Posted on 04/06/2010 4:03:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Saying something and intending to do it are two different things.
Obama is a slippery eal.
You seem to regard Obama as a regular person who is worthy of trust. From what I have seen, he isn't. Our national security is in the hands of the wrong person.
Saying something and intending to do it are two different things.
As it relates to people we deal with in our own lives, we can see that's very true.
BUT, you have to realize that -- here -- (in what we've been discussing) it's about government, policies that are stated to the public, it's about the military and how they're organizing their operations (according to those stated policies), it's about the people (as voters in the next election) and how they're going to vote about these things, and it's about a whole lot of people who advise, run, interact with, and organize all these things in government.
That's just not one person who operates totally on their own. You're talking about an entire government, it's bureaucracy and plans being laid down and hundreds of thousands of people "falling into line" and coordinating all their activities around these stated policies.
There's a huge difference between what we experience with our friends, neighbors and/or acquaintances -- and -- the entire operation of the United States government and its military.
To put it another way -- if all that the government, military and all the personnel involvement in "making things happen" in line with stated policy and rules and regulations -- can all be dismissed (in a discussion) -- with a "wave of the hand", and it's said, "Well, they say that, but you know that they can do something different!" -- then you basically don't have any "discussion" any more, based upon anything "tangible".
Your discussion -- from that point forward, once you throw away any "anchoring point to reality" and say, "Nothing that is stated or written or is in rules or regulations or anything that anyone says, 'counts' any longer in what our government will do" -- then -- "your own imagination" becomes the "reality for the conversation" that results from that "thinking" and/or "understanding".
With that "understanding" (that you've just said) -- whatever I can imagine in my head has greater validity, as to what will happen with our government -- than all the laws and rules and regulations and statements and policies will ever have or be valid for.
And so... we will simply be -- from that point forward -- merely be talking about whether my imagination is greater than your imagination.
That's not much of a discussion that I want to engage in ... if you see what I mean ... LOL ...
You seem to regard Obama as a regular person who is worthy of trust. From what I have seen, he isn't. Our national security is in the hands of the wrong person.
No, I don't quite see it that way. First let me say what I see that some others, around, consider it and see it (from their viewpoint). Some others (that I see posting) seem to consider things as if they are still in a campaign and as if the guy is still running for the previous Presidential election we had.
Well, I'm past that point. I saw that he got elected. So, now I'm looking at it from the standpoint that he is President and even though I didn't vote for him and I'm sorry that he got into office -- he is there, nonetheless.
I also look at it from the standpoint that the "President" is a whole lot more than just one person and that it's the "office" that has the person and not the "person" that has the office.
The "office" is always a whole lot bigger than the person who inhabits it. And I'm sure that the inhabitants of the office find that out pretty quickly. And I also know that the President's powers, even in that office are "bound" and "limited" by the voters and by the Constitution and by the interactions with the Congress. He may "push" and try to "extend" the boundaries, but those boundaries are (first) very resilient, and (2) they push back (at a President, if he "pushes") and (3) it's increasingly more difficult the further "out of bounds" that a President steps.
I think that a person finds out, pretty quickly, that it is the "office that has him" and not the other way around, and that the person is a "prisoner of the office" more than anything else.
That's the way I see it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.