think anymore that if Perot hadn't been in it, Bush-41 might have pulled it out in 1992? or that if Ralph had backed out by September 2000, that Gore couldn't have tapped even a "lesser of two evils" vote and won (blatently) Florida and maybe even another state or two?

    The only ones talking about splitting off from their party....are Democrats (or those that lean that way)....or they're talking about holding conservative and moderate Dems to a standard of "progressive purity" that won't work except where pure progressives are already winning.

    The Repubs aren't doing that....Hell, their last straw poll had GUILIANI in the lead for 2008....and he's pro-choice and pro-gun control!!!

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 3:32pm

  206. Sorry, but that's so much semantic flim-flam. Saying "We have to stop torturing people at Abu Graib because we are not Nazis" isn't comparing us to Nazis, it's saying that because we are better than Nazis we oughtn't to use their methods. Likewise, saying we are terroizing civilians isn't calling anyone a terrorist, it's saying that our counter-insurgency methods are making Iraqi civilians as, or more, afraid of us than of the enemy.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 08/09/2006 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person

    Sorry, you are as wrong as a screen door on a submarine.

    For a US Senator to use Nazi imagery to make a point about OUR troops, and yes OUR is the operative word, is wrong, plain and simple.

    There is no comparing Abu Graib to Nazi atrocites....none whatsoever.

    To do so is an insult to the millions of Jews, gypsies, russians, slavs, poles and other undesirable who met their deaths, in horrific ways at the hands of those people.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 3:35pm

  207. Folks, Lieberman lost because Americans are getting tired of argumentation that doesnt make any sense, in defense of George Bushs disaster in Iraq.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 3:36pm

  208. CPT - just a moment ago you, called our troops "horrible". Why?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 3:37pm

  209. Abu Graib is a specific reference to the horrible misbehaviour

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 3:26pm | ignore this person

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 3:39pm

  210. Come on, why do you feel that "our troops" are horrible?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 3:39pm

  211. George Bush agrees with CPT - apparently "our troops" are so "horrible" - that we have to cut funding to treat their injuries - according to George Bush.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-08-brain-center_x.htm

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 3:49pm

  212. LibPride's link in hypertext.

    Bush cuts funding for troops [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/09/2006 @ 3:54pm

  213. Lets see, panties on the head, naked pryiameds or

    As the NAZIS did; gas chambers, starvations, medical experiments on humans, ie seeing how long a person can go without food or water, oh and murdering of MILLIONS.

    The two are not the same. And ask yourself why a politician, who is careful about words and knows their power to invoke images or feelings, why he chose the words he did to characterize an American misstep.

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 3:26pm

    I get your point about the Nazi references, really, I do, but

    I'm getting sick of you using the bolded example above to describe Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo abuses - that is not the full extent of Abu Ghraib or Gauntanamo abuses, and you know it - I posted a large list the other day of abuses, torture, and even death.

    Knock off this bullshit argument - it makes you sound ignorant.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 3:57pm

  214. The RNC sends their very, very TOP intellectuals here to The Nation message boards.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 4:00pm

  215. Mask -

    So you want everyone here to believe that when you said:

    "Hmmm....third party candidate, running as an Independent, declaring both parties the same and out-of-touch?

    Sounds like....

    Nader 2000.....By the way, how did that work out? (I'm sure since "The Nation" supported Ralph then, somebody here remembers)"

    that was actually supposed to mean

    "My POINT, NEW DAWN, is...in case you didn't notice...all this talk of "third parties" and "split away from the DC establishment", etc....

    comes from the Left, does it not? Not a lot of "Buchananites" left and George Wallace is dead."

    Gee, Mask - I didn't get that from your previous post at all. Did anyone?

    And "in case I didn't notice" - is that supposed to be a slam for my not reading your tiny mind and what you "meant" to say?

    Weak. Really weak.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 4:03pm

  216. I love this ignoramus' comment about the neoconservative nightmare that has us bogged down in Iraq. Let's see, the US topples a 35-year ARAB dictatorship, and these short-sighted, ill-educated imbeciles on the Left expect a near paradise in a year or two? Otherwise, we're "bogged down?" Anybody with the least amount of wit could foresee that the US would be involved in this mess for atleast five and more likely ten years. The pathetic fools on the Left have to start reading (or, at least, understanding) the history books that they purchase by the yard to impress their equally shallow friends.

    Posted by NJP at 08/09/2006 @ 4:03pm

  217. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/09/2006 @ 4:03pm | ignore this person

    Humor too subtle for you, NEW DAWN.

    Sorry, will try harder not to mock attempts to divide the Democratic Party in 1/2 (while the Repubs remain united) and claim it's going to sweep the nation or generate HUGE new voter numbers.

    or NOT be a replay of what we saw with Nader and 2000...and which "The Nation" even admits was, spoilership.

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 4:12pm

  218. Okay NJP, if not weeks, if not months, if not going on 5 years then when should we expect a near paradise to rise out of the rubble of George Bushs Disaster in Iraq? When should we expect the 100s of bodies to stop being dumped in the streets, holes drilled in them, acid poured on them? Are you some kind of pessimist? When will the Disaster in Iraq stop getting worse?

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 4:14pm

  219. The below excerpt from the Washington Post describes how Bush is attempting to protect himself, his senior policy makers/military leaders and other satraps from potential prosecution for war crimes. You spell fascism as follows; b-u-s-h a-d-m-i-n-i-s-t-r-a-t-i-o-n.

    Excerpt:

    The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.

    Bush trying to preempt prosecution of war crimes [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 08/09/2006 @ 4:14pm

  220. Dancall:

    "Mr. Lamont and his wife jointly own two accounts containing as much as $16,000 in Wal-Mart stock. Their Wal-Mart holdings spin off as much as $3,500 in annual dividends"

    You have indeed quoted a very credible source there pal. "captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007709.php"

    When someone writes an oped or blog, one should hope that research corroborates the facts.

    Try doing the math: $16,000 in account value at yesterdays SV@$44.50 = 360 shares held. Dividend paid in cash 2005 ending was $.60 per share X 360 shares = $216.00. Not quite $3500 is it Dancall? I think the captains credibility has slimed its way out the crack in the froor. Care to try again?

    Posted by doumer at 08/09/2006 @ 4:19pm

  221. George Bush (Senior) said, I gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein when I was Vice President in the Reagan Administration - so I should know Saddam Hussein is "worse than Hitler".

    George Bush said: "Saddam Hussein is worse than Hitler, I gave him chemical weapons".

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 4:20pm

  222. This is really great, really great! less than 1/10th of the voters from the 2004 election cast votes in a primary for the avowed anti-war candidate and he eakes out a 52/48 win (although an impressive climb from a few months ago). Lamont professes to be listening to the "people of CT", but the vast majority of his contributions came from OUTSIDE the state! He will lose in the general election, because his differences with the incumbent are not that great, with the exception of national defense/war on terror in which he goes soft (the issue that has killed dems in the last two elections and really, for 30 years).

    And finally, a win (of sorts) for the Soros gang, the netroots and moveon.org. That was really smart to pour all that effort, money and manpower into a race to unseat a sitting democrat who votes with his caucus 90% of the time! I guess the term "lockstep" comes to mind. Anyway, when Lamont loses his appeal in the general campaign and the election in November, all this effort will have been wasted when it should have been aimed at vulnerable REPUBLICANS. And in the end, no one will remember Ned Lamont, as he has tea in Crawford with Cindy Sheehan and Jesse Jackson and makes excuses about why the democrats didn't winn control of either house of Congress.

    Posted by madwoodman at 08/09/2006 @ 4:21pm

  223. NJP,

    We've been there 3 years and what will it look like in 2 or 7 more years?

    Will it be a WMDless, Saddamless, democracy as it is today? Great! Can we leave now?

    What is the objective of staying there and why will Bush not quantify that objective? Why is he spending billions (as I type) on his grand palace (military base) in Iraq?

    If things are not different in 2 years or 7 years from today (or are worse) should be leave then, or give it another 10?

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/09/2006 @ 4:22pm

  224. STWRILEY - Learn your politics.....Connecticutt is a mostly INDEPENDENT state, not mostly democrat.

    Posted by madwoodman at 08/09/2006 @ 4:26pm

  225. Frankgrits is correct in his assessment, "Start thinking for yourself and try to wean yourself off the extreme right viewpoint." Joe Lieberman has been headed for this fall for the last two years. His support for Bush's vanity war in Iraq deserved to be exposed and punished.

    The Iraq War never was about terrorism since Bush planned to oust Saddam Hussein well before 9/11. The nearly 2,600 U.S. military who have come home in flag-draped coffins, the 18,500 wounded and the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children who Bush put in early graves was a war of convenience and a war of choice for Bush and his Halliburton benefactors. Whether Lieberman chose to connect Iraq to 9/11 is beside the point at this late date.

    Crippling Iraq, the most westernized and secular of all the Middle East countries, benefitted Syria and Iran's militant Islamic Shiite regimes, both bitter enemies of Iraq. Bush has done them a huge favor at the expense of the senseless deaths of U.S. military and at a horrible cost to America, a cost now exceeding $400 billion.

    We all know Ken Mehelman and Karl Rove intend to "stay on message" and try to catapult the propaganda that those who are against this fiasco and travesty of the war in Iraq is un-American, unpatriotic citizens who simply want to "cut and run," the Republicans' broken record litany of excuses for the most failed administration in our nation's 230-year history.

    In spite of Joe Lieberman and Milquetoast blathering by Hillary Clinton, who also has been waffling over Bush's's Iraq War more conspicuously lately, Americans are demanding change, not more of the intimidated Republican-lite fence-sitters who kinda, sorta support the war and kinda, maybe think we oughta stay a while longer. Maybe get a few more American soldiers blown up before Bush decides to snip and speedwalk out of Iraq while nobody's looking.

    Judging from the recent disappearance of the daily slaughter in Baghdad and "Iraq War fatigue" in the national roundup of evening news ala Brian Williams, Bush's withdrawing of U.S. troops from that desert hellhole will go mostly unnoticed anyway. Where will Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton be standing then?

    Posted by richard38 at 08/09/2006 @ 4:26pm

  226. Humor too subtle for you, NEW DAWN.

    Sorry, will try harder not to mock attempts to divide the Democratic Party in 1/2 (while the Repubs remain united) and claim it's going to sweep the nation or generate HUGE new voter numbers.

    or NOT be a replay of what we saw with Nader and 2000...and which "The Nation" even admits was, spoilership.

    Posted by MASK 08/09/2006 @ 4:12pm

    It's your brand of "humor" that's questionable, Mask (since generally, humor is "funny"), not my ability to discern it, but nice try at a swipe.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 4:38pm

  227. Still wondering...

    I'd like to step off-topic long enough to ask our conservative friends about the eleven Egyptians who recently came into our country legally, then disappeared.

    They are being sought by U.S. authorities after failing to turn up at Montana State University.

    The 11 Egyptian men were among a larger group of students who arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York from Cairo on July 29 with valid visas, according to FBI and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

    As I've said since 9/11, let's hazard the wild supposition that these immigrants (legal, mind you) might have questionable motives for getting in the wind as soon as they got into our country... Could a conservative explain to me how fighting in Iraq helped keep these men from coming here?

    Could a conservative please explain to me how the idea of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" fits into such an equation?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 4:49pm

  228. The registered Independents, moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats will still give Lieberman his seat back in November. The Repub candidate has no chance and Lamont will not sit well with moderate Reps and independents.

    Posted by John B at 08/09/2006 @ 4:50pm

  229. The registered Independents, moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats will still give Lieberman his seat back in November. The Repub candidate has no chance and Lamont will not sit well with moderate Reps and independents.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/09/2006 @ 4:50pm

    Really? Why?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 4:52pm

  230. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/09/2006 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person

    Drop "humor" (good, bad or unsuccessful) entirely, NEW DAWN.

    Explain to me how this "movement towards an independent third party, separate from the DC Establishment"...that is promulgated by the Left....HELPS them.

    If Repubs are united (and wisely "move center" with a Guiliani...Yes,yes...Rudy's a "vicious neo-con"...if you're a Kucinichite, but out in the "real world", he's pretty liberal for a Republican....pro-choice, pro-gun control)....

    and the Democrats SPLIT with the "Greens/Pure Progressives/Bloggites" heading in one direction and the "evil DLC/Southern Dems" heading in another....and those magical "voters who don't vote because there's no difference" voters don't appear RIGHT AWAY...

    what happens?

    Posted by Mask at 08/09/2006 @ 4:57pm

  231. [Satire] Moderate Democrats are not going to stand for Ned Lamont. Moderate Democrats understand that the war in Iraq is going great, America is more safe. Moderate Democrats are not going to support a liberal Democrate who hates America and supports terrorists. Liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal. Extreme liberal, extreme leftist, support the troops, support the troops. Imminent threat. Mobile labs. Itll be over with in weeks not months. Mission Accomplished. Last throes. Getting desperate. Major milestone. Why wont the media report all the good things happening in Iraq. Iraq is free.

    Posted by LiberalPride at 08/09/2006 @ 5:01pm

  232. Liberalpride... Moderate Dems will likely not support Lamont, NOT because of his stance on the Iraq war as most probably agree with him on that issue. However, his lack of experience and lack of coherent positions on other issues is where Lieberman has him at a severe disadvantage. Like him or not, you know where Lieberman stands on the majority of issues. Lamont seems to be counting on the "i hate Bush" strategy that has failed Dems repeatedly.

    Just my opinion, I probably shouldn't have generalized quite as much as I did, but I think on the whole I am correct. I will leave open the possibility that I could be wrong. (although that is very hard for my ego to accomplish)

    Posted by John B at 08/09/2006 @ 5:14pm

  233. New Dawn... because the I believe (note the word believe, not KNOW) that the Reps in the state (all three of them) will likely stray away from the troubled Rep candidate. The Independents in my opinion will stay with Joe because they will vote based on more than the Iraq issue. I think the results of the Dem primary show that the Dems are split (albeit slightly in Lamonts favor) and will likely remain that way.

    My guess is Lamont will pick up a few of the Dems that voted for Lieberman simply on a party line vote, but I just don't see where he might pick up votes among the independents and Reps.

    Posted by John B at 08/09/2006 @ 5:19pm

  234. here we go again, with this so-called 'madwoodman', trashing the net roots community, and feeling rather sore after his man lost. how pathetic are these people?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 5:19pm

  235. and watch this o'reilly clip from last night. they're already slinging mud at us:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200608090008

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 5:33pm

  236. Drop "humor" (good, bad or unsuccessful) entirely, NEW DAWN.

    Explain to me how this "movement towards an independent third party, separate from the DC Establishment"...that is promulgated by the Left....HELPS them.

    If Repubs are united (and wisely "move center" with a Guiliani...Yes,yes...Rudy's a "vicious neo-con"...if you're a Kucinichite, but out in the "real world", he's pretty liberal for a Republican....pro-choice, pro-gun control)....

    and the Democrats SPLIT with the "Greens/Pure Progressives/Bloggites" heading in one direction and the "evil DLC/Southern Dems" heading in another....and those magical "voters who don't vote because there's no difference" voters don't appear RIGHT AWAY...

    what happens?

    Posted by MASK 08/09/2006 @ 4:57pm

    Never considered what you're asking. Let me think about it.

    Let's see...

    First, I didn't realize that my supporting a move towards independent candidates was supposed to help the left. Is that what I am doing by seeing both parties as failures right now and wishing for change?

    Glad you explained my motives to me - I wasn't really sure why I thought what I thought...

    All of your "if's" don't make a lot of sense to me (they rarely do), so I'm having a bit of difficulty addressing them, but I'll try...

    "If the Repubs wisely move to the center" doesn't seem likely... And I have my own set of issues with Guiliani, though I don't see him as a "vicious" anything...

    And as to the rest of your post, that's just too much crystal-ball gazing for me.

    The final answer rests on which candidates are available at the time and the mood of the country with reagrds to Iraq, the economy, and any wedge issues the right can drum up, as usual.

    Too many variables for me to answer "what happens?", and I'd almost certainly not give the answer you're just waiting to pounce on, at any rate...

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 5:42pm

  237. Who will vote for an independent Lieberman?

    Democrats who want to hand the seat to a Republican?

    Independents stupid enough to believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11?

    Republicans who think that Lieberman will do a better job of bringing in government contracts than a Republican senator working with a Republican administration?

    Lieberman will be fortunate to achieve double digits. Lamont will be a magnet for patriots of all parties outraged at the betrayal of America by Bush & Co.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/09/2006 @ 6:13pm

  238. Seems to me that changing the party he runs under doesn't change the man - I can't see anyone who wouldn't vote for him as a Dem doing so just because he runs as an Independent...

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 6:17pm

  239. lv--

    if you'd kindly watch the rest of the clip, then you'll see what i mean.

    you're just like o'reilly, just take the little bits and pieces that support your argument, and forget the rest, cuz that'll hurt your argument.

    re-watch the ENTIRE clip, then get back to me.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 6:20pm

  240. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/09/2006 @ 6:13pm: Lieberman will be fortunate to achieve double digits.

    Lieberman will not make it til election day. He'll drop out long before that.

    If not, he will make a complete ass of himself.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/09/2006 @ 6:21pm

  241. SamCrosset... yes, they would vote for a Dem that has proven to get the state contracts over an unknown Dem and over a Rep they know cannot win. Look at how this is polling out. The rep can barely get over 10%. So if you are Republican, do you vote for a moderate/Centrist Dem like Lieberman or a Dem who is anti-Bush?

    Posted by John B at 08/09/2006 @ 6:22pm

  242. Lieberman will be fortunate to achieve double digits. Lamont will be a magnet for patriots of all parties outraged at the betrayal of America by Bush & Co.

    Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/09/2006 @ 6:13pm | ignore this person

    Buddy, take a knee and drink some water

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 6:24pm

  243. Joe Lieberman proved in minutes what his detractors had been saying for years, that he's not a true Democrat. How quickly he was willing to abandon his party in favor of his own ambitions.

    Posted by finaleyes at 08/09/2006 @ 6:33pm

  244. Oraabi1952, no one said the "racist lowlifes" of the Dem. party are any worse than those supposed to be in the Republican party! Show me who these Republicans are and give the proof that they are and I will condemn the too! The problem is, I haven't seen any republicans say or do anything racist, including Trent Lott! Now go watch the evening news and see what the Mckinney people are saying about Jews and her "Uncle Tom" black opponent, then get back to me! You lefties are HILARIOUS! This is soooooooooo much fun! What a great day!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/09/2006 @ 6:37pm

  245. Lamont will be a magnet for patriots of all parties outraged at the betrayal of America by Bush & Co.

    Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/09/2006 @ 6:13pm

    Only if you re-define "Patriots" as those who hate the president, hate the military, hate Republicans, hate traditional American values... I don't think there is a majority of you guys/gals yet, even in CT

    Posted by Conservative at 08/09/2006 @ 6:51pm

  246. Well, well, well... the preacher man makes a quick appearance to hit-and-run on Darla...

    But was notoriously absent when the water got hot on another board... Wonder what the excuse will be this time? "Oh, I'm old and forgetful and can't keep track of the boards"? "Oh, I didn't know you were actually looking for a response"?

    Here, Liberty, are the posts you did not respond to:

    Liberty -

    So, you want to be obtuse? Okay, I'll play.

    YOU said:

    "I think if you go there you will find that Sister Agnes is perhaps even stronger in her feelings towards liberals than I am.

    http://www.sommerhaven.com/mission.html [url]"

    Then you vacillate:

    "Your comment about Sister Agnes not having any words on her website about liberals is rather inane. Do you honestly think that would be a focus of the ministry. She likewise believes strongly in her rights as a citizen. It is her private citizen beliefs I was referring to. I just assumed that someone like yourself was bright enough to cross that logical train of thought. My apologies if I overestimated."

    Liberty, I'd call you a bullshit artist, but that would be like calling a canvas with bullshit thrown on it, art, and it would be an insult to bullshit. You are transparent, and stupid to boot. Everything on that page is liberal, you fucking moron. I also get a kick out of your Christian, loving decency towards me when you continuously try to say you "overestimate" my intelligence. What an asshole. Just be blunt - I can take it. Stop trying to sound sorry for me.

    And this makes me want to vomit:

    "First of all, the churches I oversee are like my children. I am not my children but I call them my children because I helped to birth them and raise them up. It is a term of endearment and at the same time, one of responsibility. I like any father, need to nurture, teach and guide them into their full range of mature opportunities."

    "Teach" them to hate liberals and all things left; "guide" them to imply mental retardation and mental imbalance on those they don't agree with instead of making salient arguments; teach them killing is okay, and should be cheered and celebrated; teach them that Hell awaits those who don't subscribe to Liberty's beliefs.

    Some father. Can we all feel the love radiating off of the preacher-man?

    Then you write:

    "Secondly, I have on several occasions tried to explain to hard headed leftists that my political views are those of a citizen and not that of a pastor or even as a Christian. As a citizen I have the right to hold views on a variety of issues that have nothing to do with my faith. Everyone has opinions that are shaped in part by their faith or no faith."

    And then you immediately contradict yourself, or at the very least, display the most lily-livered, weak-kneed, wobbly, have-it-both-ways logic:

    "For instance, I can find justification for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by my political world view alone. It is further justified in part by my faith because of the Christian teaching in Romans that governments bear the sword to execute justice on evil in the world. This passage helped shape Augustine and Aquina's views on a Just War as previously cited."

    And finally, you sum up with a bunch of scripture and your own twisted interpretations of it.

    So, explain to us, Liberty - every person (including all Jews and all Muslims) who believes that the Christ was a prophet and not the son of God, or God personified, is going to hell, right?

    And you should condemn them and celebrate their imminent descent as a good Christian, right?

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/08/2006 @ 4:59pm | ignore this person

    So you as an unbeliever may label Christians as delusioned. However we do enjoy and will continue to celebrate our intimate relationship with Jesus that involves regular communication. If you find that crazy, it is of no concern to us. It is your loss.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/08/2006 @ 4:41pm

    Are you telling this board that you have ever heard an actual voice from God or Jesus in any circumstance?

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/08/2006 @ 5:01pm | ignore this person

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 6:54pm

  247. Only if you re-define "Patriots" as those who hate the president, hate the military, hate Republicans, hate traditional American values... I don't think there is a majority of you guys/gals yet, even in CT

    Posted by CONSERVATIVE 08/09/2006 @ 6:51pm

    To paraphrase Liberty, you really are from another planet, dude.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/09/2006 @ 6:57pm

  248. Only if you re-define "Patriots" as those who hate the president, hate the military, hate Republicans, hate traditional American values... I don't think there is a majority of you guys/gals yet, even in CT

    Posted by CONSERVATIVE 08/09/2006 @ 6:51pm

    To paraphrase Liberty, you really are from another planet, dude.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/09/2006 @ 6:57pm | ignore this person

    Come on New Dawn is that your best? You haters are a tiny minority.

    Posted by Conservative at 08/09/2006 @ 7:00pm

  249. I spent over a year registering new voters, mostly at the Democrats' booth outside the new citizens' swearing-in ceremonies sponsored by the U.S. Citizen Immigration Services (formerly INS). I can tell you this: a lot of people who thought they were registering as Independent were in truth signing up for the American Independent Party, nowhere close to being independent.

    But, if there is a true Independent Party for Joe Lieberman to represent I highly recommend and advise him to simply fess up to it and run as a Republican. The closest he will ever get to being Independent is the product advertised by June Allsyon, in-Depends.

    Posted by richard38 at 08/09/2006 @ 7:01pm

  250. Displaying your ignorance of Chomsky.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/09/2006 @ 11:34am | ignore this person

    "It remains to be seen how much the power elite in this country actually allow things to change"

    This is not Chomsky-like????? Are you familiar with him? Maybe there is another Chomsky.

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 12:06am

    Unlike your mental image of Chomsky, Noam Chomsky himself actually stays up to date with the times.

    I am very familiar with his writings (I own 2 of his books) and his lectures (I've seen several of his movies and heard him speak on NPR several times).

    If your knowledge were up to date, you'd know that Dr. Chomsky is more optimistic now than ever before of the power of the masses to effect real change. He's been around a while, and has noted that never in history has there been so much democracy in the world. I am, of course, paraphrasing.

    For you to call him a nut is almost ludicrously stupid. For example, you wrote:

    P.S. The guy lives in fantasyworld where reality doesnt exist and everyone is the same, no distinction between terrorists or states, they are all the same to this nut.

    Posted by CPT 08/09/2006 @ 12:03am

    What Chomsky says is not that states and terrorists are the same, but that the actions of them should be judged using the same criteria.

    It is called "not having a double standard". If that makes someone a nut, then you are truly a hypocrite and morally bankrupt.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2006 @ 7:13pm

  251. So if you are Republican, do you vote for a moderate/Centrist Dem like Lieberman or a Dem who is anti-Bush?

    Posted by JOHN B 08/09/2006 @ 6:22pm

    You're conveniently forgetting the Republicans who are anti-Bush. Lieberman, along with the israel lobby, will try to survive but Lieberman will probably end up getting a job in the Bush administration. He's obviously disliked by enough Americans now to meet the recruiting guidelines.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 7:16pm

  252. As a patriot, yes I do hate this chickenhawk president. He is weakening our armed forces by getting our soldiers killed in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, as a smokescreen for his treasonous appeasement of the real enemy, the Saudis.

    I started out as a Republican, before Reagan, and am still in favor of genuine, common-sense conservatism - a balanced budget, a strong & cost effective defense, constitutional rights - as opposed to the corporate welfare pimping & fascistic power grab that passes for conservatism today. As for 'traditional' values, I wasn't aware that they included lying, cheating & stealing by public officials & their corporate cronies.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/09/2006 @ 7:18pm

  253. anybody get the feeling that lieberman's fall campaign will be rove-ian in scope?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 7:19pm

  254. Ned is spoiled rich kid from Greenwich...this is the man who will save your party??

    Posted by DANCALL 08/09/2006 @ 11:50am

    Why not? The spoiled rich kid George W. Bush saved the Republicans in 2000 (yeah, I know he cheated. I didn't say he did it fair and square, so don't jump on me with a rehash of the Florida election fiasco please.)

    If spoiled rich kid GeeDubya could do it, why not Ned? At least Ned has run a business successfully, which is more than I can say for Dubya.

    I bet Lamont knew about cash register bar code laser scanners before Bush did!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2006 @ 7:20pm

  255. Republicans are always playing to their "base" not the uncommitted voters in the "center." It's about time the democratic base got some attention. Viva Lamont!

    Posted by pbereano at 08/09/2006 @ 7:23pm

  256. That's satire, right? You wouldn't know nuanced or enlightened if it fell out of the sky, landed on your face, and wiggled.

    ;)

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/09/2006 @ 3:04pm

    Ooooh, baby! That naughty talk is turning me on...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/09/2006 @ 7:24pm

  257. Chomsky in 1969. Much of what he says is just as up to date now. I don't agree with some of his emphasis elsewhere but Buckley's drivel just goes to show that it's not really a question of time but honesty.

    Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley Debate : Part 1 of 2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

    Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley Debate : Part 2 of 2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Samvw6Z08

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 7:24pm

  258. The Lamont/Lieberman choice was easy for progressives, but do Democrats want a forceful articulate peace candidate of their dreams, who is on the ballot, if that candidate is independent of any party? This is the question we must ask ourselves in Maine at the moment. Dexter Kamilewicz, member of Military Families Speak Out, whose son survived a year in Ramadi, Iraq, who knows what it's like to have skin in the game and who's not afraid to say the legislative branch has gone AWOL. The incumbent Democrat has voted for every bill to fund the invasion and continuing occupation. He recieves huge campaign contributions from General Dynamics, but mysteriously, says he is "against the war". So, what is a progressive to do? I put it to you all.

    Posted by Abenaki at 08/09/2006 @ 7:27pm

  259. As a patriot, yes I do hate this chickenhawk president. He is weakening our armed forces by getting our soldiers killed in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, as a smokescreen for his treasonous appeasement of the real enemy, the Saudis.

    I started out as a Republican, before Reagan, and am still in favor of genuine, common-sense conservatism - a balanced budget, a strong & cost effective defense, constitutional rights - as opposed to the corporate welfare pimping & fascistic power grab that passes for conservatism today. As for 'traditional' values, I wasn't aware that they included lying, cheating & stealing by public officials & their corporate cronies.

    Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/09/2006 @ 7:18pm

    Hi SAMCROSSETT,

    Okay Sam, you hate the president and the Saudis, the big business pimps and the power grabbing government officials. I'm sure I've just started your "i hate list". I'm not saying you aren't getting comfy with the other haters like New Dawn, I'm just saying your are a tiny minority.

    Posted by Conservative at 08/09/2006 @ 7:32pm

  260. you guys have to watch this. talk about hysterical. are these people for real?:

    http://movies.crooksandliars.com/H&C-Horowitz-ShadowParty.mov

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 7:32pm

  261. Only if you re-define "Patriots" as those who hate the president, hate the military, hate Republicans, hate traditional American values... I don't think there is a majority of you guys/gals yet, even in CT

    Posted by CONSERVATIVE 08/09/2006 @ 6:51pm

    If you're a Republican you wouldn't recognize a traditional American value if it kicked you in the teeth.

    You sound like a convicted murderer comlaining that you weren't convicted because you murdered someone, you were convicted because the jury has a weird dislike of assertive people.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 7:33pm

  262. Rio Bravo's inane fear-mongering reflects the sad and sorry state of a potion of the right that believes that they occupy an imagined center. I have had scads of debates with these people, all of whom consider themselves to be moderates but have an appallingly ignorant perception of the degree of corporate ownership of the political process in this country and an equally blind concept of what our role in the 21st century world should be. These days, the only radicalism that I can detect in mainstream political discourse is that of the Republican right wing for whom truth is a mere inconvenience.

    Posted by griffinia at 08/09/2006 @ 7:34pm

  263. Posted by ABENAKI 08/09/2006 @ 7:27pm

    Vote for the candidate who is running against the Democratic Party candidate who betrayed his constituents and his country.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 7:35pm

  264. Only if you re-define "Patriots" as those who hate the president, hate the military, hate Republicans, hate traditional American values... I don't think there is a majority of you guys/gals yet, even in CT

    Posted by CONSERVATIVE 08/09/2006 @ 6:51pm

    If you're a Republican you wouldn't recognize a traditional American value if it kicked you in the teeth.

    You sound like a convicted murderer comlaining that you weren't convicted because you murdered someone, you were convicted because the jury has a weird dislike of assertive people.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/09/2006

    Okay FROM, here's your chance to post something intelligible (or more likely just revealing) this evening. Name your top five traditional American Values that you hold dear.

    Posted by Conservative at 08/09/2006 @ 7:47pm

  265. and watch this o'reilly clip from last night. they're already slinging mud at us:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200608090008

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2006 @ 5:33pm

    Three sock puppets tag-teamed against one non-moron and they still come out looking like just what they are- sock puppets. They've been steadily peddling the same horses*** for four years and the polls keep moving irreversibly against them. That's the funniest part of it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 7:48pm

  266. Mask:

    Posted by MASK 08/09/2006 @ 4:57pm

    Talking about Guiliani are we. Everyboby loves him, right? The hero of the WTC calamity?

    Think again. If he even thinks of running, he will get exactly what he deserves. A "I wash my hands of this shit....you take care of it". Take a look at the three part article in The Atlantic (2005) and guess what. Guiliani was, like SquirrelNuts, only available for the photo-ops. He did nothing...he delegated ALL of the hard work to the Ports Authority...and blocked even them whenever there was a chance for some personal glom.

    Guiliani will be exposed and brought to the level he deserves.

    Posted by doumer at 08/09/2006 @ 7:49pm

  267. If you're a Republican you wouldn't recognize a traditional American value if it kicked you in the teeth.

    You sound like a convicted murderer comlaining that you weren't convicted because you murdered someone, you were convicted because the jury has a weird dislike of assertive people.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/09/2006

    Okay FROM, here's your chance to post something intelligible (or more likely just revealing) this evening. Name your top five traditional American Values that you hold dear.

    Posted by CONSERVATIVE 08/09/2006 @ 7:47pm

    Try reading the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, numbskull. You can locate copies by listening for the sound of shredding machines in the White House and the Rubepublican-controlled Congress.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 7:53pm

  268. Posted by CONSERVATIVE 08/09/2006 @ 7:47pm

    Try reading the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, numbskull. You can locate copies by listening for the sound of shredding machines in the White House and the Rubepublican-controlled Congress.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/09/2006 @ 7:53pm

    You surrender too easily. It's always toughest on you guys when you actually have to post a thought rather than a feeling.

    Posted by Conservative at 08/09/2006 @ 8:02pm

  269. Franktits, Lamonts shelf-life is at about 90 days, resulting in one less seat in the senate for the demoncats, and you'll understand this when reality smacks you around come Nov. Secondly, McKinney is the best thing to happen to the Republican party since the old" cum-stained red dress" ( no disrespect to red-dresses intended ), so enjoy your 90 days of false liberal utopia ( AKA dreamland )!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/09/2006 @ 8:11pm

  270. but that the actions of them should be judged using the same criteria.

    It is called "not having a double standard". If that makes someone a nut, then you are truly a hypocrite and morally bankrupt.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/09/2006 @ 7:13pm | ignore this person

    No Love, it simply makes you a ivory tower idealist. No real experience to test these "brilliant" theories of Chomsky, because the only place they work is on paper.

    The action of killing a person, for example,

    Killer A runs someone over with a car, killing them. What should his punishment be? Life? 20 yrs? or probation?

    Killer B runs someone over with a car, killing them. What should the punishment be? Life? 20 yrs? or probation?

    Now according to Chomsky philo, both should be punished equally, because both ACTIONs resulted in deaths.

    But one planned the killing for over a year and the other ran a stop sign running late for work.

    Chomsky does not consider degree, context, intent, severity, or underlying motives.

    So if this is your philo, yeah i think its nutty to think that way.

    I listened to Professor Chomsky very carefully, in his detailing of US support of regimes that are or were unsavory, he never once offered an explanation as to why or what led to the circumstances for supporting those regimes at that time.

    On that subject he did not care to elaborate.

    In foreign policy, you better have double standerds if you want to surivive as a nation. The rest of the world does not rest on one unsiversal set of moral principles, there are will always be Maos, Stalins, Pol POTs, Kim Jong IL, who will not run their foriegn policies based on what is morally right. So if you strictly run a polciy based on what is right and they dont, you will get used, abused and pushed around and eventually create a really shitty world.

    Foriegn policy will never be run in accordance with strict moral standerds.

    And it is that way now, it always has been and shall be.

    Posted by CPT at 08/09/2006 @ 8:18pm

  271. My friends, do you understand by now why it is so imparative for the right to try to define you. Turn the tables. Define them as the losers they are and take this country back. Your time is at hand.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 7:58pm

    Republicans strong on defense? What a laugh. How about-- always can be counted on to pick the wrong time and place to fight against the wrong opponent. And make money doing it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 8:27pm

  272. cpt, you clearly are not qualified to take on chomsky, dude.

    you say he doesn't elaborate? he's perhaps TOO elaborate. his research and argumentation are exhaustive. his footnotes, endless.

    i have no idea what your analogy has to do with US support for certain regimes.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 8:28pm

  273. Posted by CONSERVATIVE 08/09/2006 @ 7:47pm

    Try reading the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, numbskull. You can locate copies by listening for the sound of shredding machines in the White House and the Rubepublican-controlled Congress.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/09/2006 @ 7:53pm

    You surrender too easily. It's always toughest on you guys when you actually have to post a thought rather than a feeling.

    Posted by CONSERVATIVE 08/09/2006 @ 8:02pm

    You're almost as interesting as watching paint dry.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 8:29pm

  274. Irony: Lamont is a businessman. A successful businessman. He's had more success in the business world than George W Bush ever did ... and WITHOUT any help from his daddy.

    It's another example of how Democrats have become the party of free enterprise. Crony capitalists, such as Halliburton and Old Oil, may prefer the GOP, but the idea that the Democrats are some sort of anti-capitalism party is just comical.

    Posted by REWINN at 08/09/2006 @ 8:31pm

  275. How long do you think it will be till Condi Rice is kicked out. She's finding that there is no reasoning with Dubya, at the detriment of us all.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 8:24pm

    She's only slightly more competent, anyway. She was paired up with Bush before he got elected and Bush rarely appoints anyone who is really competent. The closest he came was Colin Powell and that was only because 9/11 hadn't yet relieved him of the need to throw a bone to commonsense.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 8:38pm

  276. Today, Tony Snow blamed 9/11 on George H.w. Bush with this observation:

    "Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th."

    Tony Snow will be recanting that statement tomorrow. Count on it.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 8:15pm

    1991? I guess OBL had to think about it for ten years. If that were the case, he'd be as slow-witted as Bush.

    Tony Snow- another example of incompetence. Bush draws them the way iron filings are drawn to a magnet.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 8:43pm

  277. rollin rollin rollin

    keep those wagons rollin RAW HIDE!

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 8:47pm

  278. wait

    I stopped dressing up like a cowboy when I was six

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 8:47pm

  279. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/09/2006 @ 8:43pm

    it's a shame that guys like tony snow, ol ge dubya, CPT, Luvvy, Conservative...

    are making our country less safe

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 8:49pm

  280. eveyone has heard that LVLiberty1 is now luvvy. right?

    It lust seems like a shame to waste a beautiful word like liberty on an evangelic abomination like luvvy

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 8:51pm

  281. I love this ignoramus' comment about the neoconservative nightmare that has us bogged down in Iraq. Let's see, the US topples a 35-year ARAB dictatorship, and these short-sighted, ill-educated imbeciles on the Left expect a near paradise in a year or two? Otherwise, we're "bogged down?" Anybody with the least amount of wit could foresee that the US would be involved in this mess for atleast five and more likely ten years. The pathetic fools on the Left have to start reading (or, at least, understanding) the history books that they purchase by the yard to impress their equally shallow friends."

    Posted by NJP 08/09/2006 @ 4:03pm

    Back up a bit there BillyBob.

    What happened to the "cakewalk" and "out in three weeks" and "total of $200,000,000", and "flowers in the streets" and "we will pay for the war from oil sales"...need I go on.

    Three years and six months. 2600~ dead americans....tens of thousands of deleted/extinguished/liquidated locals.. upwards of one trillion dollars gone forever (other than war profiteers).

    Thousands..perhaps tens of thousands of disgusted Iraqis....willing and able to inflict extreme damage of any kind to americans. Thousands...perhaps..tens of thousands of arabs looking and seething...and totally willing to join in the jihad to remove occupiers from arab lands.

    AND, that is only the beginning. Talk about cause and effect? You are probably correct about your time frame.

    The cowboys have ridden roughshod and now we will all pay the price. Democracy in Iraq? Dream on. There is no question the country will, on its on volition, partition into three autonomous areas/states. Perhaps an agreement will be made to split oil royalties. Don't bet on it. Bush wants it all.

    The Khurds will move on and in turn be pummeled by the Syrians, Iranians and Turks. Good luck to them.

    The Shia will join Ahmedinejad's party. Good luck to them as well.

    The three central Sunni provinces will become autonomous and perhaps independent. They will be very pissed off at people like you pal. They will continue to foment violence against americans....no matter where they are.

    Want to know where all the new terror training camps will be located?

    So yeah, I agree with your assessment of "at least five and more likely ten years". Is there a choice NJP? Try permanent bases pal. Your pals created this endless morass. Time for more americans to die...maybe even in your hometown. Bound to happen as there are THAT many more arabs who really want a little retribution.

    Nice future..huh?

    Posted by doumer at 08/09/2006 @ 8:54pm

  282. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 8:52pm

    with the evangelic abomination, anything or anyone that appears to be anything other then the monsters we live with called republican...

    seems extreame to them

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 8:56pm

  283. but then thats how life looks out on the commie conservative fringe

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 8:57pm

  284. Frank,

    ""Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course,.."

    This might be a key as to who walked away from OBL...in 91..ah, Billy Boy. Period.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 8:57pm

  285. Warmed my heart. I've met some of those guys. He wasn't kidding.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 8:55pm

    i picked it up this morning before work. this post clarified your earlier post.

    It wonderful to see that there are still men of honor and dignity in our military and that your son is counted among them

    i hate for people to think that CPT is the norm

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:00pm

  286. This might be a key as to who walked away from OBL...in 91..ah, Billy Boy. Period.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 8:57pm

    always pegged ol Gee Aytch Dubya for a coward

    I here that trait runs ion the family

    (get it... runs...)

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:02pm

  287. Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:02pm

  288. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 9:04pm

    if only our boy CPT wasn't busy with better things to do.

    he could trade places with one of them

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:06pm

  289. Just a questionhere for anyone..

    Ned won the primary and his total vote was about 10% of the voting public in CT or less...how does this translate into a giant victory? How does this convert the multi millions who think the dems are weak and that the left is full of socialists? On a national scale? I think the dems just lost the White House and Congress for another 8-12 years last night. Even out here in LALA La no one was danciong in the streets...if fact..pretty quiet..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:06pm

  290. who said it was a giant victory maasch

    it was a primary

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:08pm

  291. and ned won

    he he he he

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:08pm

  292. CPT, you say that "foreign policy will never be run in accordance with strict moral standards". True enough, but today it seems that our foreign policy does not even accord with the national interest. The appeasement of the Saudis, who sponsored 9/11 and are sponsoring the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, benefits Big Oil but makes no sense for America. The appeasement of China, which has been doing for decades what Iran and North Korea can only dream of doing - stockpiling nuclear warheads and ICBMs - benefits Wal-Mart but endangers the U.S. and other free countries like Taiwan. That is why some of us believe that the Republicans, far from being 'pro-security', are in fact betraying our country's security. Will Dems like Lamont be any better? Perhaps not, but consider that a 'human rights' foreign policy would be no different from a 'national security' foreign policy in its rejection of friendly relations with hostile dictatorships.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/09/2006 @ 9:09pm

  293. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 9:07pm

    but he makes a dashing recruiter

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:10pm

  294. and ned won

    he he he he

    Posted by WILL C. 08

    Enjoy...you are entitled to it..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:12pm

  295. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 9:12pm

    enjoy what maasch?

    he's not from my state

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:14pm

  296. Frank,

    Ok..we will see how this plays out, but I don't think you are going to be happy in the end..what happens, in your opinion, if Lieberman wins big in Nov? What happens to the Ned wing of the party? Lieberman is still going to vote with the Dems all the time...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:15pm

  297. first of all, maasch/idiot, people in LA don't dance, or even walk, in the streets. they drive. a lot.

    second of all, i have nobody characterize lamont's victory the way you have. nobody.

    third, how do you know that "multi-millions" think that the dems are "weak"? from fox news? any intelligent person that that isn't the case at all. is there a single democrat who is calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops from the middle east? if so, name one. and additionally, can you tell us how 'staying the course' is a good idea?

    fourth, name one socialist in congress.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 9:15pm

  298. Enjoy the euphoria of a major victory for your side of the left..er, whatever...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:16pm

  299. Enjoy the euphoria of a major victory for your side of the left..er, whatever...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 9:16pm

    is that smaller than a giant victory?

    do you even know what you're talking about maasch?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:17pm

  300. oh yeah, lamont is SOOOOOO far to the left. he's so far left, i can't even see him. that multi-millionaire, wasp, cable executive. oh yeah, what a lefty! god, he's practically communist, that lamont....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 9:18pm

  301. Darla, 1. Go to the beach.

    2.I listened to lib radio today.

    3.From the last 2 presidential elections.

    4.Jeffords, Sanders..all from Vermont..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:18pm

  302. Frank,

    Ah, No...Bush 1 was fired..and deservedly so, IMO. and I blame Clinton for not getting OBL when he had the chance...the best chance, without having to even use an Army...91, yeah wrong date..so what..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:20pm

  303. rememeber something everybody

    "so far to the left" lands you smack in the great liberal center

    and places you equidistant from both the conservative fringe and the commie fringe

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:20pm

  304. Have fun Will...I love your witty posts...so deep..maybe we can revisit this thread in Nov...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:21pm

  305. This might be a key as to who walked away from OBL...in 91..ah, Billy Boy. Period.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 8:57pm

    91'. Dang man. 91'? Really? On who's watch was 91? Somebody must have been reading the Goat Story...but back in 91'? Popular story I guess!

    What's up with goats anyway? Tried goat stew several times and its ok with lots of curry and heat. But, stories about ...goats...?

    Posted by doumer at 08/09/2006 @ 9:22pm

  306. You might want to write down Neds name before America forgets him altogether....

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:22pm

  307. maasch,

    those are pathetic answers, as always.

    you still have yet to describe how 'staying the course' is a good option....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 9:22pm

  308. Posted by WILL C. 08/09/2006 @ 8:51pm: eveyone has heard that LVLiberty1 is now luvvy. right?

    I personally prefer "scared little preacher boy".

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/09/2006 @ 9:23pm

  309. "so far to the left" lands you smack in the great liberal center "...

    Actually, it lands you off the edge...in McGoverns backyard..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:24pm

  310. the conservative dynasty is almost over. thank god.

    did a lot of travelling the last 12 months. all over the good old us of a. everywhere i went, people can't stop bashing bush. like sweet music to my ears.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 9:24pm

  311. But, he was a winner, too, ..he has plenty of room for you in his backyard..can sing songs by the fire and everything..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:25pm

  312. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 9:20pm

    Ah, No...Bush 1 was fired..and deservedly so, IMO.

    you can't fire presidents maasch. they simple serve out the remander of their elected term.

    congress can impeach them though

    and then remove them from office

    and I blame Clinton for not getting OBL when he had the chance...the best chance, without having to even use an Army...

    was it even better than when we had him surrounded at tora bora?

    91, yeah wrong date..so what..

    no biggee... you're still an idiot

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:25pm

  313. does maasch realize that lamont's only 'lefty' position is on the war?

    and that a clear majority of americans support that position?

    does this logically make a clear majority of americans 'lefty'?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 9:26pm

  314. Actually, it lands you off the edge...in McGoverns backyard..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 9:24pm

    wasn't he some kind of war hero?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:26pm

  315. Darla,

    I responded in kind to your last post....and it might surprise you, but we haven't had a conservative in power since Reagan..in my view..

    gotta go..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:27pm

  316. But, he was a winner, too, ..he has plenty of room for you in his backyard..can sing songs by the fire and everything..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 9:25pm

    as a matter of fact he was

    VE day

    VJ day

    both liberal classics

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:27pm

  317. bye maasch

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:28pm

  318. maasch, the classic evader of focussed discussion.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 9:28pm

  319. btw, he's such an asshole. i wish he would quickly get the fuck out of my state, the prick.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 9:29pm

  320. darlaloon, that because all your travels were to various bathhouses around the country where butt-pirate liberals were smokin' pole and bashin' ass....i mean Bush!!! Not very reflective of mainstream America I might add. By the way, did you see Barney Frank or that latent homosexual, Bill Clinton, along the way?

    Posted by barry25 at 08/09/2006 @ 9:30pm

  321. hey it's arre widdle fwend bush boty back to regale us with tales of pole smoking

    it's funny how you always know all the hot spots bush boy

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:32pm

  322. Furthermore, Chomsky and many other terrorist sympathizers ( traitorous libs )will be incarcerated for treason in due time. This is where we are headed and I can't wait!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/09/2006 @ 9:33pm

  323. Darla,

    "btw, he's such an asshole. i wish he would quickly get the fuck out of my state, the prick.

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2006 @ 9:29pm | ignore this person "

    Now, now,Darla... I am spending $ 2,000 on expenses here this weak plus tax...not to mention the business and profits..remember your solution to all the problems,...just pay a little more in taxes...so I am here to help...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:35pm

  324. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 9:18pm: 4.Jeffords, Sanders..all from Vermont..

    Um John. Jeffords was a republican. He became an independent because he did not like Dear Leader's approach of running the government as if it were a large criminal enterprise. He is not a socialist.

    Are you claiming that all independents (like Weepy Joe) are Socialists?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/09/2006 @ 9:37pm

  325. No, I'm more of a Glenn Beck and Michael Savage listener! Hannity, Rush, and the Leprechaun ( O'reilly ) are just too robotic. Rush and Hannity are also just mouthpieces for the Republican party, of which I am no longer a member due to their lack of backbone concerning the ILLEGAL invasion of this country!

    Posted by barry25 at 08/09/2006 @ 9:37pm

  326. Now, now,Darla... I am spending $ 2,000 on expenses here this weak plus tax...not to mention the business and profits..remember your solution to all the problems,...just pay a little more in taxes...so I am here to help...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 9:35pm

    your not really paying taxes maasch if you then procede to write them off

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:41pm

  327. I personally prefer "scared little preacher boy".

    Posted by ORWELL2005 08/09/2006 @ 9:23pm

    that works too

    but if you're short time... luvvy works in a pinch

    :)

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:49pm

  328. Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2006 @ 9:29pm: btw, he's such an asshole. i wish he would quickly get the fuck out of my state, the prick.

    Darla, I assume that you have noticed Mr. Maasch's attempted flirtations with you. My guess Mr. Maasch is in your state looking for you. He thinks you might spread some hippie-chick love his way.

    Nice guy.

    Family values and all.

    I hope Carol doesn't mind.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/09/2006 @ 9:49pm

  329. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/09/2006 @ 9:49pm

    what do you think the street value for man tits is?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:52pm

  330. Posted by BARRY25 08/09/2006 @ 9:33pm: Furthermore, Chomsky and many other terrorist sympathizers ( traitorous libs )will be incarcerated for treason in due time.

    The great patriot, Ba, wants to lock up the 60-70 percent of the country that is against the US occupation of Iraw.

    Remind me again, Ba, what is your country of birth?

    This is where we are headed and I can't wait!

    Me neither. It sounds like great fun.

    By the way, how did your "good family" take your felony conviction?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/09/2006 @ 9:53pm

  331. I'm back...

    my we have been busy..

    Barry,

    "Rush and Hannity are also just mouthpieces for the Republican party, of which I am no longer a member due to their lack of backbone concerning the ILLEGAL invasion of this country!'

    I am with you on this part..also, Bush spends too much money....he is no conservative.

    Or, Jeffords was no Republican....any more than Zell Miller or Ben Nelson is a democrat....say, think the dems will throw Nelson overboard like Lieberman? (Think it will help the cause in the great center of the country as, in Middle America, which, is NOT where Will thinks he is..in the center politicaly),anyway, Jeffords never was a repub in any sense of the word and he left because the other Republicans wouldn't play with him..besides, to anyone west of the Hudson, an eastern republican is contradiction in terms..there are exceptions of course..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 9:54pm

  332. Posted by WILL C. 08/09/2006 @ 9:52pm: What do you think the street value for man tits is?

    Including the taxes?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/09/2006 @ 9:55pm

  333. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 9:54pm

    But John, what makes him a socialist?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/09/2006 @ 9:56pm

  334. Including the taxes?

    Posted by ORWELL2005 08/09/2006 @ 9:55pm

    I'm guessing it's more of a cash business

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 9:56pm

  335. here's the logic:

    -cut taxes, drain the government -invade any country you deem a threat -break whatever laws you want -lock up and torture the hell out of anyone suspicious -ignore any relevant science -save every single fucking sperm that drips from every man's penis -praise jesus and screw allah -ignore europe -ignore california -embrace any and all tax shelters -exploit the absolute cheapest labor on the planet -cut every single tree down

    well, that's pretty much what bush would do if weren't for even the most feeble of "opposition" parties: the so-called "socialist" democrats.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 9:57pm

  336. oh, i forgot one thing:

    -kill all homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals (my friends)

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 9:57pm

  337. oh, i forgot one thing:

    -kill all homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals (my friends)

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 9:57pm

  338. Wil,

    "your not really paying taxes maasch if you then procede to write them off

    Posted by WILL C. 08/09/2006 @ 9:41pm"

    Technically, you are of course, correct..for the money I spend this week was what I had after taxes last year, and Darla state did benifit from my taces and expenditures here....and the taxes I will pay on the money I earned this week( sorry, it is a huge profit, but I have a plan)will end up here partialy, as I will have to hire someone out here to help.

    Can't live here , tho, too many taxes and too many regulations to expand..too many cars, too high home prices, too many people, ...not enough open spae.

    Will, I could move to Washington, near my other family, and help them cancel out yourvote... :)TRhat would make me smile, but actually, I am looking at Hawaii...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:01pm

  339. please stay the hell out of hawaii, maasch. they definitely don't want YOU there....

    and technically, there is more open space in california than in almost any other state (save 4-5)...

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 10:02pm

  340. Will, I could move to Washington, near my other family, and help them cancel out yourvote... :)TRhat would make me smile, but actually, I am looking at Hawaii...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 10:01pm

    you can;t cancel my vote maasch

    in washinton all voted count

    and are counted

    and you sell junk jewelry

    what possible regulations could california have that would effect your businness

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 10:03pm

  341. correction... votes

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 10:04pm

  342. Simply put, Joe Lieberman just did not listen to his constituents and they gave him his walking papers. A Senate seat is not a lifetime appointment. He's a dumb politician. That's why he lost.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 8:52pm

    It didn't keep Bush from getting elected but the secret ingredient there was 9/11. That's past it's expiration date since most Americans figured out that Bush and the Republicans hijacked it and used it for personal gain.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/09/2006 @ 10:05pm

  343. yeah, the regulations out here are simply SUFFOCATING. i don't know how i can run my business with them. it's just so awful. ;)

    have you ever been to hawaii maasch? they really don't like white people there. and especially white businessmen conservatives. they ain't too popular.

    and do you have any familiarity with native hawaiian culture? at all?

    or are you just looking for a place to golf your way into the casket?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/09/2006 @ 10:06pm

  344. Or,

    Actually, she has helped me with my psoriasis...I appreciate her efforts..so, lay off...

    Also, when you googled my name,...you found the guy with the same name as me, is not me and my wife is not Carol, he is an author or a scientist something...another one is a preacher..I am not in the list in fact I am not diresctly related to any of them not for 3 generations or more....but you must have lots of time on your hands...that the kind of productivity I am concerned about...are you in a union? I guess that is the danger of telling people yopur real name..the freaks and apparently the perverts,especially here, play spy...HEY....what about my rights to privacy!!!!!!!?????????

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:09pm

  345. Darla,

    I own a piece of property there, do business there, was one of three howley(sp) boys at my room mates wedding to a Hawaiian girl(the 3 Whiteys, were myself, the groom, and the bridesmaid) , yes, I am quite familiar with Hawaii..I go to Hawaii 3 times a year.

    And Will, Jewelry is only one of my projects....and while I have some very cheap jewlery by my indusrty terms..I also have piedes in the excess of $ 10,000 cost...California is a good place for my products...all of them....I have partners in California..I will be out of thre jewlery business by DEC if my other project come in on time.

    Will,

    I even have an employee/partner in Kent, Wa...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:18pm

  346. employee/partner

    what is that?

    a partner you can fire?

    or an employee you're runnning a con on?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 10:20pm

  347. "in washinton all voted count.."

    I heard,.... they counted, and counted, and counted until they got the 2 extra votes to put the dem over the top in King county...the very thing(cheating) that the US stopped from happening in Florida..Thank God.. but your state had a sham count...better than a mafia count in Illinois..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:21pm

  348. I heard,.... they counted, and counted, and counted until they got the 2 extra votes to put the dem over the top in King county...the very thing(cheating) that the US stopped from happening in Florida..Thank God.. but your state had a sham count...better than a mafia count in Illinois..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 10:21pm

    they counted until they counted all the votes

    that's how it works here

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 10:23pm

  349. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 10:09pm: Actually, she has helped me with my psoriasis...I appreciate her efforts..so, lay off...

    John, I am sorry to hear that the lay is off.

    Do you have other prospects in CA?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/09/2006 @ 10:30pm

  350. WILL C., I thought it was you stop the count if the other guy is getting too close.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 10:26pm

    That is kind of how the hamsters wanted it here in the last election.

    the cool thing about washington is you use a paper ballot that is raw tallied when you slide it into the machine.

    when they do hand recounts. The total number of ballots must match that raw total. the count doesn;t stopp untill all the ballots are in

    and counted

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 10:31pm

  351. WILL C., I thought it was you stop the count if the other guy is getting too close.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 10:26pm

    That is kind of how the hamsters wanted it here in the last election.

    the cool thing about washington is you use a paper ballot that is raw tallied when you slide it into the machine.

    when they do hand recounts. The total number of ballots must match that raw total. the count doesn;t stopp untill all the ballots are in

    and counted

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 10:32pm

  352. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 10:18pm: if my other project come in on time.

    So your other project involves your erectile disfunction?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/09/2006 @ 10:32pm

  353. whoops... sorry about the double

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 10:32pm

  354. Maasch does real estate speculation too

    It kind of surprised me when that he didn't mention that when he was telling us all about his junk jewelry business a few weeks ago

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 10:35pm

  355. Will, Did you go to huffpost and watch the video on how to hack into a diebold machine and change the vote count?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2006 @ 10:34pm

    no

    i'm more concerned about the guy who hacks into it the machine before the election and programs it with the prefered tally

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 10:36pm

  356. Will,

    employee/partner

    what is that?

    a partner you can fire?

    or an employee you're runnning a con on

    ..You should be so lucky to have me as a partner..

    He and I import and export items that no one else has on their shelves...I will let you know when the latest one hits the market, but I have been negotiating with Costco, F Meier, Sears, Target, Home Depots, Loews,15 other chains, mainly automotive, and TURNED DOWN WAL MART..FOR EXCLUSIVITY.

    My partner/employee and I have imported MP4 players, for one,item as an example.... he is my partner because he will get 70% of the profit from the sales to the West coast stores, since he already has a relationship with the departments, as well as HSN on TV...and he is the employee because I asked him to come in with me and put in sweat equity...he will make 6 figures by Christmas if just one of his customers comes thru..if not..he loses nothing and I eat all costs...I even paid his expenses..

    That is the kind of partner/ employee I am, Will,... one where I share in all the efforts and the rewards..and here is something really hard for you to grasp..he didn't ask if I had health care, when his vacation days are, how many sick days,how many hours ...get my point? He is working long and hard hours with me and not against me until it gets done or we determine it can't and he will be rewarded if we do...

    He has his own job, as I do in the jewelry business, and like me, we do this on the side for our family, the challenge, the internal glory, the money, the freedom, the opportunity to do something new.....and we have an opportunity to fail...no one will have a program for us...we just take the risk and get what comes....so much has changed in my life the last 2 years..

    Will, you make snide comments and try to appear all rightious superior, but you know so little about me or what I do, or how I work with my friends or partners...you assume too much, and you are wrong too much of the time...that is why I can't take you seriously or real value what you type here...there is so much air...I am not a home boy here and am open to ridicule and expect it here...but I can name you a hand full who I respect here and you, by your presentation are not one of those...I don't mean to offend, just telling you the truth...and I know what you think of me, which is fair enough....

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:47pm

  357. In short, I am a happy capitalist.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:48pm

  358. "Maasch does real estate speculation too"

    Very little, but I have invested in a small project...that will take years to come to fuition...I will be one of the last paid, if it works..which it should, and I will probably never see it, but my children should, if the governemnt doesn't steal it..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 10:53pm

  359. I assume to much maasch?

    I just know what you tell me

    I've had partners and I've had employees

    one is not the other.

    this guy sounds like a full commisioned employee

    one you can fire.

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 10:55pm

  360. Very little, but I have invested in a small project...that will take years to come to fuition...I will be one of the last paid, if it works..which it should, and I will probably never see it, but my children should, if the governemnt doesn't steal it..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 10:53pm

    One small project?

    What about the chick you cut in when the properties she brings in appreciates and are sold?

    You gave me a big lecture on wealth creation with that yarn

    Is she one of those employee/partners too?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 11:00pm

  361. A heart felt Ahmen from a recently converted Christian, (Look up Emergent Christian)that is happy to see what will hopelully be the begining of a return to the real American values that we so despiraely need in these dangerous days. Your article was well writen and concise.

