Do "moderates" usually want to keep killing people who never attacked us?

[NNN0LHI]

I keep hearing "what does the Lieberman's loss say to the moderates in our party?"

Guess what?

People who insist on continuing to kill people who never did anything to us is not being moderate.

Lieberman and his supporters are the opposite of moderate.

And don't let anyone try and bullshit you into thinking otherwise.

Don

[xultar]

1. This is a STOOPID BULLSHIT FLAMEBAIT post. I'm a moderate

and I don't 'usually want to keep killing people who never attacked us'

So please stop the fucking madness.

Please.

Why not just say all all women can't hack it, blacks are lazy and all mexicans are illegal while you're at it.

Oh, and anyone who'd recommend this post should be ashamed.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Ditto!

I recommend YOUR post! :)

[EFerrari]

3. Did you misread the post? He's saying that Joe isn't a moderate

he only plays one on teevee.

And he is right.

K&R

/e

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. You were doing so well...

..don't start with the "dual loyalty" bullshit...especially after correctly calling out the OP for making assumptions about moderates, in which you then pointed out other broad-brush smears. BTW...Lamont is ALSO a supporter of Israel!

[NNN0LHI]

7. No more recommendations?

:eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

8. not for you.

:puke:

[NNN0LHI]

9. Now you went and hurt my feelings

:hi:

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Seriously...

You can actually write some descent things. You can even debate well. However, you can also post random crap like the OP. Considering your disdain for me and my position on Israel, I doubt I hurt your feelings, but I also doubt you know anything else about me because you simply don't care.

:hi:

[xultar]

12. You don't get it. I support Israel too. But I also don't like what they

are doing in Lebanon or Palestine. You know what. There are Israelis who don't like what is going on in Lebanon and Palestine too.

So don't even go there.

Joe Lieberman supported the war in Iraq beause of security for Israel as well.

I don't agree with either.

But just because I don't agree with Joe it doesn't make him a guy who wants to kill people...thus not a moderate.

Why must everything be a battle where Israel is concerned? Why jump to conclusions.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. I do get it!

I don't like the way things are being carried out, either! Joe did not support the Iraq war because of Israel, he did it because he bought the bullshit excuse that there were WMD's. His continued support was strictly "because the terrorist can't win" meme.

"Why must everything be a battle where Israel is concerned? Why jump to conclusions." Do you really want that answer?!

[xultar]

16. Yes..I want the answer..and answer me this...everyone was concerned

that if Uncle Saddy had Nuklear weapons he'd use them against Israel...

So that doesn't play into security for Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Answer...

After the first Gulf War, Israel was not nearly as concerned with Iraq, as with Iran. I don't recall then WMD's being "nuklear" but, I do remember them being considered viable.

So answer this...almost ALL democratic leaders supported the invasion of Iraq...until they learned the truth. There was only a SMALL group who did not. So, why is Lieberman singled out?

[xultar]

18. He isn't singled out. He's the first to go...there will be many more.

Is that your issue?

You think people are singling him out for what ?!?!? you aren't going there.

Clearly...French Kissing little lord pissypants had an effect.

Anyone who would french kiss that asshole has got to fuckin go in some peoples eyes

I believe the right set us up and the Rightie running against Lamont will win.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Xultar...read more posts here!

He was singled out! He is also accused of being "Israeli first."

There are a few things I don't like him for...the "gay marriage thing" pops to mind. But, his support for Israel, doesn't outweigh his support for our country.

I would agree with "I believe the right set us up and the Rightie running against Lamont will win." They have enough far-left to make their stupid "anti-Semitism" charges actually make sense! The ironic thing is that Lamont is also a supporter of Israel. How will that play with the "far-left?"

Are you familiar with his civil rights work?

[xultar]

20. Yes I am. I was neutral in this race. To be honest I felt that we were

being setup and I felt we'd have a better chance with Lieberman in the general election.

I don't like Lieberman French Kissing Boosh..but I looked @ his whole record and not just the Iraq thing.

I wasn't necessarily a Lamont supporter. I really wanted the people of CT to decide not out-of-state interests.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. I figured you did.

But, you are buying into the "far-left" bullshit! There are plenty of reasons not to care for Lieberman, but his support of Israel shouldn't be one...or you'd have to toss almost the entire Democratic party! Of course, there are posters here that would love that!

I was disgusted by the "kiss" too because I had hoped it was a ploy, only to learn he was supporting an illegal war in Iraq!

You say that you wanted the people of CT to decide and not those with "out-of-state" intrests...but that is what happened! Of course, the "state" we are talking about is Israel. Not all of Lieberman's 'foes' brought that up as an issue, but many here did! The only "Joe" threads I ever jumped in on were the ones accusing him of being more loyal to Israel. I even pointed that out to one poster, who had to concede that I was being truthful. I never defended his stance on Iraq, or really anything...I only fought off the bullshit being spewed about his "dual loyalties."

[EFerrari]

10. I have a hard time believing any moderate could be supportive

of Junior, who is clearly a radical, Israel or no.

[xultar]

13. Bush's support for Israel @ all costs is why I think Joe is so behind

Bush.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. And you would be wrong.

In all the statements that I have seen about his support of the Iraq war, only ONE was about security in the ME, and didn't even mention Israel.

[MrBenchley]

22. You know.....

Lamont won his narrow victory by encouraging this sort of crap.

"Why not just say all all women can't hack it, blacks are lazy and all mexicans are illegal while you're at it."
Remember, it wasn't moderates who put out a racist caricature.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[itzamirakul]

21. What used to be called "moderate" has shifted to a rightwing

position and is no longer truly centrist. There are no true moderates remaining in the Democratic Party.
There are only DINOs and Progressives and I am proud to be among the latter.

"Do moderates usually want to keep killing people who never attacked us?" My answer to this is an unqualified, "Yes." They just want to stop arguing. Those who erroneously call themselves Democratic moderates just don't have enough heart to defend an opposing belief.

The hardliners love the new moderate position because they so easily go along to get along with the hard right. Someday they may be called upon to decide whether to kill some of their own.

Edit: To recommend and kick

[stray cat]

24. The problem is we are already in Iraq

Moderates believe generally in trying to find a way out of the mess in Iraq instead of just yelling slogans at the other side in partisan bickering. In other words is it better to gain points for your party or find solutions. The bad news is repubs have chosen party loyalty over solutions. How do dems deal with that stance be republicans: by still trying to find nonpartisan solutions or attacking and to hell with solutions. Its a question worth consideration. I sure don't know the answer.

[EFerrari]

25. It's likeley the Iraqi people will decide that one for us sooner

than later.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Yes, in a word.

The alternatives in Iraq are not "killing" and "no killing", they're "killing with American troops killing" and "probably more killing than would be the case with American troops present".

America should withdraw its troops from Iraq because the place is going to go to pieces when they leave no matter how long they stay, and the longer they stay the worse that will be, but the amount of bloodshed and chaos will increase if/when America leaves, and so presenting the decision as being between "killing" and "not killing", as the OP does, is very misleading indeed.

I think that the right decision is to withdraw as soon as possible, but disagreeing, while misguided, is not necessarily in any way immoderate.

Lieberman may not be right (although I think he's massively overhated by DUers), but he is moderate.