NationStates Jolt Archive

I really see no problem with him, I think he couldve easily taken this election and am just wondering why people dont like him. Was it that little scream? Is that it? Because I seriously want to know.

simple, he's got mental problems.

I really see no problem with him, I think he couldve easily taken this election and am just wondering why people dont like him. Was it that little scream? Is that it? Because I seriously want to know.

Did you see him on the campaign trail? He's a nut.

He's not president.

He's not president.

Thank God!

simple, he's got mental problems.
just like you!

Did you see him on the campaign trail? He's a nut.
Was he? I seemed to miss that one.

He's not president.
Nor is he presidential material. Granted, to take over for Terry McAwful and try to put a happy face to the DNC is going to take a different kind of person, but I'm not sure we're talking that kind of different.

He's not president.

Thank you for contributing such a valid point to this forum, your words are valued deeply and please contribute such knowledge like that you have already presented in the future.

simple, he's got mental problems.
Compared to the person who thinks he is on a mission from God and ISNT a blues brother?

The thing is, he wants to win votes from both side, he is trying to appeal to the red states also. He says now that he would like to live in the South and the West which is commendable to me, he also said something like how he wanted to be a champion for the people with confederate flags on their trucks, his downfall was when he retracted that statement.

The thing is, he wants to win votes from both side, he is trying to appeal to the red states also. He says now that he would like to live in the South and the West which is commendable to me, he also said something like how he wanted to be a champion for the people with confederate flags on their trucks, his downfall was when he retracted that statement.

Opposing the Iraq war and running on a leftest platform didn't help him either.

The thing is, he wants to win votes from both side, he is trying to appeal to the red states also. He says now that he would like to live in the South and the West which is commendable to me, he also said something like how he wanted to be a champion for the people with confederate flags on their trucks, his downfall was when he retracted that statement.
No. People with confederate flags are never going to vote for social libertarians. Now, they're just getting ovre black people having equal rights. They'll do all in their voting power to keep the gays down.

Opposing the Iraq war and running on a leftist platform didn't help him either.
Leftist platform? He's quite proud of being a fiscal conservative. Why do you guys keep saying he's socialist when all the evidence is against that conclusion.

Leftist platform? He's quite proud of being a fiscal conservative. Why do you guys keep saying he's socialist when all the evidence is against that conclusion.

Can you show me where I said socialist? I don't remember typing that word.

Can you show me where I said socialist? I don't remember typing that word.
"Leftist" is pretty much synonymous with socialist.

The thing is, he wants to win votes from both side, he is trying to appeal to the red states also. He says now that he would like to live in the South and the West which is commendable to me, he also said something like how he wanted to be a champion for the people with confederate flags on their trucks, his downfall was when he retracted that statement.
Most politicans want to win votes from both sides (Who would've guessed?).

"Leftist" is pretty much synonymous with socialist.

Show me where I called Dean a socialist!

Show me where I called Dean a socialist!
You called him a leftist, which is the same thing.

Nevermind. Replace the word "socialist" in my post with "leftist", then respond to it. Look, I do it first!

Leftist platform? He's quite proud of being a fiscal conservative. Why do you guys keep saying he's a leftist when all the evidence is against that conclusion.

I'm just not sure if "leftist" is even a real word.

You called him a leftist, which is the same thing.

Nevermind. Replace the word "socialist" in my post with "leftist", then respond to it. Look, I do it first!



I'm just not sure if "leftist" is even a real word.

Actually just because he's a leftist doesn't mean he's a socialist. Frankly, I didn't care for his politics and if he doesn't balance the DNC out and fast, he'll lose more seats in the US Senate.

Actually just because he's a leftist doesn't mean he's a socialist. Frankly, I didn't care for his politics and if he doesn't balance the DNC out and fast, he'll lose more seats in the US Senate.
So what do you mean by "leftist"?

In my view, being anti-war doesn't make him left-wing. He is in favour of gun freedom and balanced budgets, which are not usually features of left wing politicians.

So what do you mean by "leftist"?

In my view, being anti-war doesn't make him left-wing. He is in favour of gun freedom and balanced budgets, which are not usually features of left wing politicians.
Well, now a days it tends to be...

So what do you mean by "leftist"?

In my view, being anti-war doesn't make him left-wing. He is in favour of gun freedom and balanced budgets, which are not usually features of left wing politicians.

Then he should've just ran on that and not trumpet the sounds that we're in another Vietnam because we're not. I don't remember much of his campaign anymore but I really don't care. The Iraq war was what stuck in my brain!

Anyway, he would've made a better candidate than John Kerry would've been.

Then he should've just ran on that and not trumpet the sounds that we're in another Vietnam because we're not. I don't remember much of his campaign anymore but I really don't care. The Iraq war was what stuck in my brain!
lol, I knew that "leftist" was just a buzzword.

Would you consider Roach-Busters of this board to be leftist? He is anti-war! How about Pat Buchanan, another anti-war conservative.

lol, I knew that "leftist" was just a buzzword.

Would you consider Roach-Busters of this board to be leftist? He is anti-war! How about Pat Buchanan, another anti-war conservative.

Nah, I've come to like Roach-Busters. He's fair to both sides! LOL!!! As for Pat, I hardly here him talk so I can't say one way or the other.

Nah, I've come to like Roach-Busters. He's fair to both sides! LOL!!! As for Pat, I hardly here him talk so I can't say one way or the other.
It's not a matter of liking him. Well, anyway I'm glad you revealed that when you say "leftist" it merely means "bad". I'll note that for future reference. Good day!

He's a friggin nut job!

It's not a matter of liking him. Well, anyway I'm glad you revealed that when you say "leftist" it merely means "bad". I'll note that for future reference. Good day!

Hey, there are a couple of republicans I don't like. Specter is one of them. I still like to know how the hell he won the Primary.

Hey, there are a couple of republicans I don't like. Specter is one of them. I still like to know how the hell he won the Primary.
I have no idea why that guy is not a Democrat. Anyway, you should ask Kwangistar. He lives in Pennsylvanai.

I have no idea why that guy is not a Democrat. Anyway, you should ask Kwangistar. He lives in Pennsylvanai.

I do too!

I do too!
yay. i assume you voted for "the other guy"

yay. i assume you voted for "the other guy"

Yes I did vote for him. Frankly, I bet on voter fraud in Philadelphia.

Why do you guys keep saying he's socialist when all the evidence is against that conclusion.

same reason they say that he is crazy, or a leftist. the same reason they argue that gay marriage will destroy all of humanity, or that creationism is a good scientific theory. same reason they claim to be for smaller government while supporting the creation and enlargement of the scariest parts of the state.

because they are either guided entirely by buzzwords, hopelessly delusional, or manipulating those people in order to increase their own power.

who needs evidence when you've got an audience willing to believe every word you say - even when those words are contradictory?

Yes I did vote for him. Frankly, I bet on voter fraud in Philadelphia.
Don't blame it on us Philadelphians, there's not many Democrats here anyway :p

He won because of the suburbanites (I'm thinking main line) turned out in droves to vote for him.

Don't blame it on us Philadelphians, there's not many Democrats here anyway :p

He won because of the suburbanites (I'm thinking main line) turned out in droves to vote for him.

Don't know why! Specter hasn't done much to make Republicans happy let alone most of the state so yea. I am blaming Philadelphia! You have more people than Pittsburgh! LOL

Don't know why! Specter hasn't done much to make Republicans happy let alone most of the state so yea. I am blaming Philadelphia! You have more people than Pittsburgh! LOL
So you want to blame us for Specter and Rendell, and then take credit for Santorum (like a typical Westener does).

At least to the other half it looks like we're the good side :p

So you want to blame us for Specter and Rendell, and then take credit for Santorum (like a typical Westener does).

At least to the other half it looks like we're the good side :p

HAHA!!! :p

I want Specter gone!

He's not president.

I agree. That is one thing that is wrong with Howard Dean. He'd have been a good one. Ah well ... 'tis past.

As for anything else, there's really nothing wrong with Howard Dean. The Republicon Bush-spooge junkies basking in the glory of "lax and spend" war mongering are too busy with their heads lodged firmly in the gaping, goatse-like twat of Condi Rice to notice.

So you want to blame us for Specter and Rendell, and then take credit for Santorum (like a typical Westener does).

At least to the other half it looks like we're the good side :p
What? Santorum is something to be proud of?

but seriously, lol @ in-state squabbling

What? Santorum is something to be proud of?

Of Course :)

but seriously, lol @ in-state squabbling

LOL!!!

Of Course :)



LOL!!!
but santorum is like icky anal leakage...

you're not meant to laugh at your own squabbling. only I may laugh

but santorum is like icky anal leakage...

What? You don't like Senator Rick (R-PA)

you're not meant to laugh at your own squabbling. only I may laugh

Nah, we can laugh too.

Opposing the Iraq war and running on a leftest platform didn't help him either.

Yeah I think it might have, see, the problem with politicians are they dont try to change people to their perspectives, they change themselves to peoples perspectives like Kerry changing himself into right wing, so while many people hated Kerry but thought he was better than Bush wouldnt have felt that way about Dean.

What? You don't like Senator Rick (R-PA)

Ah, I see you are unfamiliar with the double meaning. I like neither form of santorum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy

Ah, I see you are unfamiliar with the double meaning. I like neither form of santorum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy

I was just brought up to speed on it.

Dean was great. But the media (right wing owns media, few of media is left due to righters owning it but they let some stations play stuff so the Right can keep its under dog status.) kept blasting that scream.

So he had to pull out. He would have been a good President.

It was a great Scream! LOL!!

Isnt it amazing how the "liberal media" tried its best to torpedo the "liberal candidate's" bid for president with their incessant noise making about his "scream" and other things?


The only thing 'wrong' with Dean is that if he ran the country, taxes would go up on the corporations that run the media and they wouldnt make quite so much money.

scream?

1. Isnt it amazing how the "liberal media" tried its best to torpedo the "liberal candidate's" bid for president with their incessant noise making about his "scream" and other things?

2. The only thing 'wrong' with Dean is that if he ran the country, taxes would go up on the corporations that run the media and they wouldnt make quite so much money.
1. The media is neither liberal nor conservative (except FOX). They are sensationalist. They will almost always go after a politician for stupid reasons.

2. Unlikely. Dean is a tax-cutter.

He's not president.

unfortunatley only 42 other men can take that honor so your point...?

unfortunatley only 42 other men can take that honor so your point...?

That's my only problem with him. He's not president.

Santorum is nothing to be proud of. I'm ashamed to be in the same state as him.

Specter won due to terrible campaigning by the dems. I live in the Harrisburg area but go to college in Pittsburgh and I never saw an ad for Hoeffel in either place, one very conservative and the other liberal. He just didn't have any support from his own party. When voter ignorance is prevalent, name recognition is everything. I saw more ads from Pat Toomey(a clone of Santorum) during the primaries than I did for Hoeffel.

Santorum has gone on record saying that states should have the right to put security cameras in peoples homes just to check up on them. But only the states can do it, not the federal gov't. If there was a machine that enabled people to have their thoughts read, he'd be in favor of putting it in the middle of every major city...as long as the states did it themself.

Dean was great. But the media (right wing owns media, few of media is left due to righters owning it but they let some stations play stuff so the Right can keep its under dog status.) kept blasting that scream.

So he had to pull out. He would have been a good President.
The media is for the most part left-leaning if not outright liberal. Dan Rather is a perfect example of a typical network newscaster. Just read the NewYork Times or Washington Post sometime.

The media is for the most part left-leaning if not outright liberal. Dan Rather is a perfect example of a typical network newscaster. Just read the NewYork Times or Washington Post sometime.
Hahah. No.

Opposing the Iraq war and running on a leftest platform didn't help him either.

There's nothing wrong with him being a liberal or saying what he believes in. Personally, I like him, but didn't think him fit to be president. He's still a Democrat, the difference is that he's a democrat who fights hard for what he believes in. A lot of people around the world vote for the party that their parents voted for, or for the person they like better. They forget the issues. I think Dean will be good at reminding people what the parties are there for.

Santorum is nothing to be proud of. I'm ashamed to be in the same state as him.

Santorum for President :D (God I love PA)

Specter won due to terrible campaigning by the dems. I live in the Harrisburg area but go to college in Pittsburgh and I never saw an ad for Hoeffel in either place, one very conservative and the other liberal. He just didn't have any support from his own party. When voter ignorance is prevalent, name recognition is everything. I saw more ads from Pat Toomey(a clone of Santorum) during the primaries than I did for Hoeffel.

No! Just people changing parties to get him elected then changing back to their origional parties. That is how he won. He is not well liked despite him winning. I wanted Toomey to win. At least he has character.

Santorum has gone on record saying that states should have the right to put security cameras in peoples homes just to check up on them. But only the states can do it, not the federal gov't. If there was a machine that enabled people to have their thoughts read, he'd be in favor of putting it in the middle of every major city...as long as the states did it themself.

Yea right! I live in PA dude and not once have I heard this. Can you provide proof that he said this please?

There's nothing wrong with him being a liberal or saying what he believes in. Personally, I like him, but didn't think him fit to be president. He's still a Democrat, the difference is that he's a democrat who fights hard for what he believes in. A lot of people around the world vote for the party that their parents voted for, or for the person they like better. They forget the issues. I think Dean will be good at reminding people what the parties are there for.

I will agree with what your saying :)

The media is for the most part left-leaning if not outright liberal. Dan Rather is a perfect example of a typical network newscaster. Just read the NewYork Times or Washington Post sometime.

Personaly, I loved how you compleatly ignored every point made in the original post, except that the media has a conservative bent. "If I ignore it, maybe everyone else will too!"

The media is for the most part left-leaning if not outright liberal. Dan Rather is a perfect example of a typical network newscaster. Just read the NewYork Times or Washington Post sometime.

Ouch! You must be way right if you think that.

Specter won due to terrible campaigning by the dems. I live in the Harrisburg area but go to college in Pittsburgh and I never saw an ad for Hoeffel in either place, one very conservative and the other liberal. He just didn't have any support from his own party.
That's because when PA has Specter, the Dems don't really even feel the need to run a candidate there. Arlen virtually is the Democratic candidate!

I agree about Santorum. He's definitely a total Big Brother nutcase.

I think the dems have been appearing too 'left' per se, and they need another moderated candiated. If another JFK or RFK came about, I'm sure dems would win consistantly...I would mostly likely vote for them.

I don't recognize what they are now.

Yea right! I live in PA dude and not once have I heard this. Can you provide proof that he said this please?

it was in Time I believe, I'll look for it later...

it was in Time I believe, I'll look for it later...

oh if its time, then it can be called into question. Why not look for it now?

I think the dems have been appearing too 'left' per se, and they need another moderated candiated. If another JFK or RFK came about, I'm sure dems would win consistantly...I would mostly likely vote for them.

I don't recognize what they are now.

Neither does anyone else! That is why they've been losing recently. People don't recognize them anymore either and they're rejecting them.

There's nothing wrong with him being a liberal or saying what he believes in. Personally, I like him, but didn't think him fit to be president. He's still a Democrat, the difference is that he's a democrat who fights hard for what he believes in. A lot of people around the world vote for the party that their parents voted for, or for the person they like better. They forget the issues. I think Dean will be good at reminding people what the parties are there for.
You just gave alot of reasons that would seem to make him a good candidate for president. Exactly what qualities make him seem unfit to you? Not agreeing or disagreeing, just asking.

I think the dems have been appearing too 'left' per se, and they need another moderated candiated. If another JFK or RFK came about, I'm sure dems would win consistantly...I would mostly likely vote for them.

I don't recognize what they are now.
Appearing, or being? Democrat radicals are barely left at all on the spectrum that they were measured on back in the times of JFK, and that's not even taking into consideration all the right wing ass kissing they've been doing.

Nor is he presidential material. Granted, to take over for Terry McAwful and try to put a happy face to the DNC is going to take a different kind of person, but I'm not sure we're talking that kind of different.




I have to say he would be better than the ritalin needing recovering coke head we have now. :cool:

Appearing, or being? Democrat radicals are barely left at all on the spectrum that they were measured on back in the times of JFK, and that's not even taking into consideration all the right wing ass kissing they've been doing.

I did say 'appearing'.

Perhaps you can tell me how JFK or RFK were more left than Howard Dean? Or are you refering to something else....?

oh if its time, then it can be called into question. Why not look for it now?
SANTORUM: I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution
-SF Gate taken from an AP interview (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL)

Then he should've just ran on that and not trumpet the sounds that we're in another Vietnam because we're not. I don't remember much of his campaign anymore but I really don't care. The Iraq war was what stuck in my brain!

Anyway, he would've made a better candidate than John Kerry would've been.


This war is turning out to be another tragic mistake like Vietnam. We did not go in for the reasons our history books will say we did. We did not go in there to free the Iraqis. We went in on false information that was proven false way before we attacked.

-SF Gate taken from an AP interview (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL)

Thanks for the link but nothing in there about violating the right to privacy or for Big Brother or for Cameras in the home for that matter.

I did say 'appearing'.

Perhaps you can tell me how JFK or RFK were more left than Howard Dean? Or are you refering to something else....?
I'm just saying that it's measured by a different scale, the nation's middle has gotten progressively more conservative over the years, and what would have been considered liberal then was alot more left wing than it is now. I wasn't referring to JFK directly, just to the times he lived in.

You did say appearing, but then you said "I don't recognize what they are now," suggesting that you are dissatisfied with what they are, or in other words, are being, so you were saying that you think they are what they appear to be?

This war is turning out to be another tragic mistake like Vietnam. We did not go in for the reasons our history books will say we did. We did not go in there to free the Iraqis. We went in on false information that was proven false way before we attacked.

False info provided by the CIA! The President can only make decisions based on the info that Intel gives him.

As for it being a mistake? I don't think it was but that is my opinion.

Thanks for the link but nothing in there about violating the right to privacy or for Big Brother or for Cameras in the home for that matter.
Read bewtween the lines, specifically the last paragraph. He doesn't believe that citizens have the right to privacy, only that the states are allowed to give it to them. He believes this right can be taken away at anytime by state laws. Eg - state sodomy laws, abortion laws, and by logical extension surveillance laws. If you don't believe there is a fundemental constitutional right to privacy then the states can essentially do whatever they want when it comes to this type of thing.

Read bewtween the lines, specifically the last paragraph. He doesn't believe that citizens have the right to privacy, only that the states are allowed to give it to them. He believes this right can be taken away at anytime by state laws. Eg - state sodomy laws, abortion laws, and by logical extension surveillance laws. If you don't believe there is a fundemental constitutional right to privacy then the states can essentially do whatever they want when it comes to this type of thing.

Two words!

STATE RIGHTS!!!! As long as a state doesn't violate the gaurenteed rights of the US Constitution then what's the problem?

False info provided by the CIA! The President can only make decisions based on the info that Intel gives him.
He can also make decisions by ignoring all the evidence that disagrees with the conclusion he has already made.

He can also make decisions by ignoring all the evidence that disagrees with the conclusion he has already made.

Funny! I don't think we would be in Iraq if it hadn't been for 9/11 in my opinion.

I'm just saying that it's measured by a different scale, the nation's middle has gotten progressively more conservative over the years, and what would have been considered liberal then was alot more left wing than it is now. I wasn't referring to JFK directly, just to the times he lived in.

You did say appearing, but then you said "I don't recognize what they are now," suggesting that you are dissatisfied with what they are, or in other words, are being, so you were saying that you think they are what they appear to be?

I haven't been satisfied with the dems for sometime now. I'm leaning-libertarian, thus I hardly support either side. JFK and RFK just seem to appeal to me. I can't say I whole-heardly agree with all their politics, but I would vote for them now, if they existed.

Note:The 'red' states are growing 7% faster than the blue states. If Bush doesn't make a bigger mistake in these four years, it's almost guaranteed that the dems we'll find a bigger gap in representation.

Two words!

STATE RIGHTS!!!! As long as a state doesn't violate the gaurenteed rights of the US Constitution then what's the problem?
I think we're saying the same thing. He doesn't believe there is a guarunteed right to privacy in the constitution, so the states in his mind could do whatever they wanted.

Two words!

STATE RIGHTS!!!! As long as a state doesn't violate the gaurenteed rights of the US Constitution then what's the problem?
Except it does. Or at least that's how the USSC tends to interpret it.

Funny! I don't think we would be in Iraq if it hadn't been for 9/11 in my opinion.
Most likely. Whats your point?

Except it does. Or at least that's how the USSC tends to interpret it.

The US Supreme Court however, has a habit of giving rights that are NOT in the Constitution and expanding on amendments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I think we're saying the same thing. He doesn't believe there is a guarunteed right to privacy in the constitution, so the states in his mind could do whatever they wanted.

Hey, if a state wants to outlaw abortion, I say fine. If not, As Santorum said himself, fine. I may not agree with it but that is their RIGHT!! If they don't want gays to marry, fine. If so, fine. Let the states decide what they want not the courts. That is what he is saying.

The US Supreme Court however, has a habit of giving rights that are NOT in the Constitution and expanding on amendments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
So? For one thing, I'm not going to turn down a right to privacy (and I agree with the court there, perhaps not so much when you get into Roe v. Wade), but it doesn't matter what you think, it matters what they think.

I haven't been satisfied with the dems for sometime now. I'm leaning-libertarian, thus I hardly support either side. JFK and RFK just seem to appeal to me. I can't say I whole-heardly agree with all their politics, but I would vote for them now, if they existed.

Note:The 'red' states are growing 7% faster than the blue states. If Bush doesn't make a bigger mistake in these four years, it's almost guaranteed that the dems we'll find a bigger gap in representation.
I would vote for JFK or RFK too. In my personal opinion I think both parties have sort of gone out of perspective, but in comparison to eachother dems are considerably more moderate towards their proclaimed ideals, meaning that while the right side would seem to do whatever it takes to push their agenda, the left would probably focus more on getting support from all sides and thus abandoning alot of their stances on the issues. Of course, if congress were to turn around I'm sure the roles in it would switch too.

And to the note, yes I agree wholeheartedly, i predict that the conservative streak won't end for about twenty years. I also think that presuming no major wars break out before then, a third part candidate will have a decent run for office by 2060.

Hey, if a state wants to outlaw abortion, I say fine. If not, As Santorum said himself, fine. I may not agree with it but that is their RIGHT!! If they don't want gays to marry, fine. If so, fine. Let the states decide what they want not the courts. That is what he is saying.
You're missing the entire point. Without a constitutional right to privacy, a right which Santorum says he doesn't support, the states can essentially do whatever they want when it comes to the matter of surveillance. They could set up cameras in houses. He doesn't believe that there is an essential right to privacy in your own home. By saying that it means the only right we have in that matter are the ones granted to us by the states. They can remove these rights whenever the see fit.

You're missing the entire point. Without a constitutional right to privacy, a right which Santorum says he doesn't support, the states can essentially do whatever they want when it comes to the matter of surveillance. They could set up cameras in houses. He doesn't believe that there is an essential right to privacy in your own home. By saying that it means the only right we have in that matter are the ones granted to us by the states. They can remove these rights whenever the see fit.

Problem with your logic Hammolopolis. There are federal standards when it comes to surveilance and rules regarding their use. Therefor, there really isn't anything to fear from what Santorum was saying.

Problem with your logic Hammolopolis. There are federal standards when it comes to surveilance and rules regarding their use. Therefor, there really isn't anything to fear from what Santorum was saying.
Oh I agree with you there, the point is that he said it. The fact that he thinks we don't actually have a right to privacy in our own homes is even more insulting than the crap he was shovelling about gay sex being equal to bestiality, and thats pretty insulting.

Oh I agree with you there, the point is that he said it. The fact that he thinks we don't actually have a right to privacy in our own homes is even more insulting than the crap he was shovelling about gay sex being equal to bestiality, and thats pretty insulting.

He said NOTHING about surveilence. That was the purpose of the statement that what's his nation stated he said.

The laws passed by Congress will be obeyed and he knows that. And besides, what the Supreme Court basically told the nation is that you can do whatever you want in your homes. That is the law of the land now.

Whats wrong with Howard Dean?
He's named after a duck?

Oh I agree with you there, the point is that he said it. The fact that he thinks we don't actually have a right to privacy in our own homes is even more insulting than the crap he was shovelling about gay sex being equal to bestiality, and thats pretty insulting.
He didn't say gay sex was equal to bestiality. He said if there is an absolute right to privacy, in which one could have gay sex in their home simply because it was thier own home, then one would have the right to commit other acts (he said "bigamy, polygamy, and incest") as well.

Edit : And he actually didn't say "gay sex", he said "sex".

He didn't say gay sex was equal to bestiality. He said if there is an absolute right to privacy, in which one could have gay sex in their home simply because it was thier own home, then one would have the right to commit other acts (he said "bigamy, polygamy, and incest") as well.

And isnt that what Lawrence Vs Texas was about and that the Supreme Court ruled you can basically do whatever you want in your own home?

False info provided by the CIA! The President can only make decisions based on the info that Intel gives him.

As for it being a mistake? I don't think it was but that is my opinion.

Actually, The CIA told him not to go in. He deliberately ignored anything contrary to his agenda. He had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11.

Hey, if a state wants to outlaw abortion, I say fine. If not, As Santorum said himself, fine. I may not agree with it but that is their RIGHT!! If they don't want gays to marry, fine. If so, fine. Let the states decide what they want not the courts. That is what he is saying.

Screw states rights. This is one country.

Screw states rights. This is one country.

Oh then I guess the 10th Amendment means nothing then?

I'd rather have the right to privacy. Can we switch them out? :p

I'd rather have the right to privacy. Can we switch them out? :p

Write your congressmen

Oh then I guess the 10th Amendment means nothing then?

All of the Constitution should be taken seriously or changed. Ironically this amendment was one of the few reason it was endorsed by Jefferson (that and the bill of rights). Had he opposed it, we would likely still be under the Articles of Confederation.

Although we suceeded from that and formed a new government. But there's no way our modern society would do that now. Apparently many view that it was right then, but they don't see the similiarities of it being right now.

Oh then I guess the 10th Amendment means nothing then?

states have no rights. according to the ideology of the constitution, rights denote what people can do and what governments cannot. states have some undefined powers according to the 10th, but so do individuals. and the 9th says that people have a whole pile of other rights that aren't explicitly listed in the constitution.

You called him a leftist, which is the same thing.

Nevermind. Replace the word "socialist" in my post with "leftist", then respond to it. Look, I do it first!



I'm just not sure if "leftist" is even a real word.


The German Nazis and Russian Communists were leftist??????

The German Nazis and Russian Communists were leftist??????

At what point does authoritian go beyond left or right? ....when it's solely for personal reasons...I often think Stalin didn't care about Communism, and did it for raw power.

At what point does authoritian go beyond left or right? ....when it's solely for personal reasons...I often think Stalin didn't care about Communism, and did it for raw power.

That's for damn sure!

I think the dems have been appearing too 'left' per se, and they need another moderated candiated. If another JFK or RFK came about, I'm sure dems would win consistantly...I would mostly likely vote for them.

I don't recognize what they are now.
I don't think that the Dems are any more left-wing than they were in the time of JFK. But yes they need more charismatic candidates like that.

Neither does anyone else! That is why they've been losing recently. People don't recognize them anymore either and they're rejecting them.
Is there too much discrepancy in the views of their various candidates? One difference I notice between the 2 american parties is that most Republican candidates have pretty similar views, with a few exceptions. Democrats are more diverse.

Two words!

STATE RIGHTS!!!! As long as a state doesn't violate the gaurenteed rights of the US Constitution then what's the problem?
Hmm, Corneliu doesn't want privacy. Yeah sure. Corny, welcome to partisanistan.

The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that.Ah, the voice of "small government". :rolleyes:

The US Supreme Court however, has a habit of giving rights that are NOT in the Constitution and expanding on amendments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
It's said that rights can't be "given". They can only be restricted. If America is the "land of liberty" as you people always say, then surely there should be minimal restrictions on civil rights?

And besides, what the Supreme Court basically told the nation is that you can do whatever you want in your homes. That is the law of the land now.
That doesn't sound like a problem to me.

Actually, The CIA told him not to go in. He deliberately ignored anything contrary to his agenda. He had plans to invade Iraq before 9/11.
True. You can find confirmation of this here (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm) and here (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm).

Screw states rights. This is one country.
Surely, within reason, people have right to decide the law for their particular region of the world? I don't think it's fair for them to be entirely under the wheel of a faraway government.

The German Nazis and Russian Communists were leftist??????
The Nazis economics were broadly Keynesian. They were pro-capitalist, but also in favour of some state intervention.

As for the Russians, they were definitely left-wing. However, the difference between them and modern leftists is that they were extremely authoritarian where as today's left generally is socially liberal.

I really see no problem with him, I think he couldve easily taken this election and am just wondering why people dont like him. Was it that little scream? Is that it? Because I seriously want to know.

I could tell you right now we would have lost the election by a land slide for one simple reason.. he as a canidate is unable to apeal to people on the right.. And in a country which leans right to begin with, it is impossible for him to win a majority when his ideals are out of the main stream.

The little scream was a problem because he let himself become so overwhelmed by emotion.. he is running for the presidency. He is the person who is suppose to represent our government, do we want someone in office who will be screaming every time he gets excited.. how does that make America look on a diplomatic level... As a student of diplomacy and politics... ill tell you right now.. it looks extremely unprofessional and is unsuitable for any diplomatic/political forum.

He is a problem because he is extremely left winged in all of his social policies, economic policies and foregin policies.. Not a good attribute to have in a society leaning right is it ? While there is nothing wrong with Dean in YOUR eyes democrats (most of whome are USUALLY more centrist) have a real problem with it.. bEcause now when their Centrist policies are TOO left for the Right society of AMerica, their leader is now comming in on a LEFTISIT agenda threatning to further isolate the democratic party in its most critical hour.

Like one commentator said.. with Dean in the leadership spot democrats can either be in office in next the next 4 years.. or the next 30 years... If he stays on his leftist agenda i belive it will be the ladder.

Opposing the Iraq war and running on a leftest platform didn't help him either.
Obviously the Repubs do not like him at all...and neither does all the Jews on the Media (Dean said he would put conditions to the Israel Welfare)...

and when he did the rally "scream"...all the Jewish media jumped on it...and kept re-playing it untill it was implanted on the American sub-concient.

as a result Kerry was elected...the rest is history.

The little scream was a problem because he let himself become so overwhelmed by emotion...every day...Bush let himself become so overwhelmed by stupidity...yet that is not a problem for Repub voters.

He is to leftish for America...

Is opposing the war "leftish"? Is Pat Buchanan a lefty then?

every day...Bush let himself become so overwhelmed by stupidity...yet that is not a problem for Repub voters.

nor is it for some of those democratic voters either.. You may call HIM stupid.. but he convinced the world Iraq was a threat, he god relected amist econmic hardship, an unpopular war, and an uphill battle with his social policies.. he isn't stupid.. he's a genious.. he's the most powerful man in the world.. while the world hates him.. and still got relected!

The only stupid ones are the Democrats.. the 2004 elections were handed to them in a handbasket with a pretty bow on it.. and they still lost. Not only did the lose the white house, but the congress and the senate... all while keeping 15 million in the bank instead of spending it on getting re-elected.

He is to leftish for America...

you guys should really move beyond republican party talking points and do some analysis of your own. how is dean 'too leftish'? how is he even to the left at all? please be specific.

The only stupid ones are the Democrats.. the 2004 elections were handed to them in a handbasket with a pretty bow on it.. and they still lost. Not only did the lose the white house, but the congress and the senate... all while keeping 15 million in the bank instead of spending it on getting re-elected.

i wouldn't say they are the only ones with a severe case of the stupids. but they certainly suck at being a political party.

simple, he's got mental problems.

Just a few dozen...

All I have to say is that I find this funny, you're against Dean being president.. in fact against him being the head of the DNC, yet your pathetic Democratic party can do nothing.. nothing at all. You couldn't beat George "I'm a Coke Head" Bush? I understand why Gore lost, though I think Gore would have been a great president.. but Kerry? Kerry was slapped around and he took it like a shrimp in Asspound prison. God, Dean.. how dare Dean say things that shouldn't be said. Cover your ears kids, he is making points! POINTS!

Everyone hide! The truth is being told! Lets all jam our heads into closets until the safe and humble voice comes out to tell us everything is all right and you're all good people.

There he is.

Thank you Mr Democrat, Mr Republican.. we were scared that something was going to change.

nor is it for some of those democratic voters either.. You may call HIM stupid.. but he convinced the world Iraq was a threat.... he isn't stupid.. he's a genious....

while the world hates him...

riiite...he convinced the world Iraq was a threat.... [/heavy sarcasm]
and he is a genious...[/uber-massive- sarcasm]

He is a problem because he is extremely left winged in all of his social policies, economic policies and foregin policies.
Incorrect. Dean is a fiscal conservative who cut taxes twice in Vermont. He is also a member of the NRA and has been endorsed by them several times.

What's interesting is that he signed the Vermont civil union bill into law in 2002, even though only 35% of his population supported it. There was a backlash, and Republicans took control of the Vermont House. But this past election, Democrats took back control of the Vermont House.

Do people just run out of energy opposing gay marriage once it already happens?

btw, Dean is pro-gun. I really don't see why he is characterized as this uber-communist leftwinger.

I really don't see why he is characterized as this uber-communist leftwinger.

because the republican party and its appendages has got itself a well organized babbling machine which is very good at meme warfare. truth doesn't matter when you've got a well placed meme repeated enough times from enough different mouths. especially when most people have no clue at all about how to figure out good arguments from bad ones.

because the republican party and its appendages has got itself a well organized babbling machine which is very good at meme warfare.
Why don't you Democrats have one too?

Dean:
Pro-Choice
Anti-Stem Cell Research
Pro-Civil Unions / Against DOMA
Anti-Voucher
Anti-New Nuclear Power Plants
Pro-Assault Rifle Ban / Background Checks
Pro-Universal Health Care
Pro-Increasing Minimum Wage
Pro-Increasing Corporate Taxes
Anti-Bush Tax Cuts
Pro-Affirmative Action
Pro-Increasing International "Workers Rights" (With regards to free trade)


Not far left. Not what most people in America would call a centrist of right-wing, though.

Was he? I seemed to miss that one.


All I'm going to say is "I'm the candidate for poor white americans who go around with confederate flags in the back of their truck windows."


How did he not manage to know that most Southerns are in fact nothing like this.

Dean:
Pro-Assault Rifle Ban / Background Checks
Pro-Universal Health Care
Anti-Bush Tax Cuts

Not far left. Not what most people in America would call a centrist of right-wing, though.
Gun control? Unlikely. He is not only a member of the NRA, but has been endorsed by them several times. He is for healthcare for pregnant women and children, not universal. Of course he is anti-Bush tax cuts. If anything that makes him more right-wing. Anyone who cared about fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets (he balanced the Vermont budget 11 times in 12 years) would be opposed to the Bush tax cuts.

As for the others, you are either correct, or I don't know about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#Vermont_political_career

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#Vermont_political_career

Never trust an online encyclopedia when it comes to political matters.

Never trust an online encyclopedia when it comes to political matters.
Yes, it's very inconvenient when it proves your claims wrong, isn't it?

Yes, it's very inconvenient when it proves your claims wrong, isn't it?

Hmm no it isn't! However, people can post whatever they want! Hell I could go online and post that he's a nazi and doesn't want you to have freedom of speech on there if I wanted too.

No, sorry! If I want to dig into Dean's record, I'll just access it via the governors page to see what he accomplished. That is if he ordered them unsealed!

Hmm no it isn't! However, people can post whatever they want! Hell I could go online and post that he's a nazi and doesn't want you to have freedom of speech on there if I wanted too.

So you're saying that just because I cited Wikipedia, Dean is a gun-robbing socialist?

So you're saying that just because I cited Wikipedia, Dean is a gun-robbing socialist?

I like how you try to twist what I said. Never said that all!

what about that online encyclopedic account of Deans life and career is wrong Corny?

I like how you try to twist what I said. Never said that all!
Yeah, twisting is fun. But you implied that the info I got on Dean was wrong, so that's what I assumed you thought of him.

And BTW, I think we've already established that being anti-war does not make one left-wing.

Yeah, twisting is fun. But you implied that the info I got on Dean was wrong, so that's what I assumed you thought of him.

And BTW, I think we've already established that being anti-war does not make one left-wing.

Didn't say being anti-war is left wing! However, people will reject it because they don't want to change presidents in a middle of war.

As for the website, I didn't say it was wrong! I said that you shouldn't put all of your trust into a website that lets anyone post whatever they want on it.

Gun control? Unlikely. He is not only a member of the NRA, but has been endorsed by them several times.
"I support the assault weapons ban. I do not support the elimination of liability for gun owners. I support background checks."
CNN "Rock The Vote" Democratic Debate Nov 5, 2003 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/04/se.03.html)
Not as pro-gun control as some other candidates, but he does support the AWB and background checks.

He is for healthcare for pregnant women and children, not universal.
"What we ought to be demanding as Democrats, is what Harry Truman put in the 1948 Democratic Party platform: health insurance that covers everybody"
Speech at the Take Back America Conference, Washington, DC Jun 5, 2003
(www.ourfuture.org/docUploads/dean_062303_131529.pdf)
Of course he is anti-Bush tax cuts. If anything that makes him more right-wing. Anyone who cared about fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets (he balanced the Vermont budget 11 times in 12 years) would be opposed to the Bush tax cuts.
Not necessarily. One could be for the Bush tax cuts and support slashing spending - the "right-wing" point of view.

Of course... (http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm)

Didn't say being anti-war is left wing! However, people will reject it because they don't want to change presidents in a middle of war.
Came pretty damn close this past year. But the power of being a wartime president is undeniable.

In any case, the biggest difference between Dean and most of the other Democrats was that he was the only one vocally against the war at the start, when it was still generally popular, while the other Democrats went with the flow until it was politically safe to speak out against the war.

I'm curious: why do people think Dean is a 'flaming liberal'?

Is it because he was behind the Iraq war when it began?
Pat Buchanan was agasint the war when it started and even wrote a book about it- nobody calls him a 'flaming liberal.' (not like its a bad thing.)

So, why do people think Dean is a 'flaming liberal'?

Oh, in response to Yvonneville
All I'm going to say is "I'm the candidate for poor white americans who go around with confederate flags in the back of their truck windows."
That quote was taken out of context. What Dean meant was that even those types of people should vote for him, since they need health care, etc.

I really see no problem with him, I think he couldve easily taken this election and am just wondering why people dont like him. Was it that little scream? Is that it? Because I seriously want to know.

Nothing is wrong with him... especially if you’re a republican and you want to keep winning. :)

But, more seriously, my problem with him is that he is a panderer. The man was a moderate governor but he ran far kook left to try to win. He did it with what people call the 'straight talk pander'... which means he acts serious like he is going to level with you while telling a specific audience exactly what they want to hear. So seriously, the guy is probably a shrewd politician and may not be the kook he played himself off as. He may do well leading the dems (re: now that he is not running he may go back to the center... which would help the democrats win something). Then again, he may not. He may keep this self-righteous populist thing going that makes the 'progressives' happy but actually helps the republicans win elections....