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 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Nov 07, 2005
Hi Gene!  Nice of you to drop by.


Thought I'd see what the article revival was about.
on Nov 07, 2005

Thought I'd see what the article revival was about.

You seem to have the magic touch.  I got no notification that this one had been responded to, even after Davad responded to my late posts, except for your responses!  Sometimes the free icecream still has some ice chunks in it I guess!

on Nov 07, 2005
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.


You have proven absolutely NOTHING with your baseless "allegations"! Add that to the fact you were called to account for it by more than just myself! As the one above by Gene Nash shows. So it runs right back to you about needing someone to insult. I also take note that you did not address the first half of my post. The one that states that this is Dr. Guys thread in the first place.
on Nov 07, 2005

The one that states that this is Dr. Guys thread in the first place.

That is a sticky wicket, eh?  But to be honest, most of the time, he is an honest debater.

on Nov 07, 2005
Drmiler...my "allegations" were far from "baseless". You said I said something, which I clearly did not, but we don't really have to go there again.

As far as addressing the first part of your post. I wasn't addressing him about ressurecting the thread, I responded to him. I don't need to respond to anything by you. However, out of courtesy I will. I never said it wasn't his thread, zi see his name right up there at the top. I don't need you to point that out to me, as I'm a very good reader.
on Nov 07, 2005
As far as addressing the first part of your post. I wasn't addressing him about ressurecting the thread, I responded to him. I don't need to respond to anything by you. However, out of courtesy I will. I never said it wasn't his thread, zi see his name right up there at the top. I don't need you to point that out to me, as I'm a very good reader.


You need not bother to respond to me directly.But rest assured that when I see something that pisses me off, I WILL respond. You should also note like I said that I was not the only one taking you to task for it. Your allegations WERE baseless as Gene said above "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."
on Nov 07, 2005
Dr. Guy....I'm sorry for continuing to keep this off topic, but the little girl blacklisted me, so I need to set the record straight here.

I wasn't planning on responding directly to you. I already told you that, so don't bother wasting your blather. I'm sure if I poured through all of your mindless posts I could find more instances of your "honest mistakes", but I've got other things to do. I don't really care what Gene says either, with regards to you and I. If I lose credibility for being correct and calling someone out, I'll just do without it.

You never even admitted there that it was an honest mistake, you just blackilisted me. And then you go and say it's in bad form to belittle someone's point. That work's for me, but don't go making posts baiting people of the opposite viewpoint like you did. And be accurate when you say something. You know that you would have jumped all over me if I'd made the same "mistake" as you did.

You can respond whenever, wherever you like, simpletons like you don't intimidate me.

I'd say we should let this article get back on topic now. You know where you can find me if you'd like to continue your whining outside of Dr. Guy's thread.
on Nov 08, 2005
Dr. Guy....I'm sorry for continuing to keep this off topic, but the little girl blacklisted me, so I need to set the record straight here.

I wasn't planning on responding directly to you. I already told you that, so don't bother wasting your blather. I'm sure if I poured through all of your mindless posts I could find more instances of your "honest mistakes", but I've got other things to do. I don't really care what Gene says either, with regards to you and I. If I lose credibility for being correct and calling someone out, I'll just do without it.

You never even admitted there that it was an honest mistake, you just blackilisted me. And then you go and say it's in bad form to belittle someone's point. That work's for me, but don't go making posts baiting people of the opposite viewpoint like you did. And be accurate when you say something. You know that you would have jumped all over me if I'd made the same "mistake" as you did.


One last one dr. I never admited it? Then what blue blazes was this? And this is from "your" thread!


I was lumping you in with all the rest of the left and "most" of them are calling for Rove/Libby's head. So for that, I'm sorry. That being said you "still" don't come to a persons blog and say what you said with impunity! It's part of the freedom of choice. You are free to do what you want, when you want and how you want. But on the other hand you "must" be willing to pay the consequences. You also should pay some attention to who's writing what.


Now go pound sand little boy!
on Nov 08, 2005
go pound sand??

on Nov 08, 2005

I don't need you to point that out to me, as I'm a very good reader.

Well, thank you for that!  I appreciate your honesty.

on Nov 08, 2005

You need not bother to respond to me directly.

Comments are meant to be debated back and forth.  It is not necessary to address the author of the piece all the time.

on Nov 08, 2005

but the little girl blacklisted me,

Name calling does not win debates.

on Nov 08, 2005

Now go pound sand little boy!

Well, I have seen worse insults fly around here.

on Nov 08, 2005
Well, I have seen worse insults fly around here.


Yes, so have I...I just thought it was funny.
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4