Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That would be a takedown.

1 posted on 10/14/2003 11:39:14 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: All

God Bless America!
God Bless This Man!

Keep Our Republic Free

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
AND SAY THANKS TO JIM ROBINSON!
It is in the breaking news sidebar!



2 posted on 10/14/2003 11:41:28 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: .cnI redruM
Howard the Dunce.
3 posted on 10/14/2003 11:41:50 AM PDT by My2Cents (Well...there you go again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: .cnI redruM
I deny.... therefore it isn't
4 posted on 10/14/2003 11:44:33 AM PDT by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: .cnI redruM
In all fairness, I'm with Dean on this one. If you look at his original quote, it's clear that he wasn't saying "the ends of getting the Husseins do not justify the means of the use of American military intelligence". He was saying ""the ends of getting the Husseins do not justify the means of invading Iraq." That's what he's supposed to say, he's the (D) favorite anti-war candidate, all his quotes are about that. I don't think he could give a quote about the baseball playoffs or Britney Spears's latest album without saying "this doesn't justify the Iraq invasion" for crying out loud.

McCain's original reaction to him, by contrast, was way off base. He implicitly put words in Dean's mouth which Dean did not say or intend, intentionally or uninintentionally misinterpreting what Dean's actual point was.

Now what Dean is saying is that he's been mischaracterized. Fine, quibble with the way he's saying it, but let's at least have the common courtesy to admit that he is correct.

6 posted on 10/14/2003 12:03:19 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: .cnI redruM
"I want to quickly jump on you for a sec here,"

Can you imagine the uproar if a republican had said that to Sheryl?
7 posted on 10/14/2003 12:04:52 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch (Liberalism is a Sin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: .cnI redruM
"I never said that. I never said that," the man from Vermont insisted.

This reminds me of George Romney, who said: "I didn’t say that I didn’t say it. I said that I didn’t say that I said it. I want to make that very clear."

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

13 posted on 10/14/2003 12:33:02 PM PDT by mikeb704
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: .cnI redruM
"I never said that. I never said that," the man from Vermont insisted. "McCain claimed I said that on television. We called the station and said we never said that.

The McCain quote doesn't say anything about accusing Dean of "saying that on Television". McCain was the one on MSNBC, not Dean. The Dean quote came from the AP.

Dean just can't handle it. Even with a sympathetic press, he still goes off over stupid stuff like this.

Hope he's the nominee.

Maybe I should start a "Republican's for Dean committee".

14 posted on 10/14/2003 12:40:09 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: .cnI redruM
The expression "The ends don't justify the means," is provocative because it is obviously false (the only thing that ever can justify "the means" are "the ends") and, yet, has an element of truth. That element of truth is that the ends do not always justify the means. For example, if the means are not sufficient to accomplish the ends, or are counter-productive, or even if the means could be used to achieve more highly-valued ends, then the ends do not justify the means.

That Dean considers himself some kind of a guru for saying "In general, the ends do not justify the means," only reveals what an idiot he is. By making the expression correct, it loses its provocative quality, and becomes a trite statement.

Furthermore, in the context of our getting Uday and Quessai, it would be disengenuous for a presidential candidate to not give an answer, but to answer with a trite statement. By answering as he did, he implied that the ends in the specific case at hand did not justify the means. If he wants to clarify what he meant by his smarty-pants answer, he can say, "You know, I opposed the use of force resolution, but I am sure happy that we got those two bastards."

But, no, Howard Dean is so full of himself that he has to insist that we are wrong for hearing him say what he obviously said. This guy is not fit to be in public office.




18 posted on 10/14/2003 12:50:40 PM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: .cnI redruM
Already posted here.
19 posted on 10/14/2003 12:55:14 PM PDT by TomServo ("Steve's dead now. From here on, Steve's death will be represented by the oboe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: .cnI redruM
This is the problem with LexisNexis. It's great, but it circulates urban legends and creates them and I had never said that. . . ."
Journalism does in fact create urban legends, and did so before the advent of LexisNexis.

Some reporter "sexes up" a story by, for example, inverting a quote by Eisenhower's SecDef nominee. Thereafter it doesn't matter that the literal quote was, "What's good for the country is good for General Motors"--in journalism it is forever "What's good for General Motors is good for the country!"


24 posted on 10/14/2003 2:22:40 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson