Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
packsaddle

McCarthy Lives?

Recommended Posts

Sounds like you have a problem with THIS PRESIDENT getting security clearance this way.. But are not bothered about any other president post or future, who gets security clearance the same way..

 

Sorry, anyway you slice it, sounds personal.

 

Well, maybe we should keep him 4 more years, rather then run the risk of a new person who might become a new "unknown" risk..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I didn't say union members, but everyone who the union represents.. That does mean something different then union members, but I am uncertain what as the union is suppose to represent it's members.. But, perhaps if it is a union that represent groups within different corporations then it is a vote from each corporate group.. As I said I am not sure how the approval is met..\"

 

I can perhaps be clearer. The union need not get the approval of a single union member to give union money to politicians.

The union must get the approval on non-union members to spend the money collected from them under "union shop" arrangements that require non-union members to pay the union the same amount as union members pay.

 

"http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/48106643#48106643"

 

Interesting link that. It's Ms. Maddow admitting that she was in error and that the Knox holding applies only to money from persons who are not union members. AS I had said. But thanks for the link.

 

 

"TAHawk stated

 

Specifically, she didn't suggest that "The president is a Muslim", that "Every Muslim is a terrorist," that "Everyone who is not "like me" is a spy," or that "Any one who disagrees with me is a mole."

 

 

I suppose "she" is the crackpot in Congress (Michele Bachmann, for those of you who can't figure out a crackpot when you see one) who is making unwarrented accusations against Humin Abedin..

 

My comment was not toward that "she" .. But more directed toward Callooh! Callay! Comment. The current POTUS might not qualify for access were he not an elected official. OPM would scrutinize his foreign associations and his background and, without accusing him of any crime, could deny him a security clearance."

 

No I meant forum member and Scouter Calloh! Callay. She did not say the things you attribute to her. I have no idea what Bachmann says. I would no more listen to her than Nancy the P. I try to avoid extremists and demagogs.

 

 

"Romney himself : his Obamas policies are foreign, ..his course is extraordinarily foreign.. the course we are on right now if foreign to us.. Foreign.. No Democrats have been around for a long time, and they have even run the country before, and they have even created created policies before"

 

Actually, the idea that government should get bigger and bigger and have more and more power vs. the idea that government governs best when it governs least was, historically, the debate between Jackson and Jefferson on the side of small government and Hamilton and Clay on the side of big government. As a Democrat, I of course side with Jefferson and Jackson, not with the federalist Hamilton and the Whig Clay. But someone stole my party some decades ago, and I'm not over that yet. I believe that Romney may have been referring to Obama's citation of the attitude of the rest of the world about the size of government as "foreign." He's wrong, statism is as American as apple pie and Alexander Hamilton.

 

"But, seriously the message is to feed the crackpots among you.. It is code, that "hey, you crackpots are on the right track".. ?Hes a foreigner".. It is crackpot code talk for "psst I can't say it, or I will be labeled a crackpot with the rest of you.. But, I agree with all you crackpots"...

 

So now all you true believers can put on your little tinfoil hats and look for the hidden meaning behind perfectly straight forward sentences.. Go out on your Obama hunts.. Post rewards for someone proving your conspiaricy theroies are more then "simple delusions inside your brains."

 

American politics has always been rough. Obviously, being rough is now OK in a Scouting forum -- for some.

 

In any event, the voters - alive and dead - will decide.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

 

 

The issue is certainly speculative, and really pointless to discuss.

 

I would suppose that pretty much EVERY person who applies for a security clearance is thoroughly scrutinized, so suggesting that such an application by Obama would be scrutinized is NORMAL, not a crackpot theory.

 

It's not my purpose to impugn Obama, who has proven himself to be a decent and generous guy, especially by the standards of high ranking politicians. Unfortunately, you can't really discuss the issue without impugning Obama by implication, which is why it's a worthless topic to discuss.

 

Sorry I got sucked into it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sounds like you have a problem with THIS PRESIDENT getting security clearance this way.. But are not bothered about any other president post or future, who gets security clearance the same way.."

 

No. The Constitution provides for civilian control of national security matters and it provides for elections to select the senior executive of that control... the POTUS. And that is as it should be.

 

The problem isn't "THIS PRESIDENT" the problem is voting decisions made by people who are mistaken in important ways... the most important of which is the delusion that they can immanentize the eschaton (or rather, as is more frequently the case, compel someone else to do it for them).

 

 

--"Sorry, anyway you slice it, sounds personal."

