BillsNYC Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Well this makes things interesting..... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html
Magox Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Well this makes things interesting..... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html Good! So did Snowe and I imagine that it will it make that much tougher for Nelson, Landrieu, Conrad and Blanche Lincoln to go along with it as well. We've been hearing about a bipartisan effort, the only thing I see that is bipartisan or for that matter tripartisan is the opposition to this train wreck of a proposal. WTF is an opt-out? How moronic is this? Ya, that makes a lot of sense, have a state have the option to opt-out, but still have to pay for the rest of the country. No !@#$ing wonder they don't want to put up on the web for 72 hours for the public to read, they know damn well that it will get ripped apart. absolutely shameless
BillsNYC Posted October 27, 2009 Author Posted October 27, 2009 It frees up all the moderate Dems to oppose it. Let's see how long it takes for liberals and the Obama machine to attack him. Lieberman just made the enemy list.
yall Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 It frees up all the moderate Dems to oppose it. Let's see how long it takes for liberals and the Obama machine to attack him. Lieberman just made the enemy list. Just made the list? I'm pretty sure he was at the top, in red ink no less, on December 17th, 2007.
Magox Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Just made the list? I'm pretty sure he was at the top, in red ink no less, on December 17th, 2007. But then they took him off the enemies list earlier this year to get his votes. wooooops I respect Lieberman, the guy made two huge decisions that were very unpopular for him, and he did and is doing what he thinks is best for this country.
drnykterstein Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 http://voxverax.blogspot.com/2009/10/flash...upport-for.html
Alaska Darin Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 http://voxverax.blogspot.com/2009/10/flash...upport-for.html So?
IDBillzFan Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 So? Apparently it's a problem for Conner if Lieberman changes his mind, but when Obama changes his mind on half his campaign promises, well...that's just rhetorical flourish. Still waiting to watch the Health Care debate on C-SPAN, Conner. This is probably news to Conner since it hasn't be discussed at DailyKos.
Magox Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Lieberman has been very consistent with his message over the last 6 months, and that is that he can not support a government entitlement program "at this time" because of the huge deficits that we have. He has also made it clear that, everyone knows that these programs always cost more than the estimations of politicians and the analysts they hire to back up their case.
GG Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 My favorite part about Begala's whine is the notion that Lieberman is beholden to the insurance industry. A shocking development considering that CT has the largest concentration of insurance industry employment in the US. So, while Lieberman's position could be viewed as self-serving, it would be even more bizarre for a legislator who was elected by the people in his state to give them the finger.
Bishop Hedd Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Well this makes things interesting..... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html What a complete prick LIE-berman is. I could never understand why the democrats and Obama ever relented anything to this twat.
Bishop Hedd Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 My favorite part about Begala's whine is the notion that Lieberman is beholden to the insurance industry. A shocking development considering that CT has the largest concentration of insurance industry employment in the US. So, while Lieberman's position could be viewed as self-serving, it would be even more bizarre for a legislator who was elected by the people in his state to give them the finger. That's assuming of course everybody in Ct. works for Big Insurance. Somehow I hardly doubt they do.
Bishop Hedd Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Time was when LIE-berman was a memebr of that bi-partisan gang of senators awhile back who tried to diffuse the possibility of a democratic fillibuster on Bush's extremist bench choices. Now Joe is threatening a fillibuster. What do you call someone like that? Nevermind....
GG Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Time was when LIE-berman was a memebr of that bi-partisan gang of senators awhile back who tried to diffuse the possibility of a democratic fillibuster on Bush's extremist bench choices. Now Joe is threatening a fillibuster. What do you call someone like that? Nevermind.... Time was when Lieberman remembers a Democratic leadership that didn't have a large share of leftist loons. Interesting that you fondly remember his bipartisan nature in the same breath that you slam him for agreeing with Reps. Nothing beats the consistency of a hypocritical demagogue.
Bishop Hedd Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Time was when Lieberman remembers a Democratic leadership that didn't have a large share of leftist loons. Interesting that you fondly remember his bipartisan nature in the same breath that you slam him for agreeing with Reps. Nothing beats the consistency of a hypocritical demagogue. "Fondly"? Hardly you dolt. I looked upon LIE-berman's actions back then with utter disdain, as I wanted the dems to fillibuster the hell out of Bush's far right judicial activist bench choices. I'm calling out widdle Joey for his glaring hypocrisy from then to now.
Magox Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I'm calling out widdle Joey for his decision to oppose my political masters health reform bill that over half the country opposes. fixed it for ya
GG Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 "Fondly"? Hardly you dolt. I looked upon LIE-berman's actions back then with utter disdain, as I wanted the dems to fillibuster the hell out of Bush's far right judicial activist bench choices. I'm calling out widdle Joey for his glaring hypocrisy from then to now. Democrats reaching across the aisle - bad for partisanship? Republicans reaching across the aisle - good for partisanship? Is that simple enough for that pea brain of yours?
Doc Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 That's assuming of course everybody in Ct. works for Big Insurance. Somehow I hardly doubt they do. No, not everyone here in CT works for BI. But a lot of people do. Putting them out of work would be devastating for the State. And if this thing gets passed (which I doubt), there will be an opt-out, and CT will certainly do this. Joe is thinking much bigger picture.
truth on hold Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Well this makes things interesting..... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html must not think it's good for israel
Recommended Posts