Lobbying The Big Guy

F@uck silently. The Fellowship should get Samuel L. Jackson with a bullhorn on LIEberman's front lawn:
.
"Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

"A group of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Unitarian Universalist clergy..."
.
...walk into a bar...

A pedophile, a gay guy and a priest walk into a bar...same guy.

Hey has anyone ever asked Lieberman what he thinks of the health care system in Israel? From what I understand, everyone has to buy insurance and they can buy it from private, semi private, or public options. I think it would be really fun to hear his opinion of it.
.
Great point, pafro. I'd enjoy hearing Holy Joe talk about that. Along with defending his "it will bust the budget" argument against the public option.

Israeli health care sounds like an excellent model! Step one will be to find a benefactor who will lighten the burden of our defense budget. China?

In many so-called third world countries basic health care at the many government-run hospitals is free for all its citizens. And those who want private rooms, flowers and TV's by their bedside can access private care.

Not so for OVER 35 million Americans who have no health insurance. And that is more than the population of Israel, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Kenya, ...

Now talk about the civilized, "gentler" nation with 1,000 points of light ...
There are over 35 million Americans who wonder ...
[For it is often said that a civilization is judged by how it cares for the least fortunate of its citizens ...]

I think the link between Church and State has been around for a while, Kathy. For all the noise about a secular govt most of our pols make all the right "religious noises". In the case of the Senator: he is a hypocrite, and feels no shame. That the Dems continue to give this man the chairmanship of an important committee tells us more about the old boys club mentality in the "greatest deliberative body in the world". The Senate's one man hold is a ego builder.

Look at Robert Byrd. What is he doing there? The man can barely voice his thoughts, yet he clings to his seat.

I think the Catholic Bishops played a highly coercive role in pushing the Stupak - Pitts amendment.

Not to mention that "family" world domination cult Stupad belongs to.

Nice hyperbole, Rusty. Democrats = terrorists. Gotcha.
.
Please don't make any future comments about bipartisanship in Congress.
.
Also, please explain how the public option will completely bankrupt America. (Or will it decimate us "better than any terrorist bomb"? I'm kinda fuzzy on that one.) Seriously. Explain.

"I hope to God, and pray to the Almighty that Lieberman holds steadfast in his convictions"
.
Which convictions?
.
The ones he campaigned on in 2006 when he promised he'd fight for universal health care? Or the ones he's conveniently rolled out now saying he's against it?
.
The ones he now has where he says the only problem is the public option? Or the ones he had six months ago when he said the plan without a public option was still bad?
.
Holy Joe Lieberman only has the convictions of his massive list of insurance company donations.

"The assult in the form of complete bankruptcy of our great Nation"

How can you be so incredibly dim anyway? Were you this oblivious during the terms of Reagan, HW Bush and W? Historically speaking, they ran up very nearly ALL of the debt in the post WWII era and I didn't hear those like yourself complaining. This leads me to the conclusion that many of you on the right that claim to be "fiscal conservatives" are woefully ignorant of history and care only about your side being in power. When all of these Repubs run up TRILLIONS in debt, you fail to bat an eye at it. When Obama is attempting to keep the economy from heading over the cliff (where W led us), there are only cries on NO, NO, NO! As in, no help, no answers and no solutions being offered by the Repubs.

BTW, you are apparently ignorant of campaign contributions too. Perhaps you should check out http://www.opensecrets.org and see just how much LIEberman is owned by the insurance industry. He couldn't care less about what may or may not bankrupt this country, only what his donors demand.

"Please don't make any future comments about bipartisanship in Congress."

.
I won't Shakes. Bipartisanship has been totally obliterated by this Congress controlled by Pelosi and Reid the Impaler. In 2010, once the Conservatives are back in power, we can undo any of the wack-job bills that Nancy and Harry have created.
.

"Also, please explain how the public option will completely bankrupt America. (Or will it decimate us "better than any terrorist bomb"? I'm kinda fuzzy on that one.) Seriously. Explain."

.
Already, Obama, Pelosi and Reid have created more national debt than any of the previous 43 Presidents before him. ALL 43 Presidents that have come before him. Combined total debt of the past 43 Presidents is less than one year of Obama.
.
Now you want him to take over 1/6th of our Nation's economy? Give me a break.

Wow. From your comment, I can't tell if there's supposed to be something funny, or if you're just god-awful oblivious. Quite a trick. Are you blond?

Are you blond, conversets?

Good point, freeinpa. Although I am still trying to sort out the equivalency of the two groups of religious freaks, and although I agree with the political position of those in Conn., my short answer to you would be yes.

The people in Connecticut are demonstrating, assembling, and exercising their constitutional right of free speech. If they are violating some local ordinances that don't violate the Constitution -- perhaps by blocking traffic -- they are subject to whatever penalties apply.
.
The Catholic charities in DC have taken the position that if they are required to abide by certain local ordinances in the conduct of their activities, they will stop conducting those activities. They have every right to do this. The question in that case is whether the Church can coerce (if you don't like "coerce," substitute "persuade") the local government into abandoning legislation, lest the services of those Catholic charities be lost.
.
Commentators elsewhere (and maybe even here) have pointed out that the Church is happy to take federal and state money in support of Church schools by spending that money on non-religious matters like schoolbooks and busing. Money is fungible when it pays for abortion (ask Rep Stupak or the Catholic bishops), but not when it pays for (secular) schoolbooks and enables the Church to spend more money on religious instruction. In DC the Church would have to abide by rules that it finds contrary to the Catholic faith, like paying for the health insurance of spouses of gay employees. I don't see why it can't just segregate those funds as they do with funds received to support the secular functions of their schools (use money received from the DC govt to pay for things they don't like), but I'm not Catholic, so what do I know?
.
If it were up to me, I'd tell the Catholics to conduct all the charitable activities in DC they want to, but I wouldn't give them one cent of DC taxpayers' money with which to do it unless they agreed to abide by the rules. There must be a few secular do-gooders in the world to take up the slack.
.
Meanwhile,why hasn't a similar ruckus broken out already in any of the several states that allow gay marriage or protect gays against discrimination?

bobell
"The question in that case is whether the Church can coerce (if you don't like "coerce," substitute "persuade") the local government into abandoning legislation, lest the services of those Catholic charities be lost"

Is this so different than Rev Jesse Jackson and the Rev Al "persuading" (Extort is more precise) government officials at the loca, state and federal level to abandon or support (usually spending) legislation for their gain.

The argument that unless they abide by rules in violation of their religious principles is a violation of the separation of church and state. Here is a question for you. Since many states, like California, refuse to prosecute or report to ICE illegal immigrants should all federal money be withheld from the states? They can flaunt the laws all they want as long as the citizens of those states are willing to fund it? I am sure the liberal moral relevance spin machine will be in high gear.

Garlic and silver too. Although in Lieberman's case, 40 pieces is acceptable.

You're thinking of werewolves and Judas (Juddi?!). OK then, carry on...

No. They can do all of that they want. It is the Broder's of the world that get uncomfortable at that, because their main goal is to not have uncomfortable moments at their D.C. cocktail parties. When the American people have two cut and dried choices, we liberals believe we win, although it might make the cocktail circuit testy at times.