Quote:
Originally posted by pantyfanatic
...You say that as if you thouhgt he had the capability.
|
pantyfanatic,
Thank you for providing an example of the point I was making. Comments of this nature are often called "ad hominem", being directed against one's opponent, rather than remaining focused on the issues. They add little or nothing to the debate.
This particular one includes a common mistake: that democratically elected leaders rule by dictat, like a king or despot. By specifying an individual, you imply that that individual is the "one" to address the issue. This is obviously false. Both in the tripartite system of government we employ here in the States, as well as the parliamentarian governments in the UK, Canada, and Australia (to single out only three nations), power and responsibility are distributed beyond a clique or oligarchy - thank heavens.
If one honestly believes in personal freedom, then it is injudicious - extremely so - to damage the tool provided to maintain it. That tool is the political dialog, which is at least wasted and at worst damaged when misused.
The absolute nadir is exemplified by the ant-abortionists; who think that because they believe that because they believe in something so very much that they are entitled to kill someone else. These people are, in my opinion, indistinguishable from terrorists. I, for one, resent giving up any of my liberties to the organs of state in the name of national security; when it – the FBI in this case – “needs” these intrusive tools to pursue and interdict these “true believers”.
Ah well, there are no utopias…