That's what scares people.Originally Posted by Friendly1
Every time I see this guy speak, his body language -- his gestures and postures -- just scream out "You cannot
trust me!".
I am just blown away by how powerful his body language is. I suspect he is being overcoached in his
gestures. They don't seem natural at all.
Whatever people think of Bush, I haven't heard many people express
doubt about his sincerity. He truly believes in what he says.
I just have this recurring image of living through
another 8 years of Clintonesque scandals with Kerry.
Why do the Democrats go for these scary candidates like
Mondale, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry? Are there no honest people left on the liberal side of the isle, or are they all
TOO honest to get up there and try to deceive the American people?
Growing up as a teenager in Georgia, I
didn't much care for Jimmy Carter as President, but at least he was sincere about his feelings. (Which is not to
say that some of the Georgia newspapers didn't brand him as the biggest liar since Cain, but he was very honest
about his beliefs.)
That's what scares people.Originally Posted by Friendly1
Good observations, Friendly.
I rarely watch TV so hadn't noticed his body language. It reinforces my basic fear that we cannot trust either
candidate. Disappointing.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Friendly1, I'd like your
take on Cheney's body language in that particular debate.
Also, life was better for me under Clinton: gas
was $1.30; the stockmarket was booming; there wasn't any major war with our GIs getting killed daily; employment
was good; health care costs hadn't spiralled out of control; NORAD/CIA/US Air Force/FAA had never let us down
before (strange, huh?); France and Germany were reliable allies and friends; North Korea and Iran had no nukes; the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict was simmering but not raging out of control; our military wasn't stretched thin
beyond danger level; the National Guard guys and gals had their usual one weekend a month of socializing (and
training!) and were available for hurricane/disaster relief; airlines were making money and not laying off
people/shutting down pension funds; and - seemingly no hope is in sight to boot!!! Do I think Kerry would do a
better job - no.
I did not watch the
Cheney/Edwards debate. Sorry. I don't have any new opinions about Cheney, although he has always sort of spooked
me.
Politically, I am middle of the road. I like certain thing the Democrats advocate and certain things the
Republicans advocate. I think they're all way too extreme for my tastes.
The Clinton years were indifferent
for me. But right now, I could use a change in the economy, and I don't think we're going to get one any time
soon.
Kerry MIGHT bring that on, but at what cost? Bush might bring that on, but at what cost?
Presidential
elections are always a pain in the neck for me. You never hear the whole story from either side and I am just sick
and tired of the acrimonious attacks back and forth.
But if I had to vote for someone today, it would be Bush.
At least he doesn't leave me wondering about what comes next. I think it's pretty clear to everyone we're in
this for the long haul as far as our involvement across the globe goes. Kerry can't change that. But if he stands
before our nation and says, "This is the way things are", I want to feel like he at least believes what he is
saying, even if it turns out not to be true later on.
good points and I often
agree.
The issue with gas prices is a
real one and is probably directly related to Bush and company. It very much looks like the same kind of tricks the
energy companies were pulling during the energy crises in California a few years back.
The stock market was a
false bubble that many people knew was going to burst. It was largely related to the dot-com fiasco but there were
other factors involved as well. My broker warned me while Clinton was in office to get out of the market, that it
was due for a crash. The number of jobs lost due to that was and is beyond the control of the president or the
government in general. Off-shoring is one of the other major contributors to technology job loses and that was going
on well before Clinton left office and was, if not condoned by his administration, at least a blind eye was turned
to it. I could easily argue that the tax dodges that encourage companies to go off-shore are in large part
associated with the democrats, along with the higher taxes the so-called progressives are so cheerful about that the
large corporations are trying to dodge.
I don't know about where you are but American Airlines was laying
people off here long before Clinton left office, it was part of a trend that started during his tenure.
The
issue of war is a twisted one. The planning and preperation involved in the WTC attack took place during Clinton's
administration. The hijackers were allowed into the US to train to fly under Clinton. That is when the real failure
of our intellegence and security services took place. The WTC attack would have led to war regardless of who was
president. That's not to say I agree with invading Iraq, I don't. If we had spent $100,000,000,000 to hunt down
the real perpetrators, the world would be a safer place. In any case, the military would be involved which leads to
the next point. The democrats have been the ones leading the charge to downsize the military, if anybody is at fault
for the military being streched thin, it should be laid at the feet of those who lobbied for the downsizing of the
military. We were attacked and had little choice but to respond.
If you want to be picky, the terrorist attacks
on our country are a result of many years of failed policy under all presidents, be they democrats or republicans.
Our foreign policy has earned us contempt, resentment and ridicule the world round, both the overly aggressive
attempts to manage other country's governments and the appeasement attempts. We are lousy neighbors!
Does that
mean I think Bush is a good president? Absolutely not! But it doesn't mean I think Kerry will be any better.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I would stand defensive and
stiff on a stage with someone running around smerking, with facial tics, sneers, grunting and acting like a monkey
on a chain. Who probably was on chain or a wire. Look for the DVD movie In Search of Fire and watch it carefully. It
will clarify the whole body language discussion.
Many are going to be surprized with the results of this
election, ask the vets returning
from Iraq who they are going to vote for? Their answer will surprize you.
Elk
Nice post!Every time I see this guy
speak, his body language -- his gestures and postures -- just scream out "You cannot trust me!".
I am just blown
away by how powerful his body language is. I suspect he is being overcoached in his gestures. They don't seem
natural at all.
Whatever people think of Bush, I haven't heard many people express doubt about his sincerity. He
truly believes in what he says.
I just have this recurring image of living through another 8 years of
Clintonesque scandals with Kerry
I saw the same thing, I jsut didn't know what I was looking
at. I knew Kerry seemed too contrived, like he's trying to be someone he's not, trying to be what his coaches
tell him to be.
Bush has always seemed more sincere and natural. I'd much rather sit down and have a beer with
Bush than Kerry.
Bill Clinton just seemed slimy in the debates. I knew I couldn't trust him, but didn't know
why.
I'm still undecided on who to vote for. I don't think either of them can destroy the country, I hate
this "most important vote in this generation" crap.
I plan on on checking the polls, and if Missouri is close,
I'll vote for Bush or Kerry. If it isn't close, I'll be voting Badnarik. Kerry has pulled out of Missouri,
cancelled his TV ads, and sent his workers to other states. There's a pretty good chance Bush will take MO.
Bush Jr. has the same problem
his father did. He is pointing to some very obvious character flaws in his opponent, but he is not focusing on the
issues that really concern people. Bush Sr. said Clinton would turn out to be slimy, and he did. Jr. says Kerry
will flip-flop, and I believe that.
But I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 in part because I was mad at Sr. for not
understanding how many people were hurting financially. It looks to me like Jr. is in the same boat with Dad. He
just doesn't get it.
But I would rather have him calling the shots than Kerry. We don't need another Somalia.
Bush Sr. got us into it for good reasons. Clinton just bungled it, and then shamefully acted like we had suffered
a military defeat in the Battle of Mogadishu. Technically, we won, and we only suffered the casualties we did
because Clinton refused to give the troops the armored support they asked for.
Would Kerry be that wussy? I
hope not. But I'm afraid he would never do anything anywhere unless he had at least 150 nations sending troops
along with us.
We had a coalition of 30 nations going into Iraq. We don't have that now, and that's a mark
against Bush. But if Kerry is going to stand up there and insist we had no allies going into Iraq, I just can't
see him dealing honestly with us or anyone else on future military situations.
At least Bush hasn't tried to
cover up the scandals in his administration. He may not be the brightest lighbulb in the box, but at least we
don't have to wonder if he is going to be impeached.
Have you ever formed an impression based on body language, only to find out down the road thatOriginally Posted by Friendly1
you were just dead wrong? I'll bet the answer is yes.
Sometimes (maybe or maybe not in Kerry's case - I
don't know the man personally) body language can be really misleading and it is possible to read too much into it
all.
I do agree that his body language is rigid and unnatural, but maybe he just happens to suck at nonverbal
communication. (And, heck, maybe he's a bad dancer, too.)
Ba-dump-bump.At least Bush hasn't tried to cover up the
scandals in his administration.
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
Kerry is generally considered
the winner of the Presidential Debates in part because of his body language. He is said to have excellent debating
skills. Bush does come off as a bit of a rookie. I think most people would. What I see in Kerry is a very
polished, well-practiced set of mannerisms which occur over and over again. He just strikes me as very
artificial.
As for judging someone on the basis of their body language and finding out I was wrong, I haven't
been cognizant of the importance of body language long enough to have made some sort of discovery like that.
So
far, I am reasonably satisfied with the conclusions I've drawn about people I have met.
