ThatDevGuy:

Ah. Please, point out the logical falacies in any of my arguments and I will phrase them differently. Otherwise, please either hush or stay on topic. Thanks.

Do you think honestly think that we have less social freedoms than we did 10 years ago? Take away the Patriot Act, and what social freedoms have been destroyed? ZERO.

Conservatives (social conservatives) are generally against social freedoms--that's why we call them social conservatives. Butt sex BAD!! Jesus GOOD!! They want to tell you what is good for you and protect your morals "for your own good." It's bullshiat, frankly.

I also love how you have to qualify your statement with removing the Patriot Act.

If someone like Dean gets into office, I for one will welcome our new Thought Police, Thought Crime, increase the welfare state warlords.

Riiiiight.

1) He is a Democrat. Democrats (and increasingly enough the Republicans) have had a grand history of pushing the notion of hate crimes, which are nothing but crimes upon the thoughts of the accused criminal when he was partaking in a preticular crime.

2) He has already promised to "take back the Bush tax cuts", which for us with great BS protectors, means he wants to RAISE taxes. He will have to go for the black vote, so he will give those "You're too stupid to realize that I'm saying you're too stupid to do anything with your life so you have to have reverse-racism laws like Affirmiative Action to get anywhere in life". Democratic policies towards minorities are the equivelent of rich white liberals bring people to their cocktail parties and screaming out loud "HEY, I LIKE THE COLOREDS!"

OsirisOTheDead

I think someone is suggesting that since you tend to lean to the left on this topic, you're illogical.

There's irony in there somewhere, but I'm not bringing up what might be ironic on Fark. I know better.

The Super Dems!

Al sharpton can eat through steel for crying out loud!
Howard Dean can leap tall motorcycles and racists in a single bound!
Clark can communicate with sea creatures!
Hillary has x-ray vision, and a titanium jaw bone!
If we could get Janet Reno, for muscle, they'd be unstoppable in 2004!

-dean...the perfect sacrifice for our corrupt election system.

bush will win by hook or crook.

which will lead to the total breakdown.

he will never pick that conservative suck up harold ford.

no farking way.

i figure clark will get the spot.

if he really wanted to 'seal' the black vote...he would choose sharpton.

good insurance against assination...some would say.

-go dean...for whatever it's worth.

this is just further proof that reagan is certifiable beyond what even i considered 'in denial'.

someones fear is leaking.

ImJustaTroll:

That's actually the funniest thing I've read so far today. Thanks. :-)

Why do these retards keep calling Dean a socialist hippy? Are conservatives really that stupid? Or do they just think that if they keep saying it enough some other gullible asshole will believe them?

Settle down, Beavis. It's exactly this kind of charm that keeps your side from winning elections. Dean really is the perfect candidate for you.

A reminder: President Bush is not a Nazi. The economy is not a spiralling pit of horror and misery. We are succeeding in the war on terror. The vast majority of people in this country are content and happy, and don't particularly blame the President for anything.

Until the left accepts these truths, or at least conceals their real feelings successfully, you have no chance next year. You're betting that America is going downhill, and that's always a loser's bet.

ThatDevGuy

Thanks for being fair.

ThatDevGuy:

Do you think honestly think that we have less social freedoms than we did 10 years ago? Take away the Patriot Act, and what social freedoms have been destroyed? ZERO.

Also commits the fallacy of the false alternative, a categorization error, the post hoc fallacy, the guilt by association fallacy, and makes a statement without significant regard for evidence.

Well, c'mon now. How do you expect us to have a flamewar without all of this?

Clark is going to be VP.

"Conservatives (social conservatives) are generally against social freedoms--that's why we call them social conservatives. Butt sex BAD!! Jesus GOOD!! They want to tell you what is good for you and protect your morals "for your own good." It's bullshiat, frankly.

I also love how you have to qualify your statement with removing the Patriot Act."

Most "social conservatives" could care less about what people do in their bedrooms. You are showing this ability to think everyone who doesn't want their kindergarder to learn about lesbian "fisting" is on par with Fred Phelps.

Yes, Jesus is good. Without Judeo-Christian thought, we wouldn't have a quarter of the freedoms we have in this country. I'd advise you to read books on our Founding Fathers and their devotion, or at the very least respect, of the Judeo-Christian thought structure.

I am glad you caught my Patriot Act qualifier. There are a few things that are in the P.A. that bother me, but I believe we could get rid of a lot of the P.A. if we did common sense things, such as search and interview arab looking men from "hot" countries that are known to have or support terrorists. But do I believe even with the Patriot Act that there is this huge void sucking away my rights? No, I don't. The rights of our country began to be destroyed when Lincoln decided that the state's right to succede wasn't important. Now, did the country stay together and did we abolish the horrible pratice of slavery? Yes. But we began to lose our rights when the federal govt decided to interject on what they think states should do. Hence the Davis-Bacon (hope I got that right) act and the Roe Vs Wade ruling.

icon4x:

That's what we all thought back in July. Clark is making a lot of noise saying the VP can't be effective in matters of national security. If he does intend to be VP, he needs to stop saying silly crap.

Settle down, Beavis. It's exactly this kind of charm that keeps your side from winning elections. Dean really is the perfect candidate for you.

Actually, I'm not a Dean supporter. I back Clark. But I don't get people calling him an uber-socialist hippie. I lived under him in Vermont for 2 years. He's pretty damned conservative. But I keep seeing this hippie thing parroted OVER and OVER and OVER...

A reminder: President Bush is not a Nazi. The economy is not a spiralling pit of horror and misery. We are succeeding in the war on terror. The vast majority of people in this country are content and happy, and don't particularly blame the President for anything.

I haven't claimed any of the above, although I think you're wrong on a few of those points, namely that the "vast majority" of people in this country are happy with the current state of things. I'm not virulently pissed off, but I think things could be better.

Until the left accepts these truths, or at least conceals their real feelings successfully, you have no chance next year. You're betting that America is going downhill, and that's always a loser's bet.

I think I'll wait and see what happens, O Great and Mighty Kreskin.

Howard Dean made a mistake when saying "we're not safer with Hussein captured." This isn't because the statement is false, but because so many Americans have gobbled up the fecal matter known as propaganda that the Bush administration has been vomiting out of its collective colons the past 2 years.

Dean needs to, at every opportunity, methodically de-program the brainwashed masses (for instance, those majority of Americans who think Saddam is connected with 9/11, despite their fearless leader and his cohorts exclaiming he had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, not that they can prove anyway).

He can do this by simply answering the Hussein issue by saying: Yes, it is possible the world as a whole is safer with Saddam out of power, but was it necessary to DECEIVE and LIE to the American people, while alienating a large portion of the civilized world in order to accomplish this? If you hold the United States to a higher standard than George W. Bush, then vote for Dean in '04.

This would have Dean in a much better position than trying to defend a most likely true, but slightly damaging statement to people who are still brainwashed by the tv.

morihei:

I understand where you're coming from but I'd still rather give the public the benefit of the doubt and have my politicians espouse the truth instead of a watered-down, "better-tasting, less filling" version.

Wesley Clark for Prez 04'

that is just the way it flows from my mind.

-sorry.

i think dean would make an outstanding president...i don't forsee him getting the chance.

bush is too entrenched.

too many back office deals already set in motion.

too many sheep.

-dean has my vote, as long as it is anyone but ford.

he is the black equivalent to evan bayh.

which is basically 'shiat'...in my book.

MyrnaMinkoff:

You're a Clark supporter? Well, good luck to ya. I'll back him if he gets the nomination but I still prefer Dean over him on some minor issues.

ThatDevGuy, things have to first qualify as arguements (premise + premise ... -> conclusion) before you can say they are fallacious. For the most part you don't get arguments on Fark. You get rhetoric, not dialectic. Therefore, you're a neo-conservative fascist.

morihei:

People like Dean and Clark needs to take a flying leap. Clark is the same guy who said he would have went into Iraq if he got the U.N.'s permission.

Maybe I'm a "brainwashed mass" who needs to be de-programmed, but I don't remember where in our Consitituion it says we need someone else's permission to protect our country if we sense a threat. That's like if my woman gets raped I go out and ask the neighbors for permission to beat the rapist's head in.

Most "social conservatives" could care less about what people do in their bedrooms. You are showing this ability to think everyone who doesn't want their kindergarder to learn about lesbian "fisting" is on par with Fred Phelps.

Um...no, I haven't said anything of the kind. Are the social conservatives not backing the Federal Marriage Amendment? They do seem to be quite concerned with what's happening in others' bedrooms.

Yes, Jesus is good. Without Judeo-Christian thought, we wouldn't have a quarter of the freedoms we have in this country. I'd advise you to read books on our Founding Fathers and their devotion, or at the very least respect, of the Judeo-Christian thought structure.


I am aware of the religion of the founding fathers; most were Christian, some were Deist. What does this have to do with social conservatives and the "moral majority?"

I am glad you caught my Patriot Act qualifier. There are a few things that are in the P.A. that bother me, but I believe we could get rid of a lot of the P.A. if we did common sense things, such as search and interview arab looking men from "hot" countries that are known to have or support terrorists. But do I believe even with the Patriot Act that there is this huge void sucking away my rights? No, I don't. The rights of our country began to be destroyed when Lincoln decided that the state's right to succede wasn't important. Now, did the country stay together and did we abolish the horrible pratice of slavery? Yes. But we began to lose our rights when the federal govt decided to interject on what they think states should do. Hence the Davis-Bacon (hope I got that right) act and the Roe Vs Wade ruling.

Conservatives only holler about states rights when it benefits them. Otherwise they remain strangely silent. If you want to fight the 14th amendment, go for it, but I have the feeling that it's here to stay.

CatholicSamurai:

So you don't like the UN. Fine. Get the leaders of this country to pull out of the UN. Don't hate people for wanting to follow the rules.

Show of hands: Who here has actually been PERSONALLY affected by the Patriot Act?

Maybe I'm a "brainwashed mass" who needs to be de-programmed, but I don't remember where in our Consitituion it says we need someone else's permission to protect our country if we sense a threat. That's like if my woman gets raped I go out and ask the neighbors for permission to beat the rapist's head in.

Please expand on the threat to the country and the meaning of your rapist metaphor...

Howard Dean made a mistake when saying "we're not safer with Hussein captured." This isn't because the statement is false, but because so many Americans have gobbled up the fecal matter known as propaganda that the Bush administration has been vomiting out of its collective colons the past 2 years.

Actually, 60% of Americans said that there was "no change in the terror threat after Saddam's capture." So, in essence, they agreed with Dean. I dont think the statement was a faux pas.

Crap, I thought I had the poll bookmarked but I don't. It was on CBS news and in the Washington Post if you're interested.

-well said, morihei.

you are above the curve looking for support from those who like it 'cozy' and they will not rock the boat.

americans...as a whole...are easily led.

if dean wins the nom...let alone the election...i will buy one...count 'em. 'one' total fark subscription for any freeper who wants one.

-sadly, these boards will be quiet if dean wins.

Yes, Jesus is good. Without Judeo-Christian thought, we wouldn't have a quarter of the freedoms we have in this country. I'd advise you to read books on our Founding Fathers and their devotion, or at the very least respect, of the Judeo-Christian thought structure.

Jefferson cut what he didn't like out of his Bible and made his own Jefferson Bible. Now, that's respect and devotion. I'm sure the Christian right would love a candidate like that today.

MyrnaMinkoff:

I argue for state's rights all the time. If there is a state that wants to have abortion centers on every block and they want to have legalized meth kiosks in every mall, so be it. That is how that state wants to live.

There also is no such thing as the "moral majority". That is just a codeword for the thoughts and feelings of the majority of Americans. Most Americans, if polled, express feelings that are not unlike those that are associated with the evil, Illumaniti-like "moral majority".

You seem smart enough, MyrnaMinkoff, not to pidgeon-hole yourself with idiotic media terms.

Osiris:

Actually, I support the statement he made! I'm happy that he is cutting straight through the garbage to tell the truth. It's refreshing.

Now that I think of it a bit more, Dean could have also tackled the issue by adding: No, we're not safer.... And furthermore, Bush lied to and deceived the American people in order to accomplish this personal, but all together worthless vendetta as it relates to the war on terror (i.e, the war on those who don't want the U.S government in their country).

What's funny about that, is, if that is the main reason for terrorism against the U.S., we answer by occupying a country in the middle east. Tell us to go away will you? An occupation will learn 'em! Now we're definitely safer, right?... Border control? What's that?

I don't think that about Dean.....

I think Dean is a commie that wants to raise working people who make $17,000 a year's taxes so he can give it to the "poor."

Earth to Dean: People that make $17,000 a year are poor!

She's not right often, but that Ann Coulter was about one thing. The "New Democrats" think everyone who owns an alarm clock (and hence goes to work) is "wealthy."

Man, remember when Democrats stuck up for the working man? Man, that was cool.

HonestIndian:

I think Dean is a commie that wants to raise working people who make $17,000 a year's taxes so he can give it to the "poor."

And you think wrong. That was easy.

farker_diego:

"I'd advise you to read books on our Founding Fathers and their devotion, or at the very least respect, of the Judeo-Christian thought structure"

Let's read that again....

"...our Founding Fathers and their devotion, or at the very least respect, of the Judeo-Christian thought structure"

And yet again...

"...their devotion, or at the very least respect..."

Jefferson wasn't a Christian, but he respected the Judeo-Christian thought structure. Before you go showing off your ability to diss someone, maybe you should invest in a course at your local community college in English.

cebailey

Show of hands: Who here has actually been PERSONALLY affected by the Patriot Act?

Me. I'm a second generation American, and my family came over from Italy. So, I'm rather darked skinned and can grow a beard in about 10 minutes.

The paranoia created by the Patriot Act has caused me to be pulled into "secret interrogation rooms" about 90% of the time I go to the freeking airport. I just hope I'm never detained as an "enemy combatant" because my family won't hear from me since I probably won't be allowed access to a lawyer.

He's going to repeal the tax cut....is he not?

The tax cut includes people who make $17,000 per year (via child tax credit).....does it not? And people who make $18,000 per year without kids.

Stupid wealthy Americans working 30 hours a week at Wal-Mart! Stick it to em' - stick it to em' good!

I argue for state's rights all the time. If there is a state that wants to have abortion centers on every block and they want to have legalized meth kiosks in every mall, so be it. That is how that state wants to live.

There was a lot of conservative outcry over the theology student who was denied a state scholarship....
But I shouldn't attribute that to you; you're not representative of all conservatives, so I apologize. But....again....I'm pretty sure the 14th Amendment is here to stay.

There also is no such thing as the "moral majority". That is just a codeword for the thoughts and feelings of the majority of Americans. Most Americans, if polled, express feelings that are not unlike those that are associated with the evil, Illumaniti-like "moral majority".
You seem smart enough, MyrnaMinkoff, not to pidgeon-hole yourself with idiotic media terms.

Jerry Falwell,anyone? The "Moral Majority," while it may be currently defunct, was at one point an actual organization with defined ideals.

cebailey: I have. My library card is now on file with the FBI. This came out in an interview with the county comissioner who oversaw the process.

As for Clark, asking Newsmax to report on Democratic Party infighting is like asking Pat Robertson to discuss Islam.

2003-12-19 10:07:28 AM cebailey

Show of hands: Who here has actually been PERSONALLY affected by the Patriot Act?

-it has farked up my banking on several occasions.

really bad.

i'm sure that only scratches the surface.

HonestIndian:

He wants to balance the budget and get us out of the massive debt the Bush administration has put us in.

Another person has said that Dean would give us a welfare state. You're saying he wants to take that welfare away from families with the "child tax credit". You can't have it both ways -- which one is it?

HonestIndian:

I wouldn't take it that far, but I hate this whole notion of who is "rich" in our country. The IRS reports that "rich" in our country is someone who makes 70,000 a year. Try living in a place like California or New York on 70Gs a year. Have fun.

I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes. I do not possess a lot of material wealth. But when people go out and work and earn money, by God, that is THEIR money. It does not belong to the lazy, inefficent, uneducated morons who expect the goverment to take care of them. They, using their own bodies, went out and exchanged their services for money. It is their's, not the governments.

HonestIndian: Can you show me where in Dean's campaigning he's laid out a specific plan to repeal that part of the tax cut? The smart money's on the tax cuts for the ultra-rich being cut.

Jefferson wasn't a Christian, but he respected the Judeo-Christian thought structure. Before you go showing off your ability to diss someone, maybe you should invest in a course at your local community college in English.

Many conservatives today would disagree with you that what Jefferson did was respectful. That was my point.

And, once again, you resort to insults and personal attacks. I did very well in English back in college, about 15 years ago, thank you very much.

=

/given

recockulous said:

You obviously can't understand the different between some half-wit columnist's OPINION of whom Dean will chose, and Dean's actual selection. Here's another newsflash for you, moron - NO DEM CANDIDATE IS PICKING A VICE PRESIDENT NOW. The first primary is still over a month away.

Unless the headline changed since you wrote this, you are dead wrong. The headline states:
"Conservative thinks that Howard Dean wants a running mate who can't legally be vice president until May 2005" (copied and pasted from the front page at 10:12).

To me, that implies that some conservative guy (Mike Reagan) thinks that Dean wants a running mate who is too young to be a running mate. The headline does not seem to imply that the poster thought that the guy is definetly who Dean will choose. So when you say that he can't understand the difference, you should talk take your own advice.

DISH
Just Because Your Paranoid Doesn Mean
Their Not After You..
suck it up pussy