Howard Dean and saddam...

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
i think you missed my edit:

i mean if it did pass, and its conditions were ment then Dean would have been supporting the actions of the adminstation; but this is not the case.

What he supported is almost exactly like what was eventually passed. The Biden-Lugar proposal would have only been for Iraq specifically instead of "area". So yes - Dean supporting B-L prop which does allow for unilateral action(which we didn't do anyway) without a UNSC resolution or another Congressional vote. Dean is not being genuine in his protrayal of his stances, and this is only one example.

CkG

Dean has always stated that he "supported the Biden-Lugar Proposal which forced the President to go back to Congress for a vote to authorize the war". He would make that statement completely and clearly. He was wrong in the assertion that it "forced" the President to do anything. It did not and he was mistaken. As the following link demonstrates, it was a rather confusing subject on the exact "teeth" of the proposal.

The New Republic

Gephardt had one seriously withering sound-bite in last night's debate. Trying to neutralize Howard Dean's blistering attack on him for endorsing the Iraq war, he remarked, "Howard, I think you're all over the lot on this issue." Good line. Too bad Gephardt kept talking, because he quickly proved he was the one all over the lot. "You said you favored the Biden-Lugar resolution," Gephardt lectured Dean, "which, in effect, was the same thing that we passed on the floor. It was very much like it." So commenced Gephardt's latest effort to rewrite what it was he voted for last October.

To recap, the Biden-Lugar resolution was an attempt by the eponymous senators last fall to tether the war authorization to some form of multilateral cooperation. Most importantly, it required President Bush to return to Congress and argue that war was immediately necessary if he considered U.S. security hopelessly mired in fruitless U.N. diplomacy. Gephardt instead endorsed Bush's preferred resolution, which contained no such encumbrances. And with Gephardt's support, Bush was able to hold up his resolution as a true product of bipartisan compromise, effectively killing Biden-Lugar.

[...]

UPDATE: An alert reader makes the very good point that Biden-Lugar's teeth--that is, its requirement that Bush inform Congress of why a war needed to be launched without U.N. authorization--were more like dentures. The relevant text reads that Bush must

make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution.

So, what does "make available" mean? Would it simply be a notification to Congress that Bush had made his decision? Or would it reopen the case for war to further deliberation, which might have had the political effect of restraining military action? Certainly, Biden-Lugar didn't require further congressional action to authorize the war in the advent of a U.N. impasse. So in that sense Gephardt has a point that Biden-Lugar wasn't quite so dissimilar from the resolution he negotiated with Bush, and as a result deserves more credit than I gave him (which is why I'm raising his grade from a D to a C).

I know Cad, that you are a political junkie, and probably knew all this already. Dean repeatedly qualified his support for the Biden-Lugar proposal with the thinking that it required the President to go back to Congress for a vote on an invasion. He was wrong on that.

Dean isn't being disingenuous on the portrayal of his stances, you are.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
i think you missed my edit:

i mean if it did pass, and its conditions were ment then Dean would have been supporting the actions of the adminstation; but this is not the case.

What he supported is almost exactly like what was eventually passed. The Biden-Lugar proposal would have only been for Iraq specifically instead of "area". So yes - Dean supporting B-L prop which does allow for unilateral action(which we didn't do anyway) without a UNSC resolution or another Congressional vote. Dean is not being genuine in his protrayal of his stances, and this is only one example.

CkG

Dean has always stated that he "supported the Biden-Lugar Proposal which forced the President to go back to Congress for a vote to authorize the war". He would make that statement completely and clearly. He was wrong in the assertion that it "forced" the President to do anything. It did not and he was mistaken. As the following link demonstrates, it was a rather confusing subject on the exact "teeth" of the proposal.

The New Republic

Gephardt had one seriously withering sound-bite in last night's debate. Trying to neutralize Howard Dean's blistering attack on him for endorsing the Iraq war, he remarked, "Howard, I think you're all over the lot on this issue." Good line. Too bad Gephardt kept talking, because he quickly proved he was the one all over the lot. "You said you favored the Biden-Lugar resolution," Gephardt lectured Dean, "which, in effect, was the same thing that we passed on the floor. It was very much like it." So commenced Gephardt's latest effort to rewrite what it was he voted for last October.

To recap, the Biden-Lugar resolution was an attempt by the eponymous senators last fall to tether the war authorization to some form of multilateral cooperation. Most importantly, it required President Bush to return to Congress and argue that war was immediately necessary if he considered U.S. security hopelessly mired in fruitless U.N. diplomacy. Gephardt instead endorsed Bush's preferred resolution, which contained no such encumbrances. And with Gephardt's support, Bush was able to hold up his resolution as a true product of bipartisan compromise, effectively killing Biden-Lugar.

[...]

UPDATE: An alert reader makes the very good point that Biden-Lugar's teeth--that is, its requirement that Bush inform Congress of why a war needed to be launched without U.N. authorization--were more like dentures. The relevant text reads that Bush must

make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary, notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution.

So, what does "make available" mean? Would it simply be a notification to Congress that Bush had made his decision? Or would it reopen the case for war to further deliberation, which might have had the political effect of restraining military action? Certainly, Biden-Lugar didn't require further congressional action to authorize the war in the advent of a U.N. impasse. So in that sense Gephardt has a point that Biden-Lugar wasn't quite so dissimilar from the resolution he negotiated with Bush, and as a result deserves more credit than I gave him (which is why I'm raising his grade from a D to a C).

I know Cad, that you are a political junkie, and probably knew all this already. Dean repeatedly qualified his support for the Biden-Lugar proposal with the thinking that it required the President to go back to Congress for a vote on an invasion. He was wrong on that.

Dean isn't being disingenuous on the portrayal of his stances, you are.

Right...so he was "mistaken" now

My protrayal of his stances are coming from his statements. I do not remember or know of statements by him directly refuting the fact that he supported the Biden-Lugar Proposal or that he offered any real excuse for why he would have. Have a link to his excuse?

******************

?I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States. Ever.?-Howie Dean

"There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States, and to our allies." - Howie Dean on CBS Face the Nation

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
lol CAD, admitting that the man could have had chemical and biological weapons is not the same thing as admitting that the man was a threat to our country.

OK so is his statement on CBS the same thing as admitting the man was a threat to our country?

CkG

 

[kylebisme]

seems to me you are picking at staws of semantics here. right after what you quoted, Dean said things that pretty well shoot down your whole argument:

The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that. I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
seems to me you are picking at staws of semantics here. right after what you quoted, Dean said things that pretty well shoot down your whole argument:

The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that. I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council.

Seems to me that you don't understand that the case for war was not based on an "imminent" threat...or did you just not pay attention or read the transcripts of what Bush has said. I thought we've been over this already(like every week since the war).

But he "never said Saddam was a danger to the United States. Ever.? - right

...semantics.
His statement doesn't shoot down anything, in fact it strengthens my argument. He admitted that Saddam was a threat to the US but he didn't think it was worth doing anything about until it was imminent.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Well, certainly any number of countries could be considered a threat, Cad. Does that mean we're going to do anything about it? Hell, with some of the arguments I often hear around here, France is a pretty big threat to our national interests. WHEN are we going to stop sitting on our hands when it comes to them?

 

[kylebisme]

if you are going to ridcule Dean for inconsistencies in his rhetoric, it would only be fair to string up every other politician that ever exisited as well. but regardless, Dean did not support our attack on Iraq as it was carried out no mater how much you try to twist the facts around to make it look like he did.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Seems to me that you don't understand that the case for war was not based on an "imminent" threat...or did you just not pay attention or read the transcripts of what Bush has said. I thought we've been over this already(like every week since the war).

