calculating the heart of a lion

kew. point taken. i'm just glad someone gets it.

I said calculating things, doesn't make you smart especially if you can't do it for anything positive, stupid people who think they're smart are one in the same. What I meant was to give sadie a compliment. Who doesn't like hearing that they're adored?

quote:
They're definitely tired of the war. Last poll I read had 60% thinking the Iraq invasion was "a mistake." The trouble is, they don't have a choice because both candidates will want to continue the war and maybe even blunder into an even bigger "mistake" by invading Iran. McCain, as the openly pro-war candidate, doesn't have to worry about any anti-war sentiment. Even if 70% of the population is dead-set against the war, he only needs the support of about 30% of eligible voters to win the presidency. That's about what Bush got. Clinton's main obstacle is the fact that people don't vote for women. Even women don't vote for women.

If you follow this line of reasoning, this is where I become doubtless, or in the least bit confused? My reason for saying that, is in a historical context, there is no denying that every empire in history do not attempt to rest on their laurels when it gets to world dominating the political stage. The alluring aspect of war is romanticized throughout world-civilization through the centuries. However, here we listen to these present day leaders - to a lesser degree we must face adversity due to inevitable issues, such as control of a stabalized econmy no matter what the cost. To furthering solutions, there is no room for pragmatic gestation of what voters will rely on. In other words, war is contingent to any vote joe-american casts to engage in his or her democracy. The point being it is not against there will that wars will be waged, the truth is when they realize there's nothing they can do to prevent war? To be an American comes with the territory I would feel fair to say so myself as Canadian living in a country born out of free will. I guess the question now becomes, what truly is independence if it means you have to essentially accept on terms that you nor I can be blamed for when it comes to something as certain as war. They will elect a leader, no matter what the outcome, war is a measure of that vote for the price of freedom, correct me if I'm wrong.

re; Vegas

you know, Obama sounds really good.

. . . yes, however when you think about what I wrote means^ above. . . that's precisely how we perceive American politics, and American voters at the polls are happy with just believing that is true without really knowing the difference besides what they hear given to them. "Obama - might - be good". Are we sure, based on what exactly? We don't know.

See. I got your back, and you refuse to acknowledge it unless it's the 'safe' thing to do. You try to stay neutral, and you fear people will hate you back for it or in the least assume. That's why I love you so much. I wouldn't let anyone hurt you. Bad intentions abound. Mike was only being honest.

True you see. I would also agree that what you finished emphasizing, however, is in need of being emphasized. . . if you see where we're heading with that context. It's abysmal if otherwise. People might not be in touch with that form of thinking or unhypothesized control.

It simply reinforces this part of the argument. . .
I guess the question now becomes, what truly is independence if it means you have to essentially accept on terms that you nor I can be blamed for when it comes to something as certain as war.

When you contain that piece of information in the context of human history, then on so many levels we'd be asking, what kind of individuals are we if we call political leaders liars in deceiving what the polis-ergo-democracy truly want? If we wanted to vote for something other than war, in other words, the wool is being covered over our eyes. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Unelected leaders.