Human Nature Never Changes

[PoliticalChic]

a. The Russians paid $145 million to the Clinton Crime Family, and in return appropriated a large portion of our uranium.
They have energy....so it in to be used for weapons......
Against whom?
Us.

This is a long-debunked lie. Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If I'm wrong about you maybe you can explain how the uranium could be used as a weapon against us?

"For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."


And I use the Leftist NYTimes as the source:


"....despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.


Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license."
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal



"A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."
Ibid.


The uranium left the United States....off to Canada....and thence, no one knows where it went.
No One!


Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

 

[alang1216]

a. The Russians paid $145 million to the Clinton Crime Family, and in return appropriated a large portion of our uranium.
They have energy....so it in to be used for weapons......
Against whom?
Us.

This is a long-debunked lie. Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If I'm wrong about you maybe you can explain how the uranium could be used as a weapon against us?

"For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."


And I use the Leftist NYTimes as the source:


"....despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.


Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license."
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal



"A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."
Ibid.


The uranium left the United States....off to Canada....and thence, no one knows where it went.
No One!


Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

It is a complex situation, I will say that. Apparently there was a license to export to Canada with some caveats. I can't tell if the terms were ever violated.

PS, there is also this:

In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

Canada must obtain U.S. approval to transfer any U.S. uranium to any country other than the United States, the letter says.​

I don't think either of us can say for sure if any laws were broken but it does seem like a relatively minor bureaucratic action that was blown up for political reasons.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. The Russians paid $145 million to the Clinton Crime Family, and in return appropriated a large portion of our uranium.
They have energy....so it in to be used for weapons......
Against whom?
Us.

This is a long-debunked lie. Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If I'm wrong about you maybe you can explain how the uranium could be used as a weapon against us?

"For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."


And I use the Leftist NYTimes as the source:


"....despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.


Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license."
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal



"A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."
Ibid.


The uranium left the United States....off to Canada....and thence, no one knows where it went.
No One!


Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

It is a complex situation, I will say that. Apparently there was a license to export to Canada with some caveats. I can't tell if the terms were ever violated.

PS, there is also this:

In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

Canada must obtain U.S. approval to transfer any U.S. uranium to any country other than the United States, the letter says.​

I don't think either of us can say for sure if any laws were broken but it does seem like a relatively minor bureaucratic action that was blown up for political reasons.

a. The Russians paid $145 million to the Clinton Crime Family, and in return appropriated a large portion of our uranium.
They have energy....so it in to be used for weapons......
Against whom?
Us.

This is a long-debunked lie. Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If I'm wrong about you maybe you can explain how the uranium could be used as a weapon against us?

"For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."


And I use the Leftist NYTimes as the source:


"....despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.


Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license."
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal



"A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."
Ibid.


The uranium left the United States....off to Canada....and thence, no one knows where it went.
No One!


Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

It is a complex situation, I will say that. Apparently there was a license to export to Canada with some caveats. I can't tell if the terms were ever violated.

PS, there is also this:

In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

Canada must obtain U.S. approval to transfer any U.S. uranium to any country other than the United States, the letter says.​

I don't think either of us can say for sure if any laws were broken but it does seem like a relatively minor bureaucratic action that was blown up for political reasons.

You said...""For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."

And I just proved it to be a lie.



The Left has been so successful because they can rely on fools like you to swallow every lie they advance....and, when they are exposed, because you lack character, simply ignore the revelation as though the truth matters not.
Hence, you are known as 'a reliable Democrat voter.'



I have your new passport photo right here....

 

[alang1216]

a. The Russians paid $145 million to the Clinton Crime Family, and in return appropriated a large portion of our uranium.
They have energy....so it in to be used for weapons......
Against whom?
Us.

This is a long-debunked lie. Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If I'm wrong about you maybe you can explain how the uranium could be used as a weapon against us?

"For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."


And I use the Leftist NYTimes as the source:


"....despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.


Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license."
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal



"A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."
Ibid.


The uranium left the United States....off to Canada....and thence, no one knows where it went.
No One!


Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

It is a complex situation, I will say that. Apparently there was a license to export to Canada with some caveats. I can't tell if the terms were ever violated.

PS, there is also this:

In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

Canada must obtain U.S. approval to transfer any U.S. uranium to any country other than the United States, the letter says.​

I don't think either of us can say for sure if any laws were broken but it does seem like a relatively minor bureaucratic action that was blown up for political reasons.

a. The Russians paid $145 million to the Clinton Crime Family, and in return appropriated a large portion of our uranium.
They have energy....so it in to be used for weapons......
Against whom?
Us.

This is a long-debunked lie. Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If I'm wrong about you maybe you can explain how the uranium could be used as a weapon against us?

"For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."


And I use the Leftist NYTimes as the source:


"....despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.


Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license."
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal



"A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."
Ibid.


The uranium left the United States....off to Canada....and thence, no one knows where it went.
No One!


Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

It is a complex situation, I will say that. Apparently there was a license to export to Canada with some caveats. I can't tell if the terms were ever violated.

PS, there is also this:

In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

Canada must obtain U.S. approval to transfer any U.S. uranium to any country other than the United States, the letter says.​

I don't think either of us can say for sure if any laws were broken but it does seem like a relatively minor bureaucratic action that was blown up for political reasons.

You said...""For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."

And I just proved it to be a lie.



The Left has been so successful because they can rely on fools like you to swallow every lie they advance....and, when they are exposed, because you lack character, simply ignore the revelation as though the truth matters not.
Hence, you are known as 'a reliable Democrat voter.'



I have your new passport photo right here....

Re: "And I just proved it to be a lie."

Not a lie, only incomplete. The uranium could not be exported but permission could be granted to allow it in specific cases.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. The Russians paid $145 million to the Clinton Crime Family, and in return appropriated a large portion of our uranium.
They have energy....so it in to be used for weapons......
Against whom?
Us.

This is a long-debunked lie. Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If I'm wrong about you maybe you can explain how the uranium could be used as a weapon against us?

"For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."


And I use the Leftist NYTimes as the source:


"....despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.


Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license."
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal



"A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."
Ibid.


The uranium left the United States....off to Canada....and thence, no one knows where it went.
No One!


Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

It is a complex situation, I will say that. Apparently there was a license to export to Canada with some caveats. I can't tell if the terms were ever violated.

PS, there is also this:

In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

Canada must obtain U.S. approval to transfer any U.S. uranium to any country other than the United States, the letter says.​

I don't think either of us can say for sure if any laws were broken but it does seem like a relatively minor bureaucratic action that was blown up for political reasons.

a. The Russians paid $145 million to the Clinton Crime Family, and in return appropriated a large portion of our uranium.
They have energy....so it in to be used for weapons......
Against whom?
Us.

This is a long-debunked lie. Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

If I'm wrong about you maybe you can explain how the uranium could be used as a weapon against us?

"For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."


And I use the Leftist NYTimes as the source:


"....despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.


Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license."
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal



"A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."
Ibid.


The uranium left the United States....off to Canada....and thence, no one knows where it went.
No One!


Either you are too lazy to research it, too ignorant to understand it, or you are just plain dishonest. Which is it?

It is a complex situation, I will say that. Apparently there was a license to export to Canada with some caveats. I can't tell if the terms were ever violated.

PS, there is also this:

In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

Canada must obtain U.S. approval to transfer any U.S. uranium to any country other than the United States, the letter says.​

I don't think either of us can say for sure if any laws were broken but it does seem like a relatively minor bureaucratic action that was blown up for political reasons.

You said...""For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."

And I just proved it to be a lie.



The Left has been so successful because they can rely on fools like you to swallow every lie they advance....and, when they are exposed, because you lack character, simply ignore the revelation as though the truth matters not.
Hence, you are known as 'a reliable Democrat voter.'



I have your new passport photo right here....

Re: "And I just proved it to be a lie."

Not a lie, only incomplete. The uranium could not be exported but permission could be granted to allow it in specific cases.

1. The uranium was exported

2. You're a Democrat [read 'liar']

 

[alang1216]

1. The uranium was exported

2. You're a Democrat [read 'liar']

The uranium was exported under the terms of the agreement. Legal. No harm no foul.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is the inverse also true?

1. The cornerstones of Rightist doctrine...

a. with just the right government, meaning no government, we can achieve Utopia here on earth.

and

b. by appealing to the basest part of humanity, "I got mine, go get your own", said governance can celebrate human nature

The problem is that as populations expand cooperation and mutual interests disappear.

Look at smaller communities of the past and you'll see much more cooperation and even short term sacrifices made to enrich the entire community.

We don't do that anymore. Instead of taking on projects to improve the lives of the people around us we have abrogated that responsibility to government. In short many people have no sin in the game anymore.

Take that financial debacle called the Big Dig in Boston. People across the country paid for that project that cost 7 times more than estimated.

The more we let governemnt do, the less efficient will be the process and the more dubious will be the results.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The uranium was exported

2. You're a Democrat [read 'liar']

The uranium was exported under the terms of the agreement. Legal. No harm no foul.

You said...""For example, a key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported,..."

1. I was exported

2. What it is to be used for is as unknown as where it went....And since Russia has plenty of energy resources, weaponization is a pretty good guess.





Now, as for your abrupt change of course....

You remind me of nothing so much as Confederate General Wise, chased by Union General Cox, referring to his retreat a 'retrograde movement' of his troops.

Nice retrograde movement, there.

 

[alang1216]

Is the inverse also true?

1. The cornerstones of Rightist doctrine...

a. with just the right government, meaning no government, we can achieve Utopia here on earth.

and

b. by appealing to the basest part of humanity, "I got mine, go get your own", said governance can celebrate human nature

The problem is that as populations expand cooperation and mutual interests disappear.

Look at smaller communities of the past and you'll see much more cooperation and even short term sacrifices made to enrich the entire community.

We don't do that anymore. Instead of taking on projects to improve the lives of the people around us we have abrogated that responsibility to government. In short many people have no sin in the game anymore.

Take that financial debacle called the Big Dig in Boston. People across the country paid for that project that cost 7 times more than estimated.

The more we let governemnt do, the less efficient will be the process and the more dubious will be the results.

You seem to be all over the place?

You say "Look at smaller communities of the past and you'll see much more cooperation and even short term sacrifices made to enrich the entire community" and then say "Take that financial debacle called the Big Dig in Boston. People across the country paid for that project that cost 7 times more than estimated." I know nothing about the Big Dig but it seems like our definition of "community" has expanded from city to state to country. You like small communities working together but don't like the country working together? You need to think bigger and if the government of the country is bigger than the government of the community that seems only natural.

 

[alang1216]

2. What it is to be used for is as unknown as where it went....And since Russia has plenty of energy resources, weaponization is a pretty good guess.

You mean it is unknown to you.

Uranium One's American arm [confirmed] it did export uranium to Canada through the trucking firm and that 25 percent of that nuclear fuel eventually made its way outside North America to Europe and Asia, stressing all the exports complied with federal law.

“None of the US U308 product produced to date has been sold to non-US customers except for approximately 25% which was sold via book transfer at the conversion facilities to customers from Western Europe and Asia," executive Martha Wickers said. “Any physical export of the product from conversion facilities to non-US destinations is under the control of such customers and subject to NRC regulation.”

The same article also states that the United States actually imports the majority of the uranium it uses as fuel. In 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 24 percent of the imports came from Kazakhstan and 14 percent came from Russia. Seems like even if Russia somehow intercepted the uranium it wasn't getting anything it didn't already have.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is the inverse also true?

1. The cornerstones of Rightist doctrine...

a. with just the right government, meaning no government, we can achieve Utopia here on earth.

and

b. by appealing to the basest part of humanity, "I got mine, go get your own", said governance can celebrate human nature

The problem is that as populations expand cooperation and mutual interests disappear.

Look at smaller communities of the past and you'll see much more cooperation and even short term sacrifices made to enrich the entire community.

We don't do that anymore. Instead of taking on projects to improve the lives of the people around us we have abrogated that responsibility to government. In short many people have no sin in the game anymore.

Take that financial debacle called the Big Dig in Boston. People across the country paid for that project that cost 7 times more than estimated.

The more we let governemnt do, the less efficient will be the process and the more dubious will be the results.

You seem to be all over the place?

You say "Look at smaller communities of the past and you'll see much more cooperation and even short term sacrifices made to enrich the entire community" and then say "Take that financial debacle called the Big Dig in Boston. People across the country paid for that project that cost 7 times more than estimated." I know nothing about the Big Dig but it seems like our definition of "community" has expanded from city to state to country. You like small communities working together but don't like the country working together? You need to think bigger and if the government of the country is bigger than the government of the community that seems only natural.

The fact that we have abrogated our responsibilities to a 3rd party is the problem.

That 3rd party is governemnt. There is no oversight there is no accountability. There is no quality control.

And you see no problem with that?

If these projects were taken care of locally there would not only be more accountability but we would have better results at lower costs.

How does the waste of money that was the big dig benefit the person in Missouri or California?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is the inverse also true?

1. The cornerstones of Rightist doctrine...

a. with just the right government, meaning no government, we can achieve Utopia here on earth.

and

b. by appealing to the basest part of humanity, "I got mine, go get your own", said governance can celebrate human nature

The problem is that as populations expand cooperation and mutual interests disappear.

Look at smaller communities of the past and you'll see much more cooperation and even short term sacrifices made to enrich the entire community.

We don't do that anymore. Instead of taking on projects to improve the lives of the people around us we have abrogated that responsibility to government. In short many people have no sin in the game anymore.

Take that financial debacle called the Big Dig in Boston. People across the country paid for that project that cost 7 times more than estimated.

The more we let governemnt do, the less efficient will be the process and the more dubious will be the results.

You seem to be all over the place?

You say "Look at smaller communities of the past and you'll see much more cooperation and even short term sacrifices made to enrich the entire community" and then say "Take that financial debacle called the Big Dig in Boston. People across the country paid for that project that cost 7 times more than estimated." I know nothing about the Big Dig but it seems like our definition of "community" has expanded from city to state to country. You like small communities working together but don't like the country working together? You need to think bigger and if the government of the country is bigger than the government of the community that seems only natural.

The fact that we have abrogated our responsibilities to a 3rd party is the problem.

That 3rd party is governemnt. There is no oversight there is no accountability. There is no quality control.

And you see no problem with that?

If these projects were taken care of locally there would not only be more accountability but we would have better results at lower costs.

How does the waste of money that was the big dig benefit the person in Missouri or California?

A firm argument for the federalism on which this nation was formed....

Ya' got my vote!!!

 

[alang1216]

Is the inverse also true?

1. The cornerstones of Rightist doctrine...

a. with just the right government, meaning no government, we can achieve Utopia here on earth.

and

b. by appealing to the basest part of humanity, "I got mine, go get your own", said governance can celebrate human nature

The problem is that as populations expand cooperation and mutual interests disappear.

Look at smaller communities of the past and you'll see much more cooperation and even short term sacrifices made to enrich the entire community.

We don't do that anymore. Instead of taking on projects to improve the lives of the people around us we have abrogated that responsibility to government. In short many people have no sin in the game anymore.

Take that financial debacle called the Big Dig in Boston. People across the country paid for that project that cost 7 times more than estimated.

The more we let governemnt do, the less efficient will be the process and the more dubious will be the results.

You seem to be all over the place?

You say "Look at smaller communities of the past and you'll see much more cooperation and even short term sacrifices made to enrich the entire community" and then say "Take that financial debacle called the Big Dig in Boston. People across the country paid for that project that cost 7 times more than estimated." I know nothing about the Big Dig but it seems like our definition of "community" has expanded from city to state to country. You like small communities working together but don't like the country working together? You need to think bigger and if the government of the country is bigger than the government of the community that seems only natural.

The fact that we have abrogated our responsibilities to a 3rd party is the problem.

That 3rd party is governemnt. There is no oversight there is no accountability. There is no quality control.

And you see no problem with that?

If these projects were taken care of locally there would not only be more accountability but we would have better results at lower costs.

How does the waste of money that was the big dig benefit the person in Missouri or California?

There is no '3rd' party, the government is us. If we don't actively participate in the oversight and quality control of that government THEN we have abrogated our responsibilities.

As for winners and losers, neither Missouri or California have much of a complaint.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is the inverse also true?

1. The cornerstones of Rightist doctrine...

a. with just the right government, meaning no government, we can achieve Utopia here on earth.

and

b. by appealing to the basest part of humanity, "I got mine, go get your own", said governance can celebrate human nature

The problem is that as populations expand cooperation and mutual interests disappear.

Look at smaller communities of the past and you'll see much more cooperation and even short term sacrifices made to enrich the entire community.

We don't do that anymore. Instead of taking on projects to improve the lives of the people around us we have abrogated that responsibility to government. In short many people have no sin in the game anymore.

Take that financial debacle called the Big Dig in Boston. People across the country paid for that project that cost 7 times more than estimated.

The more we let governemnt do, the less efficient will be the process and the more dubious will be the results.

You seem to be all over the place?

You say "Look at smaller communities of the past and you'll see much more cooperation and even short term sacrifices made to enrich the entire community" and then say "Take that financial debacle called the Big Dig in Boston. People across the country paid for that project that cost 7 times more than estimated." I know nothing about the Big Dig but it seems like our definition of "community" has expanded from city to state to country. You like small communities working together but don't like the country working together? You need to think bigger and if the government of the country is bigger than the government of the community that seems only natural.

The fact that we have abrogated our responsibilities to a 3rd party is the problem.

That 3rd party is governemnt. There is no oversight there is no accountability. There is no quality control.

And you see no problem with that?

If these projects were taken care of locally there would not only be more accountability but we would have better results at lower costs.

How does the waste of money that was the big dig benefit the person in Missouri or California?

There is no '3rd' party, the government is us. If we don't actively participate in the oversight and quality control of that government THEN we have abrogated our responsibilities.

As for winners and losers, neither Missouri or California have much of a complaint.

The government is NOT us.

Don't be so fucking naive

 

[alang1216]

The government is NOT us.

Don't be so fucking naive

But it says so in the Constitution. If believing in this country and its democracy is naive then I'll wear the label proudly.

Don't be so cynical.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The government is NOT us.

Don't be so fucking naive

But it says so in the Constitution. If believing in this country and its democracy is naive then I'll wear the label proudly.

Don't be so cynical.

Believing in something that is no longer true is naive.

In the study, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens,” researchers compared 1,800 different U.S. policies that were put in place by politicians between 1981 and 2002 to the type of policies preferred by the average and wealthy American, or special interest groups.

Researchers then concluded that U.S. policies are formed more by special interest groups than by politicians properly representing the will of the general people, including the lower-income class.

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” the study found.

 

[alang1216]

The government is NOT us.

Don't be so fucking naive

But it says so in the Constitution. If believing in this country and its democracy is naive then I'll wear the label proudly.

Don't be so cynical.

Believing in something that is no longer true is naive.

In the study, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens,” researchers compared 1,800 different U.S. policies that were put in place by politicians between 1981 and 2002 to the type of policies preferred by the average and wealthy American, or special interest groups.

Researchers then concluded that U.S. policies are formed more by special interest groups than by politicians properly representing the will of the general people, including the lower-income class.

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” the study found.

If we didn't want special interests to be in charge we'd have publicly financed elections and over turn Citizens United. Instead we expect a free lunch. We get the gov't we deserve.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The government is NOT us.

Don't be so fucking naive

But it says so in the Constitution. If believing in this country and its democracy is naive then I'll wear the label proudly.

Don't be so cynical.

Believing in something that is no longer true is naive.

In the study, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens,” researchers compared 1,800 different U.S. policies that were put in place by politicians between 1981 and 2002 to the type of policies preferred by the average and wealthy American, or special interest groups.

Researchers then concluded that U.S. policies are formed more by special interest groups than by politicians properly representing the will of the general people, including the lower-income class.

“The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” the study found.

If we didn't want special interests to be in charge we'd have publicly financed elections and over turn Citizens United. Instead we expect a free lunch. We get the gov't we deserve.

IOW a government that no longer represents the people

 

[alang1216]

If we didn't want special interests to be in charge we'd have publicly financed elections and over turn Citizens United. Instead we expect a free lunch. We get the gov't we deserve.

IOW a government that no longer represents the people

No, unfortunately it is a gov't that accurately represents the what the people deserve. It just isn't the gov't the people say they want.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If we didn't want special interests to be in charge we'd have publicly financed elections and over turn Citizens United. Instead we expect a free lunch. We get the gov't we deserve.

IOW a government that no longer represents the people

No, unfortunately it is a gov't that accurately represents the what the people deserve. It just isn't the gov't the people say they want.

So then you finally admit we have a government that no longer represents the people?