Do you support eliminating freedom of speech? Dean does.

In a recent interview Howard Dean was asked whether he would keep it illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if he is elected president and he said yes. Other candidates haven't said anything on this issue and so Dean's position is clearly more restrictive than theirs and it's fair game to repeatedly assert that Dean wants to eliminate freedom of speech.

:+

Please.

On edit: Okay, I read it again and do think that you are kidding.

because dean took away their freedom of speech!

Since he was born Dean has been on the warpath of anti-environmentalism. He unashamedly takes clean air and converts it to the disasterous carbon dioxide, day in and day out, over the course of his lifetime which has effected global warming! If he was serious about environmentalism he should stop breathing immediatly! How can anyone support this monster?

He should be arrested!

Because I know you are a Dean supporter. Any idea on the person who started the thread? I think he/she is one of ours too and that this is a joke, but I am not sure.

Is it ethical to yell "MOVIE!" in a crowded fire house?

That will make an honest man out of him. Did you read the earlier posts in this group on his opposition to civil liberties?

You mean the one that included these quotes?

Dean said Wednesday he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would “require a re-evaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street.”

Dean said he had not taken a position on these questions. Asked whether he meant that specific rights described in the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — would have to be trimmed, the governor said:

"I haven't gotten that far yet. I think that's unlikely"

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33681.html

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn’t come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn’t work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there’d be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn’t commit the crime."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

I find these ideas pretty scary. Dean thinks we should have a discussion about whether to scale back the bill of rights? He thinks that someone who appeals and wins a new trial is exploiting a technicality? He believes in the death penalty because someone sentenced to life without parole might win an appeal?

That is just begging somebody to say that it's a little late for that.

No one can stop me from speaking my mind!!! :grr:

Who cares, acerbic? Do you really believe Dean wants to repeal the first amendment? Do you not get enough attention? Do you need love and affirmations from your peers? Are you okay? Don't post shit like this again; it's stupid.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...you're namecalling because you get it or because you don't get it, so that I know how to answer. :-)

But frequent is farout... Sir Uppity.

Just telling the truth

Why don't you simply adore him in that case? :-)

it's Kerry you're talking about. Yes, switching his position on trade, then NAFTA, and now the tax cuts..he really wants to keep some of them now. He voted for the invasion of Iraq, but now he really didn't mean for any of that nonsense to happen. Screw the 6 trillian dollar debt!

But Kerry's an honest guy, we can just take him at his word.

Are you in favor of repealing the child tax credit?

You mean the one shrub destroyed with his tax cut?

The per child tax credit is part of the tax cut that Kerry wants to keep. Do your research. Here is what Kerry actually had to say:
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/clips/news_2003_0730.html

raise the national debt, leave behind an even larger financial hole for the young ones to get out of. What kind of budget do you support, 50% of our money going to interest payments for bondholders?

yes take from the kiddos, and give to the rich parents. Great strategy! Go Kerry

So the answer to my earlier question is Yes? You do support repealing the per-child credit? I am having a little trouble discerning your position behind the fog of smarmy sarcasm.

The real damage the tax cuts did were the structural changes they made in lowering the taxes on unearned income, which increases the burdened on working folks. ('Earned' income.) Those taxes need to be rolled back to where they were. But the targeted tax cuts that Democrats fought to include should stay.

It's a simple question. Do you think parents should get that tax credit or should it be repealed?

I set a mousetrap yesterday, strange how the little rat ran right for the bait...even with that little picture of the smiling mouse right there for her to see.


If the tax cut was repealed entirely, this would give the next generation a credit that means something. This is better than leaving behind debits for today's kids, and families were doing better without these debits on the books.

You still seem to be trying to avoid answering Yes or No. That's all I am asking for here.

Do you think parents should get that tax credit or should it be repealed?

But yes, I do favor a child tax "credit".

:loveya: From singles to doubles...or viceversa.

The National Debt is the forest. Get it?

edit: So lets cut down the forest so we can save a tree.

All or nothing. Black or white. I'm not sure I want a President who thinks in those terms. We have one right now. The world is made up of shades of grey and all the colors of the rainbow. I'd like to have a President who can deal with that complexity and is even willing to talk about it.

Yes, the National Debt is the forest, and it is made up of all the tax and spending policy of the federal government. Which means to have 'healthy forest management' we need to deal with each and every tree in it. All the details.

The specific issue involved here is whether, at this point, (here, now) to raise taxes by repealing the expanded per-child tax credit that was enacted along with the Bush tax cuts on the rich. Kerry is in favor of keeping the credit, Dean wants to repeal it.

The previous poster seemed to have a problem with stating this - however, without an honest discussion of what the candidate's positions are, how can we have an honest debate on the merits of those positions?

If I am mis-stating Dean's position - let me know. If you wish to debate the merits of these two positions, I'm willing.

It is unfair to childless couples.

Children should be taxed just like any other commodity.

The child "credit" is nothing but pandering to the "family values" crowd.

Repeal it.

That is so funny! I can see all the anti-Dean people rallying around saying 'Yes, this is the issue that is going to take him down!'

They both seem to think the First Amendment isn't all that sacred. Gee. Wonder what else they have in common, besides missing the war in Vietnam?

but if he opposed Vietnam and didnt serve I see nothing wrong with that. BTW I admire what John F Kerry did in Vietnam, he is a great guy and my back up also you dont get on Dick Nixon's enemy list for nothing.

what a maroon.

Then again, you knew that, Forkboy.

Personally, I would not want to have to evacuate a movie theater everytime some idiot decided to yell fire. Worse, if it happened too often, then nobody would take it seriously if there WAS a fire. I have no problem with this law.

n/t

Funny how many were so eager to bash Dean that they missed it :)