McCain/Lieberman?

#1
Rasputin_Vol

Rasputin_Vol

"Slava Ukraina"
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
71,956
Likes
39,753
#1
No one really knows how serious the rumor is, but if he nominates Leiberman, how will you McCain sheep explain that away?

:crazy:
 
#2
#2
I'm prepared to be flamed for this but I wouldn't have a big problem with it - I've always respected (if not agreed) with Lieberman.
 
#3
#3
volinbham said:
I'm prepared to be flamed for this but I wouldn't have a big problem with it - I've always respected (if not agreed) with Lieberman.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is that over the past few years (since he became and independent), he has sounded more conservative than McCain.
 
#4
#4
Rasputin_Vol said:
The sad thing is that over the past few years (since he became and independent), he has sounded more conservative than McCain.
Click to expand...

Lieberman is definitely as conservative as McCain on foreign policy issues. He's a hardcore neocon who is unapologetic for his beliefs.. He and McCain agree on all matters regarding foreign policy, but on social issues, he's still a liberal.
 
#5
#5
notverycrucial said:
Lieberman is definitely as conservative as McCain on foreign policy issues. He's a hardcore neocon who is unapologetic for his beliefs.. He and McCain agree on all matters regarding foreign policy, but on social issues, he's still a liberal.
Click to expand...

At this point, with the way McCain supports cap/trade and his earlier positions re: amnesty, I don't think I'm ready to say clearly if Lieberman and McCain are that far away from each other on the social issues, either.
 
#6
#6
McCain is basically the brash version of Joe Lieberman. That being said, I'm not buying that McCain would pull a stunt like that. I could see Lieberman ending up in the cabinet, but not at the top of the ticket.
 
#7
#7
GAVol said:
McCain is basically the brash version of Joe Lieberman. That being said, I'm not buying that McCain would pull a stunt like that. I could see Lieberman ending up in the cabinet, but not at the top of the ticket.
Click to expand...

Joe Lieberman would be a wonderful vice president, and an even better president of the senate. Plus, he's run for the office before, and did really well the first time (almost won), which is a boost for him. He's got the whole "moral values" thing (e.g. Senate floor speech against Clinton during Monica-gate, and also massively against violent video games and Palestinean groups), plus he's a maverick like McCain. So you've got double mavericks. Americans LOVE stuff like that. It might seem weird initially, but by November, we will be LOVING that combo.
 
#10
#10
If he wants a cabinet position, I have no problem with that... but surely McCain is smarter than to put him as his VP. You have to at least pretend like you're appeasing some of your base.

And I know I know, don't call me Shirly.
 
#11
#11
volsforever27 said:
If he wants a cabinet position, I have no problem with that... but surely McCain is smarter than to put him as his VP. You have to at least pretend like you're appeasing some of your base.

And I know I know, don't call me Shirly.
Click to expand...

See, this is the problem. McCain's base has always been firmly planted with the moderates. It has been like that since 2000. That is the problem with many of you guys that are grasping for any reason at all to vote for McCain. You've actually been able to convince yourselves that McCain needs to solidify his conservative base when he has never had one to begin with. :crazy:
 
#13
#13
Rasputin_Vol said:
See, this is the problem. McCain's base has always been firmly planted with the moderates. It has been like that since 2000. That is the problem with many of you guys that are grasping for any reason at all to vote for McCain. You've actually been able to convince yourselves that McCain needs to solidify his conservative base when he has never had one to begin with. :crazy:
Click to expand...

So what am I supposed to do, vote for Ron Paul?
 
#14
#14
volsforever27 said:
So what am I supposed to do, vote for Ron Paul?
Click to expand...

Too late for all of that. When the primaries were here, you had not just Paul, but Tancredo and Hunter to vote for. Yet oddly enough, the party that prides itself on it's members being intelligent enough to vote on issues and platforms, selects a guy that may have been the least conservative candidate out of the bunch.

BTW: you can vote for Bob Barr... :thumbsup:
 
#15
#15
Rasputin_Vol said:
Too late for all of that. When the primaries were here, you had not just Paul, but Tancredo and Hunter to vote for. Yet oddly enough, the party that prides itself on it's members being intelligent enough to vote on issues and platforms, selects a guy that may have been the least conservative candidate out of the bunch.

BTW: you can vote for Bob Barr... :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Pass... it was Thompson's to lose, but his campaign was as organized as a tornado. I'm not voting for Barr.
 
#16
#16
volsforever27 said:
Pass... it was Thompson's to lose, but his campaign was as organized as a tornado. I'm not voting for Barr.
Click to expand...
Thompson didn't want it. You can add him to the list. Still no excuse for that clown McCain to be the nominee. Heck, if you look at the so-called front runners for the GOP this year (Huck, Romney, Rudy, McCain), this has to be the least conservative list of guys the GOP has nominated that I can remember.
 
#17
#17
Rasputin_Vol said:
Thompson didn't want it. You can add him to the list. Still no excuse for that clown McCain to be the nominee. Heck, if you look at the so-called front runners for the GOP this year (Huck, Romney, Rudy, McCain), this has to be the least conservative list of guys the GOP has nominated that I can remember.
Click to expand...

True. Fred acted like a kid being dragged to school, and I agree he's the least conservative, but thanks to several factors (includind some wheeling and dealing with Huck), it is what it is.
 
#18
#18
Who really has been a true conservative nominee in the past 20 years? Bush 41 was a moderate that went to the right to satisfy Reagan in 1980 and subsequently caved on taxes while President. Bob Dole was a moderate. Bush 43 was the "compassionate conservative". If you think about it, since Barry Goldwater in '64, every nominee except for Reagan has been similar to John McCain.
 
#19
#19
volsforever27 said:
Pass... it was Thompson's to lose, but his campaign was as organized as a tornado. I'm not voting for Barr.
Click to expand...

Barr is a joke. He is a libertarian now? Isn't that the party that says that government shouldn't do anything, including regulate air traffic and other critical areas of public welfare? But 10 years ago, he basically ran the impeachment of President Clinton in the House.

So according to Barr, government shouldn't waste resources regulating commerce, food-and-drug safety, etc. but it should spend loads of taxpayer resources on stopping all Congressional business to impeach a sitting president for lying in a deposition in a civil sexual-harassment suit. Gee, that makes a lot of sense. No other pressing national issues, I'm sure. (e.g. Taliban and al Qaeda)

Aside: the Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Jones to allow the suit to proceed while Clinton was in office is on par with Bush v. Gore as one of the dumbest decisions ever. They should have stayed the case and let Paula Jones take it up after Clinton left office. Oh well, whatever. It's not like the President of the U.S.A. has anything important to do, just let him deal with this lawsuit, and then when he lies in the deposition we can stop the nation and impeach him. Meanwhile Osama bin Laden was planning 9-11 AT THAT TIME. Thanks, Supreme Court.

Done.
 
#20
#20
GAVol said:
Who really has been a true conservative nominee in the past 20 years? Bush 41 was a moderate that went to the right to satisfy Reagan in 1980 and subsequently caved on taxes while President. Bob Dole was a moderate. Bush 43 was the "compassionate conservative".
Click to expand...

The GOP hasn't really had a conservative "nominee" since Reagan. But I was talking about the list of candidates leading up to Iowa/New Hampshire. At least in the past, you had a Pat Buchanan in '92 and '96. But this group of candidates had the least conservative group of frontrunners I can remember heading into the primaries.
 
#21
#21
CaedmonVol said:
So according to Barr, government shouldn't waste resources regulating commerce, food-and-drug safety, etc. but it should spend loads of taxpayer resources on stopping all Congressional business to impeach a sitting president for lying in a deposition in a civil sexual-harassment suit. Gee, that makes a lot of sense. No other pressing national issues, I'm sure. (e.g. Taliban and al Qaeda)
Click to expand...

Serious question... and I'm not being facetious at all. But what kind of business did the impeachment actually stop? If you understand the philospophy behind libertarianism, you will understand the subtle brilliance of wasting lawmakers time with trivial things like impeachments and debating about state birds and other nonsense.
 
#22
#22
Rasputin_Vol said:
Serious question... and I'm not being facetious at all. But what kind of business did the impeachment actually stop? If you understand the philospophy behind libertarianism, you will understand the subtle brilliance of wasting lawmakers time with trivial things like impeachments and debating about state birds and other nonsense.
Click to expand...
it stopped no business. that was just the admin's excuse to try and preclude the end that he knew was inevitable.

That said, the entire debacle was over the top.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#23
#23
Rasputin_Vol said:
Serious question... and I'm not being facetious at all. But what kind of business did the impeachment actually stop? If you understand the philospophy behind libertarianism, you will understand the subtle brilliance of wasting lawmakers time with trivial things like impeachments and debating about state birds and other nonsense.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll concede that Congress is big and can do multiple things at once. But two things: first, the impeachment was a tremendous waste of congressional resources. I'm sure Barr and many other members (and of course their staffs) made it their top priority to charge Bill Clinton with the CRIME of lying in a civil deposition in a sexual-harassment lawsuit, admittedly not a noble act but I would say low on the spectrum of political corruption.

Second, do you really think Bob Barr was heading up the impeachment in order to make sure other members of congress were so distracted that they did NOT pass regulatory legislation? That seems like a pretty huge stretch. To the contrary, the evidence is clear that Barr has had a "change of heart." He used to be the world's biggest proponent of the war on drugs, now he's against the war on drugs. Not that there's anything wrong about changing ones mind -- it shows capacity to change and develop, but I think that the idea that this guy who is this far in his career has suddenly changed parties is B.S. He just wants to get on T.V. and have people talking about him (e.g. this post).

Barr is a JOKE! Tancredo is My MAN!!!
 
#24
#24
CaedmonVol said:
Second, do you really think Bob Barr was heading up the impeachment in order to make sure other members of congress were so distracted that they did NOT pass regulatory legislation? That seems like a pretty huge stretch. To the contrary, the evidence is clear that Barr has had a "change of heart." He used to be the world's biggest proponent of the war on drugs, now he's against the war on drugs. Not that there's anything wrong about changing ones mind -- it shows capacity to change and develop, but I think that the idea that this guy who is this far in his career has suddenly changed parties is B.S. He just wants to get on T.V. and have people talking about him (e.g. this post).
Click to expand...

No, I don't for a minute believe that Barr had the intent of locking the wheels of gov't for the sake of "lawmakers" not being able to create more laws. But at the very worst, all we can hope is that enough distractions like this can shift their attention from creating legislation that endangers our personal liberties and property, and instead they spin their wheels on nonsense that absolutely has nothing with our civil liberties. And to be honest, I wouldn't mind if these guys had 11 month vacations and were only given a few weeks to actully do anything.
 
#25
#25
Rasputin_Vol said:
No one really knows how serious the rumor is, but if he nominates Leiberman, how will you McCain sheep explain that away?

:crazy:
Click to expand...

well i would say it is you libs who are the sheep. if mccain picks leiberman obama will win by 8-10 points easily. unlike you libs/dems, conservatives have principles that aren't compromised. so we'll vote for barr or some other canidate. (sheep, :lolabove::good!:.)
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top