You know what I want from my government?

[Claudette]

As I said. You better hope you never need a gun because you won't be able to get one.

I'm no Chicken Little..

Good for you because you just may need that gun and I sure hope you have the balls to use it. Good luck.

 

[Conservative65]

What are you talking about? First of all - it takes one obedient little minion to declare that everybody in government is "smarter" than everybody not in government. That's astoundingly stupid. The fact is - most of the smartest people in the world never worked in government a day in their life.

Second - this has nothing to do with judging. The assholes were caught lying. They were caught. There is no opinion here or judgment. It's a fact. So again - what in the hell are you talking about? Your post made zero sense with regards to my post.

I claimed superior intelligence, I should have claimed superior information. There's a clear difference. And to your second point you will find that the government lies to you on issues of national security. The reason being international deals not to mention lives depend on the ability of a government to keep it's secrets. Critisising might make an easy target but it's also hypocritical since all administrations do it.

So lying is now defined as keeping secrets?

No lying is defined as something a government needs to do from time to time, in order to keep it's people safe.

If the government did the right thing, they wouldn't have to lie.

So sad you justify lying. Sign of low character.

I'll give you a historical example. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved with Krushev withdrawing it's missiles from Cuba while Kennedy withdrew his from Turkey. It depended on absolute secrecy of the deal being made. Without it you and me wouldn't be able to discuss this. Your life depends on the government having certain secrets, that simple.

No just practical. I'll give you another current one. Say the US has information on the whereabouts of a leader of ISIS. You feel they should make that information known before they can strike? Governments needs to be able to keep certain things a secret. If you don't get that I'm sorry to say you are either a hypocrite, defending your position for political reasons, or plain dumb.

When they strike, the information is no longer secret, therefore, it's been shared making your example weak, at best.

 

[forkup]

I claimed superior intelligence, I should have claimed superior information. There's a clear difference. And to your second point you will find that the government lies to you on issues of national security. The reason being international deals not to mention lives depend on the ability of a government to keep it's secrets. Critisising might make an easy target but it's also hypocritical since all administrations do it.

So lying is now defined as keeping secrets?

No lying is defined as something a government needs to do from time to time, in order to keep it's people safe.

If the government did the right thing, they wouldn't have to lie.

So sad you justify lying. Sign of low character.

I'll give you a historical example. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved with Krushev withdrawing it's missiles from Cuba while Kennedy withdrew his from Turkey. It depended on absolute secrecy of the deal being made. Without it you and me wouldn't be able to discuss this. Your life depends on the government having certain secrets, that simple.

No just practical. I'll give you another current one. Say the US has information on the whereabouts of a leader of ISIS. You feel they should make that information known before they can strike? Governments needs to be able to keep certain things a secret. If you don't get that I'm sorry to say you are either a hypocrite, defending your position for political reasons, or plain dumb.

When they strike, the information is no longer secret, therefore, it's been shared making your example weak, at best.

No, you seem to advocate the government not having secrets at all. So in your head all information should be public, so this hypothetical leader of ISIS would get away. And btw I also notice you didn't answer my historical example either.

 

[Katzndogz]

The last thing I want is the effin 19th century!!!

Give me FDR!!! GIVE ME HILLARY!!!!!! FUCK SMALL USELESS GOVERNMENT....May Haiti or Somalia enjoy it...

You don't want the invention and innovation of the Industrial Revolution? That's what I thought.

 

[Dr Grump]

Good for you because you just may need that gun and I sure hope you have the balls to use it. Good luck.

I don't want that gun. And I don't need that gun.

 

[Katzndogz]

You know what I want from my government? Universal healthcare, free college, new or repaired infrastructure that isn't falling into rivers, a doubling of nasa's budgets so we can go to mars and a new 50 meter telescope to find extrasolar planets, billions for cures for cancer that will save a million people a year, billions for new fusion tech attempts and possible a fully working fusion reactor! I want our educational system leading the world with the teacher not having to dig into their own pockets to educate other peoples children,

This is how a nation remains a great power!!!! period.

It's funny how you want to go back to the 50s

No. What he wants is to be in prison. A nice comfortable prison, but prison nonetheless.

 

[Claudette]

Good for you because you just may need that gun and I sure hope you have the balls to use it. Good luck.

I don't want that gun. And I don't need that gun.

Glad to hear you will never need a gun. Sure hope you are right because if you aren't you are shit out of luck.

Carry on clueless.

 

[Conservative65]

So lying is now defined as keeping secrets?

No lying is defined as something a government needs to do from time to time, in order to keep it's people safe.

If the government did the right thing, they wouldn't have to lie.

So sad you justify lying. Sign of low character.

I'll give you a historical example. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved with Krushev withdrawing it's missiles from Cuba while Kennedy withdrew his from Turkey. It depended on absolute secrecy of the deal being made. Without it you and me wouldn't be able to discuss this. Your life depends on the government having certain secrets, that simple.

No just practical. I'll give you another current one. Say the US has information on the whereabouts of a leader of ISIS. You feel they should make that information known before they can strike? Governments needs to be able to keep certain things a secret. If you don't get that I'm sorry to say you are either a hypocrite, defending your position for political reasons, or plain dumb.

When they strike, the information is no longer secret, therefore, it's been shared making your example weak, at best.

No, you seem to advocate the government not having secrets at all. So in your head all information should be public, so this hypothetical leader of ISIS would get away. And btw I also notice you didn't answer my historical example either.

Since we know what happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis, it's obviously not a secret. Same thing applies to all sort of things we know the government did that you say are secret. If we know, they can't be secrets.

 

[forkup]

No lying is defined as something a government needs to do from time to time, in order to keep it's people safe.

If the government did the right thing, they wouldn't have to lie.

So sad you justify lying. Sign of low character.

I'll give you a historical example. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved with Krushev withdrawing it's missiles from Cuba while Kennedy withdrew his from Turkey. It depended on absolute secrecy of the deal being made. Without it you and me wouldn't be able to discuss this. Your life depends on the government having certain secrets, that simple.

No just practical. I'll give you another current one. Say the US has information on the whereabouts of a leader of ISIS. You feel they should make that information known before they can strike? Governments needs to be able to keep certain things a secret. If you don't get that I'm sorry to say you are either a hypocrite, defending your position for political reasons, or plain dumb.

When they strike, the information is no longer secret, therefore, it's been shared making your example weak, at best.

No, you seem to advocate the government not having secrets at all. So in your head all information should be public, so this hypothetical leader of ISIS would get away. And btw I also notice you didn't answer my historical example either.

Since we know what happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis, it's obviously not a secret. Same thing applies to all sort of things we know the government did that you say are secret. If we know, they can't be secrets.

The deal Kennedy struck with Krushev was a secret at the time. The fact that is has been declassified now is neither here nore there. You claim the government, shouldn't have secrets at all. I claim secrets are an integral part of the daily runnings of a government. You don't lie as a government because you did something wrong, you do it, because the truth might harm your interests as a country..

 

[P@triot]

No lying is defined as something a government needs to do from time to time, in order to keep it's people safe.

That's an astoundingly ignorant comment by an individual who is an astoundingly obedient minion to power.

You know what I find so interesting about you patriot. Twice now you try to spew rhetoric or not answer, in favor of actually answering the premisis of my posts. It strikes me as ironic that someone like you would call someone else ignorant, while at the same time being seemingly incapable of holding a substansive conversation

I've answered all of your questions that I've seen. Including this astoundingly ignorant one. I've already explained to you that the government is permitted to keep classified information secret. So there is no need to lie about it. They can simply say that it is classified and that they cannot discuss it. You have no rational or logical argument for that reality.

 

[P@triot]

I'll give you a historical example. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved with Krushev withdrawing it's missiles from Cuba while Kennedy withdrew his from Turkey. It depended on absolute secrecy of the deal being made. Without it you and me wouldn't be able to discuss this. Your life depends on the government having certain secrets, that simple.

Again - we weren't talking about secrets. We were talking about lying. Having trouble following along or do you become disingenuous when you can't admit you were wrong?

