Re: Obama's War With Pakistan
- From: mike3 <mike4ty4@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:38:49 -0700
On Aug 4, 4:00 pm, Gene <Ch...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1186260292.312188.49190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:<snip>
It does not matter -- the fact that he has the power to ignore the
people without any consideration at all is what matters. It is far too
easy then to abuse, as you can see. If he did not have that power he
could not have duped everyone in the first place and something
would've been done. We might not have even had 911.
That is a democracy - part of the responsibility rests with the voters
choosing wisely which is why a good primary and secondary education is
important to every liberal and very few repugs.
A real democracy though means the people also must have some
input on the governing itself. If the president does not listen to his
people even when they are marching down all the streets protesting
left and right, he is a miserable, MISERABLE failure.
Especially when none of the candidates are _perfect_ -- they must
be willing to admit wrongness if they are actually elected into
office,
and they must still take the people's will into account. Democracy is
a two-way street. This is a fact that both "liberals" and
"conservatives"
cannot get their head around. If the people did make an error, then
and then they decide to correct their error, then the president must
reform their vision to accomodate this, otherwise you're suggesting
the people should just put up with crap, and I don't buy into that and
never, ever will.
He does not even listen to the people in the government. If anyone
he should at least reasses his vision based on their input. Like all
those in Congress who have been sending bills to pull troops out.
He should take that dang seriously.
Bush is as bad as it gets. Listening to the people would not make
things too much worse -- worst case, that is. Best case it would
actually help.
Rove and Cheney are worse than Bush. Bush had an average stint as govenor
of Texas - he actually compromised with the democrats and got things
done. On the otherhand, he also set the record for executions for a
modern govenor.
What did Cheney do worse, anyway?
And if the presidents altered their visions depending on the
collective
will of the people, that would be much _better_.
<snip>
He better listen to the PEOPLE, NOW.
He will listen to Rove and Cheney and that's about it.
But I'm saying what a REAL president should do, not what Bush,
a failed president, is doing.
<snip>
We humans are not ready to all hold hands and sing Kumbaya around the
UN Building and that is apparent in every country I've visited or
lived in.
Then let's become "ready". And what would happen if we weren't
"ready"? Could trying to have peace now paradoxically cause us to
destroy ourselves to extinction?!
The world MUST have peace and we MUST CHANGE NOW.
It will require an enormous effort from every single human being on
the planet and with all their little heart and soul poured right into
it but the result will be that humanity will survive, prosper, have
peace, and more.
Do you agree with my assessment here? If not, why? You
don't want it to happen? What would happen if we tried to do it
when we were'nt "ready", anyway? We couldn't go extinct
obviously (how can _peace_ do that? It can't!) but what?
<snip>
Oil will run out soon, BTW (next 50-100 years. Peak oil has either
already happened or will happen in the next 5-10 years. After that
expect major disruption to all economies in 15 or more years.).
All that means for first world countries is a little inconvienence. We
have enough coal to make 'oil' for many years.
What it means for the third world is castastrophy.
Doing that with the coal will only totally push the global environment
past the breaking point. We'd do ourselves in a big, big one.
<snip>
And in order to determine those values he must LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE
AND MODIFY HIS VISION ACCORDINGLY. Not when you have a conversation
with God daily and see the bible as a literal book of instructions.
But you've been saying the president should not listen to the people.
<snip>
But we should be able to criticize their vision one they're already in
and they MUST listen. If even ONE person has a very good point it must
be heard.
You can be heard - the problem is the audience. We have the right of free
speech and we also have the right not to listen.
But they SHOULD listen.
<snip>
Sometimes people learn by word and sometimes by deed. If I advise against
a particular route and my boss decides he is taking another then I don't
push it any further. Instead I want him to reach the decision that his
choice was a bad choice as painless and as quick as possible and the best
way to do that is to help him try his choice out as best as you can.
Sure. but that also has a limit which depends on the whether wrong is
illegal or just a difference of opinion.
But a GOOD boss will listen and take your consideration seriously.
The bad boss that does not want to honestly reexamine his choiced
in face of intensive, rational criticism from all sorts of people is
just that:
a bad, bad boss.
Hence why I would never go off to fight in the war.
The problem we have today is that over half the population believes
our 'boss' is at least unreasonable and possibly criminal in his
actions.
That's far from a problem -- that's a good thing and I support it and
hope it continues as long as the shrubby is in office and we don't
stop doing it with any future bad "leader" we may get.
You did not answer this point.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Saddam died like a man
- Next by Date: Re: Thank you, Ann Coulter
- Previous by thread: Re: #911
- Next by thread: 9/11 Conspiracy Wackos Get More Support - Castro Believes it Too
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