    Posted by leeswett at 08/09/2006 @ 11:00pm

  362. enough...good bye...thanks for keeping me occupied..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 11:02pm

  363. enough...good bye...thanks for keeping me occupied..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/09/2006 @ 11:02pm

    so it was starting to come undone eh

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 11:03pm

  364. "What about the chick you cut in when the properties she brings in appreciates and are sold? "

    No, she is a vested employee of the company in which I invested in and she will net something like $ 750,000 in a few years,...she has been an employee there for a number of years and she is brilliant...she gets a sliding scales upwards as a function of time and profit.. at this point I think she has 4% of a $20 million project, which is different than mine investement..I am on of 4 projects.., her cash is secured and isolated, but she can earn even more if/when they sell the project...she has been involved in other projects before I entered into one...and this has nothing to do with Hawaii or anything else...that is a serparate entity I never even look at since it is a long term deal.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 11:08pm

  365. Sorry to disappoint,

    "so it was starting to come undone eh"

    No, things have never been better..I hope they are for you, too...I really do...I have never fired anyone in my life, but I have been fired a few times...just part of life...If my deals do not work out, then we, partners/employees and all just move on and try again, or stay together, and try again. The latter has happened many times...good times and bad...and it has been good these last 8 years or so and it has been fun...you see Will, we share..everything....I have fallen in with a good group of people, whom I admire, respect,love, honor, and will stand up for under any all conditions, because we know it is mutual....and you would be amazed at the cross section of individuals we have...hell, we have even been known to vacation together...you don't know shit, and I suspect you never will...you are to bitter..so be it...adios.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 11:16pm

  366. Massch does she do that on her back?

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/09/2006 @ 11:16pm

  367. Opps should have read on her back the republican way.

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/09/2006 @ 11:17pm

  368. never said it had anything to do with hawaii maasch

    I said you were into real estate speculation

    which you disputed

    and now have disputed your dispute

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 11:17pm

  369. it's always fun blogging with you maasch

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 11:18pm

  370. Uhhh, make that only 52% of connecticut Dem. voters!!!!!!!!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/09/2006 @ 01:55am

    You DO realize that is better than Dubya's arguable 51% right?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/09/2006 @ 11:24pm

  371. DYKE L8R,

    "Massch does she do that on her back?"

    Posted by DYCEL8R

    I don't know..she is gay...maybe you could enlighten us.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/09/2006 @ 11:28pm

  372. she's gay

    you have man tits

    there's all kinds of role reversals going on out there in hamsterland

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 11:32pm

  373. pimping again massch?

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/09/2006 @ 11:34pm

  374. Posted by WILL C. 08/09/2006 @ 11:32pm

    Will, I must have missed it. How do we know that John has man tits?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/09/2006 @ 11:48pm

  375. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/09/2006 @ 11:48pm

    Apparently he mentioned it to Glenn

    Who's been running with it all day

    Posted by Will C. at 08/09/2006 @ 11:50pm

  376. Posted by WILL C. 08/09/2006 @ 11:50pm

    He should apply at Hooters and then sue for discrimination!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/10/2006 @ 12:04am

  377. Ah Hooters!

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/10/2006 @ 12:25am

  378. The Democratic party should extract from all this a bit of a tangent--but a supporting tangent. Campaign against Karl Rove. His political dream of Republican carte blanche has cost the lives of thousands in this insane war!

    Posted by Bob Frye at 08/10/2006 @ 12:36am

  379. I regret having posted here. After doing so I read some of the previous postings and don't care to be associated with you folks.

    Posted by Bob Frye at 08/10/2006 @ 12:44am

  380. Right now, all we have are the cut and run, Westport elite, liberals voting for an unknown whose only credentials is that he is anti-war (now, like is anti white only country club, now). If my dog crackers was running as anit-war he would have won this primary.

    You say Lamont is centrist, but when he gives his acceptance speech flanked by Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, the face of the Democratic party becomes quite clear. This is why none of your major Democrats are asking Joe not to run independant, they don't want to come out of the cut and run closet. Only getting 52% of the Democratic primary voters in a state with two Democratic senators is a flyspec manadte.

    Posted by wredner at 08/10/2006 @ 06:40am

  381. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/10/2006 @ 01:37am |

    Apples & oranges? Why....comparing the outcome of a vote versus the outcome of a vote isn't fair? Asshat

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/10/2006 @ 07:19am

  382. Bush's 51% was a lot better than Clinton's 42%. What is your point?

    Posted by wredner at 08/10/2006 @ 08:59am

  383. that neds 52% is even better

    Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2006 @ 09:11am

  384. Only getting 52% of the Democratic primary voters in a state with two Democratic senators is a flyspec manadte.

    Posted by WREDNER 08/10/2006 @ 06:40am

    you don't actualy have a mandate until you are elected

    ned is still a candidate

    (and we usually reserve the term mandate for presidents)

    Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2006 @ 09:14am

  385. Wait a minute...if Lamont won 52% of Democrats in CT....

    that means that Lieberman won 48% of Democrats, right?

    So...isn't there EQUAL disengenuousness between a "Bush mandate" believer...and a "Lamont mandate" believer?

    I mean, the talking point is "Lamont's way is the PEOPLE's way" (ignoring the fact that "the people" are JUST Democrats, because it was a primary, not a general election)...but 1/2 the "People" didn't vote for Lamont.

    So...why is it a "winning message" for Democrats (Mr Nichols)....when HALF the Democrats in CT rejected it?!???!?

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 09:24am

  386. Here's a winning message: impeach Bush & Cheney on the following charges:

    War Crimes: Giving illegal orders to U.S. military personnel, to torture and kill prisoners of war.

    Obstruction of Justice: Shutting down the FBI investigation of Saudi 'Islamic charities' that laundered Saudi contributions to al Qaida and the Taliban.

    Espionage: Falsifying intelligence reports about Iraq, and exposing a U.S. intelligence agent.

    Treason: Supplying weapons and military assistance to a regime, Saudi Arabia, which harbors terrorists and the sponsors of terrorism.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/10/2006 @ 10:10am

  387. Wow. 400+ posts. Something must have gotten the wingers upset. They really are all over the place on this one ... this means nothing nationally ... this signals the death of the Democrats ... this is all according to Rove's master plan (even though Rove offered to help 'ol Joe out) ... Lamont only got 15% of all elligible voters (as if using all elligble voters in a primary means anything; also Bush probably got about 25% in 2000).

    Look - I am very happy for Lamont. He pulled off a huge upset. It's not every year an incumbent loses a primary. But it doesn't signal that the DEMs sweep in, and it isn't going to fracture the party giving victories to the GOP. 2006 will still be played out state by state and district by district. Some will take a cue and take a harder stance against the war, seeing it is not the political liability it once was. But, of course, you will not see much of a change from DEMs in red states. So both extremes should not get carried away with sweeping national ramifications.

    And forget about Joe continuing until November, IMO. People were speculating about what Hillary, Shumer et. al would do if Lamont won - well they are backing Lamont. I haven't seen one DEM endorsing Joe. It's looking like a few Republicans might throw their support Lieberman; maybe they will help him raise the dough, cause it's going to dry up on the DEM front. He'll come to his senses (I loved the analogy earlier to the prize fighter demanding a rematch minutes after the TKO), drop out and perhaps take an appointment in Bush's cabinet.

    Congratulations to everyone who helped out with Lamont's campaign. It's a fantastic accomplishment.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 10:12am

  388. The time has come for Conservatives to accept the truth:

    * it isnt "extreme leftist" to oppose George Bushs Disaster in Iraq,

    * no WMDs were found in Iraq except old decayed ones the Reagan Bush admin gave them in the 1980s

    * Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911

    * Americans are now less safe because of occupying Iraq

    * Democrats just remember Monica Lewinsky when Republicans tell us how we have to respect the President

    * invading Iraq has nothing to do with going after Al Qaida

    * invading Iraq has created a theocracy and a civil war where 100s of people are being dumped in the streets daily, holes drilled in them, acid poured on them, while George Bushs palace is being built ahead of schedule and electricity and water service in Iraq are still less than under Saddam Hussein

    * the true cost of the Disaster in Iraq will be measured in trillions and the true duration of it will be measured in decades

    * repeat point #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc...

    Posted by conshame at 08/10/2006 @ 10:18am

  389. The Wall Street Journal: "An anti-incumbent mood is striking hardest against politicians aligned with the president, regardless of their party."

    Posted by djmarch at 08/10/2006 @ 10:21am

  390. Thankfully a terror plot was thwarted by the Brits this morning. One of my Red friends has already e-mailed me claiming that this somehow justifies the occupation of Iraq. Unfortunately, the reality is, that the occupation of Iraq is at best a distraction (to us) and is at worse the very recruiting tool that I fear it is. In no way, can I see any good coming out of a continued occupation of Iraq.

    We've won! We've disarmed mythical WMD's, deposed Saddam and installed democracy. Our work there is done.....time to move out. NOW

    Posted by freedomplease at 08/10/2006 @ 10:33am

  391. Posted by DARLADOON 08/09/2006 @ 8:28pm | ignore this person

    Try reading the post, and put it in a context with the discussion i was haveing with others.

    I nailed the essential Chomsky, as a devotee of him, it is not suprising you dont get the context of the posts, as Chomsky also doesnt get it.

    Sorry, you intellectual hero will never be asked to head a Department of the FED govt....or ever be elected to any office.

    He is relagated to being the "intellectual critic" the wise sage who takes no risks in trying to put his ideas to the test of the realities of the world.

    In short he is the monday morning quarterback who has never set foot on a football field....ever.

    Posted by CPT at 08/10/2006 @ 10:38am

  392. WILL C

    Same ole Will Crozer.

    Posted by CPT at 08/10/2006 @ 10:42am

  393. Folks, George Bush tells us to expect the Disaster in Iraq to get worse! The terrorists are desperate - remember? Donald Rumsfeld tells us: expect it to get worse! Why? The terrorists are getting desperate. Dick Cheney tells us dont expect things to get better overnight - he says it will get worse! Why? Because the terrorists are getting desperate.

    Folks, we have a major "cleanup" of Baghdad underway. What does not mean? Turning point ahead! Another turning coming up! We all know what that means: the terrorists are going to be even more desperate, and things will get worse.

    Folks, we cant be concerned about how it will play out politically. Things will be worse, for America, by election time - according to Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney!

    Stand up for what is right, the media will say youre being a far-leftist, right-wing radio will say you support the terrorists, some people will believe it. We cant worry about that - we are digging a hole that is getting worse and worse! It is time for good Americans to stand up for what is right, it is time for Hillary Clinton to stand up for what is right! Not worry about your silly political future - stand up.

    Posted by conshame at 08/10/2006 @ 10:46am

  394. The 50 US Soldiers killed for no reason thank you for your support

    Posted by conshame at 08/10/2006 @ 10:48am

  395. this month

    Posted by conshame at 08/10/2006 @ 10:49am

  396. Con,

    "Hillary Clinton to stand up for what is right!"

    Why would you expect that from anyone with that last name? If you have, then you have an appropiate name on the blog..

    CON SHAME on you...YOU have been conned..shame on you for so long.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/10/2006 @ 11:02am

  397. Off to the LA aorport..could be a long day...

    Thank you UK and our Security agencys...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/10/2006 @ 11:03am

  398. Thank you UK and our Security agencys...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/10/2006 @ 11:03am

    Don't forget to thank Poppy Bush too. According to Tony Snow, his mistakes in 1991 are to blame.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 11:08am

  399. Posted by CONSHAME 08/10/2006 @ 10:46am | ignore this person

    Brother, your idea of what is right is seriously shortsighted and kneejerk.

    Posted by CPT at 08/10/2006 @ 11:11am

  400. US Soldiers killed for no reason thank you for your support

    Posted by CONSHAME 08/10/2006 @ 10:48am | ignore this person

    This is precisely why you are on the fringe and will most likely stay there.

    Posted by CPT at 08/10/2006 @ 11:13am

  401. Con, your assessment of the situation is spot-on. But expecting the right thing from Hillary is like expecting it from Lieberman. Hillary has forfeited any right to lead Democrats, or New Yorkers, or anyone, by being a turncoat like Lieberman. Better to look for leadership from real leaders, like Murtha, Pelosi, Feingold, Boxer, Jackson et al.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/10/2006 @ 11:18am

  402. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/10/2006 @ 11:18am | ignore this person

    SAM, curious....where's the Blogosphere movement to help Jonathan Tasini?

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 11:25am

  403. Mask, good point. Although I no longer reside in New York, my home state, I may make a contribution to Tasini . . . after I make one to Jean Hay Bright, who is opposing 'moderate' Repub Olympia Snowe here in Maine.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/10/2006 @ 11:34am

  404. Posted by CPT 08/10/2006 @ 11:13am: This is precisely why you are on the fringe and will most likely stay there.

    Hey crazy recruitin man. How do you define "fringe"?

    Over 60 percent of the country agrees that the Iraq invasion and occupation were a mistake. They want OUR COUNTRY to get the fuck out of Iraq.

    Your approach, of maintaining a brutal occupation in a country for no reason, at significant costs in blood, money, and morality, is supported by a mere 35 percent.

    So tell me crazy recruitin man, how do you define "fringe"?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/10/2006 @ 11:50am

  405. Posted by CPT 08/10/2006 @ 10:38am: Sorry, you intellectual hero will never be asked to head a Department of the FED govt....or ever be elected to any office.

    Hey crazy recruitin man. Guess what.

    Neither will you.

    But if you keep it up your descent, they might find a hospital ward for you somewhere.

    Keep up the good work, crazy recruitin man.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/10/2006 @ 11:52am

  406. Posted by ORWELL2005 08/10/2006 @ 11:50am | ignore this person

    Ah yes, 60% disapprove of the war, so they all unequivically without regards as to the negative effects of an early withdrawal 100% without question want an immediate retreat and say to all terrorists that if you hang in there long enough, you will win. Yes i am sure based on the poll, they absolutely want to that.

    or since the poll question doesnt ask that "nuanced" of question the respondents are simply giving a yes or no answer as to what their gut response.

    But go ahead and equate that polled quesiton as base for sound policy.

    Posted by ORWELL2005 08/10/2006 @ 11:52am | ignore this person

    That response makes no sense, it is your intellectual hero who is the subject.

    The all knowing, unimpeachable source for all knowledge regarding the creation and execution of sound foreign policy.....MIT Linguist, Noam Chomsky.

    of which if he was as smart and his theroies so beyond reproach, why has he not been appointed to some post of influence?

    Answer? is because his theroies would fail if put into ACTUAL practice......but it gives fringe liberals an icon to hoist on their shoulders.

    Posted by CPT at 08/10/2006 @ 12:27pm

  407. Okay Sam, you hate the president and the Saudis, the big business pimps and the power grabbing government officials. I'm sure I've just started your "i hate list". I'm not saying you aren't getting comfy with the other haters like New Dawn, I'm just saying your are a tiny minority.

    Posted by CONSERVATIVE 08/09/2006 @ 7:32pm

    Hey there, dipshit.

    You mind telling me exactly what it is that I hate, since you know zip about me and have never interacted with me in any way, shape, or form?

    You're real good at throwing out the broadbrushed, baseless accusations, so how about backing up your bullshit with some specifics?

    What do I "hate", and why, oh mindreader?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 12:37pm

  408. Posted by CPT 08/10/2006 @ 12:27am: Ah yes, 60% disapprove of the war, so they all unequivically without regards as to the negative effects of an early withdrawal 100% without question want an immediate retreat and say to all terrorists that if you hang in there long enough, you will win. Yes i am sure based on the poll, they absolutely want to that.

    Great. We are in agreement. For additional verification of our views, the Post reports that "61 percent believed at least some U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2006".

    or since the poll question doesnt ask that "nuanced" of question

    What was the poll question? Do you even know? Or is this just one of your check-off defenses of bad poll results?

    That response makes no sense

    Why is that corporate recruitin' man? You dismiss someone's views because he will never be elected to office or asked to lead a government department.

    Can't we dismiss your views on the same grounds?

    it is your intellectual hero who is the subject.

    Why is Chomsky my intellectual hero?

    And you never answered me. How do you define "fringe"?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 08/10/2006 @ 12:44pm

  409. You say Lamont is centrist, but when he gives his acceptance speech flanked by Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, the face of the Democratic party becomes quite clear.

    Posted by WREDNER 08/10/2006 @ 06:40am

    Sounds like those black faces are causing you some unparalleled anxiety. Get over it fool. Slavery was abolished 140 years ago.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 12:45pm

  410. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 08/10/2006 @ 11:34am | ignore this person

    Well, SAM, that's fine that you "may make a contribution to Tasini"....but where's Daily Kos, Move On, etc.?

    Seems on the heels of a "massive popular victory" (i.e. 52% of Conn. Dems versus 48% of Conn. Dems), that they'd set their sights on removing the other DLC types.

    or even going to Pennsylvania to support Carl Romanelli versus "pro-life" Bob Casey Jr.....that is IF it's REALLY about "battling for the soul of the Democratic Party"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 12:46pm

  411. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/10/2006 @ 12:45am | ignore this person

    Between YOU and WREDNER, if Ned Lamont had been backed up by Condi Rice and J.C. Watts...

    who would have MORE trouble with "black faces causing some unparalleled anxiety"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 12:48pm

  412. Wow. 400+ posts. Something must have gotten the wingers upset.

    Posted by HMAN23 08/10/2006 @ 10:12am

    Ha, ha, ha-a-a-! My ignored pages ballooned to three+. The bullet hit the bone on this one.

    Did anyone miss the Daily Show recap on Lieberman's Bungle in the Jungle [tinyurl.com]?

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 12:51pm

  413. Posted by CONSHAME 08/10/2006 @ 10:18am

    One more point for the Bushalini Brownshirts- slavery has been abolished.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 12:54pm

  414. FROMREDBIRD, I read somewhere that 85% of college students watch THE DAILY SHOW regularly. That's a good sign and is a positive indication that they are getting the right message about this administration and republicans in general. They'll become good democrats.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/10/2006 @ 12:56am

    The funniest part about The Daily Show is that it's a comedy show but it's news reporting is still several times more accurate than Fox News.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 1:05pm

  415. Bush's ardent worshippers here just need to be put in a crib with a bib under their chin so they don't burp om themselves.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 1:08pm

  416. Here's an hypothesis: Lieberman's independent run is only a threat to Lamont if the Republicans keep the hapless Schlesinger as their candidate, because then it's basically another head-to-head race between Lamont and Lieberman, but one in which all the Connecticut Republicans can vote. If the Republicans dump Schlesinger and get a stronger candidate, that person and Lieberman split the conservative vote, and Lamont waltzes into office by a large plurality. Make sense? And if it does, what do you think the Republicans would rather do: help Lieberman keep his seat, or run a stronger candidate?

    Posted by glenntwo at 08/10/2006 @ 1:24pm

  417. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/10/2006 @ 12:56am | ignore this person

    FRANK....curious.

    If Dems take the Congress and White House by 2008...and "The Daily Show" is still on the air....

    and, given there's not much humor in satirizing the Party out of power.....ergo, they go after Democrats....

    What do the students become then???

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 1:31pm

  418. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/09/2006 @ 6:54pm ND,

    I don't make my living on these boards and I view and post when I have the opportunity. It would seem some of you work for others and rob them by posting when you are supposed to be performing a service for compensation. Now that may not apply to you but you are on the West Coast and do seem to post frequently during the day.

    I on the other hand am self-employed and work as my clients need my services, when ministry needs surface, or when tending to our property which takes a lot of work in itself.

    That said, I was only online briefly yesterday due to other requirements and will be traveling again today. I just stopped by to catch up on reading the various postings and not even time to view all threads.

    I will respond to you tomorrow as I should have some available time. I will also not in reading your questions and comments that you either willfully or ignorantly seem to reflect a lack of nuanced or more complex reasoning in terms of processing my statements (ie, my comments on the marriage of citizenship views and how faith impacts everyone's views in some degree).

    I will add more later but your comments about how or what I teach were rather childish.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/10/2006 @ 1:33pm

    I have zero doubt that you would have avoided my questions indefinitely if I had not brought them back to the fore for you. You have a long history and persistent habit (repeatedly exposed) of dodging arguments you are doomed you are doomed to lose.

    And the way you take advantage of others' need for reason and purpose in life by lying to them about you hearing actual voices from your diety negates any judgment you might make of me.

    What and how I do what I do for a living is neither your area of expertise nor any of your business, nor do I, unlike you, constantly attempt to make what I do for a living sound like man's salvation. Business and langauge skills as well as an excellent typing speed enable me to do several things at once, posting here being only one of them. Whether you believe or not that when, where, and how I post is "robbery" from my employer (it isn't), means exactly jackshit to me, so keep your judgments to yourself, post them elsewhere amongst your conservative friends who care what you think, or stuff them directly up your sanctimonious ass - you pick. You are easily the most judgmental, intolerant, and hypocritical "Christian" I have ever had the misfortune of coming across, and you sure cast a lot of stones for a turn-the-other-cheek-and-do-not-judge-lest-ye-be-judged "Christian".

    If there really is a Hell, there is a very warm and toasty place waiting for you in it, old man. The Christ I've read about and respect would find you tragic, misguided, sad, and wholly unworthy of the place at his side that you seem to so richly believe you deserve. What a fraud you are, Liberty, and a fool, too, for being constantly exposed as same but continuing to come here and offer yourself up for the ridicule you actually do so richly deserve.

    And I believe all of that with every bit of the conviction with which you "worship" your diety.

    Bring it the fuck on, old fraud - I look forward to your reply posts - they constantly remind what is wrong with organized religion and false prophets like you.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 1:50pm

  419. Hah - touting my typing skills while typing typos...

    Thank God I can see my own foibles and even admit them.

    Oops.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 1:52pm

  420. And for Liberty to continually cast Frank G (and every other parent of a soldier actually serving in the conflict who disagrees with the war or Bush) as the enemy is one of the sickest things he does.

    God bless you and your boy, Frank.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 1:54pm

  421. I love how Lieberman says he is running as an independent not just for the sake of Conneticut but also for the Democratic Party. I'm sure all the Democrats in CT are thrilled to hear it.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 08/10/2006 @ 1:56pm

  422. The time has come for Conservatives to accept the truth:

    * it isnt "extreme leftist" to oppose George Bushs Disaster in Iraq,

    * no WMDs were found in Iraq except old decayed ones the Reagan Bush admin gave them in the 1980s

    * Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911

    * Americans are now less safe because of occupying Iraq

    * Democrats just remember Monica Lewinsky when Republicans tell us how we have to respect the President

    * invading Iraq has nothing to do with going after Al Qaida

    * invading Iraq has created a theocracy and a civil war where 100s of people are being dumped in the streets daily, holes drilled in them, acid poured on them, while George Bushs palace is being built ahead of schedule and electricity and water service in Iraq are still less than under Saddam Hussein

    * the true cost of the Disaster in Iraq will be measured in trillions and the true duration of it will be measured in decades

    * repeat point #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc...

    Posted by CONSHAME 08/10/2006 @ 10:18am

    So damned true it bore posting again.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 1:59pm

  423. lvliberty1: so you're a thinking conservative. I used to be one, too, until Reagan betrayed conservative principles like smaller government, a balanced budget, and our constitution, in favor of corporate welfare pimping and a fascistic imperial presidency protected by unlawful secrecy. So how do thinking conservatives square your beliefs with the treason and corruption of your leaders?

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/10/2006 @ 2:00pm

  424. True, Frank, true, but to reuse an analogy I've used here before - it galls me to no end to stand silent while Liberty and his ilk yell fire in this crowded theatre.

    ...sigh...

    And while Maasch and Mask will likely never make my Christmas card list (nor I theirs), I do respect them and sometimes find humor in their posts (Maasch more than Mask).

    Why do I now feel like I should post something entirely vapid like "Can't we all just get along?"

    Maybe we could all sing Kumbaya... ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 2:11pm

  425. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/10/2006 @ 1:56pm | ignore this person

    Yeah, I have...but Stewart and the gang don't get their "big laughs" from Democrats, FRANK, because the Democrats are out of power and can't really DO anything.

    So, I only foresee two options in light of a 2008 Dem takeover of Congress and the WH---1. "The Daily Shows" keeps an anti-Republican bent going, mocking the minority party PRIMARILY (which doesn't make much sense "comedy-wise") and would mean that they're just "party hacks" for the Democrats (not too inspiring to "the kids").

    2. They go after those in power (as satirists do) and they go after the Democrats and your "students" see the Democrats mocked along the same lines as the Republicans, and draw similar conclusions to what they're drawing now.

    Seems Mr Stewart and Company, if they wish to remain humorists, and not propagandists, are going to do more to make "the students" think, that there's NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE between the two Paries and they'll "become good Greens" or something!

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 2:15pm

  426. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/10/2006 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person

    Seems strange that you'd find JOHN MAASCH's humor more appealing than mine, given you and I share more politics than he and you do...but...oh well.

    By the way, I HATE Christmas cards...waste of paper and you just hold them until MLK Birthday and then end up throwing them in the trash. Give a hoot, don't waste paper!

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 2:18pm

  427. ND displays the usual tactics of the left as correctly labeled by Ann Coulter. No one is allowed to criticize anyone on the left who has lost someone in this war or who has someone serving. They can criticize us on the right but we cannot criticize them. It is unAmerican, unconstitutional, and typical of how leftists want to control everything so that they are the only ones who can legitimately speak.

    I have never criticized Frank's son who is a hero. But as long as Frank continues to act like a mouthpiece for MoveOn.org and idiots like Arianna Huffington he is fair game. He has become an excellent spokesperson along with many leftists here for the jihadists.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/10/2006 @ 2:10pm

    Full of shit like usual - imagine my boundless surprise.

    Everyone here has seen you denigrate Frank (and I never said you denigrated his son)... And Liberty - you criticize EVERYONE on the left - not just Frank, so fuck Ann Coulter and what she has to say, and stop trying to act like I try to shut down what the right has to say. We both know that I cannot shut down what anyone has to say - there's a difference between my wishing you would shut up and my forcing you to do so in some way.

    And you just endorsed Ann Coulter while denigrating Huffington?

    Who would Jesus defend, Liberty?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 2:18pm

  428. Posted by MASK 08/10/2006 @ 2:18pm

    See, now that was funny! :)

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 2:19pm

  429. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/10/2006 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person

    I used "quotes" FRANK, because I'm a little dubious of conferring the title "student" to someone who uses a COMEDY SHOW as their prime source of news...or political inspiration.

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 2:19pm

  430. Posted by NEW DAWN 08/10/2006 @ 2:19pm | ignore this person

    And pop over to Ari Berman's thread on Pat "the Heart Attack" Robertson....and see if you don't agree with my posts.

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 2:21pm

  431. Posted by MASK 08/10/2006 @ 2:21pm

    Will do, man. Genuinely.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 2:21pm

  432. Number 45 is by far my favorite so far.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 2:33pm

  433. "57.The Average American"???

    FRANK, a few more details on THAT one, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 2:40pm

  434. #66!

    I'm reading the "Left Behind" series right now...

    Fascinating fiction, and a very scary set of beliefs for those who actually believe this stuff.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 2:43pm

  435. Eat this, all of you liberal, traitorous, terrorist supporters...

    http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/ apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=252022&ct=2872335

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 2:52pm

  436. Now, wait just a minute... what's wrong with "Girls Gone Wild"?

    ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 2:52pm

  437. Sorry, Frank, missed your last post - I was busy on my cell phone.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 2:53pm

  438. The Repubs aren't doing that....Hell, their last straw poll had GUILIANI in the lead for 2008....and he's pro-choice and pro-gun control!!!

    Posted by MASK 08/09/2006 @ 3:32pm

    And as mentioned numerous times before (by you I think), who is leading in early polling for the Democrats?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 3:07pm

  439. lvliberty1, I took your advice and checked out the Democratic Socialists' website - highly informative but not a single name of any member of Congress that I could see. You are fraudulently conflating the Progressive Caucus with the Democratic Socialists in a McCarthy-style slander, like equating patriots who oppose the chickenhawks' war with terrorists.

    Posted by samcrossett at 08/10/2006 @ 3:20pm

  440. FRANK....thanks for the clarification, found the generic insult at "Average Americans" a little elitist (throw in "Bush-voting" and fine by me, BTW).

    Guiliani would be devastating as a GOP nominee....IF the Religious Right bite their tongues and turn out. And especially if the Dems fully "Lamontize" themselves and become the "Blog Party".

    The Party that's going to win 2008, is the one who keeps their extremes at bay and atleast APPEARS "centrist".

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 3:36pm

  441. Now, wait just a minute... what's wrong with "Girls Gone Wild"?

    ;)

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/10/2006 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person

    Probably "sexist exploitation", NEW....just a guess though.

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 3:37pm

  442. Posted by HMAN23 08/10/2006 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person

    Her Nibs....of course. But right now, not so sure the Religous Right won't be more accepting of a pro-choice Rudy nomination...

    than the Religious Internet Left would be of "pro-war" Hillary one!

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 3:38pm

  443. Now, wait just a minute... what's wrong with "Girls Gone Wild"?

    ;)

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/10/2006 @ 2:52pm | ignore this person

    Probably "sexist exploitation", NEW....just a guess though.

    Posted by MASK 08/10/2006 @ 3:37pm

    C'mon, man, that was humor - which you and I seem to miss from one another with alarming regularity...

    I considered writing "What's the matter with GGW? It wouldn't be the young and often underage girls plied with alcohol and the promise of some fleeting fame coerced to do things they subsequently pray their parents never find out about, would it...?"

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 3:44pm

  444. Probably "sexist exploitation", NEW....just a guess though.

    Posted by MASK 08/10/2006 @ 3:37pm | ignore this person

    NEW....I guess our humor is passing each other in the night, because I TOO was joking.

    GGW isn't anymore "exploitive" than some idiot GUYS replicating some stunt from "Jackass"...probably less painful or likely to incur spinal injuries flashing your boobies on Bourbon St.

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 3:49pm

  445. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/10/2006 @ 3:48pm | ignore this person

    Geez, FRANK....don't you LISTEN to them?

    They're the ones demanding "purity" and proclaiming anybody Right of Bernie Sanders a "Republican-lite". It's not about "free flow of information"...the Internet does that. It's about a self-serving echo chamber of the Hard Left who have been declared "the new voice" since they raised money for Howard Dean in 2004 a buck at a time.

    They PROUDLY proclaim their lack of centrism and viciously (via text of course) attack any who set outside of their dogma.

    And they pose a very real danger of RE-creating the national image of a Democratic Party on the Far Left of the political spectrum, that it had thankfully shed during the Clinton years.

    Bush, failure, neo-conservatism, failure...and Dems stand a good chance (I say they will take the House) in 2006 and 2008. But not if the Repubs get their act together and "go moderate" with their Guiliani-Romney wing (I know, I know...they're "vicious right wingers TOO" to some here, but then again they're the same people I'm talking about who think HILLARY is a "vicious right-winger").

    But if Dems appear as the "HuffPoster" Party or the "Kos" Party....we're back to 1972 or 1980 again for Presidential politics.

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 3:59pm

  446. Does anyone think that Hillary has already committed Joe-i-cide?

    60% now think the war was a mistake and the last forceful thing she had to say was, "we need more troops in Iraq", and, "you're not doing a good enough job ocupying Iraq".

    How does she climb down from that without looking dumber than Bush?

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 4:05pm

  447. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/10/2006 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person

    Well, FROMRED....the LAST person who won the Democratic nomination who supported the Iraq War initially, merely claimed he was fooled by Bush into voting for it.

    He got the nomination and the "pure peace candidate" lost (but got a good job at the DNC).

    She's not "dead" yet.....unless Move On and Kos get to work for Jonathan Tasini!

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 4:20pm

  448. Frank... funny how no one on the left is screwing up the world. If they are all so perfect, then why is it that they cannot put forth a message the majority can get behind? Why is it that for 12 years they have failed to gain control of Congress?

    I'll let you in on a little secret Frank... both parties are full of screw-ups. Neither party gives a damn about the average American. All they care about is being re-elected... and taking care of their lobbyists.

    The so-called "progressives" are anything but progressive. They refuse to update/change social security, medicare, education, medicaid, etc... even though they are all failed systems. (Note: This is not to say that they are bad ideas, it is to say they are poorly run and have been since inception) But everytime a change is suggested the self-proclaimed progressives use scare tactics to convince the public to keep the status quo. (the same type of scare tactics the far right uses to scare people on other social issues like gay marriage, etc...)

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 4:27pm

  449. "But everytime a change is suggested the self-proclaimed progressives use scare tactics to convince the public to keep the status quo. (the same type of scare tactics the far right uses to scare people on other social issues like gay marriage, etc...)"

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 4:27pm | ignore this person

    Interesting....IS there a rhetorical difference between...

    A. "THEY are going to destroy society with their gay marriages and abortions"

    and B. "THEY are going to starve old people with their Social Security reform"?

    (Oh yes...that's right..."YES, one is 'proven' true, the other is a vicious lie"...says the Partisan (of either side))

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 4:55pm

  450. "...popularism suffers until the dems can balance the books again, ala Bill Clinton."

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/10/2006 @ 4:51pm | ignore this person

    FRANK, as a fellow Clinton fan, just a warning. Are you prepared to defend Bill Clinton and his populism...and not to attacks from the Right, but from the Left?

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 4:57pm

  451. For the third time in this thread alone:

    I'd like to step off-topic long enough to ask our conservative friends about the eleven Egyptians who recently came into our country legally, then disappeared. (UPDATE: 3 have been cuaght by this writing)

    They are being sought by U.S. authorities after failing to turn up at Montana State University.

    The 11 Egyptian men were among a larger group of students who arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York from Cairo on July 29 with valid visas, according to FBI and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

    As I've said since 9/11, let's hazard the wild supposition that these immigrants (legal, mind you) might have questionable motives for getting in the wind as soon as they got into our country... Could a conservative explain to me how fighting in Iraq helped keep these men from coming here?

    Could a conservative please explain to me how the idea of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" fits into such an equation?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:03pm

  452. caught

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:03pm

  453. And as a supplement, did the fighting in Iraq contribute to foiling the recent plane plot in the U.K., or did the fighting in Iraq help make it happen?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:05pm

  454. Mask:

    Earlier you seemed to be talking about the parties in general, claiming it is only the Democrats who are talking about splintering. You cited Rudy - who tops out around 30% for Republicans as some sort of evidence for this. But Hillary tops out at 45% for Democrats.

    Now, you are talking about what, certain ELEMENTS within the Democratic Party? If the GOP is so much more together than the DEMs, and Rudy is your example, why the big spread from Hillary in the numbers?

    Face it Mask, BOTH parties have elements that want the part in THEIR image. The splintering of the Democrats is nothing more than a device used by the RNC and Rove.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 5:07pm

  455. Frank, respectfully I disagree. You can credit the Rep Congress as much as Clinton for the attempts to balance the budget. Regardless they failed. 1960. That was the last year that the national debt was reduced. Every single year of every Presidents term since that time has been operated in the red. The Dems had control of the White House AND Congress during Kennedy/Carter/Johnsons terms and they failed. The Reps have had control the last five+ years and they have failed. It is not the design of our government that has failed... it is the morons we keep sending there.

    I will also strongly disagree with your assertation that the Dems have "always furthured the cause of ordinary poor and middle class Americans". If that were true, then we would not have the welfare system we have today. For a system to truly help... wouldn't you think that it should get people OFF of the welfare system???

    Same with the tax code. The best thing for low/middle income families is a flat tax code with a 20-25k standard deduction per adult. That would eliminate lower income families from paying taxes and keep the wealthy from hiding what their true effective tax rates within the quamire of the tax code.

    Healthcare is another area that the Dems do not help lower and middle income Americans. (neither do the reps) Nationalizing healthcare does not solve the problem of rising costs... and thus, while nationalization sounds great, it will simply add to the ever growing debt our decendants will have to pay.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 5:07pm

  456. Posted by HMAN23 08/10/2006 @ 5:07pm | ignore this person

    HMAN, sorry, but I don't think you're making your case.

    Repubs....pushing out a PRO-CHOICER like Guiliani as the leader in a straw poll of 2008 nominees???!?!? And no sqwauking from the Religious Righties?....Given even the liberal opinion that "the GOP is evil and manipulative and cynical", doesn't that show they're willing to "move centrist", if it means holding onto power?

    Dems?...Their front runner is moderate-to-liberal (HRC), and yet now (post-Lamont) in the blogs (including here), she gets mocked as a "Republican-lite hawk" and "ready to be thrown out of OUR party".

    The conservative side embracing their moderate, even liberal wing...the other shooing away all but the "purest of the pure".

    Posted by Mask at 08/10/2006 @ 5:11pm

  457. New Dawn... as for the Egyptians... they are all here on student visas, the total group number was 17. Six showed up to school on time. The three were not "captured"... they turned themselves in once they heard they were wanted.

    As for how does the fighting in Iraq prevent them from coming here. It doesn't. But just because they are Muslim, does not mean they are terrorists.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 5:11pm

  458. Interesting and salient posts, John B.

    I don't agree on every note, but you've definitely provided some food for thought and seem to be playing more fairly than many.

    Keep posting, please.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:12pm

  459. "And as a supplement, did the fighting in Iraq contribute to foiling the recent plane plot in the U.K., or did the fighting in Iraq help make it happen?...New Dawn"

    Neither. Since 1972, terrorists groups have targeted Western interests. They see the West as a threat to their fanatical way of life. The terrorists in the U.K. were caught because we have increased our understanding that they are not going to stop if we try to appease them. Iraq did not cause this to happen. They were more than willing to blow us up long before the First Gulf War.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 5:15pm

  460. NEW DAWN

    I have never feeling that no answer will suffice for you.

    Posted by CPT at 08/10/2006 @ 5:16pm

  461. John B. posts:

    "New Dawn... as for the Egyptians... they are all here on student visas, the total group number was 17. Six showed up to school on time. The three were not "captured"... they turned themselves in once they heard they were wanted."

    I did not say they were "captured", I said "caught". And no, I shouldn't have used that term either, lest you think I am just playing semantics - I only overhard that three were in custody on talk radio as I was working - excuse my poor word choice. But the rest of this paragraph is just restating what I already said - no contradictions.

    John also posted:

    "As for how does the fighting in Iraq prevent them from coming here. It doesn't. But just because they are Muslim, does not mean they are terrorists."

    I have NEVER said that Muslims are terrorists en masse (and have written many posts disputing that very idea), but you will find that most of the other rightward posters here sure make it sound like they are.

    And you will also find several adherents here to the theory that we are indeed fighting "them" over there so we don't have to here, which is just fertilizer.

    Keep posting - you're still interesting.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:17pm

  462. NEW DAWN

    I have never feeling that no answer will suffice for you.

    Posted by CPT 08/10/2006 @ 5:16pm

    I have no clue what you are talking about, but I was definitely talking to (and about) you with several of the above posts.

    I have every feeling that my questions make you distinctly uncomfortable and that you don't know how to answer them.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:19pm

  463. NEW DAWN

    If anything, it will make it much more difficult to find a safe sanctuary. To do all the things that terrorists need to do in order to be proficient.

    Posted by CPT at 08/10/2006 @ 5:19pm

  464. substitute a for never....ooops

    Posted by CPT at 08/10/2006 @ 5:20pm

  465. John -

    For further background, I have argued on several occasions that a dozen guys from any country that hates Amercia can slip into our country at any given time, legally, (or illegally by flying into Canada or Mexico and slipping across the border) and commit another terrorist act.

    That is the reason I posed the hypothetical that these missing students may not have the country's best interests in mind.

    The government sure seems worried about them. Shouldn't we at least be concerned?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:21pm

  466. NEW DAWN

    6 of the 11 now captured

    Posted by CPT at 08/10/2006 @ 5:22pm

  467. Repubs....pushing out a PRO-CHOICER like Guiliani as the leader in a straw poll of 2008 nominees???!?!? And no sqwauking from the Religious Righties?....Given even the liberal opinion that "the GOP is evil and manipulative and cynical", doesn't that show they're willing to "move centrist", if it means holding onto power?

    Posted by MASK 08/10/2006 @ 5:11pm

    How can you say the Religious Right isn't or won't be "squawking" about Guiliani being pro-choice? Go on any blog catering to that crowd and see how what they think of Rudy's views. You think they are all talking big tent? Supporters of people like Brownback? No way.

    And repubs support Roe v. Wade, depending on the polls, between 30-40+%. So it's not like having a GOP front-runner that is pro-choice is as much of a sacrifice as you make it seem. Plus, given the numbers against the war amongst Democrats, Hillary's higher numbers actually speak more to Democrats (as a whole) being more accepting of Hillary's views on the war than Republicans are being on Rudy and his abortion position.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 5:23pm

  468. Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 5:15pm

    Excellent answer, but I wish you would stop making sense and let the wingnuts here answer for themselves and keep exposing themselves as fools.

    Then again, maybe they can learn something from you. You seem fairly rational and sane.

    And still interesting.

    And you did help to prove my point that these types of attacks are in no way halted by fighting in Iraq.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:24pm

  469. NEW DAWN

    6 of the 11 now captured

    Posted by CPT 08/10/2006 @ 5:22pm

    Kickass. That is excellent news.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:24pm

  470. NEW DAWN

    If anything, it will make it much more difficult to find a safe sanctuary. To do all the things that terrorists need to do in order to be proficient.

    Posted by CPT 08/10/2006 @ 5:19pm

    What?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:25pm

  471. "I have NEVER said that Muslims are terrorists en masse ..New Dawn"

    I know. I was just busting your chops. Probably should have put a smiley next to it.

