Intolerant Dean criticized Right for being... intolerant
 

http://www.ljworld.com/deanfordrudge.html
So, to sum it up... You're only tolerant if you're a member of his far left merry band of lunatics, and repubicans are evil.

http://www.agentss.net/files/media/sound/deanscream.wav

Dean was a bad move for the Dems. It kinda snuck up on em really. The hard cores want blood and Dean has promised it. This will not go well. The extreme left is now "officially" in charge of the party.

That's not intolerant - Republicans are free to be evil and Dean isn't saying or doing anything to hinder their freedom to be evil.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=intolerant&x=0&y=0

Evil and ignorant, bryan. Oh, and unwilling to be led by our obvious betters... He's probably saving those stock-in-trade slurs for future verbal diahrretic outbursts.

JP

Wait a minute...Don't the representatives from the far right use the same type of rhetoric? Why is is wrong for one group to show a degree of intolerance and not another?

Heck, one side even claims that God is on their side now......

Hard to top that one!

I don't recall seeing Ken Mehlman saying that he thinks democrats are evil. This guy _represents_ the party. It's slightly different from a propagandist like Michael Moore saying republicans are evil.

Exactly, Bryan. this guy is "the face" of the party. I think it was two weeks ago Dean was quoted as saying "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for". He's somethin' all right, good luck with all that:)

The rhetoric of hate, intolerance and insensitivity is alive and well on both sides of the fence, gentlemen, There is very little difference between an individual who SAYS that he or she hates something and another who smiles and does the dirty work "behind the scenes". Seems as if there are, to paraphrase Bill O'Rielly, Kool Aid people on Both ends of the spectrum.

Here's an idea..Why not, for a while, just forget the goals of the respective parties and actually listen to the people? Ya gotta admit, there certainly wasn't much of a choice given to the voting public last time around. If there had been, the margin of victory would not have been so razor thin.

The election is over. Could both sides PLEASE move on and quit with the sniping? It gets very tiresome and old.

A man after my own heart! :)

I thought you'de like that:) I doubt the sentiment will sell well, but I'm sure it makes you guys feel good and hasn't it always been about how you feeeeeeel:)

yawn...can't you guys pick a harder target to criticize?

In a way, it is refreshing that someone in the political scene actually says publicly how he feels rather than standing behind the curtains and pulling the strings. I may not agree with his sentiments, but it is a form of honesty that we don't often see. Kinda harkens back to the HST days.

Can anyone out there actually state with a straight face that there are not representatives of the Republican party who feel the same way about Democrats? Will someone say, with authority and proof that the SBFT group was not politically motivated and backed by the Republicans?

Nah, guys..both parties can hit real lows in dirty tricks.

"Tell a lie often enough, and with enough conviction, and ultimately it becomes the truth."

Personally, I am getting tired of the puerile reaction of the spinners and justifiers on both sides. A pox on both your houses.

"Will someone say, with authority and proof that the SBFT group was not politically motivated and backed by the Republicans?"

You're capable of proving a negative? Wow. You must communicate on a much humbler plane while you're on these boards than you're otherwise capable of, b/c I'd never have guessed it. :D

BTW, it's usually a question of the accuser having to prove something than the accused having to exonerate himself and/or prove a negative. Unless the accused is "right-wing" or something anti-humanity like that.

JP

Hi Slack

Sorry I was not clearer. I was being somewhat tounge-in-cheek, trying to point out that, when dealing with political rhetoric, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to place culpability with absolute certainty. Consider any political campaign. Stepping back and watching the advocates for each side accuse and defend is, in my view, more entertaining tha old episodes of SNL.

We accept behavior from politicians that we would find unacceptable in a five year old. There are no absolutes in politics.

You mean this would be a better comparison:
http://www2.cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_043173501.html

:)

Schwarzenegger isn't in the same position as dean, but he shouldn't have said that either. He represents his state, Dean represents the party as a whole. There are congressmen/senators/governors from each state that say pretty wild things... Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Norm Coleman, they are pretty 'out there.' But, they are different situations, and in different positions of authority.

Yep, the shoe fits.

I love Dean, he makes the right wing crazies show their true colors.

lmao. the only thing that Dean did is show his (and his extreme left's) own colors

I can play the dictionary game too:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=intolerant
Not tolerant, especially:
1. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
2. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.

"I hate republicans and everything they stand for"
"republicans are evil"

Hmm... doesn't sound especially tolerant to me.

Hey Bob -

"We accept behavior from politicians that we would find unacceptable in a five year old. There are no absolutes in politics."

I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, and would even extend it beyond a five year old to "any criminal defendant"; think perjury, just for starters. :D

Isn't that second sentence (1) about politics and (2) absolute? :D

Re: Campaigns.
Many candidates don't defend, they evade/elude/obfuscate; Clinton was good at it (that's actually a complement), Kerry was awful at it. Largely b/c he didn't actually move away from the topic at hand but attack the motives of his accusers. "They're questioning my patriotism {whimper}." No, they're not, and nobody not already firmly on your side is going to fall for that crap.

A friend had a saying that I don't completely abide, but its point can be instructive: "Hit someone and you'll see where they run to." That's what I think is instructive about campaigns; where they run when smacked. yyeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhh h! :D

Back, closer to topic:
ATEOTD, I cringe for the non-leftie/whacko Democrats when Dean and/or BigFatTedKennedy let loose with the bile. Not that our MSM makes the scandal out of their eruptions that it does when a Rep. says something half as inflammatory.

JP

SOmeone once said:

A successful politician is one who observes the direction in which the crowd is moving, and then runs out in front as if he were leading all the while.

The problem with the "absolute" and "politics" is that so many politicians, in their efforts to evade, elude and obfuscate, make statements that sound like absolutes. Reasons for installing a health program (Clinton) to reasons for tinkering with SS(Bush). You are correct, that there really are no absolutes (except zero, perhaps!!), but our leaders sure like to try convincing us, don't they?

Listen some day to Carlin's rant on bulls**t. WHen he talks about Clinton, for instance, and the fact that he got elected because, as far as the public was concerned, he came right out and said: "Hi, I'm Bill Clinton and I'm full of s**t!! How do ya like that?" Dole lost, in Carlin's eyes because he tried to convince people of his honesty and integrety. Same can be said in the latest election as well. People like their bull straight up and out there.

Proof, in a way, that the public knows what politicians are, and respects those that come right out and admit it.

I think the democrats have been doormats to the Neo-Cons for too long. It will take some one like Dean to stand up and say, HALF THE COUNTRY (that votes) does not agree with you!

ummm...dino, 49% is NOT half. Close, mind you, but not quite. :D

Randy

I stand corrected, Randy... Still not a mandate that W is claiming...

And yet, I'm sure if Kerry (or "anyone but Bush") would have won, we would have spent the next 4 years hearing about how "The American people have spoken: and other such statements.

Mandate or not, the bottom line is Bush won. More people wanted him than "anyone" else. And, whether you win (or lose) by 1 point, or a hundred points, you still have the same outcome. Preaching, or espousing hate certainly doesn't seem to be the best way of "dealing with it."

Randy

Hum, Bush won, then deal with it.
Now if only the Republicans in Washington felt the same way.

oops, Washington state.

The thing is - you can't have a moderate as a leader. You need someone who is one way or the other and stands for what they believe. Bush is that I suppose - Maybe Dean is too.

That being said - I still think the Dems need to cater to the middle to be successful.

That might be a contradiction though.