How refreshing a decent Politician

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 30, 2014 3:18 am

LarsMac;1455872 wrote: You should stop right there before the word, "but".

That is a complete thought.

Then pick up the next thought. Do you agree or disagree with that "next thought"?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 30, 2014 3:21 am

LarsMac;1455872 wrote:

It is not The government in Washington that limits us.

We need to stop making excuses for "the people"
What excuses do you infer that I'm making?

Do you dispute that Washington has abandoned the rule of law?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri May 30, 2014 5:54 am

OH accountable...........i"ve seen your beautifully written answers on this forum ..............but pretty words do not make a 'sentence'.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri May 30, 2014 7:43 am

Accountable;1455887 wrote: What excuses do you infer that I'm making?

Do you dispute that Washington has abandoned the rule of law?

In that previous post, everything after "I vote, write, & contribute," was an excuse.

"but,..."

Excuses.

"...but it's become our culture to think of Washington as the apex of a unitary national government,..."

Whose culture? Is that a Texas thing? Seems so.

" [but,...] It's really hard to convince people that they should insist on the rule of law when doing so would mean getting less gov't handouts."

Really? I never thought of San Antonio as a place where people hang about waiting for the gummint handouts.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri May 30, 2014 2:42 pm

LarsMac;1455872 wrote: You should stop right there before the word, "but".

That is a complete thought.

Then pick up the next thought.

It is not The government in Washington that limits us.

We need to stop making excuses for "the people"

I trust the people, way before the Federal government.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat May 31, 2014 1:26 pm

LarsMac;1455900 wrote: "...but it's become our culture to think of Washington as the apex of a unitary national government,..."

Whose culture? Is that a Texas thing? Seems so. I don't remember where you live. I base my observation on national news & politics. Is it a Texas thing? Not uniquely, no.

LarsMac;1455900 wrote:

" [but,...] It's really hard to convince people that they should insist on the rule of law when doing so would mean getting less gov't handouts."

Really? I never thought of San Antonio as a place where people hang about waiting for the gummint handouts.I know, but stereotypes seldom hold out in the face of actual experience.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat May 31, 2014 1:38 pm

Accountable;1456048 wrote: I don't remember where you live. I base my observation on national news & politics. Is it a Texas thing? Not uniquely, no.

Well, in the last 20 years, I have lived in North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, and Colorado.

Accountable;1456048 wrote: I know, but stereotypes seldom hold out in the face of actual experience.

You mean like the one about people waiting for gummint handouts?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 31, 2014 2:48 pm

Intermission..........Advert Break...........A word from our Sponsor.........It looks like Uruguay is only the latest Latin American country to be of interest to America.

This was a humorous Interlude brought to you by the originator of the thread.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat May 31, 2014 2:51 pm

LarsMac;1456051 wrote: You mean like the one about people waiting for gummint handouts?
State gummints wait for federal gummint handouts accounting for something like 40% of their budgets.

Public schools turn themselves inside-out trying to qualify for gummint handouts (since the federal gov't can't make federal law to control local schools, they provide funds and tie strings to the funds)

People receiving unemployment compensation (a gummint handout) take that compensation into account when weighing whether to take a job offer.

Gummint handouts in the form of welfare are set so as to make staying on welfare more lucrative (barely) than taking an entry-level job.

I suspect you think I'm coming at this as a negative view toward the recipeints. Hardly. "Progressives" are making more and more citizens dependent on the gov't, which gives them the control they desire.

It's hard to trade comfort for dignity, safety for liberty.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat May 31, 2014 2:57 pm

We are from diifferent parts of the country.

Meaning what?

Mean while

Bruv wrote

Intermission..........Advert Break...........A word from our Sponsor.........It looks like Uruguay is only the latest Latin American country to be of interest to America.

This was a humorous Interlude brought to you by the originator of the thread.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat May 31, 2014 3:26 pm

tude dog;1455975 wrote: I trust the people, way before the Federal government.

Liar. In your own words you dislike over 50% of our population. Dislike, distrust, same thing. Robots don't run the government, people do.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat May 31, 2014 8:58 pm

Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mÃ©rite.

- de Maistre

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:52 am

Posted by accountable

I don't know why you quoted me for this post. Well, actually I do. You insist on placing me in your little boxes of preconception, whether I fit or not. You've done it for years.

You read too much in to things. I quoted you because I disagreed with your general point I think you need a balance of power between industry/banks/wealth call it what you will. In truth half the time I don't really pay attention to who has made a particular point rather I'm just chipping in when I feel I have anything to say or occasionally to the flow of discussion. I'm sorry if you think there is any personal animosity in any of my posts that is not my motivation and no offence was intended. The nature of discussion is such that the thread where there are people whose opinions differ from mine and which present an intellectual challenge are the ones that I find most interesting it's not about scoring points, nto to me anyway.

We only disagree on what "too strong" means.

Actually I suspect we would end up agreeing more than disagreeing on many things. Who knows after september I may be living in a socialist scotland free from the baleful influence of london financial institutions.

I don't think you know what laissez faire capitalism is. Your mind is closed to any idea of people doing as they will because you don't trust that people can possibly be as fair-minded and benevolent as you are, despite the overwhelming evidence that the majority of people are fair-minded and benevolent. You simply can't trust, yet have an irrational reverance that bureaucrats are somehow blessed with superior wisdom. That's not healthy.

Actually you have a habit of placing me in your own little boxes of perception. I do know what Laissez faire capitalism is that's why I''m not taken in by it You can't separate or allow coporations to exist as if they have no responsiblty or debt's due to the society in which they exist. If I just put ou in another box I apologise.

posted by larsmac

I believe it to be the government's task to protect me for the corporate dogs who would snatch every morsel of my life, given the chance.

It should be the government's task to help keep the fracking rig away from my water supply, and to provide the guidelines to keep my drinking water drinkable, and my food edible, and my air breathable, my highways driveable, and, well, you get the idea. We have seen that the corporations are not going to do that for us, their customers.

I agree with you in my non american from a european point of view. It seems sometimes, to me as an outsider that is, that americans have been brainwashed in to believing they have no right to insist their government act on their behalf that no matter what big corporations do to protest somehow smacks of communism and government interference. I don't think that's right though.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:19 am

gmc;1456086 wrote:

I agree with you in my non american from a european point of view. It seems sometimes, to me as an outsider that is, that americans have been brainwashed in to believing they have no right to insist their government act on their behalf that no matter what big corporations do to protest somehow smacks of communism and government interference. I don't think that's right though.

Well, there are times when I fear that is more right (correct) than any of us care to admit.

We seem to have polarized into the two camps. The one is exactly as you stated above. The other seems to think that it is the government's job to protect us from ourselves, and neither can seem to differentiate between the citizen and the corporation.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:49 pm

I would be very okay if corporations as they currently exist were outlawed, making owners liable for their company's actions.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:30 am

AnneBoleyn;1456061 wrote: Liar. In your own words you dislike over 50% of our population. Dislike, distrust, same thing.

I don't remember where I wrote that I dislike over 50% of our population. A link would have been nice.

BTW, I see a world of difference between dislike and distrust. Imagine a Con-Artist not understanding the difference.

AnneBoleyn;1456061 wrote: Robots don't run the government, people do.

I suspect each and everyone of them understand the difference between dislike and trust.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:17 pm

You don't like or trust democrats, liberals, or progressives. They are over 50% of the population. I don't need a link, just re-read most of what you've ever written. You know, the majority who elected our President---Twice.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:18 pm

You don't like or trust the overwhelming numbers of people, not all of them women, who believe abortion is a woman's legitimate & lawful right to choose.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:20 pm

tude dog;1455975 wrote: I trust the people, way before the Federal government.

So, you trust the above named citizens? The Federal Government was established in our Constitution. You don't trust the Constitution?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:07 am

Trust & like aren't synonymous, or even linked, necessarily. Sometimes people dislike what someone does and say they don't trust him, when they probably should say that they trust him to do something they don't like.

I have students I like a lot - really funny & personable - but I can't trust them to do things on their own. They're unpredictable, thus untrustworthy.

I don't like president Obama politically, precisely because I can trust him. I trust him to do what he promised to do during his campaign: fundamentally change the country. I trust him to do so with Machiavelian zeal, violating federal law, ignoring corruption in his administration, and legislating from the executive office. I trust him to do whatever he thinks necessary to destroy the federal republic set up by the US Constitution, including disingenuously swearing an oath to protect and defend it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:16 am

Without using the word Benghazi, where has the country not been protected or defended? What makes you personally feel unprotected or undefended?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:21 am

Acc: "Trust & like aren't synonymous, or even linked, necessarily."

