Does anyone have a summary of Lieberman's change in political viewpoints since 2000?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

not really. but it's convenient to claim it when your assertion is that there's only one issue in play, when in reality, there's a plethora.

Unfortunately for your view, and for Lieberman, he continues to pile things on there now that he's using Republican pollsters and repeating Bush/Cheney rhetoric out on the campaign trail.

he's campaigning against a liberal trying to win an election...what a shock that he'd sound like a republican when campaigning against a lib!

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

voting is only a part of what a senator does, your list means little because all it shows is that he's not a conservative republican

o rly

becuase you provided a list to show that he wasn't liberal

what more than a list of his voting record would one use to prove his stances on the issues? please tell...

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

claims like 'not supporting the filibuster is basically supporting alito' is ridiculous. he didn't support alito, but he didn't want a fiasco with a filibuster. that's a preposterous claim, and quite a stretch. grasping for straws for sure.

i don't need to argue about lieberman's democtraticness. i've posted his voting record several times. everyone can see he's very much a liberal. now an independent liberal.

you think anyone left of Rush Limbaugh is a liberal

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

you think anyone left of Rush Limbaugh is a liberal

is that what i think?


good to know...

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

o rly

becuase you provided a list to show that he wasn't liberal

what more than a list of his voting record would one use to prove his stances on the issues? please tell...

try reading my posts: his public stances, his endorsements, how he runs his campaigns, what he says about his opponents, how he treats his fellow party members...etc,etc

Who the fuck cares if he voted against the Bush Tax cuts if he runs around afterwards saying they're fine?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

he's campaigning against a liberal trying to win an election...what a shock that he'd sound like a republican when campaigning against a lib!

Maybe because the truth is finally coming out now?

Instead of him simply doing things behind the scenes to support these same positions, not helping push Dem plans through, being a Bush-enabler, etc.. he's doing it out in the open, and being unapologetic about it.

In the past, if he realized that Bush's plan was bound to fail, and it would hurt him politically, only then did he do his little 180 and try to get out front of the failure to make it seem like he was really siding with the Dems the whole time.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

what more than a list of his voting record would one use to prove his stances on the issues? please tell...

Voting means shit if he wasn't part of the push to defeat certain things, ie: social security, tax cuts, etc..

When you run around supporting such things and only vote once it's incredibly politically convienent because they're already dead thanks to the efforts of real Democrats, the voting record means jack shit.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Maybe because the truth is finally coming out now?

yeah maybe

i've posted what thomez asked for. he can make his own decisions. he doesnl't need socialists telling him how it is.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Voting means shit if he wasn't part of the push to defeat certain things, ie: social security, tax cuts, etc..

When you run around supporting such things and only vote once it's incredibly politically convienent because they're already dead thanks to the efforts of real Democrats, the voting record means jack shit.

yeah ok

except when you use it to prove he's conservative http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/23598-post5.html

[motivez]

AFAIK, it wasn't a list of his voting record.

Your list unfortunately doesn't put any of those votes into context. It doesn't talk about what happened before the vote, the fight by both parties to win the vote, and how the result eventually happened.

For social security or tax cuts, it doesn't talk about how Lieberman supported the Bush plan until it was politically inconvenient. For the tax cuts, it doesn't talk about how he has no problem saying they're fine or this or that.

Of course, there are votes that are cut and dry when showing how he votes, but since he claims to be a Democrat, those are mostly when he votes with the GOP, ie: the bankruptcy bill.

[Thorgrim]

He's Bill Clinton (who I thought conservatives didn't like)

He puts his wet finger in the air and makes his "moral decisions" on what will get him the most political clout

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

AFAIK, it wasn't a list of his voting record.

Your list unfortunately doesn't put any of those votes into context. It doesn't talk about what happened before the vote, the fight by both parties to win the vote, and how the result eventually happened.

For social security or tax cuts, it doesn't talk about how Lieberman supported the Bush plan until it was politically inconvenient. For the tax cuts, it doesn't talk about how he has no problem saying they're fine or this or that.

Of course, there are votes that are cut and dry when showing how he votes, but since he claims to be a Democrat, those are mostly when he votes with the GOP, ie: the bankruptcy bill.

it was a list...look again. better yet, post it here. or ask thorgrim to do it.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by motivez

Of course, there are votes that are cut and dry when showing how he votes, but since he claims to be a Democrat, those are mostly when he votes with the GOP, ie: the bankruptcy bill.

Voted NO on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

Voted NO on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)

He's talking about 2006 silly-goose

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He's talking about 2006 silly-goose

Why would anyone be against the 2006 legislation?

+1 for nanny state
-1 for personal responsibility

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

voting is only a part of what a senator does, your list means little because all it shows is that he's not a conservative republican

So now it doesn't matter what a senator does, only what he says?


So, if Lamont wins and votes 100% for progressive ideas, but says he supports Bush, then you would throw him out too? Even though he voted the way you like?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

So now it doesn't matter what a senator does, only what he says?


So, if Lamont wins and votes 100% for progressive ideas, but says he supports Bush, then you would throw him out too? Even though he voted the way you like?

If he endorsed Bush for a third term, like the "non-partisan" Katrina survivor, I would want to throw out Lamont

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

Why would anyone be against the 2006 legislation?

+1 for nanny state
-1 for personal responsibility

This isn't a policy debate this is about Lieberman's change in political views and maybe in the broader spectrum his character

Lieberman is all about the nanny-state, he led a jihad against violent video games and music lyrics

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He's Bill Clinton (who I thought conservatives didn't like)

He puts his wet finger in the air and makes his "moral decisions" on what will get him the most political clout

I'd agree with this 100%.


I've never liked Lieberman.

I just find it funny how when I say things like that Bush isn't a real Republican, people on here before have said BUT LOLZ HE IS THE REPUBLICAN PREZIDENT, AND MOST REPUBLICANS LIKE HIM - HE IS A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN!!!! But now you're doing the same exact thing with Lieberman. Saying how he's not a "real" Democrat.