|
Posts:
26
Registered:
10/29/01
|
|
(1 of 65)
It's time for Senator Sen. Joseph Lieberman to abandon the Democrat Party!
Sep 25, 2002 9:48 AM
|
Some sixty years ago the Republican Party disgraced itself with its "America First" mentality. The horrors World War II may have been avoided had the Republicans soundly rejected the appeasement wing of its party. Today, it is the Democrat Party that threatens our nations security. Senator Lieberman needs to do something dramatic before it's too late. Switching over to the Republicans may be the only choice for him to make. We don't have the luxury of waiting for a long term "working within" solution to the present moral corruption of the Democrat Party.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
10/21/02
|
|
(2 of 65)
Oct 21, 2002 1:33 PM
|
Nice idea, but Joe is never going to abandon his liberal roots and join the hated Republicans. I know his old law partners and they think he's a god - and they're died the wool, old guard, New Haven Dems. You don't understand how deep the partisan cultural hatred is.
|
|
|
Posts:
26
Registered:
10/29/01
|
|
(3 of 65)
Oct 22, 2002 4:03 AM
|
Sigh, I am only too aware of their fatuous commitment to the Democrat Party. Many fail to realize that the Democrat Party today is morally corrupt and intellectually bankrupt. Hard core Democrat Leftists encourage racial division and anti-Semitism. Their more moderate comrades are often affluent Yuppie Left wingers who live in their own little dream world. They take full advantage of their ample financial resources to hide from reality.
Politics should never be concerned with eschatological pursuits. Our approach must be pragmatic. We should consistently ask the pertinent question: "What have you done for me lately?" The fact that our parents were loyal to one party or another should have little bearing on our own choices. Senator Libermann will unlikely join the Republican Party. That is unfortunate because it would do so much good. Oh well, one can always dream.
|
|
|
Posts:
128
Registered:
11/28/99
|
|
(4 of 65)
Joe can`t till after the election
Oct 23, 2002 3:36 AM
|
and even then he might not be able if the Democrats hold the Senate. Joe has to hold the Enron investigation down to keep the people from knowing how deep he , Jesse Jackson, and the party was involved in this. Why do you think it died such an early death in the Senate, and you don`t hear about it anymore? Even the liberal press has seen the depth of involvement, and has buried the story.
|
|
|
Posts:
148
Registered:
9/29/01
|
|
(5 of 65)
I wouldn't miss him a bit.
Oct 26, 2002 7:45 PM
|
His pro-business genuflecting and war solidarity with this third rate President make him about as low a creature as I can imagine in the Democratic Party.
But be careful, if you predicate his defection on Moral Corruption, then he will likely never do it since the near total monopoly on moral corruption resides wholly in the Republcian Party -- a party of keyhole peepers, money crazed business crooks, oil men, sellouts, religious fanatics, chickenhawks and just plain bad haircuts, Jim Traficant notwithstanding.
You better stick with your Republican tried and true: limitless dirty campaign money and business payoffs; that might get Joe accross the aisle.
|
|
|
Posts:
61
Registered:
8/3/01
|
|
(6 of 65)
Oct 27, 2002 11:45 AM
|
you're back at it, calling Republicans every name in the book. I suppose next you'll start claiming we're mentally ill again, like you did before. Well, as one of those religious fanatics that you think are so dangerous to the fate of the republic, I can't imagine why I ever thought you were someone worth trying to reason with. Thanks for showing your true colors.
|
|
|
Posts:
58
Registered:
10/8/02
|
|
(7 of 65)
Oct 27, 2002 1:02 PM
|
I would like to second this opinion! Nice answer
|
|
|
Posts:
13
Registered:
1/11/02
|
|
(8 of 65)
Oct 27, 2002 1:27 PM
|
people who can't defend their weak arguments with facts usually content themselves with throwing insults and pretending that they've therefore given a satisfactory answer. Fortunately, most people can recognize your behavior for what it is.
|
|
|
Posts:
861
Registered:
9/17/02
|
|
(9 of 65)
Oct 27, 2002 2:12 PM
|
Sorry, had to let the "moral corruption" comment fellow have it with both barrels. It goes both ways, Mark.
I don't believe you are a religious fanatic, unlike Ashcroft and a number of crazed preachers and extremists now infiltrating women's health committees and councils wihtin the government. What they do on their own is fine, but bringing a "Christian Agenda" into the government is unacceptable, as far as I am concerened.
You know, as firmly and deeply as you believe in religion, I do not. And I don't want it in MY government policy.
You believe in the separation of church and state. They don't.
|
|
|
Posts:
61
Registered:
8/3/01
|
|
(10 of 65)
Oct 27, 2002 3:03 PM
|
you'd probably think I was most definitely a fanatic. I'm afraid I'm all in favor of them "infiltrating" women's health committees and councils within the government. After all, they are citizens as well, and they have a right to have their opinions heard every bit as much as their opponents when it comes to their tax dollars being spent. Being opposed to abortion, and seeking to find ways to solve this cultural impasse, is not really a matter of trying to seek a "Christian America." It is about trying to work to bring an end to the legalized slaughter of human beings. It is every bit as correct for people who are religious to work to overturn abortion as it was for religious people to work to end slavery. In both cases, it is our religious convictions which primarily motivate us. I certainly hope you don't feel it was wrong for religious people to work to end slavery. Yes, the John Brown extremists of the world are most definitely wrong in their conduct, and there are a few of them in the anti-abortion crowd, but only a very few, and the rest of us do all we can to avoid them and condemn their behavior. The other side makes no effort whatsoever to condemn those who kick, scream, and generally abuse the abortion demonstrators. In fact, the court case now before the Supreme Court concerning the behavior of the demonstrators and the abortion clinics is chock-filled with lies told by the pro-abortion people (which can be proven by people videotaping the demonstrations). Interestingly enough, the latest polls show (and have for at least a decade) that women are far more opposed to the abortion-on-demand policies of our government than men. Those most in favor of them are young, sexually-active men in their twenties and thirties.
I agree with you that belief in religion should not be government policy. But neither should it be government policy to seek to thwart religious belief. There is a court case in New York State in which a kindergarten student was prevented from bowing her head and praying before eating her lunch. She wasn't making a big scene, she wasn't demanding that everyone around her listen to her, she wasn't requiring them to be silent while she prayed. She was just told she couldn't do it, since her act of bowing her head and praying silently was a violation of the separation of church and state. That is UTTERLY LUDICROUS, but that is the kind of nonsense going on in this country today.
I very much dislike the name-calling that goes on between Republicans and Democrats on this board and try to avoid it myself. I'm far from perfect on this matter, I realize, but I do get impatient with people who on the one hand say they believe that their opponents are honorable and then turn around and make the kind of outrageous charges that McCrohon did here. I most certainly believe there are plenty of decent Democrats, and have stated so repeatedly on this message board over the last year. As a matter of fact, I'm about to vote for one next week. There's a guy at church who is running for the NC state house, and he is no more qualified to be a legislator than the man on the moon. Lots of people at church are going to vote for him simply because he is a Christian, but I think it's far more important to vote for someone who is qualified. Fortunately, I currently already have a good solid Democrat I can vote for who I already agree with on most of the issues. It won't be the first time I've voted for a Democrat, and I definitely hope it won't be the last time, either. We desperately need two competitive political parties in this country, if for no other reason than to keep each other honest. Lose the competition between them, and you get shenanigans like what was pulled in New Jersey. But the Republicans would do it as well, if they thought they could get away with it in a one-party state.
One more thing. I don't believe it's MY government, any more than I believe it's YOUR government. I believe it's OUR government, and we have a responsibility to seek to work together for our common good. Take away that belief, and you end up with what we have exhibited in McCrohon's posting.
|
|
|
Posts:
28
Registered:
10/21/02
|
|
(11 of 65)
Oct 29, 2002 6:02 PM
|
There is no corralation between sixty years ago and today. The republicans of sixty years ago were isolationists.
Appeasement is what Neville Chamberlain did. The difference between what he did and what you say the democrats are doing, is that they actually had a shooting war, unlike today,were the ones that want to start the war.
|
|
|
Posts:
61
Registered:
8/3/01
|
|
(12 of 65)
what are you talking about?
Oct 30, 2002 6:20 AM
|
Where was the shooting war at the time of Munich? Hitler didn't fire a shot until he invaded Poland.
It is simply untrue for you to say that Republicans "want" to start a war against Iraq. You may as well say that Churchill and FDR both "wanted" World War II to happen. A person can easily feel that war might very well be necessary in order to ensure our own survival against a dangerous international bully and outlaw, and still dread the prospect of what it is going to cost us in lives lost, both our own and the innocent people in Iraq.
It might help if you didn't automatically assume the worst about those you disagree with.
|
|
|
Posts:
13
Registered:
1/11/02
|
|
(13 of 65)
Oct 30, 2002 7:11 AM
|
I think you must have misunderstood him. I think he was saying that the shooting war had already started by the time the America Firsters were active. But I agree with you about Republicans not wanting a war - I don't want one either, but I am fed up with being called a warmonger just because I think one might actually be necessary to get us out of this mess that we got into by fiddle-farting around for twelve years.
|
|
|
Posts:
61
Registered:
8/3/01
|
|
(14 of 65)
Oct 30, 2002 7:55 AM
|
He wrote, "The difference between what he (that is, Chamberlain) did and what you (that is, David) say the Democrats are doing, is that they (???) actually had a shooting war." But you may well be correct about what he meant to say, however. He just wasn't very clear about it in his grammar. And by the way, that's a great term, fiddle-farting. Wish I'd thought of it.
|
|
|
Posts:
28
Registered:
10/21/02
|
|
(15 of 65)
Oct 30, 2002 5:56 PM
|
I never said that all Republicans want to start this war. This administration sure does. I would say the same thing if the Democarts were in power. As for that terrible bully, what has he done in the last 11yrs. to warrant us to attack him? The only reason I hear is that this would be a preventive measure, because we fear what he might do in the future, by the way, I'm sure as you know, the Japanese used the same reasoning for attacking Pearl Harbor.
|
|
|
|
|
