PDA

View Full Version : Breitbart: Lieberman Calls On Rumsfeld To Resign; Responds to Kerry/Democrat Attacks


Mother_Marjorie
Aug 21st, 2006, 08:29 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/D8JKL8L80.html

Lieberman Calls on Rumsfeld to Resign
Aug 21 2:36 AM US/Eastern
Email this story

WASHINGTON

Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacked by fellow Democrats as being too close to the White House on the Iraq War, on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign but said the United States cannot "walk away" from the Iraqis.
Lieberman, the one-time Democratic vice presidential candidate, is running as an independent in his bid for a fourth term since losing the Democratic nomination to newcomer Ned Lamont, who harnessed voters' anger against the war in Iraq.

Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he had called for Rumsfeld to step down in 2003.

"With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Lieberman said the Bush administration should have sent more troops into Iraq "to secure the country."

"We had a naive vision that the Iraqis were going to embrace us and then go on and live happily ever after," he said.

Lieberman said the administration must "put severe pressure on the Iraqis to contain sectarian violence."

"There is still hope in Iraq and as long as there is we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism," he said.

The Lamont campaign issued a statement Sunday criticizing Lieberman for trying to "paint himself as courageous for clinging to the failed 'stay the course' policy in Iraq and not listening to the voters of Connecticut on the need to change course."

"His new found 'criticism' of the war won't convince Connecticut voters after so many years of stubbornly rubber-stamping Bush's failed policies," the statement said.

The war in Iraq was the hallmark of Lamont's primary campaign. He calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from what he often refers to as "a bloody civil war," and says he believes that those who got America into the conflict should be held accountable.

Lieberman accused Lamont of distorting his stance on Iraq.

"He made me into a cheerleader for George Bush and everything that's happened," Lieberman said. "And the record shows that, while I believe we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, I've been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004, about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country, about the absence of adequate plans and preparation to deal with post-Saddam Iraq."

"As bad as things are now _ and they've gotten worse in the last six months _ it would be a disaster if America set a deadline and said we're getting all of our troops out by a given date," Lieberman said. "That's a position Ned Lamont has taken."

Tom Swan, campaign manager for Lamont, said Sunday the campaign stands by its criticism of Lieberman as being too close to President Bush.

Asked about Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who was quoted as saying that Lieberman echoes Republicans, Lieberman said it was "just plain politics by somebody who has ambitions of his own."

"I voted 90 percent of the time with a majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate," he said.

"I'm worried that my party may become what we've accused the Republicans of, a kind of litmus-test party," he said. "If you don't agree with us 100 percent of the time, you don't agree with us. I'm devoted to the Democratic Party."

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Lamont is trailing Lieberman by 12 percentage points among likely voters. It said much of Lieberman's advantage comes from his popularity among Republicans and unaffiliated voters, the largest voting block in Connecticut. (YEAH!)

RVD
Aug 21st, 2006, 09:02 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/D8JKL8L80.html

Lieberman Calls on Rumsfeld to Resign
Aug 21 2:36 AM US/Eastern
Email this story

WASHINGTON

Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacked by fellow Democrats as being too close to the White House on the Iraq War, on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign but said the United States cannot "walk away" from the Iraqis.
Lieberman, the one-time Democratic vice presidential candidate, is running as an independent in his bid for a fourth term since losing the Democratic nomination to newcomer Ned Lamont, who harnessed voters' anger against the war in Iraq.

Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he had called for Rumsfeld to step down in 2003.

"With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Lieberman said the Bush administration should have sent more troops into Iraq "to secure the country."

"We had a naive vision that the Iraqis were going to embrace us and then go on and live happily ever after," he said.

Lieberman said the administration must "put severe pressure on the Iraqis to contain sectarian violence."

"There is still hope in Iraq and as long as there is we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism," he said.

The Lamont campaign issued a statement Sunday criticizing Lieberman for trying to "paint himself as courageous for clinging to the failed 'stay the course' policy in Iraq and not listening to the voters of Connecticut on the need to change course."

"His new found 'criticism' of the war won't convince Connecticut voters after so many years of stubbornly rubber-stamping Bush's failed policies," the statement said.

The war in Iraq was the hallmark of Lamont's primary campaign. He calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from what he often refers to as "a bloody civil war," and says he believes that those who got America into the conflict should be held accountable.

Lieberman accused Lamont of distorting his stance on Iraq.

"He made me into a cheerleader for George Bush and everything that's happened," Lieberman said. "And the record shows that, while I believe we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, I've been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004, about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country, about the absence of adequate plans and preparation to deal with post-Saddam Iraq."

"As bad as things are now _ and they've gotten worse in the last six months _ it would be a disaster if America set a deadline and said we're getting all of our troops out by a given date," Lieberman said. "That's a position Ned Lamont has taken."

Tom Swan, campaign manager for Lamont, said Sunday the campaign stands by its criticism of Lieberman as being too close to President Bush.

Asked about Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who was quoted as saying that Lieberman echoes Republicans, Lieberman said it was "just plain politics by somebody who has ambitions of his own."

"I voted 90 percent of the time with a majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate," he said.

"I'm worried that my party may become what we've accused the Republicans of, a kind of litmus-test party," he said. "If you don't agree with us 100 percent of the time, you don't agree with us. I'm devoted to the Democratic Party."

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Lamont is trailing Lieberman by 12 percentage points among likely voters. It said much of Lieberman's advantage comes from his popularity among Republicans and unaffiliated voters, the largest voting block in Connecticut. (YEAH!)I've been meaning to ask you something MarJenAll20...

Are you proud of your Republican Party and all it's accomplished over the last six years? This is not a trick question. I would honestly like to know. :confused:

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 21st, 2006, 09:19 AM
I've been meaning to ask you something MarJenAll20...

