Rep vs. Dem Differences

C J Campbell wrote:

Gary Drescher wrote:

C J Campbell wrote:

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!

Not quite. He was informed of the first aircraft hitting the WTC before
he entered the classroom. It was the information about the second that
he heard while in the classroom, which should have made it clear it was
an attack. He remained in the classroom to finish the story with the
children, and did not leave immediately.

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

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.

If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change and
which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being of the common
man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts itself.

C J Campbell wrote:

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

Not directly, but the freedom from religion amendment to the Constitution had as much
to do with reaction to the way the Puritans ran their section of the Colony as it did
the national religious dictates of England.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

C J Campbell wrote:

If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change
and which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being
of the common man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts
itself.

That's your definition of Nazism, not what it acutally was.

http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index...-wing_politics

"Nazis opposed individualism and laissez faire capitalism, vigorous
opposition to international socialism was a founding and continuing
tenet of Nazi fascism."

Try these sources for why others label Fascism as right wing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing

"... fascism is almost universally considered to be a part of "the
right"."
"Like other forms, it arose in antithesis to the agenda of leftists,
Communists, and Socialists."

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

"Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the
nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other
loyalties."

"Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it
borrows concepts and practices from all three."

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Right-wing

"... fascism and communism share much in common, and this is to be
expected since they are the most extreme forms of conservatism, fascism
being of the right, and communism being of the left."

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
You fault Bush for inaction, fine. Now tell us, chapter and verse, what
action you would have taken....

Well given that I am in no way qualified to be President, I can't really
quote you chapter and verse. On the other hand, I suspect my response to the
biggest crisis in the past 50 years would not be to continue reading "Willie
Wonka" to a group of kids. Off the top of my head, I suspect there must be
some protocol to follow when the US comes under attack.

President Bush's behavior after 9/11 may be able to be defended on a number
of arguments. I personally disagree with almost all of them, but at least
when there is some effort toward reasonableness the arguments can be
discussed. But blind support of every facet of his behavior, regardless of
fact, is one of the reasons there is such a huge divide in the electorate.

There's nothing wrong with me, I'm firmly grounded in reality.

However, I would question the state of someone who believes the President
was told that "the country was under attack".

You have no idea what Bush was told...



"Rosspilot" wrote in message
...
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

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:54:33 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

We train for instinctive reactions to emergencies. If an engine fails on
takeoff, we admire the pilot who, almost without thought, can pull the
throttle, feather the engine, put the proper rudder pedal in, and set the
proper airspeed while chewing gum and telling the tower he needs to come
around for an emergency landing.

Bush projects exactly that kind of smoothness, assurance, and decisive
response. It comforts the voters and makes pilots, especially those who
do a
lot of emergency drilling, say, "My kind of guy."

Well Roger, lucky for us we have film of exactly how "Dubya" reacted
when told the news of the attacks on the WTC because he was being
filmed at the time reading to kids in a classroom in Florida when an
aide approached and gave him the news. There it is in cold hard film,
the actual reaction of the big guy when told of the worst attack upon
the United States since Pearl Harbor.

His smooth assured and decisive reaction? He sat there stunned for 8
minutes on camera until someone came and hustled him out of the
classroom.

Wow!!! You're a pilot AND a mindreader!!

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

If the dictionary says that Nazism, which promotes political change
and which believes it promotes greater freedom and the well being
of the common man is a right wing philosophy, then it contradicts
itself.

That's your definition of Nazism, not what it acutally was.

http://encyclopedia.fablis.com/index...-wing_politics

"Nazis opposed individualism and laissez faire capitalism, vigorous
opposition to international socialism was a founding and continuing
tenet of Nazi fascism."

Try these sources for why others label Fascism as right wing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing

"... fascism is almost universally considered to be a part of "the
right"."
"Like other forms, it arose in antithesis to the agenda of leftists,
Communists, and Socialists."

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

"Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the
nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other
loyalties."

"Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it
borrows concepts and practices from all three."

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Right-wing

"... fascism and communism share much in common, and this is to be
expected since they are the most extreme forms of conservatism, fascism
being of the right, and communism being of the left."

Now you are contradicting yourself. Now you are saying that communism is
left wing conservatism, where before you defined the left as being liberal.

I don't give a hoot about your definitions. They are self contradictory and
arbitrary, as many have pointed out before me.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:29:31 -0700, Brian Burger wrote:

I was thinking about something similar, watching US Presidential stuff &
recalling our recent Canadian federal election - and, basically, the US
doesn't have a left wing the way Canadians or Europeans would understand
it!

For all the Republican ranting about 'leftist socialists', if Kerry
moved to Canada, even our most rightwing mainstream party, the
Conservatives, wouldn't have him. He'd be way off in right field all by
himself, even with the Conservatives.

And Kerry is the 'left' in the US Presidential race. Imagine where
this leaves W... (goosestepping rapidly over the horizon, possibly...)

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.

Brian.

Do you think maybe, just maybe, Canadian politics are skewed too far left?

Ron

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


C J Campbell wrote:

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

Not directly, but the freedom from religion amendment to the Constitution
had as much
to do with reaction to the way the Puritans ran their section of the
Colony as it did
the national religious dictates of England.

To the contrary, it is the freedom OF religion amendment, not freedom FROM
religion. And it had far less to do with Puritanism than it had with the
Masonic philosophies of the founding fathers. Puritanism was not interested
in freedom of religion, but other colonies actively promoted it.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

What this amendment says is that there shall be no 'official' religion of
the United States, nor shall any law prohibit the free exercise of religion.
There are altogether too many people who wish to eradicate religion from the
country, which would be a direct violation of this right.