71 comments

• 

  Alex

  3 months ago

  Spectacular! I wish peope in CT have a law for recall. Recall LeibermanAle
  reply
• 

  Carthage

  3 months ago

  Is there a recall provision in CT?
  reply
• 

  Jake

  3 months ago

  No :( There's only 11 States that do; if I remember correctly. CT isn't one of them.
  reply
• 

  JDUKE

  3 months ago

  I just moved to Connecticut and have realized the people here are slow. Change is hard for them. Even if it is obviously better than the status quo.
  reply
• 

  V. Foster

  3 months ago

  people in CT are only concerned about the price of crack. Have you ever been to Hartford? one word ... "wow."
  reply
• 

  balthus

  3 months ago

  Yeah, and if a mere handful of the idiots who voted for Bush had voted for Gore we wouldn't be in Iraq, over 4000 American troops wouldn't have died for nothing, gas prices would be lower and global warming less of a threat, our Constitutional rights wouldn't have been trampled, flood victims in New Orleans wouldn't have been ignored, and our economy wouldn't be reeling.
  
  But hey, this is America, where idiots rule...and what matters in a candidate is whether you'd want to drink beer with him, not where he stands on issues or whether he has any brains.
  
  So thank you Connecticut, for not rising above our collective national bar of stupidity, and voting in a true shit heel career politician and traitor to the Democratic party! You rock!
  reply
• 

  sssappp2

  3 months ago

  I know, think of it, Al Gore won California by almost a million votes if a hand ful of those votes had been cast in Florida, New Hampshire or Tennessee, there would have been no 9/11 no War in in Iraq, Afghanistan or any where. And don't forget it matters how much make up you were to a presidential debate!
  reply
• 

  Fred

  3 months ago

  Hey balthus-
  
  You're an idiot. If Gore had been elected then.... (drumroll please) Joseph Lieberman would probably be the FRONTRUNNER for the Democratic nomination for President his year. And he would have been the VP for the past eight years. Next time, THINK before you talk... it'll all do you liberals some good.
  reply
• 

  Zombie Cobain

  3 months ago

  "Traitor Joe" really took the Connecticut primary loss as a personal insult, and I suspect he is consciously getting revenge on his constituency and Democrats in general by refusing to reign in his militant pro-Isreal stance. (As an atheist it makes me vomit to see anyone putting their religious interests ahead of America's interests; it's obvious that military solutions in the Middle East don't work, but Joe wants his army to defend a country we really do not owe much to.)
  
  His scorching of the earth will not go unpunished; he is destroying his political career and will be a pariah in both parties before this is all done.
  reply
• 

  Fred

  3 months ago

  since when is it militant to be pro-Israel? Sen. Lieberman is right on when it comes to Israel. We are the only thing stopping the world from getting rid of the Israelis.
  reply
• 

  stivo

  3 months ago

  Yes and we would have rush limbaugh eating his donuts, complaining about our "smellfare" programs, and getting upset that when his stock in starbucks goes up 44 dollars, and has to pay his 30 % capital gains tax on it!
  reply
• 

  KISSman

  3 months ago

  Every person in that state that voted for Lieberman who would now vote Lamont needs a slap. It reminds me of the people who voted for Bush who would have now voted for Kerry. What do they know today that they didn't know at the time of the election??
  
  Bush and Lieberman are the same exact people and stand for the exact same things that they did a few years ago and yet these dopes that gave them 4 to 6 more years in office knew what they were getting.
  
  All this Lieberman would lose today stuff is completely useless because we're stuck with him and there's nothing we can do about it now.
  reply
• 

  Tyke

  3 months ago

  Well we could elect enough senate dems to have a filibuster proof majority without slimy Joe, then since he's NOT a dem and supported the Repub candidate - cut him loose from any committee assignments.
  
  He effectively loses all the benefits of being part of the majority party (because he's NOT) and the idiots who voted for him lose the benefit of having a high seniority majority party senator.
  
  Everyone gets their just desserts.
  
  Time to step up and help out folks:
  
  http://www.actblue.com/page/jimthatcher
  reply
• 

  ducdebrabant

  3 months ago

  "What do they know today that they didn't know at the time of the election??"
  
  If I may take the liberty of speaking for the Democrats, at least, I expect they didn't know that Lieberman would be campaigning for the nominee of the Republican Party at this moment, and even doing so beyond our country's shores.
  reply
• 

  Fred

  3 months ago

  God, are all of you idiots? How can you say Bush and Lieberman are the same exact people? The only thing they agree on is Iraq, and the war on terrorism. That's it. Look at Lieberman's voting record, and tell me they are the exact same people.
  
  Quit drinking the koolaid and get back to reality.
  reply
• 

  KISSman

  3 months ago

  Maybe I could have articulated it better, but what I meant was that Lieberman is the same guy he was when they voted for him just a couple years ago. Nothing has changed about the man. He stands for the same stuff and him supporting a Republican is no surprise at all.
  
  With Bush, it's the same thing. He's not a different guy today compared to who he was in 2004. Like Lieberman, Bush hasn't changed at all. So why the shift in support against them?
  
  What we know about these two men today is what we knew about them during their re-election campaigns. For people to now say that they are against them today after voting for them two or three years ago is moronic when they knew exactly what they were going to get out of these people.
  reply
• 

  ducdebrabant

  3 months ago

  I think they could have legitimately not expected him to actually campaign for the Republican ticket. I wouldn't have voted for him if I lived in Connecticut, but that surprised even ME.
  reply
• 

  darlakw@verizon..net

  3 months ago

  Connecticut voted, and they got who they voted for. I hope they are happy; they saddled the rest of us with a man who has no agenda other than that of Israel.
  reply
• 

  jgrillo

  3 months ago

  Why, because his position on the War is the same as Obama's or McCain's:
  
  I told ya so...I told ya so...many of you scoffed at my comments for the last few months about Obama being just another politician...change will not come to Washington...just more of the same.
  
  Obama rewrites Iraq plan
  By MIKE ALLEN | 7/3/08 4:16 PM EST
  Text Size:
  
  Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his website: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
  
  Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month.
  
  A top Obama adviser said he is not “wedded” to a specific timeline, and Obama said Thursday he plans to “refine” his plan.
  reply
• 

  jgrillo

  3 months ago

  Free of charge to everyone I am going to tell you why he changed:
  
  If you read some of my earlier comments I stated the American people were mad as hell with GWB for the lack of a coherent strategy to finish off the job in Iraq. People think Iraq was a complex operation...it really wasn't...we toppled Saddam in a few days. The problem was we also toppled the government and it's national security and tried to rewrite a country with minimal US presence necessary...we should of done 1 of 2 things: first, we could've toppled Saddam and left the Baathist regime in place with a clear warning or second, use the Powell doctrine of going in with overwhelming force and we could've immediately established security...I would've preferred #1.
  
  The reason why Obama is smartly changing his position and deceived primary voters because he knows that we are winners...the U.S. is the #1 world's superpower and even though we were frustrated and pissed with GWB about Iraq...WE WANT TO WIN!
  reply
• 

  NCYvonne

  3 months ago

  jgrillo, want to win? I want to be 5 10" but that ain't happening either! There is no winning in Iraq because (a) it's not our problem and (b) we don't have the funds or the troops. That's the reality. It's time to let the Iraqis handle this for themselves now. End of story.
  reply
• 

  Dave

  3 months ago

  There you go! People against this war will never answer: Do you want US to win in Iraq? Yes or No
  
  Deep down you know your hatred of Bush surpasses your love for this country and thats vile and sick.
  reply
• 

  russliberalproud

  3 months ago

  Dave Please remember who put us there (illegally, by the way) and why. It has nothing to do with patriotism. It has to do with the international illegalities that put us there.
  reply
• 

  NCYvonne

  3 months ago

  I've answered your question, you ridiculous tree stump. Yes, I would like for us to win in Iraq. I simply don't believe it's possible and I'mnot willing to sacrifice any more blood and treasure for a mistake.
  
  Being in Iraq has nothing to do with love of country. The president's first priority is to the safety and secruity of the US. Being in Iraq does not meet that end. Our military is stretched too thin and we are not prepared to confront other security threats around the world.
  
  Idiot like you apparently love Iraq more than you love the US.
  reply
• 

  ThatOneDemocrat

  3 months ago

  Okay, just as a warning for everyone involved...this person Dave? Don't even try bothering to debate him. He has proven by his unqualified acceptance of the Bush/Fox News that he is among the mentally disabled, and should be treated as if he were mentally disabled.
  
  Hey Dave, you want to see the shiny ball, right? be good, Dave, and you can see the shiny ball!!!
  reply
• 

  lefty131

  3 months ago

  If Obama wants us to win, he truly is the candidate of change, because he will have changed his policy on that issue alone. He does not want the US to be the only SuperPower because it is not fair to the rest of the world.
  reply
• 

  Fred

  3 months ago

  No, Obama's changing his position because he's seeing the polls, and the situation on the ground, start to shift. Pretty soon, Obama will be telling us he supported the surge (which he actually did back in 2004).
  reply
• 

  NCYvonne

  3 months ago

  jgillo, you're already behind. Obama clarified those remarks because McBush is trying to spin it as a flip. Go watch what he said at 5 PM Eastern. In essence: "we will start removing 1-2 brigades a month. The commander in chief sets the mission, not the generals; I will listen to the generals with regards to the tactics of how we're getting out but, make no mistake: we are getting out."
  
  Sorry.
  reply
• 

  jgrillo

  3 months ago

  No...that's we he said in the debate a few months ago...you are watching an old-clip...there is a possibility he could've changed a position from a few minutes ago.
  reply
• 

  jgrillo

  3 months ago

  It isn't "McBush"...he's being hammered even by the liberal media commentators.
  reply
• 

  NCYvonne

  3 months ago

  He held a press conference at 5PM because the media was whacking off over the notion that he had somehow changed his position. It's up on the Page. Look at it for yourself.
  
  I know you're desperate to find a way to bring Obama down but you're wasting your time--at least with people here--because McCain is not an option. Even if Obama "softened" on Iraq, there are still a million reasons we support him over McCain.
  reply
• 

  jgrillo

  3 months ago

  Yes, I read it and he cleaned it up only very slightly...but as you can plainly see he left himself the "politician's wiggle room" to change his position/promises if he chooses to do so. However, it did contradict his earlier statement a few hours ago and comments from his top advisors suggested their would be no timetable.
  
  I've got news for you...as a military man with some connections here is what the generals are going to tell him when he goes to Iraq: "Senator Obama, I know it is going to be difficult and tough in the months/years ahead but we are making tremendous progress and you know what...we can win this thing. The Iraqi Government is finally starting to meets it's benchmarks, the Iraqi Military is getting better by the day, Al Quada is getting their asses kicked here and the people are slowly but surely getting tired of the violence and want reconciliation."
  
  He is going to have to throw all that out the window to keep a primary promise of having a timetable...he won't do it...willing to bet a Big Mac Meal on it but more importantly, he shouldn't have made the irresponsible promise in the first place.
  reply
• 

  jgrillo

  3 months ago

  I am not desperate and I don't want to bring Obama down. I just want to point out the facts---he's not a savior of everything that's wrong with Government...just another Democrat running for Prez. If people can live with that and vote for the guy, more power to them .I like the guy...In 2008, the way Republicans have screwed things up so badly, a liberal can win this election as I noted earlier; however he needs to do it smartly and take some positions to the center...this is one issue he shouldn't have wavered on.
  reply
• 