Are you proud of your Republican Party and all it's accomplished over the last six years? This is not a trick question. I would honestly like to know. :confused:

First of all, I'm not Republican. I associate myself with the Libertarian Party.

Secondly, I enjoy the tax cuts passed by Congress and I don't agree with war in Iraq.

However, I do believe in political justice. And I hope Joe Lieberman kicks the Dems ass in November. He's a good man that has always represented Democrats well nationally throughout his career, and as a reward for his hard work and devotion, they kicked him in the teeth.

RVD
Aug 21st, 2006, 09:51 AM
First of all, I'm not Republican. I associate myself with the Libertarian Party.

Secondly, I enjoy the tax cuts passed by Congress and I don't agree with war in Iraq.

However, I do believe in political justice. And I hope Joe Lieberman kicks the Dems ass in November. He's a good man that has always represented Democrats well nationally throughout his career, and as a reward for his hard work and devotion, they kicked him in the teeth.Are you from Connecticut?
If so, as an Independent, would you feel comfortable with him as your Senator?
I take it that you also support the war in Iraq?

samsung101
Aug 21st, 2006, 03:20 PM
Yeah, he did say that years ago. So, have many others.

Again, Lieberman has voted over 80% of the time with
the Democrats, and has bashed Bush on policy items.
But, he agrees with the bigger picture w/Bush and
a tougher stance. Retreat is not a policy idea, it's
just failure, and a gift to the enemies of this nation.

Fact that he gets the reality that we have
enemies is a big step. Most Democrats at the DNC
don't think we do have any enemies, just pals who
don't like us much. If we just gave them more money
and hugged them more, they'd like us more. The
Sally Field approach I guess. We need to be
really, really liked........



But, replace Rummy with whom?


He's doing a good job in my view, considering the
crap he has had to put up with in doing his job.
Mistakes, sure, a lot of them. But, he's actually
doing a tough job. He's not just talking, he's had
to work as Sec. of Defense. The last few didn't
do much at all. The guy is an easy rod for
attacks, and he's taken it.

But, just in sheer years, he's way beyond what
is normal for a Secretary to achieve. It wouldn't
surprise me if he stepped down any time soon. But,
I think he'd do that for personal reasons, or just
simple toll of years on a tough job. 5 1/2 years
in the #1 high profile tough job, that's a long time.



He'd be replaced by a harsher face I think, or maybe
an old familiar one: Powell, Franks, McCain (nah),
Pace, etc.

Personally, Condi Rice has been the biggest disappointment.
She should resign, and go back to the White House. I
admire her greatly, but, as Sec. of State, so far, she's
flunking in my view.

Pureracket
Aug 21st, 2006, 03:29 PM
libertarians my ass!

they're not allowed to distance themselves from the Repukes until they apologize publicly for all the damage they did to our country by using their big mouths to promote this gop!

SelesFan70
Aug 21st, 2006, 03:43 PM
I wouldn't mind Rumsfeld stepping down...if he ran for president. :devil:

kabuki
Aug 21st, 2006, 05:36 PM
I wouldn't mind Rumsfeld stepping down...if he ran for president. :devil:

I hope that is a joke, even coming from you.

Rumsfeld is incompetent, even his Generals think so.

tenn_ace
Aug 21st, 2006, 06:09 PM
libertarians my ass!

they're not allowed to distance themselves from the Repukes until they apologize publicly for all the damage they did to our country by using their big mouths to promote this gop!

:worship:

libertarians = closeted republicans

Lord Nelson
Aug 21st, 2006, 06:31 PM
I hope that is a joke, even coming from you.

Rumsfeld is incompetent, even his Generals think so.
That is not true only some of the Generals spoke out against him. But most of the army supported him including the top people. The Iraqi war was bloody and is still going on but Rumsfeld is not to blame but it is Arab money and not just from Syria that is prolonging this conflict. The kurdish areas of Iraq are still far more stable than under Saddam and Rumsfeld helped defeat the Taliban. Sure they are lurking in some of the southern provinces but will they come to power again, i don't think so and Rummy should be thanked for this. :worship:

kabuki
Aug 21st, 2006, 06:52 PM
That is not true only some of the Generals spoke out against him. But most of the army supported him including the top people. The Iraqi war was bloody and is still going on but Rumsfeld is not to blame but it is Arab money and not just from Syria that is prolonging this conflict. The kurdish areas of Iraq are still far more stable than under Saddam and Rumsfeld helped defeat the Taliban. Sure they are lurking in some of the southern provinces but will they come to power again, i don't think so and Rummy should be thanked for this. :worship:

You clearly know nothing of the US military. You don't come out swinging against the Secretary while still in the military. Public record and private thoughts are two different things. There is little support for Rummy. Just ask the retired Generals, who can actually speak freely. Rumsfeld incompetence is common knowledge in military circles.

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 21st, 2006, 09:02 PM
Are you from Connecticut?
If so, as an Independent, would you feel comfortable with him as your Senator?
I take it that you also support the war in Iraq?

I support our troops in Iraq, but I don't agree with the reasons why we went to war. I think Iran is a much larger threat to US Security than Saddam was/is.

The reason why Lieberman is a front-runner in the Connecticut senate race (and will likely win) is because he's not left or right wing. Lieberman is much more centrist, which is what people better identify with, and trust, vs Lamont who is a left-winged nut implanted by the Democratic party.

griffin
Aug 21st, 2006, 09:09 PM
Lamont who is a left-winged nut implanted by the Democratic party.

Lamont was "implanted" by Democratic VOTERS in CT. Up until JoeBordom lost, the Democratic bigwigs were actually working very hard to help him win the primary. But continuing to support Lieberman NOW means telling their core constituents, their party base, to go take a flying leap.

