Lieberman-Lamont Race — Gay Perspective
Advance Indiana has this take on Tuesday’s probable Democratic primary loss for US Senator Joe Lieberman. (Hat tip: GP Reader Jay)
It is now beginning to appear likely that Lieberman will lose the Democrat nomination to his anti-war opponent Lamont. Lieberman has vowed to run as an independent if he loses his bid for re-nomination. While it is easy to stand up and say you are against the war, it is tougher to think of the consequences of doing nothing. Lieberman understands that the very survival of Israel is at stake, as well as our country. Radical Muslims are devoted not only to rubbing out Isreal, but also America.
I don’t like the war in Iraq. I don’t like Israel’s war against Hezbullah. But when I look at the consequences of doing nothing in the face of an opposition that is committed to the annihalation of everything I treasure, I choose the lesser of the two evils. If Joe Lieberman loses because Democrats don’t think he’s anti-war enough, then all of America loses in our battle against our real enemy. Democrat activists need to wake up and accept the reality of who our real enemy is. Any freedom-loving person should have no problem comprehending this reality.
Unless you are a liberal gay living in your Blue Bubble of the city and sucking up all of the relentless anti-American propaganda from the GayBorg and the MadLibDemocrat Party. (Resistance is futile.)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
71 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Listen to this and if you’re not willing to fight then get ready to be beheaded because everyone on this blog is on the death list.
http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/07/27/video-kevin-cosgroves-911-call-from-the-world-trade-center/
Comment by BoBo — August 7, 2006 @ 1:46 pm - August 7, 2006
The more I think about it, the more I’d endorse a “pragmatic” unity-ticket of Gingrich and Lieberman in 2008….even over a Giuliani-Rice GOP ticket….four or eight years of pragmatic sanity while BOTH parties find their political souls and re-constitute with some backbone. The conservatives have lost their way in the desert of radical Christianism, and the liberals have lost their love of country is a miasma of Bush-hating and America-loathing.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — August 7, 2006 @ 3:02 pm - August 7, 2006
Hey, look on the bright side… either way, a Democrat is going to lose an election tomorrow!
Comment by vaara — August 7, 2006 @ 3:24 pm - August 7, 2006
The Democrats are punishing Lieberman for allying himself too closely to President Bush and the war in Iraq. Frankly, as a Democrat, I am tired of Republican-lite and a large number of us have always been opposed to the war in Iraq. If we wanted Republicans in office, we would have voted for them. Not unlike Kennedy against Johnson, the anti-war sentiment is now strong enough that the Democrats must notice. It may not be violent like it was in the late 60s, but many Democrats, including myself, have been angry for years over Democrats acting like Republicans and the actions of this government over the past few years. Lieberman is likely to be the first casualty for such an alliance.
I realize of course that this is not the forum to be pro-Democrat, but if nothing else, hopefully, I can make Republicans such as yourselves understand that many of us on this side of the aisle believe that Republicans cannot govern, we oppose the war, we oppose the actions of this President, and we oppose the actions of these past Congresses.
The election will decide what happens, but whereas I was sitting cautiously on a fence wondering if Democrats could actually recover any seats in November, I am beginning to fall off of it in the belief that Democrats are almost assured to pick up seats here and there.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing Santorum lose his seat. Unlike in 2000, I do not believe the 3rd party candidate will hurt the Democrat. I believe that the people who would have voted Democrat for lack of a 3rd party green will vote Democrat anyway this time, because they see what happened when Nader ran and we got Bush. If nothing else, if the only thing we win on this side of the aisle is Pennsylvania, I’ll be tickled pink.
Finally, the Lieberman/Lamont campaign, I believe, sends a message to institutional Democrats to develop a spine and stop running for cover on every issue that comes up and also sends the message, “woe to the Democrat who aligns himself too closely with Bush and the Republicans.”
Comment by DanielFTL — August 7, 2006 @ 3:49 pm - August 7, 2006
Ted, I would imagine Sen Lieberman would be treated better in the GOP as a crossover VEEP than his spineless running mate Al Gore has treated him. What an utterly spineless, back-stabbing, two faced politician Gore has become… he almost beats out Kerry on that score. “Almost”, I wrote.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 7, 2006 @ 3:58 pm - August 7, 2006
DanielFtL writes: “…hopefully, I can make Republicans such as yourselves understand that many of us on this side of the aisle believe that Republicans cannot govern, we oppose the war, we oppose the actions of this President, and we oppose the actions of these past Congresses.”
LOL!
What made you think we even questioned that was your view and the view on the “other side of the aisle”? Come on Daniel, that’s like hearing you opine that Bush isn’t as good a President as you were led to believe from the 1st 4 year term.
You guys do oppose the WOT, you’re weak on counter-terrorism, you’re weak on defense and rebuilding the military after Clinton’s deconstruction, you’re equally weak in confronting enemy threats abroad and our allies have never counted on anything out of a Democrat Administration except self-interested triangulation on policy.
On this side of the aisle we know you can’t govern, you can’t prosecute a war to success, you’ll cave in to the Osama types one more time, and our best allies will be adrift alone in combating the WOT.
What’s new? It’s why Americans RE-elected George Bush.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 7, 2006 @ 4:07 pm - August 7, 2006
Michigan Matt, I know that’s what you believe. I completely disagree of course, but that’s a civil discussion.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 7, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - August 7, 2006
There’s a lot more wrong with Lieberman from a Connecticut Democrat’s point of view than just his position on the Iraq war. Remember we’re talking about Connecticut, a blue state, because that’s who he’s supposed to represent. First, there are many instances of him undermining other Democrats but one of the most egregious was his attack on Democrats for not supporting Bush’s war in Iraq http://tinyurl.com/o82cf :
“It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”
Note, he did not say, Independents, he did not say Americans, he only singled out Democrats for his ire.
Second, he strongly supported the right’s effort to have the federal government intervene in the Terry Schiavo case. Third, he has supportted school vouchers. Fourth, he opposes gay marriage and voted for DOMA. Fifth, by stating he would run as an independent if he lost the primary, he essentially told Democrats – folks whose vote he supposedly wanted – to take a short walk off a long pier.
Lieberman is popular with the Hannitys, the Kristols, the Coulters, the Limbaughs, the gayPatriots et al because he plays their game when it comes to “bipartisanship” such as the Alito cloture vote where he supported cloture which was the key vote. But it is not real bipartisanship – Republicans don’t compromise. The following quote captures exactly what it is:
‘Bipartisanship only works when the other side compromises, too. Otherwise it’s just capitulation.”
from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/6/191356/9817
Now I’m not sure Lamont can pull it off but he is a very engaging truly progressive candidate who has inspired many in Connecticut. It will be close tomorrow.
Comment by Ian — August 7, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - August 7, 2006
Ian, your additional points just back up my statement that those of us on the left are tired of DINOs. It is time for them to go. Politicians should show me why I should get their vote (although I don’t live in Connecticut), and not just expect it. If I did live in Connecticut, Lieberman would not be able to do this.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 7, 2006 @ 5:21 pm - August 7, 2006
Lieberman only pointed out in his statement what Democrats’ biggest problem is: the fact that they will support or endorse anything that is anti-Bush, regardless of what damage it does.
And that’s all that Ned Lamont is; a one-note candidate whose only capability is opposition to Bush.
What a perfect mascot for the Democratic Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 7, 2006 @ 6:24 pm - August 7, 2006
And to think that barely a few months ago, these idiots were shouting that Lieberman had the vice presidency “stolen” from him by the evil Chimpy McBu$hitler and the Rethuglicans.
Comment by Frank IBC — August 7, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - August 7, 2006
I see that once again the antiwar crowd is ignoring the bottom line, that these people (Islamic terrorist) want to convert or eliminate us.
Comment by Majordad — August 7, 2006 @ 9:16 pm - August 7, 2006
#12: “I see that once again the antiwar crowd is ignoring the bottom line, that these people (Islamic terrorist) want to convert or eliminate us.”
Actually, you’re the one ignoring the fact that we who oppose the “stay-the-course-until-we-can-pass-the-Iraq-war-buck-to-the-next-President” approach want an EFFECTIVE campaign against the Islamist terrorists. We were the ones who wanted the focus to remain on pacifying Afghanistan, annihilating the Taliban and killing bin Laden and his henchmen while we worked with our friends and allies in the world to chase the terrorists down. Bush took his eye off the ball with his needless and ultimately counter-productive invasion of Iraq. Lieberman has supported that disaster all the way and indeed is so out to lunch, he STILL thinks everything is going just swell in Iraq.
Now Lieberman is better than any Republican if for no other reason than he would be another vote to make Harry Reid Majority Leader. But Lamont would be better still because not only would he oppose the Rubber Stamp Republicans and support the leaders of his Party but also, you wouldn’t see him sucking up to the likes of Sean Hannity as Lieberman did the other day.
Comment by Ian — August 7, 2006 @ 9:49 pm - August 7, 2006
#10: “And that’s all that Ned Lamont is; a one-note candidate whose only capability is opposition to Bush.”
That’s demonstrably false – you really ought to do a bit more research than regurgitate conservative pundit talking points. Ned Lamont is a smart and successful businessman who started his own high tech company from scratch. He will make a fine Senator.
Comment by Ian — August 7, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - August 7, 2006
#9: “Politicians should show me why I should get their vote”
That’s been one of the appalling things about the Lieberman campaign. There’s a haughty arrogance there that suggests he has some fundamental right to his seat in the Senate no matter what Connecticut Democrats think of his stands on the issues. It’s part of an inside the beltway mindset. If you haven’t done so you should read “Crashing the Gate.” It is actually happening and it’s scaring the daylights out of the DC crowd.
Comment by Ian — August 7, 2006 @ 10:01 pm - August 7, 2006
#10: I should add that on all the issues I identified in #8, Lamont disagrees with Lieberman so the idea that he is a one-issue candidate is preposterous.
Comment by Ian — August 7, 2006 @ 10:03 pm - August 7, 2006
Actually, Ian, Cindy Sheehan has made clear the Democrats’ position on Afghanistan; they opposed the invasion.
Furthermore, you have yet to show me that Lamont puts any intelligence into his positions other than being completely and totally anti-Bush. I have no doubt that, if Bush were to speak out against pedophilia, One-Note Neddy would oppose it — given that he has publicly stated that he will always and unfailingly disagree with Bush, and the fact that Lieberman doesn’t always do so is what makes him unfit to be in the Senate.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 7, 2006 @ 11:35 pm - August 7, 2006
#17: “Actually, Ian, Cindy Sheehan has made clear the Democrats’ position on Afghanistan; they opposed the invasion.”
Cite please. I want to know which Dem leaders, post 9/11, opposed our effort to get bin Laden in Afghanistan. As for Cindy, bless her heart, she’s last year’s news. But at least Dear Leader is shortening his vacation this year.
Comment by Ian — August 7, 2006 @ 11:51 pm - August 7, 2006
Kennedy, Kerry, and Boxer. All of them have made unqualified endorsements of Cindy Sheehan, as well as her blatantly anti-Semitic statements (no doubt a reason why she hates Lieberman so much as well).
Don’t forget One-Note Neddy, who has shown time and again that she will dictate his foreign policy decisions.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2006 @ 3:45 am - August 8, 2006
I can only speak for myself when I say that I did not oppose the action in Afghanistan, but I strongly opposed the action in Iraq. Having said that, the US should stay the hell out of the Middle East and if it did, it wouldn’t be under the threat of attack, which is worse now than it was before 9/11 (in my view). As much as the Administration tried to link 9/11 and Iraq, the fact remains that Iraq only became a serious problem for the US after it invaded it and in doing so heightened the threat to the US. Had the US invested in several forms of alternative energies on a scale comparable to that which it has spent on Iraq, then the US would (eventually) not rely so heavily on oil from the Middle East and thus the US could cautiously ignore the Middle East while they all fight with each other (which they have been doing for centuries). The US cannot remake the Middle East. The people there must do that for themselves. I just hope that we’re not stuck there forever without success. It didn’t work for the British, and I doubt it will work for the US either, but success or no, being in Iraq will most certainly drain the treasury.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 4:15 am - August 8, 2006
From the post, specifically from the quotation from the nutty “Advance Indiana” person:
I don’t like the war in Iraq. I don’t like Israel’s war against Hezbullah. But when I look at the consequences of doing nothing in the face of an opposition that is committed to the annihalation of everything I treasure, I choose the lesser of the two evils.
It’s sweet that he doesn’t like the war on Iraq. And it’s sweet that he doesn’t like Israel’s war against Hezbollah. And it is completely unclear what he views as being the “lesser of two evils.” But, if he is interested in countering the consequences “of doing nothing in the face of an opposition that is committed to the annihilation of everything” that he treasures, why doesn’t he address the fact that, of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, fifteen were Saudi Arabian, two were from the UAE (United Arab Emirates), one was Egyptian, and one was Lebanese. And if you want to, add to that cohort Zacharias Moussia–the so-called “20th hijacker”–who was French-Morrocan, and Richard Reid–the “shoe bomber–who was British/Jamaican. None were Iraqi. And, for that matter, Osama bin Laden wasn’t Iraqi, either–he was Saudi Arabian. And much of the funding came from the Saudis.
So, why would the US go to war against Iraq to avenge 9/11, when (a) most of the participants and supporters were from Saudi Arabia, and (b) there is no indication that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? And why did the US not go to war against the Saudis, when they were the ones who manned and financed the operation(s) against what he treasures.
Oh, right, I almost forgot. The war on Iraq was ironically named Operation Iraqi Lliberation.
Comment by raj — August 8, 2006 @ 9:01 am - August 8, 2006
#2 Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — August 7, 2006 @ 3:02 pm – August 7, 2006
The more I think about it, the more I’d endorse a “pragmatic” unity-ticket of Gingrich and Lieberman in 2008….
Really? Gingrich’s only claim to fame is that he figured out how to use Public Relations to manipulate public opinion in his political campaign in 1994, and thereby get himself the House speakership. He should actually be a partner at the PR firm Hill & Knowlton, not a blatherer on Faux News or president.
BTW, Hill & Knowlton was the firm that Kuwait, Inc. (the ruling family of Kuwait, which is actually headquartered in London) hired to seduce the Americans into restoring them to power in Kuwait (the source of their wealth) after Saddam tried to take Kuwait away from them in 1990. Of course, they used the “conservative” then PM Maggie Thatcher to induce Bush the Elder into going to war to restore Kuwait, Inc., to their properties in Kuwait.
Lieberman is a sanctimonious and quite obnoxious prig, but I’ll leave it at that.
Comment by raj — August 8, 2006 @ 9:10 am - August 8, 2006
I think Daniel is right. No more DINOs. The Democrats should run honestly, as real Democrats, and let us know exactly what they stand for:
- Cutting and running from Iraq, handing the terrorists a victory and leaving them a failed state to set up shop in, and selling out Israel
- Voting rights and affirmative action for illegal immigrants
- Massive tax increases, perhaps even a return to the 70% marginal rates of the pre-Reagan era
- Health care run by a state bureaucracy, with all the efficiency and compassion of the DMV
- Schools run for the benefit of educrats, with parents and students marginalized.
- Gun control
- A judiciary packed with left-wing judges that will create rights to gay marriage and always side with the ACLU
Let the Democrats run on what they really stand for, or, at least what the “Netroots” say they should stand for, and let America decide. I think it’s a wonderful idea.
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2006 @ 9:39 am - August 8, 2006
#20 & 21 RajIan- Citations please. It’s not worth the effort of going through long, rambling posts typically filled with inaccuracies or worse trying to ferret out occasional nuggets of truth. Because of your long track record, any “fact” you use in a post without citation can safely be assumed to be wrong . If you are looking for some sort of response/discussion citations are needed. If you aren’t, why bother?
Ich finde es hart, die Wahrheit zu sprechen. Ich bin ein deutscher Krankenwagenverfolger.
Comment by BoBo — August 8, 2006 @ 10:05 am - August 8, 2006
A new Quinnipiac poll out shows that Lieberman has cut the lead from 13 to six points, finally reversing his challenger’s momentum. Senator Lieberman now trails 45 to 51% among likely Democrat primary voters. Four days ago the Q poll said that he was trailing 41 to 54.
As any pollster will tell you, when it’s this close to the actual election, the actual distance between the two candidates in a poll is not the thing to look at. What they tell you to look at is the momentum. In this case, if the Q poll is accurate, you’d have to say that it was Lieberman that has the momentum.
Also, according to the Q poll, there are about 28% of likely Democratic primary voters who say they still might change their mind between Lieberman and Lamont.
This may be closer than people think. Be prepared for a surprise, that’s all.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 8, 2006 @ 10:38 am - August 8, 2006
raj writes: “Lieberman is a sanctimonious and quite obnoxious prig, but I’ll leave it at that.”
Now, is that the classic “pot” calling the kettle names? Obnoxious? You really have no shame. None.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 11:01 am - August 8, 2006
VdaK writes:
“I think Daniel is right. No more DINOs. The Democrats should run honestly, as real Democrats, and let us know exactly what they stand for:
- Cutting and running from Iraq, handing the terrorists a victory and leaving them a failed state to set up shop in, and selling out Israel
- Voting rights and affirmative action for illegal immigrants
- Massive tax increases, perhaps even a return to the 70% marginal rates of the pre-Reagan era
- Health care run by a state bureaucracy, with all the efficiency and compassion of the DMV
- Schools run for the benefit of educrats, with parents and students marginalized.
- Gun control
- A judiciary packed with left-wing judges that will create rights to gay marriage and always side with the ACLU
Let the Democrats run on what they really stand for, or, at least what the “Netroots” say they should stand for, and let America decide. I think it’s a wonderful idea.”
I think that’s a great idea! Why they continue to attempt to hide behind “Just Do No as a DINO” is a political mystery.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 11:08 am - August 8, 2006
#27 – Yes, MMatt, let the RATS run as themselves. The simple reason they don’t is because they CAN’T. Because if they did, there is no way the American people would entrust them with the national government. This is why they are so enamored of keeping control of the courts – because they CANNOT WIN at the ballot box!
Look at Slick Willie – he masqueraded as a “new Dem” and won pluralities (NOT MAJORITIES) in 1992 and 1996. His first two years in office were such a radical departure from his campaign identity that the American people voted en masse to check his power in Congress by electing GOP majorities.
And in case any lefties out there are accusing me of revisionist history – let me clarify: the 1990 census was used to re-draw congressional districts which at the time were done primarily by the Dems in office. Even though they attempted to gerrymander out some GOP voters, it didn’t work in the 1994, 1998 and 2000 elections. And after the 2000 census, when a majority of GOP officeholders took over, the lines were re-drawn again to ensure Republican majorities.
The above reason is why the GOP increased House/Senate seats in 2002, won more seats and reelected Bush in 2004, and why the GOP will RETAIN a majority of seats in Congress in November.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 8, 2006 @ 11:21 am - August 8, 2006
#19: “Kennedy, Kerry, and Boxer. All of them have made unqualified endorsements of Cindy Sheehan, as well as her blatantly anti-Semitic statements”
Don’t change the subject. Here’s what you originally claimed in #17:
“Cindy Sheehan has made clear the Democrats’ position on Afghanistan; they opposed the invasion.”
You claim the Dems opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. You have refused my reasonable request to provides cites that the Democrats’ position on Afghanistan was to oppose the invasion. I suspect the reason is that you have none to provide. Am I correct?
Comment by Ian — August 8, 2006 @ 11:59 am - August 8, 2006
Actually, RajIan, I made it clear from the beginning that Cindy Sheehan was the proof that Democrats opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, and, per your request, I named three Democratic leaders who gave unqualified endorsements of her and her anti-Semitic statements.
Pl;us, don’t forget her new puppet, One-Note Neddy, who not only endorses her anti-Jew hatred (no doubt why he’s running against Lieberman), but is also a racist who likes to use blackface images of his opponents, as one of his campaign-associated bloggers made clear.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2006 @ 12:19 pm - August 8, 2006
Oh, and by the way, RajIan, just to use another defense; I provided citations elsewhere, and I shan’t be going to the trouble to repeat them here. Look them up yourself.
And, just because I want people to show that you are that dense, that is your sockpuppet identity Raj’s excuse for why he never has to show citations.
Now, spin your way out of that. Either you accept my statement as fact, or you criticize “Raj’s” tactics.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 8, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - August 8, 2006
Okay VDak, but the Republicans should run on their platform too. For example:
- Spending billions in an area on war with little actual understanding of that area and no benefit analysis of the expenditure whatsoever.
- The mass deportation of millions of immigrants. We definitely need to spend more money on this.
- Massive tax cuts to increase the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the middle class and the poor. We need more homeless people and more people on the edge.
- Millions upon millions with no health care at all. They shouldn’t get it, the slackasses!
- No schools except home schools and private schools.
- Guns for everyone, no checks, no ID, nothing. Anyone can pack.
- A judiciary packed with right-wing judges that will allow to stand the recriminalization of homosexuality, the reintroduction of God, the Christian God of course, in all facets of life including government policy.
That sounds very appealing.
My list is as ridiculous as yours isn’t it?
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - August 8, 2006
Maybe people who can’t afford health insurance should convert to Christian Science? It would solve a lot of problems.
(This was a JOKE, people, to lighten the mood around here.)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — August 8, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - August 8, 2006
NDT, don’t you have a problem with Republicans spinmeisters gay-bashing and gay-baiting at a federal level? We’ve seen plenty of that over the past few years.
I guess all is really fair in love, war, and politics.
DR
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - August 8, 2006
Daniel, you forgot to add the gay concentration camps in Idaho… or Montana… or wherever your buds in the radical gayLeft placed them.
And don’t forget cutting AIDS Research –everyone knows that the GOP loves to gut anything on AIDS.
And the UN –don’t forget we want John Bolton (the raging lunatic madman according to the SenDems) to blow up the top ten floors of UN World HdQtrs.
———————–
On the flipside, you can delete the “guns” (as in your reference: ” Guns for everyone, no checks, no ID, nothing. Anyone can pack”) and replace it with “voting rights” and you have another shovel-ful of Democrat dirt with which to bury our Republic.
Another looney plank from the Democrat Party.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 1:06 pm - August 8, 2006
Actually, those #32’s sound pretty sweet, minus the hyperbole. It would be great if Republicans ran on a platform of additional tax cuts, appointing judges who believed the Constitution and not the New York Times editorial page was the final authority on the law, replacing the failing government schools with education choice, cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants, and respect for the 2nd Amendment Right to defend oneself.
If that were the real Republican agenda, I’d put it to a vote against the real Democrat agenda any day.
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - August 8, 2006
and raj continues to get both fundamental and easy facts wrong when he wrote: “Oh, right, I almost forgot. The war on Iraq was ironically named Operation Iraqi Lliberation.”
LOL. God love ‘em; they even believe the lies told by liars over at the DailyKos and on the DemocratUnderground.
The truth is that CentCom (for the liberals who only evade service and know nothing about the military, that stands for Central Command) used “OIL” only once for a minor operation in the remote towns of Ain Lalin and Quara Tapa and it was Operation Ivy League… because it involved the 4th Infantry Div or IV Division. IV–Ivy. Minor operation; not the war.
When will the lying and spin from the GayLeft, eager to discredit anything remotely supportive of the US military, stop? OIL indeed.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - August 8, 2006
#30 and 31: Still no cites, just a lot of twisting and spinning and sockpuppet insults. Interesting you should include Barbara Boxer as endorsing anti-Semitism – she’s Jewish you know.
Comment by Ian — August 8, 2006 @ 1:25 pm - August 8, 2006
and for those two sockpuppets who demand citations… here’s the important one from liberal journalist Dana Milbank
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A51517-2003Aug12
Too bad it includes a great reminder of why JohnFKerry just couldn’t connect with most Americans… what a wuz that guy was… is.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 1:25 pm - August 8, 2006
Did I misstate something of the Republican platform, Michigan Matt? I am sure there are some on the right who would love to have gay concentration camps, albeit under another name. It wouldn’t take long to find citations for that. I can cite many references where the right/Republicans believe that homosexuality should be recriminalized. Also, I do believe that Bolton said something along the lines of getting rid of the top ten floors of the UN, although I am not sure he said “blow them up.” It wouldn’t take much to find a citation of that either. Voting already requires a voter registration card. I don’t think any Democrats advocate just anyone voting, but I’ll certainly take a citation where a Democrat suggested that any one should be allowed to vote.
We can play match the extreme for the extreme all day.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - August 8, 2006
#40: Francine “You don’t need papers for voting” Busby.
OK, your turn, cite a Republican politician who advocated concentration camps for gay people. Ask Kevin if you need help.
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2006 @ 1:40 pm - August 8, 2006
VdaK, that’s not fair. You know Kevin’s not with us anymore… he’s out looking for a used tube sock, some glitter and felt for the eyes, ears, and mouth… the party is on Wednesday. He’s gotta practice the hand gestures to help amuse and entertain.
Yes, let’s see those Republican leaders saying we need concentration camps for gays.
I think that claim for proof has floated here before… and it comes down to elevating a mid-level PR hack for the 700 Club to “GOP Leadership” ranks, if I recall the past correctly.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - August 8, 2006
Hillary Clinton: I think felons in prison shouldn’t be automatically disenfranchised from the right to vote. If it was a really, really bad crime –you know like rape, multiple murders, terrorism or adultery with a big haired young bimbo in the Oval Office– sure. Take away their voting rights. Take away their drivers license. Heck, even take away the bum’s legal license and make him sleep on the old sofa on the porch –without a blanket.
But we know there are a lot of Democrat Party supporters in our state and federal prisons and they should be able to help us –I mean, vote.
You can see her proposal at Felons4Hillary.con –oops, that’s “dot com” not “con”. My bad.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - August 8, 2006
Oh, come on, Matt, Daniel assured us it “wouldn’t take too long” to find citations of Republicans who advocate concentration camps for gay people.
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - August 8, 2006
(Anyone else hear the distinct sound of goalposts being moved?)
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - August 8, 2006
V the K, assuming your comment was meant for me, I wasn’t the one who included gay concentration camps, Matt was. You should ask him for the reference of a Republican politician calling for that. I did say, “I am sure there are some on the right who would love to have gay concentration camps, albeit under another name.” Those on the right who advocate something similar to homosexual quarantine yields several references in Google alone. However, you can also check thomas.loc.gov and it yields results as well.
Please do not twist my words. Saying “those on the right” is not the same as saying a “Republican politician.”
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - August 8, 2006
The only goalposts moving V the K, are yours. DR
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 2:24 pm - August 8, 2006
And the goalposts are moved! From talking about a “Republican agenda,” Daniel switches to the vague “some on the right.” Instead of “concentration camps for gays,” were now talking about some vague “quarantine.” Instead of easy to find citations, we get vague references to Google searches! Dancing breaks out in the End Zone! The crowd goes wild!
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2006 @ 2:27 pm - August 8, 2006
I would like to say one more thing now because it is important (to me, in my mind only, whatever =) ).
In my discussions on this blog with those of another opinion, I’ve shown restraint in my discourse. I’ve stuck to responding to posts and not commenting on an individual or posting my personal opinion of a poster. I expect the same in return. I’ve seen comments from the frequent posters that expressed their wish to discuss ideas and opinions with those on the left, but are unable to do so without it turning into a name-calling marathon. Well, here is someone from the left who is able to do that and I encourage you to take the opportunity to do so.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 2:49 pm - August 8, 2006
Okay V the K, I’ll concede that point. You are right. It went from one ridiculous Democratic platform to a ridiculous Republican platform, to an expanded and even more ridiculous Republican platform, to me diverting to the agenda some on the right. So, in that sense, you are correct and the goal posts were moved.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 3:02 pm - August 8, 2006
I do not think the Democrat platform I presented is ridiculous. Everything in it corresponds either positively to policy goals the Democrats have sought or negatively to something they have fought. Furthermore, if Joe Lieberman… who supports higher taxes, gun control, socialized health care, and liberal judicial appointees … isn’t left enough to be a true Democrat, then it’s reasonable to assume that a true Democrat agenda would be somewhat to the left of Joe Lieberman.
Further, everything I listed in my summary of the hypothetical “true Democrat” agenda has been supported and/or embraced by the party leadership or by one of their major interest groups. Whereas the notion that Republicans want to make more people homeless, deprive them of health care, and eliminate public schools is nutty left-wing hyperbole.
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2006 @ 3:18 pm - August 8, 2006
Of course, if you think my version of a true Democrat agenda is ridiculous, you should demonstrate so by refuting it item-by-item. As a self-proclaimed leftist, I don’t see why you would oppose any item I listed.
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2006 @ 3:21 pm - August 8, 2006
Fair enough, Daniel. We’ll skip over your outrageous statement that “I can cite many references where the Republicans believe that homosexuality should be recriminalized” –let’s go back to your original point at #4.
“… but many Democrats, including myself, have been angry for years over Democrats acting like Republicans and the actions of this government over the past few years. Lieberman is likely to be the first casualty for such an alliance.”
I’ve honestly been trying to think of an example where Democrats were acting like GOPers in the last 5-10-15 years. By that do you mean, anything that is bipartisan in the Congress must be “Democrats acting like GOPers”? Or do you mean walking away from the agenda of protecting the environment, punishing corporations, restoring welfare rights, new safety net programs, stronger inner city schools, rebuilding the rotting urban areas? What? Shifting foreign policy from strength based back to humanitarian priorities? What?
I thought JohnFKerry, Gore, Dukasis, Mondale and Carter did an excellent jpb laying out the Democrat vision. Not watered down. Pure Democrat Party stuff right out of the FDR-JFK tradition of the party.
I’ll grant you that Clinton was Republican-lite as you call it… on policy; certainly not on personal conduct, character or professional conduct. But on policy, ok.
You tell me, what is about the WOT and the Iraq theatre that so irritates you –personally. You; not the Democrat Party talking point voicebox for the day… not JonStewart or Hollywood’s read on it all. You. Is it the tragic deaths of troops and civilians? The expenditure of American resources better spent here? What? The bad intelligence that got us here?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 3:27 pm - August 8, 2006
Actually, I think VdaK is on the right track… Daniel, skip mine til you have the time to respond.
Great points, VdaK. If Lieberman was liberal enough to garner support of the Natl Democrat Party leadership to serve as VEEP nominee, how can being in support of the WOT put him that far to right? I mean all those positions, even if worth of a single point on the LeftLiberal LitmusTester Strip couldn’t be outdone by the WOT or Iraq, could it?
I thought of Joe Lieberman as a crafty, fast learning, quick on his feet political animal of the first order. Politician 100% of the time. Maybe today’s primary battle only demostrates that there are strange quirks in every political house –just think back to Vermont’s GOP Loon Jim Jeffords.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 3:37 pm - August 8, 2006
Michigan Matt and V the K:
I disagree with you ,V the K, in 51. I do think the Democratic agenda presented was ridiculous…as ridiculous as was the Republican agenda that I listed.
In 52, I do not support all the things listed as a Democrat’s agenda. I will say however, that I do believe in gun control and I am an advocate of universal health care, even if nationalized.
“Whereas the notion that Republicans want to make more people homeless, deprive them of health care, and eliminate public schools is nutty left-wing hyperbole.”
I believe these are the results of some policies and not their intention.
“Fair enough, Daniel. We’ll skip over your outrageous statement that “I can cite many references where the Republicans believe that homosexuality should be recriminalized” –let’s go back to your original point at #4.”
This is not outrageous. Please search Google, the Congressional Record, thomas.loc.gov, sodomylaws.org, freerepublic.com, renew america, governmental committee meetings, personal statements, and make a few phone calls for this information.
How have Democrats acted liked GOPers and am I tired of it? In my view Democrats have acted like Republicans in opposing equal marriage most recently. Many Democrats were guilty of this…and worse Additionally, I disapprove of Democrats authorizing a President to go to war on such ill-advised and questionable information. You now have two examples.
FYI, I didn’t vote for Clinton in 1992 and I have NEVER forgiven him for promising to lift the ban on gays in the military and not doing so. He should have kept that promise, particularly since he was just elected and could have done it by executive order. However, in reference to Clinton and Lewinsky, I really don’t care who is sleeping with whom or where..Republican or Democrat. Way too much was made of something so irrelevant, but Clinton did stick his foot in it.
I am absolutely opposed to the war in Iraq because in my view it is a tremendous waste of American resources. Yes, I know you all are in favor of it, but I am not. I find it to be financially costly, deadly, and of little benefit to America in comparison to the cost. I believe the resources for the war in Iraq would have better spent elsewhere such as alternative energy, national health care, the teaching and advancement of science and mathematics so that the United States remains a leader in these fields.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 4:16 pm - August 8, 2006
Oh and I never forgave Clinton for DOMA either. All of you definitely make a good point about DOMA and Clinton. Absolutely unforgiveable for not vetoing.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - August 8, 2006
You never answered why exactly the True Democrat Agenda I listed in #23 was “ridiculous,” nor specified what policy in it you as a “person of the left” objected to.
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - August 8, 2006
Daniel you argued that Republicans think homosexuality should be re-criminalized. I said that was outrageous. You said, look it up.
But you see, Daniel, it doesn’t work that way –you get to plead for honest debate and discussion, then make wildly unsubstantiated and opinionated statements that are presented as FACT, then get called on it for proof and you turn the issue aside by telling the party asking for proof to go look it up.
Around here we call that “Doing the RAJ”.
With all due respect, how is that different from someone here saying “the aliens have landed on Earth”, one asks for proof –like an alien or some video– and the party claiming the fact to be true says… well, go find out for yourself. Or, worse, you prove the aliens haven’t landed –another goal post moving tactic from some of the GayLeft commentators here.
YOU SAID that Republicans wanted to re-criminalize homosexuality. Now, that’s news to me because I’ve been to all Natl GOP Conventions in my adult life, most of Michigan’s state conventions and I can’t remember a single instance where a responsible GOPer got up and said “We need to recriminalize homosexual conduct”. I’ve been at GOP strategy sessions with Karl Rove and others and never heard it. From what some of the GayLefties here think, I’d gather Karl Rove would have a lighting powered laser set to highlight something like that for family value goons who lurk in the GOP.
Or are you being coy? Does your wildly outrageous speculation include something like “Well, not every single GOPer supports ending the sodomy laws and some want to overturn SCOTUS rulings on sodomy”?
You asked, nay pleaded, for honest debate Daniel. It’s not hard to do. At the same time, when you state an opinion which cannot be supported by facts, then say that you believe… x or y or z. But don’t smear an entire political party in the lust to score debate points, ok?
When I did check “republicans recriminalize homosexuality” I got a ton of cites for radical GayLeft and Democrat blogs… even one called DemoPedia –lol. Come on, debate doesn’t need to be buttressed by DemocratParty talking points from the discredited GayLeft.
Thanks for your answer about what makes the WOT and Iraq particularly irritating for you. I believe that view is both naive and imprudent –and so do a majority of Americans. It’s why, when the elections are over today… the Democrats won’t even be close to a power base… and, I believe, their anti-war stance will cost them the WH in 08, less seats in ‘08 and –very likely– another 4 years of marginalization.
They were going to beat GeoBush in ‘00. Then they were “Taking back the House” in ‘02. Then it was a moment in the sun while a GOP turncoat played petulant child for a while. Then it was we’re “Taking Back America” in ‘04. Now, in ‘06, we’re supposed to believe you guys that the House and Senate is turning over to the Democrats because anti-war sentiments have reached a critical mass.
Right. Brooklyn Bridge for sale.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 5:20 pm - August 8, 2006
I don’t disagree with all the points so how can I refute them. Here’s what I do disagree with, if you will.
-The US should not withdraw from Iraq now that it is there. It would be unwise for the US to do so.
-I do not believe in voting rights for non-citizens.
-I am opposed to massive tax increases as well as massive borrowing and deficit spending.
I hope that makes it a little less murky.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 5:29 pm - August 8, 2006
VdaK, maybe I can take a swing at your query since Daniel seems to be debate challenged right now…
You said Dems want these things:
Cut & run from Iraq… CHECK (spend the peace dividend on me)
Voting & affirmative rights for illegals… CHECK (you forgot felons)
Massive tax increases… CHECK –it’s a core value for them
Universal health care… CHECK –and FREE insurance for the poor
Schools for the unions…. CHECK –they’ve done well in big city schools
Gun control… CHECK –and they won’t let me shoot morning doves
Judiciary activism… CHECK –liberal and activist are synonymous
You have the Democrat Liberal Agenda for the last 5 years.
I think the real reason the Left wants to Cut & Run from Iraq and the WOT is because they are inherently suspicious of all things military and, frankly, still don’t understand the use of strength in foreign affairs even after Reagan and Bush showed ‘em how to do it for 12 years.
It’s why they run to squishy concepts like Humanitarian Priorities and UN as World Regent and helping socialist states appear democratic.
They just don’t get it. Probably never will. Honest debate aside.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - August 8, 2006
Maybe we are all right.
1. Everything listed in #23 is a real left-liberal Democrat position.
2. Everything listed in #23 is ridiculous
Comment by V the K — August 8, 2006 @ 6:03 pm - August 8, 2006
I like that swing at bat, better. Well done. Good show. Go get some grub.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 6:21 pm - August 8, 2006
I am hardly debate challenged and subsequent remarks aside, I do have other responsibilites besides posting here. That said, here’s a direct quotation from the right:
Homosexual conduct should not be tolerated. The conduct should be made criminal again.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/723699/posts
yielded with google site:freerepublic.com criminal homosexual
“YOU SAID that Republicans wanted to re-criminalize homosexuality”
I said some on the right/republicans.
Further research would probably yield more, but I don’t know if they would withstand “responsible GOPers” scrutiny and I doubt anything would be gained anyway other than to further my own knowledge of individual positions on the issue. One will have to be enough at this hour.
Your feelings on the war are clear as are mine. We’re all unmoved. One can see why it is so difficult for politicians to compromise.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 9:40 pm - August 8, 2006
Okay, here’s another one, but that’s it because I am too tired to stare at the screen.
March 16, 2004 meeting of the Rhea County Commission
This is what he said: “But what it’s pertaining to is these homosexual marriages that’s going on across our country. I’d like to make a motion that those kind of people cannot live in Rhea County or abide in Rhea County. If they’re caught in Rhea County, living together as such, that they be tried for crimes against nature.”
DR
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 9:49 pm - August 8, 2006
One more:
“Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”
Orson Card
Orson identifies himself as a Democrat, but certainly one on the right, which can be found in wiki.
Comment by DanielFTL — August 8, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - August 8, 2006
41 & 42: hey Bruce: Are you going to edit for name calling? I haven’t commented on this post and your little friends seem free to call me names? Where’s all your fairness and editing now?
Comment by Kevin — August 8, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - August 8, 2006
Since when, Kevin, has telling the truth about someone’s beliefs been akin to caling them names?
You were the one who said Republicans want to put all gays in concentration camps. Be proud of your stance; it’s not like it’s costing you anything among Democrats.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2006 @ 12:45 am - August 9, 2006
Kevin (#66) -
Sorry bro, but if you recall I said that no one will be deciding how to intepret the rules except Dan and I.
I further said that I would tolerate NO WHINING about using the rules to invent insults. You are damn lucky I’m leaving your comment up to make a point.
If you don’t like the rules and how they are applied, go away.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — August 9, 2006 @ 1:02 am - August 9, 2006
#37 Michigan-Matt — August 8, 2006 @ 1:23 pm – August 8, 2006
The truth is that CentCom (for the liberals who only evade service and know nothing about the military, that stands for Central Command) used “OIL”…
Oh, another admission that I was correct.
Comment by raj — August 9, 2006 @ 5:39 am - August 9, 2006
From alt.politics.usa.republican Fri, Sep 23 2005 4:00 pm
“We must work hard for a Constitutional Amerndment to ban same-sex marriage
and re-criminalize homosexual sodomy.
Homosexuality is a great evil, as the Bible makes abundantly clear. Those
who support same-sex marriage and the homosexualization of America are
leading us down the primrose path of perversion. The CDC reports a rise in
STDs and homosexual perversion among our youths. These perversions and
diseases can be a death sentence; they can also lead to mental instability
and mental illness. Those who accept homosexuality will be subject to the
effects of these diseases, one way or another. All children deserve a mother
and a father. Single mothers who are not married should look to a male
relative to serve as that father figure until they can get married to a good
father, not to a perverted lesbian lover nor to the social welfare programs
of Leviathan in Washington, D.C., or Sacramento, Calif., et al., for that
matter.
Repent, or suffer the consequences. ”
DR
Comment by DanielFTL — August 9, 2006 @ 5:45 am - August 9, 2006
raj, you’re still NOT worthy of debate. How many times must it be written?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — August 9, 2006 @ 11:45 am - August 9, 2006