More proof that Democrats are Anti-Semetic

[SteveTensi13]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

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.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

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]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

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]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

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]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

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]

[QUOTE=Blueflame]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by defenseman

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.

You are ANYTHING but a FORMER republican and Bush supporter.

[SteveTensi13]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

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]

Originally Posted by SteveTensi13

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.

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.

[SteveTensi13]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

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]

Originally Posted by SteveTensi13

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]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

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]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

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]

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

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

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.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by defenseman

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]

Originally Posted by defenseman

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]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

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]

Originally Posted by defenseman

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]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

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]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

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.

[Tredici]

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

Carry on.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

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]

Originally Posted by SteveTensi13

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]

Originally Posted by spdirty

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.