Lieberman says he is "beholden to no one except the voters of Connecticut and my own conscience"

[Herman Munster]

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-lieberman1109.artnov09,0,2242303.story?coll=hc-big-headlines-breaking

On Tuesday night, he described his re-election as a victory of the "mainstream over the extreme," a statement that seemed to put him at odds with Democratic voters, who overwhelmingly backed the anti-war candidacy of Lamont.

"My mission now is really an independent mission," Lieberman said Wednesday, calling his win a mandate to "be beholden to no one except the voters of Connecticut and my own conscience."

At a noon-time press conference in Hartford, he declined to articulate his role in the Connecticut Democratic Party, nor could he give a philosophical reason for organizing with the Senate Democrats.

Other than keeping his seniority, he was asked, what is the reason to organize with the Democrats?

"Well, I've been a Democrat," he replied.

Any reasons beyond that?

"Seniority is an important factor," he said.

[Virginia Dare]

1. ..and a few dozen lobbyists...

he forgot that part....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. His "conscience" must be a bit crowded with 655,000 corpses buried in it.

Maybe his buddy Bush will give him another doggie treat to salve it.

[barb162]

6. Ddid he personally kill all those people?

I thought it was the militants and extremists over there killing each other off. ANd those numbers are highly inflated according to the Iraqi government ... by about 500,000

[Richard Steele]

8. Off by 1/2 million? Not a chance. The numbers are valid. nm

[barb162]

17. wrong on all counts; Iraq minister states 150,000 deaths

Iraqi minister estimates civilian deaths at 150,000
By Steven R. Hurst
Friday, November 10, 2006 -
The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraq's health minister Thursday estimated 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war, about three times previously accepted estimates.

Previous estimates of Iraq deaths held that 45,000 to 50,000 have been killed in the nearly 44-month conflict, according to partial figures from Iraqi institutions and media reports. No official count has been available.

Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said he based the figure on an estimate of 100 bodies a day brought to morgues and hospitals, though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 total. "It is an estimate," al-Shemari said. He blamed Sunni insurgents, Wahhabis — Sunni religious extremists — and criminal gangs for the deaths.


snip

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003385591_iraqtoll10.html

You'll notice the Iraq Health minister blames the deaths on insurgents, extremists, etc. He didn't mention Lieberman's name. Do you have some other factual info about how many bodies are going in the morgues there, or do you want to rely on Lancet ESTIMATES, which also didn't blame Lieberman as I recall.

[Richard Steele]

26. PFFFT. Yeah, THAT'S a reliable source.

And "morge/hospital reports" are a laughably unreliable ESTIMATE
of death in a society that buries its dead the same day.
A society with a large percentage of its hospitals BOMBED to rubble.

Grasping at straws much?

The Lancet study has been attacked by better than you,
and has held up to every attempt to disprove it.
No flaws have been found which discredit it's ESTIMATE.
400 to 900 thousand Iraquis have died because of this illegal invasion..

[barb162]

47. PFTTT yourself. The Lancet study is an estimate only

and you seem to be grasping at straws.

[Richard Steele]

80. You cling to the word "estimate" like a fundie saying evolution is a "theory".

The simple fact is that your beloved "body count" situation
is an ESTIMATE as well.

A horribly, blatantly, deceitfully FLAWED estimate...at best.

You simply count the number of corpses in hospitals and morgues,
then pretend that those are the only corpses in Iraq.
Stuff and nonsense!

A sane and rational person would take into account the FACT that
most Iraqis have -NO- tradition of taking their dead to any "morgue";
they have a many-centuries-old habit of burying their dead personally,
and preferably before sundown.

And as far as the numbers from HOSPITALS, a reasonable person takes into
account the FACT that the VERY FEW Iraqi hospitals which are not currently
piles of smoking rubble are operating with between 10 and 50 percent
staffing, and count themselves LUCKY to have 12 hours of electricity
3 days out of seven.
(Really -NOT- a situation conducive to accurate & detailed record-keeping, is it?)

So, anyone can easily understand that the numbers of corpses passing through
Iraqi hospitals and morgues, as reported, are obviously just a FRACTION of
ALL the corpses in Iraq.

The only way to know just WHAT that fraction is...is to have well-trained
statisticians conduct a face-to-face, door-to-door SURVEY of
a representative cross-section of the entire Iraqi populace.

Like the Lancet did.

Better, smarter, more EXPERT persons than yourself have already
picked the Lancet "estimate" apart, sentence by sentence...
and it has withstood all scrutiny.

This illegal invasion has resulted in the untimely deaths of
between 400 and 900 thousand Iraqi citizens,
and that is a stone cold FACT.

[barb162]

89. You cling to Lancet like a fundie saying evolution is a "theory".

There are more groups out there than your beloved Lancet. Sorry, I'm not buying your line today.

[Ignis]

111. Well, tell us what's wrong with the Lancet study.

Or are you just going "from the gut" on this one?

[StraightDope]

87. Well, Barb, let me clear this up.

You all are comparing apples to oranges. The Lancet study was designed to include ALL civilian deaths above and beyond what would have been expected before the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Thus, their estimate of 655,000 deaths simply states that that had the war not started, about 655000 LESS Iraqi people would be dead today.

On the other hand, putting the obviously credibility problems aside, the Iraqi Ministry of Health's numbers refer to VIOLENT deaths ONLY, not deaths caused by the lack of electricity, or safe drinking water, or disease, or starvation... you get the idea. Hence the discrepancy between the two figures. If you ask me, it makes more sense to use the Lancet figure, but then again, no one asked me.

Oh, and I think that it's somewhat petty to quibble over numbers like this. These weren't numbers, they were PEOPLE, and even ONE innocent death is too many. And well, if you think that the death of innocents is acceptable in some way, then I do believe that you're on the wrong website.

[barb162]

88. Good thing you're around to clear things up

that people aren't numbers. Gee I didn't know that. Perhaps you should email the Lancet and every other group that has the audacity to do estimates or actual counts of the dead.

:sarcasm:
Of course one death is too many! And likewise, if you think that the death of innocents is acceptable in some way, then I do believe that you're on the wrong website also.

[leesa]

98. It was a very sophisticated and well validated survey method.

It is used around the world in many war torn areas.

[barb162]

104. No one disputes that

but it doesn't necessarily mean it's a model for all areas of the world and all situations.

[Tom Joad]

102. Bush has rejected those figures too.

[barb162]

105. So who cares what Bush says?

Not me

[Richard Steele]

119. And what more "PROOF" could any obedient LieberFan ever possibly want?

[Horse with no Name]

9. Yeah those second-rate University studies

can't be trusted at all.:sarcasm:
But a point here...."the Iraqi government".
You mean, the ones we installed? That's reputable.

[barb162]

18. I thought the Iraqis voted. At least the media reported they voted

[Hutzpa]

44. Question....are you some kind of LIEberman

sympathizer? Just checking :shrug:

[Richard Steele]

45. employee?

NM

[barb162]

50. Mmmm, facts must bother you, I assume?

[Richard Steele]

83. No, in FACT, you don't "assume". You "ACCUSE". It's not the same thing .

I'd be happy to send you some literature explaining
the difference, if you ever become interested.

[barb162]

106. I'd say you're accusing here

[Richard Steele]

117. Yes, I agree completely: you certainly WOULD say something like that. nm

[barb162]

52. Why would you ask a question llike that?

DO you have a problem with the current DEMOCRATIC Senator from CT.
Just checking

And BTW, did you vote for Gore /Lieberman in 2000?

[Richard Steele]

84. AHEM, my FACTloving fellow DUer: Joe is -NOT- a "DEM Senator" from CT.

He is a self-centric INDEPENDENT senator...
One who says he will support the Democratic majority for as long
as he feels like it, because doing so is currently to his advantage.

(You really seem to enjoy the whole "fact" thing, so I know you won't
mind my pointing out your little error there, right?)

[barb162]

107. Ahem, my estimate- loving fellow DUer

Lieberman at this moment and until January 07 IS the Democratic Senator from CT. His multi-year term as the DEMOCRATIC Senator from that State runs out in a few weeks.

In Jan. 07, Lieberman (as the Independent)is needed by the Democratic Party to keep a majority. Better get used to it. Them's the facts and I wish you would learn how to deal with them.

[Richard Steele]

116. Nope. He ceased to be a "Democrat" when he joined an OPPOSING PARTY.

And that moment was when he CREATED his own opposing Party...
about 5 minutes after the courthouse opened for business
the morning after he LOST the Democratic Primary Election.

Thanks for playing, so sorry...wasn't she GREAT, folks?

Here's a LOVELY "parting gift" which should
be of some interest, and give you a real GOAL to reach for:

http://www.ukhairdressers.com/records.asp
The greatest reported achievement in hair splitting
has been that of Britains's Alfred West, who succeeded
in splitting a human hair 17 times into 18 parts on eight occasions.
All the divisions were made from the same point.

Perhaps you could learn from Mr. West's example, and choose
a SINGLE POINT from which to begin, HMMM?

[barb162]

122. Take a little lookie-see here on the official US Senate site.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Holy Smokes, Lieberman is listed as a DEMOCRAT.
(SHOCK, you're wrong!)
No splitting hairs there. But then again what do they know in the US Senate; we have you to tell Senators what parties they're in today.

[leftchick]

13. hmmm, whom to agree with?

The US installed Iraqi puppet government? OR A peer reviewed Lancet Study that no credible source has yet to refute? I choose number two.

:eyes:

[barb162]

19. I'd take actual morgue counts;a body is a body, not an estimate

ANd Lancet used estimates. Most people use actuals when they come in and toss the estimates. Estimates are just estimates and it doesn't make any diff what the methodology was and how good it was. The actuals are facts.

[Horse with no Name]

20. How do they arrive at their counts?

From the morgues I mean?
Do they estimate the carnage by the pound?
Do they just find a head and a certain amount of charred body and decide that is one casualty?
Please...do tell how the morgues function so well and keep such good records there when the hospitals cannot.

[barb162]

29. Why don't you read some articles on it

I make this assumption: They know how to count. And I really don't care about statistical models once an official is providing actual numbers. You know, just like accountants do estimates until they get the actual numbers and the actuals go in the annual reports, not the nice little statistical models for they paid so much.


But here's another one dated 11/7/06
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?
snip
IRAQIS:

Military Between 4,900 and 6,375#

Civilians Between 45,608 and 50,582*

# = Think-tank estimates for military under Saddam Hussein killed during the 2003 war. No reliable official figures have been issued since new security forces were set up in late 2003.

* = From www.iraqbodycount.net, run by academics and peace activists, based on reports from at least two media sources. The IBC says on its Web site the figure underestimates the true number of casualties.

storyId=L07335573

I will still go with what the Iraqi Health Minister said because, again, these are estimates versus actual body counts.

[everythingsxen]

38. I wouldn't use IBC as any sort of estimate..

Their figures are horribly low, because they only use casualty reports from western media sources and then there has to be two reports. I am not saying IBC is itself biased, I am saying the media is as is the military who want to depict the Iraq conflict as killing as few civilians as possible.

[alarimer]

23. It was a widely accepted methodology

used in many different studies, not just this one. A credible scientific journal like Lancet does not publish dubious studies.

[barb162]

31. I know that

take a look at my post 37. The article shows a group which uses newspaper articles and they come up with a very low count. And just because the Lancet study modelled very well for many situations doesn't mean it models well to all situations. But the real point is why use ANY estimate when you have actuals. Estimates can be wildly off for a variety of reasons.

[everythingsxen]

32. I agree

The Lancet figures are in all likelyhood closer to the truth.

However, if you are going to hold Joe's feet to the fire and make him personally responsible for all the deaths of the Iraq war, then I request all the fucking hypocrites in this thread please hold the following people accountable as well:

Wayne Allard (R-CO)
George Allen (R-VA)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Bob Bennett (R-UT)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
John Breaux (D-LA)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Jean Carnahan (D-MO)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Max Cleland (D-GA)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
John Edwards (D-NC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Scott Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Phil Gramm (R-TX)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jesse Helms (R-NC)
Fritz Hollings (D-SC)
Tim Hutchinson (R-AR)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Tim Johnson(D-SD)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Mitch Landrieu (D-LA)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Richard Lugar (R-IN)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Zell Miller (D-GA)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Don Nickles (R-OK)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Robert Smith (R-NH)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
Fred Thompson (R-TN)
Strom Thurmond (R-SC)
Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)
George Voinovich (R-OH)
John Warner (R-VA)

They all voted for it too. You have won me over. Lieberman is scum for siding with people like Hillary Clinton!

Where are the anti-Hillary threads??!!

[barb162]

53. I am not saying it's dubious. It's an estimate which is never

as good as actual numbers

[everythingsxen]

65. It is an estimate..

but it's one of the best estimates. I have looked at several articles on the topic and the Lancet's study is pretty well regarded as being one of the best.

[leftchick]

85. you will never get actual numbers in a war torn country

do you think every body ends up in the morgue? The model they used was acceptable for other conflicts including Darfur. Why not for Iraq?

[Horse with no Name]

99. Because the actual number of dead people

reflects poorly on the ones who were hawks for this war, including Joe Lieberman. This poster obviously wants to diffuse anything that might make him look like a warmonger.

[leftchick]

100. yes

indeed.

[barb162]

108. I suggest you take another look at the very long list

of Congress persons who approved funding for this war. You'll find a lot of "warmongerers" there of both parties who were probably afraid the public would think they were dovish or soft on the war on terror. Lieberman shouldn't be singled out... he was one of many.

[Tom Joad]

101. Barb, do remember that most people on this board oppose the war.

The extremists (Bush/Cheney) bombed Fallujah and killed hundreds (in just a little part of the war Lieberman supported. Destroyed tens of thousands of homes.

The war has made millions refugees.

The war started the chaos that feeds the violence.

Bush/Cheney could not have done this without support from people like Lieberman and Santorum and all the rest of the clowns in the Senate.

You have the right to support this war that most of us here find illegal and immoral. Don't expect many people to back you up here.

[barb162]

103. Tom, why do you suppose I have a memory problem?

Just to clarify, I oppose that damn war and did from the minute Bush started blabbering about Hussein and WMD. That stuff you have in the body of your message is not only unnecessary, it's also preachy and in a few spots incorrect. Tom, we know many, many people have been killed unnecessarily and that Bush /Cheney are extremists... the whole fucking world knows. Why you make the assumption I support the war and some other equally weird statements here, well I simply don't know where you get this nonsense. Maybe you think you can dig up a post I did where I stated I support the Iraq war?? I'd love to see it, Tom.

[Tom Joad]

120. You may not have supported the war, but Joe was behind it from the very

beginning, and that is why he is so unpopular here. There were other Dem Senators who supported the war, some of whom have at least had the basic knowledge to apologize. (Like Kerry, though I do not think he has any excuse for supporting it in the first place).

Joe and his fans need to know this, Support a criminal war, and he gets treated like a criminal. Just this morning i saw Joe on tv saying he would support MORE US troops in Iraq... god, what a sick and stupid man. Bush and cheney and Joe... what a team!

To your credit Barb, you criticize Bush, you even seem to undermine his credibility. This goes not only against the Republican Party line, but the Joe Party line:

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Joe Lieberman
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/

Joe does not belong in the party that gave us heroes like Paul Wellstone and Barbara Lee and so many others.

[HawkerHurricane]

3. "And if you believe that, I'll sell you this watch!"

"Genuine Temix"

[DODI]

4. He lost his conscience years ago!

[barb162]

56. Are you his shrink?

If he has a shrink, that is....

[Generic Other]

5. Why are Democrats putting up with this?

What crap.

[barb162]

7. Putting up with what?

They want a majority. He's a lifelong moderate Democrat who is liberal on social issues. WHat's the problem

[everythingsxen]

11. Thank you barb

I do not understand what all the whining on this board is about with Lieberman. OMG he doesn't act like a total clone of every other Democrat. He *gasp* thinks for himself. What a shocker. I personally like Lieberman and I am glad he won.

How many other Democrats supported the War? A pretty long list I believe....

I don't hear any whining about Maria Cantwell. She has had the virtually the same stance as Lieberman.

Oh but that's right, you guys don't actually want politicians who do what their constituants want or what they think the right thing is. You just want someone who will regurgitate whatever talking points the DNC has assigned for the day. Wasn't that exactly what you criticized all those "dumb republicans who can't think for themselves" of doing?

DNC, RNC, DU, FR... sometimes I cannot even tell the difference anymore.

[barb162]

16. Yeah, you'd think he's the devil incarnate or something. I bet

most of the people here voted for Gore/ Lieberman in 2000.
BTW, good post!

[alarimer]

24. because he sucks up to the monsters in the Bush Administration

He is a Bush toady and carrying water for these warmongers. That's why he's such a fucking asshole.

[everythingsxen]

27. Please enlighten me..

Show me his evils.

Tell me all he has done.

[Pithy Cherub]

46. Holy Joe disenfranchised votes by

not accepting the will of the voters. By doing that any claims to having credible ethics or professionalism or even decency were left behind in Joe's race to burnish himself in bronze. Joementum trying to say he's a good Democrat after spitting on Democrats who voted. He is a slap in the face to each and every person who died giving others the right to vote and have it count. If you want to defend that carry on, but not standing up for principle and on principle is Joe's historic claim to fame and everlasting shameful legacy of disgrace.

There are many dead people who Joe is responsible for since he stupidly and continuously enabled Bush's war agenda.

[Wiley50]

49. Well said. Don't run as a Dem in the Primary

if you don't plan to accept the concensous of Dem voters.

When you perform both of those actions

You are but a traitor

[barb162]

55. People had the right to vote for him and Lamont and they did.

A majority voted for Lieberman. How is that disenfranchisement???? Nobody in CT is complaining about disenfranchisement that I know about. Got a link about diusenfranchisement? The will of the voters resulted in most people voting for Lieberman over Lamont by a pretty good majority.

