RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Do you like Howard Dean?(27 posts)

Do you like Howard Dean?dr hoo
Aug 1, 2003 12:29 PM
My wife just told me that Dean got into politics initially when he got involved with trying to get a BIKE PATH built. He went up a few notches in my book for that. Still low, but higher. I'm a sucker for a cyclist.

Favorite wacko luddite serial killer: the Unibomber... because he rode a bike.

Do you re-evaluate public figures if you find they have a cycling connection? Or if they are anti-cycling? How much weight do you give it?
re: Do you like Howard Dean?TJeanloz
Aug 1, 2003 12:44 PM
I don't give a lot of bonus points for being pro-cycling, because I don't think that at the end of the day, the Government has a lot to do with cycling. I'm also not a big believer in MUTs or other things that Federal money might be spent on to "benefit" cycling.

If somebody were catagorically opposed to cycling, I would dock them a lot of points; not because they were opposed to cycling, but because I can't think of a good reason to be opposed to cycling - so anybody with that position must not be thinking things through very well.
He's an angry manmoneyman
Aug 1, 2003 1:35 PM
And I have concerns hiring/electing angry people. Just because they are virulently opposed to something/one doesn't mean they can do any good once in office.

I get a warm fuzzy feeling with politicos who are cyclists, but I don't think it changes my vote.

$$
Money my man...your off on that one :)CARBON110
Aug 1, 2003 1:45 PM
I have known him for many years and he is not an angry guy. In some cases I think he gets so fed up with "rediculous" politics he can come off as maybe heated but thats about it. He is very stoic in the spotlight 90% of the time and he has NOTHING to hide in his closet. He is by far the most highly motivated and hard working Pres. canidate I think out there. He is out pounding the streets and has already taken new avenues to achieve his goals. He is visionary, innovative and willing to take risks as opposed to you reactionary Repubs. He earned my vote when I saw him on Face the nation and everything he said sounded very reasonable...J. Mcane asctually had a hard time disagreeing with him
Money my man...you're off on that one :)Matno
Aug 1, 2003 5:03 PM
I'm sure he has something to hide. The only reason he doesn't appear to have anything in to hide is because he openly supports things that are so outrageous that people just assume he couldn't possibly be hiding anything worse. That isn't to say that he isn't hard working or highly motivated. Unfortunately, those virtues have be focused in the right direction to be of value to anyone.

As for John McCain, he's more liberal than most Democrats, let alone Republicans. So it's no surprise that he had a hard time disagreeing with Dean. They are on the same side of center. The only surprise is that people keep on believing that McCain is a conservative.
Why do you say "angry?"cory
Aug 1, 2003 2:00 PM
I'm not a particular Dean fan, but what's the justification for that? He doesn't come across as angry to me, certainly no more than any concerned citizen SHOULD be angry these days, and he's been pretty circumspect in expressing it. A shot like that is no different than calling Bush "stupid" or Rumsfeld "sociopathic." Just because a guy is indignant about different things than you are doesn't make him angry.
And nobody would ever call Bush "stupid" (nm)TJeanloz
Aug 1, 2003 2:15 PM
I do it all the time, but conservatives object to it (nm)cory
Aug 3, 2003 6:28 PM
Better we should elect an affable dolt?czardonic
Aug 1, 2003 2:21 PM
Even if Dean is angry, it seems unlikely that he could tick off more allies and start more wars than our easy-going Exaggerator in Chief.

I'd rather have a leader who expressed himself openly, if intemperately at times, than one who uses some phony "regular guy" image as a trojan horse for his punitive and radical agenda.
No, wait--we did that in 1980 and '84... (nm)cory
Aug 3, 2003 6:29 PM
And people accuse the right about not letting Clinton go (nm)94Nole
Aug 4, 2003 4:40 AM
You electedSteveS
Aug 4, 2003 11:45 AM
It wasn't me so it must have been you and yours that elected "Mr. Peanut", Jimmy Carter in the 70's. Timorous in the face of Communism and worse in the face of Iranian Revolutionary Guards, bringer of the 20% interest rates (what was prime then?), inflation, and overall malaise in the U.S. He wasn't so dumb, just incompetent and weak. Clearly the worst President of my adult life and a great pleasure to seem him so readily dumped after enduring one term of his leadership.

Oh, wait, I just remembered Brother Billy Carter peeing publicly while some news persons were in the vicinity. The Pride of Georgia Democrats. So cool. He wasn't as dumb as he looked or acted.

However, Jimmy is a very nice person and does great work for Habitat for Humanity.
Certainly makes a better <big>Ex</big>- President! nmLive Steam
Aug 4, 2003 11:55 AM
What's your point? If you recognize the problem. . .czardonic
Aug 4, 2003 12:29 PM
. . .you have no excuse for perpetuating it by electing someone incompetent, weak and dumb.

