Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Site search Web search

Shortly after endorsing Dean, Braun recieved up to $300,000 from the Dean campaign to retire debt

Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 05:31 AM Original message

Shortly after endorsing Dean, Braun recieved up to $300,000 from the Dean campaign to retire debt

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 06:05 AM by wyldwolf So, I'm sure those expressing the fake outrage over Clinton/Visack will agree this even worse: "We are going to help her with the debt," (Dean adviser Jon) Haber told me. The debt tab could be in the neighborhood of some $300,000 and Dean's camp will help Braun raise the money to pay it off. Braun will campaign for Dean three days of the week, with the Dean campaign picking up her travel expenses. Braun will become a Dean campaign consultant and will be paid about $20,000. Up to three of Braun's staffers, including (Patricia) Ireland, will be hired by the Dean campaign." Chicago Sun Times http://web.archive.org/web/20040212235601/http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-sweet16.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 05:51 AM Response to Original message

1. I Believe That Your Title Is Flat Wrong - Please Fix It

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 06:02 AM by MannyGoldstein Where's the part where Braun receives $300,000 from the Dean campaign? I don't see that at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:01 AM Response to Reply #1

2. here...

"We are going to help her with the debt," Haber told me. The debt tab could be in the neighborhood of some $300,000 and Dean's camp will help Braun raise the money to pay it off." So.. you're going to say because this was in the future tense, it didn't happen?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:04 AM Response to Reply #2

3. No

That means something quite different than "give her $300,000". If I owe $100, and you give me $10, you've helped me with my debt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:07 AM Response to Reply #3

4. hmm... OK, I changed it to "up to $300,000." Does that make it better for you?

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 06:09 AM by wyldwolf Braun dropped out of the race, endorsed Dean, and recieved financial assistance to pay off debt which could have been as high as $300,000. Plus, she and several of her campaign workers were hired by the Dean campaign. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:10 AM Response to Reply #4

5. A Tiny Bit Better

I believe that it is still a gross functional mischaracterization of what the article says.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:24 AM Response to Reply #5

6. I'm sure you do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:37 PM Response to Reply #5

26. it is not better at all.

""We are going to help her with the debt," Haber told me. The debt tab could be in the neighborhood of some $300,000 and Dean's camp will help Braun raise the money to pay it off." This ancient article says nothing at all about how much money the Dean campaign helped Braun raise, it merely puts an upper limit on how much they might in the future have helped her campaing to raise, and never once states that the Dean campaign gave one dime to the Braun campaign fund. It does state that the Dean campaign paid Braun $20,000 as a consultant. This OP is a typical smear job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:39 PM Response to Reply #26

27. This post is unsubstantiated by the link it references.

The title is a complete fabrication. The poster should be ashamed, but the poster is well beyond that sort of self awareness.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:01 PM Response to Reply #27

36. interesting you're the only one spinning it that way. Not totally unexpected from you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 02:17 PM Response to Reply #36

61. Spinning? You made shit up and I am spinning?

I quoted your link, which said nothing that substantiated the title of your OP. You should be ashamed of yourself, but of course that is beyond you. From the article cited please show exactly where the Dean campaign gave any money at all to the Braun campaign.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 02:25 PM Response to Reply #61

63. I didn't make shit up, and you're spinning

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 04:15 PM Response to Reply #63

85. You cannot provide the information.

The article you cited did not document one dime given by the Dean campaign to the Braun campaign. Show me where it did or admit that you have intentionally distored the truth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

patricia92243 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:29 AM Response to Original message

7. If I remember correctly, at the time Dean's campaign said that was the usual way things are done,

The victor helps the loster's remaining debt - if there is any. Usually the loser has money left over - not the other way around.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:32 AM Response to Reply #7

9. well, sure. Most of us know that. Others, as the other thread shows, do not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Ethelk2044 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:31 AM Response to Original message

8. The ONLY REASON why Visack is endorseing Clinton is her supporters

paid off his debt. Disgusting yes, by my endorsement Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:33 AM Response to Reply #8

10. proof?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 07:43 AM Response to Reply #10

14. hello...? proof?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ronnykmarshall (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 04:47 PM Response to Reply #14

88. Tap! Tap! Tap!

Is this thing on?? Hello????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Ethelk2044 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 09:06 PM Response to Reply #14

91. She bought the endorsement

:woohoo: :woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

MethuenProgressive (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:50 AM Response to Reply #8

11. You're a mind reader?!?! The "ONLY REASON" ?

:boring:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Mass (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:51 AM Response to Reply #8

12. The former head of the DLC endorses Hillary and you are surprised?

Live in a real world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

rinsd (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:21 AM Response to Reply #8

21. Yeah it has nothing to do with them being long time allies

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

NoPasaran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 06:55 AM Response to Original message

13. Sounds like Hillary got a better deal than Dean

Presumably, Vilsack still has some influence with the party machinery in Iowa, much more important in a caucus state than in a primary. And if CM-B had any machine left in Illinois, it was sure moot by mid-March, when Illinois voyed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

jefferson_dem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 08:11 AM Response to Original message

15. Good "reality check" post.

This sort of thing is not at all unusual. There are plenty of reasons to criticize each of the candidates. The fact that one has recently retired the debt of a former candidate is not one of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 08:31 AM Response to Original message

16. you're duping your own thread

laughable yet sad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 08:33 AM Response to Reply #16

17. nope. How sad that you're checking up on me.

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 08:34 AM by wyldwolf I'm duping THIS thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3385270&mesg_id=3385270

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 10:48 AM Response to Reply #17

19. sad that I'm "checking up on you"? that's rich.

dude, you spam the board with a zillion threads, how can anyone not see them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 10:51 AM Response to Reply #19

20. But you are.

dude, you spam the board with a zillion threads No, I post relevant information to the board's subject.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Forkboy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:29 AM Response to Reply #19

23. Anyone who repsonds to him is either stalking him,watching him,or keeping track of him.

He's the straw that stirs the DU drink,dontcha know?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:26 PM Response to Reply #23

24. Deleted message

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

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:43 PM Response to Reply #24

28. personal attacks. Typical "progressive"

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 12:44 PM by wyldwolf As you sit in the basement wearing Captain Planet underoos gazing at a tattered Che poster and typing away....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:03 PM Response to Reply #28

37. Deleted message

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

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:22 PM Response to Reply #37

39. you're a living example of it.

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 01:23 PM by wyldwolf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:26 PM Response to Reply #39

41. living example of what? the fatasy bullshit liberal that only

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 01:31 PM by dionysus exists in your mind? You got nothin. As I drive away in the solar powered prius that i don't have, wearing my imaginary che t-shirt on the way to have tea with chavez... what a joke. on edit, you know you wanna just call liberals commies, just do it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:33 PM Response to Reply #41

43. ...of what you described. Not bullshit. You.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:35 PM Response to Reply #43

45. now you're not even being coherent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:36 PM Response to Reply #45

46. and you're playing Paris Hilton.

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 01:36 PM by wyldwolf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:56 PM Response to Reply #46

55. you're reaching too hard.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 02:01 PM Response to Reply #55

59. I think I pegged you perfectly

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:15 PM Response to Reply #59

73. care to elaborate?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:16 PM Response to Reply #73

74. nah. I was perfectly clear already.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 04:37 PM Response to Reply #74

86. why don't you spell out what you're insinuating?

I won't run to the alert button like you do. I'm Paris Hilton, a commie, a socialist? Say what you mean.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 09:42 PM Response to Reply #86

92. because it's already been made clear.

:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 10:05 PM Response to Reply #92

93. no i don't believe it has.

you have a basic innability to answer simple questions when called out on BS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 10:08 PM Response to Reply #93

94. well. it would have been clear to anyone else...

So I guess you have a basic innability to comprehend simple things.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

displacedtexan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 08:37 AM Response to Original message

18. Thanks for posting this.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Capn Sunshine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 11:23 AM Response to Original message

22. It's "i before e except after c"

Because minutiae is so important this time around apparently.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

madfloridian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:29 PM Response to Original message

25. Guess who here at DU was the most critical of the Dean Braun thing.

Speaking of motes and logs in eyes.... It was an amazing time at DU when that happened. Dean was condemned, blasted, burned. And those who pointed out it was often done....ooh my goodness. Welcome to the 08 campaign, Howard Dean....betcha you did not even know you were running this time. But then after all, sir, consider it a compliment that you are being used so often as a basis of comparison.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:44 PM Response to Reply #25

29. who?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

lojasmo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:51 PM Response to Original message

30. Still fighting the anti-dean wars, eh?

Recall, Dean is the CHAIR OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOW. Get over it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:54 PM Response to Reply #30

31. dropping in late again?

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 12:54 PM by wyldwolf Read the rest of the board and try to grasp the relevancy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

madfloridian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:57 PM Response to Reply #31

34. You are showing that Dean is still very relevant. Thanks.

The present events are judged by what happened then. I think you miss his running, wyldwolf.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:58 PM Response to Reply #34

35. when "progressives" condemn Clinton for doing something Dean did, he becomes relevant. Thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

lojasmo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 02:49 PM Response to Reply #31

66. I understand your M.O. I don't need to read the rest of the board

to understand the lack of relevance in your eternal screed. Oh yeah....fuck Reagan "democrats".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:06 PM Response to Reply #66

69. you understand very little

.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

madfloridian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:54 PM Response to Original message

32. Welcome to the 08 campaign, Howard Dean. Might as well be running.

Hotline blog even has a post today Obama vs Dean. It's amazing and funny, in a sad sort of way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 12:56 PM Response to Reply #32

33. when "progressives" codemn Clinton for doing something Dean did, he becomes relevant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

madfloridian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:18 PM Response to Reply #33

38. And you make sure he is brought into the conversation....

even though he is not running. And there were many in the thread you speak about who were defending Clinton's actions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:23 PM Response to Reply #38

40. If he is relevant. If it were another candidate, I would have done the same

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:32 PM Response to Reply #40

42. *cough cough* oooookayyy

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:34 PM Response to Reply #42

44. *cough cough* right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

dionysus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:36 PM Response to Reply #44

47. you know if the DLC didn't screw up the party so bad

we wouldn't be in this mess

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:37 PM Response to Reply #47

48. If "progressives" hadn't screwed up the party so bad...

we wouldn't be in this mess

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:38 PM Response to Reply #48

49. hold up - if the progressives have never controlled the party,

as has been your contention, how could they have screwed it up?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:41 PM Response to Reply #49

50. The public perception "progressives" gave the Dem party... starting in the 60s.

:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:44 PM Response to Reply #50

51. what, by doing the right thing and opposing the Vietnam conflict?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:47 PM Response to Reply #51

52. among other things...

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 01:48 PM by wyldwolf ...the actions of the "progressive movement" of the 60s gave the Democrats the public perception of being weak on defense, shunning religion, having lose morals, etc. Whether you and I agree or disagree on these issues, the perception was devasting in '72, '80, '84, and '88.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:51 PM Response to Reply #52

53. so how was it that the DLC proposed to remedy the problem?

Surely HRC's support for ending medical marijuana raids doesn't do much to support a public vision of tight Democratic morals...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:55 PM Response to Reply #53

54. better question - how do "progressives" intend to counter the negative image they gave the party?

As for the DLC, we've spoken countless times on it, and you never like the answers you get.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:57 PM Response to Reply #54

56. nah, I like the first question better.

Maybe if you actually answered it, we could move on to the one about progressives. As for the DLC, we've spoken countless times on it, and you never like the answers you get. Actually, I think you don't like the questions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 02:00 PM Response to Reply #56

58. Nah, I like mine better because I've answered yours countless times

But in a nutshell, the DLC's mission was to woo back Reagan Democrats - a goal partially achieved through popular DLC policies of welfare reform, tough on crime initiatives, fiscal conservativism, etc. Now, your answer in a nutshell?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 02:10 PM Response to Reply #58

60. wow, nothing like having portable goalposts, I guess.

First you said, "the actions of the "progressive movement" of the 60s gave the Democrats the public perception of being weak on defense, shunning religion, having lose morals, etc." Now, the remedy is "popular DLC policies of welfare reform, tough on crime initiatives, fiscal conservativism, etc." - none of which has to do with defense, religion or morals. Now, your answer in a nutshell? I don't speak for all progressives, of course, but from where I sit, if doing the right thing gives the party a negative image, then the best way to remedy that is to change what it is people expect from government, not to do the wrong thing. Now, let's talk about the special interest agendas the DLC is supposed to reject...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 02:25 PM Response to Reply #60

62. wow! Way to misrepresent. But you do that often

First you said, "the actions of the "progressive movement" of the 60s gave the Democrats the public perception of being weak on defense, shunning religion, having lose morals, etc." Something you haven't denied nor explained how "progressives" would correct. Now, the remedy is "popular DLC policies of welfare reform, tough on crime initiatives, fiscal conservativism, etc." - none of which has to do with defense, religion or morals. That is where the "etc." comes in. You know full well the DLC puts an emphasis on defense. Crime initiatives and welfare reform are directly linked to morals. I don't speak for all progressives, of course, but from where I sit, if doing the right thing gives the party a negative image, then the best way to remedy that is to change what it is people expect from government, not to do the wrong thing. So how do "progressives" change it? Now, let's talk about Wilson not entering WWI based on German submarine warfare.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 02:39 PM Response to Reply #62

64. read much?

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 02:41 PM by ulysses Something you haven't denied nor explained how "progressives" would correct. This was addressed in the same post. You knew that, though. You know full well the DLC puts an emphasis on defense. Indeed I do, to the occasional detriment of the nation. Crime initiatives and welfare reform are directly linked to morals. Oh. See, I'd have said that they're related to poverty, but I forgot that this is about changing public perception of the party, not about doing what's right. My bad. So how do "progressives" change it? Slowly. Still better than doing the wrong thing. Now, let's talk about Wilson not entering WWI based on German submarine warfare. Are you sure you don't want to fill in your understanding of the Zimmerman telegram first? :D edited for formatting

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 02:47 PM Response to Reply #64

65. generalize much?

You know full well the DLC puts an emphasis on defense. Indeed I do, to the occasional detriment of the nation. Isn't the military a necessary but sometimes detrimental entity? Oh. See, I'd have said that they're related to poverty, but I forgot that this is about changing public perception of the party, not about doing what's right. My bad. The "right thing." How... vague. So how do "progressives" change it? Slowly. Still better than doing the wrong thing. The "wrong thing." How... vague. Are you sure you don't want to fill in your understanding of the Zimmerman telegram first? Are you sure YOU don't want to?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 02:56 PM Response to Reply #65

67. no.

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 02:56 PM by ulysses Isn't the military a necessary but sometimes detrimental entity? No. Unprovoked invasions are, except the "necessary" part. I wouldn't call the military itself detrimental. The "right thing." How... vague. Only to someone who thinks crime is a morality issue. The "wrong thing." How... vague. I'll be more specific. NAFTA, CAFTA, the death penalty, the invasion of Iraq, and private school vouchers are all examples of "the wrong thing". See? Specifics. Take notes. Are you sure YOU don't want to? Don't need to, but thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:04 PM Response to Reply #67

68. yes

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 03:05 PM by wyldwolf Isn't the military a necessary but sometimes detrimental entity? No. Unprovoked invasions are, except the "necessary" part. I wouldn't call the military itself detrimental. Then sometimes it's a detrimental entity. The "right thing." How... vague. Only to someone who thinks crime is a morality issue. Crime is a morality issue and vice versa. The "wrong thing." How... vague. I'll be more specific. NAFTA, CAFTA, the death penalty, the invasion of Iraq, and private school vouchers are all examples of "the wrong thing". In your opinion. In MY opinion, NAFTA was a good idea that went bad, CAFTA shouldn't have been passed because of NAFTA, the death penalty is ok by me in heinous felony offenses, and school vouchers are fine as long as they can't be used for religious schools. Are you sure YOU don't want to? Don't need to, but thanks. Right. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:08 PM Response to Reply #68

70. you forgot Iraq.

Was invading Iraq the right thing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:11 PM Response to Reply #70

71. no, I did not

It falls into the "detrimental" category.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:14 PM Response to Reply #71

72. heh - convenient.

You'll address every other one of my "wrong things" individually, but Iraq gets lost in a vague statement about how the military is occasionally detrimental. Was the invasion the right or the wrong thing to do?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:18 PM Response to Reply #72

75. Truth often is. I said the military is a necessary though sometimes detrimental thing...

Iraq is an instance of "detrimental." Sorry, again, you're not getting the answer you're fishing for.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:21 PM Response to Reply #75

76. so, if it's "detrimental",

is it wrong? kinda wrong? ifithadgonedifferentlyit'dberight wrong? Why can't you answer a simple question?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:24 PM Response to Reply #76

77. you're a teacher, though you act like a fisherman. You know the definition of "detrimental."

adjective: 1. causing detriment; damaging; harmful. I can't imagine anything that is detrimental being "right."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:28 PM Response to Reply #77

78. so it was wrong.

Why not say that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:33 PM Response to Reply #78

79. I have stated on DU repeatedly I felt that way. So it was a detriment?

:shrug: Why not say that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:34 PM Response to Reply #79

80. and you still won't say it.

It's ok - I know why you won't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:35 PM Response to Reply #80

81. I just did. Oh, I get it. You want to see the word "wrong" typed out.

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 03:37 PM by wyldwolf As though "detrimental" doesn't qualify as "wrong." Ok, the Iraq was, like I've always said, was wrong - a detriment to our country. Now, was the use of our military detrimental?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:45 PM Response to Reply #81

82. thanks.

Like pulling teeth, but thanks. Why did the DLC support the invasion?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:47 PM Response to Reply #82

83. you would have to ask them that

Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 03:51 PM by wyldwolf Despite opinions to the contrary, I'm not an agent of theirs. But probably for the same reasons 42% of Democrats did, along with Howard Dean (supported Biden-Lugar), Al Franken, and other well known Dems.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

ulysses (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 03:49 PM Response to Reply #83

84. I don't think you're an agent of theirs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 01:57 PM Response to Reply #54

57. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

 

ronnykmarshall (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 04:45 PM Response to Original message

87. OH MY GOD !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHjFxJVeCQs

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

SaveElmer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 08:53 PM Response to Original message

89. Hypocrisy? Here?...surely you jest!!! nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

illinoisprogressive (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 08:58 PM Response to Original message

90. never trusted Braun.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

AZBlue (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-18-07 10:58 PM Response to Original message

95. AAAAGGGHHH

Where do I apply for these endorsement jobs? They pay really well!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

 

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 02:04 PM Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC