HYPOCRITICAL DEMOCRATS offer Lieberman commitee chair.

Published on November 10, 2006 By Moderateman In Politics

With the Democratic takeover of the Senate, Mr. Lieberman is in line to become chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Did not take long to the Democrats to show their true colors, offer Joe a committee seat before Republicans could woo Joe.

To see the people that turned their backs on SENATOR Lieberman, slap his back with congratulations after Joe's win in Connecticut over their hand picked candidate Ned { I spent a lot of money, had the support of the entire Democratic leadership and still lost} Lamont Made me want to vomit.

After being sold out by the Democratic Party, Lieberman's first words were "call me a Democrat" The entire Democratic party could learn a lesson from Joe on being faithful and strong.

Senator Lieberman was FORCED to run as an Independent, as the leadership {now there is an oxymoron} of the Democrats urged Joe not to run.

Joe ran without the support of the Democrats and won anyways, which shows class comes through in the end.

Comments (Page 2)

Cikomyr

on Nov 11, 2006

I am an individual, I do not care to be defined, I voted Democrat for 35 years till I saw the garbage they had to offer for the 2004 Presidential elections. Myrander and I have been nasty to one another for coming up on 2 years. I still vote for the best person, I have never voted a straight Republican ticket, nor will I ever do that,unless the best for the job happens to be all republicans which I doubt.

Hey, far from me to accuse anybody in peticular of wrongs or rights. If you really consider your vote, then you are a true democrat (no the Party, the system!!!).

But you do have to reckognize that many, many of the posters on this forum a one-side minded, and they would always follow the Republican, down to the gates of Hell.

Why didn't they saw their "flaws" up until the last elections?

ParaTed2k

on Nov 12, 2006

Was it the Senate Democrats who turned their back on Lieberman, or the Democrat Party of Connecticutt?

Cikomyr

on Nov 12, 2006

Was it the Senate Democrats who turned their back on Lieberman, or the Democrat Party of Connecticutt?

My guess would be the Democract Party of Connecticut, since they decide who will show up during the elections...

But I may be proved wrong... someone?

Moderateman

on Nov 12, 2006

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Sunday, November 12, 2006
Was it the Senate Democrats who turned their back on Lieberman, or the Democrat Party of Connecticutt?

Hanoi John and drunken ted made a point of saying they would not be campaigning for joe.

Moderateman

on Nov 12, 2006

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Saturday, November 11, 2006
I am an individual, I do not care to be defined, I voted Democrat for 35 years till I saw the garbage they had to offer for the 2004 Presidential elections. Myrander and I have been nasty to one another for coming up on 2 years. I still vote for the best person, I have never voted a straight Republican ticket, nor will I ever do that,unless the best for the job happens to be all republicans which I doubt.

Hey, far from me to accuse anybody in peticular of wrongs or rights. If you really consider your vote, then you are a true democrat (no the Party, the system!!!).

But you do have to reckognize that many, many of the posters on this forum a one-side minded, and they would always follow the Republican, down to the gates of Hell.

Why didn't they saw their "flaws" up until the last elections?

Because they thought they were doing the right thing.. and boy how wrong they were, refusing to change the course in Iraq was there death knell. Idiots!

Cikomyr

on Nov 12, 2006

refusing to change the course in Iraq wasn't "wrong" by itself.

however, they SHOULD have kept a closer eye on all of Bush's policies. That is the Congress's job, after all. They should have noticed that Bush's plan in Iraq wasn't holding right after he announced "Job Accomplished". No, I take that back. They should have noticed that the whole war was aiming an impossible goal in the begginning. And EVEN if you though the goal was reachable, nothing was rightly done to achieve it.

After all, they didn't even patched Afganistan up by then (and still haven't). Why did they go break another country?

Moderateman

on Nov 14, 2006

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Sunday, November 12, 2006
refusing to change the course in Iraq wasn't "wrong" by itself.

however, they SHOULD have kept a closer eye on all of Bush's policies. That is the Congress's job, after all. They should have noticed that Bush's plan in Iraq wasn't holding right after he announced "Job Accomplished". No, I take that back. They should have noticed that the whole war was aiming an impossible goal in the begginning. And EVEN if you though the goal was reachable, nothing was rightly done to achieve it.

After all, they didn't even patched Afganistan up by then (and still haven't). Why did they go break another country?

war is stupid in the first place, I did NOT WANT to go to war, but we did and now we are stuck.

Cikomyr

on Nov 14, 2006

Indeed. They managed to link "Invading Iraq" with "Defend against terrorists".

Well, the whole world warned USA, but they didn't listened...

Dr Guy

on Nov 15, 2006

Well, the whole world warned USA, but they didn't listened...

No, the WHOLE world did not. Part of it went into Iraq, a supporter of terrorism (documented so), part were against it because of the graft and fraud, and part warned the US. The part that 'warned' the US was mostly from others who had another agenda, and did not care about Saddam anyway.

Moderateman

on Nov 15, 2006

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Well, the whole world warned USA, but they didn't listened...

No, the WHOLE world did not. Part of it went into Iraq, a supporter of terrorism (documented so), part were against it because of the graft and fraud, and part warned the US. The part that 'warned' the US was mostly from others who had another agenda, and did not care about Saddam anyway.

More to the point the Democratic party was frothing at the mouth to go to war.

Somehow they have forgotten that.

Moderateman

on Nov 15, 2006

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Indeed. They managed to link "Invading Iraq" with "Defend against terrorists".

Well, the whole world warned USA, but they didn't listened...

As a sovereign nation, we act when we think it is time too act. America cannot and should not wait for "permission" to defend itself.

If we wait till the United {against America} NATIONS to go to war, we would be over run with red tape.

shadesofgrey

on Nov 15, 2006

Apoligies shades

No worries, MM. Sorry I didn't see this sooner--I've been away.

Cikomyr

on Nov 15, 2006

As a sovereign nation, we act when we think it is time too act. America cannot and should not wait for "permission" to defend itself.

You were in no way threatened. No WMD, no Al-Qaeda ties. You have emptied this country of any juice or strenght with the embargo.

f we wait till the United {against America} NATIONS to go to war, we would be over run with red tape.

United Against America? Since when? many of them are your main allies (France and the rest of NATO). And just because they didn't followed you into the Iraq mess they beleived you would create doesn't mean they won't strand with you in trouble.

We helped you in Afganistan, didn't we? Canada is the country taking the most losses in Afgan right now.

Moderateman

on Nov 15, 2006

(Citizen)shadesofgreyNovember 15, 2006 16:57:20

Apoligies shades

No worries, MM. Sorry I didn't see this sooner--I've been away.

well meg due to some anger issues in my life I have been super pissy. There is no excuse for me disrespecting you.

Moderateman

on Nov 15, 2006

CikomyrNovember 15, 2006 18:46:58

As a sovereign nation, we act when we think it is time too act. America cannot and should not wait for "permission" to defend itself.

You were in no way threatened. No WMD, no Al-Qaeda ties. You have emptied this country of any juice or strenght with the embargo.

there goes that 20/20 hindsight, most intelligence agencies around the world "KNEW" saddamn had them. Al zaquaie {spelling?} the leader is Iraq for Al qaeda that was killed was in Iraq in a hospital, also now there is documented papers showing sadamns intell servie was in direct contact with Bin Ladens gang of thugs.

we wait till the United {against America} NATIONS to go to war, we would be over run with red tape.

United Against America? Since when? many of them are your main allies (France and the rest of NATO). And just because they didn't followed you into the Iraq mess they beleived you would create doesn't mean they won't strand with you in trouble.

I am not going to argue what is a known fact,, the united nations is anti-american!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!