"Steve Freides" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> "Dr. Dickie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> I would rather have someone that is true to their convictions and
>> provides leadership to the nation while at war, that some well polished
>> politician that speaks well but only stands behind the latest popularity
>> poll.
>
> I fail to understand this argument every time it is raised. Hilter
> thought he was doing the right thing for the world, and so have many other
> leaders. Being true to one's convictions is not a reason to be elected
> president.
>
I did not say that it was the only reason, bt i most certainly is it A
reason, yes.
I do not want someone who merely takes a poll and does whatever the great
unwashed wants done at that moment (usually whipped into a frenzy by the
media--who as usual have it compeltey wrong.)--think your buddy Clinton.
>> But I see you are more interested in superficial fluff, we differ.
>
> Truth to one's convictions is not the opposite of superficial; indeed, in
> the case of President Bush, it is the height of superficiality. Real
> leaders are pragmatists who are true to the constitution of the United
> States. President Bush has demonstrated little knowledge of, or respect
> for, several of the most important principles on which our country was
> founded.
Sure.
The separation of church and state has fared poorly during his
> tenure, and one can argue that this, more than any other, was the reason
> many who came to the New World did so in the first place.
>
I disagree. Look, I am as much against organised religion as you can get;
however, I do not think that the foundation of this country was that every
leader must be un-religious. Simply that they not estabish a State religion
and make others unable to practice their religion. I haven't seen that
happen (perhaps you live somewhere it does?). Bush is very religious, so
what. His belief in a deity is his business.
>> Fiscally, the Bush administration has been everything the democrats
>> wanted to be, and that is sad.
>
> And this seems not to trouble him, either. Arrogance is perhaps the
> biggest hallmark of his administration - "We're right because we say so,
> and we don't want to play politics - just agree with us and everything
> will be OK."
>
Okay, now you are simply being silly. Bush's concern or lack of concern
about spending cannot be ascribed to arrogance. Does Bush hold to his
convictions? Hell yes. If we cut and run (like Clinton did)every time things
got tough you do not get leadership you get followship (take a poll, I need
to know what to do next!). Bush's biggest failing (and the Republicans in
control of the congress ) is that they give in to the America hating Left to
easily. Whether you want to believe it or not, Clinton's foreign policy
helped to open the door for the 9/11 attacks.
Just grips your ass that someone who has the balls to do what is necessary
will not cower and run like you want him to.
With your form of followship, we would forever be under the threat and fear
of attack from al-Qaeda. Like it or not, we are at war and at sake is
western civilization. I know you would rather stick your head in the sand
and say that 9/11 never happened or that it was our fault. You are allowed
to believe whatever you want to believe. You and hank can swap hats and sit
in your basement to keep the though police from hearing you. Just don't
expect the rest of humanity to follow you.
Whatever, dude. I for one, am thankful that Bush does not listen and give in
to whiners like you.
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
Repeal the 17th amendment; let's reinstate the proper checks and balances
and end mob rule in my lifetime!
