Just deserts for the Brown Shirts!!

So you do not care if America crumbles.

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w

I'm afraid Lieberman is probably the last of the Democrats to resemble JFK, FDR, Truman, etc. There appears to be no place for a reasonable voice in the party which sadly leaves me nowhere to hang my hat. The gentlemen listed above might not recognize the party today, which is troubling to say the least.

[quote=Chateauroux;17722]Then you don't want almost anyone in Congress. Looks like a clean sweep! Maybe not a bad thing.

This is true. The end of the reasonable, middle of the road Democrat party.

Yes the Democratic party has sold its soul to having the citiziens of this country dependt on goverment for their well being. When will we as a nation start accepting responsibilty for our own actions.

It seems to me that after reading my history book, John Smith said that if you don't work, then you don't eat.

The liberials have taken great pains to say that you are not responible for your life and they will make it easier for you.

Jesus said the same thing.

__________________

Liberal-a person who has his cake, eats his cake, and complains that other people don't have cake, and believes that you should donate your cake to them

The Democrats are only responding to the extremely partisan Republican party, which abandoned long ago any attempts at being "reasonable"and "middle of the road."

I used to consider myself a moderate Republican, but the party has radicalized itself so much over the past decade that I must now call myself a liberal.

Lieberman was not a "middle of the road" Democrat. Such a Democrat would be a man of compromise. Compromise occurs when the two parties make concessions to reach a midpoint, where everyone, or almost everyone, agrees.
Lieberman never sought to obtain concessions from the Republican party; he went fully overboard, and adopted almost all of their positions. Therefore, it's perfectly understandable that his voters, who are, after all, Democrats, wish to get rid of him. He is now but a shill.

The dissatisfaction of his constituents stems from his stance on the war. On most other issues he is solidly with the Democrats. If the only people who are moderates are the ones who reach a consensus after compromises, then there are not many moderates of either party.

He votes with the Democrats on abortion, energy, environment, family & children issues, taxes, and health care. He votes the same as many democrats on the immigration issue and is rated a 100% by teh AFL-CIO for his support of unions. I don't see how people can say that he has adopted the same stance as the Republicans on most issues. If you take out his stances on foreign policy as it relates to the war on terror, he is solidly democrat. It is a valid issue for voters and if they want to take him to task on that issue, that is one thing, but to claim that he has crossed over is not looking at all of the issues.

Does being in one party or another mean you have to vote with your party on all issues? If it does, then there is no reason to ever vote for the man/woman, just vote for the party.

www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

Hmm, I seem to remember the left saying that Israel responding with a "wrong" to the wrongs of Hezbollah was bad. Why is it that the Democratic party adopting wrongs because the Republican party adopted wrongs is alright?

In other, less confusing words, why do two wrongs suddenly make a right?