Why dont the democrats listen to Lieberman?

Question

before i ask my question i'm going to give you some info to think about.

About 3 days ago, there was an article in yahoo news that was very anti-administration. I am very sick right now, so i dont have the energy to try and go through the history logs to find the article.. but you can trust me i didnt make this up...
It had this 1 sentence, randomly written on the top of the article. It wasnt what the article was about, i really dont know why it was there. it said something similar to.. "President George W. Bush, since his initial oath of service as the president of america, has lowered America's intake of oil by 10-15%."

What the democrats and the general media are trying to do is corrupt. They are trying to trick people into thinking something is bad through playing mindgames. They are trying to take the presidential seat by tricking america.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246940,00.html

The democrats' are sly snakes. The Democratic Party campaigning groups, The democratic runners who speak for these groups, and the media persons who speak for these groups. Its just a scam. Their fraud is only beginning to be unmasked, John Gibson. No, i dont blame people like John Stewart and other anti-administration Yahoo!Answeres for this fraud... They are just uninformed people who, for one reason or another, are victims who bought into this bullsh*t.

Anyways, back to the article i mentioned before.. want to know how the writer tryed to trick you in that one? Lets see..

Havent the democrats, all along, been saying we only went to war with Iraq for the oil? .. Then why would Bush lower the amount of oil america gets annually by 10-15%? Why, in the presidents most recent State of the Union address, would Bush demand a new basis of energy other then Gas to be used for cars and such? .. Democrats might say, "its because Bush knows hes wrong and he knows the american people know hes wrong!" ... right.. if he knows hes wrong why would he demand another 20,000 (rounded estimate) US soldiers be placed in Baghdad, when the congress has always said that we need to get our soldiers out ASAP. Doesnt sound like he's giving into anything these corrupt people are saying.. congrats Bush. Have you ever stopped and wondered.. Maybe the Democrats are lieing to us? ...decieving us? .. if you haven't .. i suggest you do now.

By surrounding the statement with all negative anti-administration statements... the reader would assume, its a bad thing. Nice Try. Fraud unmasked. Everything the Bush administration tries to do, the democrats try to make-lesser of. Even things that are environmentally essential..
Nevermind, if we get in a World War.. limiting our need on oil would make the terrorists less of an economic threat. What do i mean? If a terrorist bombed an oil refinery or an oil tanker, it could mean a limited amount of oil for America, raising prices to unconcievable amounts. Also, if things get really bad, we may not have enough oil to run all of our tanks/ships/planes etc... therefore weakening our military.

Democrats also made people think that the President went to war with Iraq to get oil, because he used to work for an oil company before he became president. i used to believe that too till i woke up.. #1, when you become President, or any other political position, you often have to quit your current job and you generally dont get it back after because you are replaced. A president, according to College Board, also makes over 400,000 dollars a year and is given the most beautiful mansion to live in, with the greatest history thinkable to have in one house. A presidency is a job.. He quit his old job and took on a new job. Why would he go to war with a country just to benefit his last job? He isnt a monster by anymeans, hes a human, hes a president.

The democrats in congress are trying to start a revolution, an ill willed revolution to once again, after 9 or so years, take the presidential seat.

The democrats are like dictators, who do they think they are?
The democrats feed you lies and try to shut up people with their own opinions.

Think i am lieing? check this out:

Congressman Maurice Hinchey of New York says bluntly: Right wing media must be stopped.

Right wing being the Republicans for those of you who dont already know. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245685,00.html

Isnt this what Hitler, Moussalini, White slave-owners, Hussein, Stalin, etc.. did? ... keep your people uneducated about politics and current events and feed them lies so they dont question you? I almost threw up when i read that garbage. I'm not saying we should fight back at the democrats in congress, thats rediculous. Any1 who used violence to stop this revolution would be considered a traitor in my eyes. What am i gonna do, simply not vote for these people. As long as they dont make office, they cant go through with these plans they believe in.. Shut up the opposing side by stopping their news stations and tv shows? Hah, sorry mr., not today, go back to your unimportant job. kthx.

seemingly many years ago, the FCC imposed a rule called the "Fairness Doctrine." In this doctrine, every TV and radio news show must give the same time for each side to talk about an issue. Both democrats and republicans would get so many minutes to talk. That rule MUST be re-enforced! Because of the enflux of the number of new radio + tv shows since the doctrine was initially imposed.. The FCC got a little sloppy with its enforcement, seemingly focusing more on censorship of bad words. Priorities FCC, Priorities. Shape up and fix this!

John Gibson (i know i say his name alot, but w/e... i found this funny) uses satire, making a point using sarcasm, to compare the Bush Hater's or as i like to call them, simply anti-administration followers, to a disease.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244028,00.html

These democrats are ruthless people who like to kick people who dont support them in the balls, where it hurts, just to make them look bad and make themselves look good.
This doesnt need anymore of an intro, just read this piece of info:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,246715,00.html

The CNN reporter was trying to make the administration look bad and he tried to further demean the administration by talking about Cheney's lesbian daughter having a baby..

Paparazzi is for Celebrities, lets leave it that way. We talk about Celebrities lives for entertainment. To start talking about a vice presidents daughter's personal life in hopes of making the administration look bad is PROPOSTEROUS! It should be illegal! He should be fired! But he wont, he works for CNN. He will probably recieve a promotion.

--

Now lets talk a little bit about Maliki and the Iraqi armies involvement in controlling its own country.

Democrats have said that Maliki is not to be trusted and that Maliki is a terrorist. Ok, its reasonable to take these ideas into consideration.. So the CIA set up spies to track down Maliki and watch him and they found no reason to believe he had any terrorist connections nor did they find any other suspicious things...
Maybe hes just good? We'll thats just something we need to trust he isnt..

Recently, Maliki made his own address to Iraq and the rest of the world. Maliki said that he supports President Bush's decision, not because he is desperate for help. In fact, he said. Iraqi soldiers (trained and worked with by American soldiers) captured 16 shiite military leaders and 33 key insurgents. Including those 59 key leaders, Iraq recently captured approx. 600 Al-Sadr fighters. Maliki said that there will no longer be any safe places for terrorists to hide. No more off-limits places. Terrorists can no longer hide in Mosques, churches, schools, etc.. No matter what place it is, if a terrorist is hiding in it, it is now considered a terrorist's planning place and any neccessary actions will be taken to get that terrorist out..

and it will be taken without consideration of what the building is supposed to represent to some people. Among the people captured by the Iraq-US police was Abdul-Hadi al-Darraji, the leading media director of Al-Sadr. His bodygaurd was also shot dead during the raid. The statement said "The detainees were responsible for attacks against the government of Iraq, Iraqi citizens, and CF (coalition forces)."

Maliki was also criticised for siding with the shiites in past events.. In his latest statement.. Maliki said he will no longer side with any group.. He will show no favortism to any group. He will only stop sectarian violence in his country..

With the 20,000 approx. new soldiers the USA sends, assuming they are sent, to Baghdad. Maliki is confident that together, the US and Iraqi soldiers can end the sectarian violence in Baghdad, and surrounding states.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245820,00.html

--

Now i ask, why dont people listen to Joe Lieberman..?

Lieberman, a democratic senator, asked congress recently, why dont we give Bush a chance?

Yea, why not congress? is it because you dont want America to succeed? Are you afraid that if this works, people will stop supporting the democrats?

What they are going to say is that they don't want more people to die. I think we have proved, over and over and over again, that this plan will not kill anyone other then terrorists and help end sectarian violence, if not destroy it completely. Sure some american soldiers and Iraqi soldiers will die, but thats war.. The president doesnt WANT soldiers to die, thats a rediculous assumption! Its war.. theres nothing you can do about it. War is never a happy thing...

Lieberman is starting to come to his senses, i praise him for that, why cant anyone else?

Lieberman, i remind you.. is a democratic senator in congress, had the balls to ask the rest of congress why they don't make their own plans for Iraq if they don't like the current plan?

Sen. McCain, a republican in congress, stood up to the plate and said he was in the works of making his own plan..
Go McCain!

*****************

again ill ask, why do the democrats ignore Lieberman? He seems to me to be the only Non-Partisan person in Congress.. I thought they supported Non-Partisanship... or to them, does non-partisanship to them mean listening to everything the majority of the democratic congress says?

*****************

To me, non-partisanship is when you like somethings someone says alot, and you hate some things someone says alot.. Joe Lieberman

I may be voting for McCain, but Lieberman gets respect from me.
If we were not in a war right now, and there were no things we needed a strong leader for.. i would vote for Lieberman, a democrat..

but right now.. iraq is our #1 focus as a country.. and we need someone who can get the job done! that man, i think, is McCain.

Copyright © 2007, Corey. All rights reserved.


just incase, never know +)

Sorry its so long, its ok to point that out =) no1 will probably read it, but hopefully someone will.. =)

PLEASE READ, ITS LONG.. I KNOW =(
IT MUST BE ADDRESSED, THO! =(

Jenny B, you just criticized me on not prioritizing my question. That has some truth in it because generally people ask simple questions in Yahoo!answers, but instead.. i gave some facts before i asked my question.. the question demanded facts, otherwise the answers would be more prejudice, etc "Lieberman is a Bush-fuc*er" .. i was not only looking for a response to my initial question, but a response to my many other statements..

Your criticism of my organization is hard to believe when, if you read the first sentence of my lengthy novel/question.. you would know that the top part was background info, not part of the initial question.
"before i ask my question i'm going to give you some info to think about."

You lose credibility on your criticism when you clearly didnt even read my first sentence...

Answer 1

I am honestly beginning to think that the word "bipartisan" is a concept with no basis in reality.
When Joe Lieberman came back from his fact finding tour in Iraq, he countered some of the democratic negativism with some of the positive results he had witnessed first hand - and was consequently thrown under the bus and effectively thrown out of the party.

That's proof positive that the democrats listened to him - they just don't have any tolerance for any facts getting in the way of their own opinions and agendas.

Answer 2

The demon-rats threw Joe Lieberman under the bus last year and tried to stick the people of Connecticut with Ned "Mr Millionaire" Lamont. Fortunately the votes saw what was done and dispatched Lamont. Now they will want to use Lieberman as the deciding vote for the majority. I could continue but you would have another "book" as the first posted has labeled your question. Simply put we need to watch these crooks very carefully. Like Zell Miller's book says, they are " A National Party No More"!

Answer 3

You'll learn how to prioritize thoughts when you get to college. That way you can say what you want without writing a novel.

People will not read the entirety of your question, thus leaving any answers merit in question.

I will answer your initial question: Democrats don't listen to Lieberman because they think they know what works. I have nothing against Lieberman, and actually think he might be spot on in regards to many issues including the war. I think Lieberman is correct in assuming an America withdrawl or "loss" would be horrible for our future. But, how to win. That is the question. And Lieberman can't answer that question, so why throw my support in his corner any more than all the other clueless politicians?

Answer 4

Lieberman is too honest for them. He tells the truth when the rest of the Democrats are trying to lie.

For example, when Democrats feigned surprise and astonishment that *gasp!* George Bush had planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11, Lieberman got on TV to remind Americans of why that should surprise nobody. Bush and Gore both promised in their campaigns to finish the job that Clinton could not.

Answer 5

Jeez. That was so damned long, by the time I got to the end of it, I forgot the question! Oh yeah! Why don't the Democrats listen to Lieberman? When have they ever listened to the voice of reason?

Answer 6

I'm allergic to fox news so I can't read the article but to answer the question: because Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. He is an independent that didn't stand with his party when he was not selected as the Democratic primary candidate of Conn.

Answer 7

this is pathetically ineffective.. this is like 20 different questions jammed into one?

learn how to be concise...

but, to answer your question, we do listen to Lieberman, we just don't agree with him... why don't you listen to Hagel?

oh, that's right... apparently because fox news says you shouldn't...

having only one source for news is a tricky game... kind of reminds me of the state media of Russia and China...

but I'm sure they've never made a mistake... right... odds are they are perfect...

break this up into other questions... there are some interesting ideas that can be addressed...

Answer 8

Most Demonrats are too focused on their hatred for George Bush to see the truth even when one of their own tells it to them.

Answer 9

I scanned your legnthy screed for any mention of what Lieberman said that I should listen to... couldn't find anthing. I don't listen to him because I think he's a "putz". You are badly in need of an editor, you are all over the place. I would submit that 'Tricking America" is precisely what Karl Rove and Bush did to get Bush elected, get us into Iraq, etc.

Answer 10

Anyone who states " Do as I say not as I do'' during the Clinton/Lawinsky debarcle , he called for condemnation of Clinton but stated the rest of us should not do the same, what a jackass !