Quote:
Originally Posted by stormy
LOL, really?
If it's good enough for Clinton, it's good enough for me.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormy
LOL, really?
If it's good enough for Clinton, it's good enough for me.
well, it certainly makes the point being made by the idiot doing it feel somewhat less valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
You are so simple minded it's hardly worth a retort. You can't batch a group of people based on a collection of leadership. If that were the case I can assume you are a con man, sleaze, and have bad taste in women because you supported Clinton?Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
WahQuote:
Saying "wah" between points does not make them less valid or worthy of discussion, any more than repeating what someone said in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS WITH EXAGGERATED PUNCTUATION!!!11@!@1 somehow invalidates a point.
See, that's not confronting my point, again, so go enjoy your increased taxes and watch your business leave connecticut because of lack of said tax breaks, we'll take them here in Ohio.
We're talking about the leadership. I don't give a shit what you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff_Pocoroba
You don't have a point, you're just ranting. I never thought I'd say this... ever... but we need Yoshi in this thread. I may not agree with the man on just about anything, but he can typically make a coherent point.Quote:
See, that's not confronting my point,
There is no proof that anyone associated with Lamont "hacked" Lieberman's website, nor has it been established that Lamont's site was even hacked to begin with. Lieberman's campaign has confirmed that they have no proof that Lamont had any involvement with the alleged hacking.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoDaddy
The FBI is investigating the whole thing. If the charges prove false, the Lieberman campaign may face federal criminal charges.
My point has always been that democrats always push every non-democrat into the same group (you're guilty). Bitch about the current state of things rather than try to change them (you're guilty), and band together to bash every conservative, in the thought that a 4-1 debate makes them the winner due to grouping (you're guilty) Turn on their own established leadship because they have the gaul to reject this current borderline psycho anti-republican hysteria (can't tell on this one) and Me too the hell out of Diff's points because they can't make their own (do I need to link some of your better me too's or will you just take my word for it?
Clear enough, chippy?
The irony of this statement, not to mention how it completely eludes you, is a goddamn laugh riot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff_Pocoroba
Oh, and no, I do not think libertarians, green party people, independants or communists are all the same. Republicans are united on a variety of issues by and large, which is why they're a party, much like democrats or any other political party, because without some common issues you don't have a basis for a party. And considering I've already mentioned the splintering of the republican party earlier in this very thread, I'm not exactly sure where you got that impression to begin with.
I do not make policies, I can only vote for people who can, and do, make policies I support. That is my role in a representative democracy.Quote:
Bitch about the current state of things rather than try to change them (you're guilty),
Well, a 4-1 average certainly does mean the democrat wins if we're talking about an election. Aside from that, I don't even see where you're pulling this from.Quote:
and band together to bash every conservative, in the thought that a 4-1 debate makes them the winner due to grouping (you're guilty)
As opposed to the borderline psycho anti-democrat hysteria you're spouting? Or could it be that people are passionate about their views? And yes, people tend to turn on their established leaders when their established leaders turn on them, as Lieberman is there to represent the people, the people are not there to back up Lieberman. This goes for every elected official.Quote:
Turn on their own established leadship because they have the gaul to reject this current borderline psycho anti-republican hysteria (can't tell on this one)
Aside from me saying "Bingo" I don't recall quoting him or responding to him in any way at all, so go ahead.Quote:
and Me too the hell out of Diff's points because they can't make their own (do I need to link some of your better me too's or will you just take my word for it?
You're no frostwolf or Yoshi, I'll say that much. Almaci is more your speed.
im really unsure about how to take this comment :cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
Take it as a compliment. I may disagree with you and especially Yoshi when it comes to politics, but at least you make valid points with some basis and engage in meaningful discussion, and I respect that. Biff types a lot but says very little.
Wow, another thread where SpoDaddy and his joke account (Biff) spew post after post of pure partisan vitriol and at the same time try to cast themselves as the victims. It's amazing really.
Anyway, as for Joementum my biggest problem is that all during the primary he talked up how much he loved the Democratic party and wanted to protect it, yet as soon as a strong opposition Dem came on the scene he declared he'd jump off the boat and run as an Independent if he lost. That's a funny way of showing your party loyalty, especially when all the DNC hotshots came in and supported his campaign against a no-namer with little political experience. That's the important thing about this primary, that voters care enough about the war issue (and not just the lunatic fringe) that they're prepared to dynamite a deeply entrenched Senator out of his 18 year seat.
That's why people give a shit about a CT Democratic primary. It's a test case for how the Iraq war issue will play out in the larger '06 midterms. Lamont's being able to go from complete obscruity to seizing the Democratic nomination from a longtime incumbent sends a resounding message that an opposition view on the war does hold weight with voters. That debate they had showed how green Lamont was, yet in the end he still came out ahead because Lieberman couldn't deny how close he was with the Bush White House and its failed Iraq policy.
Whether or not Lieberman ultimately wins the Senatorial election or not really isn't that important (and rest assured it'll be a two-way race, the Rep they're fielding is about as lame as possible and doesn't even have RNC support, hell, Karl Rove called Joementum and Melman's been saying 'Let the voters decide..Whoever they want' instead of endorsing his own party's candidate!) what is important is that now Dems know they can run on a strong Iraq war opposition platform and still expect all the support of their base, as well as plenty of swing and even some crossover voters.