Obama wants to keep Lieberman!

[Bass v 2.0]

This is a smart move. Loserman does vote normally with the Dems. Makes Obama look more like a leader who can forgive when needed. Let his underlings do the dirty work. Same as the XO and the CO in the military.

LMAO, deluded neocons are the biggest conspiracy theorists in America.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

There are LOT more Democrats that need to be dumped before you get to Lieberman if you're talking responsible leadership.

Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Reid, Byrd, Kennedy ....

While the Republicans were arguably the fastest at throwing their own undr the bus if their name just mentioned, that pursuing their agenda line is a joke. Had they pursued the agenda they promised, they'd still be in power.

I didn't mean to imply they should dump responsible democrats from the republican perspective .. although I agree that Pelosi and Reid are pretty worthless as leaders.

But Lieberman isn't a democrat and he's already proven that he can't be trusted.

As far as republicans, unfortunately for them they did indeed get accomplished much of what they wanted .. and that is the problem. What they wanted tax cuts, war, tax cuts, unregulated markets, tax cuts, cowboy "we don't need no fucking world" aggression .. and tax cuts .. have led to their downfall.

It ain't the democrats fault that republicans didn't control the neocon influence that took over your party.

 

[editec]

Lieberman vote D in most issues.

His hardliner position FOR Isreal is no problem with the Obama administration.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Lieberman vote D in most issues.

His hardliner position FOR Isreal is no problem with the Obama administration.

Which is why Losermann voted in favour of the war in Iraq. just goes to show that some of these so-called liberal Jews are really more for self than the noble causes they claim to represent.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Lieberman vote D in most issues.

His hardliner position FOR Isreal is no problem with the Obama administration.

You're right about him and Obama having no problem with his hardliner approach to Israel .. Obama is an Israeli hardliner himself .. however, Lieberman voting D most times doesn't qualify him for a leadership position. A lot more responsible actual democrats vote D most of the time .. who can also be trusted.

With friends like Lieberman, who needs enemies. The adage has never been more appropriate.

 

[editec]

I expect Lieberman will be rewarded with some Congressional leadership position or the other.

Obama is going to need allies in Congress if he is going to advance is domestic agenda.

US influence in the world is going to decline because we cannot afford to continue being the policeman of the world.

I fully expect that Obama is going to focus his attention on domestic issues...unlike most presidents.

Consider that Obama is the first POTUS to have ever been on welfare.

I can't help but think this is going to effect his view of the purpose of government in a way that no other so-called liberal President has ever had.

 

[Silence]

Who cares what Bush would do? Bush isn't President-elect, nor is he courting Lieberman's senate vote.

Obama is.

Get used to hearing that. We've been hearing it in regard to Clinton since 2000. Your Congress. Your President. Bush is irrelevant. He's a lame duck. All he's got left is the traditional list of pardons.

Anyone would assume that whoever was President-elect would want teh senate vote. The BS here is a leftwingnut trying to say it's NOT a partisan move.

I'd have never pegged you for one of those Gunny...

It's a partisan move to be sure. Obama is smart enough to not cut his nose off to spite his face. Lieberman also isn't dumb enough to go against the Democrats in Congress because if he does he'll be one of the millions out of work I'm sure.

That said it shows a level of maturity sorely lacking in the last two administrations by demonstrating his willingness to try to get beyond the fact that this man publically questioned Obama's patriotism and said he might be a marxist and other really rotten things he said.

 

[AVG-JOE]

uh, that is utter bullshit
Bush reached accross the aisle so many times

thats why so many conservatives were PISSED at him

I disagree DC. I view Bush as the most partisan American leader in my lifetime. He may have compromised some with the democrats in congress, especially the last half of his administration, but I believe he will go down in history as the partisan president who was more interested in rewarding his friends and 'loyal Bushies' than employing competent people in the bureaucracy he was hired to manage. FEMA during Katrina is the most visible example.

Conservatives are PISSED at him because he mismanaged and used their party for personal gain as successfully as he mismanaged and used our government for personal gain.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

There are LOT more Democrats that need to be dumped before you get to Lieberman if you're talking responsible leadership.

Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Reid, Byrd, Kennedy ....

While the Republicans were arguably the fastest at throwing their own undr the bus if their name just mentioned, that pursuing their agenda line is a joke. Had they pursued the agenda they promised, they'd still be in power.

'Nuff said. Thanks Gunny.

-Joe

 

[jillian]

Which is why Losermann voted in favour of the war in Iraq. just goes to show that some of these so-called liberal Jews are really more for self than the noble causes they claim to represent.

And once again, your hatred makes you stupid.... Lieberman has never been a liberal. He's a conservative member of the religious right. Just because the religion is different, doesn't mean he's too far advanced over the christian right. He just has a bit of a more defined sense of social justice. But in every other area, whether the war on Iraq or school vouchers or any of the other religious right's agenda, he's not too far removed.

But keep spewing... you and the few others on this board who think every subject, and every comment has to mention jews... who are all of 1.5 percent of the population of this country.

Nutcase... but doesn't surprise me since you're a freak anyway.

 

[jillian]

There are LOT more Democrats that need to be dumped before you get to Lieberman if you're talking responsible leadership.

Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Reid, Byrd, Kennedy ....

While the Republicans were arguably the fastest at throwing their own undr the bus if their name just mentioned, that pursuing their agenda line is a joke. Had they pursued the agenda they promised, they'd still be in power.

LOL..... let me know when you decide Boehner needs to be dumped....and Mitch McConnell. I don't recall ever hearing that Trent Lott needed to be dumped, or any of the other right wing nutcases who wouldn't put a bill to a vote unless it could be passed without a single democrat.

Worry about cleaning your own house before you worry about cleaning ours.

As for throwing people under the bus, the only people the rabid right threw under the bus were the ones with sex scandals, because they made the religious right cranky. And THAT is typical right wing partisanship... you know, the same lunatics who thought it was a good idea to impeach a popular president because they didn't like the election results.

And the reason your guys lost is really easy... Bush was a screw up. And McCain didn't seem up to the task once the economy crashed. And his choice of Palin drove the middle away in droves.

It doesn't mean the next repub you run doesn't win. It just means this particular one couldn't in this particular election cycle.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I expect Lieberman will be rewarded with some Congressional leadership position or the other.

Obama is going to need allies in Congress if he is going to advance is domestic agenda.

US influence in the world is going to decline because we cannot afford to continue being the policeman of the world.

I fully expect that Obama is going to focus his attention on domestic issues...unlike most presidents.

Consider that Obama is the first POTUS to have ever been on welfare.

I can't help but think this is going to effect his view of the purpose of government in a way that no other so-called liberal President has ever had.

True. Say what you want about Lieberman, but he has a level of respect from both parties. Obama doesn't need him per se, but I would rather see him befriend Lieberman than many of the democratic party faithful senators. Also, Big John may have lost his bid for president, but he is still the default leader of the republicans - Lieberman would make an excellent ambassador between the two.

Very interesting thought on Obama being the first president to have experienced the government social safety net first-hand... I hadn't considered it.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

LOL..... let me know when you decide Boehner needs to be dumped....and Mitch McConnell. I don't recall ever hearing that Trent Lott needed to be dumped, or any of the other right wing nutcases who wouldn't put a bill to a vote unless it could be passed without a single democrat.

Worry about cleaning your own house before you worry about cleaning ours.

As for throwing people under the bus, the only people the rabid right threw under the bus were the ones with sex scandals, because they made the religious right cranky. And THAT is typical right wing partisanship... you know, the same lunatics who thought it was a good idea to impeach a popular president because they didn't like the election results.

And the reason your guys lost is really easy... Bush was a screw up. And McCain didn't seem up to the task once the economy crashed. And his choice of Palin drove the middle away in droves.

It doesn't mean the next repub you run doesn't win. It just means this particular one couldn't in this particular election cycle.

I know that I agreed with Gunny on his end of this response but you make a very valid couple of points too Jillian. The cockroaches of favoritism and corruption are neither right-handed or left-handed, both sides are of the aisle are infested.

-Joe

 

[BlackAsCoal]

But keep spewing... you and the few others on this board who think every subject, and every comment has to mention jews... who are all of 1.5 percent of the population of this country.

I mention it a lot .. but hatred has nothing to do with it.

I take the position that many jewish people take on hardliner Israeli influence within our government .. and I think the questions are legitimate, serious, and worth discussing.

I try to carefully distinguish between the Israeli government, which I do have a problem with, and the jewish people, whom I do not have a problem with.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Might I add that I saw first hand jewish influence in the civil rights movement. African-Americans and this nation are indeed indebted to that influence.

I belong to a group of professional black men and every year we nominate and select a Person of the Year .. and every year I would nominate Barry Scheck for his extrodinary work with the Innocence Project. I was determined that he was going to win .. and two years ago, he did.

Admittedly, I'm real proud of myself for doing that, but I was even prouder of my organization and the brothers who acknowledged his work and importance.

My point is that "anti-semitism", "anti-jewish", and hate have nothing to do with the legitimate questions of Israeli hardliner influence present in both mainstream corporate political parties.

 

[Red Dawn]

Which is why Losermann voted in favour of the war in Iraq. just goes to show that some of these so-called liberal Jews are really more for self than the noble causes they claim to represent.

WTF are you talking about? Lieberman is neither a liberal, nor is he anymore or anyless moronic than all the white christians who support the iraq war.

I don't get why jews keep getting blamed for the Iraq war. American jews have been opposed to this war in ratios that outpace the american public at large. And that goes all the way back to the beginning of the war.

Though critics charge that Jewish interests were partially responsible for the push to war with Iraq, Jewish Americans are actually more strongly opposed to the Iraq war than any other major religious group or even most Americans. The greater opposition to the war is not simply a result of high Democratic identification among U.S. Jews, as Jews of all political persuasions are more likely to oppose the war than non-Jews who share the same political leanings.

wikipedia

Edit....

Among Religious Groups, Jewish Americans Most Strongly Oppose War

Gallup Polls

http://www.gallup.com/poll/26677/Am...ewish-Americans-Most-Strongly-Oppose-War.aspx

 

[editec]

I don't get why jews keep getting blamed for the Iraq war. American jews have been opposed to this war in ratios that outpace the american public at large. And that goes all the way back to the beginning of the war.

You don't?

Well, I'm some kind of Christian, and one all too familiar with anti-Semitic thinking, so let me try to explain it to you, shall I?

You see, the "the Jews poison the well" charge was wearing a little thin since so few villiagers depend on the public well, now, so they just invented another charge to hang on the Jews.

 

[Red Dawn]

You don't?

Well, I'm some kind of Christian, and one all too familiar with anti-Semitic thinking, so let me try to explain it to you, shall I?

You see, the "the Jews poison the well" charge was wearing a little thin since so few villiagers depend on the public well, now, so they just invented another charge to hang on the Jews.

Its total B.S.

Broadly speaking, from my perspective anyway, jewish americans deserve to be saluted for their opposition to the Iraq war. Their opposition to Bush's war outpaced that of any other religious group, and in fact outpaced americans in general.

If we have to break people out into identity groups, jewish-americans deserve a salute for being pretty much the most anti-war demographic out there.

Why they get blamed for the war, is exactly how you depict is. Bias, stererotype, and misinformation.

 

[dilloduck]

Its total B.S.

Broadly speaking, from my perspective anyway, jewish americans deserve to be saluted for their opposition to the Iraq war. Their opposition to Bush's war outpaced that of any other religious group, and in fact outpaced americans in general.

If we have to break people out into identity groups, jewish-americans deserve a salute for being pretty much the most anti-war demographic out there.

Why they get blamed for the war, is exactly how you depict is. Bias, stererotype, and misinformation.

The Jews in the Bush administration certainly had no problem with it.

 

[Red Dawn]

The Jews in the Bush administration certainly had no problem with it.

Neither did the christians in the bush adminstration.

Let me get this straight: it is your contention that Paul Wolfowitz put a gun to Bush's head and forced him to invade iraq?

Or, is a more likely scenario, that all the christians in the Bush administration wanted to invade iraq no matter what, and simply populated their administration with like-minded fools?

The second option sounds more plausible to me.