Lieberman

...now browsing by category

 

Lieberman

Thursday, August 31st, 2006

Author: Frankie B (these are the opinions of author only)

 

Primary night Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic nomination for the Senate. Lieberman refused to concede to Lamont. Instead he said that he'd run as an independent. Joe is ready to fight tooth and nail, but where was this fighting spirit in 2000? Lieberman lost because of his connection to Bush and the occupation of Iraq. He called himself a Democrat for years but acted like a Republican, no wonder he has been so cozy with Bush.

He didn’t even seem like he wanted to win in 2000. When he was told of the voting irregularities he just dismissed it. Could it be that he was a spy for Bush / Cheney? He sure has done everything to help the Republican agenda. I just don’t understand why he isn’t running as a Republican instead of an Independent. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he became a Republican that is if he wins! I just hope that Lieberman gets what he desires, a pink slip!

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This post is a simple one in which I will not name any posters to whom this may apply, you can make your our judgments. First the term Neo-Cons that some are taking as offensive. Wikipedia on Neo-Cons

Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as paramount responsibility of government, seeing the need for the U.S. acting as the world's sole superpower as indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.[2]

The development of this conservatism is based on the work and thought of Irving Kristol, co-founder of Encounter magazine, and of its editor (1953–58),[4] Norman Podhoretz,[5] and others who described themselves as "neoconservatives" during the Cold War.

Prominent neoconservatives are associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard, and with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

Neoconservative policies

Irving Kristol, the "god-father" and one of the founders of neoconservatism, stated five basic policies of neoconservatism that distinguish it from other "movements" or "persuasions"[8]. These policies, he claimed, "result in popular Republican presidencies":

  1. Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."[8]
  2. Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."[8]
  3. Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservatives in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."[8]
  4. Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."[8]
  5. National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."[8]

 

    Now Wikipedia on Trolls

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

A concern troll is a pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[10]

For example, in 2006 a top staffer for then-Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) was caught posing as a "concerned" supporter of Bass's opponent, Democrat, Paul Hodes on several liberal New Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH." "IndyNH" expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.[11] Bass ended up losing the election.

 

"Troll," in the context of message boards and the like, describes somebody who is posting just to be confrontational or to raise hackles. One example might be a teenager who finds a Jewish message board and posts, "The Holocaust never happened." The teen may not know or care one way or the other--he just wants a reaction.  He wants to piss people off. He is a troll. 

  • What is a troll? from the Straight Dope
  •  

        There are more links and I would suggest reading up on the subject.

     

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    True Christians, who are they?  

      There will be this question rising as the election draws near, for there will be those who will question the faith of Barack Obama. Barack has stated that he is a Christian and you will hear some people suggest that he is just saying that to get votes. The interesting thing is that many believed that was the only reason that George W. Bush made the claim to Christianity. The fact is that only God knows the heart of anyone and only God knows who is really in His camp. We are told that we will know a true believer by their fruit. (Mt. 7:16) If President Obama was to lie us into a war in order to maintain power and then be too arrogant to change directions when over a million lives were lost, we might wonder if he was a true Christian. Even then, he might be one, one that is not following the Lord as he should.     There are many who call themselves Christian and act like they play for the other side. As I am sure each of you has seen someone posting that this passage would fit.

     21    ¶ “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. (Amplified Bible) But I say to you that everyone who continues to be angry with his brother or harbors malice (enmity of heart) against him shall be liable to and unable to escape the punishment Mt. 5: 21 -22

        Those who would condemn others as not being true Christians should first look into their own hearts and minds.