    As far as the concept of "fighting them there rather than here", I personally do not believe that line of thought to be fertilizer. I do believe that the war in Iraq was poorly timed and poorly planned, but completely necessary. For those on the far left, let me be perfectly clear... I do not believe Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with Al Queda/9.11.01, but I do believe that he was a HUGE part of the problem.

    Our being there, provides a front for the war against the extremists. I think it is certainly better to have the front THERE rather than fighting defensively HERE.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 5:27pm

  472. NEW DAWN

    In answering your early question, about how Iraq contributes to the overall war on terror.

    Posted by CPT at 08/10/2006 @ 5:28pm

  473. MASK - I see you point and will not deny that certain people and groups on the Left want Hillary out, but you are painting broad strokes by making it seem that the Democrats are the only party with people pulling candidates in different directions. And using Rudy and abortion doesn't show much for the reasons I said above. Plus, I am not sure where you are getting the religious right is throwing their arms around Rudy (except for invitations to Bob Jones University). Even though he is the front-runner, 70% want someone else or haven't decided. AND, it's unlikely after hearing over and over again how they were the deciding factor in 2004, the religious right is going to bite their toungue on Rudy for the greater good in 2008.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 5:31pm

  474. New Dawn.. Egypt does not "hate" America. Certainly there are some citizens of Egypt that do hate us, but as a country they are more moderate and tolerant than most Muslim countries. If the students had been from Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia, I may have agreed with your assessment.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 5:33pm

  475. Damn, John. I like you. Finally, a calm, rational take on the situation.

    I agree somewhat.

    "The front" as you label it, will NEVER come to America in a conventional war sense. No enemy military force in the world has the means to attack or invade America in a conventional manner. They have to get here by boat or plane and we'll see it coming...

    And while we have definitely created a terrorist magnet in Iraq, I still don't think it does zip to stem terrorism anywhere else. It is the height of foolishness to think that the Iraq magnet is going to draw every terrorist in the world there so we can efficiently eradicate them in one place. There remain thousands of them in other countries, and we must no forget that every American bullet or bomb that kills civilians (no matter how justified or accidental) creates dozens of others who hate America. It's like smashing mercury with a hammer - droplets scatter but do not disappear.

    Latest news I read this morning was on the alarming trend of terror cells that are springing up independent of direction or financing from Al Qaueda or anyone else.

    Iraq is doing nothing about that.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:34pm

  476. New Dawn... I am glad that I am interesting and "fairly" rationale and sane. Always good to hear :)

    It is probably because I have similar disdane for Reps and Dems. (politicians that is, not necessarily all reps and dems.)

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 5:35pm

  477. New Dawn.. Egypt does not "hate" America. Certainly there are some citizens of Egypt that do hate us, but as a country they are more moderate and tolerant than most Muslim countries. If the students had been from Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia, I may have agreed with your assessment.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 5:33pm

    The entire scenario I proposed was a hypothetical, John, not specifically directed at Egypt or any other country.

    Are you intentionally putting words in my mouth (you've done it twice now) or intentionally being obtuse to try to get me to misspeak?

    I am really asking, not being sarcastic.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:36pm

  478. It is probably because I have similar disdane for Reps and Dems. (politicians that is, not necessarily all reps and dems.)

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 5:35pm

    On that, we are in "lockstep" agreement. ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:36pm

  479. "fairly" wasn't a hit.

    It was meant as "in comparison to the wingnuts here".

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:37pm

  480. NEW DAWN

    In answering your early question, about how Iraq contributes to the overall war on terror.

    Posted by CPT 08/10/2006 @ 5:28pm

    See my 5:34.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:38pm

  481. New Dawn... I agree that Iraq will not stop terror from happening elsewhere. Nothing will do that.... except to change the mindset of those that are intolerant... on both sides. That is the catch 22. Right now, if we are attacked and attempt to negotiate, we appear weak to the terrorists and they will continue to attack. If we fight back, we inevitably kill innocent civilians... no matter how hard we may try to avoid it. That in turn can create more hatred towards us and thus create more terrorists.

    So what do we do? My belief is that we have to use the stick rather than the carrot. But we cannot do it half-assed as we have been. THAT is how we lost in Viet Nam and is why we are having so many problems today. We are allowing the politicians and the media dictate how the war is being fought. That is a huge mistake.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 5:42pm

  482. MASK -

    One more thing since you are talking about blogs now - not that he speaks for the GOP, but a few months ago, Liberty said something to the effect of, "conservatives have stayed home from the polls before, and many are willing to do it again."

    The issue on the table escapes me now, but that doesn't sound too "big tent" now does it?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 5:43pm

  483. New Dawn... no, I thought you were referring to the Egyptian student situation... I did not realize it was hypothetical.

    Since you are speaking generically, the criteria for entry from Egypt is less restrictive than students coming from say Syria, Iran, Saudi etc...

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 5:44pm

  484. It was meant as "in comparison to the wingnuts here".

    What is a "wingnut"??

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 5:45pm

  485. coulter and hannity actually claimed today that "we are surrounded by hostile savages who want to kill us because we love freedom."

    can any of these comfortably employed and insulated celebrity pundits actually prove how radical islamo-facism is a significant threat to the united states? how can a myriad of disparate religious and political groups, spread out across more than a dozen disorganized and developing countries, constitute a significant threat to the united states? a threat on par, with say, russia or china?

    and if radical islamo-facism was actually organized, and growing, wouldn't its presence in iraq constitute more than an emerging, and clear, threat to american troops, iraq's moderate government, and what not? what we are witnessing in iraq is anything but organized. it is chaotic, and nearly invisible. who are the perpetrators? who do they work for? what do they represent? and what do "terrorists" in baghdad have to do with "terrorists" in southern lebanon or islamabad?

    i here now state that the republican hysteria of radical islamo-facism is nothing but baseless hysteria, and that the bush white house foreign policy is not only misguided, it is threatening to our long term strategic interests in the region. by extension, it is also hurting us at home.

    in november, it is important that all of us show up at the polls and vote against the bush white house no matter what.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 5:51pm

  486. Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 5:42pm

    Goddamn, I like you, man. What a refreshing change of pace you are.

    "Wingnut":

    See LvLIberty1, CPT, Rio Bravo, Barry25, and a few others.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:57pm

  487. Since you are speaking generically, the criteria for entry from Egypt is less restrictive than students coming from say Syria, Iran, Saudi etc...

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 5:44pm

    I know.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 5:58pm

  488. Darla... Coulter and Hannity are idiots. Try not to pay too much attention to them. They are the Kucinich/Dean/Franken of the right.

    As for Islamic fascists... they are absolutely more of a threat to the US than Russia and China... BECAUSE they are small groups that are hard to track down AND the fact that they share a willingness of mutual destruction.

    Russia and China will not attack, nor we them (not directly anyway) as mutual destruction is assured and none of us has a death wish. The terrorists DO. They revel at the possiblity of "martyrdom".

    The terrorists in Baghdad and Lebanon all have one thing in common. They will dress as civilians, deliberately attack civilians and then they will hide among the civilians once they are confronted.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 5:59pm

  489. Freiheit posts:

    "I think the Democrats here detest anything that reminds Americans of 9/11."

    I'm of a mind to believe that we should be reminded about it constantly, but not in the opportunistic way that we have been, with bullshit terror alerts and as an excuse for erosion of civil liberties and circumvention of the Constitution.

    I told my lady and my brother just after 9/11 that we would forget about it far too soon...

    We didn't forget about it, but we sure have been distracted from eradicating the actual perpetrator...

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:03pm

  490. oh god, don't even compare kucinich to coulter. kucinich is an excellent senator, very responsive to the needs of his consituents, and extraordinarily hard working. he is also quite articulate. he smoked the competition in the debates in '04.

    second, freiheit, who are the so-called "leaders" of so-called "islamic fundamentalism"

    do you actually want to address my points, or do you want to just do it playground style? because you apparently have no points. you also have no proof that radical islamo-facism is a significant threat.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:13pm

  491. and how does lamont "ignore" the middle east? has he stated anywhere that he simply open to ignoring the entire region? no, he hasn't. because he has no intention of doing anything of the sort.

    next, 60% of the country wants out of iraq. period. lamont does too. so, logically, is 60% of the country "extremist" or "fringe"?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:15pm

  492. next, 60% of the country wants out of iraq. period. lamont does too. so, logically, is 60% of the country "extremist" or "fringe"?

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006 @ 6:15pm

    Only if you ask the other 40%! ;)

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:17pm

  493. those radical islamists who are organizing small terror cells around the world do not constitute a significant threat to american interests. they are isolated, minor players on the world stage.

    iran, too, is relatively insignificant compared to china and russia, two major players on the world state, with a tremendous labor pool, natural resources, and what not.

    how can a disparate group of relgious and political organizations, living in the desert, constitute a viable threat to the united states?

    can any of you ignorant right wingers answer this question without getting all hysterical?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:18pm

  494. new dawn, you're an idiot. answer the question...

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:18pm

  495. Darla... Kucinich is absolutely a nut... AND an extremist within his party. If you cannot see that, then you may want to remove the party blinders.

    " you also have no proof that radical islamo-facism is a significant threat. "

    You mean other than the fact that they keep threatening to kill all infidels? Especially the US and the rest of the West?

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 6:19pm

  496. john b---

    obviously they want to seem like they are a threat, but if you look at the numbers, they are not only insignificant, they are practically useless.

    now, on kucinich, answer this you piece of dirt:

    if kucinich is soooooo extreme, because he wants out of iraq, then wouldn't the 60% of americans who also want it be soooooo extreme?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:21pm

  497. my opinions are hardly extreme, btw, major articles in the NYT and by robert sheer have stated the same thing. what i've been saying for 6 years is finally reaching the mainstream....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:22pm

  498. al qaeda is not a threat, and bin laden is insignificant.

    they have killed a total of 0.000000000000000023% of the population since 1993.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:23pm

  499. "next, 60% of the country wants out of iraq. period. lamont does too. so, logically, is 60% of the country "extremist" or "fringe"?...Darla"

    Actually that is incorrect. 100% want us out of Iraq. It is the "HOW to withdraw" that is up for debate. Simply removing troops by dates drawn out of some politicians ass is not going to help matters at all. Publicizing a withdrawal plan is also moronic as public information is also known by the enemy. The problem with the poll you cite is that it doesn't tell us HOW people want us to get out.

    I wouldn't categorize Lamont as an extremist, but I would categorize his thoughts on Iraq as moronic. He obviously realizes that spouting off far left mantras was enough to get him by Lieberman in the primaries. Too bad for him Joe will still win the general election.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 6:23pm

  500. "al qaeda is not a threat, and bin laden is insignificant. they have killed a total of 0.000000000000000023% of the population since 1993....Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006"

    And even fewer have been killed by the war in Iraq. So does that mean those deaths aren't relevant to you either? You quite obviously did not lose anyone you knew on 9/11 or you would not be so cold hearted about it.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 6:26pm

  501. john b,

    you are missing the point. 60% of americans do not want to 'stay the course', and a similar amount don't like the way the president has handled the war.

    lamont, at a very minimum, wants to address both issues immediately. lieberman just wants to follow the president.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:27pm

  502. oh man, why am i wasting my time arguing with a retard? who resorts to saying things like, "well if you lost someone on 9/11, you would support the president."

    what a bunch of horse shit style debating.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:29pm

  503. new dawn, you're an idiot. answer the question...

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006 @ 6:18pm |

    Have you read my posts on these boards, today or otherwise?

    Let me see. I have agreed with you a dozen times on a dozen things, have been extremely pleasant with you (and even jokingly asked you to marry me on one occasion, so deeply did I agree with you), have defended you on several occasions, and am aligned politically with you in a dozen ways. I have never been unkind with you or taken you to task on a single thing you have ever said here, even on the very few occasions I have disagreed with you.

    And you suddenly call me an idiot and demand that I answer your question because I maintain that the other 40% who don't want out of Iraq are the real extremists?? I have said we need to get out of Iraq roughly one hundred times on these boards.

    So, taking all of that into account, and being as kind about being called an idiot for zero reason as I can from someone I considered a political compatriot, let me just say this:

    Fuck you, bitch.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:29pm

  504. The most extemist posts in the last two dozen have been yours, Darla.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:31pm

  505. "my opinions are hardly extreme, btw, major articles in the NYT and by robert sheer have stated the same thing. what i've been saying for 6 years is finally reaching the mainstream...Posted by DARLADOON"

    Not sure who robert sheer is, but the NYT is hardly an unbiased source. It has become nothing more than a tabloid. They gave up real reporting years ago.

    "now, on kucinich, answer this you piece of dirt:

    if kucinich is soooooo extreme, because he wants out of iraq, then wouldn't the 60% of americans who also want it be soooooo extreme?

    Posted by DARLADOON"

    Wow. Name calling because you disagree with me? How very tolerant of you.

    1) Kucinich is not extreme for wanting out of Iraq. It is how he wants out of Iraq that is lacking.

    2) Kucinich is the one that said the Administration "let" 9/11 happen. That is extremists conspiracy theory crap. It is comments along those lines that make me believe he is on the far left side of the Democratic party.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 6:32pm

  506. Frank -

    Thanks for noticing.

    John and I seem to be doing fine, even if not in lockstep agreement. I like the guy so far.

    And did you catch Darla wilding out and insulting her "friends"?

    Inexplicable.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:33pm

  507. "well if you lost someone on 9/11, you would support the president."

    what a bunch of horse shit style debating.

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006 @ 6:29pm

    John B. did not say what you attribute to him above.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:36pm

  508. "oh man, why am i wasting my time arguing with a retard? who resorts to saying things like, "well if you lost someone on 9/11, you would support the president."

    what a bunch of horse shit style debating. ...Posted by DARLADOON"

    1) It is not considered a debate if you have no point to make and if you do not pay attention.

    2) I never said that if you lost someone on 9/11 you have to support the President. I SAID you wouldn't call those deaths insignificant if you had lost someone on 9/11. Not once did I mention supporting Bush.

    3) Try reading... it make actually help your comprehension of what is being said to you. If you are incapable of that, then I will have to agree with New Dawns assessment.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 6:37pm

  509. yeah, well i'm fucking pissed off! all i see and hear all over the media spectrum is total, hysterical right wing nonsense. except for a few intelligent voices (sheer, et al), there is virtually no open and honest debate about the ineptitude, nay the sheer absurdity, of fighting a 'war on terror' with a broad, disparate collection of religious and political groups. these people, so-called islamo-facists, are so unpopular, so pathetic, so incredibly useless, that they in no way constitute a viable threat to US national interests.

    hezbollah has NOTHING to do with the vast majority of these extremist, fringe groups. they are a viable political party, with historical roots as a guerrilla freedom fighter network, and command a sizable support system within their own (soveign) nation....they are not a terrorist organziation. they have used 'terrorist' tactics, but they are not a terrorist org, per se.

    groups like hezbollah have justifiable grievances, just like the IRA or ETA, or the quebecoise revoluationaries of the 60s.

    so, we need an honest debate. we need to get out of iraq, a war sold on lies and misinformation. we are being destroyed there. we are wasting money, hurting our stature in the world, and inflaming tensions all over the middle east.

    so new dawn and others, i am sorry for getting angry, but what i've been witnessing all over the media spectrum as of late constitutes nothing more than sheer hysteria and paranoia.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:39pm

  510. I have a feeling that there are several sleeper cells operating within our borders and are just waiting for the right time and organization to strike. Our borders have been porous for far too long to expect anything less. The attack will be a huge one and it will come before the next Presidential election.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS

    I agree completely. I think the Canadian arrests a few months ago and the British today are examples of our need to be more vigilant. Are borders will never be completely secure, but it would be nice to find enough politicians in DC to do SOMETHING. I really do not care what party they are from... just a little bit of effort would be nice.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 6:40pm

  511. freiheit, you cannot compare the nazis to this situation. this is one of the most awful types of debate strategies there is....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:41pm

  512. well, folks, can you ask yourselves this?

    do you think invading and occupying countries in the middle east will REDUCE terrorist attacks?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:43pm

  513. john b--

    why are those in baghdad and lebanon 'terrorists'? they may be using 'terrorist' tactics, but that does not make them terrorists.

    you have to probe deeper, dude. you need to open your mind.

    what are their motivations? incentives?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:44pm

  514. "Please don't include Hannity and Coulter in the same sentence as Dean, Franken and Kucinich. The later make a whole lot more sense if you've ever listened to what they say. ...Posted by FRANKGRITS"

    I have listened to much of what they have to say. Franken is the only one of the five I like... even though I think his ideas are too far left for my tastes. At least he has the intelligence to discuss the issues. The other four though are in the same category. Dean was fine prior to his run in 04, but since then I think he has gone insane. Kucinich I honestly do not know extremely well, but from the few experiences of his views he just seemed batty to me. I reserve the right to be proven wrong on any of the above. :)

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 6:44pm

  515. Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006 @ 6:39pm

    You must have missed the three page long piece I wrote on exteremism shortly after I joined this site.

    Again, as usual, I agree with much of what you say.

    And by the by, was the above a half-assed apology for calling me an idiot, or would you care to send me a real one?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:47pm

  516. extremism

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:48pm

  517. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/10/2006 @ 6:27pm

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 6:40pm

    Absolutely could not agree more.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:49pm

  518. Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006 @ 6:43pm

    Already asked this several times on a few different threads recently - don't expect a good answer from the wingnuts... Just a lot of misdirection and shuffle-stepping.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:50pm

  519. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/10/2006 @ 6:50pm

    Frank -

    To be honest, I do not, and have not, ever followed anything Kucinich... Not media reports, diatribes for or against, nothing.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:51pm

  520. "you have to probe deeper, dude. you need to open your mind. what are their motivations? incentives? Posted by DARLADOON "

    They absoultely ARE terrorists. If you deliberately target civilians, while dressed as civilians and then use civilians as human shields then you are 100% terrorists.

    In 2000 the UN acknowledged the fact that Israel had left all Lebanon lands. The Shebaa farms are Syrian. Hezbollah has no stake in the farms. If so, they should take it up with Syria... not lob missles indiscriminately into Israel at the bidding of their masters in Iran and Syria.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 6:52pm

  521. look, freiheit compared islamo-facism with independence day! now THAT is hysterical!

    holy shit, freiheit, you need a xanax.

    yes, i have listened to their "leaders", but if you put all of them in one room, they wouldn't coalesce into a unified force. never.

    as i've stated, they are a disparate group of political and religious groups with much disagreement between them, but little in common. one thing they DO have in common is their animosity towards the united states---for very, very obvious reasons. we are an arrogant, colonizing, imperialistic nation, with plans to essentially take over the entire middle east.

    but do they bear any animosity towards sweden? or norway? or new zealand?

    one must ask these questions.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:54pm

  522. freiheit, we have bases all over the middle east.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:55pm

  523. look, first john b exorciated kucinish, then he claims to know nothing about him...

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:55pm

  524. Freiheit:

    1. Nobody has brought up Rove and the UK arrests. You sound like Barry25 and CPT on the Pat Robertson thread trying to drum up an argument on civil liberties that isn't being made by anyone.

    2. Being against the invasion/occupation in Iraq and believing it was not in the best interests of the U.S. does not translate to "ignoring" the Middle East. I have not heard that Lamont advocates an isolationist position on the subject; just that he thinks the Iraq decision was a terrible move.

    Now maybe you were just clowing around on No. 1, but I've read your posts for a while. You are a bit better than that.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 6:56pm

  525. john b,

    show me proof that hezbolla are using civlians as shields.

    i want proof.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:56pm

  526. look, freiheit is against evil.

    good for him.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:57pm

  527. is there a single intelligent person on this entire thread?

    someone who can at least ask questions FIRST before jumping into a permanent war with a disparate group of religious and political factions?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:59pm

  528. Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 6:52pm

    John -

    Far be it from me to rehash this debate (and no, I am not Zionist or anti-semitic or or or or any of the other labels thrown around about anyone who even mentions this topic, for or against)...

    But given your statement just now about terrorists and Hezbollah's indiscriminate bomb-lobbing, what do you make of this:

    Up to yesterday, since fighting broke out July 12 between Israeli forces and Hezbollah guerillas:

    Israeli Deaths: 101 Soldiers: 65 Civilians: 36

    Lebanese Deaths: 689 Soldiers: 29 Guerillas: 55 Civilians: 605

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 6:59pm

  529. little known fact:

    bush didn't know there were multiple factions of islam until 1 month before the iraq invasion.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 6:59pm

  530. and it's been asserted that israel is deliberated letting hezbollah bombs hit their cities to as to strengthen their moral case for further invasion....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 7:01pm

  531. Darladoon - take it easy on New Dawn - he's one of good guys.

    I think he was joking around with ya.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 7:01pm

  532. "you also have no proof that radical islamo-facism is a significant threat."