Apples & Oranges. TD does not trust or like 51%+ of the people who inhabit this nation, nor the Federal Gov't., so he is in-between a rock & a hard place. He has no way out of this, he has no where to turn. Not sure about you, so I won't speculate. Yours & his determination to carry on about "like" or "trust" is a useless diversion. While it is excellent to be precise about speech, in this instance it means naught.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:37 am

AnneBoleyn;1456296 wrote: Without using the word Benghazi, where has the country not been protected or defended? What makes you personally feel unprotected or undefended?Not sure who you directed this at, but ...

It seems that you concede that Benghazi is strong evidence that our administration isn't protecting or defending our citizens, but I suspect you're tossing it off as trivia in the scheme of things.

The US is in danger because of our traditional global military stance headed up by an incompetent commander-in-chief. Because we have taken so much of international military defence upon ourselves, and our allies responded by using what would have been spent on defence to pay for other programs, signs of weakness in Washington incentivizes countries such as Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea to act more agressively than they would otherwise.

Russia invades Ukraine.

China is aggressively claiming islands they do not own.

Iran is finalizing their nuclear weapons program.

Isreal has never been in as much trouble as she is today.

When (not if) we get another president who wants to re-expand our military reach, it might mean that we will send troops in to re-establish the status quo. More American lives wasted. More killing & destruction. All because President Obama is incompetent in how he handles his military and deplomacy.

Want another? President Obama declared a half-million acres on the Mexico/New Mexico border as a national monument. This means that no one can enter the area, not even border patrols. That section of our border lies undefended against any who wants to enter our country illegally, whether it's to get a job washing dishes or to fly an airliner into a skyscraper.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:23 am

It seems that you concede that Benghazi is strong evidence that our administration isn't protecting or defending our citizens, but I suspect you're tossing it off as trivia in the scheme of things.

My post was directed to you Accountable, & I DEFINITELY DO NOT concede on Benghazi. In fact, it's B.S., IMO. However, I knew without asking it was important to You, so that it why I began my question that way.

You'll have to pardon me, please, I must leave for now & will get to the rest of your post asap! Thanks.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:01 am

AnneBoleyn;1456781 wrote: I DEFINITELY DO NOT concede on Benghazi. In fact, it's B.S., IMO.
The murder of an American ambassador is BS. Got it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:31 am

Accountable;1456857 wrote: The murder of an American ambassador is BS. Got it.
No, you don't "got it" at all. His murder was not BS, what is BS is the way it has been used to condemn Obama & Hilary Clinton. It's just another excuse in the Fox News arsenal to blow up an incident to war proportions. What about all the unnecessary deaths, thousands, caused by i.e. our excursions in Iraq, or many other examples? Losing a battle like Benghazi means nothing in the long run except to examine policy.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:47 am

AnneBoleyn;1456865 wrote: His murder was not BS

What Difference Does It Make?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:05 pm

AnneBoleyn;1456865 wrote: No, you don't "got it" at all. His murder was not BS, what is BS is the way it has been used to condemn Obama & Hilary Clinton. It's just another excuse in the Fox News arsenal to blow up an incident to war proportions. What about all the unnecessary deaths, thousands, caused by i.e. our excursions in Iraq, or many other examples? Losing a battle like Benghazi means nothing in the long run except to examine policy.
I believe we are examining policy, are we not? If the country is being left unprotected or undefended, wouldn't it be as a result of the policies enacted by the executive branch?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:07 pm

AnneBoleyn;1456865 wrote: Losing a battle like Benghazi means nothing in the long run except to examine policy.
The murder of an American ambassador means nothing. Got it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:17 pm

Accountable;1456871 wrote: I believe we are examining policy, are we not? If the country is being left unprotected or undefended, wouldn't it be as a result of the policies enacted by the executive branch?

I contend our country is not unprotected or undefended based on this one incident, which involved a consulate, not even an embassy, in Libya. We were unprotected & undefended by GWBush before 9/11, as he had plenty of warnings prior to the attack, the ONLY attack on our nation in modern times. The CIA, FBI, etc., under his command, were similarly guilty of not protecting us for an attack in 3 separate localities. Yet, GW has never been condemned, or criticized anywhere near what Obama & Clinton are for 4 deaths in Benghazi. Hypocrisy.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:28 pm

Accountable;1456705 wrote: Not sure who you directed this at, but ...

It seems that you concede that Benghazi is strong evidence that our administration isn't protecting or defending our citizens, but I suspect you're tossing it off as trivia in the scheme of things.

