Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 52

Thread: Lieberman gets this right: Today's Democrat Party Hyper-Liberal

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,161
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Exclamation Lieberman gets this right: Today's Democrat Party Hyper-Liberal

    I don't support Lieberman's war views but he nails this part, TODAY's Democrat party is far left and completely saturated by hyper-Liberalism.

    "The 2008 Democratic candidates are beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" liberal base that could endanger the final nominee's chances of winning next year's presidential election, Joe Lieberman, the former vice-presidential Democratic candidate, said yesterday.

    In his most outspoken attack on fellow Democrats since he was unsuccessfully challenged last year by Ned Lamont, a liberal Democrat, for his Senate seat in Connecticut, Mr Lieberman yesterday said he might not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee next year."
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1f8eee44-8e6...nclick_check=1
    "Don't ever think you know what's right for the other person. He might start thinking he knows what's right for you." – Paul Williams, "Das Energi"

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Las Cruces New Mexico
    Posts
    10,656
    Thanks
    260
    Thanked 1,630 Times in 874 Posts
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 39 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    That exact same statement could be said of every Repub candidate with the exception of Paul.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    49,801
    Thanks
    1,830
    Thanked 7,353 Times in 5,599 Posts
    Groans
    238
    Groaned 801 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Socrtease View Post
    That exact same statement could be said of every Repub candidate with the exception of Paul.
    True... but what would you like to bet that the Reps and Dems all think it is just the "other" party that is beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,502
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Socrtease View Post
    That exact same statement could be said of every Repub candidate with the exception of Paul.
    QFT

    It isn't like the (D) party has a lock on extremism. lol
    * Annoy a Republican, think for yourself.
    * Annoy a Democrat, support yourself.

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    25,969
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superfreak View Post
    True... but what would you like to bet that the Reps and Dems all think it is just the "other" party that is beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base
    Well maybe then you can explain to me how, when we don’t have one front-runner who will say “I will immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq” the dems are “beholden to their liberal base” who want exactly that?

    You guys love Lieberman because he loves blood and in fact is advocating an Iranian war. Take his vampire ass, claim him. But don’t ever try and pretend that he speaks for democrats, that he is a fucking moderate, or that his opinion of the democratic base, who don’t yearn for blood, means jack shit.

    He ain’t nothing but a Zionist beholden to the interests of Israel. In other words, a freaking traitor, and if he was beholden to the interests of France, you’d be the second person to say so. Dano would be the first.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDanold View Post
    I don't support Lieberman's war views but he nails this part, TODAY's Democrat party is far left and completely saturated by hyper-Liberalism.

    "The 2008 Democratic candidates are beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" liberal base that could endanger the final nominee's chances of winning next year's presidential election, Joe Lieberman, the former vice-presidential Democratic candidate, said yesterday.

    In his most outspoken attack on fellow Democrats since he was unsuccessfully challenged last year by Ned Lamont, a liberal Democrat, for his Senate seat in Connecticut, Mr Lieberman yesterday said he might not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee next year."
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1f8eee44-8e6...nclick_check=1

    Dano - Perhaps you should read the actual remarks of Lieberman wherein the sole basis for his charge that the Democratic Party is beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base is because they disagree with him on his war stance. That's it. Considering you disagree with his position on the war, perhaps you should rethink you're endorsement of his lunacy.

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    25,969
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dungheap View Post
    Dano - Perhaps you should read the actual remarks of Lieberman wherein the sole basis for his charge that the Democratic Party is beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base is because they disagree with him on his war stance. That's it. Considering you disagree with his position on the war, perhaps you should rethink you're endorsement of his lunacy.
    It's infuriating. The guy's only issue these days is war, war, war, more, more, more, and they want to act like disagreeing with him makes one a "hyper liberal".

    How about, a human being?

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,441
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 1,982 Times in 1,405 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 287 Times in 274 Posts

    Default

    Lieberman, Lieberman - why do I know that name?

    Oh, yeah - isn't that the guy who publicly admitted to a severe form of psychosis prior to the '06 election, and said he still would have invaded Iraq despite everything that happened?

    I knew that name sounded familiar. What's he up to, now? Isn't he pushing for a war with Iran?

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,161
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Socrtease View Post
    That exact same statement could be said of every Repub candidate with the exception of Paul.
    NO that is completely false. A hyper partisan Conservative base wants repeal of healthcare regulations, repeal of the pill bill, fiscal responsibility, federal government out of education, reduced EPA role, no gun control.

    The only thing the current candidates are paying heed to Conservatives on is guns and that's about it.

    The worst part of Karl Rove is that in making the Bush strategy one of stealing Liberal positions on spending, we now have a Republican party with a Liberal Repub in the lead in Guillani and a fake Conservative in 2nd place in Romney.
    Meanwhile the Dem party far from having any moderates like Bill Clinton and Tsongas, now instead has socialist Edwards duking it out with hardcore Liberals Hillary and Obama.

    Political centers move in ONE direction, both parties were more Conservative in the 90's, both are more Liberal now.
    "Don't ever think you know what's right for the other person. He might start thinking he knows what's right for you." – Paul Williams, "Das Energi"

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darla View Post
    It's infuriating. The guy's only issue these days is war, war, war, more, more, more, and they want to act like disagreeing with him makes one a "hyper liberal".

    How about, a human being?

    Apparently, one thing that 9/11 changed is that the people that are now viewed as "sensible" and "serious" in the foreign policy field are the people that advocate war as the first option not the last. There was a time, the vast majority of the 20th Century, when those people were rightly viewed as lunatics.

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    20,135
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 4,725 Times in 2,959 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 333 Times in 317 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDanold View Post
    NO that is completely false. A hyper partisan Conservative base wants repeal of healthcare regulations, repeal of the pill bill, fiscal responsibility, federal government out of education, reduced EPA role, no gun control.

    The only thing the current candidates are paying heed to Conservatives on is guns and that's about it.

    The worst part of Karl Rove is that in making the Bush strategy one of stealing Liberal positions on spending, we now have a Republican party with a Liberal Repub in the lead in Guillani and a fake Conservative in 2nd place in Romney.
    Meanwhile the Dem party far from having any moderates like Bill Clinton and Tsongas, now instead has socialist Edwards duking it out with hardcore Liberals Hillary and Obama.

    Political centers move in ONE direction, both parties were more Conservative in the 90's, both are more Liberal now.

    Talk about hyper-partisan paranoia. Wow. You take the cake Dano!

  12. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,161
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dungheap View Post
    Apparently, one thing that 9/11 changed is that the people that are now viewed as "sensible" and "serious" in the foreign policy field are the people that advocate war as the first option not the last. There was a time, the vast majority of the 20th Century, when those people were rightly viewed as lunatics.
    Yeah right. Truman, LBJ, Clinton and FDR were not viewed as lunatics at all and they all went to war.
    You can't rewrite history based on how you'd like to pretend it to be.
    "Don't ever think you know what's right for the other person. He might start thinking he knows what's right for you." – Paul Williams, "Das Energi"

  13. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    49,801
    Thanks
    1,830
    Thanked 7,353 Times in 5,599 Posts
    Groans
    238
    Groaned 801 Times in 749 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darla View Post
    Well maybe then you can explain to me how, when we don’t have one front-runner who will say “I will immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq” the dems are “beholden to their liberal base” who want exactly that?

    You guys love Lieberman because he loves blood and in fact is advocating an Iranian war. Take his vampire ass, claim him. But don’t ever try and pretend that he speaks for democrats, that he is a fucking moderate, or that his opinion of the democratic base, who don’t yearn for blood, means jack shit.

    He ain’t nothing but a Zionist beholden to the interests of Israel. In other words, a freaking traitor, and if he was beholden to the interests of France, you’d be the second person to say so. Dano would be the first.

    Thank you for proving my point. I said nothing in support of Lieberman on this thread. I simply stated that both bases are made up of "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base and that their politicians are beholden to them. Yes, you can take one issue and act as though if they disagree with you on one they must not be beholden to you. The Reps could say the same thing. Which was my point. Neither the left nor the right want to admit that they have gone off to the far right (religious nuts) or the far left (just nuts).

    The left sees any moderate as a righty and the right sees any moderate as a lefty. From their perspectives that may be true, but those in the middle understand just how wacked out the two parties are right now.

  14. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,161
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dungheap View Post
    Talk about hyper-partisan paranoia. Wow. You take the cake Dano!
    Shutup you dumb dork, not one thing I said there was untrue and you know it because you can't refute it.

    Argue one of my points or shut it.
    "Don't ever think you know what's right for the other person. He might start thinking he knows what's right for you." – Paul Williams, "Das Energi"

  15. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,441
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 1,982 Times in 1,405 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 287 Times in 274 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDanold View Post
    Yeah right. Truman, LBJ, Clinton and FDR were not viewed as lunatics at all and they all went to war.
    You can't rewrite history based on how you'd like to pretend it to be.

    Don't get mad, DH. Dano's always had challenges w/ reading comprehension.

Similar Threads

  1. Great Progress in Democrat Party
    By jollie in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-25-2008, 12:04 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2008, 01:08 AM
  3. DC Liberal Democrat Handgun Ban could go away!!
    By TheDanold in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-21-2007, 06:25 AM
  4. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 01:45 PM
  5. Republicans used to think Lieberman was too liberal...
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-09-2006, 08:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •