It's Time!

The first thing she's gonna do after the inauguration
is fire that guy? Billary would look better in a Burqua!
 
Gato_Solo said:
After the originators are gone, the vultures circle and the opportunists swoop in. That is what happens. They, like their constituents, think only of themselves. They keep their constituency "in line" by providing a few crumbs to fall from their table and claim they created a windfall.
Click to expand...


:grinno: And people think I'm a cynic.
 
Any candidate running in '08 has to *care* about radical Islamic terrorism.

The dems have shown that they would like this country to roll over and submit to it.
 
chcr said:
aren't they supposed to do what the majority of their constituents want done? America, ever heard of it?
Click to expand...

The question of the ages.

As a Republic, do we hire hit me to do our bidding or do we hire leaders to take care of business?

I assume that the people in higher office have access to things I don't referenceing "national interest". I expect them to do waht is right for the country before doing what is politically expedient. If they suffer for that choice (correctly or not) is the chance a leader takes. If they are nothign but beauracratic nitwits who want to keep their job they deserve to be fired.

(state politics are hit men-federal are leaders)
 
Umm... Gonz? Bureaucrats are not elected officials. Part of the problem with our government the way it is now is that the bureaucracy really runs the country and they're only answerable to one another. Until more people understand the difference, I don't think the problem is likely to be addressed. If you mindlessly accept that they're working in your best interest (or ours) though, you're a fool.
 
You gonna tell me Mr Kennedy (among a dozen others) isn't a bureaucrat? His title may say Senator but his lifelong activity says otherwise. They're part of the machine-especially the throned ones.

You are correct about the backroom bureaucrats running the show though. With union backing they can't be fired (God Bless Ronald Reagan) so they know to just keep plodding along & a new boss will appear soon enough.
 
Gonz said:
You gonna tell me Mr Kennedy (among a dozen others) isn't a bureaucrat? His title may say Senator but his lifelong activity says otherwise. They're part of the machine-especially the throned ones.

You are correct about the backroom bureaucrats running the show though. With union backing they can't be fired (God Bless Ronald Reagan) so they know to just keep plodding along & a new boss will appear soon enough.
Click to expand...

Main Entry: bu·reau·crat
Pronunciation: 'byur-&-"krat, 'by&r-
Function: noun
: a member of a bureaucracy

Main Entry: bu·reau·cra·cy
Pronunciation: byu-'rä-kr&-sE, by&-, by&r-'ä-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: French bureaucratie, from bureau + -cratie -cracy
1 a : a body of nonelective government officials b : an administrative policy-making group
2 : government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
3 : a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation
Click to expand...

Kennedy is an ass, but not a bureaucrat by virtue of being elected. Persons appointed to posts by elected officials are, officials holding their posts by virtue of being elected are not, although they can be part of a bureacratic government (ours certainly are). As always Gonz, the words mean what they mean regardless of the meaning you assign them in your private little world. I can agree that English is not a very concise language which it was why it is important to have a viable working understanding of it in an English speaking nation.

I think it's imporatant to understand this because while it is fairly easy to get rid of the elected officials (although we never seem to get it done, do we?) it is very nearly impossible to get rid of the career bureaucrats.
 
catocom said:
Well I believe Nouri Al Maliki got the message from the filibuster.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290276,00.html

Maybe they will make some Real progress now.:shrug:
Click to expand...

no they won't. they'll argue, shoot, and bomb their way into oblivion.

see, nation-states only form and solidify real good where there is very clear dominance of one group of people. iraq, like lebanon, simply should not be a country.

see many natives americans in seats of power these days (ignore casinos, please)? how are them armenians doing in turkey? anybody ever heard of the ainu in japan?

the best plan for iraq might just be fracture.

and winky don't be worryin' about them shi'ites joining up with iran. soon as we leave they'll start pissing at each other.
 
2minkey said:
no they won't. they'll argue, shoot, and bomb their way into oblivion.
Click to expand...

That's highly possible, in which case I'll be changing my personal stance.

I still don't think it's wise to even try to fight a war, where the outcome
depends on other people.
 
catocom said:
That's highly possible, in which case I'll be changing my personal stance.
Click to expand...

any way the wind blows? well then you're in good company! :D

clinton_portrait.jpg
 
2minkey said:
any way the wind blows? well then you're in good company! :D
[/img]
Click to expand...

When the situation Does depend on others, there's no way To know which way to go.
That's what I'm talking about.

There are So many pros, and cons, it really is tough to see how it all adds up.
Especially when one Doesn't have all the intel.
 
2minkey said:
the best plan for iraq might just be fracture.
Click to expand...

Across the region, that wouldn't be a bad idea. Although, ultimately, one group or another would become the dominating power & we'd be back to square one. I think that is what Britain had in mind when they drew the current border lnes. Giving small groups of various classes a commonality, in hopes of a cohesive bonding. (kinda like a melting pot)
 
Well with the release of more intel......
IMO there is still a warranted cause to continue in Iraq ATM.

I'm interest to hear The Gen.'s report in Sept.


Go Troops...:beardbng:
:usa:
 
2minkey said:
don't be worryin' about them shi'ites joining up with iran.
Click to expand...

Thats just it, fracture is the future there and not a peaceable one, but you don't see the Saudis scoopin' up a chunk nope.

The Kurds want independence but Turkey won't ever
be havin' any of that. Iraq’s neighbors to the north won't involve themselves. In our absence that leaves only Iran. (Syria sure ain’t gonna take it over? heh)

Nature abhors a vacuum!

So much to the shock and horror of you limp wristed anti-war folks that leaves only one probable outcome, we gotta re-make Iran before our work will be partially complete there.

Mark my words, there will come some monumental event that will justify the U.S.
kickin’ Irans ass. Just pray to Gawd there isn’t a Demorat in the blanca House
when it does cuz they always fook up wars.
Korea
Vietnam, come to mind…
 
My previous post reminds me of me mommy
telling me things in the 70's.

Once you've lived enough history you can see the future.

The things she foretold have come to pass.

I'm middle aged Dammit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top