pledging loyalty to a man

[Bunnykid68]

66 million is not a majority, it is just more than the other douche got.

 

[J Starkey]

...and streak chimes in to stick up for his fearless leader right on q man I really didn't see that coming.

 

[cobber]

...and streak chimes in to stick up for his fearless leader right on q man I really didn't see that coming.

It's that atomic clock program he's writing. It told him it was time to chime in for the Anointed One. And to make the predictable statement that since BO was elected, we have to cater to his every whim until 2016.

Next the canned statement that "it's constitutional"!

Then the scatological references to anyone who disagrees with him, replete with optional asterisks.

Ho hum, another day coming in Troll-land. They get more active when the river rises and forces them out from under their bridges?

 

[5.56'aholic]

...and streak chimes in to stick up for his fearless leader right on q man I really didn't see that coming.

Im still waiting for him to claim we are all racists for not agreeing with his savior.

 

[John Galt]

The fact that a large group of people are willing to sell their votes for free handouts and another large group of people are simply apathetic at this point speaks to how sick this republic really is.

Bingo!

 

[rambone]

[video=youtube;rQwggw6zrxY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQwggw6zrxY[/video]

 

[copperhead-1911]

wasn't hitler elected?

I dont recall if he was elected or initially appointed chancellor of Germany, but he had the approval of the people and the swastika was initially viewed as a sign of hope and change.

 

[copperhead-1911]

...and streak chimes in to stick up for his fearless leader right on q man I really didn't see that coming.

Maybe when he loses his guns he will get it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kinda in bad taste to offer loyalty to man. I think it was gaffe, hopefully. I remain "loyal" to my chief, but that doesn't mean I'm going follow illegal orders should start issuing them.

 

[Manatee]

89.9% of Germans voted in favor of Hitler having complete control over the government, according to the Wikipedia link in the OP.

Wikipedia is correct in many cases. Not in this instance if that is what they said.

The fall of the Reichstag happened differently than you describe.

 

[spec4]

In the book "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer (sp), Hitler was quoted as bragging to his cronies how he got all his power legally. He was in fact elected.

 

[armedindy]

[video=youtube;rQwggw6zrxY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQwggw6zrxY[/video]

thank you, rambone. that video has a better view of whats going on and further more noone has to skip ahead.....you can see how he looks towards his commander twice

 

[Que]

I don't consider the action of the guy anything negative against the President, but it is indicative of what to expect from him if he's confirmed. He will certainly be a "Yes" man and will not stand for what is right. He will lead what has become one of the most powerful offices in the executive branch of government. That is NOT the place for a "Yes" man! He is certainly going to forward a great deal of changes over the next three years, which I suspect will be very controversial, but the thing is none of them will really come from him.

 

[Manatee]

In the book "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer (sp), Hitler was quoted as bragging to his cronies how he got all his power legally. He was in fact elected.

Then it would be wise to view the quote in context of the Reichstag fire in 1933. The story is a lot deeper than a single quote.

 

[Streak]

I don't consider the action of the guy anything negative against the President, but it is indicative of what to expect from him if he's confirmed. He will certainly be a "Yes" man and will not stand for what is right. He will lead what has become one of the most powerful offices in the executive branch of government. That is NOT the place for a "Yes" man! He is certainly going to forward a great deal of changes over the next three years, which I suspect will be very controversial, but the thing is none of them will really come from him.

Have you ever had a friend? Were you not loyal to your friend? How about your wife/family? Are you loyal to her/them? Would you allow said person(s) to make a mistake without at least advising them that they're making a mistake? All of you talk about loyalty as if it's a bad thing. As if loyalty means you'll allow bad things to happen and yet many of you have families and wives. Did you not pledge loyalty? Would you allow your spouse to commit a horrible crime and say nothing?

He may be a yes man, but don't confuse not having ethics with loyalty. These are two different things.

 

[Que]

Have you ever had a friend? Were you not loyal to your friend? How about your wife/family? Are you loyal to her/them? Would you allow said person(s) to make a mistake without at least advising them that they're making a mistake? All of you talk about loyalty as if it's a bad thing. As if loyalty means you'll allow bad things to happen and yet many of you have families and wives. Did you not pledge loyalty? Would you allow your spouse to commit a horrible crime and say nothing?

He may be a yes man, but don't confuse not having ethics with loyalty. These are two different things.

Streak, sometimes you have to consider the other side of things.

I've taken the oath to serve my country three times. I served each of those terms and received an honorable discharge.

I took an oath to my wife and God to love, honor and serve my wife for the rest of our lives. I've kept that promise for 23 years.

I have a few friends, but this isn't about friendship. I believe in loyalty, but this isn't about loyalty. This is about a man who has intentionally gone the extra mile to pledge his allegiance to the President. Why would that even be necessary in a public setting? Believe me, there is NOTHING that is done or said at that level without it being vetted through several layers of staff members. They knew what he was going to say and he COULD NOT deviate from that script. So, why did he have to put that part in it? Granted, he may not have even written that, but can you not see how he tied his own hands with that statement? It's one thing to pledge loyalty to the U.S. That man will lose his job in keeping his oath. It's another thing to pledge his loyalty to the President.

Now, I can be totally wrong on this, but I believe perception is reality in this case. If you were in his shoes would you make the same statement? If so, why?

A man with ethics never has to prove his loyalty, especially to his friends.

 

[Streak]

Streak, sometimes you have to consider the other side of things.

I've taken the oath to serve my country three times. I served each of those terms and received an honorable discharge.

I took an oath to my wife and God to love, honor and serve my wife for the rest of our lives. I've kept that promise for 23 years.

I have a few friends, but this isn't about friendship. I believe in loyalty, but this isn't about loyalty. This is about a man who has intentionally gone the extra mile to pledge his allegiance to the President. Why would that even be necessary in a public setting? Believe me, there is NOTHING that is done or said at that level without it being vetted through several layers of staff members. They knew what he was going to say and he COULD NOT deviate from that script. So, why did he have to put that part in it? Granted, he may not have even written that, but can you not see how he tied his own hands with that statement? It's one thing to pledge loyalty to the U.S. That man will lose his job in keeping his oath. It's another thing to pledge his loyalty to the President.

Now, I can be totally wrong on this, but I believe perception is reality in this case. If you were in his shoes would you make the same statement? If so, why?

A man with ethics never has to prove his loyalty, especially to his friends.

It's a speech. I hear Republicans all the time talking about God and Christianity and then they go home and screw random women (Democrats do it too, but then again they don't see to hold the Christian religion is so high of "esteem"). The point is that what one does and says on TV is hardly indicative of what happens in real life. Most likely this was just another speech by just another politician. As I seem to recall, Bush (and other Presidents) have made mistakes in speeches.

I consider all sides, but I don't need to accept them all. I think it's just all political posturing and showboating. The Dems are riding a high because they curb stomped the Republicans last week.

 

[Que]

It's a speech. I hear Republicans all the time talking about God and Christianity and then they go home and screw random women (Democrats do it too, but then again they don't see to hold the Christian religion is so high of "esteem"). The point is that what one does and says on TV is hardly indicative of what happens in real life. Most likely this was just another speech by just another politician. As I seem to recall, Bush (and other Presidents) have made mistakes in speeches.

This is not a religious discussion and don't take it that way.

What exactly is real life? I understand it was a speech, but he's not supposed to be a politician. This was not a mistake. It was intentional and it would be very hard to convince me that it wasn't. The outcome may not have been intentional, but the sentiment certainly was. Again, there may not be anything to it, but walking into his office, he looks soft and nothing but a puppet. He could have been set up to appear a little more resolute, IMO.

 

[Trigger Time]

Streak I actualy agree with part of your above post (amazingly). But I can't tell you which part because it's against the rules to discuss

however er I don't believe this was a mistake. This is the blind loyalty the Kenyan is demanding now from his generals. No more leaks! Or else!!

 

[Streak]

This is not a religious discussion and don't take it that way.

What exactly is real life? I understand it was a speech, but he's not supposed to be a politician. This was not a mistake. It was intentional and it would be very hard to convince me that it wasn't. The outcome may not have been intentional, but the sentiment certainly was. Again, there may not be anything to it, but walking into his office, he looks soft and nothing but a puppet. He could have been set up to appear a little more resolute, IMO.

I'm not...I used a commonly seen example. It may have to do with religion, but it's more indicative of my point and not a direction I'm trying to take a topic. It is intentional and you're wrong about him not being a politician. EVERYONE who is on the leadership side of politics IS a politician. He's a politician in his own right same as any Senator albeit with less power or influence, but a politician nonetheless.

Real-life is the descriptor I chose for what happens after the cameras turn off, the media goes home, and the actual work is performed.