"Slice it?" How about instead.. listen from an objective perspective. Maybe it won't sound so personal then.

 

 

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, TAHAWK.. Although your document is much more official, and I will concede, it sounds the way you say, so may be, but I get lost in official documents..

 

I still don't pull from the piece I heard those they represent who are "non-union members".. Simply the word she should have used was not union members, but "people who the union represents".. period..

 

Well that just doesn't jive with only "non-union members, who the represent".. They "DO" represent their union members, I am unsure if they consider they represent their non-union members or not.. I know they pay union dues, but the dues they pay is kindof forced payment, because they don't want to be part of the union, they don't want the union to represent them..

 

I can see why they should be allowed to say if they wish to have their union dues support a specific party.. But, going from "union members" to "people who the union represents", does not mean the union members are excluded from this pool..

 

So if what Racheal Maddow still needs more debunking, then you could be right.. But, I disagree she is saying what you are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Callooh! Callay!, If you remember what Edward R. Murrow did and said in response to McCarthy's baseless attacks on Reed Harris and others, I see analogy in McCain's response to Bachman et al., NOT a cliche'. I actually remember listening to Murrow on the radio (we didn't have a television and I was too young to appreciate how important Murrow's speech was at the time). When I heard about the Bachman charges and John McCain's speech in response, it was no cliche' to me at all. It saddened me to be reminded that we've descended that far down, that openly, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C.C. I guess I am looking for Utopia, I want a mix of Republican & Democrats, each balancing the other "ultra" side, and keeping each other on the straight and narrow.. I have had my Utopia in the past, but I now fear I will never see it again, since the Republicans don't know how to play nice anymore, and don't care if they flush the entire country down the toilet..

 

So unless the Republicans can get some people who truely care about the country, rather then their political party.. (And I saw one that is going to run against one of the ultra-radical highly disliked Republicans now in office, unfortunately not in my state though.. And I can't backtrack to who it was now.. But boy when he came on and talked about working with the Democrats and finding common ground, and running because of the disastor that is currently holding office in their state.. I was so excited, like a saw a freaking Rock Star!!.. Who ever he is, who ever is in his state.. Vote for him! Vote for him!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I want a mix of Republican & Democrats, each balancing the other "ultra" side, and keeping each other on the straight and narrow."

 

hmmm..... sounds suspiciously like taking the middle ground in a dispute between parties who disagree about the sum of 2+3. One party insists it's 5 and the other party insists it's 10; so the knee-jerk moderate figures that the best answer must be 7.

 

Of course if we got down to specifics, we'd likely disagree about which party is saying 5 and which 10 or whether or not either one is anywhere near the right answer or is even asking the right question.

 

But... in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, I'll join you in a wish for Republicans and Democrats, each balancing out the other... as long as that means political gridlock that makes it darn near impossible for the Federal Government to take control of any more things, so long as it reigns in the reach and the ambitions of the Fed, so long as it makes for a modest Federal Government as laid out in our constitution and stymies the National Government schemes of politicians' ambitions, so long as it puts more responsibility (and the concomitant authority) onto states, local governing bodies, and citizens themselves.

 

And then we will of course not see the imminentization of the eschaton, but rather all the venality, hucksterism, charlatanism, graft, fraud, and other elements of public service that concentrate so much in DC will be diffused out to where the power lies (hey, is that a pun?). So it'll be a gawdawful mess... but it'll be spread out so that many hands can wrassle it rather than letting it all concentrate in Leviathan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately about 10 years back 2+3 use to equal 0 for one group and 10 for the other.. Together they could come up with 5..

 

Now, while one group still says 10 the other has gone to -10, and wont even come up to a 0, let alone a 5.. They are more set on obstructing the President in hopes to make him look bad, then in fixing our country when it is teetering on the brink of disaster..

 

As stated a well run government finding common ground and compromise through argument and debate.. So the Republicans cannot get my vote for anything, unless I find a truly promising level-headed candidate running.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so long as it puts more responsibility (and the concomitant authority) onto states, local governing bodies, and citizens themselves.

 

Yah, hmmmm... So I'm a proponent of a restrained federal government and local control.

 

But Callooh Callay, yeh do realize that right now da fiscal situation in a large majority of the states is pretty dire, right? They have hardly been bastions of fiscal conservativism. In fact, there is a huge overhanging unfunded pension obligation that's really very grim.

 

And yeh do realize that a huge number of those local governing bodies would have gone bankrupt or otherwise collapsed if not for the Obama stimulus, right? When property values fall, property tax revenues dry up, and state aid in sales-tax and income-tax funded states dried up as well.

 

It is poor behavior by da local units that has contributed mightily to both the state and federal fiscal issues. Far from bein' a panacea, local corruption and incompetence is sometimes a sight worse than at the bigger levels, eh? Especially in da modern world where local watchdog news media have almost entirely vanished.

 

So how do yeh address that, I wonder?

 

Beavah

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a panacea?

Oh no! Send it back then. We demand a panacea!

 

How to address these problems?

Goodness. It sounds difficult.

We wouldn't want to have difficulties.

If folks have set up systems that go bankrupt when they lose on real estate speculation or other overly exuberant expectations of future revenues, or if public servants are charging more than is sustainable for their services, or taking on projects or providing services they can't pay for, we'd better let the Federal Government take over. That body is well known for its sound finances and budgetary principles.(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put a point on Callooh! Callay!'s comment, the only real difference between the fiscal management of the Federal government and state and local government is the ability of the Feds to manufacture as many trillions of dollars of new money as may be desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least they are the only party wanting to work on job creation and the economy problems.. I would much rather have someone looking at what is really ailing this country, rather than concentrating on things voting to repel Obama care 33 times, when they know it will die in the Senate, trying to force Washington DC to have anti-abortion laws and dealing with conspiracy theorist like the Muslim spy ring and fast and furious.. Time & time again, Republicans show their man concern is only on their own backward issues, and not at all upon the serious problems our country is in..

 

Well I don't need a republican government enacting laws against my private lady parts. Nor do I need a government putting laws in place for inequality for homosexuals..

 

Also maybe I don't want to see alot of new policies, but I don't want to loose the social net work already in place, especially as I get closer to retirement myself.. Especially if on at the same time your party wishes to find more tax-cuts to the wealthy, who have done absolutely nothing to help this country with job growth, but amass and sit on their wealth.

 

Top-down economy is a crock-of-YouKnowWhat..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon me, DNC spokesperson, but we have tried spending more than we have for most of my life. BOTH parties. As have the Soviet Union (woops!), Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, and most of the "more civilized" world. As a result, the "safety net" -- all over the world -- is really file cabinets full of IOU's signed by bankrupt government. Talk about unfunded obligations! The social net is dying from a theory that can't keep up with reality.

 

Further, I know that you would not be spending equal time on the propaganda of BOTH parties. (Tough, I know. Often makes me want to run screaming from the room.)

 

So let me bring you up to date. BOTH parties are running - hard - on creating jobs. They appear to disagree about how to do it. The voters will decide.

 

But while the majority is deciding who to keep and who to throw out, consider this: the persons creating jobs that generate revenue, rather than consuming it, need capital to do so. You know, filthy money. "Das Kapital" loathed by Uncle Karl and loved by Capitalists. Very few productive businesses will be created by working class folks like me. Efforts of working folks to save business run into the ground by incompetent businessmen have largely been failures. (See Weirton Steel) It will be those businessmen you appear to, what?, loath? distrust? discount? who will create jobs. Or not.

 

As for ignoring "the serious problems our country is in," BOTH parties have been ignoring the bad problems for generations. Oh they talk, but they don't act. All my life the "leadership" in D.C. have left the hard calls for the future, and, as the saying goes, the future is now. The chickens are "coming home to roost." And for the future generations? I have little hope. When R's or D's say "reduce spending" or "reduce government" they mean reduce the rate of increase. When they say "raise taxes" they mean taxes of the "others."

 

Pass laws about what light-bulbs you can use, how much water your toilet can use to flush, whether a rifle can have a telescoping stock vs. a folding stock, declaring National Stamp-Collecting Week, or deciding that taxpayers in some states don't have to pay the added cost of Obamacare (Wait! Why do that when it is going to "save" $$$ Do NOT look behind the curtain!) -- those sorts of topics they have time for. As they do for laws that SEEM good for their respective bases. (See cheap labor and Hispanic vote.) But retiring the debt and funding the safety net so our kids and grand-kids have some sort of life - well not so much - at all. No such laws have been proposed by EITHER party in years. Sorta like the federal government's proposed budgets we have not seen in over two years. Just not forthcoming.

 

Throw out 50% of the incumbents - of BOTH parties - and something might change.

 

Elect someone who tells the truth and something might change.

 

For now, they wrestle for power. As it stands, I see a choice between someone who says what I don't want to hear and don't trust based on his record and someone I don't like who isn't the first guy. Hell of a choice.

 

And us, U.S. Supreme Court opinions and orders are sorta "official."(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×