Can We Still Handle Being a Constitutional Representative Republic Any Longer?

Scary Question, Ken...

I am not at all sure the question is 'yes'.

First people are too lazy to research anything on their own...

Second when they start their research they have been prejudiced against any moral or ethical result by the education establishment...

Third, truly unbiased sources of information are almost non-existant...

Fourth, people are simply too lazy (not to mention spoiled) to demand the whole truth and nothing but the truth...

In fact my sense is, is that they absolutely do not want the truth...

(You've heard the phrase, 'You want the truth? You couldn't handle the truth!')

Maybe we need another 'bad' president like clinton or kerry? To shock the few god men into action.

I don't know...

Total Truth is important, even if it is adverse...

But, how can we expect to know 'Total Truth' when we keep shootting the messengers and failing to allow time to correct honest errors???

Americans suffer from a National Hypocrisy of Uni-Directional Judgementalism of a depth that is beyond comprehension.

Maybe it's genetic???

Maybe it's radiation???

Maybe it's the water...

God Help Us All!

 

We already have a bad president. It appears that one way or another, we will have a bad president after the election.

If Kerry does everything he promises to do, it will only slow the decline. If we get four more years of Bush, it will only accelerate it. We need someone capable of turning things around.

Not going to happen.

 

How in the name of Bugs Bunny would Kerry slow a decline? He's a man without positions, convictions, or for that matter a personality.

Ridiculous... but predictable.

 

For one thing, Kerry would quit spending like a drunken neocon. The debt is crushing the recovery.

For another, he'd make sure that the troops in Iraq got the weapons and equipment they needed. If the republicans again tabled an amendment giving our troops body armor and armored vehicles, as they did last time, Kerry wouldn't just sit there smiling, as Bush did. He'd shame them into doing it.

(please don't bother recycling Zell's plagarized internet rumor about Kerry voting against defense, unless you want to see the facts posted here again)

For another, there'd be no more Bush waffling about whether or not the objective is nation-building in Iraq, or going after Osama and Al Qaeda.

Kerry is focused on terrorism, instead of neocon dreams of empire.

On the other hand, Kerry is too inclined to let the government grow and do more things. Just like Bush.

He's a liberal. Just like Bush.

He's not entirely truthful, so he's marginally better than Bush in that regard.

"Said IBPO President David Holway, “John Kerry has been a friend of law enforcement officers for nearly thirty years, first as a prosecutor and now as a United States Senator, and the IBPO looks forward to working with him as President. After three and a half years of disappointing leadership under George Bush, we need to change course in November and elect a President with a real record of supporting police officers and a lifetime of standing with law enforcement.”

Kerry has a strong record of standing up for law enforcement and the men and women who protect our communities. He led the fight in the Senate to fund efforts to add 100,000 police officers to our streets and supported the current ban on assault weapons, as well as measures to crack down on armor-piercing, “cop killer,” bullets. As a prosecutor, Kerry put away murderers and mob bosses while building a strong record of being tough on crime."(InternationalBrotherhood of Police Officers)

Kerry, with John McCain took over the effort to find our missing men in Vietnam, with a determination to see it through to the end. Instead of taking excuses or evasions, he and McCain stayed on the Vietnamese, until they were actually volunteering information.

And, as you know, Kerry's determination to win in Vietnam led to his devising new tactics to handle ambushes that gained him praise from his commanders.

Not only did he fight to win in Vietnam, when he left the service, convinced the war was wrong, he risked everything by publicly saying so. That was a time when it was not only unpopular, but dangerous to say so. You'd have to be pretty dumb to think that a man like that has no convictions. Bush has convictions, too; drunk driving, for example.