If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   Joe Lieberman kicks America in the nuts on his way out of office   (dailykos.com) divider line 84
    More: Sad, Joe Lieberman, human beings, Senator Scott Brown, Carl Levin, Tom Coburn, Senator Reid, Daniel Akaka, Health Care, International  
•       •       •

12570 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Nov 2012 at 3:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



84 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-08 01:25:22 PM
At least he's honest, once you buy him he stays bought.
 
2012-11-08 01:30:12 PM
he sure is a loyal whore
 
2012-11-08 01:32:29 PM
He always was a DINOSAUR.

/Democrat In Name Only, Sorry Ass Undercover Republican
 
2012-11-08 01:47:19 PM
And I still get questioned why I didn't vote for the Gore/Lieberman ticket. With Gore pushing censorship in the 80's and 90's, and Joe being Joe, I had a lot of bad history to consider.

Lieberman might be one of the most horrible people in American politics.
 
2012-11-08 01:57:27 PM
I was going to guess that he was trying to pass the Do What Netayahu Says Act of 2012 which makes Bibi absolute ruler of America.
 
2012-11-08 01:58:38 PM
The headline is not much of an exaggeration. Holy hell, f*ck you, Joe. Don't let the doorknob hit you where the good Lord split you.
 
2012-11-08 02:18:45 PM
Don't blame me, I voted for Nader.
 
2012-11-08 02:37:34 PM
I vites libertarian in '00. Times like this, I really don't regret it.
 
2012-11-08 02:39:39 PM

palladiate: And I still get questioned why I didn't vote for the Gore/Lieberman ticket. With Gore pushing censorship in the 80's and 90's, and Joe being Joe, I had a lot of bad history to consider.

Lieberman might be one of the most horrible people in American politics.


Yep, same here. Though living in California, it was an easy thing for me to vote for Nader--if I had lived in a swing state I'm not sure I would've still done it.
 
2012-11-08 02:51:28 PM
A bitter diatribe would be here but for the man's Obamacare vote.
 
2012-11-08 02:58:31 PM
Sayonara, doucherocket
 
2012-11-08 03:17:36 PM
I'd worry more if I thought anything was getting through the lame duck session.
 
2012-11-08 03:30:08 PM
I think it's Signing Statement time.
 
2012-11-08 03:33:39 PM
I don't know enough about the bill, but couldn't Obama just be like 'fark you, veto'?
 
2012-11-08 03:34:40 PM

dahmers love zombie: I think it's Signing Statement time.


Maybe even so much as put in the signing statement, "...And Joseph Lieberman, the former senator from Connecticut, can go suck on a bag of dicks until he chokes and dies."
 
2012-11-08 03:34:44 PM
I guess Hadassah isn't making him happy any more.
 
2012-11-08 03:36:15 PM

Saborlas: He always was a DINOSAUR.

/Democrat In Name Only, Sorry Ass Undercover Republican


I'm not too enthusiastic about Lieberman myself. But really, he did vote for both Obamacare and DADT repeal. He's not all bad.
 
2012-11-08 03:36:38 PM
Fark you, Joe LIEberman.
 
2012-11-08 03:37:06 PM

bdub77: I don't know enough about the bill, but couldn't Obama just be like 'fark you, veto'?


That is what I assume. Also Levin is up for reelection in 2014. If you're in Michigan, contact his campaign and remind them this state is quite capable of voting in an R if Levin gets a bad case of stupid.
 
2012-11-08 03:37:46 PM

bugontherug: I'm not too enthusiastic about Lieberman myself. But really, he did vote for both Obamacare and DADT repeal. He's not all bad.


Yeah, he voted for the ACA after he made sure public option and single-payer were off the table and that his insurance industry Johns got their cut in the deal. Fark Lieberman with a rusty saw.
 
2012-11-08 03:38:55 PM
Democrats on the committee are supporting it too. WHY are they supporting it too?
 
2012-11-08 03:40:08 PM
but we want massive regulations, as quick as you can write 'em.
 
2012-11-08 03:41:15 PM

SilentStrider: I vites...


