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  
•       •       •

12572 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Nov 2012 at 3:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 34 of 84 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report