what are barack obama's flaws?

to the point: there's no reason to trust Lieberman ever -- not just because of what he's done wr2 health care reform, but just on reviewing his actions throughout his time in the Senate -- and it's foolish to think that stroking his ego NOW is going to stop him from fucking over the rest of the party and President Obama at any other point in the future. and doing nothing about Lieberman emboldens other obstructionist Dems to pull the same sort of shit at other critical junctures.

deej--the point is not to punish him so he adheres to the party line, the point is to strip him of his power because he's an egotistical obstructionist asshole

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:20 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

you mean ... because it makes you feel better

i mean "because hes an asshole" isnt a reason

actually, it is.

deej, if Eisbaer's posts didn't convince you, goodbye.

folks upthread have stated the pros/cons re how making Lieberman walk in line w/ President Obama would strengthen Obama's hand (if wants such a strong hand), and there's little i can add to that. i emphasize, however, and to the point of sounding like a broken record, that Lieberman has been pulling this sort of obstructionist shit HIS ENTIRE SENATORIAL CAREER. his entire REP is based on him being the Democrat who Republicans count on to stick it to the Democratic Party at certain crucial junctures, and to go onto the Gasbag Pundit circuit every Sunday to pontificate about doing just that. when you look at it that way, then whether Lieberman's overall record is fairly liberal or not is not that important -- what is MUCH more important is that he's willing to shill for the Republicans, and what will the rest of the party do about it?!? seriously, does ANYONE not think at this point that Lieberman's antics AREN'T demoralizing -- not just for the Dems in the Congress, but for regular rank-and-file?!? he doesn't even have the fig leaf of living in an otherwise Republican state (like Sen. Nelson) -- Lieberman acts the way he does out of pique and to satiate his twisted ego and not because of a need to survive a competitive election (at least up until 2006, that is).

― How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:43 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is exactly the kind of argument im looking for!!

I don't know how old you were, deej, but Gore picked Lieberman as his veep nominee because he was already a pompous, sanctimonious reactionary who, like Gore, never let allegiances stand in his way.

see if j0hn or alfred could actually make a rational argument along those lines instead of popping up like "obama's such an asshole hes always fucking up fuck him he should stab lieberman in the eye" ... its like yeah express yr upset-ed-ness but when someone asks you for a little more, you know, explication on how this strategic thought will help things it would be cool if you could articulate those things

deej--the point is not to punish him so he adheres to the party line, the point is to strip him of his power because he's an egotistical obstructionist asshole

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:20 PM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

you mean ... because it makes you feel better

― deej, Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:56 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

"unless I get a big paragraph I'm just going to pretend you said something you didn't even come close to saying"

he's not going to adhere to the party line anyway & a cherry-picked list of his votes doesn't equal "we can't get by without him"

here's one thing you ignored that's actually valid

Yeah, rlly! The longer Dems feed his ego by thinking they need his vote, the more assholic he becomes.

here's another

i mean "because hes an asshole" isnt a reason

several xposts

As has been stated several times over the last hour, the reason to strip Lieberman of power is to make clear that you can't sabotage the party with which you caucus without consequences:

...it's not about spiting him, it's about drawing a line in the sand and establishing party discipline...
...What Lieberman just did sets a horrible, horrible precedent...
...the impact down the line of showing your hand as a party that will put up with anything, ever, always, from any guy who might conceivably vote for you every now & then - what a horrendous look...
...does ANYONE not think at this point that Lieberman's antics AREN'T demoralizing...
...doing nothing about Lieberman emboldens other obstructionist Dems to pull the same sort of shit at other critical junctures...

"unless I get a big paragraph I'm just going to pretend you said something you didn't even come close to saying"

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:00 PM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yes, unless you articulate a sensible argument im going to 'pretend' that what youre saying is kneejerk dem therapeutic juvenilia about sticking it to the man!! every time things arent working out the way they should

I'm pretty sure if you stitched together everything I've said here, the US politics, and GOP thread, plus what I've written elsewhere, you'll have a pretty good idea of what I how I feel about the senior senator from Connecticut.

...it's not about spiting him, it's about drawing a line in the sand and establishing party discipline...
...What Lieberman just did sets a horrible, horrible precedent...
...the impact down the line of showing your hand as a party that will put up with anything, ever, always, from any guy who might conceivably vote for you every now & then - what a horrendous look...
...does ANYONE not think at this point that Lieberman's antics AREN'T demoralizing...
...doing nothing about Lieberman emboldens other obstructionist Dems to pull the same sort of shit at other critical junctures...

― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:01 PM (13 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

& the question i bring to those points is, when is the best time for action? immediately? what results in the best possible outcome? i would think the best time would have been the lamont situation

& yeah, a thoughtful paragraph >>>> DEEJ IS TROLLING & WANTS TO MAKE OUT WITH OBAMA

A decade ago would have been nice, but instead how about "There's no better time than the present"?

+ the long view, which is if you make it known that all you have to do to the Democratic party is dangle your vote in front of them like a carrot & they'll basically line up to give you a rimjob every time, then you're really setting yourself up for terrible long-term consequences. really too late to do anything about this one though 'cause that cat is out of the bag: one person who feels like fucking with the democratic party's public image & ability to pass legislation can do so any fucking time and party loyalists will actually defend the idea of doing everything possible to placate said person.

but feel free to keep strawmanning & pretending that everybody's objections are childish grandstanding, if it makes you feel good

ironic coming from you

yes, unless you articulate a sensible argument im going to 'pretend' that what youre saying is kneejerk dem therapeutic juvenilia about sticking it to the man!! every time things arent working out the way they should

okay, and i'm going to pretend you don't want to punish liberman because you're a gigantic democratic pussy. deal?

can you at least admit that sometimes you do have to put up with stupid shit -- and sometimes you shouldnt? cuz i feel like im being more open to the possibility of pragmatic moves here than u are, simply by ASKING for an argument whereas as far as i can tell j0hn d's approach is 'fuck the dems they fuck everyone over anyway'

I mean newsflash you're in the extremely small minority of people to the left of, like, *anybody* who don't think lieberman should be made to accept consequences

explication on . . . this strategic thought
are you familiar with the concept of punishment? as in, step out of line on major shit and we publicly go after you? it's not just for the punished but also to intimidate people from not fucking up in the first place. a flaw of obama's is no once is afraid he'll punish them. making an example of lieberman would have helped with party discipline, and somewhat rallied the troops fed up with the plutocratic bullshit going on. it's not a "feel good" measure; it's a political tactic

okay, and i'm going to pretend you don't want to punish liberman because you're a gigantic democratic pussy. deal?

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:06 PM (30 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

internet political discussion hardman over here

you're being a troll, basically

i dunno, i think that John D. and Alfred are pretty good presenters of their positions (even when i've disagreed with them) here and elsewhere on ILX.

and whatever arguments existed for Clinton to have tolerated Lieberman's antics back in the 1990s don't really apply any more -- the GOP does not control either Congressional chamber, and the tide of public opinion has swung more strongly towards center-left Democrats than it has since any point since the 1980 election. so i just don't see any reason why Obama should just grin and bear it the way that Clinton did during the 1990s (which is my criticism of Obama).

can you at least admit that sometimes you do have to put up with stupid shit -- and sometimes you shouldnt?

For the last fucking time WE KNOW THIS.

deej you'll call anything a pragmatic move - you basically take what the party went with and say "the only practical solution is to be satisfied"

I mean newsflash you're in the extremely small minority of people to the left of, like, *anybody* who don't think lieberman should be made to accept consequences

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:07 PM (19 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

strawmen again -- i want him to be made to accept consequences & have never claimed otherwise. ive simply asked, repeatedly, "what is the best time, what is the best method, that will yield the best outcome."

deej you'll call anything a pragmatic move - you basically take what the party went with and say "the only practical solution is to be satisfied"

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:08 PM (7 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

except no? im questioning the logic of 'no time like the present,' but i dont see why thats 'trolling'

deej sometimes you have to put up with stupid shit . . . but not at the 11th hour on fucking health care dude!

can you at least admit that sometimes you do have to put up with stupid shit -- and sometimes you shouldnt

you wanna give an example of when you shouldn't? I cannot, straight up, imagine you actually saying "we should oppose the nat'l party on this position" in any circumstances. for real.

ever

deej sometimes you have to put up with stupid shit . . . but not at the 11th hour on fucking health care dude!

― kamerad, Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:10 PM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

we're having to put up with the health care resolution no matter what -- punishing him isnt changing that vote

so i guess the argument you guys are making is that, without a doubt, the best possible solution is to immediately strip lieberman of all his positions in order to preserve the sanctity of the party's discipline, regardless of climate change, regardless of abortion issues on which lieberman is generally friendly, that there is really NO QUESTION in your mind that the best time to do this is now?

strawmen again -- i want him to be made to accept consequences & have never claimed otherwise. ive simply asked, repeatedly, "what is the best time, what is the best method, that will yield the best outcome."

I do not believe you would ever call it "the right time" for consequences. how on earth is now not the time? how on earth was after endorsing mccain not the time? how on earth wasn't it time in 2002, 2004, 2006? when, exactly, will it be time for the party to grow a spine? oh wait - any semblance of a spine will mean no more bills passed, ever, right?

so i guess the argument you guys are making is that, without a doubt, the best possible solution is to immediately strip lieberman of all his positions in order to preserve the sanctity of the party's discipline, regardless of climate change, regardless of abortion issues on which lieberman is generally friendly, that there is really NO QUESTION in your mind that the best time to do this is now?

lol wait weren't you the guy complaining abt ppl misrepresenting arguments a minute ago?

YES!

deej for you, it sounds like there is some perfect time when he should be punished which will achieve the most damage versus punishing him when he does dumb stuff. that's just a little crazy to me, that's all i'm saying. the time is now.

that this isnt a discussion that SHOULD be discussed? that basically im a troll for even asking that someone make an argument for right now? i mean, there are smart people out there who dont think it should happen!

I do not believe you would ever call it "the right time" for consequences. how on earth is now not the time? how on earth was after endorsing mccain not the time? how on earth wasn't it time in 2002, 2004, 2006? when, exactly, will it be time for the party to grow a spine? oh wait - any semblance of a spine will mean no more bills passed, ever, right?

i dont believe that i ever argued about the mccain endorsement being the 'wrong time.' this is the only time ive ever argued about this

no deej the time for cracking skulls passed already. obama should have been tougher. lieberman should have known ahead of time he couldn't pull this bullshit

"sometimes you have to put up with stupid shit. it's always 'sometimes,' though."

deej, I would have thought that, after five days of this twaddle, you would have read at least a couple of articles detailing Lieberman's treachery over the years.

deej for you, it sounds like there is some perfect time when he should be punished which will achieve the most damage versus punishing him when he does dumb stuff. that's just a little crazy to me, that's all i'm saying. the time is now.

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:12 PM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no, for me there is never a perfect time but there are 'better times' and 'worse times' and im questioning that right now is one of those 'better times' & im really honestly surprised that you guys are so certain that now will yield the best possible outcome, right before significant climate change resolutions on which lieberman is a part.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that I haven't articulate what makes Lieberman a contemptible worm, why haven't you tested your arguments against other things you've read?

"sometimes you have to put up with stupid shit. it's always 'sometimes,' though."

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:13 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im. not. saying. this.

I guess dems could put off punshing Lieberman until there are no more votes left on any important issue.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that I haven't articulate what makes Lieberman a contemptible worm, why haven't you tested your arguments against other things you've read?

― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:14 PM (9 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

him being a contemptible worm is NOT WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE

that basically im a troll for even asking that someone make an argument for right now?

i don't owe you or anyone else an argument as to why i think the democrats should strip lieberman of his power, okay?

ok.

i don't speak for anyone else, but as for myself i would DEFINITELY approve of stripping him of his positions immediately. Lieberman has just renounced his previously-stated positions on the public option and Medicare buy-ins, for reasons that don't seem to be based on any principled reconsideration of those policies. why, then, should he be trusted in any other policy area, even if his record and statements on abortion and the environment are in line with the Democrats?