To the right, to the right
On every other letter move your finger to the right

(think of a Beyonce song as you read that, let it stick in your head all day)
 
2012-11-08 03:43:07 PM
It won't pass. If it did, Obama would veto it.
 
2012-11-08 03:44:49 PM
Right back at ya Lieberman you f*cker.
 
2012-11-08 03:45:29 PM

EyeballKid: bugontherug: I'm not too enthusiastic about Lieberman myself. But really, he did vote for both Obamacare and DADT repeal. He's not all bad.

Yeah, he voted for the ACA after he made sure public option and single-payer were off the table and that his insurance industry Johns got their cut in the deal. Fark Lieberman with a rusty saw.


I'll grant, I haven't checked the actual voting record. But my memory of 2009-2011 has the Republicans filibustering virtually everything, to a man. If true, that means Lieberman was the 60th vote for almost all of the following legislation:


January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2
February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111-3
February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111-5
March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111-8
March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-11
April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111-13
May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-21
May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-22
May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-23
May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-24
June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111-31
June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111-32
October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111-84
November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-92
December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111-117
February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111-139
March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111-145
March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111-147
March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111-148
March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111-152
May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-163
July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-195
July 21, 2010: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111-203
July 29, 2010: Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-220
August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act, Pub.L. 111-223
September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-240
December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-291
December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-296
December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-312, H.R. 4853
December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-321, H.R. 2965
January 2, 2011: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-347, H.R. 847
January 4, 2011: Shark Conservation Act, Pub.L. 111-348, H.R. 81
January 4, 2011: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751
 
2012-11-08 03:45:55 PM
Wasn't he the one that made them remove the Public Option before he would vote for ObamaCare?
 
2012-11-08 03:46:23 PM
That's not sane.
 
2012-11-08 03:50:55 PM
He did vote for Obamacare, but he was the 60th vote and demanded that they drop the single payer option before he signed it. So basically, he single handedly watered it down and made it considerably less effective than it could have been
 
2012-11-08 03:52:37 PM

bdub77: I don't know enough about the bill, but couldn't Obama just be like 'fark you, veto'?


Why would Obama veto it? It's a direct, almost-unprecedented, expansion of Executive power. You want to talk unitary executive, look no further than a bill that would strip Congress of what precious little authority it has left in the way of powers delegated to administrative agencies and place it squarely under the purview of the White House. This is the kind of bill that FDR's hard-on would dig its way out of his grave, hop a train from Hyde Park to DC, barge into the White House, and drill its way through the Resolute desk to snatch the pen right out of Obama's hand and sign itself. In the hands of a Democratic president, that bill could do some real, serious, indelible good compared to the bloated, bureaucratic, captured mess administrative agencies currently are...especially in the wake of the goddamn Chevron decision that still manages to fark citizen oversight and accountability on the part of administrative agencies right in the ass to this day.

The problems, naturally, are that a Republican president would take that shiat and run with it to unilaterally create the kind of John Galt douchebaggish regulatory hellscape that caused the 2008 economic meltdown, and it does practically nothing whatsoever to curb regulatory capture which is the problem to begin with.
 
2012-11-08 03:54:05 PM

Granny_Panties: Wasn't he the one that made them remove the Public Option before he would vote for ObamaCare?


Worse. He made them remove the 'Medicare buy-in' option that was a weak-sauce substitute for the public option.

This when 'Medicare Buy-in' was supposed to be one of his signature political ideas that he campaigned with.

Total and utter betrayal.

/He was for it before he was against it. He was for it until the 11th hour.
 
2012-11-08 03:54:07 PM
so where does he land? AIPAC or a Def contractor lobbyist?
 
2012-11-08 03:54:15 PM
 
2012-11-08 03:59:47 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Democrats on the committee are supporting it too. WHY are they supporting it too?


Still no answer to this.

I hate Joe as much as the next guy but there has to be an explanation for this amidst all the hate.
 
2012-11-08 04:01:52 PM
"Joe Lieberman's good by gift to America."

/droopydog.jpg
 
2012-11-08 04:01:59 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Still no answer to this.


My post, little bit up-thread.
 
2012-11-08 04:03:02 PM
Hey Joe, time for dinner!

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-08 04:03:16 PM
Whatever its title, the intent of this legislation is crystal clear if you know how to read between the lines. This law is a dagger aimed at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that Dodd-Frank created. Romney's loss and Elizabeth Warren's win effectively killed Wall's Street's hopes of dismantling it and/or neutering it by replacing the director with a four member half Dem Half Republican commission

Now, as the agency prepares a slew of new regulations mandating things like more detailed and clearer loan disclosures when you buy a house, requiring banks prove you have a reasonable ability to re-pay the credit limits they set on your credit cards, limiting fees for money transfers and remittances, etc etc their only hope is to gum up the works as long as possible. I have no doubt Joey was promised of BOD seat or four as a retirement present in exchange for this legislation
 
2012-11-08 04:03:53 PM

that bosnian sniper: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Still no answer to this.

My post, little bit up-thread.


thx
 
2012-11-08 04:10:17 PM

palladiate: And I still get questioned why I didn't vote for the Gore/Lieberman ticket. With Gore pushing censorship in the 80's and 90's, and Joe being Joe, I had a lot of bad history to consider.

Lieberman might be one of the most horrible people in American politics.


I thought I was the only one who voted against Gore/Lieberman for free speech reasons. Of course, I live in California so my vote doesn't actually count. Had I lived in Florida, I probably would have worn an industrial sized clothespin on my nose and voted for them anyways, but I'm not actually sure.

/no, I didn't vote for Bush, I voted for the Libertarian
//I think his name was Browne
 
2012-11-08 04:11:18 PM

that bosnian sniper: bdub77: I don't know enough about the bill, but couldn't Obama just be like 'fark you, veto'?

Why would Obama veto it? It's a direct, almost-unprecedented, expansion of Executive power. You want to talk unitary executive, look no further than a bill that would strip Congress of what precious little authority it has left in the way of powers delegated to administrative agencies and place it squarely under the purview of the White House. This is the kind of bill that FDR's hard-on would dig its way out of his grave, hop a train from Hyde Park to DC, barge into the White House, and drill its way through the Resolute desk to snatch the pen right out of Obama's hand and sign itself. In the hands of a Democratic president, that bill could do some real, serious, indelible good compared to the bloated, bureaucratic, captured mess administrative agencies currently are...especially in the wake of the goddamn Chevron decision that still manages to fark citizen oversight and accountability on the part of administrative agencies right in the ass to this day.

The problems, naturally, are that a Republican president would take that shiat and run with it to unilaterally create the kind of John Galt douchebaggish regulatory hellscape that caused the 2008 economic meltdown, and it does practically nothing whatsoever to curb regulatory capture which is the problem to begin with.


I'd find it cute that you make such a distinction between Dems and Republicans, Good vs. Evil, Right vs. Wrong... if I didn't remind myself that they are all politicians first, and march to the beat of their own drummer.

Keep in mind that before Lieberman was an independent, he was a Dem... and nearly a heartbeat away from being president when he was.

Just food for thought
 
2012-11-08 04:11:47 PM

bdub77: I don't know enough about the bill, but couldn't Obama just be like 'fark you, veto'?


The bill appears to give the President more power. Why on earth would Obama (or any other President) veto it?
 
2012-11-08 04:11:54 PM
I don't like independent agencies on a constitutional level.
 
2012-11-08 04:15:01 PM

that bosnian sniper: bdub77: I don't know enough about the bill, but couldn't Obama just be like 'fark you, veto'?

Why would Obama veto it? It's a direct, almost-unprecedented, expansion of Executive power. You want to talk unitary executive, look no further than a bill that would strip Congress of what precious little authority it has left in the way of powers delegated to administrative agencies and place it squarely under the purview of the White House. This is the kind of bill that FDR's hard-on would dig its way out of his grave, hop a train from Hyde Park to DC, barge into the White House, and drill its way through the Resolute desk to snatch the pen right out of Obama's hand and sign itself. In the hands of a Democratic president, that bill could do some real, serious, indelible good compared to the bloated, bureaucratic, captured mess administrative agencies currently are...especially in the wake of the goddamn Chevron decision that still manages to fark citizen oversight and accountability on the part of administrative agencies right in the ass to this day.

The problems, naturally, are that a Republican president would take that shiat and run with it to unilaterally create the kind of John Galt douchebaggish regulatory hellscape that caused the 2008 economic meltdown, and it does practically nothing whatsoever to curb regulatory capture which is the problem to begin with.


I think you answered your own question.
 
2012-11-08 04:16:32 PM

Geotpf: bdub77: I don't know enough about the bill, but couldn't Obama just be like 'fark you, veto'?

The bill appears to give the President more power. Why on earth would Obama (or any other President) veto it?


Foresight?
 
2012-11-08 04:16:56 PM
Accountability for regulations rather than fobbing off the unpopular nastiness to unelected entities to wreak havoc as they will? The horror.

What's wrong with, "I'm President Nimrod and I approve this regulation"? It's good enough for campaign commercials. 

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-08 04:18:08 PM
Joe, just go choke on a bag of dicks you flaming POS. I wonder which farking bank or corporation has already hired you as a lobbyist?

Still pissed off about this B.S. he pulled, earlier this year: Link
 
2012-11-08 04:30:40 PM
I'd rather they go before Congress than before the President, but by putting such laws in front of an elected official it's at least a step in the right direction. That's where the lawmaking power needs to be.
 
2012-11-08 04:35:18 PM

jjorsett: Accountability for regulations rather than fobbing off the unpopular nastiness to unelected entities to wreak havoc as they will? The horror.

What's wrong with, "I'm President Nimrod and I approve this regulation"? It's good enough for campaign commercials. 

[i45.tinypic.com image 375x375]


How do you imagine this bill would inject any sort of accountability?
 
2012-11-08 04:36:18 PM

Millennium: I'd rather they go before Congress than before the President, but by putting such laws in front of an elected official it's at least a step in the right direction. That's where the lawmaking power needs to be.


I dunno. I think I'd prefer Dubya calling the shots over the current crop of teatards in the House.
 
2012-11-08 04:36:36 PM

Millennium: I'd rather they go before Congress than before the President, but by putting such laws in front of an elected official it's at least a step in the right direction. That's where the lawmaking power needs to be.


You're ok with this law because it gives the President lawmaking power? That is No. 1 on the list of reasons you should be opposed to it.
 
2012-11-08 04:38:07 PM
Joe the Lying twat can go back to farking his oiled boys in a dive in Bridgeport full time.
 
2012-11-08 04:44:42 PM

GranoblasticMan: I think you answered your own question.


Clinton signed the line-item veto knowing its potential for abuse, and Obama certainly hasn't been jumping at the opportunity to roll back Bush-era expansions of executive power. Who was the last president to take an opportunity to roll back the unitary executive?
 
2012-11-08 04:45:20 PM
So, Joe was thinking that Romney would win and wanted to give him a big stick to club those pesky regulators with?
 
2012-11-08 04:45:47 PM

GranoblasticMan: that bosnian sniper: bdub77: I don't know enough about the bill, but couldn't Obama just be like 'fark you, veto'?

Why would Obama veto it? It's a direct, almost-unprecedented, expansion of Executive power. You want to talk unitary executive, look no further than a bill that would strip Congress of what precious little authority it has left in the way of powers delegated to administrative agencies and place it squarely under the purview of the White House. This is the kind of bill that FDR's hard-on would dig its way out of his grave, hop a train from Hyde Park to DC, barge into the White House, and drill its way through the Resolute desk to snatch the pen right out of Obama's hand and sign itself. In the hands of a Democratic president, that bill could do some real, serious, indelible good compared to the bloated, bureaucratic, captured mess administrative agencies currently are...especially in the wake of the goddamn Chevron decision that still manages to fark citizen oversight and accountability on the part of administrative agencies right in the ass to this day.

The problems, naturally, are that a Republican president would take that shiat and run with it to unilaterally create the kind of John Galt douchebaggish regulatory hellscape that caused the 2008 economic meltdown, and it does practically nothing whatsoever to curb regulatory capture which is the problem to begin with.

I think you answered your own question.


