I hate commies. 
Is this an actual source you use for information you republish, or is this a joke?
Once again, why is the Republican party so scared of this guy? They are going absolutely nuts over the fact that the Democrats of Connecticut didn't renominate Joe Lieberman. Why?
Oh, yes. we are all nuts about it. Panicky, even. *rolls eyes*
Do you think this source is lying? That would be pretty easy to prove. Just because something is partisan does not mean it's inaccurate. Little Green Footballs comes to mind.
We go nuts? YOU guys should be going nuts because these are the kind of people that are defining the Democratic party right now. If that is what you want. Then you get what you deserve.
I like the way they try to paint atheism as something on the order of Marxism and Communism. Idiots like those that wrote the article would do well to remember that atheists (despite Bush Sr.'s reservations on the matter) vote - and sometimes we even vote Republican.
Mmm, mmm, mmm, love me some big tent!
Personally, I could not care less what political affiliation his granparents, parents, and siblings were. If that were relevant to one's political views, then I would be a barking moonbat, like most of my beloved family members.
It is sufficient to show how Lamont's ideas, or lack thereof, are wrong and misguided. Implying that he is a commie because his family was is superfluous.
As an aside, how does one simultaneously be the head of JP Morgan and be a communist sympathizer at the same time ?
By the way, since jandrew does not live in CT, his opinion on these matters is invalid, and should be ignored.
Looks like the apple didn't fall too far from the tree.
This isn't a very good way to oppose someone. If the people of CT. want him, they'll vote him in based on agreement with his views, not those of relatives. After all, should Arnie not be Gov. because his father was once a Nazi?
Btw, all atheists are commies!
The Pope was part of the Nazi youth. Prescott Bush (Grandpa Bush) supported the Nazi's financially through his dealings with them. These things have very little relevance other than as fodder for desparate smear campaigns.
A man who is able to contribute $4 Million of his own money and owns a cable company in Connecticut where employees complain about benefits and salaries and he takes short days so that he can spend more time with his kids, and who is married to an investment banker iins't much of a communist.
Does anyone here know the name of the Republican involved in this race for the Senate seat in Connecticut? (without google)
Does anyone here know the name of the Republican involved in this race for the Senate seat in Connecticut?
I bet Jesus knows, and - really - isn't that what matters?
Schleisinger (sp?)
YOU guys should be going nuts because these are the kind of people that are defining the Democratic party right now. If that is what you want. Then you get what you deserve.
First off, who are "these kind of people", and how exactly was Connecticut placed in charge of "defining the Democratic party right now".
California has many more people than Connecticut, and we chose the bland grey suit guy as a candidate for governer who is likely the only guy in California with the ability to loose to Arnie. Why isn't that seen as "defining the Democratic party"?
James Webb in Virginia got the nod, he has support from the netroots, why is he not "defining the Democratic party".
I love Ned, but the amount of media attention he gets seems a bit disproportionate to the amount of power he will be bestowed should he win.
Not all atheists are commies, but a lot are.
from the BBC:
The great-grandson of a former JP Morgan chairman, Mr Lamont has the kind of education typical of the east coast elite that also includes the Bush family - Phillips Exeter Academy, Harvard and the Yale School of Management.
He is married with three teenage children.
His father Ted, an economist, was a junior member of the Nixon administration after working on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe in the wake of World War II.
But although families like the Lamonts were once the backbone of the Republican party, Ted Lamont told the Hartford Courant in April 2006 he had not been a Republican for nearly 20 years.
"I felt the Republican party, frankly, no longer represented my viewpoints," Ted Lamont told the newspaper a telephone interview. "The so-called moderate Republicans are rare and declining, especially in recent years."
I think his dad pretty much nailed it on the head.
No offense to andy and BigDog, but NRO just had a thing on atheists and how very few there are of yall and that you really don't make much of a difference as a voting bloc.
So he's got commies (Marxists, probably fairer) in the attic.
Big deal.
Let him get as much press as he and his supporters can get. Don't be takin their rope away.
I don't know. Remember how the leftys just went on and on about Mel Gibson's dad being an anti-semite so Mel MUST be? And it turned out they might have been right. At least traces left anyway.
I've read his views and he does seem to be a socialist at the very least.
So if you go to Andover, you grow up to be a Texan, where as if you go to Exeter, you grow up to be a Commie. I get it now.
no offense taken. I don't vote atheist, that would be silly and honestly, most atheists ARE commies. I hate commies.
most atheists ARE commies
I think that's backwards.
So if you go to Andover, you grow up to be a Texan, where as if you go to Exeter, you grow up to be a Commie.
Whence this tripe? But at least we know where you'll send your kids.
Jandrews, Let's move past that, ok? It adds no value to anything. Besides, I did answer your question above. Can I at least get a, "Blake, you're right."?
No offense to andy and BigDog, but NRO just had a thing on atheists and how very few there are of yall and that you really don't make much of a difference as a voting bloc.
Some estimates are as high as 10% of the population, although this tends to include those who self-identify as "non-religious" or "agnostic."
Further, given the multiple studies that have indicated that religiosity is inversely correlated with IQ, education, and income, even if atheists are a small bloc, they might be worth courting.
Your statement about atheists not making much difference as a voting bloc (and thus, I would assume, offending is ok) points out even further what a crock of poo the "big tent" is.
G.W. Bush went to the same schools (well, he went to Phillips Andover Academy, whereas Lamont went to Phillips Exetor Academy) Both schools are very elitist institutions, with Exetor formerly being closely associated with Harvard and Andover formerly being more closely associated with Yale.
Hard to believe that any communist worth his salt would send his kids to such an elitist institution, but if the paper that dared to ask "Is New Orleans worth Saving" says Lamont is a communist, who am I to argue?
Andy, I don't think either party goes out of the way to court atheists. (Remember Howard Dean vowing to go after the Southern God-fearing vote?) You're basically stuck in no-man's land re: political parties.
Someone is talking to himself again.
Sorry, I can't let it go.
I wonder if Ned ever saw Georgie Boy cheerleading during rivalry week?
Andy, I don't think either party goes out of the way to court atheists.
Oh, I know - the Democrats are just as bad in their pandering to the religious when the need arises. However, as I tend to self-identify more with the right-leaning side of the house, I'd like to see them do something other than demonize atheists.
I can agree with needing to avoid demonizing them. Just focus on the commies instead.
jandrew - since you are not from CT or TX, what is the point of you even commenting on issues affecting same ? Your standard, and all ...
While you are at it, your comments about the Pope and Prescott Bush are so lacking in context and such a stretch so as to make them only vaguely related to the concept of truth, a foreign concept to you.
I don't think that Lamont's father can be characterized as a socialist without some more concrete evidence, and I don't think it much matters anyway. But as jandrew has taken pains to point out, Bush's privileged upbringing which irritates the left so is exactly paralleled by Lamont's upbringing. Lamont's silver spoon must not seem as shiny to them.
JD,
He gets that way when he's, uh, "down".
Hey, JD, since you like motorcycles, I'll take this a little OT and ask if you have any references that I can look into for buying one?
Blake - Here is all you need to know about motorcycles, in a nutshell.
Buy a Harley.
I thought you would say that. Any recommendations for a newbie though?
Wow, RWS, nice find of some real garbage propaganda. Not only do they characterize Lamont's uncle without a shred of evidence, or even the pretense of it, they also don't talk at all about the actual man Ned Lamont. Who is basically a successful businessman from a wealthy background who has raised a picture perfect American family and teaches Business Education in underpriviliged high schools.
Point One : WHY are you people so afraid of an American practicing our DEMOCRACY?
Point Two: Why do you quote from an article that includes lines like this: "We have long known that the majority of the so-called black civil-rights leaders and black preachers are communist-socialist pigs who hate America and hate Israel, passionately despise President Bush, and can't stand the melting of their once widespread power since 9/11"
Point Three: Since we're characterizing people by their ancestors, does this make your Dear Leader a Nazi?" After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal.
Furthermore, the records show that Bush and his colleagues routinely attempted to conceal their activities from government investigators.
Heh. At least we know where W. came by his law breaking tendencies and unwillingness to disclose the truth.
LOU! - Those are not "points". They would be more accurately referred to as loaded questions, based on flawed assumptions.
Didn't Lamont make something like $4,000,000 lat year and listed charitible contributions of $1,500? Typical of most "progressives"--very compassionate (with other peoples' money).
It seems only nikkolai and geoff seem to grasp reality here.
Lamont is not some lunatic liberal, in fact quite the opposite is true. Lamont is much more like the other members of the Senate that Lieberman ever could be. Lieberman's family wouldn't even have been allowed to lunch at most of the schools he attended in the 30's, and he was a member of a racist country club up until just after he announced his candidacy.
For the right to attempt to portray him as some kind of crazy liberal or even more hillarious, some type of "socialist" is just plain stupidity. If you want to swing the Democratic vote away from him, point out the fact that he is basically been raised from the exact same teet as every other Republican Senator that the left has issues with.
Either way, I don't think it will hurt him to badly as he has an excellent team working for him (which is damn impresive considering he has absolutely no track record.)
Didn't Lamont make something like $4,000,000 lat year and listed charitible contributions of $1,500? Typical of most "progressives"--very compassionate (with other peoples' money).
That's not really fair. Lamont has a family foundation through which he makes his donations:
n the last year, through the Lamont Family Foundation and cash contributions, Lamont has made several large charitable donations, including $100,000 to the Brookings Institution, $50,000 to Stanford University’s scholarship fund, and $10,000 apiece to Yale University, Harvard University, the YMCA and Greenwich Country Day School.Unless other family members actually founded and funded the trust, I don't think you can criticize his giving. Hmmm. Maybe I'll check that out.
The Lamonts also gave a total of $14,000 to several community groups in North Haven, Maine, where the family owns a summer home, and made about $4,250 in miscellaneous cash gifts, including $500 each to the American Red Cross and the Jimmy Fund.
whats wrong with communism?
whats wrong with communism?
What's right with communism? It's inherently authoritarian and has never worked. Look at China's economic explosion, only made possible with capitalist reforms.
you are all communists
you are all communists
You are struggling.
whats wrong with communism?
Construction workers in Russia keep uncovering previously secret mass graves of victims.
They all deserved that bullet in the back of the head though of course for their "crimes".
that is totallitarian communism. Whats wrong with communism?
that is totallitarian communism. Whats wrong with communism?
It's difficult to have non-totalitarian communism, due to the inherent centralization of the economy. It's also difficult to reconcile communism with human nature - as demonstrated repeatedly in its attempted implementation. Finally, capitalism rewards the fortunate and the best producers, while communism rewards the unfortunate and the worst producers. Does that make capitalism less moral than communism? Not really. But it certainly makes it more productive and stable.
Commenting by HaloScan
