comment #1

dangovich says ...

If only this Rahm existed. The real one would be happy to see the public option go away, so we could have his/Obama's meaningless "triggers."

Also, thanks Connecticut!

comment #2

TL says ...

Look, I despise Lieberman, and have since he single-handedly threw the 2000 election to Bush.

That being said, he's a drama queen looking for the media to stroke his ego as though he has some clout. But his statement was full of weasel words, and I all but guarantee you that he's not going to join a Republican filibuster.

Don't give him any more attention!

comment #3

M. Hulot says ...

I wonder it the guy who yelled, "Jews rule!" on am earlier post, will continue to defend his comment in light of yet another in a long series of asshole moves from Lieberjew.

comment #4

Colin says ...

I wonder if you're going to stop being racist anytime soon.

comment #5

BurmaShave says ...

Hulot, I was bending over backwards to not think of you as another tiresome Anti-Semite, but sincerely, you're a cunt. Enjoy your armchair pogrom.

comment #6

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

ban his ip address already!

comment #7

bill weber says ...

Lieberman is a scumbag, but any public option in these bills is going to be so watered down as to be near-meaningless.

comment #8

Redmond says ...

M. Hulot realizes this isn't a 4chan forum, right? Please ban that bigot, Jeff.

comment #9

Josh Massey says ...

Hey Hulot, guess what?

JEWS RULE.

comment #10

DeeZee says ...

I guess 3-d isn't the answer, huh, Katzenberg?
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010468.html?categoryId=18&cs=1&cache=false
Digital Bits has specs on 20th Anniversary Goodfellas BD.
Internet trailer for 'Goats.
http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2009/IJKLM/Men-Who-Stare-At-Goats,The/trailer.php

comment #11

DeeZee says ...

Spade explains the Farley thing.
http://www.okmagazine.com/2009/10/david-spade-responds-to-chris-farley-direct-tv-ad/

comment #12

BanksAreForRivers says ...

Jews don't rule, but they don't suck either. They're just kinda so-so.

Unless, that is, you're comparing them to Evangelicals, Mormons, Babtists, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Scientologists, LaRouchites, Jehova's Witnesses, Fundamentalist Christians (any fundamentalists, really) etc,

Then yes, Jews Rule... by default.

comment #13

Mighty Kornholio says ...

The Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack H. Obama

http://tinyurl.com/yl8wc8z

comment #14

NUMBSKULL says ...

Why the Democrats haven't 'deselected' Leiberman after all his endless betrayals is beyond me. Why don't they just destroy this smirking turd and get someone else into his district seat?

Rahm Emmanuel seems like a lot of hot air to me... Why can't he get those Insurance-Lobby compromised Democrat weasels into line? I though this guy was meant to be tough?

By the way, I'm British. The ludicrous bullshit you hear about the UK National Health Service is hilarious... It's absolutely fantastic compared to what you've got here, you poor deluded, media-hypnotised dummies!

I'm back in the USA after some years away in London... Boy, the feeling of the shit hitting the fan here is palpable. What's happened to this once-admirable country is a damn shame. Time for the ruling banking/military/corporate class to get theirs, I'd say!

comment #15

Studly Semite says ...

In slime-pit of bad jews, Lieberman is down there with Bernie Madoff and Joel Steinberg.

comment #16

DeeZee says ...

Numbskull: The Dems won't do anything about Lieberman, cus they still need his vote against a filibuster. But at least he'll be out of office in three more years.

comment #17

DeeZee says ...

Looks like Angie (allegedly) got around when she was young, too. http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/10/27/2009-10-27_andrew_mortons_book_alleges_angelina_jolie_slept_with_mother_marcheline_bertrand.html

comment #18

M. Hulot says ...

Colin: Jews are not a "race" of people. They are a religious people and, if by blood, Jews are an ethnic group, not a race. There is a big difference. Perhaps you should consider reading a book or two before making yourself out to appear as if you're ignorant fool.

Burma: in what part of you logically-challenged mind did you come up with the idea that I'm an Anti-Semite, or a tiresome one at that? Oh yeah! You weren't using the logical side of your brain, you were using the emotional part.

I was actually making fun of myself for my previous posting regarding the ridiculousness of the "Jews Rule" comment made by another poster, and my decidedly silly reaction to it. However, I find it interesting, in terms of dialectical reasoning, how I've been labeled a Jew-hater simply by pointing out the really quite logical fact that "not all Jews rule" by using Leiberman as a clear
piece of evidence to the contrary. The Jews rule comment was ridiculous, regardless of whether it was meant in jest. Saying that about any group of people is stupid. And by pointing out the stupidity of that comment, and doing so in a satirical self-mocking manner does not make me an anti-semite by any stretch of the imagination. Even if my tone was serious, which it was not.

But in typical fashion people here have trotted out the Anti-semite card, which is just as cowardly and simple-minded as playing the race card.

Demonizing me for debunking the myth that all
Jews rule by pointing out that Senator Joe is a glaring example of proof that that comment is simply untrue, doesn't make me me a hater, or a bigot, of any other limp-dicked perjorative label you might try to apply. If I was questioning the reasoning behind any similar comment like, "Catholics rule" or "Hindu's rule" etc etc. would that make me anti-Catholic or Anti-Hindu? Um, NO!

