AP: Dean had his OWN secret energy group.

[chequita guevara]

That's because you are easily distracted by shiny things, which you mistake for logic. You are easily swayed by smoke and mirrors and consistantly refuse to pay attention to the actual substance.

You claim that Imran's argument is logical and reasoned, when, in fact, it isn't. Imran simply compares two surfaces. Imran is claiming that Dean's a hypocrite because he had a strawberry while attacking Bush for having a banana, after all, they're both fruit.

Dean's group was not only bi-partisan, containing both Republican and Democrat, as well as some independents, it also had representation by environmentalists, industry experts, etc. Cheney's group was comprised of former business associates and political doners. Dean released the names of those in his panel. Cheney hasn't, despite being ordered by the courts to do so. Dean's panal saved his state's energy industry. Cheney's allowed even more plundering and pollution.

So are they really the same? Is Dean really a hypocrite?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, Dean is a hypocrite. He criticised Bush for having a secret energy group not for having a (in your opinion) corrupt energy group. Dean also had a secret energy group, thus, he is a hypocrite.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You claim that Imran's argument is logical and reasoned, when, in fact, it isn't. Imran simply compares two surfaces. Imran is claiming that Dean's a hypocrite because he had a strawberry while attacking Bush for having a banana, after all, they're both fruit.

Of course I have a logical argument. Dean is a hypocrite for critisizing the secrecy of Cheney's task force because he had a secret task force of his own. IT DOESN'T MATTER who was involved in either. The fact remains that both were secret task forces to decide what to do about energy policy and Dean has hammered Cheney's secret group.

Now he says he did it because Cheney's was represented by businesses and donors. Bull. He hit on it because of its 'secrecy'.

Is Dean really a hypocrite?

HELL YES! Only those who would rather cast aside logic for partisan political gain (I'm looking at you, che) would deny that.

[chequita guevara]

See, smoke and mirrors.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes your argument is FULL of them.

It'd couldn't be more obvious that Dean is being a hypocrite here.

[chequita guevara]

Fi on you and your right wing ilk.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Go join the Dems where you belong .

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's because you are easily distracted by shiny things, which you mistake for logic. You are easily swayed by smoke and mirrors and consistantly refuse to pay attention to the actual substance.

Kind of how you view "facts" or the lack there of. Your retort to my response was to point at some other equally deplorable situation... and not address the issue that you have convicted them with absolutely no proof beyond your opinion. Not what I would call objective. If proof is indeed found (which it just might be) of corruption in this case, I'll be the first one to blast the administration. However... I'll wait to see actual facts... you don't seem to need proof...

On one hand, you seem to think that

the guys in Gitmo or Jose Padilla or any number of Muslims grabbed by Ashcroft

is a bad situation because no proof of quilt has been produced... yet you then blast away with no proof either.
Kind of being two faced... isn't it

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ming


Then prove it... as I said, you have already pre-judged them, and you have no facts or proof to base it on. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Kind of letting your biases show aren't you

Ming, haven't you noticed that the leftist are all about "accusations" and "conspiracy theories." They could care less about "proof." They "know" Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the whole crew are corrupt.

Evidence? Who needs it?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You claim that Imran's argument is logical and reasoned, when, in fact, it isn't. Imran simply compares two surfaces. Imran is claiming that Dean's a hypocrite because he had a strawberry while attacking Bush for having a banana, after all, they're both fruit.

Of course I have a logical argument. Dean is a hypocrite for critisizing the secrecy of Cheney's task force because he had a secret task force of his own. IT DOESN'T MATTER who was involved in either. The fact remains that both were secret task forces to decide what to do about energy policy and Dean has hammered Cheney's secret group.

Now he says he did it because Cheney's was represented by businesses and donors. Bull. He hit on it because of its 'secrecy'.

Is Dean really a hypocrite?

HELL YES! Only those who would rather cast aside logic for partisan political gain (I'm looking at you, che) would deny that.

Makes sense to me -- Dean is getting all huffy and puffy with Cheney doing the same thing that he himself did.

So I agree -- they're different circumstances, but the point is that Dean criticized Cheney for holding a secret meeting -- just as he himself held a secret meeting.

Even if I agree that Cheney's secret meeting was more corrupt, Dean still attacked him for doing what he himself did.

[Ming]

Well... they probably are But that's not the point. Che likes to state it as if it was a proven fact. And it's not. As I said, I will be the first one to abuse the administration if that is indeed the case... but damn... prove it first before you say in just about every post

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Ming
I will be the first one to abuse the administration if that is indeed the case

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ming
Well... they probably are But that's not the point. Che likes to state it as if it was a proven fact. And it's not. As I said, I will be the first one to abuse the administration if that is indeed the case... but damn... prove it first before you say in just about every post

Well Ming -- Chegitz sometimes can't help himself.

He throws logic and reason out the window, and starts masturbating over fantastic concepts like non-hypocritical politicians, and a future communist revolution.

[Ming]

But CT... I actually will. While I am a republican, it doesn't mean I'm a brain dead righty who believes they can do no wrong. I have no problem abusing the current admin if I think they have screwed up. Just like I abused the prior admin

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by JohnT
This upcoming election reminds me of an old political cartoon that I saw recently re: the Carter/Reagan election in 1980.

Two panels, side by side, caption underneath. Panel one had Carter saying "We must discuss energy policy.", panel two had Reagan saying "Let's kill the bastards."

Caption: "Election 1980: What message will resonate with voters?"

The Onion Presents: Our Dumb Century isn't that old.