Dean For DNC Chair Thread #2

[EricMM 0]

I think you all are under-appreciating the apathy the left has shown recently.

 

In fact, there seem to be no guaranteed votes in this world, you have to chase them to get them. Many many many liberal kids didn't vote because they didn't C-A-R-E, Kerry inspired shit.

 

NoCalMike was right, I can tell you as a very liberal guy, Kerry does almost nothing for me. He's only good compared to Bush. Look, it's like I said before, you can't out conservative the Conservatives. Don't take their stances, argue them. Maybe if you can convince people that you're right, you'll win. Don't be Republicans-Lite. That NEVER works. But like I said before, that certainly won't be possible in the four years we have. Unless Bush does *awfully*.

[SuperJerk 0]

I still want to know why Republicans can move to the far right and it's considered a good move, but Democrats moving to the left is crazy.

Because the standard American is slightly right of centre.

And the majority of children are above average.

[Guest MikeSC]

I still want to know why Republicans can move to the far right and it's considered a good move, but Democrats moving to the left is crazy.

Umm, how many Republicans win national office moving far to the right?

 

Pres. Bush is not even CLOSE to being far right, much as some with to claim otherwise. "Far right" wouldn't be behind an increase in NEA funding, an exceptionally open border policy, a Medicare prescription drug benefit...

-=Mike

...Notice the spending? Not exactly "Far right"...

[The Czech Republic 0]

The Democrats do MORE for families, on average, than Republicans do.

Yeah, but nobody wants the Democrats' ideal family structure

[Guest Vitamin X]

Whoa. Hillary's speaking out against abortion?

 

I don't think I heard about this.

From FairAndBalancedLOL2005 on her Jan. 24 speech before the New York State Family Planning Providers:

 

Clinton emphasized that “we should embrace” research that shows that teenage girls with strong religious and moral values more frequently abstain from sex and argued that continuing to educate young people about abstinence is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy. She concluded that “the jury is still out” on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs.

 

Clinton's call to abortion rights advocates in her audience to try and find common issues with their anti-abortion counterparts as well as recent high-profile appearances drove press coverage afterward — and talk of a possible 2008 candidacy.

 

"If you heard Sen. Clinton during the election, there was no one who sounded more presidential," said Wilson, referring to the New York senator's speech at the Democratic National Convention.

 

"But now, after [sen. John] Kerry's defeat, there is speculation that the voice that sounded so presidential is now seeking to be president," said Wilson, who added that the political news wires have been electrified by “HRC” sightings, quotations and maneuvers.

 

Not everyone is pleased by the prospect of a Clinton run in 2008. Janice Crouse, executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the policy arm of the abortion opponents Concerned Women for America (search), said Clinton won’t get away with trying to re-invent herself as a moderate, particularly on the abortion issue.

 

"It all has a hollow ring to it," Crouse said, noting that “a radical agenda” lurks behind Clinton's speech. “It’s just another example of Clinton political spin. She’s been good at that from the very beginning.”

 

Crouse said she and many others believe the pro-life, socially conservative ranks had a strong role in helping Bush win re-election in November, and now Democrats like Clinton are running scared.

 

“The Democratic Party realizes that it has got to come to the center if they are going to win any election in the future,” Crouse said.

I don't see the part where she speaks out against abortion. She's in favor of abstinence, so am I, but I'm pro-choice as well. It even states:

 

"Clinton's call to abortion rights advocates in her audience to try and find common issues with their anti-abortion counterparts..."

 

Which would indicate that Clinton is pro-choice, or at least not anti-abortion.

 

Yeah, but nobody wants the Democrats' ideal family structure

This originally said something else which I was going to furiously retaliate if only I'd remembered. However, this is still something of a silly generalization to make.

[Guest MikeSC]

I still want to know why Republicans can move to the far right and it's considered a good move, but Democrats moving to the left is crazy.

Because while the rest of the world is becoming downright socialist, we have to argue ass-backwards from everybody else over who can be the more conservative party. Which, ironically, makes us most like a middle eastern country arguing over keeping tradition.

If you don't mind me asking --- how come the European countries all striving to be MORE liberal aren't referred to as being "like a Middle Eastern country"? How is them continuing THEIR tradition and incessantly bitching about their people CHOOSING our civilization not bad, as your comparison of us to a Middle Eastern country implies that you believe of us?

 

Like it or not, conservatism WORKS for us. We have a work ethic. We have employment. We have a real economy. If we ignore "tradition", you'd see things you'd definitely not much like.

To keep this focused on Dean, I don't think his "OMG COFFEE DRINKIN LIBERAL GO BACK TO VERMONT YOU HIPPY" stuff is really going to have an effect as chairman like it did as a candidate. He was successful in getting people to unite and build an opposition to Bush.