CkG

Yes, the case for war in Iraq was based on a lot of theories - theories that have since turned out to be pure speculation or outright fabrications. Why aren't you busy picking apart the semantics of the administration's statements leading up to the start of OIF?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Right...so he was "mistaken" now

My protrayal of his stances are coming from his statements. I do not remember or know of statements by him directly refuting the fact that he supported the Biden-Lugar Proposal or that he offered any real excuse for why he would have. Have a link to his excuse?

Do you not accept that he always made his statements about Biden-Lugar by describing it as I claimed he qualified it? I'll repeat. Every single time he described his support of Biden-Lugar, he clearly stated that it was because the proposal forced the President to go back to Congress for an authorization vote on an invasion. If you accept it (because it is fact), then I don't know what argument you can possibly have left.

No I don't have a link to his excuse, because it doesn't exist. Its such an unimportant little nitpick that he never had to make one.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Ah yes the old - why are you picking on me(my guy/one guy) BS. You two should know better than that by now. This thread is about Dean. I didn't start it - I could have, and have wanted to...but I decided to let someone else do it.
However as you your assertions that if I pick on Dean I should pick on everyone is a diversionary tactic. I will post about the topic at hand. Seems others here want to divert attention to someone else because they can't take the heat. - no? I have been trying to inform everyone about the potential(but not likely) Presidential candidates. I have spread my critique and criticism around and I also have defended some and <gasp> even somewhat praised some of what they have done. But if anyone who even remotely wants to make a truly informed choice should actually look at the candidate they think they want to support and make sure he isn't going to be what they hate about our current President. They need to make sure they know where he stands and need to know that when he says something he means it.

But this thread is about Dean. He sells himself as a strait shooter and of some "principled" anti-this war guy. Well, I don't buy it - I look at it as a politically motivated policy stance that he took a gamble on early since he had relatively nothing to lose as a nobody from some little out of the way state. But you see, he actually did support a position and proposal that would have effectively allowed President to do what he did...and infact Bush followed the Biden-Lugar proposal He tried at the UN and then sent a letter to Congress - just like Biden-Lugar wanted.

But anyway, I'm glad you both have become informed a little bit more on the stances of Dean by way of this debate. And don't say I didn't tell you so - this guy is no better than what you think Bush is.(although I think he's worse than Bush) He has switched quite a few of his positions and had to change alot of his statements. He used to be against the Death penalty...and now he's for it. He didn't used to be a gun grabber - he's now moving towards the other side. He is against parental notification in regards to Abortion - and no matter how you feel on Abortion - a minor needs to have the permission of a parent to have medical treatment. Heck you can't get a tattoo w/o permission until you are 18 But anyway I could list things all night long but the main goal of all this is for people to actually take a look at who these candidates really are and where they stand(and stood) on the issues so you can truly pick the one who represents your views the best. Because I'm sick of people bitching and moaning about politicians - yet they just go vote for some guy because they think he can win...don't mind he doesn't share your views on things. Like I said - don't come bitching to me

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

I think Dean should just press on. Let this euphoria wear off. Right now the media is hyping up the expectations from Saddam's capture that no way in hell reality will live up to those.
In a few months it will be abundantly clear how little Saddam's capture really means in terms of resistance, which really has a life of its own at this point.
If come next year there is still no sign of WMD's, just pound that home. Get Saddam or not, if the war was not to protect us against WMD threat, then it's just a hugely expensive nationbuilding adventure.
Now people are talking as if getting Saddam means the war was worth it. Far from so. I was against this war from the beginning, even when I though Saddam would be killed in the beginning of the conflict, because the long term commitment of resources is not commesurate with the threat Saddam posed, unless of course you believe WMD's he could launch at the US in 45 mins.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah yes the old - why are you picking on me(my guy/one guy) BS. You two should know better than that by now. This thread is about Dean. I didn't start it - I could have, and have wanted to...but I decided to let someone else do it.
However as you your assertions that if I pick on Dean I should pick on everyone is a diversionary tactic. I will post about the topic at hand. Seems others here want to divert attention to someone else because they can't take the heat. - no? I have been trying to inform everyone about the potential(but not likely) Presidential candidates. I have spread my critique and criticism around and I also have defended some and <gasp> even somewhat praised some of what they have done. But if anyone who even remotely wants to make a truly informed choice should actually look at the candidate they think they want to support and make sure he isn't going to be what they hate about our current President. They need to make sure they know where he stands and need to know that when he says something he means it.

