NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok Republicans, try to name one thing Bush has done right in his 4 years in office. And dont talk about Kerry or anything, I dont want to hear Kerry insults I just want to see your pothetic views on Bush.

This should be good. HAHAHA!

Flamebaiting. I suspect an iLock to come soon.

Ok Republicans, try to name one thing Bush has done right in his 4 years in office. And dont talk about Kerry or anything, I dont want to hear Kerry insults I just want to see your pothetic views on Bush.

Well, Bush has ruined are economy and started a war based on lies. Oh wait, you asked for republicans to answer.

*sigh* Niblet, you're not making our side look any better by saying things like "Republicans Suck!" Either come up with a specific grievance, or present your challenge in a more eloquent, polite way.

Wow, this is a pointless post. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but straight out attacks are not cool. (i hate Bush, but Bush is not really republican, he is a thief and a liar. now Susan Collins, THERES a republican.)

Yeah, it seems all Republicans care about is that Bush is Religious and all that bs. Maybe some of them think that he is Texas Tough or something. But he is a wimp, he couldnt even fight for the rednecks in Alabama.

Yes... Diet pop sucks!!!1!!11!!one!1
By doing this, maybe my point will be better made.

Oh by the way, I'm as far away from Republicans as you can get, and this is still dumbtarded (new word)

The lemons want to ejaculate in your eye.

The lemons want to ejaculate in your eye.
*Beavis and Butthead laugh* Heh heh, heh heh, heh heh... Ejaculate.

As a Republican, I can tell you that Bush isn't one.
I always thought it was physically impossible for someone to both suck and blow simultaneously.
However, I am first and foremost an anti-socialist, therefore I shall hold my nose and vote the republican ticket, even though Bush's actions are barely better than I would expect from Kerry along that line.
The end justifies the means, a credo I know Clintonistas agree with.

<zip!>

Your day will come, nonbeliever. Six seeds to one yellowy shell of righteousness, the numbers will grow. TREES DO NOT HAVE ABORTIONS! All of our futures depend on our resolve to submit to being outpopulated... by fruitfulness.

Your day will come, nonbeliever. Six seeds to one yellowy shell of righteousness, the numbers will grow. TREES DO NOT HAVE ABORTIONS! All of our futures depend on our resolve to submit to being outpopulated... by fruitfulness.

Umm... Are you talking to me? :confused:

While he's no prize, Bush has accomplished much in office.

1. The tax reform has brought the economy back faster from the terrorists attacks than if it had not been stimulated by the extra money put back into people's pockets. This economy that people complain about creates 200k jobs a month on average - not bad. I started a business in this 'bad' economyand am going on 2.5 years.

2. Bush specificlly repealed the marriage tax penalty. I'm married and appreciate it.

3. Bush created a unified homeland defense that has acted to keep us safer than the fractured fiefdoms priot to it. While I'm not a fan of the Patriot Act as written, it is a tool that has contributed to the lack of terrorist activity in the US since 9-11.

Oh, and he is the lesser of 2 evils on this Nov's ballot.

I;ve named three. Please return the favor and name just ONE issue for which Kerry stands in his career. Furthermore, for extra credit, name ONE piece pf legislation for which Kerry is responsible in his entire career in the Congress.

I'll betcha can't.

Btw - I'm an independant and plan on voting for Nader in IL to swing some federal cash his way. More voices in the election process = hopefully better candidates.

If your innards are not the sour, delicious, life giving acids of glory, then YES.

Ok, I understand the whole lack of liking Bush thing, but suggesting that all republicans *ahem* suck is like saying Black people suck or gay people suck or...I'm sure you catch my drift. It's completely inappropriate to bash a group of people like that. Stereotyping people is one of the worse forms of descrimination. Perhaps next time you want to express a political opinion you should focus on the party's agenda, or if you want to say you don't like George W. Bush you should just say it as plain as that and back up your opinion.
Politics means tack people, and I don't mean to offend, but the statment "Republicans Suck!!!" shows none.

--J

If your innards are not the sour, delicious, life giving acids of glory, then YES.
OK..... So, how many of my political views do you know of? Ever hear of laize-fair? Did you know I believe in it?

Your insignificant french language will be purged after the orchards spring up in Kenya. Communication will involve a series of staring challenges and currency will once again be teeth, the only resource that is precious.

Uh-huh, yep... Do you know what laize-fair means? I sure hope you do.

You keep your filthy mongoloid hands out of my mouth!

Ok Republicans, try to name one thing Bush has done right in his 4 years in office. And dont talk about Kerry or anything, I dont want to hear Kerry insults I just want to see your pothetic views on Bush.

I am Republican, and I can spell and use proper English grammar. You are a poor example of the Democratic ticket, perhaps you might consider actually going to school and learning basic skills before political science 101.

Your insignificant french language will be purged after the orchards spring up in Kenya. Communication will involve a series of staring challenges and currency will once again be teeth, the only resource that is precious.

