Lieberman Must Go! watch!
liebermanmustgo.com — Joe Lieberman is a war hawk who staunchly supports Bush and McCain's War in Iraq. He wants to star in the RNC, yet he still holds a top rank within the Democratic Caucus. The Senate Democratic Steering Committee needs to know just how much of a conflict of interest this is.
zackypharms- 2239 diggs
- digg it
- ekspiulo, on 06/25/2008, -32/+216Machiavelli tells us never to tolerate an enemy in our presence. In modern terms, the Democratic party needs to get real about its mission and its values and throw this mother ***** out on the streets.
- jstohler, on 06/25/2008, -5/+17He'll definitely be out on his ass come November, but in the meantime the Dems need him to maintain majority in the Senate. It's truly an unfortunate situation that someone so slimy can wield so much influence.
- chaosium, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4"in the meantime the Dems need him to maintain majority in the Senate"
I think you have to vote Dem to be considered Dem for a "majority".- patpl22391, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3He still caucuses with them, which gives them the majority.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3You guys all realize liberman is no longer a democrat right? He's an independent. He lost to a different democrat in the 2006 primaries and won reelection on an independent ticket.
- patpl22391, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2he still caucuses with the Democrats.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2But his policies do not match the democrats and that's what matters.
- chaosium, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1"he still caucuses with the Democrats."
And he endorses Republicans over more qualified Dem candidates, what's your point?
- chaosium, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4"in the meantime the Dems need him to maintain majority in the Senate"
- GangsterCompute, on 06/25/2008, -5/+16In the 21st century, is it still a good idea to follow advice just because Machiavelli delivered it?
- krnldmp, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6Well you can either do that or re-evaluate right the idea of tolerating enemies in your presence right now. So, what'd ya come up with?
- Iztikeit, on 06/25/2008, -8/+8"Enemy" isn't the right word. You do know we are talking about the Democratic party, right? The easiest group of people on the planet to offend.
Lieberman isn't an enemy of the state because he is simply being critical of one of the worst Democratic parties in recent history.
There was once a time when the Democrats were the ones starting all the wars, not the Republicans. Maybe he is trying to return to that format. - anachronaut, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6"Lieberman isn't an enemy of the state because he is simply being critical of one of the worst Democratic parties in recent history."
No, he's an enemy of the state because he's a traitor who's clearly more loyal to Israel than to his own country and constituents; he's an enemy to Americans in general and to the Democrats in particular. The fact that the current Democratic leadership is -- by far -- the worst I've seen in my lifetime is completely beside the point. - gn0stik, on 06/25/2008, -2/+7Joe Lieberman is an independent, not a democrat. He left the party. He still caucuses for the Democrats supposedly in more relaxed times because he agrees with Democrats more on domestic policy, while he agrees more with republicans on foreign policy.
He's not a traitor to american, republicans or democrats.
I find it Ironic how republicans hate McCain because he's too much of a democrat, and dems hate him because he's too much like Bush. People hate Lieberman because he's buddies with McCain.
I do agree with the Faux news crowd though who were saying he should just switch. Seems to be all the rage these days switching parties and all. And since his policy and McCain's are practically identical, he might as well.
Lieberman is not trying to return anything to any format. Love of tradition is a conservative value, there are no conservatives left in our Liberal Republic.
I would even settle for some classic liberals at this point. I, like Goldwater am sick of all of this stomping around the world throwing our weight around. I'm also sick of religious right dictating our domestic policy. - jamesLankford, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1how 'bout not seeing as an enemy, but working with him instead ?
- Iztikeit, on 06/25/2008, -8/+8"Enemy" isn't the right word. You do know we are talking about the Democratic party, right? The easiest group of people on the planet to offend.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Has human nature changed? Do people no longer lust for power over others?
- krnldmp, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6Well you can either do that or re-evaluate right the idea of tolerating enemies in your presence right now. So, what'd ya come up with?
- tschau, on 06/25/2008, -15/+9Machiavelli lived in a pre-9/11 world.
- laserblazer, on 06/25/2008, -2/+15History is replete with 9/11s, and long before Niccolò Machiavelli was ever born. For example, take the Spartacus revolt. Roman troops had smashed the rebellion to pieces, but were ordered to form a crush (like a cattle crush except with lots of men) to drive the remnants of the Slave Revolt to Rome to terrify the Romans and allow for expansion of military powers (sound familiar?). This was a classic false-flag type attack (like 9/11) and was probably old at the time.
- vbullinger, on 06/25/2008, -5/+3Dugg for "9/11 was a false flag attack."
- PeppermintPig, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6EVERYTHING ***** CHANGED !!!11!
- cnot3, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5I hope that was sarcasm.
- Disregard, on 06/25/2008, -1/+8Yes 3000+ people have never died in any world event before.
- freshgrease, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4Other countries get terrorized on a more frequent and disastorus basis. The only reason we Americans take it so far is because we are isolated by two oceans, think we are god, and have plenty of bargaining power. Get a ***** grip my fellow Americans. They kill 3000 people, we kill millions. I say we've more than made up for the tragedy.
- Gemfinder, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2No, they didn't have 9/11, but they did have pretty much ongoing war in the Papal States of Central Italy, House Hapsburg were getting their act together and taking it on the road, the Turks were hitting most of eastern Europe fairly hard...no airplanes but those cannons were nothing to sniff at...
- RobotCitizen, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1There are places in the world that have 9/11 every ***** day. Get over yourself.
- laserblazer, on 06/25/2008, -2/+15History is replete with 9/11s, and long before Niccolò Machiavelli was ever born. For example, take the Spartacus revolt. Roman troops had smashed the rebellion to pieces, but were ordered to form a crush (like a cattle crush except with lots of men) to drive the remnants of the Slave Revolt to Rome to terrify the Romans and allow for expansion of military powers (sound familiar?). This was a classic false-flag type attack (like 9/11) and was probably old at the time.
- ruddy, on 06/25/2008, -2/+10that website was made with tables so STFU
on a serious note
is it really a big deal that he's a republican minded democrat? being critical of your own party really doesn't call for a beheading.- elipabst, on 06/25/2008, -2/+5When you are speaking at the Republican National Convention and taking every chance to take a shot at the Democratic candidate (whom you influenced to run) then you've officially gone into Zell Miller wackjob territory. He's still on the border, but he's been increasing alienating democrats as of late.
- zapass, on 06/25/2008, -5/+3beheading?
no danger, this kinda things only happen in societies where the people has grown something called BALLS.
all those 'responsible' 'moderate' 'patriotic' 'democratic' 'pro business' heads risk absolutely nothing for their collaboration and complicity with the most disgusting crimes against humanity this country has ever seen.
and they owe it to people like you, thank you!- mbonnin, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I agree. Brutal public execution of people who disagree with you is totally the way to go.
- zapass, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1totally, death penalty is the normal punishment for crimes against humanity.
mind you, it doesn't have to be brutal nor public, hanging with a low-res pirated youtube accounting would be fine.
- an0nymous, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3He's endorsed the Republican nominee for president. That's a bit beyond being critical of the party.
As a Senior Democrat he enjoys all sorts of sweet deals while hurting the party. He can go it alone.- mcquitty, on 06/25/2008, -4/+2You mean to tell me that you are not allowed to have an independent mind and opinion if you belong to a party?
Do you hold this same contempt for people of the opposing party when they say things? Or do you welcome them as reasonable people whom have finally seen the light? - an0nymous, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1No. Hold your opinion. But don't endorse the other parties nominee. What benefeit does having him as a member confer other than maintaining the majority?
- mcquitty, on 06/25/2008, -4/+2You mean to tell me that you are not allowed to have an independent mind and opinion if you belong to a party?
- 5urr3al5am, on 06/25/2008, -19/+17sigh -- liberals are so intolerant of anything that's not like them
- mikeyeah, on 06/25/2008, -4/+3You're kidding, right? Most Liberals respect other people's views, they just don't want to be forced to follow them. Christians for example, feel that our country's laws should be based on their religious beliefs. I respect their beliefs, and they can live their lives however they want, but they better not try to force their "morals" and beliefs on me.
Many Conservatives on the other hand, fear change, progression, and anyone who doesn't believe in their god.
So, I ask you whose really intolerant? And don't try to say the same thing applies to Liberals because we don't care how you live, again, we just don't want you to try make us live like you.- AnotherJake, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1"Most Liberals respect other people's views, they just don't want to be forced to follow them. "
Most liberals I've met do not respect non-liberal views. Most conservatives I've met do not respect non-conservative views. No one I've ever met wants to be forced to follow someone else's view.
- AnotherJake, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1"Most Liberals respect other people's views, they just don't want to be forced to follow them. "
- dggeek, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1I'm sure there's some clever Pot and Kettle comment to be made here...
- mikeyeah, on 06/25/2008, -4/+3You're kidding, right? Most Liberals respect other people's views, they just don't want to be forced to follow them. Christians for example, feel that our country's laws should be based on their religious beliefs. I respect their beliefs, and they can live their lives however they want, but they better not try to force their "morals" and beliefs on me.
- superkendall, on 06/25/2008, -13/+10Sounds like you're a poster boy extolling the virtues of - Liberal Fascism!
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mus ...
Nothing like silencing and punishing your enemies rather than tolerating diversity in thought.- zapass, on 06/25/2008, -4/+8excellent book: especially with diarrhea, the paper is very thick.
great quality!- 5urr3al5am, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1wow -- very clever -- I think I'll go write the exact same thing about some other book that I didn't read either
- BlacklabelSAR, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal
Liberal may refer to:
US Politics:
Liberal typically refers to one supporting social liberalism, or one opposing conservative or social conservatives positions.
Liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to maximize individual liberties. Within liberalism are competing schools of thought, in general they are:
Classical liberalism
Social liberalism
American modern liberalism in the United States.
