What it tells me is that Liebermann is a supporter of the only real democracy in the Middle East and the only consistent friend this country has had in the Middle East. So what? How many Jews have terrorist organizations going into pizza parlors and malls and hospitals and classrooms killing women and children? Iran has publicly stated that that they want to run Israel into the Sea and eridacate the the race of Jews. So yeah, if I were and Israeli official, of course I would be very tempted and concerned to take care of Iran militarily. what are you going to do, talk to them? Well, America and it's allies are trying to do that. It doesn't help Israel, though. They will probably go after certain iranian targets before Ameica does. Bill Clinton was also a staunch defender of Israel as was Reagan. The only President that I can think of in recent years who has been critical of Israel is Jimmy Carter so if you like buy some ofhis books and you can read more of the same from Jimmy who is really becoming an embarrassment to himself and the office he once held.

I deeply admire Joe Liebermann for standing up for his convictions. Whether you agree with him or not is of course up to you and you are as entitled to your opinion as I am mine. however, where you go wrong is you're obsession with his Judiasm. Liebermann risked everything for his support of America. He has supported America in this war (in good times and in bad), he has been to Iraq to see and visit with the troops more than any other Senator - including the President. He is a throwback Democrat - or was. The fact that this party threw him under the bus so quickly because he dared buck the system and dealt a little realism into the Democrats fantasy world of idealism should be considered a badge of honor and NOT the scar in which you attempt to portray it as.

So, you "deeply admire Joe Lieberman", and how long has this love affair been going on? I bet you didn't admire him when he was the Democratic VP candidate. In fact, I bet this admiration didn't begin until Lieberman changed his stripes. Who are you trying to fool with that baloney? Even you have to admit, it is a little suspicious that he only votes conservative when it comes to the Middle East and Israel. Again, let me ask, do you really think that's just coincidence? or is his religion and ties to Israel having an influence?

I didn't vote for him as a V.P. candidate because I did not agree with the philosophy of Al Gore. I don't know that he "changed his stripes" at all. I deeply admire his conviction and his independence. I could care less what you find suspicious, to be honest. I have no reason or cause to want to "fool" anybody. Finally, I am unaware of his ties to Israel and don't really care what they are if he has any. Mybe sometime you'll mature enough to recognize that these labels that you rely so heavily on are really more of a hinderence than anything. There are plenty of Democrats who I have admired and there are plenty of Republicans who I haven't. The only ones who seems confused about this are people such as yourself who have blanketed themselves with rage, anger, bigotry and hate.

Well, that was quite a rant. Unfortunately, any argument was completely nullified by your admitting to a recent conversion to the Lieberman camp. You, "deeply admire" Lieberman, the only thing you admire about him is his support for the war. In other words, as long as he thinks Republican, he's admirable, oh man.

Yeah, you admire plenty of Democrats too. That one won't wash either. Maybe if Billo became a Democrat, but only then. Finally, the Republicans are the party of bigotry and hate. It's no accident that minorities up and down the line overwhelmingly vote Democrat. You Pubs are still the party of Bull Connor. The party whose primary voting base is white and male.

You're nothing more than an ignoramous, Upton. Your insults and lack of historical knowlege are so acute that I no longer find it amusing or even fun to debate with you. When you grow up, when you actually are able to have an intelligent discussion, let me know. Otherwise, your far-left rants and incoherant accusations of those you know nothing about can be better spewed towards someone who actually gives a shit about what you have to say because I don't.

After referring to me as an ignoramus, among other things, not to mention your use of profanity, I wouldn't be talking about my inability to have an "intelligent discussion", if I were you. However, I do have one retraction to make, that of inferring that Bull Connor had been a Republican, which he was not. What I should have said, was that today's Republican party was Bull Connor like. Obviously, that doesn't apply to all members of the GOP, but it was you who brought up bigotry, and my point was that the majority of such now resides within the Republicans, not the Democrats.

My opinions only seem "far left" to you, because you lean considerably to the right , not the middle as you are continually asserting. Perhaps, in your case, a mental recalibration is in order, so you may have some idea where the political middle actually resides.

Whatever, dude. Your done as far as I'm concerned.

Run away then, put me on your ignore list. Cowardice is something I hadn't suspected of you, but perhaps, in hindsight, I should have. As the only debate you enjoy is not actually debate at all, agreeing and pasting does not meet the current definition.

I don't put anyone on the "ignore" list. However, it's become apparent that you and I have different qualifications as to what merits a "debate". In my view, you don't meet that standard. I've been going round and round with you for quite a while and the best you can offer is the same tired and true Murdoch theories, O'Reilly is the next Satan and Liebermann is a Jew who has been overtaken by the jewish lobbyists who are somehow controlling everything. Meanwhile, you've offered nothing to substantiate these wild theories other than repetition of what some of the people you listen too are. You can call it cowardice. I simply call it boredom.

What are "true Murdoch theories"? That infers that you agree with me, and, or that Murdoch is the author of those theories. I highly doubt you mean it either way, but possibly you are coming around. There may be hope for you yet.

You have been denying the influence of Jewish lobbying group AIPAC, while, in the same breath, admitting you don't even know what AIPAC is. I think, even you, can see the problem with that picture. Nevertheless, here are AIPAC's stated purposes,

1. Pressuring the Palestinian government to adhere to Israeli demands through embargoes and UN resolutions.

2. Strengthening the bond between Washington and Israel through shared intelligence and foreign military and economic aid (totaling $2.52 billion in 2006).

3. Condemning the actions of Iran for pursuing nuclear status and questioning the Holocaust (also levying financial restrictions to hinder nuclear development).

4. Additional actions against countries and groups hostile towards Israel.

As you can see, your new hero, Jewish Joe, adheres quite well to those stated principals. To be fair, many members of congress do as well, but to deny AIPAC's influence is foolhardy.