Home | Community | Message Board

Myco.ca - Spores & Cultivation Supplies
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: silversoul7]
    #1686637 - 07/04/03 05:04 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

I wonder how many here would react if a Republican sealed his or her own records "just in case" someone wants to use them as a campain issue?

:lol:


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Edame]
    #1686696 - 07/04/03 05:47 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Edame writes:

Quote:

I'd be interested to hear any opinions people might have of Howard Dean or his speech.




Okay. I'll give it a shot. First, I must say that after a quick preliminary read, the impression I had is that his speechwriter(s) is/are topnotch. It reads well, and I'll bet it sounds good when spoken aloud. It is vague and nebulous without being too obvious about it, and is not too inflammatory. But a more leisurely inspection reveals the substance (or lack thereof) more clearly:

We seek the great restoration of American values...

"We?" Is that the Royal "we"? (Okay, cheap shot. Let's move on.) That aside, bear in mind that he opens the speech with emphasis on the restoration of American values. This must therefore be of some importance to him. Let's see if later it is possible to discern what he believes are American values.

...and the restoration of our nation's traditional purpose in the world.

Likewise, Let's see what he believes is America's "traditional purpose in the world." Should be interesting.

This is a campaign to unite and empower people everywhere.

Well, darn! The very next sentence sneaks in the Collectivist attitude. In fact, American values are not about "uniting", but about allowing people to act as individuals. Also, people don't need to be "empowered" by government -- in fact they cannot be. People need to be left alone to live their lives. The Founding Fathers realized that.

It is a call to every American, regardless of party, to join together in common purpose and for the common good...

There it is again! We urge you to join together, be part of the gang, the tribe, the hive. "Common good"? Collectivism.

...to save and restore all that it means to be an American.

Again, it is disingenuous to claim that by campaigning for groupthink, one is "restoring" American values.

I believed that, by running for President, I could raise the issues of health care for every American...

Paid for by whom?

...and the need to focus on early childhood development.

What does this mean? Who is to do the focusing? On whose children? With whose money? What a uselessly vague phrase that is!

I wanted to bring those issues to the forefront of the national debate. And I wanted to balance the budget to bring financial stability and jobs back to America.

Clearly he feels these points are important. We now have five things to look for in the rest of the speech:

1) Restoring American values
2) Restoring America's traditional purpose in the world
3) Provide health care for every American
4) Focus on early childhood development
5) Balance the budget (how a balanced budget will bring jobs "back" to America from Mexico and Singapore et al is unclear to me, though)

But something changed along the way as I listened to Americans around this country.

Uh oh. Maybe that list might have to change.

Every where I go people are asking fundamental questions: Who can we trust? Is the media reporting the truth? What is happening to our country?

These are excellent questions. Will we see any answers from Mr. Dean? Let's list them and see.

A) Who can we trust?
B) Is the media reporting the truth?
C) What is happening to our country?

What they know is that somehow 7 trillion dollars of our country's wealth disappeared.

Since Bush took over? Source, please.

Companies are leaving the country to avoid paying taxes...

Yet Mr. Dean is a staunch opponent of lowering taxes. I guess more companies will leave.

... or to avoid paying people livable wages.

This would imply Mr. Dean wishes to raise the minimum wage, with the unavoidable consequence of increasing unemployment.

And corporations are doing this with the support of the government...

News flash to Leftist -- in a free society, companies (and individuals) do not need the support or even the permission of the government to leave the country.

This was the fear that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of -- the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. Theodore Roosevelt said it best, "Every special interest is entitled to justice full, fair and complete....but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench or to representation in any public office."

Ah! It seems Mr. Dean is opposed to the practice of special interest groups lobbying the legislators. Three cheers for him! If he promises to make lobbying illegal, he'll get a lot of support. Of course, he will never do such a thing. It is pure campaign rhetoric.

Today, our nation is in crisis.

Hyperbole. Are there problems? Sure there are -- when haven't there been? But crisis? Hardly.

At home, this crisis manifests itself in this President's destruction of the idea of community.

Whuh? Let's have some specifics.

This President pushes forward an agenda and policies which divide us.

These being?

He advocates economic polices which beggar the middle class and raise property taxes...

These being?

...so that income taxes may be cut for those who ran Enron.

Those who ran Enron are doing time.

He divides us by race by using the word quota...

Which is the word that best fits the practice.

... which appeals to the worst in us by instilling fear that people of color might take our jobs or our places in the nation's best universities.

Which is of course exactly what is happening.

Even the most conservative Supreme Court since the Dred Scott decision...

What? The man can't possibly be serious.

...did not completely agree with the President's attack on diversity and community that includes all Americans.

Diversity. Community. Leftie buzzwords deliberately used to obfuscate the actual issue -- institutionalized racism.

He divides us by gender by attacking a woman's right to make her own health care decisions.

He says he would like to see Roe vs Wade reversed? When did he say that?

And even by attacking young women's right to have the same athletic opportunities that young men do.

Presumably Mr. Dean is referring to the act that eliminated countless men's sports teams in universities across the nation while creating few if any new women's teams.

He divides us by sexual orientation by supporting senators who have slandered gay Americans, and he appeals once again to the worst instincts within us, instead of that which is good in all Americans.

Sigh. Are we finally to the end of the exaggerated, hyperbolic, obligatory mudslinging of the incumbent? Can we move on to Mr. Dean's actual position on the issues he raised earlier?

The tax cuts that are the radicals' weapon are not about tax cuts for working people.

No working people receive dividends? That's not true. The number of Americans holding stock portfolios has increased to around 100 million. You better believe that a hell of a lot of them are working people.

They are not even about tax cuts for millionaires. Instead, the tax cuts are designed to destroy Social Security, Medicare, our public schools and our public services through starvation and privatization.

Mr. Dean demonstrates his inability to grasp the nature of tax cuts and their effect on net government revenue. As for Social Security, it is an open secret that there is no way to save it. No matter what government does or doesn't do, SS is fucked. It's too late to do anything more than admit it and move on.

Our President and too many in Washington are giving away our future so that we pass to our children not a flickering flame of freedom but the chain of insurmountable debt.

It is not a given that the best way to reduce debt is to raise taxes. The best way to reduce debt is to cut spending.

And so for me the long journey of a Presidential campaign has begun with the people I have met affecting me far more than any affect I may have had on them. And because of that, the reasons why I seek the Presidency have changed.
This campaign is about more than issue differences on health care, tax cuts, national security, jobs, the environment and our economy. It is about something as important as our children. It's about who we are as Americans.


Ah hah! The whole opening preamble, the five issues of top importance to him, the three questions asked by all those folks he met in his travels, are in fact now renedered meaningless. Now the real Bleeding Heart Liberal rears his head: "It's all about the children" -- *sniffle* -- "It's about who we are." Standard hackneyed Liberal pap. Can't deal with concrete issues, so let's appeal to emotion.

Here are the words of John Winthrop: "We shall be as one. We must delight in each other, make other's conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always living before our eyes our Commission and Community in our work."

Can we say "Collectivism"?

It is that ideal, the ideal of the American community, that we seek to restore.

This is not and never has been the American ideal, so to claim to seek to "restore" it is specious at best, dishonest at worst. The American ideal is individual freedom, individual accomplishment, individual responsibility. Independence, not co-dependence. The ideal Mr. Dean is talking about is the Marxist ideal.

I need a break. I may address the second half of Mr. Dean's manifesto later, or I may not.

If some readers of this forum choose to vote for Mr. Dean, I hope they do so because they are in agreement with his Collectivist vision, not because they have been suckered into believing that he stands for "restoring American values." Cearly he does not.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Edame]
    #1686720 - 07/04/03 06:08 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

edame writes:

Quote:

I think that his arguement falls apart right there. He's basing his entire rant on an assumption. Dean said (according to the article) :
?The situation in Liberia is significantly different from the situation in Iraq.?




As far as humanitarian concerns go, it is no different, except that Taylor hasn't yet managed to kill as many Liberians as Hussein killed Iraqis. This is just a matter of scale. But as far as proven belligerence (including outright annexation, in the case of Kuwait) to neighboring countries, there is a world of difference. Let's check another source. From opinionjournal.com:

Dean argued there's no inconsistency in opposing the war in Iraq while backing intervention in Africa. He said Bush never made the case that Iraq posed a threat to the world.

"The situation in Liberia is exactly the opposite," Dean said. "There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe and the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership."


Pinksharkmark comments -- How can the situation be "exactly the opposite" if one claims that Iraq was no threat to the world, unless one also claims Liberia is? That's what "exactly the opposite" means, after all.

When Mr. Dean says, "There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe.." he then neglects to point out that said catastrophe is limited to Liberia, not to the world.

Back to opinionjournal.com:

Does Dean really think there wasn't a "serious human catastrophe" in Baathist Iraq? (What's the alternative, a frivolous animal catastrophe?) No, it seems there are two real differences between preliberation Iraq and today's Liberia. First, Iraq's history of invading its neighbors, using chemical weapons and pursuing nuclear ones, and backing terrorists actually made it a threat beyond its borders--and thus the U.S. had a strategic interest, not just a moral one, in removing the dictatorship. Some on the left seem to think U.S. intervention is just fine, so long as its moral purity isn't tainted by self-interest. In this view, the Liberians are worth helping, but the Iraqis can go to hell (or stay in hell) for the sake of America's moral vanity.

The second difference is that, as Dean puts it, in Liberia "the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership." But if America simply does whatever the "world community" wants it to do, in what sense can it be said to be exercising "leadership"?


pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Edame]
    #1686740 - 07/04/03 06:18 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

edame writes:

He's pointing out the rather obvious difference between an urgent Peace-keeping mission, and an outright invasion and occupation of another nation that was suffering a human rights crisis for 12 years while the US looked on.

Sigh. The entire world looked on. Many did a lot more than just look on -- you must recall that millions of peace-loving protesters did their utmost to make sure the human rights crisis continued, as did France and Russia and Germany.

Do you believe it was wrong for the US and Britain and Australia and Spain et al to remove Hussein, thereby ending the human rights crisis in Iraq? If so, why do you believe it is correct for the US to remove Taylor and end the human rights crisis there? And, by the way, the UN is not calling for a "peace-keeping" mission, they are calling for regime change.

As it happens, it appears Taylor learned a lesson from Hussein's refusal to step down: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/07/04/liberia.us/index.html



pinky




--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Phred]
    #1686743 - 07/04/03 06:21 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

If I may borrow a line from that PBS hero, Mr. Rogers.....

Can you say hypocrisy? I betcha can!


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Phred]
    #1686757 - 07/04/03 06:39 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
edame writes:

He's pointing out the rather obvious difference between an urgent Peace-keeping mission, and an outright invasion and occupation of another nation that was suffering a human rights crisis for 12 years while the US looked on.

Sigh. The entire world looked on. Many did a lot more than just look on -- you must recall that millions of peace-loving protesters did their utmost to make sure the human rights crisis continued, as did France and Russia and Germany.




I'm aware that the rest of the UN looked on during the sanctions too, but the discussion is about US military involvement so I was trying to keep things in that context.

Quote:

Do you believe it was wrong for the US and Britain and Australia and Spain et al to remove Hussein, thereby ending the human rights crisis in Iraq? If so, why do you believe it is correct for the US to remove Taylor and end the human rights crisis there? And, by the way, the UN is not calling for a "peace-keeping" mission, they are calling for regime change.




I try not to 'believe' anything, and I also avoid using terms like 'right' and 'wrong'. I was against the invasion of Iraq, and I don't see that the crisis there is over yet by a long shot.
I also didn't say that I believe it is correct for the US to remove Taylor, I just felt that the writer of said article was twisting logic to try and make a point.

I was still under the impression that this was being called a peace-keeping mission. If so, a peace-keeping mission could be seen to be the 'exact opposite' of a full-on invasion and occupation .


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Phred]
    #1686800 - 07/04/03 07:34 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Edame writes:

Quote:





Here are the words of John Winthrop: "We shall be as one. We must delight in each other, make other's conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always living before our eyes our Commission and Community in our work."

Can we say "Collectivism"?

It is that ideal, the ideal of the American community, that we seek to restore.

This is not and never has been the American ideal, so to claim to seek to "restore" it is specious at best, dishonest at worst. The American ideal is individual freedom, individual accomplishment, individual responsibility. Independence, not co-dependence. The ideal Mr. Dean is talking about is the Marxist ideal.

I need a break. I may address the second half of Mr. Dean's manifesto later, or I may not.

If some readers of this forum choose to vote for Mr. Dean, I hope they do so because they are in agreement with his Collectivist vision, not because they have been suckered into believing that he stands for "restoring American values." Cearly he does not.

pinky






dude, you've gotta chill on the individualism bit. sure, our relative and liberal tradtion is intended to protect individual rights, but that doesn't mean that unity isn't an "american" value, even _the_ american value. the confederates cared about individualism. United states of america. get it? this is the more basic goal of any society.


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Malachi]
    #1686822 - 07/04/03 08:05 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Malachi writes:

dude, you've gotta chill on the individualism bit. sure, our relative and liberal tradtion is intended to protect individual rights...

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are more than just a tradition. They are the very foundation of the nation.

....but that doesn't mean that unity isn't an "american" value, even _the_ american value.

It is "a" value to some Americans (the special interest groups lobbying congressman, for example are pretty united) as it is a value to many people all over the world, but it is far from being "the" American value.

Besides, what Winthrop (and Mr. Dean, earlier in the speech) are describing is a lot more than just "unity".

this is the more basic goal of any society.

It is certainly the most basic goal of Collectivist societies. Of free societies? Nuh-uh.


pinky



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Edame]
    #1686833 - 07/04/03 08:18 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Edame writes:

I try not to 'believe' anything, and I also avoid using terms like 'right' and 'wrong'.

I see. Well, that would lead to a convenient.... ummm... fluidity in political discussion, I guess.

I was against the invasion of Iraq...

Why?

...and I don't see that the crisis there is over yet by a long shot.

You are of the opinion there is still a human rights crisis in Iraq? Could you elaborate on this, please?

I just felt that the writer of said article was twisting logic to try and make a point.

I am sorry, but you have failed to demonstrate the "twisted logic".

Let's examine it logically. There was a human rights crisis in Iraq, wasn't there? There is a human rights crisis in Liberia, isn't there? Surely even Mr. Dean would have to agree with those two statements.

However, in addition to a human rights crisis in Iraq, there was also failure to comply with the terms of the conditional ceasefire, a history of annexing neighboring countries, supporting terrorists acting outside Iraq's borders, sheltering wanted terrorists inside Iraq's borders, and more.

This doesn't make Hussein the exact opposite of Taylor, it just makes him more thorough than Taylor. Mr. Dean's argument is specious, and Boortz (and others) have called him on it.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Phred]
    #1686900 - 07/04/03 09:45 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Edame writes:

I try not to 'believe' anything, and I also avoid using terms like 'right' and 'wrong'.

I see. Well, that would lead to a convenient.... ummm... fluidity in political discussion, I guess.




Can you explain what you mean? All I'm saying is that I try and approach everything with an open mind and I'm not trying to impose my views on others.
Quote:


I was against the invasion of Iraq...

Why?



I'm sure I went over this in a previous post. The short version is that I think war is barbaric, I have plenty of other reasons too, but this is just going to re-open a whole other debate.
Quote:


...and I don't see that the crisis there is over yet by a long shot.

You are of the opinion there is still a human rights crisis in Iraq? Could you elaborate on this, please?




From the reports I've been looking at there seem to be daily protests and shootings, sporadic electricity at best, insufficient sanitation, water and medical facilities and the entire country is now dependent on outside aid. Not to mention possibly thousands of unexploded bombs lying all over the country. Of course they're also churning out about 800,000 barrels of oil a day now. Personally I'd call that a crisis, but that's me.

Quote:


I just felt that the writer of said article was twisting logic to try and make a point.

I am sorry, but you have failed to demonstrate the "twisted logic".

Let's examine it logically. There was a human rights crisis in Iraq, wasn't there? There is a human rights crisis in Liberia, isn't there? Surely even Mr. Dean would have to agree with those two statements.




There was a human rights crisis in Iraq for years, the UN seemed fine with imposing 12 years of sanctions. The case for war was that Saddam posed an imminent threat to world security and that he had to be disarmed by force. The dossiers and intelligence were heavily focussed on weapons, resolution 1441 was about weapons. What was so urgent after over 12 years of just standing by and letting it happen?

Dean said "There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe ...", from what I can see, he's saying that Bush hasn't proven that the threat (WMD's etc..) was real. He's not saying that Iraq was no threat (IMHO), only that he thinks Bush couldn't prove it. This would then be the opposite because it's widely reported and provable that Liberia is a war zone at the moment with a rising civilian death-toll..

I think that the author was jumping to conclusions based on things that Dean didn't actually say. Considering that we're only really basing most of this on about 3 comments made by Dean, this article can be interpreted in different ways. It's just my take on it.



--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMalachi
stereotype

Registered: 06/19/02
Posts: 1,294
Loc: Around Minneapolis.
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Phred]
    #1687034 - 07/04/03 11:27 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

funny, I was taught that the constitution was created to unite disparate states into a single entity. regardless, the constitution is just a rip off of locke's liberalism and smiths economic philosophy. while Locke was quite concerned about protecting individual rights, the purpose is still to create a better functioning whole. smith is an even better example of how neo con's with agenda's have twisted "american history" to their own ends. informed consent. It's all about informed consent, which makes totally free higher public education requisite, along with all sorts of shit that people would label "collectivist" or "too 'liberal'", etc.


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Malachi]
    #1687119 - 07/05/03 12:42 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Yes, there were certain provisions in the constitution to let it pass

but the constitution was the foundation of a good American government nevertheless

A bill of rights was immediately demanded, and individual liberties were to be preserved


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineMaynardIsGod
Chomskyite

Registered: 07/05/03
Posts: 17
Loc: Virginia
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: ]
    #1687163 - 07/05/03 01:10 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

These people don't care about Dean. They can't judge Dean on the information available, because they've been brainwashed by Neal "I don't trust no big city bank" Boortz and his Libertarian Party. Who, as far as most liberals are concerned, are just pawns of the Neo-Conservatives. But go for it. People who vote Libertarian as a 3rd party generally would have voted Republican anyway.


--------------------

"But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable." - George Orwell, 1984.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRadioActiveSlug
addict

Registered: 03/14/03
Posts: 530
Last seen: 18 years, 5 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: SlapnutRob]
    #1687399 - 07/05/03 04:08 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

i'm going to regester democrate jsut to try to get Kucinich in. If dean beats him out though its ok. as long as its not liberman or kerry.



--------------------
"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one getting burned." -Buddha
www.impeach-bush-now.org


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Edame]
    #1687537 - 07/05/03 07:28 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Edame writes:

From the reports I've been looking at there seem to be daily protests and shootings, sporadic electricity at best, insufficient sanitation, water and medical facilities and the entire country is now dependent on outside aid. Not to mention possibly thousands of unexploded bombs lying all over the country. Of course they're also churning out about 800,000 barrels of oil a day now. Personally I'd call that a crisis, but that's me.

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. Since we had been talking all along about a human rights crisis, I just presumed when you used the term "crisis" you were also talking about a human rights crisis. I was unaware you considered infrastructure insufficiencies and resistance incidents to be a "crisis".

He's not saying that Iraq was no threat (IMHO), only that he thinks Bush couldn't prove it.

And Dean can't prove Liberia is a threat either.

This would then be the opposite because it's widely reported and provable that Liberia is a war zone at the moment with a rising civilian death-toll.

It was also widely reported and provable that Iraq had a rising civilian death toll. Forget about all the other additional transgressions that Hussein committed, and focus strictly on the humanitarian aspect, as Dean is doing. Hussein was killing Iraqis. Taylor is killing Liberians. How is that "opposite"?

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Phred]
    #1687664 - 07/05/03 10:29 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Edame writes:

From the reports I've been looking at there seem to be daily protests and shootings, sporadic electricity at best, insufficient sanitation, water and medical facilities and the entire country is now dependent on outside aid. Not to mention possibly thousands of unexploded bombs lying all over the country. Of course they're also churning out about 800,000 barrels of oil a day now. Personally I'd call that a crisis, but that's me.

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. Since we had been talking all along about a human rights crisis, I just presumed when you used the term "crisis" you were also talking about a human rights crisis. I was unaware you considered infrastructure insufficiencies and resistance incidents to be a "crisis".




I guess we just have different interpretations of what we would consider to be a crisis then.

In the two articles you posted, both use different quotes attributed to Dean, and considering I can't actually find a transcript of exactly what was said, it looks open to interpretation to me:

?head off a human right?s crisis.?

"The situation in Liberia is exactly the opposite," Dean said. "There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe and the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership."

Not having access to rudimentary medical care and the constant threat of disease I would call a crisis. Having people killed and maimed every day by unexploded ordenance I would also call a crisis. Not having proper water, food, sanitation or electricity in a sweltering summer heat I would call a crisis. I would also call the shootings and death-threats against people who support the occupation (as well as the constant raids and interrogations of Iraqis by occupying forces), a crisis. I think that whether you call them 'infrastructure insufficiencies' or not, I still feel that they affect their basic human rights.

Quote:


He's not saying that Iraq was no threat (IMHO), only that he thinks Bush couldn't prove it.

And Dean can't prove Liberia is a threat either.




I don't think he's trying to prove that at all, I think he saying that it can be proven that there is an "imminent threat of serious human catastrophe". I don't see him mention Liberia being a threat at all, just that he feels that the case for action in this instance is valid and provable (hence him saying that this would be the opposite of Bush's case with Iraq).

Quote:

This would then be the opposite because it's widely reported and provable that Liberia is a war zone at the moment with a rising civilian death-toll.

It was also widely reported and provable that Iraq had a rising civilian death toll. Forget about all the other additional transgressions that Hussein committed, and focus strictly on the humanitarian aspect, as Dean is doing. Hussein was killing Iraqis. Taylor is killing Liberians. How is that "opposite"?

pinky




I've already mentioned this above. The UN watched Iraqis suffer for over 12 years, there was nothing imminent about their crisis. They tried to make it imminent by saying that Saddam had an arsenal of WMD's (which still haven't been found).

The proposed (and it wouldn't be Dean's decision anyway if it did happen) mission to Liberia is a 'peace-keeping' one, not a full-on invasion and occupation. My understanding is that they would be trying to keep the peace, while the 'rebels' (why does the US not call them terrorists?) and the government enter discussions.

The two situations are entirely different (I'm not saying that I agree with either). As for the 'opposite' thing, again we're looking at two different quotes (and no actual transcript). One has him saying that the situations is "significantly different" and the other saying "exactly the opposite". It's all open to interpretation. As many of us are aware of, journalists are not immune to quoting people out of context.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinesomebodyelse
In_Is_Out

Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 296
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Edame]
    #1688211 - 07/05/03 04:58 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

PSM - your critique is flawed on one basic point. You believe it is possible to live as the founding fathers intended. Well, big difference. They lived in a land of "boundless resources" . We live in an overpopulated world fast running out of resources. Any president who is about the rights of the individual over the survival of the collective is either not seeing the problem, or is attempting to prompt a dieoff of the masses.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSlapnutRob
Toolhead

Registered: 03/31/03
Posts: 520
Loc: Michigan
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Phred]
    #1691360 - 07/06/03 11:38 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

I just got back from out of town and there's no way I'm going to read all this stuff, but I want to point out how horribly flawed this editorial is:

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
From libertarian pundit Neal Boortz -- http://www.boortz.com/july3(2)-03.htm

Super-leftist Howard Dean, the current Democratic frontrunner, wants Bush to send a few thousand troops to Liberal to ?head off a human right?s crisis.?? Dean, you will remember, was steadfastly opposed to our war in Iraq.? He?s all for sending troops to be in harm?s way in Liberia because, he says, ?The situation in Liberia is significantly different from the situation in Iraq.?? Bush, he says, never made the case that Iraq posed a threat to the world.? This would mean that Dean believes that Liberia does pose such a threat.

OK ? so let?s look at this a moment.

Chemical weapons?? Saddam Hussein had used them; Charles Taylor (the president of Liberia) has not.

Biological weapons?? Saddam Hussein said he had them, Charles Taylor has not.

Nuclear weapons?? Saddam?s own scientists have said that he had an ongoing nuclear program, and parts essential to such a program have been discovered in Iraq.? Liberia?? Nothing.

Bloodshed?? Saddam is probably ahead here.? Mass graves in Iraq, and tens of thousands of Kurds and Iranians dead from Saddam?s chemical weapons.? Taylor?? Undoubtedly he?s killed many ? but the count is nowhere near that of Saddam?s

Terrorists?? There is proof that Saddam has supported terrorism financially.? No such proof exists for Charles Taylor.

Dean says U.S. troops should go to Liberia because there is an ?imminent threat of serious human catastrophe.?? And there wasn?t in Iraq.? Again, the mass graves, the torture chambers, and the development of those weapons?

Dean also says ?the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership.?? Oh, I get it.? The U.S. can?t send troops to protect it?s own interests, but it?s OK to send them when the world community demands it.

I just can?t wait for this clown to get the Democratic nomination.

************************************************************






First of all, as I said before, anybody who calls Dean "super-leftist" doesn't know what he's talking about. A "super-leftist" would never be pro-gun or pro-death penalty. He's just very progressive.

"Bush, he says, never made the case that Iraq posed a threat to the world. This would mean that Dean believes that Liberia does pose such a threat"
-Give me a break! That is severely flawed logic... Dean said Bush never made the case that Iraq is a threat to the world, which he didn't. He also said that the situation is very different in Liberia. By looking at these two statements and saying that he thinks we should put troops in Liberia for the same reason pro-war pundits wanted to put troops in Iraq shows the logic of a grade schooler. He never claimed Liberia "is a threat to the world."

THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. This idiot who wrote this column assumes the whole time that we're invading Liberia. A POLICE MISSION IS NOT A WAR, IT IS NOT AN INVASION. Please don't tell me this guy makes sense to you... if he does, you've lost all my respect.


--------------------
Anything stated above is fictional roleplay dialog by the character that is Slapnut Rob, in no way representing the actions or beliefs of the man behind the keys.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSlapnutRob
Toolhead

Registered: 03/31/03
Posts: 520
Loc: Michigan
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: Phred]
    #1691375 - 07/06/03 11:44 PM (18 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:

And Dean can't prove Liberia is a threat either.

pinky




I'm sorry... I can't believe I just read that.

Dean has never claimed Liberia is a threat! Bush made endless claims along with his pro-war buddies that Iraq was a direct and imminent threat (which is ridiculous... even their closest neighbors weren't afraid of a country with a military 1/3 as powerful as the first gulf war). NOBODY has claimed Liberia to be a threat to us. You're arguing against a point of view nobody has and that moron created with his truly twisted logic.


--------------------
Anything stated above is fictional roleplay dialog by the character that is Slapnut Rob, in no way representing the actions or beliefs of the man behind the keys.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
Re: Howard Dean? [Re: SlapnutRob]
    #1691448 - 07/07/03 12:02 AM (18 years, 5 months ago)

SlapnutRob writes:

Dean has never claimed Liberia is a threat!

Yes, I know. He says that Iraq was never a threat, and presumably he believes that Liberia is not a threat either. How does that make the two situations opposite, or even "significantly different"? It doesn't. Neither (according to Mr. Dean) was a threat.

There was an ongoing human rights crisis in Iraq. There is an ongoing human rights crisis in Liberia. How does that make the two situations opposite, or even "significantly different"? It doesn't. Both are/were crises.

The objection is not to Mr. Dean's position on the issue, but on his self-contradictory justification of said position. To claim that the situations are "different" is just not true. Boortz and Opinionjournal.com are asking, "If it is correct to send US troops into harms way to end a human rights crisis in Liberia, why was it incorrect to do the same in Iraq?"

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Vote for Howard Dean question_for_joo 534 3 08/30/04 04:51 PM
by question_for_joo
* Howard Dean - WTF?
( 1 2 all )
SoopaX 3,450 30 06/09/05 12:56 PM
by Silversoul
* Howard Dean: The last true liberal
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 2,388 39 06/30/03 02:38 PM
by drfrei
* Howard Dean - Chairman of DNC daimyo 453 2 01/12/05 10:17 PM
by Annapurna1
* Howard Dean
( 1 2 3 all )
superpimp 2,525 58 08/07/03 02:18 PM
by Phred
* Dean and the Corporate Media FrankieJustTrypt 955 5 02/15/04 02:51 PM
by silversoul7
* Dean = Out Strumpling 795 4 02/19/04 04:40 PM
by JonnyOnTheSpot
* Will We have a Vermonter President??? GGreatOne234 633 9 08/12/03 04:54 AM
by atomikfunksoldier

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,964 topic views. 3 members, 1 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 17 queries.