More Hypocrisy out of 'Dean Camp' w/ Secret Energy Meetings

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Whitling
JohnGalt, Thread Title "More Hypocrisy." Yo!, Help here John. What was the first hypocrasy?
I'm sure JG will post if what I post aren't the same as his.

3 of the latest:
*sealed records. dean has assulted the Administration for "secrecy" yet he sealed his own. He said he'd unseal his if Bush did. - guess what?:)
*"tax-breaks for Enron". seems like dean keeps ranting about Ken Lay and the boys getting help from Bush....don't mind they also got help from .....yep - you guessed it - howie dean.
*then this latestest on on the energy meetings.

There may be more...:)

CkG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - and you still don't understand the argument that was being made. It was not "equating" as you suggest. Nice try though.

CkG
I understood your argument. I just disagreed with it.

Water under the bridge. Besides that, you did me a favor today. I just wanted busmaster11 to be prepared for a looooooooong debate.

:)



 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - and you still don't understand the argument that was being made. It was not "equating" as you suggest. Nice try though.

CkG
Not equating? Are you sure about that, Cad?

I told you. dean keeps trying to blast Bush for things yet has done similar(same) things himself. dean had "secret" meetings with people on policy - so did Cheney. dean blasts Cheney for "secret" meetings and calls for "open government". He must have forgotten that he himself had "secret" meetings on policy.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yep - and you still don't understand the argument that was being made. It was not "equating" as you suggest. Nice try though.

CkG
Not equating? Are you sure about that, Cad?

I told you. dean keeps trying to blast Bush for things yet has done similar(same) things himself. dean had "secret" meetings with people on policy - so did Cheney. dean blasts Cheney for "secret" meetings and calls for "open government". He must have forgotten that he himself had "secret" meetings on policy.
DM - that was in response to Bow's Iraq Clinton thing.

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Well, certainly it seems Dean picked a bad issue to bash Bush over, however I can certainly see the nuances between what Dean's meetings and Cheney's meetings. There are just as many differences between the two cases as there are similarities.
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Galt and CAD,

The fact that neither of you are willing to discuss the very substance of this issue is very telling. Come on. There are young impressionable people here and you have an image to uphold.

If you see something I don't, I'm willing to concede - as I've already done today in your mad cow thread.

So tell me again, CAD, why is it that you believe that the obvious descrepancies in money, attendees, and disclosures should all be considered irrelevant in this case?
I told you. dean keeps trying to blast Bush for things yet has done similar(same) things himself. dean had "secret" meetings with people on policy - so did Cheney. dean blasts Cheney for "secret" meetings and calls for "open government". He must have forgotten that he himself had "secret" meetings on policy. Like I said - you can try to lessen the degree of hypocracy if you wish by saying Cheney was "worstester":p but it doesn't change the fact that dean would blast dean if dean were Cheney. Got it?
CkG
You're probably right about that last part. But try to follow my logic.

1. You say Dean is a hypocrite for accusing Cheny/Bush admin for doing something he did before.

2. I'm saying he didn't quite do the same thing because the evidence shows in the very link you provided, that there are BIG differences between what he did and what Cheney did:
a. Dean volunteerily disclosed the names of all who were involved. Cheny's reps disclosed *some* names but invoked executive priveleges to keep the names of other participants secret.
b. According to CNN, Dean received a whopping 19,000 in contributions as a result of those energy meetings. Millions were contributed to the Bush campaign from energy companies. One of those aforementioned participants was Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.


Comparing these two are laughable. Isn't it, Cad?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: busmaster11
You're probably right about that last part. But try to follow my logic.

1. You say Dean is a hypocrite for accusing Cheny/Bush admin for doing something he did before.

2. I'm saying he didn't quite do the same thing because the evidence shows in the very link you provided, that there are BIG differences between what he did and what Cheney did:
a. Dean volunteerily disclosed the names of all who were involved. Cheny's reps disclosed *some* names but invoked executive priveleges to keep the names of other participants secret.
b. According to CNN, Dean received a whopping 19,000 in contributions as a result of those energy meetings. Millions were contributed to the Bush campaign from energy companies. One of those aforementioned participants was Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.


Comparing these two are laughable. Isn't it, Cad?
You would think so, but Cad also equates Operation Desert Fox (4-days of bombing by Clinton) w/ Operation Iraqi Freedom (21-days of military invasion + indefinite military occupation by Bush). Apparantly, there are no nuances in Cad's world. Only black or white. Right or wrong. With us or against us.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: busmaster11
You're probably right about that last part. But try to follow my logic.

1. You say Dean is a hypocrite for accusing Cheny/Bush admin for doing something he did before.

2. I'm saying he didn't quite do the same thing because the evidence shows in the very link you provided, that there are BIG differences between what he did and what Cheney did:
a. Dean volunteerily disclosed the names of all who were involved. Cheny's reps disclosed *some* names but invoked executive priveleges to keep the names of other participants secret.
b. According to CNN, Dean received a whopping 19,000 in contributions as a result of those energy meetings. Millions were contributed to the Bush campaign from energy companies. One of those aforementioned participants was Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.


Comparing these two are laughable. Isn't it, Cad?
You would think so, but Cad also equates Operation Desert Fox (4-days of bombing by Clinton) w/ Operation Iraqi Freedom (21-days of military invasion + indefinite military occupation by Bush). Apparantly, there are no nuances in Cad's world. Only black or white. Right or wrong. With us or against us.
Or maybe like Bowfinger you didn't understand what I was saying. You can think what you want but continually trying to say I was doing something I repeatedly said I wasn't - and then tried to explain in terms ANYONE should have been able to accept - here we sit, weeks later, and you still claim I think something that you don't understand.

CkG
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Galt and CAD,

The fact that neither of you are willing to discuss the very substance of this issue is very telling. Come on. There are young impressionable people here and you have an image to uphold.

If you see something I don't, I'm willing to concede - as I've already done today in your mad cow thread.

So tell me again, CAD, why is it that you believe that the obvious descrepancies in money, attendees, and disclosures should all be considered irrelevant in this case?
I don't remember if you were active in P&N then or not, but be warned that Sir Cad is intransigent about equating things like this . . . when it is to his benefit to do so. Sir Cad spent thousands of words fiercly insisting he could equate Bush's invasion to Clinton's four-day bombing run. I don't even remember anyone on the right supporting him, but that didn't seem to discourage him a bit.

Best wishes, you've got your work cut out for you.
But he's getting more outnumbered everyday, soon you won't be able to hear him or make him out and the same will happen to him and the small few that have remained brainwashed by Rush, Hannity, Bush and CAD himself.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Galt and CAD,

The fact that neither of you are willing to discuss the very substance of this issue is very telling. Come on. There are young impressionable people here and you have an image to uphold.

If you see something I don't, I'm willing to concede - as I've already done today in your mad cow thread.

So tell me again, CAD, why is it that you believe that the obvious descrepancies in money, attendees, and disclosures should all be considered irrelevant in this case?
I told you. dean keeps trying to blast Bush for things yet has done similar(same) things himself. dean had "secret" meetings with people on policy - so did Cheney. dean blasts Cheney for "secret" meetings and calls for "open government". He must have forgotten that he himself had "secret" meetings on policy. Like I said - you can try to lessen the degree of hypocracy if you wish by saying Cheney was "worstester":p but it doesn't change the fact that dean would blast dean if dean were Cheney. Got it?
CkG
You're probably right about that last part. But try to follow my logic.

1. You say Dean is a hypocrite for accusing Cheny/Bush admin for doing something he did before.

2. I'm saying he didn't quite do the same thing because the evidence shows in the very link you provided, that there are BIG differences between what he did and what Cheney did:
a. Dean volunteerily disclosed the names of all who were involved. Cheny's reps disclosed *some* names but invoked executive priveleges to keep the names of other participants secret.
b. According to CNN, Dean received a whopping 19,000 in contributions as a result of those energy meetings. Millions were contributed to the Bush campaign from energy companies. One of those aforementioned participants was Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.


Comparing these two are laughable. Isn't it, Cad?
Right - and so dean's position really isn't "true" is it? Didn't think so.

Now yes, if you try to link campaign cash with "favors" - then you might have a case - but again, that is speculative opinion and partisan rhetoric at best and doesn't change the hypocracy of having "secret meetings".
Also, yes dean(or the committe) gave up the names after there was a stink made about it and Cheney still hasn't disclosed them all - but like I said - that is only a "degree" question. So when dean isn't "clean" but Cheney is "worstester" - it means dean isn't still hypocritical about "secret meetings"?

The point was about hypocracy - not about campaign money, or names - it was about doing something(no matter what degree you think he did or didn't do it the same) that he has tried to make a big issue over(secret meetings).

CkG
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
LOL, love these threads

If Bush ran someone down with intent to kill, the Apologists would tear into a Democrat who didnt pay a parking ticket, saying it's wrong not to go after their candidate as much as Bush.