"The US is in danger because of our traditional global military stance headed up by an incompetent commander-in-chief. Because we have taken so much of international military defence upon ourselves, and our allies responded by using what would have been spent on defence to pay for other programs, signs of weakness in Washington incentivizes countries such as Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea to act more agressively than they would otherwise."

Well, aren't you happy that Obama has only 2 more years of service? As for our allies, this is not different from how they have behaved. We've paid all defense costs for years while they use the excess money for the betterment of their people. Obama has not been the incentive for Iran, Russia, China or N.Korea, which have been behaving the same way as they have for decades. You can "blame" all the presidents since WWII for this. You just don't like Obama.

"Russia invades Ukraine.

China is aggressively claiming islands they do not own.

Iran is finalizing their nuclear weapons program.

Isreal has never been in as much trouble as she is today."

Russia did not invade Ukraine. China has been aggressive moreso because everyone owes them money. Iran has been finalizing for years. Israel is not in any more trouble than ever & I truly don't believe you have Israel's interests at heart more than I do. Neither would Israel itself.

"When (not if) we get another president who wants to re-expand our military reach, it might mean that we will send troops in to re-establish the status quo. More American lives wasted. More killing & destruction. All because President Obama is incompetent in how he handles his military and deplomacy."

Military reach is overexpanded as it is. You really do want to forget GWBush's mess, don't you? Fellow Texans remembering the Alamo? I repeat, in my estimation, and it is an opinion, just like yours, our President is not incompetent. He has been a disappointment to me in several areas, none of which fit the conversation.

Want another? President Obama declared a half-million acres on the Mexico/New Mexico border as a national monument. This means that no one can enter the area, not even border patrols. That section of our border lies undefended against any who wants to enter our country illegally, whether it's to get a job washing dishes or to fly an airliner into a skyscraper.

I don't know about this last one, but thanks for the information. I'll try to look it up soon.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:39 pm

AnneBoleyn;1456881 wrote: I contend our country is not unprotected or undefended based on this one incident, which involved a consulate, not even an embassy, in Libya.It also involved an ambassador, the first to be murdered since 1979. I'll let others draw the similarities. But I thought you wanted to exclude Benghazi.

AnneBoleyn;1456881 wrote: We were unprotected & undefended by GWBush before 9/11, as he had plenty of warnings prior to the attack, the ONLY attack on our nation in modern times.Agreed.

AnneBoleyn;1456881 wrote: The CIA, FBI, etc., under his command, were similarly guilty of not protecting us for an attack in 3 separate localities.Agreed

AnneBoleyn;1456881 wrote: Yet, GW has never been condemned, or criticized anywhere near what Obama & Clinton are for 4 deaths in Benghazi.Class-A bullshit and unmitigated premeditated lie, but I have come to expect that from you lately.

Link

AnneBoleyn;1456881 wrote: Hypocrisy.Agreed. Washington status quo.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:52 pm

"Quote Originally Posted by AnneBoleyn View Post

Yet, GW has never been condemned, or criticized anywhere near what Obama & Clinton are for 4 deaths in Benghazi.

Class-A bullshit and unmitigated premeditated lie, but I have come to expect that from you lately.

Link"

I have a T-shirt like that I still wear! Black with Gold Lettering from Moveon.Org: Bush Lied Thousands Died

You are becoming rude toward me lately "Class-A bullshit and unmitigated premeditated lie, but I have come to expect that from you lately.

You're accusing me of being a liar? I liked it better when you thought I'm just misguided. I'm not offended, but disgusted at your choice of words.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 12:53 pm

PS. A lie? Guess you're smart enough not to ever listen to Fox News, Glen Beck, et al.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:12 pm

AnneBoleyn;1456883 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1456705]Not sure who you directed this at, but ...

It seems that you concede that Benghazi is strong evidence that our administration isn't protecting or defending our citizens, but I suspect you're tossing it off as trivia in the scheme of things.

The US is in danger because of our traditional global military stance headed up by an incompetent commander-in-chief. Because we have taken so much of international military defence upon ourselves, and our allies responded by using what would have been spent on defence to pay for other programs, signs of weakness in Washington incentivizes countries such as Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea to act more agressively than they would otherwise.
Well, aren't you happy that Obama has only 2 more years of service? As for our allies, this is not different from how they have behaved. We've paid all defense costs for years while they use the excess money for the betterment of their people. Obama has not been the incentive for Iran, Russia, China or N.Korea, which have been behaving the same way as they have for decades. You can "blame" all the presidents since WWII for this. You just don't like Obama.
You're a lot thicker than I remember you, but then I've been accused of the same thing.

My post that you quoted concedes that the stance is traditional, meaning President Obama didn't start it. Yest I blame all the presidents since WWII for this. However, President Obama's incompetence has made the situation worse by miles.

AnneBoleyn;1456883 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1456705]Russia invades Ukraine.

China is aggressively claiming islands they do not own.

Iran is finalizing their nuclear weapons program.

Isreal has never been in as much trouble as she is today.
Russia did not invade Ukraine. China has been aggressive moreso because everyone owes them money. Iran has been finalizing for years. Israel is not in any more trouble than ever & I truly don't believe you have Israel's interests at heart more than I do. Neither would Israel itself.I won't get into a semantics argument on Russia/Ukraine. Facts are facts. For the rest, rationalizing a justification simply means you concede the facts. My opinion on the rightness or wrongness of the situations aren't relevant. it doesn't change the facts.

AnneBoleyn;1456883 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1456705]When (not if) we get another president who wants to re-expand our military reach, it might mean that we will send troops in to re-establish the status quo. More American lives wasted. More killing & destruction. All because President Obama is incompetent in how he handles his military and deplomacy.

Military reach is overexpanded as it is. You really do want to forget GWBush's mess, don't you? Fellow Texans remembering the Alamo? I repeat, in my estimation, and it is an opinion, just like yours, our President is not incompetent. He has been a disappointment to me in several areas, none of which fit the conversation.
Military reach is overexpanded as a direct result of GW Bush's actions. Take your G-damn blinders off. President' Obama's incompetence has exacerbated an already bad situation.

I have far more objective material supporting my opinion than you have supporting yours, despite the vast majority of news agencies trying to downplay or even ignore most presidents' mistakes.

AnneBoleyn;1456883 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1456705]Want another? President Obama declared a half-million acres on the Mexico/New Mexico border as a national monument. This means that no one can enter the area, not even border patrols. That section of our border lies undefended against any who wants to enter our country illegally, whether it's to get a job washing dishes or to fly an airliner into a skyscraper.
I don't know about this last one, but thanks for the information. I'll try to look it up soon.
Obama to protect 500,000 acres in New Mexico as national monument - The Washington Post

Obama names New Mexico monument, says â€˜Iâ€™m not finishedâ€™ | The Salt Lake Tribune

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 4:04 pm

"Military reach is overexpanded as a direct result of GW Bush's actions. Take your G-damn blinders off. President' Obama's incompetence has exacerbated an already bad situation.

I have far more objective material supporting my opinion than you have supporting yours, despite the vast majority of news agencies trying to downplay or even ignore most presidents' mistakes."

Never realized what an angry man you are.

From who, the Cato Institute?

You have become a very unpleasant man. Guess I didn't see it before as you were directing it at Ahso!

This is a discussion, not a competition.

A large Ego wins no points with me. Be civil, please. Don't pat yourself on the back saying I concede to you when I'm not. If I stop answering you, will you consider that a concession, too?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:23 pm

Okay. Let's be civil.

I get irritated when someone accuses me of being biased toward GW Bush, when I'm sure you can find dozens of posts to the contrary recorded here. You accuse me of just not liking Obama, as if I'm jealous that he's just more popular with the cheerleaders. President Obama has continued the abuses of the presidential offices practiced by his predecessors. Like GW, he has accelerated the unconstitutional power grab. I expect his successor to do the same.

But in the realm of international military affairs, President Obama is inept. GHW Bush and Clinton also drew down our military, but they were able to do it without our appearing weak to our enemies. Watching what he has done in this area, with border security, and militarizing federal agencies, makes me very concerned about his plans.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:37 am

I don't find President Obama to be inept, nor do I think he appears weak. He did go after & get Bin Laden when the previous administration gave up on it & openly said so. I don't like that he continued this Afghan involvement, we are leaving, but not soon enough. I am very glad Bin Laden was killed by the United States & it was Obama's resolve to do it.

Sorry I irritated you about your former comments on GWB, but I honestly did not remember them.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:54 pm

President Obama gave the word to get Bin Laden and was criticized for doing exactly what any other president would have done in the same situation (except Clinton who would have fired rockets). Hats off to him for that.

It doesn't tip the scale for me. Doesn't even move it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:59 am

Just read the links you provided re: the newly protected lands in New Mexico. You won't be surprised to learn I approve, as, according to your articles, many others. Thanks for the information.