Some DUers don't know the "truth" about Lieberman?

[Khephra]

BS.

I'm tired of having his record shoved in my face like that's all it should take to forget and forgive him for everything else that he's done.

Lieberman supporters, let me ask you about "the truth" for once instead of it being thrown in our face all the freeping time.

..................

LIEBERMAN -- THE “TRUTHS” IGNORED BY HIS SUPPORTERS

1-- Lieberman has attacked entertainment industry in ways that many of us consider to be close to an attempt at censorship. We’re supposed to shut up about this one, right? Yeah, us free speech supporters are SUCH pains.

Strangely enough, after attacking the entertainment industry for all these years, Joe is silent on the matter of the Army's FPS which trains kids on how to kill (if you listened to some of Joe's earlier arguments) by using this game. Can you say "moral hypocrite"? I knew you could.


2 -- Lieberman stood up during the Impeachment and gave the GOP ammo to bash Clinton with by siding with the GOP against Clinton's morals. This was an early case of him helping the enemy by giving them ammo against another Democrat.

3 -- Lieberman has stated that he wanted to attack Iraq before Bush was in office, which if you think this wasn’t valid, it sure wasn’t before now either. Lieberman thinks that Bush is on the way to giving "a good war a bad name". (anti-war people should forget this fact and just “get over it“?)

4 -- Joe supports vouchers and faith-based programs, an issue that many, many DUers are against and see as a breakdown of the church and state, or I guess that’s not as important as his voting record, now is it? Stand outside here with us people who don’t fit into any conventional religion and tell us that again, ok?

You wanna talk about religion? So many of us have been accused of being anti-religous or anti-Semetic, well try being Pagan sometime. Judaism IS one of the world‘s major religions, you know. Step outside here with some of the us other non-Judaeo/Christians and see how much we need the wall to remain strong and maybe you’ll understand what the early Christians and Jews understood, which some of you all seem to have forgotten.

...................

Tell me, is this the TRUTH as well as your truth, dear Lieberman supporters? Or is this all false?

Any one of them is a good reason in some of our minds to never vote or support Joe. PLEASE tell me that we're not entitled to forming opinions based on THESE "truths" too?

[RetroLounge]

1. Well said, Khephra

thank you...

[ShaneGR]

2. khephra..... where are these Lieberman supporters???

I certainly haven't seen them. They certainly aren't even a tiny minority on this board.

[Khephra]

7. They're here....

and the amazing thing is thier arguments are strangely one-note...

[ShaneGR]

18. WHERE????

Don't see them.... YOOHOOO! LIEBERMAN supporters? Where you at?????


Told you, none here.

[jiacinto]

39. She's probably talking about me

I am a Dean supporter, but I defend Lieberman against the cyberlynching the man has received at this board. The Lieberman haters have bullied away anyone who might have any positive feelings about the man.

It is unfair that Lieberman has been so brutally attacked here. I don't think he can beat Bush and I don't like his recent behavior, but he is not the monster people here make him out to be either.

[Khephra]

52. Carlos! I'm shocked!

I thought all the old-timers knew I was a HE by now.

lol...that's ok...it happens all the time.

Not just you, Carlos...not just you.

[bearfan454]

91. Lieberman is a DINO I don't care who says what.

He votes for the repukes all the time just like Zell Miller. $ talks folks.

[lcordero]

3. looks like shrub*-heavy instead of shrub*-lite

[Ein]

4. "close to an attempt at censorship"

Close to?!?!?!?!?!

Tipper, Joe, Tipper, Joe, Tipper, Joe "Family values" *head explodes*

[Khephra]

6. Well...

I guess I could have ranted on and on about that...

But I needed to get a coke. ;-)

Yeah, I could go on all night about that. I think those hearings were the first thing I really paid attention to politically. I only wish I had stuck with it after that.

Heck, I didn't know Joe by anything but his name at the point I discovered that I couldn't stand the man's politics.

[KittyWampus]

13. You Have A Freaking Problem With RATING CD's!!!

That is what Tipper was going for.

I am an artist who has done some very outsider edgy stuff in my day, I totally support rating cds.

So my nephew wants a cd, I pay $18 bring it home and find it's filled with misogynist garbage...

Now I can use that cd for my artwork but rather than spending $18 for a cd to cut up and embellish
I'd much rather use the free ones AOL gives out in the Post Office.

Furthermore,

when I buy produce in the grocery store I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER SOMETHING DOES OR DOES NOT
CONTAIN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PLANTSTUFF OR CHEMICALS.

It's called labeling so consumers can make an informed choice.

[Khephra]

16. Yes, my dear edgy friend

You want me to go and find the many articles written about the effects that labels has had on keeping things out of the marketplace entirely?

When was the last time you saw an ad for an NC-17 film?

Wanna know why? Because of the label, just the label, newspapers won't advertise movies that are NC-17 or unrated.

So guess what happens? Edgy material never gets made or censored so it will fit in some arbitrary boundary called an R-rated film. Study how films are rated (really how anything is rated) and tell me that these ratings processes in any field are fair or arbitrary.

The entire comics field in America was set back 20 years because of labeling and "standards".

I'm against any repeat of those years in any entertainment or artistic field.

I know my history. I've read "Seduction of the Innocent". Some of us learned the lessons of that period.

[KittyWampus]

20. Please,Most Edgy Bands Won't Ever Be Advertised

With Payola crap being played.. except for college radion stations.

You really think movie ratings has hurt independant film makers???

by the way, I did underground comix... so we certainly weren't "set back"

[ButterflyBlood]

26. independent bands don't get stickers

I have plenty of CDs that would have them if they were on RIAA labels, but they don't. It's not like you can even understand the fucking lyrics anyway.

[KittyWampus]

29. It's not like you can even

"It's not like you can even understand the fucking lyrics anyway."

That is pretty darn funny & true!!!

[ButterflyBlood]

32. in other words you agree with me

my mom once walked in while I was listening to a Pig Destroyer song about golden showers and having sex in feces. She didn't notice or complain, so I doubt any kid would be "affected" (however that would be)

[KittyWampus]

33. I Personally Think Labelling Is Okay

But of course the reality is that it probably just makes kids want it MORE.