But this thread is about Dean. He sells himself as a strait shooter and of some "principled" anti-this war guy. Well, I don't buy it - I look at it as a politically motivated policy stance that he took a gamble on early since he had relatively nothing to lose as a nobody from some little out of the way state. But you see, he actually did support a position and proposal that would have effectively allowed President to do what he did...and infact Bush followed the Biden-Lugar proposal He tried at the UN and then sent a letter to Congress - just like Biden-Lugar wanted.

But anyway, I'm glad you both have become informed a little bit more on the stances of Dean by way of this debate. And don't say I didn't tell you so - this guy is no better than what you think Bush is.(although I think he's worse than Bush) He has switched quite a few of his positions and had to change alot of his statements. He used to be against the Death penalty...and now he's for it. He didn't used to be a gun grabber - he's now moving towards the other side. He is against parental notification in regards to Abortion - and no matter how you feel on Abortion - a minor needs to have the permission of a parent to have medical treatment. Heck you can't get a tattoo w/o permission until you are 18 But anyway I could list things all night long but the main goal of all this is for people to actually take a look at who these candidates really are and where they stand(and stood) on the issues so you can truly pick the one who represents your views the best. Because I'm sick of people bitching and moaning about politicians - yet they just go vote for some guy because they think he can win...don't mind he doesn't share your views on things. Like I said - don't come bitching to me

CkG

Ah yes - the old "I'm just trying to educate y'all" diversionary tactic. But you're not educating when your spewing falsehoods and unfounded attacks. You're misinforming by omission and spreading mistruths. I know the truth hurts your goals of cheap labor conservatism, but I'll have to espouse it right now.

The truth is, Dean qualified the Biden-Lugar proposal with his description of what he liked about it, every single time that subject was brought up. The truth is, he's for the death penalty for only cop killers and child killers. The truth is, his record of gun control in Vermont "earned" him a AAA (highest) rating from the NRA while he was governor. How ever you want to spin those truths is your perogative. But don't pass off your spin as truth and then quickly claim the high ground from your dirty political partisan bashing....

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Ah yes the old - why are you picking on me(my guy/one guy) BS. You two should know better than that by now. This thread is about Dean. I didn't start it - I could have, and have wanted to...but I decided to let someone else do it.
However as you your assertions that if I pick on Dean I should pick on everyone is a diversionary tactic. I will post about the topic at hand. Seems others here want to divert attention to someone else because they can't take the heat. - no? I have been trying to inform everyone about the potential(but not likely) Presidential candidates. I have spread my critique and criticism around and I also have defended some and <gasp> even somewhat praised some of what they have done. But if anyone who even remotely wants to make a truly informed choice should actually look at the candidate they think they want to support and make sure he isn't going to be what they hate about our current President. They need to make sure they know where he stands and need to know that when he says something he means it.

But this thread is about Dean. He sells himself as a strait shooter and of some "principled" anti-this war guy. Well, I don't buy it - I look at it as a politically motivated policy stance that he took a gamble on early since he had relatively nothing to lose as a nobody from some little out of the way state. But you see, he actually did support a position and proposal that would have effectively allowed President to do what he did...and infact Bush followed the Biden-Lugar proposal He tried at the UN and then sent a letter to Congress - just like Biden-Lugar wanted.

