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

[Cancel7]

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.

If your point was that you’re stupid, then please, don’t give me the credit, you proved that yourself. Only someone suffering from a real case of cranial butt inversion would claim that anyone whose first allegiance is to a foreign country is a “moderate”.

And SF, stop acting like you’re not a Republican, and somehow above it all.

 

[Onceler]

It's amazing when I think about how detestable I find Lieberman now. I never loved the guy as VP candidate, but I thought he was a decent choice at the time.

He was awful in that debate with Cheney, though - he really rolled over. From there, it's been all downhill. Bucking the voters of CT after he was rejected, becoming a total Bush shill on the Iraq War & saying he'd STILL invade if he had it to do over.

You can also see his new "love" from Republicans going straight to his ego. He loves that the Democrats have to suck up to him now for his vote.

It's all kind of sickening, actually. Still, the one thing I'll never forgive him on is Iraq; the rest of it is all standard politico stuff...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If your point was that you’re stupid, then please, don’t give me the credit, you proved that yourself. Only someone suffering from a real case of cranial butt inversion would claim that anyone whose first allegiance is to a foreign country is a “moderate”.

And SF, stop acting like you’re not a Republican, and somehow above it all.

1) I never said anything about Lieberman on this thread. Why do you continue to go to Lieberman?

2) Thank you for proving again what I stated. Now I must be a Republican because I am to the right of you on most issues. Yet I am also to the left of Dano. Economically I am without question a conservative, that by itself excludes me from both parties.

But I am above the whole Dems are evil and Reps are saints or Reps are saints and Dems are evil bullshit circle many of you seem caught up in....

But again, thank you for showing that both Reps as well as Dems seem to think their party is "moderate or centrist" when in reality they have both gone over to the extremes for the most part. Fuck what is best for the country, lets give in to OUR special interests groups and PACs and then cry fowl when the other party gives in to THEIR special interest groups and PACs.

 

[Cancel7]

blah blah blah.

So who did you vote for in the past 4 Presidential elections SF?

And are you going to answer my question...can you tell me how the democratic party is beholden to it's "hyper liberal base" when not one of the leading candidates for president will say "I will remove all troops from iraq immediately"? Which is what the "hyper liberal base" has been demanding?

And then can you tell everyone what in hell you were talking about when you so pompously answered a post ABOUT JOE LIEBERMAN, if it wasn't Joe Lieberman?

 

[Blackflag]

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
[/QUOTE]


So basically not much...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

blah blah blah.

So who did you vote for in the past 4 Presidential elections SF?

And are you going to answer my question...can you tell me how the democratic party is beholden to it's "hyper liberal base" when not one of the leading candidates for president will say "I will remove all troops from iraq immediately"? Which is what the "hyper liberal base" has been demanding?

And then can you tell everyone what in hell you were talking about when you so pompously answered a post ABOUT JOE LIEBERMAN, if it wasn't Joe Lieberman?

Lets see, I hated Clinton from exposure to him in AR.... so yes, I voted against him twice, I voted for Bush over the tools Gore and Kerry...

So if you are going to call me a Republican based solely on my votes for President, then you got me.... we'll just ignore all other offices and pretend it is just that one that matters. How about that?


My intitial response was to Socrteases post of "That exact same statement could be said of every Repub candidate with the exception of Paul. "

In which I stated that neither party's members would think that they are beholden to the more extreme part of their base. Which you have proven.

I also stated that just because they vary from you on one issue does not mean they are not beholden.

 

[Onceler]

"I voted for Bush over the tools Gore and Kerry..."

How do you define "tool"?

I can't imagine a definition that would somehow not include Bush....

 

[Socrtease]

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.

I call bullshit! The Hyper Conservative paranoid base wants queers put back in the closet, the war to go on without end, which is why Paul does so poorly among conservatives, Zygots to be granted citizenship, and all of us to pay for religious education through vouchers. TO pretend that the Repubs are not held hostage by the Evangelical Right is crazy. Robertson endorsed Rudy cause the enemy of his enemy is his friend. Not cause he likes a single thing about Rudy. And that endorcement has strings and don't you dare think it doesn't.

The Hyper Conservative base paints anyone that opposes the war as a traitor, anyone that supports gay marriage as an enemy of the family and anyone that supports access to safe legal abortions as child killers. So please, pretty please with sugar on top, don't insult us by pretending the Republican base is not as hyper partisan and paranoid as the liberal base.

 

[Cancel7]

Lets see, I hated Clinton from exposure to him in AR.... so yes, I voted against him twice, I voted for Bush over the tools Gore and Kerry...

So if you are going to call me a Republican based solely on my votes for President, then you got me.... we'll just ignore all other offices and pretend it is just that one that matters. How about that?


My intitial response was to Socrteases post of "That exact same statement could be said of every Repub candidate with the exception of Paul. "

In which I stated that neither party's members would think that they are beholden to the more extreme part of their base. Which you have proven.

I also stated that just because they vary from you on one issue does not mean they are not beholden.

I see so in the past 4 Presidential elections you voted for the Republican but you are not a Republican.

Okay.

I should put up a poll asking if there is anyone here who thinks you are anything other than a Republican, based on that voting record, but also, based on your posts here.

The results would be an edge-of-your-seater, I'm sure!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"I voted for Bush over the tools Gore and Kerry..."

How do you define "tool"?

I can't imagine a definition that would somehow not include Bush....

I admit that Bush turned out far worse than I thought he would. But if Gore had that big a problem running a gimme election, how the hell was he going to run the country? Kerry with his very wise "I'll do the same thing, but with 10000 more troops"....yeah, that instilled a LOT of confidence in his ability to come up with a clear plan. Both should have been able to shell Bush, but failed.... If they couldn't beat BUSH.... well, enough said.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I see so in the past 4 Presidential elections you voted for the Republican but you are not a Republican.

Okay.

I should put up a poll asking if there is anyone here who thinks you are anything other than a Republican, based on that voting record, but also, based on your posts here.

The results would be an edge-of-your-seater, I'm sure!

So if I voted for Salazar for Senate that has no bearing? The fact that I thought the Dems candidates were simply too far to the left for me that makes me a Rep? Please. As I stated, economically I am conservative. That eliminates both parties for me. Yes, I will vote Rep over Dem for President in most cases.

 

[Cancel7]

So if I voted for Salazar for Senate that has no bearing? The fact that I thought the Dems candidates were simply too far to the left for me that makes me a Rep? Please. As I stated, economically I am conservative. That eliminates both parties for me. Yes, I will vote Rep over Dem for President in most cases.

In what way are you liberal?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

In what way are you liberal?

1) for the legalization of drugs

2) for the rights of gay couples to join and have the same rights as a hetero couple

3) for the end of the three strikes laws being madatory

4) for environmental protection, just not quite as extreme as some

5) for embryonic stem cell research... just don't believe it has to be federally funded

6) While I would still maintain the use of the death penalty in certain cases, I would put all death row inmates on life without parole given the number of cases that have been found to be incorrect. But I would keep it for the McVeighs, Bundys, Manson types. Or for someone who would choose death over life in prison without parole.

Those are off the top of my head. Social issues with the exception of abortion (because I believe in basic human rights for all unique human life )we are probably going to agree in principal (but maybe not in execution)

 

[Cancel7]

1) for the legalization of drugs

2) for the rights of gay couples to join and have the same rights as a hetero couple

3) for the end of the three strikes laws being madatory

4) for environmental protection, just not quite as extreme as some

5) for embryonic stem cell research... just don't believe it has to be federally funded

6) While I would still maintain the use of the death penalty in certain cases, I would put all death row inmates on life without parole given the number of cases that have been found to be incorrect. But I would keep it for the McVeighs, Bundys, Manson types. Or for someone who would choose death over life in prison without parole.

Those are off the top of my head. Social issues with the exception of abortion (because I believe in basic human rights for all unique human life )we are probably going to agree in principal (but maybe not in execution)

Those could also be libertarian positions. You might be a libertarian-leaning republican (with the very large exception of a woman’s right to control her own body), but you’re still a Republican, which probably explains why you’ve been voting for Republicans.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Those could also be libertarian positions. You might be a libertarian-leaning republican (with the very large exception of a woman’s right to control her own body), but you’re still a Republican, which probably explains why you’ve been voting for Republicans.

Well, as I have said in the past, economically conservative, socially moderate. So yes, libertarians would be the closest to me on the whole. But we all know you leftys cannot accept that someone can be libertarian.... to you all libertarians are closet Reps.

crazy lib.

 

[Cancel7]

"all libertarians are closet Reps"

Well, i wouldn't say all, I think you’re being a little hard on yourself…the overwhelming majority, yes.

 

[TheDanold]

1) for the legalization of drugs

2) for the rights of gay couples to join and have the same rights as a hetero couple

3) for the end of the three strikes laws being madatory

4) for environmental protection, just not quite as extreme as some

5) for embryonic stem cell research... just don't believe it has to be federally funded

6) While I would still maintain the use of the death penalty in certain cases, I would put all death row inmates on life without parole given the number of cases that have been found to be incorrect. But I would keep it for the McVeighs, Bundys, Manson types. Or for someone who would choose death over life in prison without parole.

Those are off the top of my head. Social issues with the exception of abortion (because I believe in basic human rights for all unique human life )we are probably going to agree in principal (but maybe not in execution)

I am also not pure Conservative on many issues, but I think this whole discussion proves something, with TODAY's Liberal Democrats, it's really all or nothing, disbelieve in even one issue they don't and you get assailed - as Darla proves.

I don't know how the heck they ever got the label of being big tent when in reality it's the righties I see that allow and are fine with diverse opinions.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

1) for the legalization of drugs

2) for the rights of gay couples to join and have the same rights as a hetero couple

3) for the end of the three strikes laws being madatory

4) for environmental protection, just not quite as extreme as some

5) for embryonic stem cell research... just don't believe it has to be federally funded

6) While I would still maintain the use of the death penalty in certain cases, I would put all death row inmates on life without parole given the number of cases that have been found to be incorrect. But I would keep it for the McVeighs, Bundys, Manson types. Or for someone who would choose death over life in prison without parole.

Those are off the top of my head. Social issues with the exception of abortion (because I believe in basic human rights for all unique human life )we are probably going to agree in principal (but maybe not in execution)

You're one of the least religious conservatives I know, SF. It's kind of funny how liberals have at time adopted conservative populist rhetoric and that conservatives at time adopt liberal rhetoric like free trade and individual liberty. Things change all the time in America...

Of course, there's always the religious conservatives...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're one of the least religious conservatives I know, SF. It's kind of funny how liberals have at time adopted conservative populist rhetoric and that conservatives at time adopt liberal rhetoric like free trade and individual liberty. Things change all the time in America...

Of course, there's always the religious conservatives...

That is because I am not especially religious. Although raised Catholic, I haven't been to church in a couple decades with the exception of weddings/funerals.

While I am against abortion, it is for scientific reasons and not religious. (yes, I know many libs disagree with me on it being about science)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"all libertarians are closet Reps"

Well, i wouldn't say all, I think you’re being a little hard on yourself…the overwhelming majority, yes.

LOL.... yeah, ok... sure