PDA

View Full Version : Lieberman ahead in polls, Kerry slams him



klaatu
08-22-2006, 07:14 AM
So as an independent.. Joe Lieberman is ahead in the polls .... yet Kerry is slammin Lieberman for running as an independent ..saying that he is out of touch with the people of Ct.
I guess Kerry doesnt consider anyone outside the Democratic Party people...


http://tinyurl.com/ksv8s

Care4all
08-22-2006, 07:27 AM
Joe Lieberman is suppose to represent the people of Connecticut...connecticut will decide....

If lieberman wins, then the Dems will be kissing his rear again....in Congress...

robdastud
08-22-2006, 07:44 AM
So as an independent.. Joe Lieberman is ahead in the polls .... yet Kerry is slammin Lieberman for running as an independent ..saying that he is out of touch with the people of Ct.
I guess Kerry doesnt consider anyone outside the Democratic Party people...


http://tinyurl.com/ksv8s


guess you missed that lamont is catching up to LIEberman anyways.... LIEberman isn't a democrat so why is Kerry going to support him?

klaatu
08-22-2006, 07:49 AM
Joe Lieberman is suppose to represent the people of Connecticut...connecticut will decide....

If lieberman wins, then the Dems will be kissing his rear again....in Congress...

Thats the correct answer .. ;)

klaatu
08-22-2006, 07:50 AM
guess you missed that lamont is catching up to LIEberman anyways.... LIEberman isn't a democrat so why is Kerry going to support him?

Guess you didnt look at the link I provided ....

robdastud
08-22-2006, 07:50 AM
funny how all y'all throw katherine harris under the bus but none of you wanna talk about that eh klaatu??

klaatu
08-22-2006, 07:54 AM
funny how all y'all throw katherine harris under the bus but none of you wanna talk about that eh klaatu??

Who's me all Dawg ... I have nothing to do with Harris .... Once again ...Im not a Republican .. I do not vote in republican Primaries ...

Read my print ... Just because I do not agree with all the Dems talking points ... it doesnt make me a Republican ....

klaatu
08-22-2006, 07:57 AM
Besides .. comapring Harris to Liberman is assinine, comparing apples to oranges ... Harris is a Congresswomen running for an open seat ... Lieberman is an 18 year Senator .. and one time VP candidate ..

robdastud
08-22-2006, 07:58 AM
Who's me all Dawg ... I have nothing to do with Harris .... Once again ...Im not a Republican .. I do not vote in republican Primaries ...

Read my print ... Just because I do not agree with all the Dems talking points ... it doesnt make me a Republican ....

didn't know you voted in democratic connecticut ones!! where you been hiding lets do lunch soon!

robdastud
08-22-2006, 07:58 AM
klaatu isn't a republican like LIEbermans not a republican...LOL

robdastud
08-22-2006, 08:00 AM
Besides .. comapring Harris to Liberman is assinine, comparing apples to oranges ... Harris is a Congresswomen running for an open seat ... Lieberman is an 18 year Senator .. and one time VP candidate ..



So youre against choice?? it would seem he is on the wrong side of the issue no?? i mean the war is hugely unpopular, and so is bush so why is it some sort of shock that he lost the primary...

besides the independents will carry him through to victory in november, but that won't ever change my opinion of him being a sore loser, and ill never vote for him again.

klaatu
08-22-2006, 08:17 AM
On the War .. at this point in juncture ... as far as the people of Ct. .yes he is on the wrong side of the issue ...

Everything else ... Dawg ... Liebrman is not a Republican .. we've gone through this before .... his voting record is barley close to Moderate ...

My point in this point was really a jab against Jaws .. ..

robdastud
08-22-2006, 08:19 AM
i don't get what your trying to say....

klaatu
08-22-2006, 08:20 AM
Jaws = Kerry

robdastud
08-22-2006, 08:27 AM
yeah but don't you find Lieberman to be kinda a sore loser, in 2000 and again now in 2006....


i don't think ill ever vote for him again b/c he looks at his seat like a fiefdom owned by him, and its not.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 08:40 AM
I wonder how it makes Lieberman feel that if he wins it will be because Republicans elected him. He will get more votes from registered Republicans than Democrats.

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 08:42 AM
funny how all y'all throw katherine harris under the bus but none of you wanna talk about that eh klaatu??

Yep the repubs are not discussing throwing the current republican governor of KY under the train as well and not back him for re-election.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 08:46 AM
Don't forget Arlen Specter's challenge in 2004 and he has been a Senator far longer than Lieberman.

robdastud
08-22-2006, 08:47 AM
I wonder how it makes Lieberman feel that if he wins it will be because Republicans elected him. He will get more votes from registered Republicans than Democrats.

not true... CT is like MA it s a bunch of INdependents.. we have the most popular governor, who in fact is a republican.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-22-2006, 08:51 AM
guess you missed that lamont is catching up to LIEberman anyways.... LIEberman isn't a democrat so why is Kerry going to support him?


Just exactly how does one "catch up" to someone who is out of touch with the voters of the state? Seems to me, he should already be ahead, not behind, catching up. No?

Lieberman lost the Democratic primary because George Soros poured millions of dollars into the Lamont campaign and convinced a few nutball Independents to vote for his guy. That will not happen in the general election, Liberman will win as an independent, and the Democrats will lose a key leadership seat in the Senate. I hope it was worth that, to raise a little cash for the party, because in the end, that was what this was all about... fundraising.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 08:51 AM
I still think more republicans will vote for Lieberman than democrats.

robdastud
08-22-2006, 08:54 AM
I still think more republicans will vote for Lieberman than democrats.

of course! lol but not necessairly true, my aunts are hard core dems and they love lieberman.

klaatu
08-22-2006, 08:55 AM
I still think more republicans will vote for Lieberman than democrats.

Possible ... although if they look beyond Liebermans take on the War .. they shouldnt ...

robdastud
08-22-2006, 08:56 AM
Just exactly how does one "catch up" to someone who is out of touch with the voters of the state? Seems to me, he should already be ahead, not behind, catching up. No?

Lieberman lost the Democratic primary because George Soros poured millions of dollars into the Lamont campaign and convinced a few nutball Independents to vote for his guy. That will not happen in the general election, Liberman will win as an independent, and the Democrats will lose a key leadership seat in the Senate. I hope it was worth that, to raise a little cash for the party, because in the end, that was what this was all about... fundraising.

that may be true but your also forgetting about how 60% of people are against the war, and this isn't Bama, Bush isn't exactly popular here so its not really suprising that democrats in their primary would vote for the other choice....

and you don't think that LIEberman wasn't getting any serious money from campaigne contributions and coffers and corporations unions etc??

come on dixie, your better than that.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 08:58 AM
Republican's are dumb for voting for Lieberman. But so are Democrats that vote for Lieberman.

Lamont represents the views of democrats moreso than Lieberman.

Schlessinger (I think thats his name) represents Republicans better.

robdastud
08-22-2006, 08:59 AM
Republican's are dumb for voting for Lieberman. But so are Democrats that vote for Lieberman.

Lamont represents the views of democrats moreso than Lieberman.

Schlessinger (I think thats his name) represents Republicans better.

don't call us dumb for whatever, you have santorum which defeats any and all odds of stupidity.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 08:59 AM
Just exactly how does one "catch up" to someone who is out of touch with the voters of the state? Seems to me, he should already be ahead, not behind, catching up. No?

Lieberman lost the Democratic primary because George Soros poured millions of dollars into the Lamont campaign and convinced a few nutball Independents to vote for his guy. That will not happen in the general election, Liberman will win as an independent, and the Democrats will lose a key leadership seat in the Senate. I hope it was worth that, to raise a little cash for the party, because in the end, that was what this was all about... fundraising.

Yes Dixie the CT Democratic primary voters went to look up who raised more money before deciding who to vote for. The primary was a referendum on the war pure and simple.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:00 AM
don't call us dumb for whatever, you have santorum which defeats any and all odds of stupidity.

I didn't vote for Santorum and I won't. I would vote for Orrin Hatch before I would vote for Santorum.

robdastud
08-22-2006, 09:01 AM
actually i think personally i saw more LIEberman ads than Lamont ads

Damocles
08-22-2006, 09:10 AM
Yes Dixie the CT Democratic primary voters went to look up who raised more money before deciding who to vote for. The primary was a referendum on the war pure and simple.

This should be a bit more exact. A referendum, among Democrats, on the war...

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:16 AM
Right of course Damo. For Republicans though it is somewhat a referendum on the war too should they choose to vote for Lieberman. There is no reason for a republican to vote for Lieberman other than on the war issue unless they like his stance with violent video games.

robdastud
08-22-2006, 09:20 AM
Right of course Damo. For Republicans though it is somewhat a referendum on the war too should they choose to vote for Lieberman. There is no reason for a republican to vote for Lieberman other than on the war issue unless they like his stance with violent video games.

well he is also one hell of a sore loser.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 09:25 AM
Right of course Damo. For Republicans though it is somewhat a referendum on the war too should they choose to vote for Lieberman. There is no reason for a republican to vote for Lieberman other than on the war issue unless they like his stance with violent video games.

Which makes this next election another referendum on the war... Will he get in office? I think he will.

klaatu
08-22-2006, 09:37 AM
Republican's are dumb for voting for Lieberman. But so are Democrats that vote for Lieberman.

Lamont represents the views of democrats moreso than Lieberman.

Schlessinger (I think thats his name) represents Republicans better.


Aside from the War.. you are wrong .. you need to look up Liebermans voting history ...

See people like robdawg will have you think that Lieberman is this right wing Democrat ... they are wrong ...

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 09:41 AM
Klaatu I am aware of Lieberman's voting record. However Lamont has pretty much the same views except he is against the war which is pretty much the concensus within the democratic party.

robdastud
08-22-2006, 09:49 AM
Aside from the War.. you are wrong .. you need to look up Liebermans voting history ...

See people like robdawg will have you think that Lieberman is this right wing Democrat ... they are wrong ...



Klaatu

LIEberman voted for bush's energy program
LIEberman voted for NCLB --of which CT is suing the federal government... so OBVIOUSLY HE WASN'T VOTING IN CT'S BEST INTEREST...

LIEberman voted for CAFTA+NAFTA to give us da SHAFTA
LIEberman also voted for the Iraq war which as cost us billions..

naw your right klaatu he's a mod dem..LOL

robdastud
08-22-2006, 09:50 AM
he might have voted w/ dems 90% of the time, but what were those votes for?? closing meetings?? hahahaha...

robdastud
08-22-2006, 09:50 AM
one things for sure he is a hard core sore loser!

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 09:57 AM
He is not a representative of the people. the people said they don't wantr him and still he persists. For the people ? No for lieberman.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:05 AM
The people do not only comprise Democrats. He certainly should run if he feels he will better represent CT. I just want him to understand that by doing so he is now counting on the support of Republicans to elect him not democrats. I hope he is ok with that and will admit it because it is the truth.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 10:08 AM
He is not a representative of the people. the people said they don't wantr him and still he persists. For the people ? No for lieberman.
The Democrats said that they did not want him, not "The People"

The Democrats are only a subset of "The People"...

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-22-2006, 10:11 AM
He is not a representative of the people. the people said they don't wantr him and still he persists. For the people ? No for lieberman.

According to the polls, you are wrong, unless you only count Democrats as "the people" and disregard everyone else.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:18 AM
3 times refuted.

robdastud
08-22-2006, 10:18 AM
The people do not only comprise Democrats. He certainly should run if he feels he will better represent CT. I just want him to understand that by doing so he is now counting on the support of Republicans to elect him not democrats. I hope he is ok with that and will admit it because it is the truth.

actually you mean independents.... and if he's getting most of his support from republicans then he's really not a democrat anyways, so why pay homage to the dems?

uscitizen
08-22-2006, 10:20 AM
hmm, silly me I thought Liebermans state was a blue state. My apologies for my oversight. I guess I should have said the people of the party lieberman was claiming to represent.

robdastud
08-22-2006, 10:20 AM
its funny how dixie and them all HATED him in 2000, called him and gore sore loserman, now they want to make out w/ LIEberman

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:21 AM
Yeah he's getting a lot of his support from independents but Republicans too. Without their support Lamont would probably win.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:22 AM
hmm, silly me I thought Liebermans state was a blue state. My apologies for my oversight. I guess I should have said the people of the party lieberman was claiming to represent.

Not the blue state red state thing.

a state that has 400,200 votes for Kerry and 400,000 votes for Bush may be a blue state but that says very little actually about the will of the people outside that specific contest.

leaningright
08-22-2006, 10:33 AM
Someone may have already addressed this (alluded to in Ihate's post above) but I am watching this race closely and hopeful for Lieberman simply because I would like to see a more centrist candidate elected (even when he is unpopular due to his war stance) and be reassured that not everyone in the NE has gone off of the left edge.

robdastud
08-22-2006, 10:33 AM
IHG i think LOVES LIEberman!!!

klaatu
08-22-2006, 10:36 AM
According to the polls, you are wrong, unless you only count Democrats as "the people" and disregard everyone else.


And this brings us back to the opening post in this thread ...and what John Kerry said .. hmmm ....

klaatu
08-22-2006, 10:38 AM
its funny how dixie and them all HATED him in 2000, called him and gore sore loserman, now they want to make out w/ LIEberman

Dawg .. you are the only one here who thinks in terms of making out with another man ... ;)

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:40 AM
IHG i think LOVES LIEberman!!!
Reply With Quote

Huh? I said in the thread earlier its dumb to vote for him. I never like Lieberman he is one of my least favorite democrats. I hated him back in the 90s. He sucks.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-22-2006, 10:41 AM
its funny how dixie and them all HATED him in 2000, called him and gore sore loserman, now they want to make out w/ LIEberman


I actually said that I might consider voting for Joe, if he had been the nominee over Gore. He's about the only Democrat, other than Zell, I could honestly say that about. Where you people get that we were all bashing on Lieberman, is beyond me, most Republicans at least had respect for his integrity, even though we disagree with his politics, and we felt he sold out his principles to run with Gore.

Nevertheless, CT is a blue state that is poised to elect an Independent to the Senate, primarilly because the Democrats have lost their minds. If I were a Republican in CT, I would vote for Lieberman on principle alone, the Republican candidate is not going to win, and given the choice of Liberman or Lamont, you'd just about have to be stupid not to vote for Joe. JMHO.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:41 AM
Dawg maybe you mixed up Leaning and my post. No?

klaatu
08-22-2006, 10:41 AM
Klaatu

LIEberman voted for bush's energy program
LIEberman voted for NCLB --of which CT is suing the federal government... so OBVIOUSLY HE WASN'T VOTING IN CT'S BEST INTEREST...

LIEberman voted for CAFTA+NAFTA to give us da SHAFTA
LIEberman also voted for the Iraq war which as cost us billions..

naw your right klaatu he's a mod dem..LOL


So what dawg .. voting 90% of the time with your party clearly aligns with the party's base. He is a Left Wing Dem who supports the War ...
And he was right with NAFTA .. you numbskull ...

robdastud
08-22-2006, 10:42 AM
Dawg .. you are the only one here who thinks in terms of making out with another man ... ;)

its the only logical solution, either that or you guys like sore losers??

Actually Klaatu i was going to ask you if you wanted me to send you some cigars but i asked about sending em to the US and they wouldn't let me send em or you or me could get in trouble for that.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:42 AM
NAFTA is unconstitutional. I would hardly call someone a numbskull for opposing it.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-22-2006, 10:50 AM
its the only logical solution, either that or you guys like sore losers??

Actually Klaatu i was going to ask you if you wanted me to send you some cigars but i asked about sending em to the US and they wouldn't let me send em or you or me could get in trouble for that.

You have a gross misconception of what consitutes a "sore loser" dawg. A "sore loser" is someone who wants to count dangling chads endless times, until they manipulate the results of the election to their favor, a "sore loser" is someone who claims the voting machines were rigged against them. Joe Lieberman hasn't lost anything except the Democratic primary, and he is leading the race as an Independent. There is nothing "sore" about that, or "losing" for that matter. The real "sore losers" are the Democrats, who want to argue that Joe is going against the will of "the people" because Democrats threw him under the bus.

klaatu
08-22-2006, 10:51 AM
NAFTA is unconstitutional. I would hardly call someone a numbskull for opposing it.

Eliminating duties and phasing out tariffs is unconstitutional? A Libertarian who is also a Protectionist? NAFTA is at least an incremental step towards Free Trade.. as a Libertarian arent you for a policy to Abolish all trade barriers and agreements ...?
Are you against NAFTA simply because it was a Republican/Democrat policy?

robdastud
08-22-2006, 10:51 AM
I actually said that I might consider voting for Joe, if he had been the nominee over Gore. He's about the only Democrat, other than Zell, I could honestly say that about. Where you people get that we were all bashing on Lieberman, is beyond me, most Republicans at least had respect for his integrity, even though we disagree with his politics, and we felt he sold out his principles to run with Gore.

Nevertheless, CT is a blue state that is poised to elect an Independent to the Senate, primarilly because the Democrats have lost their minds. If I were a Republican in CT, I would vote for Lieberman on principle alone, the Republican candidate is not going to win, and given the choice of Liberman or Lamont, you'd just about have to be stupid not to vote for Joe. JMHO.

thats a fair point dixie

robdastud
08-22-2006, 10:54 AM
So what dawg .. voting 90% of the time with your party clearly aligns with the party's base. He is a Left Wing Dem who supports the War ...
And he was right with NAFTA .. you numbskull ...



yeah when is he voting in that 90%??? to close meetings?? HAHAHA, listen its obvious he isn't voting in Conn residents best interests, they don't like bush, they don't like him, is all. he's about as left wing as whaaa?? LOL

joe just wants to be king joe in his senate seat. he's a loser who can't lose gracefully is all...

i hope lamont kicks his @ss if only for the fact that LIEberman can't lose gracdfully.

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 10:56 AM
Eliminating duties and phasing out tariffs is unconstitutional? A Libertarian who is also a Protectionist? NAFTA is at least an incremental step towards Free Trade.. as a Libertarian arent you for a policy to Abolish all trade barriers and agreements ...?
Are you against NAFTA simply because it was a Republican/Democrat policy?

Only Congress can regulate international trade. NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT turn over this power to the World Trade Organization which is part of the UN. It is unconstitutional for Congress to surrender its sovereignty.

Ron Paul voted against these acts. They are also unconstitutional because they are treaties and treaties must be agreed to by 2/3 of the Senate. However it was treated as a typical law.

Most libertarians oppose NAFTA and the like because they surrender national sovereignty.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 11:06 AM
Ron Paul voted against these acts. They are also unconstitutional because they are treaties and treaties must be agreed to by 2/3 of the Senate. However it was treated as a typical law.

Most libertarians oppose NAFTA and the like because they surrender national sovereignty.


Well, if Ron Paul (the libertarian second coming) voted against it, it must be bad :p

IHateGovernment
08-22-2006, 11:09 AM
Go ahead and tease Tiana. He is right about this issue. I mainly brought that up because Klaatu mistakenly believes that libertarians should support NAFTA.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 11:11 AM
So as an independent.. Joe Lieberman is ahead in the polls .... yet Kerry is slammin Lieberman for running as an independent ..saying that he is out of touch with the people of Ct.
I guess Kerry doesnt consider anyone outside the Democratic Party people...


http://tinyurl.com/ksv8s

The republican Senate candidate is polling at 3%!



-American Research Group. 8/17-21. Likely voters. MoE 3.5% (No trend lines)

Lieberman (CfL) 44
Lamont (D) 42
Schlessinger (R) 3

Damocles
08-22-2006, 11:13 AM
He was polling at 5% during the Primaries in a two way...

It isn't like he lost anything. He never stood a chance.

robdastud
08-22-2006, 11:13 AM
Well, if Ron Paul (the libertarian second coming) voted against it, it must be bad :p

Lady T that made me laugh out loud!!!

yes Ron Paul, you know the Libertarian everyone wants to marry, he's like the messiah

robdastud
08-22-2006, 11:14 AM
He was polling at 5% during the Primaries in a two way...

It isn't like he lost anything. He never stood a chance.

yeah but now we're talkin about a 3 way...

Damocles
08-22-2006, 11:17 AM
yeah but now we're talkin about a 3 way...
Right and he dropped like two points. My point was he NEVER stood a chance regardless of how many people were running.

LadyT
08-22-2006, 11:18 AM
Lady T that made me laugh out loud!!!

yes Ron Paul, you know the Libertarian everyone wants to marry, he's like the messiah

LOL, I know! For some reason whenever they bring his name up in an argument it makes me laugh. We should start a ron paul thread count of some sort.

robdastud
08-22-2006, 11:19 AM
Right and he dropped like two points. My point was he NEVER stood a chance regardless of how many people were running.

well part of it too is his gambling problem i think but i dunno

LadyT
08-22-2006, 11:21 AM
Go ahead and tease Tiana.

Okay, but only because you insist..........:cof1:


So how does Ronnie boy's crack smell from that angle.......?

Damocles
08-22-2006, 11:22 AM
well part of it too is his gambling problem i think but i dunno
He sucked and the R Party ceded that seat long before the whole Lieberman/Lamont battle. They put forward a "candidate", but barely. Nobody ever thought he stood a chance to win.

It's like the dude they ran against "Osama" Obama..... (at least Kennedy thinks that is how you say his name...) ;)

Damocles
08-22-2006, 11:23 AM
LOL, I know! For some reason whenever they bring his name up in an argument it makes me laugh. We should start a ron paul thread count of some sort.
I don't care if he voted for or against it, what I care about is the fact that 2/3 of the Senate didn't ratify it and therefore per the Constitution it is NOT a binding Treaty or Law...

Cypress
08-22-2006, 11:26 AM
He sucked and the R Party ceded that seat long before the whole Lieberman/Lamont battle. They put forward a "candidate", but barely. Nobody ever thought he stood a chance to win.

It's like the dude they ran against "Osama" Obama..... (at least Kennedy thinks that is how you say his name...) ;)

Yeah, but 3% ??!!!

Even loony-tunes GOPers like Alan Keyes and David Duke could pull in 30% of the vote.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 11:31 AM
Right, but the other guy doesn't have an opponent that they approve of more than the candidate...

My point. "Osama" Obama didn't have a slightly more "righty" opponent that currently held the seat.

OrnotBitwise
08-22-2006, 03:23 PM
thats a fair point dixie
If Lieberman is elected as an independent, is that really such a loss for the Dims? I don't think so. Sure, he'll be pissed at the party leadership -- I would be too -- but most of his fundamental positions aren't likely to change. As many R's were at pains to point out, Lieberman is pretty liberal on most everything except the war against Iraq.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-22-2006, 03:28 PM
If Lieberman is elected as an independent, is that really such a loss for the Dims? I don't think so. Sure, he'll be pissed at the party leadership -- I would be too -- but most of his fundamental positions aren't likely to change. As many R's were at pains to point out, Lieberman is pretty liberal on most everything except the war against Iraq.

Yes, it's a HUGE loss for the Dems. Do you realize or understand how many committees and chairmanships Joe has been a part of? He was a senior Democratic leader, not some rookie flunky who didn't matter. AND... Losing him as a D, doesn't help the "D's" gain seats, not even in Pinheadland! Sorry.

klaatu
08-22-2006, 03:35 PM
Eliminating duties and phasing out tariffs is unconstitutional? A Libertarian who is also a Protectionist? NAFTA is at least an incremental step towards Free Trade.. as a Libertarian arent you for a policy to Abolish all trade barriers and agreements ...?
Are you against NAFTA simply because it was a Republican/Democrat policy?

Only Congress can regulate international trade. NAFTA, CAFTA and GATT turn over this power to the World Trade Organization which is part of the UN. It is unconstitutional for Congress to surrender its sovereignty.

Ron Paul voted against these acts. They are also unconstitutional because they are treaties and treaties must be agreed to by 2/3 of the Senate. However it was treated as a typical law.

Most libertarians oppose NAFTA and the like because they surrender national sovereignty.

Yeah .. like the UN controls us .. please ... it is an incremental step towards Free Trade and thats why I supported it..... I just dont like the one size fits all part of it.. i think that needs to be changed and make it more of a Fair Trade Agreement ... in this aspect it is much the same principle as the Kyoto Treaty .... one size does not fit all.. thats why we didnt take part in that ...

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 03:52 PM
Yes, it's a HUGE loss for the Dems. Do you realize or understand how many committees and chairmanships Joe has been a part of? He was a senior Democratic leader, not some rookie flunky who didn't matter. AND... Losing him as a D, doesn't help the "D's" gain seats, not even in Pinheadland! Sorry.


Yes, and having him in those positions has done so much for us. We got health care, we got that corrupt, corporate paid for bankruptcy bill squashed, we got the minimum wage raised several times, we got stonger anti-poverty programs....oh wait. Huh.

Hey, after over a decade of Joe Liberman, WTF did we get?

klaatu
08-22-2006, 04:00 PM
Yes, and having him in those positions has done so much for us. We got health care, we got that corrupt, corporate paid for bankruptcy bill squashed, we got the minimum wage raised several times, we got stonger anti-poverty programs....oh wait. Huh.

Hey, after over a decade of Joe Liberman, WTF did we get?


Who wants a Universal Health Care Plan Darla? Your plan up there really sounds like its going do wonders in terms of Budget Control ...
Our Government is not an Insurance Company .. you want a country like that ..move to Cuba ...

OrnotBitwise
08-22-2006, 04:09 PM
Who wants a Universal Health Care Plan Darla? Your plan up there really sounds like its going do wonders in terms of Budget Control ...
Our Government is not an Insurance Company .. you want a country like that ..move to Cuba ...
I think you're about to find out the hard way that most Americans want some form of universal health insurance.

I only hope that it's a smart version and not a dumb one . . . .

Cancel7
08-22-2006, 04:15 PM
Who wants a Universal Health Care Plan Darla? Your plan up there really sounds like its going do wonders in terms of Budget Control ...
Our Government is not an Insurance Company .. you want a country like that ..move to Cuba ...


Polls show a majority of ALL Americans want it, and polls further show that an even larger majority of Democrats want it, and I was speaking of what Liberman has done for Democrats, since that is what Dixie was talking about.

And since the majority of Americans now say they want universal health care, perhaps it is you who should look into relocating? Why should I, when I'm with the majority? :)

klaatu
08-22-2006, 04:28 PM
Polls show a majority of ALL Americans want it, and polls further show that an even larger majority of Democrats want it, and I was speaking of what Liberman has done for Democrats, since that is what Dixie was talking about.

And since the majority of Americans now say they want universal health care, perhaps it is you who should look into relocating? Why should I, when I'm with the majority? :)


If the majority of Americans want it... you are right .. I will be in the minority .. but I believe Universal Health Care will be a disaster in this Country ... and I think its a pipe dream.
It will cause a major earth quake in the availability of quality Doctors along with quality health care .. because with Unbiversal Health Care comes restricting Health Care Compensation ... it may look good on paper from our end (the consumer) but in reality it puts serious restrictions and mobility on the type of care that will be available.
Why do you think Canadians with Money come to the US for their Health Care.
Prescription Drugs are another story ... I believe our Government needs to do a better job in this area .. in terms of coming down hard on Drug Comapnies and what they charge the American consumer.

Damocles
08-22-2006, 04:42 PM
hmm, silly me I thought Liebermans state was a blue state. My apologies for my oversight. I guess I should have said the people of the party lieberman was claiming to represent.
Even a "blue" state has more than one party.