Column on Dean

[Guest MikeSC]

The Delusional Dean

 

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A31

 

Diane Rehm: "Why do you think he [bush] is suppressing that [sept. 11] report?"

 

Howard Dean: "I don't know. There are many theories about it. 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?"

 

-- "The Diane Rehm Show," NPR, Dec. 1

 

It has been 25 years since I discovered a psychiatric syndrome (for the record: "Secondary Mania," Archives of General Psychiatry, November 1978), and in the interim I haven't been looking for new ones. But it's time to don the white coat again. A plague is abroad in the land.

 

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush. Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean's sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status. When he avers, however, that "the most interesting" theory as to why the president is "suppressing" the Sept. 11 report is that Bush knew about Sept. 11 in advance, it's time to check on thorazine supplies. When Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) first broached this idea before the 2002 primary election, it was considered so nutty it helped make her former representative McKinney. Today the Democratic presidential front-runner professes agnosticism as to whether the president of the United States was tipped off about 9/11 by the Saudis, and it goes unnoticed. The virus is spreading.

 

It is, of course, epidemic in New York's Upper West Side and the tonier parts of Los Angeles, where the very sight of the president -- say, smiling while holding a tray of Thanksgiving turkey in a Baghdad mess hall -- caused dozens of cases of apoplexy in otherwise healthy adults. What is worrying epidemiologists about the Dean incident, however, is that heretofore no case had been reported in Vermont, or any other dairy state.

 

Moreover, Dean is very smart. Until now, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) had generally struck people with previously compromised intellectual immune systems. Hence its prevalence in Hollywood. Barbra Streisand, for example, wrote her famous September 2002 memo to Dick Gephardt warning that the president was dragging us toward war to satisfy, among the usual corporate malefactors who "clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq," the logging industry -- timber being a major industry in a country that is two-thirds desert.

 

It is true that BDS has struck some pretty smart guys -- Bill Moyers ranting about a "right-wing wrecking crew" engaged in "a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States way of governing" and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, whose recent book attacks the president so virulently that Krugman's British publisher saw fit to adorn the cover with images of Vice President Cheney in a Hitler-like mustache and Bush stitched up like Frankenstein. Nonetheless, some observers took that to be satire; others wrote off Moyers and Krugman as simple aberrations, the victims of too many years of neurologically hazardous punditry.

 

That's what has researchers so alarmed about Dean. He had none of the usual risk factors: Dean has never opined for a living and has no detectable sense of humor. Even worse is the fact that he is now exhibiting symptoms of a related illness, Murdoch Derangement Syndrome (MDS), in which otherwise normal people believe that their minds are being controlled by a single, very clever Australian.

 

Chris Matthews: "Would you break up Fox?"

 

Howard Dean: "On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but . . . I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not. . . . What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one."

 

Some clinicians consider this delusion -- that Americans can get their news from only one part of the political spectrum -- the gravest of all. They report that no matter how many times sufferers in padded cells are presented with flash cards with the symbols ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times -- they remain unresponsive, some in a terrifying near-catatonic torpor.

 

The sad news is that there is no cure. But there is hope. There are many fine researchers seeking that cure. Your donation to the BDS Foundation, no matter how small, can help. Mailing address: Republican National Committee, Washington, D.C., Attention: psychiatric department. Just make sure your amount does not exceed $2,000 ($4,000 for a married couple).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...5-2003Dec4.html

[BX 0]

That's funny, considering he stated the following;

 

Every two years the American politics industry fills the airwaves with the most virulent, scurrilous, wall-to-wall character assassination of nearly every political practitioner in the country - and then declares itself puzzled that America has lost trust in its politicians.

 

Charles Krauthammer (b. 1950), U.S. national newspaper columnist. Chicago Tribune, p. 28 (October 28, 1994).

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Chris Matthews: "Would you break up Fox?"

 

Howard Dean: "On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but . . . I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not. . . . What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one."

 

Emphasis mine.

 

GEE, NICE SNIP JOB, ASSHOLE. HOW ABOUT WE SHOW A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT HE SAID, MMKAY?

 

MATTHEWS: Would you break up Fox?

       (LAUGHTER)

       MATTHEWS: I’m serious.

       DEAN: I’m keeping a...

       MATTHEWS: Would you break it up? Rupert Murdoch has “The Weekly Standard.” It has got a lot of other interests. It has got “The New York Post.” Would you break it up?

       DEAN: On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but...

       (LAUGHTER)

       MATTHEWS: No, seriously. As a public policy, would you bring industrial policy to bear and break up these conglomerations of power?

       DEAN: I don’t want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not,

       because, obviously

       (CROSSTALK)

       MATTHEWS: Well, how about large media enterprises?