Political progressivism, a political ideology that is for change, often associated with liberal movements
VS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as among its integral parts: nationalism, militarism, anti-communism, totalitarianism, statism, dictatorship, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to classic political and economic liberalism.
Many people misuse the word "fascism" to mean "extreme".
- zapass, on 06/25/2008, -4/+8excellent book: especially with diarrhea, the paper is very thick.
- Iztikeit, on 06/25/2008, -1/+11And bring in more people like Nancy Pelosi....Admit it, the Democratic party is as much of a joke as the Republican.
If you think the roles were reversed (the Republicans just took the house and the senate from the Dems) do you think the Republicans would just sit there totally inactive as the executive branch runs around doing what ever it pleases? - poprocksandsoda, on 06/25/2008, -1/+8Dude lighten up this is the US Election and not the Italian Renaissance. My mom voted Bill Clinton because of his looks ... that's the reality of today's voter.
- Iztikeit, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2And that's why I fear the end of humanity within the century.
- vbullinger, on 06/25/2008, -4/+8Um... Machiavelli's writings are followed by neocons. They're kind of evil. Have you ever read them?
When he said to never tolerate an enemy in your presence, he meant an enemy to the bad guys.
http://www.google.com/search?q=machiavelli+neocon- Iztikeit, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2I've read The Prince multiple times and it never ceases to amaze me how relevant it still is. (except methods are FAR more advanced and secretive than even he could have fathomed)
- iloveliberals, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3The R's have their own version: Arlen Specter: RINO.
- Iztikeit, on 06/25/2008, -2/+0I don't mind Specter though. He seems like a nice guy but he doesn't seem to grasp much else.
- dickybrown, on 06/25/2008, -4/+2like democrats have values........
like any politicians have values for that matter.... - NealeT, on 06/25/2008, -2/+5The democratic party is the one we put in Congress to get us out of this war. They all need to be thrown out!
- slvrbullet87, on 06/25/2008, -0/+4So by Machiavelli's standard we should be bombing the ***** out of alot of places.
Remember machiavelli was all about rule by force and brutality.
for instance "For in thruth, there is no sure method of holding them(Cities) except to destroy them."
Chapter 5-The prince
He was big on rule by fear, I dont think the people in charge should rule that way. - breadfred, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. I can't for the life of me remember the correct quote or who said it. But it is still true.
- chownrus, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2It was Sun Tzu, from "The Art of War"
- calantus, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1the democrats are not the saviors get it through your thick skull.
- neko6, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2I think the original meaning of Machiavelli's advice would translate to the form "kill the Arab Muslims who live in Israel and Palestine".
A politician is not an "enemy" just because you don't agree with his views or the amount of influence he has. Machiavelli was talking about enemies who you take into your midst. I don't think there were many Liberals in Machiavelli's days... - Nemesisesq, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2Liberals are Fascists They want to tell you how you should spend your money, how you should think, how you should talk and when you don't want to accept thier ways they want to kill you. Becasue liberalism (Modern progressive not classical) is about powerlessness and victimhood because they can't do anything for themselves everyone else should be punished for thier ineptitude.
- Kronk42583, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1you do realize that leiberman ran as an independent, under the Connecticut for leiberman party" and apparently is listed as an independent democrat, so he cant be thrown out of anything. i personally like him very much and had the privilege of meeting him one time. i have lived in CT for 16 years and he's been good for the state. just because he doesn't preach the party line doesn't mean he has to go. lighten up. at worst, he's better than most idiots out there.
- fool13, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4I believe his rating is like 85-90% of voting with the democratic party. The key issue that people disagree with him on is the war. He is actually more liberal than quite a few democrats but people don't understand that. Not every person is 100% liberal in fact barely anyone is. Liberalism is a general ideology, most people form their own opinions on every issue. Only the morons are 100% liberal out of feeling it necessary to be a 'liberal'. I consider myself a conservative but there are actually a few issues I take the liberal side on such as stem cell research. With that said I think it's really stupid to have such a problem with the man, he does his own thing I, seems similar to Chuck Hagel who I like. I may disagree with him on stuff but I wouldn't necessarily want to see him thrown out of the party..
- m0laria, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Machiavelli was just trying to get on the good side (see: kiss the royal ass) of the Medici family when he wrote Prince. Actually adhering to his methods in the book shouldn't really be considered as anything more than anecdotal advice. GG?
- jstohler, on 06/25/2008, -5/+17He'll definitely be out on his ass come November, but in the meantime the Dems need him to maintain majority in the Senate. It's truly an unfortunate situation that someone so slimy can wield so much influence.
- BobConway, on 06/25/2008, -25/+145Being an "Independent" is fine, but being McCain's lap puppy is taking things too far.
It just ain't kosher!- nibster, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6don't mean to leech off your comment, but this man is the only reason why Gore lost the 2000 election. I'm almost positive he's Isreali and supports all kinds of war mongering around the world, especially in the united states.
- Dragular, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1"this man is the only reason why Gore lost the 2000 election"
I thought it was about Lieberman, not Nader.- IanThal, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Actually, what lost Gore the 2000 election was the fact that Justices Scalia and Thomas did not recuse themselves from deciding the election despite the fact that they had immediate family working for the law firm representing the Bush campaign and (Scalia's son) or for the Bush transition team (Thomas' wife.)
- WhoismP, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0"I'm almost positive he's Isreali"...jewish does not mean Israeli...even the arabs of Israel are technically "Isreali"...that has nothing to do with anything.
And it was Nader, not Liberman
- Dragular, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1"this man is the only reason why Gore lost the 2000 election"
- slvrbullet87, on 06/25/2008, -3/+5Last time I checked he has the right to vote as he pleases in congress. If his constituants dont like it then they can vote for somebody else next time.
- Stormwern, on 06/25/2008, -4/+2Indeed. Lieberman is still left wing, pro choise etc, it's not (only) his fault foreign policy is the biggest issue of the election. I'm sure the DNC are mighty pissed he's so outspoken on the war, but it doesn't make him a traitor or anything.
- soulkitchen, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2left wing = pro spelling
- SlimFastForYou, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Yes it is his fault. He should not be in leadership positions for a Democrat-controlled Congress. If you believe that the "Homeland Security and Government Affairs" chairman's stance on foreign policy is less important than his stance on abortion, you're a fool and you're misleading others.
- Stormwern, on 06/25/2008, -4/+2Indeed. Lieberman is still left wing, pro choise etc, it's not (only) his fault foreign policy is the biggest issue of the election. I'm sure the DNC are mighty pissed he's so outspoken on the war, but it doesn't make him a traitor or anything.
- SuperMoses, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3The only thing independent about Lieberman is the title he uses. It's kind like North Korea calling themselves "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".
- Ugoff, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2I can't believe Lamont didn't beat this guy. Gore would have won without Liberman, and if he ***** things up for Obama, then well I just hope karma gets him back. Maybe he drops dead from a heart attack, who knows. All I know is that I want this psudo-democrat the hell out of the Senate. I got a better Idea, if he wants to be such butt-buddies with Israel, I say we just send him over there and he can fight in their army. Put that ***** in the front lines.
- seomike, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Lieberman was the democrats version of McCain. Rogue, Maveric that went against the parties status quo.
You all were smart enough to ditch him.
Republican's were stupid, McCain goes left and they allowed him to stay in the party. They should have kicked him to the curb a long time ago.
- seomike, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Lieberman was the democrats version of McCain. Rogue, Maveric that went against the parties status quo.
- patpl22391, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1The Democrats have no room for dissenting opinions within their party. Lieberman went against the party establishment, so many Democrats in the Senate and House didn't support him while he was challenged by Lamont. Obama certainly is to be thanked for his support of Lieberman. It is not that Lieberman betrayed the Democrats, it is the other way around. Even though many Democrats supported the war, Lieberman is the only one who has stayed true to his conviction. He has not done a 180 on supporting of the war, because of public opinion, like so many pathetic politicians before him who quivered when the time came to do what was right for America, not what would get them through another election. 70% of Republicans voted for Lieberman over their own nominee, a majority of Democrats and a large segment of independents voted for Lamont. It is blatantly clear that the Democratic party refuses to make room for Lieberman, so I would be honored for him to come over to the Republican side. So ***** you dailykos, mediamatters, firedoglake, huffingtonpost, moveon.org, rawstory, and crooksandliars. Pathetic propaganda sites, who only give one side of the story. Those of you who call Fox News viewers "sheep", yet go to these terrible sites are nothing but sheep themselves.
- nibster, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6don't mean to leech off your comment, but this man is the only reason why Gore lost the 2000 election. I'm almost positive he's Isreali and supports all kinds of war mongering around the world, especially in the united states.
- gmackenzie, on 06/25/2008, -45/+155Welcome to the United States of Israel.
- sagat, on 06/25/2008, -3/+25One country under Moses.
- stfucupcake, on 06/25/2008, -4/+5ramen.
wait, that doesn't really work does it?- Cybermaul, on 06/25/2008, -0/+3Oh, it does if you're strapped for cash.
- stfucupcake, on 06/25/2008, -4/+5ramen.
- ruddy, on 06/25/2008, -20/+7i know mccain is a dbag, but i would vote for him over obama any day. they're both bought, but you have to choose between the turd sandwhich and the giant douche... and obama would drive this country into the floor
- kanabiis, on 06/25/2008, -4/+9Fear mongering without substance, the staple of the Republican party....
Drive the country into the floor, kinda like George Bush already has right... I mean how can things get worse? Obama gonna get us into another war? The world will hate us more then they already do? Are we going to loose more jobs then we already are?
I mean if your going to make such a statement, might as well back it up with some facts, or your just talking out of your ass....- ruddy, on 06/25/2008, -6/+6i mean, just looking at the current biggies - energy. besides the fact that obama's bought by ethonal, ethonol is a horrible strategy because it's expensive, labor intensive, and half as efficient as oil.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23et ...
AND he opposes offshore drilling... need i say more? he's got one agenda, that's making money off ethonol, it's pretty clear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/us/politics/25ca ...
* Mccain didn't get us into this war, and if you've listened to obama speak you would know he isn't opposed to military actions against Iran.
* Popularity? that's sad you use that as a metric
i even used the NYtimes so you would be comfortable :) to be blunt, i think they both suck. but by saying CHANGE enough ***** times doesn't mean i'm gonna vote for you. i know he's hip 'n all, but try and look past that. - kanabiis, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2>i mean, just looking at the current biggies - energy. besides the fact that obama's bought by ethonal, ethonol is a horrible strategy >because it's expensive, labor intensive, and half as efficient as oil.
Thats funny, the steam guys said the same thing about Oil.... why do you hate progress so much? Ethanol might not be the answer, but it is an alternative. If you refuse to discuss alternatives, you are stuck in a world without progress. Which is exactly where we are now. 21st century people relying on 19th century technologies, how quaint. Whats your plan, just keep using oil till its gone?? Great strategy there chuckles, look how far its gotten us so far.
>AND he opposes offshore drilling... need i say more? he's got one agenda, that's making >money off ethonol, it's pretty clear.
Thats so funny you mention that, it seems the oil companies are against off shore drilling as well. I mean they have thousands of miles of coast line available to them right now, yet have done no such drilling over the past 20 years. It seems to me that it makes no sense what so ever to push for a change in drilling off shore when they have yet to begin drilling offshore where they are permitted. Kinda silly isnt it? Its like complaining that you cannot dig in my backyard when you havent even started digging in your own back yard. But hey, again, lets not bring facts and logic into this discussion, lets just parrot the same ***** you keep hearing rather then actually find out for yourself.
>Popularity? that's sad you use that as a metric
Yes, lets just make enemies and push allies away from us in this world when we keep decreasing our self reliance, and ability to function as a nation independently. Thats an excellent strategy for longterm prosperity let me tell you.
Seriously, do you even use your head for something more then a device to place your truckers hat, or were you just born stupid? - ruddy, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3"Thats funny, the steam guys said the same thing about Oil.... why do you hate progress so much? Ethanol might not be the answer, but it is an alternative. If you refuse to discuss alternatives, you are stuck in a world without progress. Which is exactly where we are now. 21st century people relying on 19th century technologies, how quaint. Whats your plan, just keep using oil till its gone?? Great strategy there chuckles, look how far its gotten us so far."
You seem to be confused. the word alternative is not synonymous with progress. I can have my car be powered by horses, doesn't mean it's better. Secondly, I don't think "steam" said anything to the oil company, seeing as how steam isn't a fuel (it's actually powered by coal). And oil HASn far.
You want an alternative? Here's an alternative, electric cars, powered by nuclear! by wait, you're probably a tree hugger, so you hate any real solution, instead you'de rather "go green" by using a fuel that costs an arm and a leg to produce. - ruddy, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2not finished :) (coudn't edit my comment longer)
I'm not even going to argue popularity. If you think it's a metric for moral or economic status, good luck to you. Point being, you know that chick at school who blows everyone's dick? she's pretty popular, but is that a good thing.
and can we quit slapping a retort to every counter point! here's an outline for your rebuttal:
point, counter-point, derogatory remark
ps - notice how i listed sources? try it sometime!
- ruddy, on 06/25/2008, -6/+6i mean, just looking at the current biggies - energy. besides the fact that obama's bought by ethonal, ethonol is a horrible strategy because it's expensive, labor intensive, and half as efficient as oil.
- PeppermintPig, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Not much of a choice.
- kanabiis, on 06/25/2008, -4/+9Fear mongering without substance, the staple of the Republican party....
- bjs3171, on 06/25/2008, -13/+3uh...this is the United States of America. There is no United States of Israel. That's been the problem all along infact.
- cheesylobster, on 06/26/2008, -1/+12As a young Jewish American, I must say Joe Lieberman does NOT represent the mainstream sentiment of the American Reform Judaism movement, and that he stands for the exact opposite ideals that I personally believe in.
This man has been corrupted by money and power, as has been the case for so many of his peers as well. - jockser, on 06/26/2008, -6/+1That how it all started in germany, first you find someone to blame. Israel.
because any sane ( non liberal digger if you need a definition ) person will strongly disagree that 7 millions Israelis from which maybe 70% are Jews and 30% are Arabs ( yes ***** there are Arabs that are citizens of Israel ) control all the ***** glory of the USA.
the only one who control you is your mother when she throws a shoe at you when you didn't clean your room.- notanidiot, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Whoa... did that make sense? Punctuation and correct grammar would probably make your point more clear and credible, my friend. And since when is the definition of sane "non liberal digger." I've got to see that dictionary.
Think about this. We've aligned ourselves with Israel for a long time, and now, we are considering making the stupid move of going to war with Iran, because "Ahmedinijad questions whether or not the Holocaust happened', and he thinks we should "wipe Israel off the map."
Please note, by the way, that wiping something off a map does not mean you nuke it into nonexistence, because nuking something has no effect on the map.
Lieberman makes his decisions as a Jew, not an American, and so have too many other politicians, whose campaigns were paid for by Jewish lobbyists. Let Israel deal with its own problems.
So, by the way, were you insinuating that soon we will have concentration camps for gassing Jews, just like Hitler? If not, what was your point?- soomprimal, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Lieberman's religion helps exacerbate the situation, but he makes his decision as a ZIONIST. There are Christian Zionists out there too for money or their perceived "salvation" want to help Israel subjugate the region.
- notanidiot, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Indeed, Zionist, not Jew. Must avoid antisemitic language.
- longhornpapa, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0No. No. NO.
have you had discussions with Mr. Lieberman regarding his decision making process? don't presume to know what he's thinking and how he, or anyone, for that matter, comes to some conclusion regarding decisions they make. I can tell you, as an American who by the Grace of God is Jewish, that while I support Israel in many ways, I do not do so at the expense of this country and my home.
We've aligned ourselves with Israel as it is the ONLY constitutional republic (call it a democracy if you want) with free, open and democratic elections in the middle east. it has an open economy, unlike the arabs lands.
and we're contemplating war with Iran NOT because the idiot, Ahmedinijad , questions the occurrence of the Holocaust or threatens Israel's existence. but because of the idiotic theocratic leaders in Iran and their desire to possess NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
I hope for everyone's sake that war doesn't happen. but that can only take place if like-minded individuals find a means, ANY MEANS NECESSARY to stop or destroy that nuclear ambition.
- notanidiot, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Whoa... did that make sense? Punctuation and correct grammar would probably make your point more clear and credible, my friend. And since when is the definition of sane "non liberal digger." I've got to see that dictionary.
- swifty383, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Don't you realize that the slightest criticism of Israel makes you a raging anti-semite?
- sagat, on 06/25/2008, -3/+25One country under Moses.
- debunkthelies, on 06/25/2008, -23/+119AIPAC front man, Liarberman, what a piece of work.
- poprocksandsoda, on 06/25/2008, -4/+5When you voted Gore in 2000 apparently it wasn't a problem.
- SuperMoses, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6Look who Bush surrounded himself with.
- pintomp3, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2true, you hold office in this country without the blessing of AIPAC. the difference is the republican party has AIPAC frontmen and neo-cons.
- Dragular, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1So why did Obama go to AIPAC and lie in an attempt to please them?
- longhornpapa, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0because he's a lying, conniving, whining, whore mongering kvetch, who, while uttering the mantra "change, change, change", is truly no different than any other senator, congressman, aide, page, whatever, currently residing and gainfully employed in the district of columbia (or should be renamed district of clintonia for all you koolaid drinkers), by the united states government.
they're all WHORES
- DrDreyfus, on 06/26/2008, -4/+2Hate for Israel seems to work it's way into every Digg story - no matter how irrelevant it is.
- Dragular, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Well of course. Don't you know ZOG is everywhere?
- MrXfromPlanetX, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Being an AIPAC front man does apply because AIPAC is lobbying for war. The frightening thing is, Obama is starting to pander and cave to these people, and people are not recognizing it.
http://alternativeconservative.com
It makes me very sad the Democratic Party didn't pick Dennis Kucinich. He never would have done this, neither would Mike Gravel. That's why the media would hardly cover these guys.
If Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were on the ballot, that would have been a tough choice.
- poprocksandsoda, on 06/25/2008, -4/+5When you voted Gore in 2000 apparently it wasn't a problem.
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/25/2008, -22/+79Psssst. That letter "I" doesn't stand for "Independent".
- lewikee, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Ok I give up. What does it stand for?
- JCPahl, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5Israel?
- longhornpapa, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1why? because the man is Jewish?
gimme a freakin break. politically, Joe is no different than any other democrat in the senate. except that he's willing to speak his mind without concern for repercussions. I couldn't bring myself to vote for that whiny-ass dweeb from Tennessee (you remember al-baby, doncha? the inventor of the Internet? ROTF). the only reason I momentarily considered it was simply because of the vast and sharp intellect of his running mate. and then that consideration faded as well, particularly after algore started his shrieking and whining... again.
- lewikee, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Ok I give up. What does it stand for?
- davidrools, on 06/25/2008, -17/+97Normally I'd support some diversity in the party, keeping things balanced and not too radical. But there's also something to be said about unity, and working together for common goals, and this guy is the guy in the boat rowing the wrong way.
- AmaDaden, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4Bingo. There is nothing wrong with being different. As a moderate I think more people need to do it not less. But supporting the crap he is supporting with this is dirty regardless of your party. He is doing it in a way that is fracturing the party and causing problems By the way, did he lose his status as a super delegate? I remember hearing something about that some time ago.
- PeppermintPig, on 06/25/2008, -8/+3If he's in the boat, that's unity, right? A ship of fools, united in that distinction.
- seejake, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2right on point. Lieberman is co-opting the "partisanship is bad" meme and corrupting it to suit his own ends. ***** this guy!
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -57/+75I have huge issues with Joseph Lieberman's politics which is why I dugg this video, but I am also disgusted by the blatant antisemitism in the digg comments section. The attempt to turn the Senator's turncoat behavior regarding his own political party into an excuse for bashing Jews in general or Israelis in particular is obscene and unacceptable.
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/25/2008, -12/+74To call attention to the fact Lieberman put's Israel's interests ahead of America's interests is not anti-semitic. It's pro-American.
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -26/+13a.) Nice use of the anti-Semitic canard of Jews being disloyal to whatever nation they live within-- that's been on the hit parade since the 19th century.
b.) How has Lieberman placed Israel's interests over that of the U.S.? The biggest bone of contention is Lieberman's support of the invasion of Iraq, which Israeli leaders recommended against. If anything his actions were in the interest of neither nation.
c.) Israeli and the U.S. are allies-- they have common interests and common concerns-- even if their politicians sometimes make stupid decisions. - monsieurginger, on 06/25/2008, -11/+1195% of US politicians support Israel because the vast majority of Americans support Israel. Because you are pointing out one Jewish politician who supports Israel shows your true colors.
- MrErr, on 06/25/2008, -1/+8Your numbers are misleading. Libermann is one of the biggest supporters of Israel. i remember in 2004 when said that we should be take a more neutral approach to israel to acheive peace, it was libermann who raised a hell hole about it.
- monsieurginger, on 06/25/2008, -4/+3Can you give me a source to that? I don't like Lieberman's view on Iraq my self but pretty much all US politicians support Israel.
- fowleryo, on 06/25/2008, -4/+13god, the idea that you're automatically an anti-semite because you don't support israel is pure propaganda. as much as a lot of people don't want to believe, israel and jews are two different things.
- BigMacMcChicken, on 06/25/2008, -7/+6no dude, actually the "jews put the interest of the jews before that of their country" is the same anti-semetic garbage from the last 2000 years. You're not original and you're pathetic. You just substitute the word Israel for Jew and convince yourself your not racist.
People like you should applaud Zionism because it gives you the chance to disguise your racism. Of all the blue-dog democrats in america, you choose to slander the jewish one...classy.
- Spudster, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1Nothing can be "Pro-American." Stop using sensationalist patriotism to rally support towards your viewpoint.
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -26/+13a.) Nice use of the anti-Semitic canard of Jews being disloyal to whatever nation they live within-- that's been on the hit parade since the 19th century.
- bushputz, on 06/25/2008, -5/+17IanThai:
I agree. Lieberman needs to be booted out ASAP.
As far as the antisemitism is concerned, I think a lot of people confuse government with citizenry. Just as many people hate Americans because of the actions of the right-wing idiots in charge, a lot of people hate all Israelis and Jews because of the conservative government of Israel.
What everyone must realize is that people are people - we have differences, but we are all more alike than we are different. We must learn to separate government from populace. The people of earth must take back control of their respective rogue governments- yellowcakewalk, on 06/25/2008, -3/+8@bushputz thanks for saying that, it's quotable, its succinct. Say it loud, say it often.
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -10/+4Actually, a lot of people hate Jews and Israelis because antisemitism is part of their culture. Jews haven't been persecuted for centuries in Europe and the Middle East because Ehud Olmert would demonstrate incompetence in the early 21st century.
- revisrev, on 06/25/2008, -2/+4I hate to have to say this... again, but criticizing a person, even if that person is Jewish, is not antisemitism. Saying that Joseph Lieberman puts Israel before the U.S. is not antisemitism, it's an opinion. Criticizing the Israeli government is not antisemitism. Criticizing the pursuit of a greater Israel is not antisemitism. Calling any of these things antisemitism is either self-deceit, or intellectual dishonesty.
From dictionary.com:
antisemitism - discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.
Most of the people that are called antisemitic on Digg also do a fair share of criticizing other governments (ergo not discriminating). They are also not being prejudiced (they look at the information and formulate an opinion) or hostile toward Jews (maybe hostile with people who disagree with them, but then again, in their position it's rather awkward to call the other side antisemitic, isn't it). Calling people who disagree with your view antisemitic is cowardly and shameful. Although, if people keep calling others antisemitic for these phony reasons, then maybe dictionary.com can read:
antisemitism - holding a viewpoint that douchebags disagree with.
So stop saying it before it loses its meaning. - Nosferax, on 06/25/2008, -5/+1The term "antisemitism" has been hijacked to mean anti jew. In fact not all semetic peole are jewish. Some arab if not all are also semetic people.
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6Nosferax-
"Antisemitism" was a term coined in 19th century by secular German-speaking nationalists who wanted to define their anti-Jewish sentiment along racial and cultural lines as opposed to the "anti-Judaism" promoted by the Church at the time. They never had any hostility towards Arabs. "Antisemitism" always meant "anti-Jew."
- revisrev, on 06/25/2008, -2/+4I hate to have to say this... again, but criticizing a person, even if that person is Jewish, is not antisemitism. Saying that Joseph Lieberman puts Israel before the U.S. is not antisemitism, it's an opinion. Criticizing the Israeli government is not antisemitism. Criticizing the pursuit of a greater Israel is not antisemitism. Calling any of these things antisemitism is either self-deceit, or intellectual dishonesty.
- ChristPissed, on 06/25/2008, -7/+48Do not confuse anti-zionism with anti-semitism.
There are thousands of Hasidic Jews throughout the world who on occasion burn the israeli flag to remind us that Zionism is not compatible with, or equivalent to Judaism.- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -14/+9With a handle like "ChristPissed" I suspect you are neither Hasidic nor an expert in Jewish theology.
The anti-Zionism of some Hasidic Jews is based on a prophetic theology that a Jewish state can only be legitimately founded by the Messiah-- it has nothing to do with the anti-Semitic form of anti-Zionism that insists Jews are the only people not entitled to self-determination, that they are automatically disloyal to any country within which they reside, and that Jews are supposed to be defenseless against humiliation, violence, and subjugation.
The latter form of "anti-Zionism" is just antisemitism under another name.- revisrev, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3What about the anti-Zionism that says: Israel has the right to exist. Israel has the right to security. Israel should not be trading its citizens' lives for more land.
- MrErr, on 06/25/2008, -3/+10Jews are entitled to self determination but not at the risk of destroying arab lives, which is what zionism does.
- neko6, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3"which is what zionism does. " - how did Zionism destroy Arab lives? Last time I checked, Arabs in Israel are EXTREMELY prosperous:
http://digg.com/world_news/Poll_77_of_Israeli_Arab ...
And Arab nations who agreed to Israel's right to exist also benefited greatly (Egypt and Jordan).
If an Arab entity decides to genocide the Jews and then loses the fight, their fall was at THEIR hands, not Israel that defended itself.
@revisrev - Israel never tried to take more land. Since 1967 Israel only gave land to WHOMEVER agreed to take it.
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -14/+9With a handle like "ChristPissed" I suspect you are neither Hasidic nor an expert in Jewish theology.
- xutopia, on 06/25/2008, -5/+36I am disgusted with comments like yours.
Don't make this about anti-semitism. It isn't. We hate AIPAC because it's taken over world politics for a while now. This has nothing to do with racial or religions discrimination.- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -7/+6I didn't make it about antisemitism. I'm just as opposed to Lieberman as anyone else who signed the petition. It's the anti-Semites who posted their anti-Semitic canards who made it about antisemitism.
- stfucupcake, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9I agree, it's an easy cop out.
Don't say it's anti-semitic (racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-christian, insert your personal beef here) unless it actually is.- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -5/+6The problem is that /some/ of the comments are, in fact, anti-Semitic.
- minox, on 06/25/2008, -5/+6I agree with IanThai. The problem with the comments is that they imply there is something about being Jewish per se that might make one predisposed to have inordinate power or be prone to ulterior motives in policy-making. It's not unlike the accusations that were aired at Kennedy during his campaign because he was Catholic.
- BigMacMcChicken, on 06/25/2008, -5/+6HAHAHAHAHA...a jewish lobbyist group "takes over world politics"
yeah, your not anti-semetic dude.- soomprimal, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3Once again, this organization does not even have the word "Jew" in its name. This is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. This is the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and it dominates foreign policy on the Middle East. The fact that Israel is a step short of a theocracy ("the Jewish State of Israel") is inconsequential to the criminal behavior of the lobbyists and the egregious crimes that the state of Israel has committed and continues to drag the USA through.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemetism
"Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism, also rarely known as judeophobia) is prejudice and hostility toward Jews as a group. The prejudice is usually characterized by a combination of religious, racial, cultural and ethnic biases. While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, since its creation it has been used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews."
- longhornpapa, on 06/27/2008, -1/+0and in so hating aipac, what about the other pacs, whose influence is felt as far and as widely as aipac?
don't forget that there are pacs whose influence (read: $$$$) is significantly greater than that of AIPAC. the only difference is that they ain't a bunch of jews/zionists...
- MemeWarrior, on 06/25/2008, -2/+45"It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel."
-Colin Powell- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -16/+10No but it is anti-Semitic to stereotype your fellow Americans as traitors because they are Jewish.
- xutopia, on 06/25/2008, -7/+13No one spoke about this Joe being a Jew. We spoke about him being a two-faced *****.
Nice try but you're not going to succeed in framing the debate on this site. MSM tactics will not work here.
- xutopia, on 06/25/2008, -7/+13No one spoke about this Joe being a Jew. We spoke about him being a two-faced *****.
- revisrev, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3Yep, everyone who's anyone has been called antisemitic by somebody.
- neko6, on 06/25/2008, -2/+7Criticizing something specific Israel does is not antisemitic, many people from all countries criticize their governments.
