Thats why he is a rat but still go joe and beat lamont(sanford and son)
Yeah, but with the Republican candidate for Senate in CT polling at 6%, what can you do?
Good post. It would be a plus for the Republican candidate to WIN.
How can old Joe be a conservative Jew and still vote in favor of abortion?
Welcome to Free Republic!
This is a moral dilemna for Conservatives:
For the sake of the greater good, Joe should get the nod over Ned; however, Ned winning the race only causes more people to run to our side. Should we stand up for the citizens of CT, or let the Liberals further implode?
LOL. You are correct of course, but I have a question. You a Lamont supporter?
Welcome to Free Republic.
Liebermann is a liberal on everything but the war on terror.
His Democrat opponent is a liberal on EVERYTHING INCLUDING the war.
The Republican hasn't got a prayer due to "persoanl problems" (Sean Hannity).
So from a prgamatic perspecitve, is there any choice here?
I think not.
Vote for America. Vote for Liebermann.
Hiya Ned.
Okay, I feel a rant coming on. Because I've been thinking about adolescence and sexual pressure of late.
How about all parents tell their teenagers the following: "DON'T DO IT"?
Now I can hear the rebuttals. "Man, you can't tell teenagers not to do it. That's just not practical."
So okay, let's take a poll. How many adults, and by "adults" I mean well past the lust of adolescence, would actually agree that teenage sex- and by "teenage sex" I'll stipulate during high school-is a good thing?
Would any adult with two IQ cells shake their head positive and say..."sure, teenagers in high school have sexual needs; why shouldn't they expand their lust just so long as they avoid pregnancy?"
Well I'm thinking not many adults would take that position, correct me if I'm wrong.
Why on earth can't teenagers just not have sex until they are out of high school? Nobody's freaking died of such a thing?
But I'm not done yet. I know they get in the back seats of cars (I was a teenager once) and get all hot and bothered and things get out of hand. In this event, well better to use a condom than not.
Sheesh, anybody can buy a condom anywhere, heck they give them out free everywhere. I don't see why parents should have to warn their teenagers to use condoms. I think that to do so is to implicitly give permission for teenage sex. I DO think a parent could, after a warning to JUST NOT DO IT, warn a teenage child that there are plenty of condoms everywhere, perhaps as an aside. "Because to do it without using birth control is way worse than doing it WITH birth control, but in either case, don't do it at all and if I find out that you did I'm going to be mad."
The above is a mythical conversation and it's been many years since I myself had a teenager so maybe I'm out of touch.
But doesn't it seem that every facet of society anymore is practically BEGGING teenagers to have sex; some kind of sex? I get frustrated and think what happened to good old fashioned morals? Why can't we tell teenagers NOT to do it, especially if that's the way we feel?
Notice please, I am not espousing parental advice to not have sex until marriage. Although, hey, no one ever died of being a virgin on their wedding night either. But getting an education, courtships, dreams and goals, sometimes postpone marriage until late in the twenties or early thirties. I am not so stupid to think that sexual contact would likely be postponed for thirty years or whatever.
But a teenager in high school? Tell them NO. And if they do it anyway, and I know a lot of them do, then so be it. At least as parents good advice would have been handed out.
Encourage Orchulli or a popular state senator to enter the race. We CAN win this race with a good candidate. A choice between Lieberman and Lamont is not a choice. Supporting Lieberman may piss off the Dems, but it keeps a winnable seat liberal.
Welcome to FR. it is considered polite to comment on what you post. Do you agree, dis-agree, with what you posted? Or are you as suggested, a LeMount supporter?
First Day here at FR I see. Welcome!
The Republican candidate is pro-choice also, and in any case has no chance to win unless Lamont and Lieberman are BOTH caught with either a live boy or a dead girl.
Any candidate running statewide in Connecticut on a pro-life platform would get creamed about as badly as Box-O-Rox if she ran for Senator from Alabama.
So your worthless vanity is a tranparent attack on Joe Lieberman which amount to pro-Lamont. That makes you a troll and Zot-bait.
IBTZ!!
Ned! Is this really you - or one of your comrades?
Lieberman's biggest scam was getting into the Senate seat on the backs of the unborn. This craven individual, Lieberman, ruthlessly used the unborn to get into office.
As a 1988 Senate candidate, Lieberman made many, many pro-life pledges to Connecticut Catholic leaders as Atty General running for pro-abort Sen Weicker's seat.
Based on an internal Lieberman poll indicating pro-life votes were there for the taking, Lieberman assiduously courted Catholics, and made pro-life promises that he had no intention of keeping. Lieberman got into the Senate----with pro-life votes.
Lieberman musta laughed all the way to Washington thinking of the con job he pulled off.
Once in office, Lieberman turned tail and became an unwavering abortion rights supporter----as your list suggests----voting consistently pro-abortion, and even voting to uphold partial-birth abortion on six separate occasions.
A choice between the Devil or his helper.