Libermans website and email get hacked

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: zendari
This is what happens when a Democrat strays from the hardline platform.

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We don't need lapdogs like Lieberman in the Democratic party. I sincerely hope Lamont wins the primary and sends a message to other lapdog senators.

Who is a lapdog, those who follow party mantra? Lieberman most obviously does not, so perhaps you could clarify that.

Lieberman follows the Republican party mantra.

Proof?

Have either of you bothered to read the entire thread or did you just post so that everyone else can marvel at your ability to see the computer screen with your head up your butt? Both your points, if you can call them that, have been covered.

Indeed I did read every post, and I have yet to see anything I would consider to even be "covered" as proof he isn't a lapdog or he is. No tangible evidence whatsoever other than people throwing out the usual yes he is no he isn't crap.

So what you're telling me is that nowhere have people pointed out positions Joe Lieberman has taken, in opposition to not just the vast majority of his party but also his constituents. You've also must have been living under a rock the past decade when Lieberman has

[*]Led the charge against Bill Clinton and gave credence to the most insane of charges by Republicans at the time.
[*]Undercut Al Gore in the immdeiate aftermath of the 2000 election fiasco
[*]Chastised Democrats for questioning the President during the Iraq War
[*]Was the only Democrat who stood during the Sotu when the president called for privatizing Social Security

Those are only a few.

The fact of the matter is Joe Lieberman is always the first to attack his party, usually using the same rhetoric Republicans use (9/11, traitors, hate america, etc.). He's Zell Miller without the balls to leave the party.

Well, that is still only your opinion. From where I sit, he didn't "lead the charge" at all, that was Rep. Henry Hyde. I also don't feel he "undercut Al Gore" in the election of 2000 either and I would have voted for Gore if I could have. If you look at the man's statements he never chastised them for questioning the war, just how they were going about doing it. Its all a matter of opinion and how you spin it. Frankly at least the man had the Balls to stand for any change to social security considering that it is on a downward spiral and will only be made worse by people not doing anything but keeping the status quo. In lieu of the Democrat's plan of "nothing" on Social Security what choice does he have? It only shows that he actually cares about making sure people actually see the money from the government rather than just talk about protecting it while sitting on your ass.

Lieberman, an all-out supporter of President Bush's policies in Iraq, is being challenged by an anti-war political novice who is giving Lieberman -- a three-term senator and his party's vice presidential nominee in 2000 -- a run for his political life.

Top Democrat Lieberman facing ouster over support for Iraq war

Lieberman's much publicized chastisement of Clinton from the Senate floor in early September 1998. It was a speech entirely devoted to the president's sex life and attendant public lies. Clinton's adulterous dalliance with Lewinsky was "immoral," Lieberman announced. And Clinton's seven-month-long deception about that adultery was "wrong" -- because it tended to undercut the lessons American parents wish to teach their children about honesty. But had Clinton's deception also involved multiple felonies, as the mountain of available evidence clearly indicated? Had Clinton obstructed justice up and down the federal court system, and perjured himself to boot? Was Clinton guilty of something more than immorality, in other words, something that might actually disqualify him from further service in the Oval Office? That, Joe Lieberman was unprepared to say: "We do not know enough in fact" to reach such a conclusion.

Another againts Clinton

Should I go on?

Although once criticized by Lieberman for his liaison with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Clinton told a rally last month that the Connecticut senator is "a good man, a good Democrat, and he'll do you proud."

The senator has voted with mainstream Democrats on many issues, including tax cuts, the environment, gun control and abortion rights. Like other mainstream Democrats, he supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq to seize Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

This is from one of the same articles you cited. So tell me again how an authors spin without any facts and her slight change towards the end proves anything? It doesn't. The bottom line is, people put how they feel into their writing. The author of the article you cited clearly does not approve of Lieberman, however, even she cannot escapt the real facts of the matter and is forced to admit it. Should I go on?

 

[Thump553]

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton made it crystal clear, both before and after the primary, that their support of Lieberman was contingent upon him winning the primary. Neither will support Lieberman's third party run.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Thump553
To show the extent to which CT's media is biased towards Lieberman, yesterday (primary day) this story was widely featured on most, if not all the local stations, along with the state Attorney General's ( a Dem, and unparalleled publicity hound himself) vowing to go after the (purportedly pro-Lamont) carpet bagging hackers who did this.

Today, after the voting is over and more analysis leds to the probable conclusion that the website collapsed because of the $15/month service provider Lieberman was using, the story is absolutely gone from local TV and buried in the back pages of the newspaper.

Yet another case of blatant manipulation by big media. I wonder how many votes this cost Lamont yesterday?

keep reading my friend

The site, Joe2006.com, appeared to have suffered from a so-called "denial of service" attack, in which computers overwhelm a site with fake traffic, preventing real visitors from getting through or, in this case, causing it to crash, said Richard M. Smith, an Internet security consultant in Brookline, Mass.
Text

 

[Thump553]

daniel40, the article you linked seemed to be merely a reiteration of the earlier, and apparently discredited allegations, citing the usual unnamed sources. The article, of course, speculates without a shred of evidence that some internet savy Lamont supporter intentionally crashed the site. This article also totally omits the fact that Lieberman was relying upon a $15 per month server.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Thump553
daniel40, the article you linked seemed to be merely a reiteration of the earlier, and apparently discredited allegations, citing the usual unnamed sources. The article, of course, speculates without a shred of evidence that some internet savy Lamont supporter intentionally crashed the site. This article also totally omits the fact that Lieberman was relying upon a $15 per month server.

But he wants it to be true so much, let him have his fantasy world. Like stories of world wide floods and two of every species on a boat, a chick made from a rib in a garden who talks to snakes, etc. They like their fantasies.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Thump553
daniel40, the article you linked seemed to be merely a reiteration of the earlier, and apparently discredited allegations, citing the usual unnamed sources. The article, of course, speculates without a shred of evidence that some internet savy Lamont supporter intentionally crashed the site. This article also totally omits the fact that Lieberman was relying upon a $15 per month server.

But he wants it to be true so much, let him have his fantasy world. Like stories of world wide floods and two of every species on a boat, a chick made from a rib in a garden who talks to snakes, etc. They like their fantasies.

Quit being a twit todd. I really don't care that much thier both democrats and even if I lived in Conn. I wouldn't have voted for either, so I have no agenda like you.
And if anyones in a fantasy world, You would have to be a top contender.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Thump553
daniel40, the article you linked seemed to be merely a reiteration of the earlier, and apparently discredited allegations, citing the usual unnamed sources. The article, of course, speculates without a shred of evidence that some internet savy Lamont supporter intentionally crashed the site. This article also totally omits the fact that Lieberman was relying upon a $15 per month server.

But he wants it to be true so much, let him have his fantasy world. Like stories of world wide floods and two of every species on a boat, a chick made from a rib in a garden who talks to snakes, etc. They like their fantasies.

Quit being a twit todd. I really don't care that much thier both democrats and even if I lived in Conn. I wouldn't have voted for either, so I have no agenda like you.
And if anyones in a fantasy world, You would have to be a top contender.

You have an agenda and it's clear as day. You are another evangelical repug who tows the party line. The GOP now supports Lieberman and you are doing your part to echo the party talking points. You post hearsay and rumor as truth and refuse to admit you were wrong, but again it's par for the course. WWJD?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Thump553
daniel40, the article you linked seemed to be merely a reiteration of the earlier, and apparently discredited allegations, citing the usual unnamed sources. The article, of course, speculates without a shred of evidence that some internet savy Lamont supporter intentionally crashed the site. This article also totally omits the fact that Lieberman was relying upon a $15 per month server.

But he wants it to be true so much, let him have his fantasy world. Like stories of world wide floods and two of every species on a boat, a chick made from a rib in a garden who talks to snakes, etc. They like their fantasies.

Quit being a twit todd. I really don't care that much thier both democrats and even if I lived in Conn. I wouldn't have voted for either, so I have no agenda like you.
And if anyones in a fantasy world, You would have to be a top contender.

You have an agenda and it's clear as day. You are another evangelical repug who tows the party line. The GOP now supports Lieberman and you are doing your part to echo the party talking points. You post hearsay and rumor as truth and refuse to admit you were wrong, but again it's par for the course. WWJD?

did you read that in your daily kos report or what?
Me? I'm Just an observor, what the dems do is there own disaster.
it was an update from the original story and the investigation is proceeding.
But any relevant results of that investigation would be dismissed by you anyway so why bother ??
Hey if you want to support a millionaire commy like lamont go for it, And watch the left drag your party right (left?) over the edge. Doesn't bother me.
Thats why the dems continually parade people like kerry and Dukakis up there and watch them go down in flames.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I find it a little entertaining watching Republicans go after "millionaire commy" Ned Lamont, considering that these are the same people who accuse the Democrats of "class envy" when they express concern about the Bush family's dynastic wealth and borderline-incestuous ties to the oil industry.

The bottom line is that Ned Lamont is a better fit for Connecticut's Democrats than Joe Liberman, who is, IMO, a neoconservative and social conservative in the most classic sense, wrapped in the shell of a Democrat. The only reason Republicans care is that they run the risk of losing a nominally Democratic ally on foreign policy and domestic "indecency" issues.

As for the topic at hand, it seems fairly clear to me that joe2006.com couldn't have suffered a DoS attack when it was hosted on the very same server as Lieberman's negative-ad site, meetned.com, which suffered no service disruption. I'd like to see the whole matter investigated - if Lamont was in fact responsible (which seems improbable to me), then he should be prosecuted, but in any event the wrongdoers (if there are any) should be punished. If this was a technical error by the Lieberman campaign, they have only themselves to blame.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: daniel49

did you read that in your daily kos report or what?

Good blog, thanks for the endorsment!

Me? I'm Just an observor, what the dems do is there own disaster.

Repeating Cheney, Mehlman, etc. Check.

it was an update from the original story and the investigation is proceeding.

Cherry picking rumors over facts, check.

But any relevant results of that investigation would be dismissed by you anyway so why bother ??

See above.

if you want to support a millionaire commy like lamont go for it, And watch the left drag your party right (left?) over the edge. Doesn't bother me.

More GOP talking points, check. You really are a cliche. You regurgitate everything Fox news says. Forget the fact that Lieberman is a DC insider and fat cat with tons of lobby support. He supports your man Bush, so you and the rest of the sheeple must too! I am neutral about Lamont, he seems like a honest enough guy, so why not get a real Democrat in office? The people of CT chose him despite all lobbyist and politicians supporting Lieberman, they must be idiots right? I guess you have issues with people picking candidates instead of the establishment? If the right likes Sore Loserman so much they can have him. We don't need anymore Zell Millers.

Thats why the dems continually parade people like kerry and Dukakis up there and watch them go down in flames.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, sounds like more Hannity speak. Someday you will shed your parents religion, politics, etc and become your own man, someday.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I find it a little entertaining watching Republicans go after "millionaire commy" Ned Lamont, considering that these are the same people who accuse the Democrats of "class envy" when they express concern about the Bush family's dynastic wealth and borderline-incestuous ties to the oil industry.

The bottom line is that Ned Lamont is a better fit for Connecticut's Democrats than Joe Liberman, who is, IMO, a neoconservative and social conservative in the most classic sense, wrapped in the shell of a Democrat. The only reason Republicans care is that they run the risk of losing a nominally Democratic ally on foreign policy and domestic "indecency" issues.
As for the topic at hand, it seems fairly clear to me that joe2006.com couldn't have suffered a DoS attack when it was hosted on the very same server as Lieberman's negative-ad site, meetned.com, which suffered no service disruption. I'd like to see the whole matter investigated - if Lamont was in fact responsible (which seems improbable to me), then he should be prosecuted, but in any event the wrongdoers (if there are any) should be punished. If this was a technical error by the Lieberman campaign, they have only themselves to blame.

Don:
liberman was a what 90% on the liberal meter? Other then being a defense supporter, they gutted one of thier own?

As for the deniel of service attack as I stated earlier, I doubt lamonts campaign had anything to do with it, more likely an enthusistic supporter.

Dynasties: This is off topic but I was listening to someone talk the other day about family dynasty in politics.
ie...Bush Senior, Jeb, W
ie...Clintons..bill, hillary
ie...Kennedys
Anyway the point was that there were a relatively small number of families (50 was the # I believe they said) that hold an awful lot of political offices.

So in essence the 3 top ways to get into politics these days seem to 1) Be a millionare or 2)be related to someone already in office, or 3)Be a celebrity with name recognition.

One has to wonder if this is really giving us the best possible canidates and the need for election reforms???
Just food for thought, not going anywhere with it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Don:
liberman was a what 90% on the liberal meter? Other then being a defense supporter, they gutted one of thier own?

As for the deniel of service attack as I stated earlier, I doubt lamonts campaign had anything to do with it, more likely an enthusistic supporter.

Dynasties: This is off topic but I was listening to someone talk the other day about family dynasty in politics.
ie...Bush Senior, Jeb, W
ie...Clintons..bill, hillary
ie...Kennedys
Anyway the point was that there were a relatively small number of families (50 was the # I believe they said) that hold an awful lot of political offices.

So in essence the 3 top ways to get into politics these days seem to 1) Be a millionare or 2)be related to someone already in office, or 3)Be a celebrity with name recognition.

One has to wonder if this is really giving us the best possible canidates and the need for election reforms???
Just food for thought, not going anywhere with it.

I agree 100% with your latter point - this kind of political cronyism is a real problem, and frankly, I think in the present case it has given us one of the least politically savvy, least-qualified Presidents in American history (a sentiment you probably do not share).

As for Lieberman's political slant, he is clearly a Democrat on many important issues (though he has taken the other side on several important issues, including the war, "broadcast indecency," and the Terri Schiavo matter). What I think many people found troubling is not that he initially supported the war (many many Democrats did), but that he has been such a strident cheerleader for it, even going as far as to say it is unpatriotic NOT to support it.

What I think people lose sight of is that the neoconservative movement, which has taken hammerlock control of the White House and the Pentagon, was dreamt up by American Jewish Democrats (most notably Irving and Bill Kristol). In many respects their interventionist policies are more consistent with a historically Democratic worldview than a Republican one. In that respect, traditional party labels have lost much of their meaning - we now have a strongly interventionist President who has vastly increased the size, power and intrusiveness of the federal government - those are hardly Republican values. Meanwhile, the portion of the Democratic party that adheres to what I consider traditionally Democratic values has been branded "extremists." The whole thing is like something out of Lewis Carroll.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: daniel49

Don:
liberman was a what 90% on the liberal meter? Other then being a defense supporter, they gutted one of thier own?

As for the deniel of service attack as I stated earlier, I doubt lamonts campaign had anything to do with it, more likely an enthusistic supporter.

Dynasties: This is off topic but I was listening to someone talk the other day about family dynasty in politics.
ie...Bush Senior, Jeb, W
ie...Clintons..bill, hillary
ie...Kennedys
Anyway the point was that there were a relatively small number of families (50 was the # I believe they said) that hold an awful lot of political offices.

So in essence the 3 top ways to get into politics these days seem to 1) Be a millionare or 2)be related to someone already in office, or 3)Be a celebrity with name recognition.

One has to wonder if this is really giving us the best possible canidates and the need for election reforms???
Just food for thought, not going anywhere with it.

I agree 100% with your latter point - this kind of political cronyism is a real problem, and frankly, I think in the present case it has given us one of the least politically savvy, least-qualified Presidents in American history (a sentiment you probably do not share).
He certainly has made his fair share of mistakes (show me a recent president who hasn't though) and seems to creep a little farther from conservative views each year. Even his base have openly criticized him for such things as Harriet Myers, Dubai, Immigration, Spending...etc
In all fairness I think it would have been a tough 8 years for any president. A lot of crap that had been building for a long time in the world progressed from labor to birthing and he was forced to deal with it.

As for Lieberman's political slant, he is clearly a Democrat on many important issues (though he has taken the other side on several important issues, including the war, "broadcast indecency," and the Terri Schiavo matter). What I think many people found troubling is not that he initially supported the war (many many Democrats did), but that he has been such a strident cheerleader for it, even going as far as to say it is unpatriotic NOT to support it.

What I think people lose sight of is that the neoconservative movement, which has taken hammerlock control of the White House and the Pentagon, was dreamt up by American Jewish Democrats (most notably Irving and Bill Kristol). In many respects their interventionist policies are more consistent with a historically Democratic worldview than a Republican one. In that respect, traditional party labels have lost much of their meaning - we now have a strongly interventionist President who has vastly increased the size, power and intrusiveness of the federal government - those are hardly Republican values. Meanwhile, the portion of the Democratic party that adheres to what I consider traditionally Democratic values has been branded "extremists." The whole thing is like something out of Lewis Carroll.