Lieberman - WTF? - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-10-2006, 08:03 PM   #91
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:08 AM
For all the complaints about the two party system, when one candidate plans to run as an independent he is called every name in the book. Why? Because it may affect a party’s control in a two party system?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 09:15 PM   #92
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
For all the complaints about the two party system, when one candidate plans to run as an independent he is called every name in the book. Why? Because it may affect a party’s control in a two party system?
I've voted for third-party candidates. I think the two dominant parties are dinosaurs. But Lieberman was hardly an "alternative" candidate in supporting Bush on Iraq, a war that's getting damned unpopular, even with conservatives. I'm seeing conservatives at peace rallies and meetings locally.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 10:19 PM   #93
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:08 AM
Are supporters of the Iraq war unqualified as candidates?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 10:21 PM   #94
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Are supporters of the Iraq war unqualified as candidates?
To some people, yes.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-10-2006, 10:24 PM   #95
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Are supporters of the Iraq war unqualified as candidates?
To many - around the world - it is the single most significant mistake the US has made in.... how long?
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 10:27 PM   #96
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers


Too many - around the world - it is the single most significant mistake the US has made in.... how long?
You don't even need to go that far. 60% of the American public right now doesn't support the war.

War supporters are the minority, so why shouldn't this be an issue that renders one unelectable?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-10-2006, 11:17 PM   #97
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:08 AM
There is quite a difference between eligibility for candidacy and electibility.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 11:59 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:08 AM
Would Lieberman still have lost had news of the thwarted terror attack in the U.K. broke on Monday instead of today?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 08-11-2006, 09:28 AM   #99
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 09:08 AM
The Nation

David Corn

Thu Aug 10, 10:46 PM ET

The Nation -- Mayhem in Iraq. Global warming on the warpath. National debt to the moon. There's much to moan about. But it's the little things that sometimes can tick one off the most. For instance, in the news today of Ned Lamont's win over Joe Lieberman, there was the remark from Dick Cheney that suggested al Qaeda was buoyed by Lieberman's defeat. The veep said that anti-American terrorists are "betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when they see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today."

Two points. First, it was Cheney's boss, George W. Bush, who ran for the presidency in 2000 vowing to change the tone of partisan political discourse in Washington. I know that's a promise that was never kept. But what a nasty shot from Cheney. Neither he nor Bush seem to realize that even though they are GOP partisans they are still president and the vice president of the entire nation and actually have a higher standard to meet than the usual political hacks (including those in their own employ). Yet they show no interest in doing so. Again, nothing new about that.

Second, the disruption of the latest suspected terrorist plot--the one to blow up airliners heading to the United States from London--illustrates that the evildoers are probably not developing their plans based on the outcome of primary elections in the Nutmeg State. Moreover, American policy should not be held hostage to what America's enemies want or don't want. The debate is over what's best for the United States (and the rest of the world). To suggest one path or another would hearten the "terrorists" is to avoid a serious discussion. But what else would you expect from a fellow who still believes he was right to say a year ago that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes"?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-11-2006, 09:41 AM   #100
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
For all the complaints about the two party system, when one candidate plans to run as an independent he is called every name in the book. Why? Because it may affect a party’s control in a two party system?
No, because when he loses after participating in the rules for the two party system, he acts like a sore loser.

The people of CT have spoken. They have done their job. They decided that the person representing them was not representing their opinions.

He lost.

If he wanted to be independant, he should have declared that and not made the primary run.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-11-2006, 09:42 AM   #101
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Are supporters of the Iraq war unqualified as candidates?
If he as an elected official is not representing the will of the people, the people have the JOB to vote and remove him.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:22 AM   #102
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Would Lieberman still have lost had news of the thwarted terror attack in the U.K. broke on Monday instead of today?


[q]Campaigning in Connecticut, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who lost Tuesday's Democratic primary and is now running as an independent, said the antiwar views of primary winner Ned Lamont would be "taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081001625.html

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:26 AM   #103
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 09:08 AM
So THAT'S where Cheney's brain went, into Lieberman's head
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:56 AM   #104
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
No, because when he loses after participating in the rules for the two party system, he acts like a sore loser.

The people of CT have spoken. They have done their job. They decided that the person representing them was not representing their opinions.

He lost.

If he wanted to be independant, he should have declared that and not made the primary run.
Does CT have open primaries? Or are Tuesday results evidence of the will of 52% of the registered voting Democrats in CT?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-11-2006, 11:12 AM   #105
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Does CT have open primaries? Or are Tuesday results evidence of the will of 52% of the registered voting Democrats in CT?


it is the latter.

so should we do away with primaries?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com