Lieberman concedes to Lamont, vows to run in November

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: brien I quoted the article that said Liebermans' campaign filed all the necessary paperwork with the FEC. Where is the indictment Dan?

You quoted Liebermans spokesliar. Nowhere in that article did they address the law that was broken nor did the spokesliar justify their actions.
The FEC says all monies must be itemized (with names and addresses) and should not exceed $100 each. They had $387,000 in campaign cash that was not properly itemized. Get it now?

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Brien, First you sayDamn the rules, the gloves are off, anything goes, cheating is just plain fun. Then you demonize the guy who was encroached uponWe are a nation of laws, why dont you get on board with the only legitimate candidate in Ct. ?

You haven't proved cheating at all. You make statements that just haven't been proven to be true. Lamont has made charges, not the FEC. Show me the indictment(s). I base my ideas and opinions on evidence. You have indicted, tried, and convicted someone when he hasn't even been arrested. Where is your sense of justice man?

I haven't demonized anyone. The exact opposite is true. You have demonized Lieberman when he is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty. Or did you conveniently forget that Dan?

This isn't about me at all. It is about fairness in elections and if you don't have an arrest or an indictment, the matter is irrelevant. So, to raise it without any evidence or indictments, is smear tactics in the face of the losing campaign of Lamont. The FEC has NOT indicted Lieberman. Lamont has merely made the charge and you have the man tried, convicted and guilty.. Geez, I would hate to live in your land of justice.:rolleyes:

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel You quoted Liebermans spokesliar. Nowhere in that article did they address the law that was broken nor did the spokesliar justify their actions. The FEC says all monies must be itemized (with names and addresses) and should not exceed $100 each. They had $387,000 in campaign cash that was not properly itemized. Get it now?

I quoted the article you first brought up here. And you have merely sourced a Lamont campaign charge. Where is the indictment Dan? Show me an indictment and I will be the first to question the evidence.

I, unlike you, will wait to see the indictment in this matter. Then I, unlike you Dan, will await a trial that assumes all people are innocent untill proven guilty.

Because the Lamont campaign files a complaint with the FEC, it is not tantamount to a conviction, no matter how much you would desire it. We live in the US where people, even candidates, are innocent until proven guilty, Dan. Get it now?

[gr8fuldaniel]

There were at least 2 lump sums that slightly exceeded the $100 limitation and were not identified by name and address:

Lamont Questions Lieberman's Spending - washingtonpost.com The largest was $135,000 on Aug. 4. There was a $75,000 payment on Aug. 7.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Why is that whenever I break the law, I get a ticket or get arrested and everybody else gets promoted and re-elected?
Justice should apply equal no matter the color of your collar. That is the most deplorable thing about this murdering country of scoundrels.

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel There were at least 2 lump sums that slightly exceeded the $100 limitation and were not identified by name and address:

Where are the indictments Dan? You can make all of the charges until the provernbial cows come home, but since there are no indictments, I refuse to jump to conclusions that the man is guilty.

Merely to charge him with wrong doing by the campaign of his opponent is no reason to indict him. When the FEC investigates and the DOJ indicts him, then I will consider the charges. When a court of law finds him guilty, I will then condemn him. To do anything less, is unamerican and violates the man's constitutional rights to a fair trial.

[gr8fuldaniel]

The complaint was just filed today. Lets hope they dont let him off the hook by dragging their feet and then saying at the last minute, "Well, too late now, hes already won the election. Cant undo that so we will just drop it"
Like they are prone to do. The mother fuckers are all fucking each others mothers and laughing about it. They will put off an investigation till later so it "wont influence the election". Which is exactly why we should have a 10 day investigation by the Senate. With full disclosure and transparency. cocksuckers.

Edit to add:
I need to meditate. I will check back later.

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel The complaint was just filed today. Lets hope they dont let him off the hook by dragging their feet and then saying at the last minute, "Well, too late now, hes already won the election. Cant undo that so we will just drop it" Like they are prone to do. The mother fuckers are all fucking each others mothers and laughing about it. They will put off an investigation till later so it "wont influence the election". Which is exactly why we should have a 10 day investigation by the Senate. With full disclosure and transparency. cocksuckers. Edit to add: I need to meditate. I will check back later.

Welcome to politics. We will see where it all goes from here.

[gr8fuldaniel]

This is why I used the "F" word:

source Slush Fund Press Conference Video Campaign Manager Tom Swan and Chairman George Jepsen held a press conference on Joe Lieberman’s slush fund earlier today. Here’s the video clip.

Lieberman is laundering ENRON loot. (Hey! Thats my money!! Enron stole that money from me, and now its buying votes in CT, where a traitor to the party has shifted allegiance to his tongue buddy, gwb)

In other news, today:
NYT endorses Lamont

[RickSp]

Lamont ad comparing Lieberman's views on Iraq to Nixon's policies in Vietnam. Sadly amusing.

Joe's Nixonian Deceptions

[rcne]

So, whats the point spread in this race? The last I heard, and I admit I pay little attention to Connecticut politics - Lieberman was ahead by a fairly large margin.

[brien]

Quote by: rcne So, whats the point spread in this race? The last I heard, and I admit I pay little attention to Connecticut politics - Lieberman was ahead by a fairly large margin.

17 points spread, Lieberman ahead. The last Quinnipiac poll was posted a few posts back around a week ago. Both Schelissinger and Lamont are doomed. Campaigns are getting very nasty and there is much mud flying around, as usual.

[gr8fuldaniel]

That poll was BEFORE the Lieberman (I-CT) slush fund scandal. Lieberman (I-CT) being a former AG for the state knows the law. Full disclosure......but, he spent $32,000.00 per day in the last 10 days of the primary, without properly accounting for it. Thats a federal offense. Can he serve from prison?

Also, that poll was before endorsed Lamont, which should be good for some points.

Breaking Elections News, US Elections 2006 | Reuters.com The New York Times, whose opinion carries weight in neighboring Connecticut where many of the city's commuters live, gave a strong endorsement of Lamont on Sunday. The Times chided Lieberman for remaining "on the very same page" as Bush on the Iraq war and said Lamont had shown "real courage and conviction" in taking on Lieberman. "He would make a good senator. More important, he has the capacity to continually become a better one," the Times said.

Also, if Joe gets caught swapping spit with Republicans again it could "turn off" dems and cons alike. Joe could be all alone with his dick in his hand.

I was looking for a newer poll when I found this from John Nichols with The Nation:

With relative ease, the senior senator and consummate Washington insider successfully repositioned himself as a reformer who wanted to put an end to partisanship.

Lieberman (I-CT) wants to end partisanship at a time when we need to have Clear Boundaries between good and evil; and right and wrong.
This is the wrong time for Lieberman (I-CT).
The same article in The Nation said this

....Quinnipiac University survey conducted two weeks ago. Yet, the same poll found that 67 percent of Connecticut voters disapprove of George Bush's handling of the war – and, by extension, the senator's pro-war position. <snip> In a new television ad for the Lamont campaign, Clark declares, "I'm retired General Wes Clark. Joe Lieberman introduced the resolution authorizing the War in Iraq. That was a mistake. Joe Lieberman voted for that resolution without asking the tough questions. That was also a mistake. And now, three and a half years into a failing mission in Iraq, Joe Lieberman can't seem to say we should change the course. And that's a REAL mistake." Clark concludes: "Re-elect Joe Lieberman? Well, there's a word for it. ‘Mistake.'"

We deserve a new poll, that would attend to new developments.

[Chaossaber314]

And what difference would that make? You've clearly already made up your mind about who should win.

[gr8fuldaniel]

It could make a lot of difference.
If the polls are inaccurate, people wont challenge when the Cons cheat to win. Democrats should vote for who the party endorses. Thats the purpose of the primary. Let all the republicans vote against their own party if they want (because Lieberman is really a Neo-Con).
Lieberman is not a moderate. He is a WARHAWK. Period.
I find it hard to believe ANY dem would vote for Lieberman. Actually, I find it impossible to believe.

Edit to add:
We dont need a traitor to tip the balance of power as soon as he is elected, he can very likely change party affilliation. He has half way done it anyway. Its just not official. Imagine the Senate having a tenous Dem majority, by ONE member.........Who will Lieberman side with? The Party that voted against him in the primary........or those who put steak and eggs on his plate?

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel That poll was BEFORE the Lieberman (I-CT) slush fund scandal. Lieberman (I-CT) being a former AG for the state knows the law. Full disclosure......but, he spent $32,000.00 per day in the last 10 days of the primary, without properly accounting for it. Thats a federal offense. Can he serve from prison? Also, that poll was before endorsed Lamont, which should be good for some points. Also, if Joe gets caught swapping spit with Republicans again it could "turn off" dems and cons alike. Joe could be all alone with his dick in his hand. I was looking for a newer poll when I found this from John Nichols with The Nation: Lieberman (I-CT) wants to end partisanship at a time when we need to have Clear Boundaries between good and evil; and right and wrong. This is the wrong time for Lieberman (I-CT). The same article in The Nation said this We deserve a new poll, that would attend to new developments.

Dan, you crack me up. Your zeal for your precious Democratic Party line is only exceeded by your ignoring the Constitutional protection of Lieberman's rights. I will ask you once again,

Where are the indictments?

These are accusations made by his rival, not indictments made by the DOJ. Until such time that Lieberman is indicted, your declaring his guilt is absurd. Even then, the man is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, something you seem to conveniently forget here. I don't see that happening in the next week. Hey, if he is indicted and found guilty, you will like it even less because Jodi Rell will appoint a replacement and she is a dah dah dah dah:

Republican.:eek:

We deserve a new poll, that would attend to new developments.

You are going to get one on November 7th.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: brien Where are the indictments?

I will answer with a question that should not have to be asked....EVER. Where is his full disclosure? That is not fucking priveledged information. We dont need no stinking indictments, this information is supposed to be PUBLIC. Why are you siding with the criminal?
Do you think we should bog down the courts for EVERY politician who doesnt "feel" like disclosing? Snap out of it.

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I will answer with a question that should not have to be asked....EVER. Where is his full disclosure? That is not fucking priveledged information. We dont need no stinking indictments, this information is supposed to be PUBLIC. Why are you siding with the criminal? Do you think we should bog down the courts for EVERY politician who doesnt "feel" like disclosing? Snap out of it.

We dont need no stinking indictments

"Ya whule mein fuhrer", says he, as the heels of his boots click together.

Why are you siding with the criminal?

I am siding with the Constitution of the US.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I will answer with a question that should not have to be asked....EVER. Where is his full disclosure? That is not fucking priveledged information. We dont need no stinking indictments, this information is supposed to be PUBLIC. Why are you siding with the criminal? Do you think we should bog down the courts for EVERY politician who doesnt "feel" like disclosing? Snap out of it.

Yes, why not get rid of the courts all together as to stem the inconvenience?

[drgilbert4]

We usually hear this kind of stuff just before the concession speach!:)

The complaint was just filed today. Lets hope they dont let him off the hook by dragging their feet and then saying at the last minute, "Well, too late now, hes already won the election. Cant undo that so we will just drop it" Like they are prone to do. The mother fuckers are all fucking each others mothers and laughing about it. They will put off an investigation till later so it "wont influence the election". Which is exactly why we should have a 10 day investigation by the Senate. With full disclosure and transparency. cocksuckers. Edit to add: I need to meditate. I will check back later.