|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Need help defining "firmly" (2/1/2007 7:41:15 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: luckydog1
I do not see how you can admire leadership that leads to negative results and consequences. Would you admire a Dom who met a HS dropout chick on the web and dommed her into doing negative things to herself? How do you deduce that I am discounting what was said, by understanding it? Bush does not need to babble about wiping Iran off the map, we have the power to easily do so. I realise you have a "man crush" on Amanajenidad (and all the rest of em) and his power. To me he just looks like of our local "doms" who keeps his subs in line with narcotics(oil profits), rides em hard, and puts them away wet. No respect nor admiration from me.
LD,
Why not admire the results and ability of such a dom who recognizes his/her limitations and takes on a sub you described? Wouldn't want to hang out with him, would point out that isn't the way things should work. If asked I'd wouldn't recommend him to anyone, but its ultimately the submissive's decision isn't it? Do you feel that identifying as a submissive abdicates personal responsibility? If anyone puts themselves in the hand of another they should know themselves and need to place that trust in a person who has earned it. I wouldn't necessarily have the same admiration for such as dom, but I wouldn't blame him for what he got a submissive to do.
The people of Iran put this man in a position to represent them, their decision. He represents the position of the majority. He does, and in that very limited scope, I admire that he is not afraid to speak his and his countries position clearly at every opportunity. Isn't that one of the issues we have with our current crop of leaders? Senator Clinton has to rationalize to distance herself from the position regarding the Iraq war because she lacks the leadership and confidence so just say, "Yes I voted for the war because at the time it was the right thing to do. Based upon the results and our countries failure as a result of that vote it was a wrong choice." How refreshing and admirable that position would have been to hear instead of blaming President Bush, saying that he lied and withheld information. Blaming others has become the definition of political science.
You are again correct that President Bush need not "babble" about wiping Iran off the map. But he did babble. Why not demand that he babble clearly? We are, in theory, a free country. In Iran there is no free press to ask their president what he means by his boasts. You would prefer that our reporters take the same position?
I have no idea what you mean in the question underlined. Are we supposed to listen to the interview isolated from what already has occurred and isolated from US policy in place regarding Iran? Sorry, I had to interject those thoughts when I read the news and then listened to the interview. I bring what I know to the table. I suggested that the interviewer do the same. In fact, you should try it. Politicians get away with their hypocrisy because so few people require that they be consistent and are afraid to question, in person, positions that aren't consistent with what they said in the past or don't answer the question asked.
"Man crush" - cute, and just in time for Valentine's Day. I'll have to get him a card. There is no agreement for his positions, no personal respect for him. It is a matter of admiring any person who speaks clearly and firmly on his/her position. I need not agree or desire the same goals to do so.
|
|
|
|
