Gruss - I understand what you are saying and, generally, I agree with you. If 2004 was an election between 2 guys who were never President than I would agree with you 100%. However, I think in this case, where people made no secret about choosing the 'best of the bad choices', it is a bit different. The American public had a chance to get rid of Bush and did not take it.
I am not saying that we should not hold our leaders accountable, we should. But, on the flip side, we also need to learn to live with the consequences with the choices we make, and that includes who we elect. On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Scott wrote: >> I think Scott's statement is right on the money... *we* (meaning the US >> voting population as a whole) elect our leaders > > And thus if we don't have the courage to hold them accountable - and > they the bravery to hold themselves accountable - then we're done. > > The "everybody's to blame" argument is like the new soccer games where > everyone plays and nobody loses: nobody wins either. > > If we're not going to hold leaders accountable then we ought not to > call them leaders. > > Let's just appoint an unaccountable royal family and be done with it. > > Your entire argument would still apply to them which how you know it's wrong > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:303944 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
