http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/...Z0F6irtzus0NUE
Printable View
Why doesn't Lieberman switch parties already?
He's already an (I), more like an IINO, though. What a tool. I can't believe people voted for that fucking toolbox after he lost the primary.
He won the election as an independent but didn't he rejoin the democratic party afterwards?Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
Lieberman won the GOP vote in CT. And if a tool like Hannity endorses you, you must really be a GOP tool.
My understanding is that he caucuses with the Dems but technically is an Independent. The saddest thing is that the Dems let him keep his committee assignments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch
And now, to endorse McCain? WEAK.
The dems let him keep his committee assignments because they needed his votes to maintain a majority. You can be guaranteed that is we pick up another senate seat this cycle that he will be stripped of all his assignments and lose his seniority, office space and everything else.
Dude sucks.
unfortunately for you guys, any crediblity the democrats still cling to regarding defense leaves with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
I can't stand the mccain of the past year. but he's going to be putting the pedal to the medal as the surge continues to work. he's the only candidate that has stood by his guns regarding Iraq. not only that, but he's been calling for more boots on the ground longer and louder than anyone. if the surge continues, it will work to his favor more than any other candidate.
Has anybody else noticed that aside from Gyptian and now myself, everybody else who has posted on this thread so far is extremely gay?
A gay by any other name...
you know what's REALLY gay? People who make up aliases because they are to gay to call other people gay to their faces.
I can't stand Mid-Westerners talking about terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
that's right fag, you tell em!
You should come on my show, I call people names all the time and they're sometimes thousands of miles away. Who has two thumbs and is tough as nails? That's right.... this guy!
Yep their lack of credibility on defense got the Dems voted to the majority in both the House and Senate. And their lack of credibility on defense has just about every Democratic Pesidential Candidate wiping the floor with every Republican Presidential Candidate in the Polls. Maybe they should support the a surge with no end in sight just so they can get some credibility with a small minority of Americans. Good call.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
Because we all know the best Defense is to ship all our soldiers 1000's of miles away for variable periods of time in a place where they can't have a beer or look at porn. Yeah, recruitment is going so well I might just sign up myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grange
their majority has led to approval ratings that bring into question whether or not these congessman's mothers even like them. well done.
from what I've seen in head to head polls hillary leads rudy with numbers in the 45 range to his 35 range. hardly wiping the floor as far as a poll is concerned. lastly who gives a shit about polls right now? people didn't even know who Bill Clinton was at this time.
the best part is that after everything hillary and obama have said against the war as "thesurgewithnoendinsight" continues to work they will be unable to use the success to their advantage. McCain will. So will Rudy. So will Thompson.
Hahaha, gyptian mentioned four candidates, none of whom will be in the general, because it will be
Obama vs. Mitt
No way Mitt gets the republican nomination. NO WAY. The rural south Ain't voting from no mormon....Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
Why is it always the rural south? As I see it, he is getting bent over about his religion in Iowa. Is Iowa the rural south?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie
There are plenty of Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, and Scientoligists down here in the south. I am not so sure it is the south that Mitt is worried about.
I use the south as my frame of reference because I grew up there. All of my family still lives there. Most of them in the "rural" south. I know the culture and I know the mindset.Quote:
Originally Posted by warthog
So I know from spending most of my life there that there are WAY more (southern) baptists and all of the others put together. I remember watching anti-Mormon propaganda films (the godmakers) in church as a kid. Right or wrong those things make an impact and I'm sure I'm not the only one that remembers such things.
In the past 15-20 years the republican have paved the road to presidential nomination and the white thought the evangelicals and right wing in the south. The path to the republican white house is, give up the NE and the West coast, bring in the evangelical south south along with the rocky mountain state, Ohio and Fla. To win with Mitt, they have to abandon their base. They aren't going to do that. No way Mitt gets nominated. That's why Huckabee has been surging.
Of course I think that because of shrub and how well he's done the past 7 years, the dems could run lucifer himself next year and they would still win the white house.
Only if you define "work" as "Nearly everyone who lives in an area controlled by another religion's militia has been killed in a spasm of ethnic cleansing, substantially enabled by the USA's financing of Shi'a militias aligned with Iran and now Sunni militias aligned with Al-Qaeda (!!!), and therefore less people are dying because the country has effectively been partitioned into three pieces, one of which Turkey wants to invade as soon as we're gone."Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
Lieberman has been nothing if not consistent. He has worked closely with mccain on a number of issues for a number of years. the endorsement makes sense to me. I think he also has sway with right-leaning I's in NH. If mccain loses, I wonder if Lieberman will endorse the dem. Lieberman is not a conservative in the republican mold, he's just a war hawk on the middle east and religious (although not the repub's preferred).
Yes, and we were "winning" in vietnam too....Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
No way.Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
78
Not if the Democrat is advocating withdrawal from Iraq.
as witty as you think your reply was, we were winning in Vietnam. The military, and the North Vietnamese both agree on that as well as historians. It wasn't until popular sentiment at home eroded support that the tide began to turn. Its hard to effectively run a war when it's not given support at home. Politicians pull punches, the military is handcuffed, and the effort becomes half-assed, not unlike your comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie
Dude, please don't lecture me on Vietnam. I went to college at a military school and had 4 years of college level ROTC.Quote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
If you move beyond knee jerk reaction, the you'd see that the whole point of my post was the second half of your post. It doesn't matter what the military does in country, if the war is unpopular at home, then it's bad for the party that started the war. Those that cannot remember the past...
Having just spent a semester studying the Vietnam war, which historians exactly are you referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
Herring - no.
Lawrence - no.
Appy - no.
McNamara himself - no.
Sure, there are some revisionists out there like Moyar and Lind who will disagree, but they are in the vast minority. I'm curious as to who you're alluding to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
What that means is further house cleaning is in order. If the Republicans aren't careful more will be gone. Oh and the Democrats do need to get a back bone or they could be in trouble as well. They had their chance last Summer with the funding but caved.
10% is big and look at what Edwards does to Rudy. Larger than 10%.
By winning you mean what? Keeping the violence down? Bravo. So how long do we have to stay and at what numbers before we can leave and still keep the violence down? So when is the end in sight and what does it look like? All Rudy, Thompson, and even McCair to a point are advocating is stay the coarse and look how well that worked for Republicans in the last election.
So I'm an alias. Big deal, homo. So what you're saying is people here who use thier real made up screen names to call people gay "to their faces" (via the internet) are ok? That's pretty gay. But then again, so are you.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
I can't stand transplanted Montanans talking about terrorism. Fag.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn
That's right, turdpuncher. Now the House and the Senate have even lower approval ratings than the White House. They're doing just super! Everyone just loves the Democrats. Especially queers such as yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grange
Glad to hear you went to military school and did ROTC in college, you'd have alot in common with my cousins from the Citadel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie
I'm sure you are well versed in military strategy etc, but forgive me if I didn't glean your exact sentiments from your 8 word sentence fragment wittily quipping that we were "winning" the vietnam war. Glad to hear we agree on this point.
Where have I heard Yaley dick waving like this before???Quote:
Originally Posted by seldon
[quote seldon]Will: Of course that's your contention. You're a first-year grad student; you just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'till next month when you get to James Lemon. Then you're going to be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year; you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
Clark: Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social -
Will: "Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth"? You got that from Vickers' "Work in Essex County," page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you, is that your thing, you come into a bar, read some obscure passage and then pretend - you pawn it off as your own, as your own idea just to impress some girls, embarrass my friend?
[/seldon]
As you can see from my previous statement I never mentioned anything about majority of popular historians who sell textbooks subscribing to this theory. But to answer your question; Moyar, and some writings by Sorley.
The point, is that the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq is nothing more than a protest cliche.
The scene from Goodwill Hunting is about Harvard, just for the record.Quote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
To be honest, I was genuinely curious as to who you were alluding to by saying "historians" generally, since such a huge majority of the people I've read both through this class and on my own on the subject - everyone but the Reagan-era "noble cause" types - has taken the view that whatever restrictions public support may have placed on our military, the political deficiencies were both unsolvable by foreign involvement and sufficiently serious that no amount of military action could substitute for their independent resolution (problems like Thieu's government having no real legitimacy or public support outside of the cities).
As I'm taking the final on Friday, and the essay question worth half the final is: Was the Vietnam War a crime, tragedy, or noble cause? I'd actually like to hear the other side.
edit: knowing not enough to comment on Iraq, I leave aside completely the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seldon
I suggest looking at events in a more wholistic view: including historical global and national macroeconomic trends, access to industrial commodities and energy resources and internal social dynamics. Add this to D.D. Eisenhowers parting words and you will find the reason for EVERY modern war we have been involved in.
It was a crime and a tragedy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seldon
Answer: All of the above, depending on who you ask.
the river knows....Quote:
Originally Posted by DharmaBum
Yeah, Like a ring....Quote:
Originally Posted by BmillsSkier
How was it? My brother in-law is heading in that direction. He has been to the school a couple times, yet has seemed more interested in what goes on at the school down the road- if you know what I mean. His uncle was secretary to the head of ground ops in the first phase of Iraq. His aunt is one of the few women colonols in the Army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie
Sending PM....Quote:
Originally Posted by warthog