  NCYvonne

  3 months ago

  I don't care what's happening in Iraq, we need to spend that $3 billion a week right here in the US. The president, not the generals, set the mission. Petraeus or Sanchez or Franks didn't decide to go into Iraq, Bush did. Now that he wants to stay, Bush keeps saying it's up to the generals. It's not. It's up to him. Just like it will be up to Obama to get us out. There is no good reason for us to stay in Iraq. There is nothing to win. The rest is up to the Iraqis.
  reply
• 

  balthus

  3 months ago

  With all your blather about "winning" in iraq, I still haven't heard you explain what "winning" means. Bush fooled the American people into supporting a war for oil by lying about a non-existent threat of WMDs and pretending that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. We've now spent nearly half a trillion dollars and had over 4000 American soldiers killed so that Exxon, Haliburton and the Chinese who are financing our folly can profit. So what is it in Iraq that is so worth "winning" that even more taxpayer money (and more American lives) should be spent "winning" it? And how exactly, are we going to know when we've "won"?
  reply
• 

  scytherius

  3 months ago

  They are all "politicians" on both sides of the aisle. It's why there is no hope for this now 3rd rate country owned by China.
  reply
• 

  framecop

  3 months ago

  Who cares? Lieberman has 4 more years in office thanks to the PURE STUPIDITY of CT voters.
  reply
• 

  Dave

  3 months ago

  Love how Dems treat one of their own. What a party of class! NOT
  reply
• 

  balthus

  3 months ago

  He's not one of our own, you imbecile. Lieberman won re-election as a third party candidate under the party label "Connecticut for Lieberman." He is now officially listed in Senate records for the 110th Congress as an "Independent Democrat" and - although he caucuses with the Democrats - is not a Party member.
  
  Love how Repubs always shoot their mouths off - or plunge us into unnecessary wars - without first getting their facts straight.
  reply
• 

  Fred

  3 months ago

  HE WAS YOUR VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE YOU MORON. AND AS I SAID FURTHER UP, HE'D PROBABLY BE THE FRONT RUNNER FOR YOUR PARTY'S NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT HAD GORE BEEN ELECTED. Maybe YOU need to get your facts straight.
  reply
• 

  NCYvonne

  3 months ago

  You mean how Republicans treated Hagel when he came out against the war?
  reply
• 

  scytherius

  3 months ago

  VERY well said.
  reply
• 

  scytherius

  3 months ago

  Another conservative fool. He's not a Dem. *sigh* Trying to talk to walls just gets old.
  reply
• 

  Nel

  3 months ago

  Lieberman is not a Dem.
  reply
• 

  russliberalproud

  3 months ago

  Lieberman has kissed Bush's you-know-what for so long that I truly believe he is vying for McCain's VP position. I guess he wants to be a two time loser on that score. Joe, you are passee. No body believes you any more. Suggestion: don't run for senate again. You will be embarrassed just as you have embarrassed the Democrats that you formerly represented.
  reply
• 

  scytherius

  3 months ago

  These morons knew he was like this when they last elected him. The stupid American electorate just rolls on and on.
  reply
• 

  obambihater

  3 months ago

  IMPORTANT for you obamabots to note-
  
  While american dems and liberals everywhere donated to get Lamont elected over the (now) independent Lieberman that ALL dems and libs were angry and fed up with, IT WAS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WHO HELPED LIEBERMAN TO CAMPAIGN AND WIN AGAINST LAMONT WITH HIS HELP IN FINANCING.
  
  YEP, YOUR OBAMBI DID THAT! DO YOU CARE YET ?
  reply
• 

  NCYvonne

  3 months ago

  You are a liar. Obama campaigned for Lieberman in the primary since he was the incumbent. He backed Lamont in the general, as did all of the democrats.
  reply
• 

  scytherius

  3 months ago

  Exactly. God these people are Chatty Cathy Limbaugh Dolls. Thank god stupid people ahve a way of dying off. The sheer ignorance of the Right Wing is astounding.
  reply
• 

  Tagg

  3 months ago

  Am I the only one totally creeped out by this? Read more...http://www.tagg-lines.com/2008/07/tweedledee-and-tweedledum.html
  reply
• 

  hemerson

  3 months ago

  The only issue Lieberman isn't "liberal" on is his support for the war in Iraq. He supports McCain because that issue is obviously very important to him. The Democrats stabbed Lieberman in the back for not following the party line. I don't blame him for leaving the party.
  
  Most of the US Congress is pro-Israel, as most Americans are.
  reply
• 

  Shore Line Voter

  3 months ago

  Forget the Research 2000 poll. In Connecticut, Lieberman remains one of the state's most popular and consequential politicians ever. Lamont's campaign was the most amateurish in memory. Highly unlikely he'd do enough better a second time around.
  reply
• 

  Jeff

  3 months ago

  That is fantastic news, as Lieberman is a member of the Knesset, not our Senate. Notice that he spends more and more time on John McCain's right shoulder during his appearances? Remember George Washington's farewell address? Be careful of taking on the foreign policy and involving our country in the foreign affairs of another state, as this is perceived as showing undue influence and only leads to trouble. Leiberman is pushing more than any other Senator for our involvement in Iran. This is Israel's problem, not ours; and one that is a problem only because Israel continues its terrorist activities, while we increase funding for this parasite from $8 billion to $30 billion this year. Are Americans even aware that Israel recently refused to provide their secret service protection to Jimmy Carter during his visit? Amazing, that an ex-President of the US - one who had done more to try and work towards Middle East Peace - was shunned simply because he brought to light and criticized Israel's terrible foreign policy. Pathetic. If you criticize Israel you are labeled anti-semitic - like being labeled unpatriotic if you criticize the US. Sad but very true.
  reply
• 

  Michael

  3 months ago

  So, 2 years ago the Democrats said they would get us out of Iraq? What have they done in 2 years? What has Barrack done in 133 days as a Senator? Name one Bill he has written? He could not have voted "No" on the War, because he was not a US Senator in 2002. There is NO WAY he would have voted "No", because he would have been "led" down the aisle to vote FOR the WAR by Charles Schumer, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, because BARACK cannot think for himself, and has NEVER gone against his party like John McCain has. He is a "follower" not a "leader", but we get what we diserve if he is elected. No one wanted to drill for oil when the Republicans suggested and voted on it. Now that we are paying out the $$$ for gas, the Democrats in Control have vowed to take it over like the communists they are. What next, take over our groceries, cancel our Military?, Give China more than Clinton did? Are there this many stupid, ill informed people out there? I guess since Al Gore "Invented" the internet, people believe it all too!! Don't forget Al Gore drives a SUV & uses much to energy on his home, what a Turd! It makes you wonder who's side Barack is on, Madonn'as or Guy Richies!!!!?
  reply
• 

  jgrillo

  3 months ago

  Michael...I agree that if Obama had been Senator in 2002 he would've voted for the war like all the rest...in fact, when the war seemed to be going well, he left himself some wiggle room for support by saying..."my position is not much different than GWB's position."
  
  I agree...Obama has never gone against his party on anything...We need to increase oil production (since OPEC isn't going to do it) and work towards alternative energy solutions...you have to do both! This is both a short-term and long-term problem but he is only looking at the problem 15 years down the road. It's the same party that wants to take over the oil industry.
  
  The hypocrisy on this board and among the moderator amazes me...here we have a party pandering to the left saying..."make love, not war" in effect and yet behind the backs of the doves, they are planning a continuing presence in Iraq just like the Republicans...different, but same. I can guarantee you 4 years from now when President Obama has US bases in Iraq, we are going to hear the same people who were against this war...justify it! It's not about the policy...(albeit some) but most don't give a shit about the War, Oil, Taxes, it's about their candidate.
  reply
• 

  Michael

  3 months ago

  Remember how the Democrats treated everyone not a Democrat @ Sen. Wellstone's funeral? Imagine if Hillary, Chuck, Barbara & Patyy Murray could have been on that flight also!
  reply
• 

  Jim

  3 months ago

  Michael,
  Um, fantasizing about people getting killed is something I'd rather not do. Do you think everyone is as sick as you are?
  reply
• 

  PETRA

  3 months ago

  WIN IN IRAQ??? WIN in IRAQ??? Has anyone ever read the history of that country? Asherbanapal couldn't 'WIN' in Iraq thousands of years ago!!
  There is no definition of WIN.
  The oil wars were (are) exactly that, for OIL.
  
  Simply put we hired some oil guys (BUSH CRIME FAMILY) to get us some oil. REMEMBER DADDY BUSH---before he was President, he was HEAD OF THE C.I.A!!
  
  The going's been more difficult than our government (EXXON) figured it would be; however, as of last week, it's all coming together nicely.
  
  Our government (EXXON) didn't even have to spend it's own money---it spent the resources of it's sham corporation (United States of America).
  
  NOT to worry though, we've got the Rubber Chicken (Pelosi) and girly-man Reid. Now there's a pair who certainly wishes we'd WIN IN A HURRY...as it's getting harder and harder for them to pretend outrage.
  
  As for Obama---WE'RE GOING TO BE WHINING UP A STORM LIKE THE PAPER TIGERS WE ARE...AFTER HE DOES NOT: (A) END THE WAR (B) VOTE FOR HR 676-HEALTHCARE FOR ALL (C) LET OUR BORDER GUARDS OUT OF PRISON (D) QUIT SPYING ON OUR CELL PHONES (E) ADDRESS MASS TRANSIT (F) SIGN THE KYOTO TREATY...BLAH BLAH!
  reply
• 

  jgrillo

  3 months ago

  You do not know what you're talking about and using pits of pieces of history for your own argument is not history...
  
  You seem to be suggesting Muslim people do not seek peace and harmony. They do, take it from someone who has spent more time in the Middle East than you'll ever have. To this day, there are southerners who cannot stand people from the North and it took the Feds to intercede in South as late as the 60's. Almost 200 years after the birth of our country. Our country didn't form over night and it was unfair to suggest the Iraqis could do it in months when it took 15-20 years for us to do so after our declaration of independence.
  
  Winning is defined as an Iraq that is at peace with itself...Shia and Sunni. Will there be occasional violence...yes. Not too long ago a few white men chained a black man through the back of a pickup truck and drug him on the road until he died. Get off your high liberal horse.
  reply
• 

  jgrillo

  3 months ago

  From The Sunday Times
  July 6, 2008
  Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda
  Marie Colvin in Mosul
  
  American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.
  
  After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.
  
  A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.
  
  Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.
  Related Links
  
  * Al-Qaeda driven from Mosul after bloody siege
  
  * Al-Qaeda finds three safe havens for training
  
  * We're winning the War on Terror
  
  The group has been reduced to hit-and-run attacks, including one that killed two off-duty policemen yesterday, and sporadic bombings aimed at killing large numbers of officials and civilians.
  
  Last Friday I joined the 2nd Iraqi Division as it supported local police in a house-to-house search for one such bomb after intelligence pointed to a large explosion today.
  
  Even in the district of Zanjali, previously a hotbed of the insurgency, it was possible to accompany an Iraqi colonel on foot through streets of breeze-block houses studded with bullet holes. Hundreds of houses were searched without resistance but no bomb was found, only 60kg of explosives.
  
  American and Iraqi leaders believe that while it would be premature to write off Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul and its remnants have been largely driven into the countryside to the south.
  
  Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi’ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had “defeated” terrorism.
  
  “They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it,” Maliki said. “But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them.”
  
  The number of foreign fighters coming over the border from Syria to bolster Al-Qaeda’s numbers is thought to have declined to as few as 20 a month, compared with 120 a month at its peak.
  
  Brigadier General Abdullah Abdul, a senior Iraqi commander, said: “We’ve limited their movements with check-points. They are doing small attacks and trying big ones, but they’re mostly not succeeding.”
  
  Major-General Mark Hertling, American commander in the north, said: “I think we’re at the irreversible point.”
  reply
• 

  So sad for you all...

  3 months ago

  What happened with LaMont vs. Liebermann is exactly what's about to happen with Obama vs. McCain. The loudest, most radical elements of the Democratic Party got their way in the Primary (LaMont/Obama), but when the rest of the people had their chance to decide, the outcome was overwhelmingly rational. Get ready for it.
  reply
• 

  Suck it.

  3 months ago

  Please. The most radical elements of the Republican party got their way with George Bush, and we're still stuck with him after the general elections. The country is leaning left temporarily, so buckle your seatbelt. I hope you face the same hell these next 8 years as a Republican that I went through as a moderate Democrat these last 8 years.
  reply
• 

  jgrillo