After all they are both violations of the law. Damned hypocritical Dems :D

Yeah, everything is all the same.

Lie about a BJ. Lie about a war.

All the same.

:p
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
But he's getting more outnumbered everyday, soon you won't be able to hear him or make him out and the same will happen to him and the small few that have remained brainwashed by Rush, Hannity, Bush and CAD himself.
Yo Mr. Thread Title Liar, I'm still waiting on the "documentation" you promised me in this thread. What's takin' so long? Chop chop!
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<<The point was about hypocracy - not about campaign money, or names - it was about doing something(no matter what degree you think he did or didn't do it the same) that he has tried to make a big issue over(secret meetings).>>

[off topic] Like drug use? [/off topic]

:)
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: Corn
But he's getting more outnumbered everyday, soon you won't be able to hear him or make him out and the same will happen to him and the small few that have remained brainwashed by Rush, Hannity, Bush and CAD himself.
Yo Mr. Thread Title Liar, I'm still waiting on the "documentation" you promised me in this thread. What's takin' so long? Chop chop!
I cannot take someone seriously who is selling an S4 for a GTO.

Sorry, you lose all credibility :p
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Galt and CAD,

The fact that neither of you are willing to discuss the very substance of this issue is very telling. Come on. There are young impressionable people here and you have an image to uphold.

If you see something I don't, I'm willing to concede - as I've already done today in your mad cow thread.

So tell me again, CAD, why is it that you believe that the obvious descrepancies in money, attendees, and disclosures should all be considered irrelevant in this case?
I told you. dean keeps trying to blast Bush for things yet has done similar(same) things himself. dean had "secret" meetings with people on policy - so did Cheney. dean blasts Cheney for "secret" meetings and calls for "open government". He must have forgotten that he himself had "secret" meetings on policy. Like I said - you can try to lessen the degree of hypocracy if you wish by saying Cheney was "worstester":p but it doesn't change the fact that dean would blast dean if dean were Cheney. Got it?
CkG
You're probably right about that last part. But try to follow my logic.

1. You say Dean is a hypocrite for accusing Cheny/Bush admin for doing something he did before.

2. I'm saying he didn't quite do the same thing because the evidence shows in the very link you provided, that there are BIG differences between what he did and what Cheney did:
a. Dean volunteerily disclosed the names of all who were involved. Cheny's reps disclosed *some* names but invoked executive priveleges to keep the names of other participants secret.
b. According to CNN, Dean received a whopping 19,000 in contributions as a result of those energy meetings. Millions were contributed to the Bush campaign from energy companies. One of those aforementioned participants was Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.


Comparing these two are laughable. Isn't it, Cad?
Right - and so dean's position really isn't "true" is it? Didn't think so.

Now yes, if you try to link campaign cash with "favors" - then you might have a case - but again, that is speculative opinion and partisan rhetoric at best and doesn't change the hypocracy of having "secret meetings".
Also, yes dean(or the committe) gave up the names after there was a stink made about it and Cheney still hasn't disclosed them all - but like I said - that is only a "degree" question. So when dean isn't "clean" but Cheney is "worstester" - it means dean isn't still hypocritical about "secret meetings"?

The point was about hypocracy - not about campaign money, or names - it was about doing something(no matter what degree you think he did or didn't do it the same) that he has tried to make a big issue over(secret meetings).

CkG
Exactly, its a "degree" question. But you're saying I'm a hypocrite for disapproving the actions of a convicted murderer when I've squashed bugs before...

Come on, Cad. Even you can put two and two together about why Cheney's meetings with Enron's prez were held in secrecy - especially when millions in contributions are involved.

Just so happens that in this case you'd prefer not to, so you can keep on ignoring the facts and burying your head in the mud. Even Galt knows when he's lost the point and quits.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Galt and CAD,

The fact that neither of you are willing to discuss the very substance of this issue is very telling. Come on. There are young impressionable people here and you have an image to uphold.

If you see something I don't, I'm willing to concede - as I've already done today in your mad cow thread.

So tell me again, CAD, why is it that you believe that the obvious descrepancies in money, attendees, and disclosures should all be considered irrelevant in this case?
I told you. dean keeps trying to blast Bush for things yet has done similar(same) things himself. dean had "secret" meetings with people on policy - so did Cheney. dean blasts Cheney for "secret" meetings and calls for "open government". He must have forgotten that he himself had "secret" meetings on policy. Like I said - you can try to lessen the degree of hypocracy if you wish by saying Cheney was "worstester":p but it doesn't change the fact that dean would blast dean if dean were Cheney. Got it?
CkG
You're probably right about that last part. But try to follow my logic.

