How refreshing a decent Politician

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 21, 2014 10:12 am

Uruguayan President JosÃ© Mujica has a well-earned reputation for a personal style that is assertively ... let us call it informal. It's part of the 78-year-old politician's practice of eschewing all trappings of power and status; he gives away most of his salary, lives in a small, one-bedroom apartment and drives an old VW Beetle instead of taking the customary limousine.

He has my vote.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 21, 2014 10:14 am

And mine

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Wed May 21, 2014 5:39 pm

He sounds like he and the pope could get along just fine.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed May 21, 2014 7:57 pm

Not sure your votes would count .....but then again, with the corruption in those countries maybe you'll do some good?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu May 22, 2014 10:49 am

Another fad for the progressive left.

So after a life of warfare/bank robbery, this now old guy, by some is idolized because he drives a Volkswagen and doesn't care to wear a tie. He is now praised for preaching a Jesus like missive of self imposed near poverty so others may eat.

Uruguay's Mujica: widly popular abroad but questioned back home

Mujica, who still lives on a flower farm with his wife, rarely dons a tie and drives an old VW Beetle, has led Uruguay through stable economic growth and better wages. His social agenda has included laws approving gay marriage and the creation of the world's first national marketplace for legal marijuana.

But critics say his government failed to address improvements in education, security and protection of the environment, pillars of his presidential agenda.

results of the 2012 Program for International Assessment, or PISA, evaluating high school students around the world, Uruguay got its worst grades in math, reading and science since 2003.

Gang shootouts and armed robberies have also raised security concerns and taken a toll on the popularity of Mujica, who is also questioned for his support of a huge open-pit mining project.

"People are not concerned about how weed is going to be smoked or about gay marriage... they're not at the core of their concerns," Raga said. "People are worried about security and education, where the government has real troubles."

Government officials contend that the problems in education and security began years before Mujica came into power.

Mujica learned the blame Bush excuse from President Obama.

"Now that Uruguay is doing well people don't think it's so wonderful to drive a Beetle or speak against consumption," he said. "In a world in crisis that goes a long way, but now Uruguayans want something else."

Leftists seem to never learn that people want more than bare existence.

FOX NEWS

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Thu May 22, 2014 11:05 am

tude dog;1455043 wrote:

Leftists seem to never learn that people want more than bare existence.

What about the poor and homeless people in the US ? Are the Republicans committed to ensuring they get more than a bare existence or will they continue to champion the rich and extend the gap between rich and poor ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 22, 2014 11:14 am

To paraphrase....

Rightists seem to never learn that people want more than bare existence........and half a chance to succeed themselves.

Hey Tude is Bloomberg a source you are happy with ?

How would a poor man go about getting elected in the Land of the Free ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 22, 2014 11:25 am

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu May 22, 2014 11:34 am

Snowfire;1455044 wrote: What about the poor and homeless people in the US ? Are the Republicans committed to ensuring they get more than a bare existence or will they continue to champion the rich and extend the gap between rich and poor ?

That is an unfair characterization of Republicans or any other American.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Thu May 22, 2014 11:55 am

tude dog;1455047 wrote: That is an unfair characterization of Republicans or any other American.

I think its pretty much accepted that with tax breaks for the rich and benefit cuts for the much less well off is a policy the Republicans support. Its a policy our Tory government champion too.

These factors extend the gap between the rich and poor, both in the US and here.

Yet you blame the "Leftists" for holding back the ordinary people from getting on. I would suggest that there are far more people in this world that would like to be elevated to the "bare existence" that you refer. We are leaving far too many people behind while the rich get richer off their backs

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu May 22, 2014 11:56 am

Bruv;1455045 wrote: To paraphrase....

Rightists seem to never learn that people want more than bare existence........and half a chance to succeed themselves.

Hey Tude is Bloomberg a source you are happy with ?

How would a poor man go about getting elected in the Land of the Free ?

We have one. We had another by the name of Bill Clinton. As much as I hate Obama and mellowed out about Bill, they escaped the noose to become President.

Their examples are not new.

There are people wealthy beyond understanding.

Their lives have no relevance to me. What is relevant is our laws and conduct of our government.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu May 22, 2014 12:13 pm

What is anybody suppose to learn from that?

Maybe a lesson in economics.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 22, 2014 12:39 pm

It's ironic isn't it, a country supposedly founded on liberal principles that all are entitled to at least some equality of opportunity all brainwashed in to thinking all they are entitled to are the crumbs from the rich man's table. Next they'll be saying people with no property or unemployed should not be entitled to vote since they don't pay taxes and the christian right will argue that women should never have been given the vote cos they are too soft and vote for liberal plicies.

Oh hang on they already do

Fox News guest Rev Jesse Lee Peterson says women shouldn't be allowed to vote | Mail Online

posted by tude dog.

What is relevant is our laws and conduct of our government.

If your government can be bought by the rich and acts to make them richer does that bother you?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu May 22, 2014 1:51 pm

gmc;1455060 wrote: It's ironic isn't it, a country supposedly founded on liberal principles that all are entitled to at least some equality of opportunity all brainwashed in to thinking all they are entitled to are the crumbs from the rich man's table. Next they'll be saying people with no property or unemployed should not be entitled to vote since they don't pay taxes and the christian right will argue that women should never have been given the vote cos they are too soft and vote for liberal plicies.

You and your friend there can spew all you want.

Fox News guest Rev Jesse Lee Peterson says women shouldn't be allowed to vote | Mail Online

gmc;1455060 wrote: If your government can be bought by the rich and acts to make them richer does that bother you?

If it were, as you describe, maybe so. I just don't sit around worrying about what the other guy has.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 22, 2014 2:45 pm

If it were, as you describe, maybe so. I just don't sit around worrying about what the other guy has.

I wouldn't have thought most people do but when wealth and privilege are used to prevent equal opportunity then I think it's wrong. Not saying people shouldn't have, for instance, a good education and access to further education if they are up to it but rather it should not only be available to those that can afford it. We've gone backwards in this country. I don't mind companies making a profit I do when they destroy the environment I live in leaving it barren for the future. I have a right to object.

American films and books are full of stories about people standing up to big business or powerful individuals the need to do so hasn't gone away.

He's not my friend I'd never even heard of him. Out of curiosity I did a search under christian right say women should not be allowed to vote and that one came up. I was surprised how many there were. I've also seen arguments that those who don't pay taxes should not be allowed to vote, can't believe such views actually have much support.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu May 22, 2014 3:30 pm

Snowfire;1455049 wrote: I think its pretty much accepted that with tax breaks for the rich and benefit cuts for the much less well off is a policy the Republicans support. Its a policy our Tory government champion too.

These factors extend the gap between the rich and poor, both in the US and here.

Yet you blame the "Leftists" for holding back the ordinary people from getting on. I would suggest that there are far more people in this world that would like to be elevated to the "bare existence" that you refer. We are leaving far too many people behind while the rich get richer off their backs

After last years elections count Aus in too. Never seen this kind of ideology before in this country. How in gods name have you guys survived all this time? Been noticing more and more militarized policing too.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 am

Snowfire;1455044 wrote: What about the poor and homeless people in the US ? Are the Republicans committed to ensuring they get more than a bare existence or will they continue to champion the rich and extend the gap between rich and poor ?You make a lot of false assumptions, Snowfire.

1. "Poor" and "homeless" have become political terms with nebulous definitions that change to fit the politicians aims. Other such words are "unemployed," "rich," "middle-class," "immigrant," "deport," and "insured."

2. Dems are as far up the arses of the rich as Repubs are - farther, if you go by fundraising statistics. But today those two words are as nebulous as the other words I mentioned.

3. Repubs are hardly unilaterally extending this gap you mention. You seem to imply some other political party is interested in closing the gap, in which case you would be mistaken. The gap is a political weapon, like racism is (not to mention "poor," "homeless," etc), and you know how we Yanks love our weapons.

From my angle, there is no political benefit to actually changing anything.

fuzzywuzzy;1455097 wrote: [...] Been noticing more and more militarized policing too.
Yup. That's what has me far more concerned than these political distractions everyone is so keen on discussing. My opinion: The public would be much faster to condemn the developing police state if the traditional military were used, so they arm and armor meat inspectors instead. The formal military has become a tool to create crises overseas in order to distract us from the domestic militarizing going on at home. If you want to see true American bipartisan cooperation, look there.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 23, 2014 4:36 am

I think I will stick to my statement ....."How would a poor man go about getting elected in the Land of the Free ?"

The only way is to acquire himself a decent job and a lot of financial backing.

I never said "A man born poor" it was clearly "A poor man"........so no Uruguayan style President for the US until after the revolution.

Strangely they walk away from the job as very rich men

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri May 23, 2014 10:45 am

Accountable;1455112 wrote: You make a lot of false assumptions, Snowfire.

1. "Poor" and "homeless" have become political terms with nebulous definitions that change to fit the politicians aims. Other such words are "unemployed," "rich," "middle-class," "immigrant," "deport," and "insured."

2. Dems are as far up the arses of the rich as Repubs are - farther, if you go by fundraising statistics. But today those two words are as nebulous as the other words I mentioned.

3. Repubs are hardly unilaterally extending this gap you mention. You seem to imply some other political party is interested in closing the gap, in which case you would be mistaken. The gap is a political weapon, like racism is (not to mention "poor," "homeless," etc), and you know how we Yanks love our weapons.

From my angle, there is no political benefit to actually changing anything.

OK fair enough. I'm using words or terms that closely describe a situation. I don't think they are so wrong. My bad assumptions, if that's what they are, of American politics, are limited to the web pages flashed up through stumble upon but the message seems to be that the gap between the rich and poor, for want of another phrase, is widening and is sustained in the guise of necessary economic growth. Here in the UK it is just as deliberate, even though we are "all in it together" - the buzz phrase that Cameron patronises us with.

I do imply that another political party can close the gap but maybe not in the US, which is far more entrenched in Capitalism than us. It seems to me that the Democratic Party is probably what I might describe as a soft Tory position, rather than the traditional Socialist tendencies of our Labour Party (but not in recent times)

I want a fairer society that looks after us all and not just help wealthy people get even wealthier.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri May 23, 2014 11:01 am

Bruv;1455113 wrote: I think I will stick to my statement ....."How would a poor man go about getting elected in the Land of the Free ?"

The only way is to acquire himself a decent job and a lot of financial backing.

I never said "A man born poor" it was clearly "A poor man"........so no Uruguayan style President for the US until after the revolution.

Strangely they walk away from the job as very rich men

And Blair has done very well for himself too.

Maybe the ideal politician - one who is so for the right reasons - doesnt have the proper ambition to be a politician. They end up languishing on the back benches

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 23, 2014 11:47 am

Snowfire;1455145 wrote: And Blair has done very well for himself too.

Maybe the ideal politician - one who is so for the right reasons - doesnt have the proper ambition to be a politician. They end up languishing on the back benches

There have been many socialist politicians in my lifetime who's naivete and idealism was the death of them getting on.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat May 24, 2014 4:27 am

Snowfire;1455143 wrote: I want a fairer society that looks after us all and not just help wealthy people get even wealthier.
I want a freer society that allows us to succeed or fail on our own and not give the poorest just enough that it would be more beneficial in the short-term to stay dependent on gov't largesse than to risk going it alone, and not help the wealthy by protecting them from failing.

Don't you see? Sociey IS looking after us all, keeping each of us in our places by protecting us from failing.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 24, 2014 6:14 am

Accountable;1455268 wrote: I want a freer society that allows us to succeed or fail on our own and not give the poorest just enough that it would be more beneficial in the short-term to stay dependent on gov't largesse than to risk going it alone, and not help the wealthy by protecting them from failing.

Don't you see? Sociey IS looking after us all, keeping each of us in our places by protecting us from failing.

As an ideal.....................wonderful.

But then again as an ideal...................communism on paper..............perfect.

Both systems have their faults.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 26, 2014 6:57 am

Bruv;1455288 wrote: As an ideal.....................wonderful.

But then again as an ideal...................communism on paper..............perfect.

Both systems have their faults.
I like my ideal better than yours. Society is leaning toward yours and we are losing our liberty in exchange for security. Bird in a gilded cage.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon May 26, 2014 7:11 am

Accountable;1455474 wrote: I like my ideal better than yours. Society is leaning toward yours and we are losing our liberty in exchange for security. Bird in a gilded cage.

What do you think my ideal is then ?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 26, 2014 9:14 am

Bruv;1455478 wrote: What do you think my ideal is then ?
Oops. I got your post mixed with Snowfire's. He stated his ideal. If yours is different, then my response might be different as well.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon May 26, 2014 9:19 am

Accountable;1455268 wrote: I want a freer society that allows us to succeed or fail on our own and not give the poorest just enough that it would be more beneficial in the short-term to stay dependent on gov't largesse than to risk going it alone, and not help the wealthy by protecting them from failing.

Don't you see? Sociey IS looking after us all, keeping each of us in our places by protecting us from failing.

You obviously live somewhere different than anywhere I have lived .

I see failures all the time.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon May 26, 2014 11:06 am

Accountable;1455474 wrote: I like my ideal better than yours. Society is leaning toward yours and we are losing our liberty in exchange for security. Bird in a gilded cage.

Accountable;1455491 wrote: Oops. I got your post mixed with Snowfire's. He stated his ideal. If yours is different, then my response might be different as well.

There is nothing wrong with your system, it is the same as our system, but any system has it's weaknesses.

The improvements we have made, universal health care, the safety net of welfare for unemployment, are not perfect and need tweaking as deficiencies are discovered.

America's largesse with food programs in third world countries, alongside their insensitivity to their own citizens struggles never ceases to amaze me.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon May 26, 2014 11:44 am

LarsMac;1455493 wrote: You obviously live somewhere different than anywhere I have lived .

I see failures all the time.

We make excuses for that, then hand over a check.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 26, 2014 2:21 pm

Bruv;1455509 wrote: America's largesse with food programs in third world countries, alongside their insensitivity to their own citizens struggles never ceases to amaze me.Two observations: 1. News agencies report ad nauseum the rare, not the common. If we were truly insensitive to our own citizens' struggles then it wouldn't make the news.

2. Government programs are not the only way to help citizens with their struggles.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 26, 2014 2:22 pm

LarsMac;1455493 wrote: You obviously live somewhere different than anywhere I have lived .

I see failures all the time.
Any of those failures unable to food or shelter from the government?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon May 26, 2014 2:53 pm

Accountable;1455532 wrote: Two observations: 1. News agencies report ad nauseum the rare, not the common. If we were truly insensitive to our own citizens' struggles then it wouldn't make the news.

2. Government programs are not the only way to help citizens with their struggles.

News agencies report.........News.

If it wasn't happening they couldn't report it.

In an ideal world.......remember.......back in the good old days, when rickets and polio were common, people used to look after each other. If anyone was hungry they could always share their neighbours good fortune, people knew their neighbours names, nobody locked their doors.

There are still places in the world like that.......it doesn't apply if you live in an apartment in a crowded city where you commute 10 miles to a large factory where theres talk of redundancy.

The world changes and solutions have to adapt.........a single dogma for different circumstances doesn't seem right to me.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 26, 2014 4:05 pm

Bruv;1455538 wrote: News agencies report.........News.

If it wasn't happening they couldn't report it.They can't possibly report every bit of news that they find, so they have to decide on what to report. They report what they think will make the biggest stir.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 26, 2014 4:08 pm

Bruv;1455538 wrote: ......remember.......back in the good old days, when rickets and polio were common, people used to look after each other. If anyone was hungry they could always share their neighbours good fortune, people knew their neighbours names, nobody locked their doors.

There are still places in the world like that.......it doesn't apply if you live in an apartment in a crowded city where you commute 10 miles to a large factory where theres talk of redundancy.

The world changes and solutions have to adapt.........a single dogma for different circumstances doesn't seem right to me.
Good reasons for us in the US to resist the federal government's insistance on a nationalized one-size-fits-all solution to anything they decide is a problem.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon May 26, 2014 4:17 pm

Accountable;1455547 wrote: They can't possibly report every bit of news that they find, so they have to decide on what to report. They report what they think will make the biggest stir.
So in San Antonio the weatherman doesn't bother telling you in summer it's going to be hot tomorrow ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon May 26, 2014 4:29 pm

Accountable;1455548 wrote: Good reasons for us in the US to resist the federal government's insistance on a nationalized one-size-fits-all solution to anything they decide is a problem.

OK .................The freedom to drive on which side of the road is clear at the moment ?

Thats how they used the roads........if there was a road.........when the word according to the Constitution was brought down from the mountain top.

Certain Ideals must adapt..........there is no eternal truth.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 27, 2014 6:47 pm

Bruv;1455549 wrote: So in San Antonio the weatherman doesn't bother telling you in summer it's going to be hot tomorrow ?

Bruv;1455550 wrote: OK .................The freedom to drive on which side of the road is clear at the moment ?

Thats how they used the roads........if there was a road.........when the word according to the Constitution was brought down from the mountain top.

Certain Ideals must adapt..........there is no eternal truth.When you're ready for a serious discussion, email me.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue May 27, 2014 7:38 pm

Personally, I prefer a government running the show.

The alternative is something like Somalia, or Sudan, or in the more industrial world, the corporations would run things.

Have you ever lived in a region where there is one industry, owned by one corporation?

I have. It was not a pleasant experience.

Of course then we have the US, where the government is run by the corporate bosses. The best of both worlds, Right?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 28, 2014 3:40 am

Indeed.

I prefer my government to be far weaker than the typical industrialized nation. Far less intrusive into personal lives.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 28, 2014 4:46 am

Accountable;1455681 wrote: When you're ready for a serious discussion, email me.

You have turned into Tude?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed May 28, 2014 11:17 am

Bruv;1455693 wrote: You have turned into Tude?

That was just mean spirited.

Accountable deserves more respect than that.

Apparently me and Accountable have similar views on things.

I am always impressed by how he presents his posts/arguments, especially when we post on the same subject and I think, "I coulda said that '.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 28, 2014 12:47 pm

tude dog;1455724 wrote: That was just mean spirited.

Accountable deserves more respect than that.

Apparently me and Accountable have similar views on things.

What are you saying?

That my saying Accountable is like you is an insult?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 28, 2014 8:34 pm

Bruv;1455693 wrote: You have turned into Tude?If you see a siilarity in the exchanges between you & Tude, and you & I, perhaps you should look in what the two have in common.

tude dog;1455724 wrote: That was just mean spirited.

Accountable deserves more respect than that.

Apparently me and Accountable have similar views on things.

I am always impressed by how he presents his posts/arguments, especially when we post on the same subject and I think, "I coulda said that '.
Thanks. The feeling's mutual.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 29, 2014 1:46 am

Accountable;1455691 wrote: Indeed.

I prefer my government to be far weaker than the typical industrialized nation. Far less intrusive into personal lives.

You need a balance between the two, giving corporations free rein is not god for anybody - who else is going to hold them o account if not government and the laws they make. If the people are sovereign and they elect the government are you seriously suggesting they should not be able o regukate business? Laissez faire capitalism is not rue capitalism it's n argument put by thoswe who want to do what they will to anybody. I disagree having corporations stronger than government is a recipe for disaster just as bad as having government oo strong.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 29, 2014 1:57 am

Accountable;1455548 wrote: Good reasons for us in the US to resist the federal government's insistance on a nationalized one-size-fits-all solution to anything they decide is a problem.

Accountable;1455751 wrote: If you see a siilarity in the exchanges between you & Tude, and you & I, perhaps you should look in what the two have in common.

Lets look.......Who mentioned the US federal government or American Ideals in a thread about a new Uruguayan President ?

Who brought his disdain for Obama into the conversation?

Why were Republicans mentioned at all?

Why were the American definitions of "Poor" and "homeless" etc brought into it?

Just a few observations about the way the topic.......about a new Uruguayan president.....was being invaded by the American ideal......again.

Perhaps it's not me............perhaps it is.....................I am willing to listen and learn......are you ?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 29, 2014 4:09 am

gmc;1455753 wrote: You need a balance between the two, giving corporations free rein is not god for anybody - who else is going to hold them o account if not government and the laws they make. If the people are sovereign and they elect the government are you seriously suggesting they should not be able o regukate business? Laissez faire capitalism is not rue capitalism it's n argument put by thoswe who want to do what they will to anybody. I disagree having corporations stronger than government is a recipe for disaster just as bad as having government oo strong.
I don't know why you quoted me for this post. Well, actually I do. You insist on placing me in your little boxes of preconception, whether I fit or not. You've done it for years.

I have never argued that giving corporations free rein was good. I imagine that if you looked at your own national government and the regulations they put on corporations, you'll find the same as what I find in the US: while some regulations are good for the public, such as forcing them to inform us of ingredients, etc, many if not most of the regulations serve more as buffers protecting established corporations from their competition. Ornerous regulations prevent new businesses from becoming established. It's just too expensive to start.

I do not and have never suggested that the government should not be able to regulate business, despite your repeated accusations.

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

having corporations stronger than government is a recipe for disaster just as bad as having government oo strong.We only disagree on what "too strong" means.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu May 29, 2014 7:48 am

Accountable;1455691 wrote: Indeed.

I prefer my government to be far weaker than the typical industrialized nation. Far less intrusive into personal lives.

The US is the typical industrialized nation.

And the gummint is far less intrusive that many of the corporations we deal with, today.

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

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

And the government is supposed to be US, you and me. We are the guys in charge of the government.

Quit whining about the government, and work to fix it. The people we elected to office enabled all the crap we don't like about the government. What are we going to do about it?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu May 29, 2014 2:50 pm

LarsMac;1455772 wrote:

And the government is supposed to be US, you and me. We are the guys in charge of the government.

Quit whining about the government, and work to fix it. The people we elected to office enabled all the crap we don't like about the government. What are we going to do about it?

Now that's the spirit!!!!!! That's the attitude I like to see in people.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 29, 2014 6:32 pm

LarsMac;1455772 wrote: The US is the typical industrialized nation.

And the gummint is far less intrusive that many of the corporations we deal with, today.

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

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

And the government is supposed to be US, you and me. We are the guys in charge of the government.

Quit whining about the government, and work to fix it. The people we elected to office enabled all the crap we don't like about the government. What are we going to do about it?
I vote, write, & contribute, but it's become our culture to think of Washington as the apex of a unitary national government, rather than one part of a federation whose charter is VERY limited in scope. It's really hard to convince people that they should insist on the rule of law when doing so would mean getting less gov't handouts.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu May 29, 2014 7:27 pm

Accountable;1455868 wrote: I vote, write, & contribute, but it's become our culture to think of Washington as the apex of a unitary national government, rather than one part of a federation whose charter is VERY limited in scope. It's really hard to convince people that they should insist on the rule of law when doing so would mean getting less gov't handouts.

You should stop right there before the word, "but".

That is a complete thought.

Then pick up the next thought.

It is not The government in Washington that limits us.

We need to stop making excuses for "the people"