NationStates Jolt Archive

Dean, in a stupid move, said that the Mid East crisis wouldn't exist if a Dem was president.

How stupid can he get.

Dean, in a stupid move, said that the Mid East crisis wouldn't exist if a Dem was president.

How stupid can he get.
LOL :D I think he is now funnier than Bush! What an uneducated idiot.

Dean, in a stupid move, said that the Mid East crisis wouldn't exist if a Dem was president.

How stupid can he get.

Youre right, the crisis still would exist. However, your kids wouldnt have been sent off to die in the middle of it.

Dean, in a stupid move, said that the Mid East crisis wouldn't exist if a Dem was president.

How stupid can he get.

ROFLMAO!

Dean, in a stupid move, said that the Mid East crisis wouldn't exist if a Dem was president.

How stupid can he get.
Maybe he's right. Let's give it a shot.

who's dean?

Dean, in a stupid move, said that the Mid East crisis wouldn't exist if a Dem was president.

How stupid can he get.
ROFLMFAO!!

Yeah. And global warming would go away, and they would stop plate tectonics to prevent volcanoes. :rolleyes:

Maybe he's right. Let's give it a shot.
Let's not and just say we did! :p

who's dean?

Howard Dean. Former Governor of Vermont and current DNC Chairman. He's a loud mouth who has no grasp of what he is saying and a former presidential candidate.

Youre right, the crisis still would exist. However, your kids wouldnt have been sent off to die in the middle of it.
Uh ... I don't know about anyone else's "kids," but mine weren't.

BTW ... anyone joins the military definately is no longer a "kid." :p

Let's not and just say we did! :p Why not? Dean seems to be a good guy. I'd like to see what he'd do as president.

Dean is so off his rocker that he is often a laugh riot. I was actually quite happy when be became chair of the DNC. Not that I'm a big fan of Democrats or Republicans, but I knew this would make things much more interesting and humorous. So far, I haven't been let down.

Drunk Commies - I like your signature quote.

Why not? Dean seems to be a good guy. I'd like to see what he'd do as president.
LOL blow things up. I don't think he would be much good. There is a reason he didn't get nominated.

LOL blow things up. I don't think he would be much good. There is a reason he didn't get nominated.

Yep. He's a loud mouth who doesn't watch what he says.

LOL blow things up. I don't think he would be much good. There is a reason he didn't get nominated.
He didn't get nominated because he's got balls and democrats are terrified of anyone who seems to have some degree of confidence and ability to take a risk.

Yep. He's a loud mouth who doesn't watch what he says.
I can only think of one thing he's said that I've disagreed with. That happened to be his rather conservative stance on gay marriage. Otherwise he's a balanced-budget, pro-gun, pro labor kind of guy. Just my kind of candidate.

<snip>

Drunk Commies - I like your signature quote.
Thanks. I copied and pasted it all by myself.

This is the ACTUAL quote:

If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.

You know what? He's completely right.

I can only think of one thing he's said that I've disagreed with. That happened to be his rather conservative stance on gay marriage. Otherwise he's a balanced-budget, pro-gun, pro labor kind of guy. Just my kind of candidate.


I like him on his not-so-gay policy.
I dislike him as being pro-gun.

It all depends on who the next Rep. hopeful is, I suppose.

He didn't get nominated because he's got balls and democrats are terrified of anyone who seems to have some degree of confidence and ability to take a risk.

I thought it was more like stabbing him in the back in a very public way. It didn't seem like he even had a chance to be considered for a nomination, the hatchet job was so well done.

Dean, in a stupid move, said that the Mid East crisis wouldn't exist if a Dem was president.

How stupid can he get.Has it honestly taken you this long to realise what a nutcase Howard Dean really is?

This is the ACTUAL quote:



You know what? He's completely right.

If you actually believe he is right then you sir, have just been served a load of BS for it would still happen even if a Dem was in office.

Dean, in a stupid move, said that the Mid East crisis wouldn't exist if a Dem was president.

How stupid can he get.
IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE HIS VIEWS ARE DIFFERENT AND RADICAL! HAHAHAHA!

Has it honestly taken you this long to realise what a nutcase Howard Dean really is?

Nope. I already knew he was a dumbass before but now he is a bigger dumbass than before.

Dean, in a stupid move, said that the Mid East crisis wouldn't exist if a Dem was president.

How stupid can he get.

Well, you could go posting complaints on forums without any back up for your position and nothing but anger and fear as an identity. That would be pretty dumb.

who's dean?

Dean Cain. He used to play Supeman on the 90's tv show, and now he does the occaisional TV movie.

Youre right, the crisis still would exist. However, your kids wouldnt have been sent off to die in the middle of it.

Not quite right. We'd just simply be in there with the U.N. as the nearly sole member of an "international" peacekeeping force, getting pot shots taken at us anyway, although on a smaller scale.

But at least you'd feel better.

IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE HIS VIEWS ARE DIFFERENT AND RADICAL! HAHAHAHA!

Nah, it's funny cos it's oh so wrong. The guy is living in a fantasy world.

Not quite right. We'd just simply be in there with the U.N. as the nearly sole member of an "international" peacekeeping force, getting pot shots taken at us anyway, although on a smaller scale.
Yeah, because there are no countries that have peace-keeping troops there at the moment. :rolleyes:

He didn't get nominated because he's got balls .
HIllary also has testicles, does this mean she wont get nominated?:D

Why not? Dean seems to be a good guy. I'd like to see what he'd do as president.
[ screams in terror and shoots self! ]

Drunk Commies - I like your signature quote.
As do I! :D

Why not? Dean seems to be a good guy. I'd like to see what he'd do as president.I can agree, but I wouldn't want anyone further to the right.

He didn't get nominated because he's got balls and democrats are terrified of anyone who seems to have some degree of confidence and ability to take a risk.
He didn't get nominated ( even by the Democrats! ) because he's a loud-mouthed, demented twit! [ nods ]

HIllary also has testicles, does this mean she wont get nominated?:D
No, Hillary will get nominated because she's the best possible way for Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot. Sabotaging their own chances to win elections seems to be their hobby.

[ screams in terror and shoots self! ]
*Pokes corpse with a stick*

Uh ... I don't know about anyone else's "kids," but mine weren't.

BTW ... anyone joins the military definately is no longer a "kid." :p
Of course we all know that joining the military somehow magically translates them into men (or woman)

*Pokes corpse with a stick*

He's shamming. Wily Carolinans.

He didn't get nominated ( even by the Democrats! ) because he's a loud-mouthed, demented twit! [ nods ]
I'd love to know what he said that was so "demented". All I saw in the media was that he's supposed to be psycho because he yelled alot. So what? Since when is being really psyched the same as being psycho?

