There were no tax hikes during the Reagan administration.
Payroll taxes increased more under Reagan than under any other President. If you want, I'll go look up the numbers, but it was around a 30% hike.
I am working class. I pay less taxes now than when under the Clintons.
Really? I pay more.
Directly due to Bush W's tax cuts.
My property taxes just went up 20% this year to cover the shortage resulting from Bush's tax cuts. That's regressive taxation, penalizing me for owning property.
Deficit spending, though controversial, does have the short term effect of boosting the economy. It is the long term effects which cause concern.
I'd say a $7 trillion deficit is cause for concern. That's more than 3 times the total tax revenue going into the Federal govt. We don't give home loans to people with that kind of debt ratio.
However, since Reagan's deficit spending was brought back to balance within ten years (during the Clinton administration), one could argue that deficit spending works when practiced responsibly.
One could argue that, but then one would be an idiot.
Greenspan is given most of the credit actually, only hardline Democrats attribute ANY of the economic success to Clinton's policies.
Wow, are you ever reaching here... It's amazing the spin that Republicans will use. We had good times under Clinton and we're all supposed to be convinced it was an accident. We have shitty times under Bush and we're all supposed to be convinced it's Clinton's fault.
That the Enron scandle took place during the Clinton administration (it was the current administration that caught them). etc... Had Clinton been able to run for a third term, it would most likely be HIS administration dealing with the current economics, and we would NOT be coming out of it.
They wouldn't have become issues, because Clinton would have actually dealt with them instead of avoiding them for fear that we'd all find out about the campaign contributions.
Do some research dude. NPR.ORG is an excellent place to start.
Yes it is. But then you didn't know about the tax hikes under Reagan, which started you down the path of ignorant commentary.
Because Dan Rather is a liberal, that means everybody in the media is liberal.
an easy way to see if there is bias, is to listen to a news report and see if the person they interview/speak about is identified as liberal or conservative. I did this on my own (im middle of the road politcally) and was quite surprised, that congressmen, think tanks etc, were identified as conservitive, while the term liberal was rather infrequently used.
Or the other way to interpret this is that the media spends more time interviewing conservative commentators than liberal ones.
Frankly that's a bullshit way of measuring anything.
Goldberg also harps on some of the issues which the media clings on to, such as the AIDS epidemic (certainly in africa is is, but not as much in the USA) and homelessness.
Since when is AIDS a liberal or conservative issue?
Or are you going to claim that AIDS is a scurge upon the gays, and therefore only liberals care about it?
What the fuck did you think was going to happen as a result of the sanctions? Hussein would become a pauper and the people would live a wonderful life?
Sanctions only work against democratic countries. In which case you generally don't need sanctions.
Can you please give me the list of media people and who they voted for? Who did Rush Limbaugh vote for? What about Tony Blankley? Ann Coulter? Fred Barnes? Brit Hume? etc. etc.
I was shocked to learn Chris Matthews voted for Bush. He said so on his show one day.
This is a lot like the myth of the Hollywood liberals. For some reason people pay attention to Barbara Streiwhowhothehellcares... but not to Charlton "NRA" Heston and Arnold "The Governator" Shwaohwhothehellcares.
Martin Sheen is supposed to keep his mouth shut, but it's ok if Ronald Reagan and Arnold run for Governor and/or President.
We'll see. I'm not entirely convinced one way or another, but there has been a an incredibly large amount of "documentation" proving things in Iraq that has turned out to have been fabricated.
The payments to the British Prime Minister, the Niger uranium, etc. etc.
Bin Laden and Hussein served two different causes. Bin Laden was highly religious, Hussein was secular. They both thought each other was as big of a problem to their own power as the US. Why would they have cooperated together?
and when they went to the Senate and successfully stopped the "Prevention of Genocide Act" the senate was trying to pass against Iraq for the gassing.
The "Prevention of Genocide Act" sponsored by Senators Pell, Gore(yes, that Al Gore) and Helms passed the Senate quite handidly the day after it was introduced.
The Republicans were able to halt it in the House of Representatives with threats that President Reagan would veto it.
Yes, you're correct. GW Bush doesn't want any of this history to become known. Dick Cheney was a Congressman from Wyoming when that bill was introduced, and it's unclear what role he might have played.
That's a fairly strong statement considering that every economics teacher I ever had said that Regan's policies were responsible for the only non-war growth in America's history. Are they wrong? Do you attribute the growth during the Clinton era to policies that were patently non-Reagan?
Which policies are those?
The tax hikes on the working class, or the deficit spending?
Yeah right. I find that hard to believe. I'm a registered Democrat, but even I know when my own party is spinning things. (Two words for you: Dick Morris.) You don't sound like a reborn liberal... you just sound unemployed.
Dick Morris was a dick, he's now working with the Republican party.
I'm not unemployed now, however I was back in 1991 and 1992. So if I sound like I'm bitter about the Republicans employment plans, you're right, I am. But I saw the same lack of attention taken today as what happened back then.
And I'll give credit where credit is due... To the Clinton policy programs, and most especially Robert Rubin's fiscal management.
Oh, yeah... BTW NixterAg in case you do bother to read this post...
I used to be a Republican. I was a National Review Reading all hail President Reagan Republican. There's even a couple of old letters I wrote into the newspaper lamenting the liberal bias of the press, if you want to go find them.
I don't read hardly any of the Democrat leaning rags, like The Nation, etc. I hardly ever read Democratic leaning websites. Not like back when I was a Republican and had to suck up all the propaganda I could find.
I just read the news. NYTimes, WashPo, Newswek, Time, London Times, whatever. Before I believe a story, I try to corroborate it from several reliable sources. You know, like an intelligent adult should.
I came to a conclusion, sometime in the mid-1990's that the Republican party is corrupt and has a hard time dealing with the truth. That's the liberal bias that we kept lamenting, the fact that the policy ideas stunk and when economists and such told us so we accused them of bias. Just like you've continued to do in this thread.
So I've heard all your arguments before, I used to make them. I have no preconceived notions here, I just flat out rejected those positions as being nonsense.
The final straw was the attacks on President Clinton. I looked at all the claims, all the accusations, and then I looked at a balanced budget and reasonable maintenance of government spending.
That's when I had my revelation and abandoned the party.
You have fun with your gay bashing, your protesting flag burning, keeping women under submission, lamenting the morality of America, blah blah blah.
None of that makes a rat's ass hill of beans when you ain't got a job.
Except Howard Dean is the establishment candidate. He comes from a big bucks family in Vermont, and started planning to run back in 1987. He's been endorsed by the special interests.
There's only one candidate out there who was actually chosen by the grassroots and convinced to run. That candidate happens to come from a modest background, and is a testamount to the great United States meritocracy.
After all, the Washington Times is an arm of the RNC and everything posted in refutation to what you posted is "propoganda".
The Washington Times is an arm of the RNC. That's not being cynical, that was the reason why Reverand Moon(You know... The Moonies) bought the paper back in the 80s.
You've confused it with the Post, which many people do as they don't know any better.
What you don't seem to understand is that you admittedly apply a filter to everything you get, so any statistic is considered a fact by you if it comes from the right source or supports that right cause.
You're talking about yourself.
I quoted raw facts, and you claimed they were distorted. You quoted spin from the RNC, and I said give me the raw facts instead so I can make up my own mind.
You just know what statistics you like to use to support your own previously drawn conclusions.
Well, give me facts with sources then. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
You know, have you ever read David Brock's book "Blinded by the Right"? If not, I think you should, it might wake you up to the way the RNC machine operates.
"With your post and others in reply to refutations to your parent post, you've shown that you cannot be reasoned with. "
No, if you present facts I am perfectly willing to listen to them.
"The fact is, as many have pointed out, you compared apples and oranges. "
In what sense? You didn't explain how they were apples and oranges at all. From the perspective of the numbers, they were collected in the same way by the same process, and they are apples to apples.
"Hell, you dismissed the Washington Times, one of the five most respected newspapers in the world, out of hand without even addressing where they might have gotten the data."
You've confused the Washington Times with the Washington Post.
"And I'm sorry, but even $280 cannot be considered a "big fund-raiser" contribution, and Howard Dean's average will change DRASTICALLY if he is declared the Democratic nominee. You have to understand, most big money donors won't be putting their money in play until after the nomination has been made. THAT is why you are comparing apples and oranges, although I'm confident that you still won't "get" it."
GW Bush is still holding to the same campaign finance laws as everybody else. He's collecting $2000 checks now, because we are in the pre-convention season. After GW Bush is annointed the Republican nominee, he can go out again to those very same donors and ask for another $2000 check.
The same is true of the Democratic nominee.
There is no apples to oranges comparison except in your mind.
"You have proven yourself an unreasonable fool and a bitter partisan. Get over yourself. You're wrong."
I'm not wrong unless you can prove otherwise. But you're problem is that you don't have the facts on your side, instead all of you have is a bunch of RNC sponsored propaganda that you're spouting and yelling about.
Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and start researching this stuff for yourself. You don't even know who the Washington Times is, yet you instinctively trust what it publishes.
For the record, I don't trust any media outlet. I only quote things if I can find them from 2-3 other sources, or I can find the raw details. That's how you arrive at your own conclusions instead of spouting propaganda.
BTW, at the UN we claimed Sadam had WMD programs not functional weapons, although we said it was likely that he had weapons capability. The programs alone violated the 1991 deal. No evidence has contradited this basic point, although both sides have spun it to hell and back....
I think you mean... No evidence has supported this basic point.
If the WMD programs don't exist, there would be no evidence to find. You can't prove a negative like that. Thus far the only evidence that has been uncovered is that WMD programs once existed, but we already knew that.
Honestly, I don't know what Hussein's motives were, but I find it troubling that we've found no evidence that he violated the 1991 deal.
Ok, so people were just too stupid to understand Dean's comment. If they'd been smart like you, they would have gotten it instead of feeling insulted? Interesting.
If Al Gore took just one of those states that Dean advocates going after, just one. It's a different ball game. He had how many tens of opportunitys that were blown by a small margin? There is a great deal of wisdom in Dean's observation. I may well be too blunt for your liking. So much the better. It provoked a lot of discussion, and perhaps the democrats will take it more seriously now.
Fascinating, so in order to come to this conclusion you had to go and piss off a third of America.
I still prefer General Clark's southern strategy. Treat people in the South like Americans, rather than talking down to them. Gives us a much better chance of actually winning one of those states Gore blew back in 2000.
Good luck to you. If Dean get's the nomination, I'm voting for Nader.
"You do realize that the conclusion you've drawn from your above link is a bit disingenuous, don't you? You've got 1 Republican candidate versus 10 Democratic candidates in that graph."
Exactly what are you trying to imply here? You can look at the aggregate values for the candidates, you can look at them individually, the trends still line up showing Bush is primarily being sponsored by big fund raisers.
Here's another one... http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/ ip.pol.o pinion.dean.fundraising/
Dean had 169,000 people donating an average of $74 each. This contrasts with Bush having 262,000 contributors donating an average of $280 each.
"One of the biggest embarassments to the Democratic party is that the size of the average donation to their party is larger than the average size contributed to the Republican party."
One of the biggest embarassments to the Republican party is that it's members frequently lie and claim spin is fact.:(
"In fact, the mean size of political donations to the RNC during the past election cycle (2000) was about $50. "
I hope you have a source other than the RNC for that figure.
I don't mind facts, but please don't feed me propaganda.
I'll bitch, cause I think we should have finished the job in Afghanistan. Instead we diverted forces over into Iraq, and it hasn't gained us anything. That's what I was saying back last year, it's what numerous other people were saying, it was what General Clark testified before Congress saying. The choices weren't "Invade Iraq" or "Let terrorists take over", we had other options. Don't listen to the Republican spin.
Look, ultimately we were going to have to deal with Iraq because sanctions don't work. But Colin Powell admitted in 2001 that we had Hussein under control and there was no threat of weapons... link
But really that's all water under the bridge now anyway. We're in there, we've got to fix it. I don't like what's happening over there, and I'll be damned if I let the prick who created this mess be rewarded with reelection.
Slashdot Mirror
There were no tax hikes during the Reagan administration.
Payroll taxes increased more under Reagan than under any other President. If you want, I'll go look up the numbers, but it was around a 30% hike.
I am working class. I pay less taxes now than when under the Clintons.
Really? I pay more.
Directly due to Bush W's tax cuts.
My property taxes just went up 20% this year to cover the shortage resulting from Bush's tax cuts. That's regressive taxation, penalizing me for owning property.
Deficit spending, though controversial, does have the short term effect of boosting the economy. It is the long term effects which cause concern.
I'd say a $7 trillion deficit is cause for concern. That's more than 3 times the total tax revenue going into the Federal govt. We don't give home loans to people with that kind of debt ratio.
However, since Reagan's deficit spending was brought back to balance within ten years (during the Clinton administration), one could argue that deficit spending works when practiced responsibly.
One could argue that, but then one would be an idiot.
Greenspan is given most of the credit actually, only hardline Democrats attribute ANY of the economic success to Clinton's policies.
Wow, are you ever reaching here... It's amazing the spin that Republicans will use. We had good times under Clinton and we're all supposed to be convinced it was an accident. We have shitty times under Bush and we're all supposed to be convinced it's Clinton's fault.
That the Enron scandle took place during the Clinton administration (it was the current administration that caught them). etc... Had Clinton been able to run for a third term, it would most likely be HIS administration dealing with the current economics, and we would NOT be coming out of it.
They wouldn't have become issues, because Clinton would have actually dealt with them instead of avoiding them for fear that we'd all find out about the campaign contributions.
Do some research dude. NPR.ORG is an excellent place to start.
Yes it is. But then you didn't know about the tax hikes under Reagan, which started you down the path of ignorant commentary.
Someone is digging deep to try to find a point.
Ok, let me get this straight.
Because Dan Rather is a liberal, that means everybody in the media is liberal.
an easy way to see if there is bias, is to listen to a news report and see if the person they interview/speak about is identified as liberal or conservative. I did this on my own (im middle of the road politcally) and was quite surprised, that congressmen, think tanks etc, were identified as conservitive, while the term liberal was rather infrequently used.
Or the other way to interpret this is that the media spends more time interviewing conservative commentators than liberal ones.
Frankly that's a bullshit way of measuring anything.
Goldberg also harps on some of the issues which the media clings on to, such as the AIDS epidemic (certainly in africa is is, but not as much in the USA) and homelessness.
Since when is AIDS a liberal or conservative issue?
Or are you going to claim that AIDS is a scurge upon the gays, and therefore only liberals care about it?
Bah, you do more to discredit yourself.
Economic sanctions are a bad idea to begin with.
What the fuck did you think was going to happen as a result of the sanctions? Hussein would become a pauper and the people would live a wonderful life?
Sanctions only work against democratic countries. In which case you generally don't need sanctions.
Can you please give me the list of media people and who they voted for? Who did Rush Limbaugh vote for? What about Tony Blankley? Ann Coulter? Fred Barnes? Brit Hume? etc. etc.
I was shocked to learn Chris Matthews voted for Bush. He said so on his show one day.
This is a lot like the myth of the Hollywood liberals. For some reason people pay attention to Barbara Streiwhowhothehellcares... but not to Charlton "NRA" Heston and Arnold "The Governator" Shwaohwhothehellcares.
Martin Sheen is supposed to keep his mouth shut, but it's ok if Ronald Reagan and Arnold run for Governor and/or President.
The fact is, the UN does absolutely nothing.
You know, for all the claims that the UN does absolutely nothing...
The UN Weapons Inspection teams turned out to be correct.
I didn't know women and children drove tanks in the Iraqi army.
I'm not sure that evidence is convincing enough.
We'll see. I'm not entirely convinced one way or another, but there has been a an incredibly large amount of "documentation" proving things in Iraq that has turned out to have been fabricated.
The payments to the British Prime Minister, the Niger uranium, etc. etc.
Bin Laden and Hussein served two different causes. Bin Laden was highly religious, Hussein was secular. They both thought each other was as big of a problem to their own power as the US. Why would they have cooperated together?
Again, we'll see, but I still have my doubts.
and when they went to the Senate and successfully stopped the "Prevention of Genocide Act" the senate was trying to pass against Iraq for the gassing.
The "Prevention of Genocide Act" sponsored by Senators Pell, Gore(yes, that Al Gore) and Helms passed the Senate quite handidly the day after it was introduced.
The Republicans were able to halt it in the House of Representatives with threats that President Reagan would veto it.
Yes, you're correct. GW Bush doesn't want any of this history to become known. Dick Cheney was a Congressman from Wyoming when that bill was introduced, and it's unclear what role he might have played.
That's a fairly strong statement considering that every economics teacher I ever had said that Regan's policies were responsible for the only non-war growth in America's history. Are they wrong? Do you attribute the growth during the Clinton era to policies that were patently non-Reagan?
Which policies are those?
The tax hikes on the working class, or the deficit spending?
Yeah right. I find that hard to believe. I'm a registered Democrat, but even I know when my own party is spinning things. (Two words for you: Dick Morris.) You don't sound like a reborn liberal... you just sound unemployed.
Dick Morris was a dick, he's now working with the Republican party.
I'm not unemployed now, however I was back in 1991 and 1992. So if I sound like I'm bitter about the Republicans employment plans, you're right, I am. But I saw the same lack of attention taken today as what happened back then.
And I'll give credit where credit is due... To the Clinton policy programs, and most especially Robert Rubin's fiscal management.
Oh, yeah... BTW NixterAg in case you do bother to read this post...
I used to be a Republican. I was a National Review Reading all hail President Reagan Republican. There's even a couple of old letters I wrote into the newspaper lamenting the liberal bias of the press, if you want to go find them.
I don't read hardly any of the Democrat leaning rags, like The Nation, etc. I hardly ever read Democratic leaning websites. Not like back when I was a Republican and had to suck up all the propaganda I could find.
I just read the news. NYTimes, WashPo, Newswek, Time, London Times, whatever. Before I believe a story, I try to corroborate it from several reliable sources. You know, like an intelligent adult should.
I came to a conclusion, sometime in the mid-1990's that the Republican party is corrupt and has a hard time dealing with the truth. That's the liberal bias that we kept lamenting, the fact that the policy ideas stunk and when economists and such told us so we accused them of bias. Just like you've continued to do in this thread.
So I've heard all your arguments before, I used to make them. I have no preconceived notions here, I just flat out rejected those positions as being nonsense.
The final straw was the attacks on President Clinton. I looked at all the claims, all the accusations, and then I looked at a balanced budget and reasonable maintenance of government spending.
That's when I had my revelation and abandoned the party.
You have fun with your gay bashing, your protesting flag burning, keeping women under submission, lamenting the morality of America, blah blah blah.
None of that makes a rat's ass hill of beans when you ain't got a job.
Except Howard Dean is the establishment candidate. He comes from a big bucks family in Vermont, and started planning to run back in 1987. He's been endorsed by the special interests.
There's only one candidate out there who was actually chosen by the grassroots and convinced to run. That candidate happens to come from a modest background, and is a testamount to the great United States meritocracy.
There is nothing you've posted that wasn't spin. Nothing.
You sure do whine a lot. But I think maybe you need to look in the mirror with your accusations.
Let's go look at the Presidential race, since that's the issue of discussion here, not party contributions...
Gore
$32 million came from big donors... 24.3% of his total.
Bush
$81 million came from big donors... 42.1% of his total.
That's a pretty major difference, and tracks along with the fundraising percentages we are seeing with the 2004 Presidential race.
You've entered the No-Spin Zone.
The Washington Times is an arm of the RNC. That's not being cynical, that was the reason why Reverand Moon(You know... The Moonies) bought the paper back in the 80s.
You've confused it with the Post, which many people do as they don't know any better.
What you don't seem to understand is that you admittedly apply a filter to everything you get, so any statistic is considered a fact by you if it comes from the right source or supports that right cause.
You're talking about yourself.
I quoted raw facts, and you claimed they were distorted. You quoted spin from the RNC, and I said give me the raw facts instead so I can make up my own mind.
Well, give me facts with sources then. I don't think that's too much to ask for.
You know, have you ever read David Brock's book "Blinded by the Right"? If not, I think you should, it might wake you up to the way the RNC machine operates.
"With your post and others in reply to refutations to your parent post, you've shown that you cannot be reasoned with. "
No, if you present facts I am perfectly willing to listen to them.
"The fact is, as many have pointed out, you compared apples and oranges. "
In what sense? You didn't explain how they were apples and oranges at all. From the perspective of the numbers, they were collected in the same way by the same process, and they are apples to apples.
"Hell, you dismissed the Washington Times, one of the five most respected newspapers in the world, out of hand without even addressing where they might have gotten the data."
You've confused the Washington Times with the Washington Post.
"And I'm sorry, but even $280 cannot be considered a "big fund-raiser" contribution, and Howard Dean's average will change DRASTICALLY if he is declared the Democratic nominee. You have to understand, most big money donors won't be putting their money in play until after the nomination has been made. THAT is why you are comparing apples and oranges, although I'm confident that you still won't "get" it."
GW Bush is still holding to the same campaign finance laws as everybody else. He's collecting $2000 checks now, because we are in the pre-convention season. After GW Bush is annointed the Republican nominee, he can go out again to those very same donors and ask for another $2000 check.
The same is true of the Democratic nominee.
There is no apples to oranges comparison except in your mind.
"You have proven yourself an unreasonable fool and a bitter partisan. Get over yourself. You're wrong."
I'm not wrong unless you can prove otherwise. But you're problem is that you don't have the facts on your side, instead all of you have is a bunch of RNC sponsored propaganda that you're spouting and yelling about.
Quit listening to Rush Limbaugh and start researching this stuff for yourself. You don't even know who the Washington Times is, yet you instinctively trust what it publishes.
For the record, I don't trust any media outlet. I only quote things if I can find them from 2-3 other sources, or I can find the raw details. That's how you arrive at your own conclusions instead of spouting propaganda.
I think you mean... No evidence has supported this basic point.
If the WMD programs don't exist, there would be no evidence to find. You can't prove a negative like that. Thus far the only evidence that has been uncovered is that WMD programs once existed, but we already knew that.
Honestly, I don't know what Hussein's motives were, but I find it troubling that we've found no evidence that he violated the 1991 deal.
"IIRC, the law says that donors over $1000 have to be listed"
It's $200. When we've been collecting money, we only have to collect this data from people who gave more than $200.
Anyway, I'm not cynical like you. I just don't like people distorting the truth. Just give me the raw facts and I'll make up my own mind.
Fascinating, so in order to come to this conclusion you had to go and piss off a third of America.
I still prefer General Clark's southern strategy. Treat people in the South like Americans, rather than talking down to them. Gives us a much better chance of actually winning one of those states Gore blew back in 2000.
Good luck to you. If Dean get's the nomination, I'm voting for Nader.
"You do realize that the conclusion you've drawn from your above link is a bit disingenuous, don't you? You've got 1 Republican candidate versus 10 Democratic candidates in that graph."
/ ip.pol.o pinion.dean.fundraising/
:(
Exactly what are you trying to imply here? You can look at the aggregate values for the candidates, you can look at them individually, the trends still line up showing Bush is primarily being sponsored by big fund raisers.
Here's another one...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/17
Dean had 169,000 people donating an average of $74 each. This contrasts with Bush having 262,000 contributors donating an average of $280 each.
"One of the biggest embarassments to the Democratic party is that the size of the average donation to their party is larger than the average size contributed to the Republican party."
One of the biggest embarassments to the Republican party is that it's members frequently lie and claim spin is fact.
"In fact, the mean size of political donations to the RNC during the past election cycle (2000) was about $50. "
I hope you have a source other than the RNC for that figure.
I don't mind facts, but please don't feed me propaganda.
"December 18, 2002 Washington Times editorial reports"
Ok, stop right there.
I'm more than willing to listen to facts, but I have no interest in debating a point with someone who is going to spout Republican propaganda at me.
Or aren't you aware of who runs the Washington Times?
I'm curious if you are aware of Richard Mellon-Scaife?
Most Americans are not. They heard about Soros because he came out and said what he was going to do.
At worse you could say the two parties are similar. At best you could say the Democrats are more open and honest about it.
I'll bitch, cause I think we should have finished the job in Afghanistan. Instead we diverted forces over into Iraq, and it hasn't gained us anything. That's what I was saying back last year, it's what numerous other people were saying, it was what General Clark testified before Congress saying. The choices weren't "Invade Iraq" or "Let terrorists take over", we had other options. Don't listen to the Republican spin.
Look, ultimately we were going to have to deal with Iraq because sanctions don't work. But Colin Powell admitted in 2001 that we had Hussein under control and there was no threat of weapons... link
But really that's all water under the bridge now anyway. We're in there, we've got to fix it. I don't like what's happening over there, and I'll be damned if I let the prick who created this mess be rewarded with reelection.
If that's what Dean meant to say, that's what Dean should have said.
His choice of words is frequently as bad as GW Bushies.
Arlen Specter did just that back at the '94 Iowa State Convention.
He was booed from the stage.
Good luck, god speed, have fun playing with the dispensationalists. I abandoned that dog about 10 years ago.