Lieberman into the cabinet?

[southsider2k5]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...av=rss_politics

[WilliamTell]

Hey, I think it's a good idea. I've been wanting him in there for the past year now. He's a democrat I do like.

[TheBigHurt35]

Could someone copy and past the article here (I don't feel like signing up for the Washington Post's website).

[Goldmember]

Could someone copy and past the article here (I don't feel like signing up for the Washington Post's website).

 

bugmenot.com

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Anything that gets Joe "We need to censor bands I don't like" Lieberman out of Congress.

 

He's one of the idiots that thought Marilyn Manson's lyrics were behind the Columbine attacks. He, Clinton and Gore (who Tipper still has by the balls) even toyed around with the idea of setting up an advisory council to preview *live* concerts to make sure that they would not be what they considered "lewd" & if they were, then the band would not get a permit. Any band performing in a venue without an issued permit could be subject to arrest.

 

f*** him. He's a jackbooted little thug. /hates Joe and his Joementum

[TheBigHurt35]

Anything that gets Joe "We need to censor bands I don't like" Lieberman out of Congress.

 

He's one of the idiots that thought Marilyn Manson's lyrics were behind the Columbine attacks.  He, Clinton and Gore (who Tipper still has by the balls) even toyed around with the idea of setting up an advisory council to preview *live* concerts to make sure that they would not be what they considered "lewd" & if they were, then the band would not get a permit.  Any band performing in a venue without an issued permit could be subject to arrest.

 

f*** him.  He's a jackbooted little thug. /hates Joe and his Joementum

 

So, should Al Jazeera be allowed to get away with calling Bush a "Zionist" after he names Lieberman to his cabinet? Or would that infringe on their right to free speech? :rolly

Edited February 14, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So, should Al Jazeera be allowed to get away with calling Bush a "Zionist" after he names Lieberman to his cabinet?  Or would that infringe on their right to free speech? :rolly

 

Who's to decide what's "lewd" -- and also how can a word be inherently "dirty"? If one asserts that there are "dirty" words then there must be a way to "clean" them up, right? What's "lewd" to one person could be downright hilarious to another person (see the obscenity trials of Lenny Bruce for further information)

 

The best part about music and concerts is that if you don't want to hear what the band/person is going to say -- you don't have to listen to it. The fact that Lieberman and his pro-censorship ilk are trying to take the decision making out of the parents' hands, bloating the government with tasks that it could never feasibly perform and creating a Big Brother-esque society where the government decides what people can and cannot listen to is quite scary to me as a proponent of civil liberties and the Constitutional republic. Put decisions in the hands of the parents rather than a cabal of governmental authorities who think they know what is best for people. Let a free market decide what is of value and what isn't instead of moralist crusaders looking to censor things.

 

And the best part about news programs is that they can say whatever they want. Just like O'Reilly claiming that the Paris Business Review said that the Factor's boycott cost France millions -- except imports from France have increased since the war and also [and more importantly] there is no such magazine known as the Paris Business Review

source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200405020006

[southsider2k5]

Could someone copy and past the article here (I don't feel like signing up for the Washington Post's website).

Romance is in the air today across the land. But in Washington, the buzz continues about "The Kiss." No, not Gustav Klimt's famous painting. It's the big fat one an exuberant President Bush planted on Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's right cheek as he waded through the Capitol crowd after the State of the Union a couple of weeks ago.

 

The Connecticut Democrat said he didn't mind it and thought Bush was thanking him for his support of the administration's foreign policy. Or maybe it was for Lieberman's not dismissing outright Bush's Social Security proposal.

 

Or maybe it was something else. There's been K Street chatter, our colleague Jeffrey H. Birnbaum tells us, that Lieberman could be on an administration list to replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the next year or so.

 

That would be convenient for Lieberman, whose term is up in 2006, and could give Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell ® an opportunity to appoint a Republican to the seat for at least a few months before the election, inching the GOP closer to a filibuster-proof Senate.

 

Or maybe it's just love?

[TheBigHurt35]

Who's to decide what's "lewd" -- and also how can a word be inherently "dirty"?  If one asserts that there are "dirty" words then there must be a way to "clean" them up, right?  What's "lewd" to one person could be downright hilarious to another person (see the obscenity trials of Lenny Bruce for further information)

 

FWIW, I don't support Lieberman's crusade against the media.

 

But, let me guess: You think it's OK for someone like Ward Churchill to insult the families of the 9/11 victims, right? I'm sorry, but freedom of speech doesn't equate to freedom from responsiblity. And I hope that terrorist-loving asshole Churchill gets fired.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Or maybe it's just love?

 

The Democratic party betrayed with a kiss... it's almost Biblical.

[Punch and Judy Garland]

I really don't like Joe Liebermann. I know he already turned down a cabinet position. Maybe he was holding out for this one.

[Rex Kickass]

Lieberman will not go to the cabinet. If he does, he might as well switch parties.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

FWIW, I don't support Lieberman's crusade against the media.

 

But, let me guess:  You think it's OK for someone like Ward Churchill to insult the families of the 9/11 victims, right?  I'm sorry, but freedom of speech doesn't equate to freedom from responsiblity.  And I hope that terrorist-loving asshole Churchill gets fired.

 

There's a difference between his writings outside the classroom & what he says in the classroom. I know that Campus Watch (a Daniel Pipes run organization -- far right wing, mostly focused on a very pro-Israel bent) has been trying to get professors fired for such things as saying in a class "We need to understand why they hate us because 'they hate our freedom' is not a correct answer."

 

I think that he does have the free speech right to say whatever he thinks. I mean on the UIUC campus, we have a professor who actually said in a speaking engagement that he was at that "Global capitalism needs to spread around the world so we can modernize the Muslim heathens." While questioning his rhetoric & being an idiot for saying it, I do not think that he needs to be fired for such utterances that took place out of the classroom setting.

 

I've learned a lot about the UIUC campus in regards to academic freedom throughout the school's history (had a class on civil liberties and political tolerance last semester -- really interesting stuff from all sides) During World War I, economics professors here had problems because they refused to spend money on war bonds while speaking out against US interventionalism and they were almost dismissed from the University for it. I'm of the mind that if a person can back up their commentary then it is fine for them to say something on a topic and still keep their job in school, especially if the utterance takes place outside the classroom walls. Just because something is insulting, it does not mean that a person should lose their job over it -- especially if the utterance did not take place in their job setting.

 

And FWIW, Churchill does do an excellent job in his FOIA attempts regarding the COINTELPRO programs if anybody is interested from a historical perspective.

[TheBigHurt35]

Just because something is insulting, it does not mean that a person should lose their job over it -- especially if the utterance did not take place in their job setting.

 

Saying something that could be construed as insulting and flat-out spitting in the faces of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 are two different things. What he said is beyond controversial... it's nothing short of hateful. There's no room for preaching hate on publically-funded college campuses, where taxpayers are supporting faculty salaries.

 

And whether or not Churchill said what he said on campus or not is a moot point. Professors (even tenured ones) can easily be fired for off-campus behavior that is deemed detrimental to the college/university. I know of a biochemistry professor at a Big Ten school that was fired immediately after he was arrested (off campus) for cocaine possession a couple years ago. They didn't even wait until he had a chance to defend himself in court.

 

Churchill will be dumped from Colorado soon, and rightfully so. He can take his hate speeches to a private school.

Edited February 14, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Saying something that could be construed as insulting and flat-out spitting in the faces of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 are two different things.  What he said is beyond controversial... it's nothing short of hateful.  There's no room for preaching hate on publically-funded college campuses, where taxpayers are supporting faculty salaries.

 

And whether or not Churchill said what he said on campus or not is a moot point.  Professors (even tenured ones) can easily be fired for off-campus behavior that is deemed detrimental to the college/university.  I know of a biochemistry professor at a Big Ten school that was fired immediately after he was arrested (off campus) for cocaine possession a couple years ago.  They didn't even wait until he had a chance to defend himself in court.

 

Churchill will be dumped from Colorado soon, and rightfully so.  He can take his hate speeches to a private school.

 

Then our economics professor at the UIUC should be fired as well for calling Muslims "heathens" in a speech given about economics. As you said that's "insulting" and "flat out spitting in the faces" of Muslims.

 

There's a difference between cocaine and semantics so its a moot point that he should be removed for his points of view. And as Churchill stated:

 

I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

 

It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center . Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad , this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

 

It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 911 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

 

And in that he does have a wider point that we cannot say we are "innocent" when our government has engaged in numerous acts of state sponsored terrorism because "Terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich."

[TheBigHurt35]

Then our economics professor at the UIUC should be fired as well for calling Muslims "heathens" in a speech given about economics.  As you said that's "insulting" and "flat out spitting in the faces" of Muslims.

 

I won't disagree with that.

 

There's a difference between cocaine and semantics so its a moot point that he should be removed for his points of view.  And as Churchill stated:

And in that he does have a wider point that we cannot say we are "innocent" when our government has engaged in numerous acts of state sponsored terrorism because "Terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the rich."

 

No, there's no difference. This prof was only charged with cocaine possession. He was fired long before his court appearance. What these two incidents have in common is that both professors embarrassed the hell out of their respective universities, Churchill on a national scale. That's reason enough for dismissal from their respective faculty positions.

 

What Churchill essentially said is that people who make a comfortable living are Nazis and that only those in the twin towers who were custodians or food service people were "innocent" (not like the terrorists bothered to differentiate). I understand his point (however wrong it is), but he's pissed off so many people that I just can't see him retaining his job at this point. Given that Colorado taxpayers support his salary, he should be fired.

Edited February 14, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[LowerCaseRepublican]

According to Pentagon logic, they were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

 

That's the whole point of what he was saying in his article and I think its a solid point in what he was trying to get across & one that greatly needs to be considered. I think so many people are pissed off because there is just the whole "OMG HE SAYED EICHMANN!!!1111!1!" knee jerk reactionism -- and cherry picking of his speech by the media, saying that was the main thrust of it with the one analogy does a disservice to what he wrote and does a disservice to the media who is too damn lazy (or incompetent) to even question the idea that Churchill has that if his discussion of dehumanizing 9/11 victims is bad then isn't it just as bad that we dehumanize other targets in the name of "collateral damage" in our military endeavors?

[TheBigHurt35]

According to Pentagon logic, they were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

 

Funny, I don't recall Americans hijacking planes in Saudi Arabia and intentionally killing 3,000 civilians. So, no, your comparison is way off-base. At least that's how my naturalized friend from Ramallah sees it. He lived through this crap for years (including unwarranted arrests and torture at the hands of the Israeli police), and even he doesn't buy into your "America is evil" crap. He'd laugh at you and call you a "wannabe."

 

I think that a closer comparison to 9/11 would be Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurds in the late '80s.

Edited February 14, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[Chisoxfn]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...av=rss_politics

Fantastic idea. He's one of those guys I respect becuase he'll stand for what he believes in, regardless of what his party or anyone else tells him.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Funny, I don't recall Americans hijacking planes in Saudi Arabia and intentionally killing 3,000 civilians.  So, no, your comparison is way off-base.  At least that's how my naturalized friend from Ramallah sees it.  He lived through this crap for years (including unwarranted arrests and torture at the hands of the Israeli police), and even he doesn't buy into your "America is evil" crap.  He'd laugh at you and call you a "wannabe."   

 

I think that a closer comparison to 9/11 would be Saddam's chemical attack on the Kurds in the late '80s.

 

You could talk of any state sponsored terrorism -- from the suppression of regimes in Central and South America, the coups/overthrows, participation in mass murder. If we're to believe that "the ends justifies the means" as the President and the neo-cons discuss with the "democracy" in Iraq, then there is no inherent difference between explosions caused by bombs from US war planes and explosions caused by people accessorizing with dynamite because the ends justify the cause that they want to get through -- intimidation and militarism.

 

And supposedly Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in March 1988 during the closing days of the Iran-Iraq war. But it isn't true. In 1990, the U.S. government found that the Kurds died by cyanide gas. It was the Iranians who used cyanide, while the Iraqis used mustard gas. This means it was the Iranians who accidentally killed the Kurds during battle. Hussein had nothing to do with it. (Source: Army War College, Stephen Pelletier & colleague)

 

And just because he does not buy it, it does not make it less valid. Sticking our noses in other nations' business to make things beneficial for US business interests (read Smedley Butler's retirement speech fom the United States Marine Corps for more information or the movie "Romero" or the film "Missing") does not make us more safe. Its frightening that small government conservatives are ready to wave the banner of Bush's "spread democracy all over the world [and government growth domestically]".

[sox4lifeinPA]

Who's to decide what's "lewd" -- and also how can a word be inherently "dirty"?

 

Who's to decide what is offensive? or disparaging towards another? The whims of the PC crowd never ceases to amaze me. Christians are mocked and berated every day. Anyone standing up for decencies sake is spat upon all in the name of "free speech", yet that free speech is only actually "free" when it is acceptable to the mantra of that group.

 

truly unbelievable hipocrisy.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Who's to decide what is offensive? or disparaging towards another?  The whims of the PC crowd never ceases to amaze me. Christians are mocked and berated every day. Anyone standing up for decencies sake is spat upon all in the name of "free speech", yet that free speech is only actually "free" when it is acceptable to the mantra of that group.

 

truly unbelievable hipocrisy.

 

Most Christians end up being accepting of others and not standing in judgment of them trying to use religion as a political tool either. And PA, get off the pariah complex for being a Christian...

 

As Dave (aka CrimsonWeltall) once stated: It seems both major political parties are filled with anti-Christians (one president even said they shouldn't be citizens), Christians have an extremely hard time getting a day off work for their sacred holidays, they're expected to swear on a copy of the Necronomicon in court and even our money says "We hate Jesus" on it. Meanwhile, Hindus are putting their Origin Myths in science classrooms and Buddhists are erecting monuments at courthouses. And although initially atheists seemed content to just remove an educator's fundamental right to have students engage in forced attention or mandatory prayer, they have put forth laws preventing all prayer in school, making the millions of students who are silently praying, bowing their heads, saying grace at lunch, gathering at flagpoles and joining Bible clubs every day all criminals. Oops. My mistake. Maybe this "double standard" is a little exaggerated.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I'm sure you think Black people aren't socially disadvantaged too....

[TheBigHurt35]

And supposedly Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in March 1988 during the closing days of the Iran-Iraq war. But it isn't true. In 1990, the U.S. government found that the Kurds died by cyanide gas. It was the Iranians who used cyanide, while the Iraqis used mustard gas. This means it was the Iranians who accidentally killed the Kurds during battle. Hussein had nothing to do with it. (Source: Army War College, Stephen Pelletier & colleague)

 

Oh, really? That sounds more like a theory than reality. I can give you at least one source that cites mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX being used at Halabja. And guess who received that chemical weapons technology from the US in the early '80s? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't Iran.

 

And it sounds like your boy Pelletiere went back on his word:

"Pelletiere summarized the DIA's findings and noted that because of the DIA's conclusion there was not sufficient evidence to definitively determine whether Iraq or Iran was responsible."

 

So, are Saddam's torture chambers and his part in the Oil-For-Food Scandal all lies from the "neo-cons" as well? :rolly

[sox4lifeinPA]

So, are Saddam's torture chambers and his part in the Oil-For-Food Scandal all lies from the "neo-cons" as well?

 

 

hehehe...and grizley adams had a beard...