Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: cav58d on August 08, 2006, 01:21:51 PM
-
Senator Lieberman's campaign site is being reported as "mysteriously going down" the day of the democratic primary...I smell a fish (ned lamont)
I would be extremely embarrassed to be a democrat today! Not only has the party turned their back on their three term incumbant senator, and former vice presidential nominee, but now they have gone as low as hacking into a campaign website...There is no overwhelming evidence saying Lieberman's site was intentionally hacked by left wing extremist, but we can all have our assumptions....I do not think the hacking was done by the DNC, instead by so called "democrats"...What are the odd's of any democrat publically condemning the hacking of a campaign site? I dont care if you like the candidate or not, hacking into a site is un ethical, un moral and and straight out wrong! The democratic party is showing just how much integrity their party actually has (or doesnt have)....
IF Ned Lamont is actually elected to the US Senate, I think he needs a quick introduction to the ethics committee....
Fortunately for Ned Lamont, I highly doubt he will ever meet this committee, because I dont think he has a shot in hell in being elected....
Yes, he will win the primary today, but he will not win the seat...The GOP is already talking about pulling Allan Schlessinger from the race because of low poll #'s, and republicans rallying for Lieberman under the stance of "Anything but the anti war, liberal extremist and zero political experienced Ned Lamont..."
All the democratic party has done in this campaign is shown where their true colors fly...TO THE FAR LEFT, and as a result, when Lieberman is re-elected, this time as an independant, they will only have lost a guranteed vote among party lines....
Really pathetic democrats........
-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14245779/
-
its those darnfangled pinko commie liberal computer HackERZ killing Old Joes web page.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008763
-
.
-
O yea, lets not forget the racial comment's the Lamont supporters are making of Lieberman over the internet......yea....real class!
-
Your liberal party has now become the party of 1 issue...Anti war! All I can say to you is remember the late 60's, George McGovern and what followed....
Joe Lieberman, a loyalist voting among party lines 90% of the time and you throw him to the curb because he doesn't hate George Bush and the Republicans enough...
sad...
-
Nice little circle jerk you guys have going here, just make sure you wash your hands before going out in public.
-
Frankly, I think the war in Lebanon is affecting Lieberman's campaign just as much as than the war in Iraq is as many consider him linked to Israel (which is incredible prejudism).
Either way, I'd like to see him run as an Independent... its about time we got rid of the broken 2 party system.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
IF Ned Lamont is actually elected to the US Senate, I think he needs a quick introduction to the ethics committee....
Talk about the blind leading the blind... these people can't even write checks without bouncing them.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
There is no overwhelming evidence saying Lieberman's site was intentionally hacked by left wing extremist, but we can all have our assumptions....
On the other hand, his site might be down because he's a tightwad that went with a cheap host.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/153827/3493
-
If this continues, I think it is a real possibility that a moderate party, or a moderate-democratic party will form soon.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
On the other hand, his site might be down because he's a tightwad that went with a cheap host.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/153827/3493
Wow!
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If this continues, I think it is a real possibility that a moderate party, or a moderate-democratic party will form soon.
I think one already has (http://www.lp.org/).
-
Originally posted by Sandman
On the other hand, his site might be down because he's a tightwad that went with a cheap host.
Ah-hem..."fiscally conservative".
-
Sandy, I am appalled that you think the LP party is anything resembling a moderate party. I thought you were smarter.
-
When I first heard about his website going down, I immediately had two thoughts: First "So what? It isn't like people vote from his website." (or do they? :noid )
Second: "I'll bet his own people did it to garner a sympathy vote", i.e. a dirty trick to paint your opponent in a bad light too close to the election for him to respond. :noid Tried and true dem tactic.
So, imagine the hit to my paranoia when it turns out Leiberman is just cheap. (OMG -- watch out for the anti-defamation league on that one.)
I disagree with the man on most issues, but he seems to at least hold his positions on principle and not pure political calculation. Rare for politicians of any stripe these days.
-
Strangely enough since I consider Leiberman a Democrat tool, I feel sorry for the dude. He made the same mistake as Pres Bush, namely sticking up for principles he feels are right, and the retarded American populace is punishing him for it.
I don't agree with a lot of Lieberman's political views but anyone who says he's a Bush puppet is a complete retard. He's a die-hard democrat and his own party turning it's back on him is simply a sign that a lot of vocal and influential democrats are complete idiots.
That's why I'm a registered Republican... Too many democrats are either outright socialists or complete retards. At least when things don't go their way, republicans can retire to their sitting rooms and gripe about the state of the union over a snifter of brandy instead of gathering around the prototypical fire in the 50 gal trash barrel whining about how the world is unfair. I've spent my entire life trying to be an honest winner and I have no interest in associating with a bunch of people who's only claim to fame is that they're a bunch of losers and that the winners should pay up to compensate the losers for being losers.
-
Never vote for a democrat.... no matter what they say....
they will sell your vote down the river and vote lockstep with all the other democrats unless they are the designated dissenters that day.
libertarians are dissapointing whimps good only for a protest vote.
What we need to do is grow a pair and NEVER vote for any new tax or any new program or any new law that limits anyones freedom or goes against the constitution and the bill of rights.
Never vote for anyone who suggests a new tax or a new law or a new welfare program and NEVER vote for a democrat because once in.... he will vote lockstep for all of those things... more tax... more laws.... more restrictions on your life. Constitution shredders and nannies...
lazs
-
in'Tresting quote from old Joe on his senate loss to the wealthy cable executive who ran on the platform of (premature) withdawl from Iraq and against Liebermans ties to Bush....
"I am in this race to the end. For me, it is a cause, and it is a cause not to let this Democratic Party that I joined with the inspiration of President Kennedy in 1960 to be taken over by people who are so far from the mainstream of American life that I fear we will not elect Democrats in the numbers that we should in the future,"
-
It's looking like the Democratic Party is going to make the war in Iraq the "issue" for the 2006 and 2008 elections. His views don't seem consistent with the party's views and he's losing their endorsement. That's all there is.
If he's right, and he does indeed have a finger on the pulse of Connecticut voters he'll win and the Democratic Party will get a sharp jolt.
It's going to be interesting to see. It'll be hilarious if Joe wins the seat. The DNC will go berzerk.
-
If the war is the "issue," it doesn't look promising for Lieberman. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics)
-
The Democratic party has turned into a single issue party and has shown their true colors with Lieberman...I think a good analogy for what the dems have recently done would be like forsaking and completely shunning your child out of your life because they married outside of your religon, or were a homosexual
-
Originally posted by Sandman
If the war is the "issue," it doesn't look promising for Lieberman. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics)
Sorry, that only applies to one issue voters, mostly Democrats. He's not really a Democrat any longer, and leads handily over both opponents in the general election.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
On the other hand, his site might be down because he's a tightwad that went with a cheap host.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/153827/3493
I thought it wasn't PC to call a jew a "tightwad". ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
If the war is the "issue," it doesn't look promising for Lieberman. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics)
Where exactly in that article is the poll question that substantiates the article's title? "Poll: 60 percent of Americans oppose Iraq war". I can't find it.
-
can you imagine the disaster for the demo's if the iraqis get there crap together and start running the place without much help from us?
What will they do then? say that they were for the war before they were against it?
lazs
-
No Laz, they will say that they'd "do it better". Hell of a platform there.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Where exactly in that article is the poll question that substantiates the article's title? "Poll: 60 percent of Americans oppose Iraq war". I can't find it.
"Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday."
;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What will they do then? say that they were for the war before they were against it?
You can say much the same about the American people. We can only assume that they were for it when the re-elected Bush and according to the polls, they are now against it.
-
of that 60%, what amount would unilaterally withdraw all forces from Iraq, leaving the nation open to subversion and invasion from Iran?
If its 60% then I would support national suicide.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
of that 60%, what amount would unilaterally withdraw all forces from Iraq, leaving the nation open to subversion and invasion from Iran?
If its 60% then I would support national suicide.
"Sixty-one percent, however, said they believed at least some U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. Of those, 26 percent said they would favor the withdrawal of all troops, while 35 percent said not all troops should be withdrawn. Another 34 percent said they believed the current level of troops in Iraq should be maintained."
-
Originally posted by Sandman
"Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday."
;)
I know what the article title said. It's the specific poll question that gives this indication that is lacking. They list others that might imply their conclusion but I'm not inclined to trust CNN (or any other poll source for that matter).
They said 36% supported the war. Are they implying that the other 64% don't by that statement. We really need to see the whole question don't we? It could haved said "Do you support the war indefinitely or do you want to see an end to it?" No where in there is there the question "Are you opposed to the war in Iraq?" as the title claims.
I think every news source that publishes the results of a poll should also publish the poll questions in their entirety.
-
Before I put any trust in a poll I want to see the questions and the process of analysis. While it may be true that figures don't lie, liars do figure. By simply phrasing questions in a, shall we say, creative manner, you can make a poll look like anything you want.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I think every news source that publishes the results of a poll should also publish the poll questions in their entirety.
I agree completely.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Before I put any trust in a poll I want to see the questions and the process of analysis. While it may be true that figures don't lie, liars do figure. By simply phrasing questions in a, shall we say, creative manner, you can make a poll look like anything you want.
There's going to be another poll in November. ;)
-
Sandman,
If I'm interpreting the results of the poll you quoted correctly, about a third of the electorate are riding the fence on the issue of troop withdrawals, wanting some to be withdrawn but realizing the necessity of maintaing a troop presence in Iraq, at least for the short term.
What happens between now and the end of the year could tilt them either way.
Despite Democratic hopes for a watershed election in November, the ideological split between Americans remains intact. I predict we will see a Congress split right down the middle, with Democrats controling one house, and the Republicans controlling the other, and continued bad feelings all around.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Can you imagine how WW2 would be with today's media? Can you imagine the reports of casualties on D-Day? We'd have the media insisting we leave poor, misunderstood Hitler alone!
Watch the local news, then multiply that a few thousand times. 60% want us out? So? Do 80% KNOW where Iraq is on a map?
Thanks but I'll leave the pull out strategies on Iraq in the hands of the generals that are there.
-
LePaul...I totally agree...I was a Political Science major, and considered writing my senior thesis on the roll of the media, and how it is expansion is changing war...
Imagine what the bleeding heart liberals would scream if they saw the entire city of Tokyo in flames in real time???? Thank God the technology wasn't available because the outcome of the war may have been very different
-
When it comes to polls it's just not safe to say a certain percentage of Americans believe X or Y . That's not true , it is true of the percentage of those polled believe X or Y. Plus like Maverick put it.... The phrasing of the question can do wonders for a poll.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
When it comes to polls it's just not safe to say a certain percentage of Americans believe X or Y . That's not true , it is true of the percentage of those polled believe X or Y. Plus like Maverick put it.... The phrasing of the question can do wonders for a poll.
That's true
I was getting polled weekly for 2 years by zogby. While it was always a secure website/textual kind of thing, its interesting when you are polled on the phone...and the "tones" the pollsters give.
-
"Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday."
It's prolly more like 40 percent. The other 20 percent of that poll are just following along cause they're trying to get laid by one of the other 40 percent.:D
-
heeh Ann Coulter's take on the situation:
In Tuesday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats' own vice presidential candidate six years ago.
Despite all this, Connecticut Democrats preferred stalwart anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, great-nephew of Corliss Lamont, WASP plutocrat fund-raiser for Stalin. Lamont's main political asset is that he is a walking, breathing argument in favor of a massive inheritance tax. His plan for fighting the terrorists is to enact a single-payer government health plan and universal pre-K education programs. His goal is to unite the "cut" and "run" wings of his party into one glorious coalition.
-
It's looking like the Democratic Party is going to make the war in Iraq the "issue" for the 2006 and 2008 elections. His views don't seem consistent with the party's views and he's losing their endorsement. That's all there is.
A lot of communists outside of the US make the war in Iraq their primary issue, and they most often then not win their elections, even if their country isn't remotely involved in the war.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
That's true
I was getting polled weekly for 2 years by zogby. While it was always a secure website/textual kind of thing, its interesting when you are polled on the phone...and the "tones" the pollsters give.
I've been polled a few times via phone. They never accept your alternative answer but will repeat the question endlessy, if a bit irritatedly.
-
Originally posted by Abe Lincoln
You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time. But, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
-
Wow, Coulter seemed to hit it perfectly.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
heeh Ann Coulter's take on the situation:
Hehe... Ann Coulter still believes that the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are the same. :aok
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
A lot of communists outside of the US make the war in Iraq their primary issue, and they most often then not win their elections, even if their country isn't remotely involved in the war.
Who cares? They won't be voting in our elections.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hehe... Ann Coulter still believes that the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are the same. :aok
At present..what is the difference?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Who cares? They won't be voting in our elections.
Nope but they may be writing the poll questions and doing the analysis..........:cool:
-
Methinks the Republicans doth protest too much about Ned Lamont.