What's Wrong With Being "Angry" ?

[protectionist]

In her State of the Union rebuttal (which at times, sounded more like an approval) Nikki Haley said >> “during anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation,” I don't know what she could be thinking to say that, but in my whole life, I have found there to be few times, when I see more legitimate reason for the American people to be ANGRY.

We must resist temptation to follow those who are angry ? Why would we need to "follow" anybody to have anger ? Why would every American not be purely FURIOUS at what they see going on over the past 15 years, and growing worse, year by year. HOW could they NOT have anger to its highest degree ?

1. After 3000 people are killed on 9-11 (in the name of Islam), and dozens more in repeated attacks, the president of the United States, and many misguided Americans follow him to give Islam a pass, and instead condemn those who rightfully report the guilt of this vile ideology (ma, querading as religion), thereby facilitating the work of the jihadist enemy.

2. After Hillary Clinton, a despicable self-servicing opportunist, get 4 heroic Americans killed , by denying security improvements, and then giving stand down orders to CIA troops in Benghazi (who thankfully bucked the orders and fought, and saved lives).

3. After Hillary Clinton endangered the American people by putting her emails on a private, unsecured server, allow enemies the world over to pick through them.

4. When the president of the US sends a low-life criminal (Al Sharpton) to cities to foment unrest and hatred of police, and bludgeon local officials (ex. Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings) into order police to stand down against rioters, allowing them to riot, loot, and burn the city.

5. When Obama and his justice dept go after innocent citizens (George Zimmerman) and police (Darren Wilson) for the purpose of stirring up racial animosity, probably to increase the Democrat voting base.

6. When our military has been gutted, and weakened, and made to look weak as in the takeover of US Navy ships by Iranians, resulting in abusive and threatening talk from Iranian officials.

7. When "our" govt allows Iran to keep building nuclear weapon capability + billions of $$ in sanctions relief.

8. When the president of the US and congressional democrats support sanctuary cities, opposing the Kate's Law, even after the murder of Kate Steinle, and support the illegal presence of millions of illegal aliens, stealing American jobs, as wellas tehns of Billion$ from America's economy (remittances) and tax treasuries (for anchor baby welfare), only to have traitorous and looney liberals and RINOs tell us we shouldn't say "illegal alien" or "anchor baby".

9. When the president of the US removes US troops from Iraq (in 2011) resulting in the vacuum of power that allowed al Qaeda in Iraq (which has been sounded routed) to regroup and retake (as ISIS) large ares of the country, killing thousands of innocent people, and carrying on a genocide against Christians.

10. When Obama and Kerry call for the allowing of 185,000 unvettable Syrian refugees to immigrate into the US, bringing with them hundreds of ISIS killers, who are looking to kill millions of Americans with nuclear and biological bombs. endangering the American people worse than anyone has ever done.

And with all this (and more things not mentioned) we are supposed to be content and happy ?

The real question is why are those who complain about Americans being angry, not angry themselves ? What's their EXCUSE for that ?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

2. After Hillary Clinton, a despicable self-servicing opportunist, get 4 heroic Americans killed , by denying security improvements, and then giving stand down orders to CIA troops in Benghazi (who thankfully bucked the orders and fought, and saved lives).

1. She did no such thing.
2. She doesn't control CIA contractors.

"Three of those team members, Kris “Tanto” Paronto, Mark “Oz” Geist, and John “Tig” Tiegen, have given numerous interviews in which they say they were delayed in responding to the Benghazi attacks for 30 minutes after being ordered to stand down.

The soldiers have said they believe that if they had been allowed to respond to the attacks earlier they may have saved the lives of the murdered Americans.

In his interview, Gowdy said he doubts that “assets in the region” could have reached Benghazi in order to save the first two Americans killed in the attack — Amb. Chris Stevens and State Department information officer Sean Smith. Both died of smoke inhalation inside of the U.S. consulate as it was being assailed by terrorists.

“The second attack, the one where we lost Glen Doherty and Ty Woods,” Gowdy said, referring to the two CIA specialists killed in a later attack, “that is an eminently fair question.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/13/gowdy-benghazi-committee-witnesses-say-stand-down-orders-were-given-during-attacks/#ixzz3xP0lhGgq​

 

[protectionist]

2. After Hillary Clinton, a despicable self-servicing opportunist, get 4 heroic Americans killed , by denying security improvements, and then giving stand down orders to CIA troops in Benghazi (who thankfully bucked the orders and fought, and saved lives).

