Talk:Joe Lieberman/Archive 4

message: How was lieberman "less observant" in marrying his first wife?  The article does state that he has been less observant in the past, but doesn't qualify this statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreed100 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably difficult for someone married to a Reform Jew to be observant; Reform Jews reject the validity of the Torah as [Orthodox Judaism|Orthodoxy]] views it.  A Reform Jew would not be dedicated to halacha, which could pose a problem for a spouse (such as in terms of taharat hamishpacha). DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: There is currently no mention of Lieberman's policy toward Iran (an important issue which he is spear-heading).  I suggest the following (I don't seem to be able to edit the page myself):
====Iran====
Lieberman has been Congress's most vocal supporter of U.S. aerial attacks on Iran justifying such action both for Iran's alleged support of anti-American forces in Iraq as well as for its nuclear program.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcolgan001 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 June 2008
:We can't add that without a citation.  See WP:RS for guidelines.  I think what you write is true, and if you post an acceptable source here I'll add it. JamesMLane t c 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just dig up some youtube videos. You can find him saying his usual stupid stuff.
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.72 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but there's no video that could, by itself, show him to be the "most vocal supporter" of this position.  In Congress, the competition to see who can say the most stupid stuff about Iran is absolutely fierce. JamesMLane t c 03:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieberman's Iran policy 

message: Lieberman has been Congress's most vocal supporter of U.S. aerial attacks on Iran justifying such action both for Iran's alleged support of anti-American forces in Iraq as well as for its nuclear program.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcolgan001 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 June 2008
:We can't add that without a citation.  See WP:RS for guidelines.  I think what you write is true, and if you post an acceptable source here I'll add it. JamesMLane t c 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just dig up some youtube videos. You can find him saying his usual stupid stuff.
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.72 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but there's no video that could, by itself, show him to be the "most vocal supporter" of this position.  In Congress, the competition to see who can say the most stupid stuff about Iran is absolutely fierce. JamesMLane t c 03:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran

message: Lieberman has been a vocal supporter in Congress for U.S. aerial attacks on Iran justifying such action both for Iran's alleged support of anti-American forces in Iraq as well as for its nuclear program. Jpost Sep 10, 2007.
Tcolgan001 (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran

message: ...besides the obvious, of course. It's not referenced on the entry at all, and he isn't one by any reasonable definition of the term. Can someone fix this?
:I went ahead and removed this. For the most part Lieberman's foreign policy views can be described as neoconservative, but it is highly debatable whether or not this label applies to him overall. In any case, as the previous comment points out, there is no discussion of Lieberman's supposed neoconservatism in the article and thus it is inappropriate as a category (the cat "Jewish-American conservatism" is problematic as well but I'm leaving that for now). Lieberman has some fairly traditional liberal views as well, so to only apply conservative categories to him is a bit odd.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 15:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Leiberman's entry under the category 'Neoconservatism'? 

message: The opening paragraph is too long, I think. --Austrian (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: How can any discussion of Joe Lieberman be complete without reference to his Iran policy.   I suggest the following (under the subsection 5.2 Foreign policy after # 5.2.4 Israel).  How do I get it added?:
====Iran====
Lieberman has been a vocal supporter in Congress for U.S. aerial attacks on Iran justifying such action both for Iran's alleged support of anti-American forces in Iraq as well as for its nuclear program. Jpost Sep 10, 2007.
64.194.250.99 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieberman's Iran Policy 

message: Lieberman has been a vocal supporter in Congress for U.S. aerial attacks on Iran justifying such action both for Iran's alleged support of anti-American forces in Iraq as well as for its nuclear program. Jpost Sep 10, 2007.
64.194.250.99 (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran

message: Oct 6, 2008 ... At a McCain campaign event in Clearwater, Fl., Sen. Joe Lieberman told the crowd that Sarah Palin would be elected vice president.
http://www.drudge.com/news/113315/lieberman-palin-win-gods-help  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dga9y (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieberman: Palin Will Win "With God's Help"  

message: Senate.gov continues to list him as an "Independent Democrat" -- http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm. In the United States you get to have whatever party label you choose. Acsenray (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with "No Party Affiliation"? 

message: Should we mention that one reason Democrats are especially pissed with Lieberman is that Obama supported him previously in the 2006 Connecticut Senate Democratic primary? 202.40.139.164 (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barack Obama supported Lieberman 

message: In the Social Security section, the third and fourth paragraphs are unrelated to the Social Security topic and should be moved elsewhere or deleted. Revcompgeek (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , you're right. I've moved both down to the "Other" section directly below it, which seems to work - there may be somewhere else they could be better integrated, I will leave that to those more familiar with the article. Thanks. ~ mazca t|c 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated paragraph in Social Security section