I'm making a statement based on what I percieve to be likely. The national electorate leans conservative. Dean is too liberal. Mark my words. The Democrats know this. He'll probably finish second to Kerry or Gephardt. The leadership knows they can't go off the Left Coast Cliff....
The leadership may know this but what counts the most at this stage of the game is what democrat primary voters think. They are a LOT more liberal than the national electorate and Dean has a very good chance with them. Who they vote for will shape the race.
My problem with these kind of missions is they tend to be open-ended and don't have clear goals. Some say the same about Iraq, but that remains to be seen.
Quote:
The goal was to topple Hussein and stabilize the country while establishing a new government.
Was that the goal? Wow.... I was under some kind of impression Iraq had WOMD... Gee I must have been on drugs that day.. Please forgive me.
Is that the type of force Dean is supporting be sent to Liberia? No.
You know this? How? Dean hasn't criticized Bush for saying Taylor must go. At least I haven't seen anything where he has. Do you have some more information you'd like to add? I don't know what Dean wants. His arguments make no sense.
Clarify this question so I know whether or not I need to berate you for asking it.
--
bunge:
Quote:
If Bush had come forward with a plan for Iraq to end a humanitarian crisis, Dean would have supported it.
There is no way in hell you know that. What bullshit.
Quote:
If Bush now comes forward with a plan to 'invade' Liberia and overthrow the government, Dean won't support it.
Removing governments is bad but removing governments is good?
Tell me, bunge, why would we be needing to send troops into a nation whose president we have demanded leave but he doesn't seem to be too keen on the idea?
Why would Dean support that?
Dean is a politician, so he is a hypocrite and most likely a liar.
Clarify this question so I know whether or not I need to berate you for asking it.
--
bunge:
There is no way in hell you know that. What bullshit.
Removing governments is bad but removing governments is good?
Tell me, bunge, why would we be needing to send troops into a nation whose president we have demanded leave but he doesn't seem to be too keen on the idea?
Why would Dean support that?
Dean is a politician, so he is a hypocrite and most likely a liar. [/
There is no way in hell you know that. What bullshit.
No, no, no. The criticism of Dean is bullshit. It's up to the accuser (zaphod) to prove that the statement I made isn't true. He's can't assume it's true, and then turn around and make a claim based on that assumption.
You know that groverat so don't play games.
Unless Dean comes out and says something hypocritical, you should be lambasting zaphod for claiming Dean is hypocritical.
Tell me, bunge, why would we be needing to send troops into a nation whose president we have demanded leave but he doesn't seem to be too keen on the idea?
Why would Dean support that?
Because "There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe and the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership."
The leadership may know this but what counts the most at this stage of the game is what democrat primary voters think. They are a LOT more liberal than the national electorate and Dean has a very good chance with them. Who they vote for will shape the race.
That may be. But: Dean can't run on his grass roots popularity forever. It may appear he'll win, but I really think the Democratic party as a whole would realize he'll lose. It has to be Kerry or Gephardt.
That may be. But: Dean can't run on his grass roots popularity forever. It may appear he'll win, but I really think the Democratic party as a whole would realize he'll lose. It has to be Kerry or Gephardt.
Of course because Bush is the only won who can win. The economy is going to improve, the media will be proven liberal, and Katie Couric will go to jail...........oh did I forget that pigs will have wings?
So, your original post, the one I've been criticising is pointless.
Johnny one-note. Get off it. SDW understood. You didn't. Big deal. It isn't the end of the world. It might be nice if at some point you'd figure things out, though.
That may be. But: Dean can't run on his grass roots popularity forever. It may appear he'll win, but I really think the Democratic party as a whole would realize he'll lose.
Why did the GOP drive off a cliff with Goldwater in '64? Why did Democrats do the same with McGovern in '72? Sometimes these decisions aren't driven by cold calculations about winning strategies. Heck, Dems will tell you that they ran to the center last year and got their butts handed back to them. They'll understandably ask you, "What good did that do them?" Sometimes running to the center feels like just another losing strategy. Sometimes ideology trumps all. Dean's current popularity suggest that this might be one of those times.
No, no, no. The criticism of Dean is bullshit. It's up to the accuser (zaphod) to prove that the statement I made isn't true. He's can't assume it's true, and then turn around and make a claim based on that assumption.
But you can say what Dean would or wouldn't do in a hypothetical situation? Right.
Quote:
Unless Dean comes out and says something hypocritical, you should be lambasting zaphod for claiming Dean is hypocritical.
Supporting the military-backed ouster of an "elected" African official while opposing the military-backed ouster of an "elected" Iraqi official is hypocritical. So Dean is being hypocritical.
Supporting the military-backed ouster of an "elected" African official while opposing the military-backed ouster of an "elected" Iraqi official is hypocritical. So Dean is being hypocritical.
You forgot to preface your statement with a very important phrase: Ceteris Paribus.
Sure, if all the other factors remained the same, backing the military ousting of an African elected official while opposing the same in Iraq would be hypocritical. However, in the land of reality, from which you seem to be on a permanent vacation, the Iraqi situation and that of Liberia include two very different sets of circumstances, two very different motivations, and two very different levels of necessary US involvement.
In short, the world is not black and white so stuff it.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm making a statement based on what I percieve to be likely. The national electorate leans conservative. Dean is too liberal. Mark my words. The Democrats know this. He'll probably finish second to Kerry or Gephardt. The leadership knows they can't go off the Left Coast Cliff....
The leadership may know this but what counts the most at this stage of the game is what democrat primary voters think. They are a LOT more liberal than the national electorate and Dean has a very good chance with them. Who they vote for will shape the race.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Let me offer this though:
My problem with these kind of missions is they tend to be open-ended and don't have clear goals. Some say the same about Iraq, but that remains to be seen.
The goal was to topple Hussein and stabilize the country while establishing a new government.
Fellowship
Originally posted by bunge
Is that the type of force Dean is supporting be sent to Liberia? No.
You know this? How? Dean hasn't criticized Bush for saying Taylor must go. At least I haven't seen anything where he has. Do you have some more information you'd like to add? I don't know what Dean wants. His arguments make no sense.
Why?
Clarify this question so I know whether or not I need to berate you for asking it.
--
bunge:
If Bush had come forward with a plan for Iraq to end a humanitarian crisis, Dean would have supported it.
There is no way in hell you know that. What bullshit.
If Bush now comes forward with a plan to 'invade' Liberia and overthrow the government, Dean won't support it.
Removing governments is bad but removing governments is good?
Tell me, bunge, why would we be needing to send troops into a nation whose president we have demanded leave but he doesn't seem to be too keen on the idea?
Why would Dean support that?
Dean is a politician, so he is a hypocrite and most likely a liar.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Fellowship [/B]
Fellowship made a rather poignant funny.
Originally posted by groverat
Clarify this question so I know whether or not I need to berate you for asking it.
Eh... Why would you probably vote for Dean in 2004?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Fellowship [/B]
Anders:
Clarify this question so I know whether or not I need to berate you for asking it.
--
bunge:
There is no way in hell you know that. What bullshit.
Removing governments is bad but removing governments is good?
Tell me, bunge, why would we be needing to send troops into a nation whose president we have demanded leave but he doesn't seem to be too keen on the idea?
Why would Dean support that?
Dean is a politician, so he is a hypocrite and most likely a liar. [/
QUOTE]
-------------------------------------------------------------
" Dean is a politician, so he is a hypocrite and most likely a liar. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore probably ok in your book right?
Eh... Why would you probably vote for Dean in 2004?
Same reasons I voted Nader in 2000, although not as liberal as I'd like. Definitely not the Republican-lite that Gorebot was.
I don't know if I will vote Dean, but if the elections were held today I would.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
No, it only shows you didn't understand what I was saying. SDW did. As I wrote in a subsequent post:
So, your original post, the one I've been criticising is pointless.
Originally posted by groverat
There is no way in hell you know that. What bullshit.
No, no, no. The criticism of Dean is bullshit. It's up to the accuser (zaphod) to prove that the statement I made isn't true. He's can't assume it's true, and then turn around and make a claim based on that assumption.
You know that groverat so don't play games.
Unless Dean comes out and says something hypocritical, you should be lambasting zaphod for claiming Dean is hypocritical.
Originally posted by groverat
Tell me, bunge, why would we be needing to send troops into a nation whose president we have demanded leave but he doesn't seem to be too keen on the idea?
Why would Dean support that?
Because "There is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe and the world community is asking the United States to exercise its leadership."
Why don't you just read the articles?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The leadership may know this but what counts the most at this stage of the game is what democrat primary voters think. They are a LOT more liberal than the national electorate and Dean has a very good chance with them. Who they vote for will shape the race.
That may be. But: Dean can't run on his grass roots popularity forever. It may appear he'll win, but I really think the Democratic party as a whole would realize he'll lose. It has to be Kerry or Gephardt.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That may be. But: Dean can't run on his grass roots popularity forever. It may appear he'll win, but I really think the Democratic party as a whole would realize he'll lose. It has to be Kerry or Gephardt.
Of course because Bush is the only won who can win. The economy is going to improve, the media will be proven liberal, and Katie Couric will go to jail...........oh did I forget that pigs will have wings?
Originally posted by bunge
So, your original post, the one I've been criticising is pointless.
Johnny one-note. Get off it. SDW understood. You didn't. Big deal. It isn't the end of the world. It might be nice if at some point you'd figure things out, though.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That may be. But: Dean can't run on his grass roots popularity forever. It may appear he'll win, but I really think the Democratic party as a whole would realize he'll lose.
Why did the GOP drive off a cliff with Goldwater in '64? Why did Democrats do the same with McGovern in '72? Sometimes these decisions aren't driven by cold calculations about winning strategies. Heck, Dems will tell you that they ran to the center last year and got their butts handed back to them. They'll understandably ask you, "What good did that do them?" Sometimes running to the center feels like just another losing strategy. Sometimes ideology trumps all. Dean's current popularity suggest that this might be one of those times.
No, no, no. The criticism of Dean is bullshit. It's up to the accuser (zaphod) to prove that the statement I made isn't true. He's can't assume it's true, and then turn around and make a claim based on that assumption.
But you can say what Dean would or wouldn't do in a hypothetical situation? Right.
Unless Dean comes out and says something hypocritical, you should be lambasting zaphod for claiming Dean is hypocritical.
Supporting the military-backed ouster of an "elected" African official while opposing the military-backed ouster of an "elected" Iraqi official is hypocritical. So Dean is being hypocritical.
Originally posted by groverat
Supporting the military-backed ouster of an "elected" African official while opposing the military-backed ouster of an "elected" Iraqi official is hypocritical. So Dean is being hypocritical.
You forgot to preface your statement with a very important phrase: Ceteris Paribus.
Sure, if all the other factors remained the same, backing the military ousting of an African elected official while opposing the same in Iraq would be hypocritical. However, in the land of reality, from which you seem to be on a permanent vacation, the Iraqi situation and that of Liberia include two very different sets of circumstances, two very different motivations, and two very different levels of necessary US involvement.
In short, the world is not black and white so stuff it.
Originally posted by groverat
Explain it to me, then.
Originally posted by groverat
A simple black/white view makes critical analysis irrelevant!