But anyway, I'm glad you both have become informed a little bit more on the stances of Dean by way of this debate. And don't say I didn't tell you so - this guy is no better than what you think Bush is.(although I think he's worse than Bush) He has switched quite a few of his positions and had to change alot of his statements. He used to be against the Death penalty...and now he's for it. He didn't used to be a gun grabber - he's now moving towards the other side. He is against parental notification in regards to Abortion - and no matter how you feel on Abortion - a minor needs to have the permission of a parent to have medical treatment. Heck you can't get a tattoo w/o permission until you are 18 But anyway I could list things all night long but the main goal of all this is for people to actually take a look at who these candidates really are and where they stand(and stood) on the issues so you can truly pick the one who represents your views the best. Because I'm sick of people bitching and moaning about politicians - yet they just go vote for some guy because they think he can win...don't mind he doesn't share your views on things. Like I said - don't come bitching to me

CkG

You're right Cad. I shouldn't try to distract by bringing up Bush. I've tried REALLY hard to be good on that front - however, it's easy to slip sometimes. Mostly because you're like an attack dog on a long leash when it comes to Dean. And I swear I've heard the same argument out of you many times - although perhaps you're trying to be better too? Seems like it.

But anyhow, in terms of Biden-Lugar, even I would have supported a congressional decision to tie U.S. action to the adoption of a U.N. resolution authorizing force to disarm Saddam. Unfortunately, it sounds like there was a loophole in that Bush could simply state that efforts to obtain U.N. backing have failed. I don't like that loophole. I really think that's what a big majority of the anti-war demographic were looking for: international consensus and cooperation on Iraq, not simply the U.S. going in all half-cocked.

In terms of Dean's flip-flops, in a way I expect them to happen and that's why I've reserved my full support until a lot of these issues and stances coalesce. In fact, I truly expect Dean to move towards the center if and when he gets the democratic nod. For the moment, I find Dean an interesting alternative to Bush and frankly none of the other dem candidates really float my boat. It's as simple as that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Ah yes - the old "I'm just trying to educate y'all" diversionary tactic. But you're not educating when your spewing falsehoods and unfounded attacks. You're misinforming by omission and spreading mistruths. I know the truth hurts your goals of cheap labor conservatism, but I'll have to espouse it right now.

The truth is, Dean qualified the Biden-Lugar proposal with his description of what he liked about it, every single time that subject was brought up. The truth is, he's for the death penalty for only cop killers and child killers. The truth is, his record of gun control in Vermont "earned" him a AAA (highest) rating from the NRA while he was governor. How ever you want to spin those truths is your perogative. But don't pass off your spin as truth and then quickly claim the high ground from your dirty political partisan bashing....

No - it's not a diversionary tactic - it's called the topic. Also my statements were fact and were not unfounded. There is no "excuse" given by dean as to why he supported Biden-Lugar - just a lame offering that he didn't realize what it actually meant

Dean's statements...or misstatements are very much in play politically just as all of Bush's remarks get yapped about constantly. So yes - people need to understand who they are voting for and they need to know that dean isn't who he is trying to portray himself as. The truth is -that there was a different proposal that dean should have supported if he really wanted to have Bush come back with a UN resolution and/or congressional vote. He chose to publicly state that he supported Biden-Lugar and he still to this day has not provided an excuse(that I know of).
The truth is that the info I provided is truthful and more importantly came from dean's mouth. He did change stances on the death penalty no matter how nice he wants to paint it. The fact is that dean has switched positions on NAFTA. The fact is that dean hasn't been consistent with his views on Social Security.

Shall I continue? The facts are that dean isn't all he's cracked up to be. He's a politician - just like the rest of them. He's not just "country folk" - he's a downtown elitist politician. People on here constantly rant about Bush and his issues - dean isn't immune and infact has brought alot of these things upon himself.

Calling my pointing out his contradictions "dirty political partisan bashing" is quite funny coming from the likes of you especially since his contradictions are on record and most are quite obvious - some of them he even admits.

If you think I'm tough on Dean now - you best hope he doesn't get the nomination. I have plenty more in my dean bag. Now again - I have not gone out of my way to focus on dean and IMO i've been quite reserved at times and even <gasp> somewhat defended him on things. I have dedicated time to the other candidates trying to show their issues. I'm sorry you seem to take it personal but as far as I'm concerned as long as people go out of their way to try to highlight things about Bush in here - I am going to continue to post about the people who (God forbid) might replace him. People need to THINK before voting - not depend on emotion.

DM - Like I said - dean isn't my only focus - I spread the love dean seems to be the most outspoken of the bunch and will draw more attention but it also creates more opportunities for him to slip up. I understand that people here want to bash Bush and they do - every chance they get. So yes - I do take issue with people harping on me when I post things about their favorite candidate, when almost every thread gets turned into some sort of Bush bash fest. Great - so you haven't fully bought the dean line - good for you. Since you haven't decided - I suggest you take a good look at Edwards' positions. You being an optimistic person( ) should be able "feel what he's saying" I don't agree with him on the issues but he's presenting a somewhat decent package. But like the others - he's unelectable

CkG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Ah yes - the old "I'm just trying to educate y'all" diversionary tactic. But you're not educating when your spewing falsehoods and unfounded attacks. You're misinforming by omission and spreading mistruths. I know the truth hurts your goals of cheap labor conservatism, but I'll have to espouse it right now.

The truth is, Dean qualified the Biden-Lugar proposal with his description of what he liked about it, every single time that subject was brought up. The truth is, he's for the death penalty for only cop killers and child killers. The truth is, his record of gun control in Vermont "earned" him a AAA (highest) rating from the NRA while he was governor. How ever you want to spin those truths is your perogative. But don't pass off your spin as truth and then quickly claim the high ground from your dirty political partisan bashing....

No - it's not a diversionary tactic - it's called the topic. Also my statements were fact and were not unfounded. There is no "excuse" given by dean as to why he supported Biden-Lugar - just a lame offering that he didn't realize what it actually meant

Dean's statements...or misstatements are very much in play politically just as all of Bush's remarks get yapped about constantly. So yes - people need to understand who they are voting for and they need to know that dean isn't who he is trying to portray himself as. The truth is -that there was a different proposal that dean should have supported if he really wanted to have Bush come back with a UN resolution and/or congressional vote. He chose to publicly state that he supported Biden-Lugar and he still to this day has not provided an excuse(that I know of).
The truth is that the info I provided is truthful and more importantly came from dean's mouth. He did change stances on the death penalty no matter how nice he wants to paint it. The fact is that dean has switched positions on NAFTA. The fact is that dean hasn't been consistent with his views on Social Security.

Shall I continue? The facts are that dean isn't all he's cracked up to be. He's a politician - just like the rest of them. He's not just "country folk" - he's a downtown elitist politician. People on here constantly rant about Bush and his issues - dean isn't immune and infact has brought alot of these things upon himself.

Calling my pointing out his contradictions "dirty political partisan bashing" is quite funny coming from the likes of you especially since his contradictions are on record and most are quite obvious - some of them he even admits.

If you think I'm tough on Dean now - you best hope he doesn't get the nomination. I have plenty more in my dean bag. Now again - I have not gone out of my way to focus on dean and IMO i've been quite reserved at times and even <gasp> somewhat defended him on things. I have dedicated time to the other candidates trying to show their issues. I'm sorry you seem to take it personal but as far as I'm concerned as long as people go out of their way to try to highlight things about Bush in here - I am going to continue to post about the people who (God forbid) might replace him. People need to THINK before voting - not depend on emotion.

DM - Like I said - dean isn't my only focus - I spread the love dean seems to be the most outspoken of the bunch and will draw more attention but it also creates more opportunities for him to slip up. I understand that people here want to bash Bush and they do - every chance they get. So yes - I do take issue with people harping on me when I post things about their favorite candidate, when almost every thread gets turned into some sort of Bush bash fest. Great - so you haven't fully bought the dean line - good for you. Since you haven't decided - I suggest you take a good look at Edwards' positions. You being an optimistic person( ) should be able "feel what he's saying" I don't agree with him on the issues but he's presenting a somewhat decent package. But like the others - he's unelectable

CkG

No Cad, it's just that you know Dean is most likely going to oust your beloved puppet.

 

[kylebisme]

hell, i'd take carrottop over bush at this point.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Ah yes - the old "I'm just trying to educate y'all" diversionary tactic. But you're not educating when your spewing falsehoods and unfounded attacks. You're misinforming by omission and spreading mistruths. I know the truth hurts your goals of cheap labor conservatism, but I'll have to espouse it right now.

The truth is, Dean qualified the Biden-Lugar proposal with his description of what he liked about it, every single time that subject was brought up. The truth is, he's for the death penalty for only cop killers and child killers. The truth is, his record of gun control in Vermont "earned" him a AAA (highest) rating from the NRA while he was governor. How ever you want to spin those truths is your perogative. But don't pass off your spin as truth and then quickly claim the high ground from your dirty political partisan bashing....

No - it's not a diversionary tactic - it's called the topic. Also my statements were fact and were not unfounded. There is no "excuse" given by dean as to why he supported Biden-Lugar - just a lame offering that he didn't realize what it actually meant

Dean's statements...or misstatements are very much in play politically just as all of Bush's remarks get yapped about constantly. So yes - people need to understand who they are voting for and they need to know that dean isn't who he is trying to portray himself as. The truth is -that there was a different proposal that dean should have supported if he really wanted to have Bush come back with a UN resolution and/or congressional vote. He chose to publicly state that he supported Biden-Lugar and he still to this day has not provided an excuse(that I know of).
The truth is that the info I provided is truthful and more importantly came from dean's mouth. He did change stances on the death penalty no matter how nice he wants to paint it. The fact is that dean has switched positions on NAFTA. The fact is that dean hasn't been consistent with his views on Social Security.

Shall I continue? The facts are that dean isn't all he's cracked up to be. He's a politician - just like the rest of them. He's not just "country folk" - he's a downtown elitist politician. People on here constantly rant about Bush and his issues - dean isn't immune and infact has brought alot of these things upon himself.

Calling my pointing out his contradictions "dirty political partisan bashing" is quite funny coming from the likes of you especially since his contradictions are on record and most are quite obvious - some of them he even admits.

If you think I'm tough on Dean now - you best hope he doesn't get the nomination. I have plenty more in my dean bag. Now again - I have not gone out of my way to focus on dean and IMO i've been quite reserved at times and even <gasp> somewhat defended him on things. I have dedicated time to the other candidates trying to show their issues. I'm sorry you seem to take it personal but as far as I'm concerned as long as people go out of their way to try to highlight things about Bush in here - I am going to continue to post about the people who (God forbid) might replace him. People need to THINK before voting - not depend on emotion.

DM - Like I said - dean isn't my only focus - I spread the love dean seems to be the most outspoken of the bunch and will draw more attention but it also creates more opportunities for him to slip up. I understand that people here want to bash Bush and they do - every chance they get. So yes - I do take issue with people harping on me when I post things about their favorite candidate, when almost every thread gets turned into some sort of Bush bash fest. Great - so you haven't fully bought the dean line - good for you. Since you haven't decided - I suggest you take a good look at Edwards' positions. You being an optimistic person( ) should be able "feel what he's saying" I don't agree with him on the issues but he's presenting a somewhat decent package. But like the others - he's unelectable

CkG

You seem to think we're all a bunch of ignoramii for supporting Dean. Then, you see fit to lecture us crazy kids on who you think Dean really is and how we shouldn't vote with emotion. That's what I take personally. When you get on your soapbox and spin your opinions as facts, I'll point out why you're wrong. They're just your political views like the rest of us have our own political views.

Bash him for what you see as waffling all you want. Make the argument that he "really isn't what we think he is". But when you act all elitist and superior to us, then I'll call you out on it. Don't take the defense that you don't intend to come off that way, because its weak.

That's what I perceive and it might help clue you in as to why you're attacked so rabidly by others like me on this board.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
You seem to think we're all a bunch of ignoramii for supporting Dean. Then, you see fit to lecture us crazy kids on who you think Dean really is and how we shouldn't vote with emotion. That's what I take personally. When you get on your soapbox and spin your opinions as facts, I'll point out why you're wrong. They're just your political views like the rest of us have our own political views.

Bash him for what you see as waffling all you want. Make the argument that he "really isn't what we think he is". But when you act all elitist and superior to us, then I'll call you out on it. Don't take the defense that you don't intend to come off that way, because its weak.

That's what I perceive and it might help clue you in as to why you're attacked so rabidly by others like me on this board.

Right

Just as the people on this board call anyone who says something good about Bush or defends him - a blind sheep or worse. Very funny accusation coming from the likes of you.
The info I presented about dean is true - they are his words/positions. The only thing I even remotely "lectured" about was the fact that people don't actually think about who they are voting for half the time. They don't actually look at the issues and figure out which candidate really fits their views. It happens all the time - and on both sides. So I don't get why you are whining about it at all - people scream and holler about it on here all the time. People don't inform themselves very well - it's not that hard to understand. Pointing that out is not being "elitist" And as for your feelings of inferiority - not my issue. I just don't want people to bitch and whine about things when they could have informed themselves before hand and maybe made a better choice. So no - there was no "elitism" and no air of superiority. It seems to be your issue because you think I'm just picking at dean and/or you.

So yes - keep on attacking me if it makes you feel better - it doesn't bother me. However you must realize that just because I'm pointing things out about a politician doesn't mean that I'm picking on you.

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Hah. Again the spin machine goes into full effect. Now I'm a whiner with an inferiority complex who thinks some cheap labor conservative in Iowa is personally picking on him over the Internet. I'm a big guy, you might need to get an extra brush to paint me with.

So I'll concede defeat because this is getting boring and despite what you think I don't like attacking you, I only feel that I should defend my candidate. You're 100% right, I'm 100% wrong.

You sir, are quite the Masterdebater. :beer:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
I only feel that I should defend my candidate.

I don't fault you for that. But I also can point out where dean has contradicted himself. People attack Bush - I defend it if I think it isn't true. Calling things spin inspite of direct evidence however is a different issue and I won't accept it as a defense. All the info I used is available to anyone here.

:beer:

CkG

 

[alchemize]

Howard Dean = Saddam??

He's been fairly defiant," an official told Fox News. "While he's talkative, he's provided nothing substantial. His comments are self-serving, lengthy rationalizations of his behavior, and he punctuates a lot of it with wise-ass and deflective remarks."

 

[dudleydocker]

two words for Dean...."it's over":Q

 

[JImmyK]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
hell, i'd take carrottop over bush at this point.

I agree

But because of recent events Bush has been sealed in for 2004 and another 4 years.

 

[kandarp]

Originally posted by: JImmyK

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
hell, i'd take carrottop over bush at this point.

I agree

But because of recent events Bush has been sealed in for 2004 and another 4 years.

definitely, its over looks like we have another 4 years of:

1) tax cuts benefiting the top 1% of wager earners
2) leaking identities of undercover CIA agents to partsian journalists
3) Thanksgiving dinners in Iraq catered by Halliburton
4) etc, etc, etc

 

[SuperTool]

What's this sealed in nonsense. Bush cannot sustain his numbers. He gets a bump followed by slow decline to about 50% approval.
In 11 months it will be clear that getting Saddam is not a panacea in Iraq. We are stuck there nationbuilding because of W. You think we'll be in position to leave any time soon, you are diluding yourself.
As soon as we leave, Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnys will go their separate ways and destabilize the whole region. Bush has nothing good to offer this country.
He is offering open ended nationbuilding commitments, never ending deficits with huge debts down the road, out of control government growth. What's not to like