       DEAN: Let me-yes, let me get...

       (LAUGHTER)

       DEAN: The answer to that is yes.

       I would say that there is too much penetration by single corporations in media markets all over this country. We need locally-owned radio stations. There are only two or three radio stations left in the state of Vermont where you can get local news anymore. The rest of it is read and ripped from the AP.

       MATTHEWS: So what are you going to do about it? You’re going to be president of the United States, what are you going to do?

       DEAN: What I’m going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp?cp1=1

 

Yes, direct question and answer there, sir!

 

This kind of moronic misquoting is just what assholes like this tend to do; they twist his words and turn a lighthearted comment ("From an ideological perspective") into a threat that GOD DAMN SALTY COCKS, HE'S GOING AFTER OUR O'REILLY! KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL

 

And hey, if I could check it (I can't; I'm not paying money to get the transcript), bet me a hundred bucks that the other quote that prompted the first half of this bullshit editorial hit job (because you're AGAINST HIT JOBS, apparently, right? after all, look at the Reagans thread!) was overblown, too!

 

After all, this moron compared Dean's comment ("The President ignored warning signs..." WHICH HAS BEEN WIDELY SPECULATED AND ISN'T A HAIRBRAINED IDEA) to Cynthia McKinney's ("President is doing this for oil interests!" or other like conspiratorial nonsense) is the epitome of a screed-filled moronic hit job. There IS quite a bit of evidence that the government ignored warning signs about an attack, regardless of whether they could have stopped it or not. GOD DAMN HIM for actually stating it!

 

Mike, if you have ANY credibility left in you, you'd stop posting bullshit editorials by utter idiots.

 

Of course, you DON'T have any credibility left, so...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Oh, and weren't we supposed to be keeping the fluff out of CE? This is the fifth "HMM INTRIGUING INTERESTING" nonsense that Mike has posted.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

This is pretty interesting, too!

 

Looting the Future

By PAUL KRUGMAN

 

Published: December 5, 2003

 

One thing you have to say about George W. Bush: he's got a great sense of humor. At a recent fund-raiser, according to The Associated Press, he described eliminating weapons of mass destruction from Iraq and ensuring the solvency of Medicare as some of his administration's accomplishments.

 

Then came the punch line: "I came to this office to solve problems and not pass them on to future presidents and future generations." He must have had them rolling in the aisles.

 

In the early months of the Bush administration, one often heard that "the grown-ups are back in charge." But if being a grown-up means planning for the future — in fact, if it means anything beyond marital fidelity — then this is the least grown-up administration in American history. It governs like there's no tomorrow.

 

Nothing in our national experience prepared us for the spectacle of a government launching a war, increasing farm subsidies and establishing an expensive new Medicare entitlement — and not only failing to come up with a plan to pay for all this spending in the face of budget deficits, but cutting taxes at the same time.

 

Recent good economic news doesn't change the verdict. These aren't temporary measures aimed at getting the economy back on its feet; they're permanent drains on the budget. Serious estimates show a long-term budget gap, even with a recovery, of at least 25 percent of federal spending. That is, the federal government — including Medicare, which Mr. Bush has given new responsibilities without new resources — is nowhere near solvent.

 

Then there's international trade policy. Here's how the steel story looks from Europe: the administration imposed an illegal tariff for domestic political reasons, then changed its mind when threatened with retaliatory tariffs focused on likely swing states. So the U.S. has squandered its credibility: it is now seen as a nation that honors promises only when it's politically convenient.

 

What really makes me wonder whether this republic can be saved, however, is the downward spiral in governance, the hijacking of public policy by private interests.

 

The new Medicare bill is a huge subsidy for drug and insurance companies, coupled with a small benefit for retirees. In comparison, the energy bill — which stalled last month, but will come back — has a sort of purity: it barely even pretends to be anything other than corporate welfare. Did you hear about the subsidy that will help Shreveport get its first Hooters restaurant?

 

And it's not just legislation: hardly a day goes by without an administrative decision that just happens to confer huge benefits on favored corporations, at the public's expense. For example, last month the Internal Revenue Service dropped its efforts to crack down on the synfuel tax break — a famously abused measure that was supposed to encourage the production of alternative fuels, but has ended up giving companies billions in tax credits for spraying coal with a bit of diesel oil. The I.R.S. denies charges by Bill Henck, one of its own lawyers, that it buckled under political pressure. Coincidentally, according to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Henck has suddenly found himself among the tiny minority of taxpayers facing an I.R.S. audit.

