Historians rate GWB's presidency! Suffice to say, he didnt do well!
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html/
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html/
Who are you voting/rooting for in this years election
- Thread starter Brino
- Start date
- Status
member5726
Banned
I can't wait Georges answer on this one !! 
:rofl:
:rofl:
Brino said:
another fucking democrat biased link maybe??? i don't trust this bullshit.
sorry brino, i know your hate for conservatives but i know also your attitude to take every of moore's words for the holy graal.That is not astonishing that you try with another link to diss bush.
The historians who wrote that are surely democrats. End of story for me.
member5726
Banned
You are so predictable Georges... you know what... i was reading everyone of your links... but since you lack so much objectivity, i will not read any of the links you post...
Well, if I'm gonna comment this response and other things you've written on this thread and the other political threads its that it's you who talks about Moore all the time, you have said that Moore should be beaten to within an inch of his life, get his citizenship revoked and be kicked out of the country. You call Moore a "Fat Pig". You think that authrority shouldn't be questioned, and that one should have respect for authority and just accept the social order, no matter how unjust and unfair it might be. You want censorship against all things that you in your own opinion deems "disruptive".
What we democrats has done, in this thread and others, has been defending everyone's right of free thought, free speech, human rights and civil liberties, and that includes Michael Moore's freedoms.
I don't approve of you Conservatives taking away our rights, and trying to stop us from getting full rights. You might not like what Michael Moore says, but he has every right to voice his opinion.
You Conservatives have tried to take away our rights all through history, both in the past, and still in the present.
Conservative rhetors have attacked the rights revolution in numerous ways as a kind of demotic chatter that contradicts the eternal wisdom of the conservative order. For conservatism, not accepting one's settled place in the traditional hierarchy of orders and classes is a kind of arrogance. Institutions, for conservatism, are more important than people.
You seem to forget, that without the people, we won't have anything.
I have been treating you Conservatives politely and with too much considerations of your eventual feelings. I've tried to appeal to consience, reason and logical thought. While I've been discussing with you Conservatives it has become more evident to me that you have no considerations for any other human beings than your peers. You have been showing that over and over again. You've proved to me, which I haven't really wanted to admit to myself, because I hoped you would listen to reason and that you would have any conscience, but now I'm convinced that Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
Democracy requires that people learn and practice a range of nontrivial social skills. But then people are not likely to learn or practice those skills so long as they have internalized a conservative psychology of deference. The rights revolution breaks this cycle. For the civil rights movement, for example, learning to read was not simply a means of registering to vote, but was also a means of liberation from the psychology of conservatism. Democratic institutions, as opposed to the inherited mysteries of conservative institutions, are made of the everyday exercise of advanced social skills by people who are liberated in this sense.
Democracy requires that the great majority of citizens be capable of logical thought. The purpose of reason is not to petition the authorities but to help other citizens to cut through the darkness of conservative deception. The essence of conservatism is to deprive the common people of the capacity to engage in democracy. The fact is that democracy needs the citizenry to be educated, and the skills of reason are the foundation of democratic education. Democracy cannot be established in any other way. Aristocratic rule is not reinforced by the use of reason. The situation is quite the reverse: in order to fight off democratic values, conservatism must simulate reason, and pretend that conservative deception is itself reason when it is not. Many conservative pundits, George Will and Thomas Sowell for example, make their living saying illogical things in a reasonable tone of voice. Democracy will be impossible until the great majority of citizens can identify in reasonable detail just how this trick works.
Last edited:
georges said:
Everybody that disagrees with Bush is biased, isnt that right georges!? I could post a link directly from God that says Bush is bad for this country and youd say that it's biased bullshit! Guess what georges, not everybody who disagrees with Bush is biased!
btw Despite what you think I dont believe everything Moore says!
member5726
Banned
Brino said:
Same with me... at least we're not brainwashed to think the same way and always agreeing... we are free to express different points of view !
Starman said:
Michael Moore insulted a president, he didn't criticized him he insulted him.Censorship no, rules are the rules and laws are the laws. When you insult a president and his government for what they are doing you have to be punished.
Michael Moore has just one right not to insult the president.He can criticize him politely but not insult him. Why aren't there any people like Moore in other countries because they know that if they start shit they will be punished.Michael Moore's way of making movies is more than highly questionnable and so are here sources and all the other things that concerns him.
Taking away your rights?:wtf: stop whining like a baby. order is a order and laws are laws you have to obey them if you go against them you have to be punished.
NOw the golden bs sentence " For conservatism, not accepting one's settled place in the traditional hierarchy of orders and classes is a kind of arrogance. Institutions, for conservatism, are more important than people."
Have all the people the same intelligence, the same ability to go far in studies, to think, to deal with responsabilities as well as the same way of working???.Answer is hellfuck no. So you can't put all the people in the same bag.
Democracy what is it?You think what you want, you can lead your life as want and with what you have. You want maybe a system like in Sweden (a socialistic not a socio democrat) ???:wtf:
On which earth are you??In your beloved Sweden?Us is not Sweden. Many people in the US who wark hard and bust their @sses don't want this kind of system.I understand them.
Why some principals and some directors of prestigious high schools don't accept many people from bad suburbs and scum bitches?
Because they have not respect for themselves, no respect for the others, they only want to take advantage of the others know how and they are lazy.The same is in firms.Easily understandable.
Democracy is possible with responsible, strongminded and determined people and not with people who want to allow all the kind of things which are unthinkable.
member5726
Banned
georges said:
And you base your opinions on what Georges ? What the republicans are feeding you... and you just keep eating it up, and agreeing with everything they do... just for once Georges, i would really like for you to disagree with Bush... just one thing... it could be just a very small thing... but please, stop being so biased yourself !
georges said:
Stop bringing your hatred of Moore into this!
1) I never said I was neutral, just that most (if not all) of my links are neutral!
2) Not even independants are neutral and it's stupid of you to say they are!
3) Again, I never said I agree with everything Moore says! Infact I never bring up Moore, you do! Everytime I say something (that has nothing to do with Moore) you bring Moore into it! You either really hate him to the point where you cant stop talking about him (in which case you need to see a therapist) or your in love with the guy! :lovecoupl
Last edited:
I am not afraid to say for who i am.I am for republicans so where is the big deal?bigdan1110 said:And you base your opinions on what Georges ? What the republicans are feeding you... and you just keep eating it up, and agreeing with everything they do... just for once Georges, i would really like for you to disagree with Bush... just one thing... it could be just a very small thing... but please, stop being so biased yourself !
I don't like democrats of today, understand? They are the shittiest democrat candidates ever and i hate Kerry.
You are supporting Kerry so aren't you biased yourself??
I imagine what will you receive if you insult a policeman.Probably a big lesson for having insulted the authority. The society isn't a dustbin BRino:nono:Maybe in ghetto scum suburbs that is the case but not in normal places where people live.Brino said:Your Wrong!
georges said:
That's fucking bullshit georges! Your changing the subject again! :2offtopic
People insult police here all the time, have you ever heard of the term "pig"!? I dont condone it but it's still done and still legal! The same applies when it comes to insulting the president!
Like I said I live in America so I know about these things unlike you!
btw And no I dont live in a "ghetto scum suburb" even though it wouldnt matter if I did!
Brino said:
I have heard about the term pig yes.
Would you have the balls to say pig in front of an officer?NO .You say it behind his back.Oh yes it would matter.The place you come from, tells a lot about your education and also about the social level.
THere are limits for freedom of speech.Do you even insult your teachers and high educated people you encounter? You think taht you are all allowed.???
Thank you, Georges, this response was golden! In one short and concise post you confirmed every single word I had written in my text about Conservatives! :rofl2: *laughing my ass off*
The modern democratic citizen is "modular", that is, capable of moving about within the society, building and rebuilding relationships and associations of diverse sorts, because of a set of social skills and social institutions that facilitate a generalized, dynamic mobility. The modular citizen gets a place in society not through birth or the bonds of an inherited order but through a gregarious kind of entrepreneurial innovation.
By depriving people of education and rights, you're trying to justify the hierarchical conservative order in terms of the values of community. You believe that everyone in a community is knitted to everyone else through a system of roles and relationships into which they are born, and which they supposedly accept and love. It is made to sound harmonious, and objections to it are made to sound divisive, by neglecting to mention the oppression of the life-long hierarchical bonds that make it up. For Conservatives modernity is understood in a negative way as an erosion of the particular types of community and order that traditional institutions provided.
And besides, the stupid thing is that I never wrote anything about "principals and some directors of prestigious high schools don't accept many people from bad suburbs". And I did never use the word "scum bitches" even once. You're just making things up as you go, without caring to read what I actually write. What I wrote is that everyone should have the right to get a good education. That is not the same thing.
Have you ever noticed the way that some people lead off an "argument" with words that are really long and official-sounding, and then descend into colloquialism and swearing?
Next, half of USAs population, HALF, want to have the democratic system rather than the conservative system. Have you forgotten places like California and New York? They are in USA too!!!
Maybe you should try to actually find out things for yourself, instead of being ruled by prejudiced thoughts? Oh, I forgot! That would require you to think outside the box, and force you to challenge your Conservative beliefs. Innovation is bad for you, and prejudice is good. Questioning is a threat to social order, and rational thought is evil. Nothing can be worse for the conservative than rational thought, because people who think rationally might decide to try replacing inherited institutions with new ones, something that a conservative regards as impossible.
It sounds very much on this, and your other posts, like you would like to turn USA into a police state where no one is allowed to speak his mind without having to fear the wrath of the authorities. That is the description of a Facist state. In fact you have many times resorted to Facist rhetorics in your posts. Well, I'm sorry, but half of USA's population doesn't agree with you, they agree with me. They want to have human rights and civil liberties. They do not want oppression. You seem to think that if one gives people freedom, the society will turn into an Anarchy. This is very cynic of you. You see the whole world as consisting of two sides like a coin, your side, which you see as good, and the other side, which you see as evil. I'm sorry, but the world is not two dimensional. The world is not governed by absolutes.
People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are Conservatives; Democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.
Some conservative rhetors have taken to literally demonizing the very notion of a democratic opposition. Rush Limbaugh has argued at length that Tom Daschle resembles Satan simply because he opposes George Bush's policies. Ever since then, Limbaugh has regularly identified Daschle as "el diablo". This is the emotional heart of conservatism: the notion that the conservative order is ordained by God and that anyone and anything that opposes the conservative order is infinitely evil.
Georges, go back to school!
Michael Moore has freedoms and rights of thought and opinion. He has not broken any laws, except for those that would have been in countries with an extreme form of Conservatism. (Nazism/Facism/Communism)
Georges, being born in a bad neighbourhood is not people's own fault. Just because you are born to a poor family doesn't mean you're lazy or stupid. The society is not a fixed order where everyone should stay put where they are. A poor person can very well be a whole lot smarter than you, but deprived from a good education, practical experience and patterns of thought that would be required in a democracy, he will never be able to rise to his full potential. You are not a better person than every one else by blood. You defend Conservatism like it was a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on Earth. You try by your arguments make the social order seem permanent and timeless.
The modern democratic citizen is "modular", that is, capable of moving about within the society, building and rebuilding relationships and associations of diverse sorts, because of a set of social skills and social institutions that facilitate a generalized, dynamic mobility. The modular citizen gets a place in society not through birth or the bonds of an inherited order but through a gregarious kind of entrepreneurial innovation.
By depriving people of education and rights, you're trying to justify the hierarchical conservative order in terms of the values of community. You believe that everyone in a community is knitted to everyone else through a system of roles and relationships into which they are born, and which they supposedly accept and love. It is made to sound harmonious, and objections to it are made to sound divisive, by neglecting to mention the oppression of the life-long hierarchical bonds that make it up. For Conservatives modernity is understood in a negative way as an erosion of the particular types of community and order that traditional institutions provided.
And besides, the stupid thing is that I never wrote anything about "principals and some directors of prestigious high schools don't accept many people from bad suburbs". And I did never use the word "scum bitches" even once. You're just making things up as you go, without caring to read what I actually write. What I wrote is that everyone should have the right to get a good education. That is not the same thing.
Have you ever noticed the way that some people lead off an "argument" with words that are really long and official-sounding, and then descend into colloquialism and swearing?
First, it's Social Democrat, not Socio(-path) or what the heck you tried to imply with that. Second, Sweden do not have a Socialistic system, and you're just trying to imply that Sweden is a Communism. That is pure nonsens. If you ever cared to check for facts, like we others do before we write anything, you would know that the only, I repeat only, difference between Socialdemocracy/Socialliberalism and other types of Liberalism, is that Socialdemocracy/Socialliberalism includes the motto Solidarity, a concept you've proved you have no notion of. All types of Liberalisms including Socialdemocracy have the three mottos Freedom, Equality, Democracy.
Next, half of USAs population, HALF, want to have the democratic system rather than the conservative system. Have you forgotten places like California and New York? They are in USA too!!!
Maybe you should try to actually find out things for yourself, instead of being ruled by prejudiced thoughts? Oh, I forgot! That would require you to think outside the box, and force you to challenge your Conservative beliefs. Innovation is bad for you, and prejudice is good. Questioning is a threat to social order, and rational thought is evil. Nothing can be worse for the conservative than rational thought, because people who think rationally might decide to try replacing inherited institutions with new ones, something that a conservative regards as impossible.
It sounds very much on this, and your other posts, like you would like to turn USA into a police state where no one is allowed to speak his mind without having to fear the wrath of the authorities. That is the description of a Facist state. In fact you have many times resorted to Facist rhetorics in your posts. Well, I'm sorry, but half of USA's population doesn't agree with you, they agree with me. They want to have human rights and civil liberties. They do not want oppression. You seem to think that if one gives people freedom, the society will turn into an Anarchy. This is very cynic of you. You see the whole world as consisting of two sides like a coin, your side, which you see as good, and the other side, which you see as evil. I'm sorry, but the world is not two dimensional. The world is not governed by absolutes.
People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are Conservatives; Democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.
Some conservative rhetors have taken to literally demonizing the very notion of a democratic opposition. Rush Limbaugh has argued at length that Tom Daschle resembles Satan simply because he opposes George Bush's policies. Ever since then, Limbaugh has regularly identified Daschle as "el diablo". This is the emotional heart of conservatism: the notion that the conservative order is ordained by God and that anyone and anything that opposes the conservative order is infinitely evil.
Georges, go back to school!
Frankly I can't understand how Bush could get elected... Yeah, well, I remember that he wasn't elected. He was appointed by the Supreme Court, where his daddy has many friends.
Projection (a psychological notion; it roughly means attacking someone by falsely claiming that they are attacking you.) was an important part of the Florida election controversy, for example when Republicans tried to get illegal ballots counted and prevent legal ballots from being counted, while claiming that Democrats were trying to steal the election.
Here's some quotes from all of the stupid stuff that comes out of Bush's mouth every time he opens it. Either he's dyslexic (but if he is, he should come out of the closet and reveal it, that would give me some new found respect for him), or maybe he's just been too plain ignorant and/or lazy to learn speaking like a normal functioning human being.
Bushims - http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
A dentist once told me that if people like their dentist, then they think he is doing a good job. That explains why the public thinks George W is doing a good job, they look at that face and listen to him and think he's a cute 12 year old kid who they take a liking to. I call it the "Likeability Factor" which also explains why so many Americans think Reagan was a good president. The public found him just darn likeable. Historians (most) have the unfortunate habit of discounting likeability in their overall assessment.
Almost the only people voting for the right-winged parties are:
A) Very rich
B) Having a poor education
C) Extremely Christian
It's one of these options, or a combination.
I've never heard of a *poor* person with a *good education* and being *Atheistic* voting for the right-wing parties...
I was talking to an American friend, who when she was talking to her parents, when she was home, about politics, her sister mentioned that a few of the teachers at her college have been accused by students of giving them information and putting a liberal slant on it. Her Mom said that with a lot of that information, the only conclusion a thinking, reasonable human being can come to has more liberal values.
