That's fair.


That's fine but the thing that bothers me is that they only wanted to remove him after he chose McCain over the Democratic party. They're mad at him because he didn't support the party. It certainly doesn't seem like his approval of the war has too much to do with it.

quote:

Originally posted by ozzman:
That's fair.


That's fine but the thing that bothers me is that they only wanted to remove him after he chose McCain over the Democratic party. They're mad at him because he didn't support the party. It certainly doesn't seem like his approval of the war has too much to do with it.

Other than the war Lieberman's voting record is no where near McCain's.
And the dems also seemed a bit ****ed that Lieberman also campaigned for reps. further down the ticket.
Would McCain and his supporters just left Lindsey Graham alone if he not only campaigned for Obama but also campaigned for dem. congress people if McCain had won the presidency?
I gotta think no.

But that just goes to show that Lieberman believes in this war so much to the point where he's willing to leave his own party to go to the other side where they too want to win this fight. Even though they agree on almost nothing else.

Agreed, but everyone wants to win this fight, we just have different views on how to do it.
IMO Lieberman won't be messed with too much. He might loose a chairmanship but he has to know that's part of the game but in the long run the IMPORTANT thing is for the congress, senate and Obama to work together for the good of the people they represent. Not Citi Corp. Not labor union leaders.
I'm excited to hear Obama's thinking about our infrastructure. Bridges, roads, the electric grid, etc. mean a better America and JOBS for Americans. I NEVER hear reps. even talk about this unless somehow "drilling" is part of their mantra.

quote:

Originally posted by ozzman:
That's fair.


That's fine but the thing that bothers me is that they only wanted to remove him after he chose McCain over the Democratic party. They're mad at him because he didn't support the party. It certainly doesn't seem like his approval of the war has too much to do with it.

Are you serious? Lieberman was completely bashing Obama and the Democrats throughout the entire election. He said Obama is not ready to lead, the Democrats are out of touch etc...

And you expect the Democrats to take him back?

Yeah because I was silly enough to believe that the election was over and we should put feelings aside for the better of the country. What was I thinking?

Lieberman is a very inteligent man who did a lot for your party and is a good leader. He should get to keep his seat.

My party? Not quite, I'm actually a Republican who is disgusted with the fear mongering politics of the current Republican party.

Joe Lieberman deserves whatever the Democrats give him. You don't bad mouth someone and expect them to let you sleep in their guest room.

quote:

Originally posted by dk876:
My party? Not quite, I'm actually a Republican who is disgusted with the fear mongering politics of the current Republican party.

God help us if the republicans don't get it together because the one thing that we know for sure is ABSOLUTE power corrupts.
I'm happy as hell the dems. are in total power right now because this nation needs to think BIG right now IMO.
Infrastructure.
Going Green.
Both add jobs which should be priority #1.
But we've seen what happens when power is unchecked.
Republicans; lick your wounds and get your message back.
Dems; these 2 years, actually more like 16 months, you have to show PROGRESS or we're right back in this cycle of do-nothing government.
Right now I'm VERY optomistic because for the 1st time since Reagan I think we've elected someone who see's the bigger picture.

Ok I apologize but by the way your talking it's almost impossible to believe your a Republican.

What do you mean fear mongering? John McCain really didn't even get a chance to acknowledge there was even a war going on because almost the entire time the focus was on the economy which obviously was his downfall and the reason he lost. Bush used "scare tactics" in 2004 against Kerry but they worked because people were and are concerned over another attack. They knew Bush would do everything in his power to keep the fight over there and not here.

Let me ask you a serious question, let's pretend your the presidential nominee for the Democrats and i'm a long time party member who not only is a prominent figure in your party but I also have played a large role in recent elections for your party. Then I decide to endorse the Republican nominee. I go the republican convention and bash you a few times questioning your qualifications and such.

Then the guy I endorsed loses. The election is over and you have to start deciding who remains in which position of power. Do you pick me who your not particulary fond of for the treatment I gave you or do you go with someone less qualified and who you have no problems with? Let's just assume it's someone less qualified becuase finding someone as qualified and respected as Lieberman will be extremely difficult. I know it's Reid decidng Lieberman's fate but i'm just throwing this scenario out there because I want you to play Obama's role and what your thinking would be in his position.

quote:

Bush used "scare tactics" in 2004 against Kerry but they worked because people were and are concerned over another attack. They knew Bush would do everything in his power to keep the fight over there and not here.

And why were people afraid of another attack? Because the media and the Bush Administration played into their fears. That color scheme is one of the biggest jokes I have seen in a while. They would just raise it to red seemingly arbitrarily.

Do you remember the news at that time. You would see commercials like "Is a terrorist living in your neighborhood? Find out tonight at the 10 o'clock news." Ridiculous.

quote:

Let me ask you a serious question, let's pretend your the presidential nominee for the Democrats and i'm a long time party member who not only is a prominent figure in your party but I also have played a large role in recent elections for your party. Then I decide to endorse the Republican nominee. I go the republican convention and bash you a few times questioning your qualifications and such.

Then the guy I endorsed loses. The election is over and you have to start deciding who remains in which position of power. Do you pick me who your not particulary fond of for the treatment I gave you or do you go with someone less qualified and who you have no problems with? Let's just assume it's someone less qualified becuase finding someone as qualified and respected as Lieberman will be extremely difficult. I know it's Reid decidng Lieberman's fate but i'm just throwing this scenario out there because I want you to play Obama's role and what your thinking would be in his position.

Well if I was Senator Reid I would look to replace Lieberman as chairman of the Homeland Security and Gov't Affairs committee. If he feels that Lieberman is the best person for that job, than he can keep him.

I think Joe Lieberman knows he is at the end of the line as a senator. His seat is up in 2012 and right now I can't see him winning. So he decided to put all of his eggs in the McCain basket and it backfired on him. He was banking on a job in the McCain Administration, as VP or in the Cabinet, and I guess that won't happen now.

If Reid thinks he's the best man for the job there should be no discussion and Lieberman should remain. I don't trust Reid as far as I can throw him because him and Pelosi are all about party.

quote:

And why were people afraid of another attack? Because the media and the Bush Administration played into their fears. That color scheme is one of the biggest jokes I have seen in a while. They would just raise it to red seemingly arbitrarily.

Do you remember the news at that time. You would see commercials like "Is a terrorist living in your neighborhood? Find out tonight at the 10 o'clock news." Ridiculous.

No people were afraid because they saw there was and is a real threat to our safety. It's not out of the question to believe some Al Qaeda member can walk down the street of a major city and do an incredible amount of damage with a suicide bomb.

I remember seeing those commericals for having a plan in case of a terrorist attack. That was a useful commercial because it was talking about what you would do if we were under attack rather than just winging it.

I know your just looking at that from a political stand point but put politics aside and you know as well as I do that a terrorist attack is a very realistic threat. The election is over and we have our new president so obviously i'm not trying to sway any voters.

IF WE ARE AFRAID THE TERRORIST'S HAVE WON!
People grow a pair!

Grote it's not about being afraid. I don't look all around me every day to see if there's someone getting ready to blow me up but i'm also not nieve in thinking it's not possible. Have you honestly never even thought about a possible new attack coming? I only think about it when the topic is brought up but I still realize it's very possible.

quote:

Originally posted by ozzman:
Grote it's not about being afraid. I don't look all around me every day to see if there's someone getting ready to blow me up but i'm also not nieve in thinking it's not possible. Have you honestly never even thought about a possible new attack coming? I only think about it when the topic is brought up but I still realize it's very possible.

Better chance you'll be hit by a car.
19000 people die in this country every year from staph infections. That's SIX 911's EVERY year and yet we do what about that? "Billions every month"? On the American citizen? Hell NO!
And we are NOT fighting the people who attacked us. I want to KILL the people who attacked us.