Howard Dean Compares President Bush to President of Iran

Parent Cafe
1

<p><a href=“http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27263391.shtml\[/url]”>http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27263391.shtml\&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>something tells me that CGM, SBmom, et al, will agree heartily with his statements… ;)</p>

2

<p>“For Republicans, Howard Dean is just the gift that keeps on giving.”</p>

<p>Just in time to replace the cute Bunny: here’s the Energizer “Dummy”</p>

3

<p>Oh boo hoo hoo. I thought President Bush was a 60 year old man, not a well-connected toddler who needs to be coddled everytime someone makes a vaguely critical comment about him.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I personally read that as “unlimited powah is bad, see Iran”. I guess if you ignore all conventions of the English language, the absence of President Bush in that statement, and the parts of the brain responsible for rational thought, it may come out as President Bush being the full moral equivalent of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But that’s just sad.</p>

4

<p>“Oh boo hoo hoo. I thought President Bush was a 60 year old man, not a well-connected toddler who needs to be coddled everytime someone makes a vaguely critical comment about him.” </p>

<p>You’ve missed the point. It didn’t say Bush needs to be coddled; it merely discussed comments made by the CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.</p>

<p>“I personally read that as “unlimited powah is bad, see Iran”. I guess if you ignore all conventions of the English language, the absence of President Bush in that statement, and the parts of the brain responsible for rational thought, it may come out as President Bush being the full moral equivalent of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But that’s just sad.”</p>

<p>I just copied and pasted the title of the article. Sorry.</p>

5

<p>This reporter really is stretching to find something shocking to report here. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. This is news?</p>

6

<p>I agree with every single statement in the article attributed to Dean - and I am neither a supporter of Dean nor the Democrats.</p>

<p>But it sure is nice to see someone who is “angry”. :cool:</p>

7

<p>What??? you’re always angry, mini. LOL!</p>

8

<p>To me, the two things I like best in politics as we know it are anger and negative campaigning. Good for the heart. I also like revealed hypocrisy. Lying in public doesn’t do it for me anymore - it’s too de rigeur. ;)</p>

9

<p>Cool. When do we start hanging women who attempt to defend themselves against rape?</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.amnestyusa.org/regions/middleeast/document.do?id=ENGMDE130052006[/url]”>http://www.amnestyusa.org/regions/middleeast/document.do?id=ENGMDE130052006&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

10

<p>I don’t understand the question. What exactly was wrong with the comparison?</p>

11

<p>What people are calling “anger” is actually moral outrage. </p>

<p>As for Katie Couric “toying with” Howard Dean, judge for yourselves:</p>

<p><a href=“Page not found | Crooks and Liars”>Page not found | Crooks and Liars;

<p>In my view, he demolished her.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, the party that asked us to redefine the word “is” might us ask to consider that many, many dimes is not-one-dime. How many dimes did find their way to the coffers of the magnificent Harry Reid? Six hundred eighty thousand times one dime. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261035/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11261035/&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>Please, please, please keep the same politicians for a couple of generations. Please give us Howard Dean.</p>

13

<p>The first time my wife say a snppet of Howard Dean on TV we got into a fight. She thought it was a Saturday Night Live skit and I told her he was really running for president. She wanted to know how stupid I thought she was. It finally took my son to convince her I wasn’t goofing on her and that Dean really was running and at that point was actually ahead in the race.</p>

14

<p>Ohh… the scent of desperation.</p>

<p>Is your position that Indian tribes aren’t capable of independent thought? Because that’s quite a postulate you got there! At least you’re right in step with party line, where “monkeys” and “troglodytes” are acceptable monikers for our Native Americans, courtesy of Jack.</p>

<p>The magic number is 100%, being the percentage FEC found Jack placing straight in Republican hands. So saying that those dirty democrats took money from Jack Ambrackoff is prima facia false. Oh Dean, sticking up for his party, how shameful!</p>

<p>The only way you can get anywhere is by of course coupling your monkey postulate with an absurd x degrees of seperation operation. By all accounts, tribal donations shifted strongly in favor of Republicans as soon Jack came on board. <a href=“Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg”>Bloomberg Politics - Bloomberg.

I sure if Jack could have wrinkled his nose in such a way that all tribal money went to straight to the GOP coffers, he would have done so. But since Indians are actually people, not monkeys, the only thing occured was a dramatic shift to Republican politicians.</p>

<p>Opps!</p>