No. All that because the majority of the voters in the state elected that Senator.
Just look at the rest of the world and see how they judge the majority of American voters for re-electing George W. Bush. Here is a front pageof our main “Ally” newspaper, let alone all the other countries that disagreed with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Just out of curiosity, where do you live, Wake Up Call?
As a current resident of North Carolina, I welcome Wake Up Call’s decision not to visit our state, just as I’m sure the French welcome Bill O’Reilly’s decision not to visit their country. That’s some good company you keep, Wake.
Daniel
I’m not sure I agree that that’s their leading paper, it has a reputation for being left-leaning, and I don’t see how this supports your point.
Why don’t you boycott the entire US? After all, the majority of voters voted for Bush.
Your links do nothing to illustrate the relevance of your anti-Semitic remark.
As to the question, it’s a ridiculous position to take. If you are so shallow as to refuse to associate with someone based on how that person votes then that’s a profound statement on the flaws in your own character. Having friends who voted for Bush, Kerry, and Badnarik, I fail to see how any of them are somehow evil because of their voting preference.
The Democratic Party is a big tent. They don’t kick people out for disagreeing with the party on any one issue. You’re confusing them with that other party.
I still like Lieberman- I just feel that he is absolutely wrong about the Iraq war. But on most other things, he’d represent me just fine. In time, support for the war will count as an electoral plus or minus, depending on where you are and how the war goes. My crystal ball is out of warranty, so I’m not going to guess how he’ll fare next election.
Sad to say that was from a time when national unity was more important than party allegiance.
Apparently from the land of chirping crickets. I’ve never kept a tally but there might be a link between the distance from common sense and the desire to post enormously.
I’d like to take this time to point out the end result in such arbitrary dismissal of people who differ from one’s own opinion. If you take that philosophy to heart and relocate away from an ENTIRE STATE then likeminded people will eventually leave that state (both physically and figuratively) in the hands of those in opposition. Thus creating a more powerful political opponent.
The next question that begs answering from Wake Up Call. Do you know of a single politician that agrees with you on every issue and do you live in that politician’s state? If yes, are all the politician’s in your state in total agreement with you?
If I had to eliminate all my friends because of political differences I would be the lesser for it and so would they.
That would be “post anonymously”. Didn’t read the spell check correctly. Bifocals suck when your monitor is mounted high. Wish this site supported larger text.
Is there some background I’m missing that leads to your calling his remark anti-Semitic? Mentioning a Jew in the same sentence as the word ham does not an anti-semite make; unless there’s some history here that I’m unaware of, you’re going off half-cocked.
Daniel
It’s a mildly anti-Semitic joke.
“What’s a Jew’s greatest dilemma?” “A free ham.”
Jews are, of course, forbidden to eat pork products. The joke is mildly anti-Semitic because it plays off the stereotype that Jews are cheap. So the dilemma for the Jew in the joke is that he’s being offered something free, which as a Jew, because of his cheapness, he would normally take, but it’s a ham, which he is unable to eat or take. Hence the dilemma.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation, and my apologies, Renob: you’re entirely correct to call Wake Up out for antisemitism.
Wake Up, I renew my invitation for you not to visit North Carolina. We’ve got quite enough of your kind here already, and we really don’t need any more.
Daniel
Wow. Who would’ve thought my opinion of Wake up call could get lower? On the other hand, with what I remember of his posts about September 11th, this isn’t surprising.
You ARE kidding about this, right?
Google Joe Lieberman and Video Games and you should come up with plenty of evidence of his support for censorship in one particular industry. To say nothing of his recent remarks which have already been cited. Joe Lieberman is not an enemy of censorship by any means.
I bet the French are all crying because Billy O won’t be visiting.
Just like San Francisco is crying because Billy O won’t be visiting.
They are both probably saying “Good. We don’t want him here anyway”. 
Which party is that? Who was the last person to be kicked out because of a disagreement over one issue?
He doesn’t like the movies, either. During the 2000 camapaign, one of his favorite topics was that the government had to help parents protect their kids from “Hollywood.” Always, he would protest, within the bounds of the 1st ammendment, but I don’t think he ever explained what the government should do, that it’s not already doing, without reducing the scope of the ammendment significantly.
He is already Republican, except in name.
He is on the outs, or will be soon.
Well, he can register REpublican then.
He is a White House cheerleader and shill. They can have him.
Pure White House spin, just with a different “face” giving it. More stay the course.
The Iraqi government wants us out, and they want a timetable for withdrawal. They have said so.
And yes, he does like censorship, apparently in several areas. All I had to do was Google two words - Liberman censorship. It was that easy.
Does anyone remember when Lieberman backed Jeb Bush’s law that called for the reinsertion of Teri Schiavo’s feeding tube? Or that he supported the death penalty for offenders under 18 at the time of their crimes? That he was willing to work with Bush on social security? Maybe I should slow down a little?
He is a warhawk neocon. He is, for someone elected to serve U.S. interests, too friendly with the more militant politicians in Israel. He is a stealth Republican. He is a White House shill. He is pro censorship. He was on the wrong side in the Schiavo battles. He supported the failed White House attempt to savage Social Security. Bye Bye Lonesome Joe, don’t let the door hit yer ass on the way out.
No, that was not an official act of the government. Notice the use of “leaders” in that story, not “legislators”.