Cynical Nation

Well, in theory he has a chance. But practically speaking, he does not. As time goes by, he will be perceived more and more as a "spoiler" and he will be more and more isolated. He will definitely get most of the republican vote in Connecticut, but in order to win, he will need to find a way to maintain at least 30% of the democratic vote there. That will not be easy with all the heavy weights of the democratic party switching their endorsements to Lamont.

He probably won't win, because any independent candidacy for major office is an uphill battle, but I like his chances a helluva lot more than I did a month ago.

He ran out of Joementum a loooong time ago. Go home, Joe.

Look, whether or not Lieberman has a chance to mainatin his old seat is irrelevant to me.

Regardless, all this means is that a Democratic seat will remain Democratic.

What does that mean for Tennessee, Virginia, Colorado or Arizona???

Very little I'd imagine.

The fact of the matter is that the northeast, along with some urban pockets around the country like the upper Mid-West (Chicago, Milwaukee & Detroit) and the "Left Coast" (SF, LA, Seattle & Portland) remain pretty Liberal, while the rest of the nation remains pretty Conservative.

Two things, (1) as Don Surber notes, "Anti-war Democrats and much of the mainstream media continue to confuse anti-war with anti-lose. The incessant commentary that 2/3rd of the country is against the war completely misreads the American public, as much of the negativity towards the war isn't because we are fighting, but rather a growing feeling that we are not fighting to win or not fighting smart,"
and (2) if you naively believe that Liberalism is gaining some kind of momentum in this country, then why is Harold Ford Jr, a Democrat, running in Tennessee on a platform that would "outlaw gay marriage, repeal the estate tax, amend the Constitution to ban flag burning, get rid of the handgun ban in the nation's capital, supports the Ten Commandments being posted in courtrooms around his state, favors school prayer, argues that more troops should have been sent to Iraq and wants to seal the border with Mexico?"

If your thinking the disease that is contemporary Liberalism is contagious BW, I'd say think again.

The calculus is simple: Primary voters tend to represent the fringe, rather than the mainstream of their party's voters.

We'll know within a few weeks where Joe stands in the preference polls. Personnally, I don't think Ned has nearly as much traction with CT voters as he does with the moonbat fringe of CT Democrats.

Lieberman will win. He will get most of the Republican vote and the moderate Democrat vote.

By November, Karl Rove will have opened his bag of tricks, and people will be scared back to voting the Corporatists in again.

Just watch as the terrorism stories pick up steam, RED ALERT! Be afraid, be very afraid!

Oh yes, you all underestimate what they are willing to do to stay in power.

leiberman went down to a challenger from the left, Shultz (in the midwest somewhere) went down to a righty challenger and yo-yo McKinney goes down to someone with a brain who was in the middle.

So go figure.

These terrorists DON'T come from "cave-dweeling" stock.

Hell! You yourself admitted that they're smart enough to come here and take IT jobs away from a lot of Americans...and not merely about "working cheaper," they're apparently doing a better job.

Mohammed Att was an engineer, virtually all of the 9/11 hijackers were well-educated and financially well-off.

If you were really ever in the IT field than you let them outsmart you once, so it makes sense that they'd be able to count on the same people like you underestimating them again when it comes to their ability to wage "unconventional warfare"/terrorism.

Besides Corporatism's isn't all that bad, we've been a Corporatist (highly regulated) economy for very nearly 100 years (2013 is the Centennial...all thanks be to J P Morgan and Bernard Baruch) and apparently more people prefer it than they do the constant "Boom & Bust" cycles enedmic to Laissez Fairre Capitalism.

"Lieberman went down to a challenger from the left, Shultz (in the midwest somewhere) went down to a righty challenger and yo-yo McKinney goes down to someone with a brain who was in the middle.

So go figure." (Fred)
(Fred)


That's about right Fred, as most politics is local.

I believe the initial race you were referring to was in Michigan's 7th District where "challenger Tim Walberg defeated Representative Joe Schwarz last night in Michigan's seventh district. The final tally was 53% to 47%..."

