View Full Version : What happened to leadership?
W4MAJ
03-19-2008, 07:45 PM
Scanning through the threads about McClain, Clinton, Obama and Ron Paul, I realized why none the candidates seem to make sense to me. I'm not a right wing "dittohead" and I'm not a left wing "nut job". I'm just a married, white guy trying to raise a couple of kids. I know some of my principles are nutty. I believe in God and going to church on Sunday. I believe sex is for married adults willing and able to raise kids. Divorce and abortion is wrong. Taxes are to be used to pay for things communities can't do themselves.
Anyway, this is what I'd like to see in the next president:
1. A scholarly person who recognizes that Americans have free will and have the right to make decisions, right or wrong, for himself or herself.
2. A president who recognizes the United States is part of a world community, but remembers the first priority is the affairs here at home and not abroad.
3. He or she acknowledges the United States is not the world’s police. However, if the United Nations believes military action is necessary, every member country must contribute an equal percentage of troops and an equal percentage of assets. The U.S. will never again involve itself in the affairs of another country for any reason.
4. He or she recognizes the value of volunteerism and encourages every person of the age of majority should set aside two years of their lives giving back to the country they live in. This can be in the form of volunteering in the community or volunteering for military service. (In either case, the long-term financial benefits will be the same.)
5. A president who will return the National Guard, also known as the State Militia, back to its original function outlined in the Constitution: to protect the needs of the State.
6. A president who believes as most Americans claim to believe: if you don’t work then you don’t eat.
7. A president who recognizes since we do not the ability to create life, we have no right to take it.
8. A president who will keep to the business of running the country and not the affairs of my home.
9. A president who encourages education, the arts and family in whatever form it comes in.
10. He or she will encourage strength and self-reliance. And when tough times comes, people will first lean on their family, then their church, their community and then their government.
11. Finally, the president will remember he or she is an employee of the people and can be fired for any reason at any time.
Thoughts?
w4glm
03-19-2008, 07:48 PM
In today's climate
Are you joking, very few less those that came up in the
military or were in the military have that capacity.
Good fortune my friend finding some.....Mac
"It's not politically correct"
Lol
K8ERV
03-19-2008, 07:52 PM
You will ever be elected---
TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
kc2orw
03-19-2008, 08:10 PM
Thoughts?
One faction doesn't likes the other factions whacker?
Scanning through the threads about McClain, Clinton, Obama and Ron Paul, I realized why none the candidates seem to make sense to me. I'm not a right wing "dittohead" and I'm not a left wing "nut job". I'm just a married, white guy trying to raise a couple of kids. I know some of my principles are nutty. I believe in God and going to church on Sunday. I believe sex is for married adults willing and able to raise kids. Divorce and abortion is wrong. Taxes are to be used to pay for things communities can't do themselves.
Anyway, this is what I'd like to see in the next president:
1. A scholarly person who recognizes that Americans have free will and have the right to make decisions, right or wrong, for himself or herself.
2. A president who recognizes the United States is part of a world community, but remembers the first priority is the affairs here at home and not abroad.
3. He or she acknowledges the United States is not the world’s police. However, if the United Nations believes military action is necessary, every member country must contribute an equal percentage of troops and an equal percentage of assets. The U.S. will never again involve itself in the affairs of another country for any reason.
4. He or she recognizes the value of volunteerism and encourages every person of the age of majority should set aside two years of their lives giving back to the country they live in. This can be in the form of volunteering in the community or volunteering for military service. (In either case, the long-term financial benefits will be the same.)
5. A president who will return the National Guard, also known as the State Militia, back to its original function outlined in the Constitution: to protect the needs of the State.
6. A president who believes as most Americans claim to believe: if you don’t work then you don’t eat.
7. A president who recognizes since we do not the ability to create life, we have no right to take it.
8. A president who will keep to the business of running the country and not the affairs of my home.
9. A president who encourages education, the arts and family in whatever form it comes in.
10. He or she will encourage strength and self-reliance. And when tough times comes, people will first lean on their family, then their church, their community and then their government.
11. Finally, the president will remember he or she is an employee of the people and can be fired for any reason at any time.
Thoughts?
The people like you and I, those trying to raise a family following good Christian values are supposedly the minority now -- overrun by the immoral left and their wacky, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-traditional ways.
I'm not meaning to be such a pessimist... but sadly, this Nation is fully cooked, and is quickly spoiling.
73.
The people like you and I, those trying to raise a family following good Christian values are supposedly the minority now -- overrun by the immoral left and their wacky, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-traditional ways.
