I’ve already mentioned Hollywood’s hollow presidential pledges and Andrew Breitbart’s superb answer (which you should read at once if you haven’t already).
Here is my pledge as one who held a McCain Palin sign at my polling place for hours on election day:
- I pledge to support the president when I think he is right and oppose him when I think he is wrong.
- I pledge to respect and support our troops, our country, its system and its honor in the same way I did during the Bush years.
- I pledge to show the office of the presidency the respect it deserves.
- I pledge to give Barak Obama the man the respect due to any man.
- I pledge when his term is over to judge Obama place in history based on actual history not hysterics as our friends on the left are currently judging President Bush.
Any questions?
Update Huge Whoops dropped words in the sentence above now corrected it. Thanks to Renee for the catch, totally missed it. Must be the John Roberts in me.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
Yeah, I have a question. What the heck is this supposed to mean?
“I pledge to give Barak Obama the man with the respect any man.”
Also, hysterics is insulting. Aren’t we all tired of the negative rhetoric? Those who condemn Bush do so for valid reasons. Dismissing those reasons as hysterics sounds calloused and bitter. You should pledge to attempt to see another point of view besides your own. I did, with Bush, as did many others who honestly wanted to support our president, but found valid reasons to do so lacking.
Let’s just all agree to try to be less rigid and more open-minded or we could be in serious trouble as a nation.
mistyped it should say I pledge to give Barak Obama the man the respect due any man. Correcting it now. Thanks for the catch.
Hysterics? You mean like the Na Na Na chat at the Inaugural today? There are valid reasons to object to president Bush’s policies. There are quite a few that I disagreed with, but the whole Bush-Hitler-Evil-Sauron meme is ridiculous. The ranking of President Bush as the worst president ever can only be done with a total ignorance of history.
I have no problem with not supporting the president, but people can disagree without being disagreeable. Tonight I will be going over a pal’s house for game night. Of the 5 of us in the last election we split our votes down the line but for different things. I may disagree with their opinions but that doesn’t make them any less valid.
I do agree that we need to be open minded but not to the point that we do what we think is wrong, nor should we imbue evil motivations to those we disagree with without actual evidence. I’m sure the president wants to win the war and help the economy recover. Many on the left were convinced that president Bush was actually evil. That was and is ardent nonsense. I fault the more reasonable people on the left for not calling them on it at the time.
Hopefully that is behind us. We will see.
You wrote ‘hysterics’ with a question mark in your reply. You are the one who used the term, why are you asking me? Only you can determine what qualifies as hysterics in your view. I didn’t see any of the chanting to which you refer in over five hours of watched inaugural coverage on multiple channels.
I find it hilarious that a conservative, such as yourself, would imply that one shouldn’t be disagreeable where politics are concerned. Do you watch Fox news? Have you heard of Ann Coulter? Bill O’Reilly? You know I could go on with that list for days. So don’t give me that disagreeable stuff. Your friends on the right invented hostility in politics.
I would actually agree with you on one point. Bush is not evil. He is ignorant. It was evident he had handlers, by the names of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, pulling his strings on behalf of the right-wing. Do I think those two were evil? Maybe not evil, or even malicious, in their intent, however they blatantly ignored the will of the people. They exploited executive privilege and expanded the powers of the vice presidency while taking away civil rights in the name of national security. They turned a deaf ear to the cries of millions of people they were expected to represent. Oversight of the free market became non-existent (not in the best interest of our nation, obviously!). So, while they may not have been evil, a case can certainly be made for why they have been villain-ized.
Mind you while all of these events transpired the neo-con talking heads and politicians alike were combative, condescending, and aggressive despite getting their way consistently. So, do I feel bad for not putting people in check who felt our last president was evil and the worst in history? Not one damn bit. Do you feel bad for the way your side approaches any and all social or political issues? I doubt it. And you guys get a lot uglier than we could even imagine becoming.
I’m going to have to take issue with you on a few things there.
The question mark was to stress the fact that even on the day of inauguration people are acting without decorum. It would seem our liberal friends are bad winners.
Even that piller of impartiality MSNBC noted both activities that you missed. Considering all that is going down it’s not odd that it can it could be missed. It just can’t be denied.
TV is stick. Coulter is stick. Both do what they do to sell books. I have seen O’Reilly go after people on both sides of the aisle that they think are full of bull. The statement of the right “inventing” hostility in politics is very funny. Read some history. In fact it could be argued that the hostility and lack of decorum is a return to what politics was but that would involve a whole lot more history and there are plenty of authors who have written great books on the subject.
The “Bush is Ignorant” argument is the same “Reagan is a dunce” argument that I heard in college when I was still on the left. It is a lot easier. If you really want to believe that there is any kind evil Rove/Cheney cabal then nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise. If you think that your civil rights have been oppressed then you are very lucky that means you have never actually been oppressed or had your rights restricted. For a people silenced and repressed the left sure has been loud. I elaborated on that in this post.
As far as conservatives getting their own way. Most conservatives would disagree with you on that. If you are referring to the war specifically then yup we’ve gotten our way and won in Iraq, and kept the enemy so busy that they have been unable to kill us here in the US. I will say guilty as charged. I would point out that particularly over the last two years nothing could be done without Democratic support.
As a rule if people think a party has gone too far they get voted out. That’s how the system works. Apparently the country at this time agrees that the Democrats are the right move. It’s healthy for power to change every now and again. On fiscal matters particularly Republicans in the house spent like drunken sailors and frankly deserved to lose. Many republicans stayed home this year, I did not because the war is my primary issue. It still is.
If you want to justify not restraining your side you go ahead and do so.
As for actions on social issues. How we approach social issues? Do you mean like attacks on prop 8 supporters? Or maybe publishing names and address of folks who contributed money against them? Oh come now. I strongly suggest the blog Zombietime that provides photographs of the marches of the left when they protest on social issues and what comes of them.
I am a Roman Catholic with Roman Catholic beliefs. I certainly don’t apologize for them and am happy to defend them on either theological or non-theological grounds. (Feel to check out my series on belief that I am slowing writing in between my job search). Yep we Catholics are a rowdy bunch, just watch us tomorrow marching on the mall Rosaries in hand protesting Roe vs. Wade. I’m sure it sends fear of the spines of many and leads to tens of dollars of damage to local business when march.
Maybe it is the violence inherent in the system?
Supporters of Prop 8 are guilty of some pretty heinous acts as well. And it doesn’t defy logic that opponents of Prop 8 were enraged. This is their LIFE we are talking about. Do you want the government or anyone else telling you what to do with your life? Do you appreciate being treated as a citizen due his full rights? That is all they want. God gave them free will and you want to take it away. Yeah, that will piss people off EVERYTIME. Just like it would piss you off if your religion was banned. It’s a part of your life and who you are. No one has the right to take it away. And you have no right to limit their lives or impose YOUR beliefs on them. YOU go live YOUR beliefs. The government does not need to mandate and enforce your beliefs for them to be valid for YOU. I swear, you Christians are so arrogant yet insecure at the same time. Everyone has to abide by your definition of right and wrong (arrogant!) yet you have the need for the government to legislate those beliefs (insecure). Why can’t we all live as we see fit and answer to our individual deities later? How other people live is NOT YOUR BUSINESS – even GOD would tell you that. In fact, He did in the scriptures. Remember “judge not lest ye be judged”? He is all-powerful and all-knowing, right? He implemented free will as part is His plan, right? So He knows what is going on and is completely capable of handling potential consequences on judgment day. Until then we should live and let live as He told us to. You are compromising your standing with your creator by trying to shove your beliefs down the throats of every citizen. That is NOT what Jesus would do. tsk tsk tsk
You can apply virtually every argument above to the abortion issue as well. If everything that happens is for a reason, and God is all knowing, then maybe those children were never meant to be here. Who are you to take away what God has given – FREE WILL? If it is wrong, He will deal with that. I trust you believe He is capable of handing things? And He blatantly tells you in the Bible to worry about the log in your own eye before you start picking at the speck in another’s. Oh, I forgot, you Catholics don’t read the Bible. I was raised in a religion centered around Bible study. I know the good book well, but don’t believe it. My husband was raised Catholic and his family is still devout. They don’t the know the Bible, either.
What heinous acts would those be?
By your argument until the Mass Supreme court (where I live) decided that John Adams included a right to gay marriage in the state constitution when it was written in 1790 apparently the entire country was in a state of oppression. (Boy that JFK & FDR and Jimmy Carter must have been evil not to fix it) And the basis of that impression is that people were not compelled to have their personal choices recognized by the state. That is not seeking equality; that is narcissism.
The “how dare I impose my beliefs argument” is rather lame, it is the “keep your mouth shut argument”. There are many people who would like Christians in general and Catholics in particular to sit down and shut up. That is stuff and nonsense. I would point out that until the court cases were pressed and venue shopped none of the 50 states recognized gay marriage. It is the backers not the opponents of gay marriage that are attempting to impose beliefs and when they lose in the court of public opinion they cry and act like an unruly mob.
I make absolutely no apologies for my stance on Gay Marriage, however if the people choose to vote it in, then it is voted in. In a free country people have the right to be wrong. In the same sense the people have the right to oppose it. When you are afraid of the people that is not a solid stance to be on. If your position has merit then you should be able to make an argument to persuade, particularly with the press and the culture solidly behind you.
My secular argument is that you can’t logically allow gay marriage without allowing polygamy and incest among adults. In fact polygamy has a long human and cultural history and is practiced in quite a few countries today. The argument for that is stronger than for Gay Marriage. The ICK factor argument that is routinely made against this simple point doesn’t wash. That same ICK feeling was the norm not 25 years ago concerning homosexuality.
Abortion is simply the killing of a human being under the guise of ownership. I see no difference between it and slavery. The fact that by law for example a minor can’t get their ears pierced without parental permission but in some states can get abortions is astounding. In fact in many 3rd world countries Abortion is used for sex selection and ends in the destruction of woman disproportionately. Don’t forget that Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul and most of the great early feminists considered it a crime against women. The pretense that abortion doesn’t end a human life is not scientifically tenable. Plus just think of what might have happened this single mother decided on abortion.
The argument that by passing a law I am taking away God free will is …interesting. We’d better repeal those speed limits as we are taking away free will from people who want to speed. Better repeal those age on consent laws too, free will you know, oh and the laws against breaking and entering, oh and the consumer protection laws after all if people want to sell unsafe products who is it for us to say? And the public defecation laws, et/al. Really that is a very silly argument to make.
If your husband isn’t taught his faith that is usually the fault of his parish. That is a shame as I’ve found that many Catholics don’t know what our own church teaches. The “Catholics don’t read the bible” canard is an old and frankly ignorant one. If you want to know what Catholic belief actually is take a peek at this link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is the most comprehensive rundown of the rules of the church and what we believe and do. You will also find it along with the Bible permalinked on my main page.
If you read this blog regularly (and I hope you do) you will find it the Bible quoted often here. Although I was always one for scripture myself I have to give a lot of kudos to our pastor who is very big on bible studies in our parish.
As I mentioned I am doing an intermittent series on religion feel free to check out the already made posts and the new ones as they come up.
In closing since we have gotten way off the topic of the subject of the base post let me say this again: When the president is right I will support him, when he is wrong I will oppose him. It will be based on what he does. I take it as a given unless proved otherwise that he wants to do the best he can for the country. I will follow the Don’ts rule of this post. I don’t expect to agree with him on many small things as he is much more liberal than me, but if he wins the wars, protects the country successfully and turns the economy around he will be a very successful president, even if he manages 2 out of 3 that isn’t bad.
It’s a tough job and somebody’s gotta do it.
P.S. I think I’ve gone far enough on this discussion. I won’t be leaving a further reply but since you are my guest if you want to put in the last word I promise to approve the comment. I won’t close comments just in case a different reader decides to continue the discussion with you. Take care and thanks for the mental exercise.