Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2020 6:48:57 GMT -7
Do you know the phrases 'cut out?' 'Intermediary?' Shuttle Diplomacy?' In espionage parlance, a cutout is a mutually trusted intermediary, method or channel of communication that facilitates the exchange of information between agents. In diplomacy and international relations, an intermediary may convey messages between principals in a dispute, allowing the avoidance of direct principal-to-principal contact. Where the two parties are geographically distant, the process may be termed shuttle diplomacy. The current POTUS is rewriting the whole tradecraft. Some don't like being marginalized. Uh huh........so the answer to my question is?
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Sept 21, 2020 16:17:27 GMT -7
Do you know the phrases 'cut out?' 'Intermediary?' Shuttle Diplomacy?' In espionage parlance, a cutout is a mutually trusted intermediary, method or channel of communication that facilitates the exchange of information between agents. In diplomacy and international relations, an intermediary may convey messages between principals in a dispute, allowing the avoidance of direct principal-to-principal contact. Where the two parties are geographically distant, the process may be termed shuttle diplomacy. The current POTUS is rewriting the whole tradecraft. Some don't like being marginalized. Uh huh........so the answer to my question is? Answer to Trust question: In today's climate keep friends close, and keep enemies closer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 10:33:17 GMT -7
Uh huh........so the answer to my question is? Answer to Trust question: In today's climate keep friends close, and keep enemies closer. I'm sorry boss but this sounds like rationalization in avoidance. Not accusing you of anything just so we're clear, I'm just saying it's not a direct answer to a direct question. The reason I'm asking the question is in part because I don't understand why it is that an athlete taking a knee during the national anthem in "peaceful protest" as afforded under the constitution is seen as un-American and non patriotic even offensive to the point of threatening their careers by trying to punish them financially.......yet we have a commander in chief who argues in favor of a communist dictator over our own security agencies that discovered an attack on what defines our free society to this very day.......and somehow that's no big deal, not as offensive or is rationalized away as just politics or by clever sayings. And as a veteran who has served his country unlike those who avoided doing so as the current commander in chief has been shown to have done, I would think his ignoring a bounty placed on the heads of our men and women in uniform is something you would be particularly enraged about(?). I know I sure am having had a brother who served in the Air Force during Vietnam just like McCain did with the Navy and an older cousin who not only served in the Navy but was also on the front lines of the civil rights movement dealing with the attack dogs from police and by water hoses. So the attacking of athletes speaking up in favor of equal justice while yet forgiving, rationalizing or silently ignoring a sitting president who defends a communist dictator over his own country is very misguided to me to put it mildly. And to suggest he did it to keep Putin close so that we can keep a closer eye on him for security reasons is disingenuous, again to put it mildly.
|
|
|
Post by JAB on Sept 22, 2020 11:19:00 GMT -7
Can we have a thread for each of the millions of baby's killed do to people like her letting it and wanting it to happen.
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Sept 22, 2020 16:58:18 GMT -7
Answer to Trust question: In today's climate keep friends close, and keep enemies closer. I'm sorry boss but this sounds like rationalization in avoidance. Not accusing you of anything just so we're clear, I'm just saying it's not a direct answer to a direct question. The reason I'm asking the question is in part because I don't understand why it is that an athlete taking a knee during the national anthem in "peaceful protest" as afforded under the constitution is seen as un-American and non patriotic even offensive to the point of threatening their careers by trying to punish them financially.......yet we have a commander in chief who argues in favor of a communist dictator over our own security agencies that discovered an attack on what defines our free society to this very day.......and somehow that's no big deal, not as offensive or is rationalized away as just politics or by clever sayings. And as a veteran who has served his country unlike those who avoided doing so as the current commander in chief has been shown to have done, I would think his ignoring a bounty placed on the heads of our men and women in uniform is something you would be particularly enraged about(?). I know I sure am having had a brother who served in the Air Force during Vietnam just like McCain did with the Navy and an older cousin who not only served in the Navy but was also on the front lines of the civil rights movement dealing with the attack dogs from police and by water hoses. So the attacking of athletes speaking up in favor of equal justice while yet forgiving, rationalizing or silently ignoring a sitting president who defends a communist dictator over his own country is very misguided to me to put it mildly. And to suggest he did it to keep Putin close so that we can keep a closer eye on him for security reasons is disingenuous, again to put it mildly. Sir, I am not avoiding a satisfying answer. There's just no way for me to say differently what I said earlier that makes me feel more logical or illogical about what I know about things. Disinformation is a tradecraft practiced by many politicians, sometimes for selfish reasons, and sometimes for political reasons. I leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by thomas cat on Sept 22, 2020 19:31:10 GMT -7
I'm sorry boss but this sounds like rationalization in avoidance. Not accusing you of anything just so we're clear, I'm just saying it's not a direct answer to a direct question. The reason I'm asking the question is in part because I don't understand why it is that an athlete taking a knee during the national anthem in "peaceful protest" as afforded under the constitution is seen as un-American and non patriotic even offensive to the point of threatening their careers by trying to punish them financially.......yet we have a commander in chief who argues in favor of a communist dictator over our own security agencies that discovered an attack on what defines our free society to this very day.......and somehow that's no big deal, not as offensive or is rationalized away as just politics or by clever sayings. And as a veteran who has served his country unlike those who avoided doing so as the current commander in chief has been shown to have done, I would think his ignoring a bounty placed on the heads of our men and women in uniform is something you would be particularly enraged about(?). I know I sure am having had a brother who served in the Air Force during Vietnam just like McCain did with the Navy and an older cousin who not only served in the Navy but was also on the front lines of the civil rights movement dealing with the attack dogs from police and by water hoses. So the attacking of athletes speaking up in favor of equal justice while yet forgiving, rationalizing or silently ignoring a sitting president who defends a communist dictator over his own country is very misguided to me to put it mildly. And to suggest he did it to keep Putin close so that we can keep a closer eye on him for security reasons is disingenuous, again to put it mildly. Sir, I am not avoiding a satisfying answer. There's just no way for me to say differently what I said earlier that makes me feel more logical or illogical about what I know about things. Disinformation is a tradecraft practiced by many politicians, sometimes for selfish reasons, and sometimes for political reasons. I leave it at that. With this I can agree with, although I might change "many" to dam near all. I'm telling ya, I've been around for a long time and I have never seen it this bad. Both sides will do dam near anything to stay in power. That's all they care about. I long for the days when the speaker of the house Tip O'Neill and president Ronald Reagan actually liked and respected each other. I fear we may never see that kind of thing again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2020 21:02:14 GMT -7
Sir, I am not avoiding a satisfying answer. There's just no way for me to say differently what I said earlier that makes me feel more logical or illogical about what I know about things. Disinformation is a tradecraft practiced by many politicians, sometimes for selfish reasons, and sometimes for political reasons. I leave it at that. With this I can agree with, although I might change "many" to dam near all. I'm telling ya, I've been around for a long time and I have never seen it this bad. Both sides will do dam near anything to stay in power. That's all they care about. I long for the days when the speaker of the house Tip O'Neill and president Ronald Reagan actually liked and respected each other. I fear we may never see that kind of thing again. Any reasonable person would want to see that, but that means putting country above politics and being informed enough, and I dare say honest enough, to vote for officials committed to doing so. Reagan and O'Neil weren't saints, they were power hungry politicians just like any other. The difference between them and now is that they drew a line on behalf of the country that they wouldn't cross just for the sake of political gain. And they darn sure didn't exalt any dictator OVER any Americans. Reagan challenged his Russian counterpart before the whole world, not kiss his boots. So I beg to differ when people try to make the "both sides are equally bad" argument. I've found from personal debates that it's usually the side of the aisle that's most guilty who's quick to attempt to make that argument. How can we witness the mutual respect of O'Neil and Reagan in today's politics when a given party plots to obstruct a newly elected president at all cost (by their own admission!) on the very night he won election before he even laid out an agenda? How can we witness the mutual respect of an O'Neil and Reagan in today's politics when the chair of an opposing party declares their number one mission is to make the other parties chief exec a one term president, this even at a time when the country was on the verge of a financial collapse when he was sworn in? How can we witness the mutual respect of O'Neil and Reagan when a president sides on issues with the opposing party 28 different times and all 28 times the opposing party reverses their position when he agrees with them just in order to oppose him? How can we witness the mutual respect of O'Neil and Reagan in today's politics when a senate blocks a supreme court nominee 6 months ahead of an election only to abandon the supposed declared principle 6 weeks ahead of an election and then put it on a fast track? No there is no equal fault for today's division, chaos and dysfunction of our government and it didn't begin with Trump, he's just been shrewd enough to capitalize on it and take it to another level, and apparently to his party's delight. The late Nancy Reagan, wife of one of the most highly regarded republican presidents since Lincoln, voted democrat she was so appalled. Cindy McCain, wife of a war hero and one of the most highly regarded republicans of our time, just announced she's voting democrat. Michael Steele, former chair of the republican party who was anti Obama......now member of the Lincoln Project and supporting *****. It's a credibility issue that doesn't reflect the argument that they are all guilty for the current political discord.
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Sept 23, 2020 3:06:26 GMT -7
Last spring, I thought the lethal COVID-19 disease would unite everyone to find a cure and to provide aid to the most vulnerable. Folks would set aside personal issues for civil goodness until the awful viral storm was exhausted. Some people met the call of duty and are still working on a disease solution today. However, I again underestimated the power of ingrained selfishness, righteousness, and bigotry put on display this past summer. I now see that the COVID-19 disease is not the country's most urgent problem to solve. COVID-19 is dangerous in the short-term, for certain. But our political discord is more dangerous because that discord, like an unseen termite infestation, is eating right at the heart of our democratic principles which support cherished liberties and freedoms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2020 7:53:34 GMT -7
Last spring, I thought the lethal COVID-19 disease would unite everyone to find a cure and to provide aid to the most vulnerable. Folks would set aside personal issues for civil goodness until the awful viral storm was exhausted. Some people met the call of duty and are still working on a disease solution today. However, I again underestimated the power of ingrained selfishness, righteousness, and bigotry put on display this past summer. I now see that the COVID-19 disease is not the country's most urgent problem to solve. COVID-19 is dangerous in the short-term, for certain. But our political discord is more dangerous because that discord, like an unseen termite infestation, is eating right at the heart of our democratic principles which support cherished liberties and freedoms. Best post ever boss......beautiful!
|
|
Boomer
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,358
|
Post by Boomer on Oct 3, 2020 9:04:47 GMT -7
The Federal government has strayed from what our forefathers intended. In recent history with the SCOTUS and appellate courts being moderate to liberal in doctrine the House has been content to let them legislate on their behalf. The irony of them opposing Amy Barrett is that if in fact the SCOTUS was turned more conservative by confirming Constitutionalists or textualist they would be more likely to rule on the wording of the law and not the spirit in which it was written. This would pave the way for the House to create legislation giving them what they want and having a SCOTUS that would support that legislation to the letter once it became law. Of course this means that they would have to work with the Senate to make this happen but once again the fundementals of our government were to promote a system of checks and balances or mutually agreeable concessions to create legislation that is good for America and Americans. Washington DC needs to get back to one of the most important foundations of our democracy and let Congress legislate while the SCOTUS adjudicates.
|
|
|
Post by End Zone on Oct 4, 2020 3:12:08 GMT -7
The Federal government has strayed from what our forefathers intended. In recent history with the SCOTUS and appellate courts being moderate to liberal in doctrine the House has been content to let them legislate on their behalf. The irony of them opposing Amy Barrett is that if in fact the SCOTUS was turned more conservative by confirming Constitutionalists or textualist they would be more likely to rule on the wording of the law and not the spirit in which it was written. This would pave the way for the House to create legislation giving them what they want and having a SCOTUS that would support that legislation to the letter once it became law. Of course this means that they would have to work with the Senate to make this happen but once again the fundementals of our government were to promote a system of checks and balances or mutually agreeable concessions to create legislation that is good for America and Americans. Washington DC needs to get back to one of the most important foundations of our democracy and let Congress legislate while the SCOTUS adjudicates. Thanks for posting this comment. Exceptionally well said regarding 3 Branch's checks and balances. The Framers got it right.
|
|