Sen. Joe Lieberman will be endorsing John McCain

[chance1]

oh yeah almost forgot

driving in my car coming back from my tennis match tonite (I won btw) and I have XM Radio (it blows btw) and there's a comedy station on

comedian says "how come Jews wear yarmulkes?"
answer:

so god can see them from up above

i laughed out loud

thought midnight would like that one

 

[smelter]

is hating jews and israel racist btw? not sure

Come to think of it, I'm not either! I've heard of 'The Jewish race' many times but it might be a misnomer. Good question there, bucko!

 

[Kurn]

^
The Jewish people can be thought of as racially rooted in the dispersion that came about after about 70 CE, stemming from those territories that composed the old kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
They were also "racial" in their Medieval European contexts in the sense that they stood out in their appearance from other people among whom they lived.

It is assumed that their racial background is highly mixed. This is a complex question partly due to the fact that the population of 1st Century southern Syria was itself quite mixed. In other words, along with brown-featured individuals, you might encounter fair-skinned and red-haired individuals in or near the area that the NT refers to as Gallilee.
Besides that, of course, there was mixing deriving from wherever they settled although not so much as to completely invalidate a notion of genetic/racial roots---in general. Being Jewish is also cultural and sometimes outsiders would be attracted and would convert to being Jewish.

"Jewish" is not incorrectly thought of as "racial." It's just more complex than "just that."

 

[Kurn]

ICO7: Christianity and Islam are of course not racial categories. HOWEVER! The histories of both religions, if we go into ethnological specifics, is strongly colored by racial mythologies which go a long way to explain the variations that are found in 'Christian' and 'Muslim' cultures.

 

[Lostlover]

Wow, from the stuff I'm reading being typed from LostLover of all people, you'd think there has been a sea change of political climate and what opinions are now "OK" to express on JUB lately...

What did I type wrong?

Lieberman is pro-Israel to the max and it's blinding his judgment. To me and I think most aware people you have to wonder which country he swears his allegiance to? America or Israel?

He said it himself at the McCain rally that he doesn't agree with anything McCain stands for except the Iraq war.

Cheney (oil) is in denial about Iraq. McCain is stubborn and in denial about Iraq. Lieberman is NOT in denial about Iraq he just thinks it creates a better situation for Israel and the middle east (I'm paraphrasing him there).

Who would support this kind of poisonous thinking?

This is the same Lieberman who is going at it gung ho for America to attack Iran.

Lieberman is even more hawkish about Iran than Bush. He's supporting a candidate that he shares one policy opinion with from ANOTHER party.

Did he not learn from the mistakes of the Iraq war or maybe he has other [STRIKE]hidden[/STRIKE] motives?

 

[Homoaffectional]

What did I type wrong?

Um, DUDE... for once you're typing a lot of RIGHT things... I'm just checking to see if aliens haven't abducted you and replaced you with a different Lostlover.

Lieberman is pro-Israel to the max and it's blinding his judgment. To me and I think most aware people you have to wonder which country he swears his allegiance to? America or Israel?

He said it himself at the McCain rally that he doesn't agree with anything McCain stands for except the Iraq war.

Cheney (oil) is in denial about Iraq. McCain is stubborn and in denial about Iraq. Lieberman is NOT in denial about Iraq he just thinks it creates a better situation for Israel and the middle east (I'm paraphrasing him there).

Who would support this kind of poisonous thinking?

This is the same Lieberman who is going at it gung ho for America to attack Iran.

Lieberman is even more hawkish about Iran than Bush. He's supporting a candidate that he shares one policy opinion with from ANOTHER party.

Did he not learn from the mistakes of the Iraq war or maybe he has other [strike]hidden[/strike] motives?

You *DO* know that a little over six months ago, you yourself were the "Lieberman" of the board? ... which should illustrate to the person who started this thread how many people have changed their minds not only about Lieberman the person, but the stupidity that he still backs, regardless of how more and more isolated it makes him, despite the OP's protestations to the contrary.

Congrats man, on joining the side of sanity.

 

[Lostlover]

Um, DUDE... for once you're typing a lot of RIGHT things... I'm just checking to see if aliens haven't abducted you and replaced you with a different Lostlover.




You *DO* know that a little over six months ago, you yourself were the "Lieberman" of the board? ... which should illustrate to the person who started this thread how many people have changed their minds not only about Lieberman the person, but the stupidity that he still backs, regardless of how more and more isolated it makes him, despite the OP's protestations to the contrary.

Congrats man, on joining the side of sanity.

Lieberman stands for nothing but Israel.

Liberman doesn't even know which party he belongs in.

I like to think of myself as rational and independent thinking something Lieberman lacks.

Anytime a politician blindly backs a country, especially one that we're giving the most aid to, we must be concerned about treason, espionage and disloyalty.

Lieberman is getting there... not quite but almost there. I can cut him some slack because of his age though but that's running out too, even quicker than his credibility.

 

[Sausy]

I think there is a better position than to be reflexively pro-Israel or reflexively anti-Israel.Joe Lieberman was a great Democrat until he allowed his opposition of Islamic extremism to cloud his thinking...supporting policies that have been at best badly implimented and at worst had no legitimacy.Israel has no oil,but yet is our best friend there...one who has enemies who would work for its demise,one who of course has its own interests to look after.I don't support Israel without exception,though and its intransigence,and that of supporters like Joe Lieberman does it more harm than good.

But I think some of the anti-Israel talk has a more bigoted,hateful underlying edge,and that is appalling in my view.A good friend will tell someone that they aren't always right,they can be mistaken and the Democratic party is poorer for the loss of Lieberman as a credible,sensible voice.I'm not so sure I like where the other side is going to take the Democrats if they snare control of the party's foreign policy agenda.

 

[Lostlover]

I think there is a better position than to be reflexively pro-Israel or reflexively anti-Israel.Joe Lieberman was a great Democrat until he allowed his opposition of Islamic extremism to cloud his thinking...supporting policies that have been at best badly implimented and at worst had no legitimacy.Israel has no oil,but yet is our best friend there...one who has enemies who would work for its demise,one who of course has its own interests to look after.I don't support Israel without exception,though and its intransigence,and that of supporters like Joe Lieberman does it more harm than good.

But I think some of the anti-Israel talk has a more bigoted,hateful underlying edge,and that is appalling in my view.A good friend will tell someone that they aren't always right,they can be mistaken and the Democratic party is poorer for the loss of Lieberman as a credible,sensible voice.I'm not so sure I like where the other side is going to take the Democrats if they snare control of the party's foreign policy agenda.

Lieberman was going to go anyways to the dark side. He left. It was in him all along, he's just no longer pretending to be in a party he doesn't belong to.

I remember hearing on CNN a couple of years ago some young Saudis saying that Jewish politicians and presidents of TV stations run America and are the reason for the pro-Israel bias. I thought to myself "no way."

Well with Lieberman, some of these once outlandish statements are now becoming real.

 

[smelter]

The elephant in the room is the think tank PNAC, Project for the New American Century. It was the natal force behind the invasion of Iraq. Below is a link to their website Statement of Principles. It has an interesting list of signatories. After reading it, ask yourself if the Iraq war was all but a foregone conclusion when George W. Bush was elected President.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Then read the letter sent to President Clinton in 1998:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

 

[White Eagle]

Other than opinterph's jump in, i don't see many JUBBERs rushing to ur defense - which is curious given ur anti republican establishment nature

Your comments r what they r

not gonna list them all AGAIN - I do each time

u r what u say/do

and u r no exception

as for "being clear" not to worry - clear as day

and looking into Ron Paul's past I see many similarities in his views

which is interesting and worth pursuing

and as they say (I'm paraphrasing) midnight - me think doth potest too much

back to Lieberman

wanting to win in Iraq is not a negative

voting Republican on economic issues is not a negative

it is a POV

one u may not agree with

but it is not defacto a negative

except in the wonderful land of JUB

which is upside down and bizarro

I don't agree with a lot of things with midnight but I will on his Lieberman/Israel stance. Lieberman is too focused on Israel. The US is giving Israel too much money for my tastes. Israel can afford to buy all the weapons it wants, they do not need us to help them.

 

[Homoaffectional]

Lieberman even quicker than his credibility.

I think the OP realizes how outnumbered he is when even you are saying things like that, Lostlover.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm pretty sure I just got insulted

did I??

and could u explain it so that even dumb old me can understand?

???

We're talking about Lieberman and McCain.

 

[Kulindahr]

The elephant in the room is the think tank PNAC, Project for the New American Century. It was the natal force behind the invasion of Iraq. Below is a link to their website Statement of Principles. It has an interesting list of signatories. After reading it, ask yourself if the Iraq war was all but a foregone conclusion when George W. Bush was elected President.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Then read the letter sent to President Clinton in 1998:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Whoa.

Like the Devil, they mix truth and lies very subtly.

 

[PSCGuy]

^ good for Joe

good for John

both very honorable men

who do what they think is right

not necessarily what their party wants

wonder if mccain has any juice left?

Joe Lieberman can endorse John McCain all he wants. But the fact is in 2006 when he was trying to defeat Ned Lamont, Lieberman said he was more committed to winning a Democratic majority in Congress and electing a Democrat into the WH in 2008.

Lieberman flat out lied to the people of Connecticut, and he expects nothing but congratulations for being a traitor to his state and party, and most importantly his constituents. He painted himself as the 'better' Democrat because he'd be better for the party, at least more than Lamont.

He's full of crap. If he wants to be a Republican, called himself one and stop tarnishing the name "Democrat."

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Maybe endorsing McCain is his way of trying to get a Democrat in the White House.

 

[chance1]

Joe Lieberman can endorse John McCain all he wants. But the fact is in 2006 when he was trying to defeat Ned Lamont, Lieberman said he was more committed to winning a Democratic majority in Congress and electing a Democrat into the WH in 2008.

Lieberman flat out lied to the people of Connecticut, and he expects nothing but congratulations for being a traitor to his state and party, and most importantly his constituents. He painted himself as the 'better' Democrat because he'd be better for the party, at least more than Lamont.

He's full of crap. If he wants to be a Republican, called himself one and stop tarnishing the name "Democrat."

traitor?

cuz he disagrees with his party's establishment? if he believes John McCain is the best person for the job ............ what is ur problem with that? if he believes that then he should support someone else?

give me a break

it's so childish to use word like traitor against a man who votes/speaks about his convictions rather than party bullshit

and instead of congratulating him - u ridicule him

ur such a hypocrite

he doesn't want to be a republican - he wants to follow his beliefs

which is called our system of govt

voting party lines is bullshit

voting ur conscience is brave

yeesh

 

[PSCGuy]

^^^ Yes voting your conscience is brave. And no Lieberman doesn't have to be tied to what the Democratic Party says. I am a far-left winger, and I have to say Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) is one of my favorite congresspeople, though he sometimes disappoints me. As is Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA). Both are Blue Dog Democrats.

You know why? Because neither of them pretends to be something they are not. Joe Lieberman lied to the people of Connecticut by insinuating that he was the Democratic candidate (calling himself an independent Democrat, which doesn't exist). My problem with him is pretending to be something he is not. He is a neo-conservative.

traitor - one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

Lieberman committed to electing a Democrat to the White House in 2008. That was a pledge to the citizens of his state and the members of his alleged party. If it walks like a traitor and talks like a traitor. (I wasn't implying he was a traitor to the country.)

....

^ Maybe endorsing McCain is his way of trying to get a Democrat in the White House.

Yeah I'm sure that's it.

 

[chance1]

^^^ Yes voting your conscience is brave. And no Lieberman doesn't have to be tied to what the Democratic Party says. I am a far-left winger, and I have to say Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) is one of my favorite congresspeople, though he sometimes disappoints me. As is Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA). Both are Blue Dog Democrats.

You know why? Because neither of them pretends to be something they are not. Joe Lieberman lied to the people of Connecticut by insinuating that he was the Democratic candidate (calling himself an independent Democrat, which doesn't exist). My problem with him is pretending to be something he is not. He is a neo-conservative.

traitor - one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

Lieberman committed to electing a Democrat to the White House in 2008. That was a pledge to the citizens of his state and the members of his alleged party. If it walks like a traitor and talks like a traitor. (I wasn't implying he was a traitor to the country.)

....




Yeah I'm sure that's it.

an independent democrat doesn't exist? wanna explain that one further?

dude - the voters of CT knew/know Joe Lieberman - he's been their senator for a loooooong time - no getting to know u - he hasn't changed - the dem party has changed - as in kissing ass to the loons - he won't do it - good for him - no surprises there

if Joe L feels that none of the dem primary candidates will keep america safe, then it is his obligation to support whom he believes will

it's his right

it's his duty

it's called freedom of speech and of thought - and just as u own, so does he

the traitor thing is just wrong

 

[PSCGuy]

^^^

I'll tell you why there is no such thing as an "Independent Democrat."

A "Democrat" is the member of the Democratic Party. An "Independent" is a voter associated with neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party. And ne'er the twain shall meet. It's as simple as that.

And how do you claim that the Connecticut voters know Joe Lieberman? Politicians never change their minds, or their positions? Whenever a politician wins one term, than their constituency knows them perfectly? That claim doesn't make sense at all.