What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Liberman Must Beat Lamont and Liberal Media

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Today the Dems of CT go to the polls and decide who they want to represent them in the fall election for US Senate.

Sen Joe Liebermen not only has to turn back the challenge of Ned Lamont but also the liberal media.

The liberal MSM no longer even offers the illusion of objectivity, but openly gives its full support for liberal candidates.

While I do not support Sen Lieberman on his domistic be;iefs, he has put his country ahead of his party with his stands on national defense and the security of America.

http://newsbusters.org/node/6820

Chris Matthews Makes Final Push For Anti-War Candidate, Warns of 'Imperial Presidency'
Posted by Geoffrey Dickens on August 7, 2006 - 16:57.
On this weekend's syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, Matthews made one last pitch for Ned Lamont in his bid to unseat Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Matthews is openly "anti-war" so when he urged a "huge turnout," in the Connecticut primary and declared: "If Democrats in Connecticut think this war has not been good for America they should use their precious ballot, fought and died for, for two centuries of patriots to say so," it sounded an awful like a final Get Out The Vote, rally cry for Lamont. Matthews made that pitch in his final commentary but he stoked the anti-war fires early in the program when he compared the Bush administration to the "imperial presidency" of Richard Nixon.

Matthews began the show with the following intro: "Nixon's revenge? After Watergate the imperial presidency took a hit but are Bush and Cheney now claiming the kind of far-reaching power Nixon and his forebears never dreamed of?" Matthews then played consecutive clips of Nixon and then Bush and asked panelist Dan Rather: "Dan, have we been here before?"

Rather took the cue to admonish the administration: "We have been here before and what interests me on sort of a sidebar is Chris, is how it all wound up with President Nixon. You'd think the lessons out of the Watergate, Vietnam period, one of them would be the dangers of assuming the President needs to be so strong he can break into people's houses, which is one of the things that happened with Watergate, do all these things. Now I'm not equating George Bush with Richard Nixon but it surprises me that this president and those around him haven't learned what I would consider, personally, the real lessons out of Watergate, Vietnam era. In our system of government it's true the President is not only head of government, he's head of state. A lot of people don't recognize the very important difference so he gets a lot of respect including respect from reporters but in our system, in the United States of America a president is not a descendant of a sun god where people are supposed to bow down and he's supposed to throw these lightning bolts down."

Later in the segment Rather whined the press had been browbeaten by the administration with the "unpatriotic" stick.

Matthews: "Do you think today, that there is a different sort of deference shown to the President because of 9/11?"

Dan Rather: "I do and up to a point I agree with it but the point she raised, what's happened is the natural inclination overwhelmingly reporters, no matter how it may seem, we love the country, we're pulling for the President, we're pulling for the President to, in the wake of 9/11 that undertow got very strong. It probably got, in my opinion, it got too strong but what happened and I think this was a critical, political mistake to say nothing, a mistake for the country as a whole, the President and those around him took the view, ‘If you're not with us, if you don't, if you ask any tough questions we're gonna hang a sign around you says you're unpatriotic.' And that worked on reporters' minds and therefore..."

Matthews: "Individuals? The individual reporters covering the President felt that if they didn't go along and be reasonably positive in their coverage that they'd be nailed as a traitor?"

Rather: "Something akin to that, exactly right. Now what's happened is the spine, the gravel in the gut, required of a good reporter, particularly a good White House reporter, understandably reporters said, ‘Listen, you know, you stand up and ask a tough question and then follow up with a tough question and you're gonna be called unpatriotic.' That's a powerful incentive to just sit there and continue and to take your notes."

Matthews, sounding like the student who sucks up to the professor by quoting from one of his papers, played an old Rather clip from 1973: "But these days a lot of the exchanges you get between the President and the press involve, you know, nicknames, the President's on his side and a lot fraternity house kidding all around. Take a look at Dan Rather, however, back in San Clemente in ‘73 in the midst of Watergate."

[August 22, 1973 clip of Rather asking a question to Richard Nixon]

Matthews: "Dan he actually had an almost like a canine begun to show his teeth to respond to you. This was serious business. Do you think we need more of that tough questioning?"

