Joe Lieberman to support 2010 GOP Candidates

[Scam of God]

Isn't it funny? Vepres can defend military interventionism, can defend corporate socialism, and can champion the cause of those politicians which support both - but mention one thing about non-interventionism or a real free-market economy and he goes apes**t, despite his alleged support for both.

WTF!?! I am one of the most pacifistic, pro-market (as opposed to pro-business). I don't like people attacking politicians for being bipartisan and independent.

And yes, I know Lieberman probably doesn't oppose the public option on principle.

Yet you defend him anyway, and by doing so you implicitly defend everything else he supports. Does it shame you to know that the left-wing in this nation is more libertarian than those politicians you've fallen in love with?

[Vepres]

Isn't it funny? Vepres can defend military interventionism, can defend corporate socialism, and can champion the cause of those politicians which support both - but mention one thing about non-interventionism or a real free-market economy and he goes apes**t, despite his alleged support for both.

WTF!?! I am one of the most pacifistic, pro-market (as opposed to pro-business). I don't like people attacking politicians for being bipartisan and independent.

And yes, I know Lieberman probably doesn't oppose the public option on principle.

Yet you defend him anyway, and by doing so you implicitly defend everything else he supports. Does it shame you to know that the left-wing in this nation is more libertarian than those politicians you've fallen in love with?

That's a logical fallacy. Just because I defend him doesn't mean I support his position (though in this case I do).

Yeah, Democrats are so libertarian. I can think of nothing more freedom oriented than the public option, employer mandate, and individual mandate.

[Scam of God]

Isn't it funny? Vepres can defend military interventionism, can defend corporate socialism, and can champion the cause of those politicians which support both - but mention one thing about non-interventionism or a real free-market economy and he goes apes**t, despite his alleged support for both.

WTF!?! I am one of the most pacifistic, pro-market (as opposed to pro-business). I don't like people attacking politicians for being bipartisan and independent.

And yes, I know Lieberman probably doesn't oppose the public option on principle.

Yet you defend him anyway, and by doing so you implicitly defend everything else he supports. Does it shame you to know that the left-wing in this nation is more libertarian than those politicians you've fallen in love with?

That's a logical fallacy. Just because I defend him doesn't mean I support his position (though in this case I do).

You support his position by encouraging him to remain in the Senate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More libertarian than the Republicans? Most certainly.

[Vepres]

Isn't it funny? Vepres can defend military interventionism, can defend corporate socialism, and can champion the cause of those politicians which support both - but mention one thing about non-interventionism or a real free-market economy and he goes apes**t, despite his alleged support for both.

WTF!?! I am one of the most pacifistic, pro-market (as opposed to pro-business). I don't like people attacking politicians for being bipartisan and independent.

And yes, I know Lieberman probably doesn't oppose the public option on principle.

Yet you defend him anyway, and by doing so you implicitly defend everything else he supports. Does it shame you to know that the left-wing in this nation is more libertarian than those politicians you've fallen in love with?

That's a logical fallacy. Just because I defend him doesn't mean I support his position (though in this case I do).

You support his position by encouraging him to remain in the Senate.

Wait!?! So now I have to support his resignation? He's certainly better than generic New England Democrat #5.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More libertarian than the Republicans? Most certainly.
[/quote]

Seriously? If you only look at economic issues (which are the most important to me at the moment), Republicans have become very libertarian the past year or so. Not when they were in power, mind you, but now they are. The other thing is the Republicans won't get any of their social agenda through congress ever, so I don't worry about that.

On foreign policy, it's pretty much the President, so I don't often take Senator's foreign policy stances into account (I do sometimes though). It's like me caring about a school district board member's stance on entitlement reform, mostly irrelevant (not best analogy, but you get the point).

[Sbane]

Democrats should stop whining. You all know deep down that had a Republican supported the public option fully, you'd be praising him/her.

Except that he has in the past expressed support for a public option but has suddenly changed his mind now using all the nonsense republican talking points. He is just an attention whore and nothing else. Or he is aiming for a position in an health insurance firm after 2012. He is a d-bag who sways with the wind. Did a lot of democrats praise Specter when he joined their caucus? No, they ridiculed him. At least Lieberman should switch caucuses already and stop the charade.

Specter and Lieberman aren't comparable. Specter switched for blatantly electoral reasons, while Lieberman only changed his position on one issue, and certainly didn't change parties. Besides, you already had 59 Senators, if Democrats were in the minority they would've praised him.

Could you cite his support for a public option?

Umm Lieberman also switched for blatantly electoral reasons. And the point is that Lieberman is only doing it to get attention, not because of his ideology. You won't see me criticizing Conrad, Landrieu, Nelson or other moderate democrats who oppose the public option because of their political views. I don't agree with them but I understand where they are coming from. Lieberman just out of the blue is against a neutered public option that according to the CBO will be deficit neutral at worst. And it's not that he has anything specifically against the bill, but somehow has had a change of heart on the whole concept of a public choice for consumers.

This is what Lieberman said back in 2006.
I’ve been working on health insurance reform for more than a dozen years. … I have offered a comprehensive program. Small business health insurance reform, plus something I call MediKids to cover all the children in America on a sliding fee basis up until the age of 25.

MediChoice to allow anybody in our country to buy into a national insurance pool like the health insurance pool that we federal employees and Members of Congress have. Medical malpractice reform.

It will cover 95% of those who are not covered now, and it will reduce the pressure on rising costs for all the millions of others.

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002298/

[Vepres]

Democrats should stop whining. You all know deep down that had a Republican supported the public option fully, you'd be praising him/her.

Except that he has in the past expressed support for a public option but has suddenly changed his mind now using all the nonsense republican talking points. He is just an attention whore and nothing else. Or he is aiming for a position in an health insurance firm after 2012. He is a d-bag who sways with the wind. Did a lot of democrats praise Specter when he joined their caucus? No, they ridiculed him. At least Lieberman should switch caucuses already and stop the charade.

Specter and Lieberman aren't comparable. Specter switched for blatantly electoral reasons, while Lieberman only changed his position on one issue, and certainly didn't change parties. Besides, you already had 59 Senators, if Democrats were in the minority they would've praised him.

Could you cite his support for a public option?

Umm Lieberman also switched for blatantly electoral reasons. And the point is that Lieberman is only doing it to get attention, not because of his ideology. You won't see me criticizing Conrad, Landrieu, Nelson or other moderate democrats who oppose the public option because of their political views. I don't agree with them but I understand where they are coming from. Lieberman just out of the blue is against a neutered public option that according to the CBO will be deficit neutral at worst. And it's not that he has anything specifically against the bill, but somehow has had a change of heart on the whole concept of a public choice for consumers.

This is what Lieberman said back in 2006.
I’ve been working on health insurance reform for more than a dozen years. … I have offered a comprehensive program. Small business health insurance reform, plus something I call MediKids to cover all the children in America on a sliding fee basis up until the age of 25.

MediChoice to allow anybody in our country to buy into a national insurance pool like the health insurance pool that we federal employees and Members of Congress have. Medical malpractice reform.

It will cover 95% of those who are not covered now, and it will reduce the pressure on rising costs for all the millions of others.

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002298/

Fair enough. I can see your point of view, and with that quote I find a I now agree with you

I admit I was wrong

[HappyWarrior]

Isn't it funny? Vepres can defend military interventionism, can defend corporate socialism, and can champion the cause of those politicians which support both - but mention one thing about non-interventionism or a real free-market economy and he goes apes**t, despite his alleged support for both.

WTF!?! I am one of the most pacifistic, pro-market (as opposed to pro-business). I don't like people attacking politicians for being bipartisan and independent.

And yes, I know Lieberman probably doesn't oppose the public option on principle.

Yet you defend him anyway, and by doing so you implicitly defend everything else he supports. Does it shame you to know that the left-wing in this nation is more libertarian than those politicians you've fallen in love with?

That's a logical fallacy. Just because I defend him doesn't mean I support his position (though in this case I do).

You support his position by encouraging him to remain in the Senate.

Wait!?! So now I have to support his resignation? He's certainly better than generic New England Democrat #5.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More libertarian than the Republicans? Most certainly.

Seriously? If you only look at economic issues (which are the most important to me at the moment), Republicans have become very libertarian the past year or so. Not when they were in power, mind you, but now they are. The other thing is the Republicans won't get any of their social agenda through congress ever, so I don't worry about that.

On foreign policy, it's pretty much the President, so I don't often take Senator's foreign policy stances into account (I do sometimes though). It's like me caring about a school district board member's stance on entitlement reform, mostly irrelevant (not best analogy, but you get the point).
[/quote]

Exactly, they learn that letting people want to do in all cases is just not plausable.  People when they get power realize this.

[Vepres]

Isn't it funny? Vepres can defend military interventionism, can defend corporate socialism, and can champion the cause of those politicians which support both - but mention one thing about non-interventionism or a real free-market economy and he goes apes**t, despite his alleged support for both.

WTF!?! I am one of the most pacifistic, pro-market (as opposed to pro-business). I don't like people attacking politicians for being bipartisan and independent.

And yes, I know Lieberman probably doesn't oppose the public option on principle.

Yet you defend him anyway, and by doing so you implicitly defend everything else he supports. Does it shame you to know that the left-wing in this nation is more libertarian than those politicians you've fallen in love with?

That's a logical fallacy. Just because I defend him doesn't mean I support his position (though in this case I do).

You support his position by encouraging him to remain in the Senate.

Wait!?! So now I have to support his resignation? He's certainly better than generic New England Democrat #5.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More libertarian than the Republicans? Most certainly.

Seriously? If you only look at economic issues (which are the most important to me at the moment), Republicans have become very libertarian the past year or so. Not when they were in power, mind you, but now they are. The other thing is the Republicans won't get any of their social agenda through congress ever, so I don't worry about that.

On foreign policy, it's pretty much the President, so I don't often take Senator's foreign policy stances into account (I do sometimes though). It's like me caring about a school district board member's stance on entitlement reform, mostly irrelevant (not best analogy, but you get the point).

Exactly, they learn that letting people want to do in all cases is just not plausable.  People when they get power realize this.
[/quote]

Bad grammar is a real pet peeve of mine, let me translate that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I understand you correctly, I agree. Ultimately pure freedom leads to more oppression. Smart market regulations are good because they enhance competition and prevent monopolies for example.

That's why I never call myself a pure libertarian, but a moderate/pragmatic libertarian.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We'll see who all he backs in 2010

[Хahar 🤔]

He was also the reason why 3 out of 4 muslims voted for Bush in 2000.

Never post here again.

[Scam of God]

Wait!?! So now I have to support his resignation? He's certainly better than generic New England Democrat #5.

1. I think that he would be a far more formidable candidate than many of you think.
2. Did anybody seriously think he'd run?

Don't even pretend to be a libertarian; we all know that you aren't. You just want to be a conservative in the most humane way possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More libertarian than the Republicans? Most certainly.
[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As opposed to what? Continued support for military interventionism (and its inevitable corollary, military socialism) in Iraq? Continued support for institutionalized homophobia? Continued support for social authoritarianism? Yes, absolutely yes, the Democrats are the libertarian party in today's society.

And the reason you don't care about the Republican's social policy is that you aren't really concerned. As long as you get your tax income check you are eager to gobble Christian cock, principles be damned.

[Zarn]

Arguing that either the Republicans or Dems are libertarian is beyond ridiculous.

[Scam of God]

Arguing that either the Republicans or Dems are libertarian is beyond ridiculous.

It's a question of degrees. I don't believe that saying one Party is more friendly to libertarian interests than the other is ridiculous at all.

[Torie]

Joe and I seem more and more on the same page these days.  So while the rest of you may traduce him, I am going to send him wet kisses. 

that's just the sign both of you are suffering from senility, don't worry though, your brains are just rotting from the inside

but seriously, you might want to talk to your doctor

By the way, I think Hong Kong might be the most materialistic place on this planet. I have never seen anything like it.  The whole city appears to be one great big shopping mall, where everything - and I mean everything - appears to be for sale.  There also appear to be next to no buildings that are less than 10 stories high, and most appear to be 20 or more stories.

Meh do you really think HK is more materialistic than America? Their malls are just more glitzy is all. It's the same all over Asia, people like to show they have money. And yeah the whole place is up in the sky but that is because they have no land, and this was especially true when it was a British colony. A lot of Asia is built like it though, but not to the extent of HK. I hear Chinese cities like Shenzen and Shanghai are starting to surpass it. Where else are you going in Asia besides Thailand? Or is that it? What are your plans there?

Ya I do, and as you say, folks really like flaunting their wealth. The city has gone straight up and rapidly, in the past 20 years. Most of the buildings are quite new.  I am just going to Thailand and will have quite a busy time in Bangkok, and Phukett (sp), and then Chiang Mai. I am really looking forward to it. 

[Franzl]

Joe and I seem more and more on the same page these days.  So while the rest of you may traduce him, I am going to send him wet kisses. 

that's just the sign both of you are suffering from senility, don't worry though, your brains are just rotting from the inside

but seriously, you might want to talk to your doctor

By the way, I think Hong Kong might be the most materialistic place on this planet. I have never seen anything like it.  The whole city appears to be one great big shopping mall, where everything - and I mean everything - appears to be for sale.  There also appear to be next to no buildings that are less than 10 stories high, and most appear to be 20 or more stories.

Meh do you really think HK is more materialistic than America? Their malls are just more glitzy is all. It's the same all over Asia, people like to show they have money. And yeah the whole place is up in the sky but that is because they have no land, and this was especially true when it was a British colony. A lot of Asia is built like it though, but not to the extent of HK. I hear Chinese cities like Shenzen and Shanghai are starting to surpass it. Where else are you going in Asia besides Thailand? Or is that it? What are your plans there?

Ya I do, and as you say, folks really like flaunting their wealth. The city has gone straight up and rapidly, in the past 20 years. Most of the buildings are quite new.  I am just going to Thailand and will have quite a busy time in Bangkok, and Phukett (sp), and then Chiang Mai. I am really looking forward to it. 

Say hi to opebo for us

[Vepres]

It is a logical fallacy to assume that because I prefer Republicans that I am in lock step with their platform. I don't assume you support all of the Democratic platform Einzige.

To the second quote of me, I was saying he could've been a decent candidate in terms of his chances in the primary, I would never have supported him. I don't have to be an ideological hack like many on this forum you know.

There are many Democrats I like, Evan Bayh, Andrew Ramanoff, Janet Napolitano, Jared Polis, Mark Udall, and many others, so don't assume I'm some Republican disguised as an independent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As opposed to what? Continued support for military interventionism (and its inevitable corollary, military socialism) in Iraq? Continued support for institutionalized homophobia? Continued support for social authoritarianism? Yes, absolutely yes, the Democrats are the libertarian party in today's society.

And the reason you don't care about the Republican's social policy is that you aren't really concerned. As long as you get your tax income check you are eager to gobble Christian cock, principles be damned.

Firstly, I have yet to make enough money to care about income taxes. In fact, I have advocated for higher taxes across the board on individuals at times.

Secondly, there are Republican's who I don't like because of their social views. Huckabee, Ron Paul, Bob Schaffer, etc. I'm agnostic, sure I celebrate Christmas, but for traditional reasons, not religious. But seriously, Roe v. Wade won't be overturned, gays are getting more and more rights at the state level, etc.

Thirdly, I strongly oppose military interventionism, but now that we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is our responsibility to protect the people and ensure that their governments are stable. Besides, we need to get Al Qaeda.

Seriously, I have opposed the Iraq war since I got into politics, you've been using strawman on me left and right, a big logical fallacy.

I prefer divided government personally, so yeah, when Democrats control everything I am not happy with Democrats.   

*shuns Einzige*

[Sbane]

Joe and I seem more and more on the same page these days.  So while the rest of you may traduce him, I am going to send him wet kisses. 

that's just the sign both of you are suffering from senility, don't worry though, your brains are just rotting from the inside

but seriously, you might want to talk to your doctor

By the way, I think Hong Kong might be the most materialistic place on this planet. I have never seen anything like it.  The whole city appears to be one great big shopping mall, where everything - and I mean everything - appears to be for sale.  There also appear to be next to no buildings that are less than 10 stories high, and most appear to be 20 or more stories.

Meh do you really think HK is more materialistic than America? Their malls are just more glitzy is all. It's the same all over Asia, people like to show they have money. And yeah the whole place is up in the sky but that is because they have no land, and this was especially true when it was a British colony. A lot of Asia is built like it though, but not to the extent of HK. I hear Chinese cities like Shenzen and Shanghai are starting to surpass it. Where else are you going in Asia besides Thailand? Or is that it? What are your plans there?

Ya I do, and as you say, folks really like flaunting their wealth. The city has gone straight up and rapidly, in the past 20 years. Most of the buildings are quite new.  I am just going to Thailand and will have quite a busy time in Bangkok, and Phukett (sp), and then Chiang Mai. I am really looking forward to it. 

And when are you meeting up with Opebo? Have fun and buy lots of pirated DVD's.