WWTBAM Bored

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party's vice presidential candidate in 2000 and now an independent who is one of John McCain's strongest supporters, will speak at the Republican National Convention, an official said.

Lieberman will deliver a speech when Republicans gather in St. Paul, Minn., to nominate McCain for president, a party official told The Associated Press on Wednesday. The official requested anonymity because a formal announcement had yet to be made.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/2 ... 20067.html

Al Gore, could you explain to me what the hell you saw in this man eight years ago?

Joe Lieberman's voice reminds me of the dad on "ALF". Anybody else besides me think that?

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Al Gore, could you explain to me what the hell you saw in this man eight years ago?

Joe Lieberman's voice reminds me of the dad on "ALF". Anybody else besides me think that?

Obviously, someone who takes his country more seriously than his party.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Al Gore, could you explain to me what the hell you saw in this man eight years ago?

Joe Lieberman's voice reminds me of the dad on "ALF". Anybody else besides me think that?

You mean he wasn't the dad?

Weyoun wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Al Gore, could you explain to me what the hell you saw in this man eight years ago?

Joe Lieberman's voice reminds me of the dad on "ALF". Anybody else besides me think that?

Obviously, someone who takes his country more seriously than his party.

REC!

Unfortunately, the Democrats need Lieberman to caucus with them in order to keep their majority for the next couple of months (which is why he still has his seniority). Since the Democrats rate to pick up 2 to 8 more seats this time in the Senate, look for them to give him the heave ho (strip him of his committee assignments) in January and then he'll switch officially to the GOP.

And he's not just an anti-Obama person. He's been going nuts ever since he tricked the voters in CT into re-electing him as an "independent" in 2006.

I still have a fondness for Lieberman, since he was the only elected official in Connecticut who would do something about the fact that somebody was sending my three year old daughter porn in the mail.

(I saved all of the correspondence for Maddie's scrapbook.)

silverscreenselect wrote:Unfortunately, the Democrats need Lieberman to caucus with them in order to keep their majority for the next couple of months (which is why he still has his seniority). Since the Democrats rate to pick up 2 to 8 more seats this time in the Senate, look for them to give him the heave ho (strip him of his committee assignments) in January and then he'll switch officially to the GOP.

And he's not just an anti-Obama person. He's been going nuts ever since he tricked the voters in CT into re-electing him as an "independent" in 2006.

I find it intriguing that people on the left so often figure that the only way for someone who is not on the left to be elected is to trick people into voting for him. It's part of the usual 'only stupid people actually vote that way.'

I wonder if anyone on the left will ever acknowledge that, just possibly, normal, rational people actually will support a candidate who is not a left loon (such as the guy who 'tricked' the Democratic primary voters in Connecticut into giving him the Senatorial nomination in 2006, forcing Lieberman to run as an independent).

wintergreen48 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:Unfortunately, the Democrats need Lieberman to caucus with them in order to keep their majority for the next couple of months (which is why he still has his seniority). Since the Democrats rate to pick up 2 to 8 more seats this time in the Senate, look for them to give him the heave ho (strip him of his committee assignments) in January and then he'll switch officially to the GOP.

And he's not just an anti-Obama person. He's been going nuts ever since he tricked the voters in CT into re-electing him as an "independent" in 2006.

I find it intriguing that people on the left so often figure that the only way for someone who is not on the left to be elected is to trick people into voting for him. It's part of the usual 'only stupid people actually vote that way.'

I wonder if anyone on the left will ever acknowledge that, just possibly, normal, rational people actually will support a candidate who is not a left loon (such as the guy who 'tricked' the Democratic primary voters in Connecticut into giving him the Senatorial nomination in 2006, forcing Lieberman to run as an independent).

Please don't tar those of us on the left with S-cubed's ill-considered thoughts. I'm fairly liberal, but I'm well aware that Lieberman's voters made as informed a choice as in any other election of comparable import. It was, in my opinion, a bad choice, but it was an informed choice. --Bob

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Al Gore, could you explain to me what the hell you saw in this man eight years ago?

Somebody explain what the hell anyone sees in Al Gore.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Al Gore, could you explain to me what the hell you saw in this man eight years ago?

Somebody explain what the hell anyone sees in Al Gore.

Do I need to show you my Oscar® and Nobel Peace Prize?

Al Gore wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Al Gore, could you explain to me what the hell you saw in this man eight years ago?

Somebody explain what the hell anyone sees in Al Gore.

Do I need to show you my Oscar® and Nobel Peace Prize?

But I'm sure you have something that Larry Craig would like to see.

ulysses5019 wrote:

Al Gore wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Somebody explain what the hell anyone sees in Al Gore.

Do I need to show you my Oscar® and Nobel Peace Prize?

But I'm sure you have something that Larry Craig would like to see.

HEY! Don't think that I didn't hear that!

Weyoun wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Al Gore, could you explain to me what the hell you saw in this man eight years ago?

Joe Lieberman's voice reminds me of the dad on "ALF". Anybody else besides me think that?

Obviously, someone who takes his country more seriously than his party.

First of all, what is "his party"? He doesn't have a party. "Connecticut for Lieberman" is not a party name. That's just some horses**t party that a sore loser makes up after getting waxed in a primary. You don't see Mrs. Clinton starting up an "America for Hillary" party to continue her run for President, do you? (Wait, bad example. She hasn't started a horses**t party cuz she'd rather sabotage Obama's campaign and run again for the Democratic nomination in 2012.)

Second, Willy Tanner's... um, I mean Joe Lieberman's enthusiastic (not a word I would associate with him) endorsement of McCain is tantamount to an endorsement of the continuation of the disastrous policies of Mr. Bush--more tax cuts for the top 1%, keeping Big Oil fat and happy, staying in Iraq for the next 100+ years, possible new wars with Iran and Russia, value of the U.S. dollar continuing to resemble a toilet bowl, more pissing on the U.S. Constitution... just to name a few. Doesn't sound like "taking his country seriously" to me. Sounds more like putting Big Oil and the military industry complex before the country and all legitimate parties to me.

So if McCain is elected in November, then be prepared for a lot of "I told you so"s from me over the next four years.

Bob78164 wrote: Please don't tar those of us on the left with S-cubed's ill-considered thoughts. I'm fairly liberal, but I'm well aware that Lieberman's voters made as informed a choice as in any other election of comparable import. It was, in my opinion, a bad choice, but it was an informed choice. --Bob

Lieberman was able to paint himself as a middle of the roader and managed to get almost all the Republican vote (the actual Republican in the race got about 10%). Plus Ned Lamont won a poor campaign.

And Mr. Progressive Barack Obama, was one of the people who was supporting Lieberman.

Connecticut voters got sold a bill of goods in 2006. They also voted for Obama, so they haven't gotten any smarter.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Weyoun wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:Al Gore, could you explain to me what the hell you saw in this man eight years ago?

Joe Lieberman's voice reminds me of the dad on "ALF". Anybody else besides me think that?

Obviously, someone who takes his country more seriously than his party.

First of all, what is "his party"? He doesn't have a party. "Connecticut for Lieberman" is not a party name. That's just some horses**t party that a sore loser makes up after getting waxed in a primary. You don't see Mrs. Clinton starting up an "America for Hillary" party to continue her run for President, do you? (Wait, bad example. She hasn't started a horses**t party cuz she'd rather sabotage Obama's campaign and run again for the Democratic nomination in 2012.)

Second, Willy Tanner's... um, I mean Joe Lieberman's enthusiastic (not a word I would associate with him) endorsement of McCain is tantamount to an endorsement of the continuation of the disastrous policies of Mr. Bush--more tax cuts for the top 1%, keeping Big Oil fat and happy, staying in Iraq for the next 100+ years, possible new wars with Iran and Russia, value of the U.S. dollar continuing to resemble a toilet bowl, more pissing on the U.S. Constitution... just to name a few. Doesn't sound like "taking his country seriously" to me. Sounds more like putting Big Oil and the military industry complex before the country and all legitimate parties to me.

So if McCain is elected in November, then be prepared for a lot of "I told you so"s from me over the next four years.

Which would you rather have?

1) Our troops sitting in Iraq for the next 100 years or

2) Terrorist setting up shop in our country for the next 100 years?

I think we should have gone over there from the word "GO" and kicked their ass. We should have sent more troops and more hardware over there and wiped them out instead of pussyfooting around like we have.

I would rather have you saying "I told you so" than me.

Ray

rayxtwo wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Weyoun wrote: Obviously, someone who takes his country more seriously than his party.

First of all, what is "his party"? He doesn't have a party. "Connecticut for Lieberman" is not a party name. That's just some horses**t party that a sore loser makes up after getting waxed in a primary. You don't see Mrs. Clinton starting up an "America for Hillary" party to continue her run for President, do you? (Wait, bad example. She hasn't started a horses**t party cuz she'd rather sabotage Obama's campaign and run again for the Democratic nomination in 2012.)

Second, Willy Tanner's... um, I mean Joe Lieberman's enthusiastic (not a word I would associate with him) endorsement of McCain is tantamount to an endorsement of the continuation of the disastrous policies of Mr. Bush--more tax cuts for the top 1%, keeping Big Oil fat and happy, staying in Iraq for the next 100+ years, possible new wars with Iran and Russia, value of the U.S. dollar continuing to resemble a toilet bowl, more pissing on the U.S. Constitution... just to name a few. Doesn't sound like "taking his country seriously" to me. Sounds more like putting Big Oil and the military industry complex before the country and all legitimate parties to me.

So if McCain is elected in November, then be prepared for a lot of "I told you so"s from me over the next four years.

Which would you rather have?

1) Our troops sitting in Iraq for the next 100 years or

2) Terrorist setting up shop in our country for the next 100 years?

I think we should have gone over there from the word "GO" and kicked their ass. We should have sent more troops and more hardware over there and wiped them out instead of pussyfooting around like we have.

I would rather have you saying "I told you so" than me.

Ray

There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded them.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote: Second, Willy Tanner's... um, I mean Joe Lieberman's enthusiastic (not a word I would associate with him) endorsement of McCain is tantamount to an endorsement of the continuation of the disastrous policies of Mr. Bush--more tax cuts for the top 1%, keeping Big Oil fat and happy, staying in Iraq for the next 100+ years, possible new wars with Iran and Russia, value of the U.S. dollar continuing to resemble a toilet bowl, more pissing on the U.S. Constitution... just to name a few. Doesn't sound like "taking his country seriously" to me. Sounds more like putting Big Oil and the military industry complex before the country and all legitimate parties to me.

So if McCain is elected in November, then be prepared for a lot of "I told you so"s from me over the next four years.

Tax cuts for the rich... Evil oil companies.... Everything's Bush's fault... The cartoon/pop culture view of politics.

Bob Juch wrote:There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded them.

REC REC REC!

About time somebody dropped that nugget of truth into the conversation.

Ninety-eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hard-working, honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then--we elected them -- Lily Tomlin

Bob Juch wrote:[There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded them.

We are both named Bob, and we both like to speak the truth about Iraq! Are we related!?!?!?

Wait a minute.... don't answer that!

Everything's Bush's fault...

People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history -- Dan Quayle

Bob Juch wrote:There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded them.

Bob, you are a very intellegent and smart guy. You have proved that over and over. While I don't agree with most of your political points of view, I do respect you for your political facts you use to support those views (most of the time) just coming to a different conclusion.

However, the above line is the most 'head in the sand' remark about Iraq. And perhaps the first 'head in the sand' remark I've seen you make. I hope it is a fluke.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded them.

Bob, you are a very intellegent and smart guy. You have proved that over and over. While I don't agree with most of your political points of view, I do respect you for your political facts you use to support those views (most of the time) just coming to a different conclusion.

However, the above line is the most 'head in the sand' remark about Iraq. And perhaps the first 'head in the sand' remark I've seen you make. I hope it is a fluke.

You seriously buy Bush's statements - with absolutely no proof - on that? Do you think that Saddam would have tolerated any terrorists in Iraq? He would have been afraid they'd attack him.

Bob Juch wrote:You seriously buy Bush's statements - with absolutely no proof - on that? Do you think that Saddam would have tolerated any terrorists in Iraq? He would have been afraid they'd attack him.

I wouldn't by used handbag off Ebay from Bush.

Iraq is a big country. It is full of Arabs. It is full of Muslims. Suni and Shia. Most terrorists come from these peoples.

Are you naive enough to say none of them were terrorists?

Are you saying that we tolerate terroists in the U.S. or are you saying that there also are no terrorists in the U.S.?