 

Awhile back, George Akerlof, the Nobel laureate in economics, described what's happening to public policy as "a form of looting." Some scoffed at the time, but now even publications like The Economist, which has consistently made excuses for the administration, are sounding the alarm.

 

To be fair, the looting is a partly bipartisan affair. More than a few Democrats threw their support behind the Medicare bill, the energy bill or both. But the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress are leading the looting party. What are they thinking?

 

The prevailing theory among grown-up Republicans — yes, they still exist — seems to be that Mr. Bush is simply doing whatever it takes to win the next election. After that, he'll put the political operatives in their place, bring in the policy experts and finally get down to the business of running the country.

 

But I think they're in denial. Everything we know suggests that Mr. Bush's people have given as little thought to running America after the election as they gave to running Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. And they will have no idea what to do when things fall apart. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05KRUG.html

 

Hey, look at that! We can both post editorials!

[Firestarter 0]

I think it's worth it to watch you exPLODE in RAGE~!, as EL BRUJ0 might put it.

 

Seriously, "fluff" refers to crap like "Man puts own penis in blender," not political speculation. The fact that you're having kittens over this is rather comical given that you've posted columns raising the possibility of a military draft. It's not because it's speculative, is it? It's just because you don't agree with it.

 

I'd point out yet again that you're a hypocrite but it really isn't worth it anymore. You've been called on your lies, your backsliding, and your double standards so often that it's actually astounding when you manage to make an only moderately implausible point.

[KingPK 0]

Chris Matthews: "Would you break up Fox?"

 

Howard Dean: "On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but . . . I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not. . . . What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one."

 

Emphasis mine.

 

GEE, NICE SNIP JOB, ASSHOLE. HOW ABOUT WE SHOW A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT HE SAID, MMKAY?

Ok...I'm STILL laughing after reading that. I can just picture Tyler looking over at Mike and yelling "GEE, NICE SNIP JOB, ASSHOLE!!"

[Guest Kamui]

I think it's worth it to watch you exPLODE in RAGE~!, as EL BRUJ0 might put it.

 

Seriously, "fluff" refers to crap like "Man puts own penis in blender," not political speculation. The fact that you're having kittens over this is rather comical given that you've posted columns raising the possibility of a military draft. It's not because it's speculative, is it? It's just because you don't agree with it.

 

I'd point out yet again that you're a hypocrite but it really isn't worth it anymore. You've been called on your lies, your backsliding, and your double standards so often that it's actually astounding when you manage to make an only moderately implausible point.

Ah, now I see what people were talking about when they said you threw in meaningless big words to try and put down your competition. That's a bad habit. You should probably stop doing that.

[Firestarter 0]

Which word did you not understand, son?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I'd point out yet again that you're a hypocrite but it really isn't worth it anymore. You've been called on your lies, your backsliding, and your double standards so often that it's actually astounding when you manage to make an only moderately implausible point.

 

Oh, yes, I'm a hypocrite. I often post editorial hit-jobs on Bush in the main forum for the sake of "discussion" (read: bashing the shit out of someone for a snip job quote like this) that consists of seventeen replies of "LOL HOWERD DEEN IS STUPID!@~!~"

 

Political speculation is, quite frankly, no better than "man puts penis in blender" because quite frankly, this adds NOTHING to the discourse of this forum. It's pointless, because posting random right wing editorials -- just as if I were to post random left wing editorials -- only serves to conjure up a few one line "LOL STUPID DEMS" or "LOL BUSH IZ DUM" replies.

 

I'm sorry, but that's fluff. Am I in RAYGE!@LKJ~!!!LKJ!:j right now? Hardly. It's a stupid editorial and I felt like ripping into Mike a little bit for being a fucking tool. Yes, both of you have had "kittens" (as you like to say it) about the Reagan movie and called it a SHAMELESS HIT JOB BOO KILL and then, simply "hah, we gotchoooooooo!!! LOL" when I respond similarly to a retarded topic that Mike posts.

 

I'm sorry, hypocrisy?

 

It's all yours in this case, sweetheart.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

So...where's the article about the penis in the blender?

[Guest Cerebus]

Which word did you not understand, son?

Yeah seriously. Speculation? Hypocrite? Astounding? Implausible? Those are the only words that even come close to "big" in her post and I would hope that you would know what they would mean. Maybe you should try out this site. Sorry in advance that there are no American-Nazi flags on it...try to make it through without them.

[Firestarter 0]

Oh, yes, I'm a hypocrite. I often post editorial hit-jobs on Bush in the main forum for the sake of "discussion" (read: bashing the shit out of someone for a snip job quote like this) that consists of seventeen replies of "LOL HOWERD DEEN IS STUPID!@~!~"

Honestly, learn to quit before you say anything that concrete. Because whenever you do, if you lie (which seems to be practically guaranteed), I'll hand you your head.

 

Colin Powell to step down as Sec'y of State - a Washington Post article which was pure speculation both then and now

bin Laden Issues Support for Iraq - in which you implied that the President had faked an al-Qaeda tape

"Sleeper" Terrorist Cell Arrested in Buffalo - in which you tried to claim that the "Buffalo Six" were innocent stooges (all six have since pled guilty)

Yet another example of the "liberal media" - in which you tried to defend Cynthia McKinney based on an article which was bullshit from beginning to end

War? Hmph. - and this gem, in which all you posted was "Good God, ya'll. What is it good for?" Well, that was profound. Thanks for your relentless War On Fluff, Tyler. We all owe you a debt of gratitude. And let's not forget your incessant harping on the Joe Wilson crap in countless threads, stating that the administration deliberately and maliciously leaked secret information despite the lack of any proof whatsoever, or the "American citizens are being executed by military tribunals" fiasco.

 

 

 

Anyway, here's Dean's response in full:

Dean: I don't know. There are many theories about it. 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 kinds 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 should go to the Kean commission.

So yeah, he skewed McKinney's original accusation and spun it a bit to make it (technically) a hypothetical, but his language was clearly chosen to offer the "theory" at face value.

 

Political speculation is, quite frankly, no better than "man puts penis in blender" because quite frankly, this adds NOTHING to the discourse of this forum

Irrelevant. It's on topic. This is a forum for politics, commentaries, and the (significant) events of the day, and political speculation belongs in here. It doesn't matter whether a thread generates two replies or two hundred.

 

both of you have had "kittens" (as you like to say it) about the Reagan movie and called it a SHAMELESS HIT JOB BOO KILL

Well, no. I posted one single directly on-topic reply in the Reagan movie thread, and that was just a few excerpts from a column pointing out the factual misrepresentations (or as we right-wingers like to call them, "lies") perpetuated by the movie.

 

"hah, we gotchoooooooo!!! LOL" when I respond similarly to a retarded topic that Mike posts.

Well, again, no. I merely pointed out that you aren't averse to speculative pieces when you like the speculation. It's only because your lips are firmly wrapped around Howard Dean's cock that you took exception to this one.

 

I'm sorry, hypocrisy?

 

It's all yours in this case, sweetheart.

First of all, I'm not your "sweetheart." Second, I believe it's obvious that your monopoly is still quite secure.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Honestly, learn to quit before you say anything that concrete. Because whenever you do, if you lie, I'll hand you your head.

 

<cue voice-over>

 

LET'S TAKE A JOURNEY INTO THE CANCER MARNEY ARCHIVES, WHERE SHE SPENDS ENDLESS HOURS OF HER DAY SEARCHING FOR SOME SPUN COMMENTS THAT HER DETRACTORS HAVE BEEN "CRUCIFIED" OVER!!!

 

Colin Powell to step down as Sec'y of State - a Washington Post article which was pure speculation both then and now

 

At least it wasn't a bullshit op-ed piece. It was a legitimate article posted by a legitimate mass media source. Complain all you want about the stupidity and laziness of mass media journalism, but I can hardly be faulted for that.

 

bin Laden Issues Support for Iraq - in which you implied that the President had faked an al-Qaeda tape

 

Since I don't really care to go into the thread and view this wonderfully moronic thing that I obviously implied because you can read my mind and therefore, you can sit down and say whatever you want to say about me because it's true no matter what because you're Cancer Marney and you kick ass and work for the CIA and can sit here and talk down to people because did you know that she's gay? WHOA!

 

"Sleeper" Terrorist Cell Arrested in Buffalo - in which you tried to claim that the "Buffalo Six" were innocent stooges (all six have since pled guilty)

 

Another non-op ed piece written by a major media outlet. Don't fault me for shoddy journalism.

 

Yet another example of the "liberal media" - in which you tried to defend Cynthia McKinney based on an article which was bullshit from beginning to end

 

A mistake. We all wish we were perfect, don't we?

 

War? Hmph. - and this gem, in which all you posted was "Good God, ya'll. What is it good for?" Well, that was profound. Thanks for your relentless War Against Fluff, Tyler. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.

 

God forbid anyone break up an overly tense board with comic relief. And by the way, this "no-fluff" thing is recent, not seven months ago.

 

This is strikingly similar to the processes through which public figures are thrown; HEY EVERYBODY, DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE WAS THIS ONE TIME WHERE HE SAID THIS AND OMG THIS MEANS HE'S A HYPOCRITE LOL UR GHEY I WIN THE INTERNET!11!!!!!1!!!

