NOBODY deserves a person's blind allegiance. You should base your support on a person's actions, and if they fail to meet your expectations then you should not support them further. BTW, Senator Clinton did not make the decision to invade Iraq without enough troops at the onset or without a clear plan once we occupied. That decision was made by President Bush and crew.
2007-02-03 05:48:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by puter_patty 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. Allegiance is an oath of fidelity to the sovereign taken by all persons holding important public office and as a condition of naturalization. By ancient common law it might be required of all persons above the age of twelve, and it was repeatedly used as a test for the disaffected. In England it was first imposed by statute in the reign of Elizabeth I of England (1558) and its form has more than once been altered since. Up to the time of the revolution the promise was, "to be true and faithful to the king and his heirs, and truth and faith to bear of life and limb and terrene honour, and not to know or hear of any ill or damage intended him without defending him therefrom." This was thought to favour the doctrine of absolute non-resistance, and accordingly the convention parliament enacted the form that has been in use since that time - "I do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty ..."
2007-02-03 05:47:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
perchance Hillary became into fooled, yet so have been a lot of different government officers. The relatively undesirable ingredient approximately all of it's that the well-known public at large became into warned that the Bush administration became into mendacity and trumping up intelligence information to cutting-edge a faux photograph to the Congress and the well-known public. i will undergo in innovations examining repeatedly lower back in the paper comments from these days retired senior intelligence officers who had had get admission to to the comparable intelligence information which Bush and corporation have been distorting, who stated that the advice did no longer help the allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction on the time or that they posed an coming near near risk to the U.S. the well-known public chosen to have faith a mendacity scumbag like George Bush over people who had no vested interest in distorting the fact. the end result's the biggest deficit in U.S. historic past and the upward push of yet another Republican nutcase, John McCain, who has no compunction against occupying Iraq for yet another a hundred years, all on the cost of the yank tax payer. i wish the yank public enjoys listening to the barbs of their grandchildren thanking them for the completely pointless enormous debt they have exceeded them sooner or later for the enrichment of company u.s. on the instant. in the top, the well-known public will deserve regardless of diatribes their descendants might hurl at them, simply by fact it will be their very own fault for trusting their government to shady and corrupt adult males like George Bush and Dick Cheney.
2016-10-01 09:05:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by scoggin 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
They don't deserve allegiance, and nothing is more important then a decision & support to start & wage war.
2007-02-03 05:54:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Hillary deserves a liar's award. Bush made a decision based on faultly intelligence. Do not forget the house and senate voted for it too. Bush has brought this country out of Clinton's recession and our economy and stock market, unemployment and Social Security Drug benefits are all to his credit, not that the liberal media will admit it. He should have 90% approval and be worshipped.
2007-02-03 05:54:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
The President still stands by his convictions about the war unlike the hypocritical flip-flopping Hillary. If war is justifiable, then yes war should be started. War may be horrible but its a necessary evil that must be taken head on. The world is not a loving peaceful hippie place, there are many countries and factions that would love to decapitate ever American citizen and we have the obligation to our citizens to destroy these evil people! Liberalism will just make us weak and strenghten our enemies resolve!
Hillary knew damn well what she was getting into, she even stated "I've done my homework on Saddam, and he needs to be stopped at all costs!" If she did her homework then she has only her hypocritical self to blame!
2007-02-03 05:46:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by Bunz 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
I would prefer someone who was right from day one like Howard Dean.Unfortunately he's not running and got sabotaged the last election for a very childish incident.
Hillary wasn't the commander in chief.She would probably have used the authorization to go to war in a more intelligent way.
Think it comes down to you have to support someone
2007-02-03 05:49:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by justgoodfolk 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Yes. Raising your kids is more important. Being a Father or Mother is more important. Helping out in your community is more important. See where I am going? There are probably things that need your attention right around you and your worried about whether Bush lied? (Which he didn't by the way.)
2007-02-03 05:43:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Bush was right about the war, history will prove this, unless we lose and the US eventually falls under the Islamo-fascist reign (and all history is lost). Bush is also sincere. Hilary is only politically motivated. She goes whereever the wind is blowing.
2007-02-03 06:00:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Our nation deserves allegiance. Civilization as we know it deserves allegiance. Right now, I can't think of anything more important than the US winning the war on terror.
2007-02-03 06:21:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 7
·
0⤊
3⤋