T1B

From the guy who says that Republicans “evil,” “corrupt” and “brain-dead” “liars” who “never made an honest living in their lives” and “are not nice people" we now have this from a speech he made yesterday:

Republicans are “pretty much a monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It’s pretty much a white Christian party.”

If you belong to the GOP, he said in Washington last week, then you “are all about suppressing votes: two voting machines if you live in a black district, ten voting machines if you live in a white district.” If you are a Republican, Dr. Dean says you offer a “dark, difficult and dishonest vision…for America.”

But Dean assures us, “We’re not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing.”

This is unbelieveable...I can understand appealing to the most narrow base of the Party, but really...at some point even core Democrats have to acknowledge that this guy is losing it...totally.

Yeah, this is the guy who win in '08.

Nice to see that the DemocRats learned from the last election and are trying to stay as far away from the their leftwing loonies as possible.

DrDetroit wrote:Republicans are “pretty much a monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It’s pretty much a white Christian party.”

You don't think the GOP is predominantly white and Christain?

If you belong to the GOP, he said in Washington last week, then you “are all about suppressing votes: two voting machines if you live in a black district, ten voting machines if you live in a white district.” If you are a Republican, Dr. Dean says you offer a “dark, difficult and dishonest vision…for America.”

Truth hurts eh?

But Dean assures us, “We’re not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing.”

This is unbelieveable...I can understand appealing to the most narrow base of the Party, but really...at some point even core Democrats have to acknowledge that this guy is losing it...totally.

He's smack in the middle of your dome. He's in your dome so often you should be charging him rent.

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Republicans are “pretty much a monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It’s pretty much a white Christian party.”

You don't think the GOP is predominantly white and Christain?

If you belong to the GOP, he said in Washington last week, then you “are all about suppressing votes: two voting machines if you live in a black district, ten voting machines if you live in a white district.” If you are a Republican, Dr. Dean says you offer a “dark, difficult and dishonest vision…for America.”

Truth hurts eh?

But Dean assures us, “We’re not going to stoop to the kind of divisiveness that the Republicans are doing.”

This is unbelieveable...I can understand appealing to the most narrow base of the Party, but really...at some point even core Democrats have to acknowledge that this guy is losing it...totally.

He's smack in the middle of your dome. He's in your dome so often you should be charging him rent.

insert dubya for dean and then u have pot meet kettle

You don't think the GOP is predominantly white and Christain?

Don't know. Is it? And even if it is, so what?? The implication is that the Republicans are racist and discriminatory and certainly cannot take into proper consideration minority policy preferences. It's bunk and race-baiting at its worst.

Truth hurts eh?

Stock answer, eh?

You know the only Democrats...errr...Democrat agreeing with you is Sheila Jackson Lee. That says a lot about Howie's comments...

He's smack in the middle of your dome. He's in your dome so often you should be charging him rent.

Hardly. He's the party chairman whose mug is constantly on TV and whose speeches are regularly covered.

You saying that is like me saying that Bush is in your dome... :roll:

You don't think the GOP is predominantly white and Christain?

The implication is that if you aren't white, the GOP doesn't want your vote. What is this, 1968 redux? Also, the US is predominantly christian, and the Democratic Party is predominantly christian, so I don't really see the point of bringing that up.

Quote:
If you belong to the GOP, he said in Washington last week, then you “are all about suppressing votes: two voting machines if you live in a black district, ten voting machines if you live in a white district.” If you are a Republican, Dr. Dean says you offer a “dark, difficult and dishonest vision…for America.”


Truth hurts eh?

You're the one who claims that our country's major population centers are predominantly Democratic. How is it the GOP's fault that they can't adequately supply their own districts?

He's smack in the middle of your dome. He's in your dome so often you should be charging him rent.

You could say he was in Detroit's (or anyone else's) dome if he was going out and searching for this stuff, but Dean won't shut his mouth long enough to stay off the front page. As long as he's going to make silly claims as the head of one-half of our country's two-party system, it's worthy of commentary, don'tcha think?

Variable wrote:The implication is that if you aren't white, the GOP doesn't want your vote. What is this, 1968 redux? Also, the US is predominantly christian, and the Democratic Party is predominantly christian, so I don't really see the point of bringing that up.

What Howard should have said was that the leadership of the GOP is predominantly white and reactionary evangelical born again freaks and their ball licking toadies.

Is that better?

You're the one who claims that our country's major population centers are predominantly Democratic. How is it the GOP's fault that they can't adequately supply their own districts?

Most states put the electoral process in the hands of the Secretary of State and the local board of elections. They may or may not be democrats. Does the name Kathrine Harris mean anything to you?

You could say he was in Detroit's (or anyone else's) dome if he was going out and searching for this stuff, but Dean won't shut his mouth long enough to stay off the front page. As long as he's going to make silly claims as the head of one-half of our country's two-party system, it's worthy of commentary, don'tcha think?

Like it or not, he's changing the tone of the debate.

What Howard should have said was that the leadership of the GOP is predominantly white and reactionary evangelical born again freaks and their ball licking toadies.

Is that better?

Much. :D

Most states put the electoral process in the hands of the Secretary of State and the local board of elections. They may or may not be democrats. Does the name Kathrine Harris mean anything to you?

Right, and she totally abused her power. No argument there. In CA, the SOS is a democrat and has been for about a decade.

Like it or not, he's changing the tone of the debate.

I think he's totally blowing it. As an independent swing voter, he could have wooed people like me by laying out a specific platform and telling me what direction the party was going to go in in the coming years. Instead, he's spewing more of the anti-Republican garbage that has lost his party election after election. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Clearly Dean hasn't learned shit.

Variable:

The implication is that if you aren't white, the GOP doesn't want your vote. What is this, 1968 redux? Also, the US is predominantly christian, and the Democratic Party is predominantly christian, so I don't really see the point of bringing that up.

This is the party that does race baiting the best.

B:

What Howard should have said was that the leadership of the GOP is predominantly white and reactionary evangelical born again freaks and their ball licking toadies.

Is that better?

See, this is what is so hilarious about the Democrats. At the same time they are criticizing Bush for supposedly not being concliatory or for being divisive, we get this stuff not only from the Party leadership Dean, Reid, Pelosi, and Hillary, but also the party's constituents.

Meanwhile, we also have the Democrats telling us that they aren't going to be divisive...well, when are you going to start not being divisive.

Then, the Democrats announce that they are hoping to get votes from some of those people who voted for Bush. How can you get those votes when you're constantly bashing over 50,000,000 Americans?

LMAO!!!

Most states put the electoral process in the hands of the Secretary of State and the local board of elections. They may or may not be democrats. Does the name Kathrine Harris mean anything to you?

OMG!!! B is totally WRONG. While the state's Secretary of State is responsible for the electoral process, i.e., the rules and regulation of the conduct of elections, the actual administration of elections is performed by constitutionally-empowered and independently elected county elections supervisors and county election boards.

That's why there was little more than rhetorical consequences for Harris and Bush in 2000 in Florida. The county elections supervisors are responsible for determning the type of voting machine, the number of voting machines, and the design of the ballot. That's in addition to maintaining county election rolls and registering voters.

That's what makes Dean's remarks re: number of voting machines so absurd.

Now, Variable, puhlease:

Right, and she totally abused her power. No argument there.

Friggin' bootlicker. What :abuse" are you referring to?? Specifically.

Friggin' bootlicker. What :abuse" are you referring to?? Specifically.

Yeah, I regularly suck up to BSmack. I'm over here in reality...care to join me?

If you want to play selective memory with history, that's fine, but the rest of us remember Harris and her Kilamanjaro eyebrows and her act.

Vote-counter: One for Bush, one for Gore, one for Bush-
Harris: Bush wins!!!!
Vote-counter: Um...Ma'am? I have 38,471 more to count.
Harris: Oh, sorry.
Vote-counter: One for Bush-
Harris: Bush wins!!!

Harris was not involved in the recounts, liar.

Thank you for clearing this up. You have no idea what you're talking about, Variable.

The recounting was conducted by a three-person team who amongst themselves determined which candidate received the vote and divined the intent of those ballots wherein no clear determination could be made.

Why are you lying, Variable?

I suggest you start a new thread lest it become clear that you're trying to keep this ass-kicking buried.

fa·ce·tious
adj.
1. Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks.

sat·ire
n.
1. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

I suggest you start a new thread lest it become clear that you're trying to keep this ass-kicking buried.

Don't worry, I'm more than happy to keep your idiocy at the top of the page. :D

Riiiight, pulling a MissD now, eh?? You were merely being facetious, eh?

I call bullshit.

You got nailed for licking B's taint, then tried to push something spectacularly wrong, and now want us to believe you were being facetious...

Fool.

I call bullshit.

Of course you do. If you don't, you look like a fucking retard for making a serious attempt at refuting a joke. Nice going.

You got nailed for licking B's taint, then tried to push something spectacularly wrong, and now want us to believe you were being facetious...

Two people agree in a cursory detail of a conversation and your brain produces a graphic visual of them engaging in gay sex? [dry heave]Feel free to never agree with me on anything. Ever. Really.[/dry heave]

Right, and she totally abused her power. No argument there. In CA, the SOS is a democrat and has been for about a decade.

I don't see even an attempt at humor here...

You're worse than even I am at this humor thing...

l to r: hole, Detroit
Seriously, dude...eject. When it gets so bad that you need things explained to you, just eject.

Hapday wrote:Yeah, this is the guy who win in '08.

Speak English much?

I'm pretty sure Dean has already said he doesn't plan to run in 2008.

Variable wrote:
l to r: hole, Detroit
Seriously, dude...eject. When it gets so bad that you need things explained to you, just eject.

The truly amazing thing is that even when you explain it, he still doesn't understand.

You're wasting your time--but then again, it's your time to waste.

MissD...get the f**k out of here. You piling on here is as absurd as B and Diego's argument that WalMart is parasitic employer.

Variable...it just didn't come off as facetious...bearing in mind, too, your defense of Hillary's comments...context, my friend.

DrDetroit wrote:MissD...get the f**k out of here. You piling on here is as absurd as B and Diego's argument that WalMart is parasitic employer.

Piling on?

Nobody is piling on you Detroit, you take care of that yourself with you're semi-hourly self-ass kickings.

You don't need any help from me.

Miss Demeanor wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:MissD...get the f**k out of here. You piling on here is as absurd as B and Diego's argument that WalMart is parasitic employer.

Piling on?

Nobody is piling on you Detroit, you take care of that yourself with you're semi-hourly self-ass kickings.

You don't need any help from me.

You attempted to pile on but it went nowhere because you're even more pathetic than babs.

Link to most recent self ass kicking?

Misunderstanding someone's post is not KYOA, dolt.

DrDetroit wrote:
Link to most recent self ass kicking?

viewtopic.php?t=5643

Your flailing in that thread is what's made you a legend around here Doc--no seriously.

Miss Demeanor wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:
Link to most recent self ass kicking?

viewtopic.php?t=5643

Your flailing in that thread is what's made you a legend around here Doc--no seriously.

WTF??

Mikey is getting wasted in there.

Lets review briefly.

Mikey posts an article the claims a policy wonk made handwritten notes in the margins of draft reports and then goes on further to demonstrate that some comments are accepted, others rejected (necessarily proving that any comments received are reviewed by the same people who drafted the report).

Mikey throws a hissy fit claiming that the Bush administration's oil maters are writing the science reports for the amdinistration.

We then have Bushice claiming that the administration is engaged in censorship and doctoring data.

Then we see Mikey cite another article where the two examples of proposed revisions are hardly unreasonable.

All we have there is a review process where a reviewer has noted in the margins suggestions for revisions, some of which are accepted while others are not.

I kicked my own ass how??

LMAO!!!

Buh-bye.

The real problem with The Spin ZOne is that there are not enough threads with DrD and Mikey talking past each other.

See You Next Wednesday wrote:The real problem with The Spin ZOne is that there are not enough threads with DrD and Mikey talking past each other.

You mean Mikey talking pst DrD, right? Mvscal and I are the only ones directly responding to the points being made. On the other hand, Mikey and Bushice are still dealing their rubbish about oil companies writing admin science reports, censorship, and fabricating data.

DrDetroit wrote:

Miss Demeanor wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:
Link to most recent self ass kicking?

viewtopic.php?t=5643

Your flailing in that thread is what's made you a legend around here Doc--no seriously.

WTF??

Mikey is getting wasted in there.

You still just don't get it do you?

Half of the fun in responding to you is in watching you spin whatever it is you're trying to defend. I'll let you try and figure out what the other half is.

It's hilarious that you think I'm the one spinning...well, sad, too.

Apparently Mikey saying that notes written in the margins are the equivalent of the oil industry authoring climate change reports is not spinning.

Apparently, Bushice saying that notes written in the margins are the equivalent of censorship and fabricating data is not spinning.

Come on, MissD.

So what am I spinning?

All I was saying was that the guy was jotting notes in the margins of draft reports as part of a review process. I guess Mikey's article is all spin, too, right? I'm just repeating what was written.

I also noted that the article indicated that the comments are reviewed and either accepted or rejected. The author must also be spinning here, too, eh?

You're absurd, MissD.

DrDetroit wrote:All I was saying was that the guy was jotting notes in the margins of draft reports as part of a review process.

The guy in question was a politicain. What was he doing "jotting notes" in a scientific report?

Oh, I get it! He needed to clean up that mess

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:All I was saying was that the guy was jotting notes in the margins of draft reports as part of a review process.

The guy in question was a politicain. What was he doing "jotting notes" in a scientific report?

Oh, I get it! He needed to clean up that mess

Asshole, what "part of a interagency review process" don't you get?

DrDetroit wrote:

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:All I was saying was that the guy was jotting notes in the margins of draft reports as part of a review process.

The guy in question was a politicain. What was he doing "jotting notes" in a scientific report?

Oh, I get it! He needed to clean up that mess

Asshole, what "part of a interagency review process" don't you get?

The part where it was apolitical.

Please unhijack this thread. Thanks.