If I may interpret this from DLS:
<quote>And non-liberals, the more moderate people such as me. We don't so much admire him as laud his correct stance on Iraq and on Iran. We know a threat in Iran where one obviously exists, even if others are in denial and actually hate Lieberman for being honest about it.</quote>

Republicans see Lieberman agreeing with them and defying his party as “turning back from the Dark Side”, so to speak, since he was (and some things may still be) a Democrat. When a Republican dares to disagree with his own kind & defy them, he's a traitor. In other words, “It's OK If You Agree With Me” (IOKIYAWM).

If I may interpret this from DLS:
<quote>And non-liberals, the more moderate people such as me. We don't so much admire him as laud his correct stance on Iraq and on Iran. We know a threat in Iran where one obviously exists, even if others are in denial and actually hate Lieberman for being honest about it.</quote>

Republicans see Lieberman agreeing with them and defying his party as “turning back from the Dark Side”, so to speak, since he was (and some things may still be) a Democrat. When a Republican dares to disagree with his own kind & defy them, he's a traitor. In other words, “It's OK If You Agree With Me” (IOKIYAWM).

BTW, its Lieberman's stance on the war that would cause me to vote against him, if I were a Connecticut voter. I agree with Cosmo- its pretty much insanity and an expensive insanity. How long can we afford to spend 15 billion a month in Iraq?

BTW, its Lieberman's stance on the war that would cause me to vote against him, if I were a Connecticut voter. I agree with Cosmo- its pretty much insanity and an expensive insanity. How long can we afford to spend 15 billion a month in Iraq?

***No judge has ever hit an opposite meaning. Cas ein point, the 2md Amendment is clear as ever, for its wording is clear.

But, when the slaves were freed, as example, this gave humans sovereignty over their lives and forms. A logical extension is the right of a woman over her body- and no, a fetus is not an independent human being. Thus Roe was a logical extension of the extension of rights to all members of society. So is euthanasia. Living wills just clarify what is manifestly the decision of one- when or when not to end their existences.

'Also, it's in no way psychotic or even neurotic to be against a truly psychotic immediate, instantaneous withdrawal from Iraq.'

The psychosis is to stay and expect a difference from doing the same thing. Leave, asap. It's the only sane option, one that Vietnam shd have branded into the American ass.

***No judge has ever hit an opposite meaning. Cas ein point, the 2md Amendment is clear as ever, for its wording is clear.

But, when the slaves were freed, as example, this gave humans sovereignty over their lives and forms. A logical extension is the right of a woman over her body- and no, a fetus is not an independent human being. Thus Roe was a logical extension of the extension of rights to all members of society. So is euthanasia. Living wills just clarify what is manifestly the decision of one- when or when not to end their existences.

'Also, it's in no way psychotic or even neurotic to be against a truly psychotic immediate, instantaneous withdrawal from Iraq.'

The psychosis is to stay and expect a difference from doing the same thing. Leave, asap. It's the only sane option, one that Vietnam shd have branded into the American ass.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/697/conservative-ta...

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/697/conservative-ta...

And non-liberals, the more moderate people such as me. We don't so much admire him as laud his correct stance on Iraq and on Iran. We know a threat in Iran where one obviously exists, even if others are in denial and actually hate Lieberman for being honest about it.

And non-liberals, the more moderate people such as me. We don't so much admire him as laud his correct stance on Iraq and on Iran. We know a threat in Iran where one obviously exists, even if others are in denial and actually hate Lieberman for being honest about it.

Not to have it mean nothing like it was ever intended to mean, or even the opposite of what it obviously means. Clarification is one thing, extending the meaning of something to apply to what was never foreseen by those who wrote the law is one thing, illegitimate activism to try to get judges to substitute their views and desires (and those of activists who seek the judges' decisions, who often cannot win elections and will not see their goals legislated in the correct way) is something else completely. Nobody can legitimately say that a judge has the right to say that “red” now means green. Nobody has the right to lie in the face of those who made their intentions plainly clear. They deserve to have their relatives' “living, breathing” [sic] wills creatively “re-interpreted” to their loss.

Also, it's in no way psychotic or even neurotic to be against a truly psychotic immediate, instantaneous withdrawal from Iraq.

Not to have it mean nothing like it was ever intended to mean, or even the opposite of what it obviously means. Clarification is one thing, extending the meaning of something to apply to what was never foreseen by those who wrote the law is one thing, illegitimate activism to try to get judges to substitute their views and desires (and those of activists who seek the judges' decisions, who often cannot win elections and will not see their goals legislated in the correct way) is something else completely. Nobody can legitimately say that a judge has the right to say that “red” now means green. Nobody has the right to lie in the face of those who made their intentions plainly clear. They deserve to have their relatives' “living, breathing” [sic] wills creatively “re-interpreted” to their loss.

Also, it's in no way psychotic or even neurotic to be against a truly psychotic immediate, instantaneous withdrawal from Iraq.

Which is exactly why he suffers from clinical psychosis.

Which is exactly why he suffers from clinical psychosis.

The Constitution was left vague precisely so that later generations could interpret it more easily. This was the greatest thing about the document. In that way, it is the strict constructionists who simply do not fundamentally understand the Constitution, nor the Founders' intent for it. Those who have applied the most liberal application of the words are the most closely connected to the spirit of the entity.