Dr. Tyler; Captain America

It was expected, but I'm particularly interested in two things about this. 1) The Dean supporters, if they do in fact break for Edwards, could turn this primary around quite a bit. (example: if 1/3 of Dean's Wisconsin supporters had voted Edwards--a reasonable number--Edwards would've won that state) 2) His organizational ideas are interesting, and I wonder where he's going with it. Is it going to be a watchdog organization, a think tank, etc.?

Yeah, because all of those record turnouts mean nothing and owe nothing to the Dean movement. How about that Joementum?

*sigh* Forget it, seriously. Haha.

Only according to unsubstantiated claims made by Kerry. I'd like him to document his movements for the past two and a half years and prove to all Americans that he never had sex with that woman. We have a right to a full investigation into the character of a man who wants to be our president... Indeed. Since when has somebody's word (or, heck, records) been enough to say something DIDN'T happen? -=Mike She was being fecetious, you unbelievable moron.

So, Mike, Drudge was wrong. WHOA!

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/presid...igns_of_ending/ What can I say? I wasn't the first guy in the world to support Howard Dean for President, but on this board, it's fairly obvious that I've been one of the most vocal supporters of the good Governor. He has put all of his stock into the Wisconsin primary after the fantastic blunder that was Iowa, and as of right now, John Kerry is leading by ~30% with two days to go. Do I think it's still possible for Howard to come back in Wisconsin and perhaps give Kerry a close second? Yeah, I do. If Drudge isn't a complete liar (which I do, of course, have my doubts about), the TIME magazine scandal piece about John Kerry would come out Monday, and the Kerry voter bloc is practically the same as the Dean bloc. If Kerry drops, it would give the Dean campaign new life and give him a real shot at winning this nomination. But I doubt it'll happen, and I don't really know if Howard wants to continue this campaign or not. He's shown obvious signs of wearing down--understandable, considering he's been campaigning nonstop for roughly the last two years--and it sounds like (from this piece anyway) he just wants to go home. I don't think anything less than a win in Wisconsin will keep him in the race. Say what you will about the guy, but you absolutely cannot deny that he turned the Democratic party from a weak, pissant institution in 2002 into a real force for the 2004 elections. He framed the course of this debate for 2004, and he brought quite a few new voters into the scene to fight against George W. Bush this year. He created a grassroots movement--and fundraising machine--which will be duplicated for years to come. Love him or hate him, the man and his organization have opened up the way for volunteers and other previous non-participants to take part in the inner workings of a campaign. The man is an articulate, kind-hearted individual who really, truly cares about changing the country. The movement is an organization of dedicated, motivated individuals who are willing to sacrifice their paychecks and their time to help change the country. I hope the majority of them have the common sense, when it's all over, to gravitate towards a mainstream candidate who has a chance of winning. If not, the Dean campaign and its mass of supporters might damage the party in the short term, but certainly not in the long term. As for me, I'm still rooting for a miracle comeback--a ninth inning rally--in Wisconsin. If it doesn't happen, I don't really know; I'd prefer Edwards over Kerry, but that's not even looking so hot anymore. I'll support Kerry in the general election over G.W., but I can't guarantee that I'd give him the same dedication and support that I gave Howard Dean. I wouldn't, for example, give him a donation or canvass for him the way I have for Dean. But I'll give him my vote, I suppose. So, the moment that Jobber has been long awaiting seems to be upon us. Gloat away.

Neither do I, and IIRC, I doubt that most adoption agencies give children to homosexual couples. Although, I could be completely wrong there, and I admit that. I would be fascinated to see statistics like average income of children adopted by homosexual couples vs. children adopted by heterosexual couples, again out of sheer curiosity. I would be willing to wager that the disparity--if income can be used as an indicator for success or addition to society, thus making the statistic relevant--is minimal at best. That's a lot of hypotheticals, of course, but if that was the case, wouldn't it be to the society's benefit to reward these couples by giving them a title ("marriage" or "union" or whatever) and encouraging them to raise children on their own? You might argue that not all homosexual couples are likely to adopt children, but then again, not all hetero couples procreate, either. I don't know... maybe I'm formulating this argument on my liberal instinct to give equal rights to everyone, but it seems to me like these marriages COULD be beneficial, and giving equal rights--ESPECIALLY adoption rights--to homosexual unions would definitely be beneficial to the state.

Thus, benefits for having children, etc. I understand what you're saying. I don't necessarily agree with your rationale for not giving gay couples the same government-endowed benefits as heterosexual ones, but I do understand what you're getting at with the government trying to encourage (heterosexual) people to marry and procreate. Although, I'd argue that allowing homosexual couples to adopt would also be to the benefit of our society, seeing as unadopted children would tend to have much less of a chance at being productive members of society.

Out of sheer curiosity, why do you have a problem with it?

Every time I fire up any Netscape-based browser, it crashes on my computer. Is this a Microsoft-based conspiracy, or is there any way for me to give you helpful information to determine the source of this crash? I have reinstalled it like, seven times already.

I know exactly how the traditional Catholic church looks at it. I simply don't have any problem disagreeing in principle with the traditional Catholic church.

Faulting application firefox.exe, version 0.8.0.0, faulting module msvcrt.dll, version 7.0.2600.1106, fault address 0x0003213b. For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.

Okay, I'll do that in a sec.

Yes.

Alright, I'll try it a lil' later and come back with the results.

No doubt. That's why it hurt him so much when the media started shitting on him.

I'm perfectly fine with it. I think marriage has more to do with love and committment than about bearing children.

But like, I didn't have a profile before, either... It has always crashed, from the moment I first installed Firebird like, six months ago. I just tried it again with Firefox, and it still crashes.

Ruh? Explain?

I'm going to just do a little summary of my reply to Jobber, since I lost my previous post. Howard's success as a candidate has always been his ability to frame the debate, and that's why I don't get why you call him "unelectable" and whatnot. There's nothing about him that would be tough to defend against Bush that Edwards or Kerry excel at. Dean's general election strategy has always been to frame the debate as a cultural divide (sounds familiar, doesn't it? Your candidate is doing the same thing) and show the people that he's looking out for their interests. He stands as much of a chance as any other candidate out there, he simply took months and months of strict media scrutiny and inevitably, the voters followed suit. Up until this point, Kerry and Edwards have gotten a relatively free pass. We'll see how "electable" you think they are when the process of media homicide is through, and I'll say the exact same thing. "Electable" is a bullshit indicator.

I just lost a huge fucking post to my back button. I'm pissed. Except calling it an anti-campaign shows how little you actually paid attention.

Jimmy hasn't won any primaries either, though.

Currently, I'm running Avant v. 9.00 and it never, ever, ever crashes. Whenever I run the very latest version of Firefox -- or, for that matter, any previous versions -- it crashes shortly after I start it up with one of those zany "This program has encountered an error and must close" dialogues. Every time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for Osama or anything... ...but he's nowhere close to Hitler. One killed 10,000 (and that's an exaggeration), and one killed several million. Don't exaggerate.

Why? I do, too.