Koolking 1, Things were
better under Clinton. I have traveled Ohio,Indiana,and Michigan
this summer. You cannot believe the number of
people who have lost their jobs, unemployment benefits, and now their homes. Several businesses have failed others
are already starting pre Christmas clearance sales. 2005 car models are full on the lots. All of this is not related
to 9/11. A Ohio National Gardsman recently returned from duty in Iraq he found out his promised promotion and
orginal job did not exist. He beat the streets for a couple of weeks looking for non existent work before comitting
suicide. Bush's solution during the debate was to offer these folks retraining at Jr colleges or reeducation, God
knows for what jobs?
Bush himself was not successfull in business without the Saudi's bailing him out. He cannot
run the country any better. What are folks going to do give him 4 more years to drive us into a deeper hole?
I believe alot of what you say is exagerated myself (Especially the US Air Force comment,Originally Posted by koolking1
I dont see How we let you down)... Almost everything you say is in response to Sept. 11... not Bush. Bush at least
had the Kojones to do something about it. Things change.... and you gotta respond to them.
Adams
You really believe that? You think the economic slow down happened overnight orOriginally Posted by Elk Dreamer
even in as little as a year? Or even that the president has much control over it? What nonsense! It took years of
neglect before the situation came to a head with the stock market bubble collapsing, 9/11, energy costs and the war
in Iraq have only made matters worse. Bush is a terrible president but let's at least deal with the problem
honestly.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Yes, but doesn’t Bush’s body language scream, “I’m a cocky little bastard.”?Originally Posted by Friendly1
And even when he’s wearing his “man of the people” costume (no jacket, no tie, dress shirt with the sleeves rolled
up) he projects a strong “I’m rich and you’re not.” attitude.
I think it’s a bad idea to pick candidates
on the basis of their body language, but if that’s all we have to go by... What could be scarier than that famous
Bush smirk? That’s the sign of a strong malevolent streak — if not a downright sadistic personality.
And then there’s those moments when his eyes wander off while his mouth is still talking. I’m not sure how to read
that (Drugs? Brain damage? Voices from God?), but it sure doesn’t inspire confidence.
Give truth a chance.
A.K.A Great post. You have
it exactly B.M.O.C. Big Man on Campus I have seen a lot of them and they are not at your side when the going gets
tough. Cheney has some of the same sneers as he speaks out the side of his mouth. I think they have nothing but
contempt for the people they fool with their lies including the far right Christians who they manipulate so easily.
Belgareth take a good look at the energy crisis that came to a head early in California and the Cheney energy
meetings in DC which the Republicans went to court to keep from disclosing their discussions. I feel a brighter,
intelligent, President would have taken the Country in a far better direction than the quagmire pit in Iraq. None of
the Bush Boys have done well with their public service or business interests. Neil Bush who you seldom hear anything
about nowdays was the brother that ripped us off a few years ago with a massive Savings and Loan Scam. He and his
cohorts rode off scott free with the life savings of many folks. We were left with that empty bag. W is going to do
the same thing with this Countries resources if he can pull it off before enough people wake up.
I think people
are waking up. I think many are going to be surprized with the sweep that is going to take Kerry into office;
barring a contrived trumped up fear raising terrorist attack of some type. I see more Kerry/Edwards signs in usual
Republician territory than ever before that is one visible thing tells me that people are waking up.
Elk
Bush's personality has beenOriginally Posted by a.k.a.
described thusly on many occasions. And anyway, it's written all over his face: "Yee-haw, I'm above the
law!"
During all three debates, his demeanor was that of an arrogant little brat who'd been caught stealing
milk money, only to stamp his feet over the fact that someone had the balls to call him on it.
Unprofessional
and unpresidential.
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
Nothing wrong with that. As long as he expresses himself sincerely, we know where he stands.Originally Posted by a.k.a.
We are under no obligation to agree with him.
But as long as Kerry uses artificial gestures and poses to mislead
people into thinking he is being sincere, we have no idea of where he stands.
I think it's a bad idea to pick a
candidate on the basis of political speeches and television and radio advertisements, but that is how we do it,
isn't it?
This country seems more in love with the idea of picking the guy who can conduct the best poison pen
campaign than with the idea of finding a good, decent candidate and going with him (or her).
Friendly 1,
Read the
Party platforms, that gives you in depth positions on most issues and the Candidates seldom veer far from that
platform in their decision making. Some people pick their candidates according to looks only but the majority pick
on how the candidate and Party policies are affecting them personally. The guys coming home from Iraq have been
instructed not to talk but most of them I have talked with feel that Bush and company let them down with the whole
Iraq game plan. The growing AWOL list certainly indicates the current frustration levels.
Elk
If you'llOriginally Posted by Elk Dreamer
go back and read what I said, I believe that Bush and his gang are responsible for the energy crises issues. That
does not change the fact that you are laying the blame for some things on him that he simply could not have done.
All I am doing is trying to interject some small dose of reality.
I hope the country wakes up soon and realizes
that both parties are full of crap, both candidates are bought, paid for and owned by other interests and do not
have the best interests of you and I in mind. Clinton was not responsible for the economic growth except in as much
as he left it alone. At the same time, if he had been paying some attention to the economy he might have seen the
impending crash coming. But maybe he did, maybe he wanted the republicans to be blamed by an uninformed and gullible
public. I don't know.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I don't think mostOriginally Posted by belgareth
people will ever accept that. We had to put up with eight years of Clinton shenanigans because people didn't want
to believe that he was the shady character he turned out to be.
Bush's foreign policy has proven to be more
effective than Clinton's. During the Clinton administration, it was common enough for leaders of other nations to
launch into anti-American tirades. Now, about the only people doing that are terrorists and Democrats.
I wish
we could bring our troops home from Iraq today, but I'm glad we're not looking at another 12 years of Saddam
Hussein's blustering (and people don't seem to be aware of just how many troops we had committed to that region
even though we weren't technically at war with Iraq).
Do we have another few years in Iraq? Looks like it.
Doesn't matter who is President. The only way we can get out of Iraq is to build a stable Iraqi government.
We'll end up in a Vietnam-like quagmire if and only if there is a civil war. We haven't even begun to approach
Vietnam-like policies and politics. I hope it never comes to that.
Of course, it was the Democrats (Kennedy and
Johnson) who gave us the Vietnam quagmire. Nixon eventually got us out of there, although he reneged on several
campaign promises before doing so.
Carter gave us Iran.
Reagan gave us Beirut. But Reagan also stared down
the Soviet Union and their system crumbled from within (something which was bound to happen eventually).
Unfortunately, it seems like there is still a danger that Russia might revert to some of the old Soviet ways (or
never entirely abandoned them).
In the wake of September 11, I am grateful for the fact that I can drive down to
the local mall without concern for bomb-laden buses and suicide bombers.
When I read about the quagmire in
Israel and the Palestinian territories, I wish they would just stop killing each other. But that doesn't seem
likely to happen. It would benefit both sides to stop, but neither side has the will to back off and risk being
perceived in their own minds as weak.
Today's foreign policy is really only about one thing: making sure
everyone else perceives you as being strong. That is the way it is between India and Pakistan. That is the way it
is between Russia and the Chechen rebels. That is the way it is between Syria and the rest of the Middle East.
That is the way it is between the United States and the rest of the world.
Clinton made us seem weak, and we
paid the price for it. Until everyone else changes, looking weak and vacillating is a bad thing for us.
We had
better reasons for going into Iraq than people give us credit for. At the time, all we had to go on was the
now-discredited intelligence that Saddam Hussein was still building weapons of mass destruction.
Bush made the
right decision. He didn't order anyone to fabricate evidence to suport that decision. He could have timed it
differently, but once he made the ultimatum which followed that last U.N. resolution, the time table was set.
As
long as people continue to get their truths from propagandists like Michael Moore and Gun Boat Veterans for Truth, I
seriously doubt we'll ever have a well-informed electorate. We have highly opinionated voters, and that's about
it.
But we may get an unusually high voter turnout in a couple of weeks. If that happens, then the past few
months of political nonsense will have been more worthwhile than the previous several elections.
We are in agreement on almost
every point you made. The points of disagreement are:
1. Bush made the wrong decision to attack Iraq. He
justified it through fabrication. Saddam could have been marginalized by publicly ignoring him while keeping a
covert eye on his activities. Eventually he would have been regarded much as the boy who cried wolf. The effort
should have been focused on finding and punishing the people who really attacked us. Single-minded determination to
hunt them down then over-whelming force used to punish them would have demonstrated far more strength while creating
fewer enemies, IMHO.
2. Voters can be educated! I think the huge influx of registrations is a good sign. People
may be getting fed up with business as usual. I hope that a sizeable portion of them do not vote party, no matter
how they are registered. Of the ones who do vote party, how many are going to come away disillusioned when their
party wins and fails to fulfill promises? These people are finally registering to vote because they feel there is
something important to do. What happens when the promises are not fulfilled?
Whatever happens, the next few
years could be interesting.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Both of the previous posts are good. I do believe there were enough time to remove, give away to
terrorist or other rouge countries or burry the alleged weapons before we invaded. I am not convinced there were no
weapons. It has been proven there was the mind trust and intensions to manufacture WMDs. Friendly1, I agree with
you. I think it takes several years to feel the effects of a Presidential. So I think we are feeling the effects
of poor leadership from a prior administration. I was heartbroken to see someone disgrace the office with so many
scandals. I also think that the standards in America declined and moral decay ran ramped as a result. I do think
that Bush has re-instilled dignity and ethics to the Office of Presidency. It is true that a lot of the process of
campaigning is crap. I hate the mud slinging. The disinformation and misinformation runs ramped. A lot of the
promised are unobtainable. Also let’s not forget that the FBI, CIA, Great Britton and Russia all thought there were
WMD. Also France, Germany, The UN and Saddam Hussein all were dipping there hands into the oil for food money. So
it all comes out in the wash.
As far as
body language goes Kerry has the mismatched and rehearsed gestures, IMHO Bush is honest and possibly holding top
secret info in the interest of the people. That may be why he reacts kind of strangely. I my self have known
things I had to keep to my self and have had uninformed “ignorant” people make arguments based on unsubstantiated
information while I could not reveal my knowledge. It is a hard position to be in. I felt like screaming “You
Idiots, You Don’t Know What You Are Talking About” and spilling the beans. I did not and in time they knew the
wisdom I had and the inferiority of their previous positioning. Remember Kerry is an old pro when it comes to
politics, he is well rehearsed. Bush is not. But, Bush has grit.
HK45Mark23
Bush didn't fabricate anything. He wasn't in theOriginally Posted by belgareth
position to do that, much less get away with it. The media have done a pretty good job of determining that the only
fabrications came out of British intelligence. But neither Bush nor Blair ordered anyone to falsify intelligence.
They had no need to.
What happened was a gross misinterpretation of complicated evidence.
As for
marginalizing Saddam, that was never going to happen. We had committed almost 100,000 military personnel to the
region because of Saddam. And because of the sanctions against Iraq, thousands of Iraqi children were malnourished
and dying every year. We bear some responsibility for those deaths and hardships because the policy of sanctions
did not achieve what it was intended to achieve (the overthrow of Saddam).
Voters cannot be educated very well, because the2. Voters can be educated! I
think the huge influx of registrations is a good sign.
airwaves (and the Internet) are overwhelmed with partisan politics.
Look at how many people believe that Bush
stole the last election (an impossibility) and how many people believe that Bush falsified the intelligence leading
to the war in Iraq (another impossibility).
A great deal of nonsense is accepted as fact without challenge by a
lot of people. Even when the facts are published and discussed to death in the media, the false allegations (such
as these two points) which led to the revelations of the facts and all the subsequent analysis and discussion
continue to be endlessly repeated -- and therefore unnecessarily believed -- by millions of people.
There will
probably always be people who claim that Kerry's medals were not properly awarded and there will probably always be
people who claim that Bush did not finish his military service honorably.
Both charges are false. Both charges
continue to be repeated over and over.
The truth is always the first victim in any conflict. That rule applies
in Presidential politics as well as in all walks of life.
Regardless of all the
opinions expressed here, and most of them are simple opinions. Like As os we all have one. This election and the
aftermath is going to be one of the most interesting ever, due to the partispation of thousands of new people who
have been registered and are inspired by the controversies truth and untruths. You might just as well vote and hang
on for the ride boys. I voted two weeks ago. LOLOLO
Elk
Elk, this is true. I am glad to here that
you voted. I can't wait. Too many have not taken the issues seriously in the past. Your statements about
opinions are true. Thank God we live in a place where we can express our opinions. It is a wonder that we live in
a place where the people govern their selves as we do in this great democracy. I cherish the right to express my
self. I cherish the right to vote. When others don’t hold the same views and they diametrically oppose my beliefs,
I stand up and say, “I don’t agree but think God we can disagree in public and hold debate for the sake of
intellectual stimulation,” and I would fight to the death to protect this right. It is unfortunate, but most
debates only results in both parties being more deeply rooted in there beliefs. Seldom do people go home and think,
"Gee I think that I should reevaluate my position." Even if after doing so they still feel the same, then, at least
they did not just self justify as is human nature. I feel the point of the debate is to look at things from
multiple view points. For it is only after empathizing from many different perspectives, that one can start
obtaining the wisdom necessary to make rational decisions. Thanks.
HK45Mark23
Last edited by HK45Mark23; 10-17-2004 at 02:42 AM. Reason: minor correction
Friendly,
Ok, fabrication
was the wrong word. Your term 'Gross misinterpretation' is a much better term. Bush selected what he wanted to
believe based on his personal desires, IMHO. But the whole argument is based on the belief that we have the right or
obligation to act as the world's police, judge and jury. That's what we were doing in trying to oust Hussien.
Desert Storm was done right, including stopping when we did. The implementing of sanctions afterwards are of
debatable value as sanctions in general have proven to be pretty worthless in changing a country's direction. Look
at Cuba for a great example of that.
In Desert Storm we were asked to help defend an ally and we did so. The
difference is that we were not invited into Iraq by anybody, nor were we directly attacked by Iraq. We made the
decision to attack another country because we didn't like it's leadership. Another country's leadership, unless
physically attacking us, is not our business. The comment about the children dying, while a tragedy worthy of
humanitarian efforts, carries no weight while so many of our own are hungry and homeless. It certainly is not a good
reason to kill untold numbers of innocent bystanders in a foriegn land.
You state that voters cannot be educated
very well. In large part I agree with you because of the social/political climate we are working within. But to
believe they cannot be educated at all is another thing altogether. If I were to accept that trying to educate the
public is an impossible task, that would be tatamount to stating that our democratic system is unworkable. There is
some argument for that but in my idealism I choose to not accept it. Rather, I'd like to look at the long road of
believing that we can change the social/political climate. It doesn't much matter to me if you or anybody else
votes for Bush, Kerry or Donald Duck. What matters is that you take a little effort to learn the issues and vote
what/who you believe is in the best interests of the country as a whole. The information is readily available to
most people through one means or another without relying on the media or campaign mudslinging. The necessary
critical thinking skills and community interest can be taught, they were taught at one time but we've moved away
from that in our educational system.
"There will probably always be people who claim that Kerry's medals were
not properly awarded and there will probably always be people who claim that Bush did not finish his military
service honorably.
Both charges are false. Both charges continue to be repeated over and over."
There will
also be Flat Earthers and people who believe JFK's assasination was a CIA conspiracy. Teaching our children to
think rather than to memorize information would go a long ways towards correcting that. Holding politicians to their
word would also be a step in the right direction. So would elimination of the huge campaign contributions and term
limits.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Well stated. Good post. Not sure about Bush's motives, but very well put.
I also recall Nicholo Machiavelli stating something
to the effect that the morality of a leader is different from that of the common man. If a leader perceives a treat
to his people it is his obligation to assassinate the one who is the threat. I would not be ok for one of us to
kill some one, but if one of us was a king or a leader and we perceive a threat to the people it is our moral
obligation to the people to “take out” the threat. I use this concept when evaluating a threat to my family,
friends and anyone who I can prevent from suffering severe bodily harm or death. Clinton was also in the know about
the possibility of various threats from Bin laden to Hussein and did nothing. I don’t like the idea of the U.S. as
the world police but we are doomed if we act the part or don’t due to our strength and wealth. Don’t get me wrong I
am not for the Robin Hood idea. I believe in Jeffersonian democracy and capitalism.
HK45Mark23
I completely disagree with
Machiavellian philosophy on that point. It implies that a government has a higher authority than the people but in
fact the opposite is true. The people are the ultimate authority. Under that philosophy, I have no right to use
lethal force to defend myself but the government may use lethal force to require me to conform to the government's
decisions. I lose the right to voice my opinion if it is contradictory to the government's best interests, which
are not always the people's best interests. Government has an obligation to protect and to serve but wars of
aggression are never done to protect.
Again, you are speaking from the concept that we have a right to tell
others how to act, we don't! Reverse the situation and say that another country the size and strength of our own
decides our system is unfair and causing suffering and death to a percentage of our people. Arguably, it is
happening here in the United States in greater numbers than in Iraq. Do they have the right to invade the US to
enforce their beliefs on us? I think we would object rather forcefully, don't you?
Or take it down to the
micro: if your neighbor decides that they don't like the way you run your household, does your neighbor have the
right to come into your home and use force to change the way you do things? Then why should a government have the
right to do that with another country?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks