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 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Nov 06, 2005

Then I'd like to hear how this enumeration of proven dishonesty distinguishes this Administration from priors and how it merits the moniker Culture of Corruption, as opposed to the political culture in past Democratic administrations.

Exaxctly!  This one has been the most honest since modern reporting!  The only slam is about a lie about a non-crime!  Just check out the "breath of fresh air" Clinton sleeze!

on Nov 06, 2005

finally, i assume that my life would be infinitely more enjoyable if the nation-at-large would use a little common sense, would demonstrate restraint when an opportunity arises to wrench an isolated, uttered phrase until it loses all of its original contextual significance.

Quotes are intact.  And it is not isolated.  For poof, just check out the rest of his sayings!  I have documented many, but not all.

When a loon is leading a major party, finding the lunacy is not a problem, or nit picking

on Nov 06, 2005
Uh, not unless you also say that about Clinton Kerry, et. al. If you are going to be honest, be honest, or dont pretend.


So are you saying that no one can point out dishonesty without also citing every known example of others being dishonest also?

That's like saying that you can't point out that a man has killed someone, because you know that a couple days ago someone else was killed by someone else.

I can point out that this administration is dishonest because I haven't been dishonest. You can do the same...maybe Clinton, Kerry, et al cannot, but I see new evidence every day that they are dishonest. And to my recollection, Howard Dean has not mislead this country either, especially regarding anything having to do with national security. You started this thread pointing out that he has no right to call them out, why doesn't he? He may be a bit odd and eccentric, but he's not a known liar.
on Nov 06, 2005
And for that matter what you said can be turned right back at you.


How do you figure? For one, I was responding to a post by him today, not from a week ago. What can be turned against me? I need someone to insult? Well you might think otherwise ever since I crowned you King Of All Liars, but I don't think anyone else could accuse me of being insulting to them.

I wasn't talking to you in the first place, go away...I've already shown you to be a liar. You can't have a credible discussion with anyone, because you have no credibility.
on Nov 07, 2005

Scooter Libby has stated that he first learned of Plame's identity from reporters. Evidence now shows that Libby first learned of Plame from a conversation with Cheney.

All well and good.  Just 2 problems with your statement.  First, there is no evidence, and indeed evidence to the contrary, that there was any underlying crime committed.  Second, this is not about Libby or Rove.  This is about Dean and his meglomania.

on Nov 07, 2005

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 does not take a lawyer to figure that out.  It is very clear.  5 years.  The conditions were not met.

on Nov 07, 2005

If there was any concrete evidence of it the grand jury would have already indicted both of them.

Well, they did nail Libby.  I think more for having a name like Scooter than for any real or imagined crime.

on Nov 07, 2005

An intellectually honest and politically neutral decision would have been to return a no bill. Now we know Fitzgerald is neither.

Here I will disagree.  I dont see Fitzgerald as having a political agenda, just an ego.  After 2 years, he had to get something, so he went with the lie routine.  They have an indictment.  It remains to be seen if they get a conviction.

on Nov 07, 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.

I am responding to those so kind as to have responded before.  As the notification from JU is not always reliable, I was unaware that anyone had commented past my last comment.  SOrry it upsets you.  Maybe you can get a job at Stardock and fix that notification bug?

on Nov 07, 2005

Documenting what? Silly things he's said? I don't see anything documented here other than your misguided ramblings.

Silly?  Or dangeroous.  You dont see any documentation of what he said here? I would suggest an optometrist or an ESL class.  As for the others, you need look no further than my other articles.  Note the Deanism #14.  That would imply, and you would be correct in assuming, this is not the first deanism I have documented.

on Nov 07, 2005

And for that matter what you said can be turned right back at you.

Hadn't thought of that!  That gets you a cookie.

on Nov 07, 2005

So are you saying that no one can point out dishonesty without also citing every known example of others being dishonest also?

No, I never said you could not blog your own article about dishonesty.  Indeed, I do beleive you have that right.  However it is bad form to take someone else's thread off topic to suit your agenda.

on Nov 07, 2005

How do you figure? For one, I was responding to a post by him today, not from a week ago. What

If the topic is so old, why are you still following it?

on Nov 07, 2005
I've already shown you to be a liar. You can't have a credible discussion with anyone, because you have no credibility.


Well, you just lost all credibility with me, because you apparently can't tell the difference between a mistake and a purposeful intent to deceive.

Talk about revisiting something for the sole purpose of insulting....
on Nov 07, 2005

Reply By: Gene Nash

Hi Gene!  Nice of you to drop by.

4 Pages1 2 3 4