Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
lol The state didn't reject him,Unlike Obama, Lieberman is a traditional Democrat, liberal on domestic issues but tough on security issues, and he is a man of high principles as witnessed by supporting McCain against his Party's nominee, Obama, in 2008 after being the Party's VP candidate in 2004, knowing full well this would spell the end of his political career.I only hope and pray Lieberman is not another swamp inhabitant.
My God....can't they get it right for once?
Put patriots in the White House? instead of traitors?
What is so hard to understand????
PFFFT. Liar-man's career was already over when his state rejected him in a primary election and when he left office with a freaking 31% approval rating.
As for "the integrity thing", part 2, from a Connecticut newspaper comment:
>> Lieberman’s egregious waffling, or seeming waffling, over a public option when Obamacare was being passed—all the while likely having no intention whatsoever of supporting it—and then, near the last moment, finally showing his hand and coming down against it, likely because of his political debts to CT’s private insurance industry—well, that was the last straw: the clear demonstration that when he really has power to affect it, he cares about the public interest not one whit.Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when I render his name as Ho Liar-man.
Seems this afternoon that Joe is the front-runner for the job. He and Trump “bonded.”
It would be interesting to know what Joe said to Trump when asked whether Trump would have his loyalty.
It would be interesting to know, in time, whether career FBI agents will believe that Joe has their backs.<<
....the Democratic Party did because he refused to support Obama in 2008 as a matter of principle. Nonetheless, he ran as an independent while still being a registered Democrat and won that election. You seem to be confusing partisan loyalty with integrity.
I like Lieberman, good man...
Lieberman is front-runner for FBI director: report
BY MAX GREENWOOD - 05/18/17 02:03 PM EDT
Former Sen. Joe Lieberman has emerged as the likely pick to replace recently fired FBI Director James Comey, Politico reported Thursday.
Trump met with four candidates for the top law enforcement job on Wednesday, including Lieberman, and reportedly bonded with the former Democratic vice presidential candidate, Politico reported citing a person familiar with the meeting.
Trump told one adviser that he is hoping to announce his FBI director pick before he departs Friday on a nine-day trip abroad – his first overseas excursion since taking office in January.
...
Lieberman is front-runner for FBI director: report
Unfortunately Nostradamus is dead.Unlike Obama, Lieberman is a traditional Democrat, liberal on domestic issues but tough on security issues, and he is a man of high principles as witnessed by supporting McCain against his Party's nominee, Obama, in 2008 after being the Party's VP candidate in 2004 2000 knowing full well this would spell the end of his political career.
Why didn't Lieberman predict 9/11, especially when he was more familiar with its possibility because of the preview of it in Israel in 1973? We need someone who is prescient, not precious.
You're confusing the democratic primary, with Lieberman lost by the numbers you posted, with the actual election.lol The state didn't reject him,Unlike Obama, Lieberman is a traditional Democrat, liberal on domestic issues but tough on security issues, and he is a man of high principles as witnessed by supporting McCain against his Party's nominee, Obama, in 2008 after being the Party's VP candidate in 2004, knowing full well this would spell the end of his political career.I only hope and pray Lieberman is not another swamp inhabitant.
My God....can't they get it right for once?
Put patriots in the White House? instead of traitors?
What is so hard to understand????
PFFFT. Liar-man's career was already over when his state rejected him in a primary election and when he left office with a freaking 31% approval rating.
As for "the integrity thing", part 2, from a Connecticut newspaper comment:
>> Lieberman’s egregious waffling, or seeming waffling, over a public option when Obamacare was being passed—all the while likely having no intention whatsoever of supporting it—and then, near the last moment, finally showing his hand and coming down against it, likely because of his political debts to CT’s private insurance industry—well, that was the last straw: the clear demonstration that when he really has power to affect it, he cares about the public interest not one whit.Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when I render his name as Ho Liar-man.
Seems this afternoon that Joe is the front-runner for the job. He and Trump “bonded.”
It would be interesting to know what Joe said to Trump when asked whether Trump would have his loyalty.
It would be interesting to know, in time, whether career FBI agents will believe that Joe has their backs.<<
Um, check the vote tally Goober.
Ned Lamont 146,587 52.0%Now I'm not a mathematician but I'm pretty sure 52% beats 48.
Joseph Lieberman (Incumbent) 136,468 48.0%
Those numbers are state voters. They're not "negotiable".
Oh wait, lemme guess --- "two hundred thousand illegal Canadians voted" right?
