Rex Kickass

The party's wishes would be reflected in the primary election. If his operation with 18 years experience in Connecticut can't get him enough votes to get the Primary Victory (after securing the party endorsement in the state's spring convention), he ought to step aside. If he wants to hedge his bets, then hedge his bets now and leave the party. But don't run as a "petitioning" Democrat because you weren't able to win the regular nomination. I've never been a fan of Lieberman, but this is ridiculous. s*** or get off the pot. Be a Democrat or don't. Just don't play it both ways.

Bobby Jenks is a monster. To become a premiere closer in less than a year is frankly amazing. Totally exceeded my expectations.

Yeah except this one appears to be a little more clear cut. I think as the more remote areas are trickling in, its not gonna be enough for the leftists to close the gap.

Not respecting the wishes of your own party makes you an assbag. If you don't want to be a Democrat anymore, just leave the party already - but playing it both ways and not being respectful of the wishes of the people who put you there in the first place... makes you an assbag.

Its a 380,000 vote margin and Calderon (the current ruling party candidate) seems to be showing signs of a victory. But, the leftist candidate refuses to concede.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connectic...ndent_campaign/ I know a lot of people here like Lieberman but, what an assbag. Lieberman announced today that he will start collecting signatures to run as an independent should he lose the primary next month. Connecticut is a closed primary state meaning, only announced Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary, however unaffiliated voters can declare themselves Democrat as soon as 24 hours prior to the election. He says he won't run as an "independent" but rather as a petitioning Democrat. The last thing we need is another politician respecting the will of the people who actually vote.

It's within one percent, 36.6 - 35.5 or something like that. Close enough that they won't announce an official winner til Wednesday.

I saw The Devil Wears Prada Friday. It was funny for 45 minutes. Then you say, "Okay, I've had enough" but there's still an hour of the movie left.

You're probably right. The candidates I've supported with more than just a vote, I have gotten to know a little more personally. And it was the impetus for me to be more than just a voter.

Kap, the source was Scooter Libby and it made it able to finger Karl Rove by revealing the source. If bringing down Rove was their only purpose, why wouldnt the NYT have just turned over the files?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 30, 2006 -> 11:34 PM) BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This from June 30, 2006 Wall Street Journal. Bold my emphasis. The SECOND bolded part is the key, to me. THAT is what I was talking about two posts above. And the THIRD bolded part is exactly why the NYT is a bunch of hypocritical assbags. Is that why a New York Times columnist spent months in jail for not revealing her sources regarding the Valerie Plame leaks? I fail to see the hypocrasy. Comparing this to Valerie Plame is apples and anvils. This article has little to do with individual persons, or even step by step details of a program. It mentions a company that the US has a partnership with. Something that has been publicly mentioned as early as 2002 by the US government in reports to the United Nations. The other column specifically blew the cover of an undercover CIA agent, putting her specific life at risk as well as the entire organization at risk as well. The undercover CIA agent was working on WMD program intel within Iran. Further, the issue wasn't about what Bob Novak wrote, but rather that a government official would leak identities of covert agents for political gain. If the NYT was really being hypocritical, it would have turned over the notes of the same story that Novak broke which the Times sat on. If you recall, Judith Miller spent a couple months in jail for refusing to reveal her source - which turned out to be Scooter Libby. And the Times backed her up on it. So they chose to protect the administration on the Valerie Plame leak after all. Maybe this issue isn't as cut and dry as you see it? If we're at war, which one is worse? Revealing the name of a company that works with the government and acts as a message service with thousands of financial institutions? Or revealing the identity of a covert government agent working on WMD proliferation issues when one of the main challenges we were fighting at the time were supposedly WMD proliferation issues? The administration's reaction is clearly manufactured outrage. So is yours. If the White House really gave a crap about this story, the NYT and LAT who were both asked to sit on the story and both decided against sitting on the story would have access curtailed. But both were asked to cover the state dinner between the Japanese head of state and the President. It seems all is forgiven between the President and the newspapers. Maybe, its because the newspapers were actually just doing their job after all.

Oh and you should at least hear "Bela Lugosi's Dead" at least once before the show because I'll expect you'll hear it again and possibly for twice as long at the show.

I don't know, maybe because those guys are actually hiding, and not working for the President of Afghanistan.

I don't really understand what you mean. There's evidence to suggest this is wrong. But this isn't every policy the administration has. But rather, answer this... what's so wrong about letting the accused see his jury? What's so wrong about letting the accused see the evidence against him?

OK, well - it was a matter of time til someone went to print with it. By the WSJ's own admission, they too had been investigating SWIFT programs. And again, what exactly was so actionable about this?

Bauhaus AND Peaches!

Nothing like a harness popping in mid loop.

Interesting add on to the topic: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story....html?gusrc=rss

I know the NY Craigslist, they charge for some things. I thought it was universal.

I will never go on another rollercoaster again. I was doing a looping coaster in Germany and the harness gave way in mid ride.

I went CD shopping in the city today. I bought "The Teaches of Peaches." I love Electroclash. Also picked up "Yo La Tengo Are Murdering the Classics."

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 28, 2006 -> 09:50 AM) Has anyone here ever run an ad on Criagslist? Is it free ? They charge for some ads (job postings and apartment/house listings) but most ad posts are still free.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Jun 29, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) I just got a call on my cell from 773-379-7858 and someone said I am going to die in 7 days they called back 4 times and I hung up on each of them. That's a cheery message. Did you watch a staticy videotape?

So now, I'm really confused. The New York Times goes to press regarding a story the government wants them to keep under wraps. After two months, the New York Times says - we're going to print this anyway because the public has a right to know. Then the government releases the same information to the Wall Street Journal and declassifies the information that was released in the first place. Why does it make a difference that the New York Times released information that was recently declassified, when its the same information the Wall Street Journal received after it was declassified? The stories seem similar - to the point that certain people in this board couldn't remember if they had read the WSJ or the NYT story. So again, if they gave the story to another paper, why is it a problem that the NYT also printed essentially the same story?

I am Poli-Bot 3000. Those clowns in Congress, what a bunch of clowns.