Criticizing Israel's right to exist OR claiming Israel is evil OR claiming Israel is genociding the Palestinians (6000 dead in 60 years of conflict where over 50% are militants is NOT genocide) OR claiming Israel has power over other nations OR claiming "mossad planned 9/11" (after it was debunked a gazillion times) OR claiming Israel controls all the money in the world - that kind of statements are as antisemitic as they get, because they single out Israel for criticism on things that other nations are not criticized for, and because they reiterate ancient antisemitic claims and just replace "Jews" with "Zionists"/"Israel".- soomprimal, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2I won't spend the time to debunk all of the fallacies you invoked in your above statement, so I hope people will see through it. The fact that Israel deems itself a Jewish State lends itself to anti-Jewish sentiment, but does not erase the crimes it has committed.
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -16/+10No but it is anti-Semitic to stereotype your fellow Americans as traitors because they are Jewish.
- superkendall, on 06/25/2008, -3/+6If you sleep with antisemitism, you can't complain about the volume of the snoring.
- LoveCrumb, on 06/25/2008, -1/+7I feel your pain, honestly. Please bare with me a moment and let me tell you what I see.
A country is not a person. And it is every American's right to disagree with another country's politics without being dragged into a personal slander case. I am offended when people loose sight of the actual debate at hand when they hear a trigger word which they then use to pry logic from the table and redirect the course of discussion towards something that was not stated. It is politically immature to sit and wait to hear these words and then pounce. If you have this reaction every time you are confronted with a communication that harbors these said triggers, you yourself are a sycophant. Sorry Buddy, but we are Americans! Love- Soughtout, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Wholeheartedly.
- grlykool, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3I agree.
- Abram730, on 06/25/2008, -3/+7Is there any Government more Anti-Semitic then Israel at this point in time? A valid question as I hear Sephardic Jews are second class citizens in Israel.
- neko6, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3Of course they are second class citizens in Israel - just like Catholic Christians are second class citizens in the US.
In other words - WTF? - DrDreyfus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3This explains a lot: You have no idea of the policies of Israel nor the situation at all.
There hasn't been severe anti-Sephardi feelings in Israel since the early days of immigration (read shortly after 1948).
- neko6, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3Of course they are second class citizens in Israel - just like Catholic Christians are second class citizens in the US.
- PURPLEDRINK, on 06/25/2008, -7/+2"The attempt to turn the Senator's turncoat behavior regarding his own political party into an excuse for bashing Jews in general or Israelis in particular is obscene and unacceptable."
ladies and gentlemen, behold: the paranoid jew mind- neko6, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3Sample comment:
"Joe Lieberman doesn't represent America he represents Nation of Israel like most people from Jewish faith whose religion IS their nationality he is Jewish before he is an American hence bad for America"
He's not paranoid, there you have a digger who is afraid of Jews in positions of power. This was the first major step towards the holocaust - the irrational fear that Jews hold too much power and the belief it is for some strange reason wrong.- PURPLEDRINK, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1ladies and gentlemen, behold: the delusional jew mind
- neko6, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3Sample comment:
- caramba420, on 06/26/2008, -1/+7This isn't about Jews, it's about a foreign government exerting far too much control over US policy. Our government is supposed to look out for the interest of US citizens. Here's a list of policymakers that hold dual Israeli-US citizenship:
Michael Mukasey (US Attorney General)
Michael Chertoff (Head of Homeland Security)
Richard Perle (chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board.)
(caught passing Highly-Classified National Security documents to the Israeli Embassy.)
Paul Wolfowitz (Former Deputy Defense Secretary)
Douglas Feith (Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon.)
Elliott Abrams (National Security Council Advisor.)
Lewis "Scooter" Libby (Cheney's ex-Chief of Staff.)
As anyone can plainly see, all of the offices that shape American foreign policy have been completely co-opted by the Israeli government. Imagine what you be would thinking right now if they were all Mexican citizens, and had steered us into a war with Guatemala. That ***** would never fly. It is not antisemitic to expect that our "civil servants" not put American interests in second place behind the interests of another country.- longhornpapa, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Boy, you are something else. how do you know that these men have dual citizenship? Have you talked to them each individually? are you going out on a limb and making an assumption that they're jewish and therefore must hold an israeli passport, too?
i think your hate is getting in the way of reason, logic and rational thinking, dude....
Every single Jew in the world has the right, according to the Israeli constitution to become a citizen of that country.
But only if one goes there, whether actually in country or to one of their embassies or consulates AND ***ACTUALLY*** applies for that citizenship.
whatamaroon...
- longhornpapa, on 06/27/2008, -1/+1Boy, you are something else. how do you know that these men have dual citizenship? Have you talked to them each individually? are you going out on a limb and making an assumption that they're jewish and therefore must hold an israeli passport, too?
- qittieqat, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0I don't care about Lieberman's politics as far as Israel is not concerned. I will, however be concerned having a person who is so obligated to the Jewish cause in the White House (or a heartbeat away). Nothing against Israel as far as a country. I don't want the US to be Israel's brainless bodyguard. Israel ISN'T always right. No country is. Not even the US and with GW in charge, that is certainly the case on a daily basis. Israel has a right to defend itself as does ANY country. Sometimes I think Iran's leader says what he says to goad Bush and his cronies. He isn't right about wanting to eliminate Israel. He's pushing buttons. He really doesn't have the power or citizen support to do what he claims to want to do.
- yellowcakewalk, on 06/25/2008, -12/+74To call attention to the fact Lieberman put's Israel's interests ahead of America's interests is not anti-semitic. It's pro-American.
- magicmarker44, on 06/25/2008, -21/+46Lieberloser should be a hint as to how the Dems are complicit with BushCo & the Greedy Oil Party in all their corrupt and evil schemes.... Why won't the Dems do their Constitutional duty and impeach the obviously guilty bastards? Because we have a one party system in America, and We The People have to rise up off our lazy backsides and take the power back before it's too late!
- bjs3171, on 06/25/2008, -1/+8who the ***** is Lieberloser? That is not a real person. Are you 3?
- DrDreyfus, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1look at his screen name
- podoshj, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1Keep sniffing those magic markers, jackass.
- joshreed104, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1You forgot "sheeple." I think you got just about every other supposedly clever stupid-ass nickname, though. You even made one up... Lieberloser isn't even remotely clever.
- Galdo, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1I share your pain MM.The Dems and their lack of spine are as big a problem as the Bush Crime Family.Complicit or just cowards?Flip a coin.The result is the same.They seem to have misunderstood the meaning of "co-equal" branches of government.
- bjs3171, on 06/25/2008, -1/+8who the ***** is Lieberloser? That is not a real person. Are you 3?
- soosan, on 06/25/2008, -34/+31I knew Lieberman should go in 2000. I voted for Al Gore in the primary but when he chose this loser (Joe Lieberman) for his running mate I didn't vote for him. I strongly believe lot of people were turned off by this inept choice of Mr. Gore. Joe Lieberman doesn't represent America he represents Nation of Israel like most people from Jewish faith whose religion IS their nationality he is Jewish before he is an American hence bad for America. He is "Independent" alright "Independent from a moral compass". What a despicable excuse for a human being! Saying that I hope McCain picks him as VP that would be be kiss of death and would cost him the presidency!
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -6/+19You are arguing that Lieberman's support of Bush and McCain is a product of his Judaism and even insisting he is disloyal to both Democratic Party and to America because he is a Jew.
That's antisemitism-- and it ignores the fact that most Jewish-American voters and politicians are staunch Democrats.- revisrev, on 06/25/2008, -4/+4Agreed... that, right there IS antisemitism. It's antisemitism because of the generalizing and the prejudice.
I'm glad to see that you DO know what you're talking about SOMETIMES IanThal... - soosan, on 06/25/2008, -5/+6IanThal;
I knew Antisemitism label would pop out and be tagged on me when I made my remark. After all if we can't use the word "Jew" outside of context of Holocaust or our "Ally Israel" or we are labeled Antisemitic!
I am saying that Joe Lieberman loyalty is to Nation of Israel, he has proved that by cruising around between parties, he care less if he is Democrat, Republican, Independent as long as he has a forum to push his Zionist agenda. He is a man of a few words, all of which can be summarized into; Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, war, interest of Israel.......
And the reason most Jewish-American voters and politicians are staunch Democrats is because Republicans represent right wing Christian nut jobs!
It would be sort of an uphill battle to try to bring up the Christ was a Jew argument.
So get over your antisemitism philosophy and try to see the bigger picture.- neko6, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4Hitler said the Jews hold too much power and that their interests are different from Germany's and that they are bad for the nation. We all know how that turned out.
Don't play innocent when you use the same rhetoric and generalize all Jews to be bad for your country. - DrDreyfus, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Shut the ***** up "soosan".
Ever heard of the Dreyfus Affair? Your statements are nearly identical to the premises of the accusations made against him. - caramba420, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3..."like most people from Jewish faith..."
That's when it became racist, dude. To argue that someone's bloodline is relevant to how loyal they are to their country is absurd.
I do believe that Lieberman, among other US policymakers is in way too deep with the Likud. But, to claim that millions of US citizens are just like him because they share his faith and/or genetic code is xenophobic and extremely insulting. Every human being formulates (or at least regurgitates) viewpoints of their own volition, as a inescapable product of Free Will. - StopPre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+1right on
- neko6, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4Hitler said the Jews hold too much power and that their interests are different from Germany's and that they are bad for the nation. We all know how that turned out.
- MrXfromPlanetX, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Israel is pushing for wars, the AIPAC is lobbying for wars--they are not a peace loving group. There are Jews that stand for peace, but they aren't in AIPAC
Listen to Obama speaking at an AIPAC meeting
http://alternativeconservative.com
- revisrev, on 06/25/2008, -4/+4Agreed... that, right there IS antisemitism. It's antisemitism because of the generalizing and the prejudice.
- 5urr3al5am, on 06/25/2008, -3/+6-- yeah... THAT'S why gore lost
- caramba420, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0Gore didn't lose.
- qittieqat, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1That is why I didn't vote for Gore as well. Can't stand Lieberman! He's another of the same ilk as Bush and McShame!
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -6/+19You are arguing that Lieberman's support of Bush and McCain is a product of his Judaism and even insisting he is disloyal to both Democratic Party and to America because he is a Jew.
- ZoMommEY, on 06/25/2008, -10/+22It seems inconceivable that Lieberman would be tolerated in the Democratic party....but there is a reason. I don't agree with it, but understand it. It has to do with votes in the senate and if Democrats push Liberian and he defects in name and not just in heart in deeds as he is at the moment then the democrats will lose the balance in their favor that they have in the Senate right now. Personally I think the democrats in congress and the senate need to stop being controlled by fear and act boldly and without showing fear. These are hard and extraordinary times. The American people would appreciate boldness and reward it. The democrats need to grow some balls and I don't mean start playing the republican game but to start standing up for what is right and good. All of America is disgusted by the corruption and double speak in D.C., Republican voters as well. Obama did it, now lets hope the rest of the Dem.'s can get invigorated and inspired to be what they were meant to be. The party that opens it's arms to everyone, not just the ones that look, act, talk, and smell like each other. We are the party of non conformity and that is good. That is our country we were founded by, misfits from different places and all walks of life.
- stfucupcake, on 06/25/2008, -0/+5dugg for Democrats growing balls and standing up for the party's principles & listening to the people of the USA.
- giveupsin, on 06/25/2008, -4/+0What makes your good any better than anyone elses?
- ZoMommEY, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Not saying mine is best OK. Look what I'm saying is that he is not just stating an admiration for a candidate that is the person who is opposing his parties candidate. He is succoring him and campaigning for him. Everyone has a right to their POV but you don't switch teams (without actually switching teams) when your party's guy is up to bat. Just not right. Besides the republican party is still punishing John McCain for doing much less years ago.
- HenryJonesJr, on 06/25/2008, -3/+1You are a walking contradiction. You say Democrats are the Party that opens its arms to everyone and is about non-conformity, yet you advocate throwing out the one guy in your Party with an independant thought? Yeah, that sounds about like the typical Leftist hypocrisy...
- ZoMommEY, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1You can only see the bad in my statement. I considered not answering you because I couldn't tell if you were the rabid type or not, but I will give it a try. Lieberman is supporting and not just supporting he's practically holding up the republican presidential nominee. IF a republican did the same thing and got up in Barack Obama's butt the way that Leiberman is doing the Republican party an a lot of it's supporters would be beyond incensed. Look at John McCain, back when he was what was thought of as a true Maverick he was respected by the really cool guys on both sides of the aisle. He was respected by a lot of people. He seemed to be voting with what he thought was right and not blindly following his party. Man I used to dig him. Even though now he has attached himself at the hip to Bush and his policy's, even to oppose the new GI bill which had broad bipartisan support he stuck with Bush. That to me was the final, what the hell moment about McCain. But back to my point, even now that he is on board with the Bushies he is still reviled by many in his party. So I am very confused by you. It is not a contradiction to be loyal to your party and find that a defection like Leiberman as bothersome. His values and actions now seem like a big f you to the Dem. Party. It's not like he said he respected and admired McCain, or even that he planned to vote for him. He is now the guy behind McCain in pictures and video. McCain has a horrible record on some of the things that are core to our party, and some of the things that he had broken from his party to vote with the Democrat's he now refutes with new actions and words. ?Leiberman has become the Dem's Judas. He has sold us out for whatever reason I'm not sure, but I am sure that it has something to do with a personal gain. I say that because the Neo Cons Bush and company have sold out their own people again and again. Ask me how an I'll tell you One quick example. Stirring up Xenophobia in order to keep the people thinking that it's things like illegal immigrants that is keeping them down and not looking at how they have created all these ways for the super rich to stay that way. Did you know that through policies that begun with Reagan and been shorn up with the subsequent bushes have broadened the gulf between the rich and the poor. That a Multi-millionaire can pay half the amount of taxes then a maid that worked for him does, unbelievable. Anyways I'm on a tangent.
- MrXfromPlanetX, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3If you want to know how to kick corrupt people out of office, look into how the caucus process works. http://alternativeconservative.com/caucus You have to kick them off the ballot before the sheeple get to vote for them.
I'm kind of wandering what you are saying about Obama. I had some hope for him, but he caved on the FISA bill and the Reauth of the Patriot Act. If that's his way of getting along with the Republicans, he needs to do a hell of a lot less of it
http://alternativeconservative.com/2008/06/23/info ...- ZoMommEY, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I don't know what his motives are but I'm not ready to say that he is running to the middle yet. He is much more conservative then me in many ways. I have known that but in the core of his beliefs we are feeling the same way. Even things that he is a little uncomfortable with he is able to get over some of his instinctive reactions to do the right things. SO we'll see. He's not going to be everything the most progressive of our party would like, which is good because he wouldn't win. America does need balance. The president is supposed to represent America and not all of America feels the way we do. Progression takes time, if you try to force it down peoples throats they choke. You win people over. Honey for catching not vinegar!
- bushputz, on 06/25/2008, -14/+26The only reason Wormtongue Joe is allowed to stick around is that his being a DINO (Democrat In Name Only) gives us the majority in the Senate. We lost the chance to elect another Democrat to his seat in 2006, and will have to wait until 2012 to really get rid of him. In November, we will gain several more seats in the Senate, and won't have to put up with this clown. In the meantime, he needs to be stripped of all rank and power.
- BigW, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3Unless you're a senator, I have to take offense at your use of the work WE when talking about political control of the senate. The political parties in this country have done a great job of turning politics into sports where you cheer on YOUR team and against the other guys.
I think that's the real reason that none of the losers from either party have any ability to solve any of the nations problems, they're all just playing a game.- Nosferotu, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Err... senators are elected to represent us in office, so by saying WE, the poster is suggesting that WE, the American People, are represented by this body of senators. Which, in theory, is true.
Regardless of whether or not what you're saying about politics being a game is true, it sure sounds to me like you were just digging for something to make your point with. You're reaching, dude.- longhornpapa, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0nah.. not reaching. the business of this country, OUR BUSINESS, isn't a game of sport, of chance. The business of the PEOPLE, as such, shouldn't be referred to in such terms. it minimizes the greatness of both the country, its people, its principles.
for over 200 years this country was a shining light among the nations of the world. as a 40-something year old American, I've voted in every single election, as is my RIGHT as a citizen. On a national level, I've voted for men and women whose philosophy was more closely in line with my thoughts and beliefs, not with a freakin Party - I've been affiliated with a party only once, and that was to vote against someone who had no business running. political parties have no bearing whatsoever on my life. personally, i find them counter-productive to getting things done. just look at the congress we have been blessed with since 2006.
I'm both appalled and disgusted with the way the political roads are paved in our country. No thought about what's right. what's good. what's in the best interest of America and her people. more and more, its all about the party. the money. the special interests. its us versus them. democrat vs republican. liberal versus conservative. and were that the end of it, that would be OK. but the angry, bitter hostility and vitriol shown by those on the short end of the election stick goes "beyond the pale".
as a student of history, the lack of civility shown here, on other boards and in the mean streets of public discourse has no equal. there's so much polarization that its absurd. and painful. and pathetically counterproductive.
sorry. i didnt' mean to go on a tirade. but, as the son of a holocaust survivor and the great, great grandson of a NY county alderman and sheriff, quite possibly, I see things in this country from a different perspective. we need to learn to understand that, as Americans, we can all agree or disagree on whatever topic happens to be discussed. Keep in mind, tho, that NO ONE EVER AGREES ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. And that's okay. in fact, its good.
See the article on public discourse and civility... http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/civility.htm
- longhornpapa, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0nah.. not reaching. the business of this country, OUR BUSINESS, isn't a game of sport, of chance. The business of the PEOPLE, as such, shouldn't be referred to in such terms. it minimizes the greatness of both the country, its people, its principles.
- Nosferotu, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1Err... senators are elected to represent us in office, so by saying WE, the poster is suggesting that WE, the American People, are represented by this body of senators. Which, in theory, is true.
- superkendall, on 06/25/2008, -6/+6"Allowed to stick around"?
Perhaps you have not heard of something called an ELECTION - which Joe won handily.- vanguardanon, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6I think he means allowed to stay with the party. He was right. The democrats have 50 senators, the republicans have 49, and Lieberman gives them the majority. (50/50 splits are decided by the VP so the democrats need 51.)
By having that majority in the house they get to decide who staffs the councils which decide which laws get voted on. It's very hard to get anything done while in the minority so the democrats need him.
- vanguardanon, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6I think he means allowed to stay with the party. He was right. The democrats have 50 senators, the republicans have 49, and Lieberman gives them the majority. (50/50 splits are decided by the VP so the democrats need 51.)
- BigW, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3Unless you're a senator, I have to take offense at your use of the work WE when talking about political control of the senate. The political parties in this country have done a great job of turning politics into sports where you cheer on YOUR team and against the other guys.
- allowners, on 06/25/2008, -14/+27The Lie Berman must go.
- dagnabbit, on 06/25/2008, -2/+3The Democrats have a one vote majority in the Senate. I can't stand the guy, but push him out and that gives the tiebreaker vote to Cheney. So hopefully the Dems can put up with him until the next election, gain a few seats, THEN toss the guy out on his ass.
- Troy64, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1What is it about Democrats, if they don't like someone they feel the need to distort their name. It is awfully immature and keeps people from taking you seriously.
You really don't see that on the Republican side.- DrDreyfus, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Yea, all you see is hypocrisy.
Still, you're a ***** idiot "allowners".
"Lie Berman"? Are you ***** serious?
How bout you stay off Digg until you turn 12 .
- DrDreyfus, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1Yea, all you see is hypocrisy.
- poogy21, on 06/25/2008, -17/+68As a fellow Jew, I hate asking this.. but; How much money is he doing this for?
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -19/+5As a fellow Jew, aren't offended by the antisemitism on this discussion thread?
I don't like Lieberman either, but his Judaism isn't at stake problem.- Vermifax, on 06/25/2008, -3/+19There is no anti-Semitism here. There's anti-Zionism, for which i have no problem with.
If Lieberman really put his Judaism above politics and everything else....he'd be a good guy.
Lieberman traded his Judaism for Zionism years ago, which makes him a bad guy.
www.jewsagainstzionism.com - SuperMoses, on 06/25/2008, -0/+8"My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain - especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state." - Einstein
Lieberman is now a part of that group Einstein was talking about.
- Vermifax, on 06/25/2008, -3/+19There is no anti-Semitism here. There's anti-Zionism, for which i have no problem with.
- podoshj, on 06/26/2008, -7/+2I think you mean "self-hating" Jew.
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -19/+5As a fellow Jew, aren't offended by the antisemitism on this discussion thread?
- OffPiste, on 06/25/2008, -22/+12The people of Connecticut should not be allowed to vote for this man.
- Treoinmypocket, on 06/25/2008, -1/+14Thank you "Mr Democracy"
- superkendall, on 06/25/2008, -8/+9Are you listening to what you are saying?
Truly is the left the new and welcome home of Fascism, in its most naked form.- revisrev, on 06/25/2008, -3/+2No, this guy's just a *****.
Truly, is the new right the home of retardation it's most naked form?
No, the president is just a *****.
Generalizing is lazy.
- revisrev, on 06/25/2008, -3/+2No, this guy's just a *****.
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6Maybe they shouldn't have voted for him (which I agree) but who are you to deny your fellow Americans the right to vote?
- PeppermintPig, on 06/25/2008, -1/+1Good point. Will you defend my right to not live under state violence if I choose not to vote for my leaders?
- Niallgriff, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2I didn't vote for him...
- podoshj, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Your parents should not have been allowed to procreate.
- puas, on 06/25/2008, -17/+11This guy is a liar. He obviously ran as an independent because he didn't have a chance as a republican and now is doing the flipping. Ass H...
- ChristPissed, on 06/25/2008, -16/+28"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gate is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."
~Cicero discussing the current evil murderous U.S. Zionist Occupational Government, back in 45 BC- Iztikeit, on 06/25/2008, -4/+4You act as if he sold our country out to foreign interests. He has done nothing but turn his back on the Democratic party, which doesn't seem like a bad decision at all. (Nancy Pelosi, LOL!)
- neko6, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Actually, he was discussing the Muslims in Europe. Fits even better actually.
Amusingly enough, Cicero was a Roman in the times that they occupied Israel. - warpsmith, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1"Zionist Occupational Government"? Did you really just haul out that old neo-nazi *****? Are you serious?
For anyone NOT familiar with the evil garbage this creep just invoked, here's the first paragraph from the "Zionist Occupational Government" page on wikipedia:
"Zionist Occupation Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory according to which Jews secretly control a country, while the formal government is a puppet regime. This expression is often used by various antisemitic groups including neo-Nazis in the United States[1] and Europe,[2] ultra-nationalists such as Pamyat in Russia and right-wing groups in Poland[3] and Sweden."
In other words, get *****, skinhead. - trammellsfriend, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0No, he is right. The Neocons are mostly Israeli duel citizens: Sayanims that serve the star of David first, the US second. Don't believe me? Check it out: http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html
And Joe Lieberman supports this group through his foreign policy agenda. He wants to Iraq Iran.
- gtluke, on 06/25/2008, -30/+24shows how far left the democrats have gone.
lieberman hasn't changed a bit since he was a vice presidential candidate, yet now he's considered right wing.
bunch of socialists you are, please move to a socialist country, stop trying to change my capitalist country.- 5urr3al5am, on 06/25/2008, -4/+6that's a real good point -- speak volumes about principles
- TinternAbbot, on 06/25/2008, -4/+6Hear hear.
- Nosferotu, on 06/25/2008, -1/+5I've always found it amusing that the people who stand most in support of 'capitalism' also seem to bitch the most about what capitalism ultimately leads to - things like exporting jobs overseas to seek the cheaper labor market, and enhance profits. These are symptoms of capitalism, friend. Socialism is what's bringing us things like free public education, what little health care we do provide for our people, help for victims of natural disasters, etc. etc. etc.
- zephyear, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1haha, "capitalist country"
it's not capitalist, it's corporatist- Danger668, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1You truly have no idea what you are talking about.
- gtluke, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2i fully support an entire capitalist society, even if it means i have to work harder to keep on working.
i'm sick of working hard and giving half my earnings to people who don't work hard, or don't work at all.
- Shao00, on 06/25/2008, -21/+60I can't digg this enough times. This guy is a RNC puppet and the senator for the state of israel.
- Zanzabar33, on 06/25/2008, -8/+8RNC?
- IanThal, on 06/25/2008, -8/+12No, he's the Senator from Connecticut-- they're the ones who voted for him.
- kara123, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0But whose money brought homeless to the voting stations?
- jcm267, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3He's just as much of an RNC puppet as Jim Jeffords was, moron.
- podoshj, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1RNC puppet?? LOL! You're a bright one, aren't you?
- soomprimal, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4When it comes to Israel, not a big difference between RNC or DNC. Both party members enthusiastically appear at AIPAC and both unconditionally support foreign aid and bias towards Israel.
- SunMB, on 06/25/2008, -22/+12Lieberman cost us the 2000 election when he made statements supporting the counting of absentee ballots from our military abroad which were not postmarked with a date, which gave Bush more votes. We can thank him for facilitating a presidency that led to this unecessary war which has cost trillions of dollars and, more imortantly, over 4,000 real human lives and for what??? What a mess we are in. Now McCain says we would go to a draft if this becomes WWIII--earlier, he said we were headed into WWIII. Israel wants us to go after IRAN, isn't that clear to every one? Lieberman/McCain = war in IRAN.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/25/2008, -5/+7"Lieberman cost us the 2000 election "
Your litigious loser of a candidate Albert Gore lost you the election in 2000. Time to MoveOn, no? - AhniTipesh, on 06/25/2008, -2/+5um... oh no, he wanted all of the votes to be counted democratically...
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/25/2008, -5/+7"Lieberman cost us the 2000 election "
- Indiedemo, on 06/25/2008, -9/+2Say it ain't so Joe. Where ya going with that gun in your hand?
- kaelyiesta, on 06/25/2008, -7/+9His argument that we should do the opposite of what our 'enemies' want is one of the most incredulous tactics our current politicians have been using recently. Its absurd. I recall how angry Ron Paul became after Wolf Blitzer implied that very mindless question about ceasing the occupation because insurgents wanted us to. How in the ***** can a rational individual even consider that argument? Its such an obvious logical fallacy that I get an urge to hurt these supposed 'journalists' who bring it up. MSM and these politicians are catering to ignorance and nursing unsound beliefs.
- rgranger, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3The argument isn't that we do the opposite of everything our enemy wants. They're saying we shouldn't just leave Iraq or do whatever it is our enemies want us to do just because they want us to do it. That's appeasement and that's WWII all over again.
- PHiZ187, on 06/25/2008, -10/+23Connecticut is as ashamed of Lieberman as we are proud of our other Senator Chris Dodd.
- Treoinmypocket, on 06/25/2008, -8/+9Chris "I got a special loan from Countrywide because I called the CEO but I didn't know it was SPECIAL treatment based upon my position - and why should I anyway? I'm only the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committe" Dodd?
That's who your proud of?- superkendall, on 06/25/2008, -5/+9It's a Democrat tradition to get favors for donations and not get called on it. Why would he not be proud?
- Nosferotu, on 06/25/2008, -4/+2Get over it - no politician is squeaky clean. Dodd's sins in the senate are hardly anything compared to what he IS doing - such as standing up against the whole retroactive immunity for telecom companies.
- Treoinmypocket, on 06/25/2008, -1/+4Oh I know they all have dirty hands but you'll have to excuse me if I not ready to excuse the ***** CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE for corruption AND stupidity on the ONE THING he is supposed to be regulating directly....BANKING!
- Dragular, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Treo you're missing the important part of this story. JEWS! THEY'RE HAVING OPINIONS!!!
- Gregus1032, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3lieberman is the reason why i hate to say from from CT =/
- rgranger, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1We know Dems don't like him because he actually sees reality and can take a step outside of the ideal box the democratic party is stuck in. Lieberman defeated party politics in connecticut and he's defeating them in washington.
- PHiZ187, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Yeah, reality, the conservatives strong suit. As you so aptly demonstrate.
- Treoinmypocket, on 06/25/2008, -8/+9Chris "I got a special loan from Countrywide because I called the CEO but I didn't know it was SPECIAL treatment based upon my position - and why should I anyway? I'm only the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committe" Dodd?
- EnigmaOX, on 06/25/2008, -16/+9Not sure who is he but he has a Jewish name..hmm
- Indiedemo, on 06/25/2008, -18/+3Dude, in "your" capitalistic country, you may feel free to "earn" the almighty dollar anyway you see fit, even if it contributes the lion's share to global warming. Have fun. Meanwhile the rest of us will do what we can to make the world a better place. Have a nice hot day.
- ftx437, on 06/25/2008, -2/+7HAHAHAHAHA wow way to turn that around...
Jacques Chirac is quoted as saying "By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance" about the kyoto protocol.
YEAH GLOBAL DOMINATION! /sarc - Treoinmypocket, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3You must live in China
- ftx437, on 06/25/2008, -2/+7HAHAHAHAHA wow way to turn that around...
- fvarbel, on 06/25/2008, -18/+26Out with the traitor.
- Iztikeit, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6TRAITOR? That's a little harsh. Changing mind =/= Traitor He has done nothing wrong or illegal against the country.
- Defuser, on 06/25/2008, -2/+6No shortage of morons in this thread, I see. The fact that an idiot like you thinks that bipartisanship makes someone a "traitor", added to the fact that you found even BIGGER idiots to Digg you Up, sums up just about everything that's wrong with Digg.
- fvarbel, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1A traitor to the nation who elected him, *****. He is an agent of the Israeli lobby.
- ancientshoes, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2he's a traitor to the glorious Party is what he meant
- rgranger, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Exactly, he means a traitor to the democrats. However, it shows his complete ignorance to politics. In fact he's quite the opposite. His party voted him out of office, but he came back and won as an independent. Then instead of turning his back on the party that betrayed him, he loyally went back to those who hated him.
TRAITOR is the Democratic Party, not Lieberman.
- chrissku, on 06/25/2008, -18/+13I beg the people of Connecticut to vote Lieberman out of office in 2012. PLEASE. He's nothing more than a Republican spinster now.
- jcm267, on 06/25/2008, -4/+4He votes with the Democratic caucus. He had the option to give the Republicans the majority in the Senate but instead let the Democrats have it. Please take your falsehoods elsewhere.
- PowerPaulPayOff, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2He is out in 2012 if I can help it, the self interest crook...
- ftx437, on 06/25/2008, -18/+15wow you people go after anyone who doesn't agree with you...so much for bipartisan..this rate will never get anything done
- Olfster, on 06/25/2008, -4/+1You always have the Faux News website. I hear Mr. Rove has some stuff there. You might be able to make comments on his BS articles.
- zephyear, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2bipartisanship is when a republican stands up and says "I HAVE A REALLY BAD IDEA" and a democrat stands up and says "AND I CAN MAKE IT EVEN *****"
- tammanycall, on 08/03/2008, -0/+1He's a liar. When he was campaigning for the Senate as an "Independent", he said he would support the Democratic presidential nominee, Democrats in Congress, and Democratic issues --that's why Conn. felt comfortable voting for him. Now he's doing whatever he can to support the Republican nominee.
Yeah, we're pissed. He's not getting re-elected.
- gab00n, on 06/25/2008, -12/+4I've been saying it for months, Lieberman will be the next VP.
- jcm267, on 06/25/2008, -1/+2He would certainly mollify one of Obama's biggest weaknesses, but Lieberman is good friends with McCain. I'm not sure if he'd agree to campaign against him.
- cabdirazzaq, on 06/25/2008, -6/+20We become shocked but in reality, there are dozens of Lieberman out there making all the shots. The only difference is that they work behind doors. These people control the media and they have de facto given their approval of Mr. Obama following his AIPAC appearances. Nader said it best, if Obama continues to censor himself to appeal to these people, his views will sooner or later become like theirs.
He (Obama) went from accurately describing the Palestinians as "the most oppressed people" to claiming that their oppression was due to themselves.- neko6, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1"He (Obama) went from accurately describing the Palestinians as "the most oppressed people" to claiming that their oppression was due to themselves." - the two are not contradicting. They are oppressed harshly because they started a war and refused to end it. If Japan wouldn't have surrendered from 1945 until today, I assure you they would have been more oppressed.
Somehow the Palestinians have the nerve to attempt genocide of the Jews, refuse to sign a peace treaty, and then cry about their loses.- StopPre, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Seriously, try studying a little middle eastern history. both sides have comitted attrocities (sabra and shatila anyone?) Both sides are at fault, nobody's innocent
- trammellsfriend, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Neko6, try reading history a little. Or are you just planting this ***** as a racist pig?
- neko6, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1"He (Obama) went from accurately describing the Palestinians as "the most oppressed people" to claiming that their oppression was due to themselves." - the two are not contradicting. They are oppressed harshly because they started a war and refused to end it. If Japan wouldn't have surrendered from 1945 until today, I assure you they would have been more oppressed.
- superkendall, on 06/25/2008, -16/+7I'd say realist rather than "War Hawk".
- TimeIsTissue, on 06/25/2008, -9/+3Because he is turning republican (and admitting it) he must go?
- booyahbitch, on 06/25/2008, -3/+6Because he is turning republican and NOT admitting it, and trying to use the leverage to make the Dems do his master's bidding (that would be Bush!)
- paralentor, on 06/25/2008, -8/+29Ever notice Lieberman and his bedfellow William Kristol have that same Jack Nicholson Joker smile. Isn't it obvious they are cold blooded reptilians in disguise. These duel Israeli-American citizens just chant war year after year. Israel should be able to handle it's own affairs without 30 billion a year coming from middle class tax payers.
- poprocksandsoda, on 06/25/2008, -5/+5When you voted Gore-Lieberman in 2000 you were too dumb to make this ignorant assertation?
- Infidelcastr0, on 06/25/2008, -7/+2Oh Noez. Jew-Lizards from Planet X!!!111!one
Seriously though, ***** all neocons.- DrDreyfus, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1Shut the ***** up you ignorant *****.
- Infidelcastr0, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
- DrDreyfus, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1Shut the ***** up you ignorant *****.
- RC155, on 06/25/2008, -10/+22Lieberman - just Another Mossad sleeper cell called into action.
- DrDreyfus, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Exactly! All Jews are solely loyal to the Jewish nation. They cannot function within our society.
I for one, would like to do away with their citizenship and have them made to identify their true nationality.
- DrDreyfus, on 06/26/2008, -1/+3Exactly! All Jews are solely loyal to the Jewish nation. They cannot function within our society.
- FeargusMcDuff, on 06/25/2008, -6/+5Not very republican of him to kiss Bush! Maybe he's a double agent...
- rapcrap187, on 06/25/2008, -8/+10Ummm, I'm from Connecticut and I despise having Leiberman represent me but anyways. He didn't run as a democrat because Ned Lamont was our Democrat choice, he ran as the Connecticut for Lieberman party and somehow still won(cough rigged election, you shoulda seen the Lamont support) anyways what is this dude have to do with the democrat party
- ender7074, on 06/25/2008, -4/+7Awesome! Another lib calling an election rigged when the left wing nut doesnt win. Awesome, you guys truly are the party of freedom. /sarcasm
- Nosferotu, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2Awesome! You burned him good. Awesome, you sure are good at not really saying anything. : )
- ender7074, on 06/25/2008, -4/+7Awesome! Another lib calling an election rigged when the left wing nut doesnt win. Awesome, you guys truly are the party of freedom. /sarcasm
- Treoinmypocket, on 06/25/2008, -10/+15I find it laughable how many people accuse Lieberman of being a Republican puppet. You should ask the Republicans how much they like him...
I would have to assume that you would also argue that the gang of 14 be expelled from their respective parties for disloyalty. McCain too right?
I love Democrats for their love of dissent, freedom and independence!
Oh look! There Nancy Pelosi trying to crush the Freedom of the Press with the Fairness Doctrine...- mcsenget, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1oh wait. there's McCain and Feingold trying to tell all of us how we can spend our money in support of a candidate.
- tammanycall, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2Supporting the Iraq War is a Republican issue. Supporting the Republican candidate supports the Republicans. Perpetuating heinous lies about the Democratic candidate supports the Republicans.
It doesn't matter how much Republicans like him (we know they don't) but this behavior is not the behavior of an Independent. It is not the behavior of a Democrat. It is the behavior of an anti-Democrat, and we don't need that nonsense in our caucus. Let him try and make friends with the Republicans and see how welcoming they are once he's no longer useful to them as a *****-stirrer.
- bbtrev, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6Lieberman plays Warhawk?? Sweet....
- Iztikeit, on 06/25/2008, -1/+6Democrats and Republicans have changed political views. Dems were once the ones running around guns ablaze, now that role has changed.
- kenedamick, on 06/25/2008, -11/+18Senator Joe Lieberman = Senator Palpatine
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9You = Lumpy from 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special
- cnot3, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2Does that make John McCain Itchy, Chewbacca's father?
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3"Does that make John McCain Itchy, Chewbacca's father?"
I don't think so. But it does make Nancy Pelosi Ackmena and Kevin Rose The Great Zorbak.
BTW, "Whatever, I can't wait for Tambourine Hero" = funniest comment of the day.
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/25/2008, -1/+3"Does that make John McCain Itchy, Chewbacca's father?"
- kenedamick, on 06/25/2008, -2/+1You are correct, sir.
- cnot3, on 06/25/2008, -2/+2Does that make John McCain Itchy, Chewbacca's father?
- Nosferotu, on 06/25/2008, -3/+3I thought I was the only one who had gotten that distinct impression, even from his appearance!
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 06/25/2008, -1/+9You = Lumpy from 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special
- vbullinger, on 06/25/2008, -7/+1I agree:
http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/2006/12/lieberman- ...
http://www.nwotruth.com/lieberman-sends-letter-to- ... - http://youtube.com/watch?v=8JmXanwQLk8
http://www.google.com/search?q=lieberman+new+world ... - JK1150, on 06/25/2008, -5/+9remove lieberman from the caucus? you should all know that if he is removed from the caucus, the senate will become 50-49-1. Then, if he gets angry and caucus's with the republicans, the senate becomes 50-50, with cheney having the overriding vote thereby giving the republicans the majority...
- kanabiis, on 06/25/2008, -2/+11Yea, fine job that Democratic majority has done, I loved it when they Impeached Bush, and remember how they got us out of Iraq as soon as they took over....
majority is a joke. - defwheezer, on 06/25/2008, -0/+2Without Lieberman, the Dems loose their majority. That simple. Raw politics. We can only hope that in Nov there will be a decisive Dem sweep and then Lieberman will be thrown out of the Dem party like yesterdays garbage.
- JK1150, on 06/25/2008, -0/+1lieberman would have to caucus with the GOP in order to tie the senate. i would think he might consider that if the dems stripped him of a
- kanabiis, on 06/25/2008, -2/+11Yea, fine job that Democratic majority has done, I loved it when they Impeached Bush, and remember how they got us out of Iraq as soon as they took over....