1. You say Dean is a hypocrite for accusing Cheny/Bush admin for doing something he did before.

2. I'm saying he didn't quite do the same thing because the evidence shows in the very link you provided, that there are BIG differences between what he did and what Cheney did:
a. Dean volunteerily disclosed the names of all who were involved. Cheny's reps disclosed *some* names but invoked executive priveleges to keep the names of other participants secret.
b. According to CNN, Dean received a whopping 19,000 in contributions as a result of those energy meetings. Millions were contributed to the Bush campaign from energy companies. One of those aforementioned participants was Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.


Comparing these two are laughable. Isn't it, Cad?
Right - and so dean's position really isn't "true" is it? Didn't think so.

Now yes, if you try to link campaign cash with "favors" - then you might have a case - but again, that is speculative opinion and partisan rhetoric at best and doesn't change the hypocracy of having "secret meetings".
Also, yes dean(or the committe) gave up the names after there was a stink made about it and Cheney still hasn't disclosed them all - but like I said - that is only a "degree" question. So when dean isn't "clean" but Cheney is "worstester" - it means dean isn't still hypocritical about "secret meetings"?

The point was about hypocracy - not about campaign money, or names - it was about doing something(no matter what degree you think he did or didn't do it the same) that he has tried to make a big issue over(secret meetings).

CkG
Exactly, its a "degree" question. But you're saying I'm a hypocrite for disapproving the actions of a convicted murderer when I've squashed bugs before...

Come on, Cad. Even you can put two and two together about why Cheney's meetings with Enron's prez were held in secrecy - especially when millions in contributions are involved.

Just so happens that in this case you'd prefer not to, so you can keep on ignoring the facts and burying your head in the mud. Even Galt knows when he's lost the point and quits.
No - you are not understanding the simplicity of this. dean had "secret meetings" yet here he sits yapping about "open" government and condemning Cheney for doing the same thing(secret meetings). dean doesn't get a free pass for what he did as govenor just because what Cheney did was "worstester" than what he did. It is still hypocracy and dean will get called on it - as his rivals are doing. If dean was really for "open" gov't then he wouldn't have held the "secret" meetings - no? Yet he blasts Cheney for having "secret meetings".

Yes - he can complain about Cheney not naming all who attended - and I would agree that it would be a fair accusation and question - but that isn't what he has been doing.
Yes you/dean/whoever can try to yammer on and on about campaign contributions, but it doesn't change the fact that dean held "secret meetings" just as he blasts other for doing.

Gephardt seems to agree with me-
"It is another example of why Howard would have a hard time going up against George Bush. I mean here he is complaining about secrecy in their administration with the Cheney task force and then it turns out he was doing the same thing in Vermont,"


Oh, and JG may not be with us currently but if memory holds - JG is a daytime poster - usually morning in my time zone.:) We shall see though.

CkG
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Man, I poor thread; I go away and return to the usual apologist who love both the French and Howie 'James' Dean (simply because they, like Chirac and Dean, hate America and love the anti-Bush/America rhetoric). What was the question raised to me? ...something about 'what was the second hypocrisy'? Well, the same person who raised that question also questioned my sources. Therefore, since Democrats never lie and are more credible than FoxNews, maybe you could find your answer here:

Dean is a Hypocrite
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Galt and CAD,

The fact that neither of you are willing to discuss the very substance of this issue is very telling. Come on. There are young impressionable people here and you have an image to uphold.

If you see something I don't, I'm willing to concede - as I've already done today in your mad cow thread.

So tell me again, CAD, why is it that you believe that the obvious descrepancies in money, attendees, and disclosures should all be considered irrelevant in this case?
I told you. dean keeps trying to blast Bush for things yet has done similar(same) things himself. dean had "secret" meetings with people on policy - so did Cheney. dean blasts Cheney for "secret" meetings and calls for "open government". He must have forgotten that he himself had "secret" meetings on policy. Like I said - you can try to lessen the degree of hypocracy if you wish by saying Cheney was "worstester":p but it doesn't change the fact that dean would blast dean if dean were Cheney. Got it?
CkG
You're probably right about that last part. But try to follow my logic.

1. You say Dean is a hypocrite for accusing Cheny/Bush admin for doing something he did before.

2. I'm saying he didn't quite do the same thing because the evidence shows in the very link you provided, that there are BIG differences between what he did and what Cheney did:
a. Dean volunteerily disclosed the names of all who were involved. Cheny's reps disclosed *some* names but invoked executive priveleges to keep the names of other participants secret.
b. According to CNN, Dean received a whopping 19,000 in contributions as a result of those energy meetings. Millions were contributed to the Bush campaign from energy companies. One of those aforementioned participants was Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.


Comparing these two are laughable. Isn't it, Cad?
Right - and so dean's position really isn't "true" is it? Didn't think so.

Now yes, if you try to link campaign cash with "favors" - then you might have a case - but again, that is speculative opinion and partisan rhetoric at best and doesn't change the hypocracy of having "secret meetings".
Also, yes dean(or the committe) gave up the names after there was a stink made about it and Cheney still hasn't disclosed them all - but like I said - that is only a "degree" question. So when dean isn't "clean" but Cheney is "worstester" - it means dean isn't still hypocritical about "secret meetings"?

The point was about hypocracy - not about campaign money, or names - it was about doing something(no matter what degree you think he did or didn't do it the same) that he has tried to make a big issue over(secret meetings).

CkG
Exactly, its a "degree" question. But you're saying I'm a hypocrite for disapproving the actions of a convicted murderer when I've squashed bugs before...

Come on, Cad. Even you can put two and two together about why Cheney's meetings with Enron's prez were held in secrecy - especially when millions in contributions are involved.

Just so happens that in this case you'd prefer not to, so you can keep on ignoring the facts and burying your head in the mud. Even Galt knows when he's lost the point and quits.
No - you are not understanding the simplicity of this. dean had "secret meetings" yet here he sits yapping about "open" government and condemning Cheney for doing the same thing(secret meetings). dean doesn't get a free pass for what he did as govenor just because what Cheney did was "worstester" than what he did. It is still hypocracy and dean will get called on it - as his rivals are doing. If dean was really for "open" gov't then he wouldn't have held the "secret" meetings - no? Yet he blasts Cheney for having "secret meetings".

Yes - he can complain about Cheney not naming all who attended - and I would agree that it would be a fair accusation and question - but that isn't what he has been doing.
Yes you/dean/whoever can try to yammer on and on about campaign contributions, but it doesn't change the fact that dean held "secret meetings" just as he blasts other for doing.

Gephardt seems to agree with me-
"It is another example of why Howard would have a hard time going up against George Bush. I mean here he is complaining about secrecy in their administration with the Cheney task force and then it turns out he was doing the same thing in Vermont,"


Oh, and JG may not be with us currently but if memory holds - JG is a daytime poster - usually morning in my time zone.:) We shall see though.

CkG
Cad, its simple to you because the only way you can continue to hammer your point is if you ignore the details.

As for Gephardt, I would say the same thing - he is a rival - do you find the comments from his camp to be objective support of your accusations, and not just a convenient opportunity to jump on board a bandwagon?

Personally I find the Democratic race to be very uncivilized, and lacking in class - including comments from Dean's camp. It is a prime example of why there is such disorder within them.

 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: busmaster11

Personally I find the Democratic race to be very uncivilized, and lacking in class - including comments from Dean's camp. It is a prime example of why there is such disorder within them.

Lack of vision and substance does that to the best of them; putting all your political eggs into one "anti-administration" basket only carries you so far. Sooner or later, you need a plan.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Galt and CAD,

The fact that neither of you are willing to discuss the very substance of this issue is very telling. Come on. There are young impressionable people here and you have an image to uphold.

If you see something I don't, I'm willing to concede - as I've already done today in your mad cow thread.

So tell me again, CAD, why is it that you believe that the obvious descrepancies in money, attendees, and disclosures should all be considered irrelevant in this case?
I told you. dean keeps trying to blast Bush for things yet has done similar(same) things himself. dean had "secret" meetings with people on policy - so did Cheney. dean blasts Cheney for "secret" meetings and calls for "open government". He must have forgotten that he himself had "secret" meetings on policy. Like I said - you can try to lessen the degree of hypocracy if you wish by saying Cheney was "worstester":p but it doesn't change the fact that dean would blast dean if dean were Cheney. Got it?
CkG
You're probably right about that last part. But try to follow my logic.

