|More Howard Dean fun||moneyman|
Dec 17, 2003 10:40 AM
|Quotes contained in an opinion article in today's WSJ from the favored ex-geovernor of Vermont:
Chris Matthews asked Dr. Dean whether Osama bin Laden should be tried in an American court or at The Hague. "I don't think it makes a lot of difference," said the governor airily. Mr. Matthews pressed once more. "It doesn't make a lot of difference to me," he said again.... So how about Saddam? The Hague "suits me fine," he said...
A few days later, the governor was on CNN and Judy Woodruff asked him about his admission that he'd left the Episcopal Church and become a Congregationalist because "I had a big fight with a local Episcopal church over the bike path." ... it would seem to be a rare example of a non-gay controversy in the Anglican Communion. But nevertheless it provoked Howard into "a big fight." "I was fighting to have public access to the waterfront, and we were fighting very hard in the citizens group," he told Judy Woodruff. Fighting, fighting, fighting.
And that's our pugnacious little Democrat. On Osama bin Laden, he's Mister Insouciant. But he gets mad about bike paths. Destroy the World Trade Center and he's languid and laconic and blasé. Obstruct plans to convert the ravaged site into a memorial bike path and he'll hunt you down wherever you are.
Now that's confidence building leadership!
|No, that is lousy journalism.||czardonic|
Dec 17, 2003 10:45 AM
|No wonder you are so ignorant about Dean.|
|No, that is lousy journalism.||CARBON110|
Dec 17, 2003 10:49 AM
|So, does this mean Elvis is still alive and the moon is made of cheese? If this kinda reporting keeps up I might end up owing Live Steam money yet LOL !
just kidn :P
|WSJ Editorial Page: Home of the "Lucky Duckies"||Dale Brigham|
Dec 17, 2003 11:30 AM
|WSJ editors termed low-income Americans, who, because they have so little income and/or qualify for Earned Income Credit, pay little or no Federal income tax, "Lucky Duckies." I've been a Lucky Ducky, and no matter how much I'm taxed these days, I truly don't want to go back. I'm sure the WSJ editors don't really envy the plight of the Lucky Duckies as much as they purport. If so, I'm sure there are plenty of so-called fortunate waterfowl who would like to trade places with them.
WSJ editoral page, indeed. I'd just as well get my opinions from FoxNews.
|He's not talking to you, $$.||OldEdScott|
Dec 17, 2003 10:54 AM
|No matter what he says, he's never, ever going to get your vote.
These things sound outrageous to you, and just fine to me. I DO, however, filter out the right-wing conservative-biased prose in which these quotes are conveniently nestled, and recognize also that they're bare-root quotes, jerked from the ground without any context whatsoever, so the soil is still dropping off them.
|I jus' luv your descriptive words||Starliner|
Dec 17, 2003 11:49 AM
|A velvet hammer of a reply - you'd do well as a speechwriter.
The italicized statement got me totally lost when it went from talking about Dean's church affiliations and a bike path then switched to the WTC and bike path - so its final conclusions were a stretch. A rather clumsy attempt at taking a few statements, mixing them together, and coming up with a negative slant on the man. I went away from it with a realization of how emotion can so cloud one's mind resulting in decreased communicative skills - in this case, the emotion behind the author's (and $$'s) dislike for Dean (also demonstrated by some of us members of the board who have an obvious emotional dislike for our oily, shifty, lying-through-his-teeth, dunce of a leader)-.
|ahhh now that was well articulated||CARBON110|
Dec 17, 2003 12:08 PM
|Well done Starliner, my thoughts to a T|
|Yeah sorta like the emotion Dan Rather showed ...||Live Steam|
Dec 17, 2003 2:30 PM
|on national TV when he got all misty-eyed that Gore was indeed a loser! :O)
Or how Danny Boy looked forlorn when he asked Saddam if this would be the last time they met on the eve of the war?
|If you have contempt for Dan Rather. . .||czardonic|
Dec 17, 2003 2:38 PM
|. . .I can only imagine what a principled individual such as yourself might say about this spectacle of depraved corruption:
|Man you need a new one! It looks like ...||Live Steam|
Dec 17, 2003 2:56 PM
|Rummy shaking hands with the head of state in Iraq. Is there more to your very old point? So we dealt with Saddam before he was a madman. He lost his mind sometime between when that photo was taken and yesterday. Got anything else?|
|As long as you spout your ignorance of history. . .||czardonic|
Dec 17, 2003 2:59 PM
|. . .the facts remain relevant.
Saddam was always a madman. We dealt with him before and after he was also a mass-murderer.
|Wrong again||Live Steam|
Dec 17, 2003 3:05 PM
|Before he was the enemy of our enemy. He was useful to our cause which was defeating communism. Oh I forgot, you left your heart in St. Petersburg.|
|Yup, you are the type who can excuse mass-murder. . .||czardonic|
Dec 17, 2003 3:10 PM
|. . .for the sake of political expediency. Another view into the heart of a "real man"?|
|Seems to me you wanted to let the mass murderer ...||Live Steam|
Dec 17, 2003 5:26 PM
|off the hook. You really don't know what you stand for do you? You just know you stand opposite whatever the conservative viewpoint is. You can never lead that way. It must be tough trying to figure out what the next thing you don't stand for is! LOL!!!|
|Sure, "seems" to you. But who would credit your judgement. . .||czardonic|
Dec 17, 2003 5:38 PM
|. . .of the matter? You supported corrupt men and their mass-murderering co-conspirators for decades, and now that the political winds have changed you have to desperately try to pile the $hit you have been wallowing in for all that time on someone else. (Note to self: "real men" are bracingly candid about their adultery, but tight-lipped and unrepentant about their contributions to hundreds of thousands of deaths.)
Did I want to let Saddam "off the hook"? Silly, silly nonsense. Or maybe you believe that blundering into Baghdad post haste and planless was the only solution? Surely, nobody is that silly.
|So let's take this conversation to another level||Live Steam|
Dec 17, 2003 7:47 PM
|I would love to believe in virtuosity in the World. You don't believe George Bush to be virtuous and you seem to agree that Gerhard Schroder, Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin, Hu Jintao and many others are also not virtuous. Where do we go from here?
According to you, your boy Clinton was virtuous, yet he did nothing about Saddam Husayn nor about any of the other tyrants that plague the World. He appeased the little madman in North Korea and gave him more money to build upon his megalomaniacal plans. He didn't pressure the UN to act in Iraq or North Korea and the UN did nothing on their own. So where do we go from here?
You and others claim that there was "no real plan" and "no plan for after the war" yet you and others offer no alternative plans and failed to act when you had control of the power and resources. So where do we go from here?
You claim that Iraq is a failure, yet the operation is barely 9 months along. Though it is hard to quantify and measure, success looks more likely than failure. So where do we go from here?
I am tired of you making judgments about my morals and character. You sound like an angry little man as do many of the liberal pundits I hear day after day, spewing hate and innuendo about George Bush and this country. So I'll tell you where to go from here!
|When did I say Clinton was "virtuous"?||czardonic|
Dec 18, 2003 10:17 AM
|Well? You are tired of me making judgements about you!?
It is not the "other sides" job to fix your blunders and mitigate your ignorance and poor judgement. Nonetheless, I have solution: get Bush out of office, get some qualified people in a position to asses the situation and go from there. Things could harldy be managed more poorly than they are now.
|I've got plenty of pictures with those I now despise||No_sprint|
Dec 17, 2003 3:06 PM
|Even worse than despise. One whom I've vowed to destroy should we ever meet up again.
Things change. No biggie. Next!
|What difference does it make where Osama is tried?||Tri_Rich|
Dec 17, 2003 11:07 AM
|If he is guilty, he should be convicted in either court. Remember that the US has not been the only target of Al-Quaeda attacks.|
|Well, obviously. But the WSJ and $$ are just trying to make||OldEdScott|
Dec 17, 2003 11:11 AM
|a poisonous political point here. Spin, pure and simple.|
|Dean fights crested-blazer Espiscopalians over bike path...||Dale Brigham|
Dec 17, 2003 11:15 AM
|...He's got my vote right there! Thanks for the info, $$.
|You guys are funny||moneyman|
Dec 17, 2003 12:59 PM
|Ready to jump to Howard's defense in a minute. But it becomes more apparent to me, each and every day, that he is a sacrifice on the altar of the Democratic party, ala McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. His brilliance on foreign policy, his convictions regarding his faith, and his courage in confronting terrorists and national security cannot be understated. And OES, you are right again. He'll never get my vote. He really is a poor choice for your candidate. But that's OK.
For the record, here's the link to the whole article: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004441. The author is British and writes for the London Daily Telegraph and Spectator. His name is Mark Steyn, and that is all I know about him. I just found the article entertaining.
You'll have to register to get access, so be careful. You might end up on the mailing list of the RNC. I hear they are farming Email addys of known subversives who troll conservative websites. John Ashcroft is watching you!
|But we aren't jumping to Dean's defence.||czardonic|
Dec 17, 2003 1:09 PM
|We are snickering at your credulity. At least I am.
I see you insist on taking this garbage seriously. As I noted, it shows.
|Us Dumocrats are truly touched by your concern...||Dale Brigham|
Dec 17, 2003 1:22 PM
|...regarding the viability of our leading candidate for the 2004 presidential election. Nevertheless, we'll just have to bumble along with our own highly-flawed candidates and sort it out ourselves. We all cannot be so blessed as to have a shining light like President Bush as our party's candidate. He is certainly a man without compare.
|perhaps we can dump dean, and get behind a strong candidate||rufus|
Dec 17, 2003 3:44 PM
|like joe lieberman. he's whip bush's ass in a heartbeat.|
|Is the glass half empty or half full?||Starliner|
Dec 17, 2003 2:21 PM
|McGovern's campaign crashed on takeoff when he picked Eagleton as his VP and then mocked Nixon for having Agnew. Mondale couldn't shake loose the Carter Administration baggage he carried with him into the election. Dukakis' rap was that he LACKED emotion and sizzle.
With Dean, people see what they want to see. Is it passion, or just anger? Is standing firm on one's convictions against a tidal wave of public opinion a demonstration of weakness, or of courage?
What Dean does represent for some of us is an expression of our own concerns with the direction we're heading. Better loud and clear with a strong, heavy anchor instead of a peep and a squeak and a wet finger in the air.
|Amen, brother Starliner. I'm tired of being the Repub's rug (nm||Dale Brigham|
Dec 17, 2003 7:45 PM
|you mean the Daily Torygraph||MJ|
Dec 18, 2003 1:22 AM
|hardly a paragon of objective reporting
in fact the owner of the paper has just been caught up in a huge fraud conspiracy
well done - suicide by source