Listen to what they say

Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, yesterday said that Kathrine Harris was like Stalin for daring to certify the vote count in Florida in 2000. He also called the Iraqi Prime Minister an anti-semite.

You have to admit that they picked the perfect person to represent and lead the Democratic Party. Just bringing people together left and right.

...it is ethically improper to be the chairman of a campaign and count the votes at the same time. This is not Russia and she is not Stalin.  ~news.yahoo

mean howard deanPeople often ask me, "What do liberals stand for? I mean, what do they really believe in?" And as the politically astute individual that I am I usually tell them that if you want to know what liberals stand for, what they truly believe in, the first thing you need to do is listen to what they say.

So what do they say?

Well, it just so happens that as the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean actually represents Democrats! What he says and also what he has said represents them because they chose him precisely to represent them and be their Chairman.

So here are a few brilliant nuggets of magniloquence from Howard Dean to help you understand what liberals believe:

National Defence, War, and the military:

On war and the military Dean has said some illuminating things. The positions of many democrats have been, shall we say, somewhat indecisive. "I voted for it before I voted against it..." Not so with Mr. Dean. He's a man who lays it on the line, tells it like it is, and says exactly what he believes.

So what is his position on the strength of the U.S. military?

"We won't always have the strongest military."
See? Simple and direct. That's what I like about the man.

Unlike many Democrats, on the Iraq war Dean has been thoroughly consistent. Even though other democrats made political calculations when they were forced to vote for or against the war, Howard Dean still opposed it even though he didn't have to go on record. Even after our troops removed Saddam Hussein, Dean still stuck to his guns.
"The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong."

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

"...The capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

"Every day it becomes clearer that this was the wrong war at the wrong time."
But is Iraq better off without the murderous (and possibly psychotic) dictator?
"We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance." -- Howard Dean's reply when he was asked if he Iraq was better off without Saddam, April 23, 2003
But he did know for sure that the U.S. would have been better off without Bush. That's quite a comparison. Brutal dictator Saddam Hussein -or- gentle and compassionate conservative George W. Bush?

When it comes to Iraq, Democrats disagree with the President. I can accept that. We can agree to disagree. Howard Dean doesn't believe that Iraq was an imminent danger to us and we should never have removed the brutal dictator Saddam from power. But what about 911? Bin Laden attacked us on 911 did he not?
"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found. I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."
On Religion and forcing your values on others:

Dean is pretty touchy on the whole metrosexual 'morality' thing, but he does have very strong feelings, even deeply held convictions one might say, about religion beliefs.
The governor considers himself to be "a pretty devout Christian."

"...I'm a committed Christian. I worship in my own way. That's my business. That's not the business of the pharisees who are going to preach to me about what I do and then do something else."
Religion in America is a private matter but voters generally want to know what philosophies, traditions, and deeply held convictions will inform a Presidential aspirant's decisions while in office.
"After hearing Dr Dean's observation, beginning with 'If you know much about the Bible - which I do', a reporter asked about his favourite New Testament book. Dr Dean named Job, adding, 'But I don't like the way it ends... in some of the books of the New Testament; the ending of the Book of Job is different... There's one book where there's a more optimistic ending, which we believe was tacked on later'. The candidate returned an hour later to confess error: Job was in the Old Testament, not the New. Beyond that slip, his recollection of 'one book where there's a more optimistic ending' is muddled; the Book of Job in the Old Testament has an upbeat ending, with God doubling Job's former wealth and giving him new children for having sustained his piety through all his trials." -- William Safire describes Howard Dean's difficulties with Job.

"...Dean himself moved from Episcopalian to Congregationalist "because I had a big fight with a local Episcopal church about 25 years ago over the bike path." He does not hesitate to reveal this information or to declare that he seldom goes to church." -- Robert Novak

...Asked if he would end a speech accepting the Democratic nomination for President with "God bless America," Dean sidestepped the question saying "I don't know, since not a single vote has been cast, I think it's a little presumptuous for me to be thinking about my speech just yet."
Dean has also been forthright about confronting 'right-wing hypocrisy'. Especially as it pertains to the  hypocrisy of religious conservatives trying to force their theocratic value system on others and use their so-called morality as a political weapon.

Who are they to use 'guns, gods, and gays' as a political wedge issue?
"The truth is the President of the United States used the same device that Slobodan Milosevic used in Serbia. When you appeal to homophobia, when you appeal to sexism, when you appeal to racism, that is extraordinarily damaging to the country."

"...The issue is not abortion. The issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do."

"...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 will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy. Democrats have strong moral values. Frankly, my moral values are offended by some of the things I hear on programs like "Rush Limbaugh," and we don't have to put up with that."

"...This country was the moral leader of the world until George Bush became president."

"...This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."

"...Republicans always divide people."

"...We are Democrats because we have moral values," Dean said.

"...From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."

"...We have got to stop having our elections in the South based on race, guns, God and gays and start having them on jobs and health insurance and a foreign policy that's consistent with American values."

"...My view of Christianity is that the hallmark of being a Christian is to reach out to people who have been left behind. So I think there was a religious aspect to my decision to support civil unions."

"...We're going to tell all those white boys who run the Republican Party to stay out of our bedrooms."

"...I'm trying to gently call out the white population."

"...I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

"...Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party."

"...Dealing with race is about educating white folks..."

"...I've always been endorsed by the National Rifle Association."
Maybe Dean has a point here. It's sad that so many who call themselves 'devoutly religious' have to force their values on others and call those who don't believe like they do hypocrits. It's hypocritical is what it is. It's divisive, and maybe hurtful, but certainly hypocritical.

On (Right-wing?) name calling, personal attacks, and hatred

And finally Dean gives us some examples of how he thinks the right-wing will descend into mudslinging and name calling in order to win elections. The use of smear tactics and completely unsupported allegations in an effort to impugn and attack opponents is pretty well documented, I thought, in the following quotes:
"...This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father."

"...John Ashcroft is not a patriot, John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy."

"...I think a library trustee is pretty important," Dean said, during "an administration that likes book burning more than reading books."

"...Well Republicans, I guess can do that. Because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."

"...You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

"...I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called." --urging President Bush to make public Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's White House records

"...I don’t know. There are many theories about (9/11). The most interesting theory that I’ve heard so far—which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved—is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is, by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kind of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and eventually, they get repeated as fact. So I think the president is taking a great risk by suppressing the key information that needs to go to the Kean Commission."

"...I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."

[sources: brainyquote, Stupid Howard Dean Quotes, Men's News Daily, sptimes.com, cbsnews.com, woai, sfgate.com, boston.com, washingtontimes.com ]

Posted by Eric Simonson at July 29, 2006 7:05 PM
Comments
Comment #171873

My Name Is Roger:

If this is the direction that the Democraty Party is going… and Howard Dean becomes the President of the United States Of America, I beleive that it will be the beganing of the end of the United States Of Americe.

If this is the direction that the Democrated Party is going… and Dean is the person that will represent the Democraty Party… because this is the dircection the Democrated Party is going… then we as Republicans need to fall on our face before ALMIGHT GOD and plead that we never again seen another Democrat become President! ! !

ROGER

Posted by: ROGER at July 29, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #171882

_____Listen to what they say_____

More importantly, look at what they do, as they ignore what they are supposed to do, as our problems continue to grow in number and severity.

Of course most (if not all) incumbent politicians all full of crap. Just look at their handi-work.

But, we the voters made them that way.
We keep re-electing them no matter how ridiculous they are.
We program them to be corrupt.
It’s like raising children.
If you want them to be rotten, then keep rewarding them for bad behavior.
That’s why no one can name 10, 20, 50, 100, or even 268 (half of 535) in congress that are responsible and accountable.
There might (a big maybe) be a few.
But even those look the other way.

Sorry, but the constant partisan warfare is part of the problem. Politicians and their hacks love to fuel it. It’s a wonderfully effective distraction. But it is the lazy way. Laziness is normal, but it is immoral to surrender to it completely, constantly twisting and spinning the facts to demonize the other party, and try to find ways, no matter how flimsy, to rationalize the unacceptable deeds of one’s own party.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #171884

“People often ask me, “What do liberals stand for? I mean, what do they really believe in?”

Yeah, like we’re supposed to believe this. Why in the world would anyone ever ask YOU this question? And why would they think YOU of all people would actually know anything about liberals? Especially since you hate us all so much?

“And as the politically astute individual that I am I usually tell them that if you want to know what liberals stand for, what they truly believe in, the first thing you need to do is listen to what they say.”

And what do we learn from the GOP if we listen to what they have to say?
Let’s see now, shall we start with what Bush has to say? He speaks exactly like a third grader — and a confused one at that.
How about Cheney, he doesn’t say much since he’s usually in an undisclosed location… But oh yeah, he did say this: “Go f*ck yourself!”
Shall we listen to Rummy? His glib carelessness when speaking about death and war? Or the absurd yet loquatious gobbledygook that sometimes falls from his smirking lips?

Hmmm. Let’s sum up what we now know about Republicans: Confused Immaturity. Rude Profanity. Casual indifference and Nonsense.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #171885

ROGER,

I believe that “the beganing of the end of the United States Of Americe [sic]” is already here. It is now up to US to start over, with something better.

Shouldn’t be hard to find, eh?

Posted by: myles at July 29, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #171888

Here are some quotes from the RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman:

“We’ve suffered a war, and one thing we know: Whenever our nation’s faced war, whether it was in the 1980s when we were winning the Cold War or in the 1940s during World War II, the responsible thing to do has been to borrow money to win the war.”

Well, the Republicans certainly worked out the borrowing thing, eh?

Now, what was that Dean said about Repulicans being the party of Christian white men? Let’s check in with Ken:

“By the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out,” Mehlman says in his prepared text. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”

At least he has the decency to recognize the ongoing history of Republican racism. And to be fair, Ken is Jewish, so he is an exception to the “Christian” part of the phrase. Does he even belong in the Republican party? Probably not.

Sure, Dean has his faults. But the Republican Chairman of the RNC is consumed with so much self-loathing, he will not publicly admit he is gay. What kind of party is represented by a person who is ashamed of their nature?

Well, the Chairman of the RNC, Ken Mehlman, has recognized Republican racism, but apparently he still cannot bear to face the bigotry and hatred his own party bears towards homosexuals. In fact, Ken made a pathetic attempt to publicly out himself as a heterosexual. It did not work. It was just sad.

Personally, I hope Ken rethinks his political philosophy in terms of his personal life, accepts his own nature, and leaves the Republicans for the Democrats.

Posted by: phx8 at July 29, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #171890

and Eric,

You seem to be equating liberals and democrats… they are not “tit for tat” as you seem to suggest.

I am definitely a liberal, although not definitely a democrat, but I am definitely NOT a republican!

Posted by: myles at July 29, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #171891

ROGER,

Already praying that.

Posted by: esimonson at July 29, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #171896

Adrienne,

“People often ask me, “What do liberals stand for? I mean, what do they really believe in?”

Yeah, like we’re supposed to believe this. Why in the world would anyone ever ask YOU this question? And why would they think YOU of all people would actually know anything about liberals? Especially since you hate us all so much?

We all know much more than we’d like to know about liberals. Don’t you get the talking points every day from Karl Rove?

And you know that I don’t hate liberals. Why would I hate liberals? Liberals are wrong and thankfully they’re losing elections. Liberalism is generally on the decline in the US, but it’s still a danger.

Let’s see now, shall we start with what Bush has to say? He speaks exactly like a third grader — and a confused one at that. How about Cheney, he doesn’t say much since he’s usually in an undisclosed location… But oh yeah, he did say this: “Go f*ck yourself!”

Shall we listen to Rummy? His glib carelessness when speaking about death and war? Or the absurd yet loquatious gobbledygook that sometimes falls from his smirking lips?

Hmmm. Let’s sum up what we now know about Republicans: Confused Immaturity. Rude Profanity. Casual indifference and Nonsense.

So, what you’re saying is that Republicans aren’t wrong in their policies, but they are wrong because they sound like “a third grader?”

Posted by: esimonson at July 29, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #171900

Eric

I don’t think many people would argue that Howard Dean has a few screws loose. But loose screws are not just the property of the Democratic Party.

The Grand Old Party has a few of their own.

Roger and esimonson

I don’t think the Creator of the universe is concerned about who gets elected president.

He gave us the gifts of intelligence and reason so we could decide that one on our own.

Thanking him for those gifts would be a better use of your prayers.

Myles

Well, that certainly cleared up the question of what you definitely are!

For the record, I am definitely a registered Independent, a social conservative, an environmental liberal and a Diest who believes in Intelligent Design.

(I guess that last one also makes me a fool in the eyes of many who post here.)

Posted by: ulysses at July 29, 2006 9:05 PM
Comment #171901

myles,

You seem to be equating liberals and democrats… they are not “tit for tat” as you seem to suggest.

I am definitely a liberal, although not definitely a democrat, but I am definitely NOT a republican!

Very true. There’s always a danger in categorizing anyone, but when we are talking about generalities like political parties there are certain truisms that hold true more often than not.

It is true that every liberal is not a democrat. It is also true that most democrats ARE liberals as opposed to conservatives. (There are always exceptions of course.) It is also true that the democratic party is more liberal today than it has ever been.

Posted by: esimonson at July 29, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #171902

lol ulysses, I said what I definitely was and what I definitely was not; the rest is dependent on the cast.

Posted by: myles at July 29, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #171904

Abe Lincloln said, “It is better for others to think you may be a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Clearly, to his word, Howard Dean disagrees with everything Republican.

To clear up one point that Howard Dean, apparently most Democrats who defend him, and possibly many others don’t know:

The Arabs, Palestinians, Iraqis, etc are all ~100% Semitic. Israelis and other Jews are often mixed (Semitic, along with N.European, Black, Asian, etc.) genes.

Therefore, it seems pretty goofy for me for Dean to say that a Semite is Anti-Semitic for defending Semites against those who are partially Semitic. No?

[…though not as goofy as his quotes about being a ~great Christian, knowing alot about the Bible, and Job having a sad-ending in the New Testament. — Idiot Politicians]

Posted by: Brian at July 29, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #171905

Eric:

To be perceived as objective, one has to provide balance in an article. Your hatred for those who do not agree with you is evident in your writing and it makes even your valid points disappointingly void of credibility. To help you provide balance, I have taken the liberty of including some our beloved President’s quotes. They prove that nobody, not even you, should trhow rocks in a glass house.

And Roger, take a basic writning course. It might make your points more respectable:

1. “My answer is bring them on.” —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

25. “I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe — I believe what I believe is right.” —Rome, Italy, July 22, 2001

24. “We need to counter the shockwave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates.” —Washington, D.C. Oct. 4, 2001

23. “People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in’s house and say I love you.” —Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2002

22. “I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it…I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn’t yet….I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.” —President George W. Bush, after being asked to name the biggest mistake he had made, Washington, D.C., April 3, 2004

21. “The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway.” —explaining why high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy, Annandale, Va., Aug. 9, 2004

20. “My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we’re going to run out of debt to retire.” —radio address, Feb. 24, 2001

19. “You know, when I was one time campaigning in Chicago, a reporter said, ‘Would you ever have a deficit?’ I said, ‘I can’t imagine it, but there would be one if we had a war, or a national emergency, or a recession.’ Never did I dream we’d get the trifecta.” —Houston, Texas, June 14, 2002 (There is no evidence Bush ever made any such statement, despite recounting the trifecta line repeatedly in 2002. A search by the Washington Post revealed that the three caveats were brought up before the 2000 campaign — by Al Gore.)

18. “See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.” —Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

17. “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” —State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003, making a claim that administration officials knew at the time to be false

16. “In Iraq, no doubt about it, it’s tough. It’s hard work. It’s incredibly hard.” —repeating the phrases “hard work,” “working hard,” “hard choices,” and other “hard”-based verbiage 22 times in his first debate with Sen. John Kerry

15. “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

14. “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

13. “But all in all, it’s been a fabulous year for Laura and me.” —summing up his first year in office, three months after the 9/11 attacks, Washington, D.C., Dec. 20, 2001

12. “I try to go for longer runs, but it’s tough around here at the White House on the outdoor track. It’s sad that I can’t run longer. It’s one of the saddest things about the presidency.” —interview with “Runners World,” Aug. 2002

11. “Can we win? I don’t think you can win it.” —after being asked whether the war on terror was winnable, “Today” show interview, Aug. 30, 2004

10. “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.” —Washington, D.C. June 18, 2002

9. “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.” —to a group of Amish he met with privately, July 9, 2004

8. “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” —speaking underneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

7. “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories … And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.” —Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003

6. “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!” —President George W. Bush, joking about his administration’s failure to find WMDs in Iraq as he narrated a comic slideshow during the Radio & TV Correspondents’ Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 24, 2004

5. “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” —Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

4. “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

3. “Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.” —Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004

2. “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and so are we.”

1. “My answer is bring them on.” —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

Enjoy,
Roman

Posted by: Roman at July 29, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #171906

Boy, what a strange and convoluted argument this article is. And the funny thing is that you don’t even realize how strange and convoluted your argument is!

Posted by: DavidM at July 29, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #171913

I find Dean offensive. I met him when I lived in NH. He is an angry little man. Much smaller in person than he seems on TV. Reminds me of a nasty little dog. I don’t like him. Of course, he hates me.

Phx8
Thanks for quoting Republican Chairman. We really have a much better and reasonable chairman. You really should be ashamed of Howard. He says on purpose and repeats what most people would consider a misstatement.

Roman

President Bush is not articulate. He is no Ronald Reagan. But most of the thoughts you quote are going in the proper direction. Dean is articulate, but wrong.

Posted by: Jack at July 29, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #171917

Funny, this is supposed to be about how nutzo lefty Howard Dean is….and I read it as saying it really bothers you that Dean tells the truth…and he’s dead on right.

I like the guy. I know he speaks too plainly for the sensitive types like, Eric, and he probably will never win a national election, bu I like him.

Posted by: gergle"the deaniac" at July 29, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #171918

Jack, Dean doesn’t hate you, just your lack of judgement about your own party. It says so in Job.

Posted by: gergle"the deaniac" at July 29, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #171924

Jack,
Dean will not hate you if you change parties.

Imagine no longer having to defend the lies that sent this country to an unnecessary war. Remember how Dean said we would be no safer for having arrested Saddam? Republicans excorciated him. But Dean was right, and Republicans were wrong. Did you bother to look at the comments on your recent article about whether we are safer now? Bad news, Jack. You were shellacked.

The thing is, Dean being right and Republicans being wrong about Iraq is not just a partisan gotcha. Tens of thousands of innocent people are dead as a result.

Of course there are other issues. But they will not save Lieberman or Republicans. Being wrong about the one big issue trumps all the rest, and the vast majority of Americans see through the lies. No amount of talk about banning gay marriage, or flag burning, or Republican partisan attacks upon the head of Democrat partisans will distract people enough to save Republicans. Thousands upon thousands of unnecessary casualties have been suffered, lives have been ruined, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted.

It is a record deserving condemnation.

It will not stand.

Spit at Dean on your way to the exit, if you must. But keep walking.

Posted by: phx8 at July 29, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #171927

When the nut job from Iran was speaking of blowing Israel off the face of the map, I thought that was Howie speaking. It is not much different from what he said about hating republicans and everything they stand for. So maybe Howie is trying out for one of those Ayatollah jobs that are vacant and be the western Ayatollah in charge of Islamic interests in the western hemisphere. After he gets through messing up the democratic candidates this fall, maybe he will go back to being a medical proctologist. Not any difference for Howie to be a political proctologist or medical proctologist.

Posted by: tomh at July 29, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #171928

It has become increasingly evident that the DNC and the Liberal Left of the Democratic party have become the 21st Century version of the National Socialist Party. They have become a more sophisticated version of the Nazis with Dean as the new Joseph Goebbels.

Posted by: EricWR at July 29, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #171930

I’m of the opinion, Eric, that the reason you hate Dean so much is that his tactics are uncomfortably like yours. It had to happen at some point. The guy’s actually more centrist than the GOP would like to believe. He’s even pro-gun!

What he is, though, is rather aggressive, and I just don’t think you’re use to people being as forcefully partisan from our end as they are from yours.

I think think your criticism of Dean is basically pot calling the kettle black. You barely blink, delivering some of the most caustic charges and insinuations on this site for the right wing. I appreciate you believe this is just being honest. Well, Dean’s being honest, too.

I wonder how much of your argument would stand up to good examination of the speeches and statement from which he was quoted.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #171932

Well, I was born and raised in the Northeast. I always felt that liberal politics were being forced onto me all during my 40 years of living there. It was especially felt during my highschool and college years.

More and more, while watching political conversation on television (CBS news was most popular) and reading local (always liberal) newspapers, I found that it felt like I was being brainwashed by liberal propaganda.

I moved to the southeast to escape this blatant bias and can now look back to my decision on leaving the liberal northeast as the best decision I have ever made.

I can now feel free to express my opinions and feel more free to live and work amoung free thinkers of a free country.

I have no desire to ever return to the northeast and their arrogant self-centered views.

Howard Dean is the prime example of this most typical arrogance of the northeast.

Posted by: Everett Hatton at July 29, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #171940
He is an angry little man. Much smaller in person than he seems on TV. Reminds me of a nasty little dog. I don’t like him. Of course, he hates me.

I like that Jack. Well said.

Posted by: esimonson at July 29, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #171943

Everett-
I have lived in Texas all my life. I have never percieved my surroundings as brainwashing me. I always felt my opinion was my own, and my peers had their own. Their obnoxiousness or pleasantness is their own. I count a number of conservatives as friends and teachers. Conservatives can be wonderful people.

Brainwashing. Our brains and our wills are our own. Any anxiety we feel about being brainwashed is entirely our own. You were as free then as you are now to express yourself.

