sidneyworld
Senior Member
Never in the history of any presidency has there been someone so endulged in his own spotlight. While President Obama hit the floor running, cloaked in what many believed was a resurrection of common sense across the board, there are more things to be considered in his perpetual campaign for the ultimate solution in this country. Government Control. Perhaps even his own personal control, and indeed he was not the first, but certainly the most profiled, highlighted and candid a president this country has ever experienced.
I remember a time when candidates held themselves to a standard of distinction, integrity and honor. Not all, but we certainly had a far greater garden variety of statesmen type individuals running for the Presidency in the first 80 years of the turn of the century. I had thought, even if just for a moment that President Obama held to this standard. That his persona at the very least demonstrated a sense of comprehensive integrity in just about all areas of American Life and its problems. I don't believe that any longer. And only one President comes to mind who actually pulled this off.
President Theodore Roosevelt mastered the manuever of corralling his government base into his personal arena, which was, for all intent and purposes, what he personally wanted as a citizen in this country. What that became to mean, with him, was the best life one could be afforded in the United States, and further, in any country that stood for freedom, and liberty, but only within a self-regulated society. Not based on Government. Intelligent, respectful people makes a country. Having some foresight in living amongst other people and recognizing one common demoninator.
Pres. T. Roosevelt accomplished this. And came to be one of the greatest presidents in this country. But more importantly President Roosevelt's aspirations dealt more with a unversal balance of accomodation of each citizen. Not necessarily a quest for absolute equality, though indeed lacking. But this is not his job. This is not a president's job.
Roosevelt mastered the art of politics because he was able to actively define the government's responsibility in accomodating it's people. He understood that any failure of government is predicated on bad management, not poor candidacy, and held every protocol to this standard. Thus it cannot be the fault of citizens to be boondoggled into believing that they who elect would essentially crash the system.
President Roosevelt also championed the notion of self-regulation, not only of elected officials, but of voters as well. If we expect to elect a sound government, we should at least be as worthy an individual. As citizens there is no other ethical prerequiste because we are not politicians, nor trained to navigate through the complexities of big government. But we can produce good candidates. We do this by following a simple rule. Don't ask for things of this country, you can't handle yourself. Imagine yourself running a business. Then begin to imagine running a country. Ultimate wisdom that's been repeated through various Presidents, both Democratic and Republican in this country.
But what makes for such a distinction, aside the savy of a good politician. How do we know what's really on their mind. If there is a hidden agenda? If the sound-management of this country in the best interest of it citizens is well within their ambitions? Well, here's a start. The military. Not as McCain might portray it, predicated on his experience. That scared me because he was tortured. I don't know that I could actually trust someone elected into such power, then suddenly have this notion of .... well, payback time. lol. Okay, but it does concern me. But essentially I didn't like his ambiguious stance on several issues. He seemed all too often the consumate political shapeshifter, only a couple of calibers below Secretary Clinton. And that's another story.
While there is no prerequisite of any miliary subscription by a presidential candidate, something I still find remarkably dysfunctional, risking one's life for their country is perhaps the highest standard of patriotism a citizen can ever be held to. Dieing for one's country is by far the greatest measure of devotion and allegiance an individual could resolve themselves to. And in WWII, as my dad vividly acknowledged in his accountants of the Battle of the Bulge, of some of his unfortunate friends in fox-holes next to him, their dieing was the greatest measure of dignity, a somewhat reluctant sacrifice, unsurpassed in any journals you could read of any war. That was his opinion, his observation, and, mostly importantly for me, his allegiance to this country, his second natured devotion, personally, that he was there for our country.
Yet, the motivation by which an individual now balances the worth of his life in adhering to a call of duty is greatly compromised because we have been liberalized as the threat of war has not been an issue. It's no longer the question of responsibility of maintaining the safety and survival of one's children. Though, yes, it is a factor. It's now also the endless resources and idealistic mentality we've realized regarding liberty through it's assimilation of human rights and "equal rights" (orchestrated by LIBERALS) which plays an important part on who enlists and why. Men and women. Fathers and mothers. Single parents. Part-time patriots. Students with limited resources.
It's not a matter of decency that one decides to join our armed forces. Nor is it necessarily a matter of pride and patriotism. Back in 1941, our freedom was threatened, and enlisting was an expected and paramount endorsement by every American family and even, by every American mother while, in her same breath she carried that universal fear of perhaps losing her child (children). It was a sacrifice fully within the reach of honor and love for country. And expected.
But there's clearly a difference here. With our progressively liberal society we have forgotten the fundamental concepts of defending our freedom. We have systematically and politically disseminated ourselves from heart and country. And have compromised the mechanisms by which a war can be fought. "..... Pregnant Cadets." We have forgotten that getting an "alternative" free education through our military does not change the nature of defense.
And yes, we have been somewhat brainwashed into thinking that we are safe and the military is simply a means towards a potential "career" which has failed us in mainstream society. But to what extent can we complacently take leave the protection of this county, the United States? Of a country so incredibly filled with liberty. So bloated nearly with concepts of life and individuality and, again, PEACE. The county that nearly single handedly won World War Two and avoided what is almost inconceivable for every American..... Communism. We did this. But it was back then, in 1941 at the inception of our participation, when we finally involved ourselves.
It was then when we so proudly allowed our children protect our country. There was no measure of compromise, only sacrifice. There was no measure of selfishness or "equal rights" or exploitation. We were a country then. We were cohesive. And technology and liberalism would have been considered a very shameful disposition for any individual, no less a family member to have carried............ in those days.
Contemporary society dismisses these core values and protocols, as if we are liviing in a Garden of Eden protected only by a false sense of invinsibility over other countries. We are not. We are in big trouble, led by a self-proclaimed "savior" of our people.
Big, big trouble.
Anne Marie
I remember a time when candidates held themselves to a standard of distinction, integrity and honor. Not all, but we certainly had a far greater garden variety of statesmen type individuals running for the Presidency in the first 80 years of the turn of the century. I had thought, even if just for a moment that President Obama held to this standard. That his persona at the very least demonstrated a sense of comprehensive integrity in just about all areas of American Life and its problems. I don't believe that any longer. And only one President comes to mind who actually pulled this off.
President Theodore Roosevelt mastered the manuever of corralling his government base into his personal arena, which was, for all intent and purposes, what he personally wanted as a citizen in this country. What that became to mean, with him, was the best life one could be afforded in the United States, and further, in any country that stood for freedom, and liberty, but only within a self-regulated society. Not based on Government. Intelligent, respectful people makes a country. Having some foresight in living amongst other people and recognizing one common demoninator.
Pres. T. Roosevelt accomplished this. And came to be one of the greatest presidents in this country. But more importantly President Roosevelt's aspirations dealt more with a unversal balance of accomodation of each citizen. Not necessarily a quest for absolute equality, though indeed lacking. But this is not his job. This is not a president's job.
Roosevelt mastered the art of politics because he was able to actively define the government's responsibility in accomodating it's people. He understood that any failure of government is predicated on bad management, not poor candidacy, and held every protocol to this standard. Thus it cannot be the fault of citizens to be boondoggled into believing that they who elect would essentially crash the system.
President Roosevelt also championed the notion of self-regulation, not only of elected officials, but of voters as well. If we expect to elect a sound government, we should at least be as worthy an individual. As citizens there is no other ethical prerequiste because we are not politicians, nor trained to navigate through the complexities of big government. But we can produce good candidates. We do this by following a simple rule. Don't ask for things of this country, you can't handle yourself. Imagine yourself running a business. Then begin to imagine running a country. Ultimate wisdom that's been repeated through various Presidents, both Democratic and Republican in this country.
But what makes for such a distinction, aside the savy of a good politician. How do we know what's really on their mind. If there is a hidden agenda? If the sound-management of this country in the best interest of it citizens is well within their ambitions? Well, here's a start. The military. Not as McCain might portray it, predicated on his experience. That scared me because he was tortured. I don't know that I could actually trust someone elected into such power, then suddenly have this notion of .... well, payback time. lol. Okay, but it does concern me. But essentially I didn't like his ambiguious stance on several issues. He seemed all too often the consumate political shapeshifter, only a couple of calibers below Secretary Clinton. And that's another story.
While there is no prerequisite of any miliary subscription by a presidential candidate, something I still find remarkably dysfunctional, risking one's life for their country is perhaps the highest standard of patriotism a citizen can ever be held to. Dieing for one's country is by far the greatest measure of devotion and allegiance an individual could resolve themselves to. And in WWII, as my dad vividly acknowledged in his accountants of the Battle of the Bulge, of some of his unfortunate friends in fox-holes next to him, their dieing was the greatest measure of dignity, a somewhat reluctant sacrifice, unsurpassed in any journals you could read of any war. That was his opinion, his observation, and, mostly importantly for me, his allegiance to this country, his second natured devotion, personally, that he was there for our country.
Yet, the motivation by which an individual now balances the worth of his life in adhering to a call of duty is greatly compromised because we have been liberalized as the threat of war has not been an issue. It's no longer the question of responsibility of maintaining the safety and survival of one's children. Though, yes, it is a factor. It's now also the endless resources and idealistic mentality we've realized regarding liberty through it's assimilation of human rights and "equal rights" (orchestrated by LIBERALS) which plays an important part on who enlists and why. Men and women. Fathers and mothers. Single parents. Part-time patriots. Students with limited resources.
It's not a matter of decency that one decides to join our armed forces. Nor is it necessarily a matter of pride and patriotism. Back in 1941, our freedom was threatened, and enlisting was an expected and paramount endorsement by every American family and even, by every American mother while, in her same breath she carried that universal fear of perhaps losing her child (children). It was a sacrifice fully within the reach of honor and love for country. And expected.
But there's clearly a difference here. With our progressively liberal society we have forgotten the fundamental concepts of defending our freedom. We have systematically and politically disseminated ourselves from heart and country. And have compromised the mechanisms by which a war can be fought. "..... Pregnant Cadets." We have forgotten that getting an "alternative" free education through our military does not change the nature of defense.
And yes, we have been somewhat brainwashed into thinking that we are safe and the military is simply a means towards a potential "career" which has failed us in mainstream society. But to what extent can we complacently take leave the protection of this county, the United States? Of a country so incredibly filled with liberty. So bloated nearly with concepts of life and individuality and, again, PEACE. The county that nearly single handedly won World War Two and avoided what is almost inconceivable for every American..... Communism. We did this. But it was back then, in 1941 at the inception of our participation, when we finally involved ourselves.
It was then when we so proudly allowed our children protect our country. There was no measure of compromise, only sacrifice. There was no measure of selfishness or "equal rights" or exploitation. We were a country then. We were cohesive. And technology and liberalism would have been considered a very shameful disposition for any individual, no less a family member to have carried............ in those days.
Contemporary society dismisses these core values and protocols, as if we are liviing in a Garden of Eden protected only by a false sense of invinsibility over other countries. We are not. We are in big trouble, led by a self-proclaimed "savior" of our people.
Big, big trouble.
Anne Marie
