Posted on 02/21/2003 6:25:53 PM PST by Spidey
I suspect Mr Thompson doesn't give two turds that NK has nukes. He uses it as a straw dog to attack Bush on Iraq.
If and when Bush shifts his attention to this other axis of evil, I hope Thompson's words are shoved back down his throat as he furiously back pedals and accuses Bush of again being too warlike dealing with North Korea.
And he will.
Sorry, but the only occurance of the word "democracy" in this thread is your own posting. He quite correctely said that this was supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people", which I must confess to recognizing as somewhat familiar.
I'm a "rabid" conservative, but I'm not at all in tune with this targeting of Iraq under these circumstances. I do, however, vote we blow the hell out of North Korea first thing in the morning.
>>“Sometimes you have to ignore popular opinion and do >>what’s right,” Bush said in a speech to a group of >>cheering veterans. “The President must govern, not be >>governed.” >> >>Say what? Excuse me, King George, but this country was >>founded on the belief of “government of the people, by >>the people and for the people.”
We're not an absolute democracy. Hell, we're not even a democracy. But, that's beside the point. The point is that real leaders LEAD. It takes gutless wonders like Clinton to follow "public opinion" rather than do what they believe is Right.
Didn't we pass a law resricting the first admendment rights of these type of individuals after Clinton left office?
Of course this is part of the closing line of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address; ending with "shall not perish from the Earth."
A thorough search of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, reveals no exact equivalent. Taking the Declaration as the document that created the nation and the Constitution as the "operating manual" one might draw different conclusions than did Mr. Lincoln.
In studying the founding documents, it seems to me that what we have here is a representative republic. That is we choose our leaders and they are to lead...as did Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln did not ask what the will of the people was. He acted as the presiding executive and even suspended the Constitution. It was, in my view, quite hypocritical of Lincoln to utter those words: "of the people, by the people and for the people."
Regardless of what one may think of my rant it is an historical fact that Lincoln did not amend the constitution with the Gettysburg Address.
I'll offer nothing also, except the fact that I read the article.
The author is a dumbass.....
Here's some logic: I read the article, I recognized the fact that the author's words don't pass the smell test for lunacy, and I came to the logical conclusion that the author is a dumbass. Nothing personal against the author; he merely made many statements which are BS. No, I won't enumerate them for you; they're self evident, just like 2 + 2 does not equal five. In other words, any rational person would read this tripe and decide that the author is a dumbass....
It's a good thing you're here, cause the left hasn't had a new idea since Roosevelt. Stick around, you may learn something from us.
If you don't like what President Bush does in this term, don't vote for him next time around. That is how the whole thing works, friend. So, in the meantime, don't offer spurious arguments against Bush's determination to do what he needs to do--i.e, arguments based on philosophical positions which are not consistent with American Constitutional government in the first place.
Besides, the Gettysburg Address, although a noble document, is not our nation's framing document. Our government definitely is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people--but it is more specifically Constituted as a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people.
In other words, Thompson is making the standard mistake which the Democrats make. Because of their ideology of merely pandering for power, they refuse to grasp the fact that this nation was constituted as a Republic, not as a mere democracy.
That, of course, is precisely why we have to elect men of good character to the Presidency. We have to elect men who are basically trustworthy even when the electorate doesn't always have good sense on a day-to-day basis.
I gather that the real reason why you are complaining about my discussion of basic Americanism is that you are in the latter category (grin).
Come on, now, man, it's obvious that we have to get Saddam.
I know a number of other hard core conservatives that agree with you. For much different reasons than liberals though. I agree about NK. I would also like to see Saddam whacked.
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.