What is Digg?58 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17That's a GOOD thing!!! People who tow the party-line and don't think for themselves are full of *****.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Lieberman is a turd.
Diggers have short memories. Please remember how this clown crusaded against video games for over a decade.
I am a card-carrying Democrat but if he ran for President I would most assuredly vote for whomever is against him. - tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11What was Kerry's? I'm still wondering on that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16Liberal = Dean
Moderate = Edwards
Conservative = Lieberman - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"sagging poll numbers because of his support of the Iraq war"
This guy is pro-war but against violent video games? Simulated violence is more evil than government-sanctioned murder? What? - ImpactedColon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12In other news, Liebermen's staff books Mariott for concession speech exactly one year from now.
- aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Wahh??? Wait a minute skyshock, you're suggesting that Lieberman should be disqualified from consideration for the presidency because he is Jewish? If a group of Arabs has a problem with the idea of a Jew being democratically elected to the presidency of a free nation, quite frankly, I don't think they are the Arabs that we should be attempting to apease--they are the Arabs that we should be attempting to marginalize in favor of the larger moderate Arab population.
- madzombiekilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'm going to have to agree with you on that. I was so torn in the 2000 election because of Lieberman and where he stood on issues that concerned me.
I can't support the guy at all. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14They're Christian Nationalists.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/053182.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I'm kind of surprised he thinks he has a chance.
He was picked as a warm body and as an antidote to Clinton's social excesses. He is a completely lackluster figure. I think he has an inflated sense of his chances. - sdjnet, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10The fact Lieberman would run against the Democratic nominee proves he's not a loyal Democrat.
- ipsophatso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Murder is taking the life of another free breathing organism, that given a chance would stop you. So, yes, murder. And yes, government sanctioned. And, yes, nazis are bad.
- Kii666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Extreme Leftists in the DNC, hahaha... That's laughable. There's a handful, at best. During the 2004 Democratic Primaries, the only "extreme leftist" was Kucinich, and he kicked ass.
- unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9It's also a shame the Republicans can't seem to produce any either.
- aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Also, it's a shame freedomisntfree is being modded down for his perceptive comment:
"Too bad he isn't the leading-man type Americans seem to prefer over then qualified-man type."
The American presidency is indeed a role different from many other heads of states, and Americans do prefer people who demonstrate leadership as opposed to credentials. Bush won both of his presidencies running not on his credentials but his image as a leader. While Kerry ran as the man qualified to get us out, Bush ran as the leader who boldly brought us into it, and won. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Yeah, too bad they're both conservatives, eh?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Wes Clark.
I really wanted to see a Wes Clark Vs. John McCain presidential race after Clinton. The country would've been in a win/win situation. Instead we got a bunch of clowns because people here don't pay attention when they vote. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Had Perot not been running, Clinton would have never been elected the first time, let alone RE-elected."
Actually that is not technically correct. In the 1996 election, Dole+Perot got 49.1% of the vote, Clinton got 49.2. But since you're throwing in Perot, Clinton and Nader got a combined 49.9%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996 - helix400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The fact Lieberman would run against the Democratic nominee proves he's not a loyal Democrat."
What do you think they do during primaries? - nixr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I've always thought that, at the very least, Lieberman was a good starting point for political climate change in this country. I do not agree with some of his views especially those that concern censorship and the war (both of which he supports) but his candor and ethical backbone would be a welcome change. I think it takes a considerable amount of gall to disassociate yourself from your party after so many years to take a shot at a position that you stand little chance of getting.
- jayhawk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5it really doesn't make sense to have a very moderate democrat representing a solidly blue state. i am just amazed it's taken connecticut this long to make a change.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"It really is a shame that the Democratic party has no room for a 'Moderate' any more."
No one values moderates in American politics anymore, on either side of the spectrum. It's all about a few extremists having their shouting matches and then everyone else being left wondering "who represents me?"
(Before you mod me down, remember that record post-war turnout lows prove me correct.) - fucknut, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Good riddance. He voted for the war when he thought the war was going to be popular, be over quickly and reap him rewards as a result. When the war went south (literally & figuratively) he was stuck with his short-sighted vote and could do nothing as a result. He sold out his party and caved in a powerful president. He now pays the price. The hell with him.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not much Joe-mentum here, it seems.
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Against the Right "FOR A CHANGE"??? Umm, no. H. Ross Perot took votes from George Bush AND Bob Dole. Had Perot not been running, Clinton would have never been elected the first time, let alone RE-elected.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2irregex:
>You do know that the "War Vote" had overwhelming bi-partisan support, right?
You do know that the reports given to congress to garner their support for the war had been changed, right?
Words in the National Intelligence Estimate presented to congress were changed. "Probably" was changed to "has", "maybe"s were deleted, and so forth. After the Bush administration was done with it, what was originally arguable in the actual NIE was suddenly changed to fact. - aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"The radical DNC leadership has gone so far to the left they alienated their base supporters."
I think it's the other way around--their base *is* the far left, and the DNC's been forced to move left to appease them and the increased influence the internet has brought them. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The voters will have spoken and Lieberman's political career will have to move to Texas. I hope he likes cows.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Lamont's advertising is being produced by Bill Hillsman, who produced the ads for Wellstone's 1990 underdog victory in the Senate (Wellstone was not even expected to win the Democratic nomination) and Jesse Ventura's successful gubernatorial campaign in Minnesota. I thought Hillsman's first ads for Lamont were pretty mediocre. I think the latest ad is better(1) -- to give it some context, Lieberman has been attacking Lamont as a cable millionaire who is buying the election.
1) http://nedlamont.com/blog/451/ned-ad-students - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Lieberman was in the "gang of 14" moderate Republican and Democratic Senators that broke the deadlock on Bush's judicial nominees. The Senate is historically a place for independent-minded and moderate leaders like Lieberman to flourish. In fact its 6-year terms and 2-year election cycle wherein only a 1/3 minority of Senators go up for election were designed to insulate Senators from the chaos of daily politics and foster independent thinking. It's sad that the Democrats want to turn to a partisan instead of keeping a guy like Lieberman. I may not agree with everything he believes in but I know he isn't a dummy on most issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14 - aviazn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Meh, I'd still vote for him, although not against McCain or Guiliani. The war on terror trumps GTA for me...
- ytrabbit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It did, that's why we should boot the lot of them. This election I am voting against anyone who has allowed/supported the current path of American politics. Less for what they have done than what they haven't (Campaign finance reform, Social Security reform, National Debt reduction, you know, the stuff that really matters)
- KlipschFan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Lieberman never got the memo or the telegram or the news report or the newspaper article or the magazine article or the intellegence reports or the millions of e-mails that pointed out that Bush LIED about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This shows how completely clueless he is. He should be outraged at being lied to in this way.
- Beanis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The right moved everything farther to the right, including the Democrats. The base feels left out because Democrats ignore their base when running and instead attempts to siphon votes from Republicans by emphasizing all the issues that tend to be conservative issues.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I don't like Lieberman's politics but at least he's the last of the dems with integrity and honesty. The democratic party he joined decades ago is no longer recognizable as the party of JFK and the mainstream. The radical DNC leadership has gone so far to the left they alienated their base supporters. It's why more and more dems are voting Republican and Independent, the American public rejected liberalism and can't identify with the extreme leftists that dominate the democratic party.
- uptown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2From the article:
"I will stay a Democrat, whether I am the Democratic Party's nominee or a petitioning Democratic candidate on the November ballot," said Lieberman, who was accompanied by his wife Hadassah.
Maybe it just means he doesn't have time to post his resume on Monster.com or get to Kinkos to print his resumes to search for a different job. - ChestRockwell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6yea....at least the republicans still stand for helping only rich white people. I always know a republican is going to screw me over.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10So, what's his platform? Increase the size of government, make sure this larger government interferes in the lives of citizens as much as possible, turn America into a Brady Bunch version of itself, and nuke the Arabs?
Now I know who Lieberman reminds me of: An evil Mr. Rogers! - ManOfTomorrow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Here in Los Angeles, all the major political types know he's full of you-know-what, and having him in the White House would be no better than Bush Sr or Jr.. The feeling is that he is focused on all the wrong issues (censorship, etc.). A man like Senator John McCain (R), is willing to put his moral & religious beliefs aside to do what is needed for the United States.
- unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Forgot about Perot. Anyway, tag, it's your turn again.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Please give examples of these "extreme" policies that they have. Also please explain how an election result of 50:49 constitutes an "alienated" supporter base with "more and more dems" voting against their party.
- tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4If Lieberman and McCain are conservatives, then WTF is Frist? Cheney? DeLay? Santorum?
- tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9I say McCain-Lieberman or Lieberman-McCain. Moderates are the only way to go.
- diggnate, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3it's not murder. was it murder when we fought against nazis? But if we're in a war that you don't like, it must be murder because you said so, right?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0You do know that the "War Vote" had overwhelming bi-partisan support, right?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Dean = Lieberman = Clinton = any Republican = any Democrat = all steal our money and give it to their friends, all don't have a clue about economics nor property rights, all trample the Constitution, and all will grow government even bigger. Let's all celebrate, can we?
- vypergts, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4I don't trust Senator Palpaltine, I suspect he is secretly building an army of clones.
Seriously, Lieberman=Evil Emperor - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Yes because you, as an American Citiizen deserve "that rich guy's" wealth to be redistributed to you. How very "American" of you, comrade.
- guiscard, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Lieberman was such a prick when Clinton was risking impeachment over a blow-job. He is far too conservative to be a Democrat.
I say good riddance. He just supports the 'war on terror' (even though we invaded the wrong country) because we're taking out Israel's enemies one by one. - unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2The Dems aren't really to concerned to see him go. Probably only a Republican would vote for him as an independant and then it will be the Ralph Nader effect only going against the Right for a change.
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is