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

[Cancel7]

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.

You are so full of shit Dano. In fact, the democratic party ran anti-choice candidates in 06. In fact, they ran many candidates who are part of the “blue dog” dems, conservative in many ways, including economically. In fact, we do not have one front-running candidate for president who will promise to have all troops out of Iraq the first year they are elected, as shown in the debates. In fact, we do not have one front-running candidate for president who will take bombing Iran off the table.

In fact, Joe Lieberman is a radical war hawk, departing from over 200 years of American history in his advocating for preemptive wars. In fact, Joe Lieberman puts allegiance to a foreign country over allegiance to the United States of America, and in fact, Joe Lieberman has and continues to advocate giving the lives of American youths so that Israeli youths do not have to die. In fact, Joe Lieberman is a traitor to this country, and your dishonesty in holding him up as an example of how “hyper liberal” the democratic party is, is nothing short of contemptable.

Maybe when Joe Lieberman comes for your kids, you’ll sing a different tune, or maybe you’ll just hand them over, I wouldn’t know. But either way, you are full of shit and dishonest to the core.

Today the big debate revolves around whether or not the Republican party has room for a national candidate who does not tow the bases line on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. That question has not yet been answered. The fact that dems will nominate and have room for moderates, has been answered. But you want to distract from that, you’re desperate to, and that’s what this thread is all about.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

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)

It's more of a question about ethics than science, IMO. Embryo's are certainly alive, some people don't consider them truly "Human being" whenever it is still in embryonic form.

 

[Blackflag]

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.

Yea of course dano that must be why all of the major evangelicals besides basically robertson agreed that if Giuliani is the candidate they will go 3rd party. Big tent there.

 

[Cancel7]

Saying that it's "all or nothing" when it comes to a person who advocates starting preemptive wars and slaughtering hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, is like claiming that because a woman wants to leave a man who has a good job and is a good provider, and is smart, but who beats the crap out of her every night, she has an "all or nothing" mentality.

It is bullshit on its face, and the fact that Dano and SF are even attempting to make this argument is outrageous, pathetic, and disheartening.

Because it says something about this country that the slaugter of human beings can be dismissed as "just one issue". Where does he stand on the other issues? Good God.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's more of a question about ethics than science, IMO. Embryo's are certainly alive, some people don't consider them truly "Human being" whenever it is still in embryonic form.

To those that are enlightened, yes, it then becomes an ethical question. Should an unborn human progeny be entitled to human rights. Valid arguments can be made for both sides of this.

To the ignorant, it is still a question of science. They are the ones that try to play word games to somehow dehumanize the progeny by calling it a "fetus" which is simply a stage of the childs development.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Saying that it's "all or nothing" when it comes to a person who advocates starting preemptive wars and slaughtering hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, is like claiming that because a woman wants to leave a man who has a good job and is a good provider, and is smart, but who beats the crap out of her every night, she has an "all or nothing" mentality.

It is bullshit on its face, and the fact that Dano and SF are even attempting to make this argument is outrageous, pathetic, and disheartening.

Because it says something about this country that the slaugter of human beings can be dismissed as "just one issue". Where does he stand on the other issues? Good God.

Right, it is outrageous to say look at more than one issue. Gotcha.

You all heard it hear first.... you are only allowed one issue when describing how a politician behaves, you are not allowed to address how they behave based on more than one issue.

Side note Darla: Yes, as bad as the war is to you, it is still ONE issue. No one is "dismissing" it. But neither are we saying that one issue means more than all the others combined.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

To those that are enlightened, yes, it then becomes an ethical question. Should an unborn human progeny be entitled to human rights. Valid arguments can be made for both sides of this.

To the ignorant, it is still a question of science. They are the ones that try to play word games to somehow dehumanize the progeny by calling it a "fetus" which is simply a stage of the childs development.

A lot of people enjoy playing semantic games with words rather than discussing the meat of the issue.

 

[Cypress]

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.

Give it up man. Who's always on these boards yelling at liberals to "stop bashing bush!". You. That's who. You're a con, dude.

You're asking people to "stop bashing" the worst president in american history. A dude with Nixonian approval ratings. A president who has completely discredited america, shamed us, and destroyed our reputation. And blundered us into that illegal war that you wanted.

If any one deserves to get bashed its bush. But, you can barely bring yourself to do it. In fact, you spend most of your time scolding those who do bash bush.

You're a die hard republican. Give up the act.

 

[Cypress]

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.

Darla: blah blah blah. So who did you vote for in the past 4 Presidential elections SF?

Superfreak: 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...


LOL

Case proven!

 

[Cancel7]

Right, it is outrageous to say look at more than one issue. Gotcha.

You all heard it hear first.... you are only allowed one issue when describing how a mate behaves, you are not allowed to address how they behave based on more than one issue.

Side note Darla: Yes, as bad as your boyfriend beating the crap out of you everynight is, it is still ONE issue. No one is "dismissing" it. But neither are we saying that one issue means more than all the others combined.

Ok, I'll keep it in mind. I'm deciding whether or not to stay with him over the weekend. I was going to leave him, if only because of my medical bills, but I feel you have given me a new perspective, thanks.

 

[Cypress]

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.

And here you are still trying to rationalize your votes for one of the worst presidents in history!

Wear your republican CON label, loud and proud!

 

[Cypress]

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.

You're a social conservative too. You think abortion is murder. So don't try to fool anyone with the "I'm just an economic conservative" gig!