Liesje
Blue Crack Addict
Good for you. Start a new thread about it then....
Go Obama!
- Thread starter MadelynIris
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Good for you. Start a new thread about it then....
cydewaze
Refugee
I remember back in the 90's when the repubicans were obsessing about Monica, and every time Clinton tried to bomb terrorists, they claimed he was just trying to distract the public (wag the dog?).
Poor Bill could do no right back in the 90's. If he bombed Al Quaida, the republicans had a problem with it. If he didn't bomb Al Quaida, the republicans had a problem with it.
It all convinced me that the actual problem was the "D" after his name. Which seems to be the same problem Obama has.
Eeek, I'm threadjacking, aren't I? Sorry, I'll stop.
HyperU2
War Child
Go fuck yourself.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
^ nice.
yet another sterling representation of the quality of thought on the Right.
yet another sterling representation of the quality of thought on the Right.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Don't think so, definitely not.. but thank you all the same-right back at you
I'm a masochist though, what other excuses can I offer? As for what's going on here now-geesh, I thought I had it bad
cydewaze
Refugee
OMG! Dick Cheney is here on our very forum!!! 
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Looks like you've been around Interference plenty long enough to know that was well over the line.
Also looks like this thread has veered pretty far off the topic (role of tax policy in the economic recovery plan). Let's keep any further discussion focused on that point please, otherwise there's little reason to keep this one open.
yenlard
War Child
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 511
so glad obama is now our president so he can lead us down the right path. hate to see what this country is going to look like in two years.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Anyway, it's in my best interest that Obama's policies succeed, however I don't see it happening.
When Reagan came to office he was handed a crap economy by Carter and he fixed it.
When Clinton came to office he listened to Republicans, co-opted with them and he fixed the economy.
GW fixed the economy when it was handed off by Clinton in not the best shape.
During the end of GWs tenure the economy faltered. Instead of discipline that is now needed and tax cuts; we've spent trillions in new promises that can not be sustained and Obama has not listened to Republicans-and because of that the stock market continues to dive.
A better anaolgy is:
In regards to the economy, we were ankle deep in sh*t when Obama won the election. With this new debt and unsustainable promises we are now in chest deep sh*t-thanks to Senator O-no.
<>
When Reagan came to office he was handed a crap economy by Carter and he fixed it.
When Clinton came to office he listened to Republicans, co-opted with them and he fixed the economy.
GW fixed the economy when it was handed off by Clinton in not the best shape.
During the end of GWs tenure the economy faltered. Instead of discipline that is now needed and tax cuts; we've spent trillions in new promises that can not be sustained and Obama has not listened to Republicans-and because of that the stock market continues to dive.
A better anaolgy is:
In regards to the economy, we were ankle deep in sh*t when Obama won the election. With this new debt and unsustainable promises we are now in chest deep sh*t-thanks to Senator O-no.
<>
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
This post makes no sense. You say that Clinton fixed the economy because of the Republicans and then handed a shaky economy off to GW that he had to fix. Either the Republicans helped Clinton or they made the economy shaky.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
The dot-com bubble bursting caused a recession at the end Clinton's term -and he handed that to GW.
<>
<>
Bluer White
New Yorker
How does he stack up?
Rush Limbaugh is a popular radio personality.
Mr. Obama is Leader of the Free World.
(Rush is being set up as the ultimate straw man by the hard left)
deep
Blue Crack Addict
jasonlee
The Fly
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 122
How does he stack up?
Rush Limbaugh is a popular radio personality.
Mr. Obama is Leader of the Free World.
(Rush is being set up as the ultimate straw man by the hard left)
Can we please refrain from calling the president a "leader"?
I think chief magistrate is fine enough.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Shit, I have a line to that in mind, but it's probably too dark a humor for here.
Oh, how awesome would that be if German politicians would take some example in that when debating over the next tax reform... wait, tax reform? Quote our Minister for Finance: "No money for tax reforms for the next ten years." And this year it looks like we go Black-Yellow (Conservatives and Free Liberals), so the next four years (at least) will be standstill again.
It's such an ironic situation. Just a few months ago almost everyone was looking at the US President in disgust from this side on the Atlantic. Now, everyone is just hoping we would get something similar.
Oh, how awesome would that be if German politicians would take some example in that when debating over the next tax reform... wait, tax reform? Quote our Minister for Finance: "No money for tax reforms for the next ten years." And this year it looks like we go Black-Yellow (Conservatives and Free Liberals), so the next four years (at least) will be standstill again.
It's such an ironic situation. Just a few months ago almost everyone was looking at the US President in disgust from this side on the Atlantic. Now, everyone is just hoping we would get something similar.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
US will (as always) lead the world out of recession, Obama or no Obama.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
HyperU2
War Child
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Perhaps. After all, Obama certainly doesn't fit the mold of our past "leaders."
Halcyon days...
maycocksean
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I'm personally very skeptical of the effectiveness of the stimulus package--I sense a lot of money is going to be wasted or put to poor use.
But the seeming inablity of practically anyone on the right to talk about this without foaming at the mouth makes me want to defend it.
But the seeming inablity of practically anyone on the right to talk about this without foaming at the mouth makes me want to defend it.
jasonlee
The Fly
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 122
Stolen from cato.org
In a famous 1979 television interview, Democratic presidential contender Ted Kennedy flubbed a softball question: "Why do you want to be president?" Mr. Kennedy's sputtering answer did real damage to his campaign. At the recent Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, Senators Obama and McCain gave more coherent answers when Pastor Rick Warren asked the same question. But in an America with a saner perspective on the presidency, their answers would have been disqualifying as well.
What moved Barack Obama to seek the presidency was "the basic idea of empathy" and the notion that if "we see somebody down and out ... we care for them." Republican John McCain explained that he was running "to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self-interest."
Noble sentiments, to be sure, but in the original constitutional scheme, the president was neither Empath-in-Chief nor a national life coach. His role was to faithfully execute the laws, defend the country from attack, and check Congress with the veto power whenever it exceeded its constitutional bounds.
What we expect the president to do
But there's a reason candidates talk the way they do. Their rhetoric faithfully reflects the public's outsized expectations for the office: Grow the economy. Give us better, cheaper healthcare. Protect us from hurricanes. Stop global warming. Bring peace to the Middle East. Lead us. Inspire us. We crave a spiritual superhero, not just someone who will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."
As the conventions celebrate the anointed, it's worth exploring how our long slide away from the Founding Fathers' modest notion of presidential responsibility has left us with a dysfunctional politics and a bloated imperial presidency.
The McCain campaign has found its groove lately by skewering Mr. Obama's quasi-messianic pretensions. A recent McCain campaign ad, mockingly titled "The One," mixes clips of Obama speeches with Charlton Heston as Moses, parting the waters. "And the world shall receive [Obama's] blessings," the narrator intones. It's an effective ad, playing on the grating arrogance that periodically emerges from the Obama campaign. As Michele Obama said in February 2008: "Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."
But make no mistake: Both parties view the president as our national guardian and redeemer, a figure entrusted with the care of America's very soul.
It's a theme that President Bush has sounded repeatedly. And it's practically de rigueur for GOP presidential contenders. When Mike Huckabee announced his candidacy in January 2007, he said he was running because "America needs positive, optimistic leadership to kind of turn this country around, to see a revival of our national soul…."
Mr. McCain, too, sees the president as a soul-healer. His hero, Teddy Roosevelt, was a great president, McCain insists, because he "liberally interpreted the constitutional authority of the office," and "nourished the soul of a great nation."
If soul-nourishing is part of the president's job, what isn't?
That grandiose conception of the president's role couldn't be further from how our Founding Fathers saw the office. As The Federalist No. 69 tells us, the Constitution's chief executive officer had an important job, but he'd have "no particle of spiritual jurisdiction." Instead, as presidential scholar Jeffrey K. Tulis explains, unlike "polities that attempt to shape the souls of their citizenry and foster certain excellences or moral qualities by penetrating deeply into the 'private' sphere, the founders wanted their government to be limited to establishing and securing such a sphere."
The men who designed our Constitution never thought of the president as America's "national leader." Indeed, for them, the very notion of "national leadership" raised the possibility of authoritarian rule by a demagogue who would create an atmosphere of crisis in order to enhance his power.
Hard as it may be to imagine in the midst of a modern campaign season, the Framers wholly rejected the notion of the "bully pulpit."
Presidents were to be seen more than heard, which is why our first seven presidents averaged a little over three public speeches a year. Nor did early presidents follow the modern practice of referring to themselves as the "commander in chief," as if all America was a vast army directed by a supreme military leader. When George Washington referred to the office he held, most often it was with the humble term "chief magistrate."
Alas, humility is hard to discern on the modern campaign trail. If our presidential candidates seem to embrace an exalted notion of their status, perhaps that's a function of the adulation they're greeted with by the crowds at campaign appearances. A recent feature in The New York Times described the prevailing atmosphere: "Look at the faces — not of the candidates, but of the rope-liners themselves, with arms and fingers extended, their eyes bugged and sometimes tearful." "I got to smell him, and it was awesome," exclaimed Kate Homrich, who managed to get close to Obama at one campaign rally. Another, Bonnie Owens, got a finger-pinch from the Illinois senator: "Best experience of my life," she declared.
And it's not just voters at campaign rallies who fall prey to presidential idolatry. If anything, American political elites — pundits, talking heads, and presidential scholars — are worse. When President Bush traveled to Blacksburg, Va. to offer comfort after the April 2007 shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, David Gergen, adviser to one Democratic and three Republican presidents, commented, "At times like this, [the president] takes off his cap as commander in chief and puts on the robes of consoler in chief." Leon Panetta, former chief of staff to President Clinton, went even further: "In many ways, [the president] is our national chaplain."
Arthur Schlesinger Jr., author, ironically enough, of The Imperial Presidency, captured the modern, bipartisan consensus in the introduction to his 1996 presidential ranking survey, maintaining that a great president needed to "have a deep connection with the needs, anxieties, dreams of the people."
Of course, the ability to channel the collective spirit of the American public isn't a skill that the chief magistrate needs to faithfully execute the laws or defend the country from foreign attacks. But that boundless view of presidential responsibility has helped lead to dramatically enhanced presidential power.
Some might counter, though, that all this "soul talk" is mere rhetoric. After all, it's not as though any president, concerned about spiritual "malaise," has appointed a "national-soul czar," charged with reforming the American spirit through the coercive power of government.
Terrible consequences
But ideas have consequences, and few ideas have had worse ones than the belief that Americans need grand federal crusades to pull them away from private, parochial concerns and invest their lives with meaning. As David Brooks wrote in a 1997 essay in The Weekly Standard, "…ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington…. Without vigorous national vision, we are plagued by anxiety and disquiet."
That helps explain why Washington doesn't just attempt to solve problems; it launches wars — on drugs, poverty, terror, disease. Noble aims all, but the destructive cost of these wars is mind-boggling. When he boosted drug war funding in December 2001, Bush declared that "when we fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans." As a result of that fight, nearly half a million Americans are currently behind bars for drug offenses, and America has a per-capita prison population that dwarfs China's and Iran's.
The notion of president-as-spiritual-warrior has aided dangerous excesses in the war on terror. The week after 9/11, Bush announced that we would not only answer the attacks, we would also "rid the world of evil." A mission that vast demanded equally vast powers — powers that the public was all too willing to grant in the post-9-11 crisis atmosphere.
An increasing number of Americans worry that the presidency has grown too big, too powerful, and too menacing. Yet we also want the government — chiefly, the president — to "do more." And when terror strikes, hurricanes ravage, homes foreclose, the stock market drops, and food prices rise, we inevitably blame one person: the president.
Investing our lives with hope, uniting us all behind a higher calling, fixing our "broken" souls — none of this is remotely the president's business. It's not surprising that presidential contenders cater to our contradictory expectations. That's the business they're in. But if we're unhappy with the results, we ought to recall the wisdom contained in the Pogo Principle: "we have met the enemy and he is us."
So long as we embrace — or even tolerate — the idea that the president is the guardian of our national soul, we have little right to complain about our burgeoning Imperial Presidency.
In a famous 1979 television interview, Democratic presidential contender Ted Kennedy flubbed a softball question: "Why do you want to be president?" Mr. Kennedy's sputtering answer did real damage to his campaign. At the recent Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, Senators Obama and McCain gave more coherent answers when Pastor Rick Warren asked the same question. But in an America with a saner perspective on the presidency, their answers would have been disqualifying as well.
What moved Barack Obama to seek the presidency was "the basic idea of empathy" and the notion that if "we see somebody down and out ... we care for them." Republican John McCain explained that he was running "to inspire a generation of Americans to serve a cause greater than their self-interest."
Noble sentiments, to be sure, but in the original constitutional scheme, the president was neither Empath-in-Chief nor a national life coach. His role was to faithfully execute the laws, defend the country from attack, and check Congress with the veto power whenever it exceeded its constitutional bounds.
What we expect the president to do
But there's a reason candidates talk the way they do. Their rhetoric faithfully reflects the public's outsized expectations for the office: Grow the economy. Give us better, cheaper healthcare. Protect us from hurricanes. Stop global warming. Bring peace to the Middle East. Lead us. Inspire us. We crave a spiritual superhero, not just someone who will "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."
As the conventions celebrate the anointed, it's worth exploring how our long slide away from the Founding Fathers' modest notion of presidential responsibility has left us with a dysfunctional politics and a bloated imperial presidency.
The McCain campaign has found its groove lately by skewering Mr. Obama's quasi-messianic pretensions. A recent McCain campaign ad, mockingly titled "The One," mixes clips of Obama speeches with Charlton Heston as Moses, parting the waters. "And the world shall receive [Obama's] blessings," the narrator intones. It's an effective ad, playing on the grating arrogance that periodically emerges from the Obama campaign. As Michele Obama said in February 2008: "Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."
But make no mistake: Both parties view the president as our national guardian and redeemer, a figure entrusted with the care of America's very soul.
It's a theme that President Bush has sounded repeatedly. And it's practically de rigueur for GOP presidential contenders. When Mike Huckabee announced his candidacy in January 2007, he said he was running because "America needs positive, optimistic leadership to kind of turn this country around, to see a revival of our national soul…."
Mr. McCain, too, sees the president as a soul-healer. His hero, Teddy Roosevelt, was a great president, McCain insists, because he "liberally interpreted the constitutional authority of the office," and "nourished the soul of a great nation."
If soul-nourishing is part of the president's job, what isn't?
That grandiose conception of the president's role couldn't be further from how our Founding Fathers saw the office. As The Federalist No. 69 tells us, the Constitution's chief executive officer had an important job, but he'd have "no particle of spiritual jurisdiction." Instead, as presidential scholar Jeffrey K. Tulis explains, unlike "polities that attempt to shape the souls of their citizenry and foster certain excellences or moral qualities by penetrating deeply into the 'private' sphere, the founders wanted their government to be limited to establishing and securing such a sphere."
The men who designed our Constitution never thought of the president as America's "national leader." Indeed, for them, the very notion of "national leadership" raised the possibility of authoritarian rule by a demagogue who would create an atmosphere of crisis in order to enhance his power.
Hard as it may be to imagine in the midst of a modern campaign season, the Framers wholly rejected the notion of the "bully pulpit."
Presidents were to be seen more than heard, which is why our first seven presidents averaged a little over three public speeches a year. Nor did early presidents follow the modern practice of referring to themselves as the "commander in chief," as if all America was a vast army directed by a supreme military leader. When George Washington referred to the office he held, most often it was with the humble term "chief magistrate."
Alas, humility is hard to discern on the modern campaign trail. If our presidential candidates seem to embrace an exalted notion of their status, perhaps that's a function of the adulation they're greeted with by the crowds at campaign appearances. A recent feature in The New York Times described the prevailing atmosphere: "Look at the faces — not of the candidates, but of the rope-liners themselves, with arms and fingers extended, their eyes bugged and sometimes tearful." "I got to smell him, and it was awesome," exclaimed Kate Homrich, who managed to get close to Obama at one campaign rally. Another, Bonnie Owens, got a finger-pinch from the Illinois senator: "Best experience of my life," she declared.
And it's not just voters at campaign rallies who fall prey to presidential idolatry. If anything, American political elites — pundits, talking heads, and presidential scholars — are worse. When President Bush traveled to Blacksburg, Va. to offer comfort after the April 2007 shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, David Gergen, adviser to one Democratic and three Republican presidents, commented, "At times like this, [the president] takes off his cap as commander in chief and puts on the robes of consoler in chief." Leon Panetta, former chief of staff to President Clinton, went even further: "In many ways, [the president] is our national chaplain."
Arthur Schlesinger Jr., author, ironically enough, of The Imperial Presidency, captured the modern, bipartisan consensus in the introduction to his 1996 presidential ranking survey, maintaining that a great president needed to "have a deep connection with the needs, anxieties, dreams of the people."
Of course, the ability to channel the collective spirit of the American public isn't a skill that the chief magistrate needs to faithfully execute the laws or defend the country from foreign attacks. But that boundless view of presidential responsibility has helped lead to dramatically enhanced presidential power.
Some might counter, though, that all this "soul talk" is mere rhetoric. After all, it's not as though any president, concerned about spiritual "malaise," has appointed a "national-soul czar," charged with reforming the American spirit through the coercive power of government.
Terrible consequences
But ideas have consequences, and few ideas have had worse ones than the belief that Americans need grand federal crusades to pull them away from private, parochial concerns and invest their lives with meaning. As David Brooks wrote in a 1997 essay in The Weekly Standard, "…ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington…. Without vigorous national vision, we are plagued by anxiety and disquiet."
That helps explain why Washington doesn't just attempt to solve problems; it launches wars — on drugs, poverty, terror, disease. Noble aims all, but the destructive cost of these wars is mind-boggling. When he boosted drug war funding in December 2001, Bush declared that "when we fight against drugs, we fight for the souls of our fellow Americans." As a result of that fight, nearly half a million Americans are currently behind bars for drug offenses, and America has a per-capita prison population that dwarfs China's and Iran's.
The notion of president-as-spiritual-warrior has aided dangerous excesses in the war on terror. The week after 9/11, Bush announced that we would not only answer the attacks, we would also "rid the world of evil." A mission that vast demanded equally vast powers — powers that the public was all too willing to grant in the post-9-11 crisis atmosphere.
An increasing number of Americans worry that the presidency has grown too big, too powerful, and too menacing. Yet we also want the government — chiefly, the president — to "do more." And when terror strikes, hurricanes ravage, homes foreclose, the stock market drops, and food prices rise, we inevitably blame one person: the president.
Investing our lives with hope, uniting us all behind a higher calling, fixing our "broken" souls — none of this is remotely the president's business. It's not surprising that presidential contenders cater to our contradictory expectations. That's the business they're in. But if we're unhappy with the results, we ought to recall the wisdom contained in the Pogo Principle: "we have met the enemy and he is us."
So long as we embrace — or even tolerate — the idea that the president is the guardian of our national soul, we have little right to complain about our burgeoning Imperial Presidency.
AliEnvy
Refugee
Excellent article. Here's a blog post that I also like -
The Lost Art of Personal Accountability
It’s easy to blame others when things go wrong. As a college student, I want to blame morning classes, badly-scheduled tests, and rogue professors for bad grades and missed opportunities. After all, since it costs so much to attend college, we must be the victims of a cruel system, right? College is a good place to develop a victim complex.
Explaining away these errors in judgment is so easy. I’m sure most college students use these same excuses on parents, friends, and anyone else who will listen. As long as someone believes that it’s not my fault, I somehow feel validated. Unfortunately, most of the time, the problems that plague me are the result of my own bad decisions. Staying up late, procrastinating, and goofing off in class are usually the causes of my troubles. I want so badly for my mistakes to be someone else’s fault. It’s hard to admit to myself that I make mistakes. But when I search my conscience, I can only point the finger back at myself.
But school is only a small part for what we as productive citizens need to take responsibility. It’s much bigger. I believe that there are too many fingers pointed at others and not enough pointed back at ourselves for many of the problems we face today. Parents blame schools for not teaching their children, but have they ever sat down with their child to work on homework? Homeowners blame lenders for “tricking” them into risky mortgages, but isn’t buying something as large as a house important enough to prompt a potential buyer to read all of the fine print and really asses what they can and cannot afford? Many people are waiting on someone else to save them from their own bad choices, but how are they going to better themselves when they have never had to do so before?
Too many people in this country suffer from victim complexes. Because it is much easier to fault another party for misfortune than to actually admit a fault in ourselves, passing the blame around has become commonplace. Being the victim is much more appealing then being wrong. Instead of throwing ourselves pity parties, we should assume responsibility for our own actions and take our places as productive members of society.
I believe that pulling myself up by my own bootstraps will make me a better person and will make me appreciate my success more than if it was simply given to me. I attend college partly because of scholarships and partly because of the generosity of my parents. Even though I do not have to pay my tuition, I choose to work and help my parents out wherever I can. Being willing to work now shows that I will be able to provide for myself later, instead of depending on others and looking for handouts.
I believe in the lost art of personal accountability, and I believe in using circumstances as motivation rather than as an excuse. Everyone has a chance to better him or herself in this country, regardless of his or her background. Claiming “I can’t” does as much good as claiming “I won’t.” I refuse to let where I come from dictate where I am going. A victim complex is not a proper substitute for personal accountability--this I believe.
The Lost Art of Personal Accountability
It’s easy to blame others when things go wrong. As a college student, I want to blame morning classes, badly-scheduled tests, and rogue professors for bad grades and missed opportunities. After all, since it costs so much to attend college, we must be the victims of a cruel system, right? College is a good place to develop a victim complex.
Explaining away these errors in judgment is so easy. I’m sure most college students use these same excuses on parents, friends, and anyone else who will listen. As long as someone believes that it’s not my fault, I somehow feel validated. Unfortunately, most of the time, the problems that plague me are the result of my own bad decisions. Staying up late, procrastinating, and goofing off in class are usually the causes of my troubles. I want so badly for my mistakes to be someone else’s fault. It’s hard to admit to myself that I make mistakes. But when I search my conscience, I can only point the finger back at myself.
But school is only a small part for what we as productive citizens need to take responsibility. It’s much bigger. I believe that there are too many fingers pointed at others and not enough pointed back at ourselves for many of the problems we face today. Parents blame schools for not teaching their children, but have they ever sat down with their child to work on homework? Homeowners blame lenders for “tricking” them into risky mortgages, but isn’t buying something as large as a house important enough to prompt a potential buyer to read all of the fine print and really asses what they can and cannot afford? Many people are waiting on someone else to save them from their own bad choices, but how are they going to better themselves when they have never had to do so before?
Too many people in this country suffer from victim complexes. Because it is much easier to fault another party for misfortune than to actually admit a fault in ourselves, passing the blame around has become commonplace. Being the victim is much more appealing then being wrong. Instead of throwing ourselves pity parties, we should assume responsibility for our own actions and take our places as productive members of society.
I believe that pulling myself up by my own bootstraps will make me a better person and will make me appreciate my success more than if it was simply given to me. I attend college partly because of scholarships and partly because of the generosity of my parents. Even though I do not have to pay my tuition, I choose to work and help my parents out wherever I can. Being willing to work now shows that I will be able to provide for myself later, instead of depending on others and looking for handouts.
I believe in the lost art of personal accountability, and I believe in using circumstances as motivation rather than as an excuse. Everyone has a chance to better him or herself in this country, regardless of his or her background. Claiming “I can’t” does as much good as claiming “I won’t.” I refuse to let where I come from dictate where I am going. A victim complex is not a proper substitute for personal accountability--this I believe.
jasonlee
The Fly
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 122
Like that blog post very much, thanks for sharing it.
As Alan Moore says: everyone should be the master of their own destiny, everyone should be their own leader.
As Alan Moore says: everyone should be the master of their own destiny, everyone should be their own leader.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
This right here summarizes the poster's short sightedness...
What some wouldn't do to be able to bitch about such a privelage.
I find that most people that give these bootstrap speeches came from a place where college was expected and not being able to take a family vacation that year was considered a hardship.
HyperU2
War Child
Those that don't get to go to college can develop their own victim complex.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
You are so full of insight...
jasonlee
The Fly
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 122
You've missed or ignored the point of that blog post, but thanks for your non sequitur, it was amusing.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
- Status
