What party do you think I am talking about?

That's right! The Democrat Party. Why?

Just look at how they treated Joe Lieberman. He goes against his party on one issue and he is demonized and spurned by the Democrats.

When McCain does this to Republicans he is a "Maverick" and is praised by Democrats and the media.

Why such hypocrisy? Why?

Since there is no such word as "intollerance," it's hard to say. Perhaps you meant intolerance?



There is no such party in the U.S. Is it a foreign party somewhere? Or do you mean the Democratic Party?



So I guess you do mean the Democratic Party.

Oh, that's right, some right-wing mouthpieces deliberately misspell the name of the world's oldest political party either to be rude or because they think the name implies that the party is somehow more "democratic" than the Republican Party, although I guess they don't mind implying that the GOP is more "republican," which is as much a political virtue as being "democratic" in the U.S.

Sorry, I forget these things.

How did "they" treat Lieberman?



Lieberman was "demonized"? I must have missed that. I know most Democrats disagree with him about the war in Iraq and a few other things, but I haven't heard anyone suggest that he's a demon or demon-possessed or anything like that.

I also haven't heard that he was "spurned," unless you mean that Democratic voters didn't vote for him in the primary. That's "spurning" of a sort. But what's wrong with it? Isn't that why we have primaries, so each party can select its candidates?



Not sure why you're lumping Democrats and the media together, unless of course you're robotically repeating another silliness of the mouthy right. But as for why Democrats approve of McCain's out-of-party stances, obviously it's because he agrees with them.

I've heard some very intemperate language from Republicans about McCain's stances on some issues, and saw some very ruthless anti-McCain campaigning in 2000 during primary season. But it's natural to voice disagreement with someone you disagree with. There's this little thing in the Constitution about protecting freedom of speech, so we're allowed to do that.

In fact, there are a lot of good things in the Constitution. I highly recommend every U.S. citizen read the document. It's apparent from some of the things said on this board by Americans that greater familiarity with it is needed.



What hypocrisy? If I agree with you, I'll say so; if I don't, I'll say that. Are people supposed to pretend they agree with everything that comes out of Lieberman's or McCain's mouth just because of party affiliation? (Or disagree, if they are affiliated with the other party?)

You're not making any sense here.

@ Two Steps Forward

Thanks for the grammatical lesson!

You must be a very smart person!

Do you do a "profile" on who you correct? As in do you only correct conservative posters?

I don't want to name names but you could have a field day with some of the liberal leaning posters on ATS.

Also words have different meanings.

I used the word demonize in this context.

Definition from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Demonize - To represent as evil or diabolic.







[edit on 22-8-2006 by RRconservative]

I wasn't correcting your grammar. I believe your grammar was correct. I did correct your spelling, but mostly your usage and your reasoning.

The dig at your thread title was purely the devil in me. But calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Party" is a pet peeve of mine, and on that I was serious. Partly because the world's oldest political party deserves the simple respect of using its proper name, not a twisting of it, but also partly because that particular misusage is the province of certain utterly unscrupulous Republican spin-meisters and of certain radio talk-show hosts whose listeners have barely ten functioning brain cells spread among them. A person who uses the term "Democrat Party," particularly if done in innocent ignorance (as is true of most people who do that), labels himself as one whose mind has been closed by propaganda.

And so I point out that the proper name of the political party of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy is not "Democrat Party" but "Democratic Party," and so it has been ever since its name was changed from the "Democratic-Republican Party" in the 1820s. The point is not to nitpick your usage, but to point out that you have been misled on this point. Perhaps you might wish to explore seriously whether you may have been misled on some other, not so trivial points as well.



I did understand that. I don't see where Democrats have represented Joe Lieberman as evil or diabolic. They have just represented him as more conservative than a Democrat should be. I concur with that judgment, but I don't consider him evil, or at any rate no more evil than is typical of politicians.

It's a lot more than "one issue".

Iraq was only the most serious of a long-standing litany of complaints that Dems have with Joe Lieberman. He has never supported universal health care, questioned affirmative action, supported school vouchers, and even supported the federal government’s intervention in the Terri Schiavo matter. While he was the first Democratic Senator to scold President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, Lieberman derided the effort to censure President Bush for the illegal wiretapping program, because we should not "scold" the president. And let's not even get started on his nonsense about protecting children from video games, or the ridiculous V-chip B.S. In other words, LIE-berman is a right-winger in Dems' clothing...it's just that the majority of Dems have finally woken up to this fact.



McCain only PRETENDS to rebel against the GOP, because he's angling for a Presidential run in 2008, and doesn't want to be lumped together with a highly unpopular President. I live in AZ, and we get to see and hear the real John McCain--he supports every far-right agenda there is, from the war in Iraq to being anti-abortion. He's just reinvented himself to appear more moderate to the nation at large, and a lot of moderates and Dems have fallen for it.

Why is it so hard for republicans to accept that Joe lost. He went into the primary asking for votes and did not get enough to be on the ballot.

Then again why are we democrats defending ourselves to republicans? The very fact that conservatives are miffed that Joe L. did not get on the ballot should be enough of an answer to the question.

The fact that he is running independant to ensure a republican victory also shows he is less concerned about his party and the wishes of the people of his state and more about him ensuring a victory for the other side in the general election.

Joe is a small and selfish man based up on his recent actions. We should be glad to be done with him.[

Seriously this is dumb. Lieberman isn't really a liberal. He's more of a moderate.

As for McCain... not all liberals respect him after he kissed republican butt after they smeared him in the 2000 Election.
Democrats who promote him now are only tring to court voters. The republicans do the same thing. Court the people sitting on the fence.

Think what you will about the Liberals because truth be told they simply aren't interested in ripping off the people and not even a little bit. The Republicans I think it fair to say, never did have any actual vision that didn't destroy the very concept of culture what with the rather brash wars that been going on as of late. Sure the Democrats have their low points of perhaps spending too much time on seemingly nonsensical issues, but it is only percieved that way because such topics are considered to be boring. The party that won the 2000 and 2004 elections was the Republican Party and when compared to the Clinton Administration one can quickly see that not doing anything is better than doing too much. Sad, but true, because America as well as the rest of the G8 countries have something better than fascism or communism and that being the Democrat-propagated concept of freedom.

1. RRconservative, This should be in the conservative and/or republican area, since it being here is a deliberate attempt to cause a general ruckus.
2. Two Steps Forward, You know exactly what RRconservative was saying, and doing that correcting thing does'nt help matters.

3. I do think that the Democratic party should have been more gradual in there disassociation with Lieberman.
4. Lieberman was'nt really a Democrat, as in he diod'nt have the same beliefs as the Democratic party.

5. Lieberman's a moderate, so he can play ball for either side in the long run.
6. Both parties have become different than what they were, and don't really support the ideas there voters do.

And playing on both sides is bad because...? Seems to me it's a good thing, that is how things get done. Maybe not to the satisfaction of all of us, but at least attempts to accomplish some thing constructive.

Mr. Lieberman is a small, selfish man because he thinks for himself, and doesn't neccessarily feel his party leadership is correct on this one issue, the war in Iraq. Huh...oh well he's in good company.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by seagull]

Sure, I know what he was saying. I also knew he was communicating it by playing word games, so I played them right back at him. Does that "help matters"? To be perfectly blunt, I think the disagreement between myself and anyone calling himself "RR Conservative" is probably beyond all help. So I don't really care.