    You mean other than the fact that they keep threatening to kill all infidels? Especially the US and the rest of the West?

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 6:19pm

    Could you please 1) specify what "islamo-fascist" group you are speaking of, 2) supply one quote from it that validates what you are saying, 3) show us one piece of proof as to how significant they are in size, and then 4) explain how murdering tens of thousands of completely innocent Iraqis helps to diminish that threat rather than increase it?

    Thanking you in advance.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 7:01pm

  533. is there a single intelligent person on this entire thread?

    someone who can at least ask questions FIRST before jumping into a permanent war with a disparate group of religious and political factions?

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006 @ 6:59pm

    That's enough being insulted for one day. You aren't even reading people's posts,and you definitely haven't read the thread in its entirety. You're just lashing out pretty indiscriminately. This is unlike you, but I've had enough.

    Bye now.

    Who'd have ever thought I'd ignore a fellow liberal?

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 7:03pm

  534. You are correct, Frank. Snow threw Poppy under the bus.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 7:03pm

  535. Thanks, Hman.

    I even asked for an apology - no such luck - just more about how no one on the thread is intelligent.

    I expect that crap from the wingnuts, but wow...

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 7:04pm

  536. Maybe she is just in a scappin' mood.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 7:05pm

  537. "look, first john b exorciated kucinish, then he claims to know nothing about him...Posted by DARLADOON"

    Um no... I said exactly..."Kucinich I honestly do not know extremely well, but from the few experiences of his views he just seemed batty to me"

    You see Darla... "do not know extremely well" does not equal "then he claims to know nothing about him"

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:05pm

  538. scrappin'

    ahh forget, humor is lost when you cannot type.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 7:05pm

  539. new dawn, you're an idiot. answer the question...

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006 @ 6:18pm

    Fuck you, bitch.

    Posted by NEW DAWN 08/10/2006 @ 6:29pm

    More symptoms of global warming.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 7:06pm

  540. Hey, Bird -

    That's pretty selective editing, but also pretty funny...

    You're excused! :) hee hee hee

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 7:07pm

  541. Posted by HMAN23 08/10/2006 @ 7:05pm

    It's fair to say that the last five years have put most people in a scrappin' mood...

    Everyone say thank you to "The Uniter".

    I think I'm going to barf.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 7:09pm

  542. dude, i apologized up above. read again....i'm not going to apologize again. there is no need to take things personally....

    just don't characterize my comments as extreme or fringe. my opinions are gaining steam in some circles. philosophers, intellectuals, of all stripes, are embracing what i have to say.

    islamo-facism is simply not a threat. they are practically laughable.

    and now, we the united states, are even more laughable for falling into their pathetic little trap. americans can't travel anywhere without being insulted, or laughed at. our president is routinely ridiculed in foreign media. foreign newspapers are FAR more intelligent about our affairs that we are. and the neo-cons have declared war on everyone who doesn't agree with them. their arguments are so incredibly full of holes that even a cursory fact check shows why.

    we are the laughing stock of the universe, and are headed straight for the toilet.

    new dawn, again, i'm sorry dude. don't take it personally.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 7:10pm

  543. How do we know for sure that Darladoon is a woman. Did I miss somefhing froma previous thread?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/10/2006 @ 7:09pm

    Yes.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 7:10pm

  544. New Dawn... No argument on the Israeli handling of the situation. I think they are out of control. I also do not believe that is anti-semetic to bring up. I think the situation is an example of the complete ineptitude of the UN. They friggin had forces there that were SUPPOSED to "prevent" this from happening. As always they failed.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:10pm

  545. i am a woman. and a lesbian, and black. and jewish (mother jewish, father black).....

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 7:11pm

  546. "show me proof that hezbolla are using civlians as shields...i want proof....Posted by DARLADOON"

    I suppose the fact that they are firing missles from buildings occupied by civilians isn't "proof"???

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:12pm

  547. little known fact:

    bush didn't know there were multiple factions of islam until 1 month before the iraq invasion.

    Posted by DARLADOON

    Since you are a fan of "proof"...

    please prove the above.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:13pm

  548. and it's been asserted that israel is deliberated letting hezbollah bombs hit their cities to as to strengthen their moral case for further invasion....

    Posted by DARLADOON

    Also prove that.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:14pm

  549. John -

    It's been a pleasure blogging with you. Welcome, and I hope we see more of you. You seem to be able to handle a conversation without resorting to verbal violence (or making me want to, anyway). ;)

    Don't know how much you're on the boards (haven't seen you myself before), but I consider you welcome any time if we can always be this civil and measured and thoughtful, even when we don't agree. You've made me think today, and I hope I've done the same to you.

    Well met.

    Now, I'm out of here - duty calls.

    ND

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 7:14pm

  550. show me proof that hezbollah are firing rockets from buildings that have civilians in them.

    and you should know that hezbollah is also a social-service organization, with more ability to handle crises and take care of their people than the lebanese govt. they are extraordinarily well-equipped, efficient, and they are family. they take care of their kind, unlike our american leaders....

    it is also against islamic law to use women and children as shields.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 7:15pm

  551. ok, i can prove that:

    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/

    watch the top video...

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 7:16pm

  552. frank---

    well, it has fired us up, and i can gaurantee you that!

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 7:17pm

  553. Night, Frank, Hman.

    Oh, and Frank - never mentioned it before, but my place of employment has a council of people who meet daily worldwide to put forth good thoughts for those in trouble or in need - I've put you and your boy on their list weekly since we met.

    Later.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 7:17pm

  554. New Dawn... very new to this site. Certainly food for thought provided, though I do believe I have managed to piss off one person already. I guess I am not allowed to have a different viewpoint on a certain former Presidential candidate.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:18pm

  555. it is also against islamic law to use women and children as shields.

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006 @ 7:15pm

    I'd stay away from strict adherence to Islamic law. Many of these groups bend those laws when they see fit. Some of the 9/11 hijackers apparnetly went to strip clubs, drank booze.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 7:19pm

  556. ok, i can prove that:

    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/

    watch the top video...

    Posted by DARLADOON

    Darla... that is NOT proof.. that is heresay from one person who heard from "military analysts" their OPINIONS on what was going on. None of the "military analysts" were named, nor was their PROOF that this was actually happening.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:20pm

  557. They absoultely ARE terrorists. If you deliberately target civilians, while dressed as civilians and then use civilians as human shields then you are 100% terrorists.

    israelis do this all the time. Shouldn't we bomb israel, then?

    In 2000 the UN acknowledged the fact that Israel had left all Lebanon lands. The Shebaa farms are Syrian. Hezbollah has no stake in the farms. If so, they should take it up with Syria...

    They don't have to, Syria doesn't claim Shebaa Farms because Shebaa Farms is Lebanese. israel is pretending it's Syrian so they have an excuse to keep occupying Lebanese territory. You're spouting the hallucinatory version of reality manufactured in israel.

    not lob missles indiscriminately into Israel at the bidding of their masters in Iran and Syria.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 6:52pm

    Hezbollah began their rocket barrages AFTER israel started bombing the f*** out of Lebanon. Hezbollah seized israeli army captives AFTER israel seized THOUSANDS of captives (the overwhelming number of which are civilian), captives which israel has held for YEARS (some DECADES). It's pretty convenient, isn't it, to base an argument on well-crafted fiction.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 7:20pm

  558. In fact Darla... from that very website they have this disclaimer...

    "This is, of course, anonymously-sourced speculation and would not remove culpability from Hezbollah forces who are firing into civilian neighborhoods but, if true, it would be a shocking betrayal of Israelis by their own government. "

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:21pm

  559. Later New Dawn - let us know when you have another video put together. I like the one I think you said you did several months ago.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 7:21pm

  560. Agreed Frank, but if they bend those rules ... what's to say they don't bend 'em on civilian shields to further the "greater cause."

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 7:23pm

  561. little known fact:

    bush didn't know there were multiple factions of islam until 1 month before the iraq invasion.

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006 @ 6:59pm

    A witness says he didn't know it then and that someone explained it to him. You're assuming he remembered the conversation. That proves you're openminded.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 7:25pm

  562. john, b

    note that i stated, "it has been asserted". i never said it was fact.

    and hearsay from military advisers is about as good as hearsay as you get.

    it's WAY better than the "proof" you provided.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 7:25pm

  563. John B.

    Sorry to step into your spat with Darla, but she did say only "its been asserted that ..." not that the Israeili actions were necessarily true.

    And she did provide a link proving it was, in fact, asserted.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 7:26pm

  564. Redbird... if Israelis are dressing as civlians and deliberately attacking civlians then it is the first I have heard of it. Can you provide more details?

    Israel is not "pretending" the farms are Syrian unless of course the UN is as well????

    Redbird... I have heard as well that Israel is holding Lebonese prisoners, but I have yet to hear a word about when they were captured and why?

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:29pm

  565. John B.

    Sorry to step into your spat with Darla, but she did say only "its been asserted that ..." not that the Israeili actions were necessarily true.

    And she did provide a link proving it was, in fact, asserted.

    Posted by HMAN23

    No worries. Pretty sad on my part. I just got on her for not reading what I wrote closely enough. Talk about THAT blowing up in my face. :)

    My apologies Darla on that particular point. You did prove that the assertation was there.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:34pm

  566. i am a woman. and a lesbian, and black. and jewish (mother jewish, father black).....

    Posted by DARLADOON 08/10/2006 @ 7:11pm

    Damn, I thought you were a guy. Oh, shit . . I apologize. (I'm gonna get my ass kicked here.)

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 7:34pm

  567. Why doesn't Harry Reid strip Lieberman of his major committee assignments? Lieberman is no longer a Democrat, even in name, and should not be holding plum assignments as the ranking member on major committees.

    I realize that with Congress nearing recess it might be a symbolic gesture, but it would be an important one.

    One other comment. With 60 percent of Americans opposing the war it is time to stop labeling that the "extremist" position.

    Posted by John Barlow at 08/10/2006 @ 7:37pm

  568. Maybe you should read Al Jazeera sometime if you haven't. You can get the link at huffpost.com

    Posted by FRANKGRITS

    I haven't... I don't suppose there is a more credible source for the particular issue? Seems to me that Al Jazeera would be about as biased as an Israeli run website on the issue. However, given that I have not been to the AJ website, I suppose I should not make that assumption off the cuff.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:39pm

  569. barlow--

    totally agreed. the right wing punditocracy's claim that these are 'extremists' is testament to their complete worthlessness and "journalists".

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 7:39pm

  570. "show me proof that hezbolla are using civlians as shields...i want proof....Posted by DARLADOON"

    I suppose the fact that they are firing missles from buildings occupied by civilians isn't "proof"???

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 7:12pm

    Only a complete idiot would try to fire a missile from a building. First of all you'd have to find one with a big enough window and then the window would have to be facing in just the right direction and then there would have to be no other buildings in front of the one you're in and then . . . oh, s***, forget it. Why the f*** would someone take the trouble to haul it onto a roof, either?

    Jesus, get off it! That's a baldfaced excuse for collective punishment bombing of civilians.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 7:41pm

  571. and i read something interesting on daily kos yesterday.

    a writer mentioned how appalling it is that tony snow, as a spokesman for the white house, would actually care to comment on how dissatisfying it is that lamont won the primary; as if the white house is supposed to publicly demonstrate its distrust of a fair, democratic election.

    i thought these guys were into democracy? and aren't they supposed to represent ALL americans? not just republicans?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 7:42pm

  572. JOHN B, you're asking Darladoon for proof but you seem to have glided over the questions I posted earlier. And I thanked you in advance, remember?

    Darladoon: "you also have no proof that radical islamo-facism is a significant threat."

    You mean other than the fact that they keep threatening to kill all infidels? Especially the US and the rest of the West?

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 6:19pm

    Could you please 1) specify what "islamo-fascist" group you are speaking of, 2) supply one quote from it that validates what you are saying, 3) show us one piece of proof as to how significant they are in size, and then 4) explain how murdering tens of thousands of completely innocent Iraqis helps to diminish that threat rather than increase it?

    Thanking you in advance.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/10/2006 @ 7:01pm

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 7:46pm

  573. Jesus, get off it! That's a baldfaced excuse for collective punishment bombing of civilians. ...Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    Redbird... I said very clearly above that Israel has gone way too far. I never said they were justified. I simply said that Hezbollah was firing from buildings... as shown by the videos that have been run on CNN. The reason they haul them onto the rooftops is because they know that if Israel fires on their position then Israel will get lambasted by the media for hitting a civilian building. Given that they are dressed like civilians, they also have the added protection of going back INSIDE the building and exiting with the civilians... there is no way Israel can track WHO shot the missle this way and again if they target everyone leaving the building, they get lambasted by the media.

    By the way... they have to avoid the buildings around them whether they are on the rooftops or on the ground.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:47pm

  574. case in point. look how unreasonable this reporting is:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200608100009

    again and again and again, the republican strategists and their media enablers uncritically report that lamont somehow represents the 'extreme left'. clearly, someone is pulling strings, dispersing pathetic talking points, and just generally doing precisely what it is that lieberman said he wouldn't do: blantant partisanship.

    you know ,the republicans are probably some of the most awful people. no liberal would ever resort to such nonsense. we're far too timid, we're the ones who got beat up when we were kids.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 7:48pm

  575. Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, "I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!""

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/10/2006 @ 7:26pm

    Oh my God. Did I say, "remember it"? He never grasped it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 7:51pm

  576. But, you know, I'm sure there are bloggers here who could believe that. That's what I find funny.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 08/10/2006 @ 7:35pm

    Yeah, yeah ... the man behind the curtain. You are probably right. But go to redstate.org - you'll find people claiming that Bill Clinton was dealing drugs while he was governor.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 7:55pm

  577. Thanking you in advance.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/10/2006 @ 7:01pm

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    Redbird... I didn't glide over it, I missed it entirely. I was attempting to respond to several posts and did not see yours. So I apologize for the delay...

    1) specify what "islamo-fascist" group you are speaking of,... Al Queda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc... there are other groups as well, but I really do not feel like typing all of them.

    2) supply one quote from it that validates what you are saying... http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Investigation/story?id=1115448&page=1

    Rather than post just the quote, that is but one article. I know it is old, and I suppose I could find more recent ones, but that was the first quote I came to... and you did ask for "one"

    3) show us one piece of proof as to how significant they are in size...

    This is the toughest as I do not know of any proof of how big their numbers are... in fact I think that is the biggest problem we face.

    and then 4) explain how murdering tens of thousands of completely innocent Iraqis helps to diminish that threat rather than increase it?

    The only ones "murdering" innocent Iraqis are the terrorists. Have civilians died in the war at the hands of the US... certainly (I leave open the possibility that some have been murdered by US soldiers as there is currently an investigation on that very issue, but to date the terrorists are the only ones doing it without remorse).

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 7:58pm

  578. Redbird... if Israelis are dressing as civlians and deliberately attacking civlians then it is the first I have heard of it. Can you provide more details?

    Try watching something called a television. You can watch while they do it.

    Israel is not "pretending" the farms are Syrian unless of course the UN is as well????

    Hey, that's a new one. Syria has to take it whether it wants it or not, huh? That's a first- the sock puppet UN forcing territory on people who don't want it rather than seizing territory from a people when the US requests it.

    Redbird... I have heard as well that Israel is holding Lebonese prisoners, but I have yet to hear a word about when they were captured and why?

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 7:29pm

    I could go into that but it's funny that you never asked why Hezbollah captured two israeli SOLDIERS.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 7:58pm

  579. frank,

    i'm a black jewish lesbian....... i got plenty of abuse......still do...

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 7:59pm

  580. "no liberal would ever resort to such nonsense...Posted by DARLADOON"

    Come on Darla... BOTH parties do it... cause neither party cares about you or me. They only care about their power and the money they get from their lobbyists.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:01pm

  581. john b is way off on this one. he still thinks the ones killing civilians in iraq are 'terrorists' and not disparate political and religious groups using 'terrorism' as a tactic. this is a key difference in semantics what will help us all understand what the f*** is going on over there.

    john, they don't have an army, what are they supposed to do to enforce their agenda?

    last, if the president of the united states wants to make decisions that effect large numbers of people, he needs to first get an education, and speak clearly, and deeply. he is such an idiot, i cringe every single time he opens his mouth.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 8:01pm

  582. Seems to me the civilians should get the heel out of those buildings long before the missiles are launched. I would.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS

    And yet they do not... Why might that be???

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:02pm

  583. john, agreed, but you said, "both sides". liberals are but a very tiny, tiny fraction of the democratic party.

    and these liberals don't play hardball. they are total wimps....like me.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 8:02pm

  584. my point is that there are more than 2 sides.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 8:03pm

  585. Redbird... I do watch the news and have NEVER seen Israeli's dressed as civilians fire at other civilians.

    "Hey, that's a new one. Syria has to take it whether it wants it or not, huh? That's a first- the sock puppet UN forcing territory on people who don't want it rather than seizing territory from a people when the US requests it. "

    Syria claims it as well. And WHAT territory has teh UN seized when the US requests it?

    I suspect I know why Hezbollah killed the Israeli soldiers and captured the other two... that is why I did not ask.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:07pm

  586. Which are the terrorists, the Sunni or the Shiite?

    Who's side are we on?

    Should we stay there in the middle of their civil war?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS

    You all have to slow down, I can't keep up with all of you..

    Frank... both Sunni and Shites have terrorist groups that are targeting innocent civilians of the opposing sects.

    We are on the side of the elected government of Iraq.

    Honestly, that is the toughest question. I think we need to continue training the Iraqi army and relinquish more control to them. Their PM says that our troops should begin leaving by year end. If that is the decision of their government then that is what we have to do.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:11pm

  587. I simply said that Hezbollah was firing from buildings... as shown by the videos that have been run on CNN.

    That's what you say. Where is the video? Has anyone here seen video of Hezbollah firing rockets FROM buildings? I have seen video of Hezbollah rocket firings and they were all from open areas. An ideal location would be an orchard and that has been exactly what was caught on video several times. Where is the video of Hezbollah firing rockets FROM buildings?

    By the way... they have to avoid the buildings around them whether they are on the rooftops or on the ground.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 7:47pm

    The point you have avoided is that a large residential building of the type the israeli air force HAS BEEN BOMBING is generally near other buildings of the same type.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 8:11pm

  588. "John, I hope you're not suggesting that Hezbollal holds civilians against their will in those buildings. The Lebanese and Hezbollah get along quite well.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS "

    Not suggesting that Frank... simply asking why don't they? I find it very hard to believe that every single site Israel has attacked that has killed Lebonese civlians has been done either by accident or deliberately by Israel.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:14pm

  589. The point you have avoided is that a large residential building of the type the israeli air force HAS BEEN BOMBING is generally near other buildings of the same type.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    And the point you are avoiding is the fact that Hezbollah is not aiming at anything. They are pointing the damn things into the sky in the direction of Israel. You seem to believe they are firing parallel to the ground.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:16pm

  590. The wacko rightwing attack machine are already starting to spew their nonsense about democrats being anti-American and ignorant of the enemy we face. They're so excited about this capture today that they can't stop masturbating.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS

    That is because they have been pasted in the polls for the past year. They had to cling to the success story... even if it was the British who succeeded.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:17pm

  591. You don't know me but I have it on good authority that their troops aren't worth a shit and they will collapse within two weeks after we leave. That's a fact.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS

    How astute of you to point out I do not know you... kidding...

    however, if true, not good.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:19pm

  592. Jesus, get off it! That's a baldfaced excuse for collective punishment bombing of civilians. ...Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    Redbird... I said very clearly above that Israel has gone way too far. I never said they were justified. I simply said that Hezbollah was firing from buildings...

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 7:47pm

    Right- the "I disagree" but insistently repeat the lame excuse that israel uses to rationalize bombing of civilians school of appeasement.

    And is it a lame excuse or a complete falsehood? Show me where the video is. Since "Hezbollah firing from civilian buildings" is a major theme coming out of israel the video should be all over the place if it exists.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 8:21pm

  593. Obviously they want to do as much damage as possible. I for one don't think they could care less how many civilians they kill. Never again, right?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS

    Personally, I agree, I don't think they really care. Which is why I believe Israel has gone too far... they are pissed and could care less.

