Lieberman Outs Bolsheviks
Posted March 31st, 2008 by Da King
When a lifelong liberal thinks the Democratic party has moved too far to the left, maybe it's time for the Dems to do some self-reevaluation. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn), former Democratic vice presidential nominee only 8 short years ago, described the Dems hard left turn during an interview with George Stephanopolous. See the video here.
Lieberman describes the Dems as isolationist, protectionist, and anti-free trade. He left out that they are also anti-capitalist, liberty killing, statist appeasers mired in a blinding fog of misguided moral equivalence.
Lieberman says the man who most closely resembles Lieberman's role model, JFK, is John S. McCain. Liebs will get no argument from me there, since I think the current group of socialist hyper-partisans who lead the Democrats have little in common with Jack Kennedy. Kennedy was a military man (warmonger !), a tax cutter who understood free markets (capitalist pig !), and stood up to communism (imperialist !). Moveon.org, DailyKos, and Code Pink would NOT approve. Neither would Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or any of the other leftist class warriors populating the congressional halls these days. I presume JFK would not be welcome in Berkeley, California either.
Joe Lieberman was excommunicated from the progressive church for one mortal sin. He wouldn't support the party's cut and run strategy in Iraq. That amounted to a tacit endorsement of a George W. Bush policy (so I guess that's really two mortal sins in one. I believe Dems are currently forbidden by liberal sharia law to agree with Bush on anything, ever). Lieberman, unlike Pelosi and pals, realizes that foreign policy is slightly more complicated than strict adherence to the 1960's slogan "war hurts children and other living things."
So does John McCain. Here's an excerpt from McCain's recent foreign policy speech:
"In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home to the country they loved so well. I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war…But I am, from hard experience and the judgment it informs, a realistic idealist. I know we must work very hard and very creatively to build new foundations for a stable and enduring peace. We cannot wish the world to be a better place than it is. We have enemies for whom no attack is too cruel, and no innocent life safe, and who would, if they could, strike us with the world's most terrible weapons. There are states that support them, and which might help them acquire those weapons because they share with terrorists the same animating hatred for the West, and will not be placated by fresh appeals to the better angels of their nature. This is the central threat of our time, and we must understand the implications of our decisions on all manner of regional and global challenges could have for our success in defeating it".
There isn't anyone running on the Democrat side who can even sniff McCain from the standpoint of experience, and it's experience that informs judgement. Obama's racist pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wrong, says "Hillary has never been called a (bleep)", but he leaves out that Obama has never spent any time in the Hanoi Hilton either, which is a whole helluva lot worse than being called a name (assuming Obama has even ever been called that name).
Barack Obama calls McCain's talk "the politics of the past", and boils McCain's lifetime of experiences and judgement down to calling McCain "a Bush 3rd termer". That is denigrating and disrespectful of a man who has given as much for his country as John McCain has.
If McCain is a "realistic idealist", Obama is merely an "idealist". Reality is excluded from the equation. Obama acts as if the power of his rhetoric alone can sway the world. Obama seems to believe, unlike McCain, that he CAN "wish the world to be a better place than it is". That has little to do with the politics of the past or the future, or the politics of hope and change, but it does have a lot to do with the politics of naivete. As the old saying goes, 'wishing won't make it so'.
If we must consider McCain to be a quasi-Democrat, okay, so be it. But if we must elect one of those three remaining Democrats to be the president of the United States, and we do, I'll take the one who most closely resembles JFK, not the ones who most closely resemble Hugo Chavez.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:39 am
King,
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) provides a good lesson in that he was purged by the kook Dim voters in a primary but won overwhelming in the general election in a liberal state.
More and more this is looking like what will happen in this year's presidential race.
The Dims are going to nominate one lefty — either BO or HC — who will get beated in November when the average person gets a load of their lunacy and that of their hard-core supporters.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:22 am
Often King suggests I am confused, etc. I don't mind, just as he doesn't mind when I make suggestions about his thinking, philosophy, interpretation of events, etc.
Far from being a bad thing…..this is all a good part of the American way. A free flow of ideas, exchanges, rebuttals, counter rebuttals, etc.
Joe Lieberman is a neo-conservative true believer. Whether it's because he is Jewish and seeks to protect the motherland or whether it's because he wants vengeange against Muslims or whether it's for another reason…..it really doesn't matter.
Lieberman was kicked to the curb in Connecticut by Democrats because Joe's neo-conservatism grew into the problem of his constant berating of Democrats over their resistance to Bush's bloody wars of choice philosophy.
Lieberman unashamedly shilled for George W. Bush's quagmire of choice to the point of no return. Accusing Democrats all along the way.
The netroots were instrumental in booting Joe out. Joe is simply this cycle's Zell Miller. A confused opportunistic whacko only interested in his own advancement. I wouldn't be surprised to see McCain pick Joe as his VP.
Joe can say whatever he wants to about the last 8 years…..but the only party that has changed is the Republican Party. The GOP has fully embraced, as seen in the neo-con McCain's candidacy, pre-emptive wars of choice, the center piece of neo-conservative theology. That's what has changed in the last 8 years,…..not the Democratic Party.
King would like to eliminate this inconvenient fact….about the neo-conservative extremism taken hold in the last eight years by appealing to 40 year old feats…..
"…. boils McCain's lifetime of experiences and judgement down to calling McCain "a Bush 3rd termer". That is denigrating and disrespectful of a man who has given as much for his country as John McCain has."
To point out the truth about McCain's radical neo-conservative militarism, the same as Bush the Junior's…..is "denigrating and disrespectful" in King's mind. Even though it is 100% true.
The assumption is that no matter how much McCain resembles the 28% popular Bush in his thinking, especially about wars of choice, because he was a POW and is a military veteran…..that, somehow, cancels out all the crazy, extremist philosophy responsible for placing the U.S. in the mess we are in today.
In summary….what we're observing is not that the Democratic Party has somehow radically changed over the last 8 years. What we are witnessing is the new threat to America of dangerous new extremist right militaristic philosophies. Bush/Cheney introduced this new thinking to us in the Iraq war of aggression. Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, McCain were all in for the unprovoked action. Democrats oppose this dangerous new thinking.
Neo-cons are what's changed in America.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Good one Reverend. I particularly enjoyed the anti-semitism.
March 31st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Good point by Vince Foster…Lieberman was reelected in an overwhemingly Dem state in the general after being rejected by radicals in the primary.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Besides being branded as a sellout to the neo-con movement, is it possible that Joe Lieberman may have left for another reason………………..maybe he had his fill of the far-left lunacy that has hijacked his party? One day he's great and running beside Al Bore, the next day he was never good from the get-go?
One day the true democrats may become tired of the far-left issuing all marching orders and, at that point in time, it can expel the loons and re-invent itself. The hard-core liberals will be forced to form a 3rd party and their "D" camouflage will no longer be available. Without this crucial cover, mainstream would not give their ideologies the time of day. Liberals, progressives, and whatever name they go under would hit a wall. They say they're D's, but nothing more than "L's" in "D's" clothing. This is something even more puzzling than the Trojan horse candidacy of Obama.
Following completion of the Operation Chaos mission, I suspect there will be many more defectors running for the gates. Who will the libs pin this on? G. Bush's failed policies or the radical lunacy from within?
March 31st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Joe stands up for what he believes and that drives the democrats crazy. He refuses to drink the kool-aid.
The "netroots" tried to force their will on him and he lost the primary. Then he won the election. So who is in touch with the feelings of the people? Lieberman or the "netroots"?
April 1st, 2008 at 8:58 am
The netroots. Without question.
Newsflash: Lieberman drank the kool-aid. That's why he had to be quarantined. He came down with the sickness.
I can understand why cheerleaders of wars of choice, torture, etc. would have warmed hearts over a former Democrat now shilling, enthusiastically, for a like-minded, GOP warmonger.
What's quite revealing is how Lieberman and his cheerleading band of merry warmongers are today trailing by a 50-37% margin amongst the American people. And those figures are reflective of a generic Dem versus a generic GOP'er.
Alex: My good man….you are in some fog of fantasy. Obama polls 5-6% more than McCain today. Just as I had suggested, the race ugliness launched by sceechers and Knee Padders is backfiring. I know, it makes GOP'ers mad. But living in a state of denial about the fall of the House of Bush's party…inevitably…will prove counterproductive.
larry: I suppose that speaking, like I did, against Holy Joe can be interpreted, knee-jerk style, as some form of anti-semitism. Not, of course, in the same way that those who rail against Jeremiah Wright, might be called racist or anti-black. That goes without saying. Critics of Wright are patriotic and pure of motivation.
I'm anti-Lieberman. Lieberman is Jewish. Lieberman makes no secret of his loyalty, by any extreme means, to the protection of the state of Israel. Jews, who make up 2.1% of the U.S. population, obviously, in wingnut thinking, should dictate our foreign policy.
Seems to be, you know, crazy at first, but when the neo ingredient hits what's left of the brain cells, it all becomes clear.
Crazy world.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:10 am
Yes, that 2.1 percent dominates the U.S. and anti-semitism and the holocaust are merely ancient history, unlike slavery, right Reverend?
Do you think 'they' control the world's banks and markets, too?
April 1st, 2008 at 9:29 am
A lot of anti-Semites are rallying around B. Hussein Obama.
I wonder why?
April 1st, 2008 at 11:03 am
This post is littered with so many false and bizarre statements that its hard to respond. But mostly, its the logical fallacies that are the problem. You should seriously focus on writing structure, it would make your blog much more coherent - if in fact you strive for coherency.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:32 am
Alexander, probably the truest words, so far, in this thread are yours in which you said: ***One day the true democrats may become tired of the far-left issuing all marching orders and, at that point in time, it can expel the loons and re-invent itself. The hard-core liberals will be forced to form a 3rd party and their "D" camouflage will no longer be available. Without this crucial cover, mainstream would not give their ideologies the time of day. Liberals, progressives, and whatever name they go under would hit a wall. ***
I just hope that this happens sooner rather than later as too late may be too late. Just think what we would do with people like the Reverend Red in charge. Scary, I think.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Why roy,…I'm shocked….far from being scary….I think the word should be….invigorated.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
If only we could eliminate Israel and muzzle the war mongering conservatives in this country we could end war. Yes, Muslims in Thailand, India, Kosovo, Chechnya, Indonesia, Kenya etc. are killing infidels. But once we eliminate Israel and the America lets the world know we embrace and celebrate all actions and intentions of the religion of peace a glorious new era of tolerance and togetherness will flower.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Hey Angry,
And to your list, add that 1) Muslims in Europe are killing Europeans, and more to the point 2) Muslims have been killing other Muslims in the Middle East ever since Muhammad.
Arab Sunni hate Arab Shia, and Arab Shia hate Arab Sunni — and together they both hate everyone else.
And whichever their sect, Arab Muslims have been at war with their own women, whom they seem to have a primordial fear of.
Israel's problem is that it is the only civilized country in the Middle East. Pity. The envy that Israel invokes in its neighbors is beyond description.
But still, the presence of Isreal in a sea of losers is not the root cause of the hate & violence in the Middle East — Islam and Arab culture is.
+++
PS: Geroge Bush was a fool to recognize an independent Kosovo, a Muslim basketcase of a state in Europe. This problem was started by the Clinton/Gore Administration, but Bush brought it to fruition.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
It's quite revealing when Joe Lieberman is blasted as a "neo-con." And what it reveals about the democrats and their agenda is quite disturbing.
And all this blabbering from some pea-brain who slams Lieberman for being pro Israel, while making excuses for low-life racists occupying pulpits, and the ill-bred, ignorant masses that swoon over them. If there was ever a person not qualified either intellectually or morally to pass judgment on others, that would be the guy.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Supposedly the Euor-crats are goin to "invade" the country with their briefcases and crete a functioning country. My money is on the Saudi $$$$ winning. If they do it will be delightful to have a spawing ground in Europe.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Roy: I just hope that this happens sooner rather than later as too late may be too late. Just think what we would do with people like the Reverend Red in charge. Scary, I think.
I just try to tell it like it is, Roy. While the SWAT teams prepare Denver for ground zero, we haven't yet turned the crank on the Jack-in-the-Box. Once we do there are many surprises that will frighten mainstream America back into consciousness. We can even leave out the pastor Wright treachory.
Once his gun control, live-birth abortion, and capital punishment views are brought to light, maybe the blindfolds will come off the comatosed sheep.
I'll spare this group my pro-life views, but I hope someone sees the insanity of a live aborted fetus being put through the hell he sees as "normal". But I guess if one of Osama's daughters became pregnant, he wouldn't want them to be "punished" with a baby.
I've stated my indifferences with McCain, to this forum, but I never seem to hear the Osama supporters criticizing anything about him. It makes me wonder who is more unbelievable………….him or his flock of sheep?
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:53 am
"While the SWAT teams prepare Denver for ground zero,"……
a result of 'Operation Chaos' and the Dims' race baiting coming back to bite them.
Sweet.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:18 am
The anti-semitism surrounding Obama supporters is becoming very troubling to me as well. Suggesting Lieberman, a jew, is somehow wrong for supporting Israel, when Israel is surrounded by those who wish to destroy it, makes one either anti-semitic or seriously confused (to put it as nicely as I possibly can). There's no other option. When Israel gave up Gaza last year, uprooting it's own people in an attempt to compromise with the Palestinians, right away Hamas moved in and started launching rocket and missile attacks into Israel from Gaza. There can be no peace as long as Israel's enemies refuse peace. To blame that on Israel is unbelievably ignorant. The Palestinians blame america for supporting Israel, but there could be peace and a Palestinian state in about two weeks if the Palestinians and other Muslims would agree to one single thing, which is: let Israel exist. They won't do that. Apparently, controlling 99% of the Middle East isn't enough. They need 100%. What the Palestinians and other Muslim countries are REALLY blaming america for is that, by arming Israel, we are not letting the Muslims destroy Israel. Then some racist moron like Obama's pastor accuses the Jews of apartheid and genocide. What an utter buffoon. The man should be universally condemned, but instead his apologists keep making excuses for him and applying double standards. It's sickening.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:26 am
I agree with Da King on this one, Rev—No matter what the misinformation you have allowed yourself to believe, Israel has tried over and over again to extend the olive branch to the "Palestinians", (a name of a non-homogenous people given by the British which back then numbered less than 10,000—now numbering over 5 million—who can absorb that many? No Arab countries are willing—-go ask a true Israeli before you form opinions–do your due diligence before spouting any more misinformation) The "Palestinians" can continue to hate the Israelis because people (especially misinformed "Christians" and liberals who don't do the true research and are complicent and "feel" they are on the side of the people who are being destroyed).
Israelis are generally a good people who have suffered tremendously as well—the world continues to turn their backs on Jews because it is "okay" to do so—they haven't accepted Jesus as their saviour—therefore many find it easy to justify their destruction, and the "Palestinians", a non-homgenous people named so by a foriegn power (Britain) find easy company among the quick to judge and uninformed.
Do not misconstrue my comments as being anti-Palestinian—I am all for peace. Jews have always had a substantial presence in their homeland, aboriginal homeland, since time immemorial—it is the "Palestinians" who are the interlopers there.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 am
Touched a nerve, I see.
To fail to acknowledge the apartheid being carried out against the Palestinians by Israeli leaders is an attempt to play ostrich. Jimmy Carter, one of the most honorable men ever to be president, wrote a book about Israel's apartheid practice.
Lieberman isn't wrong because he supports Israel. Lieberman is wrong because he believes America, in a show of support for Israel, should pre-emptively attack, and occupy if necessary, Muslim countries who are not threats to the U.S. At great expense to America.
And lets' get something straight here. Far and away the majority of Palestinians and Jews want to live in peace with each other. They do. Suggestions that one side or the other is the one that's completely evil are ridiculous.
Extremists on both sides are the problem. Israel's Likud Party influence fuels the extremism in Israel, the same extremism found in the botched Lebanon invasion last year, the same extremism witnessed in the incorrectly named "settlements". Bush/McCain/Lieberman neo-conservatism fuels the extremism in America. Hamas fuels the extremism coming from the Palestinian side. That's the problem.
But man….the sensitivity by you conservatives over ANY comment about Israel is telling. Wait til I really rip the Likud element. Heads will explode.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 am
Score for Rebecca!
She is correct. The so-called "Palestinians" do not want peace with Isreal, nor does the rest of the Arab world. They want Israel's destruction. Lucky for the Arabs that Israel is a civilized country or else the Arabs would truly taste defeat.
But look. It is Arab hate, ignorance, and violence that keep the Middle East in its barbaric state — not the U.S. and not Israel.
And isn't it something that a made-up entity like "Palestine" gets all the attention & sympathy from drips like Jimmy Carter and the liberal establishment while Tibet, a real country of people with their own unique language & culture, gets all but ignored?
Think maybe anti-Semitism is the reason why — you know, the good old hate of the Jew, fear of the Jew?
+++
King says, "The anti-semitism surrounding Obama supporters is becoming very troubling to me as well."
Well yes, B. Hussein Obama is attractive anti-Semites to him as supporters like flies to you-know-what.
But it is wrose than that, King. Virtually all of BO foreign affaires advisors are those hostile to Israel.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
JImmy Carter is wrong about Israel. Absolutely senile in his wrongness. I used to respect him, but his book is full of ineptitude—senile. Joe Lieberman is not my cup of tea either, nor do I support Israel hardliners who are full of hatred towards Arabic peoples. I do not for one second condone apartheid—but I do support people who are defending their own children against forces that would just love for them all to be dead. And frankly, that is what the majority of Arabic peoples would love for to happen, along with many non-Jewish peoples—and the stamp of approval is all over the destruction of Israel by many for strictly religious reasons.
I am not beholden to those who would condemn Israel for supporting itself and defending itself—as I said, over and over again, the Israelis have extended their hand in peace, only to be bitten by the majority of Palestinians.
And they will continue to offer the peace branch until the "Palestinians" are worn down, or worse, everyone over there is dead because of a nuclear holocaust of any of the parties involveds' doing, including Israel.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I just don't believe it's the majority from either side of the divide who want to continue the violence
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Rebecca has aptly pointed out just what I believe about that part of this worldwide question that has Islam in its center. Jimmy Carter may well be the most extreme of the anti-Israel people, I know of.
I will add one more comment to this discussion that most people tend to omit or even avoid. The Israelis were fighting for their lives the day the British Army left the country. They have been doing that ever since, 60 years. The one thing they have never managed to not do is fail to shoot back. They promised early on that they would retaliate in kind when their people were killed and they have been very adamant in their attempt to do just that. For doing this the Muslim world and, especially their media, has always managed to make the Israelis look like the bad guys. For some reason all to many people take the Muslim story as the only truth.
My main problem is that since the Israelis said they would defend themselves and shoot back when shot at, why is it that the world continues to side with the "Palestinians" when they kill women and children? Why do so many people always seem to be cheering the suicide bombers when they do the bidding of the Islamist leaders? It can't be anything other than anti-Semitism, IMO.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Roy,
In addition to the always prevalent anti-Semitism, there are at least three other reason why much of the world goes against Israel in a knee-jerk fashion.
One is energy. The world tries to appease Arabs because they have so much oil and wealth — although the latter is never shared with their own people.
Second is white guilt. Western elites are sickened with this disease, and feel they must placate the 'downtrodden' and those who use to be colonial subjects of European powers — note, European powers, not American.
A third reason is multiculturalism. Israel is a western country and, well, being western is not 'cool' anymore — at least not among the pointy headed elites that run the mainstream media, universities, and government bureaucracies.
Never mind that anyone with any sense wants to live in western-type countries. Multiculturalists are great for demanding others to do what they say, not what they themselves do.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Here is an insight, Rev…The Jewish people were nearly annihilated just over half a century ago (Oh, I know… "not again…we're soooo sick of those Jew-lovers bringing this up all the time—it's wayyyyyy over ) (how dare those Jews keep throwing this in our faces…we didn't do it) (just like slavery).
The Israeli's will go down to the mat with their dying breaths, you see. There will be no capitulating ever again. Sheep no more; trust others to help us no more. Do you understand? Some things are worth dying over. Such as retrieving your ancestral homeland and hanging on with your dying breath. An old Torah saying goes something like this: "If we are not for ourselves, who will be for us?". There is great dignity in this especially considering Jews make up less than 1% of the world—and yet, are so determined, so smart, that they have a great impact in all disciplines in our world. Without Jewish input, there would have been no polio vaccine, no bible, no Einstein, no Hammerstein, no Spielberg, and so on and so on —No Jesus, for that matter… no Mary or Joseph, perhaps no idea of God for much of the world. So I defend the Jewish people—I find them to be of the finest people of all of humanity.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Just a note to which all can fathom and find a kernel of truth:
People who behave as if they know it all are usually the people who know the least and who fear that they have the most to lose. The more they refuse to acknowledge the limit of their own ability or experience, the more tense and defensive they become. Instinctively, they can sense the imminence of an encounter with harsh reality. For those of us who meet reality on a daily basis, there's much less to be afraid of.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:05 am
How about those American Indians? Would anyone be supportive of American Indians if they attempted to "retrieve" their "ancestral homeland"?
April 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Rev Red, do you think that the American Indians could conjure up some real help in that attempt? We have really treated them badly ever since we supplanted them in region after region. Today if you can prove 1/8 Indian blood you can attend college free on the US government, but then few of them need that help anymore since they can always create casinos on their treaty agreed lands. For some reason I don't feel one bit of guilt toward them since the Indian Wars were over long before I was born in 1932. White guilt just hasn't found a place in my being. I am one of those people you call faith based who thinks that evolution is the only way to go and that means I believe in survival of the fittest.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Yes–I would be one of those who would be on the side of the Indians to retrieve their homeland—and knowing how pragmatic Indians are (on the whole), they would know that reclaiming all of their western hemishere is not conceivable—they would be happy with reserved areas in all fifty states, including their ancestral home of Ohio—communal hunting grounds for Wyandot, Ojibway, Erie, Mingo, Iroquios and some Cherokee—ask the spirit of Tecumseh—he would agree whole-heartedly.
As for the Israelis—look at a map—that tiny strip of desert in no way compares to the rest of Arab lands.
As for Indians and going to school for free—-unfortunately many "white" people, anxious to call themselves Indians, are not (according to blood status and each individual tribes' required blood quotient—-no one checks those claims, by the way!) And "blacks", also anxious to call themselves Indians, without the required blood quotient, usurp the Indian moniker (again, NO ONE checks these claims) take up all the money reserved for real Indians— in other words—NON-NATIVES usurp Indian rights all over again "thinking" they're Indian when they're not—-another kick in the face to real Indians who then cannot get any help because it is all gone.
So there—check my research if you don't believe me. I work with true Natives—as a volunteer—I am familiar with their gripes and their anger. Over 300 Million were killed, displaced, assimilated in order to survive.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:59 am
As U.S. citizens, Native Americans are as entitled to live on their ancestral homeland as any other U.S. citizen.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
larry d. —they don't want to live with us whiteys…would you?
April 4th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I'm packing my bags for the reservation right now, kook.
April 5th, 2008 at 5:47 am
Yea, smoke the peace pipe and everything will be cool.
April 5th, 2008 at 9:58 am
The Reverend says he "doesn't believe it's the majority from either side" who want to continue the violence.
What a ridiculous, naive pronouncement.
Palestinians are unashamedly taught "Death to the Jew" at home, in school and at the mosque. This basic fact of life clearly indicates that the majority on one side is determined to continue the violence, and even escalate that violence at every opportunity.
I challenge anyone to offer an example from the Israeli side of the conflict that even comes close to the Palestinian bloodlust.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:04 am
As a people, the Arabs are filled with hate driven by their envy and their ignorance.
There can be no peace with them.
Whatever Israel gives the Arabs, they will always want more.
April 6th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Like I said, sensitive nerve endings…and all that.
Try watching BBC newscasts once in a while. Read Carter's book, don't just Limbaugh it. Visit Counterpunch.org occasionally…it won't hurt you.
I have no beef with Israelis or Palestinians. It does seem to me that there are two perspectives to consider. Sadly, American media, (usually spouting comments like those found here), and an aggressive Jewish lobby, only permit a lopsided view of the conflict.
Couldn't have anything to do with that Judeo-Christian combo, could it?
April 6th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Do the BBC newscasts, Carter's book and Counterpunch.org mention that Palestinian children are taught "Death to the Jew" at home, at school and in the mosque?
If they don't, then they have no credibility.
And if the "Judeo-Christian combo" isn't working for you, why don't you move to one of those more open, tolerant islamic nations. You'll be happier, and so will us one-sided, all-powerful Judeo-Christians.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
"And if the "Judeo-Christian combo" isn't working for you, why don't you [The Reverend] move to one of those more open, tolerant islamic nations. "
The Reverend won't do that because he's a screaming atheist, and he knows what the Muslims would do to him. Given his druthers, The Reverend would probably perfer the godless Workers’ Paradise — the USSR. Not only did the USSR have atheist as a national creed, but their leftwing social policies pretty much match contemporary liberal thinking.
But oops The USSR is gone — defunct. Choked on it's anti-human policies and economic/cultural failings, among other things.
Well, I guess Akron Atheist will have to search for somewhere else, then. Say, how about decadent Europe? That might be just the ticket. But he better hurry; the joint is quickly going Islamic.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Rev,
You said "How about those American Indians? Would anyone be supportive of American Indians if they attempted to "retrieve" their "ancestral homeland"?"
That is an invalid moral equivalence. The moral equivalent to your anti-Israel position would be if you were defending the USA as it was trying to drive the native americans off their remaining land on the reservations, as the muslims are attempting to drive the jews off their little patch of land in the middle east when the muslims have the rest.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Also Rev, you said "Couldn't have anything to do with that Judeo-Christian combo, could it?".
No, Rev, it doesn't, and it doesn't have to do with Limbaugh, Bush, Cheney, or any other conservative you can name in an attempt to avoid the truth. It only has to do with the racism and genocidal intent being spewed from one side, the muslim side. C'mon Rev, go out on a limb and take a stand against genocide.
Who filled your head with all this nonsense anyway ?
April 7th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
"Who filled your head with all this nonsense anyway?"
Unless he was a red diaper baby, his brainwashing probably started as a little tyke in the public schools and then increased in the college, giving him his permanent leftward tilt.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
King: Man, you are a stubborn cat.
Jewish "promised lands" are occupied and controled by others for thousands of years.
Jewish "promised lands" are given back to them in 1949. Existing people are driven out, Jews retrieve their "promised lands".
Many Americans support that retrieval.
Indians are pushed out of their own lands. It's now been a couple hundred years.
Would Americans support an Indian retrieval of their lands? If not, why not?
How are these two any different?
Jews have endured despite terrible atrocities committed against them.
Indians have endured despite terrible atrocities committed against them.
That's my point.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
King Again: I know some of your other commenters have gone ahead and taken a walk on the wild side, so to speak….but you know better than to say the middle eastern conflict is "one sided". I mean, come on. The main reason Bin Laden and others do what they do is because of the apartheid being practiced on Palestinians by the Israeli government.
Now you can go on and on criticizing Hamas for firing rockets, etc…..none of it justifies the ongoing apartheid. And if you don't understand that, you should.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
The Reverend has had to discard many layers of disinformation taught to me as a youngster. It took awhile for me to put childish belief systems and national myths behind me and move forward no longer encumbered with the heaviest of nonsense and make believe.
Like Smith-Barney, my liberation has come about the hard way, I've earned it.
The silly American exceptionalism narrative was all blown to hell by 1970….but supernaturalism and belief in the magic book took another 13-14 years before it too disintegrated into nothingness.
Today, I'm fully liberated from having to defend the indefensible. I'm fully liberated from some cartoonish Paul Bunyan-like, national American religion.
Folks today who are defending the military imperialism of our current leaders are still shackled with chains of mental bondage holding them fast to a supernaturalist view of America. When their nation does bad things, then those chains of bondage pull them into painful states of dissonance. Instead of freeing one's self from faith based legends, like, America only does good things, they, instead, only strengthen the chains of self-bondage by clinging to fairy tales and mythology.
Religionists act similarly. They deny reality and cling to total nonsense. The dissonance is painful at times when religious people are confronted with truth. But rather than use the brains their god has given them, which would set them free from their bondage, they stiffen, shaking off that dissonance and clinging even more fervently to the chains that bind them.
It's painful, I've been there.
I'm here to tell you….there's hope.
All one has to do is unbelieve.
April 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
King,
The anti-Semites always have an excuse for their Jew-hating.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Human beings rarely abolish mythologies, Reverend. They simply replace one myth with the next. Maybe you should be careful with this Obama cult as you seem particularly susceptible.