"I'm a recent veteran. I'm against the war, how about you? I'm against Lieberman... "
I got out in 2001 (US Army Infantry) and I am with you 100% on that one ARNG.
I have no party affiliation, but I will not support any candidate that supports the biggest political and military mistake the US has ever made.
The mistake called Iraq.
Joe "Republican" has got to go!
Kevin Stayton - 17/10/2006 10:47
Did you know that just a few weeks ago Lieberman voted to undermine our Constitution? The Constitution State deserves a Senator that will stand up for the Constitution. Lamont gets our votes in November.
VoiceOfConnecticut - 17/10/2006 10:38
I was leaning a bit towards Lamont before the first debate, just to get rid of Lieberman, BUT Schlesinger has shown that he deserves careful consideration from any conservative.
It is obvious that the federal government needs a complete change of direction, and Lieberman is just another Bush shill. All incumbents that support the failed Bush agenda must go if this country is ever going to regain its position as a RESPECTED world leader.
M Holden - 17/10/2006 09:52
Ned won in spite of having the worst performance because Alan looked credible, and will take votes away from Joe.
Expect Alan to get a bump in the next poll, putting Ned in front, and then things will change back when people realize supporting Alan really will give Ned the race.
M Holden - 17/10/2006 09:52
Ned won in spite of having the worst performance because Alan looked credible, and will take votes away from Joe.
Expect Alan to get a bump in the next poll, putting Ned in front, and then things will change back when people realize supporting Alan really will give Ned the race.
J Warner - 17/10/2006 09:46
Maybe Lamont will start running a few ads about his qualification instead of being a lier about Lieberman. I guess all you Lamont supporters think Ned is a hell of a guy spending 12 million of his own cash on this race. Alan Schlesinger won this debate plan and simple but it doesn't mean I will vote for him.
Jeanne - 17/10/2006 08:37
The debate featured two politicians and a businessman. Ned spoke concisely and coherently. The two politicians spoke on and on, one whining (Joe) and one insisting that there was no difference( between the two liberals to his left Alan.) Hey Alan, if there had been NO difference, we Democrats would not have chosen an untried candidate over an 18-year veteran, We need a new Senator that represents us in Washington. All my money's on Ned Lamont.
anonymous - 17/10/2006 00:39
Ned Lamont handled himself very well, sticking to the issues. Joe monopolized his whole time by talking about being attacked while attacking the whole time he was talking about being attacked – pretty pathetic! But the best line of the whole debate came from Scheslinger, "Joe, your time has run out, no pun intended."
john powalski - 17/10/2006 00:20
Lieberman told many lies, and even repeated the falsehood about Lamont laying off employees. Lieberman was petulant and whiney, where Lamont was dignified and senatorial. Lieberman is out of time, energy, and ideas. It truly is time for change in Connecticut.
ARNG - 16/10/2006 23:30
I'm a recent veteran. I'm against the war, how about you? I'm against Lieberman...
This is pretty much consistant with the viewpoints of those in attendance. Lieberman whinned about being attacked...before he was attacked. Lamont didn't hit a homerun but didn't bomb either. Scheslinger proved that he shoud be given a serious consideration by conservatives.
Now off to the next debate...which reminds me, go check out my post on ConnecticutBLOG as WFSB is banning all local media from the next debate.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
