Lieberman Loses!!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
I was glad to hear Joe lost. I guess the republican Jews are gonna need to find someone else to pose a Democrat and try to infiltrate the Democratic party at a later date. I bet Israel is pissed!!!

[edit on 9-8-2006 by kleverone]




posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Oh, right. Because Joe has the brains to recognise Iraq for what it is, a mess that has no easy solution and cannot be rushed, he's a Republican.

Looks like the Dems want to repeat Vietnam all over again. How long until we start hearing about the Iraqisation of the war? Apparently the solution to Iraq is to up stumps and head home forthwith.

"Hey, we started your mess, well, actually the other guy dropped you in it, but we don't care because that was his problem and how you get out of it is your problem, call us when the civil war is over."



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I wish I could actually understand what you are trying to say. Not really sure what you mean here so I guess I'll just say


I think you might be trying to defend him in some wierd way. But in case you have not heard, the people have voted and Joe is out, Not really sure what you mean by the war either since he voted to put us there(Half the reason he didn't get re-elected, I'll let you figure out the other half). So yeah Joe, Run as an independent like you have proclaimed(wouldn't want to just run right over to the republican side, we know it takes a term of idependence to get one over on people like Him(directly above). Oh and we should not have gone to Vietnam in the first place.

[edit on 9-8-2006 by kleverone]



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:18 AM
link   
So be it, the radicalization of the party has just removed a politician who voted no different than Mr. Kerry, Ms. Clinton and several others as regards Iraq.

Hell even Mr. Gore was hawkish on Iraq before he was dovish.

Joe IMHO was honest with his opinion instead of pandering to the electorates whims like the others who switch around like a wind vane in response to polling.

Reminds me of the Bonner party who resorted to eating their own when the going got tough.

Joe was one of the best chances for crossover voting which is required for national office.

Anyone who claims principal was the reason for voting against Joe is full of it if they support the others mentioned above who voted just like Joe on Iraq.

It was a vendetta plain and simple - Joe got "hit" by the deaniac/move-on mafia.

Just desserts will come when Joe wins as an independent.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Joe voted for Iraq; so did everyone else at first. The US has temporarily lost one of the best politicians they had. He was always willing to reach across the aisle and work for the good of the people. Washington needs more politicians like him.

I hope he follows through with his pledge to run as an independent. He can beat the one-issue Lamont. And Connecticut has a lot of independents.

And your comment about "republican Jews" was very petty, kleverone.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Joe did not win because he has been voting more like a republican than a democrat and he is not alone in doing this. It's time for the people to speak and to send them all home. The republican have led us into this mess and the democrats stood on the sidelines voting with them, we need some new people both republican and democrats, vote them all out. Joe is only getting what he deserved.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   
even see the congresses of other countries when they disagree and the fistfights start....it really rather funny, although I can't think of which county it's from....

so now we have a bunch of dems demanding the politicians follow the party line on all the issues, just like we've had a bunch of republicans saying pretty much the same thing for awhile now.....hang anyone who crosses the party line!!!! I imagine, considering the present congressional makeup, well, if someone doesn't cross party lines once in a while nothing would be getting done, and our congress would be just as entertaining as the one I mentioned at the beginning of the post.

there wasn't really that many dems who didn't vote for the war in iraq guys....so, now that yous have the possiblity of taking control of the congress back from the republicans your gonna screw it up and kick half of the dems out of their seats???

yous shoot yourself in the foot everytime, and this is why you're liable to stay the minority in congress even with the bunch of misfits that are now in control..

I hope all the independants and third party candidates that run win, and they win the majority!! both parties need to be humbled a little.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

there wasn't really that many dems who didn't vote for the war in iraq guys....so, now that yous have the possiblity of taking control of the congress back from the republicans your gonna screw it up and kick half of the dems out of their seats???

yous shoot yourself in the foot everytime, and this is why you're liable to stay the minority in congress even with the bunch of misfits that are now in control..

I hope all the independants and third party candidates that run win, and they win the majority!! both parties need to be humbled a little.


Why should we dems or reps want to keep the ones in office who supported this war and continues to support this war no matter what party they represent? I think most people are becoming more and more aware that by staying in Iraq we are doing more damage than good for us or the Iraqi people.

The only ones profiting by us staying there are the big corporations making money off of the war and the ones wanting to get the oil. And most people are becoming aware that we have sacrificed too many American lives for a lie and that many Americans are becoming aware that over 100,000 dead iraqi civilians is unacceptable as well. How can anyone justify that?

Joe voted more republican than democrat and while I understand that one sometimes has to come to a compromise and not always vote along party lines, it was not like that at all from what I saw he voted more republican. He should join the republican party, since that seems to be the party he has continually supported IMO.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
I was glad to hear Joe lost. I guess the republican Jews are gonna need to find someone else to pose a Democrat and try to infiltrate the Democratic party at a later date. I bet Israel is pissed!!!

[edit on 9-8-2006 by kleverone]


What a moron.

Republican Jews. Infilitrating....