1. You say Dean is a hypocrite for accusing Cheny/Bush admin for doing something he did before.

2. I'm saying he didn't quite do the same thing because the evidence shows in the very link you provided, that there are BIG differences between what he did and what Cheney did:
a. Dean volunteerily disclosed the names of all who were involved. Cheny's reps disclosed *some* names but invoked executive priveleges to keep the names of other participants secret.
b. According to CNN, Dean received a whopping 19,000 in contributions as a result of those energy meetings. Millions were contributed to the Bush campaign from energy companies. One of those aforementioned participants was Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.


Comparing these two are laughable. Isn't it, Cad?
Right - and so dean's position really isn't "true" is it? Didn't think so.

Now yes, if you try to link campaign cash with "favors" - then you might have a case - but again, that is speculative opinion and partisan rhetoric at best and doesn't change the hypocracy of having "secret meetings".
Also, yes dean(or the committe) gave up the names after there was a stink made about it and Cheney still hasn't disclosed them all - but like I said - that is only a "degree" question. So when dean isn't "clean" but Cheney is "worstester" - it means dean isn't still hypocritical about "secret meetings"?

The point was about hypocracy - not about campaign money, or names - it was about doing something(no matter what degree you think he did or didn't do it the same) that he has tried to make a big issue over(secret meetings).

CkG
Exactly, its a "degree" question. But you're saying I'm a hypocrite for disapproving the actions of a convicted murderer when I've squashed bugs before...

Come on, Cad. Even you can put two and two together about why Cheney's meetings with Enron's prez were held in secrecy - especially when millions in contributions are involved.

Just so happens that in this case you'd prefer not to, so you can keep on ignoring the facts and burying your head in the mud. Even Galt knows when he's lost the point and quits.
No - you are not understanding the simplicity of this. dean had "secret meetings" yet here he sits yapping about "open" government and condemning Cheney for doing the same thing(secret meetings). dean doesn't get a free pass for what he did as govenor just because what Cheney did was "worstester" than what he did. It is still hypocracy and dean will get called on it - as his rivals are doing. If dean was really for "open" gov't then he wouldn't have held the "secret" meetings - no? Yet he blasts Cheney for having "secret meetings".

Yes - he can complain about Cheney not naming all who attended - and I would agree that it would be a fair accusation and question - but that isn't what he has been doing.
Yes you/dean/whoever can try to yammer on and on about campaign contributions, but it doesn't change the fact that dean held "secret meetings" just as he blasts other for doing.

Gephardt seems to agree with me-
"It is another example of why Howard would have a hard time going up against George Bush. I mean here he is complaining about secrecy in their administration with the Cheney task force and then it turns out he was doing the same thing in Vermont,"


Oh, and JG may not be with us currently but if memory holds - JG is a daytime poster - usually morning in my time zone.:) We shall see though.

CkG
Cad, its simple to you because the only way you can continue to hammer your point is if you ignore the details.

As for Gephardt, I would say the same thing - he is a rival - do you find the comments from his camp to be objective support of your accusations, and not just a convenient opportunity to jump on board a bandwagon?

Personally I find the Democratic race to be very uncivilized, and lacking in class - including comments from Dean's camp. It is a prime example of why there is such disorder within them.
Those "details" aren't relevant in whether or not there was hypocracy - they only affect the so-called "degree" of it. You can try to excuse it all you want but it's hypocracy. Dean blasted cheney for the secret meetings YET HE HAD HIS OWN. Like I said - you can try to say Cheney was "worstester" but that still doesn't absolve dean of his hypocracy.

Got it yet?

CkG
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Galt and CAD,

The fact that neither of you are willing to discuss the very substance of this issue is very telling. Come on. There are young impressionable people here and you have an image to uphold.

If you see something I don't, I'm willing to concede - as I've already done today in your mad cow thread.

So tell me again, CAD, why is it that you believe that the obvious descrepancies in money, attendees, and disclosures should all be considered irrelevant in this case?
I told you. dean keeps trying to blast Bush for things yet has done similar(same) things himself. dean had "secret" meetings with people on policy - so did Cheney. dean blasts Cheney for "secret" meetings and calls for "open government". He must have forgotten that he himself had "secret" meetings on policy. Like I said - you can try to lessen the degree of hypocracy if you wish by saying Cheney was "worstester":p but it doesn't change the fact that dean would blast dean if dean were Cheney. Got it?
CkG
You're probably right about that last part. But try to follow my logic.

1. You say Dean is a hypocrite for accusing Cheny/Bush admin for doing something he did before.

2. I'm saying he didn't quite do the same thing because the evidence shows in the very link you provided, that there are BIG differences between what he did and what Cheney did:
a. Dean volunteerily disclosed the names of all who were involved. Cheny's reps disclosed *some* names but invoked executive priveleges to keep the names of other participants secret.
b. According to CNN, Dean received a whopping 19,000 in contributions as a result of those energy meetings. Millions were contributed to the Bush campaign from energy companies. One of those aforementioned participants was Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.


Comparing these two are laughable. Isn't it, Cad?
Right - and so dean's position really isn't "true" is it? Didn't think so.

Now yes, if you try to link campaign cash with "favors" - then you might have a case - but again, that is speculative opinion and partisan rhetoric at best and doesn't change the hypocracy of having "secret meetings".
Also, yes dean(or the committe) gave up the names after there was a stink made about it and Cheney still hasn't disclosed them all - but like I said - that is only a "degree" question. So when dean isn't "clean" but Cheney is "worstester" - it means dean isn't still hypocritical about "secret meetings"?

The point was about hypocracy - not about campaign money, or names - it was about doing something(no matter what degree you think he did or didn't do it the same) that he has tried to make a big issue over(secret meetings).

CkG
Exactly, its a "degree" question. But you're saying I'm a hypocrite for disapproving the actions of a convicted murderer when I've squashed bugs before...

Come on, Cad. Even you can put two and two together about why Cheney's meetings with Enron's prez were held in secrecy - especially when millions in contributions are involved.

Just so happens that in this case you'd prefer not to, so you can keep on ignoring the facts and burying your head in the mud. Even Galt knows when he's lost the point and quits.
No - you are not understanding the simplicity of this. dean had "secret meetings" yet here he sits yapping about "open" government and condemning Cheney for doing the same thing(secret meetings). dean doesn't get a free pass for what he did as govenor just because what Cheney did was "worstester" than what he did. It is still hypocracy and dean will get called on it - as his rivals are doing. If dean was really for "open" gov't then he wouldn't have held the "secret" meetings - no? Yet he blasts Cheney for having "secret meetings".

Yes - he can complain about Cheney not naming all who attended - and I would agree that it would be a fair accusation and question - but that isn't what he has been doing.
Yes you/dean/whoever can try to yammer on and on about campaign contributions, but it doesn't change the fact that dean held "secret meetings" just as he blasts other for doing.

Gephardt seems to agree with me-
"It is another example of why Howard would have a hard time going up against George Bush. I mean here he is complaining about secrecy in their administration with the Cheney task force and then it turns out he was doing the same thing in Vermont,"


Oh, and JG may not be with us currently but if memory holds - JG is a daytime poster - usually morning in my time zone.:) We shall see though.

CkG
Cad, its simple to you because the only way you can continue to hammer your point is if you ignore the details.

As for Gephardt, I would say the same thing - he is a rival - do you find the comments from his camp to be objective support of your accusations, and not just a convenient opportunity to jump on board a bandwagon?

Personally I find the Democratic race to be very uncivilized, and lacking in class - including comments from Dean's camp. It is a prime example of why there is such disorder within them.
Those "details" aren't relevant in whether or not there was hypocracy - they only affect the so-called "degree" of it. You can try to excuse it all you want but it's hypocracy. Dean blasted cheney for the secret meetings YET HE HAD HIS OWN. Like I said - you can try to say Cheney was "worstester" but that still doesn't absolve dean of his hypocracy.

Got it yet?

CkG
Got it yet? Hmmm, Cheney = Haliburton, Dean = Turn around of Vermont

I'd take a State of Citizens doing better over Haliburton getting a select elite few richer while funding Foreign Countries anyday.


 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Galt and CAD,

The fact that neither of you are willing to discuss the very substance of this issue is very telling. Come on. There are young impressionable people here and you have an image to uphold.

If you see something I don't, I'm willing to concede - as I've already done today in your mad cow thread.

So tell me again, CAD, why is it that you believe that the obvious descrepancies in money, attendees, and disclosures should all be considered irrelevant in this case?
I told you. dean keeps trying to blast Bush for things yet has done similar(same) things himself. dean had "secret" meetings with people on policy - so did Cheney. dean blasts Cheney for "secret" meetings and calls for "open government". He must have forgotten that he himself had "secret" meetings on policy. Like I said - you can try to lessen the degree of hypocracy if you wish by saying Cheney was "worstester":p but it doesn't change the fact that dean would blast dean if dean were Cheney. Got it?
CkG
You're probably right about that last part. But try to follow my logic.

1. You say Dean is a hypocrite for accusing Cheny/Bush admin for doing something he did before.

2. I'm saying he didn't quite do the same thing because the evidence shows in the very link you provided, that there are BIG differences between what he did and what Cheney did:
a. Dean volunteerily disclosed the names of all who were involved. Cheny's reps disclosed *some* names but invoked executive priveleges to keep the names of other participants secret.
b. According to CNN, Dean received a whopping 19,000 in contributions as a result of those energy meetings. Millions were contributed to the Bush campaign from energy companies. One of those aforementioned participants was Kenneth Lay, CEO of Enron.


Comparing these two are laughable. Isn't it, Cad?
Right - and so dean's position really isn't "true" is it? Didn't think so.

Now yes, if you try to link campaign cash with "favors" - then you might have a case - but again, that is speculative opinion and partisan rhetoric at best and doesn't change the hypocracy of having "secret meetings".
Also, yes dean(or the committe) gave up the names after there was a stink made about it and Cheney still hasn't disclosed them all - but like I said - that is only a "degree" question. So when dean isn't "clean" but Cheney is "worstester" - it means dean isn't still hypocritical about "secret meetings"?

The point was about hypocracy - not about campaign money, or names - it was about doing something(no matter what degree you think he did or didn't do it the same) that he has tried to make a big issue over(secret meetings).

CkG
Exactly, its a "degree" question. But you're saying I'm a hypocrite for disapproving the actions of a convicted murderer when I've squashed bugs before...

Come on, Cad. Even you can put two and two together about why Cheney's meetings with Enron's prez were held in secrecy - especially when millions in contributions are involved.

Just so happens that in this case you'd prefer not to, so you can keep on ignoring the facts and burying your head in the mud. Even Galt knows when he's lost the point and quits.
No - you are not understanding the simplicity of this. dean had "secret meetings" yet here he sits yapping about "open" government and condemning Cheney for doing the same thing(secret meetings). dean doesn't get a free pass for what he did as govenor just because what Cheney did was "worstester" than what he did. It is still hypocracy and dean will get called on it - as his rivals are doing. If dean was really for "open" gov't then he wouldn't have held the "secret" meetings - no? Yet he blasts Cheney for having "secret meetings".

Yes - he can complain about Cheney not naming all who attended - and I would agree that it would be a fair accusation and question - but that isn't what he has been doing.
Yes you/dean/whoever can try to yammer on and on about campaign contributions, but it doesn't change the fact that dean held "secret meetings" just as he blasts other for doing.

Gephardt seems to agree with me-
"It is another example of why Howard would have a hard time going up against George Bush. I mean here he is complaining about secrecy in their administration with the Cheney task force and then it turns out he was doing the same thing in Vermont,"


Oh, and JG may not be with us currently but if memory holds - JG is a daytime poster - usually morning in my time zone.:) We shall see though.

CkG
Cad, its simple to you because the only way you can continue to hammer your point is if you ignore the details.

As for Gephardt, I would say the same thing - he is a rival - do you find the comments from his camp to be objective support of your accusations, and not just a convenient opportunity to jump on board a bandwagon?

Personally I find the Democratic race to be very uncivilized, and lacking in class - including comments from Dean's camp. It is a prime example of why there is such disorder within them.
Those "details" aren't relevant in whether or not there was hypocracy - they only affect the so-called "degree" of it. You can try to excuse it all you want but it's hypocracy. Dean blasted cheney for the secret meetings YET HE HAD HIS OWN. Like I said - you can try to say Cheney was "worstester" but that still doesn't absolve dean of his hypocracy.

Got it yet?

CkG
Busmaster11: can't say I didn't warn you!

:D
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
never, ever,ever

black knight
Exactly - I guess busmaster11 is now the black knight :D "You didn't cut off my arm - see - I still have my leg"


Now if people would look at the issue addressed in this thread instead of trying to come up with things that don't make a difference whether dean is being a hypocrit or not - maybe we could have a discussion...but nah - that would mean admitting dean isn't who he is being protrayed as and saying he is.:p Whatever though...stay blind - just vote your "disgust" :p Just don't bitch when he waffles on an issue you really believe in.

CkG
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Of course Dean is being a hypocrite CAD. He was bitching about something he, himself, is guilty of doing.

see how easy that was? ;) For the life of me, I don't understand your refusal to say the same thing in the Rush thread.


BTW, some would find it comical to see a Bush supporter saying stay blind. ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY