More proof that Democrats are Anti-Semetic [Archive] - The Orange Mane

spdirty

08-08-2006, 09:01 PM

They just kicked a jew out of their party. Assholes.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sen-race-0808,0,6578875.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

Lieberman Concedes Defeat In Senate Race
11:49 PM EDT, August 8, 2006
By JON LENDER, ELIZABETH HAMILTON And DAVID OWENS, The Hartford Courant U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman conceded defeat just after 11 p.m. in the bitter Connecticut primary that many considered a referendum on the war in Iraq.

But Lieberman pledged to continue his candidacy as an independent in the general election in November.

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

"Incidentally, we are gonna go," Lieberman told supporters shortly after stepping to a podium at the Hartford Hilton Tuesday night. The line received loud applause.

Challenger Ned Lamont appears to have defeated Lieberman by about 10,000 votes, according to unofficial returns. With 98 percent of the precincts reporting, Lamont led Lieberman 51.8 percent to 48.2 percent. The vote tally was 144,005 to 134,026. Forty-two percent of registered Democrats voted in the hotly contested primary. Lamont entered the race because of Lieberman's staunch support for the war and won the support of Democrats angry with the 18-year incumbent's position.

One poll last week showed Lamont with a double-digit lead over Lieberman, but the margin in the primary was less than four points.

Lieberman told supporters that he'd called Lamont to congratulate him; then he took a few swipes at his rival.

"Of course I am disappointed by the results, but I am not discouraged," Lieberman said..

"The old politics of partisan polarization won today," Lieberman said. "For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."

"Tomorrow morning our campaign will file the necessary petitions … so that we can continue this campaign for a new politics of unity and purpose."

Lieberman spokeswoman Marion Steinfels said that lawyer Daniel Papermaster will file the senator's petitions for an independent run at 9 a.m. Wednesday at the Secretary of the State's office in Hartford. Lieberman will not be there, but will be "on the campaign trail" during the day. She did not say where or when he would surface.

Shortly after Lieberman conceded, Lamont spoke to supporters at his Meriden headquarters.

"They call Connecticut the land of steady habits," Lamont said. "Today we voted for a big change."

"People are going to look back and say the Bush years started to end in Connecticut," said Avi Green, a Lamont volunteer from Boston. "The Republicans are going to look at tonight and realize there's blood in the water."

Earlier in the evening, as Connecticut's smallest towns reported their results, Lamont led by as much as 10 percent. Lamont was strong in the state's smaller towns, picking up lopsided wins in places like Mansfield, home to the University of Connecticut, Salisbury, Cornwall and Falls Village.

But the vote tallies were much closer in larger communities. Lieberman strongholds, such as the Naugatuck River valley in Western Connecticut, were also going heavily for Lieberman. The state's larger cities were trending for the incumbent. Lieberman won Waterbury and Stamford and was barely leading in the state's largest city, Bridgeport, where some precincts had not reported by 10:15 p.m. The senator, however, lost his hometown of New Haven 52 percent to 48 percent.

The high and wide spaces of the atrium in the Goodwin Hotel in Hartford, where Lieberman supporters gathered, were crammed with about 200 international, national and local news reporters milling about with a few dozen Lieberman supporters and operatives, amid bunches of red, white and blue balloons stretching on strings toward the towering columns and arches above them. More than 25 TV cameras on tripods, on three levels of risers, were all trained on a stage with a huge American flag hanging vertically as a background behind a lectern with a sign that said "Joe Lieberman Fighting for Connecticut."

One of the news crews was from a Japanese TV network. Correspondent Yasushi Komatsu traveled with a cameraman and producer from the New York bureau of TV Asahi America Inc., because of the Lieberman-Lamont primary's significance in Japan. "People in Japan are interested in the war in Iraq and how it is going to develop," he said. "The result of the election could be interpreted to mean the American people are saying yes or no to what Bush is doing in Iraq."

While waiting for real information to come in, the Goodwin was filled with a din of conversation and the strains of saxophone jazz. Lieberman and his family were in a private room, and the incumbent's optimistic words of the morning -- told to reporters after he voted with his wife and daughter at a New Haven school -- seemed far away.

"I believe that we are going to win today, and I believe this in my heart and soul and head," Lieberman told reporters. "I have seen a dramatic turnaround in the last week and it was reflected in the Quinnipiac Poll yesterday" that showed Lamont's lead at 6 points, down from 13 last Thursday. "I believe there is going to be a great uprising in Connecticut today. There is going to be a big turnout in my opinion, and when it is all over I am going to be honored to be the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in this election."

"I am just thinking and believing, and to a certain extend praying, for victory today," he said.

mhgaffney

08-08-2006, 09:13 PM

It was a HUGE victory for the peace movement. Time to end this horrible disaster in Iraq.

This means the Mideast will be the central issue from now on in the primaries -- and in the next election.

BTW dirt, there are two "i's" in semitic.

Spider

08-08-2006, 09:18 PM

Bout time Lieberman got the boot ,one less Neo con ................

Barry Ramey

08-08-2006, 09:21 PM

Spider

08-08-2006, 09:24 PM

Not only that, but received constant personal attacks and even hackers screwed up his website. Even Lanny Davis, a Clinton apologist who was helping in Lieberman's campaign, couldn't believe the conduct done my lefties. I'm not since that's their MO and one wonders where Davis has been in not knowing this, but more likely he didn't care when it was happening to nondemocrats.
An old saying , mess with the Bull get the horn ..........Lieberman has been sucking on Bush since the get go , Stabbed the people the voted for him in the back .......... Dont get pissed when the dog bites the hand that feeds it , and the owner of the hand opens up a can of whoopáss

spdirty

08-08-2006, 09:29 PM

An old saying , mess with the Bull get the horn ..........Lieberman has been sucking on Bush since the get go , Stabbed the people the voted for him in the back .......... Dont get pissed when the dog bites the hand that feeds it , and the owner of the hand opens up a can of whoopáss
So he was suppose to go against what he felt was the right thing to do in order to appease the hard left?? Funny how you guys take the opposite approach whenever we bitch about Spectre, Snowe, McCain, and Graham.

Spider

08-08-2006, 09:37 PM

So he was suppose to go against what he felt was the right thing to do in order to appease the hard left?? Funny how you guys take the opposite approach whenever we b**** about Spectre, Snow, McCain, and Graham.
but they havent turned thier backs on those that voted for them .......... Lieberman drew his line in the sand , dont cry and Bítch about hte outcome , McCain and Spector have to answer to the people that voted for them ....Not sure what Snow has to do with this , he was appointed not voted in , but judging from you history of posting and making shít up as you go along ie the 2 war bullshít I shouldnt be shocked you didnt know Snow wasnt voted in by an election

Taco John

08-08-2006, 09:38 PM

"The day I walk into the Oval Office, the first thing I'm going to do is rescind the Bush administration restrictions on [embryonic] stem-cell research." -Joe Lieberman

I'm suprised to see so many Republicans finding a friend in the Pro Choice Lieberman. I like old Joe. It's just too bad he wasn't willing to admit his mistakes with the whole Iraq deal, or he might still be relevant. This talk of him running as an independant... He should just give it up and save himself a lot of money and embarassment. The establishment will never allow that to happen.

Spider

08-08-2006, 09:39 PM

See Sp thats the part you cant grasp , they have to answer to the people that voted for them , just like Lieberman did , the hard left put him in office , they yanked his ass out ......... do you even understand the concept of voting ?

Taco John

08-08-2006, 09:43 PM

So he was suppose to go against what he felt was the right thing to do in order to appease the hard left??

Yeah, if he wanted to keep his job. And what's with this "The hard left" nonsense? A good 60% of the American public see the Iraq war as a mistake. That's 6 in 10 people. Hardly a "hard left" position.

Blueflame

08-08-2006, 10:05 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-08-2006, 11:04 PM

More proof that Democrats are Anti-Semetic Reply to Thread

They just kicked a jew out of their party. a-holes.

:oyvey:

Are you really that big of a moron, or are you just trying to get a rise out of people here?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-08-2006, 11:05 PM

Yeah, if he wanted to keep his job. And what's with this "The hard left" nonsense? A good 60% of the American public see the Iraq war as a mistake. That's 6 in 10 people. Hardly a "hard left" position.

Thank you. :thumbsup:

errand

08-08-2006, 11:15 PM

BTW dirt, there are two "i's" in semitic.

You ought to know.

BTW, this isn't a huge victory for the anti-war crowd...it's proof that the kook far left has taken over the Democratic party

errand

08-08-2006, 11:20 PM

A good 60% of the American public see the Iraq war as a mistake. That's 6 in 10 people. .

Which is odd considering 50% of those recently polled said they believe Saddam had WMD's upon our invading Iraq.

Blueflame

08-08-2006, 11:30 PM

You ought to know.

BTW, this isn't a huge victory for the anti-war crowd...it's proof that the kook far left has taken over the Democratic party

No, it's proof that Lieberman isn't really a Democrat... if he were truly a Democrat, he'd accept the will of the voters and throw his support behind the candidate they chose. The decision to remain in the race as an Independent shows nothing but contempt for the voters of Connecticut and an obvious willingness to put his own ego over the best interests of the party that supported him through three past elections.

DBruleU

08-08-2006, 11:41 PM

:oyvey:

Are you really that big of a moron, or are you just trying to get a rise out of people here?

In other words, are you pulling a Spider? Er, I mean Cledus and someotherredneck name.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 12:01 AM

In other words, are you pulling a Spider? Er, I mean Cledus and someotherredneck name.

"And Jesus said, verily, I say unto you: two wrongs make a right."

- The gospel according to DBruleU

spdirty

08-09-2006, 06:19 AM

Not sure what Snow has to do with this , he was appointed not voted in , but judging from you history of posting and making shít up as you go along ie the 2 war bullshít I shouldnt be shocked you didnt know Snow wasnt voted in by an election

So Olympia Snow, US Senator from Maine, was appointed, not elected to the Senate? Hmmm, learn something new everyday.

spdirty

08-09-2006, 06:21 AM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 06:23 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/kissy-burgers.JPG

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 06:24 AM

http://www.bartcop.com/kissy-faith.gif

Spider

08-09-2006, 06:26 AM

So Olympia Snow, US Senator from Maine, was appointed, not elected to the Senate? Hmmm, learn something new everyday.
Oh you mean Snowe , not Snow as in Olympia Snowe vs Tony Snow ....... :~ohyah!:

BroncoInferno

08-09-2006, 06:26 AM

Spider

08-09-2006, 06:28 AM

Yeah...they put him in office, found out he was a jew, then got a replacement.
they found out he was gay and sleeping with Bush .. that big ole wet sloppy kiss Bush planted on him was evidence ............ Sleeping with the enemy ........

BroncoInferno

08-09-2006, 06:31 AM

Which is odd considering 50% of those recently polled said they believe Saddam had WMD's upon our invading Iraq.

Even if true, that doesn't mean all 50% were in favor of declaring war , now does it? I know you have a problem making distinctions, but this is a pretty simple one.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 06:33 AM

Even if true, that doesn't mean all 50% were in favor of decaring war , now does it? I know you have a problem making distinctions, but this is a pretty simple one.

:rofl: ^5

Taco John

08-09-2006, 06:34 AM

It would also an incredibly selfish, self-serving move that would threaten to split the Democrat vote and hand a Senate seat to the Republicans.

I doubt you'll find too many Democrats willing to give their vote to an Iraq war supporting Bush backer. He conceeding because he found out that Democrats AREN'T voting for him. I don't think applying an "I" to his name is going to change their minds.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 06:35 AM

Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) won't seek re-election

Another bad apple outed. So this will result in another seat going Democratic, right? Right, Ohio? Zack Space, the Dem challenger, was already doing well against the corrupt Ney.

Rep. Bob Ney won't seek re-election

By JOE DANBORN, Associated Press Writer

COLUMBUS, Ohio - U.S. Rep. Bob Ney (news, bio, voting record), under scrutiny in a corruption scandal involving convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, announced Monday that he was abandoning his re-election campaign.

The Republican had insisted he would not resign, even if indicted over his dealings with Abramoff. In his first primary test in a decade, Ney won 68 percent of the vote May 2 against a little-known opponent. But in a statement released by his campaign Monday morning, Ney said he had decided to withdraw from his race for a seventh term.

Earlier Monday, Ohio state Sen. Joy Padgett told The Associated Press that Ney called her Saturday and asked the fellow Republican to run in his place, saying defending himself has been a strain on his family. Ney faced a tough challenge in November from Democrat Zack Space, a law director who had made the Justice Department's investigation into Ney a focus of his campaign. Space's campaign did not return a message Monday morning.

Federal prosecutors have described Ney in court documents as having received gifts, trips and other things of value from Abramoff and his associates. Ney and some of his aides, including his chief of staff, William Heaton, have been subpoenaed, though Ney has not been accused of wrongdoing. Neil Volz, who was Ney's chief of staff before Heaton, pleaded guilty in Washington in May, admitting he participated in a conspiracy to corrupt Ney, his staff and other members of Congress. The Democratic National Committee said Volz's plea agreement put a "Republican culture of corruption one step closer" to Ney, whom it called "Exhibit A."

"I'm doing this for one reason: my family. My wife and two children have been through enough," he said.

Padgett, who said she has known Ney for at least 20 years, was flattered that he and House Majority Leader John Boehner, asked her to run. She said she wished the circumstances were different, "but you have to take life as it's given."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060807/ap_on_el_ho/congressman_withdraws_7

spdirty

08-09-2006, 06:41 AM

I doubt you'll find too many Democrats willing to give their vote to an Iraq war supporting Bush backer. He conceeding because he found out that Democrats AREN'T voting for him. I don't think applying an "I" to his name is going to change their minds.

Last I heard, with 98% of the precincts in, he got 48.7% of the Democratic vote. Wonder how much of those will stay loyal to the person rather than the party.

spdirty

08-09-2006, 06:43 AM

Oh you mean Snowe , not Snow as in Olympia Snowe vs Tony Snow ....... :~ohyah!:
my ring and middle fingers on my left hand are killing me and I didn't want to type that last e.

BroncoInferno

08-09-2006, 06:43 AM

I doubt you'll find too many Democrats willing to give their vote to an Iraq war supporting Bush backer. He conceeding because he found out that Democrats AREN'T voting for him. I don't think applying an "I" to his name is going to change their minds.

He didn't exactly lose by a landside in the primary, Taco. I think in the final talley the difference was 5,000 votes or thereabouts. He would not get enough votes to win back his Senate seat, true, but he would certainly get a enough votes to threaten the chances of the Democratic candidate.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 06:45 AM

Last I heard, with 98% of the precincts in, he got 48.7% of the Democratic vote.

You have to take the fact that he was a sitting Senator of 16 yrs. and his party's former VP candidate into account. To have this sort of advantage and still get punked by the new kid on the block is HUGE.

RaiderH8r

08-09-2006, 06:46 AM

spdirty

08-09-2006, 06:48 AM

spdirty

08-09-2006, 06:50 AM

Rohirrim

08-09-2006, 06:50 AM

I think the people of Conn. just got a whiff of what a self-centered, pompous ass this guy is, and decided to give him the boot.

defenseman

08-09-2006, 06:52 AM

Lieberman's loss in the Democratic primary had absolutely nothing to do with "anti-Semitism"; it had everything to do with him being a DINO (Democrat in Name Only) who rubber-stamped anything the Bush administration wanted to do. His constituents were unhappy with the job he was doing representing them and therefore, voted for a change.

As a sidenote, it might not have been such a good idea to allow himself to be photographed publicly receiving a big sloppy wet kiss from Bush...

You are nothing less than a goddamn, liberal , peace loving, america hating robot , just one of many fools and idiots in the democratic party...dma

BroncoInferno

08-09-2006, 06:53 AM

This is staggering and comical all at once. Lieberman voted 90% with Democrats. He was endorsed by all 7 of the CT's major daily newspapers. He's fought tooth and nail, side by side with Reid on almost every issue. Dems mock Republicans for being monolithic and lock step. Then turn around and boot one of their own for deviating on the 10%. What's more lock step than that?

If one believes strongly that the Iraq war was a mistake, as many Democrats do, and the candidate before them was and is in favor of the war, it makes it pretty hard to vote for that guy, don't you think? It isn't the 10% that got him in trouble; it's his support for the war that got him booted out. If you are constituent who strongly disagrees with the war, how can you vote for Leiberman?

Spider

08-09-2006, 06:56 AM

Yeah, but in their minds the 10% translates into "He's a neocon bush supporting traitor and we have to get him out now!!!"
Let me put this in away you can understand ........... Once upon a time in Colorado there was a Prince Named Tom Tancredo , he saw his Kingdom being invaded by evil hard working People from the south ....Tom wanted to stop this invasion , so Tom went to the people and said , Elect me , Iwill stop this invasion . The people rejoyced and they elected Tom Tancredo , but once Tom got in office , he faught tooth and nail with Republicans , but instead of fighting the Invasion , Tom saw that the Basket weavers of America were in trouble so he went ot fight thier fight , forgetting the invasion ............ 1 Person living in Tancredo Kingdom ( name with held to Protect the innocent ) never noticed Tom forgot his promise ..........

BroncoInferno

08-09-2006, 06:58 AM

You are nothing less than a goddamn, liberal , peace loving, america hating robot , just one of many fools and idiots in the democratic party...dma

This is a pathetic post, dman. Nothing in Blueflame's post quoted warranted that kind of ad hominem attack. It's also a very base attack: the 'you hate America if you don't agree with everything done on America's behalf by our leaders' attack. You are better than this.

Spider

08-09-2006, 06:58 AM

PS. and the evil hard working people lived happly ever after

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 06:58 AM

This is staggering and comical all at once. Lieberman voted 90% with Democrats.

How do you get the "90%" figure?

And "voted with Democrats" on what specifics?

He's fought tooth and nail, side by side with Reid on almost every issue.

"Almost every issue?" Mmmmm, OK.

Dems mock Republicans for being monolithic and lock step. Then turn around and boot one of their own for deviating on the 10%. What's more lock step than that?

That's a bullsh*t comparison if I ever heard one.

First, I would need to see how you arrived at "10%"

Then, I would point your attention to all of those Dems who have broken ranks and supported various GOP-sponsored bills over the past six years.

spdirty

08-09-2006, 07:00 AM

Let me put this in away you can understand ........... Once upon a time in Colorado there was a Prince Named Tom Tancredo , he saw his Kingdom being invaded by evil hard working People from the south ....Tom wanted to stop this invasion , so Tom went to the people and said , Elect me , Iwill stop this invasion . The people rejoyced and they elected Tom Tancredo , but once Tom got in office , he faught tooth and nail with Republicans , but instead of fighting the Invasion , Tom saw that the Basket weavers of America were in trouble so he went ot fight thier fight , forgetting the invasion ............ 1 Person living in Tancredo Kingdom ( name with held to Protect the innocent ) never noticed Tom forgot his promise ..........
so when do you think you an make it to DIA??

enjolras

08-09-2006, 07:01 AM

Rohirrim

08-09-2006, 07:01 AM

You are nothing less than a goddamn, liberal , peace loving, america hating robot , just one of many fools and idiots in the democratic party...dma

You've been snorting the torpedo juice again. ;D

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 07:02 AM

This is a pathetic post, dman. Nothing in Blueflame's post quoted warranted that kind of ad hominem attack. It's also a very base attack: the 'you hate America if you don't agree with everything done on America's behalf by our leaders' attack. You are better than this.

I have to chuckle at the way he called her "peace loving" - as if this were some kind of epithet.

:rofl:

spdirty

08-09-2006, 07:02 AM

I would point your attention to all of those Dems who have broken ranks and supported various GOP-sponsored bills over the past six years.
..and are next to pay for what theyve done.

Spider

08-09-2006, 07:03 AM

so when do you think you an make it to DIA??
Some time tonight or tommorow .. I am waiting in Electra Texas for my load goint ot myton Utah .... going right through Denver ....... Having the wife send me some bail money .......

Rohirrim

08-09-2006, 07:05 AM

Not true, http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_4116528.

Lieberman sided with democrats over 90% of the time in contested votes. Hardly "Democrat in Name Only". He has remained pro-war.. I wasn't aware that the democrats had dissolved into a single issue party.

I'm confused.. do we want bipartisanship or not?

I don't think this had anything to do with it. I was watching Chris Matthews last night interviewing Conn. voters. A large chunk of them were strictly anti-war, but an even bigger chunk felt that Joe had lost touch with the state since running for VP. They felt neglected. I think Joe's head got inflated with the national attention and he forgot that all politics is local.

BroncoInferno

08-09-2006, 07:06 AM

I wasn't aware that the democrats had dissolved into a single issue party.

Yeah, but that one issue is the most important issue to a lot of people right now. I mean, if they disagreed with his stance on pork barreling or campaign finance reform or something like that, most costituents would probably overlook it, but if his stance on the #1 issue to a lot of people is opposite of what they believe, it makes it pretty hard to vote for the guy, wouldn't you agree?

spdirty

08-09-2006, 07:06 AM

Some time tonight or tommorow .. I am waiting in Electra Texas for my load goint ot myton Utah .... going right through Denver ....... Having the wife send me some bail money .......
bail money??

Spider

08-09-2006, 07:08 AM

bail money??
well yeah , I am going to DIA so you can call me a coward and kick my ass ..... I will need bail money ;D

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 07:12 AM

Yeah, but that one issue is the most important issue to a lot of people right now. I mean, if they disagreed with his stance on pork barreling or campaign finance reform or something like that, most costituents would probably overlook it, but if his stance on the #1 issue to a lot of people is opposite of what they believe, it makes it pretty hard to vote for the guy, wouldn't you agree?

Bingo. :thumbsup:

spdirty

08-09-2006, 07:13 AM

well yeah , I am going to DIA so you can call me a coward and kick my ass ..... I will need bail money ;D
I just said come on out and say hi. But if you want to come out here, like i said, Im 5'8 170 lbs dripping wet, so you should have no problem kicking my ass.

spdirty

08-09-2006, 07:16 AM

anyway, ill be out at the east economy lot today till around 5. Ill probably be out there tomorrow, depends on where the boss wants me, but ill let you know tonight whther ill be out there.

Rohirrim

08-09-2006, 07:16 AM

I just said come on out and say hi. But if you want to come out here, like i said, Im 5'8 170 lbs dripping wet, so you should have no problem kicking my ass.

BTW, SP, that's a cute little guy there. Nothing like a happy little face like that to help you remember what life is all about. :thumbsup:

spdirty

08-09-2006, 07:18 AM

BTW, SP, that's a cute little guy there. Nothing like a happy little face like that to help you remember what life is all about. :thumbsup:
thanks. he'll be a year old the 17th. lil guy was walking a month ago...never fails to make me laugh and smile.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 07:18 AM

DINO Joe said something about a "new politics of unity?"

By running as an Independent and taking Democratic votes away from Lamont potentially allowing a Republican to take the seat?

That's a politics of unity?!

Man, Joe Lieberman sounds a whole lot like a Republican already. Deep into the double-speak.

Congrats to Ned!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 07:20 AM

A senior Republican official in Washington confirms that the party might encourage Republicans and others to support Sen. Lieberman if he runs as an independent . . . And Kevin F. Rennie reports that some GOPers in CT are thinking about ways to financially support Lieberman's independent bid.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/gopers_thinking.html

See what I mean?

defenseman

08-09-2006, 07:21 AM

This is staggering and comical all at once. Lieberman voted 90% with Democrats. He was endorsed by all 7 of the CT's major daily newspapers. He's fought tooth and nail, side by side with Reid on almost every issue. Dems mock Republicans for being monolithic and lock step. Then turn around and boot one of their own for deviating on the 10%. What's more lock step than that?

they eat there own quite well. Anything to get ahead mentality. people will eventually see them for what they are, weak on guts, and pull the rug out. I wouuldn't worry too much about the dems in general, their far left facet has caused problems though. they are flat out disgusting human beings and deserve nothing less than public humiliation for being willing to sacrifice the country just to forward their agenda. Real waste of time...dman

defenseman

08-09-2006, 07:22 AM

defenseman

08-09-2006, 07:23 AM

I think the people of Conn. just got a whiff of what a self-centered, pompous ass this guy is, and decided to give him the boot.

yeah, right. Not far left, so not good enough...be truthful..dman

BroncoInferno

08-09-2006, 07:24 AM

they eat there own quite well. Anything to get ahead mentality. people will eventually see them for what they are, weak on guts, and pull the rug out. I wouuldn't worry too much about the dems in general, their far left facet has caused problems though. they are flat out disgusting human beings and deserve nothing less than public humiliation for being willing to sacrifice the country just to forward their agenda. Real waste of time...dman

No more disgusting than Republicans willing to sacrifice human life to forward their economic agenda.

Spider

08-09-2006, 07:24 AM

I just said come on out and say hi. But if you want to come out here, like i said, Im 5'8 170 lbs dripping wet, so you should have no problem kicking my ass.
LOL . I dont start the ass kickings , I rarely force anyone into a fight . I thought you wanted to drag knuckles acrossed the skull ......... But then I am still not loaded and I have to be in Utah friday ......

spdirty

08-09-2006, 07:27 AM

LOL . I dont start the ass kickings , I rarely force anyone into a fight . I thought you wanted to drag knuckles acrossed the skull ......... But then I am still not loaded and I have to be in Utah friday ......
were you going through denver anyway or were you gonna make a special trip?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 07:28 AM

they eat there own quite well. Anything to get ahead mentality. people will eventually see them for what they are, weak on guts, and pull the rug out. I wouuldn't worry too much about the dems in general, their far left facet has caused problems though. they are flat out disgusting human beings and deserve nothing less than public humiliation for being willing to sacrifice the country just to forward their agenda. Real waste of time...dman

:oyvey:

You make Oxycontin Boy sound rational; erudite, even.

Rohirrim

08-09-2006, 07:58 AM

yeah, right. Not far left, so not good enough...be truthful..dman

Here's the truth. The first thing Joe did to piss off the party in Conn. is that he ran for VP without stepping down from his seat in the Senate. Had he and Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court to actually win, the seat would have been filled by a Republican governor. The second thing he did is side with Newt Gingrich during the witch hunt against Clinton. Third, he sided with Bush and the neocons on the war in Iraq all the way down the line. Fourth, he sided with Frist on the issue of plugging in Terry Schiavo and did a little grandstanding on the issue. Fifth, the people of Conn., including many business leaders, have been finding it tougher and tougher to get Joe’s ear. He has neglected his constituency. NTM, a few times, Joe has let it be known that he feels entitled to that seat, and is insulted that anyone would question that he owns it - in other words, the boy has grown arrogant. To define Joe’s problems as anything other than of his own making is to fool yourself.

Spider

08-09-2006, 08:01 AM

spdirty

08-09-2006, 08:02 AM

Shít , looks like I wont be able to stop . an injector cooler they are loading doesnt have the piece of Angle Iron , so I have ot wait for it ........ I could be here all day , and if they dont bump the delievery date , I cant stop ..........
well, do what you gotta do...Im sure there will be other times and opportunities. Ill be here my whole life.

Spider

08-09-2006, 08:09 AM

well, do what you gotta do...Im sure there will be other times and opportunities. Ill be here my whole life.
;D no no need to make a special trip to denver , if you look Denver is well placed , anything north of 40 , south of 80 , Denver is your best shot in a 18 wheeler to get anywhere ...... I am going up near Vernal utah , so the route is 287 , 70, 13, 40....though I may cut through Meeker to baker up to Dinosour and go that way

Spider

08-09-2006, 08:10 AM

well, do what you gotta do...Im sure there will be other times and opportunities. Ill be here my whole life.
I am getting paid 90.00 per hour to play x box ;D .But ihave been on the road since the 1 st of this month Kinda miss the wife and kids

spdirty

08-09-2006, 08:22 AM

I am getting paid 90.00 per hour to play x box ;D .But ihave been on the road since the 1 st of this month Kinda miss the wife and kids
must be nice...I get paid a base salary of 2,400 a month to tear my hands up with concrete and hand dig holes, rip out mailboxes, deal with the pissed off homeowner, pound delineators into the ground, and install and remove signs...in other words, doing the jobs americans won't do. Anyway, have a nice day.:D

Spider

08-09-2006, 08:46 AM

must be nice...I get paid a base salary of 2,400 a month to tear my hands up with concrete and hand dig holes, rip out mailboxes, deal with the pissed off homeowner, pound delineators into the ground, and install and remove signs...in other words, doing the jobs americans won't do. Anyway, have a nice day.:D
so you work for a living hey ................ Ijust threw straps , I have a partial load on right now .. just waiting on that 1 tank .............

RaiderH8r

08-09-2006, 08:58 AM

Liebermans voting record: http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_4116528.

Lieberman sided with democrats over 90% of the time in contested votes. Hardly "Democrat in Name Only". He has remained pro-war.. I wasn't aware that the democrats had dissolved into a single issue party.
Beat me to it. Well done. I suspect there are some fervently searching the web for a blast piece against Lieberman asserting that the 90% was somehow a disingenuous attempt to sway voters in an election year. Or some such. Bottom line is that Lieberman isn't virulent or vitriolic enough for their tastes. And I find that comical. The party of tolerance and peace, motivated by hatred. Let's bask in the irony of that for a bit shall we?

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 09:02 AM

You are nothing less than a goddamn, liberal , peace loving, america hating robot , just one of many fools and idiots in the democratic party...dma

You forgot "Anti-Semitic".... ::)

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 09:09 AM

You have to take the fact that he was a sitting Senator of 16 yrs. and his party's former VP candidate into account. To have this sort of advantage and still get punked by the new kid on the block is HUGE.

... Lieberman was a sitting Senator of 16 yrs and his party's former VP candidate who outspent Lamont 2 to 1 in the campaign....

Also interesting is that the exit polls reportedly matched the election results in this Diebold-less race...

TheDave

08-09-2006, 09:29 AM

they eat there own quite well. Anything to get ahead mentality. people will eventually see them for what they are, weak on guts, and pull the rug out. I wouuldn't worry too much about the dems in general, their far left facet has caused problems though. they are flat out disgusting human beings and deserve nothing less than public humiliation for being willing to sacrifice the country just to forward their agenda. Real waste of time...dman

You are nothing less than a goddamn, liberal , peace loving, america hating robot , just one of many fools and idiots in the democratic party...dma

What ever happened to your wisdom filled "we need to vote for the candidate not the party" rhetoric...

defenseman

08-09-2006, 09:41 AM

What ever happened to your wisdom filled "we need to vote for the candidate not the party" rhetoric...

every once in while.., everyone gets their fill of it, I hit my threshold. I'm still voting for the person, but todays tactics are beginning to get to me. I quite honestly, am sick and tired of the liberal dribble, the dems allow them to drag their party down, they wouldn't fight if a terrorists organ held a gun to our heads, they'd hand america over to them, they've convinced me. Scary people these liberals. the dems better shut them down before they get out of the box. I equate them to the terrorists in a sense, hezbollah: Iran, liberals: Dems. Except, they use the law and other tactics to hijack all that is good in america. Really f&&kin sick...dman

Rep. Mckinney is gone. AWESOMEEEEE. Good riddence bitch..

bendog

08-09-2006, 09:58 AM

I was going to nominate this thread as the largest contribution to ignorance I'd seen yet, but I'm intrigued.

dman, what liberals are you speaking of?

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 10:00 AM

every once in while.., everyone gets their fill of it, I hit my threshold. I'm still voting for the person, but todays tactics are beginning to get to me. I quite honestly, am sick and tired of the liberal dribble, the dems allow them to drag their party down, they wouldn't fight if a terrorists organ held a gun to our heads, they'd hand america over to them, they've convinced me. Scary people these liberals. the dems better shut them down before they get out of the box. I equate them to the terrorists in a sense, hezbollah: Iran, liberals: Dems. Except, they use the law and other tactics to hijack all that is good in america. Really f&&kin sick...dman

Rep. Mckinney is gone. AWESOMEEEEE. Good riddence b****..

Precisely what is the difference between McKinney's constituents choosing to go another direction and Lieberman's constituents doing the same? Why is it "AWESOMEEEEE" that McKinney lost in the primary, but "dragging the party down" when Lieberman loses? Either way, the will of the voters is plain and should be respected.

Btw... going by the standards expressed in this thread title, the voters who "fired" Rep. McKinney must be "sexist" and "racist", right?

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 10:02 AM

I was going to nominate this thread as the largest contribution to ignorance I'd seen yet, but I'm intrigued.

dman, what liberals are you speaking of?

My guess? The Connecticut liberals that voted for Lamont instead of neocon Lieberman...

W*GS

08-09-2006, 10:11 AM

As a libertarian, the more "fragging" the Dems (and, hopefully) the GOP do to themselves is a Good Thing.

BroncoInferno

08-09-2006, 10:16 AM

every once in while.., everyone gets their fill of it, I hit my threshold. I'm still voting for the person, but todays tactics are beginning to get to me. I quite honestly, am sick and tired of the liberal dribble, the dems allow them to drag their party down, they wouldn't fight if a terrorists organ held a gun to our heads, they'd hand america over to them, they've convinced me. Scary people these liberals. the dems better shut them down before they get out of the box. I equate them to the terrorists in a sense, hezbollah: Iran, liberals: Dems. Except, they use the law and other tactics to hijack all that is good in america. Really f&&kin sick...dman

Rep. Mckinney is gone. AWESOMEEEEE. Good riddence b****..

We're seeing your true colors on this thread, dman. You pretend to be a cautious, let's-wait-till-all-the-facts-are-in pragmatist, but you are no different than the other mindless conservatives who tell us we hate America because who don't agree with the decesions the current administration is making on our behalf. Dissent is the very essence of a democracy. Too bad the mindless flag wavers on the right are so miserable at making distinctions.

BroncoInferno

08-09-2006, 10:18 AM

As a libertarian, the more "fragging" the Dems (and, hopefully) the GOP do to themselves is a Good Thing.

Do you know how many libertarians are planning running for congressional seats in November?

W*GS

08-09-2006, 10:21 AM

Do you know how many libertarians are planning running for congressional seats in November?

Dunno.

BroncoInferno

08-09-2006, 10:25 AM

Dunno.

I was just curious. I have not heard of any libertarians running in my part of the woods. They would certainly get my consideration if they did.

W*GS

08-09-2006, 10:34 AM

I was just curious. I have not heard of any libertarians running in my part of the woods. They would certainly get my consideration if they did.

You might want to check with the LP at lp.org or with your Secretary of State (or equivalent).

TheDave

08-09-2006, 10:41 AM

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 10:53 AM

errand

08-09-2006, 11:08 AM

No, it's proof that Lieberman isn't really a Democrat... if he were truly a Democrat, he'd accept the will of the voters and throw his support behind the candidate they chose. The decision to remain in the race as an Independent shows nothing but contempt for the voters of Connecticut and an obvious willingness to put his own ego over the best interests of the party that supported him through three past elections.

If Joe Libermann hadn't stood by his vote to go to war, he'd have run unopposed.

He didn't so now he has learned what I've already known...the far left has hijacked the Democratic party. They have made him pay for his sin of being tough on terror and national defense.

BTW, why should he think of the party that supported him the past 3 elections when they basically dumped him over a different vote on one issue?

RaiderH8r

08-09-2006, 11:18 AM

Btw... going by the standards expressed in this thread title, the voters who "fired" Rep. McKinney must be "sexist" and "racist", right?
Hold onto that thought, McKinney may play one, or both, of those cards next. ROFL!

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 11:22 AM

If Joe Libermann hadn't stood by his vote to go to war, he'd have run unopposed.

He didn't so now he has learned what I've already known...the far left has hijacked the Democratic party. They have made him pay for his sin of being tough on terror and national defense.

BTW, why should he think of the party that supported him the past 3 elections when they basically dumped him over a different vote on one issue?

I don't think so, Errand. What's going on is that there are a lot of people who don't like the direction the neocons are taking this country... and a lot of politicians from both sides of the aisle are gonna find that out come November, I suspect.

It's not "tough on terror" or "national defense" to go to war based on lies... and very few human beings view the world as "safer" or that there is a lessened threat of terrorism because we did that.

Ego is the only reason for Lieberman to remain in the Senate race after the humiliating loss in the primary yesterday. And it's disingenuous to the extreme for him to label himself an "Independent Democrat". All he's gonna do is look like the "Sore Loserman" that his new Republican buddies labelled him to be six years ago.

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 11:25 AM

Hold onto that thought, McKinney may play one, or both, of those cards next. ROFL!

It's ludicrous.... almost as appallingly asinine as the suggestion that the only reason Lieberman lost his Senate seat is because he's Jewish. Voters obviously want a change and are doing what they need to do to achieve that goal.

RaiderH8r

08-09-2006, 11:30 AM

Back to the topic at hand... if I lived in Connecticut, I would definitely have voted for Lamont over Lieberman. And I'd seriously consider voting against Maria Cantwell in the primary (due to votes she has made on issues that are important to me) if Mark Wilson had not withdrawn his candidacy. The Republican running for her Senate seat is an extremely rightwing neocon Bushbot, however, so there is little choice in November but to hold my nose and vote for Maria again. It's sad that the only two really viable choices amount to the "lesser of two evils"... but I personally do not care for the direction in which the neocons have been taking this country.
I'm noticing a theme in your prose. "Neocon" and/or "Bushbot" seems to be your castigation of candidates with whom you disagree. I'm curious just what your definition of those adjectives is? I've seen you call both Lieberman (90% voting record for his party, hardly what any discerning observer would consider a rubber stamp for Republican policy) and Republican candidate for WA's Senate race these things. It would seem that your definition is vague, at best.

I guess my point is that I've run across too many liberals mocking and degrading "mindless flag wavers" "rightwing nutjobs" "Bushbots" and "neocons" as, well it was stated, mindless robots. Meanwhile these same liberals wind up like a talking doll, pull the cord and they spout the same rhetoric. And God forbid you deviate one iota from their agenda lest you be cast out to the hounds. Like I said before, the party of peace and tolerance is clearly motivated by hatred and intolerance, and it's been demonstrated clearly in CT. Personally, I'm still basking in all of its irony. I could be basking for quite some time because this just oozes the tasty goodness of juicy irony. :rofl:

RaiderH8r

08-09-2006, 11:33 AM

It's ludicrous.... almost as appallingly asinine as the suggestion that the only reason Lieberman lost his Senate seat is because he's Jewish. Voters obviously want a change and are doing what they need to do to achieve that goal.
That and she probably should have been running from a prison cell. Dem Senators lost a good friend and colleague in Lieberman. He carried respect on both sides of the aisle and did a lot to bridge the gap and work with moderates on the other side to achieve some victories. Lamont will not do anything except to be Daily Kos's mouthpiece...unfortunately, unlike Lieberman and Lamont, Daily Kos will never be held accountable for their positions or failings in their policies.

BroncoInferno

08-09-2006, 11:42 AM

I'm noticing a theme in your prose. "Neocon" and/or "Bushbot" seems to be your castigation of candidates with whom you disagree. I'm curious just what your definition of those adjectives is? I've seen you call both Lieberman (90% voting record for his party, hardly what any discerning observer would consider a rubber stamp for Republican policy) and Republican candidate for WA's Senate race these things. It would seem that your definition is vague, at best.

I guess my point is that I've run across too many liberals mocking and degrading "mindless flag wavers" "rightwing nutjobs" "Bushbots" and "neocons" as, well it was stated, mindless robots. Meanwhile these same liberals wind up like a talking doll, pull the cord and they spout the same rhetoric. And God forbid you deviate one iota from their agenda lest you be cast out to the hounds. Like I said before, the party of peace and tolerance is clearly motivated by hatred and intolerance, and it's been demonstrated clearly in CT. Personally, I'm still basking in all of its irony. I could be basking for quite some time because this just oozes the tasty goodness of juicy irony. :rofl:

There is no irony here. The number one issue to most people is the war in Iraq; if Leiberman's view is contrary to his constituency on that very important topic, then is not in any way an example of kicking a guy out because he doesn't toe the line on every issue. If he were against, say, campaign finance reform or something along those lines, he'd still have his job.

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 11:46 AM

I'm noticing a theme in your prose. "Neocon" and/or "Bushbot" seems to be your castigation of candidates with whom you disagree. I'm curious just what your definition of those adjectives is? I've seen you call both Lieberman (90% voting record for his party, hardly what any discerning observer would consider a rubber stamp for Republican policy) and Republican candidate for WA's Senate race these things. It would seem that your definition is vague, at best.

I guess my point is that I've run across too many liberals mocking and degrading "mindless flag wavers" "rightwing nutjobs" "Bushbots" and "neocons" as, well it was stated, mindless robots. Meanwhile these same liberals wind up like a talking doll, pull the cord and they spout the same rhetoric. And God forbid you deviate one iota from their agenda lest you be cast out to the hounds. Like I said before, the party of peace and tolerance is clearly motivated by hatred and intolerance, and it's been demonstrated clearly in CT. Personally, I'm still basking in all of its irony. I could be basking for quite some time because this just oozes the tasty goodness of juicy irony. :rofl:

You'd like a definition, eh? OK... this webpage spells it out pretty well.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy14.html

What's so difficult to understand about the idea that Dems would have liked their party to be an "opposition" party... to somewhat try to counter the virtual stranglehold the Republicans have held on the government since 2000?

Hatred and intolerance? Sounds like projection to me... coming, as it is, from a proponent of a party that defines any dissension from their agenda as "hating America"....

TheDave

08-09-2006, 11:51 AM

There is no irony here. The number one issue to most people is the war in Iraq; if Leiberman's view is contrary to his constituency on that very important topic, then is not in any way an example of kicking a guy out because he doesn't toe the line on every issue. If he were against, say, campaign finance reform or something along those lines, he'd still have his job.

This is going to happen across the US... Lieberman was just to first big name to get caught up in it. Like i've said on other threads America has finally seen this "War" for what it always was. Any candidate who desires re/election better change his tone towards an anti-war stance that the people finally asking for... Better late than never i guess

Rohirrim

08-09-2006, 11:52 AM

That and she probably should have been running from a prison cell. Dem Senators lost a good friend and colleague in Lieberman. He carried respect on both sides of the aisle and did a lot to bridge the gap and work with moderates on the other side to achieve some victories. Lamont will not do anything except to be Daily Kos's mouthpiece...unfortunately, unlike Lieberman and Lamont, Daily Kos will never be held accountable for their positions or failings in their policies.

The idea of "bridging the gap" was killed long ago by Newt Gingrich. The neocons have further smashed bipartisanship into the ground. How many times has Bush met with the Democratic leadership? Not once? Give that man a cigar. Time for the Left to wake up and realize they are in a war and stop being afraid to win at any cost. After all, that's been the mantra of the Right for many years now. If the Left wants to win, they are going to have to get dirty.

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 12:06 PM

That and she probably should have been running from a prison cell. Dem Senators lost a good friend and colleague in Lieberman. He carried respect on both sides of the aisle and did a lot to bridge the gap and work with moderates on the other side to achieve some victories. Lamont will not do anything except to be Daily Kos's mouthpiece...unfortunately, unlike Lieberman and Lamont, Daily Kos will never be held accountable for their positions or failings in their policies.

I'm curious, RaiderH8r... can you explain this to me? If Lieberman was such an asset to Congressional Democrats, why are this forum's right-wingers so distraught over his defeat yesterday? Dman in particular seems to be taking it as personally as if Lieberman was a close relative...

Rohirrim

08-09-2006, 12:19 PM

Here's a nice analysis from Time:

Lieberman Lost the Old-Fashioned Way

He was out of touch with voters. And he's not alone. His defeat foreshadows an upheaval to come in November

By JOSHUA MICAH MARSHALL
Posted Wednesday, Aug. 09, 2006

So who brought Joe Lieberman down? Was it the liberal blogs? Was Lieberman the first political casualty of the Iraq War?

Both. But neither.

Yes, Iraq was the issue that crushed Lieberman in the Democratic party. And the blogs were the vehicle that helped that latent but pervasive disgruntlement among Connecticut Democrats become aware of itself. But Joe Lieberman succumbed to a political ailment (common to long-serving senators) that would have been as recognizable to Daniel Webster and Henry Clay as it was to so many 21st century bloggers: He got his head lost in the clouds of national politics and lost touch with his constituents.

The Lieberman camp says Joe stuck to his guns on Iraq notwithstanding the political perils or the unpopularity of the position in his party. But that doesn't quite cut it. True, he had to know he wasn't winning any points with the broad mass of Democrats around the country. And his embitterment against his party for his ignominious defeat in the 2004 presidential primaries probably made him more willing to court that displeasure. But I don't think Lieberman really understood the peril he was courting back home. Because if he had, he would have been more prepared for it. And he wasn't.

Most politicians keep close tabs on what's happening back home and work assiduously to keep lines of communications open with the political players in their states or districts. They may get into trouble for any number of reasons. But if they're good at what they do, they don't get caught off guard. And no one was more caught unawares by what happened in the last two months than Joe Lieberman.

Many pundits claim that Lieberman's defeat is a replay of the way Democrats tore themselves apart over Vietnam. It's an appealing thought for Republicans. And it has got nice drama. But those pundits are either being disingenuous or are caught in a time warp. Democrats are actually fairly united on the Iraq War in their opposition to it — which is actually where most Americans are right now. And though many Senators are not as full-throated in their opposition as the base of the party, you don't see any successful challenges being made against other Senators who aren't ready to bring the troops home.

With Lieberman, there's something different. It's not just that he wouldn't wash his hands of the Iraq War. Lots of Democrats won't. It's more than that. He's seemed almost militantly indifferent to the disaster Iraq has become. And his passion about the war seemed reserved exclusively for those who questioned it rather than those who had so clearly botched the enterprise. His continual embrace of President Bush — both literal and figurative — was an insult to Democrats, the great majority of whom believe Bush has governed as one of the most destructive Presidents in modern American history. It's almost as though Lieberman has gone out of his way to provoke and offend Democrats on every point possible, often, seemingly, purely for the reason of provoking. Is it any wonder the guy got whacked in a party primary?

If this were just a matter of Joe Lieberman's hubris and obliviousness, the story of his demise might have a human significance but not a larger political one. But the Lieberman train wreck is also part of the unfolding story of the 2006 election cycle and the dangerous gulf widening between Washington and the country at large.

Lieberman got in trouble because he let himself live in the bubble of D.C. conventional wisdom and A-list punditry. He flattered them; and they loved him back. And as part of that club he was part of the delusion and denial that has sustained our enterprise in Iraq for the last three years. In the weeks leading up to Tuesday's primary, A-list D.C. pundits were writing columns portraying Lieberman's possible defeat as some sort of cataclysmic event that might foreshadow a dark new phase in American politics — as though voters choosing new representation were on a par with abolishing the Constitution or condoning political violence. But those breathless plaints only showed how disconnected they are from what's happening in the country at large. They mirrored his disconnection from the politics of the moment.

The polls tell us the President's approval rating seldom gets out of the 30s. Congress is unpopular. Incumbents are unpopular. Voters prefer Democrats over Republicans by a margin of about 15%. When a once-popular three-term Senator gets bounced in a primary battle with a political unknown, it's a very big deal. Those numbers all add up to a political upheaval this November. The folks in D.C. see the numbers. But they haven't gotten their heads around what they mean. Joe was out of touch. And Washington, D.C., is too.

They didn't see the Joe train wreck coming and they're not ready for what's coming next either.

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 12:28 PM

RaiderH8r

08-09-2006, 12:31 PM

I'm curious, RaiderH8r... can you explain this to me? If Lieberman was such an asset to Congressional Democrats, why are this forum's right-wingers so distraught over his defeat yesterday? Dman in particular seems to be taking it as personally as if Lieberman was a close relative...
I'm going to try to answer a couple of these retorts in one post, but since I'm replying to you, you get to go first. :approve:

Blue, you'd have to ask them. Personally? I like the guy. I've met him a couple of times since 2000 (hadn't met him prior to that) and he and I genuinely disagree but he maintains a respectful tone and is thought of highly by most Members. I recognize that he and I disagree but he's a guy who is nice to have an honest discussion with. His positions are thought out and lucid, he isn't given (at least with me) to hateful rhetoric. He just sees things differently than I do. But if I were a Member and a R who needed an honest position and insight into the D position on an issue he's one I would call in a heartbeat to possibly enlighten me. Believe it or not it does happen on the Hill from time to time.

Ro: "Bridging the Gap" just doesn't happen in the House, doesn't work that way and wasn't really meant to. That's why there's so much acrimony over there. The House is like Parliament without the two drink minimum, pretty much mob rule. It's a good time, just hammer through legislation and head home. The Senate, on the other hand, is more deliberative and lends itself much more towards bipartisanship than the House. Members are there for six years and not constantly consumed with their next re-election. Good for the founders, they nailed the two chamber form. The House is supposed to be very responsive to the people and therefore gets the two year term, and generally is much quicker to take up the more contentious issues of the day.

Dave: This board is case in point, Lamont does not represent the middle ground in the Iraq issue. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in his talking points and positions winning a lot of races across the country. He hasn't even gotten through a general election yet, which looks as if it could be quite interesting. Lamont's political inexperience and lack of public service is an asset in this case. He is afforded the luxury of being a one-trick pony during the campaign, unfortunately for Lieberman, that trick was his achilles heel. But primaries are more about the wingers than the creamy middle. I give a "let's see". As for getting dirty, well....I'll just say that I've read, on this board, more times than I can count people complaining about their bitterness towards dirty politics, yet continually reward those who engage in them. Good, bad, it just is. Been that way for thousands of years, again, I'm always amused.

Blue (again): Forgive me if I don't subscribe to the rantings of a grad student's blog. But, to his categorizations I'll simply say this: It's easier to pigeon hole people than to deal with the reality that diversity exists within every class. Lieberman has been in opposition to Rs....90% of the time as a matter of fact. Apparently the lock step is the dance of choice for the Dem. party.

Rohirrim

08-09-2006, 12:46 PM

RaiderH8r

08-09-2006, 12:54 PM

Yet another question for anyone who believes Lieberman was such an asset to Congressional Democrats... why is Karl Rove now offering to help out with Lieberman's campaign as an Independent... unless he was even more of an asset to Congressional Republicans?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2006/08/george_stephano.html
Consider it from Rove's POV:
1. Nothing to lose, worst case scenario, Lamont is elected Jr. Sen. from CT. You deal with it, but you don't lose much in trying.
2. Outreach to Lieberman. You help, Lieberman wins, as an independent, he owes you one. Lieberman's there on the war, and you can work through the rest. Worst case scenario, Lieberman wins and you're in the same boat you were before.
3. Lieberman's the closest thing to an R you can get to win in CT right now. Before you go balistic, read on. The R in this race is a weak candidate with no name id or structure. 90% against you is better than 100% against you. And there's an old saying about the devil you know and such.

bendog

08-09-2006, 12:55 PM

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 01:01 PM

Blue, you'd have to ask them. Personally? I like the guy. I've met him a couple of times since 2000 (hadn't met him prior to that) and he and I genuinely disagree but he maintains a respectful tone and is thought of highly by most Members. I recognize that he and I disagree but he's a guy who is nice to have an honest discussion with. His positions are thought out and lucid, he isn't given (at least with me) to hateful rhetoric. He just sees things differently than I do. But if I were a Member and a R who needed an honest position and insight into the D position on an issue he's one I would call in a heartbeat to possibly enlighten me. Believe it or not it does happen on the Hill from time to time.

Blue (again): Forgive me if I don't subscribe to the rantings of a grad student's blog. But, to his categorizations I'll simply say this: It's easier to pigeon hole people than to deal with the reality that diversity exists within every class. Lieberman has been in opposition to Rs....90% of the time as a matter of fact. Apparently the lock step is the dance of choice for the Dem. party.

Then do you think his refusal to accept the will of the voters will affect that "respect" he supposedly enjoys in the Senate? With yesterday's primary loss, most of the Dems who had previously supported Lieberman have now endorsed Lamont.

Whether one likes the "messenger" or not, it's difficult to deny that many rightwingers across the internets are appearing quite dismayed over Lieberman's loss. Which suggests to me that even if one accepts the "voting with Dems 90% of the time" claim, the 10% when he goes with the neocons would have to be on issues that matter to his constituents. And trust me on this, the Tom DeLay Republicans invented the "lockstep"... one could find dozens of examples of Dems voting against their party's leadership for every instance of a Republican doing so.

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 01:07 PM

Consider it from Rove's POV:
1. Nothing to lose, worst case scenario, Lamont is elected Jr. Sen. from CT. You deal with it, but you don't lose much in trying.
2. Outreach to Lieberman. You help, Lieberman wins, as an independent, he owes you one. Lieberman's there on the war, and you can work through the rest. Worst case scenario, Lieberman wins and you're in the same boat you were before.
3. Lieberman's the closest thing to an R you can get to win in CT right now. Before you go balistic, read on. The R in this race is a weak candidate with no name id or structure. 90% against you is better than 100% against you. And there's an old saying about the devil you know and such.

Fact is, the GOP would prefer having Lieberman retain that seat rather than Lamont taking it. If Lieberman was doing such a good job for the Dems, would that be the case? I don't buy it. From Rove (and the GOP's) point of view, they'd obviously prefer a DINO over a guy that might just vote against them some of the time. And yes, I'm very much aware that Lieberman is so close to an "R" that sometimes one cannot distinguish the difference.

RaiderH8r

08-09-2006, 01:27 PM

Then do you think his refusal to accept the will of the voters will affect that "respect" he supposedly enjoys in the Senate? With yesterday's primary loss, most of the Dems who had previously supported Lieberman have now endorsed Lamont.

Whether one likes the "messenger" or not, it's difficult to deny that many rightwingers across the internets are appearing quite dismayed over Lieberman's loss. Which suggests to me that even if one accepts the "voting with Dems 90% of the time" claim, the 10% when he goes with the neocons would have to be on issues that matter to his constituents. And trust me on this, the Tom DeLay Republicans invented the "lockstep"... one could find dozens of examples of Dems voting against their party's leadership for every instance of a Republican doing so.
He's free to avail himself of whatever means afforded him to seek the office. That's his perogative. And he's refusing to accept the will of democratic voters in his state, there's still the rest of the voting population within CT that has a voice to be heard. Would you deny them a viable alternative choice?

The Dems that switched their support are still part of the Dem party and supporting their candidate. That's what they're supposed to do, they're listening to their registered base in CT. Lieberman is now, apparently, choosing to run as an independent which means his former party (for all intents and purposes of his race) owe him no allegiance. However, there are still Dems supporting him, such as Colorado's own Ken Salazar, Tom Carper, and Daniel Inouye.

You bring up that word lockstep again and the irony again spills over. 90%, hard to argue that. Say what you will, there's no getting around that fact. Lieberman's being hoisted by the 10% patard. We've established your belief in the Republican Lockstep, but now you're seeing that Dems are in the same boat, just on the other side. I love it when things just work out nicely.

On another note, I guess Lieberman running as an Independent means he's kissed his ass goodbye. HA HA HA! Politics is great.

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 01:48 PM

He's free to avail himself of whatever means afforded him to seek the office. That's his perogative. And he's refusing to accept the will of democratic voters in his state, there's still the rest of the voting population within CT that has a voice to be heard. Would you deny them a viable alternative choice?

The Dems that switched their support are still part of the Dem party and supporting their candidate. That's what they're supposed to do, they're listening to their registered base in CT. Lieberman is now, apparently, choosing to run as an independent which means his former party (for all intents and purposes of his race) owe him no allegiance. However, there are still Dems supporting him, such as Colorado's own Ken Salazar, Tom Carper, and Daniel Inouye.

You bring up that word lockstep again and the irony again spills over. 90%, hard to argue that. Say what you will, there's no getting around that fact. Lieberman's being hoisted by the 10% patard. We've established your belief in the Republican Lockstep, but now you're seeing that Dems are in the same boat, just on the other side. I love it when things just work out nicely.

On another note, I guess Lieberman running as an Independent means he's kissed his ass goodbye. HA HA HA! Politics is great.

Sure, Lieberman's free to avail himself of any support he can find. However, his actions since losing in the primary have merely served to confirm what a lot of Democrats already knew. Joe's not a Democrat (I'm not sure he ever really was one); he's a neocon.

I agree with the article Roh posted... that Lieberman was hopelessly out of touch with his constituency and played politics rather than truly representing them. And he paid the price for that.

As to lockstep, Dems "cross over" and vote with Republicans far more often than the reverse. Perhaps you keep bringing it up because your party's expert in that field... I dunno.

Lieberman... perhaps he has a chance of actually winning as an Independent. Time will tell. He does have name recognition and Republican support (and $$)

TailgateNut

08-09-2006, 02:14 PM

You are nothing less than a goddamn, liberal , peace loving, america hating robot , just one of many fools and idiots in the democratic party...dma

You must have been hanging out with the other semen too long! Take a chill pill! That's uncalled for!!!

BTW: I fit the same description, except I love my country, that's why I hate BUSH!

errand

08-09-2006, 04:13 PM

errand

08-09-2006, 04:17 PM

As to lockstep, Dems "cross over" and vote with Republicans far more often than the reverse. Perhaps you keep bringing it up because your party's expert in that field... I dunno.

Kind of off topic, but tell me Blueflame...

what do you think about the Dems voting down the minimum wage increase in order to spite 12,000 rich people?

errand

08-09-2006, 04:19 PM

All I know is that somewhere, Michael Moore and George Soros are giggling, slapping each other on the back saying "You're next, Hilary."

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 05:11 PM

If Joe Libermann hadn't stood by his vote to go to war, he'd have run unopposed.

He didn't so now he has learned what I've already known...the far left has hijacked the Democratic party.

Hilarious!

According to the latest polls, 60% of Americans oppose Disaster Boy's war in Iraq...and you're still trying to peddle the ridiculous lie that only Americans on the "far left" oppose the war?

Too funny! :laugh:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 05:18 PM

Hatred and intolerance? Sounds like projection to me... coming, as it is, from a proponent of a party that defines any dissension from their agenda as "hating America"....

Bingo.

For BushCo shills like RaiderH8r, "vitriol, hatred, and intolerance" are defined as "opposition to the GOP or to Bush's policies."

Talk about the same old tedious circular reasoning.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 06:06 PM

Lamont's Victory -- A Media Defeat

by Jeff Cohen

Besides defeating Sen. Joe Lieberman, challenger Ned Lamont has also registered a triumph over much of the Washington press corps that had rallied so ridiculously to Lieberman’s defense.

A victory over the old-guard incumbents of the D.C. media elite is one that all progressives should savor.

Lieberman is not just the favorite Democrat of the White House and corporate interests; he’s also a favorite of conservative pundits and Fox News and Sean Hannity, who proposed “Conservatives for Lieberman” and has volunteered to campaign and fundraise for Joe in Connecticut.

Election coverage saw conservative columnists feverishly denouncing a “liberal inquisition” against Lieberman; they attacked “Ned’s nutcases” and “crazies.” Given the invective aimed at Lamont’s grassroots and Netroots supporters, it was fun to see Fox News pundit Mort Kondracke whining that Lieberman’s defeat could mean the end of “civility in American politics” and a victory for “hatred politics” and “savage Internet-based attacks.” Persecuted Lieberman was “The Last Honest Man,” according to the headline of a Washington Post column.

Mainstream media reports during the campaign talked routinely about a party “purge” of Lieberman -- confusing a free and open democratic contest with a backroom expulsion

Many reports evoked fears of progressive bloggers raising out-of-state money for Lamont -- a wealthy cable TV entrepreneur who matched the donations out of his own pocket. Only a few articles mentioned that Lieberman is a top recipient of out-of-state cash in the form of corporate PAC donations; Matt Taibbi’s brilliant Rolling Stone piece was one of the few that chronicled the favors Lieberman has bestowed on corporate America.

The prospect of a Lamont victory had some Beltway pundits in a frenzy. On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Cokie Roberts waxed on about how a Lamont victory would be a “disaster” for Democrats, especially with “liberal blogs and all that taking over the party.” And all that?

In the Washington Post, David Broder – the “dean” of political journalists -- denigrated Lamont’s “elitist insurgents” and argued that a Lieberman primary defeat could push Democrats “toward a stronger antiwar stand” and troubles in general elections. Broder didn’t mention the latest polling that shows 63% of Americans saying the war isn’t worth the cost, with only 30% saying it is. Similarly, Jonathan Alter wrote in Newsweek that bloggers had “noisily intervened” in Connecticut’s primary because they “brook no dissent” on Iraq; he warned of “a cannabilistic distraction” among Democrats.

Given that the mainstream media spectrum often extends from the far-right to the corporate center, Lieberman also has many friends in what passes for the “left” end of elite media. Media “liberals” didn’t whole-heartedly endorse Lieberman, but most attacked antiwar Democrats and stressed what a great guy Joe is. In Time magazine, Joe Klein called Lieberman “one of the finest men I’ve known in public life” and hailed him for “facing down extremists of both parties.” Liberal Al Hunt effused that Lieberman is a “thoroughly decent, intelligent, compassionate public figure” possessed of “independent integrity.” Despite promoting the extreme agenda of America’s top-tier corporate interests, Lieberman was constantly called a “moderate.”

Why is “Beltway Pundits for Lamont” such a tiny club? It’s because principled progressives are typically locked out of mainstream punditry, especially on television, in favor of tepid liberals whose motto could be “I’m not a leftist, but I play one on TV.” As I detail in my insider’s book, “Cable News Confidential” Fox News didn’t invent Hannity-Colmes syndrome. The standard format of pairing ferocious rightwingers with backpedaling liberals was invented way before Fox. . .by CNN and PBS. For years, CNN used Joe Klein and Al Hunt as stand-ins for the “left” against hardcore rightists.

Believe it or not, even the insufferable Kondracke appeared on CNN’s Crossfire as the co-host “from the left” years ago. (And, no, he was no more progressive then.)

The defeat of Lieberman is not just a victory for grassroots politics and independent media, but a rejection of mainstream punditry. It’s a far cry from the Iowa presidential caucuses of 2004, when a media and Beltway drumbeat of “weak on defense” and “hot under the collar” helped defeat Howard Dean’s insurgent campaign.

No one seems more clueless about the events in Connecticut than Joe Lieberman himself. He’d infuriated Democrats last year with his Karl Rove-ian statement to Bush critics that “in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.” On the eve of the election, he told a sympathetic Fox News correspondent that his defeat would send a dangerous message that there’s “no room” in the Democratic Party for “strong-on-security Democrats.”

In echoes of Rove, Lieberman is saying that Democrats who voted for Lamont somehow don’t care about their own security. Lieberman has apparently convinced himself that by cheering on reckless ideologues in the White House to launch and continue a destabilizing war in Iraq, he has made America more secure.

Connecticut voters have sent a message that elite media seem unwilling to hear: It’s that many Americans believe the Bush (and Lieberman) approach to “national security” makes our country less secure, more despised and more vulnerable.

Jeff Cohen is a recovering TV pundit (CNN, Fox News and MSNBC). His new book is “Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media. He founded the media watch group FAIR.

Blueflame

08-09-2006, 08:13 PM

Funny....no, hilarious.

All these libs in here talking about how Joe Liebermann should accept "the will of the people"...and yet what all have we heard from their side after the last two presidential elections?

The issue in the last two presidential elections isn't the will of the people, Errand... it's distrust of the "results" tabulated by easily-hackable electronic voting machines... "results" that were significantly different from the exit polls. In the CT primary, no Diebold electronic voting machines were used. And guess what? The exit polls matched the official results.

Kind of off topic, but tell me Blueflame...

what do you think about the Dems voting down the minimum wage increase in order to spite 12,000 rich people?

I think it was very sneaky for Republicans to tie a long-overdue minimum wage increase to yet another tax break for the ultra-wealthy who have already received break after break after break from the neocons.

Real people working hard for minimum wage are hurting as they try to pay skyrocketing prices for gasoline so that they can make it to work to try to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. Tying needed relief for those Americans to provisions that would have shifted the tax burden even farther away from the ultra-wealthy so they pay even less of their fair share is, imho, reprehensible.

W*GS

08-09-2006, 09:33 PM

For BushCo shills like RaiderH8r, "vitriol, hatred, and intolerance" are defined as "opposition to the GOP or to Bush's policies."

A better definition would be "What gets heaped on anyone who dares to offer views that differ from LABF's".

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-09-2006, 10:27 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/eagle-elitist.jpg

SteveTensi13

08-09-2006, 10:47 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/eagle-elitist.jpg

Why on Gods green earth is the American bald eagle wearing that sissy french beret?

ClevelandBronco

08-09-2006, 11:17 PM

I've still not forgotten that Lieberman was the pt man for accounting firms in opposing the SEC tightening that was proposed in WJC's admin, and he got a bunch of stock for his efforts. The gop torpeoded it, but Leiberman helped. And my MIL had xerox, att and worldcon. I'm glad he's gone. I wish he was VP though.

Please. You "remember" no such thing. How 'bout we just give you credit for reading about the charge recently and having the presence to type it in here now.

ClevelandBronco

08-09-2006, 11:20 PM

it's difficult to deny that many rightwingers across the internets are appearing quite dismayed over Lieberman's loss.

Dismay? No. It's exactly what we've come to expect from your party.

ClevelandBronco

08-09-2006, 11:23 PM

As to lockstep, Dems "cross over" and vote with Republicans far more often than the reverse.

And we welcome those votes.

You might want to pause and reflect on why our policies sometimes make more sense to your voters than your policies make to ours.

SteveTensi13

08-09-2006, 11:26 PM

And we welcome those votes.

You might want to pause and reflect on why our policies sometimes make more sense to your voters than your policies make to ours.

LOL LOL Hilarious! :~ohyah!: :yayaya:

Blueflame

08-10-2006, 12:04 AM

Dismay? No. It's exactly what we've come to expect from your party.

Republicans most certainly did not expect Lamont to defeat Lieberman. And they also clearly would prefer for Lieberman to retain that seat even if that means sacrificing their own candidate.

Blueflame

08-10-2006, 12:15 AM

And we welcome those votes.

You might want to pause and reflect on why our policies sometimes make more sense to your voters than your policies make to ours.

I don't accept your assertion as fact... what seems more likely to me is that Republican leaders (the Hammer, anyone) have imposed punitive financial sanctions (withheld PAC campaign $$) on any of their party who vote against the Republican majority. In other words, I believe Congressional Republicans put party above all else, including country.

defenseman

08-10-2006, 05:10 AM

Precisely what is the difference between McKinney's constituents choosing to go another direction and Lieberman's constituents doing the same? Why is it "AWESOMEEEEE" that McKinney lost in the primary, but "dragging the party down" when Lieberman loses? Either way, the will of the voters is plain and should be respected.

Btw... going by the standards expressed in this thread title, the voters who "fired" Rep. McKinney must be "sexist" and "racist", right?

Even the dems said unloading McKinney is a good thing. I was thinking about the voters in Ga. She is a malcontent and a racists herself. She got what she deserves, unemployed and on the street....and, she IS a racist judging by the spews of her own "posse" on the TV last night......dman

defenseman

08-10-2006, 05:25 AM

We're seeing your true colors on this thread, dman. You pretend to be a cautious, let's-wait-till-all-the-facts-are-in pragmatist, but you are no different than the other mindless conservatives who tell us we hate America because who don't agree with the decesions the current administration is making on our behalf. Dissent is the very essence of a democracy. Too bad the mindless flag wavers on the right are so miserable at making distinctions.

I could care less what you think. By nature, I am cautious, and yes I do put alot of thought into a vote and it's importance. Mindless conservatives? Far from it. A fed up former republican. Absolutely. Cannot stomach some of the crap the far left is dishing out, then again, the dems are letting them get away with it, so to the dems I say, you made your own bed. Dissent? I have no problem with "well researched and supported" dissent. Not blatant lies , unfounded, promoted by the press, and designed to confuse and dismay, not dispel any "believed but untrue" fact. I could care less if you dissent the rest of your life away, just, do it the right way. And don't ABUSE THE S*&T OUT OF YOUR RIGHT TO DISSENT, Which most of the far left liberal left organizations in this country do. THEY ABUSE THE RIGHT, and SLAP us all square in the chops with their blatant disregard for what is the "right way to do business".And then tell us it's my right to dissent in a certian manner, when in fact, they are abusing their right to do it. And we have to swallow it. Screw them. Tired of every single one of them. If you don't like that, well, too bad, I can go off if I desire. Now that my relief valve has lifted, I'm back to battery, still tired of the crap..dma

defenseman

08-10-2006, 05:30 AM

Bronco_Beerslug

08-10-2006, 05:32 AM

I could care less what you think. By nature, I am cautious, and yes I do put alot of thought into a vote and it's importance. Mindless conservatives? Far from it. A fed up former republican. Absolutely. Hilarious!

You are ANYTHING but a FORMER republican and Bush supporter.

SteveTensi13

08-10-2006, 07:05 AM

Republicans most certainly did not expect Lamont to defeat Lieberman. And they also clearly would prefer for Lieberman to retain that seat even if that means sacrificing their own candidate.

Name me one Republican leader who was "surprised" at Liebermans defeat. From what I've seen Liebermans defeat was all but expected weeks leading up to the primaries.

Lamonts victory is the greatest thing to happen for the GOP. Americans finally see the DNC being hi-jacked by the cowardly left "SURRENDER AT ALL COSTS" liberals.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-10-2006, 07:36 AM

SteveTensi13

08-10-2006, 08:12 AM

It's a big blow for republicans who now understand that they have to distance themselves from Bush and his neocon agenda (Iraq invasion). They are in a no win situation come election time if they show support for the Bush administration.

Lamonts acceptance speech, "There's no room for 'staying the course' in America" In other words, cut-n-run! Bin Laden must be jumping for joy at the prospects of a dem in the WH. I shudder at the thought of Nancy Pulosi being third in command.

If by some unimaginable scenario that a Dem gets into the WH, I predict America being attacked within 1 month.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-10-2006, 08:18 AM

Lamonts acceptance speech, "There's no room for 'staying the course' in America" In other words, cut-n-run! Bin Laden must be jumping for joy at the prospects of a dem in the WH. I shudder at the thought of Nancy Pulosi being third in command.

If by some unimaginable scenario that a Dem gets into the WH, I predict America being attacked within 1 month.

Anyone believing staying the course in Iraq benefits America is probably part of the 12% who think Iraq attacked us and 33% who think the U.S. was part of the 9-11 attack.

If by some unimaginable scenario that a Dem gets into the WH, I predict America being attacked within 1 month Kinda like after Bush was appointed the first time?

defenseman

08-10-2006, 08:21 AM

Hilarious!

You are ANYTHING but a FORMER republican and Bush supporter.

Off base as usual slug. You believe what you will, I could give two s%&ts what you think, let alone spew...dman

bendog

08-10-2006, 08:25 AM

Anyone believing staying the course in Iraq benefits America is probably part of the 12% who think Iraq attacked us and 33% who think the U.S. was part of the 9-11 attack.

Kinda like after Bush was appointed the first time?

Yeah, it's just "scare propaganda," tying Iraq to terrorism ... except the sunnis if left to their own would likely tie to syria. Nazrallah and bin laden hate each other, so I'd not post of a hezbollah - al queda connection, because the orginiztions have different aims as well as antipathy. However, there's a sort of thin connect to the sunni insurgency and al queda in that they tolerate each other.

I think we have to continue trying to stabilize Iraq.

Rigs11

08-10-2006, 08:36 AM

Good riddance to lieberman. the guy often questioned fellow democrats more so than Bush. His pro GOP stance will not be missed.

RaiderH8r

08-10-2006, 08:46 AM

Good riddance to lieberman. the guy often questioned fellow democrats more so than Bush. His pro GOP stance will not be missed.
"Pro-GOP stance" huh? Like the 90% of the time he voted with Democrats? You libs simply must continue with this Lieberman=neocon stuff, it's gold. Absolute gold....gooey good irony.

"Republicans are monolithic, mindless, drones who march in lockstep."
"What? Lieberman's only at 90%? Outta here with that neocon."

Good riddance you say? "the guy often questioned fellow democrats more so than Bush." you say?

What happened to right to dissent? Oh, you meant YOUR right to dissent and Lieberman's right to get bent. Seriously....you guys....killing me over here.

You guys are rich. Tasty good rich.Ha!

Bronco_Beerslug

08-10-2006, 08:49 AM

Off base as usual slug. You believe what you will, I could give two s%&ts what you think, let alone spew...dman
I'm exactly on tangent. You are worse than Errant and Tensi with your stereotyping everything that you disagree with as "lib" this or "liberals" that. Pretty pathethic really.

Your radical republican extremist posts have rendered your posts to Errant and Tensi status (bigoted and bias slurs).

Blueflame

08-10-2006, 10:13 AM

Even the dems said unloading McKinney is a good thing. I was thinking about the voters in Ga. She is a malcontent and a racists herself. She got what she deserves, unemployed and on the street....and, she IS a racist judging by the spews of her own "posse" on the TV last night......dman

Most Dems think unloading Lieberman is a good thing, too, Dman. The only ones crying about it are Joe himself and the GOP.

Mile High Shack

08-10-2006, 10:15 AM

Most Dems think unloading Lieberman is a good thing, too, Dman. The only ones crying about it are Joe himself and the GOP.

define most

he only won by 3 % points

I suppose you could say most in the way I could most people voted for GW2 in 2004

Blueflame

08-10-2006, 10:22 AM

I don't accept your assertion as fact... what seems more likely to me is that Republican leaders (the Hammer, anyone) have imposed punitive financial sanctions (withheld PAC campaign $$) on any of their party who vote against the Republican majority. In other words, I believe Congressional Republicans put party above all else, including country.

Funny, alot of people believe the dems have no soul, and put their collective elections above anything the average american has to say, especially his or her opinion. Doesn't matter what we think, that senator or congress person will vote the way they want, NOT their constituents. Oh, I know, just run another poll and lets see if the american people trust the repubs or dems more. The party of the 'polls'..That's the answer, jeez!!!...dman

"Alot of people"... sounds like Fox media types to me. ::) Yeah, they're doing their level best to sell you guys on that idea.

Most of the neocon "base" have no idea of the level of anger out there directed at the Bush administration. Lieberman's loss is just the tip of the iceberg. When 60% of the population thinks a course of action is wrong, staying the course might just be a bad idea.

Oh... and if you think this president doesn't watch the polls closely, I laugh in your face. I know he says polls don't matter to him... but I'm wondering just how many lies some people will believe before they begin to get a clue that when that man's lips are moving he is lying.

Rohirrim

08-10-2006, 10:25 AM

define most

he only won by 3 % points

I suppose you could say most in the way I could most people voted for GW2 in 2004

Wait for the next Conn. poll. Joe will be lucky to make it to 20%.

Rohirrim

08-10-2006, 10:27 AM

What happened to right to dissent? Oh, you meant YOUR right to dissent and Lieberman's right to get bent. Seriously....you guys....killing me over here.

Dissent? Oh, you mean like when those within the Bush administration disagree with him? Or advocate a different view of a policy? What? That's funny. Suddenly, all I hear is silence. :rofl:

Tredici

08-10-2006, 10:32 AM

This is one of the most outright stupid thread titles I've ever seen.

Carry on.

Blueflame

08-10-2006, 10:32 AM

define most

he only won by 3 % points

I suppose you could say most in the way I could most people voted for GW2 in 2004

Most... greater than 50%. Yeah, the election was close. One could reasonably expect that with a sitting incumbent whose campaign expenditures doubled the newcomer's. If you can't see that a loss in those circumstances indicates a high level of dissatisfaction with Lieberman, then it looks to me like you're just not looking. Most "lefty" blogs are also delighted with the primary's outcome. And there are only a few Congressional Dems who haven't yet thrown their support behind Lamont... the few exceptions being fellow DINO's like Salazar.

We'll never really know for certain who the majority of people voted for in 2004 because Diebold's known flaws make that impossible.

Blueflame

08-10-2006, 10:39 AM

Name me one Republican leader who was "surprised" at Liebermans defeat. From what I've seen Liebermans defeat was all but expected weeks leading up to the primaries.

Lamonts victory is the greatest thing to happen for the GOP. Americans finally see the DNC being hi-jacked by the cowardly left "SURRENDER AT ALL COSTS" liberals.

Oh come off it...a sitting incumbent has to p*ss off a lot of people to lose in the primary to a virtual unknown. And yes, the polls leading up to the election were an indication. Too bad for Lieberman that CT didn't use Diebold e-voting machines or I'm pretty sure he'd have squeaked out a "surprising" win (51% to 49%) in the last two hours the polls were open.

If Lamont's victory is really the greatest thing to happen for the GOP, why is the rightwing crying so hard about the election results?

fdf

08-10-2006, 11:01 AM

They just kicked a jew out of their party. a-holes.

I don't have much use for dems. But I don't think this proves the party as a whole is anti-semitic. It proves that slightly over half of the dems (in a very low turnout primary) in Connecticutt, a small, northeastern, very blue state, are Michael Moore democrats. Of those, I believe a portion are genuinely anti-semitic, what I would call Noam Chomsky/Maxine Waters/Cynthia McKinney democrats.

But it represents only a portion of a portion.

That said, I think it was a mistake rejecting one of the few remaining principled dem office holders (OK, he's a politician and he slipped and slid on some issues when he ran for VP, but all in all, he's pretty principled for a politician). It looks like a repeat of the dem's George McGovern problem from 1972.

The impact will be immediate. HRC already started to lurch back to the left today in the Rumsfield hearings.

BroncoInferno

08-10-2006, 11:10 AM

I don't have much use for dems. But I don't think this proves the party as a whole is anti-semitic.

Going out on a limb there Ha!

RaiderH8r

08-10-2006, 11:54 AM

Dissent? Oh, you mean like when those within the Bush administration disagree with him? Or advocate a different view of a policy? What? That's funny. Suddenly, all I hear is silence. :rofl:
Posting 101: Above is a clear example of what posters like to call "deflection". It most commonly occurs when no sensible rebuttal is available so the poster concedes the point and moves on to the usual, "Yeah? Well...you guys are worse." blather.

When you choose to get back on topic you'll cease to enjoy the silence. In the meantime, enjoy your humble pie. ;D

Rohirrim

08-10-2006, 12:24 PM

Posting 101: Above is a clear example of what posters like to call "deflection". It most commonly occurs when no sensible rebuttal is available so the poster concedes the point and moves on to the usual, "Yeah? Well...you guys are worse." blather.

When you choose to get back on topic you'll cease to enjoy the silence. In the meantime, enjoy your humble pie. ;D

What point? You made a point? That would be a change. Do you mean that Leiberman lost because the Dems can't stand dissent? That's a point? That's more like a ludicrous, baseless argument; the kind of stuff that keeps O'Reilly on the air. Some things don't get responded to because they are ridiculous, and really, what's the point?

What it boils down to is that the bloggers, and the Left fringe, and the media, didn't toss Leiberman out. A majority of the Democratic voters in Conn. did. They think Bush is the worst president in history, and they got tired of watching Leiberman kiss his ass on the number one issue on their agenda: The War in Iraq. It ain't rocket science. That's how democracy works.

Keep 'em coming, though. Good for a chuckle. ;D

RaiderH8r

08-10-2006, 12:48 PM

What point? You made a point? That would be a change. Do you mean that Leiberman lost because the Dems can't stand dissent? That's a point? That's more like a ludicrous, baseless argument; the kind of stuff that keeps O'Reilly on the air. Some things don't get responded to because they are ridiculous, and really, what's the point?

What it boils down to is that the bloggers, and the Left fringe, and the media, didn't toss Leiberman out. A majority of the Democratic voters in Conn. did. They think Bush is the worst president in history, and they got tired of watching Leiberman kiss his ass on the number one issue on their agenda: The War in Iraq. It ain't rocket science. That's how democracy works.

Keep 'em coming, though. Good for a chuckle. ;D
The point is that the lockstep isn't a dance that only one party can do. I'm still basking in the glorious irony of it all. It's also nice to note that the Dems in CT have tossed out the rest of their issues based on the one. What happens to Lamont when it comes time to broker deals? It'll be real lonely in the Lamont Echo Chamber.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in Lamont's position on the war carrying across the country. The numbers you cite are not based on Lamont's position. So...easy there.

bendog

08-10-2006, 01:03 PM

I don't agree. Two months ago I thought the gop would hold both houses. But NOTHING is trending Bushii's way. The best news he's had is that Israel's invasion has stopped reporting the failure to clam bagdahd. And, the army's aditting that if it can't do that, civil war is inevitable.

Plus, wages are down and gas is up, and the schools will feel the pinch at election time. That's why I think the neocons are desperate to attack Iran

fdf

08-10-2006, 01:04 PM

Going out on a limb there Ha!

Didn't feel very precarious. :) The premise of this thread was stupid and nasty. It smears a lot of decent (but misguided) people with the, I believe, genuine sins of but a portion of a portion of their party. It makes no more sense than suggesting that Pat Robertson and David Duke are representative of Republicans.

The result Tuesday night had nothing whatsoever to do with Lieberman's religion and everything to do with the fact that the Michael Moore dems comprise a slight majority of dems in Conn who voted. Only a portion of the Michael Moore dems are, imho, genuinely anti-semitic.

Rohirrim

08-10-2006, 01:09 PM

The point is that the lockstep isn't a dance that only one party can do. I'm still basking in the glorious irony of it all. It's also nice to note that the Dems in CT have tossed out the rest of their issues based on the one. What happens to Lamont when it comes time to broker deals? It'll be real lonely in the Lamont Echo Chamber.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in Lamont's position on the war carrying across the country. The numbers you cite are not based on Lamont's position. So...easy there.

The Dems better wake up and realize they need to do the lock-step a hell of a lot better than they've done in the past. They still haven't realized, Newt Gingrich declared war on the Left. Rove has taken it to the extreme. The Right doesn't want to just win elections. They want to eradicate the opposition. For Good. All the Dems do by moving toward the middle is sacrificing themselves on the Right's altar. As Bush and the GOP in Congress have shown again and again for six straight years, they have no intention of compromising, no intention of taking prisoners, and really, no intention of even talking to anyone across the aisle. They will do anything, and cross any line, to take out their opponents. The Dems are pathetic. I almost feel sorry for them. They keep showing up at the knife fight with their copy of the Queensbury Rules and saying, no punching below the belt, and the GOP responds by kicking them in the balls. I figure they'll wake up some day and realize they are in an all out war.

If I was in charge of the Dems, I'd fire Howard Dean, Pelosi and Reid in a heartbeat, and pay Carville whatever he asks to come out of retirement and take over the party and start filling up the leadership with nothing but meat eaters.

bendog

08-10-2006, 01:12 PM

I think the vote to authorize force that daschle pushed through, and then the trashing of daschle on "he's a pussy on terror," followed by the trouncing of Kerry for his vote to authorize force has motivated them. Not the biggies, like Lieberman and Hillary, but some of the littler ones.

RaiderH8r

08-10-2006, 01:26 PM

The Dems better wake up and realize they need to do the lock-step a hell of a lot better than they've done in the past. They still haven't realized, Newt Gingrich declared war on the Left. Rove has taken it to the extreme. The Right doesn't want to just win elections. They want to eradicate the opposition. For Good. All the Dems do by moving toward the middle is sacrificing themselves on the Right's altar. As Bush and the GOP in Congress have shown again and again for six straight years, they have no intention of compromising, no intention of taking prisoners, and really, no intention of even talking to anyone across the aisle. They will do anything, and cross any line, to take out their opponents. The Dems are pathetic. I almost feel sorry for them. They keep showing up at the knife fight with their copy of the Queensbury Rules and saying, no punching below the belt, and the GOP responds by kicking them in the balls. I figure they'll wake up some day and realize they are in an all out war.

If I was in charge of the Dems, I'd fire Howard Dean, Pelosi and Reid in a heartbeat, and pay Carville whatever he asks to come out of retirement and take over the party and start filling up the leadership with nothing but meat eaters.
What would ever lead you to believe the Lamont Leg of the Dem party would ever show up at the fight in the first place? ROFL!

All seriousness aside, these are the same Dems you want in charge of prosecuting the war on terror? You all but called them cowards.

PS. :nutkick Ha!

bendog

08-10-2006, 01:28 PM

"Lamont leg?" Jeez. Guy's never been elected to anything.

I suppose you mean Murtha, and yeah, he'll fight.

Rohirrim

08-10-2006, 01:55 PM

What would ever lead you to believe the Lamont Leg of the Dem party would ever show up at the fight in the first place? ROFL!

All seriousness aside, these are the same Dems you want in charge of prosecuting the war on terror? You all but called them cowards.

PS. :nutkick Ha!

The Bush tactics in the so-called war on terror are about as effective and come to think of it, not much different than the tactics used in the war on drugs. With the war on terror it's a sophisticated game of Whack A Mole. With the war on drugs it's "Keep locking up the little fish until the prisons are busting open at the seams." Neither gets to the root causes. As Thomas Friedman has pointed out many, many times, there are millions of young, Muslim men in India. None of them are members of Al Queda. Why not?

As far as the Dems being cowards, no. That's not what I said. They're just too squeamish about getting down and dirty. They think they can keep taking the high road. It reminds me of an old "Taxi" episode where Alex gives a long speech about getting down into the gutter with his opponent, and how he's too good for that. Then, Louis De Palma says, "Well, I ain't" and gets some payback. The Dems need to dump the Alexes and hire some Louis De Palmas. Get Carville back in operation. He'll go toe to toe with Rove. :wiggle:

RaiderH8r

08-10-2006, 02:02 PM

"Lamont leg?" Jeez. Guy's never been elected to anything.

I suppose you mean Murtha, and yeah, he'll fight.
Lamont seems to be the standard bearer for the portion of the Dem party that supports his positions (i.e. Daily Kos).

RaiderH8r

08-10-2006, 02:07 PM

The Bush tactics in the so-called war on terror are about as effective and come to think of it, not much different than the tactics used in the war on drugs. With the war on terror it's a sophisticated game of Whack A Mole. With the war on drugs it's "Keep locking up the little fish until the prisons are busting open at the seams." Neither gets to the root causes. As Thomas Friedman has pointed out many, many times, there are millions of young, Muslim men in India. None of them are members of Al Queda. Why not?

As far as the Dems being cowards, no. That's not what I said. They're just too squeamish about getting down and dirty. They think they can keep taking the high road. It reminds me of an old "Taxi" episode where Alex gives a long speech about getting down into the gutter with his opponent, and how he's too good for that. Then, Louis De Palma says, "Well, I ain't" and gets some payback. The Dems need to dump the Alexes and hire some Louis De Palmas. Get Carville back in operation. He'll go toe to toe with Rove. :wiggle:
"Squeamish about getting down and dirty"? Is there any other way to persecute the turd burglers who hijack planes, hide in mosques w/rocket launchers, suit their children up in bomb vests, kiss them on the head, give them an address where people are brunching, or riding a bus, or taking a dump, and demonstrate how to pull the proverbial rip-cord? Honestly, there's the disconnect right there. A proactive approach to eliminating scum is usually borne of necessity. Just look at the fashion in which the Klan is prosecuted. Their fvcking wingiest of the wing nuts, mooniest of the moon bats and does anyone tolerate their sh!t? No. The FBI decided to start busting nuts and it worked. When you're dealing with sh!t bags your hands are either dirty or you're not doing a thing. I choose the former.

Blueflame

08-10-2006, 02:10 PM

RaiderH8r

08-10-2006, 02:12 PM

... and just which ones of the Republican leadership have acutally "showed up at the fight" (served in the military during wartime)? Precious few. Most of Bush's cabinet consists of chickenhawks who talk big but never served and won't send their kids to fight in Bush's war either.

PS. :nutkick right back at you...
So the alternative is "Operation: Running Donkey"?

Rohirrim

08-10-2006, 03:20 PM

"Squeamish about getting down and dirty"? Is there any other way to persecute the turd burglers who hijack planes, hide in mosques w/rocket launchers, suit their children up in bomb vests, kiss them on the head, give them an address where people are brunching, or riding a bus, or taking a dump, and demonstrate how to pull the proverbial rip-cord? Honestly, there's the disconnect right there. A proactive approach to eliminating scum is usually borne of necessity. Just look at the fashion in which the Klan is prosecuted. Their fvcking wingiest of the wing nuts, mooniest of the moon bats and does anyone tolerate their sh!t? No. The FBI decided to start busting nuts and it worked. When you're dealing with sh!t bags your hands are either dirty or you're not doing a thing. I choose the former.

You just mixed the meanings of two separate paragraphs. How can I talk with you? The first had to do with the war on terror, the second had to do with American politics. ROFL!

So, what's your answer to this: As Thomas Friedman has pointed out many, many times, there are millions of young, Muslim men in India. None of them are members of Al Queda. Why not?

Blueflame

08-10-2006, 03:48 PM

So the alternative is "Operation: Running Donkey"?

At least guys like Murtha know what it's like to have ever been in a firefight... as it is, we have "Operation Yellow Elephant".

orangenblue2

08-10-2006, 03:58 PM

Lamonts acceptance speech, "There's no room for 'staying the course' in America" In other words, cut-n-run!

jesus h....you know people would take you a hell of a lot more seriously if you didn't regurgitate pseudo-snarky slogans that you've heard on the radio or tv. I'm not kidding...you really should come up with your own schtick. There is a reason that Limbaugh is on the radio, his b.s. is professionally done and listened to by morons all over this great country. Your tired blather is more akin to watching Suzy Homemaker compete on Iron Chef. Sure she may have heard about salmon roe and wasabi paste but she sure as hell can't put them together to make a dish...

Bin Laden must be jumping for joy at the prospects of a dem in the WH. I shudder at the thought of Nancy Pulosi being third in command.

Yeah, he's been scared witless by the constant harassment that's been placed on him by Bush. No, I think not. If anything, he is incredulous that a certain percentage of the US voted for a guy who wouldn't be the smartest feller in a 4 person Beduoin tent if two goat herders were absent...You are a whackjob...

If by some unimaginable scenario that a Dem gets into the WH, I predict America being attacked within 1 month.

If you can "get up in the morning, tie your shoes, and take a pee...I'm not proud, I'm amazed"...:clown:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-10-2006, 06:53 PM

jesus h....you know people would take you a hell of a lot more seriously if you didn't regurgitate pseudo-snarky slogans that you've heard on the radio or tv. I'm not kidding...you really should come up with your own schtick. There is a reason that Limbaugh is on the radio, his b.s. is professionally done and listened to by morons all over this great country. Your tired blather is more akin to watching Suzy Homemaker compete on Iron Chef. Sure she may have heard about salmon roe and wasabi paste but she sure as hell can't put them together to make a dish...

Yeah, he's been scared witless by the constant harassment that's been placed on him by Bush. No, I think not. If anything, he is incredulous that a certain percentage of the US voted for a guy who wouldn't be the smartest feller in a 4 person Beduoin tent if two goat herders were absent...You are a whackjob...

If you can "get up in the morning, tie your shoes, and take a pee...I'm not proud, I'm amazed"...:clown:

:rofl: :thumbsup: ^5

SteveCoulter13 = Owned!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-10-2006, 07:06 PM

http://www.bartcop.com/mmail-by-2006.jpg

Lamonts victory is the greatest thing to happen for the GOP. Americans finally see the DNC being hi-jacked by the cowardly left "SURRENDER AT ALL COSTS" liberals.

Is that the view from the nutty parallel universe you inhabit?

Meanwhile, here on earth, 60% of Americans oppose Disaster Boy's war in Iraq.

But your statement is still good for a chuckle insofar as it's indicative of the desperation right-wing spin monkeys like you are feeling as you watch your house of cards collapse.

Bottom line:

The old, tired "anyone who opposes Bush's Iraq policy is soft on terror" card is the only card you have left to play.

And America isn't buying it anymore.

http://oldamericancentury.org/images3/warprofiteers.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-10-2006, 07:11 PM

Blueflame

08-10-2006, 07:51 PM

:laugh:

Yep.

The fact that the usual cast of far-right characters is so broken up over Kissy Face getting his pink slip is a pretty good indication that the voters in Connecticut made the right choice. :thumbsup: :blueflame

Exactly... one would have expected this type of hand-wringing if a Republican had lost his Senate seat to a Dem.... but perhaps in real terms, that's precisely what just did happen.

So... do you expect CT Repubs to dump Schlesinger and take on Lieberman as their (official) candidate, or just give him money for his campaign and hope that his name recognition can split the vote enough for Schlesinger to eke out a narrow win?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-10-2006, 09:03 PM

Exactly... one would have expected this type of hand-wringing if a Republican had lost his Senate seat to a Dem.... but perhaps in real terms, that's precisely what just did happen.

Yep.

So... do you expect CT Repubs to dump Schlesinger and take on Lieberman as their (official) candidate, or just give him money for his campaign and hope that his name recognition can split the vote enough for Schlesinger to eke out a narrow win?

I'm afraid the second possibility you suggest is the more likely scenario.

Joe Loserman's last great act of defiance will hand his old seat to a repig.

(You'd think the right-wingnuts on this board would've figured this out and would be jubilant.)

Blueflame

08-10-2006, 09:14 PM

Yep.

I'm afraid the second possibility you suggest is the more likely scenario.

Joe Loserman's last great act of defiance will hand his old seat to a repig.

(You'd think the right-wingnuts on this board would've figured this out and would be jubilant.)

It could happen that way... but then again, maybe once he sees that all his Congressional colleagues have embraced (or soon will) Lamont (and therefore, won't rush to support his independent campaign) he may realize that continuing to resist the will of the voters is likely to be ultimately futile. Then again, I don't think it's likely that, in the role of spoiler, he will take as many votes in the general as he did in the primary. Most Dems will probably opt for Lamont, if for no other reason, because of fear of losing the Senate seat to the Republicans.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-10-2006, 09:28 PM

It could happen that way... but then again, maybe once he sees that all his Congressional colleagues have embraced (or soon will) Lamont (and therefore, won't rush to support his independent campaign) he may realize that continuing to resist the will of the voters is likely to be ultimately futile.

I certainly hope this is how things will shape up, but, given our cowardly Dems and their gift for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I guess I'll believe it when I see it.

Then again, I don't think it's likely that, in the role of spoiler, he will take as many votes in the general as he did in the primary. Most Dems will probably opt for Lamont, if for no other reason, because of fear of losing the Senate seat to the Republicans.

This would be the common sense wisdom. I'm crossing my fingers. :thumbsup:

Blueflame

08-10-2006, 10:19 PM

I certainly hope this is how things will shape up, but, given our cowardly Dems and their gift for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I guess I'll believe it when I see it.

This would be the common sense wisdom. I'm crossing my fingers. :thumbsup:

Even among the Dems who supported Lieberman in the primary, the decision to continue the campaign as an independent cannot possibly be one that has been met with 100% approval. If he follows it up by accepting assistance from Republicans, he's going to alienate Democratic voters even more by appearing to validate the label of DINO. The "Sore Loserman" label that was applied six years ago will probably stick like glue yet again... in short, I think the media will be all over the story for a while, but unless he gets a major cash infusion from somewhere, I think interest will wane pretty quickly as other election news claims the spotlight.

Spider

08-10-2006, 10:34 PM

Anti semitic my ass I drive a semi

SteveTensi13

08-11-2006, 12:10 AM

Even among the Dems who supported Lieberman in the primary, the decision to continue the campaign as an independent cannot possibly be one that has been met with 100% approval. If he follows it up by accepting assistance from Republicans, he's going to alienate Democratic voters even more by appearing to validate the label of DINO. The "Sore Loserman" label that was applied six years ago will probably stick like glue yet again... in short, I think the media will be all over the story for a while, but unless he gets a major cash infusion from somewhere, I think interest will wane pretty quickly as other election news claims the spotlight.

Lieberman is going to "Nader" the heck out of Conneticut politics!

SteveTensi13

08-11-2006, 12:11 AM

Anti semitic my ass I drive a semi

A "semi" what?

baja

08-11-2006, 12:47 AM

A "semi" what?

You missed his joke.... again!

Blueflame

08-11-2006, 01:14 AM

Lieberman is going to "Nader" the heck out of Conneticut politics!

Maybe. It will be interesting to see the numbers he'll poll now that the primary's over and he's still hanging around like yesterday's leftovers getting less appetizing by the minute.

RaiderH8r

08-11-2006, 06:59 AM

You just mixed the meanings of two separate paragraphs. How can I talk with you? The first had to do with the war on terror, the second had to do with American politics. ROFL!

So, what's your answer to this: As Thomas Friedman has pointed out many, many times, there are millions of young, Muslim men in India. None of them are members of Al Queda. Why not?
The two paragraphs go hand in hand. If one is too squeamish about getting their hands dirty and tarnishing all that is "feel good" because they've had to deal with a few realities in the political arena, what possible asset could they be in dealing with terrorism?

Second paragraph: I reject your premise. I've never made the claim that Muslim=terrorist. It just so happens that most terrorists happen to be Muslim. Much like a Klan member can HAPPEN to be a christian. Or, more to the point, believe themselves to be despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Now, because I'm a fun guy and thoroughly enjoying myself, I'll give it a punt on Friedman's point. How about this? THEY'RE NOT FVCKING NUTS. Or, possibly, India's economic situation is quickly improving. Perhaps, as I've said for some time, the answer to world conflict is simply a 32" tv and a window AC unit. Perhaps.

Honestly, I think it's a combination of both, but not being a fvcking madman is probably the driver. I'll one up Friedman, there's 25 million people in Iraq with an overwhelming majority being Muslim, why aren't all of them terrorists? Again, I have to go with...THEY'RE NOT FVCKING NUTS.

Spider

08-11-2006, 07:02 AM

You missed his joke.... again!
LOL .........yeah he did

Blueflame

08-11-2006, 05:10 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-11-2006, 10:48 PM

Earlier in the thread, numbers were requested to support the contention that most Democrats are glad to be rid of Lieberman.... I would say that 79% does equal "most"...

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1155

Oh... and the same poll says 71% oppose Lieberman's decision to run as an independent...

More inconvenient facts to confound Kissy Face's neocon supporters. Ha!

http://www.bartcop.com/joe-Independent.gif

http://www.bartcop.com/carry-on-spirit.gif

clarker

08-12-2006, 12:39 PM

Lieberman's loss in the Democratic primary had absolutely nothing to do with "anti-Semitism"; it had everything to do with him being a DINO (Democrat in Name Only) who rubber-stamped anything the Bush administration wanted to do. His constituents were unhappy with the job he was doing representing them and therefore, voted for a change.

As a sidenote, it might not have been such a good idea to allow himself to be photographed publicly receiving a big sloppy wet kiss from Bush...To say that Lieberman rubber-stamped everthing Bush wanted to do is a bunch of bull.

He was pro Iraq war, but he voted the Dem party line 95% of the time. BTW Hilliary Clinton is pro Iraq war and no one says she 'rubber-stamped anything Bush wanted."

.

Blueflame

08-12-2006, 01:13 PM

To say that Lieberman rubber-stamped everthing Bush wanted to do is a bunch of bull.

He was pro Iraq war, but he voted the Dem party line 95% of the time. BTW Hilliary Clinton is pro Iraq war and no one says she 'rubber-stamped anything Bush wanted."

.

Obviously, 79% of the Democrats polled by Zogby didn't believe ol' Joe was as valuable to the party as the Republicans say he was.

So... which is it... 90% of the time that he allegedly voted with his own party or 95? If either one of those numbers were true, then the 5 or 10% of the time when he voted with the Republicans must have been when it mattered most to the voters... otherwise why would the voter disapproval with the job he's done in the Senate be so profound?

clarker

08-12-2006, 01:21 PM

Obviously, 79% of the Democrats polled by Zogby didn't believe ol' Joe was as valuable to the party as the Republicans say he was.

So... which is it... 90% of the time that he allegedly voted with his own party or 95? If either one of those numbers were true, then the 5 or 10% of the time when he voted with the Republicans must have been when it mattered most to the voters... otherwise why would the voter disapproval with the job he's done in the Senate be so profound?Lieberman is liberal on everything but the war. But to the Dems that voted that was their main issue and they voted on on it. So be it. That is their right and I have no problem with it, but Lieberman was as much as a conservative as you claim why did Gore choose him as a running mate in 2000.

I don't care if you can prove that Lieberman only sided with Dems vs Bush 50% of the time. 50% is still far from rubber-stamping.

clarker

08-12-2006, 01:27 PM

Lieberman's voting record.

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_4116528

mhgaffney

08-12-2006, 04:33 PM

To say that Lieberman rubber-stamped everthing Bush wanted to do is a bunch of bull.

He was pro Iraq war, but he voted the Dem party line 95% of the time. BTW Hilliary Clinton is pro Iraq war and no one says she 'rubber-stamped anything Bush wanted."

.

Hillary betrayed the peace movement by campaigning for Lieberman. So did Bill.

You can be sure the Israel lobby (AIPAC) will open their coffers to relect Lieberman in November as an independent. Even if he is a turn coat -- they don't care. They don't give a damn about what is best for America. They care only about the current extremist Zionist agenda.

They will spend millions to defeat the peace candidate.

It will be a test of the real peace movement versus the status quo, in other words, unlimited uncritical support for Israel versus an urgent shift in US policy in the region to end terrorism, bring about a just settlement of the Pal-Israel conflict, and get us the hell out of the Iraq quagmire (before it gets even worse).

MG

clarker

08-12-2006, 06:43 PM

Hillary betrayed the peace movement by campaigning for Lieberman. So did Bill.

You can be sure the Israel lobby (AIPAC) will open their coffers to relect Lieberman in November as an independent. Even if he is a turn coat -- they don't care. They don't give a damn about what is best for America. They care only about the current extremist Zionist agenda.

They will spend millions to defeat the peace candidate.

It will be a test of the real peace movement versus the status quo, in other words, unlimited uncritical support for Israel versus an urgent shift in US policy in the region to end terrorism, bring about a just settlement of the Pal-Israel conflict, and get us the hell out of the Iraq quagmire (before it gets even worse).

MGDon't worry, I'm sure there are plenty of Anti-Semetic lobbies for you to contribute too.

mhgaffney

08-12-2006, 07:06 PM

Don't worry, I'm sure there are plenty of Anti-Semetic lobbies for you to contribute too.

Clarker,

How does it feel to be one of the politically correct right thinking people? How does it feel to travel with the herd and go off the cliff with the other lemmings???

I will say it loud and clear. Oppostion to the racist policies of the state of Israel is not anti semitic. It's the only thing an authentic Christian can do.

Forget the Fallwell phonies and the Robertson racists.

It is about the open heart. If Jesus were here he would be in prison in Israel. He'd be standing in front of those Caterpiller bulldozers that every day demolish more palestinian homes -- erasing the Palestinian nation, creating new facts on the ground. He'd be at the top of the Zionist list for targeted killings. He'd be standing in Layfayette Park demanding an end to the US foreign policy based on lying and killing and intimidation and mind control.

Where is your spiritual heart, Clarker? Alive? Or asleep?

mhgaffney

08-12-2006, 07:06 PM

mhgaffney

08-12-2006, 07:07 PM

**** == double trouble again

clarker

08-12-2006, 08:53 PM

Clarker,

How does it feel to be one of the politically correct right thinking people? How does it feel to travel with the herd and go off the cliff with the other lemmings???

I will say it loud and clear. Oppostion to the racist policies of the state of Israel is not anti semitic. It's the only thing an authentic Christian can do.

Forget the Fallwell phonies and the Robertson racists.

It is about the open heart. If Jesus were here he would be in prison in Israel. He'd be standing in front of those Caterpiller bulldozers that every day demolish more palestinian homes -- erasing the Palestinian nation, creating new facts on the ground. He'd be at the top of the Zionist list for targeted killings. He'd be standing in Layfayette Park demanding an end to the US foreign policy based on lying and killing and intimidation and mind control.