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
even see the congresses of other countries when they disagree and the fistfights start....it really rather funny, although I can't think of which county it's from....

I think it's either Japan or S. Korea. Hilarious! I like the British, too, where they debate and the audience shouts out "Heeyah! Heeyah!" or whatever it is they are saying.


so now we have a bunch of dems demanding the politicians follow the party line on all the issues, just like we've had a bunch of republicans saying pretty much the same thing for awhile now.....hang anyone who crosses the party line!!!! I imagine, considering the present congressional makeup, well, if someone doesn't cross party lines once in a while nothing would be getting done, and our congress would be just as entertaining as the one I mentioned at the beginning of the post.


That paragraph earned you a WATS, dawnstar.
Not enough politicians realize that the people are more interested in solving problems than in toeing the party line. As you said, if someone doesn't cross over the aisle once in a while, nothing will ever get done


You have voted dawnstar for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
The loss of Lieberman on the primary ticket has just ensured that the Democrats will not gain the White House in '08. What the far left has never understood after Bush won the last time was that much of the country didn't so much vote for Bush as vote against Kerry. So as long as they keep pushing radical leftist candidates, the more they are going to alienate parts of their own party who actually desire a strong national defense. Now all that money that was spent in CT getting Lamont into the primary is going to be washed down the drain. Lieberman is going to split the Democrats, and if he doesn't win outright, there will be enough division to put a Republican in.

Keep it up, Soros! You guys just pushed out one of the few Democrats that would have made a good President, and could have actually stole some votes from the Republicans.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Liebermanns loss is a blow to bipartisin efforts in congress. He's one of the few, of either party, who actually seem to understand that they are serving the people of America, not their party. Gee, what a concept...no wonder the Dems were mad at him.

He is one of the few Democrats that I can see actually haveing a legit chance at the white house.

I truely hope he runs as an independant, and then runs for President...I'd probably vote for him.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
He would defintely have a good chance at getting my vote. He has strong convictions and votes his conscince. The fact that he didn't bow to the pressure of his own party makes him a rarity, in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
It's nice to see the Democratic Party implode to applause from their own ranks!



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Yeah, I've noticed a few other threads where there seems to be a good bit of clapping. More nose-thumbing, really. I guess we'll see once again whether or not there is a country that exists outside of New York and L.A.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Just six years Sen. Lieberman was the DEMOCRATIC vice presidental candidate for all of those with the short attention spans. To me it is simply amazing that a party can throw overboard someone of his tenure and leave him hanging out to dry without much remorse. No wonder the Democrats don't do well in National elections lately, can't even stick with their own choices for the top office in the land for long enough, and they expect the American electorate to believe they will stay the course on any tough choices?

The nastiest part of it is all the gloating by other Dems over his demise, it wasn't as if he was a former member of the KKK or had an affair while in office. He didn't flip flop his stands on issues and defended those stands.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Liebermanns loss is a blow to bipartisin efforts in congress. He's one of the few, of either party, who actually seem to understand that they are serving the people of America, not their party.


I find it hard to believe that any politician who has as much tenure as Lieberman
does not work for the american public. To be a successful politician you have to be
corrupt IMO. Honest, sensible politicians don't really amount to much in congress IMO. It's more about trading votes and posturing for powerful committee seats IMO.

The majority of american voters are one issue orientated IMO. Whether it's farm
subsidies, abortion stance, embryonic research, immigration or what have you, as long as these constituents representative voices a stance on these issues to their likeing they will vote for him/her; even if their representative opposes them on all other issues. After that the representative doesn't really need to concern him/herself with any other needs or wants of their constituency.

Politicians are also swayed more by there respective party than any american joe or jane IMO.

Anyways the whole system has become a joke and we have noone to blame but
ourselves. What is it...like 30% of americans actually vote? How many vote intelligently? I would guess very little.

So Lieberman is going to take his ball and go over to the independents. Good for
him. And so what if his party left him hanging. He obviously wasn't in line with
what they wanted.

Remove them all, get rid of parties by enacting laws that suppress private campaigning over television and radio and enact a public medium of which all
candidates get equal exposure.

NO MORE PARTIES!



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Just six years Sen. Lieberman was the DEMOCRATIC vice presidental candidate for all of those with the short attention spans.


I was thinking that very same thing the other day. I guess it turns out he was too far right for the guy who invented the internet. Just think, that war-mongering maniac could be the VP, right now. Could he be Dick Cheney's political twin? Hmmmmmmm...



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
I wish I could actually understand what you are trying to say. Not really sure what you mean here so I guess I'll just say



Well, I think your first post made it pretty clear what you were "trying to say".


Also noticed that you've now 'disappeared' from your own thread after (rightfully) getting bashed for your comments.

Between you and Joe Lieberman, I'd have to say it's Joe that is not the loser.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Shoot, up until today, it was safe to say that whoever Kos endorses was going to lose the election. Of course, this is just a primary, but still...He's awfully proud of ending his losing streak





top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join