Jump to content
TSM Forums

Dr. Zaius

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    619

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dr. Zaius

  3. Posted · Report reply

    We really need a third party somewhere in the middle that's more in line with the average middle class American.

     

    Everyone agrees the Democrats suck, but we can't agree on why.

     

    On the one hand you've got people who say the Democrats suck because they've abandoned middle American values and only represent the fringe elements of society or the left. On the other hand, you've got people who say the Democrats aren't liberal enough, and are in the pockets of big corporations and special interest groups.

     

    Both groups can't be right.

  5. Posted · Report reply

    Time magazine is parroting the RNC's party line.

     

    Wednesday, Aug. 09, 2006

    Why the Republicans Are Loving the Lieberman Loss

    At a time when the GOP should be back on its heels, Connecticut voters' rejection of a centrist Senator gives the party a potentially powerful new weapon to use against the Democrats this fall

    By MIKE ALLEN/WASHINGTON

    From Washington State to Missouri to Pennsylvaina, Democratic candidates found themselves on the defensive Wednesday as the Republican Party worked ferociously at every level to try to use the primary defeat of Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut to portray the oppposition as the party of weakness and isolation on national security and liberal leanings on domestic policy. Doleful Democrats bemoaned the irony: At a time when Republicans should be back on their heels because of chaos abroad and President Bush's unpopularity, the Democrats' rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of '06 and the big dance of '08.

     

    One of the nip-and-tuck Senate races this year is in Missouri, and backers of Sen. Jim Talent are preparing an attack on his opponent, State Auditor Claire McCaskill, that is emblematic of the sort that will be seen all over the country within 24 hours. "Does Claire McCaskill support the wishes of the angry left by endorsing Ned Lamont's candidacy or will she support the man who was chosen by Al Gore as the Democrat's 2000 nominee for Vice President?" Republicans ask in a statment that will force McCaskill to talk about messy party business instead of her favored issues of government accountablity and affordable health care.

     

    House candidates planned a similar tack, and the National Republican Congressional Committee issued a memo this morning playing up the potential distraction of Lieberman's independent candidacy in a state where three GOP incumbents — Reps. Rob Simmons, Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson — are perennially endangered. The memo said Connecticut Democrats "will now continue to train their attention on vanquishing Senator Lieberman when their three House candidates need all the help the can get."

     

    Some senior Democrats hoped Lieberman would bow out to avoid underscoring party divisions. But Dan Gerstein, a strategic communications consultant who is a senior adviser to Lieberman, tells TIME that the independent campaign — formally called "Connecticut for Lieberman" — is "full steam ahead" and that the Senator's remarks on election night were "a point-of-no-return speech." Lieberman was doing a series of interviews, mostly with Connecticut reporters, and plans some campaign stops on Thursday with Democrats who supported him and will continue to do so. Organizers shied away from calling it a kick-off tour, instead saying it is a new phase of the campaign. "He's committed," Gerstein said. "He feels liberated and he feels very strongly it's the right thing to do." Gerstein said the Senator is prepared to have some tough conversations with senior Democrats, perhaps even former President Bill Clinton, who may pressure him to withdraw. "He feels there's something much larger at stake," Gerstein said.

     

    Gleeful Republicans across the country mocked their opponents as isolationist "Defeat-ocrats," and even some Democratic officials said they can already imagine the ads in November races saying that Lieberman, once within a few hundred votes of being Vice President of the United States, is now "not liberal enough" for the Democratic Party. Republican officials, who have had little but bad news for months as Iraq festered and U.S. voters showed increasing signs of pessimism and discontent, said the Ned Lamont victory gave them a chance to paint Democrats as a party that had become captive to the liberal wing symbolized by the MoveOn.org civic action group. Mary Matalin, an outside adviser to the White House, signaled the message when she said on Fox News Channel shortly after the polls closed: "MoveOn is not fringe. They're the heart of the party."

     

    On television and in speeches in coming days, party officials and strategists plan to talk about their respect for Lieberman as a distinguished public servant and argue that Lamont's victory represents the end of the long tradition of strong-on-national-defense Democratic leaders in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy. The GOP plans to try to broaden the argument beyond Connecticut, a liberal stronghold, and work to convince viewers and voters that Democratic nominees across the country have more in common with Michael Moore and liberal bloggers than Main Street America.

     

    Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking to the City Club of Cleveland this morning, said the rejection of a well-liked Senator who was strong on national defense showed that Democratic candidates must embrace "defeatism and isolation" or "risk being purged" for their party. "For those of us who follow politics closely, who work in politics, and who know that there can be good and honest people on the other side of the political divide, it is a shame," he said. "It is also a sign of what the Democratic Party is has become in the 21st century. It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a "blame America first" attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous."

     

    Trying to look on the bright side, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued a statement this morning pointing to strong turnout in the primaries and declaring that Democratic voters "are energized." The challenge for Dean, and his party, is to channel that energy in a direction that makes victory more likely, not less.

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0...1224692,00.html

     

    I'm still scratching my head wondering why the Republicans think running on an issue 60% of the country disagrees with them on is a plus. Democrats are out there talking about how the war was a mistake and we need to withdraw to save lives, and all the Republicans can do is point there fingers and say, "Dirty Liberal!" over and over again.

     

    Even more hilariuos is how, when asked by Chris Matthews if he'd do, the head of the RNC declinded to endorse CT's Republican nominee. And I am to believe that my own Senator wants to make a campaign out of who his opponent wants to see win the CT race?

  6. Posted · Report reply

    I really don't see the problem with Britney. So, she's living like usual white trash. That's what she would have done if she wasn't a "singer" or whatever. Except now she has lots of money.

    People are still resentful that she was ever popular in the first place. 7 years ago you couldn't turn on the TV without someone talking about how great she was. I think there's a underlying disgust lying dormant whenever that much adoration is thrust upon anyone that festers until an inevitable backlash. Of course, she probably never asked to be the object of idolization she became for those few years, but she certainly didn't shun the unwarranted attention, either. She was given something she didn't deserve, and people feel validated by watching her publicly self-destruct.

  8. Posted · Report reply

    The Phoenix storyline in the comics sucks ass and is the most overhyped and overrated comic story ever. The movie version, I thought, made sense and was very good.

     

    For a comic published in the late 70s, the story had balls the size of church bells. It hasn't withstood the test of time because its been ripped off so many times since then.

    How so? Woman gets taken over by alien species/entity, becomes all powerful, kills things. I don't see how that would be such a big deal, even in the seventies.

     

    And where was it ripped off?

     

    I'm not trying to sound like I'm attacking you or anything -- I'm really curious.

     

    Except the "woman" was actually a beloved character who dated back almost to the beginning of the company, she killed 5 billion people, then she gets cured, but then has to fight for her life and ultimately commits suicide in front of her lover's eyes because she knew she could never really be normal ever again.

     

    X-Men comics have been recycling the Phoenix concept and basic storyline for the last 25 years, and make reference to it about every 5 issues.

  10. Posted · Report reply

    Norm Chomsky is a son of a bitch.

     

    Did I ever tell you about the time Chomsky took me out to go get a drink with him? We go off looking for a bar and we can't find one. Finally Chomsky takes me to a vacant lot and says, "Here we are." We sat there for a year and a half — until sure enough, someone constructs a bar around us. Well, the day they opened we ordered a shot, drank it, and then burned the place to the ground. Chomsky yelled over the roar of the flames, "Always leave things the way you found 'em!"

     

    To Norm Chomsky!

  11. Posted · Report reply

    Good riddance to Joe "captain censorship" Lieberman.

     

    and as far as Iraq goes, it has shown to be such a gigantic strategic fuckup, probably the worst foreign policy decision since vietnam,

     

    LOL...

    Yeah compare Iraq to Vietnam. Good one.

    When exactly did North Vietnam surrender? I cant recall them ever surrending, and that war went what, 12 years?

     

    Iraq fell in like 20 days.

     

    And if you cant see the good in having a democratically elected govt in the Middle East, then I'm just going to have to judge you as a near sighted tool that cannot possibly comprehend a bigger picture.

     

    No one ever said the two were exactly alike, but your knowledge of the Vietnam War seems to be limited. The purpose of the Vietnam War wasn't to make North Vietnam surrender, but to stop the Viet Cong insurgency on the behalf of the South Vietnamese government. You don't think there's any resemblance to Iraq whatsoever?

     

    But, hey, big picture, right? The continuation of the war is only making the problem worse because the elected Iraqi government is only seen as more and more of a pawn of the U.S. the longer we stay over there helping them. We've done so much damage over there that the Iraqi people will never accept a government that they think favors the U.S., even if they voted for it.

  12. Posted · Report reply

    The Phoenix storyline in the comics sucks ass and is the most overhyped and overrated comic story ever. The movie version, I thought, made sense and was very good.

     

    For a comic published in the late 70s, the story had balls the size of church bells. It hasn't withstood the test of time because its been ripped off so many times since then.

  17. Posted · Report reply

    Nothing is funnier than seeing the Ultra Socialist Whack Jobs take over the Democratic party.

     

    Lieberman is actually one of the most liberal senators in the US. He's gottan a higher "liberal" score than Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer according to most think tanks.

     

    Its a mistake to kick a guy that is actually likeable out of the party. It'd be hilarious if Lieberman/Lamont split the Dem vote, and the GOP candidate ends up winning the election.

     

    Talk about stupid political moves.

    Howard Dean is the best thing to happen to the GOP since Bill Clinton.

     

    Kicking Lieberman out would be like the GOP kicking John McCain to the curb, bc McCain doesnt agree with everything that the conservative base does.

     

    Dumb move dems.

     

    Um, yeah...

     

    John McCain's probably not the best example to use considering what the conservatives did to him in 2000. Also, saying the nomination of a successful telecommunication entrepenuer is a sign that the Democratic Party has been taken over by "Ultra Socialist Whack Jobs" probably isn't a good way to convince people you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about, either.

  18. Posted · Report reply

    Lieberman had to know going into the midterm elections, that the War was going to be the biggest issue out there. We are what, four years into this war, and it seems like things are getting worse, if not more secretive with every passing day. There still doesn't seem to be a clear plan on how to get the troops out of there, or a clear objective as to what "Victory" means.

     

    Knowing all of this, Lieberman still chooses to support the GOP's majority view on this war and THAT is what cost him the primary.

    Facts and reason are no substitute for calling people "far-left Defeat-ocrats", though.

  19. Posted · Report reply

    I'm proud to live in a country where the two major parties take turns being the lesser of 2 evils.

     

    Actually, I'm pretty sure they are both the evils now.

     

    By definition, being the "lesser of 2 evils" still makes you evil.

  22. Posted · Report reply

    I posted this link in the Lieberman thread, but thought it belonged here as well.

     

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html

     

    Poll: 60 percent of Americans oppose Iraq war

     

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday.

     

    And a majority of poll respondents said they would support the withdrawal of at least some U.S. troops by the end of the year, according to results from the Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last week on behalf of CNN. The corporation polled 1,047 adult Americans by telephone.

     

    According to trends, the number of poll respondents who said they did not support the Iraq war has steadily risen as the war stretched into a second and then a third year. In the most recent poll, 36 percent said they were in favor of the war -- half of the peak of 72 percent who said they were in favor of the war as it began.

     

    Sixty-one percent, however, said they believed at least some U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. Of those, 26 percent said they would favor the withdrawal of all troops, while 35 percent said not all troops should be withdrawn. Another 34 percent said they believed the current level of troops in Iraq should be maintained.

     

    Asked about a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, 57 percent of poll respondents said they supported the setting of such a timetable, while 40 percent did not and 4 percent had no opinion. Only half the sample, or about 524 people, was asked the timetable question.

     

    The Bush administration has maintained that setting a timetable or deadline for withdrawal would only help terrorists.

     

    Americans were nearly evenly split on whether the U.S. would win the war in Iraq. Forty-seven percent of poll respondents either said the United States would "definitely win" or "probably win." Another 48 percent either said the United States could not win, or could win -- but will not win.

     

    The poll was conducted August 2 and 3. Its margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, and plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for questions asked of half-samples.

  24. Posted · Report reply

    I don't think backing candidates that a growing number of Americans agree with is going to lose them any votes. That's not the "far left". That's people who don't like Bush's policies (i.e. the majority of Americans).

     

    Yeah, well look how well the "I'm not George Bush" platform worked for Al Gore and John Kerry.

     

    You're right, because I just saw on TV that the President's job approval rating is 51%. Now I'm going down to the movie theater and see "Shrek 2," and then when I get home I'm going to watch the newest episode of "Arrested Development" on Fox.

     

    Oh, that's right! I forgot its not 2004 anymore!

×