[Pithy Cherub]

57. A primary happened and the results were in.

Joementum decided he would soak himself in the devil's sulfur hot tub, take thirty pieces of corrosive silver and disdain the votes of REAL Democrats. It's lawfully called disenfranchisement and totally destroys any credibility he had on Civil Rights or standing on principle. It's indefensible. Lieberman is a wholly owned subsidiary of the republican party masquerading as an independent who is desperate to be thought of as a Democrat to get a few crumbs before he becomes even more of a laughingstock and irrelevant.

On edit: Holy Joe only made sure the votes of republicans counted.

[barb162]

109. Andf then Lieberman decided to take the bull by the horns and run

as an Independent. Lamont turned out to be a weak candidate as evidenced by the election; i/3 od the Democrats on Tuesday voted for Lieberman instead of Lamont. Deal with it. As to the edit, I think you're forgetting about a few Independents who also chose Lieberman over Lamont. At this point, since Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats, we should all consider ourselves lucky his choice to do so will give the Demcorats a majority.

[Wiley50]

59. Barb, It was called a Democratic Primary

In it, only Dems voted and they voted for Lamont.
It's a recorded fact.

In the general election,if Joe had not betrayed the party
by running as an independent
Lamont would have won over the Republican.

That is so simple
even you could understand it
if you only tried

[barb162]

110. I hate to tell you that primary is totally meaningless sinceTuesday

Totally. And I'll throw your own line back at you here: That is so simple even you could understand it if you only tried.
Too bad you can't get off it.

[hfojvt]

64. it's not

but he was elected by Republicans and right-leaning independents.
They don't seem to think he is a Democrat any more than the Democrats and left-leaning independents do.

[barb162]

112. One third of Democrats voted for Lieberman on Tuesday

Lamont didn't do very well even with Democrats. You and I don't know if the Independents were right leaning or not because thye change their votes around with different elections. Maybe they thought Lamont was just inexperienced too (as he is) and a one trick pony. Maybe they thought Lieberman's experience was valuable.
BTW, Lieberman is a Democrat.

[hfojvt]

121. where I come from

two out of three ain't bad.

The 'experience' BS is to me just a way to maintain the incumbentocracy. Why bother with elections. Just let incumbents serve as long as they want and then appoint somebody else who has experience?

If Lieberman really is a Democrat then he should talk like one instead of being a propaganda tool for Republicans trying to swiftboat the party of which he still claims to be a member. Lieberman's rhetoric is valuable - to the Bush administration.

[everythingsxen]

62. Ok, let's go over this...

Holy Joe disenfranchised votes by not accepting the will of the voters.

So how did he win the election then? I doubt he rigged it. I also haven't heard of him going out and doing any voter suppression. You may want to read this.

By doing that any claims to having credible ethics or professionalism or even decency were left behind in Joe's race to burnish himself in bronze.

Well, if you read what I said above, then you have to know this is a flawed premise, since he didn't disenfranchise anyone. His party abandoned him, apparently because he committed the high crime of voting for the same thing a bunch of other democrats did. So, they ran someone against him and Joe used a previously existing law, which was on the books for plenty of years, to run in the main event as an independent.

Joementum trying to say he's a good Democrat after spitting on Democrats who voted.

Good Democrats like you who called him a traitor in the run up to the primary because he voted for something other Democrats voted for? By standing up for civil rights that the Democrats don't stand up for? (I think Joe's record of defending Gay rights is a fair bit better than most other Democrats)

Whose vote was not counted? How did he steal votes or otherwise hurt someone? What because more people in Connecticut voted for him than the Democrat or the Republican? Somehow that is stealing? If you ask me, the two-party system is more of a slap in the face to the concept of voting and democracy than Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman represents all that a democracy should, because even without the backing of a massive party, he still won because he represents his constituents.

If you want to defend that carry on, but not standing up for principle and on principle is Joe's historic claim to fame and everlasting shameful legacy of disgrace.

Yes, I want to defend a man who is liked by the people he represents and who does what they want. I will defend a man from malicious slandering by people hiding in the shadows who seem to think he is the anti-christ simply for voting for a war that a hell of a lot of other people voted for.

There are many dead people who Joe is responsible for since he stupidly and continuously enabled Bush's war agenda.

Yes, well. Please give me a list of every bill that Lieberman voted for that enabled the BushCo War, and be sure to begin attacking all the other Democrats that voted for it.

[Pithy Cherub]

86. Let me help you help you to understanding...

Holy Joe disregarded the outcome of a lawful election. He disenfranchised voters by running as a SORE LOSER!

Enabling Bush is Joe's specialty: IWR Vote. Voting for torture.

Keep defending a known and proven dienfranchising traitor - it's your right in this democracy.

[everythingsxen]

95. I see you are also living in a world of delusion

Holy Joe disregarded the outcome of a lawful election. He disenfranchised voters by running as a SORE LOSER!

He lawfully ran under a law that has been on the books for decades. I'm sorry your belief of what disenfranchisment means is only voting Democrat, but in the real world we call only having one party and only being allowed to vote for one party fascism. I'm sorry you believe fascism is better than Democracy.

Enabling Bush is Joe's specialty: IWR Vote. Voting for torture.

{sarcasm}And not a single other democrat voted for those... :eyes:

Keep defending a known and proven dienfranchising traitor - it's your right in this democracy.

And you keep attacking a lifelong Democrat, whose voting record is almost identical to many other Democrats, but yet you hate him specifically for some reason. Maybe you think he has too much money? Or does he maybe have too many connections to the media?

One problem with free speech is that people are free to use hate speech. I truly despise anti-semites and other racists. I think most racists like that on the internet are gutless cowards. Fortunately bigotry can be countered by free speech of our own.

But you have the right to argue against Joe though!

[barb162]

113. He didn't disregard it. He knew he had the votes of others

and decided to run as an Independent because he knew he could win. It's that simple. The primary is history. The only thing that counts is what happened this Tuesday. Lamont lost, Liberman won big. Your last two sentences are so off-base. Maybe you'd like to tell Harry Reid he is an idiot and a traitor supporter for allowing Lieberman to caucus with the Democrats and that the Democrats shouldn't be the majority party. I'm sure your comments will make a big hit with all the Democrats in the Senate. Maybe you should tell the minimum wage earners of this country they don't deserve to get a higher minimum wage because the Democrats really don't have a majority in the Senate because, you know, there's a traitor in the midst who is really a Republican. I'm sure they'd appreciate your views also.

Did you vote for Gore /Lieberman?

[hfojvt]

61. been there, done that

don't have the t-shirt
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/21
it's not a complete list.

[barb162]

54. So then you must think Harry Reid is a total idiot for

giving Homeland Security to Lieberman and letting him caucus with the Democrats?

[Wiley50]

63. No Harry was Blackmailed

He needs a majority

[Wiley50]

66. The Repuke candidate was so weak

He could not have won over either Joe or Lamont

Again. Recorded Fact

[everythingsxen]

68. And?

What is your point?

The Republicans figured they didn't have to bother, since the Democratic party is so full of people like you who scream "traitor" about Lieberman, the Repubs figured that Joe would have an axe to grind.

However he is a far better man than most people here and is willing to make peace and try to get things fixed.

[Wiley50]

69. Joe won in the General over Lamont

by accepting money from Republican doners

and

by garnering votes from Republicans

who voted for him via organized ( by Republican Strategists) plan

in order to support a war that only benefitted
a certain country in the Mid Easts defence

Even none of said country's citizens were dying in it
but only almost 3000 US citizens so far

Recorded Facts all of them

PS- I makes no difference who were conned into voting for the war originally

only who was still in favor of it at the time of the election

Sometimes Folks get suckered into stuff
like Joe's supporters do

[everythingsxen]

67. Blackmail is a pretty strong word

Got some evidence of that?

[barb162]

70. Hahaha. I have seen the word "extortion" and now

"blackmail" in regard to Harry Reid and Lieberman. I wonder if I am going to see some capital crime next. I think the proper words to be used here are "political compromise" and it is something done all the time in Congress for a few hundred years. Mutual back- scratching benefits them both.

[Wiley50]

72. Politics is such a dirty biusness

sometimes I wonder why I even bother with it

But, Be that as it may,

Without a dem vote from Conn

Be it Joe or Lamont doesn't matter

Cheney could still cast deciding vote

I DO call it BLACKMAIL

MY perogative

on edit:

Although I do suspect that Joe can't be trusted to even vote with the dems
He's already proven he can be a traitor to the Dem Party
if he sees fit, or more exactly
if it profits him to do so

[barb162]

79. Politicians vote against their own party all the time.

Look at Lincoln Chafee or Olympia Snowe for starters as Republican examples. Democrats have always been notorious for not voting in bloc fashion as the Republicans so often do w(ith some notable exceptions, such as Chafee). I can only conclude that every time a politician doesn't march lockstep with their own party, you look at them as blackmailers.

[Wiley50]

81. Chafee and Snowe didn't defy the consensus of the primary

Now did they?

You are either on the team all of the way
or you can'tt be trusted

It's OK to differ in votes on an issue

But, a very different thing, entirely,

to sell out the party in a primary

[barb162]

115. Your comments show amazing inflexibilty

"You are either on the team all of the way or you can'tt be trusted"

Well,that describes the voting patterns of most of the Democrats for the last few decades. I bet about two Senators meet your qualifications for being a team player.

[barb162]

114. Is Jim Jeffords a blackmailer too? I don' t see you posting on him

WHy is that? Why don't you report Lieberman to the police...blackmail is a crime.

[Generic Other]

48. Maria Cantwell was elected by Democrats

Republicans elected Lieberman in Connecticut.

Instead of voting his "conscience," he better start voting with the people he plans to caucus with or he should be stripped of all positions of power. He was apparently not the choice of the Democrats of Connecticut or most DUers.

[hfojvt]

58. the problem? See my signature, it it's back.

[hfojvt]

60. here's another problem or thirty

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/21

[bridgit]

10. and the israeli lobby...

;)

[everythingsxen]

12. I wish you anti-Isreali, anti-Lieberman people would just say...

what you really mean. You sure imply it often enough....

[barb162]

21. Yeah, that would be a nice touch

I voted for Gore /Lieberman in 2000. I guess I am supposed to be embarrassed by that, but I'm not, I am proud of it.

[bridgit]

28. where the hell do you get that...

i just got through participating in data collection for a new jewish identity museum in SF, that's a goofy thing to say

[Richard Steele]

34. But it's so much easier than defending their position with FACTS.

Why bother to have REASONS when you can just yell "Anti-Semite"
at anyone who disagrees with you?

[everythingsxen]

36. What facts?

[bridgit]

41. i suppose, ds, have a lovely evening this...

:toast:

[Richard Steele]

42. And the same to you.

:toast:

[everythingsxen]

35. Good for you. Mazal Tov even.

However, given how many AIPAC/Israel threads on DU inevitably lead to "They run the Media!!!" or "They control the money!!" or "They murder babies!!!" you have admit your post was a tad bit provocative.

[bridgit]

39. shalom...

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Well gee I guess that makes me an anti-semitic Jew

btw, I'm not anti-Israel I just don't blindly support every single thing that they do. And I think that Lieberman is self-serving asshole.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

15. So, in other words, just the voters of Connecticut...

[Richard Steele]

30. And, in light of his recent actions, NOT the Democratic ones...

[everythingsxen]

33. What recent actions?

[Richard Steele]

37. You know perfectly well that I refer to the Democratic Primary.

This game has become tiresome. I'll bid you "good day" now.

Good day.

[everythingsxen]

40. What game?

And what did he do that was so evil in the Primary?

His party deserted him and his constituents wanted him in office. It looks like democracy to me, sorry if you don't care for that sort of thing.

[Richard Steele]

43. I said "good day". eom

[everythingsxen]

51. And yet you still reply

[barb162]

75. I bet it looks like a democracy especially to the CT voters

They had more choices because Lieberman stood up and said he knew he could win. What he did took guts. And then he did win. CT voters picked the candidate they wanted. One would think most people would welcome that outcome, that is, voters exercising their right to choose a candidate. What is really fascinating about this, after being abandoned, is that he is choosing to remain with Democrats, his home. And the Democratic Party will benefit immemsely by being the majority party. It works well for Reid and Lieberman and the Democratic Party.

[barb162]

74. Actually , the data is that one third of the Democrats voted for him

too, plus a whole lot of Independents and some Republicans. Just think, one third of the Democrats voted for him and not Lamont...maybe because they thought hLieberman could do a better job with all his experience, his pull, etc. Lamont's campaign just peetered out for a variety of reasons; the people of CT made their choice.

[Richard Steele]

82. So you ADMIT that he was the favorite of the REPUBS.

Just supposing that Democrats and Repedophiles each
represent half of the voters, that "one third of the Democrats"
amounts to less than 17% of the voters.

So, how much of Joes support was REPUBS then?
MOST OF IT, that's how much.

The repubs sure loved Joe alot more than the HONEST Repub
candidate.
You remember him? The guy with the (R) after his name?
No, I didn't think you did.

The big DC Repubs told THAT guy to get lost, and they
pumped money and supporters and money and advice and
MONEY into Joe's campaign...
($380,000 listed as 'petty cash' just SCREAMS "honest politician", dunnit? Bwahaha!)

And the REPUB voters turned out to vote for JOE in overwhelming numbers.

And then, barely a day later,(brace yerself, you ain't gonna BELIEVE this shit!)
some folks think I'm stupid enough to actually BELIEVE that Joe is a DEMOCRAT.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Fuck that noise. Fuck it in the heart.

[barb162]

73. Well, that's who he represents, right?

Don't you consider that statement of his a rather standard statement by a winner of a congressional contest? DO you question in the same way all the other Senators who won this past week?

[Cha]

22. What conscience?

lieman doesn't have no stinkin' conscience.

[barb162]

77. Well I bet Al Gore would strongly disagree with you

Remember him? He picked Lieberman for Vice President because Lieberman was known for his independence and known for his integrity, among other things, such as agreeing on major issues. At least that's what I remember Gore saying many times.

[Cha]

25. Here's one analyst's take

on the lieman win..

" GOP gift-wrapped Joe's big win"

"How did Joe Lieberman do it? Here he was all alone, a loser in the primary against anti-war, ultra-wealthy Ned Lamont, deserted by Christopher Dodd, his Democratic colleague in the Senate, opposed by Bill and Hillary Clinton - the whole party against him.
Against all this, and for the Iraq war (in Connecticut, where nothing is more unpopular), he wins in a walk. How the hell, Joe?

Well, says the consensus of media and political pros, it's simple: Joe Lieberman is a man of principle, he gives his state 18 years of seniority in the Senate, and his opponent is really nothing more than a Johnny-one-note, against Bush on Iraq and that's it.

The only thing missing from this analysis is the real reason Joe Lieberman won: The Republican Party dumped its candidate, and from the White House to the precinct, backed little Joe to the hilt, with money and propaganda."

<more>
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/469663p-395125c.html

[Wiley50]

76. Good Show! I see Joe's Gang Here have mo answer to this

line of reason.

They are all above going after me grasping at straws

[barb162]

78. Bwa ha. The real reason Lieberman won: The voters

Lieberman victory included anti-war voters, poll shows
By STEPHANIE REITZ
Associated Press Writer

November 8, 2006, 3:21 AM EST


HARTFORD, Conn. -- U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's support of the Iraq war did not deter his most ardent supporters, including some who voted for the 18-year incumbent Tuesday despite their strong opposition to the war and the Bush administration.

While many voters who oppose the U.S. involvement in Iraq supported anti-war Democratic candidate Ned Lamont, results of an Associated Press exit poll suggest Lieberman was able to capture enough of that vote to help secure re-election.


Lieberman, who launched an independent bid in August after losing the Democratic primary to Lamont, also was helped by strong support from Republican and independent voters.

More than half of those surveyed also said they did not believe Lamont has the right experience to serve as a U.S. senator.
snip
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct-eln--exitpoll1108nov08,0,4671614.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut

[TheBaldyMan]

90. and his corporate repub paymasters - oops sorry - MUST NOT DIS JOE

[LeftishBrit]

91. 'and Bush, Cheney, and a bunch of Republicans who dumped their own candidate to support me. But now

the wind is blowing leftwards, I'm happy to bite the hands that fed me".

(I think that's what he actually meant to say.)

By the way - I detest Bush and Cheney, their Republican party, imperialism, the Iraq war, and those who support all these things. Perhaps I especially despise those who get themselves elected in left-of-centre parties, and then proceed to support all these things. So Lieberman isn't my favourite person - I didn't even like him in 2000, tho' anyone had to be better than Cheney. But can we oppose all these things and their supporters, without the ethnic innuendoes that I've been seeing from time to time. There are toooo many people who buy into imperialism and war, and even think it's their mission, and some of them do belong to and betray left-of-centre parties in the process. We have too many of them here in the UK, and Blair, John Reid, Blunkett et al are certainly not Jewish. I am getting a bit sick of all this 'allegiance to Israel' stuff. Speaking as a Jew who opposes all right-wing governments including the current Israeli one, could we stick to opposing right-wingers and imperialists, without ethnic implications?

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

94. He's a bad Dem, just as Blair is a bad Labourite

Nothing to do with their ethnicity, or allegiance to another country (well, I suppose Blair thinks he owes his allegiance to the LEADER of another country. But I don't equate Bush with the USA.)

[mmonk]

93. Wrong. Yes he is beholden to the voters of Connecticut,

but as a senator, he is also beholding to the people of the United States and the Constitution. The Senate isn't a state legislature.

[leesa]

96. Too Funny!!!

[Critters2]

97. When did he get a conscience?! nt

[upi402]

118. he wants a committee. better stop smearing him.

what do you guess he'd do if he doesn't get his way?
does he have loyalty to the dem party?