I think your stance is more a deflecting of responsibility than mine. You are saying the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of those who were elected.
All I am saying is that those who put him there, in this case since we knew what to expect, should shoulder some (but not a lot) of the blame for putting them there in the first place. 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:303956 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