 

[Redfish]

You know what I want from my government? Universal healthcare, free college, new or repaired infrastructure that isn't falling into rivers, a doubling of nasa's budgets so we can go to mars and a new 50 meter telescope to find extrasolar planets, billions for cures for cancer that will save a million people a year, billions for new fusion tech attempts and possible a fully working fusion reactor! I want our educational system leading the world with the teacher not having to dig into their own pockets to educate other peoples children,

This is how a nation remains a great power!!!! period.

Who do you think is going to pay for all of that? We are 19 trillion in debt and its increasing every day.

Who is going to pay, Matty boy? You could take 100% of the income of the top 10% and wouldn't even be close to paying for all that you say you want.

It all sounds great, just like socialism sounds great, until the bills start coming in. Obozocare is the perfect example of failed socialism. It doesn't work, never has, never will.

you live in fantasy land.

 

[Redfish]

Republicans only want high paying jobs that require no skills. That's all.

Yep, they want a large peon population of slaves to make the ultra rich ever richer. Republicans suck ass!!!!

You are so stupid, Its the dems who want a slave population and government by a tiny group of super elites. That's how socialism works, fool.

 

[forkup]

I'll give you a historical example. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved with Krushev withdrawing it's missiles from Cuba while Kennedy withdrew his from Turkey. It depended on absolute secrecy of the deal being made. Without it you and me wouldn't be able to discuss this. Your life depends on the government having certain secrets, that simple.

Again - we weren't talking about secrets. We were talking about lying. Having trouble following along or do you become disingenuous when you can't admit you were wrong?

The Kennedy administration did lie, claiming they got Krushev to back down, while it was a simple matter of quid pro quo.

 

[P@triot]

I'm sorry - you're wrong. If Obama was proposing Antonin Scalia right now, do you think the Senate would refuse to meet with him? The onus is on the president to pitch a candidate that the Senate will approve. Obama is a radical and those that support him are just upset that he can't force through radical Supreme Court candidates. Tell Obama to do his job properly and none of this would be a problem. The Constitution is being represented and upheld flawlessly in this particular case.

If this would be the case, congress would hold hearings to establish Scalias unsuitability. They haven't even interviewed so that means bad faith. It's not even the excuse Republican congresspeople use. They are trying to sell it as not giving the people a voice until after the election. So clearly obstructing the will of the drafters of the constitution.

I've answered this over and over now and you can't just can't bring yourself to accept reality. They don't need to "interview". They know the people he's pitching. The onus is on the president to nominate a candidate who is qualified (meaning not a radical). It's the Senates constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. Nothing is being "obstructed" here. It's just another failure of Barack Obama.

 

[dblack]

You know what I want from my government? Universal healthcare, free college, new or repaired infrastructure that isn't falling into rivers, a doubling of nasa's budgets so we can go to mars and a new 50 meter telescope to find extrasolar planets, billions for cures for cancer that will save a million people a year, billions for new fusion tech attempts and possible a fully working fusion reactor! I want our educational system leading the world with the teacher not having to dig into their own pockets to educate other peoples children,

This is how a nation remains a great power!!!! period.

So, pretty much everything. I want government to protect me from nitwits like you, who think society owes them the kinds of things on your wishlist.

 

[Redfish]

I want our country to be more like Norway, Sweden, Japan, South Korea or Germany. A country with high standards that gives a shit about its people....I want our anti-trust laws enforced and the rich to pay their taxes!!!! I couldn't name a single nation of the top 50 highest gdp's on earth doesn't that have any government within their economy and there for their people, but I can name some with very little like Somalia, haiti, Congo, Central African Republic and other such backwards shit holes!

total bullshit. I have been to those countries, have you matty boi? They have very high taxes 50-60%, very few can afford to own a house, the government controls every aspect of their lives, they have very few choices in life--do as the government dictates or else.

Those countries also have much smaller populations than the US and are not melting pots of cultures and races like the USA. virtually everyone in Japan is Japanese. everyone in Norway is Norwegian, etc. They all look the same, think the same, and have the same cultural background. Even with that commonality, it doesn't work. Those countries are going broke trying to pay for all of their social giveaways, there is no incentive to work.

Simply said----------------socialism does not work, never has, never will.

 

[P@triot]

I'll give you a historical example. The Cuban missile crisis was resolved with Krushev withdrawing it's missiles from Cuba while Kennedy withdrew his from Turkey. It depended on absolute secrecy of the deal being made. Without it you and me wouldn't be able to discuss this. Your life depends on the government having certain secrets, that simple.

Again - we weren't talking about secrets. We were talking about lying. Having trouble following along or do you become disingenuous when you can't admit you were wrong?

The Kennedy administration did lie, claiming they got Krushev to back down, while it was a simple matter of quid pro quo.

You keep moving the goalposts ever time reality makes you look foolish. First you said the government "needs" to lie because of national security. When I explained that's astoundingly ignorant as they are allowed to maintain classified information and thus they do not need to lie about anything but can simply state "that is classified information which we cannot speak about", you then moved the goalposts to "secrets" and your very stupid Cuban Missile Crisis. When I explained to you that secrets are not lying and in fact fell under the classified information which I had already told you was legal and acceptable, you moved the goalposts yet again and claimed a vastly different aspect of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

So basically - you're too immature to admit that you were wrong. You're also a spineless minion who cowers to anything you perceive to be a position of authority.

To answer this pitiful (and disingenuous) question you've posed now: you fail to provide any evidence that the Kennedy Administration claimed that they "got Krushev to back down". It's almost certain that you're making that up. However, if it did occur and it was a lie - then that is unacceptable. Our elected officials answer to us - we do not answer to them. As such - they have absolutely no right to lie to us any more than a subordinate at a business has a right to lie to their manager.

If your wild claims are true - then the Kennedy Administration should have stated that they removed missiles in Turkey as a "quit pro quo" as you say. If the removal of those missiles were a matter of national security for some reason (and I sure as hell can't see how they could be if we informed our greatest enemy of it) then the Kennedy Administration should have simply stated that what transpired was classified and that they could not comment on it.

See how simple that is? You can't make a logical or rational case for your position junior. You just keep trying to defend the lies of liberals (and you're failing miserably at it).

 

[forkup]

I'm sorry - you're wrong. If Obama was proposing Antonin Scalia right now, do you think the Senate would refuse to meet with him? The onus is on the president to pitch a candidate that the Senate will approve. Obama is a radical and those that support him are just upset that he can't force through radical Supreme Court candidates. Tell Obama to do his job properly and none of this would be a problem. The Constitution is being represented and upheld flawlessly in this particular case.

If this would be the case, congress would hold hearings to establish Scalias unsuitability. They haven't even interviewed so that means bad faith. It's not even the excuse Republican congresspeople use. They are trying to sell it as not giving the people a voice until after the election. So clearly obstructing the will of the drafters of the constitution.

I've answered this over and over now and you can't just can't bring yourself to accept reality. They don't need to "interview". They know the people he's pitching. The onus is on the president to nominate a candidate who is qualified (meaning not a radical). It's the Senates constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. Nothing is being "obstructed" here. It's just another failure of Barack Obama.

You admitted to the fact that Scalia is not a radical since you admitted that they would meet with him now lol, congress flat out refuses to meet with him because then they would have to admit he isn't radical at all. And they where hoping to get a republican president. I have a question, what would stop a republican congress from refusing to confirm ANY supreme court justice, using this tactic of refusing even to meet with the candidate? They have set this precedent, so what is there to prevent them from refusing to meet a candidate put forth by a president Clinton?

 

[kaz]

You know what I want from my government? Universal healthcare, free college, new or repaired infrastructure that isn't falling into rivers, a doubling of nasa's budgets so we can go to mars and a new 50 meter telescope to find extrasolar planets, billions for cures for cancer that will save a million people a year, billions for new fusion tech attempts and possible a fully working fusion reactor! I want our educational system leading the world with the teacher not having to dig into their own pockets to educate other peoples children,

This is how a nation remains a great power!!!! period.

You forgot the free government cheese