 

And let's not forget your incessant harping on the Joe Wilson crap in countless threads, stating that the administration deliberately and maliciously leaked secret information despite the lack of any proof whatsoever, or the "American citizens are being executed by military tribunals" fiasco.

 

In re. Joe Wilson, the "no proof" allegation is a farce, but whatever, let's just chalk that one up to the Marney machine! GO YOU!

 

Regarding the military tribunals, I was misinformed regarding the executions. Pardon me for not focusing on the right aspect of the argument, I'm only human. OMG TYL0R IS SO DUM LOL HES SUCH A LIER BECUZ HE ISN"T ALWAYS PERFICKT LIKE MARNEY.

 

Sorry, love! I only wish I was as gleamingly anal as you!

 

So yeah, he skewed McKinney's original accusation and spun it a bit to make it (technically) a hypothetical, but his language was clearly chosen to offer the "theory" at face value.

 

Bullshit. That's what we call "Marney dissects information and reports it the way she wants to report it for her gain"

 

His entire point was that random theories come out when people act secretive. The situation in question was the 9/11 report where pages and pages about Saudi connections were blacked out. He said that this kind of stuff leads people to think that there's shady business going on. Did he say he came up with the theory or he believes it? NOPE. Would you gather that from reading the utterly stupid op-ed piece, though?

 

YEP!!!

 

Gee, my point exactly!

 

Irrelevant. It's on topic. This is a forum for politics, commentaries, and the (significant) events of the day, and political speculation belongs in here. It doesn't matter whether a thread generates two replies or two hundred.

 

It's "on topic"? You just tried to "shred" me for posting the previous stuff. This is, perhaps, WORSE than that because it's ENTIRELY a hit job on someone. NOTHING more. It doesn't present anything outside of its own smarminess that even represents discussion.

 

Actually, it sounds less like "fluff" than it is trolling.

 

Well, no. I posted one single directly on-topic reply in the Reagan movie thread, and that was just a few excerpts from a column pointing out the factual misrepresentations (or as we right-wingers like to call them, "lies") perpetuated by the movie.

 

Okay, and you sit here and laugh it off when I try to do the same. OKAY, SORRY, FORGOT THAT THIS FORUM WAS RENAMED "CANCER MARNEY IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND YOU'RE ALWAYS WRONG NO MATTER WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND WHAT'S REALLY THE TRUTH" overnight!

 

I'll have to PM my resignation to Dames.

 

Well, again, no. I merely pointed out that you aren't averse to speculative pieces when you like the speculation. It's only because your lips are firmly wrapped around Howard Dean's cock that you took exception to this one.

 

This isn't speculation, it's a hit job. And need I mention the verbal fellatio you've constantly given your loving president?

 

First of all, I'm not your "sweetheart." Second, I believe it's obvious that your monopoly is still quite secure.

 

Will you marry me?

 

Jesus, I'm going to go get drunk. HAVE FUN "TOOLING ME"!!!!

 

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Which word did you not understand, son?

 

Hy-po-the-tical.

 

Anyone got a dictionary?

 

What I want to know is why Chris Matthews has such a hard-on for a certain cable news channel that's slapping his employer, and his show, around in the ratings like a little ragdoll...

Edited December 5, 2003 by kkktookmybabyaway

[Guest Kamui]

Which word did you not understand, son?

I understood all of them. Thanks for missing the point completley, though.

[Guest MikeSC]

Honestly, learn to quit before you say anything that concrete. Because whenever you do, if you lie, I'll hand you your head.

 

<cue voice-over>

 

LET'S TAKE A JOURNEY INTO THE CANCER MARNEY ARCHIVES, WHERE SHE SPENDS ENDLESS HOURS OF HER DAY SEARCHING FOR SOME SPUN COMMENTS THAT HER DETRACTORS HAVE BEEN "CRUCIFIED" OVER!!!

 

Colin Powell to step down as Sec'y of State - a Washington Post article which was pure speculation both then and now

 

At least it wasn't a bullshit op-ed piece.

Hmm, don't remember calling this a "news" piece --- of course, ironically, this "bullshit op-ed" piece is more factually accurate than the story you quoted.

 

Ironic, huh?

 

It was a legitimate article posted by a legitimate mass media source. Complain all you want about the stupidity and laziness of mass media journalism, but I can hardly be faulted for that.

Do you need help handling that cross?

bin Laden Issues Support for Iraq - in which you implied that the President had faked an al-Qaeda tape

 

Since I don't really care to go into the thread and view this wonderfully moronic thing that I obviously implied because you can read my mind and therefore, you can sit down and say whatever you want to say about me because it's true no matter what because you're Cancer Marney and you kick ass and work for the CIA and can sit here and talk down to people because did you know that she's gay? WHOA!

