Lieberman Only 90% Liberal...Not Enough!!! (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

I know liberals are more than eager to dismiss any notion that the Democrat Party has come under the control of the far left :notlook:, but this assertion Republicans have repeatedly made, reinforced by Joe Lieberman recently being purged from the party for only supporting 90% of the party’s positions, is not arbitrary. The numbers don’t lie.

The irony here is that liberals are largely responsible for the law that delivered their party into the hands of unelectable fanatics. McCain-Feingold, pushed largely by Democrats, put strict limitations on the amount of money individuals could contribute to parties. Republicans, being the party of Middle America, saw no change in their fundraising capabilities in the following months and years, as most of their party funding from individuals comes from high numbers of small contributions. Democrats though, were crippled by it…because Democrats get their funding from low numbers of huge contributions from Hollywood millionaires, eccentric, far left tycoons like George Soros, and ultra-wealthy, elitist snobs like Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Arriana Huffington.

McCain-Feingold produced hard evidence that Democrats were anything but the party of the working man. But apparently Democrats had been suckered in by their own hype and thought passing such a law would hurt the “rich” Republican campaign finance machine. It turns out Republicans destroy Democrats in fundraising because the public agrees with them more. Imagine that. Who would’ve known after the last six elections? :shocked2:

McCain-Feingold made it necessary for the wealthy elite who fund the Democrats to re-route their money through comically titled “non-partisan” groups like Move On. So the voice of the Democrat Party was in effect handed to the fanatics, and since then, there has been a gigantic explosion of fringe liberal sites sending daily emails to millions of easily programmed sheep telling them which hysterical conspiracy theory to regurgitate next and how to regurgitate it.

The result is that more and more otherwise centrist Democrats are being flushed down the bowl of fanaticism. Oblivious political halfwits are flooding every form of media with mindless renditions of Move On-style hysteria :liar and this is fine with Republicans. It keeps us in office. But let no one say that what happened to Joe Lieberman is not a direct result of the Left’s overt radicalization.

 

[niftydrifty]

overt radicalization

LOL! Radicalization in what way? Ned Lamont is more mainstream than Lieberman. Ned Lamont is more mainstream than George W Bush. I know you love to parrot these buzzwords that you hear on Fox Opinion Channel. But when you state these things without any supporting examples or evidence, it's extraordinarily transparent.

It's hilarious how you reference the election in your thread title, and you speak about "radicalization," but you never once mention Ned's views. Quote words from his mouth. They're hardly radical.

 

[aquapub]

LOL! Radicalization in what way? Ned Lamont is more mainstream than Lieberman. Ned Lamont is more mainstream than George W Bush. I know you love to parrot these buzzwords that you hear on Fox Opinion Channel. But when you state these things without any supporting examples or evidence, it's extraordinarily transparent.

It's hilarious how you reference the election in your thread title, and you speak about "radicalization," but you never once mention Ned's views. Quote words from his mouth. They're hardly radical.

Only full programmed, sheepish fanatics like you NEED to have it proved to them that Lamont is more liberal.

In about 30 seconds, I was able to find about 10 articles on Lexis Nexis casually acknowledging the obvious reality that Lamont is the far left candidate of this race.


Here is one of many:

"Schlesinger, who won six elections for the state legislature and two for mayor, predicted Thursday that Democratic challenger Ned Lamont would defeat Lieberman in a Democratic primary in August, setting up a possible three-way race in November. The reason for the prediction, Schlesinger said, is ``history'' -- meaning that Democrats in Connecticut have traditionally chosen the more liberal candidate in primaries."

Hartford Courant (Connecticut). April 14, 2006. Pg. B1. "EX-MAYOR, LEGISLATOR FROM DERBY TO ANNOUNCE RUN FOR U.S. SENATE." CHRISTOPHER KEATING.

FURTHERMORE:

Here are some statements Lamont uses on his web site to distinguish himself as the more liberal candidate.

"reasons to vote for Lamont instead of Lieberman:

-Mr. Lieberman’s support for the energy bill, which does so little for consumers or energy independence, but showers subsidies on already profitable oil companies.

-Mr. Lieberman’s vote for cloture (to end debate) on the bankruptcy bill, which enriches credit card companies and harms people whose debts are due to health problems.

-Mr. Lieberman was the last Democratic senator to oppose President George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme.

-Lieberman’s...support for school vouchers

-Mr. Lieberman’s failure to advocate for national health insurance during his 18-year tenure.

-Mr. Lieberman sponsored legislation that prompted the New Haven Register to comment in an editorial titled, “Lieberman Crafts Drug Company Perk” and noted that the bill was even more generous to the pharmaceutical industry than a similar proposal by the Senate Republican leadership.

Even more evidence that Lamont is more liberal can be found on Lamont's campaign page:

http://www.nedlamont.com/

Insert foot in mouth again. :2wave: Any other devastating criticisms of this intro? Would you like to smear me for calling Democrats liberal without proving it next? What a stooge. :lol:

 

[Paladin]

...Joe Lieberman recently being purged from the party for only supporting 90% of the party’s positions...

Why do the rep/cons and rep/con pundits keep saying this? Maybe Lieberman was defeated because 60% of Americans are against the war and Lamont offered that choice.
ted

 

[Captain America]

I am the first to admit that the democrats seem to be overly leftist these days for the most part. But who can deny that the Republican party is bordering on extremism on the right?

In my opinion, since the GOP appears to have been hijacked by borderline communists the dems are just countering in kind. Myself I would like to see all of your extremists flushed down the toilet.

The sad part is that too many bleeding heart dems are gonna take office simply because they are not republicans. They have no plan. They have nothing good to offer accept the fact they are not republican. America is sick of republicans. Who can blame us? Myself, I may never vote republican again unless I see us get back to caring about the nation more than they can about their party and their special interest pocketbooks.

I'm sick of Repugnantcans and democRATS. Politicians suck arse.

I want a new America.

 

[niftydrifty]

Insert foot in mouth again.

Go for it. My point wasn't about "more liberal." I said "more mainstream."

If you want to engage me, you need to show me why Lamont is not more mainstream than Lieberman.

Your goofy "more liberal" diatribe is a logical fallacy.

They have polls on Lexis Nexis, too. They are in the "reference" section. Look for recent public opinion polls and match Lamont's and Lieberman's positions with public opinion. It's not even necessary to add 10 or 15 percentage points to every liberal answer (since Connecticut is, uh, quite liberal). Nationwide polls will do. Then get back to me and let me know that you agree with me.

 

[danarhea]

I am the first to admit that the democrats seem to be overly leftist these days for the most part. But who can deny that the Republican party is bordering on extremism on the right?

In my opinion, since the GOP appears to have been hijacked by borderline communists the dems are just countering in kind. Myself I would like to see all of your extremists flushed down the toilet.

The sad part is that too many bleeding heart dems are gonna take office simply because they are not republicans. They have no plan. They have nothing good to offer accept the fact they are not republican. America is sick of republicans. Who can blame us? Myself, I may never vote republican again unless I see us get back to caring about the nation more than they can about their party and their special interest pocketbooks.

I'm sick of Repugnantcans and democRATS. Politicians suck arse.

I want a new America.

Not me. I just want the old America back. You know, the one that was started by our founding fathers, which most politicians would rather have us believe is a fairy tale.

 

[jfuh]

I am the first to admit that the democrats seem to be overly leftist these days for the most part. But who can deny that the Republican party is bordering on extremism on the right?

In my opinion, since the GOP appears to have been hijacked by borderline communists the dems are just countering in kind. Myself I would like to see all of your extremists flushed down the toilet.

The sad part is that too many bleeding heart dems are gonna take office simply because they are not republicans. They have no plan. They have nothing good to offer accept the fact they are not republican. America is sick of republicans. Who can blame us? Myself, I may never vote republican again unless I see us get back to caring about the nation more than they can about their party and their special interest pocketbooks.

I'm sick of Repugnantcans and democRATS. Politicians suck arse.

I want a new America.

Correction, hijacked by authoritarians, not communist, as they want nothing to do with marxism.

As for the New America, I just want one where the gov gets the hell out from telling ppl how to live thier lives and telling me that by watching me they're keeping me safer.

 

[taxedout]

In my opinion, since the GOP appears to have been hijacked by borderline communists the dems are just countering in kind. Myself I would like to see all of your extremists flushed down the toilet.

Th GOP has been hijacked by clobal collectivists.
About as far from conservative as you get.
You should be happy, but you're not, because they are not global collectivists from your party. I don't really see the difference, and don't understand your displeasure.

 

[Iriemon]

Not me. I just want the old America back. You know, the one that was started by our founding fathers, which most politicians would rather have us believe is a fairy tale.

Heck I'd take the America we had in 1999.

 

[aquapub]

Why do the rep/cons and rep/con pundits keep saying this? Maybe Lieberman was defeated because 60% of Americans are against the war and Lamont offered that choice.
ted

This wasn't an election for "Americans." It was for Democrats specifically. And the far left poured a small fortune into Lamont's campaign to punish Lieberman for straying from the lockstep liberal positions just 10% of the time.

 

[aquapub]

I am the first to admit that the democrats seem to be overly leftist these days for the most part. But who can deny that the Republican party is bordering on extremism on the right?

One great way to deny it would be to line up the views of the country with the stated views of Republicans and see how far apart they are. Liberals can't be further away from the people on most issues usually (that's why liberals gravitate to the judiciary-it's the only place where they can get around public opinion to get their way).

Republicans, with few exceptions, are very in line with the people. This is also further backed up by all the small campaign contributions from working class individuals Republicans always get...vs. the elite millionaire minority that funds the left.

 

[SixStringHero]

1999? When Clinton was in office?

Ah, those were the good ol' days. :roll:

Bush is about as lousy a president as Clinton was.

 

[Iriemon]

1999? When Clinton was in office?

Ah, those were the good ol' days. :roll:

Bush is about as lousy a president as Clinton was.

In those days the the most important issue Congress had to deal with was whether the prez got a bj. Funny, huh?

 

[Iriemon]

One great way to deny it would be to line up the views of the country with the stated views of Republicans and see how far apart they are. Liberals can't be further away from the people on most issues usually (that's why liberals gravitate to the judiciary-it's the only place where they can get around public opinion to get their way).

Republicans, with few exceptions, are very in line with the people. This is also further backed up by all the small campaign contributions from working class individuals Republicans always get...vs. the elite millionaire minority that funds the left.

LOL -- you'd think reading this that Republicans won by a landslide in '00 and '04

 

[aquapub]

Go for it. My point wasn't about "more liberal." I said "more mainstream."

If you want to engage me, you need to show me why Lamont is not more mainstream than Lieberman.

So....Lamont's arguments that Lamont is more liberal (hence, less mainstream) don't mean he's more liberal (hence, less mainstream)?

Move On pouring millions into his campaign tells you he is more moderate than Lieberman?

Position after position, Lamont is more fringe, liberal (i.e., less mainstream) than Lieberman...this doesn't tell you he is more liberal (hence, mainstream)?


Way to think it through there, Sparky. :lol: Please lecture me some more on logic. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

In those days the the most important issue Congress had to deal with was whether the prez got a bj. Funny, huh?

In all fairness, Clinton's long history of rape, fraud, sexual harrassment, and his refusal to do anything about 8 years of Al Queda attacks were kind of important too.

 

[Iriemon]

In all fairness, Clinton's long history of rape, fraud, sexual harrassment, and his refusal to do anything about 8 years of Al Queda attacks were kind of important too.

Funny how the Republican Congress didn't think that last issue was important enough to focus its attention on. Neither did the new Republican president, until it was too late.

But they sure thought the bj thing was important.

 

[taxedout]

Anything bad that happened during Clinton's tenure was congress' fault, and everything good that happened was to his credit. Thank's for clearing that up.

 

[Iriemon]

Anything bad that happened during Clinton's tenure was congress' fault, and everything good that happened was to his credit. Thank's for clearing that up.

Huh? Well if you say so.

 

[niftydrifty]

more liberal (hence, less mainstream)

There you go again. And no evidence.

Position after position, Lamont is more fringe...

Which positions? Evidence please. It's easy for you to just type stuff. What about support for your argument?

rape,

lie

fraud,

lie

sexual harrassment,

lie

and his refusal to do anything about 8 years of Al Queda attacks

lie

In all fairness...

fairy-tale-ness is more like it.

Pssst. Check the thread title, the topic. You wrote it. LOL!

 

[mpg]

In those days the the most important issue Congress had to deal with was whether the prez got a bj. Funny, huh?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Clinton supporters LOVE to talk about that by to deflect attention away from other issues. It's their mantra.

 

[Iriemon]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Clinton supporters LOVE to talk about that by to deflect attention away from other issues. It's their mantra.

If I recall the news from those days, I'd say the Lewinsky impeachment was pretty effective at deflecting attention away from other issues. That is what I said -- in those days that was the most important thing Congress had to deal with, based on the amount of effort the Republicans put into it.

The good old days.

 

[taxedout]

Huh? Well if you say so.

No, actually, that is your assessment.

 

[Iriemon]

No, actually, that is your assessment.

I had to go back and re-read what you wrote. I think it is a little overbroad from what my assessment would be.