PDA

View Full Version : Why does the Lieberman defeat Freak Cons out so much?



Cypress
08-10-2006, 12:58 PM
Its bizarre, really. Personally, I pay very litle attention to GOP congresional or local primaries. Its not my party. I frankly don't give a shit which wingnut they elect. Especially in states I don't live in.

But on this board and the other, Cons have been wiggin' for days and days about lieberman. Post after post, thread after thread.

Possible theories:

1) Lieberman's loss freaks them, because he's the first prominent delusional war-apologist being held accountable - is it a trend?;

2) Its extremely rare for incumbent senators to lose primaries. Is this the beginning of an anti-incumbent mood in the electorate. An anti-incumbent mood is obvioulsy more dangerous for the GOP;

3) Lieberman could be counted on to vote for Terri Schiavo Amendments, lame so-called "free" trade bills that gut the middle class, and various other theocratic agendas. Is his loss a trend that the electorate is fed up with lame, failed policies that don't promote the common good?

OrnotBitwise
08-10-2006, 01:03 PM
Its bizarre, really. Personally, I pay very litle attention to GOP congresional or local primaries. Its not my party. I frankly don't give a shit which wingnut they elect. Especially in states I don't live in.

But on this board and the other, Cons have been wiggin' for days and days about lieberman. Post after post, thread after thread.

Possible theories:

1) Lieberman's loss freaks them, because he's the first prominent delusional war-apologist being held accountable - is it a trend?;

2) Its extremely rare for incumbent senators to lose primaries. Is this the beginning of an anti-incumbent mood in the electorate. An anti-incumbent mood is obvioulsy more dangerous for the GOP;

3) Lieberman could be counted on to vote for Terri Schiavo Amendments, lame so-called "free" trade bills that gut the middle class, and various other theocratic agendas. Is his loss a trend that the electorate is fed up with lame, failed policies that don't promote the common good?

(4) All of the above.

uscitizen
08-10-2006, 01:08 PM
All of the above + People realize the war was a mistake and want out.

Jarod
08-10-2006, 01:19 PM
All of the above and they are afraid a majority anti war group will get elected and end their reign of terror!

uscitizen
08-10-2006, 01:29 PM
All of the above and they are afraid a majority anti war group will get elected and end their reign of terror!

And end their looting of our treasury.

klaatu
08-10-2006, 02:24 PM
What we have here is some kind of left wing psychic meeting? I maintain its not because it freaks me out .. it was an assinine move on the Democrats part ..thats all ... no skin off my nose ...
Ive been waiting for you all to start going after Kerry, Biden and Hillary for the same reasons ...

klaatu
08-10-2006, 02:27 PM
And come to think of it .. the more I read into Liebermans voting record ..lol ... the more I am glad he was voted out ..

Jarod
08-10-2006, 02:30 PM
Kerry, Biden and Hillary have not had to stand for election since the great awakining...., they dont represent areas as liberal as CT, they are not as unapologetic as Lieberman was about the war, and not one of them voted on the wrong side of the Terri Schiavo debate!

uscitizen
08-10-2006, 02:44 PM
Well said Jarod.
However I do not like Kerry or Hillary very much. Biden, I am not sure about.
Of course if GWB could run again I would vote for Peewee Herman before I would him.

Cypress
08-10-2006, 02:47 PM
Kerry has apologized for the war, and said it was a huge mistake. I'm forgiving him.

Just like I forgave republicans who came to the same conclusion. That freedom-fried republican congressman, Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) has apologized for his war vote. And I'm cutting him slack. He's forgiven.

As for hillary or biden, I will never support them in a democratic nomination, and I don't think they can even win the democratic nomination.

tinfoil
08-10-2006, 03:00 PM
huh? I was laughing the whole time. Lamont is a rich republican in dems clothing. He's going to double cross all you CT libtards. Sorry to bust your bubble, but most repubs I spoke to were laughing about the axe Lieberman is pulling out to splinter the dem party in CT. It's really good news for repubs in CT. The majority party is now fractured and moderates don't like how Joe was run off the lot.

Cypress
08-10-2006, 03:11 PM
huh? I was laughing the whole time. Lamont is a rich republican in dems clothing. He's going to double cross all you CT libtards. Sorry to bust your bubble, but most repubs I spoke to were laughing about the axe Lieberman is pulling out to splinter the dem party in CT. It's really good news for repubs in CT. The majority party is now fractured and moderates don't like how Joe was run off the lot.


Hmmm....deja vu. the republicans keep making these kind of claims, over and over - "the destruction of the Dem party!" - but, it never seems to come true.

-I remember when Howard Dean was elected chairman, that was supposed to destroy the Dems. Yet oddly, the polls keep getting better and better for the dems.

-Russ Fiengold amendment to censure Bush was supposed to destroy the Dems. For some odd reason, it never did.

-Having a San Francisco-liberal in charge of the House Dems, (Pelosi) was supposed to annihilate the Dems. Doesn't appear to have done so.

-Having Al Sharpton run for prez in the Dem primaries, was supposed to destroy the Dems. Oddly, it didn't.

Put down the kool aid stirfry, and turn off the Fox News talking points.

uscitizen
08-10-2006, 03:45 PM
The Republican party is the best reason the demoncratic party is not falling apart. Like Bin laden has been Bush's best political friend, bush has been a benefactor of the Democratic party.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-10-2006, 03:55 PM
It doesn't freak me out that Lieberman lost. He is, after all, a northeast liberal who is pro-Iraq. It is mildly disconcerting that George Soros and MoveOn.org, was able to put enough influence and money into the initiative to make it happen, but ol' Joe has not been defeated just yet. It's a shame that one of the most respected Democratic statesmen of our time, was railroaded out of the party by radical leftists for the sole purpose of fundraising. That's really unfortunate, but not a big concern for Conservatives or Republicans. We actually are amused by the democratic strategy of having your senior Senators defeated in the primaries, and are curious to see how this will ultimately lead to taking control of Congress... but it's indeed fun to watch.

Cypress
08-10-2006, 04:00 PM
We actually are amused by the democratic strategy of having your senior Senators defeated in the primaries...

Right, I understand that to a repbublican like you, its all about strategy, winning, and party loyalty.

For patriotic american who put country above party, its about holding incumbents accountable, and putting fresh faces in congress. No money-grubbing politicians should be "entitled" to a senate seat, no matter their seniority.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-10-2006, 04:04 PM
We actually are amused by the democratic strategy of having your senior Senators defeated in the primaries...

Right, I understand that to a repbublican like you, its all about strategy, winning, and party loyalty.

For patriotic american who put country above party, its about holding incumbents accountable, and putting fresh faces in congress. No money-grubbing politicians should be "entitled" to a senate seat, no matter their seniority.


Good, so you plan to elect only candidates who do not accept any outside money and are not part of the current political establishment? I think that is a great idea! You guys keep knocking off your incumbent leadership in the primaries and calling it "victory", mmmk?

Cypress
08-10-2006, 04:15 PM
-Dixie, on Fullpolitics.com:

I'm really quite moderate. I'm neither republican nor democrat. I'm a registered independent, and I vote for a lot of democratic candidates


LMAO

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-10-2006, 04:26 PM
-Dixie, on Fullpolitics.com:

I'm really quite moderate. I'm neither republican nor democrat. I'm a registered independent, and I vote for a lot of democratic candidates


LMAO


Yep, that's actually true. I am a registered Independent. I even went on to list the numerous democrats I've voted for, did you miss that part? Apparently so!

Jarod
08-10-2006, 05:13 PM
Cypress, you have the best Avatar yet!

Damocles
08-10-2006, 05:23 PM
I'm surprised it isn't freaking out more of the Dems, actually. The Rs in CT were likely going to vote for him sheepishly, now they will proudly vote for him along with some dedicated Dems and likely he will still be the Senator from CT.

BRUTALITOPS
08-10-2006, 05:42 PM
Its bizarre, really. Personally, I pay very litle attention to GOP congresional or local primaries. Its not my party. I frankly don't give a shit which wingnut they elect. Especially in states I don't live in.

But on this board and the other, Cons have been wiggin' for days and days about lieberman. Post after post, thread after thread.

Possible theories:



Ok for starters, who has been freaking out? I could give two shits... I don't see any massive freakout going on... I think that's just in your head.



1) Lieberman's loss freaks them, because he's the first prominent delusional war-apologist being held accountable - is it a trend?;

2) Its extremely rare for incumbent senators to lose primaries. Is this the beginning of an anti-incumbent mood in the electorate. An anti-incumbent mood is obvioulsy more dangerous for the GOP;



CT is a northeastern liberal state. who cares? As if that speaks for the entire country.


Is his loss a trend that the electorate is fed up with lame, failed policies that don't promote the common good?

yeah that's probably it.

BRUTALITOPS
08-10-2006, 05:43 PM
Kerry has apologized for the war, and said it was a huge mistake. I'm forgiving him.

That freedom-fried republican congressman, Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) has apologized for his war vote.

It wasn't a war vote, remember? It was just a vote to authorize force.

maineman
08-10-2006, 08:07 PM
whatever you righties want to spin it as....the fact is, Kerry regrets it, Joey does not....and it is THE singlemost important issue for democrats, and Joey was on the wrong side and stays on the wrong side, so nobody ought to be surprised he got beat.

Damocles
08-10-2006, 08:09 PM
whatever you righties want to spin it as....the fact is, Kerry regrets it, Joey does not....and it is THE singlemost important issue for democrats, and Joey was on the wrong side and stays on the wrong side, so nobody ought to be surprised he got beat.
It doesn't bug me at all, CT Ds get to choose who they run. I do think it will go as I posted above. "Joey" will get both D and R votes from those in the Middle as the R's have no reliable candidate and some of the Ds will remain faithful to him. He'll end up in the same Senate Seat doing the same thing....

maineman
08-10-2006, 08:18 PM
a guy who was loyal enogh to the democratic party to accept their nomination for Vice President, should not be so disloyal to them now to run as an independent after the democrats in his own state chose someone else for a position that Joe took that was clearly against the wishes of the majority of his fellow democrats.

If Joe runs as an independent, I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire. If he drops out and lets Lamont win the seat in a two way race, and then campaigns hard for democrats in not only this mid term, but also in '08, I think he might be deserving of a cabinet seat in the upcoming democratic administration.

Damocles
08-10-2006, 08:19 PM
a guy who was loyal enogh to the democratic party to accept their nomination for Vice President, should not be so disloyal to them now to run as an independent after the democrats in his own state chose someone else for a position that Joe took that was clearly against the wishes of the majority of his fellow democrats.

If Joe runs as an independent, I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire. If he drops out and lets Lamont win the seat in a two way race, and then campaigns hard for democrats in not only this mid term, but also in '08, I think he might be deserving of a cabinet seat in the upcoming democratic administration.
It doesn't matter how you would vote. There will be a portion of them who will remain faithful to Lieberman regardless... That and the fact that the Rs will likely cross over to vote for him as a more viable candidate will give him the win.

maineman
08-10-2006, 08:23 PM
then I hope the asshole is struck by lightning

Beefy
08-10-2006, 09:23 PM
then I hope the asshole is struck by lightning

Because he is running as an independent? He's just trying to find another avenue to the sacred power all politicians so desire. His motivations are no different than Lamonts or any other politician. His motivation is power.

Wasn't it you that said something to the effect of "its not my state, what do I care?" about Byrd? Why do the rules change here?

Cypress
08-10-2006, 10:14 PM
Let's dispense with the "feelings" about how lamonts victory will affect dems - some claim it will "destroy" the dems, some claim it will help them.

Let's look at the first actual empirical evidence demonstrating whether or not lamonts victory will create a backlash, as some have claimed:


Fox News Poll - First post-Lamont victory poll:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 8-9, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

" if the congressional election were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate in your district or the Republican candidate in your district?"

Democrat: 48%
Republican: 30 %
Unsure: 22 %


Dems with 18-point generic lead. Highest margin ever polled, since 1982.

Beefy
08-10-2006, 10:20 PM
Well, its looking like the Dems will take a gain in the Congress come November.

What if they take the lead? This worries me, but nor for reasons you may think. I am worried that if the Dems gain the hill, then we will have a bunch of Lame Duck Republicans on the hill that may make one last stand. Maybe a couple of "pre-emptive strikes" on Iran or whatever. It'll be W's last ditch effort to wage war while he legally can.

Am I a fear monger?

zoombwaz
08-11-2006, 04:10 AM
All of the above and they are afraid a majority anti war group will get elected and end their reign of terror!

Bingo.

AnyOldIron
08-11-2006, 04:26 AM
They believe it is anti-semitism from what I've read.

Some of them, ie Dixie, assume people can't be judged on their actions, but only their ethnicity....

zoombwaz
08-11-2006, 04:42 AM
What we have here is some kind of left wing psychic meeting? I maintain its not because it freaks me out .. it was an assinine move on the Democrats part ..thats all ... no skin off my nose ...
Ive been waiting for you all to start going after Kerry, Biden and Hillary for the same reasons ...

How was this an asinine move? For that matter, how was it a "move" at all? It wasn't some grand strategy, cooked up in a back room by a group of insiders. It was a vote. The will of the people, expressed in a democratic tradition. The voters decided that he no longer represented their best interests, and voted accordingly.as far as the rest you mentioned, Kerry is already on board, and if Hillary and Biden want to retain their seats, they will cease defending the indefensible, straighten up, and fly right. This is all about being held accountable for your voting record, and Lieberman's no longer represented a Democratic voters of Connecticut.

it's a shame that we've all gotten so hung up on arcane political strategy, instead of just voting on the person's record. All other considerations are bullshit, and only play into the hands of the career politicians. There is a libertarian poster on one of these boards, whose signature line includes the phrase, "politicians should be changed like diapers, and for the same reason." With very few exceptions, that says it all. It was obviously Lieberman's turn to be changed, in the judgment of the voters.

zoombwaz
08-11-2006, 04:53 AM
Well said Jarod.
However I do not like Kerry or Hillary very much. Biden, I am not sure about.
Of course if GWB could run again I would vote for Peewee Herman before I would him.

I would vote for a brick before I would vote for Bush. At least the brick isn't going to lie to me, send my child to die in a war of choice, or pick my pocket.

zoombwaz
08-11-2006, 04:57 AM
It wasn't a war vote, remember? It was just a vote to authorize force.

Idiot. The application of military force by one country on another is called war. Go away. The grownups are talking.

zoombwaz
08-11-2006, 05:40 AM
Yep, that's actually true. I am a registered Independent. I even went on to list the numerous democrats I've voted for, did you miss that part? Apparently so!

You mean Democrats like Strom Thurmond, John Stennis. John Sparkman, James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Richard Shelby, and Zell Miller?

klaatu
08-11-2006, 05:59 AM
How was this an asinine move? For that matter, how was it a "move" at all? It wasn't some grand strategy, cooked up in a back room by a group of insiders. It was a vote. The will of the people, expressed in a democratic tradition. The voters decided that he no longer represented their best interests, and voted accordingly.as far as the rest you mentioned, Kerry is already on board, and if Hillary and Biden want to retain their seats, they will cease defending the indefensible, straighten up, and fly right. This is all about being held accountable for your voting record, and Lieberman's no longer represented a Democratic voters of Connecticut.

it's a shame that we've all gotten so hung up on arcane political strategy, instead of just voting on the person's record. All other considerations are bullshit, and only play into the hands of the career politicians. There is a libertarian poster on one of these boards, whose signature line includes the phrase, "politicians should be changed like diapers, and for the same reason." With very few exceptions, that says it all. It was obviously Lieberman's turn to be changed, in the judgment of the voters.

You are right .. it is the will of the people .. for that reason it is good ... but it just seems that it is only happening to Lieberman .. if it catches on and it begins to happen across the board in both party's ..you know what? Im on board come November .. I wouldnt mind a good 'ol fashion house cleaning! Throw the bums out! Lets keep this up right through 2008 and bring both houses back to ground zero ...

Sometimes I do look at things too strategically ... you actually got me thinking about that one ...

uscitizen
08-11-2006, 08:24 AM
Throw the bums out! Lets keep this up right through 2008 and bring both houses back to ground zero ...

Agreed.
There might be 10 or so in there worth keeping.

Cypress
08-11-2006, 08:41 AM
Well, its looking like the Dems will take a gain in the Congress come November.

What if they take the lead? This worries me, but nor for reasons you may think. I am worried that if the Dems gain the hill, then we will have a bunch of Lame Duck Republicans on the hill that may make one last stand. Maybe a couple of "pre-emptive strikes" on Iran or whatever. It'll be W's last ditch effort to wage war while he legally can.

Am I a fear monger?

I doubt the dems will take back either house; they'll probably win some seats, but the power of incumbencyy has grown to levels never seen before.

I find it interesting that Fox News has been drumming the "news" for a couple weeks, that a Lamont victory will freak out voters and demonstrate the Dems are going "extreme left" -- yet the actual empirical evidence shows the opposite. This Fox post-lamont poll shows the generic gap growing wider in favor of Democrats.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-11-2006, 08:58 AM
How was this an asinine move? For that matter, how was it a "move" at all? It wasn't some grand strategy, cooked up in a back room by a group of insiders. It was a vote. The will of the people, expressed in a democratic tradition. The voters decided that he no longer represented their best interests, and voted accordingly.


This is why people call you a koolaid drinking idiot, you don't acknowledge the facts. Like the fact that MoveOn.org and George Soros, in connection with the DNC and Howard Dean, targeted the Lieberman race, backed his opponent, and swayed 100,000 Independents to vote in the Democratic primaries... that's what MONEY will do for a campaign. Why did they do this? Simple... fundraising! This was, and is, being billed as the "early indicator" of things to come, it's being played up as this big grass-roots movement of the anti-war left, to get the kooks worked up into a frenzy so they will send their money in! To assume that how 100,000 people in CT voted, is reflective of what 300 million Americans think, is ridiculous.

Cypress
08-11-2006, 09:04 AM
This is hilarious!

Dixie thinks a lamont victory will create a backlash against Dems for "going too far left", when the actual post-lamont Polls from Fox News show the exact opposite.

And that the Demcractic establishment ("DNC") worked against Lieberman, when in fact virtually all the big wigs in the Democratic establishment from Bill Clinton on down, were supporting Lieberman.

uscitizen
08-11-2006, 09:25 AM
Just let dixie keep believing that, it is good for the demoncrats :)
Lieberman is busy drumming up support from Repubs for his run as an independent. Tell ya anything ?

BRUTALITOPS
08-11-2006, 04:48 PM
Idiot. The application of military force by one country on another is called war. Go away. The grownups are talking.

Idiot, that's not my side's talking point, it's yours. Rent a brain.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-11-2006, 05:22 PM
This is hilarious!

Dixie thinks a lamont victory will create a backlash against Dems for "going too far left", when the actual post-lamont Polls from Fox News show the exact opposite.

And that the Demcractic establishment ("DNC") worked against Lieberman, when in fact virtually all the big wigs in the Democratic establishment from Bill Clinton on down, were supporting Lieberman.

Actually, I think Lieberman will win big as an Independent. I think the Howard Dean Liberals just shot the Democratic party in the foot, because not only will you lose a respected statesman and voice of reason, as well as a senior committee chair in your party, you will also give up one more precious seat in the Senate. It doesn't help to lose Democratic seats, when you are trying to regain power.

Keep in mind, the CT Demo primary garners a fraction of the general election votes. Soros and Company managed to sway 100k Indies to help them oust Joe in the primaries, but there are 900k more voters in CT, who will be die-hard Lieberman Lovers in November, and MoveOn.Org can't sway that many.

Now, the good news is, you will have spin... Oh well, Joe... he's STILL a Democrat... and now that he's been straightened out, he will start to back our lunacy to surrender this victory to the terrorists! So, it's not like it's going to be the end of the world when this one blows up in your face, it's just funny to watch you hacks throw a respected statesman under your own bus!

maineman
08-12-2006, 12:08 PM
actually, what you "think" will happen on the American political stage and what does happen are synonymous infrequently.

tinfoil
08-13-2006, 01:29 PM
Hmmm....deja vu. the republicans keep making these kind of claims, over and over - "the destruction of the Dem party!" - but, it never seems to come true.

-I remember when Howard Dean was elected chairman, that was supposed to destroy the Dems. Yet oddly, the polls keep getting better and better for the dems.

-Russ Fiengold amendment to censure Bush was supposed to destroy the Dems. For some odd reason, it never did.

-Having a San Francisco-liberal in charge of the House Dems, (Pelosi) was supposed to annihilate the Dems. Doesn't appear to have done so.

-Having Al Sharpton run for prez in the Dem primaries, was supposed to destroy the Dems. Oddly, it didn't.

Put down the kool aid stirfry, and turn off the Fox News talking points.



Cypress
have a lookie here. What's that? Liebrman ahead ina poll?
http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

maineman
08-14-2006, 01:50 PM
big fucking deal. he was ahead of the primary polls until the week before the election. Iraq continues to stink up the middle east...now that the ceasefire is on in Lebanon, Iraq will get back toward the front of our national conscience once again.... Joe is a turncoat and a quisling.... I hope he loses big...and the fact that he is leading by a whisker in the first post primary poll is no indication that he won't.

uscitizen
08-14-2006, 01:55 PM
Leading by a whisker after losing . Sort of like the last horse in the race making it back to the barn first. Does not count.

zoombwaz
08-14-2006, 11:49 PM
You are right .. it is the will of the people .. for that reason it is good ... but it just seems that it is only happening to Lieberman .. if it catches on and it begins to happen across the board in both party's ..you know what? Im on board come November .. I wouldnt mind a good 'ol fashion house cleaning! Throw the bums out! Lets keep this up right through 2008 and bring both houses back to ground zero ...

Sometimes I do look at things too strategically ... you actually got me thinking about that one ...

Keep in mind that 60% of the population opposes the occupation of Iraq. On situations as grave as war, lost support almost never comes back. Once the public sours on a war, it rarely cnanges back to support, so that 61% represents a solid (and probably permanent) majority opinion. For the GOP spinmeisters to pretend is is a leftwing position is ludicrous. Aposition held by 60% is by definition the moderate position. Teh first definition od moderate is "being within reasonable or average limits", and one of the three types of average is tbe mode (the root of moderate), which is the value appearing most often

There is a good article about the spin vs the reality of the current state of national security at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0814-27.htm Yeah, I know it's a progressive web site, but that's immaterial, and the next website,http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html ,will tell you why the article musat be judged on its own merits, that diusmissing it as liberal is a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well", a form ofad hominem. You might want to bookmark the second site as a reference for those times when sombody's argument just sounds wrong, but you can't put your finger on it. This is a pretty thorough listing of all the major logical fallacies, formal and informal, all those arguments and leaps of logic we aren't allowed to make, at least not of we want our arguments to be legitimate.

Cancel7
08-15-2006, 05:24 AM
Keep in mind that 60% of the population opposes the occupation of Iraq. On situations as grave as war, lost support almost never comes back. Once the public sours on a war, it rarely cnanges back to support, so that 61% represents a solid (and probably permanent) majority opinion. For the GOP spinmeisters to pretend is is a leftwing position is ludicrous. Aposition held by 60% is by definition the moderate position. Teh first definition od moderate is "being within reasonable or average limits", and one of the three types of average is tbe mode (the root of moderate), which is the value appearing most often

There is a good article about the spin vs the reality of the current state of national security at http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0814-27.htm Yeah, I know it's a progressive web site, but that's immaterial, and the next website,http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html ,will tell you why the article musat be judged on its own merits, that diusmissing it as liberal is a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well", a form ofad hominem. You might want to bookmark the second site as a reference for those times when sombody's argument just sounds wrong, but you can't put your finger on it. This is a pretty thorough listing of all the major logical fallacies, formal and informal, all those arguments and leaps of logic we aren't allowed to make, at least not of we want our arguments to be legitimate.

Zoom, I think that's right that once the public sours on a war, they do not turn around, change their minds, and support it. And I believe that is why you are seeing a real orchestrated attempt to demonize the peace movement in this country. It seems that the public soured on Vietnam quite a bit sooner than general wisdom has said. However, the anti-war movement, viewed (and portrayed as by the establishment in power) as wild-eyed, radical, dangerous, and violent leftists, scared and disgusted them even moreso.

I think the bushies are hoping for a repeat. So get used to being called an "Al Qaeda type".

Cancel7
08-15-2006, 05:27 AM
They believe it is anti-semitism from what I've read.

Some of them, ie Dixie, assume people can't be judged on their actions, but only their ethnicity....


More likely some of them like Dixie, are projecting their own bigotry onto others. Many people cannot even conceive of a motivation that differs from their own driving motivations. Thus, a thief will always be the one to most jealously guard their purse, the obese person will always assume that you too, are obsessed with that last donut that's just sitting there, the cheater will always accuse and suspect you of cheating, and the racist will always presume a racist motivation.

OrnotBitwise
08-15-2006, 09:12 AM
Well, its looking like the Dems will take a gain in the Congress come November.

What if they take the lead? This worries me, but nor for reasons you may think. I am worried that if the Dems gain the hill, then we will have a bunch of Lame Duck Republicans on the hill that may make one last stand. Maybe a couple of "pre-emptive strikes" on Iran or whatever. It'll be W's last ditch effort to wage war while he legally can.

Am I a fear monger?In my more cynical moments -- usually between 3:45 and 7:00 PM -- I worry about that too. It's a risk, but not a particularly grave one, I think.

Cypress
08-15-2006, 09:19 AM
Cypress
have a lookie here. What's that? Liebrman ahead ina poll?
http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

Your poll also shows the republican nominee Schlesinger dropping to 6% - meaning that Lieberman's gain is probably coming from republicans who refuse to support their own candidate

Unless the RNC bails on their own candidate, and starts pouring $$$ into lieberman's coffers, I think Joe's money will dry up in a few weeks. He may not be able to sustain a real campaign.

zoombwaz
08-17-2006, 11:29 PM
How was this an asinine move? For that matter, how was it a "move" at all? It wasn't some grand strategy, cooked up in a back room by a group of insiders. It was a vote. The will of the people, expressed in a democratic tradition. The voters decided that he no longer represented their best interests, and voted accordingly.


This is why people call you a koolaid drinking idiot, you don't acknowledge the facts. Like the fact that MoveOn.org and George Soros, in connection with the DNC and Howard Dean, targeted the Lieberman race, backed his opponent, and swayed 100,000 Independents to vote in the Democratic primaries... that's what MONEY will do for a campaign. Why did they do this? Simple... fundraising! This was, and is, being billed as the "early indicator" of things to come, it's being played up as this big grass-roots movement of the anti-war left, to get the kooks worked up into a frenzy so they will send their money in! To assume that how 100,000 people in CT voted, is reflective of what 300 million Americans think, is ridiculous.

The only people who call me a kool ade drinking idiot are fuckups like you who have their heads planted firmly up their asses. Have you ever made a prediction on hese boards that came true? I haven't seen one. On the other hand, I haven't missed yet on my predictions on Iraq. You still think Bush is doing a good job, and have yet to figure out that he's a liar. How fucking stupid are you? Now to your latest in a series of moronic statements. Did Soros and MoveOn also pull the levers in the voting booths? Did you take a look at Lieberman's voting record? It isn't the record of a Democrat, but of a Republican, and all the folks voting against him knew it. He continues to defend a war that a clear majority of the public opposes.

And now for the clincher. The fact that right wing assholes like you are so upset that Lieberman lost is the clearest evidence that the voters did the right thing. Every time you jerkoffs shoot off your mouths about Lieberman, you make the case for the vote as it played out. Lieberman himself is adding to the stupidity, comparing al Qaeda to t USSR and the Nazis. What a dipshit. The Soviets had 3 million men in the Red Army and 10,000 nuclear warheads aimed our way. Bin Laden is hiding in a cave with an AK47, and has maybe 10,000 men. AQ has killed thousands. The Nazis exterminated 10 million, and started a war that led to another 41 million deaths. Talk about your moronic comparison. Loserman is a self-centered little asshole who is going to run an extremely dirty campaign, slandering his opponent because he can't run on his own record.

What a slimeball.

zoombwaz
08-17-2006, 11:39 PM
Actually, I think Lieberman will win big as an Independent. I think the Howard Dean Liberals just shot the Democratic party in the foot, because not only will you lose a respected statesman and voice of reason, as well as a senior committee chair in your party, you will also give up one more precious seat in the Senate. It doesn't help to lose Democratic seats, when you are trying to regain power.

Keep in mind, the CT Demo primary garners a fraction of the general election votes. Soros and Company managed to sway 100k Indies to help them oust Joe in the primaries, but there are 900k more voters in CT, who will be die-hard Lieberman Lovers in November, and MoveOn.Org can't sway that many.

Now, the good news is, you will have spin... Oh well, Joe... he's STILL a Democrat... and now that he's been straightened out, he will start to back our lunacy to surrender this victory to the terrorists! So, it's not like it's going to be the end of the world when this one blows up in your face, it's just funny to watch you hacks throw a respected statesman under your own bus!


Another in a long line of stupid predictions. Loserman is no statesman. He's a hack. Bill Clinton already bitch-slapped him verbally, and there are a total of 5 senate Dems supporting him, and 42 supporting Lamont, The voters will probably break that way as well, and as his lies about his voting record are exposed, his polling numbers will drop, and his funding will dry up. He's toast.

Hermes Thoth
04-05-2007, 03:59 PM
Its bizarre, really. Personally, I pay very litle attention to GOP congresional or local primaries. Its not my party. I frankly don't give a shit which wingnut they elect. Especially in states I don't live in.

But on this board and the other, Cons have been wiggin' for days and days about lieberman. Post after post, thread after thread.

Possible theories:

1) Lieberman's loss freaks them, because he's the first prominent delusional war-apologist being held accountable - is it a trend?;

2) Its extremely rare for incumbent senators to lose primaries. Is this the beginning of an anti-incumbent mood in the electorate. An anti-incumbent mood is obvioulsy more dangerous for the GOP;

3) Lieberman could be counted on to vote for Terri Schiavo Amendments, lame so-called "free" trade bills that gut the middle class, and various other theocratic agendas. Is his loss a trend that the electorate is fed up with lame, failed policies that don't promote the common good?

Dimwitted christians have bought into the "chosen people" hype about jews. If jews lose, it must mean god is weak, and that conclusion scares them.

uscitizen
04-05-2007, 08:24 PM
Not necessarially, if you know the bible you know God purposely let the Jews asses be kicked many times becuse of their falling from grace. Who is to say it cannot happen again.

clue read Judges, it is pretty much what that book is all about.

Hermes Thoth
04-06-2007, 09:15 AM
Not necessarially, if you know the bible you know God purposely let the Jews asses be kicked many times becuse of their falling from grace. Who is to say it cannot happen again.

clue read Judges, it is pretty much what that book is all about.


I said DIMWITTED.

uscitizen
04-06-2007, 02:52 PM
Yes of course people are scared when something they have put their faith into falters. Take Bushites for instance.....