Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to If he had asked the question without snark...

Snark or no snark, it was a dumbass question.
TB — (archived)

Essentially I was asked if the president decided to declare himself dictator and destroyed the Constitution, would I still support him?

Geez.

You could extend the speculation questions to get a more accurate idea of the more complex issue: If Bush and Cheney vanished in a puff of sulfur, and Pelosi took over, would I still be against surrender in Iraq? Why yes, I would. Despite the simplistic views people have, my principles and political views were there when Bush was still trying to run a baseball team, and they'll be there no matter who is president in 2008 or beyond. I don't get talking points from anyone. I write them.

I'm astounded at how many people can only see politics as worship of one political god or another. Doesn't anyone have principles that outweigh the candidate? If President Gore or Kucinich decided that power and resources should be rationed by law, and people should only have two children per family, I could think of a few "progressives" out there who would suddenly decide this was the greatest idea since sliced bread. Nobody here, thank God. At least I don't think so.

What's ironic is that I am expected to answer hypotheticals like this, yet if I raise a hypothetical like "where would Zarqawi have gone if we had never invaded Iraq," or "what would Saddam be doing if he were still in power five years from now," I am hooted out into the lobby for trying to discuss something that "didn't happen."

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (90 posts)