    Never again... true... but what do we do? And what caused this timing by Hezbollah? Why now?

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:27pm

  594. "The simple fact is is that George Bush and his neocon friends rushed into a war without any kind of a plan."

    That I agree with 98%.

    I do think they had a plan. It was bomb the shit out of them and send in the troops. The problem with the plan is that is about as far as it went.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:29pm

  595. They have no concept of 'now'. This has been festering since the days of Jesus. JESUS!

    Posted by FRANKGRITS

    True to an extent... but still the timing... right as Iran is under fire for their nuclear program and shortly after Syria was forced to remove its troops...

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:31pm

  596. I say let them have at it. The sunni vs. the shiite, the hezbollah vs. the Israli's. Let Syria get in on it. Let Iran get in on it. Clear up all the bad blood like the mob that they are. Let them all kill themselves and after the smoke clears away, we'll talk.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS

    The problem with that is Israel has nukes. If attacked by the rest of the Middle East... they will very likely use them.

    Posted by John B at 08/10/2006 @ 8:32pm

  597. Redbird... I didn't glide over it, I missed it entirely. I was attempting to respond to several posts and did not see yours. So I apologize for the delay...

    1) specify what "islamo-fascist" group you are speaking of,... Al Queda, Hezbollah, Hamas etc... there are other groups as well, but I really do not feel like typing all of them.

    2) supply one quote from it that validates what you are saying... http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Investigation/story?id=1115448&page=1

    Rather than post just the quote, that is but one article. I know it is old, and I suppose I could find more recent ones, but that was the first quote I came to... and you did ask for "one"

    Come on, JOHN B. THIS is what you said:

    "You mean other than the fact that they keep threatening to kill all infidels?"

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 6:19pm

    Nice article but where is the "kill all infidels" part? I mean, what is this discussion about- what Islamic radicals think and say or what you would like to think that they think and say?

    3) show us one piece of proof as to how significant they are in size...

    This is the toughest as I do not know of any proof of how big their numbers are... in fact I think that is the biggest problem we face.

    CO-O-OP-P-O-O-U-UT!

    and then 4) explain how murdering tens of thousands of completely innocent Iraqis helps to diminish that threat rather than increase it?

    The only ones "murdering" innocent Iraqis are the terrorists. Have civilians died in the war at the hands of the US... certainly (I leave open the possibility that some have been murdered by US soldiers as there is currently an investigation on that very issue, but to date the terrorists are the only ones doing it without remorse).

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 7:58pm

    God****, those Iraqis must absolutely LOVE remorseful GI's and airmen. "Some"?

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 8:35pm

  598. HMan -

    Thanks for remembering my little political shot across the bow of the pResident, "The Ascension of King George"!

    My movie page is at:

    http://movies.lionhead.com/studio/AnotherNewDawn

    These are the little films I make in my spare time for fun (and zero profit) using a video game software called "The Movies". Some folks get a kick out of them, and they also give me a fine showcase for the voiceover work I do in real life - free publicity. The last few movies on my "Bookmarked Movies" list, as well as all of my own movies, are ones that I have done VO for.

    I'm in the middle of my five-part death row drama, "Stir". You and many others here might enjoy it. Let me know!

    Also, try this one, my own little drama-action-thriller-horror-comedy, "KKKlowns":

    http://www.futurestarnetwork.com/Rating_System/ status=view/id=245.html

    ND

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/10/2006 @ 8:36pm

  599. Redbird... I do watch the news and have NEVER seen Israeli's dressed as civilians fire at other civilians.

    israel has for years used assassins in civilian dress to assassinate Palestinian political leaders in Palestine and Europe. israel has for years been carrying out terrorist bombings in Lebanon (but they were never considered suspects in the Hariri assassination by the all-knowing "West"). israel is right now bombing civilians in Lebanon wantonly while the whole world watches. You don't "see" any of that. OK.

    "Hey, that's a new one. Syria has to take it whether it wants it or not, huh? That's a first- the sock puppet UN forcing territory on people who don't want it rather than seizing territory from a people when the US requests it. "

    Syria claims it as well.

    FALSEHOOD.

    And WHAT territory has teh UN seized when the US requests it?

    At least you're consistent. You can't "see" Palestine either. Not big enough. But you can see israel even though the size is identical.

    I suspect I know why Hezbollah killed the Israeli soldiers and captured the other two... that is why I did not ask.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 8:07pm

    Like I said- the all-knowing "West".

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 8:45pm

  600. The point you have avoided is that a large residential building of the type the israeli air force HAS BEEN BOMBING is generally near other buildings of the same type.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    And the point you are avoiding is the fact that Hezbollah is not aiming at anything. They are pointing the damn things into the sky in the direction of Israel. You seem to believe they are firing parallel to the ground.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 8:16pm

    OK, your statement that "Hezbollah is firing missiles from civilian buildings" is complete bullshit- that's why you're now trying to twist the topic into a different shape.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 8:49pm

  601. You did a lot of blogging while I was away working. But, you seem to be talking to each other. This blog is a lot like a Bill Mahr show - choir master and chior.

    Frank Grits lists the top 100 problem people from a liberal book. I wonder how Ann Coulter's list would read.

    And who was it that brought racism into my comments about the Democrats looking extremely leftist. Having two people as left as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson looking like your major adivsors does not scream centrist or moderate. You seem to have a profiling problem, that all blacks are leftist. You are very anti semitic, but anti black as well.

    Here is how sick the antiwar left is. You screwed so many needy people out of a much needed increase in the minimum wage simply to make a stand against the President. Do you really think the working poor making minimum wage give a shit if Paris Hilton inherits her fathers money? Do you have any idea what a $2 an hour raise means to them? You are such hypocrits and losers.

    Posted by wredner at 08/10/2006 @ 8:54pm

  602. This is a waste of time- enough. JOHN B, you have not yet provided the video of "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings" that you claimed. I will check back later to view it. Anyone else is welcome to provide it if they have it. Where is the video of "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings"?

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/10/2006 @ 8:55pm

  603. "we are on the side of the government of iraq"?????

    this statement really testifies as to how completely out of touch with the situation john b really is. number one, the government of iraq is supporting death squads, which target civilians, they are also opposed to the israeli invasion of lebanon. furthermore, they have the blessings of the iranian government (a sworn enemy), being shia controlled.

    so, to say that we're on the side of the iraqi government is patently insane. we're on the side of government, per se. but not this particular government, per se.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 9:17pm

  604. i meant to say that the police squads, run by the government, are managing the death squads, not the government themselves. but they do have their blessings, that's for certain.

    it's a god damned mess over there, and we really need to get out.

    and would say we leave a 40,000+ force in jordan, saudi arabia and the water inlets. that's it. if something really bad happens, we go back in to fix it. then leave.

    but we simply cannot stay there any longer. whether we stay, or go, they're still gonna kill each other. so why should our troops take the bullets?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/10/2006 @ 9:20pm

  605. Do you have any idea what a $2 an hour raise means to them? You are such hypocrits and losers.

    Posted by WREDNER 08/10/2006 @ 8:54pm

    Should the democrats take back the congress, they can pass a 2 dollar minimum wage increase without the associated give away to the nauseatingly wealthy

    And then good ol Gee Dubya can veto it

    Posted by Will C. at 08/10/2006 @ 9:35pm

  606. "no liberal would ever resort to such nonsense...Posted by DARLADOON"

    Come on Darla... BOTH parties do it... cause neither party cares about you or me. They only care about their power and the money they get from their lobbyists.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/10/2006 @ 8:01pm

    Uh...yea, both "parties" do it.

    Who said either party was truly liberal? It's a relative thing, at best.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 08/10/2006 @ 9:42pm

  607. Lieberman is not a neo-conservative. He is a liberal Democrat who also is Jewish and is prepared to do whatever he feels is required to protect the Israeli state. Like other Jewish persons in and out of the government, such as Wolfowitz, Perle, and Kristol, he is prepared to sacrifice his fellow Americans for an intransigent state, one that will not allow for an independent Palestinian state, close down the West Bank Jewish settlements, and return to 1967 borders. These people, in effect, are fifth columnists. Does not anyone of public consequence have the courage to state the truth of the matter?

    Posted by Worrier at 08/10/2006 @ 10:26pm

  608. Gee WRender . . . after the GOP gets the tax exemption they so crave for the wealthiest families (i.e. dynasties; btw we call it the Dynasty Tax 'round here) upon where do you think all those cuts to make up for the billions in lost tax revenue will be? With a GOP Congress, do you think that maybe those might just fall on services that benefit those low wage earners?

    I do, and so do the smart Democrats who didn't flinch in the face of blackmail. You are a simpleton. Take your attacks elsewhere.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/10/2006 @ 11:22pm

  609. This is a waste of time- enough. JOHN B, you have not yet provided the video of "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings" that you claimed. I will check back later to view it. Anyone else is welcome to provide it if they have it. Where is the video of "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings"?

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 08/10/2006 @ 8:55pm

    Hey, JOHN B, where is the video of "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings" that you claimed. You've had three hours now and still- zip. Since "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings" is one of the primary themes being trumpeted by israel they should be all over the internet. But- nada. So why are you repeating it like it's scripture, JOHN B? Is that how you evaluate what's going on in the region that you're so willing to give advice about- automatically assume that any pronouncement coming from israel is true? Where's the video, JOHN B. You said "it was on CNN".

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/11/2006 @ 01:14am

  610. Redbird... some people do not spend their entire day on the internet. Also... YES, I watched the videos shown on CNN. Go to their website as I would imagine they have posted the videos they have shown.

    So you are saying Israeli assassins who targeted PLO leadership are the same as Hezbollah randomly firing missles at citizens.

    "And the point you are avoiding is the fact that Hezbollah is not aiming at anything. They are pointing the damn things into the sky in the direction of Israel. You seem to believe they are firing parallel to the ground. "

    How is that twisting anything? YOU are the one that said they couldn't be firing from buildings because the other buildings would be in the way and you said that the terrorists would need to be firing from in the clear. I was pointing out that you are completely wrong on that matter.

    Posted by John B at 08/11/2006 @ 09:59am

  611. then they will have been the second couhtry to have used them. What's your point?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS

    That we cannot simply let them have at it.

    Posted by John B at 08/11/2006 @ 10:15am

  612. And WHAT territory has teh UN seized when the US requests it?

    At least you're consistent. You can't "see" Palestine either. Not big enough. But you can see israel even though the size is identical.

    Redbird... you seem to have very selective reading skills. The UN did not seize Palestine for the US. The UN did not even EXIST when Israel was formed.... and Israel was not given palestinian land at the request of the US. It was the British in 1917 that did. Try learning about history before spouting off about what you think you know.

    Now... answer the question... what land has the UN seized because the US told it to? You don't have an answer do you?

    As for Palestine... Clinton had a proposal that would have created a two state system. Arafat rejected it. Nice of you to twist your erroneous thinking into "John B doesn't 'see' Palestine". Idiot.

    Posted by John B at 08/11/2006 @ 10:23am

  613. 3) show us one piece of proof as to how significant they are in size...

    This is the toughest as I do not know of any proof of how big their numbers are... in fact I think that is the biggest problem we face.

    CO-O-OP-P-O-O-U-UT!

    Redbird.... how is that a copout??? NO ONE knows the exact size or makeup, thus NO ONE can "prove" exactly how significant they are. However, 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali etc... give you ample examples of how significant they have been.

    Posted by John B at 08/11/2006 @ 10:26am

  614. Israel occupied southern Lebanon in 1978 and withdrew in May 2000. The United Nations was asked to delineate the borders to certify Israeli troops had left.

    After studying dozens of maps dating back to the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Syria and Israel, the United Nations said Shebaa farms were in Syrian territory but both sides were free to make changes, which they have not.

    Hizbollah, which had fought the Israeli occupation, insisted it needed to keep up its armed resistance because it said Israel was still on Lebanese territory in Shebaa.

    In October 2005, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan released for the first time a letter written by Lebanese President Emile Lahoud in June 2000, accepting the temporary border.

    Lahoud said that "while the United Nations notes that this line can in no way be regarded as affecting the rights of the parties concerned with respect to their international boundaries, Lebanon has accepted this assessment until such time as a joint formula for the farmlands area can be agreed by Lebanon and Syria for submission to the United Nations."

    The above redbird is from http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07385773.htm

    It clearly states that the UN said it was Syrian, BUT that it was up to Syria and Lebanon if they wanted to change the border to have the farms as part of Lebanon. The point being that for 6 years, Syria did nothing within the UN to change the border. They probably just haven't gotten around to it...right???

    The above is in response to your claiming a falsehood to my statement that Syria still lays claim to the farms.

    Posted by John B at 08/11/2006 @ 10:35am

  615. Posted by JOHN B 08/11/2006 @ 10:35am | ignore this person

    JOHN B, you might find it interesting to ask FROMRED directly...

    "Do you support the continueing EXISTANCE of Israel as a nation-state?"

    Posted by Mask at 08/11/2006 @ 10:49am

  616. Mask... do I really want to hear his answer to that?

    Posted by John B at 08/11/2006 @ 10:51am

  617. John B

    I think you argue well, but Israel was created as a result of the UN partition plan in 1947.

    Posted by brunowe at 08/11/2006 @ 12:16pm

  618. Brunowe... Yes, the state of Isreal was created in 1948 by the partition plan of 1947. But the British began escalating the move of the Jewish people to Palestinian land in 1917. I should have been more specific when talking about the formation of Israel. Thanks for the correction.

    Posted by John B at 08/11/2006 @ 12:32pm

  619. And WHAT territory has teh UN seized when the US requests it?

    Redbird... you seem to have very selective reading skills. The UN did not seize Palestine for the US. The UN did not even EXIST when Israel was formed.... and Israel was not given palestinian land at the request of the US. It was the British in 1917 that did. Try learning about history before spouting off about what you think you know.

    Now... answer the question... what land has the UN seized because the US told it to? You don't have an answer do you?

    As for Palestine... Clinton had a proposal that would have created a two state system. Arafat rejected it. Nice of you to twist your erroneous thinking into "John B doesn't 'see' Palestine". Idiot.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/11/2006 @ 10:23am

    JOHN B: "The UN did not even EXIST when Israel was formed"

    Laughably ridiculous! You're not even familiar with the most basic history of the Middle East. You stumble pretty badly when there's no talking point available. It has become more and more apparent that all you do is repeat talking points provided by others without any inquisitiveness about them. In the case of anything related to the Middle East you accept as fact any pronouncement from the israelis. For example, your statement: "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings". You've had a full day to provide the video that you claimed was shown on CNN but now you're pleading that you can't "spend all day on the internet". Somehow, though, you can find time to spend all day on the internet catapulting the lies. "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings" is one of israel's main talking points so the video should be all over the place. But you don't have time to find it.

    The US rammed through the partition of Palestine in 1947 by arm-twisting smaller countries (and larger ones). For example, the UN representative from the Philippines (Carlos Romulo?) gave an impassioned speech at the UN against the partition of Palestine but voted for it because of threats to his government by the US. The US's arm-twisting is well documented for anyone who takes a small amount of time to read it.

    YOU called ME an "idiot".

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/11/2006 @ 2:30pm

  620. Before and after photos of israeli airstrikes in Beirut. Hezbollah installations hit- along with about 10 times as many civilian shopping districts and apartment blocks that were miles away. israel is primarily targeting civilians. israel has always primarily targeted civilians. That's the story of israel. Arial Sharon was elected because of the admiration for his policy of targeting civilians mecilessly.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14252208

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/11/2006 @ 2:36pm

  621. As for Palestine... Clinton had a proposal that would have created a two state system. Arafat rejected it. Nice of you to twist your erroneous thinking into "John B doesn't 'see' Palestine". Idiot.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/11/2006 @ 10:23am

    I covered this extensively on another thread and I'm not going to repeat it here simply because you prefer to repeat lies from israel and the US news media rather than do some honest, independent reading.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/11/2006 @ 2:39pm

  622. 3) show us one piece of proof as to how significant they are in size...

    This is the toughest as I do not know of any proof of how big their numbers are... in fact I think that is the biggest problem we face.

    CO-O-OP-P-O-O-U-UT!

    Redbird.... how is that a copout??? NO ONE knows the exact size or makeup, thus NO ONE can "prove" exactly how significant they are. However, 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali etc... give you ample examples of how significant they have been.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/11/2006 @ 10:26am

    JOHN B, the question was which are these groups which say that they want to "kill all infidels" and how significant are they in size. You have yet to provide ANY evidence of ANY group that says it wants to "kill all infidels" so advancing your proclamations to the size of a group or groups whose existence you have yet to provide evidence of is more than a little deceptive.

    You're making all kinds of claims here and they are steadily proving to be nothing beyond your own words.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/11/2006 @ 2:44pm

  623. The point being that for 6 years, Syria did nothing within the UN to change the border. They probably just haven't gotten around to it...right???

    The above is in response to your claiming a falsehood to my statement that Syria still lays claim to the farms.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/11/2006 @ 10:35am

    Syria lays claim to Shebaa Farms by doing nothing for 6 years? What is this- The Comedy Show?

    Syria has stated many times that it does not consider Shebaa Farms Syrian territory. The residents of Shebaa Farms are Lebanese citizens and always have been. Not including the israeli occupiers. It seems that you should be insisting that israel withdraw from occupied territory rather than insisting that Syria agree to having Shebaa Farms forced on it so that israel can keep occupying it. What you're saying sounds more like catapulting the propaganda rather than concern for territorial integrity.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/11/2006 @ 2:53pm

  624. Brunowe... Yes, the state of Isreal was created in 1948 by the partition plan of 1947. But the British began escalating the move of the Jewish people to Palestinian land in 1917. I should have been more specific when talking about the formation of Israel. Thanks for the correction.

    Posted by JOHN B 08/11/2006 @ 12:32am

    Well, JOHN B, you've gotten crossfooted with BRUNOWE here because he insists that the statement, "British began escalating the move of the Jewish people to Palestinian land in 1917" is not true. He says they were always there.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/11/2006 @ 2:56pm

  625. JOHN B, where is the video of "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings". Is it a complete falsehood? Isn't there even one stinking video of "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings"? You've had a whole day to provide the video of "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings". I will check in at the end of this day to see if there is yet video of "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings".

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/11/2006 @ 3:00pm

  626. John B

    I think you argue well . . .

    Posted by BRUNOWE 08/11/2006 @ 12:16am

    Just not very factually but in the case of israel that doesn't count.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/11/2006 @ 3:03pm

  627. John B

    I think you argue well, but Israel was created as a result of the UN partition plan in 1947.

    Posted by BRUNOWE

    Redbird..."Well, JOHN B, you've gotten crossfooted with BRUNOWE here because he insists that the statement, "British began escalating the move of the Jewish people to Palestinian land in 1917" is not true. He says they were always there.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    1) He hasn't even commented since I posted that.

    2) His original post simply mentioned the UN's formation of Israel as an official state.

    3) Provide a video of the Israeli's dressing as civilians and firing missles at the Lebonese/Palestinians as you claimed has occured.

    4) Go to CNN for the video you want on the firing of missles... their website is cnn.com

    5) The UN said the Shebba farms were Syrian and as I posted for you (but which you completely ignored) Syria has done nothing within the UN to rectify it... no matter how many times you say Syria states no claim to the farms, it doesn't mesh with their inaction in the UN.

    6) Your covering the issue of Clinton and the two state proposal in another thread does nothing to change the fact that it occurred and that the Palestinians rejected it... thanks to Arafat.

    7) Do you think Israel has a right to exist? Or are you simply one of those that hates anything to do with Israel?

    Posted by John B at 08/11/2006 @ 3:13pm

  628. Posted by JOHN B 08/11/2006 @ 3:13pm

    I will classify this as your conclusive inability to provide the least shred of evidence of "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings", as you claimed.

    The other six "points" are complete rubbish that doesn't have to be knocked down because it can't stand on it's own legs.

    Nice try on catapulting the israeli propaganda.

    Posted by fromredbird at 08/11/2006 @ 9:15pm

  629. "Hezbollah firing missiles from civilian buildings"

    makes for an interesting Google search, I must say, Bird, but...

    You really should answer those questions (and I know you can). Many of us would like to hear your response.

    Posted by New Dawn at 08/11/2006 @ 11:06pm

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Facing Bipartisan Criticism, RNC's Steele Asks If Race Is Factor | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
31 Comments

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
43 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
27 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
56 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
54 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman