Frank Apisa wrote:McGentrix wrote:
For what reason did those that fought under and died for Washington do so if not for the love of their country? Please tell me.
For hatred of country, McG.
Their "country" was England...their liege lord was George III.
They hated him and it...and fought to be rid of both.
They were rebels, McG. Those good folk who fought under George Washington were rebels. If they had lost...they would be remembered as traitors...to their "country."
Get your head screwed on straight, will ya.
lol... You don't get it because you are so busy being obstinate.
McGentrix wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:McGentrix wrote:
For what reason did those that fought under and died for Washington do so if not for the love of their country? Please tell me.
For hatred of country, McG.
Their "country" was England...their liege lord was George III.
They hated him and it...and fought to be rid of both.
They were rebels, McG. Those good folk who fought under George Washington were rebels. If they had lost...they would be remembered as traitors...to their "country."
Get your head screwed on straight, will ya.
lol... You don't get it because you are so busy being obstinate.
You don't get it by choice, McG.
What I have said here makes sense.
But you conservative types are into slogans....and you want to think that the people who fought under Washington did it for love of country.
The fact that they had no "country" other than the one they were fighting against apparently is beyond your intellectual abilities.
What a laugh you conservatives are!
And I imagine it must be beyond any chance of your understanding that people like Washington were anything but "conservatives."
What a hapless lot these conservatives. People who take themselves so seriously...and who are members of the armpit of political philosophies.
I don't get any better than this.
I don't recall saying anything about anyone being conservative. Your bias introduced that fact into the discussion.
Frank Apisa wrote:I don't get any better than this.
I realize that, and it depresses me.
McGentrix wrote:I don't recall saying anything about anyone being conservative. Your bias introduced that fact into the discussion.
Profound!!!
Oh my sides!
Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:I don't get any better than this.
I realize that, and it depresses me.
And I've got a smile on my face from ear to ear.
Something to think about!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Islam-by-country-smooth.png
Maybe the dark blue spot on the map is why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan...
The big dark blue country on the map is Iran the lighter blue country to the left of it is Iraq. Afghanistan is the green one to the right of Iran in the middle.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, If you bother to write "bush = hitler" in any search engine, you'll find thousand sof articles that makes the claim Bush is Hitler or Hitler is Bush. BTW, I was not the author of any of those articles.
My apologies then. Whew, what a long post, cicerone! I thought surely with all the reams of dirt on Bush in all of your posts, you would have compared him to Hitler or a Nazi somewhere along the line. If I'm wrong, my sincere aplogies. But I am still mystified as to why you would vote for McCain if you are so viciously opposed to Bush's policies????
okie, That's simple to answer: Bush is not a republican by any stretch of the imagination; he has created the biggest federal deficit, more federal controls - influenced by his religious belief, taken away our Constitutional rights and freedoms, allowed torture of prisoners, and tries to restrict the freedom of the press.
John McCain is nowhere close in republican philosophy to Bush; by 180 degrees. John McCain also has a conscience; something sorely missing in Bush jr.
I don't trust anybody that continues to lie to the American people like Bush. There are too many examples not to realize Bush lies even when he knows the truth. 1) Social security will be bankrupt, 2) congress had the same intel as the administration, and 3) we are making progress in Iraq.
Bush Acknowledges Racism Still Exists
President Addresses NAACP Convention After Five-Year Snub
By DEB RIECHMANN, AP
WASHINGTON (July 20) - President Bush acknowledged persistent racism in America and lamented the Republican Party's bumpy relations with black voters as he addressed the NAACP's annual convention Thursday for the first time in his presidency.
"I understand that racism still lingers in America," Bush told the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "It's a lot easier to change a law than to change a human heart. And I understand that many African-Americans distrust my political party."
That line generated boisterous applause and cheers from the thousands in the audience, which generally gave the president a polite, reserved reception.
"I consider it a tragedy that the party of Abraham Lincoln let go of its historical ties with the African-American community," Bush said. "For too long, my party wrote off the African-American vote, and many African-Americans wrote off the Republican Party."
Black support for Republicans in elections has hovered around 10 percent for more than a decade. In 2004, Bush drew 11 percent of the black vote against Democrat John Kerry.
Most of the president's remarks were greeted with smatterings of applause, but many in the convention center stood up to clap when he urged the Senate to renew a landmark civil rights law passed in the 1960s to stop racist voting practices in the South.
"President Johnson called the right to vote the lifeblood of our democracy. That was true then and it remains true today," Bush said.
Bush, joined by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and chief political adviser Karl Rove, spoke as the Senate debated a bill to approve a 25-year extension of expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The House has passed the bill, and the Senate was expected to pass it quickly, propelled by a Republican push to increase the party's credibility with minorities.
For five years in a row, Bush has declined invitations to address the NAACP convention. This year, he said yes. He was introduced by NAACP head Bruce Gordon.
"Bruce was a polite guy," Bush said. "I thought what he was going to say, `It's about time you showed up.' And I'm glad I did."
He knew it would be a tough audience. According to AP-Ipsos polling conducted in June and July, 86 percent of blacks disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president, compared with 56 percent of whites who disapprove.
Bush said he saw his attendance at the convention as a moment of opportunity to celebrate the civil rights movement and the accomplishments of the NAACP.
"I come from a family committed to civil rights," Bush said. "My faith tells me that we are all children of God -- equally loved, equally cherished, equally entitled to the rights He grants us all.
"For nearly 200 years, our nation failed the test of extending the blessings of liberty to African-Americans. Slavery was legal for nearly 100 years, and discrimination legal in many places for nearly 100 years more."
The White House denied claims that Bush's appearance was a way of atoning for the government's slow response to Hurricane Katrina. The Rev. Jesse Jackson and some black elected officials alleged that indifference to black suffering and racial injustice was to blame for the sluggish reaction to the disaster.
Bush, noting that he has met several times with Gordon, and that they have discussed Katrina. "We've got a plan and we've got a commitment," Bush said. "It's commitment to the people of the Gulf Coast of the United States to see to it that their lives are brighter and better than before the storm."
Bush also recalled his visit in June to Elvis Presley's Graceland mansion in Memphis, Tenn., with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. While in Memphis, the two made an unscheduled stop at the National Civil Rights Museum at The Lorraine Motel, where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968. Bush and Koizumi emerged from a tour to stand on the spot on the motel balcony where King was slain.
They were joined by former NAACP head Benjamin Hooks.
"It's a powerful reminder of hardships this nation has been through in a struggle for decency," Bush said. "I was honored that Dr. Hooks took time to visit with me. He talked about the hardships of the movement. With the gentle wisdom that comes from experience, he made it clear we must work as one. And that's why I have come today."
Toward the end of his remarks, two protesters interrupted the president, shouting inquiries about Vice President Dick Cheney and the situation in the Middle East. "Don't worry. I'm almost done," Bush whispered to NAACP board chairman Julian Bond, one of the dignitaries with him on the stage.
"I know you can handle it," Bond replied.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gordon seems like a positive change for the NAACP leadrship spot.
I almost had a discussion with a young lady the other day. She was a Republican and supported Bush. When we started talking politics she said, "let's end it here. I don't like to have an argument I can't win". I said, "that's why we should continue. I don't either". The discussion ended.
NickFun wrote:I almost had a discussion with a young lady the other day. She was a Republican and supported Bush. When we started talking politics she said, "let's end it here. I don't like to have an argument I can't win". I said, "that's why we should continue. I don't either". The discussion ended.
One should not firmly take a position they cannot support with logical arguments.
I supported W because the alternative candidates
were freightenly more anti-Freedom.
FREEDOM is my criterion for whom to vote in any election.
I continue to support W,
more than anything else, because I believe
that he will nominate conservative judicial candidates
who will support the Bill of Rights in ending gun control
( returning us to the status of freedom
that Americans had until the early 1900s )
which is the most pivotal consideration in a free republic.
David
another hearty har har...
May your chuckles be multiple.
You don't know it, but you're in the "moron" group that still supports the biggest failure of a president in the modern history of our country. Your justifications in support of moron Bush just shows how ignorant you really are. Most Americans now realize Bush is a failure, including the majority of history professors. Your statements deserve a hearty har har...
I'll be joining Mr Norton soon enough, but you'll have to live in the hell Bush produced for this world for much longer.
See if you can comprehend what this article is about - if you can. It was borrowed from another a2k thread posted by nimh:
TNRs actually writing about this..
Quote:
Intelligence Failure
by Jonathan Chait
Post date 07.17.06
Way back when he first appeared on the national scene, the rap against George W. Bush was that he might be too dumb to be president. As time passed, questions about Bush's mental capabilities faded away.
After September 11, his instinctive rather than analytical view of the world seemed to be just what we needed, and Americans of all stripes were desperate to see heroic qualities in him. (As Dan Rather announced at the time: "George Bush is the president; he makes the decisions; and, you know, as just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where.")
On top of that, Democrats decided it was politically counterproductive to attack Bush's intelligence. Bruce Reed of the Democratic Leadership Council said in 2002, for instance, that calling Bush dumb "plays directly into Bush's strength, which is that he comes across as a regular guy." And so, for most of the last six years, the question of Bush's intelligence has remained off the table.
[..] By 2004, the question had been turned around completely. Democrats had almost nothing to say about Bush's lack of intellect, while Republicans joyfully and repeatedly attacked John Kerry as an egghead. Anti-intellectualism was triumphant.
Yet it is now increasingly clear that Bush's status as non-rocket scientist is a serious problem. [..]
Ron Suskind's new book, The One Percent Doctrine, paints a harrowing picture of Bush's intellectual limits. Bush, writes Suskind, "is not much of a reader." He prefers verbal briefings and often makes a horse-sense judgment based on how confident his briefer seems in what he's saying.
In August 2001, the CIA was in a panic about an upcoming terrorist attack and drafted a report with the title, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." When a CIA staffer summed up the memo's contents in a face-to-face meeting with Bush, the president found the briefer insufficiently confident and dismissed him by saying, "All right, you've covered your ass, now," according to Suskind. That turned out to be a fairly disastrous judgment.
Bush loyalists like to dismiss Suskind's reporting, but it jibes with the picture that has emerged from other sources. L. Paul Bremer's account of his tenure as head of Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority depicts Bush as uninterested in the central questions of rebuilding and occupying the country.
Video of a presidential meeting that came to light this year showed Bush being briefed on the incipient Hurricane Katrina. His subordinates come off as deeply concerned about a potential catastrophe, but Bush appears blasé, declining to ask a single question.
And of course there was the famous 2001 incident in which Russian President Vladimir Putin conveyed to Bush a story of being given a cross by his mother. Bush invested deep significance in the story. "I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy," he told reporters. "I was able to get a sense of his soul."
Bush's supporters have insisted for the last six years that liberal derision of the president's intelligence amounts to nothing more than cultural snobbery. We don't like his pickup truck and his accent, the accusation goes, so we hide our blue-state prejudices behind a mask of intellectual condescension.
But the more we learn about how Bush operates, the more we can see we were right from the beginning. It matters that the president values his gut reaction and disdains book learnin'. It's not just a question of cultural style. The president's narrow intellectual horizons have real consequences, sometimes cataclysmic ones.
It's true that presidents can succeed without being intellectuals themselves. The trouble is that Bush isn't just a nonintellectual, he viscerally disdains intellectuals. "What angered me was the way such people at Yale felt so intellectually superior and so righteous," he told a Texas Monthly reporter in 1994.
When I went to college at Michigan, I occasionally played pickup basketball with varsity football players. They obviously felt athletically superior to me. I didn't resent them for it--because they were.
Has anyone else noticed how imbalanced the last of the Bush supporters appear to be?
Yeah, they'll fight to the death for Bush to be stupid and incompetent.
