Rep vs. Dem Differences

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
I'm sure you know this syndrome: give a child a toy he/she doesn't
particularly care for. Then try to take that toy away and you will get an
instant tantrum!

Then take a classroom full of kids who are somewhat scared and confused by
the day's activity and commotion, and you have the perfect setup. One
little
tantrum would spread through the classroom like wildfire, all in front of
the TV cameras.

At this point, the only things known were that some airplanes had crashed
into some buildings, and officials on the scene did not have anymore
information than that. And Bush was sitting there calmly.

If Bush had tried to get up an leave early, the probably result would have
been a bunch of crying kids. And while newsmen aren't generally reporters,
under circumstances like these they will ask questions.

Sorry - I don't buy it. "Hey kids, looks like the principal needs to talk
with me. I'll be back in a minute, ok..."
These are little kids. You can tell them just about anything to change
course. And this comes from many, many hours spent in a classroom.

As for the reporters, of course they ask questions - that's their job. Take
it outside. Invoke your handlers. Take control of the situation.

Imagine you were in the same situation and you heard that your wife was in a
car accident. Do you wait eight minutes to find out if she was hurt? On the
way to the hospital? He found out that the country had been attacked! Aside
from any other responses President Bush had, it is absurd to defend his
inaction as making sure the kids remained calm.

Michael

You fault Bush for inaction, fine. Now tell us, chapter and verse, what
action you would have taken....





"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:ntOYc.343037$%_6.76663@attbi_s01...

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
I'm sure you know this syndrome: give a child a toy he/she doesn't
particularly care for. Then try to take that toy away and you will get
an
instant tantrum!

Then take a classroom full of kids who are somewhat scared and confused
by
the day's activity and commotion, and you have the perfect setup. One
little
tantrum would spread through the classroom like wildfire, all in front
of
the TV cameras.

At this point, the only things known were that some airplanes had
crashed
into some buildings, and officials on the scene did not have anymore
information than that. And Bush was sitting there calmly.

If Bush had tried to get up an leave early, the probably result would
have
been a bunch of crying kids. And while newsmen aren't generally
reporters,
under circumstances like these they will ask questions.

Sorry - I don't buy it. "Hey kids, looks like the principal needs to talk
with me. I'll be back in a minute, ok..."
These are little kids. You can tell them just about anything to change
course. And this comes from many, many hours spent in a classroom.

As for the reporters, of course they ask questions - that's their job.
Take
it outside. Invoke your handlers. Take control of the situation.

Imagine you were in the same situation and you heard that your wife was in
a
car accident. Do you wait eight minutes to find out if she was hurt? On
the
way to the hospital? He found out that the country had been attacked!
Aside
from any other responses President Bush had, it is absurd to defend his
inaction as making sure the kids remained calm.

Michael

I'm sure you know this syndrome: give a child a toy he/she doesn't
particularly care for. Then try to take that toy away and you will get an
instant tantrum!

Then take a classroom full of kids who are somewhat scared and confused by
the day's activity and commotion, and you have the perfect setup. One little
tantrum would spread through the classroom like wildfire, all in front of
the TV cameras.

At this point, the only things known were that some airplanes had crashed
into some buildings, and officials on the scene did not have anymore
information than that. And Bush was sitting there calmly.

If Bush had tried to get up an leave early, the probably result would
have
been a bunch of crying kids.


And while newsmen aren't generally reporters,
under circumstances like these they will ask questions.

And then the President would be in a position where if he said everything
was O.K., people would want to know why he was leaving. And then the
President, who probably didn't know very much at that point, would be
battered with questions that he could not have satisfactorily answered.

So, Bush finished what he was doing, go up and left with no fuss, and
everything ended satisfactorily...



"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:AINYc.87940$Fg5.51056@attbi_s53...

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so far out of the loop. I thought
it
was common knowledge that Bush was reading to some very young children
in
front of a bunch of television cameras.



This is the biggest load of unmitigated crap I have ever read, and simply
cannot be expected to generate any intelligent response.

But how about if dumbo had said something like
"children, something has come up that requires my immediate attention, and so I
must go."

Naw . . . too complex.



www.Rosspilot.com

Obviously you don't have very young children...


What in the hell does THAT have to do with anything???


I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were so far out of the loop. I thought it
was common knowledge that Bush was reading to some very young children in
front of a bunch of television cameras.


So???

He'd just been told that the country was UNDER ATTACK! What is wrong with you?



www.Rosspilot.com

Reminds me of the joke, one with a lot of truth in it evidently:

If Dick Cheney's weak heart should give out on him during the second term,
would Jr. be capable of running the country?

--

Roger Long



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:mjNYc.342765$%_6.30883@attbi_s01...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message newsQMYc.72468
someone who's actually charge.

Er, that should be "someone who's actually in charge".

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Wdtabor wrote:

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right.
It is
only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.

Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.


Probably you.

Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
authoritarian political order.

Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
greater freedom and well being of the common man.

Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
imagination.

At least that is how the left thinks of it. Actually, fascism and Nazism did
promote political change and claimed greater freedom and well being for the
common man. That they failed is obvious.

Most so-called left wing or liberal movements are in fact quite
authoritarian in nature -- far more authoritarian than so-called right wing
or conservative movements. Socialism, usually considered to be left wing,
requires an extremely authoritarian government with centrally planned
economies and minutely planned distribution of goods and services. The same
can be said for centrally planned educational standards and even
anti-discrimination laws -- though in the latter case I suppose since
slavery was banned and most equal rights laws were passed under Republican
administrations by Republican legislatures you might be able to make an
argument that anti-discrimination laws are a characteristic of right wing
philosophies.

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Brian Burger" wrote in message

It's part of the problem, I think, with international relations - US
politics is skewed so far right that the rest of us just can't relate
anymore.

My wife likes to remind me that America was founded and raised by
religious
types who were so weird and to the right that they felt a need to escape
Europe to exercise their religious freedom. The Quakers, the "puritans"
(as we call 'em now)...

Except that neither the Quakers nor the Puritans had much to do with the
founding of America beyond being some of the earliest settlers.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
newsQMYc.72468$9d6.48029@attbi_s54...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Baloney. He continued reading. What was he supposed to do, run out of
the
classroom screaming?...

Seriously, what is it that you think a President could have done? No one
knew whether it was a terrorist attack or just another airline accident.

Two off-course airliners crashed into the World Trade Towers within
minutes
of one another in clear weather, and no one knew if it was "just another
airline accident"? That's quite a spin, CJ!

Bush left immediately after being informed of the second crash. Of course
you probably knew that, so let's here your spin on that!

James Robinson opined

Wdtabor wrote:

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right. It
is only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.

Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.

Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
authoritarian political order.

Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
greater freedom and well being of the common man.

Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
imagination.

I would love to see some lists of the philosophers that you are talking
about. I particularly would like to see the classification of Karl Marx.


-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

C J Campbell wrote:

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Wdtabor wrote:

The Nazi Party was the National SOCIALIST Party, fascsim is a left wing
philosophy, it never has had anything to do with the political right.
It is
only characterized as such by entertainers with no knowledge of history.

Someone doesn't know the definition of right and left.


Probably you.

Right wing philosophies tend to be conservative, want to retain
traditional values, and often advocate the establishment of an
authoritarian political order.

Left wing philosophies promote political change, and generally promote
greater freedom and well being of the common man.

Fascism, and by extension Nazism, are clearly right wing philosophies.
They cannot be characterized as being "liberal" by any stretch of the
imagination.

At least that is how the left thinks of it.

Nope. That's how the dictionary thinks of it.