"Kerry Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief" (Letter)

1234568

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 176
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    The preamble of the constitution is just rhetoric?



    You, sir, disgust me.




    It's actually from the Gettysburg Address, not the preamble.
  • Reply 142 of 176
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    ok...



    fine...



    he still disgusts me...
  • Reply 143 of 176
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    ok...



    fine...



    he still disgusts me...




    Oh yeah. Don't get me wrong. Just wanted to point out that the phrase isn't in the constitution. In the end, SDW is correct about our government. We don't have a democracy. We have a representative republic. This is, of course, because herds of people make stupid decisions and the founders didn't trust the people to make good decisions. The phrase JS Mill uses is the "tyranny of the majority." Hell, that's really why the Constitution is there: to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.



    The idea, however, is that the representatives do what their constituents want them to do instead of just thumbing their noses at the electorate. This is the salient point that SDW seems to be missing, and despite his (?) hair-splitting about the president needing to attend to the will of the people, the simple fact remains that our officials (including the President) are elected to represent our interests.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 144 of 176
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Except that's not the way it works. You're just spewing forth rhetoric.





  • Reply 145 of 176
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    I completely agree.



    The idea of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority stems from Plato's republic, but there the leaders are hypothetical super humans who have the interest of all...



    Good thing that didn't happen... god knows what people who believe in that crap would think is best for the minority...
  • Reply 146 of 176
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Oh yeah. Don't get me wrong. Just wanted to point out that the phrase isn't in the constitution. In the end, SDW is correct about our government. We don't have a democracy. We have a representative republic. This is, of course, because herds of people make stupid decisions and the founders didn't trust the people to make good decisions. The phrase JS Mill uses is the "tyranny of the majority." Hell, that's really why the Constitution is there: to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.



    The idea, however, is that the representatives do what their constituents want them to do instead of just thumbing their noses at the electorate. This is the salient point that SDW seems to be missing, and despite his (?) hair-splitting about the president needing to attend to the will of the people, the simple fact remains that our officials (including the President) are elected to represent our interests.



    Cheers

    Scott






    Yes in a very real sense the president is supposed to work for us. Otherwise why are we paying him?
  • Reply 147 of 176
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    jimmac, you simply do NOT KNOW that there were never any weapons in Iraq. We know he used to have them. We know he used them. We know he didn't account for their destruction. We know he didn't account for thousands of tons of chemicals. And, we knew he wasn't fully cooperating and that he was hiding things. And from this, you conclude they weren't there? Why, because you couldn't see them? What about the chemical shells that were found before the war? What were they?



    WMD: more than just a river.
  • Reply 148 of 176
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
  • Reply 149 of 176
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    The preamble of the constitution is just rhetoric?



    You, sir, disgust me.



    Edit: After being humbly corrected by midwinter.... I am forced to admit my error... This should read: the spirit of the gettysburg address is just rhetoric?




    Look Mommy! A Straw Man!



    Leaders are elected to lead. They are not elected to take polls before making decisions. They don't have referendums on every issue, and more importantly, a leader that wins an election narrowly has every bit as much right to do his job as a leader that wins with a huge majority. What's an acceptable margin? 5%? 10%? 30% When is a political leader allowed to set an agenda?
  • Reply 150 of 176
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FormerLurker

    So what makes YOUR opinion any more special and unchallengable than mine?. Like I said, there is no shortage of information on why I don't like Bush. Your calling my opinion "illogical" and demanding that it be supported is completely hypocritical, and most ironically, completely illogical.



    Because you're the one(s) trashing the President, calling him the worst President in memory, etc, etc. Those claims require backing, which you really don't have. Whereas, I am not making "claims" per se. I am simply indicating my personal support for the President based on a number of factors. Let me put it this way: Let's say I make the following statement: "The Philadephia Eagles are the worst team in football". OK...well then, I'm going to have show some reasons for that claim. However, if I say "I don't like the Philadelphia Eagles at all", then that doesn't require as much backing. That's the difference.
  • Reply 151 of 176
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Oh yeah. Don't get me wrong. Just wanted to point out that the phrase isn't in the constitution. In the end, SDW is correct about our government. We don't have a democracy. We have a representative republic. This is, of course, because herds of people make stupid decisions and the founders didn't trust the people to make good decisions. The phrase JS Mill uses is the "tyranny of the majority." Hell, that's really why the Constitution is there: to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.



    The idea, however, is that the representatives do what their constituents want them to do instead of just thumbing their noses at the electorate. This is the salient point that SDW seems to be missing, and despite his (?) hair-splitting about the president needing to attend to the will of the people, the simple fact remains that our officials (including the President) are elected to represent our interests.



    Cheers

    Scott




    Ummm...no. And now you're letting the argument "creep" a little. We're talking about a leader being less legitimate because he doesn't get a large percentage of the vote. That's simply not the case. As far "doing what the constituents want", well that's flawed too. To determine that, a leader would have to use polling. We elect people to make decisions. If we end up not liking those decisions, we remove them and ty someone new. To take a poll to see "what people want" is not leadership.
  • Reply 152 of 176
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Look Mommy! A Straw Man!



    Leaders are elected to lead. They are not elected to take polls before making decisions. They don't have referendums on every issue, and more importantly, a leader that wins an election narrowly has every bit as much right to do his job as a leader that wins with a huge majority. What's an acceptable margin? 5%? 10%? 30% When is a political leader allowed to set an agenda?




    the very idea of a democracy (or for that matter a republic) leads credence to the suggestion that a leader who wins by a lot better represents the views of the people. No, a great leader doesn't poll -- a great leader knows what his citizens need and provides it for them. Bush polls (a lot).



    The idea of an agenda led political party is anti-intellectual at its core. The direction the nation takes should be natural and not stomped upon by the few that come to power. A benevolent monarch is better than a series of presidents who push contrary and often retarded agendas...
  • Reply 153 of 176
    greginmexgreginmex Posts: 30member
    I agree with SDW that the only real job of a leader is to lead. Leadership, of course, can take many forms. Some leaders are good at giving "the people" what they want, others convince the people of what they want, and still others convince the people that they are giving them what they want when in fact they are doing something very different (I'm looking at you, Mr Clinton!).



    Dubyah seems to be doing a mix of these three and adding a fourth facet: he does what he wants to do, and dismisses any criticism.



    In the US system, as it stands now, he's more or less free to do what he wants. In November the voters will have a chance to express their approval/disapproval/apathy. It isn't clear how the vote will go, of course. It could well be that enough people either like what he does (on balance) or don't care enough to vote against him.



    The Constitution had a very strong congress, very strong federalism, and a potentially strong supreme court to curtail most presidents' more extreme urges to lead. It was designed pretty specifically to block a strong executive (what with the King of England and all that in mind). FDR changed that, and since then we've had strong presidents most of the time (especially in foreign policy). The only pre-FDR president to really buck the system was Lincoln, and he almost lost the 1864 election to that loser McClellan even though the core of the Democratic Party leadership was in open rebellion at the time AND he got shot for his troubles. Sic semper tyrannis?



    All that said, I think there are several things that point to Dubyah being not very good. We are at a diplomatic nadir, for example. His economic policies haven't worked as they were sold (although they may be working as they were intended to). It looks like he'll have to fight to be reelected (not a sign of unalloyed success). And his domestic policy (other than taxes) seems to be improvised on the fly (steel tarrifs? gay marriage amendment? education policy? immigration policy?).



    What say you?
  • Reply 154 of 176
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Not to criticize you Greginmex, but presidents have been fairly weak since nixon... The power of W comes from the various acts congress has passed in support of vague resolutions, and in my opinion this administration has abused those "mandates"...
  • Reply 155 of 176
    greginmexgreginmex Posts: 30member
    billybobsky:



    I'll Grant (see how I did that? cute?) that Ford was a placeholder and not particularly powerful, but Carter got most of the things done he set out to do. Reagan? There are millions of people who are STILL hovering in mid jump waiting for his answer to "how high?" George I got most of what he wanted, as well. As for Clinton: I think the immortal words of SNL's Darryl Hammonds (in character) will suffice: "I AM BULLETPROOF."



    There has been smoke from time to time (Iran Contra, Whitewater, etc) but precious little fire. Reagan and Clinton, of course, cruised to reelection. Carter and George I had some bad luck (and really strong opponents). Dubyah? We shall see. Things aren't going as well as he might have hoped, but Kerry is hardly a tubthumper.
  • Reply 156 of 176
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    while the presidents got what they wanted (often but certainly not always), they had to act through congress... even clinton lost the power to go into formal trade agreements (i think that was what it was) that had been a main stay of presidential power for sometime... the most power obtained by a president during the last thirty years was the line item veto which as we know didn't last that long...
  • Reply 157 of 176
    greginmexgreginmex Posts: 30member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by billybobsky

    while the presidents got what they wanted (often but certainly not always), they had to act through congress... even clinton lost the power to go into formal trade agreements (i think that was what it was) that had been a main stay of presidential power for sometime... the most power obtained by a president during the last thirty years was the line item veto which as we know didn't last that long...



    The trade thing, if I recall correctly, wasn't all that old. Of course, Clinton brought in NAFTA (which was George the Elder's baby), and was the poster boy for WTO, Gatt, the IMF, the World Bank, and the general glories of globalization, not to mention MFN for China.



    I also recall that he didn't want the line item veto and therefore didn't fight to keep it. Quite right, constitutionally (although it had the potential to eliminate some pork).



    Particularly when you consider that the Republicans had the House after 1994, Clinton had a pretty spectacular run of things in terms of getting what he wanted. Mind you, I loathe a high percentage of what he wanted, but he was very good at getting his things through, and even his fiercest critics will admit that, had he been able, he would likely have gotten a third term.



    But yes, there is still a congress and a court (the states are long gone). They don't put up much of a fight on most things, though. And anyway, I hedged in my original post by saying "especially on foreign policy".
  • Reply 158 of 176
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Because you're the one(s) trashing the President, calling him the worst President in memory, etc, etc. Those claims require backing, which you really don't have.



    Wrong Again.



    As you alluded to, I originally posted my opinion in agreement with someone else making the same statement. Also, as I have mentioned, there are hundreds if not thousands of posts on these boards with very specific reasons why I and many others find Bush to be the worst president in our lives. Since you obviously disagree, than you must have in mind some other president since Nixon, that was worse. And of course, you can support your choice for Worst President Ever by citing specific examples of actions, policies, etc. Saying you like Bush does not logically contradict the original statement - giving your alternate choice for Worst President, along with the reasons why, does.



    Your claims require backing, which you really don't have.
  • Reply 159 of 176
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Because you're the one(s) trashing the President, calling him the worst President in memory, etc, etc. Those claims require backing, which you really don't have. Whereas, I am not making "claims" per se. I am simply indicating my personal support for the President based on a number of factors. Let me put it this way: Let's say I make the following statement: "The Philadephia Eagles are the worst team in football". OK...well then, I'm going to have show some reasons for that claim. However, if I say "I don't like the Philadelphia Eagles at all", then that doesn't require as much backing. That's the difference.



    Not how it works. "I" feel the Browns are the greatest team ever. I don't have to justify myself. I don't have to tell how I grew up in the dog pound wathcing Kosar throw sidearm and watching Stover save the game. I don't have to tell how Moon beat the Browns in a 2 minute drive which didn't lessen my opinion of da Browns. I don't have to tell anyone about my dad driving me to meet Jim Brown (my dad knew him). I don't have to show you or anyone else stats and figures because to me the Browns will always be number 1.



    Same thing here Bush blows the big one in my opinion. I don't have to justify it. It's my opinion and it is every bit as valid as the opinions you hold.
  • Reply 160 of 176
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by faust9

    Not how it works. "I" feel the Browns are the greatest team ever. I don't have to justify myself. I don't have to tell how I grew up in the dog pound wathcing Kosar throw sidearm and watching Stover save the game. I don't have to tell how Moon beat the Browns in a 2 minute drive which didn't lessen my opinion of da Browns. I don't have to tell anyone about my dad driving me to meet Jim Brown (my dad knew him). I don't have to show you or anyone else stats and figures because to me the Browns will always be number 1.



    Same thing here Bush blows the big one in my opinion. I don't have to justify it. It's my opinion and it is every bit as valid as the opinions you hold.




    NO !!!!!!. . . . . THE STEELERS!!!!!!



Sign In or Register to comment.