SMH
....the Democratic Party did because he refused to support Obama in 2008 as a matter of principle. Nonetheless, he ran as an independent while still being a registered Democrat and won that election. You seem to be confusing partisan loyalty with integrity.
Uhh... you seem to be confusing Joe Lieberman with Strom Thurmond.
(Did he see it coming?)Unfortunately Nostradamus is dead.Unlike Obama, Lieberman is a traditional Democrat, liberal on domestic issues but tough on security issues, and he is a man of high principles as witnessed by supporting McCain against his Party's nominee, Obama, in 2008 after being the Party's VP candidate in 2004 2000 knowing full well this would spell the end of his political career.
Why didn't Lieberman predict 9/11, especially when he was more familiar with its possibility because of the preview of it in Israel in 1973? We need someone who is prescient, not precious.
Dummy, Lieberman won the election and served his third term in the Senate. The Democrats may have had little use for a man of principle but the majority of the voters in CT put him back in the Senate. Again, you seem to be confusing integrity with blind partisanship.lol The state didn't reject him,Unlike Obama, Lieberman is a traditional Democrat, liberal on domestic issues but tough on security issues, and he is a man of high principles as witnessed by supporting McCain against his Party's nominee, Obama, in 2008 after being the Party's VP candidate in 2004, knowing full well this would spell the end of his political career.I only hope and pray Lieberman is not another swamp inhabitant.
My God....can't they get it right for once?
Put patriots in the White House? instead of traitors?
What is so hard to understand????
PFFFT. Liar-man's career was already over when his state rejected him in a primary election and when he left office with a freaking 31% approval rating.
As for "the integrity thing", part 2, from a Connecticut newspaper comment:
>> Lieberman’s egregious waffling, or seeming waffling, over a public option when Obamacare was being passed—all the while likely having no intention whatsoever of supporting it—and then, near the last moment, finally showing his hand and coming down against it, likely because of his political debts to CT’s private insurance industry—well, that was the last straw: the clear demonstration that when he really has power to affect it, he cares about the public interest not one whit.Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when I render his name as Ho Liar-man.
Seems this afternoon that Joe is the front-runner for the job. He and Trump “bonded.”
It would be interesting to know what Joe said to Trump when asked whether Trump would have his loyalty.
It would be interesting to know, in time, whether career FBI agents will believe that Joe has their backs.<<
Um, check the vote tally Goober.
Ned Lamont 146,587 52.0%Now I'm not a mathematician but I'm pretty sure 52% beats 48.
Joseph Lieberman (Incumbent) 136,468 48.0%
Those numbers are state voters. They're not "negotiable".
Oh wait, lemme guess --- "two hundred thousand illegal Canadians voted" right?
SMH
....the Democratic Party did because he refused to support Obama in 2008 as a matter of principle. Nonetheless, he ran as an independent while still being a registered Democrat and won that election. You seem to be confusing partisan loyalty with integrity.
Uhh... you seem to be confusing Joe Lieberman with Strom Thurmond.
lol No idea but the poster wanted some one who was prescient.(Did he see it coming?)Unfortunately Nostradamus is dead.Unlike Obama, Lieberman is a traditional Democrat, liberal on domestic issues but tough on security issues, and he is a man of high principles as witnessed by supporting McCain against his Party's nominee, Obama, in 2008 after being the Party's VP candidate in 2004 2000 knowing full well this would spell the end of his political career.
Why didn't Lieberman predict 9/11, especially when he was more familiar with its possibility because of the preview of it in Israel in 1973? We need someone who is prescient, not precious.
When certain people encounter a controversy, all they can see is JEW JEW JEW.Bro, Lieberman is a jewish, zionist, neocon devil.
Dummy, Lieberman won the election and served his third term in the Senate. The Democrats may have had little use for a man of principle but the majority of the voters in CT put him back in the Senate. Again, you seem to be confusing integrity with blind partisanship.lol The state didn't reject him,Unlike Obama, Lieberman is a traditional Democrat, liberal on domestic issues but tough on security issues, and he is a man of high principles as witnessed by supporting McCain against his Party's nominee, Obama, in 2008 after being the Party's VP candidate in 2004, knowing full well this would spell the end of his political career.I only hope and pray Lieberman is not another swamp inhabitant.
My God....can't they get it right for once?
Put patriots in the White House? instead of traitors?
What is so hard to understand????
PFFFT. Liar-man's career was already over when his state rejected him in a primary election and when he left office with a freaking 31% approval rating.
As for "the integrity thing", part 2, from a Connecticut newspaper comment:
>> Lieberman’s egregious waffling, or seeming waffling, over a public option when Obamacare was being passed—all the while likely having no intention whatsoever of supporting it—and then, near the last moment, finally showing his hand and coming down against it, likely because of his political debts to CT’s private insurance industry—well, that was the last straw: the clear demonstration that when he really has power to affect it, he cares about the public interest not one whit.Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when I render his name as Ho Liar-man.
Seems this afternoon that Joe is the front-runner for the job. He and Trump “bonded.”
It would be interesting to know what Joe said to Trump when asked whether Trump would have his loyalty.
It would be interesting to know, in time, whether career FBI agents will believe that Joe has their backs.<<
Um, check the vote tally Goober.
Ned Lamont 146,587 52.0%Now I'm not a mathematician but I'm pretty sure 52% beats 48.
Joseph Lieberman (Incumbent) 136,468 48.0%
Those numbers are state voters. They're not "negotiable".
Oh wait, lemme guess --- "two hundred thousand illegal Canadians voted" right?
SMH
....the Democratic Party did because he refused to support Obama in 2008 as a matter of principle. Nonetheless, he ran as an independent while still being a registered Democrat and won that election. You seem to be confusing partisan loyalty with integrity.
Uhh... you seem to be confusing Joe Lieberman with Strom Thurmond.
You're confusing the democratic primary, with Lieberman lost by the numbers you posted, with the actual election.lol The state didn't reject him,Unlike Obama, Lieberman is a traditional Democrat, liberal on domestic issues but tough on security issues, and he is a man of high principles as witnessed by supporting McCain against his Party's nominee, Obama, in 2008 after being the Party's VP candidate in 2004, knowing full well this would spell the end of his political career.I only hope and pray Lieberman is not another swamp inhabitant.
My God....can't they get it right for once?
Put patriots in the White House? instead of traitors?
What is so hard to understand????
PFFFT. Liar-man's career was already over when his state rejected him in a primary election and when he left office with a freaking 31% approval rating.
As for "the integrity thing", part 2, from a Connecticut newspaper comment:
>> Lieberman’s egregious waffling, or seeming waffling, over a public option when Obamacare was being passed—all the while likely having no intention whatsoever of supporting it—and then, near the last moment, finally showing his hand and coming down against it, likely because of his political debts to CT’s private insurance industry—well, that was the last straw: the clear demonstration that when he really has power to affect it, he cares about the public interest not one whit.Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when I render his name as Ho Liar-man.
Seems this afternoon that Joe is the front-runner for the job. He and Trump “bonded.”
It would be interesting to know what Joe said to Trump when asked whether Trump would have his loyalty.
It would be interesting to know, in time, whether career FBI agents will believe that Joe has their backs.<<
Um, check the vote tally Goober.
Ned Lamont 146,587 52.0%Now I'm not a mathematician but I'm pretty sure 52% beats 48.
Joseph Lieberman (Incumbent) 136,468 48.0%
Those numbers are state voters. They're not "negotiable".
Oh wait, lemme guess --- "two hundred thousand illegal Canadians voted" right?
SMH
....the Democratic Party did because he refused to support Obama in 2008 as a matter of principle. Nonetheless, he ran as an independent while still being a registered Democrat and won that election. You seem to be confusing partisan loyalty with integrity.
Uhh... you seem to be confusing Joe Lieberman with Strom Thurmond.
"On November 7, Lieberman won re-election with 50% of the vote. Ned Lamont garnered 40% of ballots cast and Alan Schlesinger won 10%.[47] Lieberman received support from 33% of Democrats, 54% of independents and 70% of Republicans.[48]"
Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia
The party dumped him in the primary.You're confusing the democratic primary, with Lieberman lost by the numbers you posted, with the actual election.lol The state didn't reject him,Unlike Obama, Lieberman is a traditional Democrat, liberal on domestic issues but tough on security issues, and he is a man of high principles as witnessed by supporting McCain against his Party's nominee, Obama, in 2008 after being the Party's VP candidate in 2004, knowing full well this would spell the end of his political career.
PFFFT. Liar-man's career was already over when his state rejected him in a primary election and when he left office with a freaking 31% approval rating.
