Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
~
Thank gaud. Maybe you will help burn Joe to ashes? Ah Yippee.
O gone, O no harpy. Happy no postpartum depression. O Yikes.
It could be worst? No got tooth ache. No ale PDA's toe. Glory. ah.
So, be kind to fellow truth seekers. Ya rest? blows YKW toes? ugh.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a president who put civil law above religious law?-- sonofloud
Reason above superstition? Not a chance. There is way too much money in superstition for that to ever happen.
I have only read where a couple of Senators had come out against Lieberman because he has done nothing substantial (and that is being nice) in his duties as Chairman. The rest are wimpering because big bad Joe said mean and naughty things about Obama during the election.
It only shows that the Dems priorties are more against name calling and being insulted rather than actually having someone in that position holding the government accountable.
Even most of the media reports I read focus solely on Joe's actions in the election and not the fact that he is inept in his chairmanship role. It is circa 2006 all over again.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/18/13236/038/233/662861
Poll
Do you approve of the job Harry Reid is doing as Senate Majority Leader?
85% of dailykos readers are saying, "No."
Go vote, and make Reid, Todd, Halperin, et. al. even happier!
Paul Daniel's Arse is sore...
As pow-wow mentioned (yesterday?), almost nothing of substance is decided in open debate anymore; it's all back room, all the time. The American public has been subjected to media-massaged political sound-and-fury for years now, but all that breathlessly "reported" partisan infighting never results in substantial changes in governance. Because it's fake. It's fake and it stinks of bad acting (our elected officials are not exactly Leonardo DiCaprio).Do you think that Americans would sleep through a "Prime Ministers 15 Minutes" type of weekly debate if we were only allowed the pleasure of watching one? I don't. I think we generally love a good fight. We are never given one, however.
Just wanted to repeat that.
My vote reflected my desire to see both parties debate legislation to solve vital problems, negotiate key points and come to a successful solution. I want them to then step to the microphones together and explain to Americans how the legislation addresses the particular issue. They would also then explain which of their cherished points ON EACH SIDE had to be eliminated or compromised for the good of the country. This has never happened.
There is only ugly conflict, egotistical posturing, blackmail and ultimately a partisan vote with the same defectors on each side of a childish war for power & votes. The parties then step to the mike either whining about how they were outsmarted by their enemies or castigating the losers who are "wrong" & "weak".
It's a classic pattern of abuse & co-dependency, and today's vote on Lieberman is simply another example of the long-standing sickness we call Congress.
Is there any way of knowing how people voted? Talk about paper tigers. The Democrats suck. Any change that occurs in the next four years will be watered down and bipartisan and have no teeth. I thought we voted a mandate for change. All we're going to get is more of the same.
One PIXEL.
Now SHOO!
Now SHOO!-- something stinks
With your voice being comparable to that of a field mouse infant, I doubt that your "shoo" is of any substance, even with the all caps. Now FOAD.
"The reward Joe Lieberman will receive today is justified by the claimed need for more AIPAC hegemony. Is it even possible to have more than we have now?"
FTFY
and AIPAC stands for Arms Industry Political Action Committee.
Republicans who outright tell you about their horrible policies and then enact them or ...
Democrats who claim they are going to change things and then cave to a Republican minority.
The problem Democrats still seem to face is that the agenda they are driving, bipartisanship, is only going to be used against them whenever Republicans want anything.
When George W. was elected in 2000, he announced that he had a mandate from the people to accomplish a conservative agenda. Even though he won only by the barest of margins.
Sometimes I think the Dems need to take a page out of this book. Especially, when there really IS a mandate for change.
That said, I know it's going to have to be a gradual process because Republicans have sold their case so well to the American public. They've sold it so well that somehow John McCain got over 40% of the vote even though he represented a continuation of Bush.
The Dems really still have work to do to get across their values so that they can accomplish change.
The Dems are wrong -- dead wrong -- if they think forgiving and forgetting will shut the 'right wing noise machine' up. It is relentless and myopic.
"Kill, kill, kill...."
Pedinska has already highlighted the unsupported nature of this sweet assertion, but it's always worth another good shot here in Partisanland.
I'll soften them up for your body shots any day.
I wonder if Jebbie will consent to design our wrestling tights?
We'll have to wear face paint, those full head masks just wreak havoc on a coiffure.
;-}
To those in Colorado, take note. We can make some guesses where at least one of the pro-Lieberman votes came from:
Update: Lieberman stepped up and spoke -- he said there was a "resolution of reconciliation and not of retribution" in the caucus. He cites Obama's support of him as critical.
Where is the promise that Evan Bayh and Amy Klobuchar said that he owed everyone? He thanks the "gang of four" -- Dodd, Ken Salazar, Bill Nelson and Tom Carper -- for saving him.
The more interesting question, of course, is who voted against him. I'm not really in favor of having that revealed right now. Those souls (brave or not) probably need the cover of anonymity.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