My sensibility is shaped by my perception that I need to be a better explainer of my opinion when I’m not talking or writing with politically sympathetic people. I do not blame them for beliefs they came to; people come to them along their own lines. I just try to keep people on their toes when I debate.

Ultimately, home is where you are willing to make it. As for NE liberalism, a large part of my family comes from the NE, so I would regard it as self-defeating to rip on the NE. America is more intertwined nowadays than some people realize, with telecommunications and transportations breaking down the traditional barriers of settlement. I think Americans would do well to learn to live well with one another.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 11:49 PM
Comment #171944

Stephen,

I’m of the opinion, Eric, that the reason you hate Dean so much is that his tactics are uncomfortably like yours. It had to happen at some point. The guy’s actually more centrist than the GOP would like to believe. He’s even pro-gun!

First, I don’t hate Howard Dean. I actually wish he would have won the nomination for President. He is in fact one of my favorite politicians on the radical left. At least you get a straight answer from Dean. In contrast, just think about the kind of answers you get from guys like Kerry.

What he is, though, is rather aggressive, and I just don’t think you’re use to people being as forcefully partisan from our end as they are from yours.

As I was saying, this is what I like about him. What i dislike is his politics. I dislike the policies he promotes, not necessarily the way he promotes them. I actually prefer the way he does promote them.

I think think your criticism of Dean is basically pot calling the kettle black. You barely blink, delivering some of the most caustic charges and insinuations on this site for the right wing. I appreciate you believe this is just being honest. Well, Dean’s being honest, too.

Hey, you’re right! But he is honestly wrong!

I wonder how much of your argument would stand up to good examination of the speeches and statement from which he was quoted.

I don’t know. But you can follow the links and look at what passes for context in the articles in which he is quoted. I think that news organizations online should start publishing a transcript of entire speeches when they cover them with an article.

Posted by: esimonson at July 29, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #171950

As an response to the post in general I think it is somewhat unimportant. Yes, the loony things the Chairman of the DNC are important. But let us say that some of these things he did not completely mean, that he was on a roll and went a little overboard. This is something almost everyone does. Dean does it a little more, so lets chalk some of his misspeaks to stupidity.

If reps want to keep control of Congress and the White House they had better start thinking about their own messages. The American people are not very happy with the Republican Congress and unless Reps can spread a good message of what they stand for and get rid of some of their crap, they will find Dems in control of Congress and lots of them will be out of their jobs. There is a place for asking questions of your opponent but it is secondary to making sure you can answer his. And right now Dems have an awful lot of questions that will take a lot of thinking to answer.

Posted by: Silima at July 30, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #171951

The right screams that the left is scattered and undefined, and then when one stands up and is niether they scream even louder.

Pick a lane, or at least use your blinkers, but don’t be too surprised if we give you the finger if you cut us off.

Posted by: DOC at July 30, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #171956
Liberalism is generally on the decline in the US, but it’s still a danger.

eric,

Conservatives love to make this statement, but offer no proof. The Democratic Party may very well be in decline, but that doesn’t seem to be true of liberalism. I don’t normally put to much weight on one poll, but if you go to PollingReport you can see polls that are drawn from many different sources over a period of time. Americans tend to favor the position of liberals over conservatives, sometimes overwhelmingly.

Perhaps the problem for the Democratic Party isn’t that it is too liberal but that liberals feel disenfranchised from the party that has been hijacked by the DLC. The result being that liberals have no political party that represents their views.

The Democratic Party, in the very near future, may not be the only political party in decline.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 30, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #171958

I love Howard Dean! I respect him deeply, much in the same way that I like Chairman Mao, Pol Pot or Stalin…By all means, you charming little madman, keep it up!!! Howies scares the average american votor enough for them to keep voting republican no matter what schlub they throw up there. Go Howie!
Arrough!!!!
Incidently, I have a theory about little white men who go nuts in their middle years, and it goes something like this:Everyone has probably heard that both Hitler and Napolean were short, white, power-mad and infected with syphlis, which rotted their brains even as they attempted to take over the world. Could Howlin Howie have the same problem? He is short, he is definately nuts, and there is little doubt what kind of country we would get if he were ever allowed anywhere near the reins of power. Just somtehing to think about.
Oh and DOC, I always drive in the RIGHT lane…I can’t seem to help myself.

Posted by: HardHatHarry at July 30, 2006 12:50 AM
Comment #171960
He is an angry little man. Much smaller in person than he seems on TV. Reminds me of a nasty little dog. I don�t like him. Of course, he hates me.

I like that Jack. Well said.

Yeah, Eric, he’s kinda like a terrier that won’t let the rat, who’s lies have resulted in killing over 2500 Americans and wounding 20,000, go. Oh yeah, and who is still lying about the fiscal cost. I LIKE little dogs like that. We need a few more of them.

Posted by: gergle"the deaniac" at July 30, 2006 1:01 AM
Comment #171961

Am I the only one who was creeped out by Bush and his moves on Merkel? What a pervy little liar he is. I’ll take a terrier over a perv any day.

Posted by: gergle"the deaniac" at July 30, 2006 1:05 AM
Comment #171963

you know what I think? for a post that has only been up for 5 hours according to my yahoo, you people sure do sent out a lot of post. Isn’t there something better you all could be doing like reading a book, riding a bike, watching a movie, getting drunk, talking to friends face to face, getting in a fight, walking your dog, or even rearranging your boxer shorts in alphabetical order accoring to main color and supplemented by secondary color? Is this blog that important that there is nothing more important to do in your day? Go out and get some exercise. You are not going to convert anyone to either cause on this page.

Posted by: BEN at July 30, 2006 1:47 AM
Comment #171964

Yes, our elected leaders need to be held accountable for their actions. This does not mean that President Bush should be blamed for the collective actions of all government employees. Some Dems even blamed him for the theft of the VA Social Security numbers…where their reasoning came from I have no idea. Bush is to be held accountable, but not solely accountable. Cheney also gets way more than his share of crap, too.

Posted by: Silima at July 30, 2006 1:52 AM
Comment #171967

Conversion is not the primary purpose of this page. We all know that no one is going to be converted. The primary purpose is to serve as an avenue of discourse and debate. Furthermore, the time on here was collective. I have spent all of…20 minutes here. That is not very much. I cannot say it was a waste of my time.

Posted by: Silima at July 30, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #171968

At least with Dean you know where he stands. I could actually believe him when he spoke against the war since he always had, unlike some who voted for it before he voted against it. Plus, his rants probably turn off a lot of people to the Democrats, so keep it up Chairman Dean.

JayJaySnow,

I tend to think the opposite of you in your analysis. I think that the Democrats may very well be able to recover much of their former standing, but only by going to the center. I do think that liberalism is in decline. For 50 years now, we’ve had liberal “solutions” such as welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, abortion, etc that have not delivered on what was promised. I think most Americans are tired of liberalism. The best part is that as liberals become increasingly marginalized, they will become even more shrill and look more and more out of step with the rest of America.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 30, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #171975

1LT B
liberalism created the middle class in this country, G I bill, social security. If we are forced to suffer through 50 years of conservatism there will be no middle class. Think Mexico.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2006 3:27 AM
Comment #171985

j2t2,

I tend to think that it was the massive post-war economy and America’s being the source of 50% of the world’s manufactured goods that created the middle class, but you may have a point. However, lets divide liberalism into 2 schools of thought for the purposes of this discussion, economic liberalism and social liberalism. I think that America tends to split on economic liberalism. A lot of people don’t like welfare but like the idea of a living wage. Liberalism can still compete here as a counter to complete free market rules. Social liberalism, however, is losing ground and fast. Many issues can be folded into this, but several are losing propositions. Gay marriage is being banned in several states, there’s widespread support for an amendment to ban flag desecration etc. The fact that liberals have become more and more shrill in support of these programs against the will of the American people is going to continue to hurt them. I tend to think that the gay marriage issue really hurt the Democrats in ‘04. The fact that Kerry said he was personally against it but still voted for it made him seem inconsistent. Of course, gay marriage, like abortion, is an issue where many Democrats try playing both sides of the fence, claiming personal dislike but still advocating for it on principle.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 30, 2006 6:42 AM
Comment #171988

Eric-
Well, if you don’t hate him, he’s nonetheless a compulsive punching bag for you folks. Yes, he shoots his mouth off, and is a bit of a partisan. But he’s a good grassroots fund-raiser, and very good at organizing campaigns. To put it plainly, we gave him a position he was well qualified for, and which having a big mouth and a lot of party spirit wouldn’t be a problem.

On Kerry, I can’t condemn his change of mind, because it’s almost exactly like mine, and because I know why we made our initial decision about the war, and why we changed our minds.

As for being honestly wrong…

Well, on the quotes, I think it pays to know the context before you quote. You Republicans, because of the narrowness of your sources, don’t always find out problems in the facts or interpretations backing them because a)your yourself are unaware of the full truth, and b)Your party’s culture does not encourage questioning of facts from your own sources (unlike those disreputable sources in the “liberal” MSM). Because of this, you often miss the chance to be the broken link in a chain of misinformation.

A good example of this is the Mona Charen bit about fundraising, which alleged that Democrats got 90% of their funding from millionaires, while Republicans got 60% of theirs from people giving about $200. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Well, it set off all kinds of alarm bells for me.

I looked into it.

The original source, which I found, said that instead of the Republicans getting sixty percent of their money from people giving $200, the reality was, Republicans were getting sixty percent of the donations from that bracket while the Democrats were getting the other 40%! This wasn’t about how much of the funding for a party came from one place, it was about how much of each bracket went to each party! Maybe 23 people gave at the million dollar level in the 2002 elections, but their contributions did not form the overwhelming proportion of Democrat fundraising.

The fact was, the bulk of money for both parties, came from the $1000 to $10000 brackets. But if you had listened to Mona Charen, you might get the mistaken impression that the Republicans were funded mainly by common folk, while the Democrats were 9/10ths funded by rich folks.

Recently, Dr. Politico accused the New York “Treasonous” Times of releasing yet another State Secret. Driven by his inclination to believe in another traitorous betrayal of classified information, he neglected to find out that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, running out of the Pentagon, published details of arms in April 2005 in a press release, as it does with just about ever sale our country does to foreign powers.

Other folks on the Red Column have claimed that the President was cleared of being AWOL because of the collapse of the National Guard Documents story. Trouble is, that evidence wasn’t the only evidence there. All the forged documents did was give record that Bush had defied a direct order to get his physical and show up for drills.

Other documentation existed, unchallenged and untarnished, which proved that Bush had not attended enough drills nor made up the ones he missed quickly enough to satisfy regulations. This charge was made by U.S. News and World Report.

This happens again and again on the Red Column, and the irony is, a few minutes on a Google Search could spare you the trouble.

The Red Column hobbles itself by its distrust of the MSM. It’s easier to manipulate those who willingly limit the sources they trust; is it pure coincidence that FOXnews is run by a former Bush 41 campaign manager? No. There are people who want conservatism and GOP politics to dominate, and they’re willing to lie to you to maintain that dominance.

HardHatHarry-
Oh yes, the Democrats must be kept from the Reins of power. Why? They would destroy America given the chance. Yep, we discuss plans for global domination before breakfast, and decide which al-Qaeda member we’re going to let in the country today.

It must be our venereal diseases controlling our minds.

Even if the average American voter is scared of Howard Dean, they are likely more scared of an administration that has fallen short of America’s needs time and again. You may drive in the Right Lane, but most of the rest of the country thinks you’re on the wrong track.

BEN-
It’s nice for you to come by. Your presence begs the question: who’s wasting their time more, the people following their passions, or the folks taking valuable time out of their day to make fun of folks who are doing so?

Silima-
Bush is the head executive. He may not have sole responsiblity for all the things done, but the buck stops with him. There are reasonable limits to how much you can hang around Bush’s neck, but he is responsible for an awful lot.

As for Conversion not being the main purpose? I guess that’s a personal preference. For me, it’s the whole reason for being here, the great part of the interest. How persuasive can I be? How many people can I at least get to see Democratic party principles as reasonable, as I see them?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 30, 2006 8:17 AM
Comment #171996

Yes, Howard Dean sometimes lets the rhetoric fly — and sometimes valid points get lost in his overblown statements. Do I regret that? Hell yes.

I trust that even without a long laundry list of overheated rhetoric from the other side most recognize the damage being down by politicians and political advocates to the quality of debate in this country.

The question is, what do we do about? I cannot believe that resorting to similar tactics ourselves serves the country. Short term, nasty tactics are sometimes effective, but long term, they encourage apathy and disgust with the political process. Winning the battle but losing the war …

Posted by: Trent at July 30, 2006 9:20 AM
Comment #171999

Finnaly, the first evangelical since Carter who actually understands what America is about:Rev. Gregory Boyd

As for this thread, Why would anyone even remotely connected to reality ask a far-right conservative “What do liberals stand for? I mean, what do they really believe in?” There seems to be as much understanding there as John Wayne Gacy had compassion.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 30, 2006 10:02 AM
Comment #172000

Howard Dean is a leftist hero. A great grassroots fundraiser they say. He is the voice of the little leftie. Some people say that the Dems can only win by becoming more centrist. Centrism seems to be the latest buzz word out there, but it what seems to be true is that the Dems have to change to win. Are the Dems really going to change? I think that when Hillary and others claim to move to the center, they are not really changing what is in their hearts and minds. Elect them, and see how much they have changed. They will start enacting leftie policies until the next election, when they once again will move to the center.
Centrism is just a buzz word. There is no poltical center. There is only what you believe. Centrism sounds to me to be a euphamism for someone who is indecisive or two-faced.
All lefties, know this. When you say you are moving to the center, you are actually moving towards America. You are trying to fool Americans into believing that you belive what we do.
Dean does say what he really believes. So, if you really want to know what the Dems are all about, dont read a newspaper or watch the Sunday shows. All you have to do is listen to Dean.
Dont elect politicians who are always on the move. Elect the ones who stand firmly on what they believe.

Posted by: JoeRWC at July 30, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #172002

As far as why I waste my time onthis blog: its fun to drop truth and logic on the lefties and pick a fight with them. Now, if youll excuse me, I gotta go walk my dog.

Posted by: JoeRWC at July 30, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #172004

JoeRWC

I think I’m one of the guys you were talking about for moving to the center. I tend to agree with you on the idea that Hillary and Co. are not truly “centrists” but leftists who are trying to court a wider base. The trouble nowadays is that the most important votes are Centrist. Both parties have their own bases, liberal to radical and conservative to reactionary. The base must be courted for the primaries and the center for the general elections. To win a primary, candidates of both parties generally have to make statements outside of the center to secure thier bases. What’s interesting to me is the lack of any committment from the center. From what I’ve read, while most voters are not happy with the Republican party, they don’t see the Democrats in a much more positive light. As increased partisanship has taken the place of civilized debate in government and on the news, the people just get more and more fed up. I vote Republican nowadays as the lesser of two evils, not from any great attraction to the party. They have shown themselves to be liars on the idea of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. The Democrats still stand completely 180 of me on most social issues. If there was a truly conservative 3rd party, I’d vote for it in a heartbeat.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 30, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #172017

1LT B,
Regarding your previous response to me: ggod post and good points. Im somewhat in agreement with you, however on most social issues I think the Feds should not be involved unless absolutly necessary. Most social issues should, if government is actually needed at all, be handled at the state or local level.
I think RoeVWade is an issue for you, and I dont understand why its a Federal government issue. It should truely be handled at the state level. The gay marriage issue is at this point a non issue for me,meaning I dont care one way or the other, but I do believe it could and should be handled at the state level.
Why Im even so foolish as to think that the states could do without federal help on education issues.
So to summerize I think our Federal Government has its hands full dealing with keeping the peace,immigration, dealing with the rise of corporatism etc.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #172018

Brian,

Thanks for the education on the word “semite.” I always thought it referred to things jewish, but after your post I looked it up, and holy moses, you were right!

Learn something new every day :)

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 11:52 AM
Comment #172019

Eric:

Instead of attempting (badly) to tell us what a party for which you have no use believes, tell us what the Republicans stand for…define what you think, not attempt to tell us what others think in your opinion.

Other than:

“Is our children learning”
and
“Not all poor people are killers.”

Posted by: Lynne at July 30, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #172020

JoeRWC,

I am liberal, a “leftist,” and Howard Dean is NOT my hero. I would not vote for him. Your surety is a bit overarching.

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #172023

j2t2,

I actually agree with you about issues such as gay marriage etc being handled at state level. You’re correct about abortion for me, and I would like to have seen it handled at the state level, but the Supreme Court nixed that. I think that the reason that many issues, such as gay marriage, abortion, etc are federal issues is because the power of the states has been steadily usurped by the Courts. I agree that in many cases the Federal government has overstepped its bounds, but mainly through the courts, leaving little in the way of redress except for the legislature.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 30, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #172026

1st Lieutenant,

While welfare, medicare/medicaid, etc. may have been liberal-generated “solutions,” I think they are genuine in their intent. It is the management of them that has gone astray. Be it Republican- or Democratic-led, our govt. bureaucracy is overgrown and inefficient, no doubt. This causes many of our well-meant programs to suffer in their ultimate effectiveness.

Can this be fixed? Well, people try, on occassion, but no big fix has been found so far. One can only hope!

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #172027

So JoeRWC, when are you going to start dropping this truth and logic you talk about?
Politics has a center, perhaps if the righties realized this the Country would be in a lot better shape after 6 years of repub rule.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #172040

Because Job particulary interests me, I want to comment further. There has been discussion in scholarly/theological circles about the ending of Job — Dean is not as far off the mark as some here seem to assume. Further, there are good reasons to think that the last speech by a friend (who suddenly appears, without warning, in the text), may have been added after the composition of the rest of the text. (Why is another discussion.)

Posted by: Trent at July 30, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #172049

myles,

I’m reminded of a quote I read long ago in “A Stitch in Time” that went like this; “The road to Hell is paved in good intentions.” In the case of welfare, I think that applies. I don’t doubt that it was felt that the Great Society programs would help, but almost 50 years has shown them to be a failure. What’s ironic is that conservatives are acting as reformers (at least in word if not in deed) while the liberals, supposed fans of change, are acting more like reactionaries. While this has been muted in the face of the war, it still applies. I certainly share your hope that some solution can be found.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 30, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #172055

I do not think some sort of welfare system is a “road to hell.” On the contrary, I would posit a mature, progressive society should find effective ways to take care of their citizens, in health and sickness, in wealth and not. Indeed, “poverty” should not be allowed to exist. Everyone has the potential to contribute to society, to civilization, and the opportunities should be presented.

Only in an immature and/or repressive society should you find “dog eat dog” competetive roots to be the mainstream of opportunity. Competition is good for spurring innovation and, in part, for regulating an economy, but it should not be the end product in caring for the needs of a civilized population.

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #172056

Eric:

So you don’t like Howard Dean. So what? I would not expect any Republican to like Howard Dean, just as you should not expect any Democrat to like Ken Mehlman.

What do all these quotations have to do with the price of fish?

Instead of picking quotations by Democrats you don’t like why don’t you quote Republicans (current day Republicans) you do like?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 30, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #172057

The positions of many democrats have been, shall we say, somewhat indecisive. “I voted for it before I voted against it…”

I’m currently reading “The Average American” by Kevin O’Keefe. Acording to the book, 83% of americans can’t name the three branches of goverment! I think that it is pretty safe to assume that this 83% has no idea how laws are written, passed and implemented.

I’m sure Kerry regrets having uttered the above quote, but it is in fact what happens all the time. You propose a law to raise the minimum wage and someone tacks on a provision to lower capital gains or vice versa. Clearly, now you are against the new proposed bill. It would be more accurate to say that now it is a different bill, but people get confused, because it has the same name.

Most polititians have at one time or another said that they “trust the american people”. I have a bad feeling that they are laughing at all of you passionate partisans.

Most of what you think you “know” is wrong. For exaple, Napoleon was not short, but of average height. He looks short, becase he was shorter than the average military man, who was above average height.

Posted by: Rene at July 30, 2006 2:59 PM
Comment #172061

I have never been a big Howard Dean fan. Actually I ruffled some feathers a while back by saying he he resign as DNC chair.

As far as I know, all Maleki has done is condemn Israeli’s military actions. If that’s true, it is ridiculous to call him an anti-Semite. Dean should apologize.

On the other hand, it is funny to see conservatives get upset when Dean applies their own logic. All good right-wingers “know” that all criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism. Dean has apparently adopted this school of thought.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 30, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #172071
“…I’ve always been endorsed by the National Rifle Association.”

I don’t know why you included this comment, but it’s true. Dean was repeatedly endorsed by the NRA when he ran for governor in Vermont.

http://www.factcheck.org/article115.html

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 30, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #172072
I actually agree with you about issues such as gay marriage etc being handled at state level.

1LT B,

Wrong! Gay rights are a civil rights issue and are covered by the U.S. Constitution. Marriage itself is a state’s rights issue, but equality under the law is a federal issue.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 30, 2006 4:20 PM
Comment #172074

After being on these blogs for awhile I have come to the conclusion, that no matter how many facts you have (good, bad or indifferent), you are not going to change a persons opinion, if you are a liberal or conservative. It seems that Bush and Republican are always wrong according to the liberals, and Democrates are always crying and have no plan other then give away our money to the underving according to conservatives.
Both major parties(there are more then 2), have their good and evil, and it seems the evil always stands out. Dean inserts foot before thinking, Bush never thinks.
So my question how many have changed their views or now open minded to say maybe their view is not right?

Posted by: KT at July 30, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #172075

Why does the left still not get the WMD issue?

It was NOT Bush’s responsibility to prove the existence of WMD, the onus was on Saddam to prove he didn’t have it. Saddam did not allow this proof to happen. He stifled inspections, limited them, and demanded they be pre-planned. Indeed, they weren’t inspections at all, thus the 14, or was it 15 (there were so many!!) UN resolutions.