Except he wasn't even remotely successful. Bush won --- and, no doubt, there were more than a few voters who openly got disgusted at the excesses of the anti-Bush left. As I said throughout the campaign, people just DON'T HATE Bush as much as the left wants to think they do --- just as the country didn't hate Clinton as much as the right wanted to believe they did.

 

It's a massive stretch to refer to Dean's campaign a success at any possible level.

That won't be a problem here. Just because Dean is chairman doesn't mean they will all agree with Dean's unpopular decisions, like adopting Canada's healthcare system.

Unfortunately, having people who spout ridiculous ideas and theories (remember, he ALSO discussed the theory that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance) as the face of your party is a major problem for a party.

 

Why do you think Libertarians have never taken hold? Is it because their ideology is so abhorrent?

 

No --- many Americans actually AGREE with them. If I listed the planks of the Libertarian Party, many people would probably say it's a good thing (ask Dr. Tom). It's because their LEADERSHIP and their PUBLIC FACES have a tendency to behave like idiots and people wouldn't trust them to run anything.

Shit. I wish you had posted earlier. I had written up a huge post about how this moderate middle of the road Clinton crap isn't working, and how far more than the Democratic base hates Bush and Kerry failed to capitalize on it, trying to hard to not offend anyone or outright criticise the guy's judgments in his little "Well, I like the President and I think he's a nice guy, BUT..." fence-sitting.

 

We needed more Bush is Satan, honestly. We're not going to get anywhere without playing as bloodthirsty as the GOP do.

And it's odd that you believe the Democrats aren't blood-thirsty.

 

Have you missed the comments? Did you miss Al Gore's speech at the moveon.org get together back in June last year? How about Ted Kennedy calling him a liar? How about the Dems stating that Bush lied to get us into a war? How about Democratic supporters like the NAACP's comments about him?

 

Is that NOT blood-thirsty? Is that not mean?

 

Kerry was hardly a nice guy during the campaign. It'd be more than mildly dishonest to claim that Kerry was nice while Bush was not. He never proclaimed to like Bush at any point.

I don't mean that we decide to become big on socialist programs like universal health care or something. I mean we should have done more to channel the dislike of Bush more in the campaign. How many years has it been since there has been such public outrage over an American President? None of that was reflected in this campaign.

His entire campaign was "Anybody but Bush". That was the only consistent message in his campaign. Everything else changed, constantly, but the hatred of Bush message was the only thing the Dems had.

 

And, I know a lot of people hate to realize it, Clinton was not exactly beloved by a lot of Americans. There was A LOT of hatred of Clinton.

 

And it didn't exactly make Bob Dole a successful candidate.

 

As I said WAAAAAAY back during the Dem primaries --- you don't win elections through hate. It NEVER has worked and I do not assume it ever will work.

Over half of this country according to polls now feels that this Iraqi war was not worth it.

Cite one.

Still, he pulled 48% of the vote being as weak of a candidate that he was.

That's not the problem.

 

The problem is that he only polled about one percent less than the most popular Dem President in years against an incredibly weak Republican candidate.

 

The Dems might have to face a future where gaining 50% of the vote is nigh impossible for them.

Uh, what? The Democrats do MORE for families, on average, than Republicans do.

Such as?

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Cite one.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/iraq.poll/

 

[Guest MikeSC]

Cite one.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/iraq.poll/

52% say it was not a mistake, according to that poll. Meaning less than half say it was a mistake. And, there is no reason to believe that the number will drop.

 

So, you might want to cite one that actually proves the point he was trying to make.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

If you don't mind me asking --- how come the European countries all striving to be MORE liberal aren't referred to as being "like a Middle Eastern country"?

Middle Eastern countries are liberal?

[Guest MikeSC]

If you don't mind me asking --- how come the European countries all striving to be MORE liberal aren't referred to as being "like a Middle Eastern country"?

Middle Eastern countries are liberal?

If you're attempting to continue your tradition --- which they do with social liberalism --- then that is all it takes to be comparable to a Middle Eastern country according to JOTW.

 

Just asking about the double standard.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

If you don't mind me asking --- how come the European countries all striving to be MORE liberal aren't referred to as being "like a Middle Eastern country"?

Middle Eastern countries are liberal?

If you're attempting to continue your tradition --- which they do with social liberalism --- then that is all it takes to be comparable to a Middle Eastern country according to JOTW.

Can you give examples of which Middle Eastern countries you consider liberal?

[Guest MikeSC]

If you don't mind me asking --- how come the European countries all striving to be MORE liberal aren't referred to as being "like a Middle Eastern country"?

Middle Eastern countries are liberal?

If you're attempting to continue your tradition --- which they do with social liberalism --- then that is all it takes to be comparable to a Middle Eastern country according to JOTW.

Can you give examples of which Middle Eastern countries you consider liberal?

JOTW's point was that arguing to KEEP YOUR TRADITION is "similar to a Middle Eastern country". "Keeping your tradition" works for Socialist countries as much as it works for us as a criticism.

 

Are you striving to miss the point?

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

JOTW's point was that arguing to KEEP YOUR TRADITION is "similar to a Middle Eastern country". "Keeping your tradition" works for Socialist countries as much as it works for us as a criticism.

 

Are you striving to miss the point?

        -=Mike

I understood the structure of your analogy, but I am questioning why the Middle East was chosen as an example of "liberal" rather than some other region.

 

Now quit being a dick and just answer the question.

[Guest MikeSC]

JOTW's point was that arguing to KEEP YOUR TRADITION is "similar to a Middle Eastern country". "Keeping your tradition" works for Socialist countries as much as it works for us as a criticism.

 

Are you striving to miss the point?

        -=Mike

I understood the structure of your analogy, but I am questioning why the Middle East was chosen as an example of "liberal" rather than some other region.

 

Now quit being a dick and just answer the question.

It wasn't. It was asking why is it considered bad for us to continue our conservative tradition when it's not considered bad for Europe to continue their liberal tradition. Since "continuing your tradition" makes you like a "Middle Eastern country" according to JOTW.

 

Stop being a dick and intentionally missing the point.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

JOTW's point was that arguing to KEEP YOUR TRADITION is "similar to a Middle Eastern country". "Keeping your tradition" works for Socialist countries as much as it works for us as a criticism.

 

Are you striving to miss the point?

         -=Mike

I understood the structure of your analogy, but I am questioning why the Middle East was chosen as an example of "liberal" rather than some other region.

 

Now quit being a dick and just answer the question.

It wasn't. It was asking why is it considered bad for us to continue our conservative tradition when it's not considered bad for Europe to continue their liberal tradition. Since "continuing your tradition" makes you like a "Middle Eastern country" according to JOTW.

 

Stop being a dick and intentionally missing the point.

-=Mike

Quit re-explaining your point.

 

I got it the first time.

 

What I didn't get is why Middle Eastern countries in particular were used in the example you gave. You keep saying its because of something JOTW said. Since I don't remember JOTW claiming that Middle Eastern countries were liberal, I don't see why you said they were either.

[Guest MikeSC]

JOTW's point was that arguing to KEEP YOUR TRADITION is "similar to a Middle Eastern country". "Keeping your tradition" works for Socialist countries as much as it works for us as a criticism.

 

Are you striving to miss the point?

        -=Mike

I understood the structure of your analogy, but I am questioning why the Middle East was chosen as an example of "liberal" rather than some other region.

 

Now quit being a dick and just answer the question.

It wasn't. It was asking why is it considered bad for us to continue our conservative tradition when it's not considered bad for Europe to continue their liberal tradition. Since "continuing your tradition" makes you like a "Middle Eastern country" according to JOTW.

 

Stop being a dick and intentionally missing the point.

-=Mike

Quit re-explaining your point.

 

I got it the first time.

 

What I didn't get is why Middle Eastern countries in particular were used in the example you gave.

 

They were used in JOTW's example. I apparently need to constantly re-explain the analogy as you constantly don't seem able to grasp it.

 

Are you simply LOOKING for a fight? For a guy who only gets in flamewars that I "cause", you are doing a bang-up job of trying to start one here.

If you could explain THAT to me, instead of dissecting the structure of your original analogy, you will then be answering the question I asked.

Considering that your question was borne of ignorance...

-=Mike

...And I am now ending this, as you're simply being a dick and I'm not going to let you cause a flamewar over this. You're unable to actually grasp the analogy and I lack the patience to get you to grasp it...

[SuperJerk 0]

Mike, are you completely unable to grasp the fact that I understood the analogy, but just want to know what Middle Eastern countries are considered liberal?

 

I asked a simple fucking question, but instead of answering it, you decided to be a smart ass and re-explain the entire analogy over and over again.

 

This is why people don't like you. You make idiotic points and then get mad at people for questioning them and start insulting them.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Predicted MikeSC answer:

 

"I DON'T GIVE A DAMN THAT PEOPLE DON'T LIKE ME"

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, are you completely unable to grasp the fact that I understood the  analogy, but just want to know what Middle Eastern countries are considered liberal?

 

I asked a simple fucking question, but instead of answering it, you decided to be a smart ass and re-explain the entire analogy over and over again. 

 

This is why people don't like you.  You make idiotic points and then get mad at people for questioning them and start insulting them.

Again, I'm not going into this further with you. If you think I was calling a Middle Eastern country liberal, then you're simply intentionally misreading things and are being intentionally dense. I'd suggest re-reading everything --- but it is unlikely to do any good.

 

Hell, go ahead and point to where I ONCE called a Middle Eastern country liberal. Go ahead, point out where I said a Middle Eastern country was liberal.

 

So be it.

 

I lack the desire to try and enlighten you.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Mike, are you completely unable to grasp the fact that I understood the  analogy, but just want to know what Middle Eastern countries are considered liberal?

 

I asked a simple fucking question, but instead of answering it, you decided to be a smart ass and re-explain the entire analogy over and over again. 

 

This is why people don't like you.  You make idiotic points and then get mad at people for questioning them and start insulting them.

Again, I'm not going into this further with you. If you think I was calling a Middle Eastern country liberal, then you're simply intentionally misreading things and are being intentionally dense. I'd suggest re-reading everything --- but it is unlikely to do any good.

 

Hell, go ahead and point to where I ONCE called a Middle Eastern country liberal. Go ahead, point out where I said a Middle Eastern country was liberal.

Ahem

 

how come the European countries all striving to be MORE liberal aren't referred to as being "like a Middle Eastern country"?

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, are you completely unable to grasp the fact that I understood the  analogy, but just want to know what Middle Eastern countries are considered liberal?

 

I asked a simple fucking question, but instead of answering it, you decided to be a smart ass and re-explain the entire analogy over and over again. 

 

This is why people don't like you.  You make idiotic points and then get mad at people for questioning them and start insulting them.

Again, I'm not going into this further with you. If you think I was calling a Middle Eastern country liberal, then you're simply intentionally misreading things and are being intentionally dense. I'd suggest re-reading everything --- but it is unlikely to do any good.

 

Hell, go ahead and point to where I ONCE called a Middle Eastern country liberal. Go ahead, point out where I said a Middle Eastern country was liberal.

Ahem

 

how come the European countries all striving to be MORE liberal aren't referred to as being "like a Middle Eastern country"?

And that is calling a Middle Eastern country liberal how?

 

And since you decided to post a quote out of context, here's the very next sentence:

How is them continuing THEIR tradition and incessantly bitching about their people CHOOSING our civilization not bad, as your comparison of us to a Middle Eastern country implies that you believe of us?

So, again, that is calling a Middle Eastern country in WHAT way, exactly?

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm going to take your word for it that the original post that I questioned means what you now say it means. I'd don't like you, but I'll admit you've been honest with your facts when you present them, and only differ with you on the conclusions you reach.

 

Having said that, let me apologize for misinterpreting your answers as being beligerent, since I am willing to take your word also that you were only trying to explain to me what your intent was, and that I was taking your post too literally.

 

Having said that, I think the reason I misunderstood your point was that your point was based on your own misunderstanding of what JOTW said. I was basing my understanding of your reply on what he said, rather than what you thought he said.

 

Because while the rest of the world is becoming downright socialist, we have to argue ass-backwards from everybody else over who can be the more conservative party. Which, ironically, makes us most like a middle eastern country arguing over keeping tradition.

 

JOTW is implying, correctly in my opinion, that the U.S. is trying to move more to the right of the political spectrum while the rest of the world moves to the left. He also implies that we are the closest on the political spectrum to the Middle Eastern countries.

 

If you don't mind me asking --- how come the European countries all striving to be MORE liberal aren't referred to as being "like a Middle Eastern country"? How is them continuing THEIR tradition and incessantly bitching about their people CHOOSING our civilization not bad, as your comparison of us to a Middle Eastern country implies that you believe of us?

You're answer implies that socialism and other leftist ideology would be considered traditional in Europe. This is somewhat correct. However, JOTW's post says he is talking about the WORLD, whereas your post only talks about Europe being traditionally socialistic. That's where I got confused, since you changed the subject from the World to just Europe, and I incorrectly assumed you were trying to make a direct comparison between Europe and the Middle East. Saying the world is becoming less traditional, and saying that Europe is becoming less traditional are two different things, since they are starting from different points on the political spectrum. In other words, I misunderstood you because I thought you were making an honest comparison, rather than changing the subject to something else.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If you don't mind me asking --- how come the European countries all striving to be MORE liberal aren't referred to as being "like a Middle Eastern country"?

I was just blowin' hot air to get a reaction out of people like you. A game you play quite a bit.

 

Except he wasn't even remotely successful.

 

Yeah he was. Not entirely successful, but throughout 2002 it was kind of considered that re-election would be a cakewalk for Bush, running on a "9/11NEVERFORGETVOTEFORME" campaign.

 

no doubt, there were more than a few voters who openly got disgusted at the excesses of the anti-Bush left.

 

Michael Moore, I think, may have hurt more than he helped.

 

As I said throughout the campaign, people just DON'T HATE Bush as much as the left wants to think they do

 

It's an even divide. A poll was even ran over whether Bush was a uniter or a divider and it came back 49% uniter, 49% divider, 2% undecided. You either love the guy or hate the guy and there's very little in-between. Clinton didn't do enough to cause that kind of feeling because most of his ugliest moments were political underhanded stuff that people that don't read the political page of their local paper ever day wasn't paying attention to.

 

Have you missed the comments? Did you miss Al Gore's speech at the moveon.org get together back in June last year?

 

That was performed to how many people? It hardly even made news beyond Drudge's GORE FURIOUS, CALLS BUSH A LIAR crap headline. I guess it's the fault of the liberal media for burying Gore so he wouldn't be heard.

 

How about the Dems stating that Bush lied to get us into a war?

 

We didn't, we kept saying "he was too hasty, he didn't have any recent enough proof," and in the case of Kerry, "I have a plan."

 

Over half of this country according to polls now feels that this Iraqi war was not worth it.

Cite one.

 

"The poll, conducted Saturday through Monday, found that the percentage of Americans who believed the situation in Iraq was "worth going to war over" had sunk to a new low of 39%. When the same question was asked in a similar poll in October, 44% said it had been worth going to war.

 

Now, that's an LA Times poll, and even *I* think that paper has a liberal bias. So even if I moved, say, 5-7% points in the opposite direction to compensate, that's still less than 50%. Gallup, which leans with a conservative bias, is flipping back and forth:

On the question of whether sending U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, 52 percent said "yes" and 47 percent said "no" during the week of January 14. But last week, the numbers flipped with 45 percent saying "yes" and 55 percent saying "no."

 

Even with the 55% yes, if I play the same number compensation game I do for Gallup and their right-leaning polls as I do the LA Times and their left-leaning one, it still winds up being a tossup.

 

Uh, what? The Democrats do MORE for families, on average, than Republicans do.

Such as?

-=Mike

 

Off the top of my head I can say supporting the elderly (which does help the middle-class as everyone usually winds up supporting a grandparent in their end years), supporting the unions, funding education. And don't get on my back about Bush's education plan and Ted Kennedy's backing and shit, because for one he didn't fund it properly, and for two you always point out that kind of spending as the reason why Bush isn't a true-blue conservative.

[Guest Brian]

So...what should we do with those hippy Middle Eastern countries Mike?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So...what should we do with those hippy Middle Eastern countries Mike?

Shit, next thing you know they're going to be giving everyone healthcare, instead of sticking to tradition and beheading people who have something nasty and contagious.

 

Fucking communist nazi-terrorists. Go back to Canada!

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I always kinda liked Howard Dean. He was entertaining, and seemed like the kind of guy who would actually blurt out what he was thinking ( no matter how damaging it is to his or his views ). Since I have such a low opinion of most all politicians, I like that. It doesn't hurt that his views fall similar to my own, and i think he is not as far left as some people characterize him. YEAAAAAHH!!!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Cite one.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/iraq.poll/

52% say it was not a mistake, according to that poll. Meaning less than half say it was a mistake. And, there is no reason to believe that the number will drop.

 

So, you might want to cite one that actually proves the point he was trying to make.

-=Mike

Um. No. It says 52% thought it was a mistake. See this page. And have you been studying Cerebus' suggestions?

 

Fifty-two percent of respondents said they thought it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq versus 47 percent with the opposite view.

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Edit: Superfluous

 

Ah, what the hell...

 

[Guest MikeSC]

Cite one.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/iraq.poll/

52% say it was not a mistake, according to that poll. Meaning less than half say it was a mistake. And, there is no reason to believe that the number will drop.

 

So, you might want to cite one that actually proves the point he was trying to make.

-=Mike

Um. No. It says 52% thought it was a mistake. See this page. And have you been studying Cerebus' suggestions?

 

Fifty-two percent of respondents said they thought it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq versus 47 percent with the opposite view.

Yup, you're right.

 

Too bad new polls have it down to 49% opposed.

 

And your attempts at humor are insanely shitty. But, so is your posting, so it's consistent.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

BTW, smitty, I oppose crime. Must I become a cop now?

-=Mike