Did video games lose it for Lieberman?

Lord Meph, I'm not arguing that what you say is incorrect. However, just because its been done that way in the past doesn't mean that's the only way it can be done. While Bush's actions have no doubt made things more difficult for stem cell research, it is far from a ban as many people claim it is. I guess I would just prefer that the government stick to the basics and leave the details to the rest of us. You say they would "simply" be providing the funding, but I think that's a little naive and you should know that there is nothing simple about that. Money buys influence, correct?

"Too close to Bush? God forbid a senator try to schmooze the current president and forward the party's agenda. I guess some people haven't realized that the Democrats have lost their majority in Congress and might have to "work with" their hated enemies."

Yeah, and Holy Joe has done SO well in forwarding the Democrats agenda, right?

I must have missed that part of the Democratic Agenda that Lieberman helped advance that included:

- An energy bill that heavily rewards the very same Oil companies and other energy companies that have been bilking Americans our their hard earned $$$.

- Legislation that implicity infringes on personal matters of life and death (Terri Shiavo)

- Telling his constituents and fellow Democrats that they should not dare criticize the President

- voting for the Bankruptcy reform bill, which does nothing but help further enrich fat-cat credit card comapnies at the expense of the working class.

All of that Lie-berman supported, and none of it is part of the Democrats agenda.

Bipartisanship only works when the other side compromises, too. Otherwise it's just capitulation. Bush and the rethugs in congress have not made any attempt to work across the aisle, and even when congress does actually pass laws, Bush attaches "signing statements" to them that basiclally make him free from having to adhere to those laws (like McCain's Torture bill).

Posted at 12:50PM on Aug 10th 2006 by eric_with_a_k

Lets put it this way, Eric. If government funding helped build the lab at a certain college (which it most likely did), then that lab may not be used at all for embryonic stem-cell research.

Private funding would not only need to cover the research itself, it would also have to cover the expense of building an entirely new facility.

Sure, it can be done, but not at nearly the lever which federal funding would provide for.

And youre absolutely right about money buying influence, but ya know, federal funding pays for roads too. Should we only let roads be privately funded so that the government may not exert any influence over them?

I'm all for no speed limits, but lets be realisitic.

The fact that Lieberman lost just shows that (true) Dems are going to stand up against their Congressmen, if their Congressmen won't stand up to Bush.
Maybe if the President hadn't spent so much money sending our troops to die in a senseless war in Iraq, we would have enough money for things like stem cell research, which can save lives.
Also, if our Army (and National Guard) weren't stretched so thin, we could better deal with REAL problems, like Iran, Hezbollah and North Korea.

Cringerr8- I'm a Jew, and while I do think there is more Anti-Semitism in this country than people realize, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000154/ I do not think that's the reason he lost. The guy has been a Senator for 18 years, I really don't think that most of Connecticut has a problem with voting in a Jew. However, this post said that 47% of 18-24 year olds voted in 2004. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most Americans not vote? This was actually higher than I expected meaning that this age group is pretty much on par with every other voting block.

I'm 24 and I totally remembered him (and was pretty vocal about his recent engagements, too). In fact, thanks to Gamepro and the newspaper, he was the first political person I'd ever written to.

I resented his efforts to censor me then and damned if I don't know.

THe reason that Lieberman lost is due to the way Elections are run in CT. The only way you can vote in a primary is to be registered with a party. So an independent like myself could not vote,(When I lived in MA I could declare which ballot I wanted, and stay indepentdent). A number of Independents and registered Repiblicans could not vote for Lieberman.

I personally think that he is the kind of person that should be in office, and he does not vote party lines, but onwhat makes sense to get things done,. I honsetly think he stands at least a 50-50 chance in winning the final vote if he stays in. If anything he'll split the Republican vote (Heck he's identified as one). Let's see how it goes.....

#57 Yeah, it was a primary. Only the party is SUPPOSED to vote, and the state democrats decided that he sucked at being a democrat, and chose his opponent instead.

Good riddens I say, the more left, the better ;)

Lord Meph, the only problem with that argument is that building roads is a whole heck of a lot less controversial then funding stem cell research. While the war in Iraq is controversial as well, it is a clearly defined role of the federal government whereas stem cell research is not.

I am a connecicut resident, and I voted for Ned Lamont..and yes, Lieberman's hate for games WERE a major factor for me. It wasn't the ONLY reason, but it was a big one for me.

Uh...no.

Oh my god. Nobody is saying stem cell research is a cureall, but if you aren't even aware of the potential of this research, then please, just stay the hell out of the debate entirely.

Please, educate yourself... http://www.nih.gov/

Stem cell research IS funded federally. Adult stem cells are ok as are embryonic stem cell lines that were specified back in 2001 when W. drew a line in the sand. (The Clinton administration also had a problem with this research, by the way.) The problem is the old ones that were specified aren't very useful since they are believed to be contaminated, meanwhile the number of new lines have grown exponentially. There's about a half million frozen embryos that are either going to have to be privately funded for research, or be thrown out. So hey, thanks for protecting human life, only to throw it out in the garbage. Way to go!

And the whole, "It's only federal funds that can't be used" argument is pathetic. Do you have any idea how important that funding is to medical and scientific research in general? Scientific research IS VERY MUCH a duty of the government. Please don't pretend like this is a fiscal policy issue either, because it isn't. Bush vetoed the latest bill because he wants to take a moral highground, not because he has a problem with spending. And it's completely hypocritical too, because he's saying this is such a terrible thing to do, parading the snowflake babies up there on national television, but has no problem with private funding or with reaping the rewards of any breakthroughs from said research. Here's a bill with wide bipartisan support, and he makes his first veto of his presidency on it. Shameful.

I'll let someone else shoot down Sarge's theory on WMDs in Iraq. I'm out of breath.

"the only problem with that argument is that building roads is a whole heck of a lot less controversial then funding stem cell research. While the war in Iraq is controversial as well, it is a clearly defined role of the federal government whereas stem cell research is not." - eric(with a k)

Again, I agree with you, but not completely. I agree road building isn't as controversial, but I disagree about whether or not it is the governments role to fund sound and promising science.

What certainly )isnt_ the government's role is legislate morality. Which converges nicely with this topics main subject, anti 'violent' video game legislation.

The government SHOULD be funding scientific research that the vast, vast majority of scientists agree is sound, promising, and could potentially cure cancer, aids, parkinsons, ms, etc.

The government should NOT be banning funding for any particular scientific research merely because it is considered 'immoral' by the president and a fringe pack of right-wing religious fundamentalists.

I'm glad you bring up the Iraq War/Stem Cell comparison. I find it quite perplexing that many on right who oppose abortion and stem cell research because of their alleged belief in the "sanctity of life" at the same time have no problem with dropping bombs on children who were already born and have lives. Amazing.

"I'll let someone else shoot down Sarge's theory on WMDs in Iraq. I'm out of breath."

That would be too easy... But I appreciate (and agree with) your comments regarding embryonic stem-cell research and the utmost importantce of federal funding in this area.

I know that republicans want the goverment to have nothing to do with anyone's lives (except for if you're gay, want an abortion or in the army) and would like us all to have no medical coverage, and for some reason belive that poor people don't need welfare, and are "abusing the system", but us "crazy liberals" belive the goverment should look out for its' people. Sorry.

As for Sarge's "obvious" charge that WMDs are in Syria. How about this? Why don't we invade Syria and get our army bogged down there too? Another plus to that plan is we still get to ignore the countries that we know for sure have WMDs, Iran and North Korea. How clever.

Lord Meph, it is simply your opinion that government SHOULD be funding stem cell research...it is not fact, no matter how much emphasis you put on the word. There is room for difference of opinion here and you can't just pin this on right-wing religious fundamentalists of which I am not. The argument should be why are we funding medical research at all, not why aren't we funding stem cell research. This whole subject would be moot then and we'd all be a little richer in the pockets. I could maybe see an argument for federal funding if there was no money to be made here and thus no private parties interested in funding the research, but that's simply not the case. Break-throughs in stem cell research will happen with or without federal funding...just watch. We need to break free of this belief that nothing would get done without our friendly neighborhood government involved.

People, this was a democratic primary. Only democrats who are registered in CT could vote in this primary. The only referendum here is that the extreme left have taken over the party. So much for moderates or differing voices. As for calling Joe a Republican, good freaking night the guy still gets 70-80% liberal ratings. But because he doesn't agree with the fringe he's labeled a Republican. With today's arrests in England, it seems quite clear that nutjobs around the world hate the US not because we are in Iraq/Afghanistan but because we are infidels. Can anyone sanely defend the Iranians presidents comments about Israel? Even if we pulled a post WWI isolationist policy we would still be hated not because of what we've done but simply becaseu of who we are.

"Lord Meph, it is simply your opinion that government SHOULD be funding stem cell research"

Correct. And thats why I support candidates and political parties that share my opinion.

Ain't democracy grand?

I know republicans belive that goverments aren't here to invade our private lives (except for if you're in the army, gay or want an abortion) but silly liberals like me belive our goverment should protect us, not only by dealing with threats like Iran and North Korea, but also by funding possible cures for cancers and diseases, and providing welfare for poor people.
Wanting the Government to care for the people. Isn't that a silly thought?

Lord Meph: In the end we agree...yes, democracy is grand! =) Thanks for keeping things civil.

Zack: I don't think it's a silly thought. I believe the goals are the same, it's only your method of reaching them that differs. You want people to succeed and believe that welfare will get them there. For some I'm sure it does. I also want people to succeed but believe that welfare demotivates people and addicts them to a life of government support that is difficult to break free from. I believe we would be better served counting on our fellow man, our families, our social groups, and our charities for help rather then depending on an inefficient, wasteful, and uncaring government. This should be a battle of ideas, not a battle between good and evil, intelligent or stupid, like political debate has become.

eric_with_a_k:That's why we need a good, caring government to care for the people, for when we fail each other.
I disagree with you on the issue of welfare, and feel there are way to many people left behind without good jobs, but I'll agree to disagree.
Democracy is great.

I realize this thread is probably dead now, but to cringer:

"And for you to assume that I am saying only ONE factor decided his fate is silly."

That's what "he lost cause he's Jewish" sounds like to me. Is it really so bizarre of me to interpret that as meaning you think his Jewish-ness was THE reason he lost? Cause that's, like, what you said. Anyway, you said in your last post that anti-Semitism was as big a factor as the war in Iraq. So how do you explain the poll cited earlier in the thread where Iraq was the issue 51% voted on, and "other" was in the single digits?

"but also by funding possible cures for cancers and diseases, and providing welfare for poor people."

Er, doing both, in this case, is impossible (see: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security budget decimations).

As for the real post, I'll leave it as this: differences of opinion can exist. It's one's option to believe that certain federal programs can create a high poverty turnover rate. Likewise, the idea that it does nothing of the sort is equally open for debate. However, far too many in this topic have posted un-nuanced, ill-conceived tripe that has little basis in reality. Though I'm sure my conservative ideology is a bit harsher on liberal ideas, the idea that a few of the posters here will soon vote for my government frightens me.

Lieberman? Frankly, with the odd competing ideologies, I don't think that anyone can discern a clear winner in Connecticut until that first week in November.

its video games for sure.

I'm 22 years old and I know a lot people in my age group that remembers this fool and dislike him just as I do.

He didn't get anywhere in 2000, nor 2004, or anytime soon.


If someone would have warned Lieberman that his attacks on videogames back in '94 would ruin his political future I bet he would have shut his trap then.

I still disgust at the fact that he tried to make the Sega CD game "Night Trap" an adult porn game, what a fucking idiot, I'll never vote his ass.

Lieberman is more loyal to Israel than he is to the US. If that's not why he lost, it should be.

Our govt is currently being controlled by a group of zionists that would rather see this country destroyed than Israel. They should all be locked up for treason.

Um, homer...are you a Nazi?

Pointing out that politicians more loyal to a foreign country should be removed from office makes me a nazi? Actually, treason is typically handled with a death sentence in this country, so I was toning it down.

People forget that Israel is not synonymous with the US, and Jew is not the same as zionist. Go learn something before opening your mouth, child.

Homer- Your original comment was so crazy, that I wasn't gonna dignify it with a real response. I was just kinda kidding around with that Nazi comment, but since you couldn't let it go, and needed to call me a child who should learn before speaking I'll let you learn something.

"Zionism is a national liberation movement, a political movement and an ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE."-Wikipedia

So, supporting what the Jewish people consider the most important thing in the world, the land of Israel, is being a zionist.

And because somebody supports a country they are commiting treason? Are you fucking nuts? Is Arnold Schwarzenegger anti-Austria? Oh, he's not. So then he must be anti-America. Let's give him the death penalty for treason. And do you think that most of the politicians who are so deep in the Bible Belt, that they try to make gay people getting married and unused stem cells to cure people illegal, really give a shit about the Jews being in Israel. They just like the idea that there's a country in the Middle East that wants to stop Islamic terroists.

Now given I am Jewish so you may feel like I have some bias. But people have the right to have a problem with a religion if they want. You may for instance have a problem with the fact that there are Hanukkah songs sung during school Christmas carols. That is perfectly understandable, and I have no problem with people having that opinion. But when you make a comment like "Our govt is currently being controlled by a group of zionists that would rather see this country destroyed than Israel", that's where you get into generalizations and racism and I can never comprehend that, no matter what group of people you are talking about.

Well, Sarge, you were right on ONE point. Bush did make one mistake...it wasn't going into damage control too soon...it was thinking he could be president of anything. He is was and always will be a tool in the 1st degree...If we can't find Bin Laden, how the heck are we going to find imaginary WMDs???? If we can't keep the Taliban out of Afghanistan after we won a war, how can we possibly find WMDs that aren't there? If we have 2300 people die in a war years after we won and we put up our huge MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign, how are we going to find a few dirty bombs in an Iraqi quagmire?


Onto Lieberman...I am 39, and vividly remember his videogame stance, and I too hesitated before I punched Gore/Lieberman a few years ago...his faux moral high ground is hysterical to me. He should be thankful for the violence that videogames contain, they helped train the army that he is sending out on his pointless little war. Anyone who focuses on videogames or music or movies as the root of societies problems has never actually bothered to go out and live in a society. These pop culture items reflect society much more than they shape it.