TexasCHLforum.com

chuck j wrote:The discussion here purely a is moot exercise , using straw debate (no end to it with no conclusion) or even better we could use statistical data . DANG ! I can grub you up a pie chart to prove my point anytime I feel like it and you can do likewise . We are expressing who we are , morals , patriotism , our faith or belief in the one true living GOD , our ethics , priority's , personal values of human life , how much we love our neighbor as Christs second great commandment .

Terrorists , child rapists , or killers/murderers for fun , politics , money , sick inclination ............drag hang em down main street but leave their family , acquaintances , pets alone . Place the blame and guilt where it belongs . I'll not shoulder the blood of innocents . This is common sense .

We have targeted innocents at various times throughout our history. Washington target Iroquois villages during the Revolution. Sherman targeted civilians in his March through Georgia. We not only targeted Nagasaki and Hiroshima, we also fire bombed Tokyo, Cologne and other cities. Most of these attacks actually shortened the relevant wars and may have saved more lives than they cost. Were they right? I don't know.

Personally I can't quite stomach the idea of killing families.

TVegas wrote:

chuck j wrote:The discussion here purely a is moot exercise , using straw debate (no end to it with no conclusion) or even better we could use statistical data . DANG ! I can grub you up a pie chart to prove my point anytime I feel like it and you can do likewise . We are expressing who we are , morals , patriotism , our faith or belief in the one true living GOD , our ethics , priority's , personal values of human life , how much we love our neighbor as Christs second great commandment .

Terrorists , child rapists , or killers/murderers for fun , politics , money , sick inclination ............drag hang em down main street but leave their family , acquaintances , pets alone . Place the blame and guilt where it belongs . I'll not shoulder the blood of innocents . This is common sense .

me, too.

Breny414 wrote:

TVegas wrote:

chuck j wrote:The discussion here purely a is moot exercise , using straw debate (no end to it with no conclusion) or even better we could use statistical data . DANG ! I can grub you up a pie chart to prove my point anytime I feel like it and you can do likewise . We are expressing who we are , morals , patriotism , our faith or belief in the one true living GOD , our ethics , priority's , personal values of human life , how much we love our neighbor as Christs second great commandment .

Terrorists , child rapists , or killers/murderers for fun , politics , money , sick inclination ............drag hang em down main street but leave their family , acquaintances , pets alone . Place the blame and guilt where it belongs . I'll not shoulder the blood of innocents . This is common sense .

me, too.

I always believed the worst kind of criminal is the ones who hurt children and the ones who went after peoples families. An absence of morals required for doing either of those.

I will acquiesce but I still have not heard a way to stop the terrorists with fewer civilian casualties.

I don’t know why Trump wants to be president when he could just buy one, besides he would have to take a cut in pay and move into a smaller house.

VoiceofReason wrote: I don’t know why Trump wants to be president when he could just buy one, besides he would have to take a cut in pay and move into a smaller house.

Ego

Sounds a little bit like General George Patton.

TVegas wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

TVegas wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Just saw the news on TV. The whole country knows it was a terrorist attack except our “president” and the government.

I am voting for Trump.

That's exactly what Trump was hoping for. Don't give up your humanity just because you like the inflammatory rhetoric.

By the way, I don't like trump but he has the courage (or stupidity) to say what a lot of people are thinking but don’t have the guts to say.

You don't like him, but you're going to vote for him because he says things that you want to hear? That's exactly his motivation for saying all the ridiculous and inflammatory things he says. He is no different than the rest of the politicians, he's just louder and has no political experience.

Oh please. Are you seriously contending that no political experience is a bad thing? A disqualifier? If the Founders considered political experience to be a requirement for president they would have written it into the Constitution. People with "political experience" are destroying the country. Let us please have one stint in office term limits and no politicians and maybe something will change for the better.

VMI77 wrote:

TVegas wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

TVegas wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Just saw the news on TV. The whole country knows it was a terrorist attack except our “president” and the government.

I am voting for Trump.

That's exactly what Trump was hoping for. Don't give up your humanity just because you like the inflammatory rhetoric.

By the way, I don't like trump but he has the courage (or stupidity) to say what a lot of people are thinking but don’t have the guts to say.

You don't like him, but you're going to vote for him because he says things that you want to hear? That's exactly his motivation for saying all the ridiculous and inflammatory things he says. He is no different than the rest of the politicians, he's just louder and has no political experience.

Oh please. Are you seriously contending that no political experience is a bad thing? A disqualifier? If the Founders considered political experience to be a requirement for president they would have written it into the Constitution. People with "political experience" are destroying the country. Let us please have one stint in office term limits and no politicians and maybe something will change for the better.

I'm not sure where you read that. I said that was his only difference. Those are the two primary factors that draw people to him. He "speaks his mind" and "says what no one else has the guts to say" (he's louder), and "he's a businessman" (no political experience). Also, by political experience, I mean experience with being a government official, not experience as a pandering, power-hungry, liar (which he is actually proving to be fairly well).

I don't disagree that someone without a political background could be what this country needs. I just think Trump is playing the conservative-leaning American public like a fiddle. His about-face on gun rights is proof of that.

TVegas wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

TVegas wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

TVegas wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Just saw the news on TV. The whole country knows it was a terrorist attack except our “president” and the government.

I am voting for Trump.

That's exactly what Trump was hoping for. Don't give up your humanity just because you like the inflammatory rhetoric.

By the way, I don't like trump but he has the courage (or stupidity) to say what a lot of people are thinking but don’t have the guts to say.

You don't like him, but you're going to vote for him because he says things that you want to hear? That's exactly his motivation for saying all the ridiculous and inflammatory things he says. He is no different than the rest of the politicians, he's just louder and has no political experience.

Oh please. Are you seriously contending that no political experience is a bad thing? A disqualifier? If the Founders considered political experience to be a requirement for president they would have written it into the Constitution. People with "political experience" are destroying the country. Let us please have one stint in office term limits and no politicians and maybe something will change for the better.

I'm not sure where you read that. I said that was his only difference. Those are the two primary factors that draw people to him. He "speaks his mind" and "says what no one else has the guts to say" (he's louder), and "he's a businessman" (no political experience). Also, by political experience, I mean experience with being a government official, not experience as a pandering, power-hungry, liar (which he is actually proving to be fairly well).

I don't disagree that someone without a political background could be what this country needs. I just think Trump is playing the conservative-leaning American public like a fiddle. His about-face on gun rights is proof of that.

I see. I read it as saying that no political experience was a bad thing (implying that political experience is a good thing), though you didn't actually say that. I read too much into it.

Political experience is mighty handy, although perhaps not indispensible.

When Harry Truman was asked about Kennedy's Cabinet picks, which included a number of academics, his brother, and few who had ever held elective office, Truman said that "Kennedy would be a lot better off if any of them had ever run for Sheriff."

JALLEN wrote:Political experience is mighty handy, although perhaps not indispensible.

When Harry Truman was asked about Kennedy's Cabinet picks, which included a number of academics, his brother, and few who had ever held elective office, Truman said that "Kennedy would be a lot better off if any of them had ever run for Sheriff."

Come now, you can't compare the politicians back when Truman and Kennedy were president with the rats infesting Congress and the Presidency today. I'm not personally a fan of either man but there hasn't been a president of equal stature for well over 25 years. And there are no more Humphreys or Moniyhans or Goldwaters in Congress. Now we've got a Reid and a McConnell. The current clown in the oval office doesn't even exist in an analogous political universe. Neither Truman or Kennedy was the kind of petulant narcissistic man-child us beleaguered proles now have to endure day after day. I look back on someone only comparatively honest like Richard Nixon with nostalgia.

And we have so much to look forward to.....another year of Obama who is a giant step down from Nixon, and the maybe 4-8 years of Hillary, an equally giant and more dangerous step down from Obama.

Papa_Tiger wrote:That goes completely contrary to the ideas and ideals expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

How?

...and if you ask me, we're a gnats butt away from being "polite/civilized" to our own demise......

chuckybrown wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:That goes completely contrary to the ideas and ideals expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

How?

...and if you ask me, we're a gnats butt away from being "polite/civilized" to our own demise......

We have drifted so far from the original intent of the Firth and Sixth Amendments it isn't funny. Presidential decrees of "enemy combatants", denying rights to American Citizens through summary executions by drone strike and this proposal to indiscriminately kill ALL who are related to a person who attacks citizens of the United States.

If you look through history, what regimes have participated in that kind of behavior and not been reviled and eventually fallen? Let's see we have Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mussolini, Milosevic, Gaddafi... Where those types of tyrants are free to practice in the name of "public safety" or "for the good of the country/people" you have erosion of civil rights; crimes against the people; loss of life, liberty and justice; death squads and other atrocities.

When you stop valuing the life of your fellow man, particularly when they are innocent of any crime, and look only for revenge you become exactly what you are trying to destroy.

VMI77 wrote:

JALLEN wrote:Political experience is mighty handy, although perhaps not indispensible.

When Harry Truman was asked about Kennedy's Cabinet picks, which included a number of academics, his brother, and few who had ever held elective office, Truman said that "Kennedy would be a lot better off if any of them had ever run for Sheriff."

Come now, you can't compare the politicians back when Truman and Kennedy were president with the rats infesting Congress and the Presidency today. I'm not personally a fan of either man but there hasn't been a president of equal stature for well over 25 years. And there are no more Humphreys or Moniyhans or Goldwaters in Congress. Now we've got a Reid and a McConnell. The current clown in the oval office doesn't even exist in an analogous political universe. Neither Truman or Kennedy was the kind of petulant narcissistic man-child us beleaguered proles now have to endure day after day. I look back on someone only comparatively honest like Richard Nixon with nostalgia.

And we have so much to look forward to.....another year of Obama who is a giant step down from Nixon, and the maybe 4-8 years of Hillary, an equally giant and more dangerous step down from Obama.

This reminds me of the funeral where the preacher invited those gathered to come up and share their thoughts, memories of the dearly departed, and no one moved, despite several invitations. Finally, the preacher implored, "Surely there must be someone here who can say something good about this man."

A voice near the back of the church hollered, "His brother was worse!"

I am an admirer of Truman, despite his political leanings, after reading and studying his various biographies. I can't say that about Kennedy who I regard, along with his family, as a complete phony, unabashedly amoral and untrustworthy through and through, whose only lasting impact was to inspire little Billy Clinton to want to be President in the worst way which, eventually, he was. Truman was not an admirer of the Kennedys either.

But back to my point, which was that some successful practitioners have expressed the view that it is helpful to have grass roots political experience when confronting and navigating the pressures and ambiguities and temptations of high office.