No sane party is going to do that, and if the Dems DID do that, those of you pissing and moaning about how they abandonned Joe would be pissing and moaning about how they turned their backs on actual voters.

I do find it quite telling that the spinsters are pitching this as the Democratic PARTY bailing on Lieberman, rather than focusing their criticism on the primary voters. Because really, what kind of mileage can you get out of attacking everyday folks?

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 21st, 2006, 09:19 PM
libertarians my ass!

they're not allowed to distance themselves from the Repukes until they apologize publicly for all the damage they did to our country by using their big mouths to promote this gop!


Given the alternative, which is largely the left-wing Democratic party whose agenda is raising taxes on its citizens which historically burdens democratic societies to the point of ruin (read your history), I don't apologize for agreeing with Republicans, Ronald Reagan or JFK in that instance.

Just as I don't agree with Republicans that continually support corporate welfare which undermines our democratic society, as seen by the fall of the last great world Democracy.

Its not hard to figure out why I don't associate myself with either party. In my opinion, neither have learned from world history well enough to figure out that overbearing government intrusion into our basic liberties and rights as citizens of a democracy overtaxes our basic social structure and collapse could ensue.

Libertarians didn't send US Troops to Vietnam, or Iraq or any other country for that matter. Libertarians didn't create a socialist welfare state in this country, huge trade deficits with the Chinese. So before you demand apologies, look at your own party, really carefully. They've done more to destroy democracy in this country than any Libertarian ever thought of.

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 21st, 2006, 09:29 PM
Lamont was "implanted" by Democratic VOTERS in CT. Up until JoeBordom lost, the Democratic bigwigs were actually working very hard to help him win the primary. But continuing to support Lieberman NOW means telling their core constituents, their party base, to go take a flying leap.

No sane party is going to do that, and if the Dems DID do that, those of you pissing and moaning about how they abandonned Joe would be pissing and moaning about how they turned their backs on actual voters.

I do find it quite telling that the spinsters are pitching this as the Democratic PARTY bailing on Lieberman, rather than focusing their criticism on the primary voters. Because really, what kind of mileage can you get out of attacking everyday folks?

Now that the election will be decided by ALL voters of CT, it is no surprise why Lieberman enjoys the lead he does. People do not identify with the lunatic fringe politics of the left wing of the Democratic Party or the right wing of the Republican Party.

Stop being so purposefully naive that the DNC had absolutely nothing to do with Lamont's fundraising, his campaign commercials, and the "Hollywood" factor that might swing Democratic Party voters away from Lieberman. Lieberman's only sin was not agreeing with the Democrats 100% of the time, the same thing Democrats have persecuted Republicans for.

How much mileage do you think Democrats have gotten out the Queen of Scream, Howard Dean??? Just as he screwed his own Presidential ambitions, he'll screw it up for Dems in '08 (if he's not thrown out before then). He's a loose cannon, and its only a matter of time before he implodes.

Pureracket
Aug 21st, 2006, 09:41 PM
Lieberman's only sin was not agreeing with the Democrats 100% of the time, the same thing Democrats have persecuted Republicans for.LOL!!!!! My, my, my. ..how the rhetoric changes. When this guy ran for Vice-President on the Democratic ticket, he could do nothing right. He was part of "that evil Clinton Empire" and his religion was even exploited(rightwingers like yourself questioned whether or not he would be able to perform his duty because of his religious ritual).

Now, he's being handled kindly by the most conservative or rightwing pundits. Even if Lamont does not win, the campaign still would speak more to the Repukes' betrayal of grassroots conservatives than anything else. During the last few days of Joe's campaign, he denounced Bush.

You all's support of this guy show that you are actually more preoccupied with the petty politics of partisanship than what is really going on in the world.

Julia, you said yourself that you are against the war. Well, Joe is for it. Why are you supporting him again?:confused:

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 21st, 2006, 09:57 PM
LOL!!!!! My, my, my. ..how the rhetoric changes. When this guy ran for Vice-President on the Democratic ticket, he could do nothing right. He was part of "that evil Clinton Empire" and his religion was even exploited(rightwingers like yourself questioned whether or not he would be able to perform his duty because of his religious ritual).

I never questioned anything of the sort. Get your facts straight. And please provide some proof that I ever called Lieberman a part of the "Evil Clinton Empire".

I did see Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton standing behind Lamont at one of his rallies, praising an unproven political operative of the Democratic Party. I wonder if "religious ritual" had anything to do with that???

Now, he's being handled kindly by the most conservative or rightwing pundits. Even if Lamont does not win, the campaign still would speak more to the Repukes' betrayal of grassroots conservatives than anything else. During the last few days of Joe's campaign, he denounced Bush.

No, Lieberman's win would be a victory for the moderates and people of CT and send a message that left and right wing party politics will not be tolerated.

You all's support of this guy show that you are actually more preoccupied with the petty politics of partisanship than what is really going on in the world.

My personal support of Lieberman is out of respect for the service he has provided his country, and outrage how the radical wing of any political party attempted to hijack the centrist voters of the state of CT.

Julia, you said yourself that you are against the war. Well, Joe is for it. Why are you supporting him again?:confused:

I don't know who the Julia lady is, but she must have burned a hole through your translucent brain. I most definitely might like her.

I support Lieberman because he is not a rubber-stamped party politician, who is honest enough to stand by his own principles and not let the lunatic fringe of his former party bully him out of politics.

In this instance, the desperation of the Democrats and DNC is palpable. They made a major political blunder of which they'll pay for in November. And when Joe Lieberman's Independent vote on legislation becomes of grave importance in the Senate to Democrats, they'll have to convince Lieberman why he should vote with them. All the while, trying to make him forget how poorly they treated him.

Political Justice.

RVD
Aug 21st, 2006, 11:15 PM
I support our troops in Iraq, but I don't agree with the reasons why we went to war. I think Iran is a much larger threat to US Security than Saddam was/is.I support the men and women who fight for a just cause...especially if that cause is in protection of this country. However, I can't and don't support this war in Iraq. Nor do I support those involved in the senseless killing of innocent people. Now we both are aware of each others' position on the war in Iraq. ;)
The reason why Lieberman is a front-runner in the Connecticut senate race (and will likely win) is because he's not left or right wing. Lieberman is much more centrist, which is what people better identify with, and trust, vs Lamont who is a left-winged nut implanted by the Democratic party.I honestly can't believe that you feel Lieberman is trustworthy. Further, I can't believe that you feel Lieberman is a centrist! :eek:

Let's just see if we can set the record straight, shall we...

You seem to think that the democrats owe Joe Lieberman a debt of gratitude for his undying devotion to his party... and moreover, to the people he was supposed to represent. However, Joe Lieberman has been a thorn in the side of the DNC, and all democrats for YEARS!

Joe Lieberman has always done what Joe Lieberman wanted. NOT what the people wanted.
He comes from a place that is not representative of the people, but representative of the man himself, primarily because of his religion [first], and then a senator, second. This may work for some, but certainly not for the masses. And is certainly no middle position. Therefore, he naturally would have trouble being this so-called centrist that you attempt to paint him as. STRIKE ONE!

Joe Lieberman has fought against Freedom of Speech for years.
His attacks on rap music is damn near legendary in the Black community.
The organizers of a campaign against Time Warner's involvement in gangsta rap music have recruited a vocal new ally: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. Senator Lieberman is expected to attend a news conference today in Washington at which he will call on Time Warner to stop distributing rap music with violent and sexually degrading lyrics. William J. Bennett, the former Cabinet member who is leading the campaign against the giant media company, said yesterday that at a meeting on June 14 Mr. Lieberman agreed to join forces with him. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/joseph_i_lieberman/index.html?offset=90&s=oldest&Rock music has been selling this stuff for YEARS!! In fact, Rock music glorifies THE DEVIL!!! So why go after Rap music?! :confused: He's certainly not representing Black America, that's for sure. :devil:

His attack on violent video games is even more ludicrous. Why not go after directors and producers of such shows like COPS, that perpetrate a stereotype [DAILY]?
And how about his battle to stop Hollywood from airing racy commercials? Need I produce a link for that one as well? :rolleyes:
That is a called... STRIKE TWO!

You call him loyal...
I call him addle-headed and disloyal.

He speaks from a position not so different than Bush himself. No wonder they get along so well. Both believe that they speak from some spiritual place. Neither can’t seem to separate church from state. Neither, seems to be connected to the world at large. Both possess a ‘get-even’ attitude when The People decide to support someone else. For example, LYING about his website being hacked... http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/10/lieberman_website_still_down.html
He actually levied an accusation against the Lamont camp, saying that they were to blame. :eek: :eek: But that's not really the point. You see, on the day of the election, the news cycle was buzzing with this false and misleading story put out specifically by the Lieberman campaign as an obvious cover-up of their own incompetence. The story could have swung the election, even though its basis was false. Now, if a reporter puts out information that is false without checking it, that reporter should be severely disciplined or fired. I don't care if he or she is just quoting someone else. Quoting a verifiable lie is wrong, and it doesn't matter how many qualifiers there are in the story. It. Is. Wrong.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/10/234918/474
Here’s the truth... Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign 1. website is still offline "and federal and state authorities were investigating why it crashed on the eve of this week's defeat in a high-profile primary," the Hartford Courant reports.

TPM Muckraker concludes the the Lieberman campaign skimped on quality webhosting. Markos has additional evidence that traffic brought down the site.

What's clear is that there's no reason the site should still be down. At this point, it's obvious no one is trying very hard to get it back up.STRIIIIIKE THREE!!

Joe Lieberman lost the primary because 'The People' decided someone else would do a better job of representing them. THAT'S WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IS ALL ABOUT.
It's not about loyalty.
It's about JOB PERFORMANCE.

Joe Lieberman FAILED to perform at his job.
Plain and simple.
And to make matters worse, he supports a President that is singlehandedly eliminating decades of social, International, and economical, progress.

I'm not trying to change your mind, but MarJenAll20, you really need to rethink the loyalty thing; as well as the truth behind why The People gave Joe Lieberman his walking papers. :angel:

darrinbaker00
Aug 21st, 2006, 11:19 PM
I support the men and women who fight for a just cause...especially if that cause is in protection of this country. However, I can't and don't support this war in Iraq. Nor do I support those involved in the senseless killing of innocent people. Now we both are aware of each others' position on the war in Iraq. ;)
I honestly can't believe that you feel Lieberman is trustworthy. Further, I can't believe that you feel Lieberman is a centrist! :eek:

Let's just see if we can set the record straight, shall we...

You seem to think that the democrats owe Joe Lieberman a debt of gratitude for his undying devotion to his party... and moreover, to the people he was supposed to represent. However, Joe Lieberman has been a thorn in the side of the DNC, and all democrats for YEARS!

Joe Lieberman has always done what Joe Lieberman wanted. NOT what the people wanted.
He comes from a place that is not representative of the people, but representative of the man himself, primarily because of his religion [first], and then a senator, second. This may work for some, but certainly not for the masses. And is certainly no middle position. Therefore, he naturally would have trouble being this so-called centrist that you attempt to paint him as. STRIKE ONE!

Joe Lieberman has fought against Freedom of Speech for years.
His attacks on rap music is damn near legendary in the Black community.
Rock music has been selling this stuff for YEARS!! In fact, Rock music glorifies THE DEVIL!!! So why go after Rap music?! :confused: He's certainly not representing Black America, that's for sure. :devil:

His attack on violent video games is even more ludicrous. Why not go after directors and producers of such shows like COPS, that perpetrate a stereotype [DAILY]?
And how about his battle to stop Hollywood from airing racy commercials? Need I produce a link for that one as well? :rolleyes:
That is a called... STRIKE TWO!

You call him loyal...
I call him addle-headed and disloyal.

He speaks from a position not so different than Bush himself. No wonder they get along so well. Both believe that they speak from some spiritual place. Neither can’t seem to separate church from state. Neither, seems to be connected to the world at large. Both possess a ‘get-even’ attitude when The People decide to support someone else. For example, LYING about his website being hacked... http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/10/lieberman_website_still_down.html
He actually levied an accusation against the Lamont camp, saying that they were to blame. :eek: :eek:
Here’s the truth... STRIIIIIKE THREE!!

Joe Lieberman lost the primary because 'The People' decided someone else would do a better job of representing them. THAT'S WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IS ALL ABOUT.
It's not about loyalty.
It's about JOB PERFORMANCE.

Joe Lieberman FAILED to perform at his job.
Plain and simple.
And to make matters worse, he supports a President that is singlehandedly eliminating decades of social, International, and economical, progress.

I'm not trying to change your mind, but MarJenAll20, you really need to rethink the loyalty thing; as well as the truth behind why The People gave Joe Lieberman his walking papers. :angel:
There you go making sense again. CUT IT OUT! :mad:

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 21st, 2006, 11:23 PM
I'm not trying to change your mind, but MarJenAll20, you really need to rethink the loyalty thing; as well as the truth behind why The People gave Joe Lieberman his walking papers. :angel:

Joe Lieberman didn't become a thorn in the side of Democrats until he decidedly wouldn't vote with them 100% of the time. The 10% of the time Lieberman wouldn't vote with them was too much for the polarizing DNC. How dare he vote his conscience!

All the while, he's a three-time incumbent Senator of CT, getting ready to win another re-election.

The MAJORITY voters of CT did not give Joe Lieberman any such walking papers. He's currently in the Senatorial race, ahead by 12 points in the most recent polling of CT voters.

The MAJORITY voters of CT are about to give the Democratic Party and Lamont walking papers trailing OUT of CT in November. Because the MAJORITY of voters in CT smell a left-wing lunatic on their ballot.

As I recall, Tipper Gore really fought hard against objectionable music lyrics and eventually won the right to label music with parental warning. Why do you think children should be able to listen to such trash.

So why aren't you attacking Gore as well??? Is it because she is Democrat and you can NEVER criticize another Democrat??? Yep.

Oh, and one question, if you will (I answered yours ;) )

If Joe Lieberman has been a thorn in the side of Democrats for years and years, then why did you nominate him as your Vice-Presidential nominee less than two years ago??? Inquiring minds want to know.

darrinbaker00
Aug 21st, 2006, 11:30 PM
As I recall, Tipper Gore really fought hard against objectionable music lyrics and eventually won the right to label music with parental warning. So why aren't you attacking her as well??? Is it because she is Democrat and you can NEVER criticize another Democrat??? Yep.
Tipper Gore asked for all record labels, large and small, to put warning labels put on all genres of music with adult content. Joe Lieberman asked for one major record label to stop selling one particular genre of music with adult content. Nice try, though.

Pureracket
Aug 22nd, 2006, 12:25 AM
I support the men and women who fight for a just cause...especially if that cause is in protection of this country. However, I can't and don't support this war in Iraq. Nor do I support those involved in the senseless killing of innocent people. Now we both are aware of each others' position on the war in Iraq. ;)
I honestly can't believe that you feel Lieberman is trustworthy. Further, I can't believe that you feel Lieberman is a centrist! :eek:

Let's just see if we can set the record straight, shall we...

You seem to think that the democrats owe Joe Lieberman a debt of gratitude for his undying devotion to his party... and moreover, to the people he was supposed to represent. However, Joe Lieberman has been a thorn in the side of the DNC, and all democrats for YEARS!

Joe Lieberman has always done what Joe Lieberman wanted. NOT what the people wanted.
He comes from a place that is not representative of the people, but representative of the man himself, primarily because of his religion [first], and then a senator, second. This may work for some, but certainly not for the masses. And is certainly no middle position. Therefore, he naturally would have trouble being this so-called centrist that you attempt to paint him as. STRIKE ONE!

Joe Lieberman has fought against Freedom of Speech for years.
His attacks on rap music is damn near legendary in the Black community.
Rock music has been selling this stuff for YEARS!! In fact, Rock music glorifies THE DEVIL!!! So why go after Rap music?! :confused: He's certainly not representing Black America, that's for sure. :devil:

His attack on violent video games is even more ludicrous. Why not go after directors and producers of such shows like COPS, that perpetrate a stereotype [DAILY]?
And how about his battle to stop Hollywood from airing racy commercials? Need I produce a link for that one as well? :rolleyes:
That is a called... STRIKE TWO!

You call him loyal...
I call him addle-headed and disloyal.

He speaks from a position not so different than Bush himself. No wonder they get along so well. Both believe that they speak from some spiritual place. Neither can’t seem to separate church from state. Neither, seems to be connected to the world at large. Both possess a ‘get-even’ attitude when The People decide to support someone else. For example, LYING about his website being hacked... http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/10/lieberman_website_still_down.html
He actually levied an accusation against the Lamont camp, saying that they were to blame. :eek: :eek:
Here’s the truth... STRIIIIIKE THREE!!

Joe Lieberman lost the primary because 'The People' decided someone else would do a better job of representing them. THAT'S WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IS ALL ABOUT.
It's not about loyalty.
It's about JOB PERFORMANCE.

Joe Lieberman FAILED to perform at his job.
Plain and simple.
And to make matters worse, he supports a President that is singlehandedly eliminating decades of social, International, and economical, progress.

I'm not trying to change your mind, but MarJenAll20, you really need to rethink the loyalty thing; as well as the truth behind why The People gave Joe Lieberman his walking papers. :angel:DAYUM!!!!! Ya'll are ripping a new one in Julia this evening. . .LOL!!!!!
:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:

jbone_0307
Aug 22nd, 2006, 12:47 AM
Who cares? When its all said and done, Lieberman will be re-elected in November as an independent.

RVD
Aug 22nd, 2006, 04:54 AM
Joe Lieberman didn't become a thorn in the side of Democrats until he decidedly wouldn't vote with them 100% of the time. The 10% of the time Lieberman wouldn't vote with them was too much for the polarizing DNC. How dare he vote his conscience!Sorry, MarJenAll20, but I feel it my duty to correct you once again.
Joe Lieberman officially became a thorn in the side of the Democrats during his 2004 Presidential bid. In fact, he showed signs of such immediately following his failed Vice-Presidency bid with Al Gore.
Now allow me to list the reasons why Joe is [ and has been for over half a decade] on the out with the Democrats.

*He's a strong supporter of the death penalty.
*He's against Affirmative Action [primarily racial quotas]. But offers no alternatives.
*He supports caps on punitive damages.
*Has attacked the movie, television, and PC gaming industry [as I stated earlier] which amounts to Free Speech / Censureship time bomb issues. Can you say 'CENSURESHIP'?
*Is an EXTREMELY STAUNCH supporter of the war in Iraq [for obvious reasons :hehehe: ]
*Having been made fully aware of the Neo-Cons' efforst to manipulate data, and embellish documents with half-truths as reasons for a pre-eminent strike against Iraq, he still supports this President, even though growing numbers of prominent Republicans do not!! :eek: So how would you define these Republicans, MarJenAll20? :confused:
All the while, he's a three-time incumbent Senator of CT, getting ready to win another re-election.And this is relevant because...?
Are you suggesting that since Joe's served 3 times, that he should automatically serve again? I'm sorry, but I don't get your point here.
The MAJORITY voters of CT did not give Joe Lieberman any such walking papers. He's currently in the Senatorial race, ahead by 12 points in the most recent polling of CT voters. You are correct, a majority of voters did not give Joe his walking papers. Joe received a vast minority of the votes cast by Democratic CT voters. :lol:
The MAJORITY voters of CT are about to give the Democratic Party and Lamont walking papers trailing OUT of CT in November. Because the MAJORITY of voters in CT smell a left-wing lunatic on their ballot.You are certainly welcome to your opinion here. ;)
As I recall, Tipper Gore really fought hard against objectionable music lyrics and eventually won the right to label music with parental warning. Why do you think children should be able to listen to such trash.
So why aren't you attacking Gore as well??? Is it because she is Democrat and you can NEVER criticize another Democrat??? Yep.
Please tell me that you're kidding. Tipper Gore isn't a Senator. Neither was she a Presidential candidate. And as darrinbaker00 so eloquently stated...Tipper Gore asked for all record labels, large and small, to put warning labels put on all genres of music with adult content. Joe Lieberman asked for one major record label to stop selling one particular genre of music with adult content.Maybe it's me, but this sounds perilously close to discrimination. No wonder he quickly dropped that hot potato. :devil:
Oh, and one question, if you will (I answered yours ;) )

If Joe Lieberman has been a thorn in the side of Democrats for years and years, then why did you nominate him as your Vice-Presidential nominee less than two years ago??? Inquiring minds want to know.I've already answered this. And apparently *JR* has as well... http://www.wtaworld.com/showpost.php?p=8763186&postcount=18
Allow me to conclude by saying Joe Lieberman, being a staunch Orthodox Jew was considered in 2000 to be a ‘anesthetizing’ move in an effort by Gore to fully distance himself from the Clinton sex scandal. Seems this gamble obviously blew up in their faces, since this staunch Orthodox Jew sees no problem with killing innocent Iraqis, so long as his motherland is protected. ;)

Don’t cha just love religious politicians?

Incidentally, you didn't answer all my questions, but I'll give ya a pass this time. :)

griffin
Aug 22nd, 2006, 01:49 PM
Stop being so purposefully naive that the DNC had absolutely nothing to do with Lamont's fundraising, his campaign commercials, and the "Hollywood" factor that might swing Democratic Party voters away from Lieberman.

Tell you what, you can start accusing other people of being naive when YOU stop swallowing the GOP spin on this hook, line and sinker.

The DNC had absolutely nothing to gain by unseating one of their own incumbent senators. Both Clintons, John Kerry (thought that's a mixed blessing), and a number of other big names campaigned for him. The DNC did back him in the primary - including trying to get him to respond to Lamont's criticims of his voting record earlier and more firmly, advice that he decided to ignore until the last moment. THAT more than anything else cost him the primary (when he finally did deign to respond, he started picking up points in the polls)

Stop deliberately confusing the fact that they're refusing to endorse his independent campaign NOW (which would mean turning their backs not only on the guy who won the primary, but the voters who picked him) with what they did or didn't do in the primary campaign.

Lord Nelson
Aug 22nd, 2006, 01:55 PM
Just because Lieberman is an orthodox Jew does not mean he should be a pacifist. If thatw as the case he would have no business becoming a politican yet a Presidential candidate. Fighting sometimes becomes a necessary evil as was the case with Iraq which had invaded Kuwait, massacred its people, was a threat in the region and beyond and who were though of building wmd's. Everyone thought that and not just Bush. Remember that Clinton too and UN said that he had those weapons and so Iraq was put under UN sanctions. Does that mean that Clinton lied.

