<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GREENER PASTURES FOR LIEBERMAN?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/22/greener-pastures-for-lieberman/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/22/greener-pastures-for-lieberman/</link>
	<description>Politics served up with a smile... And a stilletto.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 16:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: TTT</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/22/greener-pastures-for-lieberman/comment-page-1/#comment-537449</link>
		<dc:creator>TTT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:56:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/22/greener-pastures-for-lieberman/#comment-537449</guid>
		<description>When you say Joe Lieberman is "generous to his foes," I assume you mean he's generous in regularly handing out big servings of "anyone who opposes the Iraq war is siding with the terrorists."  

Lieberman has no values other than his own ego.  He will never switch parties, because if he did people would stop paying attention to him.  Hopefully in '08 the Dems will pick up enough Senate seats that everybody can go back to happily ignoring this Palpatine-wannabe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When you say Joe Lieberman is &#8220;generous to his foes,&#8221; I assume you mean he&#8217;s generous in regularly handing out big servings of &#8220;anyone who opposes the Iraq war is siding with the terrorists.&#8221;  </p>
<p>Lieberman has no values other than his own ego.  He will never switch parties, because if he did people would stop paying attention to him.  Hopefully in &#8216;08 the Dems will pick up enough Senate seats that everybody can go back to happily ignoring this Palpatine-wannabe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Moran</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/22/greener-pastures-for-lieberman/comment-page-1/#comment-532615</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Moran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/22/greener-pastures-for-lieberman/#comment-532615</guid>
		<description>Greg:

That may be true. But I wonder if it is, why haven't the Republicans lurched more to the left? Especially on social issues.

Perhaps like me, these former Dems (I consider myself one actually) don't give a fig about abortion, school prayer, or gay marraige and therefore don't engage on the issue like the religious right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Greg:</p>
<p>That may be true. But I wonder if it is, why haven&#8217;t the Republicans lurched more to the left? Especially on social issues.</p>
<p>Perhaps like me, these former Dems (I consider myself one actually) don&#8217;t give a fig about abortion, school prayer, or gay marraige and therefore don&#8217;t engage on the issue like the religious right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gregdn</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/22/greener-pastures-for-lieberman/comment-page-1/#comment-532604</link>
		<dc:creator>gregdn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:26:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/22/greener-pastures-for-lieberman/#comment-532604</guid>
		<description>Don't moan the loss of the 'interventionist' Democrats; they just switched parties and now are known as 'Neo-Cons'.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t moan the loss of the &#8216;interventionist&#8217; Democrats; they just switched parties and now are known as &#8216;Neo-Cons&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nikolay</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/22/greener-pastures-for-lieberman/comment-page-1/#comment-531632</link>
		<dc:creator>Nikolay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:24:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/02/22/greener-pastures-for-lieberman/#comment-531632</guid>
		<description>That's really an effective talking point, "slow bleed", indeed it is, almost as cool as "cut and run".
I just wonder, did any conservative blogger actually address the substance of what Murtha is proposing? 
Maybe I just missed the picture of Murtha saying "I want to undermine the war effort", but isn't this "slow bleed" meme just an effective spin? 
What he's saying is: don't overstretch the troops, set limits on tours, set more requirements for training etc., etc.
Do you consider it a proper way of "supporting the troops" to say "nay, there's no problem here at all, let them stay there as much as needed to have the job done, screw their personal life, screw their jobs, they are fighters not pussies, damn this Jack Murtha"? 
This logic kinda reminds me of a freeper thread on the Washington Post article about Walter Reed, with every comment saying how Dana Priest deserves to be hanged, how she's an enemy of freedom with her slanderous allegations etc., and not a single one saying that there indeed, could be some problems in Walter Reed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s really an effective talking point, &#8220;slow bleed&#8221;, indeed it is, almost as cool as &#8220;cut and run&#8221;.<br />
I just wonder, did any conservative blogger actually address the substance of what Murtha is proposing?<br />
Maybe I just missed the picture of Murtha saying &#8220;I want to undermine the war effort&#8221;, but isn&#8217;t this &#8220;slow bleed&#8221; meme just an effective spin?<br />
What he&#8217;s saying is: don&#8217;t overstretch the troops, set limits on tours, set more requirements for training etc., etc.<br />
Do you consider it a proper way of &#8220;supporting the troops&#8221; to say &#8220;nay, there&#8217;s no problem here at all, let them stay there as much as needed to have the job done, screw their personal life, screw their jobs, they are fighters not pussies, damn this Jack Murtha&#8221;?<br />
This logic kinda reminds me of a freeper thread on the Washington Post article about Walter Reed, with every comment saying how Dana Priest deserves to be hanged, how she&#8217;s an enemy of freedom with her slanderous allegations etc., and not a single one saying that there indeed, could be some problems in Walter Reed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