Where is your spiritual heart, Clarker? Alive? Or asleep?What about the suicide bombers that go into Isreali pizza joints? Would a good Christian say they are justified no matter what the Isreali government does? What about Isreali's arresting other Isrealies, dragging out by gun point because the refused to leave the west bank in January?

The conflict between Palestine and Isreal is a vicious cycle that has to be stopped, but it will not until groups like the PLO stop with the suicide bomings and other terror tatics.

Remember it was the PLO, who walked away from the deal Clinton had in place. As a republican, I would have been more than happy to give Clinton his props. But he made the mistake of believing that the PLO was in it for a peaceful solution They want Isreal destroyed. If Isreal gave them all of the land they claim belongs to them it wouldn't be enough.

mhgaffney

08-12-2006, 10:24 PM

What about the suicide bombers that go into Isreali pizza joints?

The conflict between Palestine and Isreal is a vicious cycle that has to be stopped, but it will not until groups like the PLO stop with the suicide bomings and other terror tatics.

Remember it was the PLO, who walked away from the deal Clinton had in place. As a republican, I would have been more than happy to give Clinton his props. But he made the mistake of believing that the PLO was in it for a peaceful solution They want Isreal destroyed. If Isreal gave them all of the land they claim belongs to them it wouldn't be enough.

I agree with you. The suicide bombing must stop.

But if you care about a peace settlement you can't allow acts of terror to bring negotiations to a halt. That only empowers people who do terrorism. It gives them a veto power they do not deserve.

Problem is, the policy of Israel from the day Sharon was elected has been NO TALKS. NO NEGOTIATIONS. END OF STORY. It continued under Olmert who is a Sharon clone.

Sharon sold the lie that there is no one to talk to -- and the US prez and US media lapped it up like a puppy dog. It was a lie: There is always someone to talk to IF you want peace.

Back in 2002 when the Bushies visited the region trying to drum up support for their war policy everyone told them "Don't worry about Saddam. He is no threat to anyone outside of Iraq. Solve the Pal-Israeli conflict instead."

It was great advice. But did the neo cons listen? Of course not. And we are now reaping the dark fruit of their criminal incompetence.

mhgaffney

08-12-2006, 10:24 PM

BroncoBuff

08-12-2006, 11:39 PM

This talk of Lieberman running as an independant... He should just give it up and save himself a lot of money and embarassment. The establishment will never allow that to happen.
Actually that's what I would've said, if not for this:

The Republican nominee for that seat is a real miscreant - a convicted gambler, etc... (hard to find decent GOP candidates these days, esp. against entrenched Dems like Lieberman seemed to be).

Therefore, if somehow the Republican voters can be herded into pulling the "Lieberman - IND" lever ... who's to say? He drew 48% of the Dems last week ... if he can hold half of those votes in November, and picks up 75% of Republican voters ... ? ?

BroncoBuff

08-12-2006, 11:43 PM

You can be sure the Israel lobby (AIPAC) will open their coffers to relect Lieberman in November as an independent. Even if he is a turn coat -- they don't care. They don't give a damn about what is best for America. They care only about the current extremist Zionist agenda.

They will spend millions to defeat the peace candidate.
PLUS THIS!!

I didn't think about this support for Joe ... his Pro-War stance is, in fact, concomitantly a Pro-Israel stance. If gaffney's right - and there's money there - he'll benefit from that too.

But I think we can rule out Bill Clinton campaigning for Joe again ...

errand

08-13-2006, 01:05 AM

I think it was very sneaky for Republicans to tie a long-overdue minimum wage increase to yet another tax break for the ultra-wealthy who have already received break after break after break from the neocons.

Real people working hard for minimum wage are hurting as they try to pay skyrocketing prices for gasoline so that they can make it to work to try to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. Tying needed relief for those Americans to provisions that would have shifted the tax burden even farther away from the ultra-wealthy so they pay even less of their fair share is, imho, reprehensible.

While I agree that it's not cool to add things into a bill, like extra pork, etc.....the problem is that's the way things have always been done in Washington. Politics as usual. It doesn't change the point, though.

So instead of passing it and making millions of low wage earners and approx 12,000 rich people happy, they decided to make millions of low wage earner's lives miserable in order to punish 12,000 rich people?

How did this help the little guy you clowns claim to champion?

errand

08-13-2006, 01:08 AM

Why on Gods green earth is the American bald eagle wearing that sissy french beret?

Why haven't you heard? The country is filled with anti-war people.And anti-war people aren't America haters....they just think America should be more like France.

errand

08-13-2006, 01:11 AM

Republicans most certainly did not expect Lamont to defeat Lieberman. And they also clearly would prefer for Lieberman to retain that seat even if that means sacrificing their own candidate.

Wow imagine that...a political party that likes people from the opposing party who sometimes think the same as they do. I believe this is what you leftist have called "tolerance".

errand

08-13-2006, 01:19 AM

I'm exactly on tangent. You are worse than Errant and Tensi with your stereotyping everything that you disagree with as "lib" this or "liberals" that. Pretty pathethic really.

Your radical republican extremist posts have rendered your posts to Errant and Tensi status (bigoted and bias slurs).

Bigoted slurs? Show me where I made bigoted "slurs".

I'm not the one calling Rice a "house n---er" or posting political cartoons that show her in a bigoted light. That my friend is being done by the likes of those you side with.

Sure I'm biased. Same as you. I think libs like you are ruining this great nation, but that's just one man's opinion...or is it? I guess we'll see come '08 huh?

errand

08-13-2006, 01:23 AM

Wait for the next Conn. poll. Joe will be lucky to make it to 20%.

..... you clowns claim the will of the people has spoken. Why then the fear of Joe running as an independent?

errand

08-13-2006, 01:31 AM

Yeah, he's been scared witless by the constant harassment that's been placed on him by Bush. No, I think not. If anything, he is incredulous that a certain percentage of the US voted for a guy who wouldn't be the smartest feller in a 4 person Beduoin tent if two goat herders were absent...You are a whackjob...

:

... and yet this same allegedly "dumber than a goat herder" president was able to dupe the Dems into voting for the resolution to invade Iraq.

errand

08-13-2006, 01:38 AM

What I find odd is that these clowns are claiming that over 60%- 70% of America hate the war in Iraq....so how did Joe get 48% of the vote in this primary?

BroncoBuff

08-13-2006, 01:40 AM

What I find odd is that these clowns are claiming that over 60%- 70% of America hate the war in Iraq....so how did Joe get 48% of the vote in this primary?
If you think there's a strict corollary there, you're a fool.

errand

08-13-2006, 01:43 AM

If you think there's a strict corollary there, you're a fool.

Then please enlighten this fool on how a guy who according to you basically lost his primary because he voted for the war could nab 48% of the votes from the alleged 60-70% who oppose the war?

BroncoBuff

08-13-2006, 01:51 AM

Not everybody who voted for him automatoically supports the war ... that's the missing piece in your fallacious corollary. Remember, even if you are an anti-war CT Democrat, there's plenty to like about Joe:

He's a high-profile Senator - a VP nominee who lost by 600 votes - along with Christopher Dodd, he's half of the most influential Democratic Senate contingent other than Hillary and Schumer - Bill Clinton showed up on his behalf - and Lamont is a rich Cable-TV johnny-come lately.
So there's a lot to like there, even if you're anti-war. And remember too ... Joe got 48% of the vote of DEMOCRATS only ... and only those in Connecticut.

Sorry - shouldn't have called you a name. It was FOOLISH of me ;D

Blueflame

08-13-2006, 02:25 AM

Lieberman is liberal on everything but the war. But to the Dems that voted that was their main issue and they voted on on it. So be it. That is their right and I have no problem with it, but Lieberman was as much as a conservative as you claim why did Gore choose him as a running mate in 2000.

I don't care if you can prove that Lieberman only sided with Dems vs Bush 50% of the time. 50% is still far from rubber-stamping.

Well, then if he's such a solid Dem, he needs to fire all his PR people. Because he's widely perceived as a DINO... a neocon... who is virtually indistinguishable from a Republican.

Blueflame

08-13-2006, 02:51 AM

Wow imagine that...a political party that likes people from the opposing party who sometimes think the same as they do. I believe this is what you leftist have called "tolerance".

Yeah, we've seen so much "tolerance" from Republicans... like "you're either for us or against us"... ::)

clarker

08-13-2006, 11:40 AM

Yeah, we've seen so much "tolerance" from Republicans... like "you're either for us or against us"... ::)How is that different than you libs? Spider calls Christians the taliban. LABF calls anyone who disagrees with him on anything, a Bush bot and a host of other names. I know a lot of republicans who are intolerant of different views. Not saying that at all. Errand and W.*gs are to good examples, but on this board and in dailey life I can name just as many intolerant liberals.

clarker

08-13-2006, 11:43 AM

Well, then if he's such a solid Dem, he needs to fire all his PR people. Because he's widely perceived as a DINO... a neocon... who is virtually indistinguishable from a Republican.That is because he supports the war. Which is a the topic that most people care about. So when Dems vote against him for that reason I can understan. But to say he "rubber-stamps" everything that Bush wants, that is incorrect. If you think that is true, it just means you don't have much knowlege on the topic or are a spokesmen for the DNC party line.

Blueflame

08-13-2006, 01:03 PM

How is that different than you libs? Spider calls Christians the taliban. LABF calls anyone who disagrees with him on anything, a Bush bot and a host of other names. I know a lot of republicans who are intolerant of different views. Not saying that at all. Errand and W.*gs are to good examples, but on this board and in dailey life I can name just as many intolerant liberals.

Today's political climate in America is polarized and neither side is truly tolerant of the other... but Errand's suggestion (in the post quoted above) seemed to be that Republicans are more tolerant than Dems and it simply isn't true. Real bipartisanship in Congress should mean that the vote on legislation does not divide precisely along party lines... but all too often, partisanship overshadows all else and it's not unique to just one side.

Blueflame

08-13-2006, 01:17 PM

That is because he supports the war. Which is a the topic that most people care about. So when Dems vote against him for that reason I can understan. But to say he "rubber-stamps" everything that Bush wants, that is incorrect. If you think that is true, it just means you don't have much knowlege on the topic or are a spokesmen for the DNC party line.

When 60% of the population in general opposes the war... expressing support for it is risky for any politician. But I don't think that's the only issue that was important to his constituents... it was a lot more than one vote. And Lieberman is, imho, just the first pro-war politician to feel the voter backlash... more will follow between now and November, I suspect.

If Lieberman did not "rubber-stamp" everything Bush wanted, then he has a problem with public perception... because he's certainly perceived as a DINO. For those who doubt his value to the rightwing, just take a look at all the crying conservatives have been doing about his loss. It isn't the Dems who are distraught; it's the Republicans.

errand

08-13-2006, 04:17 PM

Blueflame

08-13-2006, 04:33 PM

My point is his staunch support for the war according to the liberal pundits is what cost him this time around. Evidently there was alot to like about him, but not enough to overcome his pro-war stance, huh?

Equally costly to him, imo, was the well-publicized photo of him receiving a big, wet, sloppy kiss from Bush...

clarker

08-13-2006, 07:42 PM

When 60% of the population in general opposes the war... expressing support for it is risky for any politician. But I don't think that's the only issue that was important to his constituents... it was a lot more than one vote. And Lieberman is, imho, just the first pro-war politician to feel the voter backlash... more will follow between now and November, I suspect.

If Lieberman did not "rubber-stamp" everything Bush wanted, then he has a problem with public perception... because he's certainly perceived as a DINO. For those who doubt his value to the rightwing, just take a look at all the crying conservatives have been doing about his loss. It isn't the Dems who are distraught; it's the Republicans.I don't hear any republicans crying about it. They will try to use Lieberman as an example. They will say here is a guy who votes liberal at least 90% of the time, but the Democratic party is being took over by the Michael Moore, far left wing of the party.

I don't think public perception was his whole probem. His stance on the war is. I don't know how it play in a general election but in Dem. Primary it is clear that support of the war is a killer.

W*GS

08-13-2006, 07:54 PM

More inconvenient facts to confound Kissy Face's neocon supporters.

I wonder why the "Clinton cuddle" couldn't overwhelm the Bush buss...

Aren't you ashamed that your God, Bill, campaigned for Lieberman? How does that make you feel as a self-proclaimed "Clinton Democrat"?

W*GS

08-13-2006, 07:57 PM

I know a lot of republicans who are intolerant of different views. Not saying that at all. Errand and W.*gs are to good examples, but on this board and in dailey life I can name just as many intolerant liberals.

Gawdalmighty.

Don't put me in the same class as errand. And no, I'm not intolerant - except I cannot abide hypocrisy, which is in vast abundance on the Left, especially those here on the OM. And they have the gall to point fingers at the few non-Left folks here...

What is it about being anti-Left automagically makes me pro-Right? Geezus, that's stupid!

Spider

08-13-2006, 07:59 PM

How is that different than you libs? Spider calls Christians the taliban. LABF calls anyone who disagrees with him on anything, a Bush bot and a host of other names. I know a lot of republicans who are intolerant of different views. Not saying that at all. Errand and W.*gs are to good examples, but on this board and in dailey life I can name just as many intolerant liberals.
if you are going ot quote me , do it right , there are Christian Taliban types , but not all Christians are taliban ... I am sure you are bright enough to figure out who I call christian talibans , and who dont ............ Errand Chrsitian Taliban , like Fred Phelps , Jerry Falwell , Pat Robertson , that Dodds asshole leader of the center for American values shít , i tell you what , how many christianleaders havent been busted for screwing some hooker or some other broad besides thier wife ..........

Spider

08-13-2006, 08:01 PM

Gawdalmighty.

Don't put me in the same class as errand. And no, I'm not intolerant - except I cannot abide hypocrisy, which is in vast abundance on the Left, especially those here on the OM. And they have the gall to point fingers at the few non-Left folks here...

What is it about being anti-Left automagically makes me pro-Right? Geezus, that's stupid!
LOL . I never thought of that putting you in the same class as Errand ........ I missed a golden opertunity ;D

Blueflame

08-13-2006, 08:35 PM

I don't hear any republicans crying about it. They will try to use Lieberman as an example. They will say here is a guy who votes liberal at least 90% of the time, but the Democratic party is being took over by the Michael Moore, far left wing of the party.

I don't think public perception was his whole probem. His stance on the war is. I don't know how it play in a general election but in Dem. Primary it is clear that support of the war is a killer.

If you don't hear any Republicans crying about it, then you're simply not paying attention, Clarker. For example, what about Dick Cheney's remark (paraphrased) that Lamont's win might encourage terrorists?

Yes, his stance on the war is one of the factors... but the perception that he's allied more closely with Republicans than with his fellow Democrats (complete with photos of fond kisses from Bush) was also a factor. Do you really think a single issue would cause 79% of Democrats to be glad he lost to Lamont? I don't. He lost because he's viewed as... imo... virtually indistinguishable from a Republican. Democratic voters wanted a Democrat to represent them and Lieberman isn't a Democrat and I'm not certain he ever really was one.