Do we live in an America that one must "Love or Leave?" Do we live in an America where one can express thoughts, though not agreed with? And does not agreeing indicate that one does not love America?
I roam about on the blogs and invariably I read (mostly from the right) something like this, "If you feel that way then you are supporting the terrorists and you should pack up and leave this country!" Some may even be sarcastically nice about it with something like, "Would you kindly leave my country?"
What they are really saying is that if you don’t agree with them, you are wrong and don’t deserve to live or, at least, live in this country. Okay, they have the right to feel and say what they like. Why can’t they accept that I have a right to say something they don’t like and I am still an American and I still love my country?
They explain (and I realize I’m speaking for a group I can’t agree with) that there are qualifications for living in this country AND for loving this country. Those qualifications go something like this.
1) You must embrace the President and support his efforts.
2) If the President is a Democrat, you must ridicule him his party and everything they do, hound him the entire time he is in office, impeach him for lying about sex and defend a Republican for lying about everything.
3) You must Chant the Rant. There are several of these ranging from "Clinton is a murderer and an adulterer," "Flip Flopper" to "Carter caused inflation". Other rants will appear from time to time, especially during elections, and must be repeated with all your heart. A rant is never longer than a bumper sticker and always easy to learn.
4) Never try to verify history as told by us. Believe in what we say is true. Repeat it as often and as loud as necessary to drown out those who oppose you.
5) A "Values" voter is one who believes in God, believes in the power of Democracy to civilize the world, is pro-life, owns a gun and worships on Sundays.
6) We defend the Freedom of Speech, unless someone uses that freedom to express ideas we don’t like.
7) We defend the Freedom of the Press explicitly called for in the Constitution; unless we find it insulting, pornographic or unpleasant.
8) We defend the Freedom of Religion; unless that religion argues that there is more than one god, allows gays and or the teaching of evolution or science.
9) Anyone who does not agree with all of the above does not love this country.
10) Anyone who does not love this country is a leftist extremist and must leave.
I take some writer’s liberty to make the point, but the thought is essentially expressed. It gives one pause. Basically they are saying that an American is only an American if they are defined as only they define them. No one else should be allowed.
Tolerance is not high on their list of what is right. Of course they claim tolerance by saying they put up with "Liberals," (all the time using the word liberal as an expletive). Apparently, not killing people is also an example of tolerance. And this is all the while claiming to be Christians, a faith expressed by love of their fellow man. I don’t want this to be a discussion about religion. I just use that as an example of hypocrisy.
If "They" (the far right) are that hypocritical, imagine how their political views may be strongly radical. This swing towards radicalism has been going on for so long, that what is called "Moderate" today is still right of center politically. I give you Senator John McCain as an example. Another example is Senator Gordon Smith. Both claim to be moderates but have voted with Bush in perfect lock step loyalty.
There is one other thing the far right has been successful in doing. Making the press pull to the right. Apparently, their strategy of ridiculing and calling the main stream media the "Liberal Media" has had the effect they want. Most news stories are right leaning. Most talk programs are right leaning. Most of both barely offer any time to liberal ideas or reasons. When some news program does offer a truly fair and balanced view, like The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS, the right feels the need to "correct" that leaning and pull them back to where they want the center to be. That center is right shifted.
This is a difficult time to be an American. With the pressure to be the type of American the right wants one to be, those who don’t follow suffer the verbal abuse I have outlined above. Liberal, progressive ideas are ridiculed and condemned. But here is the strange reality! When the public is presented with an idea and not told where the idea comes from, they will mostly choose the liberal, progressive ideas. That is how Social Security got protected. That is why most people feel the health care should be a right and not a privilege of the well off. Those are just two simple examples.
I am an American. I love my country. I have served my country. Look at the people today espousing radical right ideas and see how many have served. You may be surprised to find the loudest have not served at all.
The People see. The People understand and will only put up with so much. Then we will see who are the REAL Americans.
That’s, As I see it . . .
Monday, January 22, 2007
George Flip Flops AGAIN. . .
Remember when George Bush said he would preserve the environment by curbing CO2 emissions and then when it came time to do it, he flipped flopped? Remember when George promised to allow small companies to join together to get a better insurance program for employees and then didn’t do it? Twice; once in each election? Remember when George promised a "New Way Forward" by listening to advisers and taking in all the information about Iraq? Then fired generals who did not agree with him, ignored the Iraq commission and put a Navy Admiral in charge of land forces because the admiral did agree with him? Remember that George’s New Way Forward is just the same endless war but under a different name!
My point is that George seems determined to stay in Iraq no matter what the cost, no matter what the feelings of the country are and no matter how many smart people are telling him it is the wrong thing to do. George will continue with continuing because to George, staying the course is the only sign of strength.
George has no personal involvement in Iraq. If someone he cared about were there he might feel differently. But he has two partying daughters that won’t serve and several cousins, nieces and nephews, none of which are in the service. The only ones with a personal involvement with this war are the ones serving and their loved ones. This country may be at war but you would never know it by the way we conduct ourselves. Life goes on. In fact, George’s admonition to the people of the United States, "Go shopping."
I have said before that I think George is insane. He is not the type of insanity that would cause harm to himself. He just causes harm to others. He is a Sociopath. He is incapable of feeling, of empathy. George only thinks of George. And a person who feels that way is a coward!
We are not as close to Fascism today as we once were before the mid-term elections due to the American people seeing what was happening and showing up to express their dissatisfaction. That is fortunate. The unfortunate reality of now is that George wants to go to war with Iran and has people around him who feel the same way.
I will be watching the congress very closely to see how they deal with him. I hope you will, too.
That’s, As I see it. . .
Remember when George Bush said he would preserve the environment by curbing CO2 emissions and then when it came time to do it, he flipped flopped? Remember when George promised to allow small companies to join together to get a better insurance program for employees and then didn’t do it? Twice; once in each election? Remember when George promised a "New Way Forward" by listening to advisers and taking in all the information about Iraq? Then fired generals who did not agree with him, ignored the Iraq commission and put a Navy Admiral in charge of land forces because the admiral did agree with him? Remember that George’s New Way Forward is just the same endless war but under a different name!
My point is that George seems determined to stay in Iraq no matter what the cost, no matter what the feelings of the country are and no matter how many smart people are telling him it is the wrong thing to do. George will continue with continuing because to George, staying the course is the only sign of strength.
George has no personal involvement in Iraq. If someone he cared about were there he might feel differently. But he has two partying daughters that won’t serve and several cousins, nieces and nephews, none of which are in the service. The only ones with a personal involvement with this war are the ones serving and their loved ones. This country may be at war but you would never know it by the way we conduct ourselves. Life goes on. In fact, George’s admonition to the people of the United States, "Go shopping."
I have said before that I think George is insane. He is not the type of insanity that would cause harm to himself. He just causes harm to others. He is a Sociopath. He is incapable of feeling, of empathy. George only thinks of George. And a person who feels that way is a coward!
We are not as close to Fascism today as we once were before the mid-term elections due to the American people seeing what was happening and showing up to express their dissatisfaction. That is fortunate. The unfortunate reality of now is that George wants to go to war with Iran and has people around him who feel the same way.
I will be watching the congress very closely to see how they deal with him. I hope you will, too.
That’s, As I see it. . .
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Dear One, I agree with your entire first paragraph. The business side, (big money), have manipulated the “Christian Right” into voting for them as the “Values Party.” But just look at their supposed “Values.” This has been a very corrupt Republican Party, using Christian Principals to appeal to voters. From Jack Abramoff to Terri Shiavo, they have demonstrated their hypocrisy. That’s what got them voted out and put the Democrats in control.
Your second paragraph causes us to depart philosophically. I am not claiming infallibility for Democrats, nor am I saying that ALL Democrats are pure and honest. Power can and does corrupt. That’s why we, the people, must watch our politicians and vote accordingly. However, your assertion that Democrats were responsible for the inflation of the 70’s is an old Republican rant I’ve heard for years. The reality is quite different. Nixon put in price controls and froze wages to prevent inflation. That’s how Republicans dealt with it. When Nixon resigned in disgrace and Ford took over, he left them in place. Quite a tactic for the party that supposedly believes in the free market, huh? When Carter got elected, (and, by the way, a Christian) he removed the wage and price controls to let the economy do a natural balancing out. The economy did just that and the Republicans have been saying disparaging things about Carter ever since. We still have the remnants of that inflationary spiral with credit card interests. Haven’t you ever wondered how they get away with 16 to 25% interest rates? Because they found out the public would pay it, that’s why. And here’s a little side bar I encourage you to research; when the last congress passed the bankruptcy bill, they let the credit card companies write much of the legislation, wouldn’t allow the Democrats to make amendments and didn’t allow enough time to read before the vote.
Your third point, about the Christians helping the poor, YES, I see it all the time. They truly do have empathy and act in small groups like that all the time. But let me point to Katrina. Where were the big “Christian” organizations then? There were a lot of individual Christians and church groups that helped, but where were the big name groups that Bush gives taxpayer money to? Check the history. They weren’t there.
Finally, Empathy. If money means more to a person than feelings for their fellow man, then I consider that as having no empathy. Money is not the root of all evil. The LOVE of money is the root of all evil. When a person or party puts the value of the dollar above the value of life, the right of privacy or the freedoms of the individual; that shows a lack of empathy, even if that person is a Democrat! I’m just saying that tendency rests more with Republicans than with Democrats.
Your second paragraph causes us to depart philosophically. I am not claiming infallibility for Democrats, nor am I saying that ALL Democrats are pure and honest. Power can and does corrupt. That’s why we, the people, must watch our politicians and vote accordingly. However, your assertion that Democrats were responsible for the inflation of the 70’s is an old Republican rant I’ve heard for years. The reality is quite different. Nixon put in price controls and froze wages to prevent inflation. That’s how Republicans dealt with it. When Nixon resigned in disgrace and Ford took over, he left them in place. Quite a tactic for the party that supposedly believes in the free market, huh? When Carter got elected, (and, by the way, a Christian) he removed the wage and price controls to let the economy do a natural balancing out. The economy did just that and the Republicans have been saying disparaging things about Carter ever since. We still have the remnants of that inflationary spiral with credit card interests. Haven’t you ever wondered how they get away with 16 to 25% interest rates? Because they found out the public would pay it, that’s why. And here’s a little side bar I encourage you to research; when the last congress passed the bankruptcy bill, they let the credit card companies write much of the legislation, wouldn’t allow the Democrats to make amendments and didn’t allow enough time to read before the vote.
Your third point, about the Christians helping the poor, YES, I see it all the time. They truly do have empathy and act in small groups like that all the time. But let me point to Katrina. Where were the big “Christian” organizations then? There were a lot of individual Christians and church groups that helped, but where were the big name groups that Bush gives taxpayer money to? Check the history. They weren’t there.
Finally, Empathy. If money means more to a person than feelings for their fellow man, then I consider that as having no empathy. Money is not the root of all evil. The LOVE of money is the root of all evil. When a person or party puts the value of the dollar above the value of life, the right of privacy or the freedoms of the individual; that shows a lack of empathy, even if that person is a Democrat! I’m just saying that tendency rests more with Republicans than with Democrats.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
“How will we influence each other’s thinking?”
I had a conversation recently with someone who is dear to me. The conversation was about politics. He suggested that family members shouldn’t discuss politics or religion. I disagreed and said that as long as people are civil, it absolutely should be discussed because how else would we influence each other’s thinking?
During a conversation, sometimes things are said that weren’t intended; or, are phrased so brilliantly, they should be written down. Such a thing happened in our conversation, something brilliant, I mean. It was said that the main difference between a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive and a Republican/Conservative/Libertarian is one of empathy.
A person with empathy can “feel” another’s pain, discomfort or need. A person without empathy feels only his or her own need and desires. A person with empathy is a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive; a person with none, a Republican/Conservative/ Libertarian. [(My apologies to Libertarians who do not align themselves with Republicans) and there are many of you]
There are, of course, levels of empathy. Some can feel a little empathy while others feel a great deal. Does this level of empathy make one lean a certain way politically? Perhaps. But I believe a person without the ability to have empathy and to think only of themselves, relegates one to being a conservative. I make that statement because of their stated philosophy.
If you Google Republican Philosophy and then Google Democratic Philosophy, you will find countless sites defining in grandiose terms the Republican ideas of free enterprise, business without government interference, and the right for the individual to make a living for themselves. I didn’t find a single site defining the Democratic Philosophy. Does this mean they don’t have one? Hardly.
I think it means the Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians are very vocal about their beliefs and very militant about protecting them. They state their philosophy in grand written terms. My problem is what they DO in practice. They attempt to take advantage of the uninformed, underprivileged, or needy. If there is a way to make money from someone’s misery, they will find it. One recent example that comes to mind is the instant loan companies. Republicans representatives actually defend the right of that type of business to exist. In reality, those companies get up to 500% return on loans. Sixty Minutes recently did an expose on it. One example they gave was a military Sergeant that borrowed approximately $250 and had to pay back almost $1500 in payments. Do you see anything wrong with that? Republicans don’t.
If you see something wrong with that but are a Republican, maybe you are in the wrong party and for a wrong reason. If you see something wrong with that, you have empathy. You belong in the Democratic Party!
When you feel someone’s pain, discomfort, struggle, or need, you are part of a community. Civilization takes a community that supports each other, not people who prey on each other.
The right to make money or establish a business is not exclusive, giving one the right to act unethically, selfishly or greedily. The right to live in a community and be part of a community requires us to care about each other and assist each other. Does that mean you can’t make money from loaning money? No, it means the loan needs to have a reasonable interest. That’s where government regulations come in.
Republicans HATE government regulations. They imply it in their philosophy.
Democrats WORK to help their community. They prove it by what they do.
Which do believe in? The right to prey on your fellow human being? Or the obligation to help?
That’s as I see it. . . What about you?
I had a conversation recently with someone who is dear to me. The conversation was about politics. He suggested that family members shouldn’t discuss politics or religion. I disagreed and said that as long as people are civil, it absolutely should be discussed because how else would we influence each other’s thinking?
During a conversation, sometimes things are said that weren’t intended; or, are phrased so brilliantly, they should be written down. Such a thing happened in our conversation, something brilliant, I mean. It was said that the main difference between a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive and a Republican/Conservative/Libertarian is one of empathy.
A person with empathy can “feel” another’s pain, discomfort or need. A person without empathy feels only his or her own need and desires. A person with empathy is a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive; a person with none, a Republican/Conservative/ Libertarian. [(My apologies to Libertarians who do not align themselves with Republicans) and there are many of you]
There are, of course, levels of empathy. Some can feel a little empathy while others feel a great deal. Does this level of empathy make one lean a certain way politically? Perhaps. But I believe a person without the ability to have empathy and to think only of themselves, relegates one to being a conservative. I make that statement because of their stated philosophy.
If you Google Republican Philosophy and then Google Democratic Philosophy, you will find countless sites defining in grandiose terms the Republican ideas of free enterprise, business without government interference, and the right for the individual to make a living for themselves. I didn’t find a single site defining the Democratic Philosophy. Does this mean they don’t have one? Hardly.
I think it means the Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians are very vocal about their beliefs and very militant about protecting them. They state their philosophy in grand written terms. My problem is what they DO in practice. They attempt to take advantage of the uninformed, underprivileged, or needy. If there is a way to make money from someone’s misery, they will find it. One recent example that comes to mind is the instant loan companies. Republicans representatives actually defend the right of that type of business to exist. In reality, those companies get up to 500% return on loans. Sixty Minutes recently did an expose on it. One example they gave was a military Sergeant that borrowed approximately $250 and had to pay back almost $1500 in payments. Do you see anything wrong with that? Republicans don’t.
If you see something wrong with that but are a Republican, maybe you are in the wrong party and for a wrong reason. If you see something wrong with that, you have empathy. You belong in the Democratic Party!
When you feel someone’s pain, discomfort, struggle, or need, you are part of a community. Civilization takes a community that supports each other, not people who prey on each other.
The right to make money or establish a business is not exclusive, giving one the right to act unethically, selfishly or greedily. The right to live in a community and be part of a community requires us to care about each other and assist each other. Does that mean you can’t make money from loaning money? No, it means the loan needs to have a reasonable interest. That’s where government regulations come in.
Republicans HATE government regulations. They imply it in their philosophy.
Democrats WORK to help their community. They prove it by what they do.
Which do believe in? The right to prey on your fellow human being? Or the obligation to help?
That’s as I see it. . . What about you?
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The Legacy of Gerald Ford. . .
It is common to speak in eloquent terms of the recently departed. And I am hearing such things about Gerald Ford. It has caused me to second think my earlier supposition that Ford did a healing thing for the nation in pardoning Nixon. It was true that the nation had endured a great injury from Watergate. A president of the United States had lied to this country. That president tried to use his power and influence to stop an investigation into his illegal activities and suppress evidence. That president failed!
When Ford pardoned Nixon, to put it simply, I was pissed! I had just spent the last two years pointing out to everyone who would listen (or anyone I could trap into listening) how corrupt he was. I pointed to the evidence and I asked questions about why Nixon had all those lawyers around him and what was the function of all those "presidential aides?
Finally, the evidence was so overwhelming that even Republicans had to agree that Nixon had lied and had tried to corrupt our system of government. That was a glorious day for me and I immediately began looking forward to the trial. We speculated about how it would happen. Would Nixon end up in jail? Would he spend time behind bars before the trial? Get out on bail? Or just after he was found guilty? After all, his resignation was pretty much a confession of guilt!
Then Ford, after receiving the inclination while in church, pardoned Nixon. Ford explained how the nation had suffered enough through the thralls of Watergate and it was now time to move on and heal.
I was angry. I was very angry. The nation would not have the opportunity to see justice. The nation would not have the chance to witness our system in its full capacity of putting on trial its own leader because, no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law! But the nation did not get to witness that! The nation did not get to heal through justice and fairness. The nation was preempted from seeing and viewing all the evidence and the true depth of Nixon’s crimes. Ford pardoned him. And I had no choice. The nation had no choice. We had to go on and accept the way things were because Ford had that power and Ford had used it.
Now, with Ford’s death, all those memories are coming back to me; the same anger, the same unfairness. And it’s causing me to rethink the matter.
What if Nixon had gone to trial? What if the nation had had the opportunity to see the evidence and witness the consequence for someone who had deceived it? How would that have stopped the healing this nation needed? Wouldn’t the nation have healed anyway?
We will never know because Ford pardoned Nixon. Yes, there was a committee that looked into any deal making that may have gone on when Ford was appointed to the Vice Presidency. Ford denied that. There was nothing this nation could do but move on and accept the reality of the situation. I moved on because I had no choice but to move on. And as the years passed, I could even forgive and come to believe that Ford had done the right thing.
Now, I have come up with new questions that are relevant. Let’s say that Nixon had been put on trial, convicted and jailed. What message would that send to later presidents? Like Bush? A message about usurping power, ignoring the Constitution, and outright law breaking? Could that have made him think twice before he attempted the things he has done? At least there would have been a precedent to show the Congress it could and should act in their capacity as a check and balance! Perhaps Ford’s pardon of Nixon wasn’t so good for the nation after all.
Now, we hear that Ford gave an interview in ’04, saying how he was opposed to what Bush had done in going into Iraq. His statement could be released when the book was published OR upon his death. This is what caused me to do my rethinking.
If Ford felt so strongly then, why didn’t he say something, THEN! What was the purpose for waiting? Did he feel it necessary to protect his Republican Party more than protecting the country? Or, perhaps, because he was never elected, he felt his opinion was inadequate in some way? Somehow, less important? That’s what got me to wondering about Watergate and the pardon of Nixon. If I can wonder that now, perhaps I was justified in being so pissed then!
It’s difficult for me to speak in eloquent terms about a man that may have put party before nation. Perhaps Ford was, after all, just a quick fix so someone, perhaps someone like Bush, could try it again later!
That’s as I see it. . . How do you see it?
It is common to speak in eloquent terms of the recently departed. And I am hearing such things about Gerald Ford. It has caused me to second think my earlier supposition that Ford did a healing thing for the nation in pardoning Nixon. It was true that the nation had endured a great injury from Watergate. A president of the United States had lied to this country. That president tried to use his power and influence to stop an investigation into his illegal activities and suppress evidence. That president failed!
When Ford pardoned Nixon, to put it simply, I was pissed! I had just spent the last two years pointing out to everyone who would listen (or anyone I could trap into listening) how corrupt he was. I pointed to the evidence and I asked questions about why Nixon had all those lawyers around him and what was the function of all those "presidential aides?
Finally, the evidence was so overwhelming that even Republicans had to agree that Nixon had lied and had tried to corrupt our system of government. That was a glorious day for me and I immediately began looking forward to the trial. We speculated about how it would happen. Would Nixon end up in jail? Would he spend time behind bars before the trial? Get out on bail? Or just after he was found guilty? After all, his resignation was pretty much a confession of guilt!
Then Ford, after receiving the inclination while in church, pardoned Nixon. Ford explained how the nation had suffered enough through the thralls of Watergate and it was now time to move on and heal.
I was angry. I was very angry. The nation would not have the opportunity to see justice. The nation would not have the chance to witness our system in its full capacity of putting on trial its own leader because, no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law! But the nation did not get to witness that! The nation did not get to heal through justice and fairness. The nation was preempted from seeing and viewing all the evidence and the true depth of Nixon’s crimes. Ford pardoned him. And I had no choice. The nation had no choice. We had to go on and accept the way things were because Ford had that power and Ford had used it.
Now, with Ford’s death, all those memories are coming back to me; the same anger, the same unfairness. And it’s causing me to rethink the matter.
What if Nixon had gone to trial? What if the nation had had the opportunity to see the evidence and witness the consequence for someone who had deceived it? How would that have stopped the healing this nation needed? Wouldn’t the nation have healed anyway?
We will never know because Ford pardoned Nixon. Yes, there was a committee that looked into any deal making that may have gone on when Ford was appointed to the Vice Presidency. Ford denied that. There was nothing this nation could do but move on and accept the reality of the situation. I moved on because I had no choice but to move on. And as the years passed, I could even forgive and come to believe that Ford had done the right thing.
Now, I have come up with new questions that are relevant. Let’s say that Nixon had been put on trial, convicted and jailed. What message would that send to later presidents? Like Bush? A message about usurping power, ignoring the Constitution, and outright law breaking? Could that have made him think twice before he attempted the things he has done? At least there would have been a precedent to show the Congress it could and should act in their capacity as a check and balance! Perhaps Ford’s pardon of Nixon wasn’t so good for the nation after all.
Now, we hear that Ford gave an interview in ’04, saying how he was opposed to what Bush had done in going into Iraq. His statement could be released when the book was published OR upon his death. This is what caused me to do my rethinking.
If Ford felt so strongly then, why didn’t he say something, THEN! What was the purpose for waiting? Did he feel it necessary to protect his Republican Party more than protecting the country? Or, perhaps, because he was never elected, he felt his opinion was inadequate in some way? Somehow, less important? That’s what got me to wondering about Watergate and the pardon of Nixon. If I can wonder that now, perhaps I was justified in being so pissed then!
It’s difficult for me to speak in eloquent terms about a man that may have put party before nation. Perhaps Ford was, after all, just a quick fix so someone, perhaps someone like Bush, could try it again later!
That’s as I see it. . . How do you see it?
Friday, December 22, 2006
The Constitution. . .
. . . is a wonderful document. It spells out every conceivable situation our government can experience with respect to the presidency except; . . . . . . . . INSANITY. If a president is incapacitated for physical reasons; the president gets incapacitated; a stroke, an illness; there is a plan for who should be in charge during that disability. There is NOTHING in the Constitution for a president who is insane!
George W. Bush is insane!
Insanity has many forms. We know this from modern science. Georgie ignores modern science. Einstein said the definition of insanity was repeating the same procedure and expecting different results. I can’t imagine a better definition for our president than that!
Georgie is now repeating the method used during Vietnam of giving enemy body counts to show we are winning. Georgie initiated the Iraq Study Group, gave Americans the impression he would respond to their advice, then ignores them and now says we need to commit more troops.
George is delusional. He is probably affected by his childhood, his alcoholism, and his desire to be better than his father. It all adds up to being nuts!
At what point do we, the people, decide this man is nuts and do something? This is no longer a partisan viewpoint. People on both sides of the isle are whispering. This man is incapable of leading this country. What do we wait for? How far do we allow this insanity to go on? Do we allow a war with Iran?
At what point do we declare the president as incompetent and follow the Constitution?
We are there! It just takes someone with courage to say it!
. . . is a wonderful document. It spells out every conceivable situation our government can experience with respect to the presidency except; . . . . . . . . INSANITY. If a president is incapacitated for physical reasons; the president gets incapacitated; a stroke, an illness; there is a plan for who should be in charge during that disability. There is NOTHING in the Constitution for a president who is insane!
George W. Bush is insane!
Insanity has many forms. We know this from modern science. Georgie ignores modern science. Einstein said the definition of insanity was repeating the same procedure and expecting different results. I can’t imagine a better definition for our president than that!
Georgie is now repeating the method used during Vietnam of giving enemy body counts to show we are winning. Georgie initiated the Iraq Study Group, gave Americans the impression he would respond to their advice, then ignores them and now says we need to commit more troops.
George is delusional. He is probably affected by his childhood, his alcoholism, and his desire to be better than his father. It all adds up to being nuts!
At what point do we, the people, decide this man is nuts and do something? This is no longer a partisan viewpoint. People on both sides of the isle are whispering. This man is incapable of leading this country. What do we wait for? How far do we allow this insanity to go on? Do we allow a war with Iran?
At what point do we declare the president as incompetent and follow the Constitution?
We are there! It just takes someone with courage to say it!
I used to enjoy disaster movies. It’s funny how attitudes change. . .
There is a trend now to make war movies. Clint Eastwood made one about Iwo Jima and then a Japanese version of the same thing, a very intriguing idea. The weird thing is; not a single veteran I know has gone to see them or wants to see them. Yet every “macho man” talks about seeing them or wanting to see them. I wonder why that is?
Life experience has a lot to do with it. Those who have been in the military and have seen the carnage do not want to see it again. Those who, for whatever reason; . . . circumstance, timing, or desire, and avoided military service somehow want to experience the adrenalin of that experience.
Which of the above do you figure Gerogie Boy is from?
There is a trend now to make war movies. Clint Eastwood made one about Iwo Jima and then a Japanese version of the same thing, a very intriguing idea. The weird thing is; not a single veteran I know has gone to see them or wants to see them. Yet every “macho man” talks about seeing them or wanting to see them. I wonder why that is?
Life experience has a lot to do with it. Those who have been in the military and have seen the carnage do not want to see it again. Those who, for whatever reason; . . . circumstance, timing, or desire, and avoided military service somehow want to experience the adrenalin of that experience.
Which of the above do you figure Gerogie Boy is from?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)