Lieberman ahead in polls, Kerry slams him

Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

thats a fair point dixie
 
klaatu said:
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 ...
Click to expand...



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.
 
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.
 
IHateGovernment said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well, if Ron Paul (the libertarian second coming) voted against it, it must be bad :p
 
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.
 
klaatu said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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 said:
Lady T that made me laugh out loud!!!

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

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.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Go ahead and tease Tiana.
Click to expand...

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


So how does Ronnie boy's crack smell from that angle.......?
 
robdastud said:
well part of it too is his gambling problem i think but i dunno
Click to expand...
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...) ;)
 
LadyT said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
Damocles said:
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...) ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, but 3% ??!!!

Even loony-tunes GOPers like Alan Keyes and David Duke could pull in 30% of the vote.
 
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.
 
robdastud said:
thats a fair point dixie
Click to expand...
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.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
IHateGovernment said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top