Lieberman - WTF?

[Irvine511]

[Sounds like Hillary's position too....which is why she will not win the nomination.

bingo.

i think he just triangulated her campaign stance on the war -- allows her to seem hawkish, yet distance herself from the debacle of Iraq. "i would have done it differently."

 

[verte76]

Yeah, Hillary's support of the war is going to hurt her with the Democratic nomination. Iraq is probably going to be a big time issue in '08.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

"The most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is ... to cut the fetters which hold back private spending," the president said. He urged Congress to "reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system" and vowed not to retreat from his pledge of "an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes."

The evidence is clear, he told his audience, "that our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power, [and] reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking." He insisted -- defying the class warriors -- on tax cuts not only for low-income workers but also "for those in the middle and upper brackets, who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts and ... invest more capital."

President Bush? No. Try John F. Kennedy.

To take it a step further, Leiberman is doing today what the Republican Party did for FDR when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. They hated FDR's statist economic policies, but they knew that for the sake of saving their own country and the rest of the world, they would have to put their differences aside when it came to protecting their civilian population. I know Leiberman has a plan to fight terrorism, but does his opponent? I'll be surprised if it's not cut and run. Extremely surprised if he doesn't demand a "time table" of when we can start withdrawling the troops out of Iraq.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Yeah, Hillary's support of the war is going to hurt her with the Democratic nomination. Iraq is probably going to be a big time issue in '08.

Oh absolutely. Not to mention, her support for video game censorship doesn't seem in line with her party either.

The war will destroy her if anything, though. However, I wholeheartedly believe she is left enough on the other issues to represent the Dems, plus she hasn't said - to my knowledge - any kind words about the war in Iraq since 2004.

 

[BVS]

President Bush? No. Try John F. Kennedy.

To take it a step further, Leiberman is doing today what the Republican Party did for FDR when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. They hated FDR's statist economic policies, but they knew that for the sake of saving their own country and the rest of the world, they would have to put their differences aside when it came to protecting their civilian population. I know Leiberman has a plan to fight terrorism, but does his opponent? I'll be surprised if it's not cut and run. Extremely surprised if he doesn't demand a "time table" of when we can start withdrawling the troops out of Iraq.

None of this post has anything to do with this bullshit line:

You didn't have to be a socialist to be a Democrat back then.

 

[BVS]

Not to mention, her support for video game censorship doesn't seem in line with her party either.

Yeah, that's a big issue for this upcoming election.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

None of this post has anything to do with this bullshit line:

It thoroughly DEFINES how centrist the Dems were during the days of JFK.

* Universal Health Care...
* Raising Minimum Wage Again...
* Worker Unions...
* No Drilling at ANWR...
* Throw Billions Away To Fight Climate Change...

How aren't these policies socialist?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Yeah, that's a big issue for this upcoming election.

I didn't say it was a huge issue. EMPHASIS was on the war in Iraq.

 

[BVS]

How aren't these policies socialist?

The problem you have is you haven't defined how today's are...

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The problem you have is you haven't defined how today's are...

That could ONLY be a problem when YOU dodge a thought=provoking question when you don't have an answer.

 

[BVS]

That could ONLY be a problem when YOU dodge a thought=provoking question when you don't have an answer.

What question?

You made the statement I first quoted. YOU have the burden of proof. You still haven't figured this out after all this time.

 

[financeguy]

It thoroughly DEFINES how centrist the Dems were during the days of JFK.

* Universal Health Care...
* Raising Minimum Wage Again...
* Worker Unions...
* No Drilling at ANWR...
* Throw Billions Away To Fight Climate Change...

How aren't these policies socialist?

Reading the above, it strikes me, not for the first time, how far to the extremist right wing US politics has actually become.

By way of perspective, in Ireland, the Progressive Democrats are regarded as the most pro-free market political party, yet they boast in their campaign literature about how they have increased the minimum wage. It seems that policies implemented by rightwing political parties in Europe would in the US be regarded as 'socalist'!

Also the idea that the current day US Democrats are somehow to the left of JFK (or even Lyndon Johnson, for that matter) is just laughably absurd.

 

[BVS]

Reading the above, it strikes me, not for the first time, how far to the extremist right wing US politics has actually become.

By way of perspective, in Ireland, the Progressive Democrats are regarded as the most pro-free market political party, yet they boast in their campaign literature about how they have increased the minimum wage. It seems that policies implemented by rightwing political parties in Europe would in the US be regarded as 'socalist'!

Also the idea that the current day US Democrats are somehow to the left of JFK (or even Lyndon Johnson, for that matter) is just laughably absurd.

 

[Dreadsox]

Also the idea that the current day US Democrats are somehow to the left of JFK (or even Lyndon Johnson, for that matter) is just laughably absurd.

I disagree with this.

JFK was most definitely more to the center than today's democratic party.

LBJ is another story.

 

[anitram]

I know Leiberman has a plan to fight terrorism, but does his opponent? I'll be surprised if it's not cut and run. Extremely surprised if he doesn't demand a "time table" of when we can start withdrawling the troops out of Iraq.

Thankfully it seems like the majority of Americans are finally waking up from some kind of special stupor that the rest of the world was never in and are beginning to once and for all divorce the war on TERRA from the war in IRAQ.

 

[Dreadsox]

Damn...it's too bad we cut and run from Vietnam.

 

[deep]

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

I know Leiberman has a plan to fight terrorism, but does his opponent? I'll be surprised if it's not cut and run. Extremely surprised if he doesn't demand a "time table" of when we can start withdrawing the troops out of Iraq.

I guess you support the administrations plan for U. S. troop withdrawal

one at a time - and not televised.

 

[BVS]

one at a time - and not televised.

Yeah, I'm surprised people actually consider this a real "plan".

I mean, it's worked so well so far.

 

[deep]

2600?

we're not going to stop until they get even for the number they killed on 911

 

[nbcrusader]

New Poll Shows Lieberman Leading Lamont

Ned Lamont, whose anti-war campaign rattled the political landscape by toppling Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary, is gaining support among voters _ but Lieberman still has an edge, according to a poll released Thursday.

The Quinnipiac University poll has Lieberman leading Lamont among registered voters 49 percent to 38 percent. Republican Alan Schlesinger gets support from 4 percent. Among likely voters, Lieberman was supported by 53 percent, compared to Lamont's 41 percent and Schlesinger's 4 percent.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I guess you support the administrations plan for U. S. troop withdrawal

one at a time - and not televised.

I support the eventual withdrawl based on how soon we can train the Iraqi military to stand on their own two feet, NOT one that is based on a time table.

 

[BVS]

I support the eventual withdrawl based on how soon we can train the Iraqi military to stand on their own two feet, NOT one that is based on a time table.

See, if you plan ahead, you don't need a "wait and see" open-ended withdrawl.

But some were too anxious to blow their wad.

 

[anitram]

From the NYT:

"Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy," said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.

"Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect," the expert said, "but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy."

Mission accomplished, folks!!

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Reading the above, it strikes me, not for the first time, how far to the extremist right wing US politics has actually become.

By way of perspective, in Ireland, the Progressive Democrats are regarded as the most pro-free market political party, yet they boast in their campaign literature about how they have increased the minimum wage. It seems that policies implemented by rightwing political parties in Europe would in the US be regarded as 'socalist'!

You're sighting a region in which the target population wants the maximum for the minimum. I can see how they are centrist, and maybe even a bit right of center, but I could never consider them to be solid conservatives.

Also the idea that the current day US Democrats are somehow to the left of JFK (or even Lyndon Johnson, for that matter) is just laughably absurd.

Dreadsox already nailed this comment.

But just to elaborate if need be, I've never heard anyone claim that Lyndon Johnson would be a "moderate" or a "centrist" by today's standards. His "War on Poverty" spoke for itself. He was no less left-wing on the economy than FDR. FDR revolutionized the Democratic Party with a handful of welfare programs that still exist today. JFK on the other hand saw the benefit in cutting government spending to create more jobs and more opportunities for the American workforce.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

See, if you plan ahead, you don't need a "wait and see" open-ended withdrawl.

But some were too anxious to blow their wad.

When you set a time table, you allow terrorists to set time tables of their own.

"Well, Muhammad Headcutter, it looks like the US will be out of Iraq next week, and the Iraqi military is nowhere near having a backbone..."

 

[BVS]

When you set a time table, you allow terrorists to set time tables of their own.

"Well, Muhammad Headcutter, it looks like the US will be out of Iraq next week, and the Iraqi military is nowhere near having a backbone..."

I never said time table. In fact if they planned ahead the insurgents wouldn't be a factor. If this war was planned the borders would be guarded before we occupied, therefore we could rebuild without constant terrorist attacks.

But no that would have been too much thinking and planning.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I never said time table. In fact if they planned ahead the insurgents wouldn't be a factor. If this war was planned the borders would be guarded before we occupied, therefore we could rebuild without constant terrorist attacks.

But no that would have been too much thinking and planning.

You couldn't name ONE war that wasn't miscalculated. I'd normally demand you to, but I wouldn't want to make your head explode.

 

[Irvine511]

Mission accomplished, folks!!

what a tragedy.

the horror Iraq has become.

 

[anitram]

what a tragedy.

the horror Iraq has become.

It's appalling.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

what a tragedy.

the horror Iraq has become.

Yes, for people like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, it sure is tragic.