My comment about this man was not to be taken as he doesn’t have the right to his opinion– or the validity or lack thereof about his opinion. In fact, other than his word choice, I have no problem with his opinion.

When a person, be it a mother, grandma, school teacher, etc. comes up to you and says “You should be ashamed of yourself,” you are saying that you know better, that you are over them morally, etc. I equated that to a bully because they do the same thing– try to make you say or do something to stroke their own ego.

When he said “You should be ashamed” and then followed it up by telling reporters that he really wasn’t interested in talking to the President as much as he was interested in telling him off (my summary), that to me said that the content of what he had to say was no different than those that do it in a less calm or civil manner.

It’s one thing to have disagreements, differing points of view, etc. When you cross the line into “I’m better than you are” you forget the Biblical truth that we are all sinners– some saved by grace– and that no one person is better than another.

And the differing levels of knowledge on the topic, and the surrounding topics, did not warrant the “You should be ashamed of yourself,” response. When the Bible says that we should respect our elders, it means it.

However, windmills in general are great. I would recommend that anyone living in a moderate to high wind area get a windmill for their yard if their local ordinances permit it. And if not, they should lobby their local government.

MIn… did I get you right? Were you snubbing this guy for confronting Bush? Didn’t he do so civilly?

In fact, the man was only pointing out the violations of the Constitution, the highest law of the land, in a calm and civil manner. The man was not a raving rebel or a punk teenager expressing angst. In fact, upon review I find the man’s interactions with Bush very decent. And, I’m relatively impressed with the way he was received. Bush didn’t have him ejected, and he didnt lose his cool, he just answered the man with his standard rhetoric about protecting America from terrorism.

The point I’m making is that the exchange here allowed two viewpoints to be expressed without intense emotional rivalry and mudslinging. Everyone heard the two points, and it was left up to them to decide which idea had more merit, if indeed either idea had any merit at all.

That’s democracy at it’s best.

Arthur Eisss last blog post..The Liberty Dollar

Leticias last blog post..‘Positive shift’ claimed in Dems’ abortion stance