ugababe117 0 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 as he will be nothing but a footnote to history as the man who lost the 2004 election to GWB. Have to say I agree with you 100% there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUBURNTIGERFAN 0 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 And the US will suffer terribly with El Presidente Dean in office for lifetime; with his views in line with Castro's, that's what he is really hoping to accomplish... And, just out of curiosity, which views are those? Well, for one thing, they BOTH oppose EVERYTHING President Bush is doing to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. When a communist dictactor is in agreement with your (Dean's, not yours personally) views on the current President, and the communist dictator would much prefer Dean to be President (along with Saddam and Osama), then maybe you need to re-look your stance on things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 BTW, I was on the plane to DC today, sitting behind me was James Carville (funny, I was in the last row of 1st class, he was in the 1st row of coach), with his LSU hat on covering his godawful ugly bald head, anyway, we land at National around noon, his phone rings, and he is answers it yelling "Al Gore, Al Gore!?" I have no idea what or who he was talking to... :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Well, for one thing, they BOTH oppose EVERYTHING President Bush is doing to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. When a communist dictactor is in agreement with your (Dean's, not yours personally) views on the current President, and the communist dictator would much prefer Dean to be President (along with Saddam and Osama), then maybe you need to re-look your stance on things... I've got a couple of problems with your response. First, you didn't really tell me which views Dean has that would be considered 'communistic.' A blanket statement that Dean opposes what Bush is doing in the Mid East really doesn't prove communism, just that he doesn't agree with Bush's Mid East program. Or, is that the deal; agree with Bush or you are a communist? Second, has Fidel Castro actually endorsed Howard Dean for president? Has he said that their, his and Dean's, views are in agreeance or is this some kind of interpolation on your part? Lastly, for some interpolation of my own, if Hitler agreed with Bush's policies, especially, ohhh, the Patriot Act, would that make Bush a Nazi??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexbo 104 Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Lastly, for some interpolation of my own, if Hitler agreed with Bush's policies, especially, ohhh, the Patriot Act, would that make Bush a Nazi??? How in the world can you possibly compare the Patriot Act to 1930's Nazi Germany???!!!! We have more latitude and freedoms NOW, even with the Patriot Act than we had in 1930''s AMERICA!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I'm saying that Hitler would most definitely say that it was a step in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Hey Tiger In Spain, ain't it ironic? You and I both quote a right wing radical in our signatures!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Since all of you libs ignored my Gore comments yesterday because I based them on comments from Rush, I thought you would give you a link to the SAME information from a decidedly non-conservative source: The NY Daily News Under this view, Gore's endorsement of Howard Dean yesterday was aimed at seizing long-term control of the Democratic Party, in part by gaining favor with front-runner Dean and his growing base of active, left-leaning Democrats.That Gore chose to make his endorsement in Harlem - down the street from former President Bill Clinton's office - was just an added twist of the knife. "This was not Al Gore taking a shot across [sen.] Clinton's bow," said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. "This was him putting one right into the solar plexus of both Clintons." Clinton confidants yesterday said she had no desire to get into a philosophical debate with Gore about the direction of the Democratic Party, which is now chaired by Clinton pal Terry McAuliffe. "Hillary Clinton is focused on reclaiming the White House in '04," said Democratic operative Howard Wolfson, who ran her Senate campaign. "And a big fight with Al Gore is a distraction from that effort." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,057 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I thought it was customary for the partys nomination to lead the party. Was not Algore the democratic nominee in the last election? It would seem that he should be the head of the DNC rather than a Clinton man. Would someone explain that to me, I am a little confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I thought it was customary for the partys nomination to lead the party. Was not Algore the democratic nominee in the last election? It would seem that he should be the head of the DNC rather than a Clinton man. Would someone explain that to me, I am a little confused. You are EXACTLY RIGHT. Which is why Gore is bitter, and trying to wrest control away from Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's handpicked man, by screwing Joe Lieberman and moving away from Clinton's centrist policies to the left. A certain path to Dem destruction, complete with internal power struggles and voter alienation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I have to admit that I don't understand what your beef with Gore's endorsement of Dean is. Maybe I can't see the forest for the trees. You seem to be operating under the assumption that Dean is way out in left field ideologically and therefore Gore's endorsement is proof positive that left field is where his true colors lie. Certainly, Dean is more progressive on some issues than Lieberman, such as a woman's right to choose abortion, but Dean isn't the flaming liberal you seem to think