Lieberman gets this right: Today's Democrat Party Hyper-Liberal

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
I don't support Lieberman's war views but he nails this part, TODAY's Democrat party is far left and completely saturated by hyper-Liberalism.

"The 2008 Democratic candidates are beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" liberal base that could endanger the final nominee's chances of winning next year's presidential election, Joe Lieberman, the former vice-presidential Democratic candidate, said yesterday.

In his most outspoken attack on fellow Democrats since he was unsuccessfully challenged last year by Ned Lamont, a liberal Democrat, for his Senate seat in Connecticut, Mr Lieberman yesterday said he might not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee next year."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1f8eee44-8e...r=http://www.drudgereport.com/&nclick_check=1
 
Socrtease said:
That exact same statement could be said of every Repub candidate with the exception of Paul.
Click to expand...

True... but what would you like to bet that the Reps and Dems all think it is just the "other" party that is beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base
 
Superfreak said:
True... but what would you like to bet that the Reps and Dems all think it is just the "other" party that is beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base
Click to expand...

Well maybe then you can explain to me how, when we don’t have one front-runner who will say “I will immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq” the dems are “beholden to their liberal base” who want exactly that?

You guys love Lieberman because he loves blood and in fact is advocating an Iranian war. Take his vampire ass, claim him. But don’t ever try and pretend that he speaks for democrats, that he is a fucking moderate, or that his opinion of the democratic base, who don’t yearn for blood, means jack shit.

He ain’t nothing but a Zionist beholden to the interests of Israel. In other words, a freaking traitor, and if he was beholden to the interests of France, you’d be the second person to say so. Dano would be the first.
 
TheDanold said:
I don't support Lieberman's war views but he nails this part, TODAY's Democrat party is far left and completely saturated by hyper-Liberalism.

"The 2008 Democratic candidates are beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" liberal base that could endanger the final nominee's chances of winning next year's presidential election, Joe Lieberman, the former vice-presidential Democratic candidate, said yesterday.

In his most outspoken attack on fellow Democrats since he was unsuccessfully challenged last year by Ned Lamont, a liberal Democrat, for his Senate seat in Connecticut, Mr Lieberman yesterday said he might not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee next year."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1f8eee44-8e...r=http://www.drudgereport.com/&nclick_check=1
Click to expand...


Dano - Perhaps you should read the actual remarks of Lieberman wherein the sole basis for his charge that the Democratic Party is beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base is because they disagree with him on his war stance. That's it. Considering you disagree with his position on the war, perhaps you should rethink you're endorsement of his lunacy.
 
Dungheap said:
Dano - Perhaps you should read the actual remarks of Lieberman wherein the sole basis for his charge that the Democratic Party is beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base is because they disagree with him on his war stance. That's it. Considering you disagree with his position on the war, perhaps you should rethink you're endorsement of his lunacy.
Click to expand...

It's infuriating. The guy's only issue these days is war, war, war, more, more, more, and they want to act like disagreeing with him makes one a "hyper liberal".

How about, a human being?
 
Lieberman, Lieberman - why do I know that name?

Oh, yeah - isn't that the guy who publicly admitted to a severe form of psychosis prior to the '06 election, and said he still would have invaded Iraq despite everything that happened?

I knew that name sounded familiar. What's he up to, now? Isn't he pushing for a war with Iran?
 
Socrtease said:
That exact same statement could be said of every Repub candidate with the exception of Paul.
Click to expand...

NO that is completely false. A hyper partisan Conservative base wants repeal of healthcare regulations, repeal of the pill bill, fiscal responsibility, federal government out of education, reduced EPA role, no gun control.

The only thing the current candidates are paying heed to Conservatives on is guns and that's about it.

The worst part of Karl Rove is that in making the Bush strategy one of stealing Liberal positions on spending, we now have a Republican party with a Liberal Repub in the lead in Guillani and a fake Conservative in 2nd place in Romney.
Meanwhile the Dem party far from having any moderates like Bill Clinton and Tsongas, now instead has socialist Edwards duking it out with hardcore Liberals Hillary and Obama.

Political centers move in ONE direction, both parties were more Conservative in the 90's, both are more Liberal now.
 
Darla said:
It's infuriating. The guy's only issue these days is war, war, war, more, more, more, and they want to act like disagreeing with him makes one a "hyper liberal".

How about, a human being?
Click to expand...


Apparently, one thing that 9/11 changed is that the people that are now viewed as "sensible" and "serious" in the foreign policy field are the people that advocate war as the first option not the last. There was a time, the vast majority of the 20th Century, when those people were rightly viewed as lunatics.
 
TheDanold said:
NO that is completely false. A hyper partisan Conservative base wants repeal of healthcare regulations, repeal of the pill bill, fiscal responsibility, federal government out of education, reduced EPA role, no gun control.

The only thing the current candidates are paying heed to Conservatives on is guns and that's about it.

The worst part of Karl Rove is that in making the Bush strategy one of stealing Liberal positions on spending, we now have a Republican party with a Liberal Repub in the lead in Guillani and a fake Conservative in 2nd place in Romney.
Meanwhile the Dem party far from having any moderates like Bill Clinton and Tsongas, now instead has socialist Edwards duking it out with hardcore Liberals Hillary and Obama.

Political centers move in ONE direction, both parties were more Conservative in the 90's, both are more Liberal now.
Click to expand...


Talk about hyper-partisan paranoia. Wow. You take the cake Dano!
 
Dungheap said:
Apparently, one thing that 9/11 changed is that the people that are now viewed as "sensible" and "serious" in the foreign policy field are the people that advocate war as the first option not the last. There was a time, the vast majority of the 20th Century, when those people were rightly viewed as lunatics.
Click to expand...

Yeah right. Truman, LBJ, Clinton and FDR were not viewed as lunatics at all and they all went to war.
You can't rewrite history based on how you'd like to pretend it to be.
 
Darla said:
Well maybe then you can explain to me how, when we don’t have one front-runner who will say “I will immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq” the dems are “beholden to their liberal base” who want exactly that?

You guys love Lieberman because he loves blood and in fact is advocating an Iranian war. Take his vampire ass, claim him. But don’t ever try and pretend that he speaks for democrats, that he is a fucking moderate, or that his opinion of the democratic base, who don’t yearn for blood, means jack shit.

He ain’t nothing but a Zionist beholden to the interests of Israel. In other words, a freaking traitor, and if he was beholden to the interests of France, you’d be the second person to say so. Dano would be the first.
Click to expand...


Thank you for proving my point. I said nothing in support of Lieberman on this thread. I simply stated that both bases are made up of "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base and that their politicians are beholden to them. Yes, you can take one issue and act as though if they disagree with you on one they must not be beholden to you. The Reps could say the same thing. Which was my point. Neither the left nor the right want to admit that they have gone off to the far right (religious nuts) or the far left (just nuts).

The left sees any moderate as a righty and the right sees any moderate as a lefty. From their perspectives that may be true, but those in the middle understand just how wacked out the two parties are right now.
 
TheDanold said:
Yeah right. Truman, LBJ, Clinton and FDR were not viewed as lunatics at all and they all went to war.
You can't rewrite history based on how you'd like to pretend it to be.
Click to expand...


Don't get mad, DH. Dano's always had challenges w/ reading comprehension.
 
TheDanold said:
I don't support Lieberman's war views but he nails this part, TODAY's Democrat party is far left and completely saturated by hyper-Liberalism.

"The 2008 Democratic candidates are beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" liberal base that could endanger the final nominee's chances of winning next year's presidential election, Joe Lieberman, the former vice-presidential Democratic candidate, said yesterday.

In his most outspoken attack on fellow Democrats since he was unsuccessfully challenged last year by Ned Lamont, a liberal Democrat, for his Senate seat in Connecticut, Mr Lieberman yesterday said he might not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee next year."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1f8eee44-8e...r=http://www.drudgereport.com/&nclick_check=1
Click to expand...

I think we all know where LIEberman stands with regard to the war in iraq, which doesn't represnet america's interests but israels...
and furthermore id bet dano was calling LIEberman Sore Loserman in 2000, but now he's giving him wet sloppy kisses.
 
Robdawg said:
I think we all know where LIEberman stands with regard to the war in iraq, which doesn't represnet america's interests but israels...
and furthermore id bet dano was calling LIEberman Sore Loserman in 2000, but now he's giving him wet sloppy kisses.
Click to expand...

I don't like Lieberman that much and it's not just because of Iraq, I've said before his voting record is fairly Liberal (not in Hillary/Obama/Edwards range but still up there), but he can see reason on some issues.
 
TheDanold said:
Yeah right. Truman, LBJ, Clinton and FDR were not viewed as lunatics at all and they all went to war.
You can't rewrite history based on how you'd like to pretend it to be.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote because I didn't say what you think I said.
 
TheDanold said:
I don't like Lieberman that much and it's not just because of Iraq, I've said before his voting record is fairly Liberal (not in Hillary/Obama/Edwards range but still up there), but he can see reason on some issues.
Click to expand...

So you support his war stance then? because his spending and everything else about him is liberal.

He took this position only based on the war and you are praising him for it.
 
Blackflag said:
So you support his war stance then? because his spending and everything else about him is liberal.

He took this position only based on the war and you are praising him for it.
Click to expand...
I am not, in my opening post on this thread I said I did not support his war stance. He also pandered shamelessly with his super-Liberal voting in 2004 when he was running for prez, but I will be fair to him, he has shown himself to take a few positions that I do like:
- support for vouchers
- restriction of liability damage awards
- against affirmative action (sometimes)
- judicial votes

Most of the rest he is solid Liberal but that's still better than Hillary/Obama/Edwards who are Liberal through and through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top