Lieberman Loses!!

On a plus note, chances are a Republican is going to pick up the election due to the democratic vote being split.

Of course, Kos dismisses this theory

Originally posted by centurion1211

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.

Actually I' still here! And I knew what I was trying to say, and if you couldn't detect the slight sense of sarcasm there then, Oops sorry for you. I's funny to hear people like you blast me for having an opinion. Last time I checked that was allowed on here. I think Lieberman sucks and apparently so does the majority. Glad to see the watchdogs are out

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.

Originally posted by kleverone
I's funny to hear people like you blast me for having an opinion. Last time I checked that was allowed on here.

Of course, you and everyone else is free to have and state your opinions. Of course, I don't have agree with or even like what you have to say - which means it is also free for me to state my opinions. And my opinion is that your original post shows your bias against people of a certain religion, and more specifically against Lieberman because he is a member of that religion. A fact that probably has little or nothing to do with his politics.

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by centurion1211

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.

Actually I' still here! And I knew what I was trying to say, and if you couldn't detect the slight sense of sarcasm there then, Oops sorry for you. I's funny to hear people like you blast me for having an opinion. Last time I checked that was allowed on here. I think Lieberman sucks and apparently so does the majority. Glad to see the watchdogs are out

I've got news for you. Senator Lieberman is still in office, and he has not lost his seat yet. He may not have won the Democratic primary, but there is an awfly good chance he will win as an independent. That, should it come to fruition, will be a very interesting scenario, and will no doubt drive the left-wing anti-war moonbats crazy.

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]

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.

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...

Wow!! I'm glad to see that you take someone elses OPINION as Gospel. 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. To speculate on the future of the Democratic party based on the outing of Joe is in my opinion just as silly as predicting what football team will win the superbowl in four years based on trades this year. That's just my OPINION.

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.

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

I would have to agree with you 100% with you on that one AAC.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Joe voted for war for Israel, not American interests. That is why he was not voted in again.

Again with this misconception.

Joe is STILL a US Senator.

He lost a preselection vote in his party and cannot run on the Democratic ticket.

But until the Senatorial elections he is still a United States Senator and if he wins as an independent he will continue to serve the people as a United States Senator.

Jeez some peole really need to learn how elections in their own country work.

Semantics, this is a presumed assumption that he will not be re-elected for any party! His own party does not want him. So do you really think that he will win while running as an idependent? Yeah, the independents have a great record of winning, especially after losing there seat that they have held for three terms. I'd would say you are reaching!! And I'm being very optimistic for your sake.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Joe voted for war for Israel, not American interests. That is why he was not voted in again.

Again with this misconception.

Joe is STILL a US Senator.

He lost a preselection vote in his party and cannot run on the Democratic ticket.

But until the Senatorial elections he is still a United States Senator and if he wins as an independent he will continue to serve the people as a United States Senator.

Jeez some peole really need to learn how elections in their own country work.

What does your reply even mean? Are you saying since joe is a senater he has no other interests in the world? If I had a nickle for everytime my representitive supported an inititive that I didn't like, I'd be rich. You probably need to research how politics are really played. Cronism, kick-backs, special interest groups, constintuencies, etc... AAC

He has a good chance of victory going for the independent base.

Originally posted by spinstopshere
He has a good chance of victory going for the independent base.

But do you believe he will beat out both political parties. He has already lost the Democratic vote.

Originally posted by Peyres

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....

Yes you are a Moron, thanks for clearing that up fo us.

Next time try to contribute something that requires a little thought.

The personal attacks and name calling stops now. If you are unable to post on topic content within the Terms & Conditions Of Use please refrain from posting.

The facts are that Lieberman vote along republican party lines giving the Bush Admninistration his vote, but that still was not enough they wanted him out because he presented a threat to the 08 candidates and nothing like another republican taking a democrats long held seat so Bush gave Lieberman the kiss of death in public as far as his career goes and then they drive the nail in the coffin by coming out and offering to help.

Rove has got it planned down to the last detail you can bet. But, this probably would never have happened to Lieberman if he had been a lot more critical of this republican administration and voted differently. Instead he got in bed with them and is getting totally ******.