I say, come to your own conclusions! Take away from the lesson what you want. I agree with her mom, that education shall set you free, and enable you to see through the deceptions and lies in our societies. I think better to be open-minded than closed- or narrow-minded, which the Conservatives are...
If the Conservatives disagrees with historians, then they claim that historians are out of touch. If the American public agrees with historians, then they claim that the historians clearly have imposed their values on students and citizens. If they make their political views clear, they are accused of imposing their politics in their classrooms and abusing their authority. If they keep them to ourselves, they're are irrelevant...
(1) You can't possibly believe that if the public disagrees with historians, then the historians must be out of touch. That's like saying that if I think I'm having a heart attack and the doctor says I'm just having heart burn, then the doctor must be out of touch. Clearly, the opinions of experts must be given at least as much weight as the opinions of non-experts.
(2) The public doesn't like Bush that much either. They may not think he's the worst ever, but his approval ratings are poor.
Listen, if you're spending a lot of time getting a good education, you should have the intelligence to understand that, all political beliefs aside, many of Bush's policies have failed. Just admit it and get over it. There have been bad Democratic presidents and bad Republican presidents. Bush is a bad Republican president. Just admit it. You don't have to vote for Kerry, but at least take enough of a step into reality to admit that Bush hasn't been that great.
Projection (a psychological notion; it roughly means attacking someone by falsely claiming that they are attacking you.) was an important part of the Florida election controversy, for example when Republicans tried to get illegal ballots counted and prevent legal ballots from being counted, while claiming that Democrats were trying to steal the election.
Here's some quotes from all of the stupid stuff that comes out of Bush's mouth every time he opens it. Either he's dyslexic (but if he is, he should come out of the closet and reveal it, that would give me some new found respect for him), or maybe he's just been too plain ignorant and/or lazy to learn speaking like a normal functioning human being.
Bushims - http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
A dentist once told me that if people like their dentist, then they think he is doing a good job. That explains why the public thinks George W is doing a good job, they look at that face and listen to him and think he's a cute 12 year old kid who they take a liking to. I call it the "Likeability Factor" which also explains why so many Americans think Reagan was a good president. The public found him just darn likeable. Historians (most) have the unfortunate habit of discounting likeability in their overall assessment.
Almost the only people voting for the right-winged parties are:
A) Very rich
B) Having a poor education
C) Extremely Christian
It's one of these options, or a combination.
I've never heard of a *poor* person with a *good education* and being *Atheistic* voting for the right-wing parties...
I was talking to an American friend, who when she was talking to her parents, when she was home, about politics, her sister mentioned that a few of the teachers at her college have been accused by students of giving them information and putting a liberal slant on it. Her Mom said that with a lot of that information, the only conclusion a thinking, reasonable human being can come to has more liberal values.
I say, come to your own conclusions! Take away from the lesson what you want. I agree with her mom, that education shall set you free, and enable you to see through the deceptions and lies in our societies. I think better to be open-minded than closed- or narrow-minded, which the Conservatives are...
If the Conservatives disagrees with historians, then they claim that historians are out of touch. If the American public agrees with historians, then they claim that the historians clearly have imposed their values on students and citizens. If they make their political views clear, they are accused of imposing their politics in their classrooms and abusing their authority. If they keep them to ourselves, they're are irrelevant...
(1) You can't possibly believe that if the public disagrees with historians, then the historians must be out of touch. That's like saying that if I think I'm having a heart attack and the doctor says I'm just having heart burn, then the doctor must be out of touch. Clearly, the opinions of experts must be given at least as much weight as the opinions of non-experts.
(2) The public doesn't like Bush that much either. They may not think he's the worst ever, but his approval ratings are poor.
Listen, if you're spending a lot of time getting a good education, you should have the intelligence to understand that, all political beliefs aside, many of Bush's policies have failed. Just admit it and get over it. There have been bad Democratic presidents and bad Republican presidents. Bush is a bad Republican president. Just admit it. You don't have to vote for Kerry, but at least take enough of a step into reality to admit that Bush hasn't been that great.
- Status