I guess this depends on whether or not you think there will ever be a Republican President ever again. The gerrymandering will keep the Republicans viable in the House for some time, but on a state by state basis, it'll be really hard to elect a Republican President from now on. A Democratic President may be a permanent fixture in America for quite some time. There's enough wiggle room that an exceptionally horrible Democratic candidate combined with an exceptionally good Republican candidate could possibily result in a narrow Republican victory in the next couple of election cycles, but once Texas flips it's game over.
 
2012-11-08 04:51:46 PM

HairBolus: So, Joe was thinking that Romney would win and wanted to give him a big stick to club those pesky regulators with?


Yup
 
2012-11-08 04:53:26 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-08 05:05:26 PM

colon_pow: but we want massive regulations, as quick as you can write 'em.


You know that thing about "regulatory uncertainty"? Not knowing when a rule is going to go into effect because the president's schedule is packed to the gills is uncertainty.
 
2012-11-08 05:07:59 PM
img571.imageshack.us

One War Monger down...2 to go!
 
2012-11-08 05:10:04 PM
Joe Liberman is probably the ONLY good thing to come out of GW Bush winning the election in 2000. Cheney is a Darkseid wannabe, but I would hate to see a VP Lieberman around.

Is there any way this sack of totalitarian horse sh*t can be thwarted? I'd hope that regardless of how much he wants to make a deal, Obama would sooner saw his arm off than sign such a p.o.s., no matter what bill it's attached to.
 
2012-11-08 05:10:49 PM
Lieberman was always an asshole.

He's why I didn't vote for Gore in 2000.

Here's the little story about that.

In the 2000 VP debate, I had a few friends who were part of the police security detail for that event. He told me what he witnessed and how Lieberman acted.

He went to Danville, Kentucky and was horrified that the event was in a small town. The local Holiday Inn and Motel 6 were way, way below his standards, he refused to sleep there. So, the nearest city with major hotels was Lexington. They went to a big hotel in Lexington. He checked in, and took one look at the room and said that this room was below his standards.

While he went out to eat at the best restaurant in town his people could find, he made another group of his entourage go to a local furniture store, get an entire cherry bedroom set, and move the furniture in and set up the hotel room with this custom furniture in the couple of hours he was out of the room, so he could sleep there one night, go to the debate, and immediately fly out. By all accounts of his police escorts he was an arrogant, elitist prick.

I realized I couldn't vote for anybody who was that much of an asshole. He acted (when the cameras weren't on him) like the elitist 1% better-than-you prick that Romney came off as all the time.
 
2012-11-08 05:12:20 PM

Geotpf: I thought I was the only one who voted against Gore/Lieberman for free speech reasons.


They were emblematic to me of everything that was wrong with the Democrats in the 80's and 90's.

Fortunately, Obama has been as well, but for everything that's right.
 
2012-11-08 05:15:50 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: that bosnian sniper: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Still no answer to this.

My post, little bit up-thread.

thx


And that didn't answer my question at all.
 
2012-11-08 05:17:22 PM

SnakeLee: He did vote for Obamacare, but he was the 60th vote and demanded that they drop the single payer option before he signed it. So basically, he single handedly watered it down and made it considerably less effective than it could have been


I did not know that...

/ what a d-bag
 
2012-11-08 05:25:35 PM
It is farking mind boggling that this man was Al Gores running mate in 2000. What the fark is this guy's problem? Did he at some point since then walk in on his parent banging or something?
 
2012-11-08 05:32:33 PM

qorkfiend: Millennium: I'd rather they go before Congress than before the President, but by putting such laws in front of an elected official it's at least a step in the right direction. That's where the lawmaking power needs to be.

You're ok with this law because it gives the President lawmaking power? That is No. 1 on the list of reasons you should be opposed to it.


You'll note that I didn't say I was perfectly happy with it, and that it should be going before Congress, not the President. But putting it before any elected officials at all is a positive step.
 
2012-11-08 05:45:27 PM

palladiate: And I still get questioned why I didn't vote for the Gore/Lieberman ticket. With Gore pushing censorship in the 80's and 90's, and Joe being Joe, I had a lot of bad history to consider.

Lieberman might be one of the most horrible people in American politics.


Yeah, Gore lost my vote when he picked Lieberman. Of course, I didn't realize that Bush would end up being that bad.
 
2012-11-08 05:45:54 PM
News about Joe Lieberman being a scumbag, isn't.
 
2012-11-08 05:52:53 PM

exick: Don't blame me, I voted for Nader.


Joe Lieberman is exactly why I voted for Nader instead of Gore. The state I live in now was already going over 65% for the Shrub, so I said "fark it". Joe used to be my Senator in the state I grew up in, so it was a pretty easy decision.
 
2012-11-08 05:57:02 PM

Ennuipoet: At least he's honest, once you buy him he stays bought.

 
2012-11-08 06:00:30 PM
Don't let door hit you on the way out.
 
2012-11-08 06:22:41 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-08 06:31:27 PM
Joe Lieberman was one of the best things that ever happened to this country.

He was one of my favorite Dems.

It's worth it just for the reactions he got from you moron fark libs.
 
2012-11-08 06:56:36 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: palladiate: And I still get questioned why I didn't vote for the Gore/Lieberman ticket. With Gore pushing censorship in the 80's and 90's, and Joe being Joe, I had a lot of bad history to consider.

Lieberman might be one of the most horrible people in American politics.

Yeah, Gore lost my vote when he picked Lieberman. Of course, I didn't realize that Bush would end up being that bad.


Hindsight is 20/20, if we'd known Bush was going to fire a missile at the pentagonno that's not even funny in jest..If we'd known Bush was going to get his administration juiced up on terrorism-fueled adrenaline, and if we'd known the evangelicals were going to come out in droves and he was going to reward them so much I think a lot of things would have been different about the 2000 election. But so it goes, even I bought into the "both side are bad" rhetoric, even if I didn't vote Republican (well, I suppose I did, Texas/electoral college).

That said, I admit I was also pretty clueless as to who and how bad Lieberman was.
 
2012-11-08 07:03:27 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Democrats on the committee are supporting it too. WHY are they supporting it too?

Still no answer to this.

I hate Joe as much as the next guy but there has to be an explanation for this amidst all the hate.


Maybe because it gives the current president more power for the next four years?


bdub77: I don't know enough about the bill, but couldn't Obama just be like 'fark you, veto'?


From TFA:

Even worse, it appears that Lieberman's plan is to quickly ready the bill to be included in must-pass legislation that will come up in a lame-duck session intended to deal with things such as a phony panic over the "fiscal cliff." 

www.die-simpsons.de

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work"
 
2012-11-08 07:38:30 PM

AngryDragon: [25.media.tumblr.com image 420x512]


I always thought Lieberman bore a resemblance to Palpatine.

During the electoral crisis of 2000, I kept imagining him saying:

"Now they will elect a new Chancellor President, a strong Chancellor President. One who will not let this tragedy continue."
 
2012-11-08 08:17:23 PM
Guys, even if Obama vetoes this, if it does get put into "must-pass" legislation Congress may override the veto anyway.

/best nip it in the bud before it gets to his desk.
 
2012-11-08 08:19:49 PM

bugontherug: Saborlas: He always was a DINOSAUR.

/Democrat In Name Only, Sorry Ass Undercover Republican

I'm not too enthusiastic about Lieberman myself. But really, he did vote for both Obamacare and DADT repeal. He's not all bad.


He is the reason Obamacare is such a lame half-step.
 
2012-11-08 08:20:30 PM
And... I see this has already been addressed.

/I am Redundant-man
//I am he
///Redundant-man I mean
 
2012-11-08 11:20:58 PM
Sour Grapes are sour
 
2012-11-08 11:30:39 PM
I voted for Ned Lamont 6 years ago for a reason.
 
2012-11-09 09:00:30 AM

SilentStrider: I vites libertarian in '00. Times like this, I really don't regret it.


Libertarians would get rid of those regulatory agencies altogether.
 
2012-11-09 10:12:46 AM

Wendy's Chili: SilentStrider: I vites libertarian in '00. Times like this, I really don't regret it.

Libertarians would get rid of those regulatory agencies altogether.


astute
 
2012-11-11 01:42:22 PM
So long, Droopy Dog!
 
Displayed 84 of 84 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report