Because they have never been TAUGHT (key word) to question authority. They are blind and are content to be as a sheep in a flock of ignorance. They lack critical thinking skills, which are seldom taught in our public education system, which is most likely an intentional omission in curriculum; meant to serve the powers that be, who benefit from an undereducated majority of the populace.
2006-09-11 04:40:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by strider89406 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
There are a lot of people who do not support him unconditionally, just look at the polls his ratings keep dropping. The ones that do give there all are the No Millionaires left behind. After all they get all the tax breaks and are able to funnel money into campaign funds etc. There are a group of people who would like to see him impeached because of his violations of the Constitution and I agree he should be he broke the law.
2006-09-11 11:36:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Of course it is unnecessary to support the President unconditionally. I don't, even though I voted for him twice (and would again). The problem is that lack of support on foreign policy gives encouragement to the enemy, and that is under present circumstances a bad thing, as it encourages the bad guys to persist in being bad. When it comes to foreign policy, we have two choices, and the difference between them is simply a matter of the message we wish to send: if the message is to be "If you are bad enough, and persistent enough, we will bug out so that you can continue to be bad," then we should bug out and go home. If the message is to be "If you are persistently bad, we will pound you into the ground," the only way to send that message is to pound them into the ground.
2006-09-11 11:37:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
So does that mean when Clinton perjured himself in a court of law that you did not support him?
Or does your bias run so deep as to exclude the activities of one in favor of the other?
No one who is sane supports unconditional backing of any elected official. However, you should give him the benefit of the doubt.
Bill Clinton was a president who could have been great, but let history bypass him because being liked matter more than accomplishing something. He sinned, he broke the law, was impeached, and should have been convicted. He was not convicted. However, as much of a scum-bag as he is, I do not believe that he sent a missile to that drug plant in the Sudan to wag the dog from the impeachment.
George Bush could have never went to war. He took a chance. Like Truman, people like him less and less every year in his time. But as history vindicated Truman and Korea, so to will history vindicate Bush and Iraq.
This is still our nation. You can be patriotic without being blind or jingoistic. The President deserves our respect, no matter who holds the office. If you do not like him, fine, but at least respect the office.
2006-09-11 11:39:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by lundstroms2004 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
You don't have to support him, you have to RESPECT him. He is the President, and even if you disagree with him, you have to respect the postion. Yes you can still say this or that needs done or fixed. Saying I wish I could kill him though is crossing a line. Saying he should do this or that is fine. I didn't like Clinton, didn't really support him. Although I also didn't have anything to do with him being put in office as I couldn't even vote at that time so not like I could vote for his opponent either. I get tired of people who don't vote complaining about who got put in office. If you are 18 or over register to vote and go to your poll on election day or don't complain about who is in office. After all you are just at fault in that you could have voted the other way and helped the other one win your State.
2006-09-11 11:41:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Obvious
The thought police will arrest you if you do not serve the Emperor George
Go big Red Go
2006-09-11 11:43:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by 43 5
·
1⤊
0⤋