Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Deanism #14
Published on October 24, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

In the continuing saga of Howlin Howie and megalomania, Howard dean has decide he is the great and powerful OZ and that when he opens his mouth, new laws are created.

In the story of the non-story of the Plame non-crime, Howie has decided that if the Prosecutor does not Indict, then the case cannot end.

George Stephanopoulos: "If [Fitzgerald] finishes his investigation without bringing indictments and without issuing a final report, will you accept that as the end of the matter?"

"No," Dean shot back. "Because I fundamentally don't think these are honest people running the government."

See where he also impugns the integrity of the Bush Administration.  Now many people don't like the Bush Administration, or its players therein, but only the loons of the extreme left would even attempt to call people who have not been convicted of any crimes, much less indicted, dishonest.  But Dean just did.  Then of course in Deanism #15, he goes on to show his all powerful nature:

"a fundamental flaw in the Bush administration - the personal attacks on people for meritorious arguments. They never make the argument - they always make the personal attack."

Check me if I am wrong.  But if you call me dishonest, with no proof other than a slur, is that not a personal attack?  You call me a liar, and I will take it as a personal attack.  If you have proof I am a liar, then you can produce it, but to just declare without any supporting evidence is simply a smear tactic, and a personal attack.

So Dean has decided he now makes the judicial rules (I guess he is Co-opting the courts now), and that he is immune from making any personal attacks, since what he says must be Gospel.

God/OZ has spoken!  Let no man question his words or face the damnation of hellfire!


Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Oct 27, 2005
CIA operative


One of the authors of the law over which this investigation was launched says she was no such thing and that the law is & was not applicable. It's going to be very interesting seeing how creative Fitzgerald has to get, if indeed indictments are to come.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 27, 2005
I do realize that Clinton faced indictments similar to the charges that Rove & Libby will be. However, in my book someone lying about getting a hummer is not quite as bad as people exposing the identity of a CIA operative and lying about it.


Typical turn and twist. Clinton never faced indictments like Rove & Libby are facing! He didn't just lie about a simple hummer. He LIED on the STAND, under OATH to a GRAND JURY! And there is "proof" of that! There is NO proof however that Rove & Libby lied. If there was any concrete evidence of it the grand jury would have already indicted both of them.
on Oct 30, 2005
As predicted, Fitzgerald had to create a crime to indict anyone. He could not convince his grand jury that anyone violated the law in the original allegations. An intellectually honest and politically neutral decision would have been to return a no bill. Now we know Fitzgerald is neither.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Nov 06, 2005

I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist an opportunity to show that being a democrat makes me smarter than you.

No, just a grammar nazi.

on Nov 06, 2005

ah yes! a perfect point on how liberals think If They cannot attack the article, point out spelling errors.

They dont know the difference between a typo and a spelling error.

on Nov 06, 2005

Howard Dean thinks Rove and Delay are guilty without trial.

Tells you something, doesn't it?

Yea, that the left has no compassion, or understanding of due process.

on Nov 06, 2005

foolish to point out spelling errors while making them yourself. moron. oops NON-spelling moron.

His underwear is showing!

on Nov 06, 2005

Here is the statement from Dean on the Democratic party's web site.

I am not reporting the propaganda from the DNC, but the facts from the Asses mouth.  If you can argue that, then do so.  Otherwise, write your own PR fluff for the DNC.

on Nov 06, 2005

Let me get this straight. Howard Dean has already prejudged Delay to be guilty without trial, but he wants to give osama the benefit of the doubt?

He is the best asset the repubicans have against the democrats!

on Nov 06, 2005

Asked whether he was rushing to judgment, the former Vermont governor said with a laugh, “I got in trouble because I wouldn’t convict Osama bin Laden. Maybe I’ve learned something.” He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

No, he just know how to be on the wrong side on every issue!  DO you normally convict people before they are indicted or tried?  Do you automatically want to put enemies of the US on trial instead of letting the army handle the wars?

on Nov 06, 2005
Are you so desperate to have someone to insult that you have to revisit this thread? I don't know if you noticed, but you're the only one talking here. The last 7 posts are you talking to yourself.
on Nov 06, 2005

Howard Dean goes beyond "silly things". If I had the time I would post his comments on how he thinks Bush was somehow behind Sept. 11.

I have been documenting them!

on Nov 06, 2005
Documenting what? Silly things he's said? I don't see anything documented here other than your misguided ramblings.
on Nov 06, 2005
Are you so desperate to have someone to insult that you have to revisit this thread? I don't know if you noticed, but you're the only one talking here. The last 7 posts are you talking to yourself.


Get a clue will ya? "Revisit this thread"? It's HIS thread to begin with! And for that matter what you said can be turned right back at you.

Are you so desperate to have someone to insult that you have to revisit this thread?
on Nov 06, 2005

All of us, Dean included, have justification right now to say that the members of this administration have been dishonest.

Uh, not unless you also say that about Clinton Kerry, et. al.  If you are going to be honest, be honest, or dont pretend.

4 Pages1 2 3 4