Lieberman goes back on his word, hurts Democrats again

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The connecticut post is now DailyKos? interesting, im sure their owners would like to know, maybe you should email them?

No. When you made this thread you plagarized off the top links of the DailyKos homepage like you usually do. You just changed the links from the ones used in the DailyKos article like you usually do as well..

Same exact quotes (just different links.. )

And when you made it, it was just recently posted on the blogs and on the top 5 of daily kos's site... just like the majority of your posts.

EDIT: Just found it. It was posted on a dailykos diary/blog 10 minutes before you made this thread. It's funny you mentioned the Conn. Post not being on Daily Kos because the other link was the exact link they even used, strange how you seemed to know a search of the Conn Post link wouldn't turn up on Daily Kos.

There's nothing wrong with using DailyKos. You provided links and had the quotes. But, don't be ashamed of it or lie about it. That's just kinda wierd.

[Thorgrim]

If the Dems can't take two out of the three GOP seats in CT, they won't take back the House, (unless there's a tsunami) and Lieberman can do that...not only will the GOP governor be driving out Republicans, but then Lieberman will be driving out the pro-incumbent moderates....those two added together will be a nightmare for democrats challenging republicans in CT

Also, you have to consider '08, where Lieberman will be trotted out as a Zell Miller, and split the party along the usual lines...those who respect the primary decision in CT, and those too scared to take a stand and want to support Joe get his assignments

Lieberman will be put on a pedestal by Republicans as the ultimate example of how "regular blue collar moderates in CT voted him, in a blue state" when the Democrats went crazy for some whacko and abandoned all of America

During the 08 primaries the Dems will be dogged by the fact that a Democratic primary in CT got in a guy who was defeated by the rest of the state, so who cares who wins the 08 presidential nomination...whoever they put up is some raving liberal just like in CT

It'll be a nightmare

However, if the Dems take the house, they'll impeach Bush and then maybe Lieberman won't matter

so no, you are not right

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

No. When you made this thread you plagarized off the top links of the DailyKos homepage like you usually do. You just changed the links from the ones used in the DailyKos article like you usually do as well..

Same exact quotes (just different links.. )

And when you made it, it was just recently posted on the blogs and on the top 5 of daily kos's site... just like the majority of your posts.

EDIT: Just found it. It was posted on a dailykos diary/blog 10 minutes before you made this thread. It's funny you mentioned the Conn. Post because the other link was the exact link they even used on Daily Kos. Good job looking up that Conn. Post link on yahoo news.

There's nothing wrong with using DailyKos. You provided links and had the quotes. But, don't be ashamed of it or lie about it. That's just kinda wierd.

I'm not ashamed or lying about anything

If a blog puts up any interesting article, I read the article, and find the same quotes interesting, that's not ripping off some blog, thats posting my opinions I GOT FROM THE ARTICLE

You notice I didn't make a post about Lieberman campaigning with Republicans that was all over kos and the liberal blogs? Why? Because the articles didn't link up right and I don't jump the gun and just put anything interesting I find on DKos/MyDD, sure enough, the bloggers jumped the gun and had to change the story because it was more of a celebration of their supposed sub-saving move some time ago and Dodd was thinking of coming

I get my articles from 3 main places...left wing blogs (dailykos,mydd,cl), right wing blogs (realclearpolitics,redstate) and news sites (msnbc, foxnews, wp, nyt, cnn)

I never think I should have to say "omg i got this Buchanon piece from realclearpolitics!"

No, I simply got a link from a site, read it myself, and came to my own conclusions

As an academic, plagiarism is one of the most serious charges you can make towards someone, I never taken an essay from Markos and tried to pass it off as my own, I've never taken the words of over liberals and acted like they were my own new founded political opinions

[thomez]

so if Lieberman does or does not win makes house races go one way or another? the voters can only handle voting down party lines?

ya, that makes a lot of sense - he should campaign for people he doesn't want to (for whatever reason) so that the voters who may or may not agree with him will be swayed by his opinion - got it

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I'm not ashamed or lying about anything

If a blog puts up any interesting article, I read the article, and find the same quotes interesting, that's not ripping off some blog, thats posting my opinions I GOT FROM THE ARTICLE

I understand that, and you're entitled to your opinion. But I have caught you in other threads sometimes copying almost word for word from dailykos user blogs/posts and other sources.

This thread was a clear copy of a dailykos diary. I just said I read the original source and you got defensive.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thomez

so if Lieberman does or does not win makes house races go one way or another? the voters can only handle voting down party lines?

ya, that makes a lot of sense - he should campaign for people he doesn't want to (for whatever reason) so that the voters who may or may not agree with him will be swayed by his opinion - got it

That's my problem with their whole point. Lieberman is free to run on whatever principles he wants. If other Democrats are going to come down on Lieberman and his platform, how can he continue to say he approves of or supports them? It's a lose - lose for him. Yes he said he would continue to support the Dems as they are his party. But he can't specifically support people who are speaking out against him.

People in other states aren't voting based on the outcome of the CT debates. And if people truly vote down the party line so sheepishly then the Dems should have no problem with Lieberman running as an independent in a state where the Republican is getting less than 5% of the vote.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

so if Lieberman does or does not win makes house races go one way or another? the voters can only handle voting down party lines?

ya, that makes a lot of sense - he should campaign for people he doesn't want to (for whatever reason) so that the voters who may or may not agree with him will be swayed by his opinion - got it

Lieberman running against Lamont will bring out more voters because its got the national spotlight and the people that will vote Lieberman will not vote for the anti-incumbency feeling hitting other parts of the nation (like PA where I live, the GOP incumbents lost 17 primaries in the state house)

He doesn't have to CAMPAIGN for Nelson, a democrat, out in Nebraska, because he doesn't have to and it'd be useless anyway or anyone for that matter

However, he gave HIS WORD that he was endorsing THE 3 DEMOCRATS AFTER HE LOST THE PRIMARY AND THE CT DEM PARTY SUPPORTED LAMONT, he is only switching now because he thinks it'll get him more republican votes...sacrificing his word and honor for a couple more hundred votes, he'll do anything to get any last vote from any corner as long as the last one keeps him his seat, thats why he is flip flopping on Iraq now, because even GOPers are doubting the war

He has no values to stand on except "I've been a senator for a long time!" and then you throw in all the negatives...not respecting your party, hurting your own party, breaking his word, flip flopping

I think its pretty obvious who the horrible politician is

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I understand that, and you're entitled to your opinion. But I have caught you in other threads sometimes copying almost word for word from dailykos user blogs/posts and other sources.

This thread was a clear copy of a dailykos diary. I just said I read the original source and you got defensive.

It wasn't a copy of anything, I cut and paste FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLES my own opinion was one line, and not from anywhere else

Naturally I'm offensive, plagiarism is one of the most serious personal attacks you can make on someone

How would you like if I called you a child molestor?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Lieberman running against Lamont will bring out more voters because its got the national spotlight and the people that will vote Lieberman will not vote for the anti-incumbency feeling hitting other parts of the nation (like PA where I live, the GOP incumbents lost 17 primaries in the state house)

You're worried that if Lamont loses to another Democrat that other states might not vote Democrat?

First, I don't know anyone who has ever voted based on the outcome of a senatorial election in another state.

Secondly, I thought Dems were all for voting rights. No? Screw the Diebold and voting conspiracy theories holding back the minorities and the little man, the Dems just don't want people to run for office.

Anyone else notice an acute similarity between the Democrat's voting desires for the CT elections and those of a dictatorship?

[Thorgrim]

Ofcourse they've changed their votes, look at how many people vote non-Dem because of the anti-Kennedy media? If you are talking about indepedents, this situation is unique in ways, and extremely rare in others, which is why you wouldn't be familiar with the outcomes

I don't see how this is a voting rights issue...like I said Lieberman is free to run his campaign, there was no mass move to block his signatures...he's got them he's a full fledged candidate...Dems are not going to bar Lieberman voters from the polls on Nov 7th...

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Ofcourse they've changed their votes, look at how many people vote non-Dem because of the anti-Kennedy media?

Where is said anti-Kennedy media and how many people changed their votes?

Every state around Kennedy votes Blue as far as I can see... even his own state.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Where is said anti-Kennedy media and how many people changed their votes?

I am sorry but Gallup did not get enough requests over the past 20 years to have a yearly poll on how many people SPECIFICALLY changed their votes over kennedy, but negative media sure as shit helps people not vote for a party

It's a "tipping point" for at least one and probably many more out of the 122 million american voters

And anti-Kennedy Media? Well I can't post Fox News execs wanting to pound the story of Chapp time after time again, and ofcourse the radio is full of anti-kennedy media they put out constantly
Media Matters - Limbaugh on Abu Ghraib photos: "[T]his is what he's [Kennedy's] doing at home"

Jees, ever since I was a kid there has been anti-Kennedy media, I remember watching Married with Children and Al Bundy going "Kennedy's always drunk and on the floor" I can't believe someone would actually not have known about it and live in America

[JaJae]

So Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, two super right wing media outlets by your opinion have broken stories. I haven't seen Fox News execs pound the Chapp story... ever. Maybe it's just me.

Kennedy gets far more good media than he gets negative. Kennedy helps Democrats, he does not hurt them. You're not fooling anyone.

And by your own admission in this thread (for a first time ever)
http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/23229-post6.html

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I guess you can't grasp the fact that he is running as an "indepedent democrat" and that he's solid democrat

No longer is Joe conservative or a Republican in guise. He's now a solid Democrat. So if he's a solid Democrat what's the problem? A Democrat will be in control of CT and and all the surrounding states will continue to be Democrat as they have been for more than a decade. Lieberman v Lamont will have no effect on the voting in other states.

[thomez]

I totally get it!

Lieberman should quit campaigning completely, he has no right to run for office anymore.

Second, he should actively campaign for the party of which doesn't even want him to win! They just voted him out and the party is bashing the shit out of him, but he should still campaign for those folks!

This may possibly be the dumbest line of reasoning, ever.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thomez

I totally get it!

Lieberman should quit campaigning completely, he has no right to run for office anymore.

Second, he should actively campaign for the party of which doesn't even want him to win! They just voted him out and the party is bashing the shit out of him, but he should still campaign for those folks!

This may possibly be the dumbest line of reasoning, ever.

Well you know all their anti-Lieberman rhetoric they're spewing could hurt their party. So he should do the honorable thing and just drop out.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well you know all their anti-Lieberman rhetoric they're spewing could hurt their party. So he should do the honorable thing and just drop out.

Ya, he has no right to run for election in a state which he has served for 65 million years.

[Thorgrim]

I like how no one gives a fuck of him breaking his word, flip-flopping on the issue that supposedly was the sole cause for his primary defeat, but wants to jump from one attack to another about how Democrats are trying to stop the november elections and take away everyones civil rights with no evidence whatosever

He's running as a solid democrat, yet he's clearly not...JaJae and thomez are actually arguing against each other and they don't even know it...thomez is arguing that Lieberman shouldnt/doesnt need to be a solid democrat because of the primary, and Ja is saying no one should care because Lieberman is a solid democrat and the election will change nothing

Once you guys settle what exactly the facts are, then I could respond without watching you dodge issue after issue

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I like how no one gives a fuck of him breaking his word, flip-flopping on the issue that supposedly was the sole cause for his primary defeat, but wants to jump from one attack to another about how Democrats are trying to stop the november elections and take away everyones civil rights with no evidence whatosever

He's running as a solid democrat, yet he's clearly not...JaJae and thomez are actually arguing against each other and they don't even know it...thomez is arguing that Lieberman shouldnt/doesnt need to be a solid democrat because of the primary, and Ja is saying no one should care because Lieberman is a solid democrat and the election will change nothing

Once you guys settle what exactly the facts are, then I could respond without watching you dodge issue after issue

Why should I be freaking out that's he flip-flopping? He's a democrat and is doing what most members in his party do.

[thomez]

my arguement = nobody gives a fuck about that state or whatever moron they want to elect