2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Italgato, darlin, I said the following:



I've asked you this question before, but you didn't answer. Are you GW? And I think my reasoning is clear to almost everyone but you. (Why am I slapping my hands as I write this sentence?) Obviously if they were a majority, rather than a minority, they would be able to take charge by winning the vote of the people. Take some time, please darlin, and read my post again.

As regards your later post about Jerry Falwell, et al not being in the White House.................I rest my case. (Try not to be so literal in your thinking.) I'm a little worried about you.

P.S. I'm glad you thought my post excellent. I thought so myself. :wink:

Like him or not, this is scorching stuff:

John Kerry's remarks at the fall DNC meeting

My favorite bits:



and:

Good quotes, both.

Dear Lola: You tell me not to be so literal in my thinking concering whether or not Jerry Falwell was in the White House. You may have a point. Believe me, I have tried. When I said that Bill Clinton was a brutal rapist who attacked Juanita Broadderick and never even commented on the charge and when I said that Clinton perjured himself repeatedly before the House Committee and in the Paula Jones hearing, I was told that I had no proof.

I was challenged- Show me the proof!!!!

I told them --Why are you asking me to be so literal?

They said: Because your charge that Clinton raped Juanita Broadderick has never been proven in a court of law and because your charge that Clinton "perjured" himself is not technically correct.

So, you see, dear Lola. I have tried.

In that same spirit I am afraid that I must repeat that Jerry Falwell and Robertson do not hold official positions in the White House.

If you wish to indicate that you feel that they have influence on the White House, you may, of course, do so. However, that will be only your opinion since I am quite sure that you cannot prove that any influence they may have or not have cannot be expressly connected to any legislation that may have been passed in the White House.

If you have proof of such, please let me know since I am desirous of learning. If you do not have proof, It is only your opinion. I have my opinion and it does not agree with yours.

Unless you can give reasons why your opinion is to be preferred over mine- I will repeat- Checkmate.

Now, I most respectfully would offer a quote to you to show you just how difficult it is to PROVE influence.

Quote:

"I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution"

President Bill Clinton in a 1997 news conference when asked about a political contribution from China.

Dear Lady- I would respectfully ask you to think about the implications of that statement for anyone who would blithely connect a person or a movement or an ideology to the process of law making.

You can say that there is a connection but unless you can PROVE it, your opinion is just as good as anyone elses and no better.

Thank you, dear Lola.

P Diddie- Those are great quotes from Senator Kerry. I do hope that they will help him win the Democratic nomination. Thus far, it would appear that Governor Dean is far in the lead in raising money. There is an old aphorism which says that Money is the mother's milk of Politics>

We shall see what happens to Kerry.

In the meanwhile, since you are a Texan, is there any news about the redistricting in Texas?

I will be most eager to see what happens in 2004 after the redistricting is over.

There is a chance, of course, that GW Bush may not be re-elected. However, I am sure that the Democratic Party would be most desirous of recapturing the House and Senate and to hold them both as they once did at the beginning of the first term of President Clinton. As I am sure you are aware, despite President Clinton's best efforts, the Democrats lost the Senate and only regained it for a short year and a half. They have never regained the House.

I feel certain that the Democrats' wish list for the 2004 year is to regain the Senate, the House and the Presidency.

I am eager to hear about the redistricting in Texas since any redistricting headed by the Republican forces in Texas are sure to give the Republicans an edge in from 3 to 5 seats.

That, of course, cannot be good news for the Democrats who would strive to regain the House in 2004.
Do you have any up to date news on the matter- P. Diddie?

Thank You.

Italgato,

May I take this opportunity to suggest this helpful tool:

http://news.google.com/

See, this way you can find it yourself and you won't be tempted to make selective requests for news that serve to goad.

It's a really helpful tool. It comes with my highest recommendation.

Dear Mr. DeKere:

I did not mean to goad. I think you are aware that P. Diddie is an expert on Texan Politics. I think you are also aware that, at times, it is quite difficult, at least for me. to find current material on Google.

I will, however, follow your suggestion.

With regard to "goading", do you exempt P. Diddie's replication of the brutal and unfair comment made by Kerry concerning President Bush?

Is that not a goad, Dear Mr. De Kere?

I don't know. I ahve not read any of the fine Texas politics specialist's postings in that regard.

One of my limitations is the inability and lack of desire to read each and every posting to this forum.

In addition I do not find it necessary to have my every comment weighed for it's uniform application, just as you do not make any effort to be balanced in your complaints. If you have a moderation complaint send it to the moderator account. I am not a moderator.

I am human, I do not read everything here as it hampers my development of the world's largest testicle.

I hope you understand. Testicles are of massive importance.

I do understand- Mr. De Kere. I do understand.

I will confess to laziness. I was certain that Mt. P. Diddie, who I am certain has sources which have not yet appeared on Google, is able to give some cogent information.

But, I will follow your excellent advice. I will consult Google.

Unfortunately, I have not yet become expert enough in google to find the most pertinent reports in less than a half hour.

I do hope you understand.

Thank you, sir!!!

Italgato,

Some ideas have more merit than others in that some have more of a basis in evidence than others. Nothing is ever proved beyond a doubt. The allegation that Clinton forcibly raped a woman is negligible where as the notion that the religious right has more influence in this present administration's actions than was admitted before the election has more credible evidence.

But please, don't quote me as having said that Clinton did not commit perjury. He did, obviously. I can see no reason to deny that fact.

On another thread you agreed with the statement made by georgeob:



So you see, Italgato, our disagreement does not have to do with "proof." Our disagreement has to do with what is judged to be "good for the people" and what is judged to be " to protect their personal interests." I think Clinton lied, in self defense. But not only for his own personal interest. He was trying to protect his family, as well as himself. But he was also trying to resist the effort of the special prosecutor and those he represented to over turn the will of the people, as was expressed in the election. This is my opinion, which is certainly in disagreement with yours.

Sure is, man; there's a whole thread on the topic. You even posted on it recently.

Click here.

You're welcome. :wink:

On first read, I found myself curious to know more about this.

Upon contemplation (approximately 1.57 milliseconds), I decided I was not.

Hmm...never heard of that form of Chi Kung before...

Mr. P. Diddie. I wish you would not refer to me as "Man". That is demeaning and against the Guidelines.

As for the re-districting in Texas. I am not looking for information from three days ago. I am looking for information published in the Texas papers yesterday. They usually run long stories on Sunday, do they not? I would have thought that since the story is obviously high profile in Texas, there would have been some new stories.
But perhaps there were none.

I will wait for your next report on the subject.

Thank You.

Italgato:

Here's a handy link to Texas newspapers. Surf to your heart's content:

http://newslink.org/txnews.html

I have made note of your feelings about being called man Italgato and out of respect I will not do it, my boy.

Is that anything like doctur froid?

But what is the doctor afroid of?

I must express amazement at the post given by Lola. I must take exception at the substance offered in the post. Lola says that "the allegation that Clinton raped a woman is negligible."

I clearly recall the National Organization of Women during the hearings on Clarence Thomas stating that women don't lie about things like that( Sexual harrassment).

Would Juanita Broadderick lie about being raped by Clinton?

Perhaps Lola does not recall that Juanita Broadderick was interviewed on NBC. It is most damning to note that President Bill Clinton has NEVER RESPONDED TO THE CHARGE.

Now, I am most perplexed at the sentence that Lola wrote. I will replicate it and then ask a question in parenthesis. Lola, of course, need not reply but it may be that I am just not smart enough to understand what she is saying.

Lola says:

The notion that the religious right( I don't know who this is- who comprises the religious right- who is not in the religious right-please inform) has more influence( what does influence mean?

I will again quote President Clinton- "I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed a government pokicy solely because of a contribution"

I would suggest that a Republican spokesman would say-
"I don't believe that you can find any evidence of the fact that government policy was changed because of "Alleged" influence from an "undefined" religious right>"))))

Lola continues:

in the administration's actions than was admitted before the election"(this, is of course a ridiculous statement- Lola is saying that before the election the Republican Administration should have said-

"The religious right will have at least a 25% influence on all of our proposals made in the following areas"

This is ridiculous. No administration can predict what influence, if any a group will have after the administration begins.

Lola ends by saying:
"More credible evidence"

( Again, I would welcome hard evidence to show that the religious right has influenced any legislation directly. To say that it has, of course, is to accuse the various legislators in the Congress of being puppets of the so-called "religious right" since as Lola is aware, legislation is passed through Congress. The Congress passes laws. )

Finally, Lola makes what I think is an egregious error when she ascribes "the good of the people" to Clinton's perjuries and evasions.

Judge Richard Posner clearly points out that the perjuries of Clinton were NOT for the "good of the people" but rather for shabby personal interests.

Sometimes its cool to be reminded of the obvious.

TNR, in an item called DOES THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FAVOR DEAN?, helpfully points out that all a Democratic candidate needs to do to win is gain Nevada and West-Virginia, on top of the states Gore got to win.

And that the latter should be easier than it might seem, considering Gore won them even while a significant percentage of "his" voters went Nader, who shouldnt be a factor this time around. And that many of the states in which Gore's lead was narrowest were precisely the states where Nader did especially well (Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota).