Howard Dean

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]ZEB wrote:
100meters wrote:
It’s a difference allright obviously one would prefer a real christian vs. a drug using alchoholic fake born again who doesn’t attend church, but pretends to be religous to garner votes.

I like it when the democrats talk about their alternative plans for Social Security, Iraq, and the other issues of the day…oh wait…they don’t have alternative plans. All they do is run the President and his party into the ground…just like you did above (next time you throw around the charges I want to see some proof-Moore could have written that and no one but the freaky far left respects him).

You won’t win elections that way…you do know this right?

Please continue…

[/quote]

Really no alternatives? Obviously they have alternatives that most people agree with

  1. don’t privatize S.S.
  2. Fund stem-cells research, stop flushing stem-cells down toilet.
  3. don’t run huge deficits
  4. etc.

Proof of what?

222

100 in regards to your alternative.

  1. An anti position no real alternative
    to the problem, again.

  2. It’s a different alternative. Any
    limits or just go with the flow. Bush
    has an idea, the dems don’t.

  3. Simple minded. How will you pay for
    the social programs and wealth
    redistribution you will use to buy
    votes?

  4. Not worth a comment.

The new Dem talking point per Al Franken is to call for “more troops in Iraq to get the job done”. Is that the etc. part?

223

1.First social security is a solution to a problem (insurance for seniors) privatizing is the anti. Now your side is dropping the private part. My side has suggested the most logical ways to address solvency–now your side is. So your dead wrong there.

  1. Federal funding for stem-cell’s IS an idea! It could have vast social-health-economic benefits (duh!). Flushing stem-cells down the toilet is just sheer stupidity- you dare to call it an idea!?

  2. How will you pay for social programs? The neo-con agenda supports a welfare state, as witnessed by the spending of your party.

  3. Ok.

Funny that you’d try to say the new dem talking point, when obviously since we invaded Iraq dems wondered outloud why we weren’t following the elaborate military planning done in advance (i.e. planning that clearly stated to secure Iraq and to prevent an insurgency we would need double the troops) Now of course we find out that the Brits also didn’t think Bush was planning well for the post invasion. So nothing “new” about it.

224

100meters,

Listen, don’t believe me on the lack of centrism in the Democratic party - just listen to what the centrists themselves are saying.

You keep saying the Democrats are centrists, yet centrist Democrats like the Third Way and the DLC think not - who do you think I am gonna believe?

Zap,

Here is a brief article on the Dean bike path experience:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2003/12/11/deans_conversion_experience/

225

[quote]100meters wrote:
1.First social security is a solution to a problem (insurance for seniors) privatizing is the anti. Now your side is dropping the private part. My side has suggested the most logical ways to address solvency–now your side is. So your dead wrong there.

  1. Federal funding for stem-cell’s IS an idea! It could have vast social-health-economic benefits (duh!). Flushing stem-cells down the toilet is just sheer stupidity- you dare to call it an idea!?

  2. How will you pay for social programs? The neo-con agenda supports a welfare state, as witnessed by the spending of your party.

  3. Ok.

Funny that you’d try to say the new dem talking point, when obviously since we invaded Iraq dems wondered outloud why we weren’t following the elaborate military planning done in advance (i.e. planning that clearly stated to secure Iraq and to prevent an insurgency we would need double the troops) Now of course we find out that the Brits also didn’t think Bush was planning well for the post invasion. So nothing “new” about it.[/quote]

  1. Social Security is the problem. Your
    party know it as does mine. It needs
    to be fixed. The Dems haven’t a clue
    as is apparent by your response.

  2. Yeah it’s an idea. Let’s get the
    Govt. to pay for everything but have
    no control or supervision over it.
    That’s ridiculous. I support this by
    the way. So do most Republicans. We
    just want it done with guidelines
    and not at the whim of the people
    being federally funded.

  3. If the Conservative Agenda supported
    a welfare state then the Democratic
    party would disolve. Your party has
    run on the entitlement plank since
    LBJ.

As to your talking point on additional troops. IT hit the news shows on Sunday morning and Al Franken talked it to death for two days. It is clearly a talking point. Why can’t you face up to that? You’ll be on to something new next week.

226

thunderbolt23, thanks for the link.

Perhaps I have overestimated Dean. He does appear to be as nuts as the right wingers make him out to be.

227

[quote]hedo wrote:

  1. Social Security is the problem. Your
    party know it as does mine. It needs
    to be fixed. The Dems haven’t a clue
    as is apparent by your response.
    [/quote]

weird that the president would be borrowing money from it?(and of course the new Repub suggestions are exactly the same as the dems suggestions–weird too)

Like the guidelines for spending in Iraq? We’re missing what 9 Billion dollars? I think I’ll pass.

I said neo-con. If we’re the entitlement plank, then what the hell do you call this admin, If LBJ was guns and butter, Bush is more guns, even more butter, and tax cuts for the super,filthy rich.

Do you listen to the show? Because he’s been saying this for a year? Your just dead wrong. THIS IS NOT NEW! But I guess it could be a talking point, I dunno–but I certainly don’t see it highlighted anywhere

[/quote]

228

This thread has more replies that Howard Dean would get in votes.

229

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

  1. Social Security is the problem. Your
    party know it as does mine. It needs
    to be fixed. The Dems haven’t a clue
    as is apparent by your response.

weird that the president would be borrowing money from it?(and of course the new Repub suggestions are exactly the same as the dems suggestions–weird too)

  1. Yeah it’s an idea. Let’s get the
    Govt. to pay for everything but have
    no control or supervision over it.
    That’s ridiculous. I support this by
    the way. So do most Republicans. We
    just want it done with guidelines
    and not at the whim of the people
    being federally funded.

Like the guidelines for spending in Iraq? We’re missing what 9 Billion dollars? I think I’ll pass.

  1. If the Conservative Agenda supported
    a welfare state then the Democratic
    party would disolve. Your party has
    run on the entitlement plank since
    LBJ.

I said neo-con. If we’re the entitlement plank, then what the hell do you call this admin, If LBJ was guns and butter, Bush is more guns, even more butter, and tax cuts for the super,filthy rich.

As to your talking point on additional troops. IT hit the news shows on Sunday morning and Al Franken talked it to death for two days. It is clearly a talking point. Why can’t you face up to that? You’ll be on to something new next week.

Do you listen to the show? Because he’s been saying this for a year? Your just dead wrong. THIS IS NOT NEW! But I guess it could be a talking point, I dunno–but I certainly don’t see it highlighted anywhere

[/quote]

Since you can’t come up with anything else except “oh yeah” as a response further discussion with you remains pointless.

Yes. i do listen to Air American, when Rush is on commercial break. He actually kicked up the rhetoric on more troops last week. Not because he believes it. Because it’s something different then the administration wants, per Franken.

IT’s a talking point. Nothing wrong with being a schill. You should at least know why they are using these talking point though.

230

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

  1. Social Security is the problem. Your
    party know it as does mine. It needs
    to be fixed. The Dems haven’t a clue
    as is apparent by your response.

weird that the president would be borrowing money from it?(and of course the new Repub suggestions are exactly the same as the dems suggestions–weird too)

  1. Yeah it’s an idea. Let’s get the
    Govt. to pay for everything but have
    no control or supervision over it.
    That’s ridiculous. I support this by
    the way. So do most Republicans. We
    just want it done with guidelines
    and not at the whim of the people
    being federally funded.

Like the guidelines for spending in Iraq? We’re missing what 9 Billion dollars? I think I’ll pass.

  1. If the Conservative Agenda supported
    a welfare state then the Democratic
    party would disolve. Your party has
    run on the entitlement plank since
    LBJ.

I said neo-con. If we’re the entitlement plank, then what the hell do you call this admin, If LBJ was guns and butter, Bush is more guns, even more butter, and tax cuts for the super,filthy rich.

As to your talking point on additional troops. IT hit the news shows on Sunday morning and Al Franken talked it to death for two days. It is clearly a talking point. Why can’t you face up to that? You’ll be on to something new next week.

Do you listen to the show? Because he’s been saying this for a year? Your just dead wrong. THIS IS NOT NEW! But I guess it could be a talking point, I dunno–but I certainly don’t see it highlighted anywhere

Since you can’t come up with anything else except “oh yeah” as a response further discussion with you remains pointless.

Yes. i do listen to Air American, when Rush is on commercial break. He actually kicked up the rhetoric on more troops last week. Not because he believes it. Because it’s something different then the administration wants, per Franken.

IT’s a talking point. Nothing wrong with being a schill. You should at least know why they are using these talking point though.

[/quote]

Well, you are just dead wrong on every issue. If you don’t listen to the show his issue with troop has ALWAYS been not following the military planning, which requested double the troops! He has said this from the very begining! Good lord! And you dared to say shill—Are our military planners shills? I’ve looked at most of the liberal websites and I just don’t see this being a talking point at all.

and just so you know (I have to laugh you said shill–you’re listening to RUSH)

From an Interview in December 09, 2003
http://www.bluebus.org/archives/20031209_al_franken_inte.php

Q What do you think our Iraq policy should be now?

A Now? Unfortunately, I think we should send more troops. The first thing we need to do is make Iraq more secure. And I believe it’d be safer for our guys and for everybody if we had more troops there

Oh my goodness, Me thinks you listen to too much Rush, hedo! No Al doesn’t believe it? Right Hedo? He’s just been saying this since the very begining to be different than Bush, right? It can’t just be common freaking sense, can it?
STOP LISTENING TO LIARS and people who have ZERO respect for your intelligence.

231

100

Your hopeless.

Keep ignoring reality. Like the rest of your pals.

At this rate the Dems will be equivelant to the Green Party in national politics by 2012.

By the way I was calling you a shill, not Al Franken. You should know what the speaking point means before you repeat it. They don’t actually want more troops. They just want to ask Bush to do so and critisize his answer. It’s a political strategy not an idea. Your Boy Al said as much last week.

I thought you were politcally savvy?