By kids I mean children not teenagers.

[ButterflyBlood]

36. duh

and since no one has their parents buy CDs for them, what does it accomplish? Nothing. The only advantage I see to it is you know if the CD is edited or not, but an easy solution is not to shop at WalMart.

[Khephra]

38. Ratings limit what can be made

If you want to stick to the independent circuit, sure, you can have all the freedom you want...just no money to make bigger projects (which by being "bigger" that doesn't make it less artistic or worth being made).

Then there's the problem of going totally independent. Say you decide to make that movie you've always wanted to make. You take it to the ratings board and you pay a group of people who are mostly older and conservative in their outlook to give you an R so you can show it in theaters across the country.

Ok...your edgy independent film gets an X.

Now what? You submit your artwork to being cut up to satisfy a group of censors in the hope that theaters will cary your film?

And even if you want to be edgy, you still want people to see your work, right?

Ain't going to happen except for art theaters unless you have that R ,thus limiting the reach of your art.

Labels and ratings in all artistic fields are forms of censorship. They inhibit the freedom of the artist.

Read up on what the makers of South Park went through in getting their film rated and you'll see that even if ratings are a good idea in concept, in practice ratings are still picked by the human beings, usually with their own agendas, who feel that it's their place to tell you what's right and wrong about a piece of art.

I don't eat art, and my mind had never been poisoned by a movie, cd, or book, so the food label comparison doesn't cut it.

If you're a parent and you feel the need to watch what your children read/watch/etc, then you're giving up your own parenting by trusting people you don't know to make choices for your children.

And if you're an adult, then read reviews. They're all over the place now. They're more helpful for understanding content than ratings.

But don't limit the artist or the audience who wants access to said artists. I shouldn't have to travel to an art theater or concert hall in another town to see a movie or hear an artist simply because theaters and radio stations in my town won't show or play anything that's unrated or "explicit", as in the case of cds.

[KittyWampus]

41. my mind had never been poisoned by a movie

"my mind had never been poisoned by a movie"...

Some people say about ultra violent video games "it's only a video and I can differentiate between reality and artifice".

Well, one can make an Intellectual distinction between the violence of participating in a video game and violence in real life BUT

your Subconscious, which forms your personal and social enviroment, does NOT draw this distinction.

Playing violent, misogynist video games and listening to such music contributes to the dreck already in the Mass Mind.
AND it plants negative suggestions into your Subconscious which she will manifest in your life one way or other.

Students of the Occult knows this to be true.

[Khephra]

45. See my post on book ratings below

then books should be rated, right? Be consistent here.

[starroute]

108. Ever heard of the Jesus Castillo case?

He's a comic store manager in Texas who was arrested in 1999 for having hentai comics in the adult section of the store and selling them to adults.

In an argument that sets the common view of comics back a good thirty years, the Texas state prosecutor secured a guilty verdict with a closing argument in which she said, “I don’t care what type of evidence or what type of testimony is out there, use your rationality, use your common sense. Comic books, traditionally what we think of, are for kids. This is in a store directly across from an elementary school and it is put in a medium, in a forum, to directly appeal to kids. That is why we are here, ladies and gentlemen. … We’re here to get this off the shelf.”

Just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court refused to consider Castillo's appeal.

http://www.asmallvictory.net/archives/004141.html
http://www.cbldf.org/pr/archives/000146.shtml

[Blue_Chill]

37. Oh spare me the bullshit

Movies are rated and music and games should be rated as well. Kids should not me allowed to go into a store and buy something that is not meant for their age group period.

I am a gamer and I know what is out there, games are DIRT CHEAP at times and any brat with a few bucks can get something that would shock a adult.

[Terwilliger]

44. maybe we should disallow children from buying anything

that would solve your concerns

[Blue_Chill]

54. nonsense

They should by what is appropriate for them. Not what is intended for adults.

[Khephra]

59. And please tell us what you think is appropriate?

And which adults are you basing this "level" of maturity on?

Riddle me this: at what age should a child first be able to read Shakespeare and the Bible?

[Blue_Chill]

88. The stuff should be rated like movies

When violence goes too far it becomes rater R and up to their parents to decide if they can access it.

Riddle me this: at what age should a child first be able to read Shakespeare and the Bible?

The bible should only be accessed by children if their parents approve and under strict adult supervision. It is not a book for the young as it has many shocking stories within it.

Shakespeare won't be understood by anyone too young to handle it so no issue there.

[Cheswick2.0]

92. this will sound rude, but you don't have children if I am correct

you might feel differently if you did.

I have performed in several theater productions I would not have taken my kids to as young children. I don't think there is anything wrong with warnings or ratings.

It is the commercial entities that then decided not to produce this work. Your bitch is with the bean counters not the people trying to give parents some help in deciding if certain entertainment is appropriate.

[ButterflyBlood]

17. I've never known anyone in my life

who had their parents buy CDs for them.

[OKNancy]

77. Yes dear, but what about adults who buy CDs

I've bought hundreds of CDs and I personally steer clear of X-rated material. It's not something I care for and not something I could use. (I buy these for my business.) If there is a warning on the label,it saves me lots of money.

Hey, if you want to listen to Pig Destroyers no one is stopping you.
I just don't see what all the fuss is about.

[Terwilliger]

22. labelling food is responsible intercession on behalf of consumers

labelling music is fucking censorship...its thought-crime legislation

If you dont want kids buying crap CD's, maybe you could listen to them first and decide if your kid should have them.

Here's an ad for my local bookstore "George Orwell: 1984 (WARNING: negative attitude towards government)"

[KittyWampus]

25. You Can't Listen To A CD Before Buying It

xxx

[Terwilliger]

27. that's your problem

[KittyWampus]

31. Actually, It's The Recording Industry's Problem

And a big reason why they are now in the stupid position of trying to sue music downloaders...


of which I am not one...

I believe in supporting bands by buying cds and don't have the patience to deal with file sharing.

[ButterflyBlood]

28. but it's assumed you've heard something from the artist before

and if you from that can't tell if they might actually cuss (oh no! how awful!) you need your head checked.

[Blue_Chill]

34. So when you were a kid your parents knew about

everything you listened to?

Bullshit is getting deep in here.

[ButterflyBlood]

40. well they could usually hear it

since their room was right above me, yet they seemed not to mind. So if they weren't offended by the lyrics for obvious reasons (keep in mind my mom wasn't able to identify which band's lyrics were in German and which were in English when I played her two songs by two different bands), I don't see why any kid listening to it would have any problems.

end notes:
-when I was a kid CDs did have those stickers (it wasn't too long ago)
-I don't listen to music on RIAA labels that gets stickered
-I still turned out OK being able to buy any CD I wanted

[Khephra]

43. No, my mother was smart

She taught me the difference between reality and fiction. I'm sorry that some parents are incapable of doing that, but it took her a few months when I was a child and then she never was concerned about what I read, saw or watched again....

She trusted me and my ability to think for myself. I made some mistakes, but at least I was able to go beyond my parent's boundries at an early age (a curse of children who are smarter than their parents).

To quote one of my favorite writers from when I was 14...

THINK FOR YOURSELF. QUESTION AUTHORITY.

If you all are for labeling music, games and movies, let me ask you what ratings you'd give these BOOKS?

1984?
Tom Sawyer?
Catcher in The Rye?
Hamlet?
Brave New World?

ALL OF THOSE BOOKS WOULD BE RATED R under a book ratings system. How many children/teenagers would ever have been changed by those works if this was BOOK ratings we were talking about?

[Blue_Chill]

89. Pop Culture has more negative effects

then English lit.

you don't see kids walking about the school hallway dressed like a shakespeare character trying to stab a buddy with a dagger. You do however see kids saying things like "suck it ho!" to random girls because they think Snoop is soo damn cool.

Some things should be free access and some things should be up to parents. Just like movies.

[Khephra]

94. Hmmmmm, there's a little book called

"Mein Kampf" that says you're wrong.

[Blue_Chill]

109. hmmm there was a lot more to it then a book

I hope you realise that. The situation present at the time when that hate spread and the people that spread it are more to blame then the book itself.

Besides have you seen yong kids today? They don't even read the comics anymore much less books of that nature.

[Khephra]

110. Of course

I'm just suggesting the idea that pop culture is somehow worse than what you can learn from an unrated book is idiotic. If, as people suggest, that pop culture/entertainment must be rated to protect children, then how come these people don't suggest the same for fiction/non-fiction books? As stated above, I can name a book that's worse for any bad pop-culture/entertainment item that someone here on DU finds offensive.

It seems strange to me that people would be ok with ratings and lables on music, movies and such when the very same people would never suggest such a thing for books.

[Khephra]

46. Almost the big record chains

and most of the independent cd stores have listening booths or stations. You need to find a new store.

[DrGonzoLives]

86. Actually

many CD stores now have preview stations where you can scan the CD's bar code and listen to samples of all the songs. So, yes, you can preview them now. There goes that argument.

[KittyWampus]

104. Argument Still Valid

I Buy CD's Played On College Radio. And alot of times I have to go to websites to get them cause they're not in stores.

HOWEVER, my nephew wants cd's for presents. I get a list and buy a few... I am supposed to listen to all the songs on each cd he requests?

Haven't been in a large music store in a while but the listening stations usually just had maybe 30 seconds of each song.

[DrGonzoLives]

105. Every time I have bought a CD online

They have had a preview feature. As for those thirty seconds, that applies to each song - is that not enough to judge a CD? I find that very hard to believe.

[Cheswick2.0]

90. why aren't you standing outside of movie theaters screaming

about movie ratings? Do you have a problem with those? Do you consider those censorship? Come on already, LOL.

[Khephra]

93. Read the above statements of mine

You bet your life I do.

What makes books exempt from ratings? The idea that pop culture is somehow worse than what can be found in books is so false it's funny.

For those who think that ratings and labels are ok, then why not ratings for books, internet sites, magazines, and anything else out there that can effect your "pretty minds", to quote Moma Bush?

For anything that someone here might find offensive to you and yours, I can easily find something equal to it or worse that's in written form. Unless you're comfortable with labels and ratings for anything that you see, hear, or read, it makes no sense and seems quite hypocritical to me to support it in some but not all mediums.

Is anyone here comfortable with a ratings board determining what age you should read a book?

I doubt very many people here would have liked being told that they couldn't read...say for example, The Brothers Grimm as a kid, because, of course, those stories are filled with death? What rating should Harry Potter get? Ohhh...remember, those have supernatural themes....are you SURE that you can trust others to decide for you?

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?

[ixion]

5. I totally agree... LIEberman should just convert

formally to the dark side. He's certainly there now. And I really hope he doesn't get the DLC nomination. I think he would make a lousy president.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. Unfortunately, he'll never go to the Republican side. They would never

support a Jewish run for the white house. So he has to lie.

[peacetalksforall]

8. Clinton and Cuba

Your point nbr 2. When Lieberman went on the attack about Clintons' morals and then Gore picked him...I tried to temporarilly forgive him because I thought the Dem teams knew what they were doing. Combined with all his other right wing opinions, I take back that act of forgiveness.

Lieberman is one of the biggest recepients of Cuban American handouts on the Dem side. He enthusiastically supports all Cuban American campaigns against Castro and in favor of unfair and unbalanced emigrant polities. He loves the Democrat hating Cuban Americans. (Don't forget the money given to the Dems and Pug congresspeople is your money which has been 'laundered'.)

[Melsky]

10. Totally agree

I have been accused of being anti-Semitic on this board because of my stated dislike of Lieberman and his policies. So are we not allowed to express what we think about a politician because he's Jewish? If Bush was Jewish, would we be anti-Semitic for criticizing and ridiculing him?

I consider Lieberman to be a Republican. The sooner he corrects his party affiliation, the better.

[Khephra]

11. Heaven help us if we ever get a Republican who is Jewish

and runs for President. I guess we'd all have to shut up, because it could never possibly be someone's policies that we hate as Democrats...it HAS to be their ethnic or religious background.

Where have I heard that argument recently?

Oh yeah, Lott and Frist was using that against Democrats for not voting in that one Catholic judge.

I guess we just hate all religions, huh?

Sigh....

[jiacinto]

48. Arlen Specter did run for president in 1996

And his campaign went nowhere.

[Khephra]

51. DU wasn't up then

I wonder....

...if I said that I didn't like Spector because he voted for the Iraq resolution would that make me anti-Semetic?

Or does that only work for disliking Democrats who are Jewish and voted for the war?

[jiacinto]

56. You miss the point again

Edwards, Kerry, and Gephardt all voted for the war; but it's Lieberman who gets attacked for that vote. Those other three are also pro-Israel, yet no one here is telling them to "go to Isreael". Or that they are "more loyal" to Israel than America.

[Khephra]

60. No, you miss the point

We're not attacked for being anti-(fill in the religion/ethnic group) when any of us say that we're against those pro-war candidates. But let one of us say that we're against Lieberman for that same reason 9 times out of 10 someone will come in thread and start calling us Anti-Semetic while ignoring the point that we're only talking about his vote.

None of us anti-war posters get that shit from the supporters of Kerry, Edwards or Gephardt.

[jiacinto]

63. Well

Maybe it's because Lieberman gets signled out more.

[Khephra]

67. You ever think that it's a perception problem based on the sample?

I know you do a lot of stats and such.

There's one fact that's hard for you to deny -- there's simply not many Lieberman supporters here on DU. There are 8 other candidates out there. Just based off of the numbers here you've got more people making anti-Lieberman comments than you have posting pro-Lieberman threads.

He does get picked on...no doubt about it. But the thing is that you get less and less sympathy from the people who are neutral on Lieberman when "anti-semite" is thrown around every thread that contains the least negative comment.

[jiacinto]

69. I think many of the people who may like Lieberman

are probably bullied shut by the pounding he gets here daily. I am sure that there are probably some that lurk here, but they are probably too afraid to deal with the barrage of attacks that follows.

I am not a Lieberman supporter, but I do think the constant hositlity here creates a chilling environment.

[Dhalgren]

84. Lieberman has attacked

the Democratic base. This forum is extremely "base-y". Are we just supposed to say, "Oh, it's o.k. Joe doesn't like us, but we have to accord him all the civility we reserve for the candidates we actually support, respect, and agree with." Look, Lieberman declared war on the Dem base - so be it. He (or his supporters) can't now come and say we aren't treating him fairly. If he doesn't like the Dem base, get the hell out.

[ProudGerman]

12. Bingo on the censorship thing

Having Joe Lieberman on the Gore ticket cost Gore possibly hundreds of thousands of young voters. Lieberman was on the forefront of videogame censorship, and gamers remember his name. (we're aren't talking just kids here, we're talking about one of the biggests parts of the entertainment industry, think as large as the movie industry) Lieberman railed against games, and I know lots of people who did not vote for Gore because of this. Lots.

[ButterflyBlood]

15. You are correct

Tipper didn't help either, but Lieberman was #1. I'm absolutely certain without Lieberman Gore would've carried New Hampshire and made Florida irrelevant.

[punpirate]

14. Some of the problems...

... of society today have occurred with his assistance (threats made by Lieberman to defund the agency essentially shut down review of regulatory oversight at the SEC in 1997), which has led to the accounting scandals of recent years. He's unapologetically supportive of the industries which fund his campaigns--large accounting and insurance firms--and has sided with the Republicans on a number of issues, including opposition to affirmative action.

But the one that really corked it, for me, was his active co-chairmanship of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni with Lynne Cheney and the little list they put out of "disloyal" university professors. The notion of a Democrat supporting any manner of blacklisting is repellent to me.

[E_Zapata]

19. Can I add two more truths that are truths (and very scary)?

1. Joe Lieberman is/was the co-chair of the Advisory Committee for the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq -- another PNAC think tank. All the main PNACers created that little non-profit. John McCain shared the co-chair with Lieberman. George Schultz was honorary chair. The rest of the folks like Kristol, Kagan and many others were involved in this. They ceased operations after Iraq was liberated.

2. In 1995, Joe Lieberman and Lynne "precious" Cheney founded ACTA and have lead the charge to shut down free thought and speech on university campuses, in light of the war on terror and the terrible idea that professors would spread the evil disease of subversive thinking (sometimes known as critical thinking if you are on the left side of the aisle).

See: Defending Civilization: How Our Universities are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It.

One disclaimer: the revision to the Nov 2001 version states that no "official" has been asked to endorse the report, incl. Cheney and Lieberman. Did Joe denounce it.


http://www.goacta.org/publications/Reports/defciv.pdf

Here is a critique of the report:

http://www.swans.com/library/art7/jeb106.html

SNIP:

The power elite, with their war on terrorism, anti-free speech, don't criticize the government, and either you're with us or you're with them, have declared their next victim: America's universities and colleges. Farewell to critical thinking, freedom of expression and having the world at your fingertips. Unfortunately, from the looks of the report by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It," any rebuttal will be about as constructive as debating abortion or prayer in school. Now add to that list of hands-off subjects any anti-war sentiment or criticism of the US government. But let's give it a try.

snip

ACTA was founded in 1995 by Lynne Cheney (wife of our Vice President) and Joseph Lieberman (our would-be Vice President) and "...is dedicated to working with alumni, donors, trustees and education leaders across the country to support liberal arts education, uphold high academic standards, safeguard the free exchange of ideas on campus, and ensure that the next generation receives a philosophically-balanced, open-minded, high-quality education at an affordable price." Lofty ideals, which unravel when the free exchange of ideas delves into uncomfortable and unacceptable territory.

snip

Anyway, in response to 9-11, they launched the "Defense of Civilization Fund." "The Fund will be used to support and defend the study of American history and civics and of Western Civilization. The Fund's first project is this report." The "Defense of Civilization Fund" should have been called "The Defense of US Civilization Fund." But I guess that goes without saying. That is what this war's about, after all.

This report has received much criticism in the press for singling out professors and taking their quotes out of context to support its claims. It includes 117 examples of anti-American, anti-war statements made on campuses and collected from news reports around the country. Some are as innocuous as this comment by a Stanford University professor: "If Osama Bin Laden is confirmed to be behind the attacks, the United states should bring him before an international tribunal on charges of crimes against humanity." Others are more 'daring' as this statement by a University of Washington professor: "any people consider the United States to be a terrorist state."

And the report is filled with sweeping statements such as the following:

"Rarely did professors publicly mention heroism, rarely did they discuss the difference between good and evil, the nature of Western political order of the virtue of a free society. Indeed the message of much of academe was clear: BLAME AMERICA FIRST." In other words, they didn't spew the party line.

MORE.......

[KG]

21. there's no reasoning with folks like you, keph!

:)

[frank frankly]

23. wow, lieberman is a TOTAL dillbag

excellent post

i think Joe will continue to crack on Dean, which can only help. really. its like a sneak preview of the presidential race.

when he said "dean depression" i realized that Joe has the brains of a sockpuppet and the soul of a republican.

no offense to all the sockpuppets out there!

[Ms. Clio]

24. more TRUTH

Although I bet none of the (3, maybe 4) diehard Liebermanbots will actually address it:

New Haven Register, Aug. 2, 2002
Lieberman backing Spies 'R' Us program

U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., has endorsed a controversial new government program that critics say encourages Americans to spy on one another.

<snip>

The initiative in question, Terrorism Information and Prevention System, is part of the president's new Citizen's Corps program, and it asks various people to look for and report suspicious activities as they go about their daily lives and work days. But the House, in its Department of Homeland Security bill, prohibited the Department of Justice from implementing the program.

"With the right safeguards, TIPS seems to me like it is worth a limited test," said Lieberman, the chairman of the committee that drafted legislation creating the new Department of Homeland Security. "I understand the fears of encouraging spying of Americans on one another, but why not give people a chance to report suspicions easily to a central location?"

<snip>

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asked Lieberman to prohibit the federal government from beginning the TIPS program. But a spokesman for Leahy said it was clear once committee debate on the bill began that the prohibition would not be included in the bill.

U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., agrees with Leahy.

While noting that America must be vigilant about potential terrorist threats, he said, "Operation TIPS goes far beyond these reasonable measures" and needlessly place "innocent Americans under a cloud of suspicion."

(I don't have a link, but will provide the full text page to anyone who wants it)

P.S. Damn that Leahy and Dodd, they are such anti-Semites!!!

[ButterflyBlood]

30. and who killed this plan?

Dick Armey.

That means Lieberman has supported more of Ashcroft's Nazi agenda than Dick Armey.

[Ms. Clio]

42. notice how the Liebermanbots have no response to this

That's because it's I-N-D-E-F-E-N-S-I-B-L-E.

[CarlBallard]

35. I'll defend him

I'm not a Lieberman supporter (leaning toward Clark if he runs, not sure though, even if he doesn't Lieberman isn't one of my top choices) but I think Lieberman gets an unfair rap on this board (although his comment about the Dean Depression was toatally uncalled for). I'll try to address your points one by one.

1-- Lieberman has attacked entertainment industry in ways that many of us consider to be close to an attempt at censorship. We’re supposed to shut up about this one, right? Yeah, us free speech supporters are SUCH pains.

I don't agree with his stand here, but it ain't censorship, and it ain't even close. He's trying to use the pulpit that he got from the people of the state of CT to cajole the industry. Personally I play video games and some of them are violent, but I think it's good to let parents know what's out there (I think parents should learn for themselves, preferably by playing with their kids, but that's another issue). Also Friends is on too early.

2 -- Lieberman stood up during the Impeachment and gave the GOP ammo to bash Clinton with by siding with the GOP against Clinton's morals. This was an early case of him helping the enemy by giving them ammo against another Democrat

Again this is a matter of degree. He voted against impeachment. But he did make the point that what Clinton had done was wrong (it was wrong but not so wrong that it need to be said on the Senate floor).

3 -- Lieberman has stated that he wanted to attack Iraq before Bush was in office, which if you think this wasn’t valid, it sure wasn’t before now either. Lieberman thinks that Bush is on the way to giving "a good war a bad name". (anti-war people should forget this fact and just “get over it“?)

There are two issues here. One the WMD, that he probably though were there throughout the leadup to the war and durring the war itself. I personally bought the WMD issue at least partally. Lieberman also felt that the US military is a legitimate tool to take out dictators. Personally I agree with this to a certain extent, I supported Kosovo, but not Iraq because there was a genocide going on that our military stoped.

I don't know the context for the giving "a good war a bad name". But I'm guessing that it has to do with the fact that taking out Hussane was a good goal, but Bush did a bad job of it, that he didn't go in with the UN and he didn't help the people of Iraq. These will be more important in the next president than if he would have invaded in the first place, unless he invents a time machine.

4 -- Joe supports vouchers and faith-based programs, an issue that many, many DUers are against and see as a breakdown of the church and state, or I guess that’s not as important as his voting record, now is it? Stand outside here with us people who don’t fit into any conventional religion and tell us that again, ok?

True but as with 1 and 2 it's not as bad as you make it out to be. Lieberman molified some of the worst aspects of the Faith Based initative. Again I don't like giving government money to churches (although honestly more to protect churches than anything else), but it could have been a lot worse.

"Any one of them is a good reason in some of our minds to never vote or support Joe"

I can name 4 things I seriously disagree with about any of the candidates running. Those things may be reasons not to support Joe in the primary, but not in the general election. If you don't you're helping Bush retain the White House. A Lieberman White House would be better for labor, better for the environment, better on healthcare, even better on Iraq than a Bush White House.

[Khephra]

49. Oh, I have at least 4 problems with every candidate

I'm dealing more with the idea that none of us Anti-Lieberman posters could possibly have reasons that are valid for not liking him, other than the fact we're incapable of seeing some abstract "truth" about Joe or that we're against him because of his religion.

And yeah, it depends on how you see things as to the degree. But, as above, that's not really the point of this thread...just that it's possible to dislike the man and have good reasons for it. You (a general "you") may not agree with them, but they'd be valid in a lot of people's eyes if they were the stances/actions of any other candidate.

[jiacinto]

47. I don't support Lieberman

But I think he has been treated harshly at DU. There is a core group of people here who lie about him and repeat these falsehoods over and over again constantly. The cyberlynching the man has received here is reprehsnible and disgusting. I am voting for Dean, but I am sickened at the level of insults and attacks that has been directed toward Lieberman.

I respond in bold:

LIEBERMAN -- THE “TRUTHS” IGNORED BY HIS SUPPORTERS

1-- Lieberman has attacked entertainment industry in ways that many of us consider to be close to an attempt at censorship. We’re supposed to shut up about this one, right? Yeah, us free speech supporters are SUCH pains.

Are you talking about videogames or the V-Chip? Parents should have the right to determine what material is suitable for their children or not. What specifically do you object to here? Lieberman spoke against shows like Jerry Springer and they are horrible. But frankly I don't see him advocating censorship openly as far as you think it does.


Strangely enough, after attacking the entertainment industry for all these years, Joe is silent on the matter of the Army's FPS which trains kids on how to kill (if you listened to some of Joe's earlier arguments) by using this game. Can you say "moral hypocrite"? I knew you could.


2 -- Lieberman stood up during the Impeachment and gave the GOP ammo to bash Clinton with by siding with the GOP against Clinton's morals. This was an early case of him helping the enemy by giving them ammo against another Democrat.

Lieberman didn't vote for the impeachment. But what Clinton did was wrong. Clinton's behavior with Monica was inappropriate regardless of how you cut it. I was disappointed in Clinton too at that point. I didn't suppor the impeachment of Clinton and found the process to be just as a much as witch hunt as everyone else, but what the man did with Monica was not good behavior.


3 -- Lieberman has stated that he wanted to attack Iraq before Bush was in office, which if you think this wasn’t valid, it sure wasn’t before now either. Lieberman thinks that Bush is on the way to giving "a good war a bad name". (anti-war people should forget this fact and just “get over it“?)

Then you have problems with Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards too. They all supported war with Iraq too.


4 -- Joe supports vouchers and faith-based programs, an issue that many, many DUers are against and see as a breakdown of the church and state, or I guess that’s not as important as his voting record, now is it? Stand outside here with us people who don’t fit into any conventional religion and tell us that again, ok?

Again I don't like his position on this issue. I'll grant you that much.

You wanna talk about religion? So many of us have been accused of being anti-religous or anti-Semetic, well try being Pagan sometime. Judaism IS one of the world‘s major religions, you know. Step outside here with some of the us other non-Judaeo/Christians and see how much we need the wall to remain strong and maybe you’ll understand what the early Christians and Jews understood, which some of you all seem to have forgotten.

I do think anti-semtisim is more behind the hatred of Lieberman among certain people here. Why else do people single out Lieberman when the country of Israel is being dicussed? Why else have there been posts from people stating that "he should go back to Israel?"

[Ms. Clio]

55. Do you like his position on TIPS?

It's a simple question - yes or no?

And to compare criticism of a politician to the brutal hangings, shootings, and burnings of thousands of men, women and children is simply revolting. You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Per usual.

[jiacinto]

57. No the attacks on Lieberman here are revolting

The lies that continuously get posted about him are offensive. I am not voting for the man, but I see him being treated unfarily here.

Like the typical Lieberman hater you will try to bully me into submission because I dare to stick up for the man. I don't like his position on some issues--that's why I support Dean.

But I do think that people are unduly harsh and unfair toward Lieberman. Someone has to say it at some point.

[Ms. Clio]

61. can you answer the question without invoking irrelevant straw men?

Is it a lie that he supported TIPS?
Do you agree with that stance?

[jiacinto]

64. Straw men?

I don't think what I've said is "strawmen". But from what I've heard I don't like TIPS. However, I am not voting for Lieberman. So I don't see your point.

[Ms. Clio]

65. Thanks for the answer

My point is that one of the main reasons I find Lieberman unacceptable is because of his support of TIPS, and not because of his religion, or Israel. And I would say the same about any other Dem candidate who supported such a program. To the best of my knowledge, my current front runner does not support anything remotely resembling TIPS. But I would absolutely reconsider my support of him if he did.

[dolstein]

50. Well, if we're talking about truth . . . . can you handle this?

<<1-- Lieberman has attacked entertainment industry in ways that many of us consider to be close to an attempt at censorship.>>

Fact: Many DU'ers consider public criticism of the entertainment industry by elected officials as tantamount to censorship.

Truth: Lieberman hasn't sponsored any bills that would censor the content of entertainment. He has called on the FCC to take action against business that seek to market adult entertainment to children. He has also called on the entertainment industry to exercise self-retaint when it comes to violent content. Many children's advocates agree with Lieberman on this.

<<2 -- Lieberman stood up during the Impeachment and gave the GOP ammo to bash Clinton with by siding with the GOP against Clinton's morals.>>

Fact: Lieberman opposed the impeachment of Clinton.

Truth: Many Democrats in the Senate agreed with Lieberman. Even Clinton himself said he agreed with what Lieberman said.

<<3 -- Lieberman has stated that he wanted to attack Iraq before Bush was in office, which if you think this wasn’t valid, it sure wasn’t before now either.>>

Fact: In the late 1990's, Congress, by an overwhelming margin, adopted a resolution supporting a policy of regime change in Iraq.

Truth: President Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq in 1998, and Clinton has publicly supported the invasion of Iraq under the current administraiton.

<<4 -- Joe supports vouchers and faith-based programs, an issue that many, many DUers are against and see as a breakdown of the church and state, or I guess that’s not as important as his voting record, now is it?>>

Fact: Joe supports expiremental use of vouchers, provided the vouchers are available only to poor families and the money doesn't come out of the public school budget. Joe broke with the administration over its faith based initiative because of the administration's refusal to subject organizations to local nondiscrimination law.

Truth: Joe's hardly the only Democrat who supports vouchers. The Democratic mayor of DC supports the proposed voucher program, and Senator Diane Feinstein supports it as well. The faith based legislation Lieberman supported had bipartisan support in the Senate.

[jiacinto]

53. Why do you try to reason with them

We go through these threads daily and people still cling to the misconceptions of Lieberman.

[LightTheMatch]

58. Oh well...

How about we ignore the policy differences, accept that Lieberman is a Democrat, of sorts, but we can agree to oppose his nomination for the presidency based on his generally wimpy appearance and voice, and his total lack of ability to connect with the Democratic base....?

Those reasons are certainly enough for me.

[jiacinto]

62. Well

I don't support Lieberman because I don't think he is aggressive enough to beat Bush.

[dolstein]

68. If by aggressive you mean pandering to the left-wing

then I'll concede the point.

But if you mean that Lieberman wouldn't be sufficiently critical of Bush and would pull too many punches, then I suggest you go back and read some of the speeches he's given over the past year, which have been unsparing in their criticism of Bush. I'll also remind you of the bare knuckled campaign he waged against Lowell Weicker. I also think that criticm from Lieberman is likely to sway the opinion of independents far more than criticism coming from someone who is perceived to be a highly partisan liberal Democrat.

[Khephra]

71. CARLOS! That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about

"people still cling to the misconceptions of Lieberman"

I just posted a whole thread on my reasons, which would be valid for any other candidate than Lieberman.

Frankly, I've defended you to other people, but your attitude about the masses's ignorance and yours and Dolstein's "enlightened" knowledge of the true Lieberman here at DU has grown boring and insulting.

Talking to you two is like talking to a parrot.

Sigh...here goes...

PLONK...double plonk. I've wasted too many hours on your two. I'm not giving you any more of my time.

Life is too short and my bp is too high from trying to reason with parrots.

I hope you and Dolstein get a good job with whatever party it is you end up supporting. You've both got the "repeat whether or not it's true" skill downpat.

[jiacinto]

78. I'm a Democrat

No but some of the more landish statements about Lieberman are unfair.

[Khephra]

66. Ok...

<<1-- Lieberman has attacked entertainment industry in ways that many of us consider to be close to an attempt at censorship.>>

Fact: Many DU'ers consider public criticism of the entertainment industry by elected officials as tantamount to censorship.



Truth: Lieberman hasn't sponsored any bills that would censor the content of entertainment. He has called on the FCC to take action against business that seek to market adult entertainment to children. He has also called on the entertainment industry to exercise self-retaint when it comes to violent content. Many children's advocates agree with Lieberman on this.

(Nowhere do you address the idea that it's not our right to disagree with him on this and base our choices not to like his stances You're already missing the point of the thread. The point is that those were valid NON-Jewish reasons not to vote or support him on that. We can agree to disagree on whether or not he's right, but I hope you can understand that this issue is important to many of us and thus a valid NON-Jewish related reason to not vote for him.)

<<2 -- Lieberman stood up during the Impeachment and gave the GOP ammo to bash Clinton with by siding with the GOP against Clinton's morals.>>

Fact: Lieberman opposed the impeachment of Clinton.

Truth: Many Democrats in the Senate agreed with Lieberman. Even Clinton himself said he agreed with what Lieberman said.

Again...missing the point. Also you know about that speech of his against Clinton. I can post it again if you'd like? ONCE AGAIN, it's not whether he's right or wrong on this issue, it's whether or not it's a valid NON-Jewish related reason to not like to support Lieberman.

<<3 -- Lieberman has stated that he wanted to attack Iraq before Bush was in office, which if you think this wasn’t valid, it sure wasn’t before now either.>>

Fact: In the late 1990's, Congress, by an overwhelming margin, adopted a resolution supporting a policy of regime change in Iraq.

Truth: President Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq in 1998, and Clinton has publicly supported the invasion of Iraq under the current administraiton.

I don't live in the Magic Kingdom of Clinton Done-No-Wrong. Once again, is this a valid reason or not for someone to dislike him? We're not talking about Lieberman related to anyone else. We're talking about his own actions and how we as voters feel about them.

<<4 -- Joe supports vouchers and faith-based programs, an issue that many, many DUers are against and see as a breakdown of the church and state, or I guess that’s not as important as his voting record, now is it?>>

Fact: Joe supports expiremental use of vouchers, provided the vouchers are available only to poor families and the money doesn't come out of the public school budget. Joe broke with the administration over its faith based initiative because of the administration's refusal to subject organizations to local nondiscrimination law.

Truth: Joe's hardly the only Democrat who supports vouchers. The Democratic mayor of DC supports the proposed voucher program, and Senator Diane Feinstein supports it as well. The faith based legislation Lieberman supported had bipartisan support in the Senate.

You've once again managed to post on Liberman while totally missing the points of the anti-Lieberman posters. Thanks for playing.

The question was: are these valid reasons or not to base your like or dislike of Lieberman on? It seems like so many time I've been told that the only reason we're again Joe is because of his religion....please tell me why these reasons aren't valid non-religious reasons to base your support or non-support on? And the answer "someone else done it too" doesn't count, because I'm against those people who hold similar stances too, not just Joe.

And yes, all of these issues come to play with other candidates too. I've never been accused of being anti-Irish American Catholic because I won't support Kerry in the Primaries because of his past actions and stances.

[usregimechange]

70. Are there Lieberman Supporters in here? Ever?

n/t

[ButterflyBlood]

72. I once called them "Lieberman apologists" and got flamed

but that's what they are. They aren't supporters. I haven't seen anyone on this board say they will vote for Lieberman in the primaries who hasn't been tombstoned.

[jiacinto]

81. I'm sure they've been bullied away from here

I am not voting for him, but the lynching Lieberman has gotten on this board has probably scared away people who do support him. And that is unfortunate.

[dolstein]

85. How Many Dean Supporters Hang Out at Free Republic?

I'm one of the few Lieberman supporters around here who's willing to confront the DU lynchmob. I really can't blame the handful of other Lieberman supporters around here, since it's a complete waste of time. It's no more possible to convince the average DU'er that Lieberman is a not a right-wing corporate fascist that it is to convince the average Free Republican that Howard Dean's not a left-wing pacficist socialist. Still, my commitment to fairness and rational discourse compels me fight to good fight, in the hopes that there are at least a handful of lurkers out there willing to consider the factual record before passing judgement on Lieberman.

[DrGonzoLives]

87. And exactly where

did khephra say that he was a "right-wing corporate fascist"? Apparently you have a problem wsith people bringing up legitimate concerns about your pet candidate. Sorry it's so traumatic for you.

[Forkboy]

96. Dolstein is DU's funniest poster

[dolstein]

98. No, what's funny

are the people here who deny that Lieberman's been called a right-winger, a corporatist and a fascist. Now THAT'S friggin' hilarious.

[Forkboy]

99. who is denying that?

[Forkboy]

102. kick

[DrGonzoLives]

103. Really? I denied that?

Where? I denied that kef said it, not others. Do you have a problem with actually reading things? Does your knee hurt from all the times you've jerked it into the desk?

[Forkboy]

73. It was a nice try Khephra

but you could have saved yourself the trouble and just had someone whack you in the head with a hammer.You'll get absolutely nowhere with these two.

[Khephra]

76. Yeah, I realized that I wasted much of my night dealing with this

Sleep would have been such a wiser choice....oh well, I had/have insomnia anyway.

:hi: to all you who were there with me.

[ibegurpard]

107. You should've asked me

I could've told you not to bother.

[JohnKleeb]

74. Look Lieberman defenders

I know he has a decent record but his attiude key word attiude bothers me. Like the Dean depression come on guys thats something a party opponent would say. Maybe I should shut up ;) and go back to sleep for a half hour.

[jiacinto]

79. That's not the problem

My issue is with the constant lies people post about him here. I am voting for Dean, but I think Lieberman has gotten a raw deal here.

[buddhamama]

83. lies? kef has an opinion about Lieberman

based on policies that He doesn't agree with him on. i with Kef,btw. and would add Lieberman's disdain for atheists.

those reasons aren't lies, they're a POV based on issues and policies that are important to him and a lot of other people like myself.

you may not agree with the Issues that are important to others but that in no way makes them lies. Facts are subjective.

[Forkboy]

97. Carlos just goes around all day

fingers in his ears shouting "LALALALALALALA....I can't hear you...LALALALALA"

[buddhamama]

100. agree!

(i sent you something check your PM)

[Iverson]

101. I agree with jiacinto.

Lieberman gets a raw deal around here, just like Nader or the Greens get from the frothing new inquisitors. It's unbelievable!

[JohnKleeb]

111. thats my opinion

You are generally right, his record isnt republican but I dont like his attiude. Just my opinion.

[ikojo]

75. As is said after prayers in a synagogue

Omayn v omayn! Preach on khephra!

I think people who criticize LIEberman are called antisemitic as a way to stifle discussion of his heinous record as a defender of free speech or anything he has done.

Hey folks, just because someone happens to be Jewish does not render them immune from criticism especially if they are running for higher office or any political office. If he can't take the criticism without accusing their detractors of hating Jews then perhaps he does not need to run for president, ya think?

Joseph LIEberman also serves on the board of an organization that wants to censor academics who stray too far from the corporate/political message of the US.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&c=1&s=mcneil

"First there was Senator Joseph Lieberman and Lynne Cheney's American Council of Trustees and Alumni report unveiled last November--"Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It." The forty-three-page document purports to advocate the preservation of academic freedom and dissent while being all about suppressing both when the views expressed conflict with blind support for US foreign policy."

[jiacinto]

80. This lie getrs posted here daily

and again this is the reality. Lieberman sent the following letter:

Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020128&s=lieberman20020117



comment | Posted January 17, 2002
Letter to ACTA
by Joe Lieberman


December 18, 2001

Jerry Martin
President
American Council of Trustees and Alumni
1726 M Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036-4525

Dear Jerry:

I am writing in regards to the Council's recent report, Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America and What Can Be Done About It.

In the past, the Council has often sent me advanced copies of its publications before they have been released and asked for my support. In this case, though, I was never given the opportunity to review the Defending Civilization report before it was made public. I first learned of it through a call to my office from a reporter in Connecticut about a controversy the report had stirred at Wesleyan University.

If I had been given an advanced copy, I would have objected to its content and methodology and asked you either to revise it or make clear that I had no involvement with it. But because that did not happen, and because I have been incorrectly listed on your website as a co-founder of the Council, a number of news accounts and commentaries have associated me with the report and incorrectly asserted or implied that I endorse it.

This letter is meant to set the record straight about my disapproval of this report, which I consider unfair and inconsistent for an organization devoted to promoting academic freedom. To avoid any future confusion, I would ask you to remove any reference to me as a "co-founder" of ACTA from your website or other Council documents. And I would ask that you note in any future public statements that I do not support this specific report. Thank you.

Joe Lieberman


So please stop making this argument about ACTA. It's been debunked here several times. I wonder why you didn't bother to include that letter.

[jos]

82. I'll give you two more

Lieberman was leaning towards voting for Clarence Thomas, and only decided to vote against him at the last minute.

Lieberman has attacked those in the party who defend the traditional Democratic viewpoint on economic issues, and is in the pocket of the insurance and financial industries.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

95. khephra...THANK YOU!

:toast:

[rbnyc]

106. just adding my support for this post. (nt)

[ComerPerro]

112. Great post

Well done. I agree.

[David Zephyr]

113. Great Post About Jealous Joe.

Jealous Joe Lieberman has forever hurt himself with the Democratic Party mainstream, not just the leftwingers. His continual personal attacks on his opponents and name calling like "waffler" about John Kerry have fallen flat.

He has turned into a very angry and bitter man in a short time. He seems more and more like the Bob Dole of old...remember that?

Here's the real truth:

In order to qualify for the vital matching funds to continue one's candidacy for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination, a candidate must perform well in the early primaries. Lieberman will not place in the top three in Iowa (Dean, Gephardt and Kerry will); Lieberman will not place in the top three in New Hampshire (Dean, Kerry, and Gephardt or Clark will); and Lieberman will not place in the top three in South Carolina either (Dean, Kerry, Gephardt or Sharpton or Clark will).

That's the facts: Al Sharpton will be polling higher numbers come the Primary in South Carolina than Joe Lieberman.