*Pokes corpse with a stick*
[ galvanic response ] :D

He's shamming. Wily Carolinans.
[ Opens one eye to see who said that! ]

[ galvanic response ] :D
Zombie!

He didn't get nominated ( even by the Democrats! ) because he's a loud-mouthed, demented twit! [ nods ]

No, he didn't get nominated, because the corporate interests were worried that he was gaining in the primary race, so they set up a slander campaign against him. All the network news was refering to his speech as the "Deam Scream" while pretending that he was just screaming for no reason.

He was shouting to be heard above an auditorium that was treating him like a rock star. He was building a true people's party instead of the corporatocracy that the entire republican party, and the bulk of the democratic party run on.

His campaign was sabotaged by absolute slander by the media, not even by the Swift Boat Liars.

He didn't get nominated because he's got balls and democrats are terrified of anyone who seems to have some degree of confidence and ability to take a risk.
Who cares if you have the balls to say something when all you ever say is the wrong thing?

I'd love to know what he said that was so "demented". All I saw in the media was that he's supposed to be psycho because he yelled alot. So what? Since when is being really psyched the same as being psycho?

That "we're the good guys," that better education helps reduce crime down the road, and that the sky is blue. Total lunatic.

Nah, it's funny cos it's oh so wrong. The guy is living in a fantasy world.
Says someone who I assume voted Republican...

Who cares if you have the balls to say something when all you ever say is the wrong thing?

Apparently, Bush supporters.

Who cares if you have the balls to say something when all you ever say is the wrong thing?
I'd like to know what he said that was so wrong. His policies seemed sound to me.

Drunk Commies - I like your signature quote.
I don't - Kennedy was shit.

Anyway... Corneliu, your representation of Dean's statement was predictably partisan and duplicitous. Why didn't you quote him? Oh, perhaps because you only wanted to smear the poor fella?

Fucking American politics. You all suck.

Says someone who I assume voted Republican...

*giggle*

Apparently, Bush supporters.
How predictable of you.

Says someone who I assume voted Republican...

Do you only come up with political attacks like this or do you really have something constructive to say?

Dean is a dumbass and even other democrats aren't happy with him as DNC Chair. In fact, state dems themselves have taken matters into their own hands in some states because of his loose cannon tactics.

Also, the dems are not doing all that well in fundraising.

How predictable of you.
Tell me - why do you persevere with voting Democrat?

We're the people of God and we're here to say. Livin' for the Lord is the better way. We're the people of God and we're on a quest. Raisin' up the banner of righteousness.
Please tell me this is tongue in cheek...

I don't - Kennedy was shit.

Anyway... Corneliu, your representation of Dean's statement was predictably partisan and duplicitous. Why didn't you quote him? Oh, perhaps because you only wanted to smear the poor fella?

Fucking American politics. You all suck.

1) Swearing actually gets you nowhere.

2) He was quoted somewhere in this thread which boils down to what I said, that this wouldn't be happening with a dem in office.

I don't - Kennedy was shit.

Anyway... Corneliu, your representation of Dean's statement was predictably partisan and duplicitous. Why didn't you quote him? Oh, perhaps because you only wanted to smear the poor fella?

Fucking American politics. You all suck.
Corny is a lying sack when it comes to Democrats, and everyone here knows it. He likes to act as though he's somehow above it all, because he criticizes Bush occasionally, but in the end, he's a dishonest twerp with no grasp on reality, and as is proven by this thread, has no sense of honor or decency. I'm reposting what another poster put in two pages back--Dean's actual statement, which Corneliu didn't dare use because everyone would have seen how full of shit he was.
Originally Posted by Howard Dean
If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.
If you had a conscience or any sense of decency, Corneliu, you would apologize publicly for being such a liar. But you won't.

1) Swearing actually gets you nowhere.

2) He was quoted somewhere in this thread which boils down to what I said, that this wouldn't be happening with a dem in office.
1) Bollocks.

2) Bollocks.

Hurrah! Next.

Corny is a lying sack when it comes to Democrats, and everyone here knows it. He likes to act as though he's somehow above it all, because he criticizes Bush occasionally, but in the end, he's a dishonest twerp with no grasp on reality, and as is proven by this thread, has no sense of honor or decency. I'm reposting what another poster put in two pages back--Dean's actual statement, which Corneliu didn't dare use because everyone would have seen how full of shit he was.

If you had a conscience or any sense of decency, Corneliu, you would apologize publicly for being such a liar. But you won't.


Corny isn't lying - Corny has a credibility gap.

You're overstating the case a bit. Just a bit.

Do you only come up with political attacks like this or do you really have something constructive to say?

Dean is a dumbass and even other democrats aren't happy with him as DNC Chair. In fact, state dems themselves have taken matters into their own hands in some states because of his loose cannon tactics.

Also, the dems are not doing all that well in fundraising.
What has Dean said or done that gets him labeled as a dumbass? Nobody can ever seem to point to anything he's said or done that was so bad except that when he's excited he tends to scream.

If you had a conscience or any sense of decency, Corneliu, you would apologize publicly for being such a liar. But you won't.

however, if we all pile on for a bit, he might disappear from the thread for a day or two, before coming back spouting the same old same old again. which is sort of like a public apology for him. as close as he ever gets, anyway.

"If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians."

This is hilarious. Yes, he's absolutely correct, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would not have been going on if a Democrat were in office. Are you fucking joking me? Yes, it started with George Bush. Hate the war in Iraq and blame Bush for soldiers dying, fine, but this is absolute garbage. Also, Bill Clinton and "moral authority" being used in reference to eachother? Is this candid camera?

What has Dean said or done that gets him labeled as a dumbass? Nobody can ever seem to point to anything he's said or done that was so bad except that when he's excited he tends to scream.

it's conventional wisdom. do not question the conventional wisdom, treasonous dog.

when he's excited he tends to scream.
If only other politicians could show such enthusiasm for governance, more people might vote.

If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Sorry but I think the first sentence speaks for itself. It has been going on for years over various administrations and terrorists have continued to attack even while Clinton was in office.

Seems to me that the one who needs to apologize are those who are calling me a liar.

I'd love to know what he said that was so "demented". All I saw in the media was that he's supposed to be psycho because he yelled alot. So what? Since when is being really psyched the same as being psycho?

Don't you know that he was getting more money in $10 and $20 donations from private citizens than some candidates were getting in $2000 donations from corporate moguls? If he were allowed to become president we'd have an actual democracy. Corporations wouldn't be in control of the government anymore. It would be mob rule. Anarchy I tell you, anarchy!

If only other politicians could show such enthusiasm for governance, more people might vote.
Oh, encouraging participation in the political process. That is crazy.

"If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians."

This is hilarious. Yes, he's absolutely correct, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would not have been going on if a Democrat were in office. Are you fucking joking me? Yes, it started with George Bush. Hate the war in Iraq and blame Bush for soldiers dying, fine, but this is absolute garbage. Also, Bill Clinton and "moral authority" being used in reference to eachother? Is this candid camera?
I'm not sure I fully agree with his statement, but I think the potential for such an outcome would have been greater with a Democrat government. Think of all those extra resources currently being used in the Iraq war.

Dean Cain. He used to play Supeman on the 90's tv show, and now he does the occaisional TV movie.

Nah. Dizzy Dean. He used to be a pitcher for the Cardinals.

however, if we all pile on for a bit, he might disappear from the thread for a day or two, before coming back spouting the same old same old again. which is sort of like a public apology for him. as close as he ever gets, anyway.That's because he's a chickenshit without the courage of his convictions. He has no spine, and everyone who deals with him for any period of time knows it.

Sorry but I think the first sentence speaks for itself. It has been going on for years over various administrations and terrorists have continued to attack even while Clinton was in office.

Seems to me that the one who needs to apologize are those who are calling me a liar.
No Corny.

He said "what's going on in the Middle East today"- meaning the current Lebanon/Israel/Palestine shitstorm that has erupted this week.

You said "the Mid East crisis wouldn't exist if a Dem was president" which implies the whole Middle East crisis- going back decades.

Nah. Dizzy Dean. He used to be a pitcher for the Cardinals.

What about Daffy Dean?

*starts to think of Abbot and Castilo's Who's on First*

Sorry but I think the first sentence speaks for itself. It has been going on for years over various administrations and terrorists have continued to attack even while Clinton was in office.

Seems to me that the one who needs to apologize are those who are calling me a liar.
Let's look at what's going on, Corny--an occupied and extremely unstable Iraq, an Iran going nuclear and helping Hezbollah toss surface to surface missiles at an Israeli warship, and Israel bombing civilian centers in Lebanon. If you think that would be happening with a Democrat in office, then you're either a moron or a liar. You choose which. It doesn't matter to me.

No Corny.

He said "what's going on in the Middle East today"- meaning the current Lebanon/Israel/Palestine shitstorm that has erupted this week.

You said "the Mid East crisis wouldn't exist if a Dem was president" which implies the whole Middle East crisis- going back decades.

HELLO!!!! Lebanon is in the Middle East so yes...mid east crisis is appropriate as IT IS A CRISIS!

Let's look at what's going on, Corny--an occupied and extremely unstable Iraq, an Iran going nuclear and helping Hezbollah toss surface to surface missiles at an Israeli warship, and Israel bombing civilian centers in Lebanon. If you think that would be happening with a Democrat in office, then you're either a moron or a liar. You choose which. It doesn't matter to me.

I'd grant Iraq but as for Iran and the other crap that is going on would still happen even if a dem was in office and to say otherwise is redicoulous.

I'm not sure I fully agree with his statement, but I think the potential for such an outcome would have been greater with a Democrat government. Think of all those extra resources currently being used in the Iraq war.
Yes, I agree with you that a mint is being used on the Iraq War. However, I highly doubt that there wouldn't be a conflict Middle Eastern or otherwise that we would be involved in...even with a Democrat. I also would have a hard time believing that Israelis and Palestinians wouldn't be fighting. Bill Clinton had a knack for foreign relations, that's him, that's not every Democrat.

HELLO!!!! Lebanon is in the Middle East so yes...mid east crisis is appropriate as IT IS A CRISIS!
Sigh. It's like getting blood from a stone.

Sorry but I think the first sentence speaks for itself. It has been going on for years over various administrations and terrorists have continued to attack even while Clinton was in office.

Seems to me that the one who needs to apologize are those who are calling me a liar.

I'm sorry we've allowed people to go on thinking you're a liar instead of an obstinate fool who likes the politics of hatred and intolerance so much that you'll delude yourself into thinking that they're the politics of pragmatism and patriotism. We should always try to keep in mind the political equivalent of Occam's Razor. Never ascribe to malice what is more easily explained by stupidity.

Yes, I agree with you that a mint is being used on the Iraq War. However, I highly doubt that there wouldn't be a conflict Middle Eastern or otherwise that we would be involved in...even with a Democrat. I also would have a hard time believing that Israelis and Palestinians wouldn't be fighting. Bill Clinton had a knack for foreign relations, that's him, that's not every Democrat.
Actually, I agree. My admittedly cynical (and foreign) perspective on US politics on the national level can be summed up by stating that the Republicans are loathsome and the Democrats are pathetic.

Good luck to you, frankly. Shame you have such an influence on the rest of us, though.

Actually, I agree. My admittedly cynical (and foreign) perspective on US politics on the national level can be summed up by stating that the Republicans are loathsome and the Democrats are pathetic.

Good luck to you, frankly. Shame you have such an influence on the rest of us, though.
Just don't drink the kool-aid.

I'd grant Iraq but as for Iran and the other crap that is going on would still happen even if a dem was in office and to say otherwise is redicoulous.You think Iran would be showing its ass if the US wasn't so tied down in Iraq? Please. Iran is showing its ass precisely because they know the US can't stop them. Here's a bit written by former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson (http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/isarael_taks_a_.html#more)
Apparently not content to let the U.S. do a self-immolation act in the Middle East by itself, Israel decided to set itself on fire by invading Lebanon. Burn baby burn? Like George Bush, Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, never served in a combat unit and launched military operations without thinking the matter through. In fact, Olmert reportedly never even served in the military. I raise this because there is one simple question Israel cannot answer about the current operations--what is their strategic military objective. Olmert has somehow persuaded the Israeli military to ignore strategy, think tactically, and in the process become really stupid. The events in the next several weeks will expose as myth the canard that you can secure a nation by killing terrorists. No you can't.

Killing "terrorists" has a place in policy but it is not a strategic military obective. It is a tactical objective and may serve political purposes, but achieves little in terms of securing Israel. Israel is attacking targets in Lebanon like a drunken sailor in a bar fight. Flailing about, causing significant damage, hitting innocent bystanders, and generally making a mess of things. This is not the Israeli military that pulled off the brilliant and daring raid at Entebbe.

What about Hamas and Hezbollah?

They are not terrorists. They carry out terrorist attacks, but they are not terrorists. They are something far more dangerous. They are fully functioning political, social, religious, and military organizations that use terrorism tactics, but they are far more formidible than terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or the Basque Terrorist Organization. They do have the resources and the personnel to project force, sustain operations, and cannot be easily defeated. Unlike the Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1973, Hamas and Hezbollah will not easily fold and cannot be defeated in a seven day war. If that is the assumption among some Israeli military planners it is a crazy fantasy.

While most folks in the United States buy into the Hollywood storyline of poor little Israel fighting for it's survival against big, bad Muslims, the reality unfolding on our TV screens shows something else. Exodus, starring Paul Newman, is ancient history. Hamas and Hezbollah attacked military targets--kidnapping soldiers on military patrols may be an act of war and a provocation, but it is not terrorism. (And yes, Hezbollah and Hamas have carried out terrorist attacks in the past against Israeli civilians. I'm not ignoring those acts, I condemn them, but we need to understand what the dynamics are right now.) Israel is not attacking the individuals who hit their soldiers. Israel is engaged in mass punishment.

How did Israel respond? They bombed civilian targets and civilian infrastructure and have killed many civilians. Let's see if I have this right. The Arab "terrorists" attack military units, destroy at least one tank, and are therefore terrorists. Israel retaliates by launching aerial, naval, and artillery bombardments of civilian areas and they are engaging in self-defense. If we are unable to recognize the hypocrisy of this construct then we ourselves are so enveloped by propaganda and emotion that, like the Israelis, Hezbollah, and Hamas, we can't think rationally. We can only think in terms of tribalism and revenge.

Iran, meanwhile, is sitting in the catbird's seat. They have a well-trained and highly competent surrogate force in Hezbollah. Hezbollah's successful attack on Friday on an Israeli naval vessel is a reminder that Hezbollah is not a bunch of crazy kids carrying RPGs and wearing flip flops. I would be willing to wager that at least one Iranian military advisor was helping Hezbollah launch the missile that hit the Israeli ship. But Iran is doing more than simply engage in tit-for-tat. They are thinking strategically.

The events unfolding in Iraq and Lebanon are going Tehran's way. The United States is being portrayed in the world media as someone who tolerates and excuses attacks on civilian populations. The perception becomes the reality and the ability of the United States to rally support among the Russians, the Chinese, and even the French becomes more impaired. We need the international community to deal effectively with nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran. Now, we will be bogged down trying to defend Israel from an angry international community.
Still think we'd have this shitstorm brewing if Kerry or Gore were President? Well, you probably do, so my earlier statement still stands--you're either a fool or a liar. Take your pick.

What has Dean said or done that gets him labeled as a dumbass? Nobody can ever seem to point to anything he's said or done that was so bad except that when he's excited he tends to scream.
"I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called
You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party.
I'm a metrosexual.(he later admited he didn't even know what that meant)
We've gotten rid of (Saddam Hussein), and I suppose that's a good thing
You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives

You think Iran would be showing its ass if the US wasn't so tied down in Iraq? Please. Iran is showing its ass precisely because they know the US can't stop them. Here's a bit written by former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson (http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/isarael_taks_a_.html#more)

Still think we'd have this shitstorm brewing if Kerry or Gore were President? Well, you probably do, so my earlier statement still stands--you're either a fool or a liar. Take your pick.

Nazzie boy....Iran has been working on this for awhile just like North Korea has been working on this for awhile as well.

The Nuclear situation with Iran would still be occuring wether you want to admit that or not. Israel would still be attacked wether you want to admit it or not. And to respond, Israel would still respond with force whether you want to admit it or not.

Face it, no matter who is president, the crap in the Middle East would still hit the fan. We probably wouldn't be in Iraq, that I have never disputed, but the crap with Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, and Syria would still be going on wether the dems want to admit it or not.

That is the long and the short of it. This would still be occuring (minus Iraq) regardless who was president.

HELLO!!!! Lebanon is in the Middle East so yes...mid east crisis is appropriate as IT IS A CRISIS!
You know damn well that the phrase "Middle East Crisis" is used to describe the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians (sometimes drawing in her neighbours)- a conflict that stretches back decades.

Either you are playing stupid, and are in fact I am beginning to think, a liar or you are simply- stupid.

(he later admited he didn't even know what that meant)
Yeah, that thing about getting rid of Saddam being "a good thing" was kind of dumb, but none of the other statements was any worse than statements made by any other candidates.

You know damn well that the phrase "Middle East Crisis" is used to describe the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians (sometimes drawing in her neighbours)- a conflict that stretches back decades.

Either you are playing stupid, and are in fact I am beginning to think, a liar or you are simply- stupid.

Would Mideast Turmoil work better for you?

We do have a crisis in the Middle East be it Hezbollah or Hamas creating it.

Yeah, that thing about getting rid of Saddam being "a good thing" was kind of dumb, but none of the other statements was any worse than statements made by any other candidates.
No, the word he was refering to was metrosexual. He used the phrase because it was a "hip" phrase, without knowing what it meant. Which is the whole point of this thread... he opens his mouth without thinking.

I'd grant Iraq but as for Iran and the other crap that is going on would still happen even if a dem was in office and to say otherwise is redicoulous.

Well, Repubs have been saying for years that the economic situation "would be" better in republican hands than democratic even though for the last 2 decades it has only improved in Democrats hands.

Iraq has become a recruiting ground for terrorists since Bush went over there to destabalize it. A Dem wouldn't have done that.

Clinton's anti-terrorism policies were working and it's also a fair bet that a Democrat would have continued them, unlike Bush's administration that scrapped counter-terrorism program and replaced it with a counter-prostitution program. A Dem wouldn't have done that.

Bush did nothing about terrorism until 9/11 happened, then he used it as an excuse to invade Iraq. A Dem wouldn't have done that.

We've gotten nothing good out of Iraq and flushed billions of dollars and thousands of lives down the toilet over it. A Dem wouldn't have done that.

No, the word he was refering to was metrosexual. He used the phrase because it was a "hip" phrase, without knowing what it meant. Which is the whole point of this thread... he opens his mouth without thinking.

And we're all sure that Bush knew what Azimuth meant?

And we're all sure that Bush knew what Azimuth meant?
which has nothing to do with this thread....

We're talking about Howard Dean... do try to keep up.

Well, Repubs have been saying for years that the economic situation "would be" better in republican hands than democratic even though for the last 2 decades it has only improved in Democrats hands.

Funny that bush has a lower unemployment rate, higher GDP output than a democrat ever put out.

Clinton's anti-terrorism policies were working and it's also a fair bet that a Democrat would have continued them, unlike Bush's administration that scrapped counter-terrorism program and replaced it with a counter-prostitution program. A Dem wouldn't have done that.

If you want to believe this, then you are one sorry individual who knows nothing about the terrorism that took place under Clinton's watch. Both domestically and internationally.

Bush did nothing about terrorism until 9/11 happened, then he used it as an excuse to invade Iraq. A Dem wouldn't have done that.

Funny like a crutch. Clinton didn't do nothing about terror until it happened as well.

Nazzie boy....Iran has been working on this for awhile just like North Korea has been working on this for awhile as well.

The Nuclear situation with Iran would still be occuring wether you want to admit that or not. Israel would still be attacked wether you want to admit it or not. And to respond, Israel would still respond with force whether you want to admit it or not.

Face it, no matter who is president, the crap in the Middle East would still hit the fan. We probably wouldn't be in Iraq, that I have never disputed, but the crap with Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, and Syria would still be going on wether the dems want to admit it or not.

That is the long and the short of it. This would still be occuring (minus Iraq) regardless who was president.
Way to not address a thing I said, while simultaneously addressing something I never claimed. Sure, Iran would still be trying to go nuclear, but they wouldn't be as brazen about it, and they wouldn't be teaming up with Hezbollah in such an open fashion. Plus, you wouldn't have Hezbollah being so brash, and frankly, you probably wouldn't have Israel acting so stupidly either. You can't separate what's happening today from what's been done in Iraq for the last 5 years. Without that heat, the current situation probably doesn't boil over.

You think Iran would be showing its ass if the US wasn't so tied down in Iraq? Please. Iran is showing its ass precisely because they know the US can't stop them. Here's a bit written by former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson (http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/isarael_taks_a_.html#more)

Still think we'd have this shitstorm brewing if Kerry or Gore were President? Well, you probably do, so my earlier statement still stands--you're either a fool or a liar. Take your pick.

I think that a lot of us guys tend to overlook the importance that women place on shoes. I've learned, after several years of arguing, that in person you can tell if a conservative is a liar or an idiot by looking at his shoes.

If he wears sandals, cowboy boots, or loafers he's probably an idiot.

If he wears any type of shoe that requires the intelligence to tie a pair of laces, he's a liar.

No, the word he was refering to was metrosexual. He used the phrase because it was a "hip" phrase, without knowing what it meant. Which is the whole point of this thread... he opens his mouth without thinking.
Well he must have been thinking when he was running Vermont with it's full healthcare coverage for every child and pregnant woman and a balanced budget.

Dean was subsequently elected to five two-year terms, serving as governor from 1991 to 2003 making him the second longest-serving Governor in Vermont history, after Thomas Chittenden (1778-1789 and 1790-1797). Dean served as chairman of the National Governors Association from 1994 to 1995; during his term, Vermont paid off much of its public debt and had a balanced budget 11 times, lowering income taxes twice. Dean also oversaw the expansion of the "Dr. Dynasaur" program, which ensures universal health care for children and pregnant women in the state.

Yeah, but it's much more important that he didn't know what a metrosexual is. He's a fucking dope. :rolleyes:

Funny like a crutch. Clinton didn't do nothing about terror until it happened as well.Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that mean you're not supposed to lie? Way to spread the gospel there, Corny.
:rolleyes:

I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called
Amusing.

You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party.
True.

I'm a metrosexual.
Silly.

We've gotten rid of (Saddam Hussein), and I suppose that's a good thing
Clumsy phrasing.

You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or wherever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives
True.

Fairly standar politician: good points submerged a bit by being partisan. Accusations levelled at the GOP apply almost equally to his own party.

Way to not address a thing I said, while simultaneously addressing something I never claimed. Sure, Iran would still be trying to go nuclear, but they wouldn't be as brazen about it, and they wouldn't be teaming up with Hezbollah in such an open fashion.[quote]

You do not know that. No one honestly knows that and to say that you do know that (and that includes the CIA) is lying that they wouldn't be doing so.

[quote]Plus, you wouldn't have Hezbollah being so brash,

Again, not factual. Come one Nazz. I respect you but really, stop being such a moron on this topic.

and frankly, you probably wouldn't have Israel acting so stupidly either.

Stupid as in taking the fight to their enemy Hezbollah and Hamas? Yea how stupid of them for doing their best to defend their citizens from terrorists.

You can't separate what's happening today from what's been done in Iraq for the last 5 years. Without that heat, the current situation probably doesn't boil over.

Sorry but this is about Dean and nothing else but dean.

Nazzie boy....Iran has been working on this for awhile just like North Korea has been working on this for awhile as well.

The Nuclear situation with Iran would still be occuring wether you want to admit that or not. Israel would still be attacked wether you want to admit it or not. And to respond, Israel would still respond with force whether you want to admit it or not.

Face it, no matter who is president, the crap in the Middle East would still hit the fan. We probably wouldn't be in Iraq, that I have never disputed, but the crap with Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, and Syria would still be going on wether the dems want to admit it or not.

That is the long and the short of it. This would still be occuring (minus Iraq) regardless who was president.

Funny... Here I thought the Clinton administration had got them both to shut down their nuclear programs! It was the terrible policy of pissing off dangerous and unstable nations that caused them to restart. Amazing that facts suddenly change when you need them to, eh Corny?

If our hands weren't tied by Iraq, our leaders not hated by the world, and our attempts at diplomacy, y'know, actually genuine, this could have stopped already. Because we've got a stupid hawk who's forgotten the "Speak quietly" part of "Speak quietly and carry a big stick", we've alienated the world, overcommited our army, and let real problems grow, while building a terrorist haven elsewhere.

Dean was dead right.

Sorry but this is about Dean and nothing else but dean.
Sorry, but you don't get to dictate the terms of the conversation once it has gone far afield. You started it by misrepresenting what Dean said, and when we call bullshit on you, you start crying about it like a bitch. Man up, Corny, and take your beating.

"I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called"

he actually said this? wtf?

Funny... Here I thought the Clinton administration had got them both to shut down their nuclear programs! It was the terrible policy of pissing off dangerous and unstable nations that caused them to restart. Amazing that facts suddenly change when you need them to, eh Corny?

If our hands weren't tied by Iraq, our leaders not hated by the world, and our attempts at diplomacy, y'know, actually genuine, this could have stopped already. Because we've got a stupid hawk who's forgotten the "Speak quietly" part of "Speak quietly and carry a big stick", we've alienated the world, overcommited our army, and let real problems grow, while building a terrorist haven elsewhere.

Dean was dead right.
And that drives people like Corny out of their damn minds.

Aren't you a Christian? Doesn't that mean you're not supposed to lie? Way to spread the gospel there, Corny.
:rolleyes:

Oh I'm not lying my dear friend.

All the crap in the Middle East would still be occuring be it a Dem in office or a different republican in office.

Dean has opened his mouth without backing it up as he usually does as he forgot that Hamas and Al Aqsa Martyers Brigade have been doing their thing during the Clinton years and that Israel responded with force. Clinton didn't get his vaunted 2 state solution either as Arafat turned it down and war erupted after he turned it down. Shall we continue? Did Israel pull out of Gaza? Not until recently but thanks to terrorists had to go back in there.

We can continue all we like but to deny that this would not be happening under a Dem is just plain dumb. It would still be happening regardless who was in office.

"I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called"

he actually said this? wtf?
Politicians say stupid things in public.

Reagan ordered a tactical nuclear strike of the USSR at a UN meeting (I think) as a joke, not realising the mic was on.

Clinton "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman".

"In fact I DID have sexual realtions with that woman."

Bush... well, take your pick.

Funny that bush has a lower unemployment rate, higher GDP output than a democrat ever put out.
Yeah, but he's completely demolished the budget surpluss that we accumulated in the clinton years and has accumulated record deficits. He's borrowing money and spending it like a drunken sailor. It's easy to look like you're rich if you spend borrowed money, but when the bills come due you're screwed.


If you want to believe this, then you are one sorry individual who knows nothing about the terrorism that took place under Clinton's watch. Both domestically and internationally. Under Clinton we were bombing Afghanistan's Al Qaeda training camps. Under Bush we didn't care about Al Qaeda until 9/11. Then he takes his failure to continue Clinton's anti-Al Qaeda policies and twists them into "we're tough on terrorists and Dems are pussies."



Funny like a crutch. Clinton didn't do nothing about terror until it happened as well.
See the response to your previous false claim.

All the crap in the Middle East would still be occuring be it a Dem in office or a different republican in office.

Maybe not the current escalation. You don't know that- you are assuming.

Funny... Here I thought the Clinton administration had got them both to shut down their nuclear programs! It was the terrible policy of pissing off dangerous and unstable nations that caused them to restart. Amazing that facts suddenly change when you need them to, eh Corny?

If you actually believe that he did then you are just deluding yourself for they were still at it.

Dean was dead right.

*dies of laughter*

Maybe not the current escalation. You don't know that- you are assuming.

Just like what dean said was an assumption though the History of the Middle East would probably prove me right anyway.

Oh I'm not lying my dear friend.

All the crap in the Middle East would still be occuring be it a Dem in office or a different republican in office.

Dean has opened his mouth without backing it up as he usually does as he forgot that Hamas and Al Aqsa Martyers Brigade have been doing their thing during the Clinton years and that Israel responded with force. Clinton didn't get his vaunted 2 state solution either as Arafat turned it down and war erupted after he turned it down. Shall we continue? Did Israel pull out of Gaza? Not until recently but thanks to terrorists had to go back in there.

We can continue all we like but to deny that this would not be happening under a Dem is just plain dumb. It would still be happening regardless who was in office.
You said, and I quote, "Clinton didn't do nothing about terror until it happened as well." That is a lie, plain and simple. It is a knowing misstatement of fact with the intent to deceive.

If you actually believe that he did then you are just deluding yourself for they were still at it.

So the fact that we put cameras in the NK nuclear facilities as a way of being sure is forgotten so soon? The fact that Iran's nuclear facilities were sealed and the seals had to be removed is also just my delusion. I knew I had an active imagination, but damn!


*dies of laughter*

Heh. Refute it or lose the attitude, man.

Politicians say stupid things in public.

Reagan ordered a tactical nuclear strike of the USSR at a UN meeting (I think) as a joke, not realising the mic was on.
That's hilarious in a bad way.

The Clinton thing I thought was funny is when he was asking the definitions of every little word.

You said, and I quote, "Clinton didn't do nothing about terror until it happened as well." That is a lie, plain and simple. It is a knowing misstatement of fact with the intent to deceive.
Well, technically:

"Clinton didn't do nothing"

So he must have done something, no?

Just like what dean said was an assumption
No shit!

though the History of the Middle East would probably prove me right anyway.
They said that about Northern Ireland before Clinton got his hands dirty.

No shit!


They said that about Northern Ireland before Clinton got his hands dirty.

And attacks were still happening until recently.

And attacks were still happening until recently.
No. It's much, much better now. I'm no fan of Clinton, but he had a positive impact on the Troubles and I'm grateful for that.

That's hilarious in a bad way.

The Clinton thing I thought was funny is when he was asking the definitions of every little word.

Actually, researching it: this is what happened.

On August 11, 1984, United States President Ronald Reagan, while running for re-election was preparing to make a radio address. As a sound check prior to the address, Reagan made the following joke to the radio technicians:

My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
The comment, never meant for broadcast, was later released to the general populace.

Not something you'd really want to joke about.....

And attacks were still happening until recently.
Not to the same scale not at all. Clinton's involvment in a 'hopeless' cause was invaluable. It has paved the way for much better relations today.

Actually, researching it: this is what happened.



Not something you'd really want to joke about.....That sounds nothing close to a real statement though.

Actually, researching it: this is what happened.



Not something you'd really want to joke about.....
Feh. It's a rare high point for Reagan.

That sounds nothing close to a real statement though.
Maybe, maybe not. But I'm sure when the Soviets heard it it just made them feel all loved up.

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm sure when the Soviets heard it it just made them feel all loved up.
Fuck it. They were our enemies.

The Middle East has been a tinderbox of unrest for decades, if not centuries; it has been unstable regardless of whether the president was a Democrat or a Republican. Ironically, the last major Israeli incursions in to Lebanaon and the last intafadah occured while President Clinton was in office, and the last major US involvement in the region occured during the terms of the two Republican presidents Bush Sr. and Reagan.

Dean's statement is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. That doesn't reflect well on the Democratic leadership's ability to deal with complex diplomatic issues; it would have been a lot smarter to say that "the current policy isn't working and this is the Democratic Party's plan for the region"

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm sure when the Soviets heard it it just made them feel all loved up.
They never really did have a sense of humor.

Fuck it. They were our enemies.
True, I'm just giving an example of a politician other than Dean to have said something really stupid...

That and I'm pedantic. I like to get the quote right. :D

All of this has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Howard Dean opens his mouth, and without any real thought, says some pretty stupid things.

Every public figure has been caught saying pretty stupid things.

'nuff said.

Dean's statement is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. That doesn't reflect well on the Democratic leadership's ability to deal with complex diplomatic issues; it would have been a lot smarter to say that "the current policy isn't working and this is the Democratic Party's plan for the region"

That would've been smarter to say.

They never really did have a sense of humor.

They were shot if they had a sense of humor :D

The Democrats have some plans, but they're strangely silent about them and I think that will hurt them. The Republican noise machine is crippled right now, and they need to use their ideas rather than try and compete in terms of rhetoric. They've got a budget-balacing plan and a decent foreign affairs policy, so they could hit the Republicans pretty hard as long as they avoid trying to out-mudsling the GOP.

EDIT: I read the full quote.

Dean's statement is one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. That doesn't reflect well on the Democratic leadership's ability to deal with complex diplomatic issues; it would have been a lot smarter to say that "the current policy isn't working and this is the Democratic Party's plan for the region"Look at the quote again--that, in essence, is what he said. Since Corny still hasn't seen fit to either link or quote directly what Dean said, I'll give the quote again. If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.And that is exactly right.

Look at the quote again--that, in essence, is what he said. Since Corny still hasn't seen fit to either link or quote directly what Dean said, I'll give the quote again. And that is exactly right.

That actually is pretty accurate; Clinton succeeded in bringing an end to both of those crises, so now that I've got the whole quote it appears Dean was actually correct in his appraisal of the situation. That's actually pretty reassuring going in to the 2006 elections; I was worried that Dean said something really dumb and it would hurt the Dems in national security/foreign affairs.

Absolutely. The Democrats aren't going to make major gains if the party chairman keeps saying things that sound willfully ignorant of the reality in the region. It also doesn't reflect well on their ability to deal with other geopolitical issues outside the Middle East and that just compromises their ability to compete with the Republicans on national security even further.

The Democrats have some plans, but they're not talking about them and I think that will hurt them. The Republican noise machine is crippled right now, and they need to use their ideas rather than try and compete in terms of rhetoric.

Well said indeed. Yes they do and they have yet to do so which doesn't come as a surprise to me. The Dems have got to be doing better than what they are doing now.

That actually is pretty accurate; Clinton succeeded in bringing an end to both of those crises, so now that I've got the whole quote it appears Dean was actually correct in his appraisal of the situation. That's actually pretty reassuring going in to the 2006 elections; I was worried that Dean said something really dumb and it would hurt the Dems in national security/foreign affairs.
See what happens when you trust Corneliu's version of events? ;) Here's a link (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060716-9999-1m16dean.html) to the rest of the article that quotes him.

Well said indeed. Yes they do and they have yet to do so which doesn't come as a surprise to me. The Dems have got to be doing better than what they are doing now.

They've gotten a little more vocal, but I think they're still afraid of the Republicans' mudslinging capabilities. Simply put, the Republicans are vulnerable right now regardless of their approval ratings because there are a lot more GOP seats up for reelection compared to the number of Democrats that have to seek reelection. The Republicans' funding and resources are being spent to keep their representatives in office rather than challenging for new ones.

See what happens when you trust Corneliu's version of events? ;) Here's a link (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060716-9999-1m16dean.html) to the rest of the article that quotes him.

I love the first line about being weak on National Defense which is far from the truth.

I also love where he said it at.

I love the first line about being weak on National Defense which is far from the truth.

I also love where he said it at.Just in case you missed it (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11383467&postcount=127).

And yes, the republicans are weak on national defense, as their track record shows. In the last six years, they've failed to prevent an attack on US soil, failed to capture the people responsible for that attack, invaded two countries and seen them both slide into further chaos, and are powerless to stem the current explosion between Israel and Lebanon/Syria/Iran. I'd say that adds up to "weak on national defense."

And I haven't even gotten into the shabby way they've treated veterans and reservists.

P.S. Gotta run, as it's my girlfriend's birthday and she's just about done with her massage and facial, and since I'm traveling, I don't know when I'll have a chance to hand you your ass again. But don't fret--it'll happen.

Corny has a great sense of humour.

He actually called Iraq a democracy. ;)

Just in case you missed it (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11383467&postcount=127).

And yes, the republicans are weak on national defense, as their track record shows.

Continue to believe that if ya wish but the record is a tad different than what Dean said.

In the last six years, they've failed to prevent an attack on US soil,

the last attack on american soil was in 2001. Please try again.

failed to capture the people responsible for that attack,

He's hiding in the mountains. You know how rugged some of those mountains are. Not to mention numerous caves he could be hiding in as well.

invaded two countries and seen them both slide into further chaos, and are powerless to stem the current explosion between Israel and Lebanon/Syria/Iran. I'd say that adds up to "weak on national defense."

Powerless my ass. Just continue to distort everything. Its what you are good at.

And I haven't even gotten into the shabby way they've treated veterans and reservists.

The same can be said for democrats but I guess you would know that.

Just continue to distort everything. Its what you are good at.

Oh god, the IRONY!

Oh god, the IRONY!
Lol I was thinking the same thing lol

I don't think I like anyone in this thread anymore. :(

I don't think I like anyone in this thread anymore. :(

Yeah. Watching Corneliu repeatedly get mangled is somewhat upsetting. It's like watching grown men kick a puppy. I almost feel sorry for Corneliu, but he brings it on himself. The others, however, should be ashamed of themselves for picking on such a weak target.

I don't think I like anyone in this thread anymore. :(

Welcome to NS General where friends can quickly turn to enemies, enemies turn to friends, and go back to normal, all within a span of a couple of posts.

Yeah. Watching Corneliu repeatedly get mangled is somewhat upsetting. It's like watching grown men kick a puppy. I almost feel sorry for Corneliu, but he brings it on himself. The others, however, should be ashamed of themselves for picking on such a weak target.

:rolleyes:

Happens when you are outnumbered and no one wants to listen to the opposing side of issues which you find quite numerous on this forum.

:rolleyes:

Happens when you are outnumbered and no one wants to listen to the opposing side of issues which you find quite numerous on this forum.

I can symapathize. I, too, have been passed around like a cheap girl at a drunken frat party on this forum before, too.

Head lumps build character.

I disagree with people from both sides. While people may state their cases well, they don't necessarily back things up. No, I'm not referring to any specific person because I hate you all,kthx. :( Nah, I don't hate anyone, I'm nice. :)

The Democrats have some plans, but they're strangely silent about them and I think that will hurt them. The Republican noise machine is crippled right now, and they need to use their ideas rather than try and compete in terms of rhetoric. They've got a budget-balacing plan and a decent foreign affairs policy, so they could hit the Republicans pretty hard as long as they avoid trying to out-mudsling the GOP.

EDIT: I read the full quote.

AFAICT, their only plan is "Bush sux". That failed in 2004 when they were actually running against Bush. It will fail in 2006, when they fail to bring up any ideas of their own. And it will certainly fail in 2008, when Bush won't even be running!

AFAICT, their only plan is "Bush sux". That failed in 2004 when they were actually running against Bush. It will fail in 2006, when they fail to bring up any ideas of their own. And it will certainly fail in 2008, when Bush won't even be running!

The Right-Wing noise machine keeps saying that, but it just isn't true. What happened to Medical Provision for everyone? Returning Taxes to a Clinton-era level? Shutting down facilities like Gitmo? Having a withdrawal plan from Iraq? Aiming to rebuild our international relations?

You've been reading too much Jonah Goldberg. :rolleyes:

The Right-Wing noise machine keeps saying that, but it just isn't true. What happened to Medical Provision for everyone? Returning Taxes to a Clinton-era level? Shutting down facilities like Gitmo? Having a withdrawal plan from Iraq? Aiming to rebuild our international relations?

You've been reading too much Jonah Goldberg. :rolleyes:

Funny that taxes are lower thanks to Bush and not to Clinton.

What happened to Medical Provision for everyone?

Everyone in the US knows what a great job the government has done with Medicare, and are frightened of the government running all health care.


Returning Taxes to a Clinton-era level?
i.e., raising taxes
Shutting down facilities like Gitmo?
Now that it's going to run by Geneva Conventions, no need to close it.
Having a withdrawal plan from Iraq? Aiming to rebuild our international relations?


When you and your family have moved to Tehran, and have surrendered to the government there, and have become full fledged die-hard Islamic converts, let me know how well that works for you.

Funny that taxes are lower thanks to Bush and not to Clinton.
Lol so is income and income growth lol

Everyone in the US knows what a great job the government has done with Medicare, and are frightened of the government running all health care.

i.e., raising taxes

Now that it's going to run by Geneva Conventions, no need to close it.

When you and your family have moved to Tehran, and have surrendered to the government there, and have become full fledged die-hard Islamic converts, let me know how well that works for you.

I'm just saying that there are ideas being presented by the Dems and that it's bullshit to say that there aren't. I don't care if you agree or disagree with them, because a hardcore conservative isn't worth my time to debate with, but the ideas are still there.

Funny that taxes are lower thanks to Bush and not to Clinton.
Yeah.... whats your national debt these days?

Cutting taxes might not be the best thing for the foreseeable future methinks.

Funny that taxes are lower thanks to Bush and not to Clinton.

No, really? :eek:

Well, technically, only for the rich. Middle and lower-income families wouldn't be affected.

Yeah.... whats your national debt these days?

Cutting taxes might not be the best thing for the foreseeable future methinks.
So basically you can have the citizens hate you or...you can have the citizens hate you.

No, really? :eek:

Well, technically, only for the rich. Middle and lower-income families wouldn't be affected.

Wrongo. Thanks to the across the board tax cuts (and that is what they were despite what the dems try to portray), if those tax cuts are not renewed or made permanent, they will expire and thus taxes will go *gasp* UP for every single person. I do not know about you but that is, in essence, a TAX HIKE!

I'm just saying that there are ideas being presented by the Dems and that it's bullshit to say that there aren't. I don't care if you agree or disagree with them, because a hardcore conservative isn't worth my time to debate with, but the ideas are still there.

I guess what you would have to convince people of is the idea that we are not in any kind of war at all, and that we can get out of the GWOT without surrendering to anyone, or encouraging anyone (as Bin Laden explicitly writes he was encouraged by the retreat from Somalia and Vietnam).

Do that, and you'll win. Fail to do that, and people will stick with the person who rides roughshod over the Constitution and kicks ass (even if the ass is some schmuck terrorist leader who doesn't know how to use a machinegun).

Yeah.... whats your national debt these days?

Cutting taxes might not be the best thing for the foreseeable future methinks.

One of my problems is, the Dems think they can spend money to infinity and just raise taxes to cover it. The Repubs aren't much better, but at least they're delaying the problem by borrowing instead of taxing. What we really need is someone who actually realizes that there's a limit to how much we can spend, but neither party agrees with that.

I guess what you would have to convince people of is the idea that we are not in any kind of war at all, and that we can get out of the GWOT without surrendering to anyone, or encouraging anyone (as Bin Laden explicitly writes he was encouraged by the retreat from Somalia and Vietnam).

Do that, and you'll win. Fail to do that, and people will stick with the person who rides roughshod over the Constitution and kicks ass (even if the ass is some schmuck terrorist leader who doesn't know how to use a machinegun).

I'm going to be totally blunt. We have lost in Iraq. There is no victory remaining to be had, except the one of a quick retreat and an attempt to win by effective means. We have turned Iraq into a terrorist haven, and Afghanistan is fast on it's way. The way we win is simple: We withdraw, and begin creating a force that is designed to fight against terrorism, and stop trying to use a force that is not designed to fight against terrorism.

If we really want to win a "War against Terror" then the last way to win is by turning our nation into what the terrorists want it to be. By destroying our constitution, we are actively losing the war or teror.

But like I said, saying that the 'Dems are only about hating Bush is blatant idiocy.

So basically you can have the citizens hate you or...you can have the citizens hate you.
Welcome to politics.

Enjoy your stay.

So basically you can have the citizens hate you or...you can have the citizens hate you.

No. You can have the upper 1% hate you, or you can have the rest of the economy hate you. There's a difference.

I'm going to be totally blunt. We have lost in Iraq.

Oh bullcrap. I guess you don't know that an entire province has been handed over to the Iraqis. A whole provence to govern and to defend. They have vowed to defend it against Insurgents and those who want to destroy the democracy in Iraq.

Its a tragedy both for the US and the world that Dean wasnt elected in 04.

Its a tragedy both for the US and the world that Dean wasnt elected in 04.

No, we would just have a completely different set of problems.

Oh bullcrap. I guess you don't know that an entire province has been handed over to the Iraqis. A whole provence to govern and to defend. They have vowed to defend it against Insurgents and those who want to destroy the democracy in Iraq.


And baghdad is having a civil war, and the US forces have bowed out and are sitting in their forts. Who cares about the entire podunk province?

Reality check, corny.

"British Major General John Cooper signed the document turning over responsibility for Muthanna Province, a relatively peaceful, sparsely populated Shi'ite province that had been under British and Australian control."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5199524-103681,00.html

There was a great article in the new yorker about the above, where a reporter spent time in one of the huge bases they have up already. I'll post it when I can find it.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/07/14/security_duty_for_province_handed_over_to_iraqi_forces/

Oh bullcrap. I guess you don't know that an entire province has been handed over to the Iraqis. A whole provence to govern and to defend. They have vowed to defend it against Insurgents and those who want to destroy the democracy in Iraq.

A whole province? You don't say. And they used lots of pretty words to convince people that words meant that the issue was closed! Wow! The fact that the Iraqi defense minister doesn't even trust the Iraqi defense force (I.E. he asked that people not trust members of the force unless they were with US soldiers) doesn't mean a thing! We've won the war of words! Good Job!

So... The fact that the death rate is still rising in Iraq is purely because of the evil liberal fact-mongers?

BTW ... anyone joins the military definately is no longer a "kid." :p
One of the sadder things about war.

Its a tragedy both for the US and the world that Dean wasnt elected in 04.

It's enough to make a guy scream! :D

Oh bullcrap. I guess you don't know that an entire province has been handed over to the Iraqis. A whole provence to govern and to defend. They have vowed to defend it against Insurgents and those who want to destroy the democracy in Iraq.
You mean the US preferred Kurds who are completely different from both Shi'ites and Sunnis.

You mean the US preferred Kurds who are completely different from both Shi'ites and Sunnis.


Again, it wasn't the Kurds, it was The Most Peaceful Podunk Province in All of Ay-rak. Also, it was administered by the British and the Australians, not the Americans.

They probably could have "handed it over" three days after they invaded.

Saddam Hussein probably "handed it over" because it wasn't worth the hassle.