home

Richard Milhous Lieberman

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 12:17:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Watch this.

< The Anti-GOP Radical Center | The Conservative Soul >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Richard Milhous Lieberman | 30 comments (30 topical)
    Richard Milhous Loserman, er. Lieberman (1.00 / 2) (#2)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:01:39 PM EST
    Mad F'g brilliant!  LMAO.

    Replying To: Richard Milhous Lieberman (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:27:56 PM EST
    The site has unfortunately mutated into a rather generalized political blog with the occasional "politics of crime"-related thread.

    Yup.

    Milhous Loserman and Single-issue mutations (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:44:59 PM EST
    Look, I tend to agree with the two (you and the other guy) commenters who have complained about this site moving off the "Politics of Crime" guiding theme.  That said, I think it's a reasonable move, if only for a while (i.e., at least until after the coming election) because:
    (1) There's really no point in discussing the really fine points of crime and criminal procedure when the government is attacking the Constitution with an axe;
    (2)  This is what it looks like, from the citizenry's perspective, when a criminal conspiracy takes over the government of a great power;
    (3)  We might as well discuss politics now, because if the Dems lose this election, we won't be able to afterwards.

    Ok?

    So for those who would have crime and the politics of crime to discuss after the election, I think it behooves them to make sure there will be an "after".  Therefore, I have no problem with the single-issue mutations.

    Parent

    Is this TalkLieberman? (none / 0) (#1)
    by unbill on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    Ok, I know that this is a heated time before the election, but do we really have to have daily anti-Lieberman postings? The most recent postings about Lieberman don't even include information, but are rather your normal blogaganda attacks that one can read on dozens of blogs right now. Seriously, the whole blogosphere on the left is discussing Lieberman as its pet peeve - why does TalkLeft have to jump on the bandwagon?

    As I have commented before, it was the single-issue character that brought me to TalkLeft. The site has unfortunately mutated into a rather generalized political blog with the occasional "politics of crime"-related thread.

    Hopefully after the election TalkLeft will go back to normal - or at least make clear to its loyal readership that it no longer intends to be your first stop in the internet for politics of crime information.

    -unbill

    You never read or commented (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    on my legal posts.

    So to be honest, I think you only read the Lieberman posts.

    Read the legal posts and give me some feedback.

    Right now, I don't see that you have much interest in other topics.

    Parent

    Don't shoot the messenger (none / 0) (#5)
    by unbill on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    Big Tent,

    Please don't be so abrasive. I've been reading TalkLeft a long time specifically because of its single-issue character. I am concerned about the site losing its focus, that's all.

    -unbill

    Parent

    Messenger? (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:40:11 PM EST
    What is the message? You ignore the legal posts and complain about the non-legal posts.

    You do realize there is a big election in two weeks no?

    Parent

    That is a ridiculous conclusion. (none / 0) (#24)
    by demohypocrates on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 08:08:32 PM EST
    Unbill states that he likes the site but is disappointed at the number of Lieberman posts which detracts from the overarching theme of the blog.  You conclude that he doesn't read the legal posts but likes to troll the Lieberman ones.  That is tantamount to calling him a liar.  So you really believe he comes here to leave mild complaints about the direction of a blog he doesn't, for the most part, read?  He was very complimentary and respectful in his comment and did not deserve to be hamstrung.  Maybe you should listen to him instead of biting his head off.  I just keep wondering when we will start seeing "Wanker of the Day" posts here.

    It just proves that when a leftie hears the name 'Lieberman' mumbled, they become unhinged.  Me, I think it is great theater.  Please continue the Lieberman posts.

    Parent

    Ah unhinged (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 09:33:01 AM EST
    Speaking of which . . .

    Parent
    I have to laugh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:39:07 PM EST
    two weeks from a monumental election and some commenters complain because of -- election coverage.

    Too funny.

    Why this election's so important for criminal law (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:55:37 PM EST
    And, if you want an indication on how badly chewed the Constitution has become and why this election is so g-dda-ned important, just read this article describing how, a US citizen's criminal sentence is (a) exile to Canada or (b) jail in NY state.

    US don't want him, Canada won't take him*.

    Where's he gonna go?  I seem to remember forced exile as being one of the crimes George III was excoriated for in the Declaration of Independence....

    - - -
    For those fans of movies, it sounds like the fate of Oggie Oglethorp, the legendary hockey thug in 1977's "Slap Shot".

    Thanks for the Article (none / 0) (#11)
    by unbill on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    I agree that there is a heated election going on. But that doesn't mean that TalkLeft necessarily needs to disseminate generalized political information. That is what other websites and blogs are for.

    Scribe, I guess that posting this Globe and Mail article best proves my point. Why bring up Lieberman for the umpteenth time and ignore issue-specific topics such as the one that the Globe and Mail brings up, i.e. exile as part of a criminal sentence? It is fairly clear that DailyKos and other political blogs do not discuss such topics, and I am lamenting that TalkLeft isn't discussing them either.

    -unbill

    Parent

    Personally (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    Crime is not something I know much about.

    I'm not going to blog about it ever really.

    I do feel I know a lot about Constitutional law and have blogged a fair amount about that. And I repeat, I received no feedback from you on those posts.

    But the aricle you are applauding simply is not an election issue. I wish it was.

    It may be of interest for this blog, but not because of its electoral impact. It has none.

    Parent

    Politics of Crime at Election Time (none / 0) (#10)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:00:44 PM EST
    Elections decide determine judges as well as criminal law and procedure policy. To complain of poltical blogging during ANY national election (and Especially 2006 given its potential for long term historical significance) is aburd.

    Then there is this particular elections' corruption issue with Congressmen in jail or under investigation... It is all related to the Talk-Left's self defined mission (if I can use corporate speak without becoming violently ill).

     

    Personally (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:46:54 PM EST
    Crime is not something I know much about.
    I'm not going to blog about it ever really.

    Then all of TL's content provided by you will be off-topic...

    TALK LEFT - The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news.

    ...and you will have conclusively proven unbill's observation.

    PS: I'm sure JM will weigh in here at some point and say that she supports whatever you write.

    That would not invalidate the truth in unbill's broader observation, it would merely mean she supports TL's mission-creep to be like every other me-too political blog.

    Of course, it's her blog, she can do with it what she pleases.

    Sigh (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:48:37 PM EST
    She has. And to unbill personally.

    But he persists despite that fact.

    Parent

    Sigh (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:57:49 PM EST
    She has. And to unbill personally.
    But he persists despite that fact.

    Fair enough, however, I would suggest for you not to expect anyone but you, unbill and JM to even be aware of any past history between you...

    Parent

    True enough (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    Precisely why I addressed myself to unbill.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 02:51:14 PM EST
    Jeralyn cited this from the About page to unbill:

    TalkLeft is not a neutral site. Our mission is to intelligently and thoroughly examine issues, candidates and legislative initiatives as they pertain to constitutional rights, particularly those of persons accused of crime.


    Parent
    JM responded? (none / 0) (#21)
    by unbill on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 05:24:42 PM EST
    As I have stated previously, I am not aware of an answer from JM about my critique of TalkLeft losing its focus. If you could provide the link for me that would be great.

    If TalkLeft wants to drift towards becoming a mainstream political blog, then so be it. I'll read it like I read a dozen other political blogs, but I will begin finding my specialized crime-related information somewhere else, although it would be hard to replace the fantastic single-issue focus that TalkLeft used to have. Maybe that's why I have occasionally brought up this topic in the last months - I miss the value of the old single-issue TalkLeft, written by attorneys for a readership interested in the politics of crime.

    As someone in the journalism business, I have seen lots of periodicals begin their existence with a narrow focus. They flourish in that format and oftentimes then branch out into more generalized topics. Almost all of them then lose their appeal to the readers that liked the narrow focus in the first place.

    I wonder if the usage of TalkLeft by lawyers, crime and legal experts, political analysts and journalists who focus on the "politics of crime" has gone down over the years as the number of off-topic discussions has increased.

    Hopefully this whole problem will go away after the election.

    -unbill

    Parent

    Please Show me the Link to JM's response! (none / 0) (#27)
    by unbill on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 05:39:16 AM EST
    The last time Big Tent and I discussed my critique of TalkLeft losing focus, he told me that JM had responded to my critique - but I have never been able to find her response. After asking for the link to her response, I got no reply from Big Tent.

    Now that I have brought up my critique again, he again told me that JM had responded to my critique. Again I have asked for the link to her response. Once again, no reply from Big Tent.

    Could someone please show me the link to her response? I can't find it no matter how hard I look.

    -unbill

    Parent

    True enough (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 03:52:41 PM EST
    True enough (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 03:32:39 PM EST

    Precisely why I addressed myself to unbill.

    I have to laugh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 01:39:07 PM EST

    two weeks from a monumental election and some commenters complain because of -- election coverage.

    Note plural, ie., more than one person. I'll accept at your word that one of them was unbill.

    Gotcherself some mighty thin skin there BTD...

    That comment (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    is directed at another point, not whether you were aware of previous communications between myself, Jeralyn and unbill.

    You see, I do find it amusing, whether you have had previous discussions with Jeralyn and I or not about the subject, that someone complains about election coverage two weeks prior to this monumental election.

    I am as pedantic as though. Not thin skinned. Do you not enjoy being responded to? I love a good exchange of ideas. Hopefully we'll have an exchange about actual ideas in the future.

    Parent

    Monumental? (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 04:29:54 PM EST
    You mean more monumental than '00? Or '02? Or '04 or '08 or '10?

    These things come around every two years my friend, and we all have miles to go before we sleep.

    Do I enjoy being responded to? Sure. However, repetitive and circular conversations are of no interest to me.

    I hope to exchange ideas with you in the future as well, BTD, just check in on any crime-related political and injustice thread. :-)

    Google Bomb (none / 0) (#22)
    by msobel on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 05:36:16 PM EST
     I want to tell you about some Republicans. This is part of operation, http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/24/122153/98
    feel free to delete if this violates site policy
    --AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
    --AZ-01: Rick Renzi
    --AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
    --CA-04: John Doolittle
    --CA-11: Richard Pombo
    --CA-50: Brian Bilbray
    --CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
    --CO-05: Doug Lamborn
    --CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
    --CT-04: Christopher Shays
    --FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
    --FL-16: Joe Negron
    --FL-22: Clay Shaw
    --ID-01: Bill Sali
    --IL-06: Peter Roskam
    --IL-10: Mark Kirk
    --IL-14: Dennis Hastert
    --IN-02: Chris Chocola
    --IN-08: John Hostettler
    --IA-01: Mike Whalen
    --KS-02: Jim Ryun
    --KY-03: Anne Northup
    --KY-04: Geoff Davis
    --MD-Sen: Michael Steele
    --MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
    --MN-06: Michele Bachmann
    --MO-Sen: Jim Talent
    --MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
    --NV-03: Jon Porter
    --NH-02: Charlie Bass
    --NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
    --NM-01: Heather Wilson
    --NY-03: Peter King
    --NY-20: John Sweeney
    --NY-26: Tom Reynolds
    --NY-29: Randy Kuhl
    --NC-08: Robin Hayes
    --NC-11: Charles Taylor
    --OH-01: Steve Chabot
    --OH-02: Jean Schmidt
    --OH-15: Deborah Pryce
    --OH-18: Joy Padgett
    --PA-04: Melissa Hart
    --PA-07: Curt Weldon
    --PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
    --PA-10: Don Sherwood
    --RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
    --TN-Sen: Bob Corker
    --VA-Sen: George Allen
    --VA-10: Frank Wolf
    --WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
    --WA-08: Dave Reichert

    Lieberman (none / 0) (#23)
    by diogenes on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 06:51:50 PM EST
    Important election or not, why the repeated vindictiveness against Lieberman, who at least will caucus with the dems if elected.  There are many other senate campaigns between democrats and real republicans.  
    Saying that people won't be able to talk if the dems don't win is a tad hysterical, no?

    Lieberman is not a Dem (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 10:08:48 PM EST
    why the repeated vindictiveness against Lieberman, who at least will caucus with the dems if elected.
    Not if the Dems have any sense.

    The Dems didn't polarize the nation, the rethugs did, purposely. It's the standard rovian hit machine and lieberman is a part of it.

    Parent

    Who polarized the nation? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Patrick on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 11:40:51 PM EST
    The Dems didn't polarize the nation, the rethugs did, purposely.

    I;ll disagree on this point.  Nancy Pelosi is as responsible as anyone with respect to the causation of political polarization.  Didn't you watch her on 60 minutes?  I'd link to the video if I could find it....I mean that even hit her with that question and she did not deny it.

    Parent

    polarization (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Wed Oct 25, 2006 at 07:46:24 PM EST
    Patrick, what date did she appear? Was it 5 years after the rethugs polarized the nation?

    How many times are folks who disagree with the admin are called 'cowards', 'cut and run', 'traitors', 'treasonous' brfore they react? Did she call bush & co any of those terms?

    Regards,

    Sailor

    Parent

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#30)
    by Patrick on Fri Oct 27, 2006 at 11:05:45 PM EST
    Sailor,

       It's not when she appeared and admitted it, it's how long her policies have been in effect, and yes she has.  

    Parent

    Richard Milhous Lieberman | 30 comments (30 topical)