gee..i didn't realize that what I said was all that controversial. never did i mean to say that someone has a divine justification to rule like monarchs used to justify their existence. and i'm not saying that back in november, God had the election turn out the way it did because of this upcoming event...but perhaps God does have something to do with the development of leadership qualities in the man since the event. Romans 13 seems to indicate that God does play a part in who rules a nation...I'm not gonna guess how because I have no idea. It just seems that when this nation has MOST needed leaders, they've been there for us. I really didn't want this to end up being a theological debate...sorry my comments sparked that response. i didn't realize my post, which in spirit agreed with Jeff's, would be picked over like a contract by a group of lawyers.
I hardly think that pointing out one sentenced that popped out could qualify as "picking over" your post in a "lawyeristic" way. If I practiced aw in such a shoddy way, it would be doubtful that I could ever succeed. Sorry if you felt beleaguered. Rich, This setup is so long...when do we get the payoff of the punchline?
rimbaud: NO JOKE (I know you like all caps). Just answer the question. Isn't there a legitimate difference between a King/Queen and an elected official and the observation that a divine hand may have been involved? Clue: Notice it was not President Bush that claimed the "divine mandate!" I think that divine right kings and queens handle it differently. Waiting for your clarification.....
Rich, You just don't get it and are obviously not in the right mindset for me to explain. Forget it... I appreciate all of your "clues" to educate me, though.
rimbaud -- not beleagured...just somewhat surprised at the never-ending argumentative nature of some of the posters here. clearly i wasn't trying to push an idea down someone's throat...just giving my interpretation on something...in response i get "rolling eyes" icons... speaking of which...i am a lawyer and i have no problem with other attorneys nitpicking my work to protect their clients...just think it's funny when it's done on message boards....like arguing the dicta of case law, it just seems silly
rimbaud: I do apologize for asking you to explain yourself. What was I thinking! Those were not clues, they were hints as to which path I expected your argument to trail down. Are you psychic or what? How do you know I'm not in a frame of mind to hear out your explanation. You didn't try ONE damn bit. I guess, again, that you're just too good for me, huh?!!!
glynch, In your post of <i>10-13-2001 10:52 AM </i>, there is a mixing of: elections, Nader, Clinton, Gore and Bush and it is confusing to say the least. Mango
And that is why you failed. In any case, I felt it was better in the end for you to explain my comment to yourself, despite you asking me to explain myself. It is more fun for you that way, is it not? Your means pre-empted the end. Max, Again, I apologize if you felt I was nit-picking your post. I also did not intend my aside to be an atack on your beliefs and I certainly did not think that you were pushing them upon us...your post was typical of many of your posts in which you state a belief, etc, that is peripheral to your main points but is just a part of who you are -- that is fine. Additionally, I did not see anyone use a "roll eyes" icon in referencing your post.
rimbaud: I failed and you quit; which is worse? Your comment seemed ridiculous on the surface. That's why I pursued it with you. I know that you are no dummy, but if you choose not to clarify it, so be it. Why all the MIND GAMES?!
Neal: "We sow the seed... nature grows the seed... we eat the seed... its, like, an endless cycle..."
Mango, you're very right. I meant I voted for Gore over Nader. In my mind some times see Clinton and Gore as one.
Hindsight is 20/20. Until 9/11 I was continually blasting Bush for his obscene tax cut, his support for faith-based charities, and his stupid push for a missile defense at the cost of conventional military power. Since then his policies have changed, and they appear to be right on target for the most part, IMO (the missile defense is still unnecessary). Most importantly, we could not ask for a better wartime staff. Many of these people have actual wartime experience in another administration - and how often does that happen??? Never. Powell and Cheney ran the Gulf War. Rice is exceedingly bright. Bush's brain is in very good hands... Overall, I am very glad that Gore did not win.
W has done a great job. But...I don't think you can say that Gore would've done that bad of a job either. What would be a concern about Gore is that he would rely too heavily on the UN and not be willing to see the US operate on its own. But...I think that in this case, Gore would've resisted that. I say this as someone who was glad to see W win...and voted Libertarian. I think Gore would've done a good job as well...but we'll never know.
