HOWARD DEAN TAKES THE THRONE

The Republican fantasy has been realized...Howard Dean has been installed as the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. There literally could not be better icing on the cake for the opponents of the Democratic agenda. What's next? John Kerry being re-nominated in 2008? It could happen, but I would truly miss that Hillary run.

Dean's theory on why the Democrats keep losing is not that there is anything wrong with their positions on the issues, but that they simply are not "getting their message out." Apparently hundreds of millions of dollars spent on advertising in the last election cycle didn't do the trick. Dean doesn't realize, and I hope it stays that way, that Democrats lose for precisely the opposite reason ... Americans do know what they stand for.

The Democrats' leftist message is getting out loud and clear, and people are rejecting it. Maybe the liberals have an ulterior motive...Dean promised not to run for office if he got the job. In that case, mission accomplished.

they simply are not "getting their message out."*

In a way, that is actually true. They've been terrible at campaigning lately.

Grandpa h.

"In a way, that is actually true. They've been terrible at campaigning lately."



Are you for real? How so? Maybe they didn't push their gay agenda enough? Huh? Or maybe they should have made it more clear that they overwhemlingly support any circumstance infanticide. Or maybe they didn't attack religion enough, specifically Christianity?

That won't do in Christian America.

The democrats polarized the large percentage of Christians which make up the majority of the population. The gay agenda, and the abortion agenda will sink them again if they continue their push.

* = Initial comment
= Grandpa h.



true to his character, the anonymous poster responds:

Are you for real?*
How so?*

They lost to Bush, that's how so.

Maybe they didn't push their gay agenda enough?*
Huh?*

I don't know how someone who's against gay marriage (Kerry) was pushing a gay agenda.
Don't you know someone who is Gay or Lesbian? Or are they just afraid to tell you for fear of having you act retarded to them? Why do you hate gay people?
I'll never understand.

Or maybe they should have made it more clear that*
they overwhemlingly support any circumstance infanticide.*

I personally do not care about abortion.

Or maybe they didn't attack religion enough, specifically Christianity?*

You are imagining things. Almost all politicians, if not all of them, are Christian or otherwise religious.

That won't do in Christian America.*

Secularism is not an attack on religion. It is just the position that no religious view, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Atheist should be relevant to governance.

The democrats polarized the large percentage of Christians which make*
up the majority of the population.*
The gay agenda, and the abortion agenda will sink them*
again if they continue their push.*

Actually, it is the Christians who try to make homosexuality into an issue.
A large part of Bush's campaign was anti-gay-themed. And John Kerry was against gay marriage. I personally don't think one's sexuality is any of my damn business.

Grandpa h.

You still hold to the opinion that it was bad campaigning and not the message of their campaign, that was responsible for their loss.!.!??

Unbelievable! So their message/platform was a good one, but nobody heard it!?!?

"Secularism is not an attack on religion. It is just the position that no religious view, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Atheist should be relevant to governance."

You just dont get it. When will you and the other haters realize that you can critisize or challenge someones views or beliefs without attacking the religious group from which you think they(views/beliefs) come? Should murder or theft not be relevant in a government because it is a religious view??? Are they(murder, theft) really religious views??

You completely fail to see that many views or beliefs are not exclusive to any religion. Abortion isn't a religious issue, but you would like to make it one to advance your liberal agenda.

Not supporting gay marriage doesn't make someone religious. Can I not be an atheist against gay marriage? An athiest against abortion? And you believe someone hates gays if they don't agree with gay marriage. I have gay friends that don't believe in gay marriage!!

I have no problem with someone disagreeing or challenging my views, but challenge them as my views and/or beliefs without saying that they are of a religious nature and therefore irrelevant.

Recently I heard a caller on a talkshow call in and say that religion is manmade and there wasn't a God. He said so with such certainty, though he brought no more evidence to the discussion than the man saying the opposite. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, let's go with religion being manmade. If so, then what makes his manmade morals and beliefs better than my manmade morals and beliefs??

Many people on all sides of this issue are guilty of stating theories and views as certainties, when they are not.

This has and always will be a debatable issue, and no amount of scientific research or biblical study will be able to present an overwhelming amount of evidence that would erase doubt in others minds.

Whichever one of these beliefs allow you to pacify your want for an answer to the existential questions of life, is your choice.

This topic is the cause of much turmoil (and bloodshed), within the religious and the non-religious. Everyone has the right of choice, but many do not respect that right. I don't believe that religion(s) is the culprit of this turmoil, but rather, the intolerance of others beliefs, religious or not.

As a man of Christian faith(not that that's any of your business), I have always called out my brothers(and sisters) to recognize the fact that there are no absolutes in any faith or belief. They must recognize this fact, as should everyone else.

* = Initial comment
= Grandpa h.



You still hold to the opinion that it was bad*
campaigning and not the message of their campaign, that was*
responsible for their loss.!.!??*
Unbelievable!*
So their message/platform was a good one, but nobody*
heard it!?!?*

John Kerry did not make his platform clear. That is a fact. A lot of people didn't vote for him because they didn't know what he wanted to do.
It's not so miraculous that he lost.
Perhaps you should consider that Clinton was in office for 8 years. He was a decent campaigner and many Americans liked him. That is also a fact.

I said:
"Secularism is not an attack on religion.
It is just the position that no religious view, be
it Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Atheist should be relevant to
governance."

You responded:
You just dont get it.*

What's there to get? Our government should not be promoting Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Atheism. No religious views at all should be in government.

When will you and the other haters realize that you*
can critisize or challenge someones views or beliefs without attacking*
the religious group from which you think they(views/beliefs)*
come?*

How does my advocacy of secularism amount to me attacking religious groups?

Should murder or theft not be relevant in a government*
because it is a religious view???*
Are they(murder, theft) really religious views??*

Of course murder and theft aren't solely religious views. I don't understand your point here.

You completely fail to see that many views or beliefs*
are not exclusive to any religion.*

Of course they are not. I'm not talking about abolishing all views and beliefs, just about preventing actual religious practices from the government.

Abortion isn't a religious issue, but you would like to*
make it one to advance your liberal agenda.*

Of course abortion isn't solely a religious view. I never said it was. And I have no agenda either way on the issue of abortion. Quit taking some other people's viewpoints and attributing them to me.

Not supporting gay marriage doesn't make someone religious.*

Again, it isn't solely a religious issue. I never said it was.

Can I not be an atheist against gay marriage?*
An athiest against abortion?*

Yes, you can be. I never said your viewpoints would be banned from government, just your religious practices. You clearly misunderstand secularism.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing or challenging my*
views, but challenge them as my views and/or beliefs*
without saying that they are of a religious nature and*
therefore irrelevant.*

But you were talking about homosexuality as a Christian issue, so obviously I was going to discuss it in that way. You said:
"The democrats polarized the large percentage of Christians which make
up the majority of the population.
The gay agenda, and the abortion agenda will sink them
again if they continue their push."
You linked the issue of homosexuality with religion, so how was I supposed to respond?
By blaming me for responding to your topic you are putting the cart before the horse.
Of course not everybody opposed to homosexuality is religious. And not everyone supportive of gay marriage is non-religious. And, get this: Some Christians support secularism.
But it is a FACt that a lot of Christians try to make homosexuality into a big political issue, is it not? So you are criticizing me for being accurate in a discussion that you created about Christianity and homosexuality.

Recently I heard a caller on a talkshow call in*
and say that religion is manmade and there wasn't a*
God.*
He said so with such certainty, though he brought no*
more evidence to the discussion than the man saying the*
opposite.*

Well, it's hard to produce evidence disproving something that is probably
fantasy. I said "screw Gods" years ago, and I haven't had a reason to embrace anything of that nature. I don't need religious cults.

But giving him the benefit of the doubt, let's go*
with religion being manmade.*
If so, then what makes his manmade morals and beliefs*
better than my manmade morals and beliefs??*

Well, he probably wouldn't claim that God, and therefore the entire universe, is on his side....so it would be more in the world of observable intellectualism.

Many people on all sides of this issue are guilty*
of stating theories and views as certainties, when they are*
not.*

This is certainly true. That's why I consider myself agnostic.

This has and always will be a debatable issue, and*
no amount of scientific research or biblical study will be*
able to present an overwhelming amount of evidence that would*
erase doubt in others minds.*

Well, I wouldn't say "no amount" of science or biblical study can erase doubts. People can change their beliefs and observations based on either realm.
It would be quite disappointing to scientists and religious practioners if people couldn't change their minds on things and adopt certain beliefs they previously didn't hold. However, I think religious people ar less likely to change their minds because it's so strongly based on faith.

I don't believe that religion(s) is the culprit of this*
turmoil, but rather, the intolerance of others beliefs, religious or*
not.*

It isn't the sole culprit, anyway...but it would be incredibly dishonest to say it isn't one of the major players in creating world violence, if not THE major player.

As a man of Christian faith(not that that's any*
of your business),*

You were the one to bring religion up, in case you forgot. You made it my business. This thread wasn't even about religion before you hopped into it.

I have always called out my brothers(and sisters) to*
recognize the fact that there are no absolutes in any*
faith or belief.*
They must recognize this fact, as should everyone else.*

Of course.
Now that we are on the subject of religion (which you brought up), did you have a religious education? Or did you discover the Holy Ghost on your own?

Grandpa h.

* John Kerry did not make his platform clear. That is a fact. A lot of people didn't vote for him because they didn't know what he wanted to do.

I'd disagree here. I'd say he made his platform pretty clear, but he changed his position on a few issues AND, more importantly, he wasn't seen as an anti-war candidate. He sounded like Bush Lite on the war. There didn't seem to be any huge differences between the candidates.

* It's not so miraculous that he lost.
Perhaps you should consider that Clinton was in office for 8 years. He was a decent campaigner and many Americans liked him. That is also a fact.

Well, Clinton never won with a majority, only a plurality. Also, Clinton spurred the first election of a Republican Congress in 40 years. To say that Clinton won twice so therefore liberal Democrats really are popular is misleading. Clinton won more on his charisma than anything else, and charisma is not a political issue.

Also want to throw in that saying Bush won this last election with the most votes ever cast is also misleading, since our population of eligible voters continues to grow. Of course he won with more votes than FDR--there are now several more million people voting than when FDR ran. So, again, to claim Bush--or any politician--has some kind of mandate based on overall vote total is mostly hype. You also have to take into account that almost half of the population doesn't vote.

* = Initial comment
= Grandpa h.



I'd disagree here.*
I'd say he made his platform pretty clear, but he*
changed his position on a few issues AND, more importantly,*
he wasn't seen as an anti-war candidate.*

I disagree that he made his platform clear, and you spelled out why in your sentence above. A good campaigner with a strong platform does not change his position on a few key issues if he wants to get elected. he lost a lot of votes because there was an element of truth to the "flip-flopper" label (although the same thing could be said of almost any politician). No, rather than having a clear platform, he was a different guy than Bush.

He sounded like Bush Lite on the war.*

Hell, he even tried to out-Hawk Bush. But he still didn't have a clear platform in doing so and he failed to win the pro-war vote...by trying to look like a hawish dove he alienated both sides.

There didn't seem to be any huge differences between the*
candidates.*

They were similar, but this doesn't contradict my claim that Kerry was a poor campaigner.
Other than the debates, where Bush did even worse than I thought he would do (and my expectations were pretty low).
The Green Party and the Libertarians should have served as the political vehicle for the anti-war movement (which is larger than the Republicans would have us believe), but soem of the anti-war voters still went for Kerry instead.
If I would have voted for Kerry I would've been in the bathroom for several hours afterwards contemplating suicide. If I would have voted for Bush I would have committed suicide afterwards.

To say that Clinton won twice so therefore liberal Democrats*
really are popular is misleading.*
Clinton won more on his charisma than anything else, and*
charisma is not a political issue.*

But charisma is the mark of a good campaigner, is it not? Thats' what we were originally talking about--Kerry being a bad campaigner...Clinton was better so he won.
Bush didn't win on his entier platform either. A lot of people who voted for him were one-issue voters or because he appeared more Christian.
Also, some people just like war.

Grandpa h.

HA! It's interesting to note that Howard Dean starts off his term with his power effectively neutralized by Terry McAuliffe the former Chairman of the DNC. McAuliffe's last act as DNC Chairman was to give open access to the DNC's huge list of financial supporters (known as "Demzilla") to all Dim-ocrat political candidates. This means that the candidates no longer have to go through the DNC to secure financial support for their campaigns. Now Dim-ocrat candidates can go stright to the sources of donations. So, Howard Dean starts off as DNC Chairman with no leverage with the candidates!! I love it when Dim-ocrats screw each other!!! LMAO!!!