excellent!
i'll say! bring on jimmy & rosslyn! 
And Amy - don't forget Amy! (I had such a crush on her when I was 10-12.)
Yeah I see a lot of Jimmy...
wait, you meant that as a good thing? Maybe Dean will give a nuclear reactor to Saudi Arabia when he is done with all this presidential silliness.
Nah, do it the Bush way - Bring it on baby as long my ass is protected by F16 fighters and bullet prood glass and as long my ass doesn't have to serve in NKorea.
did jimmy carter really predict a bush victory on charlie rose? why would he say that?
I think that it is great that Chip Carter is helping out Dean's campaign. Dean volunteered to help Jimmy Carter in 1980 and this is a sign of good karma that Jimmy's son is returning the favor.
that's it. PB, you are talking straight out of your ass. dean is harder on the saudis than ANY of the candidates. since last winter, he's been calling on the saudis to stop funding the fundamentalist schools in the middle east where children are taught to hate christians, jews, and americans. dean also advocates ethanol which has the potential to lessen our dependence on saudi oil, which means we could finally start putting the squeeze on them to stop funding terrorism.
let me guess. you're one of those americans who thinks that iraqis ran those planes into the trade towers. do you realise that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from saudi arabia? and why is that? because since they were young they've been taught to kill us. that must stop and they only way we can stop it is to cut the saudis off. if you think there's even a REMOTE possibility of that happening under a bush administration, you are misinformed. the bin laden family and the bush family have business ties that go back to the 70s, and the bushes have been doing business with the saudi royal family (you know, the people who fund terrorism and those fundie schools) since the 60s. and since bush only values cronyism over all else, you can bet that he isn't putting any pressure on the saudis. let me be clear: the saudis are our number one enemy in the war on terror (equal in importance to osama bin missing). until we can stop the flow of american money to the saudis, which then flows to terrorists and fundie schools, we will not win the war on terrorism nor will we be any more secure.
it's that obvious. why don't you see it?
whatever, PB. you've already addressed me OT in another post. i've replied. i'm not going to pollute the other thread with more OT stuff.
now, if you're actually willing to discuss things instead of calling me names or discounting my arguements no matter what i say, then let's talk. but i think you are the one who's being a shill. so, let's see if we can find some common ground. i think you're a shill. you think i'm a shill. wow, this name calling is fun and soooo productive!
Ok. Although I think "shill" is not really name calling, I'll take your lead and find common ground, although "pollute" seems to liken my posts, most of which are responses to actual Dean quotes, to sewage, trash, etc.
I've tried to address several things. You are free to "discuss (those) things" if you like. A short, but not comprehensive list goes like this:
1. Breaking up media conglomerates: If this is something that is bad for a greater good, as the tone of that post implies, how far does Dean intend to follow that line? If that is not the rationale, what is? How can breaking up, even if it is just happenstance, the one major network for conservative opinions not be interpreted as an authoritarian move? To put it another way, why wouldn't Dean refrain from antagonizing his one major television political opponent considering he has (the following) other stances that seem very dictatorial?
2. One stance is his pro-forced union joining. I posted the quote, but I find it APPALLING that he can, with a straight face, sit there and talk democracy, freedom of choice to abort, the need for more opinion in media, and on the other hand rationalize forcing unwilling workers, workers that need jobs, into unions that are largely archaic, counter productive, and prone to strike at the time when workers need money most (like here in STL). Any explanation for that?
3. How is leaving SA a good thing? I gave you three reasons why a withdrawal needs to be temporary, and upheaval there can be disastrous for all? How is pressuring the Soviets, Russia, sorry, to not continue to provide, in the open, in defiance of the UN and the IAEA, Iran nuclear facilities a productive strategy? Isn't that the same one Bush is criticized for in North Korea? Please, reconcile these positions, because I'm at a loss.
4. Repealing the entire tax cut package: in light of the phenomenal growth, the projected huge jump in holiday spending, the strong orders of durable goods, the lift in the stock market, the decline in unemployment, etc., why would Dean repeal not just the upper brackets, but the whole shebang?
5. Why is Dean spreading conspiracy theories about 9/11 (as quoted by me elsewhere, and BTW, if I use Newsmax, its not for their interpretation, its simply to show I did not pull the quote out of air, so address it please)?
Those are five, and if you can address ANY of them you'll be the first I've seen, believe me.
PB
I think we need to be independent of mid-eastern oil and money. What PB says above may be correct but his solution is "that's the way it is - too bad" is not acceptable to me.
We gotta get independent of nations that could hurt us.
How Chi, how?
That's the point. Just saying leave is not enough. Bush already pulled troops, Bush already established alternate HQs, Bush has already called them out. However, because of the connections I mentioned, and some I didn't, we cannot detach ourselves or attack or anything. If the Saudis went the way of the Euro like Saddam did, it will be BAD news. Worse, if they went under that would be horrible news. We need to promote them liberalizing, and there ARE elements in the HOS that want to. In fact, the struggle between the liberals and the oncservatives in the HOuse is part of the reason why some Saudis support terror, and some dont; 4500/5000 leaches (which drove down per capita income in SA from 28K USD to 6K USD) would love to just pay off terror gangs. The others know the current system will breed anarchy. No such scenario exists in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria (although, FWIW, Assad is much more moderate than those forcing his hand... BUsh denied him a diplomatic back door that has hurt us with al-Qaeda intel) and so on.
Please, offer solutions, not wishes.