Rather: "Well of course I do and I don't except myself from this criticism that in the wake of 9/11 we sorta lost our way but the definition of a patriotic reporter, a patriotic American journalist is one who has the will and, and the guts to stand up and ask the tough question. That's being patriotic."

The panel then moved on to the administration's criticism of the New York Times. After the Times' David Brooks pointed out it was a good way for the Republicans to rally the base, Rather came to the Times' defense. Rather, who was fired for stubbornly sticking to a false story about the President in the 2004 campaign, pompously decried the tactic: "Let me respond to something David said before and I think this gets to the, the, heartwood of the problem. It may have been good with Republicans for the President and Vice President to literally accuse the Times, questioning their motives, not their judgement but what about the country? If, if you subscribe, you're talking about presidential power, the power of the American presidency is in no small way the power to persuade and in our system of government you must, its imperative that you have a high degree of communicable trust between the leadership and the led. Now if you go around for political purposes saying, ‘Listen it's good for our Republican base if we jump on the New York Times,' somebody has got to, have the gumption to get up and say, ‘but what about the country, Mr. President? Is it good for the country to have this kind of division?'"

Finally Matthews concluded the show with this thinly-veiled endorsement of Ned Lamont:

Matthews: "This August 8th the Democratic voters of Connecticut will render a decisive verdict. If challenger Ned Lamont beats Joe Lieberman then it will tell us the Democratic Party has had it with the war in Iraq. If Senator Lieberman survives it will tell us all, Republicans and Democrats, independents that it's safe for anyone to support this war. That's right even a Democrat from a liberal state where most Democrats hate the war and detest the President who chose to fight it. Let me venture a simple argument on the validity and the essential fairness of this test of popular will. If we Americans in Connecticut or anywhere else aren't willing to cast our personal vote on this clear matter of war when will we? What is our franchise for if not to say on the most vital of questions where we stand. The fact is it's very hard these days to get your vote to count. Very few of us live in states that aren't clearly red or blue. Congressional districts are so gerrymandered it's almost impossible to change things even when there's no incumbent running, if there is, forget it! These guys are headless nails. Once they get hammered in nobody, certainly not a few ticked-off voters are going to pry them out. So I, for one, am looking forward to the vote in Connecticut. I want a huge turnout. I want it to matter. I want people to vote their deepest beliefs, not just about who they want as their senator but what kind of a country they want to live in. If Democrats in Connecticut think this war has not been good for America they should use their precious ballot, fought and died for, for two centuries of patriots to say so. That's the show, thanks for watching, see ya here next week."
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,128
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Honestly, I dont think this race is that important. Regardless who wins Senator Lieberman will be going back to the Senate. If he wins the Democrat primary he will go back as a Democrat and if He runs as an independent he will go back as an Independent.

All this race will really show is if the left is tolerant or not.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Honestly, I dont think this race is that important. Regardless who wins Senator Lieberman will be going back to the Senate. If he wins the Democrat primary he will go back as a Democrat and if He runs as an independent he will go back as an Independent.

All this race will really show is if the left is tolerant or not.



The race may not be important, but it once again, brings out the bias of the liberal media.

Here is another example.........

http://newsbusters.org/node/6828
Stephanopoulos Wimps Out in Questioning Lamont About Lieberman ‘Black Face’ Picture
Posted by Noel Sheppard on August 7, 2006 - 20:12.
Imagine if you will a conservative writer with links to Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) posting a picture at his blog of Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania) in black face. Days later, Santorum goes on ABC’s “This Week” to discuss the campaign. How much do you think Santorum would be grilled over this issue? Probably rather intensely, yes?

Well, on Sunday, Ned Lamont, the Connecticut millionaire that is trying to defeat Sen. Joe Lieberman in TuesdayÂ’s senatorial primary, was StephanopoulosÂ’ guest (hat tip to Hot Air with video link available here). Although the host challenged Lamont about his knowledge of the blogs that are backing him, he never actually mentioned the blogger in question, nor did he refer to the picture. Instead, the following is the actual transcript of this exchange:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)

Your campaign has really been fueled by the net roots, it's called, the liberal blogs who have really taken on the war as their cause. And just - yet just a couple of days ago when one of those blogs took off after Senator Lieberman you were asked about it and you said, I don't know anything about those blogs. That wasn't really true, was it?

