Joe Lieberman to support 2010 GOP Candidates

[Vepres]

You liberals are adorable!

[Vepres]

Democrats should stop whining. You all know deep down that had a Republican supported the public option fully, you'd be praising him/her.

[Vepres]

Democrats should stop whining. You all know deep down that had a Republican supported the public option fully, you'd be praising him/her.

Well, no shit; we support the public option.

Are you dumb?

All I'm saying is stop whining because you'll hate right wingers complaining when the situation is reversed.

Democrats should stop whining. You all know deep down that had a Republican supported the public option fully, you'd be praising him/her.

Except that he has in the past expressed support for a public option but has suddenly changed his mind now using all the nonsense republican talking points. He is just an attention whore and nothing else. Or he is aiming for a position in an health insurance firm after 2012. He is a d-bag who sways with the wind. Did a lot of democrats praise Specter when he joined their caucus? No, they ridiculed him. At least Lieberman should switch caucuses already and stop the charade.

Specter and Lieberman aren't comparable. Specter switched for blatantly electoral reasons, while Lieberman only changed his position on one issue, and certainly didn't change parties. Besides, you already had 59 Senators, if Democrats were in the minority they would've praised him.

Could you cite his support for a public option?

[Vepres]

Isn't it funny? Vepres can defend military interventionism, can defend corporate socialism, and can champion the cause of those politicians which support both - but mention one thing about non-interventionism or a real free-market economy and he goes apes**t, despite his alleged support for both.

WTF!?! I am one of the most pacifistic, pro-market (as opposed to pro-business) people on the Atlas. I just don't like people attacking politicians for being bipartisan and independent, nor the arrogance of many Democrats.

And yes, I know Lieberman probably doesn't oppose the public option on principle.

[Vepres]

Isn't it funny? Vepres can defend military interventionism, can defend corporate socialism, and can champion the cause of those politicians which support both - but mention one thing about non-interventionism or a real free-market economy and he goes apes**t, despite his alleged support for both.

WTF!?! I am one of the most pacifistic, pro-market (as opposed to pro-business). I don't like people attacking politicians for being bipartisan and independent.

And yes, I know Lieberman probably doesn't oppose the public option on principle.

Yet you defend him anyway, and by doing so you implicitly defend everything else he supports. Does it shame you to know that the left-wing in this nation is more libertarian than those politicians you've fallen in love with?

That's a logical fallacy. Just because I defend him doesn't mean I support his position (though in this case I do).

Yeah, Democrats are so libertarian. I can think of nothing more freedom oriented than the public option, employer mandate, and individual mandate.

[Vepres]

Isn't it funny? Vepres can defend military interventionism, can defend corporate socialism, and can champion the cause of those politicians which support both - but mention one thing about non-interventionism or a real free-market economy and he goes apes**t, despite his alleged support for both.

WTF!?! I am one of the most pacifistic, pro-market (as opposed to pro-business). I don't like people attacking politicians for being bipartisan and independent.

And yes, I know Lieberman probably doesn't oppose the public option on principle.

Yet you defend him anyway, and by doing so you implicitly defend everything else he supports. Does it shame you to know that the left-wing in this nation is more libertarian than those politicians you've fallen in love with?

That's a logical fallacy. Just because I defend him doesn't mean I support his position (though in this case I do).

You support his position by encouraging him to remain in the Senate.

Wait!?! So now I have to support his resignation? He's certainly better than generic New England Democrat #5.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More libertarian than the Republicans? Most certainly.
[/quote]

Seriously? If you only look at economic issues (which are the most important to me at the moment), Republicans have become very libertarian the past year or so. Not when they were in power, mind you, but now they are. The other thing is the Republicans won't get any of their social agenda through congress ever, so I don't worry about that.

On foreign policy, it's pretty much the President, so I don't often take Senator's foreign policy stances into account (I do sometimes though). It's like me caring about a school district board member's stance on entitlement reform, mostly irrelevant (not best analogy, but you get the point).

[Vepres]

Democrats should stop whining. You all know deep down that had a Republican supported the public option fully, you'd be praising him/her.

Except that he has in the past expressed support for a public option but has suddenly changed his mind now using all the nonsense republican talking points. He is just an attention whore and nothing else. Or he is aiming for a position in an health insurance firm after 2012. He is a d-bag who sways with the wind. Did a lot of democrats praise Specter when he joined their caucus? No, they ridiculed him. At least Lieberman should switch caucuses already and stop the charade.

Specter and Lieberman aren't comparable. Specter switched for blatantly electoral reasons, while Lieberman only changed his position on one issue, and certainly didn't change parties. Besides, you already had 59 Senators, if Democrats were in the minority they would've praised him.

Could you cite his support for a public option?

Umm Lieberman also switched for blatantly electoral reasons. And the point is that Lieberman is only doing it to get attention, not because of his ideology. You won't see me criticizing Conrad, Landrieu, Nelson or other moderate democrats who oppose the public option because of their political views. I don't agree with them but I understand where they are coming from. Lieberman just out of the blue is against a neutered public option that according to the CBO will be deficit neutral at worst. And it's not that he has anything specifically against the bill, but somehow has had a change of heart on the whole concept of a public choice for consumers.

This is what Lieberman said back in 2006.
I’ve been working on health insurance reform for more than a dozen years. … I have offered a comprehensive program. Small business health insurance reform, plus something I call MediKids to cover all the children in America on a sliding fee basis up until the age of 25.

MediChoice to allow anybody in our country to buy into a national insurance pool like the health insurance pool that we federal employees and Members of Congress have. Medical malpractice reform.

It will cover 95% of those who are not covered now, and it will reduce the pressure on rising costs for all the millions of others.

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002298/

Fair enough. I can see your point of view, and with that quote I find a I now agree with you

I admit I was wrong

[Vepres]

Isn't it funny? Vepres can defend military interventionism, can defend corporate socialism, and can champion the cause of those politicians which support both - but mention one thing about non-interventionism or a real free-market economy and he goes apes**t, despite his alleged support for both.

WTF!?! I am one of the most pacifistic, pro-market (as opposed to pro-business). I don't like people attacking politicians for being bipartisan and independent.

And yes, I know Lieberman probably doesn't oppose the public option on principle.

Yet you defend him anyway, and by doing so you implicitly defend everything else he supports. Does it shame you to know that the left-wing in this nation is more libertarian than those politicians you've fallen in love with?

That's a logical fallacy. Just because I defend him doesn't mean I support his position (though in this case I do).

You support his position by encouraging him to remain in the Senate.

Wait!?! So now I have to support his resignation? He's certainly better than generic New England Democrat #5.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More libertarian than the Republicans? Most certainly.

Seriously? If you only look at economic issues (which are the most important to me at the moment), Republicans have become very libertarian the past year or so. Not when they were in power, mind you, but now they are. The other thing is the Republicans won't get any of their social agenda through congress ever, so I don't worry about that.

On foreign policy, it's pretty much the President, so I don't often take Senator's foreign policy stances into account (I do sometimes though). It's like me caring about a school district board member's stance on entitlement reform, mostly irrelevant (not best analogy, but you get the point).

Exactly, they learn that letting people want to do in all cases is just not plausable.  People when they get power realize this.
[/quote]

Bad grammar is a real pet peeve of mine, let me translate that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I understand you correctly, I agree. Ultimately pure freedom leads to more oppression. Smart market regulations are good because they enhance competition and prevent monopolies for example.

That's why I never call myself a pure libertarian, but a moderate/pragmatic libertarian.

[Vepres]

It is a logical fallacy to assume that because I prefer Republicans that I am in lock step with their platform. I don't assume you support all of the Democratic platform Einzige.

To the second quote of me, I was saying he could've been a decent candidate in terms of his chances in the primary, I would never have supported him. I don't have to be an ideological hack like many on this forum you know.

There are many Democrats I like, Evan Bayh, Andrew Ramanoff, Janet Napolitano, Jared Polis, Mark Udall, and many others, so don't assume I'm some Republican disguised as an independent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As opposed to what? Continued support for military interventionism (and its inevitable corollary, military socialism) in Iraq? Continued support for institutionalized homophobia? Continued support for social authoritarianism? Yes, absolutely yes, the Democrats are the libertarian party in today's society.

And the reason you don't care about the Republican's social policy is that you aren't really concerned. As long as you get your tax income check you are eager to gobble Christian cock, principles be damned.

Firstly, I have yet to make enough money to care about income taxes. In fact, I have advocated for higher taxes across the board on individuals at times.

Secondly, there are Republican's who I don't like because of their social views. Huckabee, Ron Paul, Bob Schaffer, etc. I'm agnostic, sure I celebrate Christmas, but for traditional reasons, not religious. But seriously, Roe v. Wade won't be overturned, gays are getting more and more rights at the state level, etc.

Thirdly, I strongly oppose military interventionism, but now that we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is our responsibility to protect the people and ensure that their governments are stable. Besides, we need to get Al Qaeda.

Seriously, I have opposed the Iraq war since I got into politics, you've been using strawman on me left and right, a big logical fallacy.

I prefer divided government personally, so yeah, when Democrats control everything I am not happy with Democrats.   

*shuns Einzige*