2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

About fools.

There are significant lists of Bush lies -- all substantiated. And there are people who still support Bush as a president "with character."

I don't think "fools" is an adequate word here. Can you suggest one?

blind faith with eyes wide open

Some pundit the other day used an analogy I've also used, and that is the American who buys a new car which turns out to be kind of dud, but it'll take him/her FOREVER to admit that. I really think that's it. In our two party system, the competitiveness parallels a bowl game, or a soccer game in Europe, or similar. Wives? It's amazing what men will blame on their wives without ever admitting they made a poor choice!

I think folks in this country were frightened by 9/11 and they're reluctant to give up the false sense of security the Bush administration offers. There's nothing quite like absolute confidence to make the frightened feel better.........until they see that the confidence is all bravado and then it backfires. May the backfires begin. I'm ready, any time now.

And Timber, I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a fool. I've pointed out that you disagree with me much of the time and you're obviously no fool (a little misguided, perhaps :wink: ) I call a person a fool if I see evidence that makes me believe it. That's all. And I do it rarely. Except I call GW a fool frequently on these threads, so I can see that you may believe I do it all the time. But obviously, an opinion is only that and is based just as much on the facts of the person's performance and behavior as it is on the perceiver's opinion of it. That's why I don't need proof for my opinion because my proof wouldn't mean the same thing to you as it does to me. If I'm stating something as fact, that's when I need to back it up with evidence. But if you'll notice, I rarely state facts...............I don't have the time for the citations.

Damned few fools on this thread, Lola ... mostly pretty bright folks, by my estimation; I ain't got time to play with fools, citations or not.

Want to get the original citation back in place to show Lola calls no one a "fool", but willingly accepts the brand if that be the mark.

I willingly walk along side her, if that be the test - I feel the true merit is in c.i. quote and those with courage take the task at hand - thankee

Mr. Blatham:

I am very much afraid that you are dealing in Opinion rather than fact.

Fact #1 -George W. Bush graduated from the BEST BUSINESS PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME- THE MASTERS IN BUSINESS AT HARVARD.

I know a little about Harvard and I can tell you that no one who is not bright or very bright can complete a program there.

Have you attended Harvard Business School?

Are you aware that the best corporations in the USA regularly sent its "up and comers" the Harvard Business school.

And as for Bush's alleged errors and alleged lies, I must remind you( You are a Canadian are you not?) that in the USA the ultimate judges are the voters.

They make the decisions.

Would you say, Mr. Blatham, that George W. Bush did a very good job in his first two years?

Judging from what happened in the elections of November 18, 2002, it appears that the voters did not, AS THEY HAD DONE IN ALMOST EVERY OFF YEAR, reduce the size of the party in ower(the party that holds the presidency).

Note the following- Newsweek- November 18, 2002.

NOT OPINIONS, MR. BLATHAM, FACTS.

You might try some sometime.

quote- P. 31

The magnitude of the Republicans' victory was remarkable- even if it was accomplished by overpowering a Democratic Party bereft of leadership and new ideas. The GOP's overall vote margin in the congressional races was the largest since 1994: there were 35 million votes cast for GOP candidates compared with 31 million for the Democrats. BY HISTORICAL STANDARDS, THE GOP SHOULD HAVE LOST SOME 22 hOUSE SEATS AND TWO SENATE SEATS--the post World War II average loss by a president's party in the first midterm after his election. Instead, the GOP gained two seats in the Senate and five in the House."

end of quote.

Now those are facts, Mr. Blatham, not Opinion.

I would say it puts the lie to the idea that Bush is incompetent and undereducated since if that was true, we would have to say that the American voting public is composed of a bunch of boobs who vote for people led by an allegedly undereducated and incompetent president.

It is funny how the American Public can't be trusted.

In 1994, the most brilliant president of all time, William Jefferson Clinton---the most competent president in our History- William Jefferson Clinton- lost his party's hold on the House and Senate a mere two years after his election in 1994. President Clinton did not help his party to regain the House or the Senate in 1996 and, failed again in 1998.

How bizarre- The most brilliant and competent president of all time, William Jefferson Clinton, unable to convince the public to re-elect Democrats to the House and Senate in 1994, 1996 and 1998 and the allegedly incompetent and allegedly undereducated George W. Bush leading his party to an entirely unexpected victory in 2002.

How strange!

Could it be that the unsourced and unproven Opinion of Mr. Blatham is incorrect???

Argumentum ad populum

Perhaps President Bush should not have used the word Crusade. Perhaps President Bush should not have said:
"bring them on"

As I have pointed out, and feel certain that I am correct, the ultimate judges of President Bush will be the voters on Nov. 2nd 2004.

Now, since you wish to stay in the realm of opinion, Mr. Blatham, it is my opinion that, although some persons may consider the usage of the terms "crusade" and "bring them on" as terms which, as you indicate, mean he( Bush) is egregiously dumb, I put it to you that some persons may be of the opinion that allowing an intern to fellate you repeatedly in the Oval Office and then going before the American people and lying about it on Television, is not only egregiously dumb but self-destructive.

Why do I get the feeling a lot of the far righty types are just jealous that they aren't getting hot spitty lovin' from a chubby big haired Oregon girl?

Because you anthropomorphize politics.

Ital -- You might want to take a look at your hero's career between the time his parents quit paying for his education and the time his parents' friends kicked in to buy him partnership in a sports team and, a little later, full ownership of a governorship.

You'll find that, in between, he could do nothing right -- even with the support and help of his parents and their friends. Look at his "service" in the National Guard! Look at his attempts to get into Washington politics! Look at his shuffling around in the Texas oil business! Ye Gods -- the guy's a pathetic phony from That Hat down to Them Boots. He's a very little man, irredeemably sad and wasted.

So all this nonsense about the B School adds up to, what? Success in business? A guy who can achieve things on his own? A real mensch? Hell no, just a nasty little bastard -- nothing down, pay over time...

See, there you go again, Italgato..........your opinion about the facts is not the same as some other's opinion about the very same facts. It's all opinion anyway. I just don't agree with yours.

LOL, Hobitbob............absolutely

Mr. DeKere:

I do think that my Philososphy professor- a very learned Jesuit- would have pointed out that your comment, in relation to my post, is quite erroneous.

I learned in his class many years ago that an "Arguementum ad Populum" is an attempt to persuade by reference to commonplace sentiments"

In that definition, the key word is "sentiments" which, of course, refer to "feelings, opinion, emotions".

I feel obliged to point out that
the following are not "sentiments"( feelings, opinion and/or emotions) but rather facts which can be substantiated.

l. Harvard Business School was considered the best of all Business Schools when President Bush attended.

2. The data given in the Newsweek Article quoted is not "Sentiments" but verifiable fact.

3. The fact that the Democratic Party lost the House and the Senate in 1994, 1996 and 1998 after controlling those bodies in 1992 is not a sentiment but a fact.

4. The fact that President Bush(allegedly under-educated and incompetent) presided over the astonishing event wherein a president's party in the first midterm election did not lose but rather gained seats is not a feeling, opinion or an emotion but rather a fact.

I would appreciate it if someone would point out any of the material which I laid out in my previous post which could be labeled "sentiment"

Thank you.

Not sentiments, Ital..........but your evaluation of them is opinion........and that's all, just your opinion.

Democratic Party Contenders, people....focus...

Hey; Edwards announced today!

(I'll bet he's had ten or twelve blowjobs in his life! Good-lookin' guy an' all...)

focus, PDiddie...........contenders, not blow jobs........although, the blow jobs are a bit more a compelling topic.

craven

Hell, I anthropomorphize everything, from paper clips to my sweet and always-there-for-me vinyl intimacy companion.

Italgato

ad populum or appeal to the people

How do you substantiate this claim? Where's your proof?