Club for Growth members reportedly put $600K into Walberg's coffers, so they're pretty happy right now.

Who cares about Joe Loserman anymore? He is a loser who lost badly. He will gradually fall into obscurity.

> He is a loser who lost badly.

"Badly?" What do you call JFK's 1960 victory over Nixon, a "landslide?"

Very badly. Loserman was a VP candidate for the democratic party, while noone new Lamont 4 months ago.

"Who cares about Joe Loserman anymore? He is a loser who lost badly. He will gradually fall into obscurity." (BW)
IS good for Democrats and for America that Cynthia McKinney is finally out of the House. Let's hope it's for good this time.

But a Lieberman loss doesn't help the Dems at all.

Very wrong. It helps them a lot. Lieberman is worse than a republican. He is someone that used to undermine the democratic party from the inside. Chafee is far better than Lieberman. In fact Chafee was one of the few senators that voted against the disastrous Iraq war from day 1.

Lieberman was a Liberal Democrat, opposed to the tax cuts that saved our economy, in fact, opposed to the vast majority of the Republican agenda.

Chafeee's a veritable Democrat and SHOULD be replaced by Laffey. Chafee, like most of those who opposed the toppling of Saddam's regime, don't support the WoT at all.

That's why they're constantly pounded as appease-niks and surrender-crats.

like most of those who opposed the toppling of Saddam's regime, don't support the WoT at all.

LOL

> Lieberman is worse than a republican.

Once again, Blue, we find occasion for agreement. ;-)

The same naive folks who opposed the invasion of Iraq also dumbly oppose the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps (which, according to reports, foiled today's terror threat)...those who take those stands are either (anti-American and pro-terrorist or just opposed to any WoT because they don't believe there is a terror threat, in which case, their just hopelessly dumb.

JMK: The World's Wrongest Man

No JMK, no, no, no.

The terrorists are no big threat to our existence. All they can do are stunts that actually do negligible harm to our country. We could nuke them out of existence any time.

The Indians trained and sponsored by mega-rich American corporations like Microsoft are, first of all, for the most part, not Muslim. Muslims are only a 10% minority in India, stupid.

Secondly, they didn't grow up hiding in caves, playing bombmaker. They were educated with the support of American corporations, and then brough over and trained by American programmers. This was not done out of need, or to "stay competitive" ... it was only done to avoid paying the free market rate for programmers.

Indians didn't "trick" me ... Bush did. He claimed to be a conservative. I don't recall massive imports of legal and illegal aliens to suppress American wages and unemploy Americans as ever being part of Bill Buckley's conservatism.

It was my government that fooled me, by saying that we all needed to get out of our blue collar manufacturing jobs, get educated, and get into high tech.

The unconstitutional and illegal Patriot Act and other spying programs did NOT result in foiling anything other than the constitution. There were easy methods already in place, with almost rubber stamp courts and minimal oversight that could have legally done what Bush wanted to do illegally.

The truth is, you, nor anyone else, knows how Bush is using his illegal spying programs.

There is no real terrorist threat. Drunk drivers are 100 times the threat that terrorists pose. Get a grip.

Will you please stop crying about the H-1B Visa program that BOTH Parties adore and for a host of very good reasons....primarily because the country needs more IT workers than it currently produces.

The H-1B Visas rocketed from under 50,000 back in 1992 to over 900,000 by 2001. The current guy agreed to dropping the limit from a high of 195,000/year (set by Congress) to its base limit of 65,000/year back in 2004 (also set by Congress).

If you bailed out of the IT field, it's because you couldn't compete, not because you were priced out. Lots of Americans hold IT jobs today and the reason companies want a higher limit on H-1B Visas is because they need more than we currently produce.

The folks from India (they're Hindus, by the way) DIDN'T come here and take IT jobs....not at all.

Large companies outsourced their tech support over to India so they could afford to maintain it as a low-cost service. That outsourcing was allowed under an expanded GATT passed by Tip O'Neill's Congress back in 1991.

The folks who came here on H-1B Visas for IT jobs were predominantly Pakistani (and yes, Pakistan IS,/B> a Muslim nation). Those Pakistanis are generally very good at math, quick and eager learners and probably make good IT pros.

The Patriot Act is still supported by BOTH Parties and anyone who doesn't is either woefully naive or simply pro-terrorist and anti-American.

Post-9/11 is a brand new world. We NEED the CIA to be able to gather information in domestic environs and share that information with national (FBI & NSA) and local law enforcement.

The American people have their word on it - "No funny business. None of that COINTELPRO that got some jokers bent out of shape back in the 1950s. This is the "New CIA."

Personally, I trust'em. They seem like genuinely alright guys....OK, except for the Ivy Leaguers among them, but generally they're A-OK.

Besides, there's no violation of law with wiretapping international calls. The NSA ALWAYS had the power to track foreign calls coming into the U.S. (four federal courts, including the FISA court all upheld that), now they're tracking SOME calls from the U.S. to suspect foreign portals. It's the flip side of the same coin and there's simply "no expectation of privacy" when making such an international call.

Once again...and please feel free to tattoo this on your ass, if need be, "Corporatism isn't all that bad. We've been a Corporatist (highly regulated) economy for very nearly 100 years (2013 is the Centennial...all thanks be to J P Morgan and Bernard Baruch) and apparently far more people prefer it than they do the constant "Boom & Bust" cycles enedmic to Laissez Fairre Capitalism."

I used to be a Murray Rothbard/Lew Rockwell Libertarian, then I realized that Murray was wrong on a whole host of issues and accepted that the vast majority of Americans are right...the REGULATED economy works best. It may not be the most efficient, and it's certainly true that the more free and open, the better, but the regulated economy (a/k/a "Corporatism") is definitely here to stay.

You're a moron. Every technical interview I have had in the last few years was CONDUCTED by an INDIAN, not a Paki, you simpleton.

Like any minority, they get in, and only promote themselves. I land 95% of all jobs, unless an Indian does the technical interview, and then I land 0%. Amazing, isn't it?

They are better? LOL! I have to come in and fix their crappy coding all the time, because they can't actually think. They code like robots, unaware of what makes software usable to human beings.

They were NOT brought over, and are NOT kept here because America lacks willing workers for these jobs. They were brought here to work cheaper, and to insulate management from the embarrassment of having people around who were smarter and made more money that they did themselves.

Having pidgin English speaking, dour Indians is no threat to management. It is all about hatred of the middle class by the rich and wannabe rich (Republicans).

Few Indians come here, on H-1B Visas, far more Pakistanis do.

Our tech support industry was pretty much shipped en masse to India, so it could be kept cost-effective, creating LESS reason for Indians to come here for tech jobs.

Moreover, now you apparently claim to still be working within the IT field - "I have to come in and fix their crappy coding all the time, because they can't actually think."

So, which is it, did you LIE about foreigners stealing your job or did you LIE about ever being in the tech field at all???

Again, make yourself more familiar with the reasons, both practical and political, for the H-1B Visa Program.

Here's a little primer for you;

(The quota for H-1B Visas) has generally been set at 65,000 visas per year, with some exceptions for workers at exempt organizations like universities and nonprofits. In 2000, Congress permanently exempted H-1B visas going to Universities and Government Research Laboratories from the quota.

During the early years of this quota in the early 1990s, this quota was rarely actually reached. By the mid-1990s, however, the quota tended to be filled each year on a first come, first served basis, resulting in new H-1Bs often being denied or delayed because the annual quota was already filled. In response to the very hot high-tech market of the late 1990s, the quota was increased first to 130,000 and then, in 2000, to 195,000 visas per year. This increase in the quota seemed to play a role in oversaturating an already softening high-tech job market. During the years the quota was 195,000, it was never reached, and the availability of high-tech jobs in the USA plummetted as there was just too much competition for positions.

In 2005, the quota reverted to 90,000 when the temporary increase passed by Congress in 1999 expired. Since then, the quota is again filling up rapidly every year, making H-1Bs again increasingly hard to get. More recently, the basic quota was left at 65,000 but with an additional 20,000 visas possible for foreign workers with US advanced degrees. Of the 65,000 total, 6,800 are initially reserved for citizens of Chile and Singapore under free trade agreements with those countries, however, if these reserved visas are not used under the agreements, they go back to the general pool. Outside of the 65,000 quota, another 10,500 visas annually are available to Australian citizens under a similar but more flexible program, the E-3 visa program.

In 2006, the entire quota of visas for the year beginning October 1, 2006 was exhausted within a span of less than 2 months on May 26, and the additional 20,000 Advanced Degree H-1B visas were exhausted on July 26th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B
THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.

(3) Appx 25% of those H-1B Visas are set aside for applicants from Chile, Singapore and Australia under various Free Trade Agreements.

Are you finally getting this?

Stop poking yourself in the eye and blaming the guy next to you!

Clinton rightfully and necessarily signed off on two consecutive INCREASES of the H-1B Visa program in 1996 and 2000.

The 195,000 quota was never reached during its short tenure.

When the quotas were put back up for review in 2004 the H-1B Visa quota was decreased back down to ots original level of 65,000/year by the current President - the one you balme for your (very possibly fictitious) plight.

Stop blaming G W Bush and the GOP for what Bill Clinton signed off on - raising the H-1B quotas - in 1996 to 130,000/year and in 1999 to 195,000/year.

Dear Dumbass,

PLEASE stop assuming that I am a Democrat. I am a registered REPUBLICAN. I voted for Chimpboy in 2000 -- BECAUSE I WAS ALREADY ANGRY WITH CLINTON FOR RAISING THE H1B VISA LIMIT.

I know this is impossible for a stooge like you to understand, but I am not a mindless party slave like you.

What Bush did was 100 times worse than Clinton raising the H1B visa cap -- he presided over the mass exodus of high tech jobs from America, and did absolutely nothing.

No wait, I'm wrong, Bush ENCOURAGED it, and still does. Do you really, seriously, think that any American can compete with someone who makes less in a year than we pay in property taxes? They make less than one year of health care. Their education cost less for an advanced degree than a single semester at a community college here.

Can I pay my taxes in India? That would be great. Am I allowed to buy direct from ANY COUNTRY in the world? Do ALL COUNTRIES have free and open access to bring me goods and services? No.

American corporations use offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes here, they don't employ Americans, and they use our government to protect them from foreign competition.

The fact that you support this makes you a traitor.

There's no such thing as a "Democrat" or a "Republican" now-a-days.

Conservatives (like me) tend to vote either Republican or Libertarian (less and less lately and I DID support Pat Buchanan awhile back)and still like good'ol Zell Miller, a registered Democrat, like me), while Liberals tend to vote either Democratic or Worker's World Party, things like that.

OK, so that's the first thing you got wrong.

Then you compound the error by saying, "What Bush did was 100 times worse than Clinton raising the H1B visa cap -- he presided over the mass exodus of high tech jobs from America, and did absolutely nothing."

We don't give the President the power to DO ANYTHING so far as international trade, interstate commerce, and other things that directly impact the economy goes.

Congress controls all government spending, sets tax rates, sets Free Trade contracts, etc and has the most direct impact on the economy.

Tech jobs here plumteted in the wake of "Clinton's Tech Bubble Bust," and I call it "the Bill Clinton's Tech Bubble Bust" because the Clinton administration's shenanigans at the SEC that changed IPO procedures and margin limits, helped create that false "internet economy" and when those things had to be reined in, by early 2000, the NASDAQ (the Tech Sector) promptly imploded.

You might well say that all those late 1990s tech jobs were a mere mirage.

But today's economy is even stronger than that of 1998's. Low inflation (2.4%), low interest rates, low unemployment (4.7%) and increaseed consumer spending, with a DOW now over 11,000.

The last statement, "American corporations use offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes here, they don't employ Americans, and they use our government to protect them from foreign competition," is simply nonsensical in every way.

"American Corporations" are those Corporations registered in the U.S.

Any corporation registered in the U.S. pays U.S. taxes.

Only those corporations registered here and paying U.S. taxes receive any of the waning "protections" from foreign competition.

The U.S. Auto industry receives very little, if any "protection" from foreign competitors...and they're still in the mix competing.

Exxon-Mobil is registered here, pays taxes here AND hires Americans - tens of thousands of them both here and overseas.

OK, so what's your point again?

"Lieberman will win. He will get most of the Republican vote and the moderate Democrat vote" -- Bailey Hankins

Recent polls show Lieberman with a comfortable lead and he is now expected to win easily. The polls show that he is getting almost all of the Republican vote, and the moderate Democratic Vote.

Read and learn, retards.

JMK, you are NOT a conservative. You support a big government, budget busting wanna-be dictator who has expanded the government and its powers immensely.

Bush is in NO WAY a conservative.

If you were a true conservative, like me, you would not support him.

And for God's sake stop jumping around blaming CLINTON for things that the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS did, and then switching and saying that BUSH HAD NO POWER because congress makes the laws. That is just your low IQ showing again. Try to be consistent, and not just a party stooge.

If you want to blame CLINTON for what happened under BUSH'S watch (meaning times were great under Clinton and now suck under Bush), why don't you be consistent and blame THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS instead of Clinton? After all, Clinton had NO POWER according to you.

I live in DETROIT stupid. The auto industry is DYING if you haven't noticed. They just posted 30% losses against Toyota's 15% gain. They have laid off over 100,000 workers here in the last few years. Is that "in the mix"? LOL!

I just interviewed with Exxon-Mobile -- all Indians. Sorry, wrong again.

Exxon-Mobile pays taxes on a tiny fraction of their income, while the middle class takes a big hit on EVERY PENNY because we can't hide most of our money offshore.

God damn, are you 8 or 80 years old? You are like a frightened old man with the naivity of a child.

Bush is NOT a true Conservative.

Pat Buchanan IS.

Sadly these times call for the "Big Government Conservativism" espoused by the likes of G W Bush and Rudy Guiliani.

Nopne of yours or my "rights" have been violated with the new security measures.

The American auto industry is in a state of transition.

GM was able to buy out a lot of its old pensioners who'd been weighing down that companies bottomline. Ford just retooled and is now poised to both be more profitable and offer new kinds of cars.

I don't make most of my income from salary. With only 51% of Americans paying the Income Tax, it appears I'm far from alone in that regard.

For me, it's good news when companies retool and move forward with fewer workers. It makes them both more profitable and more poised for their stock performance to improve. Not only that, but their dividend positions tend to do likewise.

I accept your apology, "If you want to blame CLINTON for what happened under BUSH'S watch (meaning times were great under Clinton and now suck under Bush), why don't you be consistent and blame THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS instead of Clinton? After all, Clinton had NO POWER according to you."
"The H-1B Visas rocketed from under 50,000 back in 1992 to over 900,000 by 2001. The current guy agreed to dropping the limit from a high of 195,000/year (set by Congress) to its base limit of 65,000/year back in 2004 (also set by Congress)."

YOU eroneoulsy blamed Bush 43 for "raising the H-1B Visa limit.

I (1) proved that the H-1B Visa was created by a Democratic Congress back in 1990, (2) grew from less than 50,000 back in 1993 to over 900,000 by 2001 and (3) that BOTH Parties overwhelmingly support the H-1B Visa program.

In 1996 and 2000, 88% of Democrats and 86% of Republicans supported raising th H-1B Visa limits.

In 2004 with virtually the same numbers, another Republican Congress REDUCED that limit back to its initial 65,000/year.

I appreciate your acknowledging that your inital claim was wrong.

And please....PLEASE stop calling yourself a "Conservative." It's as ludicrous as you calling workers controlling access to the fields they work in and property reverting back to the state upon the earner's death "Free Market principles."

You're NOT a Conservative and you don't believe in Free Market principles...your own words prove that.

In fact, that's why I originally eroneously believed that you were a sock puppet of Jill's.

Your views are THAT similar.

Oh bullshit, you lie machine.

You know damn good and well Bush is pro "any cheap labor works for me, fuck America!" He even refuses to enforce immigration laws. Mexicans have flooded into Texas in such numbers, for so long (under Bush's watch) that White non-hispanics are now a minority in Texas.

Bush presided over the mass exodus of jobs from American workers to foreigners. Not surplus jobs that couldn't be filled, but desperately needed jobs in good fields.

Lying and sophistry won't change the facts, and everyone knows them.

Corporations don't rightfully own this country. Bush and idiots like you only try to make it seem that way. They have no right to have the Nanny State government import foreigners simply to lower the wages of American workers. They have no right to avoid taxation through offshore shell subsidiaries like the ones Cheney set up for Halliburton while he was there. Corporations have no right to openly bribe government officials and buy and sell elections.

What you see as normal and healthy is an abomination and a tragic corruption of the laws, constitution, and traditions that once made up America.

I am the Conservative.

You are a Corporatist, who worships only profit.

You are NOT a conservative. Bush is NOT a conservative.

You are both traitors.

"...Mexicans have flooded into Texas in such numbers, for so long (under Bush's watch) that White non-hispanics are now a minority in Texas." (BH)
Texas Quick Facts
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2004 = 34.6%

White persons, not Hispanic, percent, 2004 = 49.8%

Correct me if I'm wrong (I rarely am)...but 49.8 is still LARGER than 34.6, RIGHT?

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't make them "lies."

See how that works?
TWICE!

That limit was LOWERED by the current administration with a Republican Congress.

THOSE are the facts concerning the exodus of "American jobs." Democrats created the H-1B Visa, raised its limits, they expanded GATT and they passed NAFTA (in 1/94 we had BOTH a Democrat House and a Democrat President).

ALL those things enjoy very broad bi-partisn support and they wouldn't if they were "destroying America."

The border issue?!

You're gonna fault THIS administration over the border issue?!

The Democratic alternative is the "Open Border" crowd!

In fact, this is the first President and the first Congress NOT to have simply evaded and avoided that issue!

Seriously, YOU'RE problem is that you base all your perceptions on emotion...on your opinions and they are rarely, if ever rooted in facts.

I showed you that Democrats created the "outsourcing" problem (expanding GATT and passing NAFTA) and both created the H-1B Visa and raised its limits.

I showed how this administration actually LOWERED the H-1B Visa limit down to its initial level and was the FIRST administration to even address the border issue in any coherant manner.

I'm always documenting facts and giving you the various url's to look confirm these facts...and you respond with emotional rants....all misguided opinions and no facts.

"...Mexicans have flooded into Texas in such numbers, for so long (under Bush's watch) that White non-hispanics are now a minority in Texas." (BH)
Texas Quick Facts
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2004 = 34.6%

White persons, not Hispanic, percent, 2004 = 49.8%

Correct me if I'm wrong (I rarely am)...but 49.8 is still LARGER than 34.6, RIGHT?

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't make them "lies."

See how that works?
TWICE!

That limit was LOWERED by the current administration with a Republican Congress.

THOSE are the facts concerning the exodus of "American jobs." Democrats created the H-1B Visa, raised its limits, they expanded GATT and they passed NAFTA (in 1/94 we had BOTH a Democrat House and a Democrat President).

ALL those things enjoy very broad bi-partisn support and they wouldn't if they were "destroying America."

The border issue?!

You're gonna fault THIS administration over the border issue?!

The Democratic alternative is the "Open Border" crowd!

In fact, this is the first President and the first Congress NOT to have simply evaded and avoided that issue!

Seriously, YOU'RE problem is that you base all your perceptions on emotion...on your opinions and they are rarely, if ever rooted in facts.

I showed you that Democrats created the "outsourcing" problem (expanding GATT and passing NAFTA) and both created the H-1B Visa and raised its limits.

I showed how this administration actually LOWERED the H-1B Visa limit down to its initial level and was the FIRST administration to even address the border issue in any coherant manner.

I'm always documenting facts and giving you the various url's to confirm these facts...and you respond with emotional rants....all misguided opinions and no facts.