he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I thought it was customary for the partys nomination to lead the party. Was not Algore the democratic nominee in the last election? It would seem that he should be the head of the DNC rather than a Clinton man. Would someone explain that to me, I am a little confused. You are EXACTLY RIGHT. Which is why Gore is bitter, and trying to wrest control away from Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's handpicked man, by screwing Joe Lieberman and moving away from Clinton's centrist policies to the left. A certain path to Dem destruction, complete with internal power struggles and voter alienation. How in the world did you two come to the conclusion that the party chairman should be the former VP? Exactly what elected office has Ed Gillespie ever held? BTW, Jenny, why are you posting anonymously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 BTW, Jenny, why are you posting anonymously? Huh? I am logged in and everything. I can see my screen id and avatar appearing. No clue why you think I am posting anonymously. How in the world did you two come to the conclusion that the party chairman should be the former VP? Exactly what elected office has Ed Gillespie ever held? NOT Chairman. As a former government teacher (taught at Auburn for two years), I can tell you that it is tradition that each party's nominee is the de facto "head" of the Party for the next four years. You will always have a day-by-day administrator, especially as the nominee elected President is too busy, although he is considered to be the head of his party. Gore apparently feels that by rights, he should still be an influential power borker in the DNC. But Gore has been completely ignored by the Clinton power machine, and he feels it is his right as the former nominee to have input as to the direction of the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 I thought you were posting anonymously because at the bottom of the screen your name was never listed but there was an anonymous poster listed and I kept seeing new posts by you but your name never showed up at the bottom. Has nothing to do with how your posts appear when you post them, i.e. avatar, etc. Gore seems to have removed himself from the political stage the past couple of years. It doesn't seem that he's being dissed but that he's taken a break. Mike said "It would seem that he should be the head of the DNC rather than a Clinton man. " And you replied "You are EXACTLY RIGHT. Which is why Gore is bitter, and trying to wrest control away from Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's handpicked man, by screwing Joe Lieberman and moving away from Clinton's centrist policies to the left." I guess that confused me. You didn't correct Mike in his misguided assumption that Gore should become the head of the DNC. Of course, I don't remember Bush, Sr. being much of a leader in the RNC after 1992. He seemed to take a break from politics also. Very interesting that you would claim your being a college teacher as a reason to take your opinion to be an authoratative one considering your past remarks about them not knowing anything about the 'real' world and all. Are you in government now or did you just teach your theories on it at AU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,057 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 How in the world did you two come to the conclusion that the party chairman should be the former VP? Exactly what elected office has Ed Gillespie ever held? The conclusion is not that the party head should be the VP, but the parties nominee! If you remember, Al Gore was the nominee in the last election. The point also is that the head of the Democrats was place there by Bill Clinton. Algore is now positioning himself with Dean because it looks as if Dean will be the paries nominee ad therefore will exert more power than Slick Willie. I'm also sure that distinction did not fly past you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted December 10, 2003 Share Posted December 10, 2003 Very interesting that you would claim your being a college teacher as a reason to take your opinion to be an authoratative one considering your past remarks about them not knowing anything about the 'real' world and all. Are you in government now or did you just teach your theories on it at AU? Being a GTA for two years at Auburn does not make me a professor, but I did teach right out of the same AU approved text for two whole years, and that is a statement from the text. It was just a basic US Government class, and I did not project my political agenda into it. It is kind of hard to put political spin on basic information ("The US House is made up of 435 representatives and the Senate has 100 members", etc.) No theory involved. I stated my experience only because you cannot find the entire text of a po209 political science textbook online with which to link, and I wanted to say how I knew this was common practice. I am not in government service now, but did spend several years working as an administrator on the municipal level. If I went back and taught Public Administration now (which is what my Masters is in), you can bet I would have a much different outlook on the practical application of what is being taught. And I still think that college professors who teach practical knowledge without benefit of practical experience have no clue. There is a difference between teaching basic facts and teaching theories, like "When a child misbehaves in a classroom, the best way to handle the situation is to sit that child down and have a personal one on one conversation with that child to determine what issues the child has that may be causing him or her distress, resulting in the misbehavior in question." (Actual educational theory from one of the classes my mom took in the 90's when she went back to college for her teaching degree.) And I have no idea why I am not showing up at the bottom. I will check my profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.