Joe Lieberman: Democrats and our Enemies

[Sarge]

So now it is a Manifesto? Just because you don't happen to agree with my views doesn't make them any more or less viable then yours.

It's ALWAYS a manifesto with you. And everyone knows it. Everyone that is, but you.

Why do you think the terms "ChomWOrld" and "Chommunist Manifesto" are attached to you?

[NoCalMike]

So what preconditions did Bush have before talking to North Korea, or Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia funds terrorists and terrorism, North Korea is testing nukes, yet Bush seems perfectly willing to "talk" to those countries.

It is just more B.S. politics trying to say "OMG Obama wants to TALK to our enemies"

"Talking to Countries = Appeasment" is one of the word analogies invented for this election cycle. Obama took that potshot from Bush on the chin. He could have easily retorted and brought up examples of Bush being perfectly willing to not only talk to, but pay off terrorists and militia members in order to try and get violence down in Iraq.

[chomerics]

It's ALWAYS a manifesto with you. And everyone knows it. Everyone that is, but you.

Why do you think the terms "ChomWOrld" and "Chommunist Manifesto" are attached to you?

Because ignorant morons who lack the intellectual capacity to understand the nuance of life would rather make fun of something then question their own misguided logic? :whoknows:

[Henry]

So now it is a Manifesto? Just because you don't happen to agree with my views doesn't make them any more or less viable then yours.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with them. I don't feel like laying out and critique-ing the entire leftist agenda because I happened to say it looks to me like the Democratic party is heading to the left. That wasn't the point of my statement. I wasn't being critical. I was simply making an observation. If you don't feel the party is moving left, fine.

The second thing was your "pre condition" which you said he should use before sitting down. Again I elaborated on what I think a typical "pre condition" would be, and how it would be nothing other than an excuse for war. I also showed where Liebermann has made out very handsomely for backing Bush, and what his motives were for turning his back on the democrat party.

What I take "without precondition" to mean is that Obama wouldn't use the right to negotiate with the US as diplomatic leverage. We are the most powerful and influential nation on the planet. Access to our power and influence through discussions with our President is a valuable commodity. I don't think we should take the complete abandonment of a bargaining chip like that lightly. And I would like for Obama to clarify what he means by it myself. I have heard rumblings that 'without preconditions' does not mean 'unconditionally.' ... well, what the heck DOES he mean then?

I think that's kind of important.

That does not mean I think Obama should close his eyes, put his hands over his ears and hum God Bless America to himself like Bush does. I just want to know what the hell he's talking about.

[PeterMP]

bombing the tribal areas of Pakistan.

leaving residual forces in Iraq to combat terrorism

increasing troop levels in Afghanistan

healthcare plan is not mandated

favors nuclear power

Did anybody on the left really complaing about 1 or 2?

He hasn't said he'd leave troops behind (except essentially embassy protection).

He said he'd put them back in if Al Qeada created bases there.

I didn't know about nuclear power.

On helathcare, I don't consider lying so they won't figure out that you don't support it, 'taking them on.'

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/02/eyeon_ohio.html

[chomerics]

What I take "without precondition" to mean is that Obama wouldn't use the right to negotiate with the US as diplomatic leverage. We are the most powerful and influential nation on the planet. Access to our power and influence through discussions with our President is a valuable commodity. I don't think we should take the complete abandonment of a bargaining chip like that lightly. And I would like for Obama to clarify what he means by it myself. I have heard rumblings that 'without preconditions' does not mean 'unconditionally.' ... well, what the heck DOES he mean then?

I think that's kind of important.

That does not mean I think Obama should close his eyes, put his hands over his ears and hum God Bless America to himself like Bush does. I just want to know what the hell he's talking about.

Well, I think the link DJ posted pretty much explained what he was talking about. You start out with mid level talks with diplomats, then if things move up the ladder, you proceed with caution. You don't throw all of your eggs in one basket, you let them go a little at a time. I trust him to do the right thing, and to do what is necessary. I don't have a problem talking with our supposed enemies, and trying to convince them to come to our side. i think any type of a diplomatic solution is better than the status quo which is to sit on our arse and watch them develop nukes in plain sight.

[PeterMP]

i think any type of a diplomatic solution is better than the status quo which is to sit on our arse and watch them develop nukes in plain sight.

Including one where they develope them out of plain site as they take millions (if not billions) of dollars worth of supplies and goods from us?

Iran is going to go nuclear unless we are willing to take serious military actions, which don't really have the ability to do because of Iraq.

It be for the best, if we just realized it, moved on, and started thinking about the ME with a nuclear Iran and the consequences of that.

[Sarge]

Because ignorant morons who lack the intellectual capacity to understand the nuance of life would rather make fun of something then question their own misguided logic? :whoknows:

Maybe it's time to look in the mirror. Especially when someone like Henry, who ain't exactly Rush Limbaugh, calls you on your MO.

Which BTW usually follows one of two posting styles;

1) Multipost the hell out of Daily Kos, Think Progess, Huffington Post etc in order to try and overwhelm your opponent or

2) Come into a thread, start out somewhat sanely and three sentences later start up with the Bush/Hitler/Haliburton/Cheney/neo-con spew rant rail

Everyone but you sees it.

[Sarge]

Well, I think the link DJ posted pretty much explained what he was talking about. You start out with mid level talks with diplomats, then if things move up the ladder, you proceed with caution. You don't throw all of your eggs in one basket, you let them go a little at a time. I trust him to do the right thing, and to do what is necessary. I don't have a problem talking with our supposed enemies, and trying to convince them to come to our side. i think any type of a diplomatic solution is better than the status quo which is to sit on our arse and watch them develop nukes in plain sight.

For thirty years we've tried every approach there is

Kissing their asses Carter

Ignoring them/backchannel deal Reagan

Ignoring them Bush I

Talking kissing their asses Klinton

Ignoring them/letting the EU deal with them Bush II

Gee, what's left?

Of course, that won't happen with Obama, because like every good Dem, he'll start tearing the military apart

[hokie4redskins]

Maybe it's time to look in the mirror. Especially when someone like Henry, who ain't exactly Rush Limbaugh, calls you on your MO.

Which BTW usually follows one of two posting styles;

1) Multipost the hell out of Daily Kos, Think Progess, Huffington Post etc in order to try and overwhelm your opponent or

2) Come into a thread, start out somewhat sanely and three sentences later start up with the Bush/Hitler/Haliburton/Cheney/neo-con spew rant rail

Everyone but you sees it.

People still read his posts? Who knew?

:whoknows:

[Henry]

Gee Sarge. Thanks for the backup :twitch:

[chomerics]

Maybe it's time to look in the mirror. Especially when someone like Henry, who ain't exactly Rush Limbaugh, calls you on your MO.

Which BTW usually follows one of two posting styles;

1) Multipost the hell out of Daily Kos, Think Progess, Huffington Post etc in order to try and overwhelm your opponent or

2) Come into a thread, start out somewhat sanely and three sentences later start up with the Bush/Hitler/Haliburton/Cheney/neo-con spew rant rail

Everyone but you sees it.

Yea Sarge, because everything I posted in this thread was really from the daily kos, or any other liberal blog :doh:

We get it Sarge, you are a right wing thug and a lunatic with a gun. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but when you are exposed for who you are, your only defense is "yea but" or "pot meet kettle" . . . instead of expanding your mind and allowing yourself to see another viewpoint you completely shut the world down into these little catch phrases, and talking points. You have to do this because you have no platform to stand on anymore. Everything you has said would happen has not, and the opposite has come to pass. History proves you wrong Sarge, not you, not I, not anyone else but history!

It is not my fault that you were wrong about the WMDs, or Terry Schaivo, or Richard Clarke, or Hussen and Al Qaeda connections, or New Orleans, or Jeff Gannon, or Ted haggard, or Larry Craig or, Mark Foley, or Karl Rove, of Scooter Libbey, or just about anything that you post on here. It is not my fault you chose to side with the one that can't tell the truth and hasn't a clue how to govern a country. Those were your choices, you decided who you wanted to sleep with. Just because what you thought was a beautiful 18 year old turned out to be a haggard man with sores all over his Johnson, you want to bash the other side for telling you that you have a man in your bed. :doh:

Furthermore, stop trying to hide behind Henry's good name. If he has a problem with me, he will say it, and I will discuss it with him, we don't need any more peanut gallery references from the likes of our resident Neanderthal. We can tell when you've been in a thread, because you try to come in, attempt to bash some heads, realize you are wrong, then smear crap all over the walls and complain when the place stinks. It is an old tried and true tactic the ignorant use. They break skulls and hopey nobody will call them on their game. . .well you have been called your game more times then a stripper pole in Vegas has been sprayed with disinfectant. You are just too obtuse to see when you are being ridiculed, so you continue the charade. . .

:2cents:

[chomerics]

For thirty years we've tried every approach there is

Kissing their asses Carter

Ignoring them/backchannel deal Reagan

Ignoring them Bush I

Talking kissing their asses Klinton

Ignoring them/letting the EU deal with them Bush II

Gee, what's left?

When was the last time we met with Iran sarge? almost 30 years ago? how can you say diplomatic solutions don't work if you have never tried them?

Of course, that won't happen with Obama, because like every good Dem, he'll start tearing the military apart

Or do you mean you will start to tear him apart when he actually uses the military? similarly to how you would tear apart Clinton for Kosovo, and say that we were killing soldiers unnecessarily, that we had no exit plan etc. etc.

I have already stated that if we don't talk, Obama will most likely bomb them, because it is really his only option as commander in chief if negotiations fail.

[Midnight Judges]

bombing the tribal areas of Pakistan.

leaving residual forces in Iraq to combat terrorism

increasing troop levels in Afghanistan

healthcare plan is not mandated

favors nuclear power

Did anybody on the left really complaing about 1 or 2?

Hell yeah the far left complained. This article makes the argument against Obama and then the far left comments below call him a "would be dictator." Obviously, the far left is very much against dropping bombs on people, always have been, always will be.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/05/2994/

BTW, there are many more articles like this on the web of the far left calling Obama a war monger for his stance on Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=214

...and here they are criticizing his "strike force" that is to remain behind to combat Al Qaeda in Iraq.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/jeremy_scahill_despite_anti_war_rhetoric

and again

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11351.cfm

He hasn't said he'd leave troops behind (except essentially embassy protection).

What you are saying defies common sense, because embassy protection is going to require what is being referred to as a "strike force." Obama has said he would use contractors to support Iraqi forces in a similar capacity as we are doing now (this is a big no-no to the left) as well as residual troops (yet another point of contention to the "withdraw at all costs" left). Embassy protection will be paralyzed without offensive capabilities. Obama and his advisors are well aware of this.

Not only are the withdrawal rates nearly identical, but Obama’s campaign also agrees that there will be residual troops left in Iraq and also gives no account to their size -- only their responsibilities.

“Senator Clinton has not been clear to my knowledge about the contours of her residuals,” Obama aide Dr. Susan Rice told reporters today. “Senator Obama has been very clear about what residuals would do when he is commander in chief…protect our embassy and civilians working in Iraq, and secondly, he would retain in Iraq and the region an ability to conduct targeted counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/17/politics/fromtheroad/entry3945913.shtml

Obviously the far left has a huge problem with this policy.

He said he'd put them back in if Al Qeada created bases there.

Not according to his aide. see above.

On helathcare, I don't consider lying so they won't figure out that you don't support it, 'taking them on.'

Huh? There's absolutely nothing dishonest about Obama's position on healthcare. His plan does not require everyone to be covered. The far left doesn't like that. They want mandated universal healthcare. Hillary advocates that. Obama does not.

You asked for examples of Obama taking on the far left. Lieberman made the claim that Obama has never disagreed with the far left on any substantive foreign policy issue. I think these are some pretty solid examples that clearly refute that assertion.

[redskins59]

Just another neoconservative. That's all I have to say about Lieberman. Because of idiots like him, we're stuck in Iraq, probably for decades.

[Jumbo]

Gee Sarge. Thanks for the backup :twitch:

When I first read Sarge's assist, a number of thoughts quickly ran through my mind.

To condense it down to one in response your comment here, H, and appealing to your interest in history, and Sarge's in military/political matters, and also go for the Godwin award all in one swoop:

It was like Stalin joining FDR in scolding Adolph for having a bad attitude.

[Sarge]

When was the last time we met with Iran sarge? almost 30 years ago? how can you say diplomatic solutions don't work if you have never tried them?

Or do you mean you will start to tear him apart when he actually uses the military? similarly to how you would tear apart Clinton for Kosovo, and say that we were killing soldiers unnecessarily, that we had no exit plan etc. etc.

I have already stated that if we don't talk, Obama will most likely bomb them, because it is really his only option as commander in chief if negotiations fail.

Gee, aren't you one of the ones that dogs Reagan for dealing with them?

And yes, if he uses the military for pizza delivery missions like Kosovo (How's that turned out?) Hatii (How's that turned out?) and other non national security related missions, I'll be the first one in his case

If he uses it on Iran, well, good for him

But being a Marxist Dem, there's not a chance in hell of that

[Sarge]

Yea Sarge, because everything I posted in this thread was really from the daily kos, or any other liberal blog :doh:

We get it Sarge, you are a right wing thug and a lunatic with a gun. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but when you are exposed for who you are, your only defense is "yea but" or "pot meet kettle" . . . instead of expanding your mind and allowing yourself to see another viewpoint you completely shut the world down into these little catch phrases, and talking points. You have to do this because you have no platform to stand on anymore. Everything you has said would happen has not, and the opposite has come to pass. History proves you wrong Sarge, not you, not I, not anyone else but history!

It is not my fault that you were wrong about the WMDs, or Terry Schaivo, or Richard Clarke, or Hussen and Al Qaeda connections, or New Orleans, or Jeff Gannon, or Ted haggard, or Larry Craig or, Mark Foley, or Karl Rove, of Scooter Libbey, or just about anything that you post on here. It is not my fault you chose to side with the one that can't tell the truth and hasn't a clue how to govern a country. Those were your choices, you decided who you wanted to sleep with. Just because what you thought was a beautiful 18 year old turned out to be a haggard man with sores all over his Johnson, you want to bash the other side for telling you that you have a man in your bed. :doh:

Furthermore, stop trying to hide behind Henry's good name. If he has a problem with me, he will say it, and I will discuss it with him, we don't need any more peanut gallery references from the likes of our resident Neanderthal. We can tell when you've been in a thread, because you try to come in, attempt to bash some heads, realize you are wrong, then smear crap all over the walls and complain when the place stinks. It is an old tried and true tactic the ignorant use. They break skulls and hopey nobody will call them on their game. . .well you have been called your game more times then a stripper pole in Vegas has been sprayed with disinfectant. You are just too obtuse to see when you are being ridiculed, so you continue the charade. . .

:2cents:

Gee, get called on your game, not only by myself but Henry, and like most libs it's time to yell DISTRACTION! CHANGE!

Once again a long winded skreed, albeit without multi-quoting this time, on everything but yourself.

Sorry dude, but you're the one that's the laughingstock of board.

[chomerics]

Gee, get called on your game, not only by myself but Henry, and like most libs it's time to yell DISTRACTION! CHANGE!

Once again a long winded skreed, albeit without multi-quoting this time, on everything but yourself.

Sorry dude, but you're the one that's the laughingstock of board.

And where have you added to the discussion Sarge? Where do you EVER add to the discussion?

[chomerics]

If he uses it on Iran, well, good for him

But being a Marxist Dem, there's not a chance in hell of that

My god Sarge, do you come up with ANYTHING new or valuable??? Anything? At least try to use some of the gray matter between your ears, it really isn't that hard to do.

[Duncan]

Forget national security and international economic issues, on what issue period has he stood up to the party's left wing?

He is for hope and change Peter. That's all that really matters.

[Duncan]

Lieberman is nothing more than a traitor to his own party. Not interested in anything he says.

It's always lovely to see the tolerance of different viewpoints in a political party.

Joe Lieberman has been a principled liberal his entire career in the Senate and he disagrees on one issue and he is a traitor. Nice.

[Burgold]

Who's willing to lay odds that Sarge and Chomerics are in actuality the same person, but don't know it. I've got this weird feeling that we are experiencing a severe case of mpd (multiple personality disorder). The speed and violence of their responses to each other has just got to make you wonder. It's so Bruce Banner and the Hulk.

[Sarge]

And where have you added to the discussion Sarge? Where do you EVER add to the discussion?

And you add what? The same old hate America, freedom for pornographers, praise a commentator that sounds like a terrorist, global warming, pro terrorist right to post videos spew.

How many times have I dogged Bush about immigration, sending too much, ****ing up the prosecution of the war?

Too many to count.

But you come on here and anyone that isn't a marxist democrat and shares your loon views is automatically a Republican ass kissing neocon. Talk about someone that is so brainwashed that they can't see "nuances".

And for the record, I was in Afghanistan during the Schivo deal, (Kinda hard to post from there) have never posted anything on Hussain/AL Queda, said Mark Foley was heterosexually challenged perv that needed jail time, as well as Larry Craig (Can't call them homo's you know). Just goes to show your selective attention span

Look in the mirror dude

[Jumbo]

So I'm betting Henry didn't intend to create a Chom-Sarge cage match of a thread.

Internalize that you are both loved/reviled as iconic tailgate "characters." Be grateful. You could be a merely despised tailgate "character" instead, as is the case with certain mods.