Lola said "And that's exactly what I think should and hopefully will happen".
Not if the voting machines are deliberately rigged in favour of the Administration (as reported elsewhere).
As Stalin said "It's not how the people vote, but who does the counting".
I find it likely The Democrats will continue to fail to engage The Electorate, and continue to attribute their lack of success to conspiracy as opposed to their failure to show The Electorate a viable alternative. It is always more appealing to blame someone else for the negative consequences of one's own shortcomings.
"The Democrats will continue to fail to engage The Electorate"? Sounds like wishful thinking, timberlandko...
Seems to me that the electorate is growing a bit disenchanted with Mr. Bush, and that folks are intrigued by Dean and Clark. The Bush team may think Dean is beatable, but I'll bet they're dreading a match-up with Clark!
I doubt Clark engenders much dread on The Right. Exposed to campaign-driven scrutiny, his clay feet will dissolve in the tide.
Michael Moore "if we could see Bush in his private moments we would be scared as hell, it would be cool"
timberlandko wrote:I find it likely The Democrats will continue to fail to engage The Electorate, and continue to attribute their lack of success to conspiracy as opposed to their failure to show The Electorate a viable alternative. It is always more appealing to blame someone else for the negative consequences of one's own shortcomings.
Once again, the mighty Symbol of America stares into goat entrails and predicts...
...Republican dominance!
(Look again, Big Bird. :wink:)
Yer welcome to the goat guts, PDiddie ... I ain't studyin' 'em, I'm dressin' out the carcass to roast for the victory banquet.
I doubt the victory feast will involve any billy goats, not with Ashcroft around - WAY too sexual. I'm guessing what gets eaten will be fowl. Eagle.
Here's a news flash; older Americans are beginning to lose programs from the cash-short government from home-delivered meals to removal from nursing homes. Seniors make up a large percentage of the voters, and I'm wondering how they will react to all these service cuts while spending billions in Iraq?
I really must respond to the multi-faceted and egregious errors in Lola's post.
She claims that: GW Bush hid his agenda from the people.
I would respectfully ask her to be more specific- What part of his agenda did he hide from the people?
She claims that GW Bush hid his agenda from the people.
Was the response to the attack on 9/11 part of the agenda that GW Bush hid from the people before he was elected?
Since Lola's statement is such a generalization, it is useless.
Does Lola think that Agendas are written in stone?
Did John F. Kennedy have the decision to negotiate with Khruschev on his agenda?
What nonsense.
Agendas are not written in stone. Perhaps, Lola means principles. There is room for dispute there.
I would hold that if the American people( Lola does speak of Democracy and election) were so adamant that GW Bush was not doing a good job, they would have struck out against the Republicans in Nov. 2002. They did not. As a matter of fact, they destroyed the Democrats in that election.
Interesting!!!
Lola then accused GW Bush of agression against other nations. I would suggest that perhaps George W. Bush followed the example of the greatest president of the twentieth century who sent missles to bomb Baghdad( some of the right wing claim that Clinton sent the missles to bomb Baghdad to take the people's minds off of his impeachment trials---absurd--Clinton was protecting the American people with his AGGRESSION against Iraq.)
Then Lola, as inspecific as ever, makes the ridiculous statement that GW. Bush has a "religious agenda" i.e. "Making laws and judicial decisions which serve a particular constituency and not others."
I wonder if Lola is living in the United States?
The Congress makes the laws.
If President Bush wishes to press for legislation, he must send it to the Congress. For example, in the case of the Patriot Act, the Senate and the House HAD to vote for it or it would not have become law.
Lola seems to think that GW Bush can pass laws all by himself.
And as for the absurd charge concerning judicial decisions- Lola seems not to have read the latest decsions coming out of the Ninth Circuit.
Lola probably does not know that judges are appointed for life and that there are many many judges who are sitting on the courts today that were appointed by President Clinton.
I would respectfully request Lola to give us some more specific data to work with. Generalization really don't lend themselves to good discussion.
If the seniors vote GWBush back for another term, I think they deserve whatever that comes with it.
I must commend Mr. Hinteler for his rigorous research. It is true trhat I should have said that Judge Posner is the FORMER chief justice of the Seventh Circuit. I was in error. However, I would beeseech Mr. Hinteler to read the encomiums given to Judge Posner, first by Mr. Thomas, in an excellent post and then by Mr. Timberlandko.
Posner is one of the foremost jurists of our day.
I wish to assure Mr. Thomas, who says that he has not read- "an Affair of State" by Judge Posner that Judge Posner plays no favorites. He does indeed point out some of the "mistakes" made by Ken Starr, but he is relentless on President Clinton.
I urge Mr. Thomas to read the book. I am sure he would enjoy it.
How relentless is Judge Posner with regard to President Clinton?
If I may:
quote from An Affair of State
P. 54
"Even if, as I do not for a moment believe. none of President Clinton's lies under oath amounted to perjury in the strict technical sense, they were false and misleading statements designed to derail legal proceedings, and so were additional acts of obstruction of justice...." A conservative estimate of the outcome( of punishment to be received by a person who has commited those above series of crimes) would be a prison sentence of thirty to thirty seven months>'
end of quote
and P. 266
quote
"For those who think that authority depends on mystery, the shattering of the presidential mystique has been a disaster for which Clinton ought to of rights to have paid with his job"
So, Mr. Thomas, let me assure you, Judge Posner is even handed. He lets no one go without the proper judgment- even Ken Starr, but if you read the book( and I hope you do) you will discover that the Judge is much much harder on Clinton than on Starr.
Cheers- Mr. Thomas
Italgato,
You make several very good and potentially useful points in these threads. However you consistently destroy their effect by your patronizing and occasionally sneering references to your interlocutors and the points they make. Please give others here the benefit of assumed good intent - even when they may disagree. It is, after all, something I expect you want from them. It will help you in the dialogue, and less mud will splatter on those who agree with some of what you say.
george ob1= You are correct, of course. I must confess to a problem that I have. I try to remain as objective and idea based as possible( as you always do) but I cannot abide lies and outright defamations.
I will attempt to follow your good advice but I am very much afraid that it will be difficult. I have always been in positions in my career where the one who smacked the other guy in the nose first came out on top.
Italgato,
Thank you for your gracious acceptance for what was, after all, an uninvited criticism.
We humans are individually unique and generally stubborn and in the grip of biases and points of view of which we are not often fully aware. Disagreements, misstatements of fact, and confrontations are the rule, but they are not always (or even usually) based on lies and knowing defamation. Rather, they proceed from the biases and points of view to which we are all subject. If one can get past that, there is the occasional reward of an interesting and beneficial new twist or understanding. At least, that is my view.
While coming out "on top" is indeed a common thread in our lives, what does that impulse mean here? There is no generally acknowledged score or scorekeeper. It isn't a contest. There is only the stream of our individual expressed views and mutual reactions to them.
I don't know your profession, but I have not found in mine that 'smacking the other guy in the nose first' was a useful general tactic. I commend to you Aesop's wonderful fable of the contest between the wind and the sun in inducing a traveller to remove his cloak.
Now, I've had occasion of employment in a field wherein a fellow who continually poked folks in their noses typically was given opportunity to spend several relaxing months in a gated, full-care, meals-included residential facility, while wearing an orange jumpsuit and paper slippers.
timberlandko wrote:Now, I've had occasion of employment in a field wherein a fellow who continually poked folks in their noses typically was given opportunity to spend several relaxing months in a gated, full-care, meals-included residential facility, while wearing an orange jumpsuit and paper slippers.
I've stayed in such an establishment as well - however, I additionally got paid for that and a couple of keys, was even asked to wear my private clothes
Walter, Timber,
It isn't any less bad when you do it.
