Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Willravel · 03-27-2007, 05:40 PM

Okay, I'll touch on this one more time (I honestly don't want to threadjack, and I regret making my initial statement here instead of in another thread more appropriate).

The line: We're responsible for choosing out leaders. That's what democracy is all about. We make a careful decision about who best represents us and who would best lead our community/state/country. We all knew that Bush vacationed up until 9/11. The guy was gone something like 65-80% of the time. Except for a few misguided people out there, I think we can agree that within reason a preemptive war is wrong, especially considering that by 2004 we were all aware that the WMD and al Qaeda links were bogus. Bush and his administration said time and again that they KNEW Hussain had chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons. They even said they knew where they were. Those were lies. If they had any brains, they would have said "Intelligence suggests", because that would have at least been in the same solar system as the truth. We all knew going into the 2004 election that we bombed Afghanistan and then basically left. We also knew that Iraq was beginning a downward spiral. Sure, we didn't know it would reach the level of civil war, but we knew thing weren't going to be puppy dogs and roses.

People still came out in droves to vote for the guy. They gave him the authority to remain in power and continue his bad behavior. It is in this way that we are responsible. We had the power to give any number of people. Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Grahm, Sharpton (don't laugh) all were candidates. Sure, they weren't perfect. Shoot, no one is. I saw flaws in each of them. The question, though was out of the people who could possibly win, who would be the most responsible? 45-50% came out for Bush.

As for the line elsewhere, Ray Blanton was voted for directly by voters. His constituents were responsible for the his foreseeable decisions. Judging by the research I've done today on him, it was not reasonable to foresee his decision to hire crappy aids. The fault is his and his aids, not the voters. The line is drawn, in my mind, based on precedence. Bush had a track record to indicate that he was going to continue pulling shit. Clinton had a track record that her was going to screw around, even though it really was none of our business. Had I been able to vote in 1992, I still would have voted for Clinton because despite his sophomoric behavior he was a good leader and was the best man for the job. When Clinton got his shit stuck in Bosnia in 95, we had the precedence of resolution 752 in 1992 to know that 'all necessary means' meant trouble. When people came out in 1996 to vote for Clinton, they had the knowledge of his mistakes in Bosnia to weigh on their decision. Had Clinton committed a second mistake like Bosnia in his second term, his voters would have been responsible for it because his record made clear what he was capable of.

I hope this clears up my opinion.

03-27-2007, 05:40 PM	#36 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Okay, I'll touch on this one more time (I honestly don't want to threadjack, and I regret making my initial statement here instead of in another thread more appropriate). The line: We're responsible for choosing out leaders. That's what democracy is all about. We make a careful decision about who best represents us and who would best lead our community/state/country. We all knew that Bush vacationed up until 9/11. The guy was gone something like 65-80% of the time. Except for a few misguided people out there, I think we can agree that within reason a preemptive war is wrong, especially considering that by 2004 we were all aware that the WMD and al Qaeda links were bogus. Bush and his administration said time and again that they KNEW Hussain had chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons. They even said they knew where they were. Those were lies. If they had any brains, they would have said "Intelligence suggests", because that would have at least been in the same solar system as the truth. We all knew going into the 2004 election that we bombed Afghanistan and then basically left. We also knew that Iraq was beginning a downward spiral. Sure, we didn't know it would reach the level of civil war, but we knew thing weren't going to be puppy dogs and roses. People still came out in droves to vote for the guy. They gave him the authority to remain in power and continue his bad behavior. It is in this way that we are responsible. We had the power to give any number of people. Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Grahm, Sharpton (don't laugh) all were candidates. Sure, they weren't perfect. Shoot, no one is. I saw flaws in each of them. The question, though was out of the people who could possibly win, who would be the most responsible? 45-50% came out for Bush. As for the line elsewhere, Ray Blanton was voted for directly by voters. His constituents were responsible for the his foreseeable decisions. Judging by the research I've done today on him, it was not reasonable to foresee his decision to hire crappy aids. The fault is his and his aids, not the voters. The line is drawn, in my mind, based on precedence. Bush had a track record to indicate that he was going to continue pulling shit. Clinton had a track record that her was going to screw around, even though it really was none of our business. Had I been able to vote in 1992, I still would have voted for Clinton because despite his sophomoric behavior he was a good leader and was the best man for the job. When Clinton got his shit stuck in Bosnia in 95, we had the precedence of resolution 752 in 1992 to know that 'all necessary means' meant trouble. When people came out in 1996 to vote for Clinton, they had the knowledge of his mistakes in Bosnia to weigh on their decision. Had Clinton committed a second mistake like Bosnia in his second term, his voters would have been responsible for it because his record made clear what he was capable of. I hope this clears up my opinion.