Wow, what are you on?;)

You keep your filthy mongoloid hands out of my mouth!
Ok... Hahaha. You're actually getting a little annoying. :rolleyes:

Wow, this is a pointless post. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but straight out attacks are not cool. (i hate Bush, but Bush is not really republican, he is a thief and a liar. now Susan Collins, THERES a republican.)

:) You are right, straight out atacks are not cool.

I say we outlaw the Republican party!!! FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!

Am I? My body will be pruned and preserved to join the pharoahs, and you?

its my understanding that many of the male log cabin republicans do indeed suck, in fact they are quite open about it. i've heard rumours some neocons do as well but generally in the privacy of their own homes or behind locked doors in seedy motels. most of the christian right of the republican party don't suck at all(no matter their gender) though every now and then there will be a scandal about one of them going to the same seedy motels as the neocons and paying to have someone else suck. john mccain has never sucked not even in the tigercages or at the hanoi hilton.

Am I? My body will be pruned and preserved to join the pharoahs, and you?
My body will be chopped up and fed to the dogs of the security guards that guard the Pharohs tomb. :headbang:

I say we outlaw the Republican party!!! FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!

Last I checked the Republican Party was in favor of Freedom of Speech. On the political spectrum it is the further "LEFT" you go where you lose freedoms(ie. Soviet Union, Communist China, N. Korea, etc) For those who grew up with freedoms and never had to think of what those freedoms cost, I should remind them that Freedom is NOT a right, it is a priviledge, bought with blood,paid for by people who came before us.

Last I checked the Republican Party was in favor of Freedom of Speech. On the political spectrum it is the further "LEFT" you go where you lose freedoms(ie. Soviet Union, Communist China, N. Korea, etc) For those who grew up with freedoms and never had to think of what those freedoms cost, I should remind them that Freedom is NOT a priviledge, it is a right, bought with blood,paid for by people who came before us.

Well if you used that logic. The farther right you go: Facism, Nazism... :rolleyes:

Looks like someone missed the sarcasm.

Uh-huh, yep... Do you know what laize-fair means? I sure hope you do.

Do YOU know what "laize-fair" means? I sure don't! If you're going to attempt to sound sophisticated by using a foreign language, at least do your research and spell it right. It's "laissez-faire".

Last I checked the Republican Party was in favor of Freedom of Speech. On the political spectrum it is the further "LEFT" you go where you lose freedoms(ie. Soviet Union, Communist China, N. Korea, etc) For those who grew up with freedoms and never had to think of what those freedoms cost, I should remind them that Freedom is NOT a priviledge, it is a right, bought with blood,paid for by people who came before us.
rights are unalienable, you don't have to win them or earn them. priviledges on the other hand can be earned, paid for or just inherited.

My body will be chopped up and fed to the dogs of the security guards that guard the Pharohs tomb. :headbang:

Tooshay, Shiznayo. You win this round, but the yellow curtain shan't be staved from being pulled forever. Remember this: You will not be spared from the Ripening, Highlander.

My body will be chopped up and fed to the dogs of the security guards that guard the Pharohs tomb. :headbang:

LOL That was good.

Do YOU know what "laize-fair" means? I sure don't! If you're going to attempt to sound sophisticated by using a foreign language, at least do your research and spell it right. It's "laissez-faire".
Because he can't spell it means he doesn't know what he means?
That's the 17th most retarded thing I've heard this month...and I've heard a lot of retarded things.

rights are unalienable, you don't have to win them or earn them. priviledges on the other hand can be earned, paid for or just inhereted.


True, got my own words tangled there:)

Read my post again and you tell me if I stated anywhere that he didn't.

My last words (for right now) on all this political stuff.

Somewhere deep in Texas a village is missing it's idiot.

Because he can't spell it means he doesn't know what he means?
That's the 17th most retarded thing I've heard this month...and I've heard a lot of retarded things.

yeah, I'm getting tired of this "you can't spell it so you're an ignoramus" argument. quite empty if you ask me.

*hopes this isnt the 18th most retarded thing*

Because he can't spell it means he doesn't know what he means?
That's the 17th most retarded thing I've heard this month...and I've heard a lot of retarded things.
i agree with you opie, i can't spell for shit and i often know what i'm talking about, damn spelling stalinists anyway.

Read my post again and you tell me if I stated anywhere that he didn't.
You implied that he didn't know what it meant, then followed up immediately correcting the spelling, which would imply that you think he doesn't know what laissez-faire means based off the failure of the socialistic system of public education.

My last words (for right now) on all this political stuff.

Somewhere deep in Texas a village is missing it's idiot.

Well...go back then ;)

yeah, I'm getting tired of this "you can't spell it so you're an ignoramus" argument. quite empty if you ask me.

*hopes this isnt the 18th most retarded thing*
Well, there are some words that a person should know how to spell...but words with weird spellings and from other languages aren't included in that group of words that should be easy to spell--however, by no means is spelling a measure of intelligence.

Do YOU know what "laize-fair" means? I sure don't! If you're going to attempt to sound sophisticated by using a foreign language, at least do your research and spell it right. It's "laissez-faire".
Yeah, I'm so dumb. Dumb dumb dumb. Hey, let's judge Bush on how he speaks. Hmmm, turns out he is the worst president ever!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
Seriously, I know what it means. It means leave buisnesses alone and govern themselves.

You implied that he didn't know what it meant, then followed up immediately correcting the spelling, which would imply that you think he doesn't know what laissez-faire means based off the failure of the socialistic system of public education.

I did no such thing. However, what I did imply was that he do his research from now in using French words or stick to using "free market economics" instead.

"laissez-faire" is a term, which I believe is French, that means, literally, "hands off"

Here is a plethora of definitions: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:Laissez-faire

You implied that he didn't know what it meant, then followed up immediately correcting the spelling, which would imply that you think he doesn't know what laissez-faire means based off the failure of the socialistic system of public education.

Actually, he was correct though. If you want to sound "cool"using a foreign word, at least learn to spell it! :headbang:

I did no such thing. However, what I did imply was that he do his research from now in using French words or stick to using "free market economics" instead.
Laissez-Faire is the term he should've have used even if he didn't know how to spell it. People knew exactly what he meant (including he and including you) when he posted that. "Free market economics" is not as widely used and it'd be less likely that people would know what he is talking about if he had used that.

Oh dear. I know when you turn 17 it’s hard to think before posting things to the internet, but please in the future before you post, think how much precious bandwidth is being wasted on your asinine comments. I'm tired of people attacking an ideology without knowing anything about it. There are plenty of things bush has done right. And there are plenty of things he’s done wrong. Either way, I challenge you to come up with one coherent argument.

Actually, he was correct though. If you want to sound "cool"using a foreign word, at least learn to spell it! :headbang:
And before you accuse lefties of denying freedom of speech, research righties too. *Cough* facism, nazism *cough*

Actually, he was correct though. If you want to sound "cool"using a foreign word, at least learn to spell it! :headbang:
Most of the English language as we Americans know it is comprised of foreign words.

Yeah, I'm so dumb. Dumb dumb dumb. Hey, let's judge Bush on how he speaks. Hmmm, turns out he is the worst president ever!!!!!!! :rolleyes:
Seriously, I know what it means. It means leave buisnesses alone and govern themselves.

Actually,whether or not you approve of the man, the"stupid"argument does not fit...He is an Ivy League grad who held a 3.8GPA in college...I would venture most of the posters here would be considerably lower,I managed a 3.2, but it was definitely hard enough.

Most of the English language as we Americans know it is comprised of foreign words.

True, and we for certain should be able to spell our OWN language correctly as well.

Laissez-Faire is the term he should've have used even if he didn't know how to spell it. People knew exactly what he meant (including he and including you) when he posted that. "Free market economics" is not as widely used and it'd be less likely that people would know what he is talking about if he had used that.

Actually, I didn't at first. I pondered over these strange cypherings for seconds and seconds and stared until my eyes were not bloodshot, but a little watery, and at last a light shone through the impenetrable meaning of these words. Taking my pencil I quickly jotted down an improved equation for the curved path of photons when in the field of a black hole and held it above my head in elation!!!!!!!!

I also knew what he meant. Just trying to give some advice though, even if it apparently came across as a bit hostile!

GPA, like spelling, is not much of a measure of intelligence.

I respect their right to differ,
to vote the way they prefer
to think the way they think
I wish I could have that in my native Cuba.

Actually, I didn't at first. I pondered over these strange cypherings for seconds and seconds and stared until my eyes were not bloodshot, but a little watery, and at last a light shone through the impenetrable meaning of these words. Taking my pencil I quickly jotted down an improved equation for the curved path of photons when in the field of a black hole and held it above my head in elation!!!!!!!!

I also knew what he meant. Just trying to give some advice though, even if it apparently came across as a bit hostile!
Well, at least the exclamation points helped you get your point across to me!

I'm glad.

And before you accuse lefties of denying freedom of speech, research righties too. *Cough* facism, nazism *cough*

I believe I got that the first time you posted it, a second time was unnecessary as I was getting ready to reply anyway..yes, you are correct. The further in EITHER direction you go, the more people cannot tolerate dissension.

Actually,whether or not you approve of the man, the"stupid"argument does not fit...He is an Ivy League grad who held a 3.8GPA in college...I would venture most of the posters here would be considerably lower,I managed a 3.2, but it was definitely hard enough.
I said this comparing to Hippy's post. It is known Bush fumbles words sometimes. That doesn't make him stupid. I believe my GPA is about 3.6... Around there. And judging people in thier grades means nothing. Einstein and Churchill... They didn't get great grades...

I respect their right to differ,
to vote the way they prefer
to think the way they think
I wish I could have that in my native Cuba.

Exactly, most of these people do not know how dear freedom is, as they have always had it. A prime example.

Ok Republicans, try to name one thing Bush has done right in his 4 years in office. And dont talk about Kerry or anything, I dont want to hear Kerry insults I just want to see your pothetic views on Bush.
You know, you could have reworded this, since this IS a flamebait. Further, aside from that, would it have killed you to check your spelling?

You COULD have written:

To all Republicans... In the four years Bush was in office, what did he deserve to warrant being worthy of being reelected? Keep out any anti-Kerry sentiments, just post your views on Bush.

I believe I got that the first time you posted it, a second time was unnecessary as I was getting ready to reply anyway..yes, you are correct. The further in EITHER direction you go, the more people cannot tolerate dissension.
Yes, I know. I was countering your post. To your credit, you have not said very many dumb things to quote. ;)

yeah, I'm getting tired of this "you can't spell it so you're an ignoramus" argument. quite empty if you ask me.

*hopes this isnt the 18th most retarded thing*
A great man once said "If you can't spell a word at least three different ways you're narrowminded" or something to that effect

I think it was origionally Ben Franklin but don't quote me on it.

I said this comparing to Hippy's post. It is known Bush fumbles words sometimes. That doesn't make him stupid. I believe my GPA is about 3.6... Around there. And judging people in thier grades means nothing. Einstein and Churchill... They didn't get great grades...

Agreed..but it is a good indicator you are not dumb if you managed that, however, failing to manage that does not make you stupid. Yes, I think I heard Einstein actually was told by teachers he was not smart enough to go very far. :rolleyes:

Agreed..but it is a good indicator you are not dumb if you managed that, however, failing to manage that does not make you stupid. Yes, I think I heard Einstein actually was told by teachers he was not smart enough to go very far. :rolleyes:
Einstein didn't learn to speak until he was like 6...
and he dropped out of high school...

GPA, like spelling, is not much of a measure of intelligence.

I believe you may be mixing up intelligence and wisdom. Being intelligent doesn't mean you are wise enough to know how to use the knowledge but having wisdom is knowing how to use the knowledge you do have.

A great man once said "If you can't spell a word at least three different ways you're narrowminded" or something to that effect

I think it was origionally Ben Franklin but don't quote me on it.

I like that lol...sounds sorta like Dan'l Boone or something though.

don't quote me on it.
Oops.

Well...go back then ;)

AHAHAH

Shiznayo, I should point out that fascism is not the same as Nazism, although I feel confident you already are aware of this based on your wording. However, I would definitely see fascism as an anomaly, if you are basing your view of it on Hitler's Nazi party. Understand one thing, and that is that, racist tendencies aside, no German was censored by the Fascist party. Hitler started a rather new form of government, and one that is not really entirely right-wing. Economic policies on the right do, however, engender the idea of laissez-faire, which basically means "hands off." In this policy, government does not interfere with business. In Hitler's Germany, this was not entirely true, and thus his government was not truly very right-wing. In fact, a right-wing approach generally drifts closer and closer to anarchy, while a left-wing approach will drift closer and closer to totalitarianism. Neither is a good form of government, and thus some balance must be found.

You see, governments, right-wing and left-wing, are best approached if seen as lying on a circle. Eventually, you will arrive at a totalitarian system, no matter which way you go. If you achieve anarchy, the lack of order and ensuing chaos will force a strong leader to take charge, thus granting him dictatorial powers. The same goes for left-wing. Eventually, if you have too much control in one person's hands, the people will revolt and anarchy will ensue. You find a constant cycle, if a government loses its balance and drifts too far to either side. Everything leads to something else, and thus right-wing and left-wing meet in two places. One is a moderate stance on either side, with a perfect compromise. Is such a thing practically possible? Not likely. The other meeting place is between anarchy and totalitarianism, where the lines blur and the two will meet if not tightly enforced. Enforced anarchy? Perfect dictatorship? In neither will the people be happy, and thus will violently change over, in a shift that might not seem likely, but is an everpresent possibility.

What this has to do with anything you are talking about, I dunno.

I believe you may be mixing up intelligence and wisdom. Being intelligent doesn't mean you are wise enough to know how to use the knowledge but having wisdom is knowing how to use the knowledge you do have.
Well, at least you were clear and concise.

You just said: Intelligence isn't wisdom, which is this, but wisdom is this.
You didn't tell me what you think intelligence is...plus even by what you've told me, I don't see how it contradicts what I've said.

There are other instances that prove Bush to be a slow thinker. For instance, when he was alerted of the 9/11 attacks, he stayed in the school that he was visiting for another full seven minutes before even making attempt to get out.

There are other instances that prove Bush to be a slow thinker. For instance, when he was alerted of the 9/11 attacks, he stayed in the school that he was visiting for another full seven minutes before even making attempt to get out.
That proves he is a slow actor. No one can know what he was thinking. All we know is that he didn't get up and act immediately.

Wow, long post. I read it though. :) Yeah, that's true. And I would like to debate some things.... Sorry, I'm not trying anymore. I'm kinda hungry. I'm cooking pizza rolls now. Now THAT had nothing to do with anything.

Whatever he was thinking, it was inexcusable that he should have stayed in the school for that long a period of time when the entire country's safety was at immediate risk.

There are other instances that prove Bush to be a slow thinker. For instance, when he was alerted of the 9/11 attacks, he stayed in the school that he was visiting for another full seven minutes before even making attempt to get out.

Yet one of the first complaints about him was that he ran away.

Wow, Hippy Communists, do you keep logging on and off, or is my computer being wierd. Says you're offline now.

I'd like to see who it was that made these general accusations you speak of. The president's life is of the highest priority; of course he should run away. At the time there was the possibility that he was being targetted, so it was doubly important that he should be out of the school filled with children and be either on his way to Air Force One or into some other place of safety.

Shizyano: I think it's because of the invisible mode setting on my forum account.

nothing

Whatever he was thinking, it was inexcusable that he should have stayed in the school for that long a period of time when the entire country's safety was at immediate risk.
Well...it's hard to say what anyone would've done in that situation, and I mean not what they say they'd do, but what they'd really do. People have asked Kerry what he would've done, and honestly, I think it's a dumb question. It's been 3 years since the incident. Any person who answers that question now has had the advantage of 3 years to ponder the incident. I don't like Bush, but I don't like baseless bashing. Besides, what could he have done in those first seven minutes? I mean, what kind of difference would seven minutes really make? Is it that significant? It's not like he waited in there for a week.

AHAHAH

Shiznayo, I should point out that fascism is not the same as Nazism, although I feel confident you already are aware of this based on your wording. However, I would definitely see fascism as an anomaly, if you are basing your view of it on Hitler's Nazi party. Understand one thing, and that is that, racist tendencies aside, no German was censored by the Fascist party. Hitler started a rather new form of government, and one that is not really entirely right-wing. Economic policies on the right do, however, engender the idea of laissez-faire, which basically means "hands off." In this policy, government does not interfere with business. In Hitler's Germany, this was not entirely true, and thus his government was not truly very right-wing. In fact, a right-wing approach generally drifts closer and closer to anarchy, while a left-wing approach will drift closer and closer to totalitarianism. Neither is a good form of government, and thus some balance must be found.

You see, governments, right-wing and left-wing, are best approached if seen as lying on a circle. Eventually, you will arrive at a totalitarian system, no matter which way you go. If you achieve anarchy, the lack of order and ensuing chaos will force a strong leader to take charge, thus granting him dictatorial powers. The same goes for left-wing. Eventually, if you have too much control in one person's hands, the people will revolt and anarchy will ensue. You find a constant cycle, if a government loses its balance and drifts too far to either side. Everything leads to something else, and thus right-wing and left-wing meet in two places. One is a moderate stance on either side, with a perfect compromise. Is such a thing practically possible? Not likely. The other meeting place is between anarchy and totalitarianism, where the lines blur and the two will meet if not tightly enforced. Enforced anarchy? Perfect dictatorship? In neither will the people be happy, and thus will violently change over, in a shift that might not seem likely, but is an everpresent possibility.

What this has to do with anything you are talking about, I dunno.
Pretty accurate..unless you were a Jew or helping them, you still had alot of freedoms. The Nazi Party ACTUALLY was the nationalist socialist German Workers Party, which name alone would sound Left..socialism is on the left side of the spectrum, and "workers party " comes close to sounding communist.

Just remeber the simple premise that when the Chinese invade, it'll be us Republicans on the rooftops, under the manholes, behind the fences, and inside the windows with our rifles waiting to show them what-for. I assume you'll all be rushing out to greet your "liberators" from the evils of such concepts as "capitalism" and "free market" and "patriotism"...?

Well...it's hard to say what anyone would've done in that situation, and I mean not what they say they'd do, but what they'd really do. People have asked Kerry what he would've done, and honestly, I think it's a dumb question. It's been 3 years since the incident. Any person who answers that question now has had the advantage of 3 years to ponder the incident. I don't like Bush, but I don't like baseless bashing. Besides, what could he have done in those first seven minutes? I mean, what kind of difference would seven minutes really make? Is it that significant? It's not like he waited in there for a week.

The situation requires no thinking at all, really. If the country was under attack, one would expect the president to immediately respond, not insist on finishing his reading session with a bunch of kids. I would think that an immediate departure and request for detailed information be common sense.

I'd like to see who it was that made these general accusations you speak of. The president's life is of the highest priority; of course he should run away. At the time there was the possibility that he was being targetted, so it was doubly important that he should be out of the school filled with children and be either on his way to Air Force One or into some other place of safety.

Shizyano: I think it's because of the invisible mode setting on my forum account.

Actually for the past week we have been harrassed at home here by Bush bashing telemarketers from the "media fund".....and they are making a big deal of how fast he ran away. Actually, the basic drill IS to run away, ONCE you know the situation..it is NOT up to the president even at that point, it is the Secret Service in charge of finding out what is happening, and acting, the president obeys his agents once this drill is activated.

The situation requires no thinking at all, really. If the country was under attack, one would expect the president to immediately respond, not insist on finishing his reading session with a bunch of kids. I would think that an immediate departure and request for detailed information be common sense.

Also the live video of that day shows him getting up after someone hands him a note..so even if he was still on the ground a few minutes, he was NOT finishing a "reading session"

The media is fickle. What can you do.

And Bush actually made the decision to leave himself. Those seven minutes did not include agents briefing him on plans of action.

Pretty accurate..unless you were a Jew or helping them, you still had alot of freedoms. The Nazi Party ACTUALLY was the nationalist socialist German Workers Party, which name alone would sound Left..socialism is on the left side of the spectrum, and "workers party " comes close to sounding communist.
Yes, just so you understand that that party had nothing to do with socialists. Hitler and that group despised them.

Just remeber the simple premise that when the Chinese invade, it'll be us Republicans on the rooftops, under the manholes, behind the fences, and inside the windows with our rifles waiting to show them what-for. I assume you'll all be rushing out to greet your "liberators" from the evils of such concepts as "capitalism" and "free market" and "patriotism"...?

The Chinese would never invade, but if they tried, we would stop them long before the Republicans on the roofs, but I admire your spirit.

The situation requires no thinking at all, really. If the country was under attack, one would expect the president to immediately respond, not insist on finishing his reading session with a bunch of kids. I would think that an immediate departure and request for detailed information be common sense.
He wasn't reading dipshit. He was sitting there with a blank look on his face while the children continued. He didn't know what to do. There hadn't been an attack on US Soild of this magnitude since Pearl Harbor, and I don't think Bush is of the same presidential stature as FDR, but it'd be interesting to see what the Nation did immediately after hearing about Pearl Harbor (of course, Pearl Harbor was signifcantly different, it was an identified attacker). Who did you want Bush to go parading off to war against? How was he supposed to immediately know the hijackers where Muslim fundamentalists from Iraq[sic]? And I repeat, what significant difference would 7 minutes make?

The situation requires no thinking at all, really. If the country was under attack, one would expect the president to immediately respond, not insist on finishing his reading session with a bunch of kids. I would think that an immediate departure and request for detailed information be common sense.

A: What could he have done in 7 minutes that he didn't already do?
B: Why disappoint a roomful of elementary students when there's really not much to do besides fly around in AF1?
C: Why does anyone really give a flying rat's ass!?

Yes, just so you understand that that party had nothing to do with socialists. Hitler and that group despised them.

Well they WERE Socialists in the sense that government controlled business industries. Other than that, yes, Hitler put commies in Auschwitz too.

Well if you used that logic. The farther right you go: Facism, Nazism... :rolleyes:

Uhm... Nazism was National Socialism.... not right wing.

Facism is a good point, though I'm pretty sure they didn't stop anyone in Italy from riding around on little motor scooters saying "chao" to everyone. I mean, come on!

He wasn't reading dipshit. He was sitting there with a blank look on his face while the children continued. He didn't know what to do. There hadn't been an attack on US Soild of this magnitude since Pearl Harbor, and I don't think Bush is of the same presidential stature as FDR, but it'd be interesting to see what the Nation did immediately after hearing about Pearl Harbor (of course, Pearl Harbor was signifcantly different, it was an identified attacker). Who did you want Bush to go parading off to war against? How was he supposed to immediately know the hijackers where Muslim fundamentalists from Iraq[sic]? And I repeat, what significant difference would 7 minutes make?

All the worse for him. I would have liked him to leave the school, at the very least, and not possibly endanger the lives of an entire school. Seven minutes is not the issue here; the issue is that he did not immediately respond to a clearly dangerous situation but deliberated over it, in a school, with a blank look on his face.

Uhm... Nazism was National Socialism.... not right wing.

Facism is a good point, though I'm pretty sure they didn't stop anyone in Italy from riding around on little motor scooters saying "chao" to everyone. I mean, come on!
Actually, he put commies and socialists in concentration camps too.

There's nothing saying that anyone else would've done anything better (except maybe a military general or something who has spent his entirely life making immediate responses to military actions).

Ok Republicans, try to name one thing Bush has done right in his 4 years in office. And dont talk about Kerry or anything, I dont want to hear Kerry insults I just want to see your pothetic views on Bush.

While I do somewhat agree with you, I think you are a childish imbecile who is simply spouting out arbitrary nonsence. Perhaps if you even had the slightest clue as to what you were talking about, I wouldn't bother criticising you.

A: What could he have done in 7 minutes that he didn't already do?
B: Why disappoint a roomful of elementary students when there's really not much to do besides fly around in AF1?
C: Why does anyone really give a flying rat's ass!?
Also,
A. What did Kerry do for 40 minutes that same morning, sitting with Daschle and others in the Capitol?
B. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't...Libs can't tell me they wouldn't have screamed bloody murder if Bush had blasted out of that room, for "scaring impressionable young children."
C. Amen to that! How long did it take LBJ to respond to the Gulf of Tonkin incident? FDR to Pearl Harbor? Folks, it's 7 minutes. Y'all spend more time than that on this thing when many of you should be studying. It took just a little longer than that for people to realize the CBS memos were a forgery.

I suppose we'll never know if the average person in his position would take seven minutes to deliberate over what to do when one's country is under attack.

A: What could he have done in 7 minutes that he didn't already do?
B: Why disappoint a roomful of elementary students when there's really not much to do besides fly around in AF1?
C: Why does anyone really give a flying rat's ass!?

Agreed..what I find amusing is that no matter WHAT Bush does, the same people will find fault..Attack Iraq? Why? There are other places we should go first?Yet any of those places would have the same answer..Wait 7 minutes? What was he thinking??!! Yet if he had jumped off and ran out..Look! He is a coward..and he shouldn't have frightened those children running out like that!!

Well they WERE Socialists in the sense that government controlled business industries. Other than that, yes, Hitler put commies in Auschwitz too.

Way to throw in a completely irrelevant comment simply to add to your arbitrary opinion.

Go to hell.

I find that these arbitrarily constructed (and weak) arguments by imaginary opponents makes for very little discussion.

I suppose we'll never know if the average person in his position would take seven minutes to deliberate over what to do when one's country is under attack.
Again...at the time Bush didn't know (no one knew) that the country was "under attack"
Bush was informed after the second plane hit. After the first one, they could have assumed it was just a plane flying off course, but after the second they were pretty sure it was terrorism. A terrorist can be America; it'd be terrorism either way, but it's not like Bush is going to launch a war in America to pick up a few American terrorists...especially not in the first 7 minutes.

Way to throw in a completely irrelevant comment simply to add to your arbitrary opinion.

Go to hell.
Dude, we were having a conversation that led into that, me and him. :rolleyes:

Way to throw in a completely irrelevant comment simply to add to your arbitrary opinion.

Go to hell.

Excuse me? What part is "arbitrary"? It is factual.

Again...at the time Bush didn't know (no one knew) that the country was "under attack"
Bush was informed after the second plane hit. After the first one, they could have assumed it was just a plane flying off course, but after the second they were pretty sure it was terrorism. A terrorist can be America; it'd be terrorism either way, but it's not like Bush is going to launch a war in America to pick up a few American terrorists...especially not in the first 7 minutes.

Again, you're missing the point. I'm not upset he took 7 minutes, if he had been rattling off instructions to his agents during those seven minutes, or had been making a phone call. Anything! However, after the agent briefed him and immediately stepped back, he did not do a single thing for what is more than enough time to absorb the situation.

Excuse me?
Don't mind him. He decided to act without looking at anything else besides page 7

Again, you're missing the point. I'm not upset he took 7 minutes, if he had been rattling off instructions to his agents during those seven minutes, or had been making a phone call. Anything! However, after the agent briefed him and immediately stepped back, he did not do a single thing for what is more than enough time to absorb the situation.

Actually, You miss the point..I know how these drills work somewhat, and it is his agents that rattle instructions to him..once he is a possible target, it is NOT him in charge of his safety, it is the SS, and they DO, shove him even, to move him when THEY are ready.

Don't mind him. He decided to act without looking at anything else besides page 7

I've done that on occasion, but was his invitation to hell intended to be some sort of party? I really have to check my schedule first.

No such drill occured, however. The agent informed and then immediately stepped away. He was left on his own for seven minutes. He even claims he "didn't have anyone to talk to" during that time. I suppose it is also partly the fault of the agent in not advising him to take an immediately plan of action, but still...

Blah, gotta go. Bye.

No such drill occured, however. The agent informed and then immediately stepped away. He was left on his own for seven minutes. He even claims he "didn't have anyone to talk to" during that time. I suppose it is also partly the fault of the agent in not advising him to take an immediately plan of action, but still...
Everytime you reply to one of my posts, you ignore my strong points and harp on the "7 minutes has nothing to do with it!!1on1!"

No such drill occured, however. The agent informed and then immediately stepped away. He was left on his own for seven minutes. He even claims he "didn't have anyone to talk to" during that time. I suppose it is also partly the fault of the agent in not advising him to take an immediately plan of action, but still...

Our unit was placed on alert the day in question, because for a time, there were NO plans. These plans for an attack were cold war stuff, and nobody had really taken them very seriously since the 80s. Nobody knew what to do, his plane(AF1) was not prepped even for immediate takeoff. It took awhile to even decide where to send it. And as I mentioned, NONE of those decisions were his.

Actually, he put commies and socialists in concentration camps too.

That's interesting, however all their propaganda spoke of rich Jews that were seeking to oppress the laboring german worker. National Socialism was about the german worker, not the worker in general. If anything, the cold war demonstrates that the soviet style communism was a threat to their nationalist ideals. Now, I will confess the whole perfect race thing or social darwinism smacks a little right wing because of the survival of the fittest mentality it inspires. But really, you have to look at the political philosophy as a whole to judge its placement on the political spectrum.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what qualifies something as right or left here. My interpretation is left means:
Government is good because it protects the little guy from the big bad rich guys who obtained their wealth through oppression. Left-wing government officials seeks power through enraging the masses into overthrowing established powers and seizing properties of the oppressors. This property usually creates a new government elite who live lavishly at the power they have brought themselves on the peoples behalf. Ascribes to allow social justice to automatically benefit the masses in some marginal way.

and right means:
Government is bad because it seeks to take what is rightfully owned and give it away under the pretense of social justice. Right-wing goverment officials seek power through empowering the elite to stay elite, whether fair or not. Ascribes to allow the ambition to be the driving force of someone wishing to change there status, although few will acheive this goal.

By my definitions, what the National Socialist movement was purporting to do was the former, not the later.

Who was thrown in prison is irrelevant to political spectrum in my opinion. Goverment of all forms tends to do that on somewhat greater or lesser arbitrary issues that many times diverge from the underlying political philosophies. Hilter hated socialists/communists in the soviet sense because they represented a movement that was definitely non-German. Only his nationalist ,racist brand of socialism was acceptable.

I voted for Bush.

I have to say overall I'm not particularly thrilled with his performance over the last four years. But I have to give him the benefit of the doubt (just as any Dem would do for Clinton)

1. Bush's advisors saw a recession coming during his 2000 campaign. They saw it coming. 9/11 pushed us over the top, and even foreign stock markets tanked after that day. Democrat or Republican, the economy was going to tank, period. I've never seen any logical reason that raising taxes or keeping them stationery in this situation would help the economy. To recover from a recession, there needed to be business promotion, and tax cuts are one very effective tool for doing this. I don't see what about this is hard for anyone to understand.

2. Foreign policy in these last four years was a bitch. I don't think any president would get it right. Michael Moore did a good job of really making Bush look like a complete incompetent (this is my impression of the president as well) But, I'd rather an incompetent in the white house then an intelligent devious and dangerous man. You can clean up a clutzes work, but an intelligent man will make his mischievous activities stick. That being said, who wants the job of satisfying the blood lust of this nation after 9/11. Not me. Who do you attack? I'm guessing any president would follow intelligence and advising, and I don't buy all this conspiracy bull. Grow up people. Either he is a dumby or he's deviant, pick one (you can't have both).

3. I'm also not thrilled about Iraq. I get the impression we just needed someone convenient to unleash our rolling wrath on. As for WMD's: I give you 1000 chemical warheads, 10 years, dictatorial power, and a state the size of Texas, and say "Hide these where the entire U.S. army will not be able to find them... ever" and I'm not a betting man, but the U.S. army isn't gonna find them, period. (D or R next to the Presidents name) So, lets despense with the bull, please. And f*** the U.N. in all its hypocritical glory, because international approval is a smoke screen for the growing anti-americanism in Europe and elsewhere. Oh, we all felt really great when all these countries said, "Oh, we are sorry sorry about the 3000 people that died" But, people have a short attention span, and the world community of nations was not gonna back the big bad U.S. for more that one blood lust action. (ahem.. Afganistan) The king of the hill syndrome is alive and well. We are a sovereign nation, and congress, not the U.N. determines who we go to war with (justified or not the President is not the sole responsible person for this action, plenty of dems voted for war).

4. I will confess I'm disappointed in the lack of domestic "anything" that happened over the last four years. His core hoped to reverse the weakening of the constitution that the libs have been pushing hard for through the judicial branch, and in return we got a big steaming load of legislation called the "Patriot Act". So much for that idea. And as for all the freaking spending the Republicans have been doing in congress, well you tell me what's the difference between the two parties here. Deficit? Big deal. With a tanked economy and reduced tax revenue, the dems would *not* have done better. Still, looks like either party has gone mad spending the public's money. Hell, I don't blame them, spending other people's money is fun.

Have things gone well over the last four years? No. Would different leadership have changed anything? I don't think so. Do I think Kerry can turn things around in 4-8 years? He hasn't convinced me. Am I going to stop asking and answering my own questions? Yes

Kerry and the Dems haven't said anything profound that they didn't steal from F- 9/11, and they certainly haven't said anything to convinced me that they would have been able to do anything better. 1000's of innocent civilians and U.S. troops would have died either way, but maybe between different lines on the map and with different spins of the press.

In the end, I don't feel compelled to replace him with an equally bad or worse choice. At least W has four years of presidencial experience under his belt, and I can't say that for Kerry. Not much of a choice, is it?

Maybe I'll be one of those "throw your vote away on a wack job candidate who can only hope to get .01% of the vote" independent thinker. The Constitutional party looks good to me.

Have fun! Security through obscurity I say!