The Good and the Evil
A Question From My Blog:Q. I know this can't happen with our blessed leader... but... what if what he believes is the right thing to do is actually the wrong thing to do? Does the fact that he believes it is the right thing to do somehow always make it right? Just wonderin'... ya know... (Les Ismore)
A. First, don't be snide about our 'blessed' leaders. We, here at my blog, genuinely DO bless them, you know. (And the 'just askin's at the end aren't necessary either--I see enough of THAT at DU...)
About what you were 'just a-wonderin'... All leaders can believe something is 'right' that turns out to be 'wrong'; so many of the end results of human interaction are based on the behaviors and reactions of others.
Let's say I find a thousand dollars... A man approaches me and says he has a great need for $500 of it--so I give it to him. If he then takes that money and buys gasoline and burns down a neighborhood, who would think I had necessarily done the right thing? Wouldn't there be those who'd cry:
--"Why were you mixing in his business that way? Let him work for his money!"
--"Why didn't you get to know him better before you gave the money to him?"
--"Why didn't you ask others about him and check him out more?"
--"Why didn't you give the money to ME; I had a greater need..."
--"Why didn't you supervise him better yourself and force him to do good with it?"
--"Why didn't you make him sign a contract saying the money could only be used for certain things after we all talked about it?"
--"Why didn't you listen to Joe--he told everyone the man was angry about something..."
--"Why weren't you nicer to him when you gave him the money? Maybe then he would've confided in you..."
--"Why didn't you wait longer to see if he had a real need for it?"
--"Why didn't you ask us first if you should've given him the money?"
All of these various excuses--in one form or another--have been used to vilify the decisions the President has made regarding 9/11, Saddam, going into Iraq, trying to solve the mid-east conflicts, immigration--and nearly everything else in his entire Presidency. Which one of them is more imperative than the others? Would you still pick that one BEFORE the man burned up the neighborhood--or only in hindsight, after you knew the terrible result of his actions? Who would know the perfect action to take IN ADVANCE?
Giving away the money would, in all probability, only be judged a bad thing AFTER the terrible end-result had been achieved. Thus, that judgement would be based upon the actions of the man to whom the money was given, NOT the one who gave it away. So who is truly in the wrong?
The Dems--in a purely political move--have chosen to see President Bush as the 'wrong' one in all available scenarios. They deliberately turn from prior acts, available facts, matters outside of the President's control, and the responsibility of others when evaluating the President's decisions. They have very neatly--and quite deliberately--put the President into a trap. Read the excuses offered in the money situation I posed. Many of them touted as a preventative are pretty invasive, controlling, restrictive. Every time the President uses any of them, the Dems scream he is 'destroying the Constitution!'. Use them and Bush is deemed a Fascist, don't use them and he is branded as incompetent, stupid, and deserving of impeachment.
Do you think that we don't see this? You think this moral sleight-of-hand has gone unnoticed? Do you think that we don't know that the Dems are doing this on purpose?
There is a huge, enormous, and over whelming difference between being good, thinking good thoughts, having genuine good in your heart, and making a mistake--and doing things out of sheer self-interest, personal aggrandizement, and political intrigue. You Dems insist on thinking that President Bush consists of all of the latter and none of the former--and you do it with the very rationale for which you blame him: Your own self-righteousness, political power, and partisanship.
In a nutshell, you want to win elections--and you think branding President Bush as evil is the surest way to do that. All of the ordinary, humane forbearance in understanding that we are fallible, that we are capable of making mistakes, you put aside with him (though you lavish it on your own). You demand that President Bush be better than that. You insist that he be more perfect than humans are humanly made.
You construct silly arguments ('why is ChimpyMcFlightsuit relaxing at his ranch today when 'our boys' are dying in Iraq so Darth Cheney can spend more money from Halliburton?"), blame him for nonsensicals ("our Constitution is now a butt-rag", "there'll be no elections in '08--Chucklenuts is going to crown himself king", "we liberals will be sent to concentration camps", "we're all gonna be drafted!"), and bandy-about the most pernicious lies ("didja see how drunk Bushitler was when he laid the wreath at Arlington?", "Laura Bush murdered a fellow classmate!", "Bush is getting ready to take over the world!")
So much hyperbole--and plain damned nonsense--has been spread that getting to a sensible argument is virtually impossible. (How can we even reasonably discuss the War On Terror when 1/3 of those registered as Democrat party members think Bush designed 9/11, and that the 7 minutes he sat organizing his thoughts when first hearing the news about it (and, no doubt waiting for Air Force One to be getting geared up) was akin to being MIA, at best--and part of a plot to ensure maximum damage, at worst?
Thus, the proper question is not 'what if what he believes is the right thing to do is actually the wrong thing to do?" but, "why do you Demmies insist on painting ALL his decisions as not just wrong, but evil--and what part of your political processes are you trying to serve by doing that?"
I think I already know the answer.
A. First, don't be snide about our 'blessed' leaders. We, here at my blog, genuinely DO bless them, you know. (And the 'just askin's at the end aren't necessary either--I see enough of THAT at DU...)
About what you were 'just a-wonderin'... All leaders can believe something is 'right' that turns out to be 'wrong'; so many of the end results of human interaction are based on the behaviors and reactions of others.
Let's say I find a thousand dollars... A man approaches me and says he has a great need for $500 of it--so I give it to him. If he then takes that money and buys gasoline and burns down a neighborhood, who would think I had necessarily done the right thing? Wouldn't there be those who'd cry:
--"Why were you mixing in his business that way? Let him work for his money!"
--"Why didn't you get to know him better before you gave the money to him?"
--"Why didn't you ask others about him and check him out more?"
--"Why didn't you give the money to ME; I had a greater need..."
--"Why didn't you supervise him better yourself and force him to do good with it?"
--"Why didn't you make him sign a contract saying the money could only be used for certain things after we all talked about it?"
--"Why didn't you listen to Joe--he told everyone the man was angry about something..."
--"Why weren't you nicer to him when you gave him the money? Maybe then he would've confided in you..."
--"Why didn't you wait longer to see if he had a real need for it?"
--"Why didn't you ask us first if you should've given him the money?"
All of these various excuses--in one form or another--have been used to vilify the decisions the President has made regarding 9/11, Saddam, going into Iraq, trying to solve the mid-east conflicts, immigration--and nearly everything else in his entire Presidency. Which one of them is more imperative than the others? Would you still pick that one BEFORE the man burned up the neighborhood--or only in hindsight, after you knew the terrible result of his actions? Who would know the perfect action to take IN ADVANCE?
Giving away the money would, in all probability, only be judged a bad thing AFTER the terrible end-result had been achieved. Thus, that judgement would be based upon the actions of the man to whom the money was given, NOT the one who gave it away. So who is truly in the wrong?
The Dems--in a purely political move--have chosen to see President Bush as the 'wrong' one in all available scenarios. They deliberately turn from prior acts, available facts, matters outside of the President's control, and the responsibility of others when evaluating the President's decisions. They have very neatly--and quite deliberately--put the President into a trap. Read the excuses offered in the money situation I posed. Many of them touted as a preventative are pretty invasive, controlling, restrictive. Every time the President uses any of them, the Dems scream he is 'destroying the Constitution!'. Use them and Bush is deemed a Fascist, don't use them and he is branded as incompetent, stupid, and deserving of impeachment.
Do you think that we don't see this? You think this moral sleight-of-hand has gone unnoticed? Do you think that we don't know that the Dems are doing this on purpose?
There is a huge, enormous, and over whelming difference between being good, thinking good thoughts, having genuine good in your heart, and making a mistake--and doing things out of sheer self-interest, personal aggrandizement, and political intrigue. You Dems insist on thinking that President Bush consists of all of the latter and none of the former--and you do it with the very rationale for which you blame him: Your own self-righteousness, political power, and partisanship.
In a nutshell, you want to win elections--and you think branding President Bush as evil is the surest way to do that. All of the ordinary, humane forbearance in understanding that we are fallible, that we are capable of making mistakes, you put aside with him (though you lavish it on your own). You demand that President Bush be better than that. You insist that he be more perfect than humans are humanly made.
You construct silly arguments ('why is ChimpyMcFlightsuit relaxing at his ranch today when 'our boys' are dying in Iraq so Darth Cheney can spend more money from Halliburton?"), blame him for nonsensicals ("our Constitution is now a butt-rag", "there'll be no elections in '08--Chucklenuts is going to crown himself king", "we liberals will be sent to concentration camps", "we're all gonna be drafted!"), and bandy-about the most pernicious lies ("didja see how drunk Bushitler was when he laid the wreath at Arlington?", "Laura Bush murdered a fellow classmate!", "Bush is getting ready to take over the world!")
So much hyperbole--and plain damned nonsense--has been spread that getting to a sensible argument is virtually impossible. (How can we even reasonably discuss the War On Terror when 1/3 of those registered as Democrat party members think Bush designed 9/11, and that the 7 minutes he sat organizing his thoughts when first hearing the news about it (and, no doubt waiting for Air Force One to be getting geared up) was akin to being MIA, at best--and part of a plot to ensure maximum damage, at worst?
Thus, the proper question is not 'what if what he believes is the right thing to do is actually the wrong thing to do?" but, "why do you Demmies insist on painting ALL his decisions as not just wrong, but evil--and what part of your political processes are you trying to serve by doing that?"
I think I already know the answer.
posted by VerityINK at 12:38 PM
Information:
26 Comments:
Excellent column, Donal!
And I think you've revealed something here; liberals suffer from several psychological disorders. Among those are paranoia, projection and transference. They're always accusing the President of the disreputable, nefarious deeds & motives they demonstrate in everything they do.
I completely agree with every word you wrote. Great job!
Thank you so much Patsy! That means an awful lot to me to hear--esp. from you, hon! Made my day!
Very well said. You should submit that to RealClearPolitics.
Thank you, Russet Shadows! I'm not sure how to go about doing that, but that was a heck of a compliment--what a boost!
Excellent post Donal, with some difficult moral questions. If you give someone money and they do something evil with it, an evil you had no idea would happen, no you can't be blamed for that. Just as our parents gave us life, and instilled in us the best virtues they could and we kill someone, can they be held responsible? Again, no.We who did the killing are. We are all free do decide for ourselves, rightly or wrongly, but its important in all cases to decide for ourselves. Who can know what is the right choice or wrong? Life is never so clear-cut. As I said once before, evil is something we can resist, collectively or at the least we can resist in ourselves. As to "les'', the man is an imbecile really, someone who seems to enjoy being contrary, the adult version of the child who maddens you by repeating everything you said. A sort of "I know you are but what am I''? But you certainly aren't contrary Donal, and thank God for that:-) You know, this past week I was talking with Morgan and I told him that "Donal is the best, she makes it all happen so we can be with each other, sharing our thoughts and friendship through her blog''. And he certainly agreed with that! Keep on keeping Mrs D. Batyas called it about you alright "Yofi'', and you ARE beautiful, in all you do. J'Mac.
You used great logic in your argument, Donal. I doubt if Less can answer ANY of it!
If you get the old; but, but, but, write it off, in that case les doesn't want the truth, he just wants his own way!
You wrote well and answered the question, but more importantly, you volleyed the ball back to his side. Hopefully he thinks before opening his mouth!
I get soooooo tired of the knee-jerk reactions, and canned answers. Does anyone actually use their brains?
It's like the joke; "If you get a brain transplant, you can get a woman's brain for $750 or a man's for $15,000. Why is the man's brain so pricey? It's never been used!"
I would say that the corellary to that is, a male DUer's brain is $20,000, because it was never taken out of the wrapper!
Of course conservative, godly male brains are only worth about $800!
JUST KIDDING GUYS!
tmw
J'MAC, you are so sweet! Thank you so much for your thoughtful words! You've been such a good friend to everyone here--and especially to me. It's smart, honest, warm people like you, J'Mac, that make my blog what it is--I couldn't do it without ya! You've really touched my heart very much and I can't help but think that knowing you makes me a very, very lucky gal!
I thought your whole write up here, was just excellent.
It seems Republican Presidents are held to such incredibly divine standards.
The arguement about giving someone money, who in turn, does evil is quite good.
In the world of today, this is how we are constantly attacking people.
SOmeone shoots someone..hey, no problem. Run out and sue the gun maker, or the person who had a shop that sold guns, or sold bullets.
You drive a car that ends up in a crash? Does death come a knocking?
No problem, just do what the Edwards do... sue the car maker.
See..there is this really bizarre condition that seems to affect some people.
It is called..not facing reality or accepting responsibility.
Got a bad tropical storm coming to your nation?
well, no sweat, surely that guy in DC can control that event, make the waters part, or whatever .
Forget that the governor of the state is tasked with looking out for the citizens, and forget that humans can walk, talk and move their butts out of the way of said storm.
If all else fails, look for someone to blame..that guy in DC..yep,it is him, He did it all.
You know, he ( the president) should have his butt out there , personally searchig for every missing person, at any time day or night.
FOrget that there are other people tasked with these very jobs..it is the president's job to oversee every little thing, every little aspsect of a task.
Lord knows what those fools in the CIA or National Security get paid for, it sure doesn't seem like they know much but how to attach themselves to certain persons in power to do dirty tricks for them.
Oh, and now for the real kicker, no terrorist wants to be a terrorist.
That's right, the mere fact that a certain man got elected is what causes them all to go stark mad and attack unarmend people.
Sure, I get it.
Jean ( Mandolini)
Great answer, Jean--and thanks so much for the boost! Yes, I deliberately chose a scenario that could be applied to both world politics AND a one time happening in a neighborhood.
The excuses and cries from the 'others' is still the same--blame, blame, blame Bush and excuse their own. Why can't they just come clean about it so we don't have to lay out every argument over and over and over again...
They don't listen because they know--and we know--that the issue isn't really about what they pretend it is. With them, it's all politics.
Donal,
That is a great metaphor for what is happening in America today. Lets take that one step further if you will. But this time, the lender is us and the borrower is the current administration.
Say you gave the man $500. Or in our case, you gave the man the complete support after 9/11. Then he takes that support and uses it to start a war, the world ending battle of good vs. evil. The war that will define life on our planet for the next 1000 years.
But then the leader decides that this war, which he says is the most important war, just isnt worth the sacrifice to carry it out. What if a financial advisor told the man to invest part of the $500 dollars but your neighbor just ignores the experts. Just like Bush ignored the experts telling him that it would take 300,000 troops to secure Iraq. What if he trivialized the need so much that no requests for patriotic citizens to step up to the plate with taxes to pay for armored vehicles or even body armor. Lets leave it to our children and grandchildren to pay for the war. What if he then takes more of that $500 and uses it spy on his neighbors & makes promises that he has no intention of keeping (signing statements). Taking this to the its end, what if the man keeps coming back for more. What if the leaders keep coming back for more and more money to pay for an poorly planned and even worse executed plan to fight the battle of the ages? Do you give him the next $500 knowing he will squander it again? Or do you say, no, we need some accoutibility this time?
Your logic seems to lead to the conclusion that if your intention was good, you can just walk away from it. That is not what America was founded on. Morgan said it so well the other day that our founding fathers put their fortunes on the line for freedom, yet we cant expect the smallest sacrifice for our freedom from our leaders or the majority of Americans, only from the families of the brave men and women who fight every day for all of us.
Those of you who read this blog regularly know well where I am coming from here. My family has been touched by this war in a way that very few have. My problem has always been the incompetence and arrogance of this administration in the conduct of the war. Period. When you staff the most important struggle of our lifetime with incompetents and political hacks you get what you invested.
So, what to do? Do you stand up for what is right or just walk away. What will you do when Madame President Hillary Clinton is wrong? Will you support her when she is wrong?
Les, I mention NOTHING about intentions; I spoke of actual cause and seeming effect.
What you mention is actually the exact trap you Demmies have set for Bush that I outlined in my post: If he WERE to raise taxes to fund the war, or applied many thousands more troops to the effort, do you REALLY think you Demmies wouldn't have hollered high and low about it? Do you really think that just as much political fodder wouldn't have been be gleaned from his decisions?
You PCers can't seem to grasp when your own policies have led to decisions you don't like (or you DO know that but you're so intent on downing President Bush, you can't admit your deliberate calumny). Your tepid approach to war and Clinton--cutting of the military played a part in those decisions, so if you're going to throw pie at Bush about it, take a slice for yourself.
You can't have it both ways.
You and yours continually place Bush in a damned-if-you-do and a damned-if-you-don't position. Then you claim to like neither result.
You Dems aren't realistic about this new kind of warfare and the difficulties it presents, you demand that Bush be better than 'perfect' in ALL his conduct, and you unrealistically assume there is always a 'great' outcome to every situation in the world.
There IS accountability for every President. I KNOW BUush examines the things he does. However, he can't be honest or revealing about this process because of the political ends you and yours would use it for. YOU people are responsible for that!
Blowing everything out of proportion, harping and magnifying things that don't matter into the worst evil, and trying to ruin good men on hyperbole and inuendo has garnered the seeming lack of accountability you perceive. Own it.
Actually, when you Demmies say 'accountability' you only mean that you want to see Preaident Bush fail. You want to see him swing. You want to have a Watergate Redux. It's not about the war and what's happened--it's about your desire for revenge.
P.S.--Les, your scenario includes so many assumptions that you have not proven(or that are stock Demmie memes) that it's impossible to follow.
You attribute negative characteristics and motives to what Bush has done ('ignoring' advisors, 'trivializing' need, having 'no intention' of keeping promises, 'spying' etc.) and then you ask us if Bush has done something negative with bad motives--that's not the same as PROVING or ESTABLISHING that those things were bad in the first place. Try again...
ALSO, LES... When I think about it, I realize that 99% of what you Demmies complain about in Bush is simply because of the power HE has that YOU want:
--You say he 'ignored' advisors because YOU want to be able to tell him what to do...
--You say he 'didn't supply' troops because YOU want to be able to tell him how and when to wage a war and with what money...
--You accuse him of saddling the futurer generations because YOU want to be able to determine the future for the world...
--You say he's 'spyed' on people because YOU want to be able to control who has been looked at and who is doing the looking....
This is all about power, Les--all about the power you all don't have, but want very badly. All your utopian claims of 'accountability' would sound better if this motive weren't their overriding genesis.
Donal,
Bush did ignore his advisors. General Shineski said it would take 300,000 troops or more to secure Iraq. Do you think we have secured Iraq with the troops that Rummy wanted to send? His testimony is a fact, do you deny that?
Bush uses signing statements to avoid following the laws as Congress intended. That is a fact. Do you deny that?
Old Iraqi 'hands' were denied jobs in rebuilding Iraq because they didnt have the right 'politics' or didnt have the right view on Roe v. Wade. That is a fact, do you deny that as well?
Dick Cheney started cutting military bases in the 80's. The so-called Peace Dividend. Do you deny that?
I think Bush has done many things with the best of intentions but he doesnt commit fully or follow through. Afghanistan is a perfect example. That was the right war at the right time. What is the Taliban doing there now? If you said they are hiding in caves you would be wrong.
It is about the war. Period. It ia about the most corrupt incompetent group of political hacks trying to run the most important struggle of our time on the cheap. It is about over 3500 great men and women who died, who sacrificed everything, and all the hacks at the top of this administration ask is that we all go shopping and put a yellow sticker on our SUVs.
Les.... sigh.... you say 'it's about the war. period'--and I say that that is absolute nonsense. Just like as in Am. Civil War the issue of slavery was quickly morphed into it's raison de etre to give it a noble mein, you Demmies want the world to believe you're pulling all the crap you're pulling simply because you so nobly want to be seen as the Kumbaya faction--the better-than-the-average-human-bear (the 'progressive, uberhumane) section of the human race.
Yes, you all get a lot of emotional traction from thinking your motives are the best ones going and that you're altogether a better form of people than the rest of us (read: the GOP, the Establishment, man!). However, how truly base your motives are quickly boiled down to when people realize that they are all about money, political power, influence, and control. Welcome to the human race, junior (just don't try and sell the nostrum that you're 'better 'n' us).
Again, all wars have advisors that are not listened to, money that is not spent, strategy that is not followed--I don't dispute that. Why, however, do you Demmies insist on seeing this in Iraq solely as Bush plot and ascribing the worst sort of manipulation, lack of human regard, incompetence to it?
"Why, however, do you Demmies insist on seeing this in Iraq solely as Bush plot and ascribing the worst sort of manipulation, lack of human regard, incompetence to it?"
Simple because incompetence is DRIPPING from EVERYTHING this crew does. Pretty simple.
Funny you should bring up the slavery issue with the Civil War. Just like Bush brought up the democracy meme as the noble cause for going to Iraq. Lets see, that was the 3rd or 4th reason he gave, right?
Oh, and I dont speak for all the progressives, I speak for me. And for me, it is all about the war, period.
Yofi
No fair-
Some people got everything- beauty , SECHEL( brain), heart ,a natural code of ethics , language skills,an eye for quality and most of all SPINE .
Thank God you do not play piano.You need this " flaw" to keep away the evil eye.
As for Less -
He seems to be a typical Demi, filling the air with so many accusations of the president that there is no time nor space to offer some kind of a sensible, logical plan to deal with the problems our world is inflicted with.
This infantile cry - it is all HIS fault and not mine, cannot be taken seriously by any adult .
As an artist I see Less as actually useful. just like in art , bright colors look so much brighter when put next to dark ones, so your arguments look against Less' worn out Demi talking points as bright as the morning.
You used your noodle,SIS, and brought us honor and we love you for that.
batya
You know, somedays I wish I could live in the world you live in. Reality is what you want it to be. Such nasty things as facts never rear their ugly heads to shatter our illusions of the wonderfulness of our ideas. Never having to engage in intelligent conversation about todays issue. Just close your eyes and believe that 'daddy' will make everything better for you.
Enjoy it. You are truly blessed to be able to live your life with your head in the sand.
[sigh]
Gosh, Sis, what lovely words from your heart to mine! You are the real wordsmith here! (And with such beautiful humor: thank God you do not play piano... I am still laughing over that one!
Thank you so much for your kind words and support; you will never know how special you make all our days--we spoke of it many times while you were gone. (Our sunshine was in Israel and we felt the loss of a precious warmth). Thank you...
(And ya sure have Les pegged!)
LES--My point to you--and going back to the example I used (which you did not seem to quite grasp):
Had Bush listened to the Gen. Shineski or apportioned more troops, what was the guarantee that the outcome would've been better? What if it had been worse?
What if Shineski's advice led to a massacre of Am. troops or AlQaeda et al had targeted the troop dock/or air transport with a nuclear bomb? Wouldn't you Demmies be blaming Bush for that grievous loss of life? Wouldn't you be saying he should've waited, should've listened to others, shoulda woulda coulda ad infinitum....
That was the point of my 'money giveaway' example; the outcome often tends to influence whether something is deemed good or bad. As you Demmies are quick to ignore or repackage the good and see Bush-as-bad, all his outcomes are negative to you--as you intend them to be seen.
Thus we see your real motives--you are playing politics to gain your own power. The war is of a much lesser concern for you.
President Bush really DOES care about the war--that's why he has has made his own decisions and not simply to answer to YOUR base or to play politics. Yes, some of them have not had a good outcome--but not because he was wrong, or stupid, or evil, or incompetent as you paint him.
He has made his own decisions--that's what a real man does. He has not blamed the outcomes on others (as the Dems continually do) and he's done his best to do the right thing--when ws cLinton ever motivated by 'the right thing'?
P.S. As my own perceptions and the comments attest, I have engaged you in a far more intelligent conversation than you are capable of returning. You need to learn to formulate a case better and logically look at ideas...
Oh, and we do not 'believe that 'daddy' will make everything better for you.' We believe everything is good NOW and that we can make things even better OURSELVES. That's the difference between the Dems and GOPers. YOU believe in the infantilized care-for-life by your idea of a benevolent leader ushering in a perfect world--we rely on ourselves and understand that the world will never be perfect. Get real, Les.
Further, it is not even about 'caring' about the war--that sounds too much like a parlor game... Our President feels much more than care.
He feels duty and responsibility and moral imperative. He has organized his life around responsible conduct, fulfilling his job requirements--and doing even more than that by considering his role as President to be a sacred duty to us.
That doesn't mean he will be perfect; he has not promised us perfection, nor could he deliver that even if he wanted to.
In a nutshell, there is ONE thing that would allow you Demmies--even make you Demmies--see the actions taken by George W. Bush as a positive thing worthy of your praise and admiration.
It is the thing which caps this argument and makes everything I've said true (and everything you've said utter claptrap).
Don't you know what that one thing is? Can't you see the one thing that would make everything Bush has done laudable in your eyes?
....
......
..........the one thing that would make every action Bush has done laudable, wonderful and exactly right for you would be if a Democrat president had done them!
Case closed!
Hey Les. If the President were to really bring the hammer down in Iraq, and on the Mexican border, a no- nosense 'kick ass and take names'', or lets say if it were a Dem, really start piling up some dead jihadis,told the rest of the world "If you don't like it, tough shit, told Mexcio "Fix your act and then wll talk'', and was equally tough on ''incompetnce''' in his admisration, would that suit you? Would that appeal to your whinnig and bitching? For this conservative, its time to take out the garbage, Dem or Republican, I'm getting fed up with both and I'm past fed up with whinners and bomb throwers from your side. J'Mac
You are on a roll, Verity. And I'm going to pile on, because what you've said has resonated in my soul for quite a long time.
1) Democrats hate individuals. It's not really what Bush does or doesn't do. Whether it's the war or No Child Left Behind, whether it's tax cuts or the prescription drug bill, it all sucks because Bush did it. This is a perverse fixation upon an individual, and not a consideration of his actions. Talking about his motives (as though Democrats have some special insight into Bush's soul) is just makeup for their unreasoning hatred.
2) The intelligence issue with the war again finds the Dems critiquing Bush for the effect, when they were praising a previous president who relied on the same information. The fact that Bush took action while Clinton did nothing stings. So to get revenge for feeling bad, they attack Bush for doing something. It's more childish antics.
3) The Dems biggest problem is largely theological. In their universe, as long as a Democrat is president, all is well. The instant that a Republican is president, then the world is wrong and it must be fixed! They have confused temporal and political power for eternal power, because they have no connection to God nor his enduring truths. That is another reason why their rage is so intense and mindlessly so. The only thing that they rely on this world is "broken".
4) If you had set out to prove the utter incapacity of Les to answer truthfully, reasonably, logically, or even sanely, I don't think you could have done a better job.
He has proven himself to be an intellectual lightweight and nothing more than a child pretending to be a man.
RS--Wow, thank you so much! That really meant a lot to me! I had no idea you felt so strongly about it; we do, indeed, feel very similarly about the entire political situation.
You've nailed the Dems squarely. It's particularly galling that they champion what their people do and condemn ours for the same. Making any action right to them really would mean simply putting it into Democrat hands--and they don't even see it.
They make everything so terribly ugly! (Check out how they celebrated Bush's birthday today--it's several posts up...) and, of course, Joe Biden called the President 'brain dead'...!
You're right; there is a tremendous disconnect betwen the Demmie's minds, hearts (if they have one) and any type of spirituality--and their anger is such a self-serving, unproductive game. They want to 'fix the world'... I'd settle for simply a little kindness and reason from them...
Post a Comment
<< Home