Lieberman gets a spanking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RamblerGambler

The vote wasn't about kicking him out of the democrat caucus, just stripping him of his committee chair. Committee chairs are leadership roles within the party. When he has opposed the democrats on various issues relating to his committee, wouldn't you think he would be replaced by someone who would side with party? By taking away his prized committee he would have faced a simple choice: be relegated to nothing more than a vote in the majority, or hop the fence and join the minority party that he by and large votes against. Do you honestly think he would abandon policies he has supported for most of his career just to play a minor role in the opposition party?

Instead they take away his subcommittee in which he has sided with dems, but left him a committee that he uses to oppose the democrats. Because that makes perfect sense.

---

From a controls perspective, that's the way it should be, legit policy control and keeping things balanced. We don't need another administration full of yes men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JakeMartinez

I was talking about High Treason, not any military regulations that a defecting soldier would violate.

---

Just mentioning a soldier would be charged with high treason in comparison with Lieberman's defection is comparing apples to oranges, but none the less you made the comparison and military vs civilian regulations have everything to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

From a controls perspective, that's the way it should be, legit policy control and keeping things balanced. We don't need another administration full of yes men.

---

So we achieve that by keeping Bush's yes man in that position? I fail to see the logic in this. Americans obviously want us out of Iraq, so they vote keep a supporter of the war in power. Americans desire accountability from our leaders, so they keep someone who refused to investigate the greco-roman cluster fuck that was hurricane Katrina.

Can we not agree that the Dept of Homeland Security has become so bloated and bureaucratic that it is largely inefficient? Are our ports safer? No. Is airport security any better now then it was? no. Joementum had his chance, and the results are glaringly obvious. What happened to this vaunted "change" we've heard so much about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RamblerGambler

So we achieve that by keeping Bush's yes man in that position? I fail to see the logic in this. Americans obviously want us out of Iraq, so they vote keep a supporter of the war in power. Americans desire accountability from our leaders, so they keep someone who refused to investigate the greco-roman cluster fuck that was hurricane Katrina.

Can we not agree that the Dept of Homeland Security has become so bloated and bureaucratic that it is largely inefficient? Are our ports safer? No. Is airport security any better now then it was? no. Joementum had his chance, and the results are glaringly obvious. What happened to this vaunted "change" we've heard so much about?

---

We can all agree Lieberman is a tool, but he isn't a Bush yes man, he always acted on his own accord. He voted for the first gulf war and well as the current one we are in. He's always been for the war on Iraq since the 90s. The department of homeland security has nothing to do with Iraq.

If you actually looked at the GAO report on the Progress Report on
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions, while it does indicate a vast amount of inefficiency in some areas, maritime security was actually one of the greatest areas of progress, a progress rating of "substancial." Airport security got a progress rating of "moderate." Overall, most of the departments are making progress. See page 2:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07454.pdf

See, Lieberman didn't do that bad of a job. It isn't easy to consolidate a vast amount of federal agencies. Some people think it's comes together like a magic wand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

See, Lieberman didn't do that bad of a job. It isn't easy to consolidate a vast amount of federal agencies. Some people think it's comes together like a magic wand.

---

You won't convince anyone here unfortunatley. My post was really to illustrate how many people here are "open-minded" yet against someone who is a free thinker.

Being part of a party means that you share their philosophy and GENERAL goals. It doesn't mean that you have to do or agree with everything the party says.

This is true of both Democrats and Republicans a like.

ps: You're correct about Lieberman and not being a Bush yes man. I was hoping more people would chime in to bash Lieberman before I brought up those points.

Hooray for oppressing free thought.

God, I'm amazed at how revolutionary the concept is. I don't oppose him because I'm against the war in Iraq, I oppose him because I hate free thought. I've been living a lie this whole time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RamblerGambler

God, I'm amazed at how revolutionary the concept is. I don't oppose him because I'm against the war in Iraq, I oppose him because I hate free thought. I've been living a lie this whole time!

---

I still don't see how you equate Lieberman's position on the war on Iraq to his performance being the chair of Homeland Security And Government Affairs when his performance show he clearly did a decent job. You tend to forget why DHS was created. Various law enforcement and intelligence agencies needed to be consolidated in order to have all information, operations and resources coordinated from one central point. It's because information was not shared efficiently between these different agencies, often times they would compete against each other. The intent is to create more efficiency and it's working. The concept of consolidation is to cut costs and bring more efficiency, which goes against everything you been spouting. Leading you to believe what you hear rather than what you see.

But as Daihashi says, I'm not going to convince anyone, free thought after all.