DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on November 08, 2006, 12:31:06 AM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/CT/CT.htm?csp=34
-
Good for Lieberman!
The Voters of Connecticut have spoken!
-
Good for Lieberman!
The Voters of Connecticut have spoken!
And the Republican canadate gets only 10%.
Liberman is still very Liberal
How did we get sold the idea that this is to celebrate?
-
And the Republican canadate gets only 10%. Liberman is still very Liberal How did we get sold the idea that this is to celebrate?
It's not so much "celebrate" as much as it it a high five to conneticut voters for giving the fringe left & the MoveOn ilk, the finger
-
Hadda spoil the party didn't you?
-
Hadda spoil the party didn't you?
Naaaa, The State of Connecticut did
-
Why do y'all love this so much?
Didn't Bt point out that Liberman votes overwhelmingly with the Democrats? He had support from traditional old-style Democrats like Trades Unions.
Honestly, if this is a "high-five" then you must be reeling.
-
Why do y'all love this so much? Didn't Bt point out that Liberman votes overwhelmingly with the Democrats? He had support from traditional old-style Democrats like Trades Unions. Honestly, if this is a "high-five" then you must be reeling.
A) I don't see anyone "loving this so much, and B) I don't recall Bt making that point, but I do recall I made that point frequently, when dealing with the likes of Brass & Co claiming how "Republican" Lieberman was for voting Democrat on nearly everything except the war. The "high-five" is not for Liberman's win but for MoveOn's & their ilk's loss. Dem's in Connecticut ran on a nearly pure Anti-war platform, and were shown the door by the voters. There's your high five
-
A) I don't see anyone "loving this so much, and B) I don't recall Bt making that point, but I do recall I made that point frequently, when dealing with the likes of Brass & Co claiming how "Republican" Lieberman was for voting Democrat on nearly everything except the war. The "high-five" is not for Liberman's win but for MoveOn's & their ilk's loss. Dem's in Connecticut ran on a nearly pure Anti-war platform, and were shown the door by the voters. There's your high five
Sad.
-
The Lieberman race is the exception to the rule.
The country is predominantly against the course of the war and that's just the facts. It's only people who hated losing Viet Nam who are still hanging on to the idea that there is going to be a sailor kissing a girl in Times Square at some point after we win militarily in Viet Raq.
I don't see the troops coming out immediately. I see a phased withdrawal over time and the violence shrinking as we withdraw.
-
I see a phased withdrawal over time and the violence shrinking as we withdraw.
I see the violence increasing along with a phased withdrawal.
-
I see a phased withdrawal over time and the violence shrinking as we withdraw.
I see the violence increasing along with a phased withdrawal.
Ditto............and of course it'll be blamed on Bush
-
The Lieberman race is the exception to the rule. The country is predominantly against the course of the war and that's just the facts.
More accurately it's the perception of how bad the war is going, minus any substantive interviews of soldiers and Iraqis actually living there. I heard of a recent poll that indicated 60+% of Iraqis are in favor of having ousted Saddam, no matter the consequences. The 24/7 drumbeat of how Bush lied us into war, minus any challenging of that lie about lies helped facilitate the negative perception of Bush regarding iraq
But I'll also add, that I'm sure many a Conservative were EQUALLY fed up with Bush for completely discarding the Conservative platform he ran on, limited government, fiscal responsibility, learning to use his veto pin. What you had in Connecticut were the Dems trying to run on a pure anti-war platform. And the voters told them to pound sand. Across the country, that wasn't the case, with the dems running on a myriad of issues, mostly that they weren't Bush, and that they'd do X differently.
I could only wish they'd run on a pure Anti-war platform.
I don't see the troops coming out immediately. I see a phased withdrawal over time and the violence shrinking as we withdraw.
I'm not even going to ask how you come to that level of illogic
-
As I see it, the two prime questions now regarding Iraq are these: 1) Is "victory" there essential to the overall war on terror? I mean victory as now intended, a democracy without a strongman or without partition? 2) Regardless of that, from a mainly "humanitarian" standpoint, how do we pace and structure withdrawal to produce the least amount of death and destruction, that is if we can influence events that much by our continuing presence at all.
-
Didn't Bt point out that Liberman votes overwhelmingly with the Democrats?
I see Lieberman as the lesser of two evils (vs. Lamont). Plus, on principle grounds, I find it distasteful how his own Party turned on him.
-
Didn't Bt point out that Liberman votes overwhelmingly with the Democrats?
I see Lieberman as the lesser of two evils (vs. Lamont). Plus, on principle grounds, I find it distasteful how his own Party turned on him.
You mean, after he lost the primary? How they just supported him on the sly?