Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 3:53 AM
Fri Dec 18
46 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |
Media:
Hamilton Nolan |
Politics:
Alex Pareene |
Investigations:
John Cook |
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |
Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |
Weekends:
Foster Kamer |
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/16/09
Since neither you nor I can insure that the cost involved with providing health care to everyone, won't overrun our economy, doesn't it make since to proceed cautiously, with moderation in mind, and always with eye on the greater good? Namely preserving the economy which underpins our entire civilization.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
I have gotten this far and not even gotten to the topic that usually comes up in discussions of Peretz of late, which is his obsessive and unapologetic hatred of Arabs, the evidence of which is visible nearly every day on Peretz's "The Spine." Here are just a few of the choice descriptions Peretz has had occasion to employ in his magazine about assorted Arabs, whether Palestinian, Iraqi, or of the generic variety: They are "violent, fratricidal, unreliable, primitive and crazed … barbarian"; they have created a "wretched society" and are "cruel, belligerent, intolerant, fearing"; they are "murderous and grotesque" and "can't even run a post office"; their societies "have gone bonkers over jihad" and they are "feigning outrage when they protest what they call American (or Israeli) atrocities"; they "behave like lemmings," and "are not shocked at all by what in truth must seem to them not atrocious at all"; and to top it all off, their rugs are not as "subtle" and are more "glimmery" than those of the Berbers.
Which is to say nothing of his comments about "Latin society with all of its characteristic deficiencies: congenital corruption, authoritarian government, anarchic politics, near-tropical work habits, stifling social mores, Catholic dogma with the usual unacknowledged compromises, an anarchic counter-culture and increasingly violent modes of conflict".
Hell of a guy.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/15/09
Having said that, the real idiots are the Dems who cave to him. Who should all be removed from office, along with Lieberman.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
#tips
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
Although, Lieb wouldn't of had women to compete with in getting in back in the early sixties, so it's not a perfect measure of the intellect. But you got to measure it somehow!
12/15/09
Your Keller example assumes the world is a meritocracy. All I will say in regard to that observation is George W. Bush.
I think if you can give Lieberman the benefit of any doubt, it's that he was able to marshal some test scores and LSAT scores to the extent that it got him admitted to law school. If that makes him intelligent in your world, vio con dios.
Just curious: Are you transfixed by bright, shiny objects that move real fast?
12/15/09
The fact that most lawyers are not doing anything "intellectually-stimulating" has no bearing on my argument.
PS: You don't seem to be engaging in my conversation, but speaking over me? (Particularly with the Dubya comment, a man who is the essence of nepotism; I was initially impressed by Lieb being able to achieve these trappings of success, despite the fact that his parents weren't educated/connected.) Is that how you get stars around here? Sheesh.
12/15/09
I think the distinction I am making has to do with your definition of intelligence versus my perception that people can be well-versed in very narrow and specific skill sets that give them access to institutions and educations that others ascribe intelligence to. I tried to get you to see that. I failed. Mea culpa.
I am not saying that Lieberman wasn't skilled by getting into law school. Having achieved membership in that most elite group, the Senate, the man is clearly skilled. And though he may in fact be intelligent, I wouldn't cite going to law school, being a lawyer, etc., as proof of your thesis, that's all.
Referring back to your initial post, perhaps you equate intelligence with grit and determination, both of which Lieberman holds in spades. Too bad such admirable traits are being wielded in the interest of feeding a bottomless need for attention
As for getting stars around here, I haven't the faintest notion of how that happens. Does it have any value in the real world? If so, please advise me how that works.
12/14/09
So, basically, the jackasses who don't want us to have health insurance are also going to be getting the good whiskey for the holidays. To arms! To arms!
12/15/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
No more of this "We are doing this for history" bullshit.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
You found it to be a pick-me-up, though, huh?
12/14/09
I don't think what's relevant about the analogy to earlier governmental efforts to promote better approaches to farming lies in whether farming itself is significantly like health care. It's that government stepped in to provide both carrots and sticks that ultimately spurred vast improvements to the efficiency of the system. The profit motive alone won't do this, despite the knee-jerk protestation of conservatives everywhere. The current system is insanely profitable, and totally inefficient.
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
Piss it all.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/14/09
Harry Reid needs to give Joe a time out.
12/14/09
12/14/09
If Lieberman just wanted to ensure that he'd get donations from the insurance industry, he wouldn't have supported the sections of the bill he's now opposing just a few months prior. He also would have offered a more plausible reason to oppose the compromise than what he's been offering (which makes no sense).
In short, there's no sign that he's opposing the bill because of anything but general vindictiveness and stupidity.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
@Lincolnsbeard33: Again, why is it bad policy? And enough with "It's long, that means it's bad." That's a truly inane criticism.
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/15/09
12/14/09
Obviously not stupid.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
I really hope the voters of Connecticut understand that it is their fault that the country is going to end up not passing *any* sort of health care bill, and that it is also their fault if one passes without any teeth or point to it. They had a perfectly good alternative to Lieberman in Ned Lamont, and they voted for this dumb jerk instead.
(edited to add the word "dumb")
12/14/09