Then the left says “Saddam proving the lack of WMD is ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and that is wrong.”

Guilty until proven innocent is USUALLY wrong. In this country even, if you’re a felon on parole and you miss a parole meeting with the excuse “I was held hostage in a 7-11” … you better have the store clerk and fellow hostage takers ready to back up your story, if not you’re guilty of violating parole. You are guilty until proven innocent.

So, was Saddam a felon? You bet he was! After his invasion of Kuwait, the Gulf War did NOT end by armistice or peace treaty. The document signed by Saddam’s representatives said “We will do these things or we will rightly get our ass kicked again.” Saddam did not allow the unfettered access of inspectors, thus he got his butt kicked again. It’s actually very simple once the political blinders are removed.

So enough with the “2500 dead” crap. We lost 500,000 in World War II, were we supposed to stop at 2499 deaths? Enough with the “Bush lies”. Unquestionably, even according to Chirac, Schroeder and other Iraq War Opponents, the issue of Iraqi WMD was AN UNKNOWN and most actually thought he did have them. It was Saddam’s duty to make it a KNOWN, not Bush’s.

So yes the communication could’ve been A TON better. Yes, the “we’ll be greeted as liberators” was overblown. BUT THOSE FACTS ARE TERTIARY AND DO NOT MEAN THE DECISION TO GO TO IRAQ WAS WRONG. The perspective of actual history is a beautiful thing.

So Dean was wrong on Iraq like he is on most things. But I agree with Eric, I like his spirit. But then again my golden retriever has a good spirit, I just don’t think he should lead a political party.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 30, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #172076

1LT B, I thought welfare had been reformed substantially almost 10 years ago when Newt and his crew rode into power. What is left to be done? I thought it was called workfare now and most people were required to be off of it within 2 to 4 years as well as receiving training during that time. I would agree that it may need to be reviewed and tweaked to keep it under control. Are you saying it should be done away with completely. BTW Im talking about welfare for people and families not corporate welfare.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #172079

Oh, then there’s that little tidbit from Saddam’s #2 Iraqi Air Force General who had eye witness accounts of plane loads of WMD to Syria and heard from subordinates about bus loads of WMD to Syria.

I notice the left doesn’t talk about that although I give John Stewart credit for having that man on his show. John’s liberal audience was stunned. Ha! But I’m sure they brain-dumped everything they heard by the time they got home. POLITICAL BLINDERS RULE! RIGHT HOWARD?

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 30, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #172080

j2T2,

“I thought it was called workfare now and most people were required to be off of it within 2 to 4 years”

… yes, that’s for abled-bodied people. It’s funny though, you almost make it sound like a bad thing.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 30, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #172083

KT,
Ive learned about issues in more depth on this blog over the past several months. While I havent changed my opinion on anything major, I have softened my opinion on some issues to the point of compromise. I have learned the other side or sides on issues that have helped me to formulate opinions on issues that I had not previously thought about.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #172084

Ken, No I dont think its a bad thing at all. I thought it was money well spent, and contributes to society as a whole much better than the previous system. 2 to 4 years should be plenty of time to turn some one aroung and into being productive in our society.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #172086
So my question how many have changed their views or now open minded to say maybe their view is not right?

Posted by: KT at July 30, 2006 04:24 PM

KT,

I am always questioning my views on economic and fiscal issues like welfare. I think both sides of the issue have legit viewpoints. One view that I usually don’t question and will defend is each person’s right to individual liberty and equality.

Posted by: JayJay at July 30, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #172089

Howard Dean is a pessimist stereotyper. He calls the Republican Party “a white Christian party”. He, like most Liberals, wants to make whoever is prospering feel bad. Is that the American Dream? To be successful, then get penetalized for it by telling others that you’re cruel and should be taxed more? Worldwide, that is what the Liberals are doing. They are trying to make America the bad guy and make the terrorists seem like freedom fighters.

If a terrorist were here scouting for another attack inside, they would not be afraid or hesitate to do so. They would see that some of our own people are putting us down and would laugh at us.

It is not natural for people to put themselves down and exalt their enemies. Normal people feel patriotic and willing to defend themselves. We shouldn’t let our fellow Americans tell us that this is an evil, bad country; that only makes others think that America is weak.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 30, 2006 5:14 PM
Comment #172091
We shouldn’t let our fellow Americans tell us…

wow stubborn conservative, sounds like something stalin or hitler would say… Free speech not suiting you these days?

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #172094

stubborn conservative,

“We shouldn’t let our fellow Americans tell us that this is an evil, bad country; that only makes others think that America is weak.”

Neither should we ignore the fact that we have, in the past, supported some pretty dubious characters in the Middle East.

America is as good as it gets, but we haven’t always taken the high road when it came to looking out for America’s best interests.

Some of the attitudes we now face in the Middle East are reflections of the poor choices of leaders (and some downright bad guys), we supported in that region.

Posted by: Rocky at July 30, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #172097

To several

The republicans have moved left. The democrats have moved even further left.

To several re: welfare

Welfare should always be a states issue. I do not support the Salvation Army nor LDS churches. But, their welfare systems are second to none. Sates should either employ them to run their states welfare systems or using them as a model to operate from would be strongly desired.

JJ

Gay rights are not a civil rights issue, period. Never was and never shall be. It makes no difference that SCOTUS struck down GA and TX sodomy laws. If you believe that gay rights are a civil rights issue, then you must believe that pedophiles, rapists, and sexual predators among others have a civil rights issue also.

Posted by: tomh at July 30, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #172100

“If you believe that gay rights are a civil rights issue, then you must believe that pedophiles, rapists, and sexual predators among others have a civil rights issue also.”

Now that’s a truely enlightened opinion.

You’re joking, right?

Posted by: Rocky at July 30, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #172104

tomh,

Gay rights are absolutely civil rights issues. No question. Period. No, I do NOT believe that those other things you mention are civil rights issues. Gays are neither criminals nor predators, there is no victim. All those other things you mention are crimes because the have a victim.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 30, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #172105

good lord, what a parallel to draw. doesn’t really deserve a response, but couldn’t help it. some people are just not civil, but they get rights anyway…

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #172107

Ken Strong:

“It was NOT Bush’s responsibility to prove the existence of WMD, the onus was on Saddam to prove he didn’t have it.”

It was Bush’s responsibility to show probable cause in justifying a pre-emptive attack on a country that couldn’t possibly threaten us.

“He stifled inspections, limited them, and demanded they be pre-planned. “

This was true until December of 2002, when even the inspectors admitted that they could go anywhere in the country they wanted to go, at any time. Thus, four months prior to hostilities,UN inspectors were making great strides in proving that Iraq had no WMD, and urged that they be given some additional time. Bush, fearing that the inspectors were going to put the kabash on his ‘glorious little war’, kicked them out.

“So enough with the “2500 dead” crap. We lost 500,000 in World War II, were we supposed to stop at 2499 deaths?”

I get small comfort that this failed Iraqi policy had 497,000 souls left on the credit card in your mind. Actually, 2700+ American soldiers, plus around 20,000 wounded roughly one-third being grievously injuried, thanks to advanced medical technology, (where in previous wars they would be dead), plus the roughly 100,000 Iraqi deaths, and the who-knows-how-many Iraqi wounded, all for lies and hubris and big-daddy foreign policy, is an awfully high price to pay.

“Enough with the “Bush lies.”

Well, Ken, you can stamp your foot and tell the facts to be gone, but the American people have long suspected that this Iraqi policy has an imperialistic smell. One of the dead give-aways is the constantly moving goalposts on the reasons we went there—‘mushroom clouds”, and al-Qaeda/Saddam connections, Saddam/9/11 connections (all disproven), spreading freedom and democracy (when, in the first year of occupation, the US government was dead-set against free elections, fearful of a Shiite plebiscite—which by golly actually occured when we finally gave in, with the US-backed candidate not even getting 10% of the vote). Not to mention being greeted as liberators, and the lie that Iraqi oil would pay for the whole escapade, which now, conservatively, is at $300 billion and growing fast.

Then there’s the “as the Iraqis step up, we’ll step down” nonsense, with various false predictions and outright lies about the fighting capabilities of Iraqi troops and police.

The onus is no longer on Saddam for anything. The onus is on Bush to prove that he didn’t lie, that he didn’t obviscate, misrepresent, and underestimate, that he and his administration didn’t make the country a victim of poor planning, or no planning. Bush isn’t on the ballot this November. But the stench of his failed policies will fill the voting booth.

The Republicans will think it’s their upper lip. The Democrats will suspect that some Right Wingers sh*t the bed. But, the independents will look at New Orleans, a $9 trillion dollar debt, their declining buying power, the record heat waves and droughts accross the country, the number of Republicans caught up in the Abramoff scandels, the decline of American prestige world-wide, take one look at the shingle of the guys running things, and say, “Let’s give the other guys a look.”

And then it will be the Democrats turn to mismanage the country.

After all, as H.L. Mencken has said:

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. “


Posted by: Tim Crow at July 30, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #172110

Ken,
The fallacy behind your reasoning about WMDs in Iraq is that there was only one lie, or one mistake, involved. In fact, there were many, many lies involved in the pretext for the US invasion.

There were not a couple dozen Iraqi SCUDs in the western desert. There were none.

There were no mobile biological warfare labs.

There were no drones capable of delivering WMDs.

There was no nuclear weapons program.

The chemical weapons stockpiles were destroyed in 1995.

There were no WMDs shipped to Syria.

UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq and on the ground. They only left when the US kicked them out, just prior to the invasion.

They found nothing, because there was nothing to find.

Ken, this is all common knowledge. If you need link by link verification, I can do that, but please review the Duelfer report first. This is the publicly available US government report issued through the CIA.

It probably belongs in another thread, but back up what you say with links. And please, do not claim “The Weekly Standard” is just as viable a source as the Duelfer Report.

Bush lied, Ken. It is that simple. He lied to distract the voters from the economy just before an election. He lied, because he thought war would be good for the US energy industry. Bush lied, and between Americans and Iraqis, over 100,000 human beings have become the casualties of a pre-emptive, utterly unnecessary war.

All because of Republican lies.

Posted by: phx8 at July 30, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #172111

myles:

To be honest, freedom of speech has gotten me. It hasn’t always until recently. It is mostly the NYT leak. I don’t call the publisizing of private information freedom; I call it jeorpardizing the country. This may sound fascist, but SHUT THEM UP UNTIL THE WAR IS OVER and do whatever it takes to accomplish that. They probably made the war longer.

Rocky:

“Neither should we ignore the fact that we have, in the past, supported some pretty dubious characters in the Middle East.”

We are now by buying their oil!!!! This is another reason why we should work on alternatives and drill Alaska and the Gulf Coast to cut off our dependency on people that hate us.

tomh:

I consider myself far right-wing. The Republican Party and I agree on the same issues, but you are right. It has been moving left. I don’t think it is Bush or the Supreme Judges. It is Congress. No one is tough enough on the boarder issue. We should get a walled, militarized boarder with lethal force, but instead we are forbidden to shoot at the aliens that are caught in the act of crossing. We have found out that Hezbollah and Al Qaida members are shaving themselves and crossing. If we don’t stop this, the United States itself will be a war zone.

As for the pedophiles, they shouldn’t be mentioned in the same sentence with the word “rights” because they shouldn’t have any.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 30, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #172113

“We are now by buying their oil!!!!”

We’ve been buying their oil for the last 70 years.
What better reason to kick the oil habit entirely?

Posted by: Rocky at July 30, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #172115

stubborn conservative,

that information wasn’t too private, now was it?

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #172117

JJ

All those other things are crimes because they have a victim? Boy are you wrong! All those things I mentioned are crimes because they are morally wrong. They just happen to have a victim. The victim is not what makes imorality wrong. It is the act. To many people sodomy is still wrong. And in some states it is still on the books. To equate gay “rights” to civil rights is a gross afront to the black people who for years fought through the civil rights movement to reach their propler position in society. They did not choose to be dark skined. Gay people do choose to be homosexual in choice.

Posted by: tomh at July 30, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #172121

tomh,

Gay people do choose to be homosexual in choice.

and you know this how?
…because they are morally wrong

ahhh, another Moral Inquisitor! No one expects the Moral Inquisition!

oh wait, yes we do. seems to have been happening alot lately, people telling others how they should believe, what they can’t do, how they should and shouldn’t act. Sounds like preachers searching for a pulpit.

Isn’t there something in the foundations this country is built upon about that? Some seperation thing?

oh yeah, I almost forgot… they’re trying to do away with all that “left wing” stuff about rights and freedoms of press, speech, beliefs - so many new things to keep track of these days!

And now they’re speaking for all the blacks, too!

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #172122
All those things I mentioned are crimes because they are morally wrong.

tomh,

I am not an immoral person because I am gay. What would be immoral would be for me to live my life a lie and pretend to be staight. But if that is the way you feel, then that is your opinion, and that is all it will ever be is an opinion as long as you have no clue what it is like to walk in someone else’s shoes.

To many people sodomy is still wrong.

Then don’t do it.

And in some states it is still on the books.

Absent the force of law.

To equate gay “rights” to civil rights is a gross afront to the black people who for years fought through the civil rights movement to reach their propler position in society.

Civil Rights are not exclusive to African Americans. I agree they had to fight for years through the civil rights movement, now gays are fighting our way through the gay rights movement to take our proper position in society, as equals.

They did not choose to be dark skined. Gay people do choose to be homosexual in choice.

And just how the hell do you know that? A heterosexual who thinks he is some kind of expert on homosexuality. Give me a break!

Posted by: JayJay at July 30, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #172126

myles,

Phrases like “If you believe that gay rights are a civil rights issue…” are rally crys of the neofascists who gave the world Hitler in Germany, Musselini in Italy, and every other dictator throughout history. There is no discourse with people who hate themsleves so much they can only feel better by hating and controlling others. Whether the targets are gays or pregnant teens, makes no difference. The speakers need our pity but only earn our scorn.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 30, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #172127

myles:

Morals don’t have to be a religious thing. Morals are proven to bring people healthy lives as well as happy ones. Notice how immoral people come from shattered families. Good morals reduce crime.

Part of the reason America is not doing well life-wise is the community. Before the 60’s, the community helped parents raise their children. Now most parents shield their children from the community because of crime. It is harder to trust people today.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 30, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #172128

jj,

One thing our gay friends always say is “why would anyone choose to be gay?” They’ve all grown up being derided for who they are and insist it is not a choice. We, and science, believe them.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 30, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #172130

Initially I intended to respond to the first thread.While misguided the poster provided a insightful presentation of their thoughts of the current state of the democratic party. However while I do not agree with the poster on many levels most of what they stated was debatable an subject to opinion.
That said, It disturbs me to think that one would base his or her political stance on faulty information. Vote how you want,be in any party you want, but please don’t make your choices by what someone tells you, think for yourself, investigate, and analyze the data independently. I say this because regardless of party affiliation regurgitating faulty, inaccurate, blatantly flawed information to justify ideals.
Ignorance is cure able and if left untreated will not only reflect negatively on the individual but also the party they are affiliated

Posted by: aaron at July 30, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #172131

Dave1 and JayJay,

There seems to be some threshold of rights they are willing to “give away,” and it seems that threshold is being reached. Now no more can be given unless some are taken away somewhere else. Trouble is, I don’t think they’ll swap out when they take away our freedoms of speech, of the press, or against unreasonable search and siezure. They want something else, and I can’t see through their smoke to realize what it is.

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #172132

aaron,

You are absolutly correct. It is amazing how much stuff is pulled out of context and twisted to seem like something it wasn’t. I think the right has had a lot of practice doing that with their Bibles.

They want something else, and I can’t see through their smoke to realize what it is.

myles,

Abortion.

Posted by: JayJay at July 30, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #172135

stubborn conservative,

Yes, I agree with you on that (will wonders never cease… lol.) Trouble is, the Moral Inquisition IS taking the role of preacher, and boy are they holier than thou!

The decline of Family Quality is just as you say, too. Parents need to take on more responsibility, more care in their raising of their kids. But that is a social decline that, unless we somehow focus on its cure, it will continue. Problem (one of them) is, the Right is so dead set against anything involving social construct (they are fearful of their little piles of gold being somehow taken away) I’m afraid these lesions will only crack and spread before any aid can be given them.

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #172138

tomh,

“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.” ~COmmon Sense, Thomas Paine

Posted by: JayJay at July 30, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #172159

Myles,
Family Quality is harder to acheive when both parents are forced to work to make end meet. The TV becomes he babysitter and it goes from there.
IMHO The generation after the boomers seems to be a lot better at raising children, despite the setbacks, than the boomers were.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #172161

Myles,
I dont beleive its just the right, I think its all of us.
Do you eat dinner with the kids every night?
Do you have more TV’s than you need? Do your kids get to spend Quality time with you on a regular basis? Do they get to help you out with… well anything? I believe its the little things that count.
We need to declare a truce at the schools and just let the kids learn. We need to restore arts and such to the schools.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 30, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #172192

JJ,

I tend to disagree with you about gay rights being a civil rights issue. Whether or not homosexual attraction is a choice or genetic, engaging in homosexual acts is a matter of choice, in the same way that engaging in heterosexual acts are. Furthermore, the civil rights movement was based on fundamental rights being denied based on unchangeable circumstance. Unless one is a maniacal washed up 80s pop star, you can’t change from being black to being white.Futhtermore, race tends to be a fairly obvious trait, not so with sexuality. I think that before we discard over 2,000 years of history and culture regarding marriage, there ought to be some debate.

On the other hand, the right would do well to look after the shameful state of marriage in this country before we go after homosexuals for simply wanting their relationships recognized. Our divorce rate, the use of children as ammo in divorce procedures, the complete mockery of marriage, the rampant illegitimacy and sleeping around not only discussed by even celebrated by our culture needs addressed far more than two people of the same sex bedding down together. I have a cousin who is gay and he and his partner are far better examples of a loving relationship that’s lasted over 20 years than the huge majority of the relationships I have seen from my peers in their mid-20s. Homosexual marriage should be on a back back burner until the massive problems of heterosexual relationships are fixed.

j2ts, myles,

Good points about the decline of family life. What’s sad is that in a time of unprecedented access to communications, our gadgets seem more and more to take the place of actual human interaction. Further, in my opinion, too many parents want to be thier child’s best friend and not their parent. To my mind, being a parent does not always involve being popular with your kids. There are times that they will be pissed at you. I know that as a child, and especially as a teenager, I was often at loggerheads with my parents. As I got older, I realized, as they said I would, that what they did was for my own good and made me a better person. Would that all parents realize that.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 31, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #172232

j2t2,

Yes, I agree it is happening in all “sides” of society; my comment about the “right” had to do with focusing on a “cure” to the poor parenting skills around us. Granted, this should be the responsibility of the parents before, but after a few generations of poor parenting, it cannot be reclaimed from that track. Therefore, a little counselling from other sources could do the trick.

As for my kid - well, I hate to brag, but - his mother was killed when he was in the 3rd grade, so he and I set out to make a new life, so to speak. It worked. He succeeded in theatre, in debate and extemp. speaking (going to State competitions 4 times during those years in those arenas) and was the highest scholarship recipient of his class the year of his graduation. He is now a senior in college, about to graduate there and start on his life. He is a great kid, turning into a fine man.

So, I know it can be done, but I also see so much not done, and I don’t think those not doing them realize the benefits they are losing in their negligence. No one taught them.

Someone must, is all am saying.


Posted by: myles at July 31, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #172234

oops

… is all I am saying.

Posted by: myles at July 31, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #172235

LT,

I haven’t had my first coffee yet, but even after I’m sure I’ll still be confused:

engaging in homosexual acts is a matter of choice, in the same way that engaging in heterosexual acts are
Yeah, so? What right do you or I have to determine what kind of sex two consenting adults are having?
Furthermore, the civil rights movement was based on fundamental rights being denied based on unchangeable circumstance. Unless one is a maniacal washed up 80s pop star, you can’t change from being black to being white.Futhtermore, race tends to be a fairly obvious trait, not so with sexuality.
Again, yeah, so? You statement is predicated on “being gay is a choice” and you have to feel it’s OK to deny them the constitutional right of happiness in choosing who they want to be simply because of sex.
I think that before we discard over 2,000 years of history and culture regarding marriage, there ought to be some debate.
There is debate, it’s now coming to a head. Civil marriage is a contract between two adults establishing mutual rights and responsibilities. Individual circumstances of a couples religious institution are unrelated to the civil obligations. How is it not in societies interest to give those rights and resposibilities to all commited couples? Not calling it “marriage” on some controll based philosophy is denail of the right to happiness.
On the other hand, the right would do well to look after the shameful state of marriage in this country before we go after homosexuals for simply wanting their relationships recognized. Our divorce rate, the use of children as ammo in divorce procedures, the complete mockery of marriage, the rampant illegitimacy and sleeping around not only discussed by even celebrated by our culture needs addressed far more than two people of the same sex bedding down together. I have a cousin who is gay and he and his partner are far better examples of a loving relationship that’s lasted over 20 years than the huge majority of the relationships I have seen from my peers in their mid-20s.
Agreed.
Homosexual marriage should be on a back back burner until the massive problems of heterosexual relationships are fixed.
Why? Why should straight problems continue to deny gays their right to happiness?
Good points about the decline of family life. What’s sad is that in a time of unprecedented access to communications, our gadgets seem more and more to take the place of actual human interaction. Further, in my opinion, too many parents want to be thier child’s best friend and not their parent. To my mind, being a parent does not always involve being popular with your kids. There are times that they will be pissed at you. I know that as a child, and especially as a teenager, I was often at loggerheads with my parents. As I got older, I realized, as they said I would, that what they did was for my own good and made me a better person. Would that all parents realize that.
Agreed. But I want to be both a friend and confidant, as well as the parent. They need to trust me as a primary source of information. At a young age, less than 12 or so, that will be as a “friend”. Posted by: Dave1 at July 31, 2006 8:51 AM
Comment #172258
Whether or not homosexual attraction is a choice or genetic, engaging in homosexual acts is a matter of choice, in the same way that engaging in heterosexual acts are.

1LT B,

You prove my point about this being a civil rights issue. Saying “back in the closet,” is the same thing as saying “to the back of the bus.” Homosexuals are expected to put their lives on hold to make YOU, a heterosexual, happy? I don’t think so. I lived my life in the closet for far too many years, now I am going to live my life. Period. I’ve left the closet and I’m not going back to please someone else. I’m moving to the front of the bus.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 31, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #172263
Furthermore, the civil rights movement was based on fundamental rights being denied based on unchangeable circumstance. Unless one is a maniacal washed up 80s pop star, you can’t change from being black to being white.Futhtermore, race tends to be a fairly obvious trait, not so with sexuality. I think that before we discard over 2,000 years of history and culture regarding marriage, there ought to be some debate.

1LT B,

So what you are saying is that since it is not an obvious trait, then that makes it OK to discriminate? What are your credintials to make the claim that homosexuality is a changeable condition? Sure a few are successful at being brainwashed, just like I am sure there a few heterosexuals who can be brainwashed into thinking they are homosexual. So what?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 31, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #172283

Here is further insight JJ

After several statements and over a period of time I believe that the gay issue is not about gays it is about JJ, me, I. That is refered to as being self-centered. You know what is right and wrong. You are just trying to justify your actions. God forgives you, and I’ll be praying for you. It is his hands.

Posted by: tomh at July 31, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #172286

myles:

Have you noticed that TV companies like Dish and Comcast have parental control settings and how the sales in parental control companies are up and skyrocketing. Basic cable, in order to stay in business, is offering that kind of stuff. Thats one way to breed a healthy kid.

I have many solutions to the workaholic, sleepless society that we live in.
Cut taxes to 10% out of a paycheck for EVERYONE IN EVERY CLASS, abolish welfare, make jails simpler and harsh by getting rid of stuff like weights and TVs, drill Alaska and the coasts, get alternative energies, and stop buying oil from OPEC nations.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 31, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #172308
be praying for you… Posted by: tomh at July 31, 2006 12:02 PM
Now that’s so nice of you. But he needs your prayers because, why? Posted by: Dave1 at July 31, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #172313

JJ,

A few quick points. In saying that the homosexual issue should be put on the backburner, I didn’t express myself clearly. I was not saying that gays should have to wait around, I meant that until the problems with our current state of affairs in heterosexual relationships is addressed, gay marriage is the least of problems needing to be addressed.

Also,I was not arguing that homosexuality is a changeable condition. From my moral point of view, sex outside the bounds of marriage is a sin and we are called to be chaste until marriage. If a person feels that they cannot love a person of the opposite sex in a manner suitable to marriage, then they should remain celibate, the same way that heterosexuals should. I will admit that this is a high and probably unrealistic standard and one that I have violated myself within the context of heterosexual activity outside of marriage, but that doesn’t make it invalid. I’m sorry for you that you felt compelled to be closeted, I don’t have a problem with gay people per say, I just don’t like the idea of trying to force the homosexual agenda down the rest of America’s throats by the court system.

I’m often confused as to how the issue of homosexual marriage should be addressed. Anti-sodomy laws in the original states that pre-date the Constitution seem to provide a good historical context to say that homosexuality was not approved of as a right by the Founders, but niether was universal sufferage, so obviously things can change. I wouldn’t resist the idea of homosexual civil unions per say, but I do get hesitant about it as I do feel it further degrades the institution of marriage which is already in a sad state.

I do think you should consider what you earlier wrote about the debate over this issue coming to a head, however. If this is to be a debate, then one side is going to lose and things don’t look exactly rosy for the idea of homosexual marriage. I do my best to respect differences I see in other people, but it becomes hard when (not accusing you) when I say I disagree with something as a conservative I automatically become an intolerant, ignorant homophobe/racist/sexist.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 31, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #172314

stubborn conservative,

Breeding the kid? Not gonna go there… don’t think you meant to, either.

As for your solutions - so we’d have less money to work with, we’d starve out the “underclass,” we’d have meaner (albeit perhaps wimpier) ex-cons, and smellier and more dangerous wilderness and coastline areas.

And this helps us to work less and sleep more?

Posted by: myles at July 31, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #172316

Dave1,

The state regulates other forms of consensual sex. For instance, incest, even between two consenting adults, is illegal. Do you think that that is a bad thing? Polygamy is also illegal, is that bad? Senator Santorum was right when he described the effect of the repeal of the Texas anti-sodomy laws. I just wonder how long it will take for some Mormon to be arrested for polygamy and cite that case as precedent for the state to not have the authority to regulate his marital life. Maybe next it will be some rancher caught with a sheep in a state with anti-bestiality laws. Its a slippery slope we tread, and we do well to be cautious and consider the consequences to our society before treading there.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 31, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #172318

LT,

I still haven’t heard a good reason as to why “homosexuality is a problem.” I don’t care what other adults do in their own time. So long as there are no victims, that includes themselves (e.g. addictive drug use and suicide), I have no problems. The slippery slope and other analogies you gave are simply not applicable, they are excuses to argue, not reasons.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 31, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #172331
After several statements and over a period of time I believe that the gay issue is not about gays it is about JJ, me, I. That is refered to as being self-centered. You know what is right and wrong. You are just trying to justify your actions. God forgives you, and I’ll be praying for you. It is his hands. Posted by: tomh at July 31, 2006 12:02 PM

tomh,

That is a pretty judgemental statement. You know about me, only as much as I write on this blog, and you think that is enough to judge me as “self-centered?” As far as me trying to justify my actions, my private actions are none of your business, and I don’t have to justify my actions to you. You don’t even know what my actions are. You have no clue as to whether I’m even sexually active or not, and it certainly is none of your business either way.

That is between me and MY God. Don’t bother praying to YOUR God for me, my God, takes care of me just fine.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 31, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #172339

One more thing LT,

Incest is not universally illegal unless it involves child abuse You just can’t legally marry within a certain genetic distance and that depends on state law too. This article has a good discussion.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 31, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #172345

1LT B

Also,I was not arguing that homosexuality is a changeable condition. From my moral point of view, sex outside the bounds of marriage is a sin and we are called to be chaste until marriage.

From you moral point of view it may be a sin, but from mine it is not. Gays have a right to freedom of religion without the government shoving other’s religous ideas of morality down our throats.

If a person feels that they cannot love a person of the opposite sex in a manner suitable to marriage, then they should remain celibate, the same way that heterosexuals should.

And who are you to make that decision for me?

I will admit that this is a high and probably unrealistic standard and one that I have violated myself within the context of heterosexual activity outside of marriage, but that doesn’t make it invalid.

It is invalid from the start, outside a crime (with a victim), you have no right to make moral decisions for me.

I’m sorry for you that you felt compelled to be closeted, I don’t have a problem with gay people per say, I just don’t like the idea of trying to force the homosexual agenda down the rest of America’s throats by the court system.

And I don’t like people trying to shove their morality down my throats all the time! And I don’t like the “mob rule” that has been going on in the states. Our country was not founded as a pure democracy because the founders believed that we all have “inalienable rights” and they did not want them subjected to “majority rule.” What was considered “inalienable rights” 200 years ago may not mean the same thing today. Thomas Jefferson often talked about how society would and should change with the changing times. It is not right to say that our forefathers did not think that same-sex marriage was right. That was a totally different time. Only or judicial system has the final say as to what an “inalienable right” under the Constitution is.

The state regulates other forms of consensual sex.

Well maybe the power of the government over our own bodies needs to be deregulated too. If cons can deregulate big business actions for their big money contributers, then liberals should certainly be able to deregulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bed!

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 31, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #172346

1LT B-
I wish people would focus on the 99.9% of the bible that deals with personal ethics, honesty, respect for other people’s things, and goodwill towards fellow men, rather than make the sum total of much of the “morals” debate in America about something which the federal government shouldn’t be intruding on anyways: People’s right to privacy for consensual sex, and their right to marry according to their state’s laws and have that honored by the other states.

Morals legislation, as it currently stands, amounts to a fig leaf of just how immoral the things this government permits are, and just how little emphasis this nation’s culture puts on majority of Christian values.

Ken Strong-

It was NOT Bush’s responsibility to prove the existence of WMD…

It was. After all, he was taking us into a pre-emtpive war, meaning our justification for attack rested on there being a threat to our security present. Had Kennedy made a pre-emptive attack on Cuba, and the world survived the repercussions of that, he could have pointed to the photos and perhaps the wreckage of the missiles as evidence for the justification of his first strike. What can Bush point to, to say there were al-Qaeda being harbored in Saddam’s territory, or that there were WMDs rolling off the assembly line, like he claimed? Hell, what can Bush point to in most of his case, and say was true? How can he get so damn much wrong at one time? The CIA was hotly disputing many of this administration’s assertions, and yet they were sticking all these things right back in, based on their own analysis, their own suspicions and convinctions.

The thing about the 2500 dead is that we had a choice not to fight this war, a clear choice, and we had the choice to fight this war right. That we failed to keep control of Iraq, as well as failing to get the facts right make the sacrifice of 2500 much more bitter a cost than all those who died fighting an unequivocal threat, under much more competent leadership in that Good War our fathers and grandfathers fought.

The facts of how we got into this war are integral to whether it was the right thing to do. If there was no threat, we had no business taking our attention off of other, real, pressing problems to take care of what was essentially a non-issue for the time being. We had better things to do than Iraq, and we’d be in better shape today if we had done them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #172357
We had better things to do than Iraq, and we’d be in better shape today if we had done them.
THAT is the the bottom line for the failures of the bush league, IMHO. Before that, things were going fine… we were after OBL in afghanistan (whatever happened with that, anyway?), our economy hadn’t suffered the gut-shot while it was down (so could have recovered), and oil prices were still in the reasonable range.

Now look.

Posted by: myles at July 31, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #172358

“The facts of how we got into this war are integral to whether it was the right thing to do. If there was no threat, we had no business taking our attention off of other, real, pressing problems to take care of what was essentially a non-issue for the time being. “

Bingo.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 31, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #172381

Stephen-

Once again, you hit the nail on the head before I could pick up a hammer. I recently attended a Sunday service in Walkertown, N. Carolina where I was repeatedly told about god’s stand on current events. God says this about gay marriage. God says that about the Iraq war. Etc. etc. It got to the point where I was mocking the preacher to my friend because it was the only way I could keep from screaming “BULLSHIT!”

I went to Christian private school for the first 8 years of my schooling. During this time I read the bible, memorized passages, and went to daily chapel. I quickly noticed that a preacher addressing a crowded church never tries to merely educate people on the stories in the book, forcing them to interpret the current connections and meanings of these age old stories to their modern life. Instead, they have a message which they use random quotes from the book to back up. Most of these are severely out of context.

I found the bible to be a fascinating and gripping book of ancient stories about the failure of men…mostly due to their own greed or other moral deficiencies. Knowing the history of the bible, it is impossible to say that these are God’s words, but rather a collection of human experiences framed in the context of a relationship with God. It is very much like works of Homer, or the epic of Gilgamesh, etc. It makes God into the teacher of consequences, and continuously harps on attributes such as acceptance, patience, and love as those which should be sought after. Verse after verse, the bible says to treat others with respect, and to not fall prey to arrogance, decieptfulness, and to not get caught up in subrogating one’s fellow man.

Then comes politics. Now we have a million “Christians” quoting the bible and saying that God wants war, he wants democracy, and he’s willing to use any means necessary to get their. I find it to be not only insulting to the faith, but to rational logic. I have no problems with the moral lessons in the bible stories, but I have a big problem with those who blindly and arrogantly use them to promote policies which are so obviously motivated by the very human flaws that the bible stories seek to eliminate.

Stephen is right. 99% of the bible is indeed about caring and understanding. When small portions are carved out and used to contradict the rest of the book, I don’t see anyone standing up to their human church leaders to make them accountable for perverting their religion. This is the same problem we’re now seeing in politics. Blind leading the blind, maybe right over a cliff. If people want their faith to be taken seriously, they should stop using the bible to promote human ambitions and instead read the damn thing!

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 31, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #172416

Very Good, Kevin!! I like that writ!

Posted by: myles at July 31, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #172496

” I don’t care what other adults do in their own time. So long as there are no victims, that includes themselves (e.g. addictive drug use and suicide), I have no problems.”

Why should you care what other adults do in their own time EVEN if their victim is themselves? If I were to spend half my life in my bedroom with a crack pipe in my mouth or a needle in my veins, why is it YOUR business?

Posted by: tomd at August 1, 2006 4:26 AM
Comment #172530

First of all, claiming that a democrat speaks for liberals isn’t really inherently accurate, as liberal and conservative have become such convoluted terms that they really no longer have any meaning. after all, religious conservatives and neo-conservatives are just two different types of liberals.

Now, onto your diatribe:

Many people (not just Dean) have considered the difference in implication between tyrannical government and anarchy. Some, like Hobbs, and even Locke, prefer authoritarianism to anarchy. The difference between the two is absolute horror for a few, versus severe horror for most, if the government-less void descends into a state of war (Hobbs believed it was always a state of war without government). In time, things have seemed to have gotten better, but the government is still not sovereign. Notice that comment was from 2003.

Do you think capturing Sadam made the US safer? Invading Iraq didn’t so why would that have? It didn’t mark any particular strategic victory, so how is what he is saying so heinous?

I don’t think we will have the strongest military forever either, but that is because I am a pessimist and don’t believe any great power can hold on particularly long. The days of thousand year empires are gone, along with the decadence of these regimes and their violence. Id rather the US lose its strength than fall into despotism.

As for convicting someone before they are tried, isn’t that our system?

as for mixing up books of the bible, you could probably catch half the senate and Mr. Bush in the same types of errors, also notice how many ellipses are in that quote, kind of makes you wonder what was being left out.

there isn’t really much to say to respond to the long list of quotes, most of them are absolutely true (Bush campaigned on homophobia and fear mongering, Rush Limbaugh says things which are offensive to just about any decent human being, racism is a major problem, etc). If Dean says he has been endorsed by the NRA, are you saying he hasn’t been? I don’t know, and really I don’t care, because don’t think gun control is a big deal, but otherwise, is there some sort of problem with a person who doesn’t want others forcing their values on him owning guns? Dean is saying he isn’t the arm of the liberal intelligentsia or some other frantic reactionary name to call “liberals.” Nothing in those quotes is particularly hypocritical.

As for the last bit, nothing he said there was particularly egregious till the end (and a lot of people, including myself don’t like that attitude). I don’t know what he meant when he said hide the salami, but I believe he was trying to root out any potential bias on cases which would be forthcoming and having to do with the President’s actions in the White House. Unfortunately I think that is also a sexual innuendo, but I’m not really sure. As for the “theories” around September 11th, 2001, does he not have a point about secrecy? If the government had been entirely up front, called for an independent commission to review the case, and given them everything they needed right away, instead of dragging their feet, there would have been a lot less of this conspiracy theory bunk. As it stands, there does seem to be a lot that was overlooked, is it unreasonable for people to think their government is lying to them if they see things which seem to be untrue up front?

I don’t really like democrats, I think they’ve driven their party into the ground, as will the republicans, because they try and bring together far too many divergent threads of people who really only have one issue in common with the next. As each overlapping group vies to control the party, they alienate the others. Its kind of embarrassing. I also don’t believe Democrats have the fiscal discipline to help save our country, but they are better than the current Republican congress, so they need to take power. Lesser of two evils? Unfortunately.

Posted by: iandanger at August 1, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #172540
If I were to spend half my life in my bedroom with a crack pipe in my mouth or a needle in my veins, why is it YOUR business? Posted by: tomd at August 1, 2006 04:26 AM
Three reasons:

a) Who is paying for that crack and that apartment? Most likely your criminal behavior which is predicated on feeding your addiciton

b) I’m a liberal. I believe that the main purpose of society is to help realize the potential of all its citizens. If we were, as a nation, to decide that we should support drug addicts with drugs and a place to sleep, then I would think “not the right way to go but OK.” Until then, to maximize your life experience, society needs to get you treatment.

c) I’m not a neocon. If I were, I would throw you in jail, laugh in a smug self-righteous manner as you went through withdrawl, throw away the key after your third conviction, and hope you die early to save me some money.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 1, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #172550

Dave1-

We cannot assume all drug use to be outright “evil” as some would lead you to believe. Those same hypocritical people who want to ban “drugs” go home and drink themselves into a stupor every night. Alcohol is regularly purchased through illegal activity as well (most notably panhandling) but I’m not running out and saying that no one is allowed to drink. It is not the role of government to regulate this, but instead to hold people accountable for the actual bad acts they commit. I’ve never been a huge fan of “treatment” but it is a much better option than jail. While we cannot reward addiction with benefits, we cannot assume causation when it comes to drugs and crime…every person is different. Because nutjobs happen to love drugs, this does not mean outlaw drugs…the problem is that there are nutjobs!

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 1, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #172566

Kevin,

Who said all drugs are “evil”? I posted a narrow reply to a narrow question. Discussions of the pro/con of drug laws is another thread.
Meanwhile, have a toke for me while we wait for that one…

Posted by: Dave1 at August 1, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #172571

Kevin23 & Dave1,

I tend to agree with both of you to a certain degree. I am a liberal also, I think it is society’s responsibility to help citizens realize their potential as well. However, I disagree with the methods currently used to accomplish that. I believe it is society’s responsibility to ensure safety, equality in opportunity (but not necessarily outcome), while at the same time protecting individual liberty.

The use of drugs themselves should not be a crime, the consequences of using those drugs should be. We imprison more of our citizens than any other country on earth. The majority for drug violations and other personal responsibility choices. If we ended the “war on drugs” tomorrow, it would free up law enforcement and our prison system to address real criminals more efficiently.

I would much rather see us use our resources on education in general, but also strong education on the dangers of drug use, as well as sex education to reduce the number of abortions. Unfortunately, people in this country are afraid of sex. Until we realize that we are all sexual creatures by nature, we will continue to suppress information that will be invaluable to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy and disease.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 1, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #172605

People in this country aren’t afraid of sex. A lot of them cannot take their mind off of it. Turn on the TV and you will see what I mean. Wedlock birth will probably outnumber good births inside marriage.

As for drugs, they should be used for medical purposes only. They are corrupt. They also do dangerous things to your body. I don’t want a bunch of high people out on the streets. People that are high in public, like drunkards, should be arrested for public intoxication and disturbing the peace.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at August 1, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #172621

“If I were to spend half my life in my bedroom with a crack pipe in my mouth or a needle in my veins, why is it YOUR business? Posted by: tomd at August 1, 2006 04:26 AM
Three reasons:
a) Who is paying for that crack and that apartment? Most likely your criminal behavior which is predicated on feeding your addiciton

b) I’m a liberal. I believe that the main purpose of society is to help realize the potential of all its citizens. If we were, as a nation, to decide that we should support drug addicts with drugs and a place to sleep, then I would think “not the right way to go but OK.” Until then, to maximize your life experience, society needs to get you treatment.

c) I’m not a neocon. If I were, I would throw you in jail, laugh in a smug self-righteous manner as you went through withdrawl, throw away the key after your third conviction, and hope you die early to save me some money.


Posted by: Dave1 at August 1, 2006 11:22 AM


Dave1,

a) has no bearing. I didn’t say anything about being on public assistance of any kind. Assume for the sake of argument I am super rich and am paying my own way. Does that change your mind?

Your point in b) seems to indicate that you want society to keep everyone in a cage and decide what’s best for them. NO THANKS I can decide that for myself.

Your point in c) is only an attack on Republicans which isn’t really the issue.

Posted by: Tom D. at August 1, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #172699

Informal control of drugs is, and will continue to be the biggest reason people do not do drugs. Putting the law on the books and demonizing it in schools does nothing but create intrigue and a black market that is much more questionable than anything legitimate. There are so many reasons to not criminalize, and only one argument in favor which is that it “causes” crime. Then police the crime as needed to provide as much accountability as possible among society. But leave “behavoir policing” to the family and community. Those are the values which actually influence people, not some law book.

I thought you “conservatives” were supposed to distrust government involvement in your life…like what you eat, smoke, or even inject. There are disturbing the peace laws in every locality to clean up any “resulting” unrest. My guess is that the root cause of the unrest is a messy brain to begin with. How you’d like to promote the unscrambling of a brain should be the debate…not robbing one of any hope for a future. That should be reserved for those who commit real crimes against other people.

It is amazing to me that most “conservatives” today profess to believe in a system which has a fundemental distrust for the federal government getting involved in your life, yet they totally buy in to everything this current HUGE and CORRUPT federal government says about how to live your life. Especially when it helps to “win” an argument.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 1, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #172701

As for the topic of this thread, I find it trite to sit here and bash democrats for angry rhetoric. I read nothing to suggest anything other than someone collecting the most extreme sounding quotes from the leader of the DNC, and as such, speaks A LOT.

I’m not taking sides because I really find it bitter to defend anyone mentioned in this article or their main opposition. So bash Dean’s comments all you want, but its like shooting cans in the backyard for me. Pointless. But interesting from the perspective that those who bash Dems for being so “extreme” tend to use even more extreme analogies to Nazis and WWII, for example.

This is like watching a reality show where they just create whatever personality they want for you through editing.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 1, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #172767

Tom D.

a) If you’re rich, then the rationale wouldn’t apply. But then, your family would be in a position to help you if they could and societies resources would be unnecessary.

b) Bullcrap. No one wants to put you in a cage or decide what you should do. I said society should be there to help not destroy. At some point (in this case deep drug addiction) you can’t help yourself so outside support is needed.

c) Yup. But it is the issue (l v. r) since priorities are what we are discussing.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 2, 2006 9:45 AM
Post a comment