How sad, he thinks that he has enough influence to think that it matters.

I'm getting annoyed and tired of that zionist arsehole. Just join the Republicans, jerk. I actually supported this guy in 2000 for VP.

I'm getting annoyed and tired of that zionist arsehole. Just join the Republicans, jerk. I actually supported this guy in 2000 for VP.


  So did I...

I'm getting annoyed and tired of that zionist arsehole. Just join the Republicans, jerk. I actually supported this guy in 2000 for VP.



When I first heard this, I was thinking the same thing-but then I realized that if he did join the Repubs. the balance of power in the Senate would go back to the Repubs.



Cat

When I first heard this, I was thinking the same thing-but then I realized that if he did join the Repubs. the balance of power in the Senate would go back to the Repubs.


You think they aren't still in power of the Senate?  Bush has basically gotten everything he's asked for from the Senate this term.  Even as I type this, Harry Reid is forcing Chris Dodd to perform an actual filibuster, not just threaten to have one, over Reid's desire to grant the telecom companies immunity for letting Bush eavesdrop on whoever he pleases.

Lieberman is a disgrace, but not any larger of a disgrace than the rest of the Democrat "leadership" at the moment.

You think they aren't still in power of the Senate?  Bush has basically gotten everything he's asked for from the Senate this term.  Even as I type this, Harry Reid is forcing Chris Dodd to perform an actual filibuster, not just threaten to have one, over Reid's desire to grant the telecom companies immunity for letting Bush eavesdrop on whoever he pleases.

Lieberman is a disgrace, but not any larger of a disgrace than the rest of the Democrat "leadership" at the moment.


Remember this...?http://www.fraudfactor.com/images/humor/ffsorelosermanblue.jpg

You think they aren't still in power of the Senate?  Bush has basically gotten everything he's asked for from the Senate this term.  Even as I type this, Harry Reid is forcing Chris Dodd to perform an actual filibuster, not just threaten to have one, over Reid's desire to grant the telecom companies immunity for letting Bush eavesdrop on whoever he pleases.

Lieberman is a disgrace, but not any larger of a disgrace than the rest of the Democrat "leadership" at the moment.



Yup-you got a point there.

One thing that I am very proud of is that my delegation (Pat Leahy & Bernie Sanders) do not kowtow to the Repubs or the Bush Administration.


Cat

Remember this...?


not really... but I don't spend much time reading blogs either, which is where I assume it's from.

I'm getting annoyed and tired of that zionist arsehole. Just join the Republicans, jerk. I actually supported this guy in 2000 for VP.

Karma +1 4U!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumright.gif

It needed to be said thusly and thusly you said it!


not really... but I don't spend much time reading blogs either, which is where I assume it's from.

That was a dumb bumper sticker I used to see around after Supreme Court appointed Dubya El Presidente!
::)

You wonder why the FOX News comedy hour was a flop!

I would have guessed Lieberman would back Giuliani, but McCain is no surprise.  Anybody who promises to keep us in Iraq forever.

By the Weakly Standard's standards, General Eisenhower was a bleeding-heart liberal commie peacenik and Dick Nixon was a big government leftie!  C'mon!
::)

Karma +1 4U!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumright.gif

It needed to be said thusly and thusly you said it!
That was a dumb bumper sticker I used to see around after Supreme Court appointed Dubya El Presidente!
::)



You may see it more in the Midwest and the South rather than the East and West Coasts. Just 13 more months to go and then we can relax.

PS-I will only regret my voting for DUH-bya twice (and 100% pure) if I have no job in 2008 as well.

I can't say I like Lieberman or the majority of the Republicans.  Ron Paul is one of the few Republicans I would vote for these days.

I can't say I like Lieberman or the majority of the Republicans.  Ron Paul is one of the few Republicans I would vote for these days.


The anti-abortion, doesn't believe in evolution Ron Paul?  Or is there a less right wing one I'm not aware of?

No thanks.


Oh yeah, no Jews allowed. Forgot.  :P

The anti-abortion, doesn't believe in evolution Ron Paul?  Or is there a less right wing one I'm not aware of?



For real. Ron Paul is for Republicans too smart to deny they were wrong about Bush, but too proud to admit they were wrong about the Republicans in the first place. He's the Republican apologist's candidate. He's got no chance.

The anti-abortion, doesn't believe in evolution Ron Paul?  Or is there a less right wing one I'm not aware of?



You're getting confused with Huckabee, Tancredo, and Brownback.

Paul does believe in evolution.  Paul also believes that abortion should be a state issue.  He is personally against abortion, but he believes states should make that call, not the federal government.  I happen to agree with him on that, even though I'm personally pro-choice.

For real. Ron Paul is for Republicans too smart to deny they were wrong about Bush, but too proud to admit they were wrong about the Republicans in the first place. He's the Republican apologist's candidate. He's got no chance.


You're probably right that he won't get the nomination, but he's far from being an apologist.  He wants to redirect the Republicans toward smaller government.  They lost their way with this ridiculous neoconservativism.

I still generally favor Democrats over Republicans, but what appeals to me about Paul is that he's one of the few people in Congress that consistently supports a smaller federal government.  There are plenty of Paul supporters like myself that support social programs at the state level but believe the federal government is too corrupt and inefficient to properly administrate them.  Paul himself may not agree with social programs on the state level, but that doesn't matter, because, as president, he would only have power over federal programs and funding.  In general, Paul prefers to decentralize authority away from the feds and to the states.  Many Libertarian-leaning liberals like myself mesh well with this idea.

In short, you could say people like me are conservatives on the federal level but liberals on the state and local levels.

The anti-abortion, doesn't believe in evolution Ron Paul?  Or is there a less right wing one I'm not aware of?



Ron Paul personally opposes abortion, but he also opposes any federal law banning abortion.  His views come from the U.S. Constitution; abortion should be left up to each state.  If California wants to have legal abortions and Utah does not, it should be up to the people of those states via their elected state representatives to make that decision.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-Amendment X

You're probably right that he won't get the nomination, but he's far from being an apologist.  He wants to redirect the Republicans toward smaller government.  They lost their way with this ridiculous neoconservativism.


I understand that RP himself is not an apologist per se. I said he is the Republican apologist's candidate, as in the candidate for whom such a Republican would likely vote.

He's got no chance.


Maybe, maybe not.  I vote for the best candidate, not the one I think will win.  He's currently polling 6-8% nationally among republicans (7% in Nevada, 8% in Iowa, 9% in New Hampshire and 11% in South Carolina).  That does not include his huge independent support in states like New Hampshire.  Compared to the 1% or "not registering" he was polling before November, he's doing great.

Also he broke John Kerry's 5.7 million record of most money raised in 24 hours just yesterday, December 16, the anniversary of the Boston tea party.  He raised 6.024 million yesterday.  He's raised over 18 million for this quarter (starting the first of October), which will be the most of any candidate.

You're getting confused with Huckabee, Tancredo, and Brownback.


Yes.  When the question was asked all the way back in that first debate about evolution, those three were the ones who raised their hands when all the candidates were told by the moderator to raise their hands if they did not believe in evolution.

Also, I'm curious how this is even relevant to anything.  Leftists blogs complain all the time that religion should not have any effect on a president.  Is there some kind of evolution litmus test now?  If Mike Huckabee becomes president, will he not be able to veto any bills or something because he doesn't believe in evolution?

Yes.  When the question was asked all the way back in that first debate about evolution, those three were the ones who raised their hands when all the candidates were told by the moderator to raise their hands if they did not believe in evolution.

Also, I'm curious how this is even relevant to anything.  Leftists blogs complain all the time that religion should not have any effect on a president.  Is there some kind of evolution litmus test now?  If Mike Huckabee becomes president, will he not be able to veto any bills or something because he doesn't believe in evolution?


Good point...  Being an atheist, I don't really care what the religion of a candidate is.  What does concern me about creationists though, is that they believe in a faulty ideology.  You see, plenty of rational religious people believe in evolution.  While it is possible to be rational and still not believe in evolution, most people that do not believe in it are either lacking in education, educated in a very narrow sense, or just plain ignorant.  This is why the evolution question is relevant to me, because it is a "litmus test" of both rationality and possibly of who a candidate is posturing for.

It's not certain whether or not the 3 candidates mentioned above stated their disbelief of evolution out of sincerity or out of an attempt to gain favor among the Religious Right.  While I respect the right of the religiously conservative to vote for whoever they want to, I personally do not support candidates that they favor.  So, the evolution question essentially threw up some red flags for me when I saw that Huckabee, Brownback, and Tancredo made their views known.

For real. Ron Paul is for Republicans too smart to deny they were wrong about Bush, but too proud to admit they were wrong about the Republicans in the first place. He's the Republican apologist's candidate. He's got no chance.


  The Republican apologist's candidate..?  My goodness... :D

  I don't know about all that but I think the Republicans are hopelessly fragmented.  Each of their candidates has a very narrow support base and each of them has said or done things to alienate almost all the other candidates' supporters.  He may have just the right cachet to attract everyone's support when they face reality and give up on their own personal favorites.  He has an air of nostalgia, since limited government was once a Republican Party principle.  He has promised to start bringing the troops home the moment he finishes taking the oath of office (probably using his cell phone at the site of the ceremony), and this will resonate with a lot of Republicans whose favorite candidates feel honor-bound to support the War on Islam...

  It's too early to predict his chances with any confidence, but I don't see why there's not, at least, a decent possibility that he could indeed secure the nomination.  He will certainly give Hillary as good a run for the money as any of the other GOP hopefuls, and he'll draw off a lot of Democrats who are outraged over their party's failure to stop the war now that it controls Congress.  If this is really a single-issue election, he's the only candidate who sides with the majority of the voters on that single issue.  Who knows, he could win the election..!

  Ron Paul is a fallen libertarian, no longer a real one.  He has deviated too far from some of the movement's core principles.  Lemme just say that I'm going into this one with guarded optimism...

Good point...  Being an atheist, I don't really care what the religion of a candidate is. 

I believe in freedom of religion for citizens and a secular government.  Once politicians start calling us a "Judeo-Christian country," implying Islam is the enemy, and debating what Mormonism is or is not, it starts pressuring the folks to go along to get along.  This country has a religious litmus test.  An atheist could not win the presidency, nor could a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Buddhist. 
::)

Ron Paul personally opposes abortion, but he also opposes any federal law banning abortion.  His views come from the U.S. Constitution; abortion should be left up to each state.  If California wants to have legal abortions and Utah does not, it should be up to the people of those states via their elected state representatives to make that decision.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-Amendment X


STATE RIGHTS! STATE RIGHTS! STATE RIGHTS!

the rallying call of the anti-abortion movement for decades... and the same call used to rally for anti-evolution nonsense, and the same rallying call for slavery.

Ron Paul has his past statements on the issue to speak for him, he's been against both for quite some time.  He says he won't change the status quo, just like GW said he was against nation building before he was elected.  Once the spot light is on him, of course he wants to distance himself from his past extremist statements. Sorry, I'm more willing to give more weight to his earlier statements which were made before he was running at the national level.

I'll agree we need a candidate like to shake things up, but Ron Paul has been part of the system for far too long to be that candidate.

Yes.  When the question was asked all the way back in that first debate about evolution, those three were the ones who raised their hands when all the candidates were told by the moderator to raise their hands if they did not believe in evolution.

Also, I'm curious how this is even relevant to anything.  Leftists blogs complain all the time that religion should not have any effect on a president.  Is there some kind of evolution litmus test now?  If Mike Huckabee becomes president, will he not be able to veto any bills or something because he doesn't believe in evolution?


One need only observe the current administration in action to realize that a corrupt leader will use his power to squelch government scientists who don't release reports that follow the party line.  Maybe there won't be a specific bill up for vote where evolution is going to suddenly be outlawed, but there will be plenty of scientists on the government payroll that will end up with their funding cut based on ideology instead of science.  Need examples?  Look for anything that confirms global warming, or even suggests it.  That's a quick way to end up unemployed.  Or the harmful abstinence programs that have zero scientific backing and an awful successful rate.

Bush has strengthened the power of the executive branch quite a bit, especially with the Republican congress at his beck and call for the first six years of the presidency. I doubt whoever replaces him will return any of those new powers, and the congress will probably still be closely divided and unable to really roll any of the abuses back.

If the executive branch wasn't as strong as it is now, you would be correct in assuming that whether the president believes in evolution or not isn't really relevant. 

STATE RIGHTS! STATE RIGHTS! STATE RIGHTS!

the rallying call of the anti-abortion movement for decades... and the same call used to rally for anti-evolution nonsense, and the same rallying call for slavery.


Mike Huckabee pretty much said the same thing.  He too compared federalism to slavery.

Why does the federal government have a right to legalize or ban all abortions in this country?  How is that constitutional?

Ron Paul is a fallen libertarian, no longer a real one.  He has deviated too far from some of the movement's core principles.  Lemme just say that I'm going into this one with guarded optimism...


I wouldn't say that.  He's a realistic Libertarian.  He's the kind of Libertarian that can actually get elected.  Most Libertarians I've met were a bit crazy.  The moderate ones (like Paul and Bloomberg) are much more logical.

I believe in freedom of religion for citizens and a secular government.  Once politicians start calling us a "Judeo-Christian country," implying Islam is the enemy, and debating what Mormonism is or is not, it starts pressuring the folks to go along to get along.  This country has a religious litmus test.  An atheist could not win the presidency, nor could a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Buddhist. 
::)


Well, I definitely agree that an openly atheist candidate doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning (with the exception of Pete Stark).

I think we see eye-to-eye on the religion issue, despite our other disagreements.

The resistance to the libertarian agenda is unequal in power.  

It's much easier to take big government bennies away from folks who can't fight back: Economically vulnerable (AKA poor people), children, elderly, immigrants, small business, small towns.*

It is a Herculian task to take government bennies away from folks with the means to put up a huge fight: Billionaires, defense industry, petrolum industry, multi-national corporations, influential lobbyists.

*Of course it's not impossible for these groups to fight back, but it's very difficult to start such grass roots movements.  

If Dr. Paul isn't prepared to put his money where his mouth is and take on the powerful big government interests first, he will be another Ronald Reagan, which would at this point kill the republic!!!

Well, I definitely agree that an openly atheist candidate doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning (with the exception of Pete Stark).

I think we see eye-to-eye on the religion issue, despite our other disagreements.

A true atheist is not concerned with hell.

And I can detect sarcasm, my friend.  Pete Stark indeed!

The resistance to the libertarian agenda is unequal in power.  

It's much easier to take big government bennies away from folks who can't fight back: Economically vulnerable (AKA poor people), children, elderly, immigrants, small business, small towns.*

It is a Herculian task to take government bennies away from folks with the means to put up a huge fight: Billionaires, defense industry, petrolum industry, multi-national corporations, influential lobbyists.

*Of course it's not impossible for these groups to fight back, but it's very difficult to start such grass roots movements.  

If Dr. Paul isn't prepared to put his money where his mouth is and take on the powerful big government interests first, he will be another Ronald Reagan, which would at this point kill the republic!!!


I totally agree, but it's much easier to minimize the federal government overall than it is to pick and choose.  I'd rather err on the side of the federal government being too small rather than it being too big (which it has been for the last 50 years or so).

A true atheist is not concerned with hell.

And I can detect sarcasm, my friend.  Pete Stark indeed!


LOL...  I didn't even catch the pun I made inadvertently....  But yeah, Stark isn't such a bad guy, but he really blew it with that pathetic apology he made a while back.

I totally agree, but it's much easier to minimize the federal government overall than it is to pick and choose.  I'd rather err on the side of the federal government being too small rather than it being too big (which it has been for the last 50 years or so).

What I mean is we have to decide where the federal government is going to shrink first.  If you want to really shrink the federal government you have to hold off on dissolving social welfare programs (which have already been decimated to a large degree) and attack the interests that keep us up to our eyeballs in foreign conflicts and corporate subsidies.  The federal government grew extravagantly under Bedtime-for-Ronzo.  The only place where it shrunk was in social programs, which hurt millions of vulnerable citizens and set in motion a corrosive consciousness of zero-sum cut-throat competitiveness.  This consciousness is what allows Rush Limbaugh and FOX News to be so successful.  It's not a matter of looking at a homeless woman from your Lexus and saying, "Sucks to be you!"  The attitude endangers our democracy because it makes us obsessed with crime and terrorism from parties domestic and foreign who find themselves under the boot of America, Inc.  The overwhelming temper of the Bush era has been fear not freedom.  When you are afraid, you want security, and you will sacrifice freedom. 

Sounds good to me...  I'm all for ending corporate welfare and minimizing warfare.

Sounds good to me...  I'm all for ending corporate welfare and minimizing warfare.


Easier said than done.  These are defining aspects of the U.S.  It didn't start 60 years ago either.  It goes all the way back to railroads.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/19/lieberman/index.html

it appears none of the Democrats asked (or probably even wanted) Joe's endorsement... ouch

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/19/lieberman/index.html

it appears none of the Democrats asked (or probably even wanted) Joe's endorsement... ouch

Hillary would.
::)