dcwolf

This is what you actually said, krieger...
It wasn't a "post on industrial hemp." And if you actually read the post you'd notice that I included his record on education in Vermont. But you chose to distort that into being just his "views," and disregard his documented success.

Btw, these "right-wing views" on education. Do you really know anything of what you're talking about?? Essentially what you're saying is that Dean would instill creationism, which is ridiculous.
I was discrediting the Colby article, which is a hit piece against Dean's environmental record, and also which you were basing much of your case on!!

This is what you posted near the top of this page, and you were definitely alluding to the "entire thread", not just my responses to you...
Later that same post...
The difference between you and me is that you attack people and force them to go on the defensive. What I want to do is disucss the issues, and what you want to do is chastise people and distort what they say. And your backup technique is to backpedal and confuse what you said in past posts.

Krieger

I read your post on page 3 and I replied to it. I clearly did mention more than just your industrial hemp. I also went on to laugh at Howard Dean's plans for education and the military.

LOL that is what Christian Fascists want for "education". The basic right-wing view for education is to keep spending low (or to make cuts).

Once again, LOL! I was not "basing my entire argument" on the CounterPunch article that I posted a link to a week ago. I was just posting an article that showed what real progressives think of Dean. The reason why I hate Dean is that he is just another smiling capitalist politician like Clinton was. He is trying to use the anti-war movement to get elected president. But if he gets into the White House, he will not change the Empire's longtime foreign policy (or domestic policies).

Nope, that is what you are doing to me. I'm the one replying to your attacks. You just got angry because I posted an article written by a real progressive that knew Dean's record as governor. Then you posted links to Dean speeches, and Dean campaign websites. And the rest is history...

dcwolf

Go back and check the post; I didn't say it was your entire argument. You posted the article because you thought it showed that Dean is evil politician who's only concern is pandering to big business. I showed why you and Colby are wrong. He listens to both sides, and makes informed decisions. Colby presented one side, and that's why it's just a lame hit piece.
So you can discuss issues. If you'll look at this table, you'll see that Vermont received an 'A' in the Resources category. That fact shows that Dean definitely did not deprive education in Vermont of funding, and it distinguishes him from Bush.
Yeah, he'll hardly change anything from the Bush regime. Except: Saving abortion rights, and nominating more reasonable judges.
Keeping creationism out of the schools.
Getting rid of the voucher program.
Canceling Bush's tax cut in favor of one that helps working people, and cancel the hummer credit.
Preserving the environment and pushing for fuel efficient suv's.
Gutting the Patriot Act to return us our liberties.
Firing the entire Bush cabinet.
Classifying only a small fraction of the volume of documents the Bush admin classifies.
Mending relations with the UN, and never pre-emptively striking.
Oh, and campaign finance reform. He signed Vermont's campaign finance reform bill into law in 1997.
All these facts set Dean way apart from Bush, krieger.
Again, go back and check. You responded to marylandnaturegirl's post, saying that nobody had refuted the Colby article. So I did, then you accused me of "posting links to Dean campaign speeches and Dean websites." The vast majority of the links I've provided are not affiliated with the Dean campaign, so it's easy to see why I took exception. Then I was forced to go on the defensive...
No, you may have read it (I know you read one sentence about hemp, anyway), but proceeded to chastise me. You didn't respond to the post.

Krieger

Not true, you apparently edited that out of your original post. However, that line was in your text when I hit the "quote" button, before you edited. It is still in my previous post.

Ahh yes, Dean's promises.

I forget did Clinton promise to invade Yugoslavia when he ran for re-election in 1996? Did he promise to support NAFTA? What about Welfare Deform? How about the Anti-Terrorism Act (the beta version of the Patriot Act - which all the Dems voted for anyway)? Did he promise to bomb Iraq in "Operation Desert Fox"?

Well, I doubt he made any of those promises. But those were the very things that defined the Clinton presidency. And you think Dean will be any different then Clinton? LOL...

dcwolf

Dean's background and record back up his statements. That's the whole point. It's common sense.
Forgetting about the robust economy with millions of net jobs, the budget surplus, no tax cuts for the rich, and friendly relationships with our allies, among other things? Times have changed since Clinton's reign and Dean's a different person. If Dean's elected I doubt his administration will be much like Clinton's, and we certainly won't have pre-emptive wars based on persistent lying. If it is like Clinton's reign, so be it; I'll take peace and prosperity over WWIII.

Krieger

Dean can't bring back the tech bubble of the 90s. Also, it is no longer in the best interest of American capitalism to have "friendly" relations with its rivals on the European continent (primarily France and Germany). The EU and US are both competing for world economic dominance. And a President Dean would most definitely go to war to "prevent terror" (also known as "gaining control of resources"). But the capitalist media would make the war appear to be some kind of humanitarian mission (like they tried to make the illegal Yugoslavian invasion appear).

I can see the CNN headlines already: "President Dean's mission to save innocent Iranians has begun." "Old Shah's son will be new ruler of Iran." ...

And Dean would still be occupying Iraq, we'd just hear about that occupation about as much as we hear of Afghanistan nowadays.

Ultron

Kucinich doesn't have a shot. Let's be honest. Dean does. In fact, as a Conservative I'd much prefer Dean to Kerry run against Bush. At least Dean is a more reliable idealogue than Kerry. Whether or not you hate Bush, the majority of Americans don't. They see him as an idealogue who stands for some principles, even if you don't. You can't send a pansy up against him.

Have you ever seen Kerry give an interview? Dodge this, ramble about something else. That won't fly.

Anyhow, I respect Kerry about as much as Gephardt, who still can't manage to attend more than 11% of the votes. Sending either of these two men up against Bush is suicide for the Democratic party.

Ultron

Maybe I'm lulled into a false sense of Dean being more of an idealogue than the other candidates, but that's the way I see him. But in my experience of watching different candidates in different interviews, Kerry is at the bottom of the barrel. And while appreciate Gephardts longstanding support of the Bush administration and the war, I think he's got a horrible voting record. If I showed up at work 11% of the time I'd be fired.

I know Kucinich is a true idealogue, except that his troubling voting record on abortion. Not just the switcharound, but the inability to even remain consistantly pro-choice.

But it all comes down to money. Democrats aren't donating to Kucinich. He's barely $1.7M while the top Democrats are making 10 times that. I don't see Kucinich overcoming that hurdle.

RED DAVE

From elwoodblues:

Sigh, I guess I've got to answer this nonsense.

Why is it that people whose politics ends at the end of their noses think that they're dealing with reality? It reminds me of asertions that the sun goes around the Earth because it looks that way, and my family, friends and I can relate to that! As to "power, purpose or even purality," I'll grant you power and plurality, but to describe the left as without purpose is just being stupid.

As to this 1%/99% thing, I don't know where you got it: down a rabbit hole, maybe. The left has always dealt with a complex notion of class structure, parceling out not only the classes themselves but tendencies within classes, etc. If you want to call names or make charges, you vcan do that. Instead of invective, though, you might try to substantiate your views like I took the trouble to do with mine instead of just asserting them vehemently.

RED DAVE

dcwolf

I didn't say he would "bring back the tech bubble." I'm talking about an economic recovery, including net jobs.