2007-05-11 01:48:20 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
hell no, why should we support anyone unconditionally?
2007-05-11 01:50:28 · answer #1 · answered by bregweidd 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The support should be to get rid of him as he has sunk the American Gevernment further in debt than any other previous President.
2000 when Bush took power the debt was at 5.6 trillion
2006 August the debt was at 8.4 trillion
It is expected before the buffoon and his Administration leave power the National Debt will be a 9.5 trillion. And George Walker Bush has the audacity to say how great the American economy is, well he is a liar just like he has been most of his life and the sad thing is that he will never change. George Walker Bush is like a spoilt kid that has to have his own way at all times except that he is a child still in a Adults body and is still as stubborn as a mule..
2007-05-11 09:14:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, this is a Democrary dependent upon the FREE exchange of countervailing arguments in the give and take of the public marketplace of ideas. This is not a dictatorship.
Were Congress to actually declare War and the President go along and the Supreme Court not rule it unconstitutional, then and only then, should we support (by helping to pay for and doing without luxories during its execution) our Commander In Chief in executing and winning that war.
2007-05-11 08:57:58 · answer #3 · answered by Ben 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Look at what happened in Germany from 1938-1945 for blindly following their leader, then consider if you should support anybody that much.
2007-05-11 09:19:14 · answer #4 · answered by conranger1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
big ups to the fellows who answered before me. The country should work for us people because that's the entire point of having a political system... making society run more efficiently. If someone can't fulfill this duty, then why should we support him?
2007-05-11 08:52:00 · answer #5 · answered by F1reflyfan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. And I've not heard anybody say that.
But there is a special case. When the nation is at war, the people should support victory, not defeat. So going around repeating falsehoods (like "Bush lied") and undermining the war by repeating enemy propaganda ("torture at Gitmo", etc) actually harms America, and harms our troops.
An old saying went: In wartime, politics stops at the borders.
2007-05-11 09:17:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The balance between Loyalty vs Truth is the ethical question. Should you help your own children even if they murdered someone? Well, I wouldn't.
2007-05-11 08:52:44 · answer #7 · answered by shshao 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We debate the decisions, but after that decision is made we have a obligation to stand behind it. So If the president says "I want a war with Iraq" Debate it till the cows come home, but once congress votes for approval (as they did) they we have an obligation to carry out that task.
2007-05-11 08:52:52 · answer #8 · answered by John L 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Absolutely not.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson: 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism'.
The president is not our king, instead - he serves us.
Though try telling that to dubya. (Or dick).
2007-05-11 09:10:57 · answer #9 · answered by Joe M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No matter what? No.
If he is making decisions based on evidence available at the time that are lawful? Yes.
2007-05-11 09:08:09 · answer #10 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only if we want a dictatorship. Otherwise we should support when warrented and dissent when warrented.
2007-05-11 09:46:53 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