Originally Posted By friendofdd This just may be it. It will appeal to YOUR politics. <a href="http://sendables.jibjab.com/" target="_blank">http://sendables.jibjab.com/</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X Seeing Lieberman in there just really makes me wonder (as always), which neo-con specifically is holding those incriminating photos of Joe and his pet goat?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Seeing Lieberman in there just really makes me wonder (as always), which neo-con specifically is holding those incriminating photos of Joe and his pet goat? >>> I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. ?
Originally Posted By Mr X It's just stunning how blatantly he switched teams, almost as though he's being blackmailed or something (somebody has pics of him and farm animals, or something). ;p (I know...it's cause he lost and had to go independent...I just think it's really funny considering 8 years ago he was on the ticket for the White House as a DEMOCRAT. Seems as though he was misrepresenting himself back then if you ask me)
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< It's just stunning how blatantly he switched teams, almost as though he's being blackmailed or something (somebody has pics of him and farm animals, or something). ;p >>> Oh, I don't think it's blackmail.
Originally Posted By Mr X I know, it was a joke. I think he's just petty, really. The Dems rejected *him*, so now he's punishing *them*. It's funny, because I read somewhere that he calls himself "a true independent" who agrees with the Democrats on most domestic policy issues and the Republicans on most war related issues. Well, if that was the case why the heck would he have accepted the Democratic VP spot in Y2K? And why did it take being defeated as a Democrat in his home state before he decided to switch to his "true" nature? Not a big fan of that guy.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^ Lieberman was ambushed by the liberal wing of the Dem party.I guessonecan'tbe a democrat now unless they cowtow to Pielosi and her bunch.He loses on one issue to a wienie for the anti war faction ( whatever that is right now) -but won inthe general election. I guess one cannot be a Democrat unless you follow the party line 100% ( not 90%) , and one cannot be a GOP member without being a neo con... and people wonder why there is so much hatred at voting time.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Lieberman is fairly moderate on most issues which leaves him without a party these days
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I guess one cannot be a Democrat unless you follow the party line 100% ( not 90%) , and one cannot be a GOP member without being a neo con...*** I totally see your point, though I'm still not a huge fan of Lieberman for the reasons I mentioned... I firmly believe the time has come for a new party. One that is more centrist. And frankly I think it should come from members of the GOP, and the reason for that is because frankly the Neo-Cons have tarnished the Republican reputation perhaps beyond repair. It could come from the Democrat side as well though, either would work.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I've always felt that Lieberman was to the Dems what McCain is to the Repubs. I really doubt the possibility of a "centrist". Currently, it seems to me, that most dems, even on these boards, consider themselves centrist but are really leftist, and most Repubs, even on these boards, consider themselves closer to the center than the right, but are really rightist. The middle isn't nearly as popular as claimed, or people would be clambering after McCain. They would have done the same for Lieberman and selected him for the Pres, rather than the vp candidate. I think if one were to put a divider halfway between extreme left and extreme right, making it the center, and then put dividers halfway between the extremes and and center, that the great majority on each side would be clumped around the quarters (for lack of the right term) rather than the center or the extremes. If we truly had a lot of centrists, we probably would have been bouncing between both parties for years without seeing many changes in government direction.
Originally Posted By dshyates I consider myself a "centrist" but not because I'm in the middle between the 2 parties. But because I hold views that fall on both sides. I am pro-choice, anti-illegal immigration, pro gun ownership (with reasonable restrictions like assault weapon bans), I believe in controlling taxation while still providing essential social services. I believe war is a necessary evil but not a tool to increase the profits of private corporations, I think nuclear power is a necessity, and I think that there is no need to destroy the environment chasing fossil fuels. Bite the bullet on energy costs until we come up with alternatives since the fossil fuel plans like drilling off-shore and ANWAR won't effect oil prices and will that be at least 10 years to get the oil to market. With a concerted effort by the time we get that oil, we won't need it. It will only help the oil companies profits by the time it gets to market. I dislike the GOP with a passion, and believe Pelosi/Reed are self/special interest serving idiots. The fact Pelosi hasn't gone after the criminals in office is as un-American as W. using the Constitution as toilet paper. Bottom line, I don't like any of them. I see no evidence that anyone in Washington are American Patriots. Just once I would like to see a politician do whats right and not what is politically expedient. That person would get my vote. After watching McCain's metamorphosis since 2000, he is the definition of political expediency. Or as I like to call it "spineless". Obama's only real flip-flop, campaign financing, is strictly political expediency. But it makes sense given his base. Some politically expedient flip-flops are understandable, but call into question the politicians convictions. If Obama is going after the small donors, then why the high dollar one on ones. He is looking more like a regular politician, albiet an outside the beltway politician. As I see it our choice this time is between an inside the beltway politician or an outside the beltway politician. But a Chicago-style politician isn't my preferance either.
Originally Posted By Mr X What is "Chicago style" exactly? I keep hearing this. What is so different about Chicago politics?
Originally Posted By dshyates "What is so different about Chicago politics?" These days its mostly just different special interests groups. Traditionally it was slathered in corruption and violence. I don't believe Obama is in the Style of Richard J. Daley. But he played successfully in that environment. So I have to wonder how he did it.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< What is "Chicago style" exactly? >>> Another way to put this is "party machine politics" as has been done in Chicago for along time by the Democrats. Think of it in terms of what Tom DeLay did to the Republican Congress, but on the opposite side of the aisle.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I firmly believe the time has come for a new party. One that is more centrist. < I couldn't be more in agreement X
