Female President?

---

Given that our military (including the Guard) is deployed all over the Middle East, it might just be a good time to attack the U.S. But it won't be China or Russia. It will be all the crazy terrorists who've been trained in the Iraq war, along with all the crazy people who were radicalized in Europe becuause of the war. They will blow something up, and we will be as unprepared as we were for the hurricanes that just hit the gulf coast, and now the terrorists know it. That, after all the billions that were squandered by the Homeland Security department.All of your guns won't do any good if buildings and bridges get blown up.

if they know it they would have done something already! im sorry but hurricanes are a lot more unpredicable then a couple of radical terrorists!

Do you think they can just whip up a plot in a week and blow up downtown? It's not that easy. And our intelligence is not good enough to know where every terrorist is or what they're doing. It's still not that hard to hide out in a country of 300 million.It doesn't matter how unpredictable hurricanes are. In fact, it was known pretty well where Katrina was heading and how poweful it was a couple of days before it made landfall. (In fact, it passed about 20 miles north of where I live, killed 11 people, and knocked out a million people's power). The proper response to that sort of thing is not that big of a mystery. When hurricane Andrew came through South Florida in the early 90's, the response was a hell of a lot better. But that was when FEMA actually functioned, before the next president put incompetent hacks in the top positions in the agency, and the people who had a clue got pissed and left. It all was so predictable.The terrorists hit New York, Madrid, and London, among other places, and no one predicted those attacks. Have we suddenly become infinitely smart?And now they're totally disorganized and befuddled in trying to respond to a potentailly deadly flu outbreak. We're already pretty screwed there (look up "Tamiflu" if you want to learn more about that fiasco).

well no one expected pearl harbor to happen. we just got too big for our own good thats all. we wisened up.

The problem is that we were attacked on 9/11, and improved some aspects of our intelligence gathering, but we obviously have not made much progress in our ability do deal with huge catastrophes. Maybe that's only the case in poor areas...we'll have to see.

Speaking of terrorist attacks. Did you hear about the information they found in iraq about them planning to attack new york again? That really stinks.

If you're talking about the most recent scare about the subway getting bombed, it turned out to be a fraud.

oh ok good thanks.

> I guess you don't know what a poll is. A poll is something that surveys a limited amount of people, not the whole nation.

I guess you don't subscribe to the ideas of statistical science, or the terms "statistical certainty" and "statistical error".

> When the entire nation was polled, they obviously chose Bush.

Interestingly, I was talking about current polls, and you're talking about last year's election. It appears that, if they had it to do over again, a lot of people would vote differently. Bush is very unpopular right now.

> And to the Bush thing. I don't defend him, I defend the party.

I don't understand the idea of "defending the party". It sounds Stalinist. I think the Democrats are weak, corrupt, devoid of ideas, and disorganized. I think the Republicans are corrupt, grasping, uncaring about civil liberties, and getting weaker. The Republicans have become what the Democrats were in the early 90's, but they did it even more quickly than the Democrats did.

> To the language thing, would you not prefer us all to be speaking one language, and instead of lots of small printed lines (for example) on products have one larger one in English instead of in spanish, french, german, and italian?

Companies should be allowed to do what they want. If they think that they can sell more products more profitably by using multiple languages, they should be able to. I'm not aware of any language requirement existing in the U.S., one way or the other, besides the nutritional labeling requirements.

What happens if, in 100 years, the majority of Americans' primary language is not English? There's no language requirement in the Constitution. Do you think it should be amended?

> Back when the origonal immigrants were coming, they were of plently of races, and they made their own culture themselves. They learned English, they got jobs, they made families, and so we became diverse.

And they're still doing the same thing.

> We are the land of opprotunity.

Compared to Mexico and Haiti, we sure are. Compared to Europe....not so much.

> Now, immigrants who come here (il)legally and learn to cope to America I call Americans, but those who come here legally or illegally and insist on having America cope with THEM, I hate. Thats just so lazy how they come here, take a job, and won't even blend into society.

I don't know what you mean by their forcing Americans to cope with them. Most of them are lying low, trying not to be caught. Some state and local governments are passing (or trying to pass) laws that they think are in their own best interests (i.e., it's better for them to be licensed to drive; it's better to know who they are for security purposes; it's better to have their children educated than not educated; etc.). These ideas may be good, or they may be wrong-headed, but illegal immigrants are not exactly a political powerbase, and they're not forcing anything.

> Now to defending myself. I do read books. Alot of them. Whenever I go to Borders, you can find me in two different places: Hisotry or Politcs. I read both views, though I prefer conservative. In my opinion, the things liberals have wrong are : affirmative action, trying to take guns away (i mean, if you could take them all away, okay, but you can't) and other issues.

It's good that you read books. There are also many valuable books that have no political axe to grind either way. If your list comprises all all of the problems that you have with liberals, then there are a lot of liberals that you'll like.

You should consider the ideas of libertarianism versus those of the left or right.

Do you understand the dictionary definition of "liberal" (as in "liberal education), rather than the poisoned definition that conservatives (probably starting with Barry Goldwater) conjured up?

>> It's not a good idea to have grade after grade in the public schools taught in foreign languages.

> I don't see what you mean here, and I don't see anything backing it up.

I thought I was trying to agree with you. That'll show me.

I mean that, if someone comes to this country speaking language X, then that person should study English intensively, and not be offered classes in language X year after year. It's not in the student's best interest to graduate school in the U.S. unable to communicate well in English.