No grouping of people on the planet earth is without err. I was merely pointing out that Jews are simply not
immune--just like any other group!

And if anyone in this room can't understand the difference and thinks that this makes me anti-semetic, in anyway, you're an idiot. And, um, fuck you.

comment #19

Gordon27 says ...

"Why don't they just destroy this smirking turd and get someone else into his district seat?"

They did basically kick him out of the party, but he got re-elected as an "Independent" because there was a three-way race, and he managed to get *some* of his previous Democratic support and a big batch of Republican support as well.

I think they'll make a priority of taking him out next time.

comment #20

TheGK says ...

Harry Reid needs to man up and make it clear that Liebermans' chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is on the line over this.
I'm amazed he still caucuses with the Democratic caucus after he campaigned for McCain.

Whether he's Jewish or not doesn't matter one bit. One thing I will say is that Jewish (or Semitic) women are hot: Rachel Weisz, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Michelle Trachtenberg, Mila Kunis, etc.
Quod erat demonstrandum

comment #21

Floyd Thursby says ...

On top of everything else, Leiberman has a creepy, whiny voice. Can't stand to hear him say anything. Used to listen to Imus, and whenever his suckbuddy Joe arrived, I'd turn off radio.

comment #22

The Hoyk says ...

Lieberman was the primary reason I refused to vote for Gore in 2000, and gave my vote to Nader. And even knowing now what eight years of Bush wrought, if Holy Joe were still on the ticket, I'd do it again.

comment #23

DavidF says ...

I guess Hulot has answered the "is her an anti-Semite?" question straight-up So nice not have to dither about it.

I see you were suggesting you were operating on some level of irony or jest, which I guess is your right.

"Jews rule!" was a joke you took seriously, for starters.
On a literal level, your criticisms make no sense since Jews DO rule in Israel and since Lieberman, as a politican, also "rules" in some sense.

If you took it as declaring, "I believe 100% of Jewish people are totally awesome and good!" and sought to debunk that claim, you are equally foolish.

Apparently it's impossible to mention a Jew without Hulot extrapolating it into a universal, negative principle about all Jews, whether in earnest or with a healthy dollop of irony. So many people beat around the bush, it's nice to see someone being Old School.

Good on ya, sir!

(And, yeah, Lieberman is an opportunistic tool.)

comment #24

Wrecktem says ...

Gee, a senator from Connecticut supports the interests of big insurance companies? Wow, that's a shocker.

In other breaking news, Kansas Senator Roberts supports agri-business and California Senator Boxer supports Hollywood.

comment #25

DeeZee says ...

GK: Gellar and Weisz look average to me, but I will admit that Kunis was one of the better reasons to watch Extract. And she may be legal, but Trachtenberg's sort of got that Ellen Page thing going on with her which makes me feel awkward even bothering to watch her movies, let alone evaluate her looks.

Hoyk: Gore was the primary reason I voted for Nader. Throwing Clinton under the bus was the dumbest fucking thing he ever did in his political career. "I know. I'll try to out-Republican Dubya, instead of bringing up how his Daddy is the reason that Bill got elected in the first place." Joe was admittedly a shitty Veep contender, too, but
Gore showed no passion for wanting to win the race.

And frankly, I think I hate Edwards more now than Lieberman. That guy at least had the potential to be the next Clinton, and he wasted it trying to play it safe while slutting around on the side.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21908766/

comment #26

Travis Crabtree says ...

Hypocrisy rules!

A Republican jumps to "the other side", he's feted as a bold, mavericky, conscience-driven hero.

A Democrat does the same and he's a "tool", a "scumbag" and a "smirking turn-coat turd" who should be destroyed.

Oh, and the hilarity to be read above.... one poster says that Lieberman's presence on the 2000 Gore ticket caused him to opt for Nader, then someone else says that Joe's VP slot gave the election to Bush. (!) So, you don't like Joe in the VP slot, so you'll illustrate your dislike by voting for Nader.... Oh no! Bush won! I knew Joe would cause this!

What short memories so many of you have. Lieberman's selection was widely hailed by liberals in 2000. He was highly respected among Democrats. If anything, Gore was considered the Hawk-ier of the two.

And yes, this sight has plenty of anti-semites trolling about.

comment #27

Colin says ...

A satirist you are not Hulot, the covering up of your prejudices is so-so.

comment #28

Colin says ...

Crabtree you have that wrong Lieberman was never looked at as the more liberal part of the ticket.

comment #29

Travis Crabtree says ...

Yes he was.

Nary a bad word was spoken of him from Dems at the time.

And Gore was seen as hawky back then.

comment #30

Floyd Thursby says ...

"And yes, this sight has plenty of anti-semites trolling about." As well as bad spellers.

comment #31

DeeZee says ...

Travis: "Lieberman's selection was widely hailed by liberals in 2000. "

Liberals INO, maybe...

"He was highly respected among Democrats."

That's because the Dems had low standards up until they started realizing that was a bad thing.

comment #32

DeeZee says ...

http://boldprogressives.org/majorityvote/p-e3