Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to nothing new

Loyalty in general
azstrummer — (archived)

I think you have a distorted view of that word because you can rationalize back to Kerry (gee, maybe he's becoming the new Clinton buzzword when things go wrong). The problem is that it doesn't take you shouting George Bush's praises to the altar to show your loyalty. It simply requires you to shut up in the face of his incompetence.

Rational people can dump on guys in their own party without feeling like they're giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There's where you guys failed, not in the fact that you didn't elect Kerry (he certainly wasn't my favorite dude in the world) but that you didn't insist your own party give you better than the bozos you ended up with. That's blind and stupid loyalty at its finest. It's the loyalty of fear and greed, that you might do some damage to your party of choice that you'd lose some semblance of power.

Oh, and Kerry's plan? (like it has anything to do with this discussion) Who knows? To tell you the truth I really don't want some leader with hard-coded plans because they're too fucking inflexible to deal with the real world. What I do know is that this question I'm posing to you right now would be moot because, in spite of all the warts the Dems have, they don't seem to be seekers of absolute power.

If you can't see the difference you haven't been looking.

Art

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (90 posts)