Lieberman Loses!!, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 10-8-2006 @ 05:21 AM by HowlrunnerIV
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


That's your problem, not mine.

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 now, American politicians are able to get one over on me. If only I were a Yank and could vote in US elections where i could blindly follow those who "get one over on me."

Oh and we should not have gone to Vietnam in the first place.


Where did I say you should have?

What I said, for those with difficulty reading between the lines, was that once there, you got out with no honour at all. You sold the Republic of Viet Nam down the river at Paris.

Joe was one of those men who knows actual history and doesn't want to repeat it, unlike you.

And the lesson from '04, as observed from outside the country and talking to expat Yanks, is that the majority didn't vote for Bush, they voted against the fringe represented most publicly by Moore's Farenheit 911.

But apparently that's who you're voting for, along with the decision to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible and sell the Iraqi people down the river at an even cheaper price than you gave South Vietnam away for.


reply posted on 10-8-2006 @ 05:44 PM by goose
President Bush and Karl Rove offer Lieberman help, could it be anymore clear to anyone that Lieberman was a favorite of theirs. Since when is a republican administration concerned when a democrat loses his party's nominination and support? And lets not forget that kiss Lieberman got from Bush. If anyone can find a pic of that please put it up.

When I first saw that I thought Bush is either really happy with Lieberman or wants to get him voted out of office, but after looking at how he has supported Bush so much I can't help but think that Bush is so misguided he actually thought he was helping Lieberman with the kiss, now they offer their support. Are they serious and is this one more nail in Lieberman's coffin as far as his political career goes?



www.democracynow.org.../08/10/1339218
Report: Bush Administration Offers Lieberman Assistance
Although support for Lieberman is dwindling, he may have at least one key political backer: the White House. According to ABC News, a source from Lieberman’s campaign said President Bush’s chief advisor Karl Rove had delivered a message of support from the Oval Office. Rove reportedly said: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do." Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney called Lieberman’s loss “an unfortunate development” and said it would possibly encourage “Al Qaeda types.” Lieberman also announced Wednesday he has fired his campaign staff.


[edit on 10-8-2006 by goose]


reply posted on 10-8-2006 @ 06:49 PM by Mirthful Me
Nothing like getting called out by Slate:


www.slate.com...

Political analysts tend to overinterpret the results of isolated elections. But you can hardly read too much into Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary. This is a signal event that will have a huge and lasting negative impact on the Democratic Party. The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War.

The election was about one issue and one issue only: the war in Iraq. Joe Lieberman was an otherwise highly regarded, well-ensconced Democratic incumbent who would never have faced a meaningful primary challenge had he not vocally supported President Bush's invasion in 2003, continued to defend the war in principle, and opposed adopting a timetable for withdrawal. Ned Lamont, a preppy political novice from Greenwich, got the idea to run last year when something he read in the Wall Street Journal made him gag on his breakfast. It was a hopeful analysis of Iraq by Lieberman. As a candidate, Lamont was less a fleshed-out alternative to Lieberman than a stand-in for an anti-war, anti-Bush movement. His campaign was made plausible by Web-based "Net roots" activists who cared principally about the war in Iraq and badgered Lieberman mercilessly about his support for it.


Seems like not everyone in the Democratic Party is thinking this Lamont win is such a great deal.

Wake me when November comes.


reply posted on 10-8-2006 @ 07:20 PM by HowlrunnerIV
Originally posted by Mirthful Me


www.slate.com...

The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out of six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War.


Just in case you were still wondering what I meant, kleverone...

Looks like McCain will have it made in '08...



reply posted on 10-8-2006 @ 09:33 PM by HowlrunnerIV
Originally posted by kleverone
Wow!! I'm glad to see that you take someone elses OPINION as Gospel.


You say so, mate.

I guess you didn't read the post right above that one. How about we agree to disagree and call it a day. I stated my opinion and you stated yours and I don't believe we can convince each other to change our opinions.


Then why take a last snide jab? Either you're calling it a day, or you're not. Which is it?

You stated your opinion, that it was good that Joe lost, I stated facts, that Joe didn't cut and run from his previous decisions just because semi-popular public opinion had deserted him.

I then stated my opinion by showing how the US has done this once before. A third party then posted a quote from a fourth party which happened to agree with my previously stated analysis.

So where does GOSPEL come into it? My view on the single-platform anti-war activists was made a long time ago and politicians who are willing to exploit that activism-led public opinion for short-term personal political gain at the expense of long-term personal and national pain for the Iraqis are worthy of a healthy dose of my contempt, as are their supporters.

Iraq is a complex problem which requires serious analysis and careful thought, not rabid foaming at the mouth.


To quote my favourite US President...

We've got serious problems, and we need serious men to solve them. This is a time for serious men, Bob, and your fifteen minutes are up. My name is Andrew Shepherd, and I am the President.


reply posted on 10-8-2006 @ 09:44 PM by AnAbsoluteCreation
Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Nothing like getting called out by Slate:


www.slate.com...

Political analysts tend to overinterpret the results of isolated elections. But you can hardly read too much into Ned Lamont's defeat of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Aug. 8 primary. This is a signal event that will have a huge and lasting negative impact on the Democratic Party. The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War.

The election was about one issue and one issue only: the war in Iraq. Joe Lieberman was an otherwise highly regarded, well-ensconced Democratic incumbent who would never have faced a meaningful primary challenge had he not vocally supported President Bush's invasion in 2003, continued to defend the war in principle, and opposed adopting a timetable for withdrawal. Ned Lamont, a preppy political novice from Greenwich, got the idea to run last year when something he read in the Wall Street Journal made him gag on his breakfast. It was a hopeful analysis of Iraq by Lieberman. As a candidate, Lamont was less a fleshed-out alternative to Lieberman than a stand-in for an anti-war, anti-Bush movement. His campaign was made plausible by Web-based "Net roots" activists who cared principally about the war in Iraq and badgered Lieberman mercilessly about his support for it.


Seems like not everyone in the Democratic Party is thinking this Lamont win is such a great deal.

Wake me when November comes.



Let's look at the truth. Joe is Jewish. I have never met a jewish man that didn't have first and for most allegiance to the state of Israel. Now, if anybody doesn't think that the Iraq war was favored by all of Israel as a strategic method, then you're probably not family with Israel blowing up Saddams Nuke factory in 79' (I think 79).

Joe voted for war for Israel, not American interests. That is why he was not voted in again. I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet. BTW, please people don't say I'm a biggot, because I'm not, just stating my strong opinions, free of bigotry. AAC
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^