1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Army Times: Rumsfeld must go

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Inky_Wretch, Nov 3, 2006.

  1. RedSmithClone

    RedSmithClone Active Member

    Fen I thought you were smarter than that.

    Let me break it down for you a little easier.

    Lieberman - votes with Liberals 95 percent of the time. Votes with other side on War on Terror issues. Hated and considered a traitor to the party.

    ANY REPUBLICAN - Votes party line on every issue. Hated and considered someone who can't be independent on anything. Doesn't think for him or herself and should be booted from their seat because they vote a straight party line.

    Can we understand it now? Does it make sense to the small-minded individual, who refused to answer that part of the question, by instead continuing to throw insults?

    You can't have it both ways!
    Is it good to vote with your political party all the time or not?
  2. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    That wouldn't rattle a few cages on both sides of the isle.

    Why? Because Lieberman is basically one of the few men left in the Senate - republican or democrat - who still basically supports the conduct of this war. On Iraq, he is further right than John Warner, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Arlen Spector.
  3. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    Aside: War on Terror

    Not =

  4. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    I agree. Blame everyone not named George W. Bush.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page