Libermans website and email get hacked

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Still more:

484 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 64.71%
Name Party Votes Pct
Lamont, Ned Dem 89,814 51.60
Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 84,231 48.40

I don't usually like to see Democratic incumbents ousted in the primaries, but I'll take exception for this one (and the Cynthia McKinney one too, she got trounced)
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
I wonder if Liberman will follow through on his threat to run as an independant or if the DNC will give him some token position.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
I wonder if Liberman will follow through on his threat to run as an independant or if the DNC will give him some token position.

He's already said he'll run as an indy, although I don't think it's going to be necessary.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
Originally posted by: SViscusi
He's already said he'll run as an indy, although I don't think it's going to be necessary.
We'll see about that, things are starting to get ominous for Lieberman.

With 79.95% of the vote counted, Lamont has increased his lead slightly to 3.5%. Unless its starts get much closer soon, Lieberman simply isn't likely to have enough votes in the remaining uncounted ballot boxes to turn things around.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Originally posted by: Todd33

Wow, you jumped on this BS without proof pretty fast. This story has been ongoing far before the MSNBC blurb, maybe you should add some more links, ones that have zero to do with hacking and conspiracies.

He's right, because everybody knows that a Dailykos story is much more likely to be truthful than a MSNBC one...
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: Todd33

Wow, you jumped on this BS without proof pretty fast. This story has been ongoing far before the MSNBC blurb, maybe you should add some more links, ones that have zero to do with hacking and conspiracies.

He's right, because everybody knows that a Dailykos story is much more likely to be truthful than a MSNBC one...

MSNBC went live with an unproven story. They produced no evidence and all they did was traffic in rumor and innuendo that the Lieberman campaign was putting out. On the other hand the people on Kos actually did research that MSNBC couldn't be bothered to do.

In reality it's not a tough decision.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Last vote total I saw was 81% of the vote in---Lieberman still trails 48% to 52%---looks like Joe is going to go down.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: Todd33

Wow, you jumped on this BS without proof pretty fast. This story has been ongoing far before the MSNBC blurb, maybe you should add some more links, ones that have zero to do with hacking and conspiracies.

He's right, because everybody knows that a Dailykos story is much more likely to be truthful than a MSNBC one...

MSNBC went live with an unproven story. They produced no evidence and all they did was traffic in rumor and innuendo that the Lieberman campaign was putting out. On the other hand the people on Kos actually did research that MSNBC couldn't be bothered to do.

In reality it's not a tough decision.

In reality, it's a strawman argument Dailykos is providing. The article does not reference whether or not Lieberman's site had repeated hits causing a bandwidth overrun - it just sayd the guy's campaign is cheap. Two different stories.
 

LEDominator

Senior member
May 31, 2006
388
0
76
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?
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
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?

You don't read the papers much, do you?

 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
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.
 

LEDominator

Senior member
May 31, 2006
388
0
76
Originally posted by: DonVito
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?

You don't read the papers much, do you?

That still doesn't answer the question. And, to answer your question, I do read the newspaper, most days if I can. Frankly, I don't particularly care enough about it to read more than a few general articles about a primary on the other side of the US. What I do care about, is a person tossing around accusations without any tangible evidence, such as a voting record, etc. But thats me, I like to have things evident to me whereas it is clear others take others written word as the gospel truth

 

LEDominator

Senior member
May 31, 2006
388
0
76
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.

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
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.

It's all moot now junior, he lost the primary :)
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
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.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
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 put. Additionally, Lieberman was among the only Democrats to stand alongside Bill Frist, against science, in the Terri Schiavo debacle, and has consistently been one of the loudest voices in Congress to call for censorship and additional regulations on "broadcast indecency" and violent video games.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: DonVito
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 put. Additionally, Lieberman was among the only Democrats to stand alongside Bill Frist, against science, in the Terri Schiavo debacle, and has consistently been one of the loudest voices in Congress to call for censorship and additional regulations on "broadcast indecency" and violent video games.

C'mon guys, LEDominator is only a junior. He can only take so much of a beating :laugh:
 

LEDominator

Senior member
May 31, 2006
388
0
76
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.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,051
2,096
136
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?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,651
2,391
126
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?
 

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,777
18
81
a lot of voters here dont know Lamont, but they just got feed up with Liberman and the war... it was a record in the state for a primary.