Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
So you get the point that assassination attempts occur because of the threat of change. Kennedy represented that and he not only had an attempt but he was aware of the assassination potential. He therefore had to understand that the potential is different than that of other presidents whose policies or other qualities fit the status quo.
Now...follow me here to get the larger and more general point...multiply that potential when the candidate is of a group that instantly challenges the status quo: black, female, homosexual, Jewish, etc.
Take care.
|
Follow me poor dear,
at what point did I say any thing about him having any ability to or actually any stance that isn't the status quo? If anything, he's anti-change. He's the same boring politician as every other with no difference.
Furthermore, your initial premise is foolish and simply stupid. Assassination attempts occur only because the threat of change? Reagan as a counter example comes quickly to mind. I didn't realize the "so-called progressives" were the only politicos to be subject to assassinations. If you qualify your statement with "assassinations sometimes come because of fear of change", then it might be true but also invalidate your following sentences.
__________________
Overall, though, it's the bigness of the car that counts the most. Because when something bad happens in a really big car accidentally speeding through the middle of a gang of unruly young people who have been taunting you in a drive-in restaurant, for instance it happens very far away way out at the end of your fenders. It's like a civil war in Africa; you know, it doesn't really concern you too much. - P.J. O'Rourke
|
Threaded Mode