NED LAMONT (SENATORIAL CANDIDATE)

Look, there are hundreds of blogs out there on every single subject there is. Many of the blogs are supportive of us. I don't control what these people put on these things. But, yeah, there was one post I thought was terribly unfortunate. I found out about it and we said that should go, that should stop. This is an election that's gonna be civil. It's gonna be on the issues. I'm saying that to anybody that pretends to be a supporter of the Lamont campaign and I hope the Senator is saying that to all of his supporters, as well. I think it's important.

And that was that. From there, Stephanopoulos dropped this matter entirely, and asked Lamont, “Who is your political role model?”

Think that would have happened if Lamont was a Republican, or would the picture in question be shown, and the candidate required to explain his or her connection to the blogger, and whether that connection had been severed as a result?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
This morning, CBS acted as if the election was a done deal for the left

http://newsbusters.org/node/6845

CBS Previews A Lieberman Loss, Equates Far Left To America
Posted by Michael Rule on August 8, 2006 - 15:56.
Today is primary day in Connecticut, one in which liberals on the fringe left hope will be Senator Joe LiebermanÂ’s day of reckoning. On TuesdayÂ’s "Early Show" on CBS, correspondent Trish Regan previewed this race, and provided her insight on how Joe Lieberman has fallen from three term incumbent and former Democratic vice Presidential Candidate to now underdog in this race:

Trish Regan: "Ned Lamont has used this now infamous kiss to his advantage on campaign buttons and television ads, suggesting Lieberman is just too cozy with the president."

Infamous is a strong word. Perhaps Lieberman being embraced by President Bush at the 2005 State of the Union Address may be infamous to the far left, but I highly doubt mainstream America views two former rivals of differing political parties hugging as an infamous act.

Senator LiebermanÂ’s opponent, Ned Lamont, is described by Regan as:

"Â…a political novice with deep pockets who's now the frontrunner thanks to one issue, the war in Iraq."

Seems Mr. LamontÂ’s money has enabled him to exploit the vitriolic hatred the far left has for President Bush and the war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq, and thatÂ’s what has made him a contender, that and nothing more.

In fact "Early Show" co-host Julie Chen mentioned the importance the war in Iraq is playing in this race and how it could impact the November elections as she introduced Miss ReganÂ’s piece:

Julie Chen: "It's a race that draws on voter anger over the war in Iraq and could offer insight into how Americans will vote in November."

Exactly which voters are angered by the war in Iraq? That is, which voters are going to cast votes for candidates based solely on the war? Could it be the fringe left? Secondly, this primary may predict how liberal democrats will vote in November, but that is not necessarily representative of the American people.

Finally, Ms. Regan opined on the implications a Lieberman loss would have on Democrats:

Regan: "If Lieberman loses this election, it has pretty broad implications for the Democratic party nationwide. It could mean that Democratic candidates will come out very strongly against the war. They may feel that they need to do that in order to mobilize their base and win the midterm elections this fall. "

However, Miss Regan stops short of predicting that in order to placate the base, the Democrats may move too far to the extreme and alienate independents and moderates. Yet, this is not something CBS had a problem with during the 2000 and 2004 Presidential campaigns when they often wondered if President Bush was moving too far to the right and risked alienating these more middle of the road voters.

However, Regan is correct on one account. If Lieberman loses it will have broad implications. Lieberman is a liberal. He has a lifetime rating of 70 with Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), which is the exact same lifetime rating as Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. In contrast, Lieberman has a lifetime American Conservative Union (ACU) rating of 17 which is lower than that of the leader of the Senate Democrats, Mr. Reid. A loss by Senator Lieberman today sends the message that it doesnÂ’t matter how reliably liberal you are on most issues, if you stand up for national security and take a stand to make America a safer place, the fringe elements of the Democratic party will ensure there is no room in their party for you.
 

Working Man

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
627
Reaction score
47
Points
16
One of the guys who posts from CT said he went to work this morning and saw Lieberman signs all over the place. IT was like, as he described, a field of VOTE JoE signssprang up overnight . He was surprised to see the poll numbers shrink between Lieberman and Lamont as well when Lamont was ahead just recently. My guess is that Lamont may have misread the polls, and believed them a week ago, therefore he didn't campaign as hard this week. Big mistake. Oh well, one lefty for one floppy.

Joe Lieberman cheers for his record as a 18 year veteran of the senate. But, if you deduct the time he spent running for VP and President,, he didn't get that much done as far as I can tell. We have still lost many jobs in the US, and the energy crisis is worse now than the first time he claimed he would fight to get the oil companies under control. ANd,, we all know he has to distance himself from GW,, the hug turned kiss thing... But,, if he was that kind of moderate, why should he be embarrassed to be able to work with Bush?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Like Pres Bush did in 04, Sen Lieberman not only has to beat his opponent but the liberal media as well

The US economy is doing very well, despite high enegry prices. The Move On.org nuts will the big losers if Sen Lieberman iwns tonight

Of course if he does, the nutty left will scream how the election was stolen.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,128
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
Lieberman lost. so it should be interesting.
 

LuvRPgrl

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,163
Reaction score
206
Points
48
Lieberman lost. so it should be interesting.
Personally I think that is the best thing that could have happened to give the Republicans a shot at winning the senate seat. The governor of CT is Republican, so obviously a Republican can win a statewide election. Now, if Lieberman runs as an independent, it certainly will siphon away a lot of Dems votes.
Anyone ever notice Liebermans name starts with the word Lie....?

Anyone ever remember that Clinton NEVER got a majority of voters to vote for him, NEVER over 50 percent. NEVER.
 

Told you So

Rookie
Joined
Aug 4, 2006
Messages
20
Reaction score
8
Points
1
Location
New York/ Washigton D.C.
So Ned Lamont beat out Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primaries. Key democrat players: Clinton, Schumer, Kerry, Dean... all came out in support for Lamont (before <though it was mostly kept hush hush> and after his win), proving that the Democrat party is more divided than the media allows us to know. 90% of Lieberman's senatorial votes were along Democratic party lines, but the other 10% that seemed to favor Republican ideals was just enough to add the final straw to break the Democratic Donkey's back. So Dems. alienated their own ex-VP candidate because he agreed with Bush on a few important issues.

While many "opinion polls" and "media surveys" show that the Democrats have a great chance of winning back the Congress, and ultimately the Presidency, this senatorial primary, though in itself a useless and unimportant victory for Democrats, shows the disunity among the Dems. The upcoming elections will show how Moderate Traditional Democrats wont win support of the Democratic Party, and the new-age Liberal crazy Democrats wont win support of anyone else. I predict that the upcoming elections will see a massive surge of voters supporting Moderate Republicans and Independents. You will definately see key Democrats withholding thier opinions on important and controversial national issues (the War on Terror, Gay marriage, Social Security, Outsourcing, and Abortion). And if a Democrat wins the '08 Presidential race, though unlikely, you can count on high taxes, lots of overfunded government programs that yield no results, and an even bigger mess with Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and Venezuela. Not to mention, the UN will probably be given way too many tasks to handle (from the US), and will thus fail even more... But hopefully a Democrat wont be President- and if they do, remember... Told you So.
 

Bonnie

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
9,476
Reaction score
670
Points
48
Location
Wherever
So Ned Lamont beat out Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primaries. Key democrat players: Clinton, Schumer, Kerry, Dean... all came out in support for Lamont (before <though it was mostly kept hush hush> and after his win), proving that the Democrat party is more divided than the media allows us to know. 90% of Lieberman's senatorial votes were along Democratic party lines, but the other 10% that seemed to favor Republican ideals was just enough to add the final straw to break the Democratic Donkey's back. So Dems. alienated their own ex-VP candidate because he agreed with Bush on a few important issues.

While many "opinion polls" and "media surveys" show that the Democrats have a great chance of winning back the Congress, and ultimately the Presidency, this senatorial primary, though in itself a useless and unimportant victory for Democrats, shows the disunity among the Dems. The upcoming elections will show how Moderate Traditional Democrats wont win support of the Democratic Party, and the new-age Liberal crazy Democrats wont win support of anyone else. I predict that the upcoming elections will see a massive surge of voters supporting Moderate Republicans and Independents. You will definately see key Democrats withholding thier opinions on important and controversial national issues (the War on Terror, Gay marriage, Social Security, Outsourcing, and Abortion). And if a Democrat wins the '08 Presidential race, though unlikely, you can count on high taxes, lots of overfunded government programs that yield no results, and an even bigger mess with Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and Venezuela. Not to mention, the UN will probably be given way too many tasks to handle (from the US), and will thus fail even more... But hopefully a Democrat wont be President- and if they do, remember... Told you So.


That sums it all up very well. Essentially the Democratic party platform has offcially come out of the closet as one of extreme pro UN, anti war, anti America as a super power which is Soros's dream, socialistic, etc..........Let's see what the voter does with that now???
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
That sums it all up very well. Essentially the Democratic party platform has offcially come out of the closet as one of extreme pro UN, anti war, anti America as a super power which is Soros's dream, socialistic, etc..........Let's see what the voter does with that now???

Unfortunately we sit back and watch if the liberals win in Iraq, the media, the UN, with the ACLU, etc. etc.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,465
Reaction score
17,714
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
So Ned Lamont beat out Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primaries. Key democrat players: Clinton, Schumer, Kerry, Dean... all came out in support for Lamont (before <though it was mostly kept hush hush> and after his win), proving that the Democrat party is more divided than the media allows us to know. 90% of Lieberman's senatorial votes were along Democratic party lines, but the other 10% that seemed to favor Republican ideals was just enough to add the final straw to break the Democratic Donkey's back. So Dems. alienated their own ex-VP candidate because he agreed with Bush on a few important issues.

While many "opinion polls" and "media surveys" show that the Democrats have a great chance of winning back the Congress, and ultimately the Presidency, this senatorial primary, though in itself a useless and unimportant victory for Democrats, shows the disunity among the Dems. The upcoming elections will show how Moderate Traditional Democrats wont win support of the Democratic Party, and the new-age Liberal crazy Democrats wont win support of anyone else. I predict that the upcoming elections will see a massive surge of voters supporting Moderate Republicans and Independents. You will definately see key Democrats withholding thier opinions on important and controversial national issues (the War on Terror, Gay marriage, Social Security, Outsourcing, and Abortion). And if a Democrat wins the '08 Presidential race, though unlikely, you can count on high taxes, lots of overfunded government programs that yield no results, and an even bigger mess with Iran, North Korea, Iraq, and Venezuela. Not to mention, the UN will probably be given way too many tasks to handle (from the US), and will thus fail even more... But hopefully a Democrat wont be President- and if they do, remember... Told you So.


Interesting. Too bad it's both vituperative and wrong. Contrary to your assertion, the numbers all prove that the country has had it with the republicans and their agenda. You guys will be lucky if you hang on to the seats you have in the mid-terms. And it's funny how there was no "mess" in Iraq, Iran and North Korea until the cowboy called them the "axis of evil". Then they decided to thumb their nose at him. You still haven't figured out what more than 2/3 of the country has, that Iraq is a misadventure that is doing nothing but bankrupting this country and killing our troops.

As for the "fractured" Democratic party. Democrats are NEVER unified, because the party has always been "constituent-based", rather than "party-based", hence Roy Rogers saying "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat". We don't march in lockstep like the Bush brigade (except on immigration, of course...) But in the case of Lieberman, I love how the media has made it about the war. It ISN'T just about the war, it's about vote after vote on major issues. It's about not saying when the administration messes up. It'a about not standing up against Alito's nomination. It's about thinking Congress had any business whatsoever to interject itself in a private family matter in the case of Terry Schiavo.

Until the republicans stop selling the party to the radical right, no one is going to flock to it in a "massive surge", although that did make me laugh since it shows someone who is absolutely out of touch with the mainstream.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
Interesting. Too bad it's both vituperative and wrong. Contrary to your assertion, the numbers all prove that the country has had it with the republicans and their agenda. You guys will be lucky if you hang on to the seats you have in the mid-terms. And it's funny how there was no "mess" in Iraq, Iran and North Korea until the cowboy called them the "axis of evil". Then they decided to thumb their nose at him. You still haven't figured out what more than 2/3 of the country has, that Iraq is a misadventure that is doing nothing but bankrupting this country and killing our troops.

As for the "fractured" Democratic party. Democrats are NEVER unified, because the party has always been "constituent-based", rather than "party-based", hence Roy Rogers saying "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat". We don't march in lockstep like the Bush brigade (except on immigration, of course...) But in the case of Lieberman, I love how the media has made it about the war. It ISN'T just about the war, it's about vote after vote on major issues. It's about not saying when the administration messes up. It'a about not standing up against Alito's nomination. It's about thinking Congress had any business whatsoever to interject itself in a private family matter in the case of Terry Schiavo.

Until the republicans stop selling the party to the radical right, no one is going to flock to it in a "massive surge", although that did make me laugh since it shows someone who is absolutely out of touch with the mainstream.

I know you like this "lock step" thingy but for being on this board should have taught you that Conservatives disagree all the time. For another thing the Democrats are now ALL in lock step when it comes to cutting and running. They have made it a one issue election. Iran, Iraq and N. Korea were all in great shape before Bush was elected?? What planet are you living on?:cuckoo:
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,465
Reaction score
17,714
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
I know you like this "lock step" thingy but for being on this board should have taught you that Conservatives disagree all the time. For another thing the Democrats are now ALL in lock step when it comes to cutting and running. They have made it a one issue election. Iran, Iraq and N. Korea were all in great shape before Bush was elected?? What planet are you living on?:cuckoo:

The only things conservatives disagree on is immigration, though to be fair, true conservatives, as opposed to the radical loony-toon right, actually have issues with the way their government is spending money.

I love that "cut and run" garbage. Our troops were never meant to stand by and get blown up by terrorist roadside bombs. That isn't their job. They achieved the objective they were sent for...

And if y'all are so worried about "cut and run". Why did Bush cut and run from Afghanistan? He diverted our resourses from the real WOT.

Where's OBL? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Oh right. He "doesn't spend much time thinking about him". :dance:
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
The only things conservatives disagree on is immigration.

I love that "cut and run" garbage. Our troops were never meant to stand by and get blown up by terrorist roadside bombs. That isn't their job. They achieved the objective they were sent for...

And if y'all are so worried about "cut and run". Why did Bush cut and run from Afghanistan? He diverted our resourses from the real WOT.

Where's OBL? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Oh right. He "doesn't spend much time thinking about him". :dance:

Now your just acting stupid. I can find you plenty of disagreements here on other issues--you're just too lazy to look and not engaging in honest debate anymore. The US is still in Afghanistan in case you haven't noticed and OBL is dead or in his cave. It's scary that someone with brains can spread lies as easily as you.
 

PsuedoGhost

Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
206
Reaction score
15
Points
16
Lieberman got skewered on the war in Iraq. The polls are consistent with democrats. If you voted for the war in Iraq, you had better be prepared to lose your seat...

There is a huge upswelling of anti-Republican sentiment right now... The polls all show it... Why are you afraid to admit it?
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
Lieberman got skewered on the war in Iraq. The polls are consistent with democrats. If you voted for the war in Iraq, you had better be prepared to lose your seat...

There is a huge upswelling of anti-Republican sentiment right now... The polls all show it... Why are you afraid to admit it?

Admit what?

Here is a prime example of a Democrat who will lie to get her way.

Why did Bush cut and run from Afghanistan?
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
Who said that? McKinney? She's crazy anyways... How she got voted in is beyond me... Shes done. Thank God.

Why did Bush cut and run from Afghanistan?- That??

oh --that would be Jillians quote
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$295.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top