I really don't get these "Bush is no worse than Clinton, Carter, FDR etc." arguments. It says nothing to hold up your guy next to someone you've gone out of your way to trash. Tell us why Bush is better (than Clinton, or even Nixon). If you can.
He strikes me as an angry man tooLive Steam
Aug 1, 2003 2:58 PM
He has shot his mouth off on many occasions attacking someone for no good reason other than being defensive about his position. He has a lot of dough though, so at least he wouldn't be another Dumocrat using the Oval Orifice to line his pockets :O)
Would you please give more detailed facts oncritmass
Aug 1, 2003 3:17 PM
the "many occasions" he has attacked someone for no good reason other than being defensive about his position?
Funnymoneyman
Aug 4, 2003 7:10 AM
The question was about what I think about Howard Dean. My impression, from the admittedly few times I have paid attention to him, is that he is an angry man. I heard an extensive interview with him on NPR and I was not impressed. His ideas were so far left I could not take him seriously. I disagree with his stance on taxes, and that alone takes him off my list of people I might consider voting for. He may be visionary, but in that interview and the other few times I have heard him, I didn't like his vision. I don't believe I'll spend any more time thinking about him. But I do think he is the best thin to happen to the Republican party in years.

What's funny is the defensive reactions from the liberals. I don't think Dean is stupid, lazy, or any other derogatory adjective. I just got the impression of an angry man, and one with whom I disagree on political and social issues. I am sure he is very bright, hard working, conscientious and loves what he does. But if I got the impression he's angry, I would bet many others did as well. Maybe that's why the liberals are defensive - they are still angry at Bush winning in 2000.

$$
We are angry at Bush's abysmal leadership.czardonic
Aug 4, 2003 10:03 AM
What I find funny is the conservative's willingness to stand behind a dilettante like Bush while he runs this country into the ground with his foreign and domestic policies, which are neither effective nor even conservative. Apparently, being able to say "Nyah, nyah, we won in 2000" is more important to conservatives that leaving a stable, prosperous country for their children to enjoy. Or maybe they are still peeved at Clinton's ability as a "liberal" (he really wasn't) to do what Reagan and both Bushs have not been able to do.
The question was about Deanmoneyman
Aug 4, 2003 10:07 AM
You guys brought up Bush. Hard to stay on topic, huh?

$$
I was responding to your off-topic shot at liberals.czardonic
Aug 4, 2003 10:19 AM
Your comment about Dean has already been dispensed with.
There was no shot at liberalsmoneyman
Aug 4, 2003 12:13 PM
Just a guess as to why they/you are so angry with Bush.

$$
Mischaracterization of them as "defensive". . .czardonic
Aug 4, 2003 12:22 PM
. . .and of Dean as illegitimately angry. Or would you avoid angry candidates regardless of how well founded that anger was?
Let's recapmoneyman
Aug 4, 2003 1:23 PM
I stated my opinion that Dean appeared to me to be an angry man. That statement was taken as being derogatory towards Dean, then somehow associated with Bush being dumb. That's where this whole thing got disconnected. The question asked what we thought about Howard Dean. I said I thought he was an angry man and that I would not vote for him based on that characterization.

Whether the anger is legitimate or not depends on your point of view, but I made no such judgment. I happen to think that if someone is perpetually angry, and that is how I had seen Dean, I have to wonder how he/she would handle the problems of the nation. There is not much clear thinking when one only sees the world through angry eyes.

I am done with this discussion. If you wish to carry it on, you'll have to reply and then respond to yourself.

$$
Gee, <i>you're</i> awfully defensive.czardonic
Aug 4, 2003 1:29 PM
Your response also raises my original question, which is whether it is better to elect someone who seems easy going, since we have such a person in office right now and he has proceded to turn the entire world against us, save for Uzbeckistan and the Marshall Islands.

But there was probably a reason why you never answered that question in the first place.
re: Not reallyjrm
Aug 1, 2003 5:37 PM
The reason being the only time elected officials get involved in bike projects its a knee jerk reaction to something tragic in most cases. Most of the planning and funding for bike projects happens outside the visible screen of the general public until some tool politician says he's gonna save all the "little billies" of the future because he caused a project to get recognized or funded.

The advocates, mountain bike riders ive ridden with and people i see riding in the city are the ones that have the same perspective i have when it comes to riding. yes we have an agenda, but reconized it isnt.
Everytime I hear his name I think "Watergate" (nm)ColnagoFE
Aug 4, 2003 7:27 AM
Everytime I hear his name I think "Real pork sausages!" :O) nmLive Steam
Aug 4, 2003 11:51 AM