As for "the integrity thing", part 2, from a Connecticut newspaper comment:
>> Lieberman’s egregious waffling, or seeming waffling, over a public option when Obamacare was being passed—all the while likely having no intention whatsoever of supporting it—and then, near the last moment, finally showing his hand and coming down against it, likely because of his political debts to CT’s private insurance industry—well, that was the last straw: the clear demonstration that when he really has power to affect it, he cares about the public interest not one whit.Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when I render his name as Ho Liar-man.
Seems this afternoon that Joe is the front-runner for the job. He and Trump “bonded.”
It would be interesting to know what Joe said to Trump when asked whether Trump would have his loyalty.
It would be interesting to know, in time, whether career FBI agents will believe that Joe has their backs.<<
Um, check the vote tally Goober.
Ned Lamont 146,587 52.0%Now I'm not a mathematician but I'm pretty sure 52% beats 48.
Joseph Lieberman (Incumbent) 136,468 48.0%
Those numbers are state voters. They're not "negotiable".
Oh wait, lemme guess --- "two hundred thousand illegal Canadians voted" right?
SMH
....the Democratic Party did because he refused to support Obama in 2008 as a matter of principle. Nonetheless, he ran as an independent while still being a registered Democrat and won that election. You seem to be confusing partisan loyalty with integrity.
Uhh... you seem to be confusing Joe Lieberman with Strom Thurmond.
"On November 7, Lieberman won re-election with 50% of the vote. Ned Lamont garnered 40% of ballots cast and Alan Schlesinger won 10%.[47] Lieberman received support from 33% of Democrats, 54% of independents and 70% of Republicans.[48]"
Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia
Yeah I have all that. The primary is what we're talking about here, not the election.
The party dumped him in the primary.You're confusing the democratic primary, with Lieberman lost by the numbers you posted, with the actual election.lol The state didn't reject him,PFFFT. Liar-man's career was already over when his state rejected him in a primary election and when he left office with a freaking 31% approval rating.
As for "the integrity thing", part 2, from a Connecticut newspaper comment:
>> Lieberman’s egregious waffling, or seeming waffling, over a public option when Obamacare was being passed—all the while likely having no intention whatsoever of supporting it—and then, near the last moment, finally showing his hand and coming down against it, likely because of his political debts to CT’s private insurance industry—well, that was the last straw: the clear demonstration that when he really has power to affect it, he cares about the public interest not one whit.Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when I render his name as Ho Liar-man.
Seems this afternoon that Joe is the front-runner for the job. He and Trump “bonded.”
It would be interesting to know what Joe said to Trump when asked whether Trump would have his loyalty.
It would be interesting to know, in time, whether career FBI agents will believe that Joe has their backs.<<
Um, check the vote tally Goober.
Ned Lamont 146,587 52.0%Now I'm not a mathematician but I'm pretty sure 52% beats 48.
Joseph Lieberman (Incumbent) 136,468 48.0%
Those numbers are state voters. They're not "negotiable".
Oh wait, lemme guess --- "two hundred thousand illegal Canadians voted" right?
SMH
....the Democratic Party did because he refused to support Obama in 2008 as a matter of principle. Nonetheless, he ran as an independent while still being a registered Democrat and won that election. You seem to be confusing partisan loyalty with integrity.
Uhh... you seem to be confusing Joe Lieberman with Strom Thurmond.
"On November 7, Lieberman won re-election with 50% of the vote. Ned Lamont garnered 40% of ballots cast and Alan Schlesinger won 10%.[47] Lieberman received support from 33% of Democrats, 54% of independents and 70% of Republicans.[48]"
Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia
Yeah I have all that. The primary is what we're talking about here, not the election.
That's why he ran as an independent.
He won the election so clearly the people didn't reject him.Dummy, Lieberman won the election and served his third term in the Senate. The Democrats may have had little use for a man of principle but the majority of the voters in CT put him back in the Senate. Again, you seem to be confusing integrity with blind partisanship.lol The state didn't reject him,Unlike Obama, Lieberman is a traditional Democrat, liberal on domestic issues but tough on security issues, and he is a man of high principles as witnessed by supporting McCain against his Party's nominee, Obama, in 2008 after being the Party's VP candidate in 2004, knowing full well this would spell the end of his political career.
PFFFT. Liar-man's career was already over when his state rejected him in a primary election and when he left office with a freaking 31% approval rating.
As for "the integrity thing", part 2, from a Connecticut newspaper comment:
>> Lieberman’s egregious waffling, or seeming waffling, over a public option when Obamacare was being passed—all the while likely having no intention whatsoever of supporting it—and then, near the last moment, finally showing his hand and coming down against it, likely because of his political debts to CT’s private insurance industry—well, that was the last straw: the clear demonstration that when he really has power to affect it, he cares about the public interest not one whit.Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when I render his name as Ho Liar-man.
Seems this afternoon that Joe is the front-runner for the job. He and Trump “bonded.”
It would be interesting to know what Joe said to Trump when asked whether Trump would have his loyalty.
It would be interesting to know, in time, whether career FBI agents will believe that Joe has their backs.<<
Um, check the vote tally Goober.
Ned Lamont 146,587 52.0%Now I'm not a mathematician but I'm pretty sure 52% beats 48.
Joseph Lieberman (Incumbent) 136,468 48.0%
Those numbers are state voters. They're not "negotiable".
Oh wait, lemme guess --- "two hundred thousand illegal Canadians voted" right?
SMH
....the Democratic Party did because he refused to support Obama in 2008 as a matter of principle. Nonetheless, he ran as an independent while still being a registered Democrat and won that election. You seem to be confusing partisan loyalty with integrity.
Uhh... you seem to be confusing Joe Lieberman with Strom Thurmond.
And you just said the party, not the people, dumped him. And I just proved you WRONG. And there ain't nuttn' you can do about that.
Again, Strom Thurmond was the dude who was dropped by the party and then won as a write-in. That was I believe 1954.
There Is No I in the CIA Except for EgoUnfortunately Nostradamus is dead.Unlike Obama, Lieberman is a traditional Democrat, liberal on domestic issues but tough on security issues, and he is a man of high principles as witnessed by supporting McCain against his Party's nominee, Obama, in 2008 after being the Party's VP candidate in 2004 2000 knowing full well this would spell the end of his political career.
Why didn't Lieberman predict 9/11, especially when he was more familiar with its possibility because of the preview of it in Israel in 1973? We need someone who is prescient, not precious.
The CIA Can't Connect the Dots, They Can Only Collect the Dots(Did he see it coming?)Unfortunately Nostradamus is dead.Why didn't Lieberman predict 9/11?.
Reply to New Age Novel Slaughterhouse-FiveWhen certain people encounter a controversy, all they can see is JEW JEW JEW.Bro, Lieberman is a jewish, zionist, neocon devil.
World War II beat that vile filth out of a lot of them. In many cases by killing them, since nothing else would work.
Looks like they missed a few.
Lieberman Defeated in Democratic PrimaryThe party dumped him in the primary.You're confusing the democratic primary, with Lieberman lost by the numbers you posted, with the actual election.lol The state didn't reject him,PFFFT. Liar-man's career was already over when his state rejected him in a primary election and when he left office with a freaking 31% approval rating.
As for "the integrity thing", part 2, from a Connecticut newspaper comment:
>> Lieberman’s egregious waffling, or seeming waffling, over a public option when Obamacare was being passed—all the while likely having no intention whatsoever of supporting it—and then, near the last moment, finally showing his hand and coming down against it, likely because of his political debts to CT’s private insurance industry—well, that was the last straw: the clear demonstration that when he really has power to affect it, he cares about the public interest not one whit.Exactly. That's what I'm talking about when I render his name as Ho Liar-man.
Seems this afternoon that Joe is the front-runner for the job. He and Trump “bonded.”
It would be interesting to know what Joe said to Trump when asked whether Trump would have his loyalty.
It would be interesting to know, in time, whether career FBI agents will believe that Joe has their backs.<<
Um, check the vote tally Goober.
Ned Lamont 146,587 52.0%Now I'm not a mathematician but I'm pretty sure 52% beats 48.
Joseph Lieberman (Incumbent) 136,468 48.0%
Those numbers are state voters. They're not "negotiable".
Oh wait, lemme guess --- "two hundred thousand illegal Canadians voted" right?
SMH
....the Democratic Party did because he refused to support Obama in 2008 as a matter of principle. Nonetheless, he ran as an independent while still being a registered Democrat and won that election. You seem to be confusing partisan loyalty with integrity.
Uhh... you seem to be confusing Joe Lieberman with Strom Thurmond.
"On November 7, Lieberman won re-election with 50% of the vote. Ned Lamont garnered 40% of ballots cast and Alan Schlesinger won 10%.[47] Lieberman received support from 33% of Democrats, 54% of independents and 70% of Republicans.[48]"
Joe Lieberman - Wikipedia
Yeah I have all that. The primary is what we're talking about here, not the election.
That's why he ran as an independent.