Do you need a tissue to wipe away the tears yet? Man, you seem fairly stable most of the time --- but the moment Dean gets involved, you turn into a Stepford Wife wannabe.

"Sleeper" Terrorist Cell Arrested in Buffalo - in which you tried to claim that the "Buffalo Six" were innocent stooges (all six have since pled guilty)

 

Another non-op ed piece written by a major media outlet. Don't fault me for shoddy journalism.

Yet, the BS op-ed piece by Krauthammer is actually MORE ACCURATE than those "legit" stories. I love the irony, personally.

Yet another example of the "liberal media" - in which you tried to defend Cynthia McKinney based on an article which was bullshit from beginning to end

 

A mistake. We all wish we were perfect, don't we?

Cynthia is long-known as a friggin' psychopath. If you wish to DEFEND her, you'll get ripped for it. You didn't see ME defending Strom or Jesse Helms to any degree at any point, did you?

War? Hmph. - and this gem, in which all you posted was "Good God, ya'll. What is it good for?" Well, that was profound. Thanks for your relentless War Against Fluff, Tyler. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.

 

God forbid anyone break up an overly tense board with comic relief. And by the way, this "no-fluff" thing is recent, not seven months ago.

 

This is strikingly similar to the processes through which public figures are thrown; HEY EVERYBODY, DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE WAS THIS ONE TIME WHERE HE SAID THIS AND OMG THIS MEANS HE'S A HYPOCRITE LOL UR GHEY I WIN THE INTERNET!11!!!!!1!!!

Man, your life is so rough around here. My heart bleeds for you.

 

How 'bout this --- YOU get called a racist constantly for no real reason and tell me how much you enjoy it.

And let's not forget your incessant harping on the Joe Wilson crap in countless threads, stating that the administration deliberately and maliciously leaked secret information despite the lack of any proof whatsoever, or the "American citizens are being executed by military tribunals" fiasco.

 

In re. Joe Wilson, the "no proof" allegation is a farce, but whatever, let's just chalk that one up to the Marney machine! GO YOU!

Um, is there proof?

Regarding the military tribunals, I was misinformed regarding the executions.

And when it was pointed out, you fought about it for a long time. I know, I was there. I was laughing at you --- oops, I mean WITH you --- but I was there.

Pardon me for not focusing on the right aspect of the argument, I'm only human. OMG TYL0R IS SO DUM LOL HES SUCH A LIER BECUZ HE ISN"T ALWAYS PERFICKT LIKE MARNEY.

When all else fails, play the martyr card. Man, did you learn your political science beliefs from the Clinton presidency?

Sorry, love! I only wish I was as gleamingly anal as you!

Oh, you do nicely.

So yeah, he skewed McKinney's original accusation and spun it a bit to make it (technically) a hypothetical, but his language was clearly chosen to offer the "theory" at face value.

 

Bullshit. That's what we call "Marney dissects information and reports it the way she wants to report it for her gain"

 

His entire point was that random theories come out when people act secretive.

Her POINT was ASININE and you STILL defend it --- then BITCH that you get RIPPED for defending somebody so brain-dead.

The situation in question was the 9/11 report where pages and pages about Saudi connections were blacked out.

Jesus Christ, are YOU serious? You know, I PRAY Dean goes down this route. It should make for some grand comedy.

 

Hint: You have only have your nose up his BUTT --- try and keep your mind out of it, if possible.

He said that this kind of stuff leads people to think that there's shady business going on.

Then I guess questioning about the Vince Foster suicide WAS fair and in-bounds, huh?

Did he say he came up with the theory or he believes it? NOPE.

IF YOU DON'T BUY IT --- YOU DON'T EVEN MENTION IT.

Would you gather that from reading the utterly stupid op-ed piece, though?

 

YEP!!!

If he mentions it, he supports it to some degree. You don't see me going into Foster theories to discredit Clinton, do you?

Irrelevant. It's on topic. This is a forum for politics, commentaries, and the (significant) events of the day, and political speculation belongs in here. It doesn't matter whether a thread generates two replies or two hundred.

 

It's "on topic"?

Yup. A colunm with an interesting take on the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Is there any way that it is NOT on topic?

You just tried to "shred" me for posting the previous stuff.

She didn't shred you for posting the crap. She shredded you for bitching about me posting this.

This is, perhaps, WORSE than that because it's ENTIRELY a hit job on someone.

Man, you're going to HATE the campaign should he get the nomination. Your feelings are gonna get REAL hurt then.

NOTHING more. It doesn't present anything outside of its own smarminess that even represents discussion.

So, it's like your posts, just with less whining?

Actually, it sounds less like "fluff" than it is trolling.

Well, no. I posted one single directly on-topic reply in the Reagan movie thread, and that was just a few excerpts from a column pointing out the factual misrepresentations (or as we right-wingers like to call them, "lies") perpetuated by the movie.

 

Okay, and you sit here and laugh it off when I try to do the same. OKAY, SORRY, FORGOT THAT THIS FORUM WAS RENAMED "CANCER MARNEY IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND YOU'RE ALWAYS WRONG NO MATTER WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND WHAT'S REALLY THE TRUTH" overnight!

Man, you are acting like a grade-A bitch right now.

I'll have to PM my resignation to Dames.

Do so. Please. I'd love to see that as your new SN. Either that or "LUVSDEAN2004"

Well, again, no. I merely pointed out that you aren't averse to speculative pieces when you like the speculation. It's only because your lips are firmly wrapped around Howard Dean's cock that you took exception to this one.

 

This isn't speculation, it's a hit job. And need I mention the verbal fellatio you've constantly given your loving president?

It only appears to the sodomizing of you and Dean up to this point. And, the funny thing is that when Dean crashes and burns, you'll end up calling him another Dukakis in a few years.

First of all, I'm not your "sweetheart." Second, I believe it's obvious that your monopoly is still quite secure.

 

Will you marry me?

 

Jesus, I'm going to go get drunk. HAVE FUN "TOOLING ME"!!!!

 

Well, drunk college kids might be an easier debating opponent fo ya.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Chris Matthews: "Would you break up Fox?"

 

Howard Dean: "On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but . . . I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not. . . . What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one."

 

Emphasis mine.

 

GEE, NICE SNIP JOB, ASSHOLE. HOW ABOUT WE SHOW A FULL TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT HE SAID, MMKAY?

 

MATTHEWS: Would you break up Fox?

       (LAUGHTER)

       MATTHEWS: I’m serious.

       DEAN: I’m keeping a...

       MATTHEWS: Would you break it up? Rupert Murdoch has “The Weekly Standard.” It has got a lot of other interests. It has got “The New York Post.” Would you break it up?

       DEAN: On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but...

       (LAUGHTER)

       MATTHEWS: No, seriously. As a public policy, would you bring industrial policy to bear and break up these conglomerations of power?

       DEAN: I don’t want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not,

       because, obviously

       (CROSSTALK)

       MATTHEWS: Well, how about large media enterprises?

       DEAN: Let me-yes, let me get...

       (LAUGHTER)

       DEAN: The answer to that is yes.

       I would say that there is too much penetration by single corporations in media markets all over this country. We need locally-owned radio stations. There are only two or three radio stations left in the state of Vermont where you can get local news anymore. The rest of it is read and ripped from the AP.

       MATTHEWS: So what are you going to do about it? You’re going to be president of the United States, what are you going to do?

       DEAN: What I’m going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000254.asp?cp1=1

 

Yes, direct question and answer there, sir!

 

This kind of moronic misquoting is just what assholes like this tend to do; they twist his words and turn a lighthearted comment ("From an ideological perspective") into a threat that GOD DAMN SALTY COCKS, HE'S GOING AFTER OUR O'REILLY! KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL

 

And hey, if I could check it (I can't; I'm not paying money to get the transcript), bet me a hundred bucks that the other quote that prompted the first half of this bullshit editorial hit job (because you're AGAINST HIT JOBS, apparently, right? after all, look at the Reagans thread!) was overblown, too!

 

After all, this moron compared Dean's comment ("The President ignored warning signs..." WHICH HAS BEEN WIDELY SPECULATED AND ISN'T A HAIRBRAINED IDEA) to Cynthia McKinney's ("President is doing this for oil interests!" or other like conspiratorial nonsense) is the epitome of a screed-filled moronic hit job. There IS quite a bit of evidence that the government ignored warning signs about an attack, regardless of whether they could have stopped it or not. GOD DAMN HIM for actually stating it!

 

Mike, if you have ANY credibility left in you, you'd stop posting bullshit editorials by utter idiots.

 

Of course, you DON'T have any credibility left, so...

So, in the full transcript, he STILL refused to say he wouldn't shut down Fox News (bolded in your post for your convenience)?

 

MATTHEWS: Would you break it up? Rupert Murdoch has “The Weekly Standard.” It has got a lot of other interests. It has got “The New York Post.” Would you break it up?

DEAN: On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but...

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: No, seriously. As a public policy, would you bring industrial policy to bear and break up these conglomerations of power?

DEAN: I don’t want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not,

because, obviously

 

So, given a chance to say no to an easy question and he wouldn't say no.

 

That's a "gotcha"?

 

Umm, OK.

 

Have fun watching him crash and burn.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

Dammit Mike, you could've at least left me something to mop up.

[Guest MikeSC]

Dammit Mike, you could've at least left me something to mop up.

Ah, darlin' ( ), remember:

 

Tyler is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

I'm sure he'll put his foot in his mouth --- or his nose further up Dean's BUTT --- soon enough.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

I had absolutely no idea Dean was for censorship.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Odd, I just learned that Howie is going to be on certain network's Sunday News Show.

 

<cue voice-over>

 

LET'S TAKE A JOURNEY INTO THE CANCER MARNEY ARCHIVES, WHERE SHE SPENDS ENDLESS HOURS OF HER DAY SEARCHING FOR SOME SPUN COMMENTS THAT HER DETRACTORS HAVE BEEN "CRUCIFIED" OVER!!!...

 

Soooooo, Tyler, since I'll be getting Madden 2004 from Santa maybe we can play a game or two. Nothing says "stress relief" like controlling a strong safety on a run blitz and taking out the other team's running back in the backfield...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Dammit Mike, you could've at least left me something to mop up.

Will you have my babies?

[Firestarter 0]

Will you have my babies?

Given your usual whimpering, snivelling "It's not my fault! I made a mistake! So I'm not perfect! Don't blame me! I did what I'm criticising before I criticised you for doing the same thing so it doesn't count! It was someone else's shoddy work! I was deceived! I was just joking!" tone, I think it'd be more appropriate for you to ask if you could have mine. Honestly, Tyler, it's pretty sad when a homosexual femme girl can look several times more like a man than you.

 

I can hardly be faulted for that...

Don't fault me for shoddy journalism...

A mistake. We all wish we were perfect, don't we?

God forbid anyone break up an overly tense board with comic relief. And by the way, this "no-fluff" thing is recent, not seven months ago...

I was misinformed... Pardon me for not focusing on the right aspect of the argument, I'm only human

Jesus, it's embarrassing just to read your whiny posts. I can't even imagine how pathetic you must feel typing them.

Edited December 6, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Jesus, it's embarrassing just to read your whiny posts. I can't even imagine how pathetic you must feel typing them.

 

BRB slitting wrists.

[Firestarter 0]

Relay some messages through SpiderPoet (via Jesus) sometime. Oh wait, you're going to hell for killing yourself... okay wait, I've got it; you can still go through Satan - get him to talk to SP again, but make sure SP doesn't call on the Holy Power of the Most High Name before Satan can finish. Tell Satan to take a peace sign or something with him.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I pussed out

 

I wish I was as good as you.

[Guest MikeSC]

Will you have my babies?

Given your usual whimpering, snivelling "It's not my fault! I made a mistake! So I'm not perfect! Don't blame me! I did what I'm criticising before I criticised you for doing the same thing so it doesn't count! It was someone else's shoddy work! I was deceived! I was just joking!" tone, I think it'd be more appropriate for you to ask if you could have mine. Honestly, Tyler, it's pretty sad when a homosexual femme girl can look several times more like a man than you.

Hey, look at the bright side, Marney --- if you ever wanted to express your more "butch" side, Tyler might be PERFECT.

 

Are ALL Dean supporters this vapid?

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

Are ALL Dean supporters this vapid?

Merrill told [Clay Johnson] that she didn't love him anymore.

He returned to his apartment in Atlanta... he stripped to his underwear, lay on the floor in a fetal position and remained there for days, occasionally sipping from an old carton of orange juice. ''I was completely obliterated,'' he says. ''I didn't know something like that could actually cause physical pain.''

Johnson's friends kept calling, trying to think of something that would get him out of the house. Finally they hit on one: Howard Dean.

Johnson had been talking about Howard Dean for about a year... at his friends' urging, Johnson attended a Dean gathering... Johnson spent most of the meeting talking with a young Duke graduate named Julie Reeve, who, he says, was ''really smart.'' She was also, he says, ''the most beautiful girl I have ever seen.''

- The Dean Connection by Samantha M Shapiro

 

 

 

Apparently so.

 

Howard Dean will give you something to live for. Howard Dean will bring you joy. Know love through Howard Dean. Know forgiveness through Howard Dean. Know that Howard Dean's wisdom is infinite. Howard Dean will bring peace to the world. Howard Dean will calm the oceans and still the skies. Howard Dean is Pravda. The Truth.

Praise Howard Dean! Praise him!

[Vyce 0]

Howard Dean is Mother, Howard Dean is Father.