Most Americans are pro death peanlty including some libs on this forum. Clinton too was pro death penalty. Liebrman is also pro abortion.

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:08 PM
Sorry, MarJenAll20, but I feel it my duty to correct you once again.

Go right ahead, however, the sword cuts both ways. ;)

*He's a strong supporter of the death penalty.
And so are a majority of Americans. What's your point?

*He's against Affirmative Action [primarily racial quotas]. But offers no alternatives.

Racial quotas were deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, so I'm glad he's against that. No alternatives needed.

However, your incorrect in your assumption that Joe is against Affirmative Action. On the first day of the Democratic Convention in 2000, this is what Lieberman had to say about his support for Affirmative Action:

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/lieberman.html

*He supports caps on punitive damages.
Wow! He takes a stand against the powerful trial lawyer lobby and that is so horrible...hmmmm.....

[*Has attacked the movie, television, and PC gaming industry [as I stated earlier] which amounts to Free Speech / Censureship time bomb issues. Can you say 'CENSURESHIP'?

You spelled it incorrectly. Its censorship.

Funny you should mention that because Hilary Clinton was his partner in investigating the Gaming Industy. So that must mean Hilary Clinton is attacking Free Speech and 'CENSURSHIP' as well, huh? Why did you choose to exclude her as well?

Lieberman has always been consistent in views about violent television, music and arcade-type games which glorify such existence and its effects on young minds. He's not the only Democrat or Republican which has raised similar questions.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6145659.html

Allow me to conclude by saying Joe Lieberman, being a staunch Orthodox Jew was considered in 2000 to be a ‘anesthetizing’ move in an effort by Gore to fully distance himself from the Clinton sex scandal. Seems this gamble obviously blew up in their faces, since this staunch Orthodox Jew sees no problem with killing innocent Iraqis, so long as his motherland is protected. ;)

Wow, that's a stretch. All Al Gore needed to do was win his own home State of Tennessee and he would have been president of the US. Stop blaming Jewish people for everything!

Don’t cha just love religious politicians?
A lot more than the Anti-Semites who are revealing themselves in this thread. :wavey:

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:09 PM
Who cares? When its all said and done, Lieberman will be re-elected in November as an independent.

I whole-heartedly agree, but there are some who in TOTAL denial of this fact.

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:11 PM
DAYUM!!!!! Ya'll are ripping a new one in Julia this evening. . .LOL!!!!!
:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:

"SWOOP!"

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:46 PM
Tell you what, you can start accusing other people of being naive when YOU stop swallowing the GOP spin on this hook, line and sinker.

Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions that simply aren't true. I'm not Republican, nor do I subscribe to their platform.

The DNC had absolutely nothing to gain by unseating one of their own incumbent senators. Both Clintons, John Kerry (thought that's a mixed blessing), and a number of other big names campaigned for him. The DNC did back him in the primary - including trying to get him to respond to Lamont's criticims of his voting record earlier and more firmly, advice that he decided to ignore until the last moment. THAT more than anything else cost him the primary (when he finally did deign to respond, he started picking up points in the polls)

The DNC had absolutely EVERYTHING to gain from a Lamont victory. Perhaps the possibility of being able to hold up a left-wing candidate for senate was much too tasty for Howard Dean to pass up.

Heck, anytime Barbara Streisand makes a public statement from her compound in Hollywood, CA about a Democratic Primary 3,000 miles away, you know something is going awry at the DNC. Both Rev's were there as well.

However, the DNC obviously didn't anticipate Lieberman running as an Independent and gathering the majority of undecided and well-informed electorate in CT during a general election.

Most people would agree that Kerry's praise, then attacks on Lieberman within a few short weeks is simply a recurring symptom of Kerry's past flip-flopping. His undoing during his unsuccessful bid for President in '04.

Stop deliberately confusing the fact that they're refusing to endorse his independent campaign NOW (which would mean turning their backs not only on the guy who won the primary, but the voters who picked him) with what they did or didn't do in the primary campaign.

Consider that the voters that chose Lamont are part of the minority of voters in the state of CT. The DNC would do itself a HUGE favor by distancing itself from this election and stop attacking Lieberman, because Lieberman will likely be a swing vote in key senate legislation.

Most people aren't fond of left or right wing candidates. The left-wing of the Democratic Party still hasn't come to grips with the fact that this country isn't as liberal as it once was. Similarly, the right wing of the Republican Party stubbornly refuses to believe their views are out of touch with mainstream America.

Our next President will be a moderate. The people of CT largely mirror other Americans in their disdain for extremism, which is why a solidly Democratic state will likely abandon its tradition and elect Independent Joe Lieberman as their next Senator.

If the Democrats expect to regain either branches of the legislature in November, they need to better control the left-wing of their party or voters will revolt once again. CT is only a drop in the bucket of a deluge of rainfall come fall.

*JR*
Aug 23rd, 2006, 12:23 AM
Re. the music issue, warning labels are about as effective as the ones on cigarette packs in getting kids not to buy them. And Tipper Gore was attacked plenty in the 80's re. a "slippery slope" to censorship. (She had to basically STFU as First Lady, to avoid antagonizing Bill & Hillary's entertainment industry pals).

If Lieberman was a racist for singling out the variety of "music" causing the most damage to ppl, so was the late Dr. C. Dolores Tucker (a black liberal Democrat). BTW, the attack on Lieberman remaining in the race made this past Sunday by John F(ucking) Kerry makes me somewhat sympathetic to him. :p

RVD
Aug 23rd, 2006, 08:14 AM
Racial quotas were deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, so I'm glad he's against that. No alternatives needed.Somehow I knew you'd say that. You are of the mind that the playing field is equal for all, aren't you? You may be a card carrying Independent; but in reality you are definitely Republican at heart. :scared:
Thus, I can understand why you and Lieberman are kindred spirits. Shame.
However, your incorrect in your assumption that Joe is against Affirmative Action. On the first day of the Democratic Convention in 2000, this is what Lieberman had to say about his support for Affirmative Action:

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/lieberman.htmlI think you meant to write 'you're... :hehehe:

And nice try, but Joe Lieberman is a sly sort of fellow. What Joe is against is quotas for Blacks, because he didn't believe discrimination to be a problem in this, our modern society. Apparently, he still doesn't. But I'm sure that you could care less, right? O.K., I can almost understand your position on this matter since it doesn't affect you are Joe.
However... you really need to do your homework MarJenAll20, because minorities have historically been given the short end of the stick where higher education and corporate institutions are concerned. I don't know where you reside, and I don't know what group you represent, but as a Black male I've experienced [as I still do today] the sting of discrimination wherever I go. In the workplace. At the mall. In the Real Estate office. At the bank. Again, if you aren't affected by it, I can see why you wouldn't care one way or another.

Let me just say that Affirmative Action was doomed to failure from its very inception, so of course Joe would lose no points on his position against it .
Hell, AA was rarely enforced.
And sure corporations posted those omnipotent EEOC documents on bullitin boards throughout the U.S., but what good is an idea if employers don't believe or subscribe to it? :shrug: And who's to check whether these businesses are maintaining the spirit of the law anyway?
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/hayward/97/affact.html
http://shr.aaas.org/thesaurus/detail.php?tid=135
The only reason why Joe CHANGED positions [on AA] was so that he could cash in on the Black vote.
Your link is further proof of that.
If one were to research [properly] Joe's background in this regard, one would discover a man who waffled on this issue depending on his political standing.
But I'll just stop there because AA is an issue that is very painful to me for personal reasons. And besides, I try to limit my discussions on this matter with open-minded individuals.

You spelled it incorrectly. Its censorship.You spelled you're incorrectly. :devil: [see above]
Funny you should mention that because Hilary Clinton was his partner in investigating the Gaming Industry. So that must mean Hilary Clinton is attacking Free Speech and 'CENSURSHIP' as well, huh? Why did you choose to exclude her as well?Could it possibly be because we were discussing Joe Lieberman? :scratch: However, investigation of an issue and leading a fight to elimination said gaming genre, are two completely separate things. :hehehe: Don't parse words with me kiddo. :p

Incidentally, whatever became of that investigation, MarJenAll20? :angel:
Lieberman has always been consistent in views about violent television, music and arcade-type games which glorify such existence and its effects on young minds. He's not the only Democrat or Republican which has raised similar questions.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6145659.htmlI never said that he was the only Democrat or Republican to raise the question. What bearing does that have on the issue? However, you are correct in that he has remained consistent in his views on violence in the media and in video games. In fact, [I]this is the primary reason why I singled him out? :hehehe:
I do believe that you are beginning to understand. :)

Also, you are doing yourself more harm than good, MarJenAll20. You really need to read such articles before using them as supporting evidence. :lol: :lol: [quote]Even though the legislation--called the Children and Media Research Advancement Act--does not include restrictions, it appears to be intended as a way to justify them. That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games.Joe appears to be losing this battle. ;)
Wow, that's a stretch. All Al Gore needed to do was win his own home State of Tennessee and he would have been president of the US. Stop blaming Jewish people for everything!


A lot more than the Anti-Semites who are revealing themselves in this thread. :wavey:So now I hate all Jews?! That's low even for you. :tape:

RVD
Aug 23rd, 2006, 08:31 AM
Just because Lieberman is an orthodox Jew does not mean he should be a pacifist.I beg your pardon. I was under the impression that this religion preached 'mercy', 'forgiveness', and 'understanding'. :angel:
If that was the case he would have no business becoming a politican yet a Presidential candidate. Fighting sometimes becomes a necessary evil as was the case with Iraq which had invaded Kuwait, massacred its people, was a threat in the region and beyond and who were though of building wmd's. Everyone thought that and not just Bush. Remember that Clinton too and UN said that he had those weapons and so Iraq was put under UN sanctions. Does that mean that Clinton lied.Herein lies the problem. :hehehe:
How can a man be both political and religious?
Isn't there a conflict of morals here? :lol:

And there you go with that 'necessary evil' jargon again.
IMO, Evil is never necessary.
It's a choice. :devil:
Most Americans are pro death peanlty including some libs on this forum. Clinton too was pro death penalty. Lieberman is also pro abortion.Ahhh...but the question is... are most Democrats pro-Death Penalty? Because these [CT] folks were the ones deciding Joe’s political future as their representative. ;)

RVD
Aug 23rd, 2006, 08:38 AM
Re. the music issue, warning labels are about as effective as the ones on cigarette packs in getting kids not to buy them. And Tipper Gore was attacked plenty in the 80's re. a "slippery slope" to censorship. (She had to basically STFU as First Lady, to avoid antagonizing Bill & Hillary's entertainment industry pals).

If Lieberman was a racist for singling out the variety of "music" causing the most damage to ppl, so was the late Dr. C. Dolores Tucker (a black liberal Democrat). BTW, the attack on Lieberman remaining in the race made this past Sunday by John F(ucking) Kerry makes me somewhat sympathetic to him. :pJust for the record, I never called or ever inferred Joe Lieberman to be anything but a Republican in democrat's clothing. :lol:

Why am I suddenly being called an anti-Semite and race-card slinger? :confused:

I think it’s time I caight some Zzzzz.
Night all.