Why do we hate our leaders?

[Patton3]

This seems to be something that isn't unique to the United States, but it at least seems more prevalent over here for one reason or another. It just seems that no matter what comedian/pundit/broadcaster/average joe/whoever, hates our leaders, particularly the president, senators, and congressmen, for being any mixture of stupid, greedy, and self obsessed.
Don't misunderstand me; many of them are no real prize. And mistrusting them, given some of the awful shit some of them have done (see: Vietnam, Watergate, and Iran-Contras), is an understandable reaction. Yet, though we disagree with many of them, they're not horrible people bent on ripping apart the foundations of America... as it seems a good many would believe. Nor are they easily bribed, only out for themselves, misogynistic assholes. From time to time we get some that at least partially fit that bill. Say, Joe McCarthy.
But still; they're our democratically elected leaders. And while they are misguided at times, and seem utterly stupid at others... The majority of them seem rather intelligent, well meaning people. That is not to say they are free from criticism; far from it. To wrap this up, sometimes you have to put some measure of trust in your politicians and representatives that they're taking what they honestly think the best course of action. Maybe they disagreed with you on the Medicare buy in; maybe they don't have your view on how to proceed in Iraq. However all of this shouting that seems particularly loud this past decade about how (insert politician/party of choice here) protect terrorists, or want to rip apart the foundations of America... Really needs to wind down until this is actually happening.
To refer to Thomas Jefferson, Government ought not be changed for light or transient reasons.
Thoughts?

[Samuel-HALL]

So, they're alright guys? Really? Well, hell. If you say they're alright, maybe all my criticism was unfounded. Good sell!

[Patton3]

At 1/7/10 05:52 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: So, they're alright guys? Really? Well, hell. If you say they're alright, maybe all my criticism was unfounded. Good sell!

I'm not saying criticism is unfounded, or altogether bad. Hell, it should be encouraged. But it should be based in rationality, and not the McCarthyism, "they're tearing apart America!" shit I mentioned earlier. I'm not saying they're great guys worthy of undying affection. They're just not evil, or altogether bad.... at least not the majority of them. I get the feeling you didn't read the entire thing.

[Grizzli]

Its more of an american thing, because they are obsessed with thier little dramas when in reality nobody who is actually relevant doesnt give a shit.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 1/7/10 06:50 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 1/7/10 05:52 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: So, they're alright guys? Really? Well, hell. If you say they're alright, maybe all my criticism was unfounded. Good sell!

I'm not saying criticism is unfounded, or altogether bad. Hell, it should be encouraged. But it should be based in rationality, and not the McCarthyism, "they're tearing apart America!" shit I mentioned earlier. I'm not saying they're great guys worthy of undying affection. They're just not evil, or altogether bad.... at least not the majority of them. I get the feeling you didn't read the entire thing.

Oh, I read it. I just disagreed with it. Washington DC and the federal government have spent decades chipping away at constitutionality, and liberty. Everything they touch turns into a red tape maze or bullshit and failure.

[TokingFire]

At 1/7/10 06:57 PM, Grizzli wrote: Its more of an american thing[...]

Yep, that about sums it up. The United States has been more or less repeating its own cycle of revolution since 1781 (remember history class, kids?). You need only look at Shay's (Whiskey) Rebellion to see just how redundant the tone of every protest has been for the past two centuries. (Perhaps the most concise commentary of our political system can come from good ol' Ren & Stimpy Show, Season 4, Episode 25: "Travelogue").

[Patton3]

At 1/7/10 07:00 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

Oh, I read it. I just disagreed with it. Washington DC and the federal government have spent decades chipping away at constitutionality, and liberty. Everything they touch turns into a red tape maze or bullshit and failure.

What led me to think you didn't read it was that you implied I'm trying to say everyone on the hill are just the most competent people to ever walk the earth. But if you disagree with it, as in you think everything they touch just becomes royally fucked up, by all means elaborate.
Know, however, I'm not saying they're choices are always good; just that when they make a bad choice, it's not because they're trying to destroy our values, or some vague, widely open to interpretation idea like that.

[Korriken]

I just wish we could have more honest polticians, like this guy. If all politicians were so honest the world would be a much better place.

[ArbitraryAbsurdity]

Everyone thinks they can do a better job than the other guy.

[Jon-86]

The leader is good, the leader is great, we surrender our will as of this date...

na-na na-na na-na na-na leader,
na-na na-na na-na na-na leaderrrrr,
leader.
leader.
LEADERRRRrrrrrr

Or maybe because these arseholes should have their heads lobbed off. The French had the right idea!

[Samuel-HALL]

At 1/7/10 08:08 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 1/7/10 07:00 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Oh, I read it. I just disagreed with it. Washington DC and the federal government have spent decades chipping away at constitutionality, and liberty. Everything they touch turns into a red tape maze or bullshit and failure.

What led me to think you didn't read it was that you implied I'm trying to say everyone on the hill are just the most competent people to ever walk the earth. But if you disagree with it, as in you think everything they touch just becomes royally fucked up, by all means elaborate.
Know, however, I'm not saying they're choices are always good; just that when they make a bad choice, it's not because they're trying to destroy our values, or some vague, widely open to interpretation idea like that.

I would not imply there's a group of evil men meeting at three AM in a smoky secret room. I'm simply saying the federal government's only priority for the last fifty years or so has been the widening of federal power and the maintaining control.

[Patton3]

As for the last 50 years, I assume you mean approximately, I think a lot of that can be traced to the Cold War. For example, one of Reagan's biggest... fuck-ups for lack of a better word, was the Iran Contras situation which was directly tied to the Cold War. Not to mention Vietnam. What with the draft consisting largely of poor Americans, contracting uncountable numbers of companies, the lives lost, a country almost irreparably damaged, and Cambodia falling to the Khmer Rouge... it was a bad time for anybody, but you can see how a lot of the expansion of government powers can be traced back to this. This country was at odds with another world power, in a race of arms and more importantly, ideas. It's pretty clear why there was so much government expansion. Not that it was good, and not that it was the only time this happened...
And most recently, you have the terrorist attacks and the resulting government actions relating to expansion of federal power. Referring of course to the Patriot Act.
Also you have to remember the relaxing and removal of government influence. Most notably getting rid of the draft, self explanatory, and NAFTA which relaxed trade tariffs and barriers, and led to greater income for all nations involved.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 1/8/10 07:09 PM, Patton3 wrote: As for the last 50 years, I assume you mean approximately, I think a lot of that can be traced to the Cold War. For example, one of Reagan's biggest... fuck-ups for lack of a better word, was the Iran Contras situation which was directly tied to the Cold War. Not to mention Vietnam. What with the draft consisting largely of poor Americans, contracting uncountable numbers of companies, the lives lost, a country almost irreparably damaged, and Cambodia falling to the Khmer Rouge... it was a bad time for anybody, but you can see how a lot of the expansion of government powers can be traced back to this. This country was at odds with another world power, in a race of arms and more importantly, ideas. It's pretty clear why there was so much government expansion. Not that it was good, and not that it was the only time this happened...
And most recently, you have the terrorist attacks and the resulting government actions relating to expansion of federal power. Referring of course to the Patriot Act.
Also you have to remember the relaxing and removal of government influence. Most notably getting rid of the draft, self explanatory, and NAFTA which relaxed trade tariffs and barriers, and led to greater income for all nations involved.

How about Roosevelts completely unconstitutional (IMO) 'New Deal'? Or Johnsons dark hearted 'Great Society'? Then Nixon builds on that 'Great Society'. Long before The Patriot Act, our government was expounding federal power, and leeching away state rights. And look now. Federal agents raid states who change laws on marijuana. States that do not set the drinking age at 21 and the age of sexual consent at 16 receive substantially less tax dollars than those that do.

The constitution has been inverted and transformed as a weapon against the people, instead of a shield against the government.

[BrianEtrius]

I think Lincoln said it best. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time."

Point being, you can't please everybody, especially as a leader of a country. The people who don't happen to like our president in this day and age of media get heard more often than in the past.

[Patton3]

At 1/8/10 07:36 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:
How about Roosevelts completely unconstitutional (IMO) 'New Deal'? Or Johnsons dark hearted 'Great Society'? Then Nixon builds on that 'Great Society'. Long before The Patriot Act, our government was expounding federal power, and leeching away state rights. And look now. Federal agents raid states who change laws on marijuana. States that do not set the drinking age at 21 and the age of sexual consent at 16 receive substantially less tax dollars than those that do.

Where in the constitution are the actions taken in the New Deal (specifically) outlined against? I realize the Constitution is meant to be broad in scope so as to be relevant for many years in many situations, yet I think it's a bit too large of a stretch to say that the New deal was completely unconstitutional.
As for Johnson and Nixon, respectively, I've touched on both of them. Vietnam and Watergate you'll recall my mentioning. Those are two men I won't defend (no rhyme intended); Johnson most particularly.
As for marijuana, drinking, and age of consent laws, pulling the 'less tax dollars' hat trick is a cheap ploy. We agree here; Amendment X is very clear on this. I should also mention I'm in favor of marijuana legalization.

The constitution has been inverted and transformed as a weapon against the people, instead of a shield against the government.

The Federalist papers put the purpose of the Constitution best; "If men were angels, no government would be needed. If angels governed men, no checks on government, internal or external, would be necessary". The Constitution is not purely to protect the rights of the citizens. Not even all of the Amendments serve that purpose. That is in no way to say that this is a major function of it, but it is not the sole purpose. Much of it is too establish how the U.S. is to be governed, and to grant certain powers to the government. The right to collect income tax for example.
It has been used for devious purposes and has been ignored yes, but to say it has become nothing more than a weapon against the people is rash.

[Samuel-HALL]

At 1/8/10 09:28 PM, Patton3 wrote: Where in the constitution are the actions taken in the New Deal (specifically) outlined against? I realize the Constitution is meant to be broad in scope so as to be relevant for many years in many situations, yet I think it's a bit too large of a stretch to say that the New deal was completely unconstitutional.

Mayhaps, then, the would 'completely' should be removed from my argument. You are correct because, no, it is not 'specifically' outlined. Oh wait! Yes it fucking is!

The Ninth Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This means that the rights of the people are vastly numbered. So numbered, in fact, that the draftsman of the constitution realized that not every one could be named. The right to privacy is included under the ninth amendment. As is the right to get married, the right to produce offspring, the right to own land.

The Tenth Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

This, in regards to the federal government, means just the opposite. It means that powers not specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution are retained by the people.
Again? The ninth amendment says that the powers of the state (the people) are enumerated and are open to interpretation and common sense. The tenth amendment says that powers not mentioned in the document are notgranted to the federal government, but instead to the people.

The Federalist papers put the purpose of the Constitution best; "If men were angels, no government would be needed. If angels governed men, no checks on government, internal or external, would be necessary".

If you're attempting to sway me with any argument made in the federalist papers, you are so barking up the wrong tree.

:The Constitution is not purely to protect the rights of the citizens. Not even all of the Amendments serve that purpose. That is in no way to say that this is a major function of it, but it is not the sole purpose. Much of it is too establish how the U.S. is to be governed, and to grant certain powers to the government. The right to collect income tax for example.
The constitution protects the liberty of individual Americans, while defining and specifically listing federal powers. This issue was never something meant to be 'interpreted' to mean something else. The reason the ninth and tenth amendment were put into the constitution by our founding fathers was the same reason we recognized brittain for what it was, and what it had turned into.

[Patton3]

At 1/8/10 09:57 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Mayhaps, then, the would 'completely' should be removed from my argument. You are correct because, no, it is not 'specifically' outlined. Oh wait! Yes it fucking is!

The Ninth Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This means that the rights of the people are vastly numbered. So numbered, in fact, that the draftsman of the constitution realized that not every one could be named. The right to privacy is included under the ninth amendment. As is the right to get married, the right to produce offspring, the right to own land.

That's a bit too vague for me. I'm not denying that there are rights citizens have that aren't specifically outlined in the constitution. But using that as the interpretation for IX means one could use it to back up whatever "right" you please. It's far too vague too hold anyone up to. Under that interpretation, it could be used against any act by the government whatsoever. Which has it's uses, but let's face it; that's going to get abused all to hell. One example that comes immediately to mind, is that one could claim that non-voluntary military service is outlawed against in that amendment.
And privacy is amendment IV.

The Tenth Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

This, in regards to the federal government, means just the opposite. It means that powers not specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution are retained by the people.
Again? The ninth amendment says that the powers of the state (the people) are enumerated and are open to interpretation and common sense. The tenth amendment says that powers not mentioned in the document are notgranted to the federal government, but instead to the people.

Since we're talking in terms of the New Deal, what actions were taken by it that were such a breach of constitutionality? The new deal, too my knowledge, took no major actions that were questionable or immoral, at least in retrospect. Yes, it took on new responsibilities without taking years to create new amendments. However these actions were taken not because FDR felt like crushing America under his boot heel; hell, the exact opposite is true. Was ensuring bank holdings unconstitutional? Was ensuring work unconstitutional? Or maybe issuing food stamps to people who were, often literally, starving was to big of an action by the fed? If anything these actions were taken in the best interest of the country and it's people.

If you're attempting to sway me with any argument made in the federalist papers, you are so barking up the wrong tree.

The Federalists vs. the Jeffersonians is an argument for another day. However, the quote I gave is merely implying that Government is necessary, as are checks upon governmental power. What is so wrong about that?

The constitution protects the liberty of individual Americans, while defining and specifically listing federal powers. This issue was never something meant to be 'interpreted' to mean something else. The reason the ninth and tenth amendment were put into the constitution by our founding fathers was the same reason we recognized brittain for what it was, and what it had turned into.

The Constitution was made to be open to interpretation! A constitution too rigid would have been too restrictive. It wouldn't have allowed the government to act when it needed too. If the citizens weren't given something specifically, there would be no argument for them to achieve new rights.
I agree that the Constitution is meant to restrict the government from using it's power wantonly, as Great Britain had. But it is not meant to be so iron clad, that the government can't enact new laws, or take on new functions for the benefit of the people.

[SadisticMonkey]

coz they suck, all of them

if only ron paul were in charge

[TDwizBang]

you know... taking a quote from the second paragraph of the declaration of independence out of context and trying to totally turn it around made you look like a jackass... here is the second paragraph of the declaration of independence so you can see your mistake... oh yeah... you should quote (" ") your quotes

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

now before you start popping out any quotes you should research the context so this dosnt happen to you again...

[Patton3]

Gee, I'm so sorry I didn't include an entire oration when all that was necessary to show was the line "government ought not be changed for light or transient causes". I didn't include everything else, because one it's too long for this use, and two, you don't need to include a large chunk of the document because it's easily available, and more or less common knowledge.
And if I need to put that line in quotes so that you know it's not my own words, somebody skipped a few history classes. Unfortunately there's not a "calm the fuck down" smiley.

[KidneyThief]

A leader is more often than not respected and admired. Unfortunately when something goes wrong the leader is generally the first person people look at for answers and often pin the blame on regardless of whether or not the circumstances were a result of their actions.

[KydusTheHedge]

At 1/10/10 12:06 AM, KidneyThief wrote: A leader is more often than not respected and admired. Unfortunately when something goes wrong the leader is generally the first person people look at for answers and often pin the blame on regardless of whether or not the circumstances were a result of their actions.

Agreed. Humanity tends to be highly unfair in regards to situations like these. We elect leaders hoping they will be absolutely perfect and fill every one of the graves we've dug for ourselves, then we crucify them when things don't go according to our previous fantasies. Personally, I think our country is in far too deep shit to be cleaned up by one man (or woman) alone. Though we did make it through the Depression, so I suppose there's hope for us yet, however fleeting it may be.

[KillerKop10]

I think the main reason that we hate our leaders, is because they do not represent the good of the American people. They only seem to represent the views of who ever pays them the most (usually big corporations).

[Ericho]

I appreciate how you're trying to put a real optimistic view on this and it's nice to be able to understand in detail how these things happen. The reason that people hate their leaders is simply because if there is something wrong, the leader could at least in theory be able to do something about it, and if he hasn't, it's his fault.

I heard that Harry Truman was the last President who truly said everything was his fault.

[joeladame]

I think government is a joke ... why would you trust some one who keeps shit behind our backs
.. all the presedents are the same , no offence to obama but he is just the same as bush no one can be trusted, thats why we gotta rebel against our own leaders, they will kill millions just to protect them selfs and i say fuck that

we may be in the land of the free .... but are we really free?
Rebelion is our only option