Lieberman is a soulless sleaze

@parados,

parados wrote:

That would be so much better, don't you think?

Just wait until all these people turn into zombies. Very Happy

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

So are you mad that Lieberman won as an independent, or mad that the Democrats put him in a powerful position?

No. I am mad that Lieberman is a soulless sleaze. (The other two things you mention are just part of politics.)

0 Replies

@maporsche,

What proves it self true time and time again? Are you arguing that the political parties don't stand for anything?

It seems to me that these questions are pretty easy to answer...

- Which party will defend abortion rights?
- Which party will oppose the use of water boarding?
- Which party will pass laws for equal pay?
- Which party will loosen restrictions on gun ownership?
- Which party will protect the rights of Christians to follow their conscience?

On issues that matter, parties matter.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

What proves it self true time and time again?

That all political parties are corrupt. I quoted you, who replied to djjd's post. Sorry if that was too confusing.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

That all political parties are corrupt.

Then yes, I disagree with this statement. The word "corrupt" implies that they are doing something they weren't intended to do.

Political parties are functioning as they should given the important role they play in our political system. This has little to do with the fact that Lieberman (a man who wants to be above political parties, yet plays the dirtiest of partisan tricks) is a soulless sleaze.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

i could care less what you think or what folks did

i stand by what i say, i'm going to participate in a process to elect a government, doesn't mean i have to respect politicians or parties, i'm gonna choose the lesser of all evils if possible

it's obvious that lieberman is one of the greater of all evils, i wouldn't have chosen him, no matter his party, when i was first aware of him of him he seemed wimpy and dithering, he's proved that to be true, but in a way one might not have expected

again,politicians and political parties are a necessary evil, at least until somebody comes up with a better idea, doesn't mean i have to like or respect them

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Quote:

i'm gonna choose the lesser of all evils if possible

I prefer to choose things that are not evil.

Quote:

politicians and political parties are a necessary evil,

You state the evilness of the people who choose to go into politics as if it were a religious doctrine. I don't buy it. How could this be? Are you saying that non-evil people can't get elected? Wouldn't this mean that the voters are evil (or idiots)?

I can give you a big list of people who are not evil who happen to be politicians. I met my Representative personally, Michael Capuano, and he is a decent guy.

Quote:

at least until somebody comes up with a better idea,

If you don't like Democracy, why did you all ever give up with the Monarchy thing.

2 Replies

Lieberman doesn't have nearly as much clout as he hopes he does. Yes, he'll probably be able to keep the debate going a few weeks longer, but in the end, some of the Republicans will cross over and vote to end the filibuster so they can go home for the holiday break to be with their families.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

On issues that matter, parties matter.

Horseshit.

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

Quote:

Horseshit.

Quite a rebuttal Merry. Could you give an example?

1 Reply

Lieberman has voted for Cloture in the past in which he later voted against in the final passage just be able to move on. Wonder why he sees such a problem with the health care bill being able to move on?

What is more he has voted for cloture in the past inwhich he later voted against just to move on.

Quote:

HANNITY: ... by the way, I was mad at you at Alito, and one day I'm gonna pull you aside, and I believe in my heart, I really believe in my heart that if the president really needed your vote, you would have been there.

LIEBERMAN: (Sigh) Well, OK, you pull me aside and we'll talk. (Laughter)

HANNITY: Alright, you don't want to answer that publicly, do you?

LIEBERMAN: (Laughter) Cause I voted no.

HANNITY: I know you voted no but...

LIEBERMAN: But I did vote against the filibuster cause I thought that, you know, it was time to move on.

source

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
i'm gonna choose the lesser of all evils if possible

I prefer to choose things that are not evil.

not always possible

Quote:
politicians and political parties are a necessary evil,

You state the evilness of the people who choose to go into politics as if it were a religious doctrine. I don't buy it. How could this be? Are you saying that non-evil people can't get elected? Wouldn't this mean that the voters are evil (or idiots)?

certainly lots of idiot voters, possibly evil ones as well

I can give you a big list of people who are not evil who happen to be politicians. I met my Representative personally, Michael Capuano, and he is a decent guy.

met some decent politicians myself, also met some scumbags

Quote:
at least until somebody comes up with a better idea,

If you don't like Democracy, why did you all ever give up with the Monarchy thing.

have no problem with democracy, as much as i might dislike party politics crap, at least we get more than two choices up here

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

.......I never understood the Dems kowtowing to this lowdown creep, and if they continue to now I won't forgive them that. Lieberman is sold out to big insurance and big business, and has no allegiance to anything but the corporate bottom line - and Joe Lieberman.

You don't know the half of it, Snood, Joe Lieberman had cut a deal with McCain to be his running mate in the last presidential election, and McCain was gung-ho to go public with that announcement until all the senior people in the Republican Party finally managed to get it through his head that the Convention would never vote to formally nominate him for president if that was to be his choice for vice president. Lieberman truly IS a low-down creep who's sold out to everyone you name plus one foreign country - I just don't know what McCain was thinking at the time.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

You are part of the problem with politics. Everyone thinks thier politician is a saint but any politician who takes public money when running for office has sold his soul to the money. All politicians are basically dishonest and have sold thier vote.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:
Horseshit.

Quite a rebuttal Merry. Could you give an example?

Based on my personal observation (and nothing more, I freely admit) there is absolutely no difference between the Democrat and the Republican parties. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Political parties exist solely for their own benefit and that of the people who run the parties, i.e. not the general rank-and-file membership. The only reason they ever accomplish anything like a public service is because, from time to time, they have to do something to retain the loyalty of that rank-and-file which continues, naively, to believe that their party is doing something different from the opposing party.

They ain't doin' ****. Not for you. Not for me. Not for any average citizen. If you're ambitious and get into the ranks of the party elite, you can certainly expect to gain some benefits. But not as a poor slob with only one vote to cast.

End of sermon. Back to barracks!

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

Quote:

Based on my personal observation (and nothing more, I freely admit) there is absolutely no difference between the Democrat and the Republican parties.

This is demonstrably false. There are clear and dramatic differences between the Democratic and Republican parties in their votes, rhetoric and positions.

- The Lily Ledbetter fair pay act was opposed by Republicans and passed by Democrats

- Healthcare Reform involving a public option is being opposed by Republicans and promoted by Democrats.

- The Defense of Marriage act was opposed by 14 Democrats. Not a single Republican voted against it.

- Immigration reform leading to a path to citizenship is pushed by Democrats and Opposed by Republicans.

If your complaint is that the parties are responding to their constituencies because the system (as a democracy) is designed so that they must answer to the voters in elections-- then I have no disagreement.

But to say that the two parties are the same-- when their positions, rhetoric and votes are so dramatically different on the important issues of the day from health care to tax policy to torture to the use of torture is ridiculous.

0 Replies

@rabel22,

No rabel, you are part of the problem. The system works when there are two sides representing different positions who are backed by citizens who support them.

I know my political party isn't perfect. I know that a politicians main goal is to be reelected. I know my representatives are human.

They know that they need to keep enough of their supporters happy to keep their job. I know how to make my position known-- and to how to push my politicians forward in the direction I want them to go.

I also know that right now, the Democrats are far better for someone with my political views than the Republicans. Because of this (i.e. because the Democrats are standing for positions that earn my support) I do whatever I can to give more power to the Democrats.

When the Democrats stop serving my interests (and the Republicans stop being so evil), they will lose my support.

I am a citizen who by supporting the political figures and entities that best represent my views gains leverage over those in power. Isn't this how Democracy is supposed to work?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

I supported the candidate for president i thought was best suited for the office. He was dropped very early. So i supported the one I thought was second best. when she was dropped I had to go to third best. This is a hell of a way to choose candidates when you already know that the one elected is the one that is most beholden to the people who donated (graft which has been changed to political contributions) the most money. For whom do you think the politicians are going to vote in favor of when the contributors are in conflict with the common good. Both parties work this way and while there is a difference in them the difference is slight. As for senators and representives I am given two candidates that someone else has chosen, one dem and one rep. I have taken to voting against the incumbent. If I have to vote for a crook than I think we should spread the wealth among many crooks.

3 Replies

@rabel22,

Again, I think you are part of the problem.

By knee-jerk voting against the incumbent, you are automatically taking yourself out of the process of positive reinforcement, where politicians who represent their constituents are rewarded. The late Ted Kennedy is a perfect example-- there is no doubt he represented his constituents (and I was one of them) and we deeply appreciate his service.

Also, assuming you went Edwards-Clinton-Obama, you need to realize that although you ended up with your third choice, there were many of us who had good reason for supporting Obama. I supported his candidacy with good reason, and I didn't receive money from any special interests as a result.

I don't understand how anyone can really say that the difference is slight. This makes absolutely no sense.

Does anyone, after the Iraq war, the wiretapping scandal, the torture scandal, the tax cuts for the rich not think that a Gore presidency, would not have been drastic different then what happened?

Do you really think that with McCain would have enacted Lily Ledbetter, would have moved decisively on the stimulus or would be anywhere near where we are on health care reform?

I think your negative attitude is harmful. At the very least you are choosing not to participate in political life and you are excluding your voice and influence from what is, for all its foibles, a well functioning and vibrant political system.

1 Reply

@rabel22,

rabel22 wrote:

I have taken to voting against the incumbent. If I have to vote for a crook than I think we should spread the wealth among many crooks.

QFT

1 Reply

Lieberman is a soulless sleaze

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know