OK, enough of this "woe is me we were denied entrance" crybaby stuff from the Lamont bloggers. I was at the event and every person's name was on a list. Your ticket had a # to match your name, if it didn't match you didn't get in. I got it because I was friends with a congressional campaign who are supporting Lieberman. I was required to give them my name days in advance in order to make the list. That and the fact that they closed off streets, banned all cameras and backpacks, etc, was not surprising to me for an event that is attended by the President of the United States.

It's pretty clear that the tickets both of them had were NOT THEIR tickets. Security didn't have them on their list. They ADMIT they were crashing the event, and now are whining that they got caught and playing the martyr. Stop acting like it was some sort of fascist evil move on Lieberman's part.

That being said one of the speakers did say something about the "shrill minority of the party hijacking the primary" that got my blood boiling. Sure being lectured by bloggers who don't live here ( Kos, Atrios) about who we should vote for can be somewhat annoying, but nothing is being "hijacked". It is the democratic process, and since Lamont leads the polls the guy basically insulted the majority of CT democrats in that statement.

Personally I'm still on the fence about who to vote for. Lieberman has an arrogance about him coupled with his support of the war, the Schaivo issue, the Plan B issue and his willingness to trash other dems time and again makes me not want to vote for him, but he still does have a legitimate record of delivering on many issues in our state (Groton sub base, etc) and as a senior senator he is on many powerful committees.

I met Ned Lamont. He didn't impress me that much. Other than his latching onto Lieberman's unpopularity in regards to the war, what else does he bring to the table? Is this the guy I want in the well of the senate representing me on the important issues for the state of CT other than the war? A guy with virtually no political experience whatsoever? I'm still debating that. His goofy ads don't really add a sense of seriousness either.

The difference between Stephen Colberts parody and Sean Hannity's reality are literally indistiguishable at this point.

Do you think Hannity believes this or at the end of the day he knows hes full of shit and acknowledges that hes a dishonest shill peddling his ideology at the expense of honesty? Either way it makes him a pathetic excuse for a person.

I forgot to even mention this. July 7th was the 4th anniversary of this retarded blog.

I'm now considered an OD, Original Dork.

Bush popped his veto cherry last week and it was a totally useless hypocritical one done for nothing more than crass election year political points. But what else is new? The bill was for stem cell research. Namely allowing the use of excess embryos from fertility clinics be used for stem cell research.

"This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others”

He’s a hypocrite. But then most pro-lifers are ( They think its murder but should these women who get them be tried for murder and sent to jail? Of course not!) . This bill would allow research on embryos that are already targeted for destruction from in vitro fertilization clinics. His vetoing the bill doesn’t stop the destruction of these embryos. They are still going in the trash. If this is “murder” why does the President and his pro life allies in congress pass a law banning the use of in vitro fertilization techniques that use excess embryos (meaning: all of them)?

This is why:
Among Bush's guests at the White House were the families of "snowflakes,'' children born from once-frozen embryos at in-vitro fertilization clinics who were donated to couples wanting children. Opponents of embryonic cell research say such adoptions provide an alternative to destroying the embryos for research.

So in vitro clinics commit murder, but we shouldn’t shut them down. Discarding embryos is murder, but we shouldn’t make it illegal, just not let them use it for important research before throwing it in the trash. And we should make it illegal to fund that research at the federal level because its murder, but states can have their own funding and you can use private funds to do it to.

Smug morally superior hypocrites. I wonder how they would react if all the people they love were suddenly stricken with Parkinson’s disease? Would they still bea gaisnt teh research? Would they refuse any medicines taht benefited from that research?

Anyways who cares. We all know the most important issue facing America today is whether or not you can put a flag in front of your condo.

I saw Clinton last night in Waterbury. Makes you wish for the good old days when we had a great president. Now I'd just settle for a barely competent one.

Bush in 2001:

Q Do you want bin Laden dead?

THE PRESIDENT: I want justice. There's an old poster out west, as I recall, that said, "Wanted: Dead or Alive."

Today:
The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.
The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

Senator Ted Stevens explanation on why he voted against an amendment to a telecommunications bill that would have would have made it illegal for ISP's to handle its own VOIP packets faster than a competitor's.

There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.
But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially [...]
The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [?]

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

These are the men deciding our telecommunications laws. It's also worth noting that this idiot also beleives in Creatonism. I suppose we should be grateful that he wasn't conviced that the internets was a magic box.