If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aluminum differences | Lou Parker | Home Built | 16 | August 25th 04 06:48 PM |
Differences between Garmin 295 and 196? | carlos | Owning | 17 | January 29th 04 08:55 PM |
differences in loc/dme and loc with dme appch at KRUT? | Richard Hertz | Instrument Flight Rules | 19 | January 25th 04 07:49 PM |
Differences in models of Foster500 loran | Ray Andraka | Owning | 1 | September 3rd 03 10:47 PM |
question: differences between epoxy layup and plaster | Morgans | Home Built | 3 | August 6th 03 04:46 AM |