Thankfully, the nation, as a whole, is moving away from the opiate of the masses.
kc5nyo
03-19-2008, 08:48 PM
........ if the United Nations believes military action is necessary...........
Ya, right. We should give up our sovereignty to a totally corrupt cesspool of greedy third-world hacks that both envy and hate us! :eek:
Thankfully, the nation, as a whole, is moving away from the opiate of the masses.
You are a freak. The immoral minority is only "waking up" the moral majority. Good will triumph over evil.
Best of luck to you.
You are a freak. The immoral minority is only "waking up" the moral majority. Good will triumph over evil.
Best of luck to you.
No, you are a just another religious wingnut that wants to legislate morality. Religion belongs in the home, and the secular majority is going to drive that fact home!
ad4mg
03-19-2008, 08:54 PM
Ya, right. We should give up our sovereignty to a totally corrupt cesspool of greedy third-world hacks that both envy and hate us! :eek:
We've given up our sovereignty to a totally corrupt cesspool of greedy elected hacks that hate us. The current administration consists of nothing but corporate owned, greed driven, war mongering lunatics.
You probably wouldn't notice any change at all.
n4sva
03-19-2008, 08:55 PM
Don't forget angry white men (http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324)
kc5nyo
03-19-2008, 09:02 PM
We've given up our sovereignty to a totally corrupt cesspool of greedy elected hacks that hate us. The current administration consists of nothing but corporate owned, greed driven, war mongering lunatics.
You probably wouldn't notice any change at all.
You judge someone by "one" post? You know nothing about what I do and do not notice.
http://forums.qrz.com/showpost.php?p=1167642&postcount=16
kg6amw
03-19-2008, 09:04 PM
There is nothing seriously wrong with this country. You can still make money, say and write what you want and go to any church you desire. Times are good.
W4MAJ
03-19-2008, 09:07 PM
Double post
W4MAJ
03-19-2008, 09:11 PM
Don't forget angry white men (http://www.aspentimes.com/article/2008198091324)
I'm not angry. I just want to ensure my sons and future grandchildren know some of the happiness I've known so far.
I just believe every person is autonomous and has the right to worship whatever god they chose to worship and should have the freedom to do so. But remember, your rights end where my nose begins.
No, you are a just another religious wingnut that wants to legislate morality. Religion belongs in the home, and the secular majority is going to drive that fact home!
Nope... sorry, Charlie. I am not a religious wingnut. I attend church irregularly, and am not what you've made me out to be.
I, like the true moral and numerical majority in this Nation, know the difference between right and wrong, know God-given, hard, societal limits exist for our benefit, know history and tradition are important, know our government is "of, for, and by the People" and not a tyranny downward directed by corrupted humanists and greedy liberal elitists.
Toodles.
ad4mg
03-19-2008, 10:57 PM
You judge someone by "one" post? You know nothing about what I do and do not notice.
http://forums.qrz.com/showpost.php?p=1167642&postcount=16
What's up with you? Nothing I said was pointed towards you, unless you currently serve in duh decider's cabinet.
Get a grip.
ad4mg
03-19-2008, 11:02 PM
Nope... sorry, Charlie. I am not a religious wingnut. I attend church irregularly, and am not what you've made me out to be.
I, like the true moral and numerical majority in this Nation, know the difference between right and wrong, know God-given, hard, societal limits exist for our benefit, know history and tradition are important, know our government is "of, for, and by the People" and not a tyranny downward directed by corrupted humanists and greedy liberal elitists.
Toodles.
We see things much the same, Steve, except I view the radical right as the greatest threat to our country, followed closely by the uber left.
Given a choice, I wish only for the government to leave me alone and and allow me to clear my own path.
And, put Americans back at the top of the priority list, mainly be getting us the hell out of the corrupt war in Iraq. I buy none of the BS spewed about this corporate greed driven invasion.
I wished our government was for and by the people. I have never felt such a disconnect from our federal government as I do today. And it appears it will get worse before it gets better.
73 frozen dude. ;)
KC2PBJ
03-20-2008, 01:17 AM
Scanning through the threads about McClain, Clinton, Obama and Ron Paul, I realized why none the candidates seem to make sense to me. I'm not a right wing "dittohead" and I'm not a left wing "nut job". I'm just a married, white guy trying to raise a couple of kids. I know some of my principles are nutty. I believe in God and going to church on Sunday. I believe sex is for married adults willing and able to raise kids. Divorce and abortion is wrong. Taxes are to be used to pay for things communities can't do themselves.
Anyway, this is what I'd like to see in the next president:
1. A scholarly person who recognizes that Americans have free will and have the right to make decisions, right or wrong, for himself or herself.
2. A president who recognizes the United States is part of a world community, but remembers the first priority is the affairs here at home and not abroad.
3. He or she acknowledges the United States is not the world’s police. However, if the United Nations believes military action is necessary, every member country must contribute an equal percentage of troops and an equal percentage of assets. The U.S. will never again involve itself in the affairs of another country for any reason.
4. He or she recognizes the value of volunteerism and encourages every person of the age of majority should set aside two years of their lives giving back to the country they live in. This can be in the form of volunteering in the community or volunteering for military service. (In either case, the long-term financial benefits will be the same.)
5. A president who will return the National Guard, also known as the State Militia, back to its original function outlined in the Constitution: to protect the needs of the State.
6. A president who believes as most Americans claim to believe: if you don’t work then you don’t eat.
7. A president who recognizes since we do not the ability to create life, we have no right to take it.
8. A president who will keep to the business of running the country and not the affairs of my home.
9. A president who encourages education, the arts and family in whatever form it comes in.
10. He or she will encourage strength and self-reliance. And when tough times comes, people will first lean on their family, then their church, their community and then their government.
11. Finally, the president will remember he or she is an employee of the people and can be fired for any reason at any time.
Thoughts?
I remember the opening of Perry Como's theme song; "Dream along with me, you stayed too long at the bar." If you put two American politicians into the same room, each will have his/her lawyer present, attempt to achieve total dominance and personal power, and sell us all for a handful of votes and the telephone number of a senate aide or presidential intern. While the above laudible thesis should be nailed to the Congressional door (like Luther did with his 40 at Wittenburg), there is not a chance in hell that we will return to the cultural history of our founding fathers.
Nope... sorry, Charlie. I am not a religious wingnut. I attend church irregularly, and am not what you've made me out to be.
I, like the true moral and numerical majority in this Nation, know the difference between right and wrong, know God-given, hard, societal limits exist for our benefit, know history and tradition are important, know our government is "of, for, and by the People" and not a tyranny downward directed by corrupted humanists and greedy liberal elitists.
They also know that the United States was founded by a bunch of liberals--men who broke from tradition and formed a new country!
n4sva
03-20-2008, 02:40 AM
They also know that the United States was founded by a bunch of liberals--men who broke from tradition and formed a new country!
Shhhhhh! Next he'll say Jesus was a liberal.
kc2orw
03-20-2008, 02:48 AM
Shhhhhh! Next he'll say Jesus was a liberal.
Well some assert that might be as he lived an impoverished lifestyle and tended to the sick and the poor. So I guess he would not qualify as a flamboyant rich guy with a tendency towards conspicuous consumption. :D
They also know that the United States was founded by a bunch of liberals--men who broke from tradition and formed a new country!
Tell us the principles this new Nation was founded on... they weren't haphazard or liberal -- but Godly principles based on thousands of years of societal evolution and natural law.
Good try, young one.
AE6IP
03-20-2008, 03:42 AM
Tell us the principles this new Nation was founded on... they weren't haphazard or liberal -- but Godly principles based on thousands of years of societal evolution and natural law.
They were very liberal. They found a broken system and fixed it. They were pretty haphazard as well. That's why they fixed it twice, replacing the original articles of confederation with the constitution we now know, and then spending decades arguing amongst themselves just what that constitution really meant.
They made some terrible mistakes, also, like allowing slavery and not treating women and minorities as equals with the rich white men, er, i mean, 'property holders' that they enfranchised originally.
Some little of what they used to guide them came from Judeo-Christianity, but a lot more of it came from the English common law, which originates in the greco-roman traditions.
If you take those blinders off, you'll find that you live in a rich and varied world.
They were very liberal. They found a broken system and fixed it. They were pretty haphazard as well. That's why they fixed it twice, replacing the original articles of confederation with the constitution we now know, and then spending decades arguing amongst themselves just what that constitution really meant.
They made some terrible mistakes, also, like allowing slavery and not treating women and minorities as equals with the rich white men, er, i mean, 'property holders' that they enfranchised originally.
Some little of what they used to guide them came from Judeo-Christianity, but a lot more of it came from the English common law, which originates in the greco-roman traditions.
If you take those blinders off, you'll find that you live in a rich and varied world.
We've been down this path before -- and you're wrong -- like usual. Post all your wrongly interpreted and limited Jeffersonian quotes and thoughts. You'll lose -- again.
Toodles.
KW4MW
03-20-2008, 03:59 AM
What happened to leadership?
Easy answer.
Leaders have been replaced by managers.
AE6IP
03-20-2008, 04:16 AM
We've been down this path before -- and you're wrong -- like usual. Post all your wrongly interpreted and limited Jeffersonian quotes and thoughts. You'll lose -- again.
Indeed we've been down this path before. You weren't able to keep up last time, and this time I see you're not even going to try leaving the starting gate.
Just as well.
But one doesn't quote Jefferson to find the grecco-roman influence in western civilization. One merely reads any reputable history of western civilization. It would take an extreme case of willful blindness to not recognize that the Greek concepts of personal liberty had far more to do with the founding of the United States than the feudal concepts expressed in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
But then yours is an extreme and willful case, isn't it Steve?
Indeed we've been down this path before. You weren't able to keep up last time, and this time I see you're not even going to try leaving the starting gate.
Just as well.
One merely reads any reputable history of western civilization.
...
But then yours is an extreme and willful case, isn't it Steve?
Ah yes... so extreme am I?
So extreme that I side with the People when it comes to the second amendment past and present. Extreme when I and a right-thinking, bi-partisan commission of congressional members, exploring the second amendment, expound in-step with the 75% majority of this Nation's citizens -- not some wrong-headed, restrictive thought spewed forth by liberal progressives -- like yourself.
Remember this... God and spirituality is forever intertwined within our United States federal government:
-> The Supreme Court's Chamber contains a sculptured marble frieze overhead; to the right, on the south wall, great lawgivers of the pre-Christian era; to the left, those of Christian times. Also notice a panel over the main entrance, the one the Justices face: Powers of Evil—Corruption, Deceit—offset by Powers of Good—Security, Charity, Peace, with Justice flanked by Wisdom and Truth.
-> The Pledge of Allegiance -- with it's "under God" clause
-> "In God We Trust" on all our currency
-> "So Help me God" with hand on Bible when the President takes the "Oath of Office"
-> In the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
------> "Some claim that the Declaration is not really a founding document since it was not designed to establish a new nation but only to establish a legal argument of separation from British rule. But the Constitution does not see it this way. In the same sentence that references 'in the Year of Our Lord,' we find 'and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.' 'The Twelfth' is a reference to the Declaration of Independence which was written twelve years earlier and uses non-neutral religious terms like 'endowed by their Creator,' 'the laws of nature and of nature's God,' 'with a firm reliance on DIVINE PROVIDENCE', and 'the Supreme Judge of the world.' While these are not specifically Christian phrases, they certainly aren't religiously neutral."
-> The U.S. Congress starts its daily session with a prayer.
-> The Pledge of Allegiance is OK as written (90%).
Ref: http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/ReligSurvey.htm#C
http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/ReligSurvey.htm#F
And this is just a start... shall I continue, for list extends and extends.
Best to you.
K8YZK
03-20-2008, 11:51 AM
". He or she acknowledges the United States is not the world’s police. However, if the United Nations believes military action is necessary, every member country must contribute an equal percentage of troops and an equal percentage of assets. The U.S. will never again involve itself in the affairs of another country for any reason."
The UN is about as usefull as tit's on a wart hog, it is so inept. It is about as usefull as the League of Nations.
If I was called back for duty to go somewhere to support the UN, I would tell them to shove it. I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies Foreign and Domestic. not to uphold the Charter of the United Nation.
Ron Paul was probably the best on this when he called for all the troops to come home to protect US interest, and let those that we artifically support stand or fall on their own. No matter how long we are in Iraq when we leave that are going at it full bore against each other, as it is their mind set and it will take generations to change that. If Muslims can't get along with each other, how are they expected to get along with the rest of the world. All we want is the oil so Bush and Company can make sure their friends in the oil business make 46 billion dollar in profit as we pay higher and higher price for a gallon of gas..
I'm not angry. I just want to ensure my sons and future grandchildren know some of the happiness I've known so far.
I just believe every person is autonomous and has the right to worship whatever god they chose to worship and should have the freedom to do so. But remember, your rights end where my nose begins.
As long as you also add to that list, recouping the millions of outsourced jobs, so that every American CAN make a living. Otherwise, all that money spent educating the harmonics is wasted when they end up at McDonalds. And that ONLY if someone else is working and has the money to spend.
I'm not angry. I just want to ensure my sons and future grandchildren know some of the happiness I've known so far.
I just believe every person is autonomous and has the right to worship whatever god they chose to worship and should have the freedom to do so. But remember, your rights end where my nose begins.
You want to share happiness with your sons and grandchildren? Then DO NOT intruduce them to QRZ or ham radio. It will bankrupt their thought processes.
K2WH
Religion belongs in the home, and the secular majority is going to drive that fact home!
That's been tried around the world. You sir are a commie.
ad4mg
03-20-2008, 08:06 PM
That's been tried around the world. You sir are a commie.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt. Personal Attack.
Would someone be kind enough to issue this man the standard neocon "mulligan"?
kc2orw
03-20-2008, 08:16 PM
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt. Personal Attack.
Would someone be kind enough to issue this man the standard neocon "mulligan"?
Alright....
Bonk Bonk Bonk Sproing
There ya go :D
K8YZK
03-20-2008, 08:56 PM
Alright....
Bonk Bonk Bonk Sproing
There ya go :D
I don't agree with everyone here, don't disagree with everyone here, and don't agree with myself at times. What I do like is the banter back and forth, but not the name calling. One thing we can agree on is Freedom of Speech. I might not agree with what you are saying but I will fight to make sure you get to say it.
Another thing is no matter what someone says, most of us already have our mind made up on what we are looking for in a President/Leader and we are not going to change the other person's opinion.
Politics, better then a daytime soap opera...
Kurt
Boy, I'm going to get my back end flamed for this statement
Like it or not, George W Bush will go down in history as a leader
One of the qualities of leadership is to make a decision based on the best information available. Not wait, not debate, get a consensus if possible, but act. Once decision to act is made, stand by your decision -- adjust the plan as needed, but don't back down or waiver -- stay the course.
That is exactly what this administration has done over the last 8 years. I do not and will not ever agree with all the decisions made, but you can't argue that he is a leader. (Good or bad can be debated and has been debated elseware)
Now apply this same logic to Clinton or McCain -- both had the same facts, in congress both made the hard decision to go to war. Hillary is wavering because of popular opinion, McCain changed his position because of new inforamtion but recognizes that a full blown retreat will do much more damage than us going into Iraq in the first place. Obama, for what ever reason, is the only one who said NO and stood his ground. Based on the information that was available/presented, I do not agree with his decision, but Obama demonstrated leadership by doing this and standing his ground.
Out of the 3 people running for office McCain and Obama are the only two that have demonstrated leadership. Obama for his decision and standing by it. McCain for his decision, admiting he made a bad call, and taking the lead to state the unpopular fact that how we extract ourselves from this situation will have national ramifications for decades to come -- and standing by this belief.
You may not like the canidate selection and with all this press hype, it is very difficult to sort through the BS vs facts. But take a hard look and you will see my observations are on target. You may not like the decisions these leaders have made, but like it or not, how they back up these decisions show character --- and give a hint of what type of President they will make.
If the Democrats nominate Clinton to run, it will be an easy decision. If Obama is nominated, given this observation at least I will be doing some more research and sole searching before placing my vote in November.
OUT
Boy, I'm going to get my back end flamed for this statement
Like it or not, George W Bush will go down in history as a leader
One of the qualities of leadership is to make a decision based on the best information available. Not wait, not debate, get a consensus if possible, but act. Once decision to act is made, stand by your decision -- adjust the plan as needed, but don't back down or waiver -- stay the course.
That is exactly what this administration has done over the last 8 years. I do not and will not ever agree with all the decisions made, but you can't argue that he is a leader. (Good or bad can be debated and has been debated elseware)
Now apply this same logic to Clinton or McCain -- both had the same facts, in congress both made the hard decision to go to war. Hillary is wavering because of popular opinion, McCain changed his position because of new inforamtion but recognizes that a full blown retreat will do much more damage than us going into Iraq in the first place. Obama, for what ever reason, is the only one who said NO and stood his ground. Based on the information that was available/presented, I do not agree with his decision, but Obama demonstrated leadership by doing this and standing his ground.
Out of the 3 people running for office McCain and Obama are the only two that have demonstrated leadership. Obama for his decision and standing by it. McCain for his decision, admiting he made a bad call, and taking the lead to state the unpopular fact that how we extract ourselves from this situation will have national ramifications for decades to come -- and standing by this belief.
You may not like the canidate selection and with all this press hype, it is very difficult to sort through the BS vs facts. But take a hard look and you will see my observations are on target. You may not like the decisions these leaders have made, but like it or not, how they back up these decisions show character --- and give a hint of what type of President they will make.
If the Democrats nominate Clinton to run, it will be an easy decision. If Obama is nominated, given this observation at least I will be doing some more research and sole searching before placing my vote in November.
OUT
Nice train of thought presented here. Good for you! Carefully vet all candidates.
73.
Good leadership requires one to be solidly rooted in a sense of morality, be decisive, and to put what is right above political correctness. Anyone, and this includes most candidates for political office today, who believes s/he can or should even try to please all the people all the time lacks what it takes to lead successfully over the long term.
Poor leaders are successful in getting elected because they make false promises to selfish people and because people let them get away with that. That is, the voter puts his/her selfish needs above what is really needed to keep our country safe, strong, and on the path to becoming an even better place than it is. The voter is responsible for poor leadership as much as the spineless candidate because the selfish voter puts himself first.
A good leader is one who has the guts to tell the electorate that there are some things government cannot and should not do...that as others posting in this forum have said, we need to fend for ourselves on a lot of issues rather than simply holding out our hand waiting for government assistance. This nation wasn't founded that way and didn't grow into a once great nation that way.
A good leader is one who will say "NO" when "NO" is the best answer. A good leader is one who will change his/her position on an issue if pursuaded by sound and logical argument. A good leader is NOT one who will change his position just because it is unpopular.
A good leader is not one who forces religion down anyone's throat. But one cannot be a good leader without a personal belief in God and a determination to never violate not only the principles upon which nation was founded (Constitution and Bill of Rights) but the principles on which the world was created (10 Commandments). A good leader cannot support, in any fashion, people "playing God"...thus, a good leader must oppose abortion, human cloneing etc.
I concur with several that our current President will go down in history, by those who view leadership objectively, as a very good leader. I don't agree with him on some issues (immigration being at the top of the list), but overall he has shown strength, character and resolve and has at least resisted political correctness.
kc2orw
03-21-2008, 12:07 AM
Politics, better then a daytime soap opera...
I will agree with that one and just for fun and mirth give ya da mulligan
Bonk Bonk Bonk Sproing :D
What the world coming too if ya can't have some fun, right ;)
We've been down this path before -- and you're wrong -- like usual. Post all your wrongly interpreted and limited Jeffersonian quotes and thoughts. You'll lose -- again.
You had your hat handed to you, you know it, and so does the forum.
Tell us the principles this new Nation was founded on... they weren't haphazard or liberal -- but Godly principles based on thousands of years of societal evolution and natural law.
Good try, young one.
Wrong! The founding fathers were, in fact, radical liberals. They overthrew their government.
We have also been down the BS Godly principles route before, and if you wish to venture down it again, prepare to get your hat handed to you once more.
But one cannot be a good leader without a personal belief in God
The founding fathers did not agree with you on this issue.
"Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
KB9YCO
03-21-2008, 04:53 AM
"What happened to leadership?" W4MAJ
It was bought and sold long ago, pretty much like everything else. There may be an occasional, albeit rare politician that isn't somehow "influenced" by other interests than that of the interests of the state, but for the most part they are instruments of deceit and greed in a system long corrupted. I'm not saying that there are no leaders left, but the choices are slim, and those at the very top have for the most part fought bitter and dirty battles just to even get to that level. Not to mention that regardless of all the partisanship we hear about most politicians are essentially the same in this country. Though they may have varying agendas most of our "leaders" these days are just tools for the system. It's all about the interests of business, money, power, and of the growing, both international and domestic, military/industrial complex of the variety Eisenhower warned us about. Perhaps a grim view on my part today, but not necessarily inappropriate.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower in his "Farewell Address to the Nation" January 17, 1961
I don't believe the question was how the Constitution defines a good leader. I believe the question was what makes a good leader. I'll stick with my statement that to be a good leader one must believe in God.
KB9YCO
03-23-2008, 02:10 AM
I don't believe the question was how the Constitution defines a good leader. I believe the question was what makes a good leader. I'll stick with my statement that to be a good leader one must believe in God.
Wow, no offense dude, but that's just creepy. A belief in something supernatural has nothing to do with an understanding of the freedoms that were fought for, and paid for in blood, in this country (among other countries that wish to preserve their freedoms without the hindrances of religious dogmas.) If we could find a leader that would PROTECT those "guaranteed" rights then I wouldn't care what he believed in, or didn't, philosophically. The problem these days is that these so-called leaders are all about the power play money game which has nothing to do with freedom or religion and more to do with power, greed, and control.