Which of the following is the most important to you...

[BasicGreatGuy]

I'd have to say that I want to see this country continue to thrive and be a voice for freedom and Democracy throughout the world regardless of which party brings that about and regardless of whether or not I am right. I want us to value the rich and the poor in our world equally.

If President Obama can accomplish that then more power to him.

Immie

PS: I'm not betting on it happening though. I know, I know, I'm living in a dream world.

What exactly do you mean by the highlighted portion?

What do I mean? Seems pretty obvious to me. So much so, that I am not sure how to answer that question.

The USA is a prosperous nation, blessed by God... Oh, oh, did I just break the law by mentioning God?... and I would like to continue to see it prosper.

The USA has long been a voice for freedom in international politics. I would like to see that continue. That doesn't mean we need to be the policemen of the world. It means that we support freedom and Democracy worldwide.

Immie

Immie,
You are speaking in broad emotional generalities. That is why I asked for specifics. What do you look to, when selecting the right employee ( representative or POTUS ) for the job? What standard if any, do you hold the other employees to, seeing how your tax dollars help to pay their salary as well.

 

[goldcatt]

Hmmm...I'll also have to say None of the Above. I'm a pragmatist, I prefer to look at the issues, look at the candidates and vote for the one most likely to come up with a reasonable solution. With a healthy attempt to find somebody ethical thrown in for good measure, although not too ethical for the office.

What do you compare the candidates to, when you are "looking" at the issues? Integrity is important. I believe in holding ones office in "good behavior." What do you mean by "although not too ethical"?

It depends on the office. Unless we're going to throw all the bums out and start over from scratch, get rid of 99% of lobbyists and do away with most of th eunofficial power structures, the higher the office the more one has to be somewhat familiar with maneuvering in a cesspool to be able to do the job effectively. Doesn't mean they should be thieves, but naive little cherubs aren't going to last a week.

Edit: Perhaps what I'm looking for is "street smarts", which you don't get in a pristine environment.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

sure i'll go into detail, these are the one's i picked

2) Voting all the incumbents out of office, even if you believe your elected has done his or her elected job.

3) As long as your taxes don't go up, you don't care what the employees in Washington do.

5) The Constitution being strictly adhered to no matter the circumstance. Any current government program that you don't believe is congruent with the Constitution, should be done away with.

with 5 being the most important.

I feel that #3 is part of #5 and I feel our founding fathers intended the elected officials to only be in the position temporarily, so they would have to return to their communities and live under any laws they psased.

So to me 2 and 3 are actually part of 5.

I also feel our current tax system violates article 8 of the constitution, "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" our progressive tax system is a direct violation of the us constitution.

I understand your reasoning now. Thank you. What happens if you get rid of an employee that is actually doing their job as you believe it to be, just for the sake of "change"? Are you moving in a positive direction with that action?

I understand the reasoning of the founding fathers on that issue. There were several reasons that made up that position as it were. At the same time, their personal beliefs such as they were, are not actually law.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

You throw a question open for answers, and then you flame anyone for answering in a way you don't like?

I call that a "BasicAsshole."

I haven't insulted anyone. I am just not letting the spin be the focus. Big difference.

You, on the other hand, created a flame post because you read things into my posts you wanted to see.

"Politically constipated" is not an insult?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Hmmm...I'll also have to say None of the Above. I'm a pragmatist, I prefer to look at the issues, look at the candidates and vote for the one most likely to come up with a reasonable solution. With a healthy attempt to find somebody ethical thrown in for good measure, although not too ethical for the office.

What do you compare the candidates to, when you are "looking" at the issues? Integrity is important. I believe in holding ones office in "good behavior." What do you mean by "although not too ethical"?

It depends on the office. Unless we're going to throw all the bums out and start over from scratch, get rid of 99% of lobbyists and do away with most of th eunofficial power structures, the higher the office the more one has to be somewhat familiar with maneuvering in a cesspool to be able to do the job effectively. Doesn't mean they should be thieves, but naive little cherubs aren't going to last a week.

Edit: Perhaps what I'm looking for is "street smarts", which you don't get in a pristine environment.

How does getting ones handy dirty enough to play the "game," work toward solving the problem of dirty pandering hands in the first place?

In my opinion, being naive about something is not wrong. We are all naive about some things in life. Some people more so than others. Does the employee have a proclivity for learning new things? To me, that is important.

If I understand you correctly, you believe it is impossible for someone to be effective as an employees of yours, if they are too clean and green? Having some "street smarts," is necessary, as you see it.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You throw a question open for answers, and then you flame anyone for answering in a way you don't like?

I call that a "BasicAsshole."

I haven't insulted anyone. I am just not letting the spin be the focus. Big difference.

You, on the other hand, created a flame post because you read things into my posts you wanted to see.

"Politically constipated" is not an insult?

No, it wasn't an insult. Not at all. I happen to know that poster. That poster did not take offense.

Politically constipated meaning stuck. The poster already said he was a mixture of three numbers. He said he wasn't exactly sure where he was at this point. I merely summarized his position in a succinct and jocular manner.

If you read his post and my reply in context, my reply makes sense. Apparently, you did not grasp the meaning. Failure to properly understand context does not equate to uncivil retort. So, you can give that liar smiley to someone else. It doesn't belong to me.

And as I said earlier, you are the one that made an uncivil post to me.

Are you going to address the thread question?

 

[goldcatt]

What do you compare the candidates to, when you are "looking" at the issues? Integrity is important. I believe in holding ones office in "good behavior." What do you mean by "although not too ethical"?

It depends on the office. Unless we're going to throw all the bums out and start over from scratch, get rid of 99% of lobbyists and do away with most of th eunofficial power structures, the higher the office the more one has to be somewhat familiar with maneuvering in a cesspool to be able to do the job effectively. Doesn't mean they should be thieves, but naive little cherubs aren't going to last a week.

Edit: Perhaps what I'm looking for is "street smarts", which you don't get in a pristine environment.

How does getting ones handy dirty enough to play the "game," work toward solving the problem of dirty pandering hands in the first place?

In my opinion, being naive about something is not wrong. We are all naive about some things in life. Some people more so than others. Does the employee have a proclivity for learning new things? To me, that is important.

If I understand you correctly, you believe it is impossible for someone to be effective as an employees of yours, if they are too clean and green? Having some "street smarts," is necessary, as you see it.

Street smarts is absolutely necessary for some positions, BGG. While I would love to clean up the game permanently and completely, pragmatically it's impossible. So if I'm looking to hire, I'm going to want to hire somebody who can function in the existing dirty environment but without contributing to it. If Mr. Smith really went to Washington, he'd be completely ineffective and eaten alive in a week and we all know it. OR without a base of knowledge from which to judge who's playing him, he'd be sucked into the deep end of the cesspool or used as somebody's fall guy in two. I'm just being realistic.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

It depends on the office. Unless we're going to throw all the bums out and start over from scratch, get rid of 99% of lobbyists and do away with most of th eunofficial power structures, the higher the office the more one has to be somewhat familiar with maneuvering in a cesspool to be able to do the job effectively. Doesn't mean they should be thieves, but naive little cherubs aren't going to last a week.

Edit: Perhaps what I'm looking for is "street smarts", which you don't get in a pristine environment.

How does getting ones handy dirty enough to play the "game," work toward solving the problem of dirty pandering hands in the first place?

In my opinion, being naive about something is not wrong. We are all naive about some things in life. Some people more so than others. Does the employee have a proclivity for learning new things? To me, that is important.

If I understand you correctly, you believe it is impossible for someone to be effective as an employees of yours, if they are too clean and green? Having some "street smarts," is necessary, as you see it.

Street smarts is absolutely necessary for some positions, BGG. While I would love to clean up the game permanently and completely, pragmatically it's impossible. So if I'm looking to hire, I'm going to want to hire somebody who can function in the existing dirty environment but without contributing to it. If Mr. Smith really went to Washington, he'd be completely ineffective and eaten alive in a week and we all know it. OR without a base of knowledge from which to judge who's playing him, he'd be sucked into the deep end of the cesspool or used as somebody's fall guy in two. I'm just being realistic.

How can a person who stands true to what you believe the Constitution states and the proper adjudication thereof, as it relates to his or her oath and duties be ineffective?

Every new Congressman is green. The same can be said of the POTUS. It doesn't matter how much "street smarts" they may have, they are going to be naive about various aspects of their new job. Knowing some of what is to come, is blown away in the wind, when a person actually takes office. A good employee doesn't stay green.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Which of the following is the most important to you, when it comes to the governance of this Republic?

1) Your political party team regaining power, or staying in power

2) Voting all the incumbents out of office, even if you believe your elected has done his or her elected job.

3) As long as your taxes don't go up, you don't care what the employees in Washington do.

4) Your don't care because you are tired of fighting it year after year.

5) The Constitution being strictly adhered to no matter the circumstance. Any current government program that you don't believe is congruent with the Constitution, should be done away with.

6) You used to be true blue partisan, but this last election opened up your eyes. You are re-evaluating your beliefs and no longer interested in being a political party cheerleader.

pretty superficial concerns...

except your number 5... but given that 9 justices can't agree on what the constitution means, it's the height of arrogance if anyone thinks that THEY are the arbiter of what is constitutional.

You don't think most citizens in this Republic fall under one of the categories, in one way or another? Superficial is what I was pointing out, and on purpose I might add.

As to #5 I was speaking from an employee perspective (i.e. citizen of the U.S. ) All of the categories are from that perspective. Why did you bring up the SCOTUS?

Because leftists believe that the Constitution isn't that piece of sheepskin with words written all over it. It's the piles and piles and piles of rulings handed down by the Supreme Court.

 

[Ringel05]

Which of the following is the most important to you, when it comes to the governance of this Republic?

1) Your political party team regaining power, or staying in power

2) Voting all the incumbents out of office, even if you believe your elected has done his or her elected job.

3) As long as your taxes don't go up, you don't care what the employees in Washington do.

4) You don't care because you are tired of fighting it year after year.

5) The Constitution being strictly adhered to no matter the circumstance. Any current government program that you don't believe is congruent with the Constitution, should be done away with.

6) You used to be true blue partisan, but this last election opened up your eyes. You are re-evaluating your beliefs and no longer interested in being a political party cheerleader.

All the above, none of the above.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do remember the whole fucking design of a democratic government is to serve the people in their pursuit of happiness right?

I asked you a specific question. Will you be giving a direct answer, or continuing to deflect? What you posted here did not answer the question.

The will of the people.

Why do you pretend that is not the answer I gave?

The will of the people . . . what?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I asked you a specific question. Will you be giving a direct answer, or continuing to deflect? What you posted here did not answer the question.

The will of the people.

Why do you pretend that is not the answer I gave?

Let me see if I understand your answer. According to you, the law means nothing and we should govern this Republic based on the will of the people ( emotions ). That is nothing but mob rule.

Not to mention the fact that written law is how the will of the people is officially expressed. How else are we supposed to know what that will is?

 

[goldcatt]

How does getting ones handy dirty enough to play the "game," work toward solving the problem of dirty pandering hands in the first place?

In my opinion, being naive about something is not wrong. We are all naive about some things in life. Some people more so than others. Does the employee have a proclivity for learning new things? To me, that is important.

If I understand you correctly, you believe it is impossible for someone to be effective as an employees of yours, if they are too clean and green? Having some "street smarts," is necessary, as you see it.

Street smarts is absolutely necessary for some positions, BGG. While I would love to clean up the game permanently and completely, pragmatically it's impossible. So if I'm looking to hire, I'm going to want to hire somebody who can function in the existing dirty environment but without contributing to it. If Mr. Smith really went to Washington, he'd be completely ineffective and eaten alive in a week and we all know it. OR without a base of knowledge from which to judge who's playing him, he'd be sucked into the deep end of the cesspool or used as somebody's fall guy in two. I'm just being realistic.

How can a person who stands true to what you believe the Constitution states and the proper adjudication thereof, as it relates to his or her oath and duties be ineffective?

Every new Congressman is green. The same can be said of the POTUS. It doesn't matter how much "street smarts" they may have, they are going to be naive about various aspects of their new job. Knowing some of what is to come, is blown away in the wind, when a person actually takes office. A good employee doesn't stay green.

Oh, they might be green about the ins and outs of procedure, or the inner workings of subcommittees, or what to avoid in the Senate cafeteria, or what have you. That's 100% expected and learnable. But you asked me what I look for when hiring somebody, and I replied I look for somebody who is temperamentally and ethically suited to getting the assigned job done in the existing environment. I wouldn't hire some schmuck who tics and twitches his way through an interview for a high-stress job. Likewise, I wouldn't hire a total naif to attempt to climb the turdpile that is Washington. You don't have to agree with me, that's OK. It's not your vote.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The people are not for the constitution the constitution is for the people.

None of the above.

I want to see the US succeed and prosper as a democratic republic designed to serve the people and their persuit of happiness.

You wish for the constitution to be interpreted to being a mandate to socialism. Got it.

So you think the founders set up a government that should not serve the people and their pursuit of happiness?

you people have lost all moarings to reality

You seem to think the Founders setting up a government is somehow a separate thing from the Constitution they wrote in order to set up the government.

Your logic is not like our Earth logic. Oh, and the word is "moorings". For some reason, that's just really irking me.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Street smarts is absolutely necessary for some positions, BGG. While I would love to clean up the game permanently and completely, pragmatically it's impossible. So if I'm looking to hire, I'm going to want to hire somebody who can function in the existing dirty environment but without contributing to it. If Mr. Smith really went to Washington, he'd be completely ineffective and eaten alive in a week and we all know it. OR without a base of knowledge from which to judge who's playing him, he'd be sucked into the deep end of the cesspool or used as somebody's fall guy in two. I'm just being realistic.

How can a person who stands true to what you believe the Constitution states and the proper adjudication thereof, as it relates to his or her oath and duties be ineffective?

Every new Congressman is green. The same can be said of the POTUS. It doesn't matter how much "street smarts" they may have, they are going to be naive about various aspects of their new job. Knowing some of what is to come, is blown away in the wind, when a person actually takes office. A good employee doesn't stay green.

Oh, they might be green about the ins and outs of procedure, or the inner workings of subcommittees, or what to avoid in the Senate cafeteria, or what have you. That's 100% expected and learnable. But you asked me what I look for when hiring somebody, and I replied I look for somebody who is temperamentally and ethically suited to getting the assigned job done in the existing environment. I wouldn't hire some schmuck who tics and twitches his way through an interview for a high-stress job. Likewise, I wouldn't hire a total naif to attempt to climb the turdpile that is Washington. You don't have to agree with me, that's OK. It's not your vote.

I don't agree with you. But what else is new. I like reaching inside pushing buttons, and watching the cerebral cortex light up as one ruminates over what has just been said.

 

[goldcatt]

How can a person who stands true to what you believe the Constitution states and the proper adjudication thereof, as it relates to his or her oath and duties be ineffective?

Every new Congressman is green. The same can be said of the POTUS. It doesn't matter how much "street smarts" they may have, they are going to be naive about various aspects of their new job. Knowing some of what is to come, is blown away in the wind, when a person actually takes office. A good employee doesn't stay green.

Oh, they might be green about the ins and outs of procedure, or the inner workings of subcommittees, or what to avoid in the Senate cafeteria, or what have you. That's 100% expected and learnable. But you asked me what I look for when hiring somebody, and I replied I look for somebody who is temperamentally and ethically suited to getting the assigned job done in the existing environment. I wouldn't hire some schmuck who tics and twitches his way through an interview for a high-stress job. Likewise, I wouldn't hire a total naif to attempt to climb the turdpile that is Washington. You don't have to agree with me, that's OK. It's not your vote.

I don't agree with you. But what else is new. I like reaching inside pushing buttons, and watching the cerebral cortex light up as one ruminates over what has just been said.

That's odd, why do I suddenly feel like a Christmas tree?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Which of the following is the most important to you, when it comes to the governance of this Republic?

1) Your political party team regaining power, or staying in power

2) Voting all the incumbents out of office, even if you believe your elected has done his or her elected job.

3) As long as your taxes don't go up, you don't care what the employees in Washington do.

4) You don't care because you are tired of fighting it year after year.

5) The Constitution being strictly adhered to no matter the circumstance. Any current government program that you don't believe is congruent with the Constitution, should be done away with.

6) You used to be true blue partisan, but this last election opened up your eyes. You are re-evaluating your beliefs and no longer interested in being a political party cheerleader.

All the above, none of the above.

Lets keep the "there is no such thing as reality" philosophy out of this please.

You cannot be all and nothing at the same time. Illogical.

Would you care to elaborate with some meaningful rhetoric?

 

[Annie]

pretty superficial concerns...

except your number 5... but given that 9 justices can't agree on what the constitution means, it's the height of arrogance if anyone thinks that THEY are the arbiter of what is constitutional.

So we'll leave it to Truthmatters to decide. Gotcha.

what kind of stupid-ass answer is that??

i'd respond furtherl, but you didn't say anything....

She agrees with you, throw out Constitution and go for the current interpretation of 'pursuit of happiness', ignoring what the intent was. You, a lawyer, appears to agree. You just don't want to be associated with the company you keep.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Oh, they might be green about the ins and outs of procedure, or the inner workings of subcommittees, or what to avoid in the Senate cafeteria, or what have you. That's 100% expected and learnable. But you asked me what I look for when hiring somebody, and I replied I look for somebody who is temperamentally and ethically suited to getting the assigned job done in the existing environment. I wouldn't hire some schmuck who tics and twitches his way through an interview for a high-stress job. Likewise, I wouldn't hire a total naif to attempt to climb the turdpile that is Washington. You don't have to agree with me, that's OK. It's not your vote.

I don't agree with you. But what else is new. I like reaching inside pushing buttons, and watching the cerebral cortex light up as one ruminates over what has just been said.

That's odd, why do I suddenly feel like a Christmas tree?

That is normal 24/7 for me

If this thread gets people to put down the typical quips for a few moments, and truly think about why they do what they do when it comes to the governance of this Republic, this thread creation will be worth it.

 

[goldcatt]

Of course, BGG, you almost forgot the point that first I look for ideas, preferably in the shape of a workable and practical plan. The wonkier, the better.
Party and ideology matter not to me, just ideas and results.