|
|
Do you have to know my principles to discuss the nature of principles in general?Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
I bet my core principles are probably not too unlike your own. But it appears I tend to draw the line between principle and interpretation a short ways before you might.
A leader should never change his ideals and principles. These are not negotiable.
What don't you understand about that statement?
So Jack Bicknell should stick to his guns and maintain that halftime adjustments are unneeded and bubble screens are superior to downfield passes. If, indeed, those are his offensive principles, he should never change them in light of fan or player criticism.
Right?
And if some development were to occur today that would make 99% of all Americans oppose the war in Iraq, then W should never, never waver, since his principles dictate the necessity of our presence there.
Right?
If JB III's principles dictate that he does one thing, he should stick with it even if it costs him his job.
You don't have discipline one day and not have discipline the next by bowing under public pressure.
I'd say at this point in his career, he's more of a waffling Democrat than a Republican.
Ok, Got it!
Now ... if a good leader should never waffle on his principles, should those who disagree with him even bother to voice their concern?
There's nothing wrong with voicing opposition, but one must be willing to acknowledge that actions have consequences. If someone disagrees with the president and speaks out against his views I have no problem with them doing it in the proper forum. BUT, I'm not going to give money that I can choose how to spend to people who go out of this country and badmouth our president/country/policies. I'm not a big movie fan anyway because of the trash we generally get thrown our way, but I'm getting WAY more selective these days.
And, I'm not going to support the show of a woman who promises to crawl to the White House and beg forgiveness of the president for saying he was wrong if she was ultimately proven wrong. This woman said there was no way the people in Baghdad would be cheering the arrival of the American soldiers. Perhaps she was related to the Iraqi information minister - those were mirages I was looking at - Hollywood stuff.
But what is the point of opposition if a good leader will never compromise his principles?
Some things aren't based on principle - others are. There are biblical mandates I don't/won't/try not to violate. But, there are things that I don't see a clear direction in the matter and that leaves a lot to personal choice. Core values cannot be compromised and keep integrity. But, every issue does not rise to that level.
I think you can see where this is going ...
Let's suppose two nations hold contrary sets of core beliefs. Should they go to war and let might make right?
More common scenario in America: Let's suppose two groups hold similar core beliefs (as I believe most Americans do), but one party's core principles extends well into what the other party considers the realm of interpretation.
Should the "interpreting" party even bother to voice a view contrary to what the other party holds as a core belief? What would be the point?
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:10 am** *Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D80 ... some important distinctions needs to be drawn. I support the war. Aub does not. CHAMP WROTE
Champ, it appears divide and conquer is working. Your statement above disproves my theory that you read carefully all the time instead of skimming and reacting to what I write.
There is no post anyplace that you can quote to prove that statement.
My absurdly lengthy efforts on the threads on this page of BB&B have directed at the one-sided seemingly unexamined attacks on various media outlets and people who disagree with some people who post here.
You fell in the trap with the guys who are searching for my motivation in what I write. If I wanted to oppose the war I could scream that rather than trying to discuss why and how others might attempt to understand people whose ideas differ from theirs.
Obviously, as I have repeatedly heard from CONSERVATIVE speakers lately, "no sane person could be for war, BUT" ..........
Opposing war on principal doesn't mean not being able to accept its necessity at times. However, jingoistic jibberish is beneath the dignity of any educated person or uneducated person with the ability to understand what occurs during a war.
If I were to fall into the trap you did, I guess I would say that I am not a communist. But Champ is!
If being anti-war is such a minority belief, why would some people spend so much effort attacking people who protest war?
Do they really think that a small group of people expressing their heartfelt beliefs are hurting ANYTHING except their desire to avoid questioning their own motivation?
Aub, can't you ever just give a straight answer?!
I do see one folly in your position I can address, however. If I am correct in interpreting what you are saying (no easy task, I might add), you have a problem with anyone who questions the anti-war protestors because you do not believe enough thought or consideration has been allowed. In other words, those of us who criticize the anti-war crowd do so ONLY because we haven't given enough thought to it. Wrongo!
On FOX, on Sean Hannity, on Rush's show I hear constantly that, yes, anyone has the right to protest. We also all understand their position is, in some cases anti-war, any war, and in some cases they are against this particular war. In either case, we have already determined that they are wrong on this issue. No further deliberations are needed. You see, unlike Clinton, we don't check the wind of popular beliefs to assume a position. We do so based on our own set of principles.
That last statement has Champ perplexed. He does not understand what it means to harbor core beliefs. He has none himself, apparently, and can not relate to those of us that do.
Example: I believe that killing is wrong. I don't support abortion. I don't support capital punishment (just lock 'em up forever). I have never taken a human life and hope to keep it that way. But, as part of my CORE BELIEFS, I feel I have a duty to protect my family. Therefore, if someone is attempting to harm my family, they are toast, if I am in a position to do something. This is NOT a contradiction. But rather a very clear, concise policy that demonstrates when I will use deadly force, if necessary. I will NOT waiver on this position either.
I believe that the federal government has gotten too big and is a detriment to the American people, not a server of the people, as it should be. I want to see vast reorganization and downsizing of the federal beauracacy. I despise it so much I can't even spell "bureaucracy." Is there a role for the federal government? Of course! But we don't need 2 million federal employees!
I also believe in a clean environment. I just don't subscribe to the voodoo science that some do, such as global warming. Former ABC reporter Sam Donaldson admitted that he slanted the "news" about global warming in an effort to win public support for that position on the issue, because of personal fears that he harbored. Fears, he later admitted, that were based on conjecture and emotion, rather than any sound scientific evidence.
Whether it is going to war, the federal budget, or global warming, my set of core beliefs demand the TRUTH! That is why I am on record of saying the verdict is still out on the Iraqi war issue. Clearly, we have done most of the Iraqi population a favor by ending Saddam's regime. But, will we find the WMD's? Do we now invade Syria to give meaning to this war?
I also see I am getting as long-winded as you in my posts....almost.
Damnit Boyd. I like you, but it really pisses me off when people put words in my mouth. WHERE DID I SAY IT WAS IRRELEVANT??? SHOW ME WHERE I DODGED ANYTHING. You sound like Dan Rather.
PLEASE SEE PREVIOUS POSTS TO SEE WHAT I REALLY SAID:
“About Clinton... I think Clinton's actions were based on self-desire and greed and what he wanted, not polls or what was best for the country.”
“I would agree that politics play to big of a roll in decision making. There is not a guide for when to do what. That is when your principles and advisors should come in. I don't think a leader should be swayed only by opinion polls or dissent of the masses.”
Basically, I said WHAT I THOUGHT Clinton did while in office. Concerning which party should “cave”, I said that there is not a clear answer. For this country to work there has to be some compromise. NOWHERE DID I SAY IT WAS IRRELEVANT.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEBATE PEOPLE’S OPINIONS OR COMMENTS, AT LEAST TRY TO ACCURATELY PORTRAY THEIR OPINION OR COMMENTS WHEN DEBATING.
I think I done posting here for a while. I know what I believe and I know when I am wrong and I know when I need to make changes. For now, that is all I can control. The rest COULD BE considered “irrelevant”… :wink:
Ok guys, cool your jets.
Aub & EJ ... I apologize for the miscommunication. Aub, you had me (and others, I'd wager) thoroughly convinced that you opposed war on religious grounds. And EJ, my intent was never to put words in your mouth. It can be often be difficult on a message board to guage the tone of a partiacular post. I'm sorry I misinterpreted yours.
D80, that was uncalled for. :thumbsdo: I understand well the existence of core values. Were you just trying to hurt my wittle, bweeding-hawt feewings?He does not understand what it means to harbor core beliefs. He has none himself, apparently, and can not relate to those of us that do.
What fascinates me is the dynamic that arises when core values conflict, particularly in a democracy. And particularly when leaders are odds with their constiuency. Whose core values should prevail when in conflict?
Everybody has their own line they draw between core principles and interpretation. But how does a society draw that line? Let's say a group holds as a core value that Royal Blue is a holy color, and people who refuse to wear blue underpants everyday are only serving to offend morality and undermine society.
Of course the rest of society agrees that the color of your haynes lies outside the realm of principles. Should the Blue Folks fight for their principles, no matter the cost?
I don't question that Champ has principles. He just doesn't have enough.
Or does Clyde just have too many? How do you know where principles end and interpretation begins?
We both hold as principle that America is great, and worth fighting for. And I think we can both agree that the color of your drawers lies outside the sphere of principles.
But somewhere in between we draw our lines between principles and interpretation in different places. Who's to say whose line is in the "right" place?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
