2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Please don't make faces at the baboon, folks...

Please. Lola-
Note the following:

Is it an opinion that the Harvard Business School was ranked as the best Business School in the United States when President Bush attended or is it a fact?

Is it an opinion that The GOP won two seats in the Senate in five seats in the House when, according to historical standards, theOP should have lost some 22 House Seats and Two Senate Seats in 2002 under the presidency of George W. Bush or is it a fact?

Is it an opinion that 35 Million votes were cast for GOP candidates in 2002 or is it a fact?

Is it an opinion that 31 Million votes were cast for Democratic candidates in 2002 or is it a fact?

Is it an opinion that the Democrats lost their majority in the House and the Senate in 1994, 1996 and 1998 under the leadership of William Jefferson Clinton or is it a fact?

I will help you Lola.
Definitions

Fact- Something known to have happened.

Opinion- A belief or opinion based on grounds insufficent to produce certainty.

I hope that helps you Lola.

Thank You.

Italgato is your.....eeewwwww!

No Italgato, darlin, that's not the opinion part. The part that is the opinion is what you make of these facts.........you're opinion differs from mine about what these facts mean. That seems simple enough to me.

Sorry, PDiddie, the faces are just too much fun. But I'll do better. I promise

Italgo, argumentum ad populum has nothing to do with sentiment. But if you prefer I will name it a very closely related fallacy: argumentum ad numerum.

You seek to use the popularity of a man to serve as proof for a subjective allegation.

If I were inclined to use this fallacy I'd point out that when you questioned Clinton's intelligence your own arguments stood against you. He too was elected and "if that was true, we would have to say that the American voting public is composed of a bunch of boobs".

Look, you used a fallacy, there is little room around that. but if it makes you feel any better I agree with your distaste for the characterization of Bush as dumb. IMO it is a meaningless allegation soley of rhetorical value.

If you search this whole site I bet you will not be able to find me disparaging Bush himself. I take qualm with his decisions and do not care how smart or stupid he is.

But as long as this whole thing is about subjective personal opinions I'll say that I do not think he is stupid. I do think he has an anti-intellectual tendency that is, IMO, about as bad.

I'd rather a dumb guy trying to be better than a smart guy shunning it.

But as I said, the characterization of Bush as smart or dumb is irrelevant. You should have stopped at pointing out the lack of emprirical proof, but then you turn around and try to prove he is smart. Quantifying intelligence is a hard enough task when you ahve a willing testee. in this case it's speculation, anecdotal evidence and subjectivity gone rampant.

I don't care if he is smart or dumb. I care about the decisions this nation pursues.

Recently I have been unhappy with the more important ones.

Tartar's quote: "About fools.

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

Again, some people still think the earth is flat: "fool." Just because they're in the majority doesn't necessarily reflect truth nor skills at seeing reality.

Dear Mr. DeKere:

I respectfully beg to differ about your definition of Argumentum ad Populum. If you will do a google search you will find the term defined as "An attempt to persuade by reference to sentiment"

A treatise on Logic defines Argumentum ad Populum as an appeal, which instead of offering logical reasons, appeals to such popular attitudes as the dislike of injustice.

I must point out that my post offers no such appeal to popular attitudes.

My post relates to facts.

If you can rebut the facts, do so but they are not, I repeat, not related to popular attitudes. They are facts. Facts do not relate to popular attitudes. They just are. Numbers( 35 million GOP votes) are not popular attitudes. Completed elections and their results do not relate to popular attitudes.

I would respecfully suggest that anyone who disagrees with the post I made show that the facts are just allegations and not merely facts.

I do sympathize with your position, Mr. DeKere, with regard to your misgivings as to the direction our country is taking. I do hope you wont attach any personal animus on my part towards your opinion as to the direction our country is taking by pointing out, that to many people, concern is colored by partisanship.

I too was concerned with the direction of our country in 1996. I was taken aback by the re-election of Bill Jefferson Clinton but somewhat heartened by the composition of the House and Senate.

I did not, however, show my animosity by engaging in any illegal acts. I followed the dictum that the President was the leader of the country and should be obeyed and respected until the next election came along and then, if possible, defeat him.

Thank You, Mr. DeKere

-- Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) in the Washington Post

PDid, I think there's a bit of difference between Hillary running for the senator from New York vs Clark for president.

Mr. P. Diddie apparently is not aware that Representative Rangel is quite capable of resorting to extravagant rhetoric.

In 1995, when a bi-partisan majority voted to end racial preferences in broadcasting in 1995, Rangel lashed out by saying: ...in America we cannot afford to be colorblind .Just like under Hitler, people say they don't mean to blame any particular individuals and groups, but in the US those groups always turn out to be minorities and immigrants."

This. of course, was inaccurate. Hitler did single out Jews and other specific groups for persecution."

source-The Almanac of American Politics- P. 1084.

Rangel has a particular proclivity for putting his foot in his mouth. We shall see if his prediction comes true.

craven

Of course, 'dumb' is an inexact derogation. But I certainly do care about the intelligence (choose another better term if you wish) and education of the US president. If those are important considerations in an engineer or aircraft maintenance staff member or one's auto mechanic, they sure seem important in the presidency. Is anyone/everyone fit for this post?

Do you know what President Bush's IQ is, Mr. Blatham?

I know what it is.

It places George W. Bush in the high area of Bright close to Very Bright. Do you know that?

You will also find many definitions with no mention of "sentiment".

In any case you are attempting to steer this toward a logomachy when the underlying foundation renders the word "sentiment" irrelevant.



Nice wordplay, but they are not mutually exclusive. A popular attitude's existence can be a fact. In any case you completely miss the point while getting hung up on words.

You used the fact that many people voted for Bush to posit that he is intelligent. This is a fallacy.

Popular vote has nothing to do with one's intelligence.

You go on to say that if he were indeed stupid that the American public are "boobs".

Well? I think the teeming millions are, by and large, a teeming group of idiots. An elitist and untoward opinion but not indefensible. Also not related to Bush's intelligence.

You go on to question Clinton's intelligence but was he not elected as well? Are you saying the american public was a bunch of "boobs" then but not now?



A) the popular vote is a reflection of popular sentiment.

B) nobody contested the facts as it relates to votes.

My qualm is your decision to engage in what you justly decried. You are playing the intelligence game when you had it right the first time. Intelligence is immaterial in this case.



I have no problem with the facts. I have a problem with the fallacies.

By your reasoning Al Gore must be smarter than Bush right? He got more votes and you were just making a twisted ad populum (or ad numerum is you prefer) argument equating votes with intelligence.



Agreed, I am no fan of partisanship. Are you trying to assert that I am partisan? What party? I have never voted and am not affiliated with any party.

I have a specific qualm with this administration's actions that eclipses the rest. I do not share many of the other qualms.

Again, Mr. Blatham, would you have been accepted in the Harvard Business School in the early seventies?

Would John F. Kennedy have been accepted?

Careful, I do have data about his test scores and achievements in school.

Would Harry S. Truman have been accepted in the Harvard Business Program, Mr. Blatham?

Did you know that Harry S. Truman is considered to be one of the ten best US presidents of all time by presidential historians?

Do you read history, Mr. Blatham?

*stump* Whaa...

Craven.

Please vote. Oh,... Will this be your first post-18 election year in the States?

Blowjobs, dammit!

Kennedy got far more than Truman, but I'll wager Harry scored higher on his SATs than Jack.

Adlai Stevenson; now there was an intelligent man who rarely got laid, I'm guessing.

What about all these 'fools' and their accumilative lie, which is 'We're all so concerned about the safety of America, so we must not let Saddam continue to develope those WMD's, and we know he has them, he is a threat to our country'. Turns out they did nothing because they don't really care, and it's a challenge to face tough issues that could ream the **** out of your political ass. And their political asses, and Monica's ass, turns out to be all they really cared about which brings us to today, having to take the risk and suffer the consequences of their inaction. Talk, talk, talk but no guts to back it up.

Just a few items the Dems to never seem to remember when they criticize President Bush about the war in IRAQ.

1) "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

2) "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

3) "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

4) "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

5) "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

6) "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

7) "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

8) "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

9) "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

10) "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

11) "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

12) "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

13) "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

14) "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

15) "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

16) "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

17) "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

18) "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

19) "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Now either all these statements about WMD's and the cofidence within are lies by your definition, or there was some hard intell evidence left from the Clinton years that Bush's administration consulted influencing actions taken now.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways, but let's make no mistake, nobody except fools would support Clinton as anything with charater.

Yes. And I'll probably end up registered as a Republican because my whole family is Republican and my poor old grandmother would have a heart attack if I didn't let her register me. She keeps telling me I can vote Democrat if I want but to register Republican.

I wanted to vote in Brazil. I translated many political documents for politicians and political parties and was very involved in politics but as an american could not vote there.

So this will be my first shot at voting.

17) "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
-------------
If making this statement makes Bush a liar, I guess the libs will line up to designate Hill a liar, as well...

Funny how it just sounds worse when Bush says it.

the point, brand x, is that GW came into office ready to go to war. Now, when the inspectors entered Iraq, and began doing their job, the opportuninty for GW to have his little John Wayne moment began to fade. He could have allowed the insprctors to do their jobs and come out the big heeeerooo as the man whose pressure forced Hussein to let the inspectors in ,and discover that Hussein had been as big a bag of hot air as he is. But no, Georgie had to revenge daddy and attack anyway. Now we(the american People) have an expensive mess on our hands thanks to "Six-Gun Georgie." Y'know..he may just be comparable to Ronnie Ray-gun after all. But wait...Ronnie wasn't gorked until his second presidency. Old Georgie is trying to do him one better!
New campaign slogan:
Vote for Bush...he isn't one of those smart guys like Dan Quayle!