1. She did no such thing.
2. She doesn't control CIA contractors.

"Three of those team members, Kris “Tanto” Paronto, Mark “Oz” Geist, and John “Tig” Tiegen, have given numerous interviews in which they say they were delayed in responding to the Benghazi attacks for 30 minutes after being ordered to stand down.

The soldiers have said they believe that if they had been allowed to respond to the attacks earlier they may have saved the lives of the murdered Americans.

In his interview, Gowdy said he doubts that “assets in the region” could have reached Benghazi in order to save the first two Americans killed in the attack — Amb. Chris Stevens and State Department information officer Sean Smith. Both died of smoke inhalation inside of the U.S. consulate as it was being assailed by terrorists.

“The second attack, the one where we lost Glen Doherty and Ty Woods,” Gowdy said, referring to the two CIA specialists killed in a later attack, “that is an eminently fair question.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/13/gowdy-benghazi-committee-witnesses-say-stand-down-orders-were-given-during-attacks/#ixzz3xP0lhGgq​

When I saw Gowdy questioning Hillary Clinton, he didn't seem to be expressing what you're saying now. In any case, more importantly, the TOPIC centers around the word "ANGRY" and returning to the topic as a whole, I notice you didn't mention that word once. Got anything to say about the notion of Americans being angry or the full 10 items listed in the OP ? If so, that would make for a lot better OP response.

 

[The Great Goose]

Im easy going for ages until I get pushed too far. the American people are no different I suppose.

 

[Compost]

The POTUS told some whoppers in that speech. The GOP rebuttal was, oh it's everybody's fault and angry voices are icky.

There is nothing wrong with being angry. It seems to me that those who aren't feeling angry at this point, haven't been paying attention to what's going on.

 

[imawhosure]

2. After Hillary Clinton, a despicable self-servicing opportunist, get 4 heroic Americans killed , by denying security improvements, and then giving stand down orders to CIA troops in Benghazi (who thankfully bucked the orders and fought, and saved lives).

1. She did no such thing.
2. She doesn't control CIA contractors.

"Three of those team members, Kris “Tanto” Paronto, Mark “Oz” Geist, and John “Tig” Tiegen, have given numerous interviews in which they say they were delayed in responding to the Benghazi attacks for 30 minutes after being ordered to stand down.

The soldiers have said they believe that if they had been allowed to respond to the attacks earlier they may have saved the lives of the murdered Americans.

In his interview, Gowdy said he doubts that “assets in the region” could have reached Benghazi in order to save the first two Americans killed in the attack — Amb. Chris Stevens and State Department information officer Sean Smith. Both died of smoke inhalation inside of the U.S. consulate as it was being assailed by terrorists.

“The second attack, the one where we lost Glen Doherty and Ty Woods,” Gowdy said, referring to the two CIA specialists killed in a later attack, “that is an eminently fair question.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/13/gowdy-benghazi-committee-witnesses-say-stand-down-orders-were-given-during-attacks/#ixzz3xP0lhGgq​

My good man/woman, the reason the left insists you are crazy and not angry if you are pissed off over these things is-----> anger is a strong motivation to get people to vote.

One of your own examples; the gentle giant (yeah, right) shooting in Missouri, proves that they are the biggest user of this tactic to motivate their "ethnic" voters. They spin faster than a "Beanie and Cecil hat" trying to get their people worked into a lather to show at the polls. It doesn't make a difference if it is accurate as long as they can "piss" their people off.

In essence, they are proclaiming it is OK to use fantasyland propaganda on their part, but not OK for us to be pissed about what these politicians have actually done to us! We are crazy. It is actually called, "political propaganda," and if it weren't for that, Hillary would be losing by 15 points!

 

[Mac1958]

There's nothing wrong with being angry. The problem is when we act based on the anger.

That's when we make bad decisions and align ourselves with those who end up doing more harm than good.

Seems to me it's better to make important decisions when we have minimized our emotions.
.

 

[protectionist]

The POTUS told some whoppers in that speech. The GOP rebuttal was, oh it's everybody's fault and angry voices are icky.

There is nothing wrong with being angry. It seems to me that those who aren't feeling angry at this point, haven't been paying attention to what's going on.

Or they deliberately refuse to confront it.

 

[imawhosure]

There's nothing wrong with being angry. The problem is when we act based on the anger.

That's when we make bad decisions and align ourselves with those who end up doing more harm than good.

Seems to me it's better to make important decisions when we have minimized our emotions.
.

My good man, when you kick someones ass with a pipe, or shoot them because they keep screwing you, then yes; you are overly angry.

When you change horses midstream because your guy/people refuse to even attempt to do your bidding, that is a logical and fair choice!

This "resentment" towards our leaders isn't because we elected them, they did what they promised, and the ideas failed. Rather, it is because they made promises to do things, then lied to ALL of us and ignored their promises. They are like car salespeople who promise you a great deal, fool you in the paperwork, then tell you that you are dumb. No longer, no.....damn......longer!

 

[Mac1958]

There's nothing wrong with being angry. The problem is when we act based on the anger.

That's when we make bad decisions and align ourselves with those who end up doing more harm than good.

Seems to me it's better to make important decisions when we have minimized our emotions.
.

My good man, when you kick someones ass with a pipe, or shoot them because they keep screwing you, then yes; you are overly angry.

When you change horses midstream because your guy/people refuse to even attempt to do your bidding, that is a logical and fair choice!

This "resentment" towards our leaders isn't because we elected them, they did what they promised, and the ideas failed. Rather, it is because they made promises to do things, then lied to ALL of us and ignored their promises. They are like car salespeople who promise you a great deal, fool you in the paperwork, then tell you that you are dumb. No longer, no.....damn......longer!

Hey, as I said, anger is fine. I get angry at stuff too.

It's how we react that matters.
.

 

[Toro]

I don't want an angry President driven by an angry electorate.

Very little constructive or positive comes from anger. This isn't a surprise.

This is particularly true in politics. Anger creates demagogues, and there is a long list of political failure with demagogues as leaders. This is the type of leadership you see in ruined banana republics.

I want my leader to be rational, intelligent, positive, strong and offer solutions, not rail against others and divide the nation even further.

Obama sucks, but this populist demagoguery in the Republican Party is just as bad.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

In her State of the Union rebuttal (which at times, sounded more like an approval) Nikki Haley said >> “during anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation,” I don't know what she could be thinking to say that, but in my whole life, I have found there to be few times, when I see more legitimate reason for the American people to be ANGRY.

We must resist temptation to follow those who are angry ? Why would we need to "follow" anybody to have anger ? Why would every American not be purely FURIOUS at what they see going on over the past 15 years, and growing worse, year by year. HOW could they NOT have anger to its highest degree ?

1. After 3000 people are killed on 9-11 (in the name of Islam), and dozens more in repeated attacks, the president of the United States, and many misguided Americans follow him to give Islam a pass, and instead condemn those who rightfully report the guilt of this vile ideology (ma, querading as religion), thereby facilitating the work of the jihadist enemy.

2. After Hillary Clinton, a despicable self-servicing opportunist, get 4 heroic Americans killed , by denying security improvements, and then giving stand down orders to CIA troops in Benghazi (who thankfully bucked the orders and fought, and saved lives).

3. After Hillary Clinton endangered the American people by putting her emails on a private, unsecured server, allow enemies the world over to pick through them.

4. When the president of the US sends a low-life criminal (Al Sharpton) to cities to foment unrest and hatred of police, and bludgeon local officials (ex. Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings) into order police to stand down against rioters, allowing them to riot, loot, and burn the city.

5. When Obama and his justice dept go after innocent citizens (George Zimmerman) and police (Darren Wilson) for the purpose of stirring up racial animosity, probably to increase the Democrat voting base.

6. When our military has been gutted, and weakened, and made to look weak as in the takeover of US Navy ships by Iranians, resulting in abusive and threatening talk from Iranian officials.

7. When "our" govt allows Iran to keep building nuclear weapon capability + billions of $$ in sanctions relief.

8. When the president of the US and congressional democrats support sanctuary cities, opposing the Kate's Law, even after the murder of Kate Steinle, and support the illegal presence of millions of illegal aliens, stealing American jobs, as wellas tehns of Billion$ from America's economy (remittances) and tax treasuries (for anchor baby welfare), only to have traitorous and looney liberals and RINOs tell us we shouldn't say "illegal alien" or "anchor baby".

9. When the president of the US removes US troops from Iraq (in 2011) resulting in the vacuum of power that allowed al Qaeda in Iraq (which has been sounded routed) to regroup and retake (as ISIS) large ares of the country, killing thousands of innocent people, and carrying on a genocide against Christians.

10. When Obama and Kerry call for the allowing of 185,000 unvettable Syrian refugees to immigrate into the US, bringing with them hundreds of ISIS killers, who are looking to kill millions of Americans with nuclear and biological bombs. endangering the American people worse than anyone has ever done.

And with all this (and more things not mentioned) we are supposed to be content and happy ?

The real question is why are those who complain about Americans being angry, not angry themselves ? What's their EXCUSE for that ?

I never worried what President George W Bush was going to do or wake up pissed at the latest overreach of his executive power like I have every day Obama has been in our White House. Obama is a fucking disaster to the American way if life. 2017 can't come soon enough. God willing ?Hillary will lose the election.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So, the gist of this thread is "Anger leads to the Dark Side".

Ri-iiiiiight.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right reactionaries, the John Birch Society, the citizen councils, the KKK are hiding on the dark side already. Anger is appropriate at times but not in formulating policy.

 

[longknife]

There's nothing wrong with being angry. The problem is when we act based on the anger.

That's when we make bad decisions and align ourselves with those who end up doing more harm than good.

Seems to me it's better to make important decisions when we have minimized our emotions.
.

There are far too many Americans who seem to have "minimized their emotions."

I'm reminded of the movie where the guy screamed something to the effect, "I'm mad and I'm going to do something about it!"

It's that anger that is going to get many Americans to get up out of their arm chairs and go to the polls to VOTE! And vote for change! To get rid of the Shrillary's and RINOS.

 

[Mac1958]

There's nothing wrong with being angry. The problem is when we act based on the anger.

That's when we make bad decisions and align ourselves with those who end up doing more harm than good.

Seems to me it's better to make important decisions when we have minimized our emotions.
.

There are far too many Americans who seem to have "minimized their emotions."

I'm reminded of the movie where the guy screamed something to the effect, "I'm mad and I'm going to do something about it!"

It's that anger that is going to get many Americans to get up out of their arm chairs and go to the polls to VOTE! And vote for change! To get rid of the Shrillary's and RINOS.

We agree that anger can certainly motivate, and that's a good thing.

Using the facts that anger us in our decision-making process is important, but reason, logic and rationality still have to control the decision-making process.

Otherwise, there's little separating us from some wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damascus.
.

 

[Old Rocks]

Anger over a bad situation is justified. Acting on that anger in a manner that creates an even worse situation is that act of a fool. Put the anger aside, and act in a manner that brings the situation to a satisfactory solution. That is wise action.

 

[protectionist]

I don't want an angry President driven by an angry electorate.

Very little constructive or positive comes from anger. This isn't a surprise.

This is particularly true in politics. Anger creates demagogues, and there is a long list of political failure with demagogues as leaders. This is the type of leadership you see in ruined banana republics.

I want my leader to be rational, intelligent, positive, strong and offer solutions, not rail against others and divide the nation even further.

Obama sucks, but this populist demagoguery in the Republican Party is just as bad.

BULLSHIT!! A whole lot of good will come from an angry President driven by an angry electorate. That is exactly what we need right now. Constructive and positive changes don't come directly from the anger, but they come from fixing the problems that generated the anger.

I want my leader to be rational, intelligent, positive, strong and offer solutions, and not be afraid to condemn what is wrong, or face up to the divisions of the nation, as they truly are, just to appease somebody's half-ass concept of PC.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't want an angry President driven by an angry electorate.

Very little constructive or positive comes from anger. This isn't a surprise.

This is particularly true in politics. Anger creates demagogues, and there is a long list of political failure with demagogues as leaders. This is the type of leadership you see in ruined banana republics.

I want my leader to be rational, intelligent, positive, strong and offer solutions, not rail against others and divide the nation even further.

Obama sucks, but this populist demagoguery in the Republican Party is just as bad.

BULLSHIT!! A whole lot of good will come from an angry President driven by an angry electorate. That is exactly what we need right now. Constructive and positive changes don't come directly from the anger, but they come from fixing the problems that generated the anger.

I want my leader to be rational, intelligent, positive, strong and offer solutions, and not be afraid to condemn what is wrong, or face up to the divisions of the nation, as they truly are, just to appease somebody's half-ass concept of PC.

A president can do that without being angry and out of control to just to please the far right and libertarian weirdos.

 

[jknowgood]

I remember when Obama told his supporters to get in the faces of the opposition. No hatred there.