Who thinks the 2004 election was "stolen" ?

No doubt.

Your failing is when it comes to actually having any knowledge of poltical definitions.

Yet again I agree with you, Kendra!

That you guys should split a pitcher of brewski and listen to each other?

I would love to, I will say this though; it would be a helluva bar fight afterwards!
it would start out like this though

I have a great understanding of political definitions. I don't have a great understanding of the Gospel Of Politics According To Kendra. You are accusing me of failing to understand because I disagree with you, how sad.

/me slaps thigh "thats rich!"

Third parties/minor parties can call themselves whatever they wish, but according to the traditional definition of independent, if you're in a political party you're not. They may call themselves independent, but it's only for PR purposes. No political party is truly independent, whether it has 20 members or 20,000,000.
Again, I have not heard the term independent party used often, and a google of the phrase only turns up groups calling themselves the Independent Party, not anything to which you're referring.

Toni. We don't live in a Fascist State (yet)
Being a registered member of a political party does not mean I have to move in lockstep with the Party --(and here is where it gets tricky for you I think.)

That's because I'm not a politician. I'm a voting citizen. Lieberman can hold any view he wishes, and good on him for it!

What he CAN'T do is call himself a Democrat while ignoring the will of his Democratic constituents who clearly want Lamont --or his Party leadership who back Lamont.





No. Bush is leader of his Party at the moment by virtue of the custom of the sitting President being the Party Leader. While this makes him 'technically' the Party leader --he is quickly losing the support of his Party.

How many Senators and Congressmen are aching to have photo-ops with Bush this coming midterm election? Not many I bet.





He might be 'marginally' leftwing on some social issues (he is by no means on all issues if you examine his record). He is completely rightwing when it comes to both foreign and corporate issues.




Lieberman can stay in the Party all he wants --But he needs to get out of the Senate.
He is no longer capable of representing the majority of Democrats. Nor does he show a willingness to do so.

Let him vote all he wants to as a citizen and member of the Democratic Party. He has betrayed the trust of the Democratic Party by continuuing his run for re-election.




except socialists apparently.

when you tell me someone can't be Fascist and be pro-choice you demonstrate to me that you have no knowledge whatsoever of what fascism is.

so yeah.

LMAO! Ok, that has me rolling on the floor. Thank you

don't thank me, thank Robin Williams

Ahh. Then you agree with me. Good to know you've backstepped on your policy of expelling party members who disagree with the leadership. You see, minds can be changed. Being a member of a party doesn't even mean that you have to vote for candidates of that party, what with the secret ballot, and the Bill of Rights, and all.


Why not? Where is that written in law or gospel? Anyone can call themselves whatever they wish. If John McCain can himself a moderate centrist, when he clearly isn't, then Lieberman can call himself a Democrat. People call themselves what they want to get elected. I'm not saying it's right, but it's reality.


Not by my definition of right-wing, he isn't. And again, McCain is more conservative than Lieberman on both foreign affairs and fiscal affairs. Just because McCain labels himself a centrist doesn't mean he is. At least Lieberman doesn't go around calling himself liberal when he isn't.


Aww, that's so cute! Betrayed the trust of the Democratic Party. Where do you get these phrases? The trust of the Democratic Party. That's adorable. Maybe he just thinks that his state and his country are more important than any political party. You know, like George Washington did. Where exactly is this "trust of the Democratic Party" held? Can I get a look at it? I'd argue that the Democratic Party betrayed him. The DNC and party leaders should have done more to support him in the primary. I tell you, if I were Lieberman now I'd be taking names of all the people who rushed to endorse LaMont, so that if I won re-election I could keep in mind who they were. I'd also start casting about for someone to run in the primary against Chris Dodd in a couple years.


Again, I have no problem with anyone being in the Democratic Party. Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Bokonist, Humanist, Baptist, whatever. I'm not sure why this is a hard concept for you to understand. How many times do I have to write it for you to get it? You're the one who said you didn't consider yourself a Democrat. You're the one who wrote she felt as a socialist that she had to be registered as a Democrat, but go around telling people she wasn't one. Don't blame me for your internal inconsistencies, don't be angry at me over your hypocrisy, and don't put your words in my mouth. It's an interesting debate tactic, but it doesn't hold water with me.


When you tell me that someone is fascist because of how they voted on a bankruptcy bill and internet freedoms, you demonstrate to me that you have no knowledge whatsoever of what fascism is.
Additionally, by writing that one can determine if a member of Congress is a fascist by looking at their voting record, you're essentially equating conservatism with fascism. Tell me, have you ever visited one of the death camps in Europe? Gotten a more first-hand sense of what fascism is?
Why don't you just admit that you're a partisan attack dog and will use whatever language you see fit to stir up the pot and elicit people's emotional response? That would be honest, at least.

ya know what? I don't give a shit about your opinions.

Bye.

How very mature! And how very tolerant! claps Well done. At least you're finally being honest about something

I know. You don't care about anyone's opinions but your own. That's what intolerant people everywhere have in common.

Which of these two candidates is the Elitist Tool of Business, and which is a Champion of the Common Man? You be the judge:

* Candidate A's Family:
Candidate A's parents were first-generation immigrants. The biggest business they ever owned was a liquor store.

* Candidate B's Family:
Millionaires going way back. The family fortune is thanks to one of the largest financial services firms in the nation.

* Candidate A's Education:
Attended public school, president of his senior class. Attending an Ivy League school on a scholarship, he was the first member of his family to graduate college, and he went on to law school.

* Candidate B's Education:
Attended Phillips-Exeter Academy, arguably the most exclusive private high school in the nation. Also attended an Ivy League college, but not on scholarship; received a business degree.

* Candidate A's Business Career:
Worked at a law firm in New Haven before entering public service.

* Candidate B's Business Career:
Started as a newspaperman, rapidly developed a massive telecommunications firm that serviced college campuses and gated communities; last year earned $546,000.

* Candidate A's Public Service Career::
Served in the state Senate. Lost a congressional race. Spent six years as state Attorney General. Served in the U.S. Senate for three terms, eighteen years. Was his party's Vice Presidential nominee; ran for his party's Presidential nomination briefly.

* Candidate B's Public Service Career::
Selectman in his town for eight years. Unsuccessfully ran for the state Senate. Served on various civic boards.

* Candidate A's wife:
Daughter of a holocaust survivor, born in a refugee camp in Czechoslovakia

* Candidate B's wife:
Venture capitalist.

* Candidate A's record on race:
In 1963, he travelled to Mississippi to help African-Americans register to vote in the Freedom Summer. Has consistently voted in defense of minorities.

* Candidate B's record on race:
Belong to an exclusive country club.

Waa, waa, little baby can't admit being wrong about anything. That's so adorable!

I think it was the silliness of your point that made me see it as silly.



Elections! You still think those are real, don't you?

Aww, that's precious. *pats your head*

Since we're at the tail end of an ongoing argument about America and fasicsm, here's a good little article from several years ago on the subject:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/nov202001.html

An update on the Patriot Act since that time, for those who haven't followed it:

http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70362-0.html

By the way: ostensibly, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, aka Patriot II, was more or less killed, buuut ... not really:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/spyg-j10.shtml

The great thing about the piecemeal approach is it totally gets around any public debate, or really even public awareness. Clever, no?

But, I mean, you know ... nothing to worry about.

'Kay, off to bed with me. G'night, kids.